"... The Pity of It All : A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933 ..."
"... Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine. ..."
"... The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results. ..."
"... Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal emphasis on an American dominated global empire. ..."
"... Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. ..."
"... Right now, their interests have diverged over the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. ..."
"... Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed. Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis. ..."
"... Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia. Or you can count their billions. ..."
"... The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop, confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality. ..."
"... Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country. They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on. ..."
"... "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper" ..."
"... "The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. " ..."
"... Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention. ..."
"... " (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper does not say that." ..."
"... But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld? ..."
"... Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS. ..."
"... But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence of the manifest destiny. ..."
At the Huffington Post, Jim Sleeper addresses
"A Foreign-Policy Problem
No One Speaks About," and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, even if he's not a warmongering neocon
himself. The Yale lecturer's jumping-off point are recent statements by Leon Wieseltier and
David Brooks lamenting the decline of
American power.
In addition to Wieseltier and Brooks, the "blame the feckless liberals" chorus has included Donald Kagan, Robert Kagan, David
Frum, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and many other American neoconservatives. Some of them have
been chastened, or at least been made more cautious, by their grand-strategic blunders of a few years ago ..
I'm saying that they've been fatuous as warmongers again and again and that there's something pathetic in their attempts to
emulate Winston Churchill, who warned darkly of Hitler's intentions in the 1930s. Their blind spot is their willful ignorance
of their own complicity in American deterioration and their over-compensatory, almost pre-adolescent faith in the benevolence
of a statist and militarist power they still hope to mobilize against the seductions and terrors rising all around them.
At bottom, the chorus members' recurrent nightmares of 1938 doom them to reenact other nightmares, prompted by very similar
writers in 1914, on the eve of World War I. Those writers are depicted chillingly, unforgettably, in Chapter 9, "War Fever," of
Amos Elon's
The Pity of It All: A Portrait of the German-Jewish Epoch, 1743-1933. Elon's account of Germany's stampede into World
War I chronicles painfully the warmongering hysterics of some Jewish would-be patriots of the Kaiserreich who exerted themselves
blindly, romantically, to maneuver their state into the Armageddon that would produce Hitler himself.
This is the place to emphasize that few of Wilhelmine German's warmongers were Jews and that few Jews were or are warmongers.
(Me, for example, although my extended-family history isn't much different from Brooks' or Wieseltier's.) My point is simply that,
driven by what I recognize as understandable if almost preternatural insecurities and cravings for full liberal-nationalist belonging
that was denied to Jews for centuries in Europe, some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves
into the Iraq War, and they have continued, again and again, to employ modes of public discourse and politics that echo with eerie
fidelity that of the people described in Elon's book. The Americans lionized George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and
many others as their predecessors lionized Kaiser Wilhelm, von Bethmann-Hollweg, and far-right nationalist associates who hated
the neo-cons of that time but let them play their roles .
Instead of acknowledging their deepest feelings openly, or even to themselves, the writers I've mentioned who've brought so
much folly and destruction upon their republic, are doubling down, more nervous and desperate than ever, looking for someone else
to blame. Hence their whirling columns and rhythmic incantations. After Germany lost World War I, many Germans unfairly blamed
their national folly on Jews, many of whom had served in it loyally but only a few of whom had been provocateurs and cheerleaders
like the signatories of [Project for New American Century's] letter to Bush. Now neo-cons, from Wieseltier and Brooks to [Charles]
Hill, are blaming Obama and all other feckless liberals. Some of them really need to take a look in Amos Elon's mirror.
Interesting. Though I think Sleeper diminishes Jewish agency here (Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban are no one's proxy) and can't
touch the Israel angle. The motivation is not simply romantic identification with power, it's an ideology of religious nationalism
in the Middle East, attachment to the needs of a militarist Sparta in the Arab world. That's another foreign policy problem no one
speaks about.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:11 pm
"Democracy in in the Middle East" was always just a weasel-word saying of "let's try to improve Israel's strategic position
by changing their neighbours".
The neocons basically took a hardline position on foreign interventionism based out of dual loyalty. This is the honest truth.
For anti-Semites, a handful of neocons will always represent "The Jews" as a collective. For many Jews, the refusal to come to
grips with the rise of the neocons and how the Jewish community (and really by "community" I mean the establishment) failed to
prevent them in their own midst, is also a blemish.
Of course, Jim Sleeper is doing these things now. He should have done them 15-20 years ago or so. But better late than never,
I guess.
Krauss, May 6, 2014, 2:16 pm
P.S. While we talk a lot about neocons as a Jewish issue, it's also important to put them in perspective. The only war that
I can truly think of that they influenced was the Iraq war, which was a disaster, but it also couldn't have happened without 9/11,
which was a very rare event in the history of America. You have to go back to Pearl Harbor to find something similar, and that
wasn't technically a terrorist attack but rather a military attack by Japan.
Leading up to the early 2000s, they were mostly ignored during the 1990s. They did take over the GOP media in the early 90s,
using the same tactics used against Hagel, use social norms as a cover but in actuality the real reason is Israel.
Before the 90s, in the 70s and 80s, the cold war took up all the oxygen.
So yeah, the neocons need to be talked about. But comparing what they are trying to do with a World War is a bit of a stretch.
Finally, talking about Israel – which Sleeper ignored – and the hardline positions that the political class in America have
adopted, if you want to look who have ensured the greatest slavishness to Israel, liberal/centrist groups like ADL, AJC and AIPAC(yes,
they are mostly democrats!) have played a far greater role than the neocons.
But I guess, Sleeper wasn't dealing with that, because it would ruin his view of the neocons as the bogeymen.
Just like "liberal" Zionists want to blame Likud for everything, overlooking the fact that Labor/Mapai has had a far greater
role in settling/colonizing the Palestinian land than the right has, and not to speak about the ethnic cleansing campaigns of
'48 and '67 which was only done by the "left", so too the neocons often pose as a convenient catch-all target for the collective
Jewish failure leading up to Iraq.
And I'm using the words "collective Jewish failure" because I actually don't believe, unlike Mearsheimer/Walt, that the war
would not have gone ahead unless there was massive support by the Israel/Jewish lobby. If Jews had decided no, it would still
have gone ahead. This is also contrary to Tom Friedman's famous saying of "50 people in DC are responsible for this war".
I also think that's an oversimplification.
But I focus more on the Jewish side because that's my side. And I want my community to do better, and just blaming the neocons
is something I'm tired of hearing in Jewish circles. The inability to look at liberal Jewish journalists and their role in promoting
the war to either gentile or Jewish audiences.
Kathleen, May 6, 2014, 6:53 pm
There was talk about this last night (Monday/5th) on Chris Matthew's Hardball segment on Condi "mushroom cloud" Rice pulling
out of the graduation ceremonies at Rutger's. David Corn did not say much but Eugene Robinson and Chris Matthews were basically
talking about Israel and the neocons desires to rearrange the middle east "the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad" conversation.
Bumblebye, May 6, 2014, 2:33 pm
"some of today's American super-patriotic neo-conservatives hurled themselves into the Iraq War"
Have to take issue with that – the neo-cons hurled young American (and foreign) servicemen and women into that war, many to
their deaths, along with throwing as much taxpayer money as possible. They stayed ultra safe and grew richer for their efforts.
Citizen, May 7, 2014, 9:03 am
@ Bumblebye
Good point. During WW1, as I read the history, the Jewish Germans provided their fair share of combat troops. If memory serves,
despite Weimar Germany's later "stab in the back" theory, e.g., Hitler himself was given a combat medal thanks to his Jewish senior
officer. In comparison to the build-up to Shrub Jr's war on Iraq, the Jewish neocons provided very few Jewish American combat
troops.
It's hard to get reliable stats on Jewish American participation in the US combat arms during the Iraq war. For all I've been
able to ascertain, more have joined the IDF over the years. At any rate, it's common knowledge that Shrub's war on Iraq was instigated
and supported by chicken hawks (Jew or Gentile) at a time bereft of conscription. They built their sale by ignoring key facts,
and embellishing misleading and fake facts, as illustrated by the Downing Street memo.
Keith, May 6, 2014, 7:47 pm
PHIL- Perhaps you are making too much of the so called decline of the neocons. At the strategic level, there is little
difference between the neocon "Project for a the New American Century" and Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard," both of which
are consistent with US policy and actions in the Ukraine.
The most significant difference seems to me to be the neocon emphasis on American unilateral militarism versus Obama's
emphasis on multilateralism, covert operations and financial warfare to achieve the desired results.
Perhaps another significant difference is the neocon emphasis on the primacy of the American nation-state versus the neoliberal
emphasis on an American dominated global empire.
So yes, the nationalistic emphasis is an anachronism, however, the decline of the US in conjunction with the extension of a
system of globalized domination should hardly be of concern to elite power-seekers who will benefit. In fact, the new system of
corporate/financial control will be beyond the political control of any nation, even the US. If they can pull it off. An interesting
topic no doubt, but one which I doubt is suitable for extended discussion on Mondoweiss. As for power-seeking as a consequence
of a uniquely Jewish experience, perhaps the less said the better.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes that
10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition with
them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on the
same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over the
Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel itself
is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support the political
movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty antisemite whose followers killed many thousands
of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those left behind perished
during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any of them would identify
with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
(I know I'm always grabbing OT threads of discussion, but when it comes down to it, I know much less about Zionism and Israel/Palestine
than many, if not most of the regular commenters here.)
I also am going to drift further off-topic by saying there is strong evidence that the slaughter in Odessa last Friday was
highly orchestrated and not solely the result of spontaneous mob violence. Very graphic and disturbing images in all of these
links:
" and it turns out to Jewish identity, the need to belong to the powerful nation on the part of Jewish neoconservatives.
Sleeper says this is an insecurity born of European exclusion that he understands as a Jew, ..>>
Stop it Sleeper. Do not continue to use the victim card ' to explain' the trauma, the insecurities, the nightmares, the angst,
the feelings, the sensitivities, blah blah, blah of Zionist or Israel.
That is not what they are about. These are power mad psychos like most neocons, period.
And even if it were, and even if all the Jews in the world felt the same way, the bottom line would still be they do not have
the right to make others pay in treasure and blood for their nightmares and mental sickness.
As near as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), the Ukrainians themselves are about half and half pro Russia and Pro NATO.
Your glance at the history of the region as to why this is so, and your text on historical Ukranian suffering and POTV on MW commentary
on this –did not help your analysis and its conclusion.
There's a difference between isolationism and defensive intervention, and even more so, re isolationism v. pro-active interventionism
"in the name of pursuing the democratic ideal". See Ron Paul v. PNAC-style neocons and liberal Zionists.
Also, if you were Putin, how would you see the push of NATO & US force posts ever creeping towards Russia and its local environment?
Look at the US military postings nearing Russia per se & those surrounding Iran. Compare Russia's.
And note the intent to wean EU from Russian oil, and as well, the draconian sanctions on Iran, and Obama's latest partnering
sanctions on Russia.
Imagine yourself in Putin's shoes, and Iran's.
Don't abuse your imagination only by imagining yourself in Netanyahu's shoes, which is the preoccupation of AIPAC and its whores
in the US Congress.
Interesting to juxtapose Brzezinski and the neocons. In a Venn diagram they would over-lap 90%. The Ukraine crisis exposes
that 10% difference. Brzezinski I very much doubt has any emotional attachment to Israel though he is happy to work in coalition
with them to further his one true goal which is to isolate and defeat Russian influence in the world. In the 1980s both were on
the same page in the "let my people go" campaign against the Soviet Union. Brzezinski saw it as a propaganda opportunity to attack
Russia and the neocons saw it has a source of more Jews to settle Palestine.
Right now, their interests have diverged over
the Ukraine crisis. Though many of the American neocons do support subverting Ukraine as does Brzezinski it looks like Israel
itself is leaning towards supporting Russia. When it comes down to it it is hard for many Jews, right wing or not, to support
the political movement inside Ukraine that identifies with Bandera. Now that was one nasty anti-Semite whose followers killed
many thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the holocaust. My wife's family immigrated from Galicia and the Odessa region and those
left behind perished during the holocaust. The extended family includes anti-Zionists and WB settlers. There is no way that any
of them would identify with Ukrainian fascist movements now active there.
In any case, there does seem to be a potential split among the neocons over Ukraine. It would be the ultimate in hypocrisy
for all of those eastern European Jews who became successful in the US in the last few generations to enter into coalition with
the Bandera brigades.
Yonah writes The freedom of Ukraine is a worthy goal. If the US is not able to back up our attempt to help them gain their
freedom it is not something to celebrate, but something to lament.
What are you saying? Ukraine has been an independent nation for 22 years. What freedom is this? What we have witnessed is that
one half of Ukraine has gotten tired that the other half keeps on electing candidates that represent those Ukrainians that identify
with Russian culture. They (the western half) successfully staged a coup and purged the other (eastern half) from the government.
You call that "freedom". Doesn't it embarrass you, Yonah, that the armed militias that conducted that coup are descendants of
the Bandera organization.
Does that ring a bell? These are the Ukrainians that were involved in the holocaust. Does Babi Yar stir any memories Yohan?
It was a massacre of 40,000 Jews just outside of Kiev in 1942. It was the single largest massacre of Jews during WWII. The massacre
was led by the Germans ( Einsatzgruppe C officers) but was carried out with the aid of 400 Ukrainian Auxillary Police. These were
later incorporated into the 14th SS-Volunteer Division "Galician" made up mostly Ukrainians. The division flags are to this day
displayed at Right Sector rallies in western Ukraine.
Right Sector militias are the fighting force that led the coup against the legally elected Yanukovich government and were
almost certainly involved in the recent massacre in Odessa. And you support them for their fight for freedom? You should be ashamed.
Zionism is sinking to new lows that they feel the need to identify with open neo-Nazis.
Well, the point is that Zionists in Israel do not identify with that particular set of open neo-Nazis. I suspect that this
is simply a matter of the headcount of Jewish business tycoons that are politically aligned with (western) Ukraine and Russia.
Or you can count their billions. In any case, the neutral posture is sensible for Israel here. Which is highly uncharacteristic
for that government.
Toivo S- The history of Jew hatred by certain anti Russian elements in the Ukraine is not encouraging and nothing that I celebrate.
Maybe I have been swayed by headlines and a superficial reading of the situation.
If indeed I am wrong regarding the will of the Ukrainian people, I can only be glad that my opinion is just that, my opinion
and not US or Israel or anyone's policy but my own. I assume that a majority of Ukrainians want to maintain independence of Russia
and that the expressions of rebellion are in that vein.
My people were murdered by the einsatzgruppen in that part of the world and so maybe I have overcompensated by trying not to
allow my personal history to interfere with what I think would be the will of the majority of the Ukraine.
But Toivo S. please skip the "doesn't it embarrass you" line of thought. Just put a sock in it and skip it.
Well thanks for that Yonah. My wife's family descended from Jewish communities in Odessa and Galicia. They emigrated to the US
between 1900 and 1940. After WWII none of their relatives left behind were ever heard from again. Perhaps you have family that
experienced similar stories. What caused me to react to your post above is that you are describing the current situation in Ukraine
as a "freedom" movement by the Ukrainians when the political forces there descended from the same people that killed my inlaws
family (and apparently yours to). Why do you support them?
ToivoS- I support them because I trust/don't trust Putin. I trust him to impose his brand of leadership on Ukraine, I don't trust
him to care a whit about freedom. It is natural that the nationalist elements of Ukraine would descend from the elements that
expressed themselves the last time they had freedom from the Soviet Union, that is those forces that were willing to join with
the Nazis to express their hatred for the communist Soviet Union's rule over their freedom. That's how history works. The nationalists
today descend from the nationalists of yesterday.
But it's been 70 years since WWII and the Ukrainians ought to be able to have freedom even if the parties that advocate for
freedom are descended from those that supported the Nazis. (I know once i include the Nazi part of history any analogies are toxic,
but if I am willing to grant Hamas its rights as an expression of the Palestinian desire for freedom, why would I deny the Ukrainian
foul nationalist parties their rights to express their people's desire for freedom.)
Political parties are not made in a sterile laboratory, they evolve over history and most specifically they emerge from the
past. I accept that Ukrainian nationalism has not evolved much, but nonetheless not having read any polls I assume that the nationalists
are the representatives of the people's desire for freedom. And because Putin strikes me as something primitive, I accept the
Ukrainian desire for freedom.
What are you supporting? Let me refresh your historic memory: Black's Transfer Agreement. Now apply analogy, responding
to ToivoS. Might help us all to understand, explore more skillfully, Israel's current stance on the Putin-Ukranian matter .?
(I think Nuland's intervention caught on tape, combined with who she is married to, already explores with great clarification
what the US is doing.
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to play
the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. Most people here would probably disagree with Sleeper, because he does
not deny that the world needs a cop, nor that the US would play a positive role, if it only had the means and the desire to
do so. People here (overwhelmingly) see the US role as a negative one (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let
the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they want to do in their part of the world,"
The problem with your reasoning, Yonah, is that you are espousing the Neocon line while not apparently recognizing that
embarrassing fact. You lament that the US is no longer playing the role of the world's superpower, and acting as the world's cop,
confronting militarily Russia, China, Iran and anyone else. It is precisely that mentality that got us into Iraq, could yet have
us in a war with Iran, would like to see us defending Ukraine, and thinks we should confront China militarily over bits of rock
it and its neighbors are quibbling over. That is a neocon, American supremacy mentality.
Contrast that with the realist or realism approach recommended by George Kennan, and followed by this country successfully
through the end of the Cold War. That approach is conservative and contends we should stay out of wars unless the vital national
security interests of the US are at stake, like protecting WESTERN Europe, Japan, Australia, and the Western Hemisphere. This
meant we could sympathize with the plight of all the eastern Europeans oppressed by the Soviets, but would not defend militarily
the Hungarians (1956) or the Czechs (1968). It also meant we wouldn't send US troops into North Vietnam because we didn't want
to go to war with the Chinese over a country that was at best tangential to US interests. When we varied from that policy (Vietnam
and Iraq wars, Somalia) we paid a very heavy price while doing nothing to advance or protect our vital national security interests.
The sooner this country can return to our traditional realism-based foreign policy the better. Part of that policy would be
to disassociate the US from its entangling alliance with Likud Israel and its US Jewish supporters that espouse the Likud Greater
Israel line.
Zionism under Likud has played a major role in promoting the neocon approach to foreign policy in the US. It was heavily
involved in the birth of that approach, and has helped fund and promote the policy and its supporters and advocates in this country.
They (Likud Zionists and Neocons) played a major role in getting us into the Iraq war and are playing a major role in trying to
get us involved in a war with Iran, a war in Syria, and even potential wars in Eastern Europe. That is a very dangerous trend
and one folks as intelligent as you are, should be focusing on.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews. It is also directed
at Neoconservative foreign policy advocates, comprised of Jews and non-Jews, and overlap between the two groups. Please also note
my use of the term "major role", and that I am not saying the Neocons and their supporters (Jewish or non) were solely responsible
for our involvement in the Iraq war. I am offering these caveats in the hope that the usual changes of antisemitism can be avoided
in your or anyone else's response to my arguments.
The influence of Neocons on US foreign policy has been very harmful to this country and poses a grave danger to its future.
It would be wise for you to reflect on that harm and those dangers and decide whether you belong in the realist camp or want to
continue running with the Neocons.
Please note, my criticism is directed neither at all Jews in general, Jews in the US, nor or all Israeli Jews. It is directed
at a particular subset of Zionists who support Likud policies, and their supporters, many of whom are not Jews.
What about the role of *liberal Zionists*, like Hillary Clinton, in supporting and promoting the Iraq War? Clinton still hasn't
offered an apology for helping to drive the United States in a multi-trillion dollar foreign policy disaster - and she has threatened
to "totally obliterate" Iran.
What about Harry Reid's lavish praise of Sheldon Adelson?
"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has for some time billed the Koch brothers as public enemy No.1 .
But billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson? He's just fine, Reid says.
"I know Sheldon Adelson. He's not in this for money," the Nevada Democrat said of Adelson, the Vegas casino magnate who
reportedly spent close to $150 million to support Republicans in the 2012 presidential election."
@ yonah fredman "nationalist Armageddon that is nowhere found in the article by Sleeper"
Strange
"state into the Armageddon .. "
"The misadventure in Iraq has cost the US and the world a lot. The US a loss in humans and money and willingness to
play the role of superpower, and the world has lost its cop. "
Tough. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives don't rate a mention.
" (let the Russians have their sphere of influence, let the Iranians have their bomb, let the Chinese do whatever they
want to do in their part of the world, for after all they hold a trillion dollars in US government debt and so let them act
like the boss, for in fact they have been put in that role by feckless and destructive and wasteful US policy). But Sleeper
does not say that."
You do tho, without quoting anyone "here".
BTW Pajero, strawmen no matter how lengthy and seemingly erudite, rarely walk anywhere
I'm going to put this down as Jewish navel gazing.
Jews are disproportionately liberal. Jews make up a huge chunk of the peace movement. Jews are relative to their numbers on
the left of most foreign policy positions.
Iraq was unusual in that Jews were not overwhelming opposed to the invasion, but it is worth noting the invasion at the time
was overwhelming popular. Frankly given the fact that Jews are now considered white people and the fact that Jews are almost all
middle class they should be biased conservative. There certainly is no reason they should be more liberal than Catholics. Yet
they are. It is the degree of Jewish liberalism not the degree of Jewish conservatism that is striking.
But even if we do focus on neocons, neocons don't have opinions about foreign policy and USA dominance that are much distinct
from what most Republican interventionists have. How much difference is there between David Frum and Mitt Romney or between Paul
Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld?
Strongly antiwar incumbent Rep. Walter Jones (R – NC) has won a hotly contested primary tonight, defeating a challenge from
hawkish challenger and former Treasury Dept. official Taylor Griffin 51% to 45%.
Voter turn out was light .. tea party types did a lot of lobbying for Griffin here .but Jones prevailed. Considering the
onslaught of organized activity against him by ECI and the tea partiers for the past month he did well.
@ lysias
Let's refresh our look at what Ron Paul had to say about foreign policy and foreign aid. Then, let's compare what his son has
said, and take a look of his latest bill in congress to cut off aid to Palestine. Yes, you read that right; it's not a bill to
cut off any aid to Israel.
Don't look to the US to get any justice in the ME, nor to regain US good reputation in the world. This will situation will
not change because US political campaign fiancé system won't change–it just gets worse, enhanced by SCOTUS.
The heavy artillery included the detestable Karl Rove, former Governor and RNC Chair Haley Barber and the War Party's highly
paid chief PR flack, Ari Fleischer.
But it was Neocon central that hauled out the big guns. Bill Kristol was so desperate to thwart the slowly rising anti-interventionist
tide within the GOP that he even trotted out Sarah Palin to endorse Jones's opponent"
But neoocns have the confidence that if they could impose the neocon's theology on the rest of the world, they can do it
here as well on American street . They call it education, motivation, duty, responsibility, moral burden, and above all the essence
of the manifest destiny.
Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And
this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its
main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure
of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first
time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.
Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And
this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its
main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure
of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first
time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.
Exports of goods and services of Ukrainian production in 2015 will fall by about a third. And
this is not surprising: as a result of "reforms" in the country almost died the industry lost its
main Russian market, where Ukraine has supplied products with high added value. The cumulative figure
of industrial production YTD is approximately -15%. The main export product of Ukraine for the first
time since the pre-industrial era were products of agriculture. In the first place - corn.
Walker, as usual, is just doing his paid job ;-). Bots have no Christmas vacations by definition:
MTavernier,Metronome151,
psygone,
Alderbaran,
MentalToo,
Hektor Uranga, and one
interesting new one Chukuriuk
are all on duty. A deep observation by one of the commenters: "Interesting how all the trolling
comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin..."
What some people doe not understand is that Putin represents a countervailing force to the
US imperial expansionism (and neoliberal expansionism in general). As there is an inherent value in
existence of countervailing force (neocons thing otherwise ;-) Putin deserve some level of support even
if one does not agree with everything he is doing. In a way Putin is more valuable to the USA then to
Russia as he prevents the USA elite from doing extremely stupid thing which were done during Yeltsin
rule which led to overstretching of the US empire and contains seeds its subsequent decline.
Notable quotes:
"... For all his sins you have to admire Putin. He is a man of conviction that actually believes in something that is worth saving, and will stop at nothing to achieve it. ..."
"... Battling against hostility from the West Putin has reformed the nations economy, and continues to work on behalf of his peoples interests. Its hard to imagine how Russia could ever replace Putin, or indeed what the new Russia would even look like without Putin at the helm. But for now the people are clearly grateful to have a strong decisive leader, as indeed are many other leaders across the globe who find Putin's honesty and conviction a breath of fresh air in a world of deception and double dealing. I guess with Putin you get what it says on the tin. ..."
"... Russian military requested by Assad to assist him in protecting his government. All others including America, British, French, Australian,Canadian, etc are there in contravention of International law ..."
"... Murdoch and Thatcher as a model of the free press? ..."
"... The Guardian and its puppet-masters hate the Russian people don't they? But they can't bring themselves to say that, so it's Putin they attempt to ridicule. ..."
"... Give me one Putin over a hundred Cameron's any day of the week. I've listened to a couple of those speeches, they are excellent, I don't bother listening to Mr Cameron. ..."
"... I know a few 'Russians' who have lived in the 'west' for 15/20 years. They had no illusions about their soviet upbringing, but knew the qualities of life - health care, education, housing - that it brought. They are generally agreed that the wonderland that was supposed to exist beyond their borders was an illusion. But they're hard working people, and they do OK. ..."
"... Russia has been able, in just 20 years, without wars and other troubles, to go from a semi-colony up to a world stage recognized leader. All Putin's risk-taking decisions have been successes or are still playing out and have good potential for ending in success. ..."
"... All this, quietly and imperceptibly, without tanks or strategic aviation, has been achieved by the Russian diplomacy, directed in a difficult confrontation with the block of the most powerful militarily and economically countries, while starting from a much lower position. ..."
"... Crimea would never have happened without the illegal coup backed by the west. We could choose to believe the western media's opinion on the state of Russia, or we could listen to the people who live there. ..."
"... What's that Shaun?.. Someone's publishing a book of Putin quotes?.. I've got a similar book by that other respected world leader and statesman.. You know.. Short, fat, speech impediment, drunk most of the time ... what's his name?..oh yeah, Churchill. ..."
"... This is what many in the west said too. Putin is just one of the few people with serious power to publically state the same. Western officials including Tony Blair admit that IS arose out of the chaos in Iraq. Its not even up for debate. The abomination that is IS is the chaos he warned us of. ..."
"... However, in the USA, Presidents tend to have Library Centers to archive their words of wisdom. Bush Junior's is located on the campus of Southern Methodist University (SMU) in University Park, Texas, opened on April 25, 2013. ..."
"... Interesting how all the trolling comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin... ..."
"... The MSM has brainwashed the western world and they don't know anything else but what they are fed. ..."
"... If you understand that the leader's image is so important for the well-being of the population you wouldn't be criticizing him. After the drunken years of Yeltsin the Russians needed a different role model. There is a reason for Obama (a heavy smoker) not to do it ( at least not in front of the cameras) ..."
"... They might have added his habit of speaking the truth. Best chance of finding out what's actually going on in Syria + the Middle East generally is to listen to Putin. ..."
Words That Change the World is a 400-page compilation of Vladimir Putin's most notable speeches,
and has been sent out to all Russian MPs and other political figures as a gift from the presidential
administration ahead of the country's new year holiday.
Anton Volodin of the pro-Kremlin youth group
Network, which published the book, told the Guardian: "A year ago we noticed when reading one
of his early speeches that it was exactly right in its predictions, so we decided to check all of
his other speeches. And it turns out basically everything he said has either already come true or
is in the process of coming true at this very moment."
There are 19 articles and speeches collected in the book, starting from 2003 and ending with Putin's
speech to the UN general assembly earlier this year. Volodin said: "If you read through them
all, you can see a clear pattern in his rhetoric and thoughts. A lot of people say he's unpredictable
or untruthful, but actually everything he says is transparent, clear and fully formed."
Alderbaran -> Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 16:21
China's GDP is roughly five times that of Russia and China is already leasing land in Russia's
east. I'm also assuming it is getting a pretty good deal on oil at the moment too - Don't expect
an equal partnership
Russia needs the West, just as the West needs Russia. Do you agree?
Laurence Johnson 28 Dec 2015 16:19
For all his sins you have to admire Putin. He is a man of conviction that actually believes
in something that is worth saving, and will stop at nothing to achieve it.
Battling against hostility from the West Putin has reformed the nations economy, and continues
to work on behalf of his peoples interests. Its hard to imagine how Russia could ever replace
Putin, or indeed what the new Russia would even look like without Putin at the helm. But for now
the people are clearly grateful to have a strong decisive leader, as indeed are many other leaders
across the globe who find Putin's honesty and conviction a breath of fresh air in a world of deception
and double dealing. I guess with Putin you get what it says on the tin.
KoreyD -> dyst1111 28 Dec 2015 16:19
Russian military requested by Assad to assist him in protecting his government. All others
including America, British, French, Australian,Canadian, etc are there in contravention of International
law
Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 16:18
"If those who had been present at the UN general assembly had listened to Putin's words, the
world would be a very different place. Hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive and
Europe would not be full of refugees from the middle east."
Of course he was right but of course he wasn't the only one saying these things at the time. Such
a shame our witless leaders didn't listen and perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
Popeyes 28 Dec 2015 15:54
Russia is slowly moving out of the dollar system and Western sanctions will eventually have
little impact on the Russian economy. Russia and China can easily survive and prosper without
the dollar. Unfortunately Europe will lose out massively due to Russia's response to the sanctions
and will continue banning imports from the EU, agricultural produce, as well as manufactured goods,
leaving hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk. Just think what Putin has done even before he started
bombing ISIS. He protects his country, his management of Russia's economy despite international
sanctions are feats that are to be admired. Is it any wonder he is hated and feared by the West.
Fallowfield -> MTavernier 28 Dec 2015 16:16
I'm trying to work this out. Come on, you're not really saying that we have a free press in
the west are you?
I believe it happened once, Watergate and all that. Murdoch and Thatcher as a model of
the free press?
No, you're taking the piss. I'll stop there.
Fallowfield -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 16:10
The people I know were 'the younger generation'. Their illusions about the west were quickly
shattered. Different mafias, you see.
Putin's message? How very unlike our own dear Queen's Speech.
Alderbaran -> SHappens 28 Dec 2015 16:03
A very fair point but you have to admit that a forum saturated with meaningless posts is frustrating
for those who actually want to discuss the article. I feel compelled to challenge a number of
these posters.
Personally I feel that Russia started on a very different track following Putin's return as
president in 2012 and following the Bolotnaya square demonstrations - He was shaken by this!
I see a cult of personality blinding many Russians, including many of the commentators on this
forum and it seems that in Russia what is important is not the facts but nationalism and a shared
identity. This helps to protect Putin from criticism ans shores up his position but it is worrying
when a government relies so much on one man and that there is nothing to indicate that Putin intends
to change this. The publication of a book of speeches by "Network" is yet another indication of
the reliance on this personality cult and to be very frank, it disturbs and saddens me.
Does any of this concern you too, or do you think that this is the best that Russia should
hope for at the moment?
Equidom 28 Dec 2015 16:02
The Guardian and its puppet-masters hate the Russian people don't they? But they can't
bring themselves to say that, so it's Putin they attempt to ridicule.
Rantalot 28 Dec 2015 15:42
Give me one Putin over a hundred Cameron's any day of the week. I've listened to a couple
of those speeches, they are excellent, I don't bother listening to Mr Cameron.
Fallowfield 28 Dec 2015 15:29
I know a few 'Russians' who have lived in the 'west' for 15/20 years. They had no illusions
about their soviet upbringing, but knew the qualities of life - health care, education, housing
- that it brought. They are generally agreed that the wonderland that was supposed to exist beyond
their borders was an illusion. But they're hard working people, and they do OK.
They support Putin. Why? KGB indoctrination? Far from it, these are the people who wanted to
get away. And they - just like you - love their homeland. And who protects their homeland? The
President of the USA? The PM of the UK? You must be joking.
Putin. Nobody else.
SHappens -> apacheman 28 Dec 2015 15:26
Russia has been able, in just 20 years, without wars and other troubles, to go from a semi-colony
up to a world stage recognized leader. All Putin's risk-taking decisions have been successes or
are still playing out and have good potential for ending in success.
All this, quietly and imperceptibly, without tanks or strategic aviation, has been achieved
by the Russian diplomacy, directed in a difficult confrontation with the block of the most powerful
militarily and economically countries, while starting from a much lower position.
This is part of Putin, and Lavrov's great achievements. Might be worth for you to read this
book after all, you might be learning something.
Alderbaran -> WalterCronkiteBot 28 Dec 2015 15:20
Who said you were Russian and why did you suggest that you might be if Putin has a lot of support
outside the country?
What surprised me is your apparently unsupportable notion that Putin is trying to make Russia
look amicable. Your post also brought up topics far from the bounds of this article, yet you state
that you don't know what to believe in.
If you are sincere in wanting to understand Russia better, David Remnick's excellent book on
Russia is a great start - see Lenin's Tomb. Chrystia freeland's 'Sale of the Century' brilliantly
describes the Yeltsin years and the power struggles taking place following the fall of the wall.
I'd also recommend listing to Mark Galeotti on the sublect of Russia, and he is a regular conrtibutor
to both RT and RFERL.
Peter Evans -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 15:10
Crimea would never have happened without the illegal coup backed by the west. We could
choose to believe the western media's opinion on the state of Russia, or we could listen to the
people who live there.
Fallowfield -> CoinBiter 28 Dec 2015 15:09
After the USA, UK and other allied countries had invaded Russia in 1919 the eventual Soviet
Republic did what it could to protect itself I suppose. And Russia still does. Ask where the USA
bases are, and compare their distribution to those of Russia.
The USA didn't fancy one in Cuba, did they? A perfectly lawful international agreement. They
threatened nuclear destruction as an ultimatum.
WalterCronkiteBot -> Alderbaran 28 Dec 2015 15:04
Yes I'm an evil Russian. I can't possibly be from the west.
To answer your question though, I don't know what to believe hence me stating "What I don't
get with Putin is...". I don't understand the actual situation because I don't have inside knowledge.
I'm saying on the face of it he appears to speak for those in the west against war in the ME,
which is good, but we shouldnt trust him entirely.
If that makes me a Kremlin shill so be it.
Not4TheFaintOfHeart 28 Dec 2015 14:59
Can somebody please tell Shaun to come in from the cold... It's over Shaun: Syria saved from
a Libya/Iraq fate x2, ISIS degraded very nicely, thank you, Crimea voted to be part of the RF,
Mistrals now sold to Egept, BRICS bank created, colour revolution in Georgia thwarted...
What's that Shaun?.. Someone's publishing a book of Putin quotes?.. I've got a similar
book by that other respected world leader and statesman.. You know.. Short, fat, speech impediment,
drunk most of the time ... what's his name?..oh yeah, Churchill.
Fallowfield -> Metronome151 28 Dec 2015 14:49
Well we certainly jailed members of the WSPU for wanting to vote. 14 Northern Irish civil rights
protest marchers, legal and unarmed, were shot dead on the street by British troops in 1972, as
I remember. Striking workers have been jailed, and many more have had cases against them dropped
in court for 'lack of evidence', ie when the police evidence presented was so obviously falsified.
I wonder where the KGB got their ideas from?
apacheman -> Fallowfield 28 Dec 2015 14:48
And the Soviet people could thank the West for the Lend-Lease supplies that allowed them to
withstand the Nazi juggernaut, without which they would have collapsed.
WalterCronkiteBot 28 Dec 2015 14:46
"Putin was correct to predict chaos in international affairs if the UN and other institutions
of international law are ignored."
This is what many in the west said too. Putin is just one of the few people with serious
power to publically state the same. Western officials including Tony Blair admit that IS arose
out of the chaos in Iraq. Its not even up for debate. The abomination that is IS is the chaos
he warned us of.
In 2013 Putin accused Kerry of lying when he told a senate hearing that AQ are not in Syria
and as such pose no threat in that region. He warned us but noone listened. Now we have Syria
overran by AQ affiliated groups toting US made weaponry.
What I don't get with Putin is the apparent naivety. As his speeches show he is well aware
of the machinations of the western powers, yet puts faith in them time and time again. Hes either
very naive or just wants to ensure that Russia look as amicable as possible in the history books.
Peter Evans 28 Dec 2015 14:34
The US loved Yeltsin, a weak leader, they do not like a strong Russian leader who does the
best for his country.
mgeary -> rcil2003 28 Dec 2015 14:33
Oh, the results in the USA are the same as in Russia, the only difference being that they have
a ruling elite there, who promote different faces every election for the Presidency.
This and the fact that, in contrast to Russia, they are being subtle about it...
Chuckman 28 Dec 2015 14:25
The most able leader of our generation. Simply a remarkable man.
This got me pondering on what an equivalent publication for George W Bush would contain. Chapter
One - reading "My Pet Goat".
However, in the USA, Presidents tend to have Library Centers to archive their words of
wisdom. Bush Junior's is located on the campus of Southern Methodist University (SMU) in University
Park, Texas, opened on April 25, 2013. The janitor wasn't best pleased; he had to find a
new broom cupboard...
rcil2003 -> euphoniumbrioche 28 Dec 2015 14:16
western leaders are nothing but interchangeable game show hosts. Behind them is the real power,
wielded in secret by utterly evil characters like Dick Cheney, who would have been right at home
in the Third Reich.
presstheredbutton -> nonanon1 28 Dec 2015 14:15
Interesting how all the trolling comments, such as yours, seem to be against Putin...
Parangaricurimicuaro -> Metronome151 28 Dec 2015 14:20
Now you are giving me the reason. The MSM has brainwashed the western world and they don't
know anything else but what they are fed.
Parangaricurimicuaro -> hermionegingold 28 Dec 2015 14:01
If you understand that the leader's image is so important for the well-being of the population
you wouldn't be criticizing him. After the drunken years of Yeltsin the Russians needed a different
role model. There is a reason for Obama (a heavy smoker) not to do it ( at least not in front
of the cameras)
greatapedescendant -> Strummered 28 Dec 2015 13:46
They might have added his habit of speaking the truth. Best chance of finding out what's actually
going on in Syria + the Middle East generally is to listen to Putin.
"... At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States. ..."
Plunging crude oil prices are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the treasure
chests of oil-exporting nations, putting some of the United States' adversaries under greater stress.
After two years of falling prices, the effects have reverberated across the globe, fueling economic
discontent in Venezuela, changing Russia's economic and political calculations, and dampening Iranian
leaders' hopes of a financial windfall when sanctions linked to its nuclear program will be lifted
next year.
At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some
of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin,
undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for
Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid
economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.
"Cheap oil hurts revenues for some of our foes and helps some of our friends. The Europeans, South
Koreans and Japanese - they're all winners," said Robert McNally, director for energy in President
George W. Bush's National Security Council and now head of the Rapidan Group, a consulting firm.
"It's not good for Russia, that's for sure, and it's not good for Iran."
... ... ...
In Iran, cheap oil is forcing the government to ratchet down expectations.
The much-anticipated lifting of sanctions as a result of the deal to limit Iran's nuclear program
is expected to result in an additional half-million barrels a day of oil exports by the middle of
2016.
But at current prices, Iran's income from those sales will still fall short of revenue earned
from constrained oil exports a year ago.
Moreover, low prices are making it difficult for Iran to persuade international oil companies
to develop Iran's long-neglected oil and gas fields, which have been off limits since sanctions were
broadened in 2012.
"Should Iran come out of sanctions, they will face a very different market than the one they had
left in 2012," Amos Hochstein, the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international
energy affairs, said in an interview. "They were forced to recede in a world of over $100 oil, and
sanctions will be lifted at $36 oil. They will have to work harder to convince companies to come
in and take the risk for supporting their energy infrastructure and their energy production."
Meanwhile, in Russia, low oil prices have compounded damage done by U.S. and European sanctions
that were designed to target Russia's energy and financial sectors. And when Iran increases output,
its grade of crude oil will most likely go to Europe, where it will compete directly with Russia's
Urals oil, McNally said.
Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China,
foreign policy and energy.
"... At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of
the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining
the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue.
At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries
in Europe, Japan and the United States. ..."
Plunging crude oil prices are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the treasure
chests of oil-exporting nations, putting some of the United States' adversaries under greater stress.
After two years of falling prices, the effects have reverberated across the globe, fueling economic
discontent in Venezuela, changing Russia's economic and political calculations, and dampening Iranian
leaders' hopes of a financial windfall when sanctions linked to its nuclear program will be lifted
next year.
At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some
of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin,
undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for
Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid
economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.
"Cheap oil hurts revenues for some of our foes and helps some of our friends. The Europeans, South
Koreans and Japanese - they're all winners," said Robert McNally, director for energy in President
George W. Bush's National Security Council and now head of the Rapidan Group, a consulting firm.
"It's not good for Russia, that's for sure, and it's not good for Iran."
... ... ...
In Iran, cheap oil is forcing the government to ratchet down expectations.
The much-anticipated lifting of sanctions as a result of the deal to limit Iran's nuclear program
is expected to result in an additional half-million barrels a day of oil exports by the middle of
2016.
But at current prices, Iran's income from those sales will still fall short of revenue earned
from constrained oil exports a year ago.
Moreover, low prices are making it difficult for Iran to persuade international oil companies
to develop Iran's long-neglected oil and gas fields, which have been off limits since sanctions were
broadened in 2012.
"Should Iran come out of sanctions, they will face a very different market than the one they had
left in 2012," Amos Hochstein, the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international
energy affairs, said in an interview. "They were forced to recede in a world of over $100 oil, and
sanctions will be lifted at $36 oil. They will have to work harder to convince companies to come
in and take the risk for supporting their energy infrastructure and their energy production."
Meanwhile, in Russia, low oil prices have compounded damage done by U.S. and European sanctions
that were designed to target Russia's energy and financial sectors. And when Iran increases output,
its grade of crude oil will most likely go to Europe, where it will compete directly with Russia's
Urals oil, McNally said.
Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China,
foreign policy and energy.
"... "fragments of the pilots' cockpit have suffered specific damages in the form of localized puncture holes and surface dents typical for hypervelocity impacts with compact and hard objects," ..."
A report on Malaysian Airlines MH17 air disaster in Ukraine last year by a group of old-hand aviation
security experts maintains that the Boeing might have been downed by an Israeli Python air-to-air
missile.
The report was leaked via the private LiveJournal account of Albert Naryshkin (aka albert_lex)
late on Tuesday and has already been widely discussed by social media communities in Russia.
The authors of the investigative report have calculated the possible detonation initiation point
of the missile that hit the passenger aircraft and approximate number and weight of strike elements,
which in turn designated the type and presumed manufacturer of the weapon.
Malaysian Airline Boeing 777-200 performing flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur on July
17, 2014, crashed on the territory of Ukraine near the village of Grabovo, killing all 283 passengers
and 15 crewmembers aboard.
The aircraft disintegrated in the air and the debris of MH17 were scattered across an area of
about 50 sq. km.
The external view of MH17 hull pieces indicates that "fragments of the pilots' cockpit have
suffered specific damages in the form of localized puncture holes and surface dents typical for hypervelocity
impacts with compact and hard objects," the report says, stressing that similar damage could
be found on the inner side of the cockpit.
The report specifically points out that chips of the body coat around the holes in the fragment
are typical of wave effects created by hypervelocity impacts.
Some damage, though larger and less clustered, could be found near the air-scoop of the left-wing
engine of the aircraft.
The nature of the damage allows for the identification of the source as a high-explosive fragmentation
warhead from a modern anti-aircraft weapon, claims the report.
Apart from the large puncture holes, the debris of the nose and the cockpit of the aircraft bear
a large number of scattered micro-craters resulting from the impact of high-velocity dust and tiny
debris, such as an unburnt blasting agent and elements of the ordnance that accompany a shock wave
from a blast that occurred very close to the target. In the case of MH17, the pilots' cockpit.
The report says that as a rule, the initial speed of the striking elements of modern anti-aircraft
weapons vary between 1,500 and 2,500 meters per second.
Altogether, the experts considered photos of five fragments of the cockpit and left port of the
flight MH17, on which they counted some 230 "battle-damage" holes and punctures.
All this considered, the experts claim that the exact zone of the blast impact could be established
with a fair degree of accuracy.
The warhead of the missile exploded very close to the cockpit, to its left side at a distance
of 0.8-1.6 meters from the cockpit windows, exactly opposite the sliding window of the aircraft commander.
The dimensions and character of the puncture holes left by the strike elements allegedly allow
their size and form factor to be established, which in its turn makes it possible to identify the
type of weapon used in a particular case.
The cross dimension of absolute majority, 86 percent, of the 186 hull holes studied by experts
measure between 6 and 13mm, with explicit maximum of them having cross dimension of 8mm.
This fact brought the expert group to a conclusion about the size of the strike elements of the
warhead. If the warhead had been armed with two types of strike elements, the majority of the holes
would have been of two types, the reports notes.
The strike element has been established of being a rectangular block measured 8mm x 8mm x 6mm,
with margin of error of 0.5 mm, a high probability it was made of steel and an estimated weight of
3 grams each. The total number of such elements should have varied between 2,000 and 4,000.
The bulk of the strike elements are estimated between 4.88 – 14.8 kilograms.
@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com
The report confutes the argument of Russia's Almaz-Antey military concern that early claimed that
"intricate shape" double-t steel fragments, similar to those used in warheads of surface-to-air
Buk missile systems, have been extracted from the debris of MH17 flight.
Howwever, the double-t strike elements of a Buk missile weigh 8.1 grams, more than twice as much
as a single damage fragment among those that pierced MH17's hull. Thus, according to the report,
the hypothesis about a Buk missile system being involved in the crash is "most probably incorrect."
With 95 percent probability, the group of experts estimates the weight of the missile's warhead
(explosives plus strike elements) that shot down MH17 of being between 10 and 40kg.
This led the experts to determine the exact type of the weapon used against Malaysian Airlines
flight MH17.
The report says that that Soviet- and Russian-made surface-to-air missile systems use more powerful
warheads than the established maximum 40kg, as is the case with MH17.
Moreover, Soviet- and Russian-made air-to-air missiles which have a similar 10-40kg warhead capability
use other types of strike elements within one warhead - obviously not the case with MH17.
A whole range of existing foreign air-to-air missiles have corresponding warhead characteristics,
yet lack of physical elements of the missile used against MH17 prevented experts from establishing
the exact type of the weapon used.
Still, the circumstances and conditions of the assault allowed experts to make certain assumptions.
The missile that attacked MH17 had a passive radar homing head, which explains why the missile
exploded so close to the cockpit. Under the radar-transparent nosecone of a Boeing 777-200 there
is a surveillance radar station operable during the flight, so most likely the missile homed on to
this radar as the target.
Apart from a radar homing head, the missile could also be equipped with an advanced, matrix type,
imaging IR seeker, which enables the missile to determine the size and the type of the target and
choose for attack its most vital element. For a huge Boeing aircraft, that's the cockpit.
A simulation of the missile attack has proved that missiles with that type of guidance choose
to attack a big passenger plane from the front hemisphere.
There are four air-to-air missiles that fit the description established by the experts, namely:
French Magis-2, Israeli Shafrir, American AIM-9 and Israeli Python – all short-range.
The first three have been struck off the list for various reasons, including type of warhead or
guidance system specifications. The Python deserved a closer look.
The Python is equipped with a matrix-imaging IR seeker. It enables a relatively moderate power
warhead to effectively engage big aircrafts. The warhead is armed with a set of ready strike elements.
Even more importantly, some open military sources suggest that in early 2000s a number of Sukhoi
Su-25 assault fighter jets we refurbished to use fourth and fifth generation Python missiles, which
look very similar to the Su-25's standard air-to-air R-60 missile.
@ http://albert-lex.livejournal.com
The unofficial report leaked in LiveJournal has become yet another one among many other unofficial
versions presented over the year that has passed since the catastrophe occurred on July 17, 2014.
The Dutch Safety Board that has been heading an international investigation into the cause of
the crash is due to release its official report in October.
"... I'm still trying to think through the implications but they are certainly disquieting. Without trying to hard I'd summarize that "the masks are coming off." ..."
"... The question then is, what happens after "the masks come off?" ..."
"... Short-sighted western pundits will still be penning deadline copy headlined "How Putin lost Ukraine" while those with real vision will be putting the finishing touches on "How America Lost the Rest of the World" ..."
Hard to overstate the importance of this article. Thanks for spotting it.
There's a lot here
but this passage is kind of free-standing in its value by simply condensing how the IMF has contorted
itself:
"The IMF thus is breaking four rules:
Not lending to a country that has no visible means to
pay back the loan breaks the "No More Argentinas" rule adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001
loan.
Not lending to countries that refuse in good faith to negotiate with their official creditors
goes against the IMF's role as the major tool of the global creditors' cartel.
And the IMF is
now lending to a borrower at war, indeed one that is destroying its export capacity and hence
its balance-of-payments ability to pay back the loan.
Finally, the IMF is lending to a country
that has little likelihood of refuse carrying out the IMF's notorious austerity "conditionalities"
on its population – without putting down democratic opposition in a totalitarian manner. Instead
of being treated as an outcast from the international financial system, Ukraine is being welcomed
and financed."
I'm still trying to think through the implications but they are certainly disquieting. Without
trying to hard I'd summarize that "the masks are coming off."
The question then is, what happens after "the masks come off?"
… war.
(Sometimes it's best just to blurt out what's worrying you.)
Short-sighted western pundits will still be penning deadline copy headlined "How Putin lost
Ukraine" while those with real vision will be putting the finishing touches on "How America Lost
the Rest of the World".
"... It's now clear that if Obama had ordered a major bombing campaign against Assad's military in early September 2013, he might have opened the gates of Damascus to a hellish victory by al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists or the even more brutal Islamic State, since these terrorist groups have emerged as the only effective fighters against Assad. ..."
"... By late September 2013, the disappointed neocons were acting out their anger by taking aim at Putin. They recognized that a particular vulnerability for the Russian president was Ukraine and the possibility that it could be pulled out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the West's orbit. ..."
"... But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself." In other words, the new neocon hope was for "regime change" in Kiev and Moscow. [See Consortiumnews.com's " Neocons' Ukraine/Syria/Iran Gambit. "] ..."
"... Putin also had sidetracked that possible war with Iran by helping to forge an interim agreement constraining but not eliminating Iran's nuclear program. So, he became the latest target of neocon demonization, a process in which the New York Times and the Washington Post eagerly took the lead. ..."
"... As the political violence in Kiev escalated – with the uprising's muscle supplied by neo-Nazi militias from western Ukraine – neocons within the Obama administration discussed how to "midwife" a coup against Yanukovych. Central to this planning was Victoria Nuland, who had been promoted to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and was urging on the protesters, even passing out cookies to protesters at Kiev's Maidan square. ..."
"... When the coup went down on Feb. 22 – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias who seized government buildings and forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives – the U.S. State Department quickly deemed the new regime "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. media dutifully stepped up the demonization of Yanukovych and Putin. ..."
"... Although Putin's position had been in support of Ukraine's status quo – i.e., retaining the elected president and the country's constitutional process – the crisis was pitched to the American people as a case of "Russian aggression" with dire comparisons made between Putin and Hitler, especially after ethnic Russians in the east and south resisted the coup regime in Kiev and Crimea seceded to rejoin Russia. ..."
"... Pressured by the Obama administration, the EU agreed to sanction Russia for its "aggression," touching off a tit-for-tat trade war with Moscow which reduced Europe's sale of farming and manufacturing goods to Russia and threatened to disrupt Russia's natural gas supplies to Europe. ..."
"... While the most serious consequences were to Ukraine's economy which went into freefall because of the civil war, some of Europe's most endangered economies in the south also were hit hard by the lost trade with Russia. Europe began to stagger toward the third dip in a triple-dip recession with European markets experiencing major stock sell-offs. ..."
If you're nervously watching the stock market gyrations and worrying about your declining portfolio
or pension fund, part of the blame should go to America's neocons who continue to be masters of chaos,
endangering the world's economy by instigating geopolitical confrontations in the Middle East and
Eastern Europe.
Of course, there are other factors pushing Europe's economy to the brink of a triple-dip
recession and threatening to stop America's fragile recovery, too. But the neocons' "regime change"
strategies, which have unleashed violence and confrontations across Iraq, Syria, Libya, Iran and
most recently Ukraine, have added to the economic uncertainty.
This neocon destabilization of the world economy began with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003
under President George W. Bush who squandered some $1 trillion on the bloody folly. But the neocons'
strategies have continued through their still-pervasive influence in Official Washington during President
Barack Obama's administration.
The neocons and their "liberal interventionist" junior partners have kept the "regime change"
pot boiling with the Western-orchestrated overthrow and killing of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011,
the proxy civil war in Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad, the costly economic embargoes against Iran,
and the U.S.-backed coup that ousted Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych last February.
All these targeted governments were first ostracized by the neocons and the major U.S. news organizations,
such as the Washington Post and the New York Times, which have become what amounts to neocon mouthpieces.
Whenever the neocons decide that it's time for another "regime change," the mainstream U.S. media
enlists in the propaganda wars.
The consequence of this cascading disorder has been damaging and cumulative. The costs of the
Iraq War strapped the U.S. Treasury and left less government maneuvering room when Wall Street crashed
in 2008. If Bush still had the surplus that he inherited from President Bill Clinton – rather than
a yawning deficit – there might have been enough public money to stimulate a much-faster recovery.
President Obama also wouldn't have been left to cope with the living hell that the U.S. occupation
brought to the people of Iraq, violent chaos that gave birth to what was then called "Al-Qaeda in
Iraq" and has since rebranded itself "the Islamic State."
But Obama didn't do himself (or the world) any favors when he put much of his foreign policy in
the hands of Democratic neocon-lites, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Bush holdovers,
including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Gen. David Petraeus. At State, Clinton promoted the
likes of neocon Victoria Nuland, the wife of arch-neocon Robert Kagan, and Obama brought in "liberal
interventionists" like Samantha Power, now the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
In recent years, the neocons and "liberal interventionists" have become almost indistinguishable,
so much so that Robert Kagan has opted to discard the discredited neocon label and call himself a
"liberal interventionist." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Obama's
True Foreign Policy 'Weakness.'"]
Manipulating Obama
Obama, in his nearly six years as president, also has shied away from imposing his more "realistic"
views about world affairs on the neocon/liberal-interventionist ideologues inside the U.S. pundit
class and his own administration. He has been outmaneuvered by clever insiders (as happened in 2009
on the Afghan "surge") or overwhelmed by some Official Washington "group think" (as was the case
in Libya, Syria, Iran and Ukraine).
Once all the "smart people" reach some collective decision that a foreign leader "must go," Obama
usually joins the chorus and has shown only rare moments of toughness in standing up to misguided
conventional wisdoms.
The one notable case was his decision in summer 2013 to resist pressure to destroy Syria's military
after a Sarin gas attack outside Damascus sparked a dubious rush to judgment blaming Assad's regime.
Since then, more evidence has pointed to a provocation by anti-Assad extremists who may have thought
that the incident would draw in the U.S. military on their side. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Was
Turkey Behind Syrian Sarin Attack?"]
It's now clear that if Obama had ordered a major bombing campaign against Assad's military in
early September 2013, he might have opened the gates of Damascus to a hellish victory by al-Qaeda-affiliated
extremists or the even more brutal Islamic State, since these terrorist groups have emerged as the
only effective fighters against Assad.
But the neocons and the "liberal interventionists" seemed oblivious to that danger. They had their
hearts set on Syrian "regime change," so were furious when their dreams were dashed by Obama's supposed
"weakness," i.e. his failure to do what they wanted. They also blamed Russian President Vladimir
Putin who brokered a compromise with Assad in which he agreed to surrender all of Syria's chemical
weapons while still denying a role in the Sarin attack.
By late September 2013, the disappointed neocons were acting out their anger by taking aim at
Putin. They recognized that a particular vulnerability for the Russian president was Ukraine and
the possibility that it could be pulled out of Russia's sphere of influence and into the West's orbit.
So, Carl Gershman, the neocon president of the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy, took
to the op-ed page of the neocon-flagship Washington Post to sound the trumpet about Ukraine, which
he
called "the biggest prize."
But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal
of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, "may find himself on the
losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself." In other words,
the new neocon hope was for "regime change" in Kiev and Moscow. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Neocons'
Ukraine/Syria/Iran Gambit."]
Destabilizing the World
Beyond the recklessness of plotting to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia, the neocon strategy threatened
to shake Europe's fragile economic recovery from a painful recession, six years of jobless stress
that had strained the cohesion of the European Union and the euro zone.
Across the Continent, populist parties from the Right and Left have been challenging establishment
politicians over their inability to reverse the widespread unemployment and the growing poverty.
Important to Europe's economy was its relationship with Russia, a major market for agriculture and
manufactured goods and a key source of natural gas to keep Europe's industries humming and its houses
warm.
The last thing Europe needed was more chaos, but that's what the neocons do best and they were
determined to punish Putin for disrupting their plans for Syrian "regime change," an item long near
the top of their agenda along with their desire to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," which Israel has cited
as an "existential threat."
Putin also had sidetracked that possible war with Iran by helping to forge an interim agreement
constraining but not eliminating Iran's nuclear program. So, he became the latest target of neocon
demonization, a process in which the New York Times and the Washington Post eagerly took the lead.
To get at Putin, however, the first step was Ukraine where Gershman's NED was funding scores of
programs for political activists and media operatives. These efforts fed into mass protests against
Ukrainian President Yanukovych for balking at an EU association agreement that included a harsh austerity
plan designed by the International Monetary Fund. Yanukovych opted instead for a more generous $15
billion loan deal from Putin.
As the political violence in Kiev escalated – with the uprising's muscle supplied by neo-Nazi
militias from western Ukraine – neocons within the Obama administration discussed how to "midwife"
a coup against Yanukovych. Central to this planning was Victoria Nuland, who had been promoted to
assistant secretary of state for European affairs and was urging on the protesters, even passing
out cookies to protesters at Kiev's Maidan square.
According to an
intercepted phone call with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland didn't think EU
officials were being aggressive enough. "Fuck the EU," she said as she brainstormed how "to help
glue this thing." She literally handpicked who should be in the post-coup government – "Yats is the
guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk who would indeed become prime minister.
When the coup went down on Feb. 22 – spearheaded by neo-Nazi militias who seized government buildings
and forced Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives – the U.S. State Department quickly
deemed the new regime "legitimate" and the mainstream U.S. media dutifully stepped up the demonization
of Yanukovych and Putin.
Although Putin's position had been in support of Ukraine's status quo – i.e., retaining the elected
president and the country's constitutional process – the crisis was pitched to the American people
as a case of "Russian aggression" with dire comparisons made between Putin and Hitler, especially
after ethnic Russians in the east and south resisted the coup regime in Kiev and Crimea seceded to
rejoin Russia.
Starting a Trade War
Pressured by the Obama administration, the EU agreed to sanction Russia for its "aggression,"
touching off a tit-for-tat trade war with Moscow which reduced Europe's sale of farming and manufacturing
goods to Russia and threatened to disrupt Russia's natural gas supplies to Europe.
While the most serious consequences were to Ukraine's economy which went into freefall because
of the civil war, some of Europe's most endangered economies in the south also were hit hard by the
lost trade with Russia. Europe began to stagger toward the third dip in a triple-dip recession with
European markets experiencing major stock sell-offs.
The dominoes soon toppled across the Atlantic as major U.S. stock indices dropped, creating anguish
among many Americans just when it seemed the hangover from Bush's 2008 market crash was finally wearing
off.
Obviously, there are other reasons for the recent stock market declines, including fears about
the Islamic State's victories in Syria and Iraq, continued chaos in Libya, and exclusion of Iran
from the global economic system – all partly the result of neocon ideology. There have been unrelated
troubles, too, such as the Ebola epidemic in western Africa and various weather disasters.
But the world's economy usually can withstand some natural and manmade challenges. The real problem
comes when a combination of catastrophes pushes the international financial system to a tipping point.
Then, even a single event can dump the world into economic chaos, like what happened when Lehman
Brothers collapsed in 2008.
It's not clear whether the world is at such a tipping point today, but the stock market volatility
suggests that we may be on the verge of another worldwide recession. Meanwhile, the neocon masters
of chaos seem determined to keep putting their ideological obsessions ahead of the risks to Americans
and people everywhere.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush
Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes
America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click here.
"... How could Ukraine's government deficit only be 4.1% when its currency has crashed, it has lost most of its sources of income and it has just defaulted on its debt? What the fuck are they talking about? ..."
"... First, there is no way on God's green earth that there is a negative difference of only 4.1% between Ukraine's annual revenues and its annual expenditures, especially since it has almost no revenues except from taxation. ..."
Start shovelin' in the money, IMF, because Ukraine has the magic formula – just refuse to pay
what you owe, call it a 'temporary suspension of payments' instead of 'a default', and reap the
reward for your display of responsibility.
I foresee the mileage Russia is going to get out of this will far exceed the value of the $3
Billion.
marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 8:47 pm
How could Ukraine's government deficit only be 4.1% when its currency has crashed, it has
lost most of its sources of income and it has just defaulted on its debt? What the fuck are they
talking about?
"The proposed budget would work to reduce the government's deficit from 4.1% to 3.7%, with
measures including an increase in revenue by widening the tax base."
First, there is no way on God's green earth that there is a negative difference of only
4.1% between Ukraine's annual revenues and its annual expenditures, especially since it has almost
no revenues except from taxation.
And now the IMF expects to realize more revenue from widening the tax base – yes, I can imagine
what a popular initiative that is. Now you know how Yushchenko felt, Yatsie, when the IMF denied
him a second big loan because he refused to eliminate the gas subsidies to residents.
Now the IMF has finally realized that triumph through a different leader, and it wants to see
even more tax revenue. You are about to be as popular as a turd in the punch bowl; have fun with
that.
kirill, December 20, 2015 at 12:58 pm
I would not trust any GDP numbers from the Kiev regime either. They lost 25% of the economy
in the Donbas alone not counting Crimea. This has knock on effects to the rest of Banderastan.
Yet they are yapping about some 12% contraction in 2015 after a 7% contraction in 2014. I see
no clear indication that they are counting the GDP only for regime controlled Banderastan.
As for the budget, according to regime officials, Banderastan lost 30% of its hard currency
revenues with the loss of the Donbass. I estimate the tax loss to Kiev to be about 30% as well.
The Donbass was the industrialized part of the country while western Banderastan is primarily
agrarian. So talk about 4% shortfalls in revenue is utter rubbish. In most countries the money
making parts of the economy subsidize the rest and sure as hell it was not western Banderastan
that was subsidizing the Donbass. That was just virulent blood libel such as the claim that Russians
settled eastern Ukraine only after the Holodomor.
marknesop, December 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm
Europe deserves Ukraine. Let them have it, the quicker the better. It's fine when Yats is selling
that stinking mess to his simple-minded constituents, but European policymakers will see through
it right away. Unfortunately, Brussels knows better than to bring Ukraine any closer into the
fold, because if they get a visa-free regime, the place will empty out in a week as Ukrainians
flee throughout Europe (which is already, everyone must know, full of refugees) looking for jobs.
Yves here. If you followed the TransPacific Partnership negotiations closely, you may recall that
Japan looked like it was going along only to placate Washington, and then it signed up only because
the US allowed it to drop its "defense only" posture (remember that Japan is a military protectorate
of the US) and gave major concession on agriculture (Japan's farmers are a famously powerful voting
block). But even then, Japan is not firmly in the US fold. It has made clear that the US needs to
get a deal done pronto.
By contrast, this post describes the US foot-dragging and gamesmanship to protect US agricultural
interests from competition from developing economies.
Yesterday, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman delivered his plenary statement to the trade
ministers gathered in Nairobi for the World Trade Organization's tenth ministerial conference. His
statement, which calls for the abandonment of the Doha Development Round in favor of negotiations
on new issues of more strategic interest to the United States, deserve a response from a countryman.
Mr. Froman calls on trade representatives "to move beyond the cynical repetition of positions
designed to produce deadlock." Yet this is precisely what Mr. Froman has come to Nairobi to repeat:
U.S. positions designed to produce deadlock.
He decries the lack of progress in the last 15 years of Doha negotiations, yet he fails to acknowledge
that the United States has been, and remains, the principal reason for that failure. Since 2008,
when negotiations broke down, the U.S. has refused to continue negotiating on the key issues central
to the development agenda – reducing agricultural subsidies, allowing developing countries special
protection measures for agriculture, eliminating export subsidies and credits, and a host of other
issues.
Those issues remain critical to developing countries, and U.S. intransigence in addressing those
concerns is the main reason Doha has stagnated. In addition, the U.S. has introduced new issues to
create further obstacles to progress, such as its objection to India's ambitious and laudable public
stockholding program to provide food security to fully two-thirds of its people.
The draft declaration on agriculture in Nairobi offers no progress on resolving this issue, despite
the explicit commitment in Bali and later in Geneva to find a permanent solution that can allow India
and other countries to pursue such programs.
That is not the only developing country issue left unaddressed. The declaration offers nothing
to developing countries to allow them to protect sensitive sectors from unfair or sudden import surges,
the Special Safeguard Mechanism. It offers no meaningful cuts in U.S. export credits, which have
favored U.S. exporters to Africa with some $1.25 billion in credits over the last six years.
Perhaps most notably, the declaration makes no mention of the key issue in the Doha Round: reductions
in rich country agricultural subsidies and supports. With crop prices low and a new Farm Bill authorizing
rising levels of support to U.S. farmers and exporters, this omission is a direct blow to those developing
countries which see their farmers and export prospects harmed by underpriced U.S. exports.
Nor does Mr. Froman mention cotton subsidies, an issue which the United States and the WTO membership
committed to address "expeditiously" ten long years ago in Hong Kong. The issue remains unresolved,
and the draft agriculture text fails to offer anything to Africa's C-4 cotton producing countries,
which have millions of poor farmers desperately in need of relief.
Instead, the U.S. Farm Bill promises further price suppression. According to a recent study, cotton
subsidies could total $1.5 billion, increasing U.S. exports 29% and suppressing prices by 7%. All
cotton producers in the rest of the world will suffer an estimated $3.3 billion in annual losses,
with India projected to lose $800 million per year.
The C-4 countries as a group stand to lose $80 million a year in reduced income, a huge blow to
struggling farmers in low-income countries.
Mr. Froman touts the ways U.S. policy has moved forward beyond Doha. He says the United States
extended the African Growth and Opportunity Act by a decade, "the longest extension in that program's
history." That limited extension of trade preferences to African countries last year provided a paltry
$264,000 in benefits to the C-4 countries. The projected losses from U.S. cotton dumping are 300
times greater.
Mr. Froman concludes that with a new approach that abandons the development round while taking
up issues of investment, procurement, and other matters of priority to the United States, "we can
ensure that global trade will drive development and prosperity as strongly this century as it did
in the last."
The U.S. Trade Representative seems to have conveniently forgotten that the Doha Development Round
he wants to sweep aside was a direct response to the fact that global trade rules in the last century
failed to drive development and prosperity, at least for many developing countries.
As a U.S. researcher long engaged with the issues of concern to developing countries, I find Mr.
Froman's approach shameful. Multilateralism demands engagement and compromise, particularly in a
"development round" designed to address past inequities. Mr. Froman is unfortunately offering nothing
more than "the cynical repetition of positions designed to produce deadlock." The latest in a steady
stream of U.S. hypocrisy.
By Timothy Wise, Director of the Research and Policy Program at the Global Development
and Environment Institute, Tufts University. Originally published in
The Standard (Nairobi, Kenya)
"... " it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries" ..."
"... It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner ™ is dissing with libelious claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one! Not even trump or their auditory – They Know It For Fact ™. ..."
…Scarborough pointed to Putin's status as a notorious strongman.
"Well, I mean, it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries.
Obviously that would be a concern, would it not?" Scarborough asked.
"He's running his country, and at least he's a leader," Trump replied. "Unlike what we have
in this country."
"But again: He kills journalists that don't agree with him," Scarborough said.
The Republican presidential front-runner said there was "a lot of killing going on" around
the world and then suggested that Scarborough had asked him a different question.
"I think our country does plenty of killing, also, Joe, so, you know," Trump replied. "There's
a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity.
And that's the way it is. But you didn't ask me [that] question, you asked me a different question.
So that's fine."
Scarborough was left visibly stunned.
"I'm confused," the MSNBC host said. "So I mean, you obviously condemn Vladimir Putin killing
journalists and political opponents, right?"
"Oh sure, absolutely," Trump said…
…But Friday during his "Morning Joe" interview, Trump said he always "felt fine" about Putin
and touted the Russian president's poll numbers. Putin's position in his country is bolstered
by the Russian government's control over much of the Russian news media.
"I always felt fine about Putin," Trump said. "I think that he's a strong leader. He's a powerful
leader … He's actually got a popularity within his country. They respect him as a leader."
Trump contrasted Putin's numbers with President Obama's.
"I think he's up in the 80s. You see where Obama's in the 30s and low 40s. And he's up in
the 80s," Trump said. "And I don't know who does the polls. Maybe he does the polls, but I think
they're done by American companies, actually."
####
When I read stuff like this, I'm so glad the US is so far away. Damn modern technology.
" it's also a person who kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries"
It's okay to bullshit if the Culturally Superior Westerner ™ is dissing with libelious
claims Inferior Non-Westerner. See, who needs any proof that "Putin kills journalists"? No one!
Not even trump or their auditory – They Know It For Fact ™.
"... Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy
theorists postings on his blog who were – if I recall correctly – claiming that the military were involved
in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too tired to check.)
It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle between Military
/ CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly reminiscent of the
struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think) and the incoming JFK
administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. ..."
"... Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation
between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the "freedom
index"? Samizdat here we come! ..."
Washington does not care who assumes power in Syria – whether it be feuding warlords or an Islamic
mullah or Assad's cat. Washington knows that Islamic State needs money to survive and keep power,
as does any individual or group who will rule, and that to remain in power, it will sell oil.
Good enough, as far as Washington is concerned. If the place remains a seething cauldron of destabilizing
hatreds, so much the better.
I read this carefully earlier today and wish I had made some notes.
It's an interesting article
just in what it says about the politics of American journalism at this point in time almost regardless
of the subject matter in a kind of Kremlinology vein. It almost reads like a ransom note. My impression
is that Hersh is pulling punches at some key points in order not to overplay his hand.
My suggestion: don't get bogged down in the details. From my recollection of the piece from
earlier today Hersh is basically championing a few figures and – most importantly – their perspectives
here:
Michael Flynn, who led the DIA revolt against Syria policy
Dempsey, a pragmatic cold warrior who is allergic to making the enemy into a cardboard
super-villan (good enough for this Putinista)
Patrick Lang (more below)
and that wonderfully clear-headed Hawaiin congress-critter (can't be arsed to look her
up)
It's worth remembering that Hersh's articles on the Ghoutta attack immediately predated the
great stand-down by Obama from all out air-war to destroy Syria.
Given that it's axiomatic that journalists are really mouthpieces for political factions within
their own government power structure and that the BEST journalists – like Hersh – actually embrace
this reality, what does the appearance of this article augur?
I especially like the sign off:
"The Joint Chiefs and the DIA were constantly telling Washington's leadership of the jihadist
threat in Syria, and of Turkey's support for it. The message was never listened to. Why not?"
That sounds kind of threatening. In a good way.
* Regarding Patrick Lang, I noticed that he posted a quite vehement attack against conspiracy
theorists postings on his blog who were – if I recall correctly – claiming that the military were
involved in the subterfuge to arm extremists in Syria. (Probably cocked up the details but too
tired to check.) It struck me as noteworthy as it suggested an internecine intra-Washington struggle
between Military / CIA who was going to "own" the debacle in Syria at the very least. It is utterly
reminiscent of the struggle between Dulles / CIA power structure (think: institutional group think)
and the incoming JFK administration / New Frontiersman during and after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
In other words: we, the west, have basically made no progress fighting for reform of our leadership
and political structures. Meanwhile the Russians seem to have gone "right round the horn" – as
the dinosaur in Toy Story might put it.
Of course it's worth noting that Hersh had to revert to publishing this "intimate" conversation
between American power structures in a foreign publication. What does that tell you about the
"freedom index"? Samizdat here we come!
"... "initial information that the aircraft was shot down by a [Buk] surface to air missile" did not meet the Australian or international standard of evidence …." ..."
"... What will happen to the resolve of the holdouts if the narrative on MH17 begins to veer away from rock-solid Russian ownership of the tragedy? Because that was the whole backbone of the sanctions – Crimea was not enough to get Germany and France on board, and they still needed the little push that MH17 provided. If that rationale vanished, or even if serious doubt was introduced, the whole EU position on sanctions could fall apart. ..."
"... It's bigger than I thought – there is some sort of internal power struggle going on, and West refuses to change his findings – which still point to Russia for responsibility – in spite of Donoghoe's testimony. ..."
First two paragraphs:
"The Australian Federal Police and Dutch police and prosecutors investigating the cause of the
crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17 believe the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) has failed to provide "conclusive
evidence" of what type of munition destroyed the aircraft, causing the deaths of 283 passengers
and 15 crew on board.
Testifying for the first time in an international court, Detective Superintendent Andrew Donoghoe,
the senior Australian policeman in the international MH17 investigation, said a "tougher standard
than the DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon which
brought the aircraft down, or pinpoint the perpetrators.
Their criminal investigation will continue
into 2016, Donoghoe told the Victorian Coroners Court (lead image) on Tuesday morning. He and
other international investigators are unconvinced by reports from the US and Ukrainian governments,
and by the DSB, of a Buk missile firing. "Dutch prosecutors require conclusive evidence on other
types of missile," Donoghoe said, intimating that "initial information that the aircraft was shot
down by a [Buk] surface to air missile" did not meet the Australian or international standard
of evidence …."
Great catch, Jen!! Wow, you're right – this is big, especially in view of
the wavering by some EU members on sanctions. I wonder what Merkel has up her sleeve; she
says Germany – while going ahead with Nord Stream II, which is "first and foremost a business
proposition" – is "seeking ways to ensure that Ukraine is not completely excluded as a transit
country".
Ummm…what role would that be? Because if, in exchange for pushing ahead on Nord Stream,
Russia is maneuvered into still sending gas through Ukraine so that Ukraine can collect transit
fees, the project would be self-defeating. I trust the business minds in Russia are sharp enough
to stay ahead of that one. Ukraine will still receive gas from Russia, if it wants it and can
pay in advance for it, but it will be for domestic supplies only and consequently not subject
to transit fees. Russia must not weaken on this, because the EU still hopes to rebuild Ukraine
using Russian money, and it cannot do it without Russian help and support. If that is withheld,
Russia only needs to wait them out.
Needless to say, Tusk supports Renzi's position, not because
he is an Italiophile but because he supports Ukraine and would like to see it remain a transit
country, and pocketing $2 Billion a year in Russian cash.
What will happen to the resolve of the holdouts if the narrative on MH17 begins to veer away
from rock-solid Russian ownership of the tragedy? Because that was the whole backbone of the sanctions
– Crimea was not enough to get Germany and France on board, and they still needed the little push
that MH17 provided. If that rationale vanished, or even if serious doubt was introduced, the whole
EU position on sanctions could fall apart.
marknesop, December 19, 2015 at 8:37 pm
It's bigger than I thought – there is some sort of internal power struggle going on,
and West refuses to change his findings – which still point to Russia for responsibility – in
spite of Donoghoe's testimony. There were revelations in the original post such as that
Australia had sought permission from the Novorossiyan authorities to collect evidence and
artifacts, as well as Kiev – thereby implicitly recognizing Novorossiya – and that when it
solicited witnesses to testify, some agreed only on the condition their names would not be
revealed, that the Ukrainian authorities would not be involved and that the investigators
would protect them. Sure sounds like they want to say something they know the Ukrainian
government will punish them for saying, if it can identify them. This whole inquiry just got
interesting again.
At the moment it looks like a faction of the Australian investigation disagrees with the pat
finding of the Dutch, but the Victorian state coroner is totally on board with the "Russia did
it" scenario and is determined to have his way no matter how foolish it makes him look. This
one could go anywhere from here.
Moscow Exile, December 19, 2015 at 11:28 pm
Clearly that Aussie cop is in the pocket of the Evil One!
Isn't he the one who said earlier that the Russian-backed terrorists at the MH-17 crash site
behaved like decent human beings and treated the crash victims' remains with dignity and did
not loot their belongings?
I mean, what a ludicrous thing to say!
Everyone knows that these Russian beasts are ….blah, blah, blah ...
davidt, December 20, 2015 at 2:03 pm
Donoghue is not the only AFP cop speaking up for the crash site locals. Their sensitivity
and humanity is a rather at odds with a disparaging comment about the AFP on these pages over
a year ago (and which I objected to at the time). I noticed last week that Patrick Armstrong
is now reconsidering the Sukhoi did it scenario because of an apparent lack of fragments from
a Buk warhead.
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is ..."
"... KILLING THE HOST: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... What especially annoys U.S. financial strategists is that this loan by Russia's sovereign debt fund was protected by IMF lending practice, which at that time ensured collectability by withholding new credit from countries in default of foreign official debts (or at least, not bargaining in good faith to pay). To cap matters, the bonds are registered under London's creditor-oriented rules and courts. ..."
"... After the rules change, Aslund later noted, "the IMF can continue to give Ukraine loans regardless of what Ukraine does about its credit from Russia, which falls due on December 20. [8] ..."
"... The post-2010 loan packages to Greece are a notorious case in point. The IMF staff calculated that Greece could not possibly pay the balance that was set to bail out foreign banks and bondholders. Many Board members agreed (and subsequently have gone public with their whistle-blowing). Their protests didn't matter. Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the US-ECB position (after President Barack Obama and Treasury secretary Tim Geithner pointed out that U.S. banks had written credit default swaps betting that Greece could pay, and would lose money if there were a debt writedown). In 2015, Christine Lagarde also backed the U.S.-European Central Bank hard line, against staff protests. [10] ..."
"... China and Russia harbored the fantasy that would be allowed redress in the Western Courts where international law is metered out. They are now no longer under that delusion. ..."
"... It's not Hudson but the US that has simplified the entire world situation into "good guys vs. bad guys", a policy enshrined in Rumsfeld's statement "you're either with us or you're against us". ..."
"... what is left unsaid is the choices Russia then faces once their legal options play out and the uneven playing field is fully exposed. Do they not then have a historically justifiable basis for declaring war? ..."
The nightmare scenario of U.S. geopolitical strategists seems to be coming true: foreign economic
independence from U.S. control. Instead of privatizing and neoliberalizing the world under U.S.-centered
financial planning and ownership, the Russian and Chinese governments are investing in neighboring
economies on terms that cement Eurasian economic integration on the basis of Russian oil and tax
exports and Chinese financing. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) threatens to replace
the IMF and World Bank programs that favor U.S. suppliers, banks and bondholders (with the United
States holding unique veto power).
Russia's 2013 loan to Ukraine, made at the request of Ukraine's elected pro-Russian government,
demonstrated the benefits of mutual trade and investment relations between the two countries. As
Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov points out, Ukraine's "international reserves were barely
enough to cover three months' imports, and no other creditor was prepared to lend on terms acceptable
to Kiev. Yet Russia provided $3 billion of much-needed funding at a 5 per cent interest rate, when
Ukraine's bonds were yielding nearly 12 per cent."[1]
What especially annoys U.S. financial strategists is that this loan by Russia's sovereign
debt fund was protected by IMF lending practice, which at that time ensured collectability by withholding
new credit from countries in default of foreign official debts (or at least, not bargaining in good
faith to pay). To cap matters, the bonds are registered under London's creditor-oriented rules and
courts.
On December 3 (one week before the IMF changed its rules so as to hurt Russia), Prime Minister
Putin proposed that Russia "and other Eurasian Economic Union countries should kick-off consultations
with members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) on a possible economic partnership."[2]
Russia also is seeking to build pipelines to Europe through friendly instead of U.S.-backed countries.
Moving to denominate their trade and investment in their own currencies instead of dollars, China
and Russia are creating a geopolitical system free from U.S. control. After U.S. officials threatened
to derange Russia's banking linkages by cutting it off from the SWIFT interbank clearing system,
China accelerated its creation of the alternative China International Payments System (CIPS), with
its own credit card system to protect Eurasian economies from the shrill threats made by U.S. unilateralists.
Russia and China are simply doing what the United States has long done: using trade and credit
linkages to cement their geopolitical diplomacy. This tectonic geopolitical shift is a Copernican
threat to New Cold War ideology: Instead of the world economy revolving around the United States
(the Ptolemaic idea of America as "the indispensible nation"), it may revolve around Eurasia. As
long as the global financial papacy remains grounded in Washington at the offices of the IMF and
World Bank, such a shift in the center of gravity will be fought with all the power of the American
Century (indeed, American Millennium) inquisition.
Imagine the following scenario five years from now. China will have spent half a decade building
high-speed railroads, ports power systems and other construction for Asian and African countries,
enabling them to grow and export more. These exports will be coming on line to repay the infrastructure
loans. Also, suppose that Russia has been supplying the oil and gas energy needed for these projects.
To U.S. neocons this specter of AIIB government-to-government lending and investment creates fear
of a world independent of U.S. control. Nations would mint their own money and hold each other's
debt in their international reserves instead of borrowing or holding dollars and subordinating their
financial planning to the IMF and U.S. Treasury with their demands for monetary bloodletting and
austerity for debtor countries. There would be less need for foreign government to finance budget
shortfalls by selling off their key public infrastructure privatizing their economies. Instead of
dismantling public spending, the AIIB and a broader Eurasian economic union would do what the United
States itself practices, and seek self-sufficiency in basic needs such as food, technology, banking,
credit creation and monetary policy.
With this prospect in mind, suppose an American diplomat meets with the leaders of debtors to
China, Russia and the AIIB and makes the following proposal: "Now that you've got your increased
production in place, why repay? We'll make you rich if you stiff our New Cold War adversaries and
turn to the West. We and our European allies will help you assign the infrastructure to yourselves
and your supporters, and give these assets market value by selling shares in New York and London.
Then, you can spend your surpluses in the West."
How can China or Russia collect in such a situation? They can sue. But what court will recognize
their claim – that is, what court that the West would pay attention to?
That is the kind of scenario U.S. State Department and Treasury officials have been discussing
for more than a year. The looming conflict was made immediate by Ukraine's $3 billion debt to Russia
falling due by December 20, 2015. Ukraine's U.S.-backed regime has announced its intention to default.
U.S. lobbyists have just changed the IMF rules to remove a critical lever on which Russia and other
governments have long relied to enforce payment of their loans.
The IMF's Role as Enforcer of Inter-Government Debts
When it comes down to enforcing nations to pay inter-government debts, the International Monetary
Fund and Paris Club hold the main leverage. As coordinator of central bank "stabilization" loans
(the neoliberal euphemism for imposing austerity and destabilizing debtor economies, Greece-style),
the IMF is able to withhold not only its own credit but also that of governments and global banks
participating when debtor countries need refinancing. Countries that do not agree to privatize their
infrastructure and sell it to Western buyers are threatened with sanctions, backed by U.S.-sponsored
"regime change" and "democracy promotion" Maidan-style.
This was the setting on December 8, when Chief IMF Spokesman Gerry Rice announced: "The IMF's
Executive Board met today and agreed to change the current policy on non-toleration of arrears to
official creditors." The creditor leverage that the IMF has used is that if a nation is in financial
arrears to any government, it cannot qualify for an IMF loan – and hence, for packages involving
other governments. This has been the system by which the dollarized global financial system has worked
for half a century. The beneficiaries have been creditors in US dollars.
In this U.S.-centered worldview, China and Russia loom as the great potential adversaries – defined
as independent power centers from the United States as they create the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
as an alternative to NATO, and the AIIB as an alternative to the IMF and World Bank tandem. The very
name, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, implies that transportation systems and other
infrastructure will be financed by governments, not relinquished into private hands to become rent-extracting
opportunities financed by U.S.-centered bank credit to turn the rent into a flow of interest payments.
The focus on a mixed public/private economy sets the AIIB at odds with the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) and its aim of relinquishing government planning power to the financial and corporate sector
for their own short-term gains, and above all the aim of blocking government's money-creating power
and financial regulation. Chief Nomura economist Richard Koo, explained the logic of viewing the
AIIB as a threat to the US-controlled IMF: "If the IMF's rival is heavily under China's influence,
countries receiving its support will rebuild their economies under what is effectively Chinese guidance,
increasing the likelihood they will fall directly or indirectly under that country's influence."[3]
Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov accused the IMF decision of being "hasty and biased."[4]
But it had been discussed all year long, calculating a range of scenarios for a long-term sea change
in international law. The aim of this change is to isolate not only Russia, but even more China in
its role as creditor to African countries and prospective AIIB borrowers. U.S. officials walked into
the IMF headquarters in Washington with the legal equivalent of financial suicide vests, having decided
that the time had come to derail Russia's ability to collect on its sovereign loan to Ukraine, and
of even larger import, China's plan for a New Silk Road integrating a Eurasian economy independent
of U.S. financial and trade control. Anders Aslund, senior fellow at the NATO-oriented Atlantic Council,
points out:
The IMF staff started contemplating a rule change in the spring of 2013 because nontraditional
creditors, such as China, had started providing developing countries with large loans. One issue
was that these loans were issued on conditions out of line with IMF practice. China wasn't a member
of the Paris Club, where loan restructuring is usually discussed, so it was time to update the rules.
The IMF intended to adopt a new policy in the spring of 2016, but the dispute over Russia's $3
billion loan to Ukraine has accelerated an otherwise slow decision-making process.[5]
The Wall Street Journal concurred that the underlying motivation for changing the IMF's rules
was the threat that Chinese lending would provide an alternative to IMF loans and its demands for
austerity. "IMF-watchers said the fund was originally thinking of ensuring China wouldn't be able
to foil IMF lending to member countries seeking bailouts as Beijing ramped up loans to developing
economies around the world."[6]
In short, U.S. strategists have designed a policy to block trade and financial agreements organized
outside of U.S. control and that of the IMF and World Bank in which it holds unique veto power.
The plan is simple enough. Trade follows finance, and the creditor usually calls the tune. That
is how the United States has used the Dollar Standard to steer Third World trade and investment since
World War II along lines benefiting the U.S. economy.
The cement of trade credit and bank lending is the ability of creditors to collect on the international
debts being negotiated. That is why the United States and other creditor nations have used the IMF
as an intermediary to act as "honest broker" for loan consortia. ("Honest broker" means in practice
being subject to U.S. veto power.) To enforce its financial leverage, the IMF has long followed the
rule that it will not sponsor any loan agreement or refinancing for governments that are in default
of debts owed to other governments. However, as the afore-mentioned Aslund explains, the IMF could
easily
change its practice of not lending into [countries in official] arrears … because it is not
incorporated into the IMF Articles of Agreement, that is, the IMF statutes. The IMF Executive
Board can decide to change this policy with a simple board majority. The IMF has lent to Afghanistan,
Georgia, and Iraq in the midst of war, and Russia has no veto right, holding only 2.39 percent
of the votes in the IMF. When the IMF has lent to Georgia and Ukraine, the other members of its
Executive Board have overruled Russia.[7]
After the rules change, Aslund later noted, "the IMF can continue to give Ukraine loans regardless
of what Ukraine does about its credit from Russia, which falls due on December 20.[8]
Inasmuch as Ukraine's official debt to Russia's sovereign debt fund was not to the U.S. Government,
the IMF announced its rules change as a "clarification." Its rule that no country can borrow if it
is in default to (or not seriously negotiating with) a foreign government was created in the post-1945
world, and has governed the past seventy years in which the United States Government, Treasury officials
and/or U.S. bank consortia have been party to nearly every international bailout or major loan agreement.
What the IMF rule really meant was that it would not provide credit to countries in arrears specifically
to the U.S. Government, not those of Russia or China.
Mikhail Delyagin, Director of the Institute of Globalization Problems, understood the IMF's double
standard clearly enough: "The Fund will give Kiev a new loan tranche on one condition that Ukraine
should not pay Russia a dollar under its $3 billion debt. Legally, everything will be formalized
correctly but they will oblige Ukraine to pay only to western creditors for political reasons."[9]
It remains up to the IMF board – and in the end, its managing director – whether or not to deem a
country creditworthy. The U.S. representative naturally has always blocked any leaders not beholden
to the United States.
The post-2010 loan packages to Greece are a notorious case in point. The IMF staff calculated
that Greece could not possibly pay the balance that was set to bail out foreign banks and bondholders.
Many Board members agreed (and subsequently have gone public with their whistle-blowing). Their protests
didn't matter. Dominique Strauss-Kahn backed the US-ECB position (after President Barack Obama and
Treasury secretary Tim Geithner pointed out that U.S. banks had written credit default swaps betting
that Greece could pay, and would lose money if there were a debt writedown). In 2015, Christine Lagarde
also backed the U.S.-European Central Bank hard line, against staff protests.[10]
IMF executive board member Otaviano Canuto, representing Brazil, noted that the logic that "conditions
on IMF lending to a country that fell behind on payments [was to] make sure it kept negotiating in
good faith to reach agreement with creditors."[11]
Dropping this condition, he said, would open the door for other countries to insist on a similar
waiver and avoid making serious and sincere efforts to reach payment agreement with creditor governments.
A more binding IMF rule is that it cannot lend to countries at war or use IMF credit to engage
in warfare. Article I
of its 1944-45 founding charter ban the fund from lending to a member state engaged in civil war
or at war with another member state, or for military purposes in general. But when IMF head Lagarde
made the last IMF loan to Ukraine, in spring 2015, she made a token gesture of stating that she hoped
there would be peace. But President Porochenko immediately announced that he would step up the civil
war with the Russian-speaking population in the eastern Donbass region.
The problem is that the Donbass is where most Ukrainian exports were made, mainly to Russia. That
market is being lost by the junta's belligerence toward Russia. This should have blocked Ukraine
from receiving IMF aid. Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force peace and adherence
to the Minsk agreements, but U.S. diplomatic pressure led that opportunity to be rejected.
The most important IMF condition being violated is that continued warfare with the East prevents
a realistic prospect of Ukraine paying back new loans. Aslund himself points to the internal contradictions
at work: Ukraine has achieved budget balance because the inflation and steep currency depreciation
has drastically eroded its pension costs. The resulting lower value of pension benefits has led to
growing opposition to Ukraine's post-Maidan junta. "Leading representatives from President Petro
Poroshenko's Bloc are insisting on massive tax cuts, but no more expenditure cuts; that would cause
a vast budget deficit that the IMF assesses at 9-10 percent of GDP, that could not possibly be financed."[12]
So how can the IMF's austerity budget be followed without a political backlash?
The IMF thus is breaking four rules: Not lending to a country that has no visible means to pay
back the loan breaks the "No More Argentinas" rule adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan.
Not lending to countries that refuse in good faith to negotiate with their official creditors goes
against the IMF's role as the major tool of the global creditors' cartel. And the IMF is now lending
to a borrower at war, indeed one that is destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments
ability to pay back the loan. Finally, the IMF is lending to a country that has little likelihood
of refuse carrying out the IMF's notorious austerity "conditionalities" on its population – without
putting down democratic opposition in a totalitarian manner. Instead of being treated as an outcast
from the international financial system, Ukraine is being welcomed and financed.
The upshot – and new basic guideline for IMF lending – is to create a new Iron Curtain splitting
the world into pro-U.S. economies going neoliberal, and all other economies, including those seeking
to maintain public investment in infrastructure, progressive taxation and what used to be viewed
as progressive capitalism. Russia and China may lend as much as they want to other governments, but
there is no international vehicle to help secure their ability to be paid back under what until now
has passed for international law. Having refused to roll back its own or ECB financial claims on
Greece, the IMF is quite willing to see repudiation of official debts owed to Russia, China or other
countries not on the list approved by the U.S. neocons who wield veto power in the IMF, World Bank
and similar global economic institutions now drawn into the U.S. orbit. Changing its rules to clear
the path for the IMF to make loans to Ukraine and other governments in default of debts owed to official
lenders is rightly seen as an escalation of America's New Cold War against Russia and also its anti-China
strategy.
Timing is everything in such ploys. Georgetown University Law professor and Treasury consultant
Anna Gelpern warned that before the "IMF staff and executive board [had] enough time to change the
policy on arrears to official creditors," Russia might use "its
notorious debt/GDP clause to accelerate the bonds at any time before December, or simply gum
up the process of reforming the IMF's arrears policy."[13]
According to this clause, if Ukraine's foreign debt rose above 60 percent of GDP, Russia's government
would have the right to demand immediate payment. But no doubt anticipating the bitter fight to come
over its attempts to collect on its loan, President Putin patiently refrained from exercising this
option. He is playing the long game, bending over backward to accommodate Ukraine rather than behaving
"odiously."
A more pressing reason deterring the United States from pressing earlier to change IMF rules was
that a waiver for Ukraine would have opened the legal floodgates for Greece to ask for a similar
waiver on having to pay the "troika" – the European Central Bank (ECB), EU commission and the IMF
itself – for the post-2010 loans that have pushed it into a worse depression than the 1930s. "Imagine
the Greek government had insisted that EU institutions accept the same haircut as the country's private
creditors," Russian finance minister Anton Siluanov asked. "The reaction in European capitals would
have been frosty. Yet this is the position now taken by Kiev with respect to Ukraine's $3 billion
eurobond held by Russia."[14]
Only after Greece capitulated to eurozone austerity was the path clear for U.S. officials to change
the IMF rules in their fight to isolate Russia. But their tactical victory has come at the cost of
changing the IMF's rules and those of the global financial system irreversibly. Other countries henceforth
may reject conditionalities, as Ukraine has done, and ask for write-downs on foreign official debts.
That was the great fear of neoliberal U.S. and Eurozone strategists last summer, after all. The
reason for smashing Greece's economy was to deter Podemos in Spain and similar movements in Italy
and Portugal from pursuing national prosperity instead of eurozone austerity. Opening the door to
such resistance by Ukraine is the blowback of America's tactic to make a short-term financial hit
on Russia while its balance of payments is down as a result of collapsing oil and gas prices.
The consequences go far beyond just the IMF. The fabric of international law itself is being torn
apart. Every action has a reaction in the Newtonian world of geopolitics. It may not be a bad thing,
to be sure, for the post-1945 global order to be broken apart by U.S. tactics against Russia, if
that is the catalyst driving other countries to defend their own economies in the legal and political
spheres. It has been U.S. neoliberals themselves who have catalyzed the emerging independent Eurasian
bloc.
Countering Russia's Ability to Collect in Britain's Law Courts
Over the past year the U.S. Treasury and State Departments have discussed ploys to block Russia
from collecting under British law, where its loans to Ukraine are registered. Reviewing the repertory
of legal excuses Ukraine might use to avoid paying Russia, Prof. Gelpern noted that it might declare
the debt "odious," made under duress or corruptly. In a paper for the Peterson Institute of International
Economics (the banking lobby in Washington) she suggested that Britain should deny Russia the use
of its courts as an additional sanction reinforcing the financial, energy, and trade sanctions to
those passed against Russia after Crimea voted to join it as protection against the ethnic cleansing
from the Right Sector, Azov Battalion and other paramilitary groups descending on the region.[15]
A kindred ploy might be for Ukraine to countersue Russia for reparations for "invading" it, for
saving Crimea and the Donbass region from the Right Sector's attempt to take over the country. Such
a ploy would seem to have little chance of success in international courts (without showing them
to be simply arms of NATO New Cold War politics), but it might delay Russia' ability to collect by
tying the loan up in a long nuisance lawsuit.
To claim that Ukraine's debt to Russia was "odious" or otherwise illegitimate, "President Petro
Poroshenko said the money was intended to ensure Yanukovych's loyalty to Moscow, and called the payment
a 'bribe,' according to an interview with Bloomberg in June this year."[16]
The legal and moral problem with such arguments is that they would apply equally to IMF and US loans.
Claiming that Russia's loan is "odious" is that this would open the floodgates for other countries
to repudiate debts taken on by dictatorships supported by IMF and U.S. lenders, headed by the many
dictatorships supported by U.S. diplomacy.
The blowback from the U.S. multi-front attempt to nullify Ukraine's debt may be used to annul
or at least write down the destructive IMF loans made on the condition that borrowers accept privatizations
favoring U.S., German and other NATO-country investors, undertake austerity programs, and buy weapons
systems such as the German submarines that Greece borrowed to pay for. As Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov noted: "This reform, which they are now trying to implement, designed to suit Ukraine only,
could plant a time bomb under all other IMF programs." It certainly showed the extent to which the
IMF is subordinate to U.S. aggressive New Cold Warriors: "Essentially, this reform boils down to
the following: since Ukraine is politically important – and it is only important because it is opposed
to Russia – the IMF is ready to do for Ukraine everything it has not done for anyone else, and the
situation that should 100 percent mean a default will be seen as a situation enabling the IMF to
finance Ukraine."[17]
Andrei Klimov, deputy chairman of the Committee for International Affairs at the Federation Council
(the upper house of Russia's parliament) accused the United States of playing "the role of the main
violin in the IMF while the role of the second violin is played by the European Union. These are
two basic sponsors of the Maidan – the symbol of a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014."[18]
Putin's Counter-Strategy and the Blowback on U.S.-European and Global Relations
As noted above, having anticipated that Ukraine would seek reasons to not pay the Russian loan,
President Putin carefully refrained from exercising Russia's right to demand immediate payment when
Ukraine's foreign debt rose above 60 percent of GDP. In November he offered to defer payment if the
United States, Europe and international banks underwrote the obligation. Indeed, he even "proposed
better conditions for this restructuring than those the International Monetary Fund requested of
us." He offered "to accept a deeper restructuring with no payment this year – a payment of $1 billion
next year, $1 billion in 2017, and $1 billion in 2018." If the IMF, the United States and European
Union "are sure that Ukraine's solvency will grow," then they should "see no risk in providing guarantees
for this credit." Accordingly, he concluded "We have asked for such guarantees either from the United
States government, the European Union, or one of the big international financial institutions."
[19]
The implication, Putin pointed out, was that "If they cannot provide guarantees, this means that
they do not believe in the Ukrainian economy's future." One professor pointed out that this proposal
was in line with the fact that, "Ukraine has already received a sovereign loan guarantee from the
United States for a previous bond issue." Why couldn't the United States, Eurozone or leading commercial
banks provide a similar guarantee of Ukraine's debt to Russia – or better yet, simply lend it the
money to turn it into a loan to the IMF or US lenders?[20]
But the IMF, European Union and the United States refused to back up their happy (but nonsensical)
forecasts of Ukrainian solvency with actual guarantees. Foreign Minister Lavrov made clear just what
that rejection meant: "By having refused to guarantee Ukraine's debt as part of Russia's proposal
to restructure it, the United States effectively admitted the absence of prospects of restoring its
solvency. … By officially rejecting the proposed scheme, the United States thereby subscribed to
not seeing any prospects of Ukraine restoring its solvency."[21]
In an even more exasperated tone, Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev explained to Russia's television
audience: "I have a feeling that they won't give us the money back because they are crooks. They
refuse to return our money and our Western partners not only refuse to help, but they also make it
difficult for us."[22]
Adding that "the international financial system is unjustly structured," he promised to "go to court.
We'll push for default on the loan and we'll push for default on all Ukrainian debts."
The basis for Russia's legal claim, he explained was that the loan
was a request from the Ukrainian Government to the Russian Government. If two governments reach
an agreement this is obviously a sovereign loan…. Surprisingly, however, international financial
organisations started saying that this is not exactly a sovereign loan. This is utter bull. Evidently,
it's just an absolutely brazen, cynical lie. … This seriously erodes trust in IMF decisions. I believe
that now there will be a lot of pleas from different borrower states to the IMF to grant them the
same terms as Ukraine. How will the IMF possibly refuse them?
And there the matter stands. As President Putin remarked regarding America's support of Al Qaeda,
Al Nusra and other ISIS allies in Syria, "Do you have any idea of what you have done?"
The Blowback
Few have calculated the degree to which America's New Cold War with Russia is creating a reaction
that is tearing up the world's linkages put in place since World War II. Beyond pulling the IMF and
World Bank tightly into U.S. unilateralist geopolitics, how long will Western Europe be willing to
forego its trade and investment interest with Russia? Germany, Italy and France already are feeling
the strains. If and when a break comes, it will not be marginal but a seismic geopolitical shift.
The oil and pipeline war designed to bypass Russian energy exports has engulfed the Near East
in anarchy for over a decade. It is flooding Europe with refugees, and also spreading terrorism to
America. In the Republican presidential debate on December 15, 2015, the leading issue was safety
from Islamic jihadists. Yet no candidate thought to explain the source of this terrorism in America's
alliance with Wahabist Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and hence with Al Qaeda and ISIS/Daish as a means
of destabilizing secular regimes seeking independence from U.S. control.
As its allies in this New Cold War, the United States has chosen fundamentalist jihadist religion
against secular regimes in Libya, Iraq, Syria, and earlier in Afghanistan and Turkey. Going back
to the original sin of CIA hubris – overthrowing the secular Iranian Prime Minister leader Mohammad
Mosaddegh in 1953 – American foreign policy has been based on the assumption that secular regimes
tend to be nationalist and resist privatization and neoliberal austerity.
Based on this fatal long-term assumption, U.S. Cold Warriors have aligned themselves not only
against secular regimes, but against democratic regimes where these seek to promote their own prosperity
and economic independence, and to resist neoliberalism in favor of maintaining their traditional
mixed public/private economy.
This is the back story of the U.S. fight to control the rest of the world. Tearing apart the IMF's
rules is only the most recent chapter. The broad drive against Russia, China and their prospective
Eurasian allies has deteriorated into tactics without a realistic understanding of how they are bringing
about precisely the kind of world they are seeking to prevent – a multilateral world.
Arena by arena, the core values of what used to be American and European social democratic ideology
are being uprooted. The Enlightenment's ideals of secular democracy and the rule of international
law applied equally to all nations, classical free market theory (of markets free from unearned income
and rent extraction by special vested interests), and public investment in infrastructure to hold
down the cost of living and doing business are to be sacrificed to a militant U.S. unilateralism
as "the indispensible nation." Standing above the rule of law and national interests, American neocons
proclaim that their nation's destiny is to wage war to prevent foreign secular democracy from acting
in ways other than submission to U.S. diplomacy. In practice, this means favoring special U.S. financial
and corporate interests that control American foreign policy.
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to turn out. Classical industrial capitalism a
century ago was expected to evolve into an economy of abundance. Instead, we have Pentagon capitalism,
finance capitalism deteriorating into a polarized rentier economy, and old-fashioned imperialism.
The Dollar Bloc's Financial Iron Curtain
By treating Ukraine's nullification of its official debt to Russia's Sovereign Wealth Fund as
the new norm, the IMF has blessed its default on its bond payment to Russia. President Putin and
foreign minister Lavrov have said that they will sue in British courts. But does any court exist
in the West not under the thumb of U.S. veto?
What are China and Russia to do, faced with the IMF serving as a kangaroo court whose judgments
are subject to U.S. veto power? To protect their autonomy and self-determination, they have created
alternatives to the IMF and World Bank, NATO and behind it, the dollar standard.
America's recent New Cold War maneuvering has shown that the two Bretton Woods institutions are
unreformable. It is easier to create new institutions such as the A.I.I.B. than to retrofit old and
ill-designed ones burdened with the legacy of their vested founding interests. It is easier to expand
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization than to surrender to threats from NATO.
U.S. geostrategists seem to have imagined that if they exclude Russia, China and other SCO and
Eurasian countries from the U.S.-based financial and trade system, these countries will find themselves
in the same economic box as Cuba, Iran and other countries have been isolated by sanctions. The aim
is to make countries choose between impoverishment from such exclusion, or acquiescing in U.S. neoliberal
drives to financialize their economies and impose austerity on their government sector and labor.
What is lacking from such calculations is the idea of critical mass. The United States may use
the IMF and World Bank as levers to exclude countries not in the U.S. orbit from participating in
the global trade and financial system, and it may arm-twist Europe to impose trade and financial
sanctions on Russia. But this action produces an equal and opposite reaction. That is the eternal
Newtonian law of geopolitics. The indicated countermeasure is simply for other countries to create
their own international financial organization as an alternative to the IMF, their own "aid" lending
institution to juxtapose to the U.S.-centered World Bank.
All this requires an international court to handle disputes that is free from U.S. arm-twisting
to turn international law into a kangaroo court following the dictates of Washington. The Eurasian
Economic Union now has its own court to adjudicate disputes. It may provide an alternative Judge
Griesa's New York federal court ruling in favor of vulture funds derailing Argentina's debt negotiations
and excluding it from foreign financial markets. If the London Court of International Arbitration
(under whose rules Russia's bonds issued to Ukraine are registered) permits frivolous legal claims
(called barratry in English) such as President Poroshenko has threatened in Ukrainian Parliament,
it too will become a victim of geopolitical obsolescence.
The more nakedly self-serving and geopolitical U.S. policy is – in backing radical Islamic fundamentalist
outgrowths of Al Qaeda throughout the Near East, right-wing nationalist governments in Ukraine and
the Baltics – the greater the catalytic pressure is growing for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
AIIB and related Eurasian institutions to break free of the post-1945 Bretton Woods system run by
the U.S. State, Defense and Treasury Departments and NATO superstructure.
The question now is whether Russia and China can hold onto the BRICS and India. So as Paul Craig
Roberts recently summarized my ideas along these lines, we are back with George Orwell's 1984
global fracture between Oceanea (the United States, Britain and its northern European NATO allies)
vs. Eurasia.
My issue with Hudson is that he tends to paint things in a "good guys/bad guys" dichotomy viz.
the IMF vs. the AIIB. Personally, I think it's quite positive that the international sovereign
finance institutions will now be more international and less unipolar, but his scenario where
Nations would mint their own money and hold each other's debt in their international
reserves instead of borrowing or holding dollars and subordinating their financial planning
to the IMF and U.S. Treasury with their demands for monetary bloodletting and austerity for
debtor countries.
is rather pie-in-the sky. What reason do we have to believe that concentrated Chinese capital
would somehow be more benevolent than our current overlords? Oh because AIIB has the word "infrastructure"
in its title (just as the Interamerican Development Bank is all about development) /sarc.
Furthermore, if US planners had half a clue about economics, they would be jumping for joy
that the AIIB and the CIPS will finally help release them (eventually) from the burden of having
the USD as the global reserve currency, thus relieving the US of the albatross of having to ship
its internal demand to China and other net exporters.
All in all, yes AIIB should be positive, but as Hudson himself points out, this is not so much
about economics as it is geopolitics. The world should tread with the utmost caution.
I think his main point is not so much about economics or geopolitics, it's about the rule of
law, specifically international law and how it applies to the debt collection brokered between
counties.
China and Russia harbored the fantasy that would be allowed redress in the Western
Courts where international law is metered out. They are now no longer under that delusion.
Even if they come up with a lending facility, the West will thwart their ability to collect
on those debts at every turn by simply declaring those debts null and void and extending new funds
using the infrastructure build by the bad (Russian/Chinese) debt as collateral. The thirst for
power and profit will always be with us, but now it will not be tempered by any international
order under the rule of law.
China is learning the hard way how the game is played. For example, they're discovering that
much of the tens of billions in no-strings attached loans given to Africa will not provide the
returns initially thought (even accounting for massive corruption on all sides), which is why
they have been reduced for the first time in a decade this past year.
Don't see how "economics" and "social" can be de-linked from "politics"…understanding the limits
of "local" may provide an awareness of the "quid pro quo" of extending, direction of extension,
and what defines (in/inter) "dependency"…how sacrifice is "shared" or imposed, and how "prosperity"
is concentrated or distributed…
It's not Hudson but the US that has simplified the entire world situation into "good guys
vs. bad guys", a policy enshrined in Rumsfeld's statement "you're either with us or you're against
us".
It's like a playground with one big bully and lots of kids running scared, now a second bully
appears and they all have to ask themselves whether Bully #2 will be nicer to them, in this case
it appears Bully #2 is saying he won't tell them how to run their lives or steal their lunch money.
Post-comet in 2000 when everything started going to hell the worst casualty has been the rule
of law, from hanging chads through to the Patriot Act, death by a thousand cuts of the Constitution,
unprosecuted war crimes, unprosecuted financial crimes, and now the very fabric of international
law being rent apart. I'm reminded of the Hunter Thompson scene where he has an expired driver's
license and a cop pulls him over, he has two choices, hand over the license and get busted, or
drive away and get busted… so he comes up with a third choice: he blows his nose all over the
license and hands it over to the cop. The equivalent of Bully #1 taking the only soccer ball on
the playground and kicking it over the fence so the game is screwed up for everybody, Pepe's "Empire
of Chaos" indeed.
1)Western economies depend on ocean transport…if chinese or ruskies destroy it, USA-EU will
be bankrupt in weeks..USA-EU are consumers and not producers..their exports to rest of world are
tiny..So,their position is very weak at this point
2)The asian countries like china-india will be forced to join hands under joint attack by US financial
system and islamic jihadists..Russia and china,former enemies,are now friends…who could have imagines
it?
Russo-chinese-iranian alliance is huge failure of US foreign policies
3)Using islamic terrorists and islamic countries like turkey-saudi arabia-pakistan-indonesia-egypt
is not going to work for USA because muslims think USA as enemy no.1…
4)A military superiority can not guarantee permanent -everlasting victory against too many opponents
What i see here is USA has made entire islamic world their enemy,alongwith china and russia
In case of real war,USA position will be very weak
This is an amazing article. Bravo!
Now it's becoming clear just what Margaret Thatcher meant when she told everyone that there was
no alternative to neoliberalism.
Thank you for continuing to mark the historical specifics of the finance/legal wing of geopolitical
conflict, and the perverse failings of Full Spectrum Dominance.
The Oceana/Eurasia dichotomy is a dangerous frame of reference. It essentially contrasts the
transport efficiencies of water to the solid defensive capacity of the frozen steppes. But when
things get bloody, they usually crack along language lines. Not only as a proxy for migrations
of the gene, but also world-views. How horse-people see things, what metaphors they use, are very
different than how cow-people categorize the world.
This highlights that Russia is continuing to operate within the language and legal framework
of the Indo-European languages. In other words (!), it is a fight between the U.S. and Russia
for European alliances. If this is the case, then the alliance of NATO with Turkic and Arabic
lines is of convenience, in that they are not partners but proxies. Europe is faced with the habit
of the U.S. in saying, Let's you and him fight. But there's an oceans difference between the U.S.
and European interests.
It also means that Russia and China are being pushed together by western exclusion, like drops
of oil on the water. I maintain that Russia has doubled down on global warming, to open up northern
sea routes and make the steppes arable. China is already a sea-power, but its massive population
will need lebensraum as the fossil-fuel support for the energy needs of megapoli decay. The mountains
are a formidable barrier for them to take the steppes by force.
The question for the rest of the world then becomes, who do you want to have as a friend in
a hundred years. Do you bet on the Wizards of Wall Street, with their Magic Money Wand of Fiat?
Or do you think Russia will ground-n-pound the fairy dust into the mud?
what is left unsaid is the choices Russia then faces once their legal options play out
and the uneven playing field is fully exposed. Do they not then have a historically justifiable
basis for declaring war?
'The Russian and Chinese governments are investing in neighboring economies on terms that
cement Eurasian economic integration.'
Whereas the U.S. is 'investing' in new military bases to cement U.S. global domination.
Guess which model actually benefits local living standards, and 'wins hearts and minds'?
Global domination as a policy goal bankrupted the USSR. It's not working for the USSA either,
as the U.S. middle class (once the envy of the world) visibly sinks into pauperization.
Thus the veracity of Michael Hudson's conclusion that 'when a break comes, it will not be marginal
but a seismic geopolitical shift.'
I get the same thrill reading Hudson the religiously devout must experience reading their bibles
or Korans – a glimpse of 'truth' as best it can be known. My first encounter was this interview
in Counterpunch:
An Interview with Michael Hudson, author of Super Imperialism That led directly to "Super
Imperialism" (and just about every book since its publication). After reading it, I was left with
the uneasy feeling that no good would come from an international monetary system that allowed
any one nation to pay its way in the world by creating money 'out of thin air' i.e. as sovereign
and private debt or, almost the same thing, Federal Reserve Notes.
The race to the bottom of off-shored jobs and industries freed from all environmental restrictions,
AKA 'globalization', had started to really kick in but it was just before Operation Iraqi Liberation
(get it?). Fundamentally, it wasn't war for oil, of course, but a war to preserve the Dollar Standard.
Recycling petrodollars bought a little time after the 1971 collapse of Bretton Woods. But with
the world's treasuries filling up with US dollars and debt, the product of the Congressional-military-industrial-complex
running wild and more recently the U.S. 0.01% successfully evading almost all forms of taxation,
some kind of control more basic than controlling the world's access to money (which basically
means credit) was required.
When people like Alan Greenspan (pretend to) come clean, you really want to look twice:
THOUGH it was not understood a century ago, and though as yet the applications of the knowledge
to the economics of life are not generally realized, life in its physical aspect is fundamentally
a struggle for energy, in which discovery after discovery brings life into new relations with
the original source.
Frederick Soddy, WEALTH, VIRTUAL WEALTH AND DEBT, 2nd edition, p. 49
The world can live without American dollars, especially these days when the U.S. no longer makes
much the world needs or can afford but most obviously because it already possesses more of them
than can ever be redeemed ('debt that can't be repaid and won't be') What it can't live without
is ENERGY.
So long as most of that energy needs to be pumped out of the ground, the nation that ultimately
controls access to the pumps – or to the distribution networks required to deliver it to the ultimate
user – controls the world. This is most likely why Reagan promptly dismantled Jimmy Carter's White
House solar panels. It is why the US and its European vassals have been dragging their feet for
a half-century on the development of renewable energy sources and the electrification of transportation.
It is why the banks and Wall Street will stand solidly behind the various electrical utilities
efforts to discourage the development of any alternative energy sources from which their executives
and shareholders can not extract the last pint of blood or has Hudson more politely calls it 'economic
rent'.
P.S. Hudson seems to have a dangerous monopoly on economic truth these days. Is there anyone
else who even comes close?
"... Ukraine remains committed ... to negotiating in good faith a consensual restructuring of the December 2015 Eurobonds, Nonsense, they are nothing but thieves in suits; Fascist politicians stealing from the taxpayers in the USA, EU, Russia and the Ukraine. You supporters of modern Fascism are disgusting little NeoCon trolls, yes you are! ..."
"... Under this IMF restructuring deal with the Ukraine, the oligarchs mandated that Monsanto GMO comes in. Now the once fertile farms will grow poisoned food. ... They also mandated hydraulic fracking rights to Exxon and BP. Now the aquifers will be poisoned. ... Moreover, the IMF social chapter destroys family values and requires that corrosive gay propaganda be thrust into the children's minds. ... Welcome to the new Globalist Business Model. ..."
"... The Ukraine is like a dying carcass. ... The EU jackals are howling, the IMF vultures are circling, and the NATO hyenas are picking the flesh off of the bones. ..."
"... Ukraine's Finance Minister, who promised in the above Reuters article today Dec 18, 2015, to talk in good faith with the Russian Federation about their $3 Billion Loan due and payable on Dec 15, as of today is in Default on that $3 Billion Loan , and therefore isn't eligible to receive any Loan from the IMF, headed by Chief Lagarde who must now stand trial for an improper loan of $434 Million . ..."
"... Good faith? They actually mean bait and switch ..."
"... The deadbeat American lackeys in Kiev have no intention of paying their debts to Russia because Washington DC is run by thieves and immoral people. You know this is true. ..."
"... Meanwhile Ukraine has restricted air travel, cutoff Crimea, and fought efforts to grant autonomy to Russian-speaking regions. With unpaid debt, the country still stokes war with Russia after being warned by Mr. Kerry to stop. ..."
"Ukraine remains committed ... to negotiating in good faith a consensual restructuring of
the December 2015 Eurobonds," Nonsense, they are nothing but thieves in suits; Fascist
politicians stealing from the taxpayers in the USA, EU, Russia and the Ukraine. You supporters
of modern Fascism are disgusting little NeoCon trolls, yes you are!
Robert
This is the new Globalist Business Model.
Overthrow a sovereign country by revolution or outright bombing campaign.
Appoint oligarchs to run it and fascists to rule the streets.
Rack the country with unpardonable debt.
Bring in the IMF and other global banks to 'restructure' the economy.
Loot the country's resources by selling off the infrastructure for pennies on the
dollar.
Impose huge austerity programs. ... Cuts pensions in half and double basic living costs.
Finally, colonialize the citizens under multi-national corporate rule where the people
have little or no say.
Under this IMF restructuring deal with the Ukraine, the oligarchs mandated that Monsanto
GMO comes in. Now the once fertile farms will grow poisoned food. ... They also mandated
hydraulic fracking rights to Exxon and BP. Now the aquifers will be poisoned. ... Moreover,
the IMF social chapter destroys family values and requires that corrosive gay propaganda be
thrust into the children's minds. ... Welcome to the new Globalist Business Model.
The Ukraine is like a dying carcass. ... The EU jackals are howling, the IMF vultures are
circling, and the NATO hyenas are picking the flesh off of the bones.
Algis
Russia needs to take payment out of their proverbial hides. No one consider it unjustified
except a few brainwashed Americans and of course the immoral and corrupt ruling class of the
Empire!
new_federali...
Ukraine's Finance Minister, who promised in the above Reuters article today Dec 18, 2015,
to talk in good faith with the Russian Federation about their $3 Billion Loan due and payable
on Dec 15, as of today is in Default on that $3 Billion Loan , and therefore isn't eligible to
receive any Loan from the IMF, headed by Chief Lagarde who must now stand trial for an
improper loan of $434 Million .
Therefore, Gold did achieve an all-important triple bottom at $1,050 per ounce this week,
and is now in a furious rally up $15 to $1,065 per ounce as DXY (U.S. Dollar Index) falls
sharply today due to utter failure of U.S.- led IMF to rescue Ukraine from Financial Collapse
today -- Thus Gold will now rally sharply through at least Feb 2016 when Gold will be at $1,500
per ounce, and ultimately going to new all-time highs above $2,000 per ounce -- Dec 18, 2015 at
11:53 a.m. PST.
Commenter
Good faith? They actually mean bait and switch
Algis
The deadbeat American lackeys in Kiev have no intention of paying their debts to Russia
because Washington DC is run by thieves and immoral people. You know this is true.
RonP
Meanwhile Ukraine has restricted air travel, cutoff Crimea, and fought efforts to grant
autonomy to Russian-speaking regions. With unpaid debt, the country still stokes war with
Russia after being warned by Mr. Kerry to stop.
"... "Our government has become incompetent, unresponsive, corrupt, and that incompetence, ineptitude, lack of accountability is now dangerous Carly won the sound bite of the century award with that one! ..."
"... I voted for this turd because you Rightwingnut Fuckheads gave me the option of McCain the first time and Romney the second time. ..."
I expect the lies....but the level of lies when it comes to "fighting ISIS" is off-the-fucking-charts!...and
no one calls him on it!
>The USA/NATO Created ISIS.
>The USA/NATO is using ISIS to oust ASSAD because he's too friendly with Russia/Iran.
>The USA/NATO FUNDS ISIS via Turkey.
Obama: "ISIS is a seriously threat, they are contained and we will destroy ISIS"
Bill Clintons' mouth has got to be gaping; and I'm sure thoroughly impressed that Obama could
tell a whopper like that without question...NOT ONE REPUBLICAN at the debate even called Obama
on ISIS!
"Our government has become incompetent, unresponsive, corrupt, and that incompetence, ineptitude,
lack of accountability is now dangerous" Carly won the sound bite of the century award with that
one!
..and the new budget bill will fully fund ALL OF IT's desires....
I voted for "this turd" because you Rightwingnut Fuckheads gave me the option of McCain
the first time and Romney the second time.
You're welcome for my vote saving you from those fuckheads...McCain would have nuked the planet
by now and Romney would have handed the country to his VC friends and you'd be living in a "dorm"
putting together iPhones.
Romney criticised Obama in one of the debates because "The number of battleships in our fleet
is the lowest since the 50's"...battleships? Romney, you stupid fuck, it's 20xx you moron...battleships
are pretty irrelevent in today's "theater of war"...Obama held it together and replied, I give
the Admirals EVERYTHING THEY ASK FOR...and Romney dropped it.
"... Any serious discussion of Fed policy would note that the banking industry appears to have a grossly disproportionate say in the country's monetary policy. ..."
But what is even more striking is the Post's ability to
treat the Fed a neutral party when the evidence is so
overwhelming in the opposite direction. The majority of
the Fed's 12 district bank presidents have long been
pushing for a rate hike. While there are some doves among
this group, most notably Charles Evans, the Chicago bank
president, and Narayana Kocherlakota, the departing
president of the Minneapolis bank, most of this group has
publicly pushed for higher rate hikes for some time. By
contrast, the governors who are appointed through the
democratic process, have been far more cautious about
raising rates.
It should raise serious concerns that the bank
presidents, who are appointed through a process dominated
by the banking industry, has such a different perspective
on the best path forward for monetary policy. With only
five of the seven governor slots currently filled, there
are as many presidents with voting seats on the Fed's Open
Market Committee as governors. In total, the governors are
outnumbered at meetings by a ratio of twelve to five.
Any serious discussion of Fed policy would note that
the banking industry appears to have a grossly
disproportionate say in the country's monetary policy.
Furthermore, it seems determined to use that influence to
push the Fed on a path that slows growth and reduces the
rate of job creation. The Post somehow missed this story
or at least would prefer that the rest of us not take
notice.
Looks like growth of financial sector represents direct threat to the society
Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps the financialization of the economy and rising inequality leads to a corruption of the political process which leads to monetary, currency and fiscal policy such that labor markets are loose and inflation is low. ..."
"... Growth of the non-financial-sector == growth in productivity ..."
"... In complex subject matters, even the most competent person joining a company has to become familiar with the details of the products, the industry niche, the processes and professional/personal relationships in the company or industry, etc. All these are not really teachable and require between months and years in the job. This represents a significant sunk cost. Sometimes (actually rather often) experience within the niche/industry is in a degree portable between companies, but some company still had to employ enough people to build this experience, and it cannot be readily bought by bringing in however competent freshers. ..."
Working Paper: : In the years since 1980, there has been a well-documented upward redistribution
of income. While there are some differences by methodology and the precise years chosen, the top
one percent of households have seen their income share roughly double from 10 percent in 1980
to 20 percent in the second decade of the 21st century. As a result of this upward redistribution,
most workers have seen little improvement in living standards from the productivity gains over
this period.
This paper argues that the bulk of this upward redistribution comes from the growth
of rents in the economy in four major areas: patent and copyright protection, the financial sector,
the pay of CEOs and other top executives, and protectionist measures that have boosted the pay
of doctors and other highly educated professionals. The argument on rents is important because,
if correct, it means that there is nothing intrinsic to capitalism that led to this rapid rise
in inequality, as for example argued by Thomas Piketty.
"...the growth of finance capitalism was what would kill capitalism off..."
"Financialization" is a short-cut terminology that in full is term either "financialization
of non-financial firms" or "financialization of the means of production." In either case it leads
to consolidation of firms, outsourcing, downsizing, and offshoring to reduce work force and wages
and increase rents.
Consolidation, the alpha and omega of financialization can only be executed with very liquid
financial markets, big investment banks to back necessary leverage to make the proffers, and an
acute capital gains tax preference relative to dividends and interest earnings, the grease to
liquidity.
It takes big finance to do "financialization" and it takes "financialization" to extract big
rents while maintaining low wages.
Finance sector as percent of US GDP, 1860-present: the growth of the rentier economy
[graph]
Financialization is a term sometimes used in discussions of financial capitalism which developed
over recent decades, in which financial leverage tended to override capital (equity) and financial
markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial economy and agricultural economics.
Financialization is a term that describes an economic system or process that attempts to reduce
all value that is exchanged (whether tangible, intangible, future or present promises, etc.) either
into a financial instrument or a derivative of a financial instrument. The original intent of
financialization is to be able to reduce any work-product or service to an exchangeable financial
instrument... Financialization also makes economic rents possible...financial leverage tended
to override capital (equity) and financial markets tended to dominate over the traditional industrial
economy and agricultural economics...
Companies are not able to invest in new physical capital equipment or buildings because they
are obliged to use their operating revenue to pay their bankers and bondholders, as well as junk-bond
holders. This is what I mean when I say that the economy is becoming financialized. Its aim is
not to provide tangible capital formation or rising living standards, but to generate interest,
financial fees for underwriting mergers and acquisitions, and capital gains that accrue mainly
to insiders, headed by upper management and large financial institutions. The upshot is that the
traditional business cycle has been overshadowed by a secular increase in debt.
Instead of labor earning more, hourly earnings have declined in real terms. There has been
a drop in net disposable income after paying taxes and withholding "forced saving" for social
Security and medical insurance, pension-fund contributions and–most serious of all–debt service
on credit cards, bank loans, mortgage loans, student loans, auto loans, home insurance premiums,
life insurance, private medical insurance and other FIRE-sector charges. ... This diverts spending
away from goods and services.
In the United States, probably more money has been made through the appreciation of real estate
than in any other way. What are the long-term consequences if an increasing percentage of savings
and wealth, as it now seems, is used to inflate the prices of already existing assets - real estate
and stocks - instead of to create new production and innovation?
Your graph shows something I've been meaning to suggest for a while. Take a look at the last time
that the financial sector share of GDP rose. The late 1920's. Which was followed by the Great
Depression which has similar causes as our Great Recession. Here is my observation.
Give that Wall Street clowns a huge increase in our national income and we don't get more services
from them. What we get is screwed on the grandest of scales.
BTW - there is a simple causal relationship that explains both the rise in the share of financial
sector income/GDP and the massive collapses of the economy (1929 and 2007). It is called stupid
financial deregulation. First we see the megabanks and Wall Street milking the system for all
its worth and when their unhanded and often secretive risk taking falls apart - the rest of bear
the brunt of the damage.
Which is why this election is crucial. Elect a Republican and we repeat this mistake again.
Elect a real progressive and we can put in place the types of financial reforms FDR was known
for.
" and it takes "financialization" to extract big rents while maintaining low wages."
It takes governmental macro policy to maintain loose labor markets and low wages. Perhaps
the financialization of the economy and rising inequality leads to a corruption of the political
process which leads to monetary, currency and fiscal policy such that labor markets are loose
and inflation is low.
[Anne gave you FIRE sector profits as a share of GDP while this gives FIRE sector profits as a
share of total corporate profits.]
*
[Smoking gun excerpt:]
"...The financial system has grown rapidly since the early 1980s. In the 1950s, the financial
sector accounted for about 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Today, that figure has more
than doubled, to 6.5 percent. The sector's yearly rate of growth doubled after 1980, rising to
a peak of 7.5 percent of GDP in 2006. As finance has grown in relative size it has also grown
disproportionately more profitable. In 1950, financial-sector profits were about 8 percent of
overall U.S. profits-meaning all the profit earned by any kind of business enterprise in the country.
By the 2000s, they ranged between 20 and 40 percent...
If you want to know what happened to economic equality in this country, one word will explain
a lot of it: financialization. That term refers to an increase in the size, scope, and power of
the financial sector-the people and firms that manage money and underwrite stocks, bonds, derivatives,
and other securities-relative to the rest of the economy.
The financialization revolution over the past thirty-five years has moved us toward greater
inequality in three distinct ways. The first involves moving a larger share of the total national
wealth into the hands of the financial sector. The second involves concentrating on activities
that are of questionable value, or even detrimental to the economy as a whole. And finally, finance
has increased inequality by convincing corporate executives and asset managers that corporations
must be judged not by the quality of their products and workforce but by one thing only: immediate
income paid to shareholders.
The financial system has grown rapidly since the early 1980s. In the 1950s, the financial sector
accounted for about 3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Today, that figure has more than
doubled, to 6.5 percent. The sector's yearly rate of growth doubled after 1980, rising to a peak
of 7.5 percent of GDP in 2006. As finance has grown in relative size it has also grown disproportionately
more profitable. In 1950, financial-sector profits were about 8 percent of overall U.S. profits-meaning
all the profit earned by any kind of business enterprise in the country. By the 2000s, they ranged
between 20 and 40 percent. This isn't just the decline of profits in other industries, either.
Between 1980 and 2006, while GDP increased five times, financial-sector profits increased sixteen
times over. While financial and nonfinancial profits grew at roughly the same rate before 1980,
between 1980 and 2006 nonfinancial profits grew seven times while financial profits grew sixteen
times.
This trend has continued even after the financial crisis of 2008 and subsequent financial reforms,
including the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Financial profits
in 2012 were 24 percent of total profits, while the financial sector's share of GDP was 6.8 percent.
These numbers are lower than the high points of the mid-2000s; but, compared to the years before
1980, they are remarkably high.
This explosion of finance has generated greater inequality. To begin with, the share of the
total workforce employed in the financial sector has barely budged, much less grown at a rate
equivalent to the size and profitability of the sector as a whole. That means that these swollen
profits are flowing to a small sliver of the population: those employed in finance. And financiers,
in turn, have become substantially more prominent among the top 1 percent. Recent work by the
economists Jon Bakija, Adam Cole, and Bradley T. Heim found that the percentage of those in the
top 1 percent of income working in finance nearly doubled between 1979 and 2005, from 7.7 percent
to 13.9 percent.
If the economy had become far more productive as a result of these changes, they could have
been worthwhile. But the evidence shows it did not. Economist Thomas Philippon found that financial
services themselves have become less, not more, efficient over this time period. The unit cost
of financial services, or the percentage of assets it costs to produce all financial issuances,
was relatively high at the dawn of the twentieth century, but declined to below 2 percent between
1901 and 1960. However, it has increased since the 1960s, and is back to levels seen at the early
twentieth century. Whatever finance is doing, it isn't doing it more cheaply.
In fact, the second damaging trend is that financial institutions began to concentrate more
and more on activities that are worrisome at best and destructive at worst. Harvard Business School
professors Robin Greenwood and David Scharfstein argue that between 1980 and 2007 the growth in
financial-industry revenues came from two things: asset management and loan origination. Fees
associated either with asset management or with household credit in particular were responsible
for 74 percent of the growth in financial-sector output over that period.
The asset management portion reflects the explosion of mutual funds, which increased from $134
billion in assets in 1980 to $12 trillion in 2007. Much of it also comes from "alternative investment
vehicles" like hedge funds and private equity. Over this time, the fee rate for mutual funds fell,
but fees associated with alternative investment vehicles exploded. This is, in essence, money
for nothing-there is little evidence that hedge funds actually perform better than the market
over time. And, unlike mutual funds, alternative investment funds do not fully disclose their
practices and fees publicly.
Beginning in 1980 and continuing today, banks generate less and less of their income from interest
on loans. Instead, they rely on fees, from either consumers or borrowers. Fees associated with
household credit grew from 1.1 percent of GDP in 1980 to 3.4 percent in 2007. As part of the unregulated
shadow banking sector that took over the financial sector, banks are less and less in the business
of holding loans and more and more concerned with packaging them and selling them off. Instead
of holding loans on their books, banks originate loans to sell off and distribute into this new
type of banking sector.
Again, if this "originate-to-distribute" model created value for society, it could be a worthwhile
practice. But, in fact, this model introduced huge opportunities for fraud throughout the lending
process. Loans-such as "securitized mortgages" made up of pledges of the income stream from subprime
mortgage loans-were passed along a chain of buyers until someone far away held the ultimate risk.
Bankers who originated the mortgages received significant commissions, with virtually no accountability
or oversight. The incentive, in fact, was perverse: find the worst loans with the biggest fees
instead of properly screening for whether the loans would be any good for investors.
The same model made it difficult, if not impossible, to renegotiate bad mortgages when the
system collapsed. Those tasked with tackling bad mortgages on behalf of investors had their own
conflicts of interests, and found themselves profiting while loans struggled. This process created
bad debts that could never be paid, and blocked attempts to try and rework them after the fact.
The resulting pool of bad debt has been a drag on the economy ever since, giving us the fall in
median wages of the Great Recession and the sluggish recovery we still live with.
And of course it's been an epic disaster for the borrowers themselves. Many of them, we now
know, were moderate- and lower-income families who were in no financial position to borrow as
much as they did, especially under such predatory terms and with such high fees. Collapsing home
prices and the inability to renegotiate their underwater mortgages stripped these folks of whatever
savings they had and left them in deep debt, widening even further the gulf of inequality in this
country.
Moreover, financialization isn't just confined to the financial sector itself. It's also ultimately
about who controls, guides, and benefits from our economy as a whole. And here's the last big
change: the "shareholder revolution," started in the 1980s and continuing to this very day, has
fundamentally transformed the way our economy functions in favor of wealth owners.
To understand this change, compare two eras at General Electric. This is how business professor
Gerald Davis describes the perspective of Owen Young, who was CEO of GE almost straight through
from 1922 to 1945: "[S]tockholders are confined to a maximum return equivalent to a risk premium.
The remaining profit stays in the enterprise, is paid out in higher wages, or is passed on to
the customer." Davis contrasts that ethos with that of Jack Welch, CEO from 1981 to 2001; Welch,
Davis says, believed in "the shareholder as king-the residual claimant, entitled to the [whole]
pot of earnings."
This change had dramatic consequences. Economist J. W. Mason found that, before the 1980s,
firms tended to borrow funds in order to fuel investment. Since 1980, that link has been broken.
Now when firms borrow, they tend to use the money to fund dividends or buy back stocks. Indeed,
even during the height of the housing boom, Mason notes, "corporations were paying out more than
100 percent of their cash flow to shareholders."
This lack of investment is obviously holding back our recovery. Productive investment remains
low, and even extraordinary action by the Federal Reserve to make investments more profitable
by keeping interest rates low has not been able to counteract the general corporate presumption
that this money should go to shareholders. There is thus less innovation, less risk taking, and
ultimately less growth. One of the reasons this revolution was engineered in the 1980s was to
put a check on what kinds of investments CEOs could make, and one of those investments was wage
growth. Finance has now won the battle against wage earners: corporations today are reluctant
to raise wages even as the economy slowly starts to recover. This keeps the economy perpetually
sluggish by retarding consumer demand, while also increasing inequality.
How can these changes be challenged? The first thing we must understand is the scope of the
change. As Mason writes, the changes have been intellectual, legal, and institutional. At the
intellectual level, academic research and conventional wisdom among economists and policymakers
coalesced around the ideas that maximizing returns to shareholders is the only goal of a corporation,
and that the financial markets were always right. At the legal level, laws regulating finance
at the state level were overturned by the Supreme Court or preempted by federal regulators, and
antitrust regulations were gutted by the Reagan administration and not taken up again.
At the institutional level, deregulation over several administrations led to a massive concentration
of the financial sector into fewer, richer firms. As financial expertise became more prestigious
than industry-specific knowledge, CEOs no longer came from within the firms they represented but
instead from other firms or from Wall Street; their pay was aligned through stock options, which
naturally turned their focus toward maximizing stock prices. The intellectual and institutional
transformation was part of an overwhelming ideological change: the health and strength of the
economy became identified solely with the profitability of the financial markets.
This was a bold revolution, and any program that seeks to change it has to be just as bold
intellectually. Such a program will also require legal and institutional changes, ones that go
beyond making sure that financial firms can fail without destroying the economy. Dodd-Frank can
be thought of as a reaction against the worst excesses of the financial sector at the height of
the housing bubble, and as a line of defense against future financial panics. Many parts of it
are doing yeoman's work in curtailing the financial sector's abuses, especially in terms of protecting
consumers from fraud and bringing some transparency to the Wild West of the derivatives markets.
But the scope of the law is too limited to roll back these larger changes.
One provision of Dodd-Frank, however, suggests a way forward. At the urging of the AFL-CIO,
Dodd-Frank empowered the Securities and Exchange Commission to examine the activities of private
equity firms on behalf of their investors. At around $3.5 trillion, private equity is a massive
market with serious consequences for the economy as a whole. On its first pass, the SEC found
extensive abuses. Andrew Bowden, the director of the SEC's examinations office, stated that the
agency found "what we believe are violations of law or material weaknesses in controls over 50
percent of the time."
Lawmakers could require private equity and hedge funds to standardize their disclosures of
fees and holdings, as is currently the case for mutual funds. The decline in fees for mutual funds
noted above didn't just happen by itself; it happened because the law structured the market for
actual transparency and price competition. This will need to happen again for the broader financial
sector.
But the most important change will be intellectual: we must come to understand our economy
not as simply a vehicle for capital owners, but rather as the creation of all of us, a common
endeavor that creates space for innovation, risk taking, and a stronger workforce. This change
will be difficult, as we will have to alter how we approach the economy as a whole. Our wealth
and companies can't just be strip-mined for a small sliver of capital holders; we'll need to bring
the corporation back to the public realm. But without it, we will remain trapped inside an economy
that only works for a select few.
[Whew!]
Puerto Barato said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron,
"3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Today, that figure has more than doubled, to 6.5"
~~RC AKA Darryl, Ron ~
Growth of the non-financial-sector == growth in productivity
Growth of the financial-sector == growth in upward transfer of wealth
Ostensibly financial-sector is there to protect your money from being eaten up by inflation.
Closer inspection shows that the prevention of *eaten up* is by the method of rent collection.
Accountants handle this analysis poorly, but you can see what is happening. Boiling it down
to the bottom line you can easily see that wiping out the financial sector is the remedy to the
Piketty.
Hell! Financial sector wiped itself out in 008. Problem was that the GSE and administration
brought the zombie back to life then put the vampire back at our throats. What was the precipitating
factor that snagged the financial sector without warning?
Unexpected
deflation
!
Gimme some
of that
pgl said in reply to djb...
People like Brad DeLong have noted this for a while. Twice as many people making twice as much
money per person. And their true value to us - not a bit more than it was back in the 1940's.
Piketty looks at centuries of data from all over the world and concludes that capitalism has
a long-run bias towards income concentration. Baker looks at 35 years of data in one country and
concludes that Piketty is wrong. Um...?
A little more generously, what Baker actually writes is:
"The argument on rents is important because, if correct, it means that there is nothing intrinsic
to capitalism that led to **this** rapid rise in inequality, as for example argued by Thomas Piketty."
(emphasis added)
But Piketty has always been very explicit that the recent rise in US income inequality is anomalous
-- driven primarily by rising inequality in the distribution of labor income, and only secondarily
by any shift from labor to capital income.
So perhaps Baker is "correctly" refuting Straw Thomas Piketty. Which I suppose is better than
just being obviously wrong. Maybe.
tew said...
Some simple math shows that this assertion is false "As a result of this upward redistribution,
most workers have seen little improvement in living standards" unless you think an apprx. 60%
in per-capita real income (expressed as GDP) among the 99% is "little improvement".
Real GDP 2015 / Real GDP 1980 = 2.57 (Source: FRED)
If the income share of the 1% shifted from 10% to 20% then The 1%' real GDP component went up
410% while that of The 99% went up 130%. Accounting for a population increase of about 41% brings
those numbers to a 265% increase and a 62% increase.
Certainly a very unequal distribution of the productivity gains but hard to call "little".
I believe the truth of the statement is revealed when you look at the Top 5% vs. the other
95%.
cm said in reply to tew...
For most "working people", their raises are quickly eaten up by increases in housing/rental,
food, local services, and other nondiscretionary costs. Sure, you can buy more and better imported
consumer electronics per dollar, but you have to pay the rent/mortgage every months, how often
do you buy a new flat screen TV? In a high-cost metro, a big ass TV will easily cost less than
a single monthly rent (and probably less than your annual cable bill that you need to actually
watch TV).
pgl said in reply to tew...
Are you trying to be the champion of the 1%? Sorry dude but Greg Mankiw beat you to this.
anne said...
In the years since 1980, there has been a well-documented upward redistribution of income.
While there are some differences by methodology and the precise years chosen, the top one percent
of households have seen their income share roughly double from 10 percent in 1980 to 20 percent
in the second decade of the 21st century. As a result of this upward redistribution, most workers
have seen little improvement in living standards from the productivity gains over this period....
Between 1948 and 1980, real median family income increased by 110.2%, while between 1980 and 2014
real median family income increased by a mere 15.8%.
cm said...
"protectionist measures that have boosted the pay of doctors and other highly educated
professionals"
Protectionist measures (largely of the variety that foreign credentials are not recognized)
apply to doctors and similar accredited occupations considered to be of some importance, but certainly
much less so to "highly educated professionals" in tech, where the protectionism is limited to
annual quotas for some categories of new workers imported into the country and requiring companies
to pay above a certain wage rate for work visa holders in jobs claimed to have high skills requirements.
A little mentioned but significant factor for growing wages in "highly skilled" jobs is that
the level of foundational and generic domain skills is a necessity, but is not all the value the
individual brings to the company. In complex subject matters, even the most competent person
joining a company has to become familiar with the details of the products, the industry niche,
the processes and professional/personal relationships in the company or industry, etc. All these
are not really teachable and require between months and years in the job. This represents a significant
sunk cost. Sometimes (actually rather often) experience within the niche/industry is in a degree
portable between companies, but some company still had to employ enough people to build this experience,
and it cannot be readily bought by bringing in however competent freshers.
This applies less so e.g. in medicine. There are of course many heavily specialized disciplines,
but a top flight brain or internal organ surgeon can essentially work on any person. The variation
in the subject matter is large and complex, but much more static than in technology.
That's not to knock down the skill of medical staff in any way (or anybody else who does a
job that is not trivial, and that's true for many jobs). But specialization vs. genericity follow
a different pattern than in tech.
Another example, the legal profession. There are similar principles that carry across, with
a lot of the specialization happening along different legislation, case law, etc., specific to
the jurisdiction and/or domain being litigated.
Oil is a valuable chemical resource that is now wasted because of low prices... "The obvious follow-up
question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion
to continue? An exercise for readers."
Notable quotes:
"... Iran wont flood the market in 2016. Right now Iran is losing production. It takes time to reverse decline and make a difference. ..."
"... Those who predict very low prices dont understand the industry (I do). The low price environment reduces capital investment, which has to be there just to keep production flat (the decline is 3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day per year). At this time capacity is dropping everywhere except for a few select countries. The USA is losing capacity, and will never again reach this years peak unless prices double. Other countries are hopeless. From Norway to Indonesia to Colombia to Nigeria and Azerbaijan, peak oil has already taken place. ..."
"... If oil prices remain very low until 2025 itll either be because you are right or because the world went to hell. ..."
"... But Im with Carambaman - prices will go up again. Demand is and will still be there. The excess output will eventually end, and the prices stabilises. And then move up again. ..."
"... Time to examine the real question: how long can the Saudis maintain their current production rates? Theyre currently producing more than 10 Mbarrels/day, but lets take the latter figure as a lower bound. They apparently have (per US consulate via WikiLeaks--time for a followup?) at least 260 Gbarrels (though it seems no one outside Saudi really knows). You do the math: 260 Gbarrels / (10 Mbarrels/day) = 26 kdays ~= 70 years. @ 15 Mbarrels/day - 47.5 years. @ 20 Mbarrels/day - 35 years. ..."
"... The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia, a US ally, using oil production and pricing to crush US oil shale industry? Did I read that correctly? ..."
"... Yeah, but I suspect it was *written* incorrectly. Im betting the Saudis real target is the Russians. ..."
"... In 1975 dollars, thats $8.31 / bbl (with a cumulative inflation factor of 342% over 40 years), or $.45 / gal for gas (assuming a current price of $2.00 / gal). ..."
"... I spent 30 years in the oil industry and experienced many cycles. When it is up people cannot believe it will go down and when it is down people cannot believe it will go up. It is all a matter of time ..."
Iran won't flood the market in 2016. Right now Iran is losing production. It takes time
to reverse decline and make a difference.
Those who predict very low prices don't understand the industry (I do). The low price environment
reduces capital investment, which has to be there just to keep production flat (the decline is
3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day per year). At this time capacity is dropping everywhere
except for a few select countries. The USA is losing capacity, and will never again reach this
year's peak unless prices double. Other countries are hopeless. From Norway to Indonesia to Colombia
to Nigeria and Azerbaijan, peak oil has already taken place.
Fernando Leza -> SonOfFredTheBadman 15 Dec 2015 06:05
If oil prices remain very low until 2025 it'll either be because you are right or because
the world went to hell. I prefer your vision, of course. But I'm afraid most of your talk
is wishful thinking. Those of us who do know how to put watts on the table can't figure out any
viable solutions. Hopefully something like cheap fusion power will rise. Otherwise you may be
eating human flesh in 2060.
Fernando Leza -> p26677 15 Dec 2015 06:00
Keep assuming. I'll keep buying Shell stock.
MatCendana -> UnevenSurface 14 Dec 2015 03:36
Regardless of the breakeven price, producers with the wells already running or about to will
keep pumping. Better to have some income, even if the operation is at a loss, than no income.
This will go on and on right until the end, which is either prices eventually go up or they run
out of oil and can't drill new wells.
But I'm with Carambaman - prices will go up again. Demand is and will still be there. The
excess output will eventually end, and the prices stabilises. And then move up again.
Billy Carnes 13 Dec 2015 19:52
Also this hurts the states...Louisiana is now in the hole over 1.5 Billion or more
TomRoche 13 Dec 2015 12:31
@Guardian: Time to examine the real question: how long can the Saudis maintain their current
production rates? They're currently producing more than 10 Mbarrels/day, but let's take the latter
figure as a lower bound. They apparently have (per US consulate via WikiLeaks--time for a followup?)
at least 260 Gbarrels (though it seems no one outside Saudi really knows). You do the math: 260
Gbarrels / (10 Mbarrels/day) = 26 kdays ~= 70 years. @ 15 Mbarrels/day -> 47.5 years. @ 20 Mbarrels/day
-> 35 years.
That's just Saudi (allegedly) proven reserves. But it's plenty long enough to push atmospheric
GHG levels, and associated radiative forcing, to ridiculously destructive excess.
The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue
to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers.
TomRoche -> GueroElEnfermero 13 Dec 2015 12:14
@GueroElEnfermero: 'Saudi Arabia, a US ally, using oil production and pricing to crush
US oil shale industry? Did I read that correctly?'
Yeah, but I suspect it was *written* incorrectly. I'm betting the Saudis' real target is
the Russians.
Sieggy 13 Dec 2015 11:49
In 1975 dollars, that's $8.31 / bbl (with a cumulative inflation factor of 342% over 40
years), or $.45 / gal for gas (assuming a current price of $2.00 / gal).
Carambaman 13 Dec 2015 10:25
I spent 30 years in the oil industry and experienced many cycles. When it is up people
cannot believe it will go down and when it is down people cannot believe it will go up. It is
all a matter of time
Still, two interesting-and vexing-issues for the technology industry, and for the politicians
who regulate it, emerged in the debate. The first came up in John Kasich's response to Trump's proposal.
"Wolf, there is a big problem-it's called encryption," he said. "We need to be able to penetrate
these people when they are involved in these plots and these plans. And we have to give the local
authorities the ability to penetrate, to disrupt. That's what we need to do. Encryption is a major
problem, and Congress has got to deal with this, and so does the President, to keep us safe."
The central question is whether American technology companies should offer the U.S. government,
whether the N.S.A. or the F.B.I., backdoor access to their devices or servers. The most important
companies here are Apple and Google, which, in the fall of 2014, began offering
strong encryption on the newer versions of Android and iOS phones. If you keep your passcode
secret, the government will be unable to, for instance, scroll through your contacts list, even if
it has a warrant. This has, naturally, made the government angry. The most thorough report on the
subject is
a position paper put out last month by Cyrus Vance, Jr., Manhattan's district attorney. In the
previous year, Vance wrote, his office had been "unable to execute approximately 111 search warrants
for smartphones because those devices were running iOS 8. The cases to which those devices related
include homicide, attempted murder, sexual abuse of a child, sex trafficking, assault, and robbery."
The solution isn't easy. Apple and Google implemented their new encryption standards after Edward
Snowden
revealed how the government had compromised their systems. They want to protect their customers-a
government back door could become a hacker's back door, too-and they also want to protect their business
models. If the N.S.A. can comb through iPhones, how many do you think Apple will be able to sell
in China? In the debate, Carly Fiorina bragged about how, when she ran Hewlett-Packard, she stopped
a truckload of equipment and had it "escorted into N.S.A. headquarters." Does that make you more
or less eager to buy an OfficeJet Pro?
The second hard issue that came up indirectly in the debate-and, more specifically,
in recent comments by Hillary Clinton-is how aggressive American companies such as Facebook,
Twitter, and Google (with YouTube) should be in combatting the use of their platforms by ISIS.
Again, there's no simple answer. You can't ban, say, everyone who tweets the hashtag #ISIS, because
then you'd have to
ban this guy. The algorithms are difficult to write, and the issues are difficult to balance.
Companies have to consider their business interests, their legal obligations to and cultural affinities
for free speech, and their moral obligations to oppose an organization that seeks to destroy the
country in which they were built-and also
kill their C.E.O.s.
In October, Hastert, 73,
entered a guilty plea to a single felony count of evading bank reporting laws by withdrawing
about $950,000 in cash in increments of less than $10,000. Prosecutors contend he used the money
to conceal his "misconduct" with a longtime associate. Court filings are silent on the nature of
the relationship, but sources say it involved sexual contact with a former student at the high school
where Hastert served as a wrestling coach and teacher before entering politics. He has not responded
publicly to those allegations.
Hastert is set to be sentenced on the banking charge on February
29, but that could be delayed if his health woes continue. Prosecutors and defense lawyers have agreed
that sentencing guidelines call for him to receive between zero and six months in prison.
Ya gotta ask yourself this: If Jared Fogle of Subway infamy is going away to Prison for his
fiddling with the underage why has Dennis Hastert escaped felony conviction for his diddling with
at least one underaged teen boy and probably three of them and getting caught paying the guy for
years to cover it up?
Something is clearly wrong with the US Justice when the high and mighty, current D.C. Lobbyist,
formerly 3rd most powerful politician in America, and still well connected politically his connections
in the government stay out of prison when prison is where America wants criminals like him and
Jared Fogle.
"... Martin Shkreli, the boyish drug company entrepreneur, who rocketed to infamy by jacking up
the price of a life-saving pill from $13.50 to $750, was arrested by federal agents at his Manhattan
home early Thursday morning on securities fraud related to a firm he founded. ..."
"... Shkreli, 32, ignited a firestorm over drug prices in September and became a symbol of defiant
greed. ..."
"... His arrest, witnessed by Reuters, comes amid a continuing separate controversy that has turned
Shkreli into a lightning rod for growing outrage over the soaring prices of prescription drugs. ..."
32-year-old suspected of plundering
Retrophin to pay debts
Martin Shkreli, the boyish drug company entrepreneur, who rocketed to infamy by jacking
up the price of a life-saving pill from $13.50 to $750, was arrested by federal agents at his
Manhattan home early Thursday morning on securities fraud related to a firm he founded.
Shkreli, 32, ignited a firestorm over drug prices in September and became a symbol of defiant
greed. The federal case against him has nothing to do with pharmaceutical costs, however.
Prosecutors in Brooklyn charged him with illegally taking stock from Retrophin Inc., a biotechnology
firm he started in 2011, and using it to pay off debts from unrelated business dealings. He was
later ousted from the company, where he'd been chief executive officer, and sued by its board.
In the case that closely tracks that suit, federal prosecutors accused Shkreli of engaging
in a complicated shell game after his defunct hedge fund, MSMB Capital Management, lost millions.
He is alleged to have made secret payoffs and set up sham consulting arrangements. A New York
lawyer, Evan Greebel, was also arrested early Thursday. He's accused of conspiring with Shkreli
in part of the scheme.
Retrophin replaced Shkreli as CEO "because of serious concerns about his conduct," the company
said in a statement. The company, which hasn't been accused of any wrongdoing, has "fully cooperated
with the government investigations into Mr. Shkreli." ...
Dec 17 (Reuters) - Pharmaceutical entrepreneur Martin Shkreli was arrested by the FBI on Thursday,
amid a federal investigation related to his former hedge fund and a drug company he previously
headed.
The previously disclosed investigation of Shkreli, 32, who is now chief executive of Turing
Pharmaceuticals, stemmed from his time as manager of hedge fund MSMB Capital Management and chief
executive of biopharmaceutical company Retrophin Inc .
His arrest, witnessed by Reuters, comes amid a continuing separate controversy that has
turned Shkreli into a lightning rod for growing outrage over the soaring prices of prescription
drugs.
"... It was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not Vladimir Putin, who pushed the EU agreement and miscalculated the consequences, as the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel has reported . Putin's only role in that time frame was to offer a more generous $15 billion aid package to Ukraine, not exactly a war-like act. ..."
The actually "incontrovertible" facts about the Ukraine crisis are these: The destabilization
of President Viktor Yanukovych's elected government began in November 2013 when Yanukovych balked
at a proposed association agreement promoted by the European Union. He sought more time after the
sticker shock of learning from Kiev economic experts that the deal would cost Ukraine $160 billion
in lost revenue by cutting trade with Russia.
It was German Chancellor Angela Merkel, not Vladimir Putin, who pushed the EU agreement and miscalculated
the consequences, as the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel
has reported. Putin's only role in that time frame was to offer a more generous $15 billion aid
package to Ukraine, not exactly a war-like act.
Yanukovych's decision to postpone action on the EU association prompted angry demonstrations in
Kiev's Maidan square, largely from western Ukrainians who were hoping for visa-free travel to the
EU and other benefits from closer ties. Putin had no role in those protests – and it's insane to
think that he did.
In February 2014, the protests grew more and more violent as neo-Nazi and other militias organized
in the western city of Lviv and these 100-man units known as "sotins" were dispatched daily to
provide the muscle for the anti-Yanukovych
uprising that was taking shape. It is frankly nutty to suggest that Putin was organizing these militias.
[See Consortiumnews.com's "When
Is a Putsch a Putsch."]
Evidence of Coup Plotting
By contrast, there is substantial evidence that senior U.S. officials were pushing for a "regime
change" in Kiev, including
an intercepted phone call
and various public statements.
In December 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover, reminded Ukrainian
business leaders that the United States had invested $5 billion in their "European aspirations."
In early February, she discussed with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leaders of Ukraine
should be. "Yats is the guy," she declared, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk. [See Consortiumnews.com's
"Who's
Telling the Big Lie on Ukraine?"]
The Maidan uprising gained momentum on Feb. 20, 2014, when snipers around the square opened fire
on police and protesters touching off a violent clash that left scores of people dead, both police
and protesters. After the sniper fire and a police retreat - carrying their wounded - the demonstrators
surged forward and some police apparently reacted with return fire of their own.
But the growing evidence indicates that the initial sniper fire originated from locations controlled
by the Right Sektor, extremists associated with the Maidan's neo-Nazi "self-defense" commandant Andriy
Parubiy. Though the current Ukrainian government has dragged its feet on an investigation, independent
field reports, including a
new one from BBC, indicate that the snipers were associated with the protesters, not the Yanukovych
government as was widely reported in the U.S. media a year ago.
The worsening violence led Yanukovych to agree on Feb. 21 to a deal guaranteed by three European
countries. He accepted reduced powers and agreed to early elections so he could be voted out of office.
Yet, rather than permit that political settlement to go forward, neo-Nazis and other Maidan forces
overran government buildings on Feb. 22, forcing Yanukovych and his officials to flee for their lives.
The U.S. State Department quickly deemed this coup regime "legitimate" and Nuland's choice, Yatsenyuk,
emerged as Prime Minister, with Parubiy put in charge of national security.
In other words, there is plenty of evidence that the Ukraine crisis was started by the EU through
its mishandling of the association agreement, then was heated up by the U.S. government through the
work of Nuland, Pyatt and other officials, and then was brought to a boil by neo-Nazis and other
extremists who executed the coup.
Is Angela Merkel getting bad advice from Washington neocons through their representative in Berlin?
Now we read that
Jeff Gedmin - the head of the Aspen
Institute in Berlin - is meeting on a regular basis with the Chancellor to instruct her on the Bush
administration's line:
Angela Merkel relies on the advice of Jeffrey Gedmin, specially dispatched
to Berlin to assist her by the Bush clan. This lobbyist first worked at the American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) [2]
under Richard Perle and Mrs. Dick Cheney. He enthusiastically encouraged the creation of a Euro
with Dollar parity exchange rate. Within the AEI, he led the New Atlantic Initiative (NAI), which
brought together all the America-friendly generals and politicians in Europe. He was then involved
in the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and wrote the chapter on Europe in the neocon
programme. He argued that the European Union should remain under NATO authority and that this
would only be possible by "discouraging European calls for emancipation." [3]
Finally he became the administrator of the Council of the Community of Democracies (CCD), which
argues in favour of a two-speed UN, and became director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin [4].
Subsequently he turned down the offer from his friend John Bolton [5]
of the post of deputy US ambassador to the UN so as to be able to devote himself exclusively to
Angela Merkel.
Elsewhere we
read that Chancellor Merkel receives daily briefings from the neocon stalwart Gedmin:
Gedmin "brieft" die Kanzlerin täglich: Er hat damit die Rolle inne, die bei
der Stasi die Führungsoffiziere hatten. Wenn wir uns noch Demokratie nennen wollen, dann muss
Merkel gezwungen werden, die Inhalte dieser täglichen "Briefings" dem Land offenzulegen. In anderen
Ländern gibt es dafür Gesetze, die "Freedom of Information Act" heissen.
Could this be true? I hope not. Gedmin is known for his columns in the conservative daily
Die Welt where he reports on the marvelous successes the Iraq War. And who can forget
Gedmin's
column during last summer' s Israel/Lebanon War where he wrote about how Hezbollah fighters drank
the blood of their victims in Lebanon? If Angela Merkel is looking for good advice, there are
much
more honest and intelligent resources than Jeff Gedmin.
Note that the quality of translation from German of this article is low.
Notable quotes:
"... Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ..."
"... Bild and Die Welt ..."
"... In 2003, Chancellor Gerhard Schröder opposed the Anglo-American intervention in Ira q. Angela
Merkel then published a courageous article in the Washington Post ..."
"... As Stanley Payne, the famous American historian said about Spain (or any western democracy)
that now politicians are not elected but chosen by apparatus, agencies and visible hands of the markets
..."
"... Merkel is publicly supported by Friede Springer , widow of West German press baron, Axel Springer
, whos publishing conglomerate, the Springer Group secretly received around $7 million from the CIA
in the early 1950s. ..."
"... She is counseled by Jeffrey Gedmin. Gedmin is a regular columnist in Die Welt , a publication
of the Springer Group. After becoming administrator of the Council of the Community of Democracies and
director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin in 2001, Gedmin devoted himself exclusively to Merkel . Gedmin
was too involved in the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and wrote the chapter on
Europe in the neocon programme. He argued that the European Union should remain under NATO authority
and that this would only be possible by discouraging European calls for emancipation . ..."
"... In a few years, Merkel has destroyed European solidarity, annihilated the German nuclear power
plants (an old American obsession too), impoverished Germans and their once efficient Rheinisch and
solitary economy, backed the mad dog American diplomacy and created along with an irresponsible American
administration (irresponsible because America will never win this kind of conflict) a dangerous crisis
against Russia than can end on a war or a scandalous European partition. ..."
One must understand the reasons of
Angela
Merkel's behaviour. She obeys America and
her Israeli mentor ('Israel is Germany's raison d'être'???), she threatens and mistreats Europe;
she attacks Russia and now she builds a new sanitary cordon (like in 1919) in order to deconstruct
Eurasia and
reinforce American agenda in our unlucky continent. Now Merkel advocates for the rapid adoption
on the most infamous and perilous treaty of commerce in history, the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership).
Dr Roberts has recently explained the meaning of 'Fast Track' expression and a courageous Guardian,
last 27th may, has exposed the corruption of American Congress on this incredible yet
terrible matter.
Why is Merkel so pro-American and anti-European?
Let us explain with the data we know the reasons of such nihilist and erratic behaviour.
Angela Merkel is not from East Germany (east-Germans
are pro-Russian indeed, see lately the declaration of generals). She was born in Hamburg in
1954 (Federal Republic of Germany). Shortly after her birth, her family made the unusual
choice of moving to the East. Her father, a pastor in the Lutheran church, founded a
seminary in the German Democratic Republic and became director of a home for handicapped persons.
He enjoyed a privileged social status, making frequent trips to the West.
She became politically involved in the Freie Deutsche Jugend (Free German Youth), the state
organisation for young people. She rose within the organisation to the post of Secretary of the
Agitprop department, becoming one of the main experts in political communication in the communist
system. She enjoys selling her convictions.
In November 1989 The CIA attempted to take over by recruiting senior individuals. One month
later, Merkel changed sides and joined the Demokratischer Aufbruch (Democratic Revival), a movement
inspired by the West German Christian Democrat party. As we know from history, these political
parties in Europe are neither Christian nor democratic. They just serve American and business
agendas. In order to avoid a mass exodus from the East to the West, Merkel argued strongly in
favour of getting the GDR to join the market economy and the Deutschmark zone. Ultraliberal but
never popular in Germany, her thesis finally imposed itself in Germany, like that of Sarkozy,
her fellow neocon in France who definitely ousted any rest of Gaullism in this country.
Her second husband, Joachim Sauer, was recruited by the US Company Biosym Technology, spending
a year at San Diego at the laboratory of this Pentagon contractor. He then joined Accelrys, another
San Diego company carrying out contracts for the Pentagon. Of course Accelrys is traded on NASDAQ...
Helmut Kohl and his closest associates had apparently accepted money from obscure sources
for the CDU. Angela Merkel then published a heroic-comical article in the Foreign Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung in which she distanced herself from her mentor. One can check that she
repeatedly betrays her protectors... and electors (whose median age is of sixty).
Angela Merkel was then publicly supported by two press groups. Firstly, she was able to count
on the support of Friede Springer, who had inherited the Axel Springer group (180 newspapers and
magazines, including Bild and Die Welt). The group's journalists are required to sign an
editorial agreement which lies down that they must work towards developing transatlantic links and
defending the state of Israel. The other group is Bertelsmann.
Angela Merkel radically rejects European independence
In 2003,
Chancellor Gerhard Schröder opposed the Anglo-American intervention in Iraq. Angela
Merkel then published a 'courageous' article in the Washington Post in which she rejected
the Chirac-Schröder doctrine of European independence, affirmed her gratitude and friendship for
"America" and supported this scandalous and ridiculous war. I quote some lines of this interesting
act of submission to her American lords:
Because of decisive events,
Europe and the United States now must redefine the nucleus of their domestic, foreign and
security policy principles.
Aid to Turkey, our partner in the alliance, is blocked for days in the NATO Council by France,
Belgium and Germany, a situation that undermines the very basis of NATO's legitimacy.
The Eastern European candidate countries for membership in the European Union were attacked
by the French government because they have declared their commitment to the transatlantic partnership
between Europe and the United States. She then threatens France, then a free country run
by Chirac and Villepin, and advocates for what Gore Vidal quoted 'the perpetual war'...
involving a 'perpetual peace':
Anyone who rejects military action as a last resort weakens the pressure that needs to be maintained
on dictators and consequently makes a war not less but more likely.
Germany needs its friendship with France, but the benefits of that friendship can be
realized only in close association with our old and new European partners, and within
the transatlantic alliance with the United States.
Yet Merkel won the elections in 2007. She announced the abolition of graduated income tax, proposing
that the rate should be the same for those who only just have what is necessary and those who live
in luxury: maybe this is the a result of her Christian education?
The outgoing Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, severely criticized this proposal in a televised debate.
The CDU's lead was decimated, and in the actual election, the CDU polled 35% of the votes and the
SPD 34%, the remainder being spread amongst a number of small parties. The Germans didn't want Schröder
any longer, but nor did they want Merkel. I repeat that she was imposed more than elected. As
Stanley Payne, the famous American historian said about Spain (or any western democracy) that now
politicians are 'not elected but chosen' by apparatus, agencies and 'visible hands' of the markets
These last weeks, "Mother" Merkel tries to re-launch the proposed merger of the North American
Free Trade Area and the European Free Trade Area, thereby creating a "great transatlantic market"
to use the words once pronounced by Sir Leon Brittan, a famous paedophile involved in scandals and
bribes since, and mysteriously found dead a couple of months ago.
Let us se now some of their connections:
Merkel is publicly supported by
Friede Springer, widow of West German press baron,
Axel Springer, who's publishing conglomerate, the
Springer Group secretly received around $7 million from the
CIA in the early 1950's.
She is counseled by Jeffrey Gedmin. Gedmin is a regular columnist in
Die Welt, a publication of the Springer Group. After becoming administrator of the
Council of the Community of Democracies and director of the
Aspen Institute in Berlin in 2001, Gedmin devoted himself exclusively to
Merkel. Gedmin was
too involved in the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and wrote the chapter on
Europe in the neocon programme. He argued that the European Union should remain under NATO authority
and that this would only be possible by "discouraging European calls for emancipation".
We have never been so far from 'emancipation' now in Europe, and never been so
near to a war with Russia and maybe (in order to satisfy American gruesome appetite) with Central
Asia and China. In France, 61% of the people who had witnessed the war asserted in 1945 that we were
saved by the Russian Army. Now, thanks to American propaganda backed by European collaborators, we
are hardly 10% to know that fact. The rest is misled by propaganda, media, TV and films. Daniel Estulin
speaks of a remade, of a re-fabricated past by US television and media agencies.
In a few years, Merkel has destroyed European solidarity, annihilated the German nuclear power
plants (an old American obsession too), impoverished Germans and their once efficient Rheinisch and
solitary economy, backed the 'mad dog' American diplomacy and created along with an irresponsible
American administration (irresponsible because America will never win this kind of conflict) a dangerous
crisis against Russia than can end on a war or a scandalous European partition.
"... when the Big Banks were caught and convicted of conspiring to manipulate the $500 trillion, LIBOR debt market ..."
"... when the Big Banks were caught and convicted of conspiring to launder trillions for the global drug cartels and "terrorist" entities, despite the supposed "wars" the U.S. claims to be fighting against drugs and terrorism ..."
"... The Vampire Squid Firmly Attached To The Face Of Humanity ..."
"... As far as I can gather, the World Bank and the IMF are apart of the very same Cartel that own/control the Central Banks. ..."
Then we have the confessions of the criminals. A full one-quarter of Wall Street's and London's
senior banking executives
freely admit that crime is a way of life
in their industry -- organized crime. Even in our justice system (or what remains of it), once armed
with confessions, the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" no longer applies – the guilt is
conceded.
The Big Banks manipulate credit default swaps to perpetrate economic terrorism against other nations
in the world, where they literally destroy the economies of those victim-nations. It used to be a
theory, but now the proof is finally emerging. You heard it here first.
LawsofPhysics
So what? Has any of the bank management/leaders gone to prison and lost all their wealth?
"when the Big Banks were
caught and convicted of conspiring to manipulate the $500 trillion, LIBOR
debt market"
(Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Barclays Plc and Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
agreed to plead guilty to felony charges of conspiring to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars
and euros)
"when the Big Banks were
caught and convicted of conspiring to launder trillions for the global drug
cartels and "terrorist" entities, despite the supposed "wars" the U.S. claims to be fighting against
drugs and terrorism"
(Wells Fargo and JPMorgan)
and of course, The Vampire Squid Firmly Attached To The Face Of Humanity,
Goldman Sachs, The Great Destroyer
commoncourtesy
Fancy-free please will you explain further.
As far as I can gather, the World Bank and the IMF are apart of the very same Cartel that
own/control the Central Banks. All are controlled by the BIS who is run/controlled by pretty
much all the same criminals on a merry-go-round. Throw in the Vatican, The Crown (BAR) Temple
- The City of London, Washington DC, the Rothschild's et al, puppet Governments (and their military)
on the same payroll and the world is pretty much screwed.
Who are the Board of Governors you are talking about?
Who is this coalition?
Please name names.
Can you vouch for their credibility or are they part of the corrupt cartel?
There is far TOO MUCH SECRECY going on.
If everything was more transparent, out of the shadows and open the world would not be in the
state is in today.
Closed dealings, complexity and behind the curtain negotiations promote corruption.
How can justice be served when most public jurors would not be able to understand the fraudulent
accounting practices being utilised?
What is the TRUTH?
andrewp111
A big load of bullshit. The US has its own currency and that currency is backed by military
power. Greece is a subordinate vassal state of the EU. There is no comparison between the two.
"... There is no "far left" in Europe any more. Since the Merkels, Hollandes, Blairs and Rasmussens of this world were planted in prominent positions because of their excruciatingly statusquo orientation, even the moderate "left" has practically ceased to exist. We now have rabid right or moderately rabid right to choose from, except for a few notable exceptions. ..."
"... Obama does not have a clue, he has lost the plot. He is backing Saudi Arabia who are the biggest instigators of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is announcing a 34-state military alliance to fight terrorism. ..."
"... Seems to me that IS was created, either accidentally or deliberately, by the US and its success has gone beyond the US administrations worst nightmare? When the US refuses slam Turkey for it's recent shoot-down of the Russian plane, and do anything to support Iraq in getting rid of unwanted Turkish military near Mosul, within Iraq and near the IS capital, nor wanting to know about Turkish involvement supplying Sarin gas agents to IS, or stopping Turkey supplying food and arms to IS, and receiving stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil as payment, nor preventing Turkey from being the transit centre and R & R centre for IS recruits, then maybe its time to assume that IS is the deliberate brainchild of the US, and that Turkey is playing to the US tune and protection, for promises of territory in a future carve up of Iraq and or Syria. ..."
"... Seems that ISIL, ISIS, IS and Daesh are all names invented by the US to spread the narrative through the media. They all mean US proxy army to me. Just my opinion. ..."
"... Perhaps that is because ISIS doesn't actually occupy "territory" as such. As Mr. Knight says, they are an ideology, an idea. An idea, unfortunately in this case, doesn't live in houses in prescribed areas any more than Republicanism lives in Chicago. The way forward has to involve NOT creating another 10,000 new mortal enemies in the Middle East every day. Even if only twelve innocent people had died in Iraq in 2003, instead of the hundreds of thousands who actually did, one could understand very large groups of people related to the victims cursing the US for its irresponsible meddling. ..."
"... Incredibly ignorant of the president. The US lives in sin with the Saudis. As long as the Saudis keep importing Wahhabism out of their country to others, the problem will exist. ..."
"... We bombed the Taliban. We bombed Al Qaeda. Neither lead to anything more than establishing the rise of ISIS in the destabilised areas we had bombed. ..."
"... The biggest contribution America can make to getting rid of Isis is to "persuade" its friends and allies - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey mainly - to turn off the tap of finance, munitions and logistics to Isis, Al Qaeda in Syria (Al Nusra) and its allies like Ahrar Al Sham. No American ground troops needed; they would be counter-productive. ..."
"... The secular Syrian government, with women in its ranks, is fighting for its life against a most ruthless and abominable enemy: fanatical jihadist mercenaries financed by an execrable mediaeval tyranny, Saudi Barbaria. This is the enemy of all we stand for, the enemy that perpetrated 9/11 and 7/7 and their latest clone that bombed Paris concert-goers and Russian holiday-makers. They are paid and trained by Riyadh. And armed to the teeth with modern American weapons, passed to them by the newest demagogue, Turkey's Erdoğan. ..."
"... The sworn enemy of all these head-chopping bigots is Assad's secular republic of Syria because it challenges the ideological dogmatism of Sharia Law. This law is as rigid as Hitler's Nazism or Stalin's communism. ..."
"... I wonder if because 'a few weeks' was finally taken to supposedly destroy this critical infrastructure - if the 'evasive' ISIL oil business - along with revenues - will suffer? I also wonder why the air campaign hasn't been extended to include the purchasers of ISIL's oil supplies - at sea and in their home countries. ..."
"... Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical faster than we can kill them. ..."
"... The Muslims seem to be manufacturing radicals quickly enough without any help from us. ..."
"... What have they been doing for the last two years then? No attacks on ISIS trucks transporting oil, no sanctions on countries that have been buying that oil. We only get some action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course there is minimal reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media. As far as Libya is concerned, there are very ominous signs that ISIS is moving to set up headquarters in that country, a country a lot closer to Europe than Syria or Iraq are. There is also the problem that the Russians will not be involved in Libya, unlike Syria, they do not have a functioning government to ask them in. Libya is the nightmare created by NATO and the US, they will have to take full responsibility for their dreadful actions there and fight the barbarians they created, no sitting back and allowing them to flourish this time. ..."
"... What a farce, who does Obama think he's kidding? If the US was serious about ISIS it would have been finished off a year ago, now that Russia has called the US's bluff they now have to pretend to step up to the plate. Pathetic. ..."
"... More drivel from the counterfeit president. His allies in the middle east are disgusting butchers. Take Turkey: it is a great shame for Turkey that 32 journalists are imprisoned in the 21st century. Some were arrested on Nov. 26 after being charged in May with espionage, revealing confidential documents and membership in a terrorist organization. The charges are related to a report published by a leading newspaper claiming weapons-loaded trucks that were discovered in January 2014 en route to Syria actually belonged to the National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and had been sent to provide support to rebel groups. ..."
Talk big but no action. Hot air. Everybody knows now.
After the Syria red line fiasco, the whole world knows US president makes empty promises.
In the next TV broadcast, he will give excuses why he cannot do it. Then he will repeat "No
Boots On The Ground". Then the US president will blame Congress for not giving him permission
to do the most basic things.
...
Now in end-2015 Obama has only ONE thing on his mind.
He wants to preserve the legacy of his presidency.
He does not want to do anything to risk the presidency being blamed.
He does not want to take any mis-step.
It is a Zero Risk environment in the White House now.
He dares not even reveal the truth on what country's air space the SU-24 was flying in, when
it was shot down.
It will just be TALK from now on until the next president takes over in 2016.
wardropper -> LupusCanis 14 Dec 2015 22:21
There is no "far left" in Europe any more. Since the Merkels, Hollandes, Blairs and
Rasmussens of this world were planted in prominent positions because of their excruciatingly
statusquo orientation, even the moderate "left" has practically ceased to exist. We now have
rabid right or moderately rabid right to choose from, except for a few notable exceptions.
GerdT 14 Dec 2015 22:21
Looking out the window I can see the hills that mark the border to Cambodia and not far
away Vietnam. I still remember the speeches given during the Vietnam War and how close victory
was. The bombs dropped on these countries including North Vietnam during the war exceeded what
was dropped during WWII in the Atlantic/European and the Pacific theater of war. Still, it was
a US helicopter that left from the American Embassy in Saigon that concluded that war, with
the US going home and into denial about the outcome of that war.
The apocalypse foreseen by the prophets of doomsday painting a picture of an Asian
continent that would turn into a communist infested threat to human kind didn't happen.
I have been recently in Vietnam and Cambodia and seen that people get on with their lives
and economies that try to improve for the coming ASEAN community. Without help from western
countries they have started to rebuild what was left of their countries after the champion of
democracy had left. As the peanut farmer and former President Jimmy Carter said, the
destruction was mutual and hence Vietnam didn't deserve any compensation for the unbelievable
collateral damage caused by US intervention in this country. If the US was really trying to
protect democracy or as Bill Clinton described it protecting National Security, which he
defined as US business interests and given the US a right to interfere in any country that
tries to threaten them, is a debatable point.
During the following decades the US again would raise terror and war in countries to ensure
that the branding of democracy they preferred would be exported. South Vietnam hadn't been a
democracy when the US decided to send troops across and the political leaders of that country
came from the military, granting themselves the titles of president and minister, but holding
the country in the same grip as in the North the communist did. From South America to the
Middle East the US supported groups and leaders that were favorable to US business interests.
The Taliban were a useful tool to drive out the Soviet Union only to become a haven for Bin
Laden and his followers. Iraq has turned into a political and humanitarian nightmare and ISIL
that was as a startup supplied with weapons and training by the US to drive out Assad from
Syria is now the greatest threat to world peace according to the US.
We only have to take a look at the close friends and allies of the US in the Middle East
and South America to understand how they spell democracy and human rights. Maybe it is time to
listen to the millions of people with families that want to live in peace and are tired of
foreign interference in their countries. Instead of supplying arms and support to people that
favor the western or eastern political view, we should start to invest and rebuild these
countries to ensure they can become equal and respected partners within the global community.
Phil Atkinson 14 Dec 2015 22:18
What a joke! Ashton Carter to visit the Middle East to jockey along the Arab states - the
same people that the USA supplies weapons to, that end up with terrorists. Or Turkey, that
erstwhile NATO member which has been stealing Syrian oil and selling it to Israel and speaking
of Israel, that country still illegally occupying the Golan Heights in Syria and aiding and
abetting Al-Nusra Front fighters and bombing inside Syria.
Ashton Carter is a dangerous fool, who believes his own government's propaganda. He should be
kept at home.
SomersetApples 14 Dec 2015 22:08
Obama does not have a clue, he has lost the plot. He is backing Saudi Arabia who are
the biggest instigators of terrorism in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is announcing a 34-state
military alliance to fight terrorism.
Informed17 14 Dec 2015 22:08
If ISIS does not do what Obama says, US-led coalition of 60+ countries will destroy another
pair of Islamist excavators. I am sure ISIS leaders are scared shitless.
RocketSurgeon 14 Dec 2015 22:03
Seems to me that IS was created, either accidentally or deliberately, by the US and its
success has gone beyond the US administrations worst nightmare?
When the US refuses slam Turkey for it's recent shoot-down of the Russian plane, and do
anything to support Iraq in getting rid of unwanted Turkish military near Mosul, within Iraq
and near the IS capital, nor wanting to know about Turkish involvement supplying Sarin gas
agents to IS, or stopping Turkey supplying food and arms to IS, and receiving stolen Syrian
and Iraqi oil as payment, nor preventing Turkey from being the transit centre and R & R centre
for IS recruits, then maybe its time to assume that IS is the deliberate brainchild of the US,
and that Turkey is playing to the US tune and protection, for promises of territory in a
future carve up of Iraq and or Syria.
Seems that ISIL, ISIS, IS and Daesh are all names invented by the US to spread the
narrative through the media. They all mean US proxy army to me.
Just my opinion.
readerofgrauniad -> Stephen_Sean 14 Dec 2015 22:01
But who are the good boys in this? To end the war, Asad is probably the best option, and
compared to IS he looks like a saint.
wardropper -> Lech1980 14 Dec 2015 21:59
Perhaps that is because ISIS doesn't actually occupy "territory" as such. As Mr. Knight
says, they are an ideology, an idea. An idea, unfortunately in this case, doesn't live in
houses in prescribed areas any more than Republicanism lives in Chicago. The way forward has
to involve NOT creating another 10,000 new mortal enemies in the Middle East every day. Even
if only twelve innocent people had died in Iraq in 2003, instead of the hundreds of thousands
who actually did, one could understand very large groups of people related to the victims
cursing the US for its irresponsible meddling. I would imagine our enemies over there
number about 50 million by now, and nobody in human history has been able to survive having
that many enemies...
Thomas Hancock 14 Dec 2015 21:55
Incredibly ignorant of the president. The US lives in sin with the Saudis. As long as
the Saudis keep importing Wahhabism out of their country to others, the problem will exist.
The thing you learn from history is that no one learns anything from history. Maybe
someone can get a time machine and go back to kill Ho Chi Minh, and Vietnam will be a
capitalist paradise. This is the same strategy that helped create ISIS in the first place.
Bernard Knight 14 Dec 2015 21:55
We bombed the Taliban. We bombed Al Qaeda. Neither lead to anything more than
establishing the rise of ISIS in the destabilised areas we had bombed. What is the point?
1ClearSense -> Stephen_Sean 14 Dec 2015 21:48
Is that right? You mean when they hit 1050 oil tanker trucks, that's nothing? US followed
up hitting 300. They stopped oil revenues for ISIS, and reduced their revenues by 50 %. The
number of sorties they have run on ISIS has been considerably more than US. They have also hit
other terrorists to secure the rear, so Syrian troops can move on ISIS. You guys are
brainwashed.
Budovski Ximples -> AaronClausen 14 Dec 2015 21:42
"the US has killed 23,000 ISIL members in airstrikes"
Who told you? Disney Channel? Anyone can lie to you as long as you are behind a TV screen.
It's quite an easy task (having sufficient intelligence resources and money of course)... It's
incredibly obvious it would be sufficient hitting the financing of those mercenaries or not to
buy the oil they are selling. You know all that "intelligence resources, analysts, linguists,
SIGINT experts...". If only the US government wanted really. And yet what is ISIS? Quite a
volatile entity... looks like franchising terror... IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh will "desappear" when
it won't be useful anymore. And they will only find a new name whenever a new proxy ground
army should be required.
"Kremlinbot"? The cold war revamping has seduced you. Let me rimand you this facts:
In 2014 the USA has spent in its military expenditure more than 600 Bn $.
Russia is around 80.
It's been estimated that after WWII the USA caused the death of about 30 million people
all over the planet (challenging Stalin scores).
You'll find the facts... Not on Disnet Channel though.
After the dissolution of USSR it was clear that it was not "the enemy" anymore. Yet the
Ministry of Defence (and its industry) need powerful and fearsome enemies!
Et voilà, despite what the Ministry fo Truth says, after 20 years of tranquillity it's Russia
getting sourranded by military bases along its borders, losing Ukraine (and possibly its
strategic Crimea) and now directly challenged in Syria (where they have military bases).
Doesn't Russia have the right to "defend" itself and have allies? They have a Ministry of
Defense too...
What if Russia had intervened to topple king Salman of Suadi Arabia because of him being a
fearsome dictator? Yet no one did nothing when the "arab spring" was brutally repressed in the
region (with the help of the USA).
It's quite hard not to admit the USA has been quite agressive and active ... So whose to
blame for this warfare and new cold war tensions? You might be more biased and less
Whitehousebot.
PS
Of course I'm not russian.
Bernard Knight 14 Dec 2015 21:40
At it's core ISIS, ISL, DEASH, call them what you will, are a murderous death cult using
jihad and the establishment of a califate as their raison d'etre. They are an ideology, an
idea. No amounts of bombing or taking territory will annihilate that idea. Perhaps it should
be the Islamic world that tackles this threat, starting with first and foremost, our foremost
arms purchasers, Saudi Arabia.
Shatford Shatford 14 Dec 2015 21:34
Asked if Obama had consciously chosen to make his rhetoric more aggressive for public
benefit, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said when the president meets the national
security council, "he is not looking at public opinion polls".
Obvious bullshit. It's this kind of Hilary Clinton-like waffling rhetoric and pandering to
opinion polls is what is driving the popularity of Donald Trump's campaign.
Nolan Harding 14 Dec 2015 21:25
The Islamic state is surrounded by hostile forces, they are under siege so how are they
getting ammunition, refined gasoline, food, internet service and all thier Toyota trucks.
Obviously the forces surrounding them are not that hostile. A real siege would have seen them
starving to death years ago. Like in Leningrad...now THAT was a siege and REAL war, not this
strategic game the deluded masses think is a ' war'.
JMWong 14 Dec 2015 21:24
Obama has missed the opportunity to announce that hw would the bunch of criminals
consisting of Bush, Cheney, Blair, Rumsfeld, Allbright, McCain, Cameron, Hollande, etc. to the
International Tribunal for trial for their crimes against humanity. They have murdered
millions of people.
bunkusmystic -> burnel 14 Dec 2015 21:18
Have a look at the latest Isis videos they have all the latest American weapons ... How do
you think they get them? Is it private citizens in Saudi who buy them or the government ...
The Saudis want the Iraqi and Syrian oil fields and they are using this Isis fabrication to
get them. If the coalition is so serious about fighting Isis how is it that thousands of oil
tankers pass through turkey each day? With no one noticing??? It's only Russia who is taking
real action
tjmars 14 Dec 2015 21:17
This is to draw the heat-seeker foreign press away from the Mad Turk Erdogan who is
fake-begging the Russians to prove the accusations that Erdogan Jr is running "red-stained
oil" to major buyers on the Turkish black market...
Ooops!...don't want to know who those 'terrorist supporting capitalists" are!...
Is this an example of 'laissez-faire" in Late Capitalism...a "bubble" for risk-taking
investors?
Whew! Its a good thing "Soylent Green" was a fictional commodity in movies or the funeral
homes would be void of any "dead meat" for ritual burials..
Thanlks to Capitalism, we will one day see the mythical "dog-eat-dog" aphorism come to light
with "god-damned" good profits...
The western central bankers weren't 'standing behind the curtain" pulling the levers of power
again were they?
Do a litmus test on their 'red tooth and claw' mentality...
Hey where did they go?
Obama made them disappear with his speech!
clashcr 14 Dec 2015 21:14
Hmm, not a word about Assad. Well US policy about radical Islam - take your pick there are
nearly 20 groups in Syria - is about it being overt and not covert. So, they are pleased when
radicals show their faces and establish territory because it attracts more radicals to leave
the west to go there to be killed. The other result may be that the moderates like the Muslim
Brotherhood who may seriously have been talking about a pan-Islamic Caliphate and Sharia law
have seen their cause put back by decades.
JMWong -> sage10 14 Dec 2015 21:12
If the USA wants to fight ISIS, it must attack ISIS at its source, that is, the countries
where the ISIS fighters originate. This means Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the USA itself, UK,
France, etc. Bomb these countries and the sources of ISIS fighters will dry up.
sashasmirnoff 14 Dec 2015 21:09
I apologize for deviating slightly from this story, but I have a link to share concerning
what would usually be considered a sensational story, but this paper has neglected to cover
it. A Turkish Parliamentarian has come forward with documented proof that in 2013 Turkey
supplied IS with the components to manufacture Sarin gas and facilitated their transport to
the IS in Syria. I have no idea why the Guardian doesn't consider this to be newsworthy.
I still see nothing but a PR blitz here. The strategy has not changed. The claims of
success are over-rated. ISIS still controls large swathes of territory; and more importantly,
it has shown it can project power internationally...all the way to the US...through sleeper
cells and lone wolf attacks. The only way to deal with such a pernicious organization is a
full on-the-ground massive combined arms assault: armor, air power, and heavy infantry. It
won't take a Desert Storm type campaign, as ISIS is no where near as large as Saddam's army;
but it will take a real coordinated military campaign with boots-on-the-ground to seize and
hold territory. No question about that. Obama won't commit to that type strategy, so it will
be up to the next President to do so, as ISIS will still be around by then, given Obama's
reliance solely on air power.
giorgio16 14 Dec 2015 20:59
...is Obama aware that Russia is already fighting isis,...and from the right side?... or he
is pretending he is in charge now?
...Saudis are fighting shias in Yemen on one side, creating a humanitarian disaster no one
wants to acknowledge, and Assad in Sirya on the other creating another disaster convenniently
blamed on Assad by Obama and co...interesting times ahead...
TomGray 14 Dec 2015 20:43
Obama used the same decapitation tactic against Al Queda. Al Queda destabilized because of
it and morphed into ISIS. There is no shortage of people who want to become leaders in any
organization. Obama's tactics may hinder ISIS but they will not cause the organized violence
that it currently represents to disappear. The players may change but the game remains the
same.
Decapitation can only be part of an effective strategy and so far Obama has not
demonstrated that he has the capability to draw together the other essential elements
ID4352889 -> DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 20:41
Saudi flew thousands of Jihadists out of Syria a while ago and sent them to Libya. It is
well documented. The West did not interfere. Presumably for the same reasons they didn't
interfere with the Turkey/Daesh oil scam.
DelOrtoyVerga 14 Dec 2015 20:35
Hurry up Obama before the Ruskies steal your thunder! or the few sparks that are left by
now that is...
Mwahahaha...
I'm sure these special forces, these token "boots on the ground" you are sending will be
exclusively focusing on ISIL and are not being sent to undermine the Syrian government or
their allies, I repeat the special forces ARE NOT BEING SENT TO UNDERMINE THE SYRIAN
GOVERNMENT OR THEIR ALLIES.
HowSicklySeemAll 14 Dec 2015 20:26
Why did the US wait until now to 'drop more bombs than ever before'?
Russian foreign minister recently stated that:
"We have noticed that the US-led coalition stepped up its fight against IS only after Russia
dispatched a combat air group to Syria. The coalition efforts undertaken in Syria earlier
could be described as odd, to say the least This brings to mind NATO's operations in
Afghanistan We don't want the fight to be feigned."
DomesticExtremist 14 Dec 2015 20:13
Can we assume from this that the fix is in: Kilary has been selected for Pres and Obomber
has to roll the pitch on her behalf so that she can hit the ground running?
"We came, we saw, they died. (insane cackle)."
Look out for some killer blow to be landed on the Donald soon.
Sualdam -> meewaan 14 Dec 2015 20:10
The biggest contribution America can make to getting rid of Isis is to "persuade" its
friends and allies - Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey mainly - to turn off the tap of finance,
munitions and logistics to Isis, Al Qaeda in Syria (Al Nusra) and its allies like Ahrar Al
Sham. No American ground troops needed; they would be counter-productive.
MrJanuary 14 Dec 2015 19:55
Well done Russia for mobilizing the worlds second largest military force, the USA, in Syria
against ISIS.
robertthebruce2014 -> MasonInNY 14 Dec 2015 19:48
We love Putin here in Europe, at least he defends European interests. The USA is only
defending Saudi and Israeli interest. We are currently in the process of breaking up the NATO
coalition. The USA can stick with Turkey, Israel, and the Saudis.
pierotg 14 Dec 2015 19:43
December 2015: "We are hitting Isil harder than ever" .
July 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NkjNvwuaU
!!! Look at the eys of that general behind, please! He was falling almost asleep and then ...
frozen! Is it just my impression? That would be really hilarious if we weren't talking about
war and crimes against humanity.
Please, stop lying this way.
This is far too much. This is alienating.
The USA and UK governments are loosing all that was left of their credibility and reliability
in the last decade and the only strategy left seems to make the big lie bigger than ever. This
is like shouting at the world "I can do whatever suits me and f**k the rest!"
Even their relationships with their EU partners have proved slick.
I've been listening to politicians speeches and interviews lately and found myself thinking:
"That autocrat and ex KGB agent ruling Russia sounds much less hypocrite and far more
competent". What if you could choose between Putin or Trump to represent your country (just as
if they were sport pros you could hire for your team)?
This is far too much. This won't do any good and nuclear weapons can still destroy our planet
in 30 minutes. Whoever is behind this mess what's going to profit then? This is obscene
incompetence and fearsome irresponsibility.
In my teens Steve Stevens's Top Gun Theme got me goosebumps... On my Strat guitar there has
been a Union Jack pickguard for 25 years... What shall I tell my son when he will ask me why I
removed the original white one? I'm getting quite embarrassed.
Is it the End of the World as We know it? Yet I don't feel fine.
1ClearSense 14 Dec 2015 19:40
Yemen is the poorest Arab country with limited resources. The Saudis, along with a slew of
other Arab regimes have been bombing the Yemeni military and Houthi militia who were clearing
up Al Qaeda out of Yemen pretty good, for 9 months.
In the summer the Saudis and UAE sheiks decided to send ground forces to "liberate" Yemen.
Other than taking some part of southern Yemen with the help of separatists and jihadis of all
sort, they failed in their mission. A single attack on Saudi military caused dozens of Saudi
and Emarati dead. The Emaratis decided on Colombian mercenaries, the Saudi paid Sudanese
military to send troops. Yesterday the Yemenis killed a large number of these mercenaries
(anywhere between 80 to 150) including the Saudi commander and another high official and a
Emarati officer.
Southern Yemen, the "Saudi liberated" areas is being taken over by al Qaeda piece by piece,
and also ISIS has become very active. The idea that these Arab regimes can be productive in
anything to defeat jihadi terror is a pipe dream. It is all about public relations and having
"Sunni Arabs" along to defeat "Sunni Arabs" jihadis. This is so completely miscalculation that
will backfire. Saudis and their crew have no desire or ability to defeat the wahhabi
terrorists. The time has come to see it as what it is, the only way to defeat the jihadi
terrorists is teaming up with the people who are being successful, and that doesn't include
the Arab tyrannies.
Panda Bear -> Steven Wallace 14 Dec 2015 19:33
Did your father know offices controlled by the \British at Suez were apparently given over
to the Moslem Brotherhood? UK used Islamic extremists back then and US has continued the
policy it appears.
I was recently reminded of Churchill's speech about the possibility of Germans invading
Britain... "We'll fight them on the beeches" etc. Wonder if the Germans would have considered
the British fighters terrorists if they had managed to occupy Britain?
Occupation by foreign forces is ok if it's our forces or our allies and our enemies cannot
resist or they are designated as terrorists... National Sovereignty is disregarded whole sale
by US/NATO and allies.
One rule for us, another for 'them'! Hypocrisy reigns supreme.
Steven Wallace -> Zara Thustra 14 Dec 2015 19:32
haha ok well thats too simplistic Mr Zarathustra . The issue with Islamic fundamentalism is
that it uses a religion to kill innocents without targeting anyone of any real importance .
The Koran has not changed like the New Testament but I really do not believe that modern day
Muslims who pray would all wish to kill me because I am not a Muslim .
That scare mongering is simply a distraction ,as George Bush said " Who is this Bin Laden ?"
Well I would have said " You know him George ,his family financed your oil business ,they are
friends of your family ".
All Muslims are scary to us while the real issues are being ignored 24/7
The Bible is full of evil concepts ,why not consider ourselves in the West as evil Christians
?
Not me though ,I'm an atheist
LewisFriend -> Miramon 14 Dec 2015 19:32
Well Assad wasn't massacring people either till their was an uprising.. Yet in Syria people
were a lot more free than Saudi.. They also don't have the CIA on the ground encouraging one.
Be under no illusions the ruling Saudi clique are animals.
WatchEm 14 Dec 2015 19:30
Barack Obama warns leaders of Islamic State in speech: 'you are next'
Threats like that are enough to get my parrot squawking with laughter - forget any
"terrorists" or anyone with a live brain cell.
Yet more tries to reassure a domestic audience, who unlike the majority of nations, apparently
live in fear, and need convincing that the USG is doing something and "leading the way" in
their declared "War on Terrorism". It's like having to tolerate listening to the banality of
what purports to be US "news networks".
Unfortunately, after around 10,000 bombing runs and predictable time-wasting talk, the message
is still not sinking in that the Grand Master Plan of 'leading the way' is a failure and
reduced to hope that they can stop terrorism by 'taking out' some leadership. Yep, heard that
one before. The USG 'defeated terrorism' by 'taking out' Al Queda leaders - a number of them
34+ times. Al Queda no longer exists - not.
Instead of 'leading from the rear' and expecting other nations to clean up the carnage and
havoc left over by US adventures into the Middle East, perhaps the USG could find a few
non-torturers, non rapists and no members of US death squads and clean the region up with
their own trash collectors as 'boots on the ground'. Well... no harm in dreaming and
fantasising it might work and "we can win, win, win" ...
So, bottom line, order more bombs with taxpayers funds Carter, and pretend you matter while
the 'leader' continues the infantile rhetoric for US consumption, just as his predecessor did.
May the US people and people in other victim nations be saved from US 'little men' - both
'generals' and politicians.
PS Try not to bomb innocent men, women and children on the ground during the bombing runs.
They never deserved your slaughter, carnage, death squads and torture the last time around and
don't need a US euphemism, "collateral damage", to justify their deaths. But of course,
counting bodies is not a topic of conversation in the Rogue Regime of the West. It only
matters if it is US men, women and children who are slaughtered while the US regime role play
fighting for "democracy and freedom" by "leading from the rear".
Panda Bear -> MRModeratedModerate 14 Dec 2015 19:21
Some of them are very busy bombing Yemen to destruction and recruiting mercenaries in
places such as Columbia to help! The situation for citizens in Yemen is dire, some areas
described as on the verge of famine partly due to the embargo that is also imposed.
JMWong 14 Dec 2015 19:09
This speech shows the hypocrisy of the Americans. In fact, as it was made clear many times
before, the real objective of the USA is to invade Syria, to destroy Syria and to murder as
many Syrians as possible, including its President, Assad. The USA had the same objective with
regards to Iraq and Lybia. Iraq was invaded and destroyed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
were murdered by the coalition of the willing led by the USA. The lives of tens of millions
Iraqis have been destroyed. Its President, Saddam Hussein was murdered. In the case of Libya,
the same coalition of the willing, led by the same USA, bombed Libya for six months. It was
the greatest terrorist attack over the last ten years. It was six months of terror for
millions of Libyans everyday for over six months. More than thirty thousand Libyans were
murdered in this exceptional terror attack, including its President, Kaddafi. Now, the USA is
leading the same coalition of the willing to murder hundreds of thousand Syrians. Assad must
go, chant the USA and its f...king partners. We heard the same chant with regrda to Saddam
Hussein and Kaddafi. Saddam Hussein must go. Kaddafi must go. As if the USA with its f..
Partners are the ones to choose who should and should not rule Iraq, Libya and Syria. ISIS was
created, is funded, trained armed and supported by the USA and its willing partners. For more
than one year that they are bombing Syria, they did not see the thousands and thousands of
trucks carrying robbed oil from Syria to Turkey. And now Obama, flanked by thecriminal Ash
Carter, a creature of McCain, claims that he is determined to fight ISIS. Since many of the
ISIS fighters come from the USA, UK, France, why do you not start by bombing the USA, UK,
France. Why start with Syria?
Steven Wallace 14 Dec 2015 19:05
Because truth has no place in the modern political theatre . Truth is down to perception
and when you control the media you control the truth .Remember NORID ,when the US funded the
IRA against the UK ? The IRA used bombs to kill many innocents in their resistance to the
British occupation . My brother was a soldier in the British Army and believed he was doing
the right thing by going to Northern Ireland . After reflection he now feels he was wrong to
be a part of that situation .My father served in Egypt during the Suez Crisis and felt he was
right to be there and later questioned why so many young lads were sent to such a inhospitable
foreign land . The reason always comes down to money .
MRModeratedModerate 14 Dec 2015 19:04
"in recent weeks we've unleashed a new wave of strikes on their lifeline, on their oil
infrastructure..."
I don't see no bombs falling on Turkey?
illbthr22 -> ObambiBot 14 Dec 2015 18:54
Your country provides nothing positive to the world. I watch American movies, eat American
food, listen to American music. Russia doesn't exist to me. The only time i hear Russia
mentioned is when Russia is threatening war with someone or 2 drunks are beating each other up
on youtube.
supercool -> BG Davis 14 Dec 2015 18:49
Again read my comment. The way the war on drugs is waged and fought. It is never ending,
murky and with so many dubious allegiances.
The war on terror is never ending, murky and with so many dubious allegiance. For example we
exported Jihadism to Afghanistan to defeat the invading communist Soviet's, they eventually
morphed to the Taliban who then gave sanctuary to Al-Qaeda. Which formed an affiliate branch
in Iraq after our invasion in 2003 and which morphed into the Islsmic state.
HollyOldDog -> stonedage 14 Dec 2015 18:48
Obama is the first black American President but that doesn't mean that he is the first
sensible one.
Whitt -> supercool 14 Dec 2015 18:46
As someone who is old enough to have lived under two great Presidents and three
great-but-flawed Presidents, I'm saying that Obama is a 2nd-rater at best. A hundred years
from now he'll be a triva-question President like Millard Fillmore or Grover Cleaveland.
OscarAwesome 14 Dec 2015 18:44
Sure, this is typical political spruiking. Obama doing the Commander in Chief thing,
proclaiming PROGRESS, reaffirming how bad the 'enemy' are, saying tough things as a response
to the accusations of weakness by US conservatives (who are coy about what their actual
alternative to Obama's approach is because it probably looks very much like catastrophic full
invasion foolishness of George W's Iraq war), blah, blah, we've seen it all before on
countless occasions.
The situation in Syria in particular is ridiculously complex and consists of a plethora of
detail and options for action about which we will all have wildly divergent opinions.
But there is a part of this that is simple. There are practically zero options for dealing
with ISIL/IS/ISIS/whatever besides killing them. They seek no negotiations, offer no potential
compromise position and their take on politics is to simply kill everyone who isn't them. The
lack of alternate, peaceful/diplomatic options ISIS and similar groups offer, with their
preposterous Dark Ages philosophies, is in a macabre way almost refreshing.
The hard bit is how to kill/capture/degrade their capability without a) slaughtering
bystanders and b) causing such carnage as to act as an ISIS recruitment agency.
For all the great many faults and excesses of the West and the larger Muslin world, ISIS
do not in any way offer a comprehensive socio-political alternate system of government with
a vestige of logical appeal to humanity (unlike, say the threat communism represented in the
20th century). They have some vague pipe dream of apocalyptic conflict where the other 99.999%
of the human race is either slaughtered or magically converted to embracing the reversal of
human history by 1,500 years. Not going to happen. Silly.
The threat ISIS represent is largely emotional. Unless you are lightning-strike like
unfortunate (or they get hold of nuclear weapons) ISIS disturb our assumptions of physical
safety in a symbolic way only. The histrionics generated by that fear is our real enemy.
Popeyes 14 Dec 2015 18:44
What a disappointment, I was waiting for Obama to explain just why he didn't bomb IS oil
facilities, and why the U.S. are still best buddies with Saudi who it seems supplies and
finances most of the terrorists in Syria and Iraq. Nothing new here move along.
Horst Faranelli 14 Dec 2015 18:43
...but the spot oil price is squeezing the heart out of Russia.
Panda Bear -> GustavoB 14 Dec 2015 18:43
There have been reports for a while (since Russia began bombing) that Isis have been
fleeing Syria and many commanders have relocated to Libya. Isis have overtaken one of the so
called governments and are making gains, oil assets their next target I read yesterday.
Seasuka -> DoomGlitter 14 Dec 2015 18:41
Whatever America's position now, for decades they have supported and helped to arm Salafist
jihadis through Saudi and the Muslim World league in opposition to any secular or perceived
communist movements in the region which might threaten oil supplies. Ditto uk.
jmNZ 14 Dec 2015 18:40
The secular Syrian government, with women in its ranks, is fighting for its life
against a most ruthless and abominable enemy: fanatical jihadist mercenaries financed by an
execrable mediaeval tyranny, Saudi Barbaria. This is the enemy of all we stand for, the enemy
that perpetrated 9/11 and 7/7 and their latest clone that bombed Paris concert-goers and
Russian holiday-makers. They are paid and trained by Riyadh. And armed to the teeth with
modern American weapons, passed to them by the newest demagogue, Turkey's Erdoğan.
The sworn enemy of all these head-chopping bigots is Assad's secular republic of Syria
because it challenges the ideological dogmatism of Sharia Law. This law is as rigid as
Hitler's Nazism or Stalin's communism.
And we wonder whether we should support Assad?
For the record, here are some undisputed facts:
30 countries, including South Africa, sent election observers to Syria and found them to be
"reasonably free and fair". This was in 2014 when Basher al-Assad got 88% of the vote in the
first multi-party presidential elections. Nearly half the population of Syria actually made it
to the polls. Not half the electorate, half the population.
Syria is governed by 5 parties in coalition opposed by a 2 party coalition of 5 members and
77 "Independents". Assad's Baqath Party has a majority, 134 out of 250.
Syria is today's Czechoslovakia.
Whitt -> supercool 14 Dec 2015 18:34
"Compare his Presidency with George Bush or most previous American President's if recent
years." - supercool
*
Considering that most of the Presidents that we've had over the last few decades have been
mediocrities and that Bush Jr. was downright incompetent, that is truly an example of damning
with faint praise.
*
*
"Obama goes into the history books as a great President who achieved so many first's"
*
To paraphrase the immortal Douglas Adams, this is obviously some strange usage of the word
"great" that I was not previously aware of.
ByThePeople 14 Dec 2015 18:10
"in recent weeks'...'destroying hundreds of their (ISIL's) tanker trucks, wells and
refineries. So far, ISIL has lost about 40% of the populated area it once controlled n Iraq."
Anyone else a bit shocked that after having several countries dropping bombs on ISIL for an
extended period of time - that ISIL would still be in possession of hundreds of tanker trucks,
wells and refineries - their 'life line'....?
A full fledged oil business in up, running and in the market to sell oil - which is obviously
all being bought up and these revenues, combined with other revenue streams, have been
supporting ISIL's efforts for an extended period of time.
I wonder if because 'a few weeks' was finally taken to supposedly destroy this critical
infrastructure - if the 'evasive' ISIL oil business - along with revenues - will suffer? I
also wonder why the air campaign hasn't been extended to include the purchasers of ISIL's oil
supplies - at sea and in their home countries.
And here in lies the problem. The US is not serious about taking down ISIS. They are a
convient bunch of psychopaths that can be used for various agendas the US has in mind.
Including but not limited to weakening/removing Assad, getting Iran embroiled in costly war,
terrifying domestic populations into giving up freedoms, justifying more military
interventions that go against international law.
The list goes on
1ClearSense 14 Dec 2015 17:59
The cult of Wahhabi terrorist supported by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Turkey need to be
defeated. With all the public information available, we are here because of all the wrong
moves by the US. It is about time to nip this in the bud. The root problem is in Saudi Arabia.
In no uncertain terms US needs to tell the Arab tyrannies to stop the jihadi terror. It is
obviouse US has listened to the Saudis and Qataris to create a Sunni militia in Iraq, Syria to
"confront" Iran. The imaginary ghost that constantly scares Saudi tyranny. The result has been
all the various head chopping terror groups. The "Sunni" Arab tyrannies will never supply
troops to take over areas occupied by terrorists. Qatar demands sanitizing al Qaeda terrorist
in Syria and giving them a say. It is stupid to even consider these as allies in fight against
the wahhabi Islamist terrorists. Time has come to forget about removing Assad, just cooperate
with Russia, Syria, Iran and Iraq to take back land from all terrorists step by step, and have
the legitimate government in Syria and Iraq, with their pro government militia control the
ground.
TheBorderGuard -> gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:55
Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical
faster than we can kill them.
The Muslims seem to be manufacturing radicals quickly enough without any help from us.
TonyBlunt 14 Dec 2015 17:51
"We are hitting Isil harder than ever."
Here is how hard the US and their regional allies have been hitting ISIL and the other
jihadi terrorists:
Good docu about that recently. Might still be available on BBCiplayer. The Americans bought
Saudi drilling rights for 2cents and the Brits bought Iraqi rights for tuppence. Twenty years
later the middle easterns thought "hold on a minute," and offered a fifty-fifty split. The
Americans pragmatically accepted, thus their relationship with the House of Saud, the Brits
got all uppity at the natives and got kicked out.
TheSindhiAbbasi -> gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:45
What about billions of US military equipment in Iraq, that was captured by Daesh?
gunnison 14 Dec 2015 17:40
Freeze Saudi assets and blockade all their exports until they send all that gee-whiz
military equipment we sold them into this fight, and all the Saudi military we trained too.
Isis must ultimately be defeated by Muslim forces, or we'll be manufacturing radical faster
than we can kill them.
Panda Bear -> Jools12 14 Dec 2015 17:36
"We only get some action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course
there is minimal reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media."
Exactly. Russia is the old enemy, it is interfering and questioning US actions and has huge
natural resources. Putin called them out in his speech at the UN...
US has been provoking Russia for some time, and is also provoking China. This may not end well
for any of us and no one will stand up and demand it stops!
HAGGISANCHIPS -> ame1ie 14 Dec 2015 17:34
The nazi ideology was removed militarily. It couldn't survive because it was morally wrong
and repugnant, like Daesh.
Edward Frederick Ezell 14 Dec 2015 17:27
Sending our professional agents of coercion and terror to kill people in foreign countries
over which we somehow more or less claim jurisdiction is not something that is clearly
beneficial in the long term although it does respond appropriately to the call for vengeance
and blood from our own political actors.
Panda Bear -> Taku2 14 Dec 2015 17:27
US has turned it into a proxy war with Russia and Iran and has called in the NATO allies to
back them up. Obama seems to work differently to previous presidents like Bush, he seems to
like to work quietly using drones and not much publicized actions and calls in the NATO and
allied troops to cover their actions.
Taku2 14 Dec 2015 17:23
America will do this America will do that. Well, guess what; you cannot do it on your own.
You cannot make a successful strategic plan to fight Daesh without the Russians, Iranians and
Syrian government forces being integral elements of such a plan.
Daesh is like an Hydra, so bombing alone cannot defeat it, it just spread it to new areas. You
need to do an honest review of how Daesh was created; albeit, unintentionally, by
ill-conceived American and EU/NATO policies in the Middle East and Africa.
America and EU/NATO cannot effective fight the war being waged by Daesh and Al Qaeda, until
they have learned the lessons to be learned from their misguided policies, and openly
acknowledged the mistakes they have made.
Sunrise_Song 14 Dec 2015 17:18
What would it be like to live in a truly peaceful and free world? All it takes is strength,
foresight and the guts to be honest.
All the things the West is failing at. Obama like most Western leaders is a weaver of lies and
half-truths.
How can we ever have peace until we challenge the core issue? This is an ideological fight.
It's a war of minds. ISIS believe the West is a basin of sin. That our liberal and secular
ways need to be destroyed and replaced by their ideologies and way of life.
Only, we can see they're wrong. That even with our faults and flaws, our belief in freedom,
democracy and equality is the best way, still we defend that same ideology in our own nations.
Obama is failing the American people. Just like Merkel and Co are failing the European people.
Bombs won't stop IS.
Jools12 14 Dec 2015 17:18
What have they been doing for the last two years then? No attacks on ISIS trucks
transporting oil, no sanctions on countries that have been buying that oil. We only get some
action now that Russia has been attacking ISIS in Syria and of course there is minimal
reporting of the successes of the Russians in Western media. As far as Libya is concerned,
there are very ominous signs that ISIS is moving to set up headquarters in that country, a
country a lot closer to Europe than Syria or Iraq are. There is also the problem that the
Russians will not be involved in Libya, unlike Syria, they do not have a functioning
government to ask them in. Libya is the nightmare created by NATO and the US, they will have
to take full responsibility for their dreadful actions there and fight the barbarians they
created, no sitting back and allowing them to flourish this time.
TheBorderGuard 14 Dec 2015 17:13
Obama told reporters: "This continues to be a difficult fight. Isil is dug in, including
in urban areas, and they hide behind civilians, using defenceless men, women and children
as human shields. So even as we're relentless, we have to be smart, targeting Isil
surgically, with precision."
Good luck, boss. Ask Netanyahu how it went for the Israelis when they tried to end Hamas'
rocket attacks from Gaza. Because that's the kind of foe you'll be up against.
poechristy 14 Dec 2015 17:10
Someone has obviously told Obama that his Mr Nice Guy act was merely encouraging Islamic
State and their supporters in the US. It's time for all Western nations to make clear that
anyone involved in any way with Islamic State-funding them, promoting them, or returning from
fighting for them- will feel the full force of the law. I can't understand why those returning
from Syria are not immediately arrested and held to account.
I rather suspect we wouldn't be seeing the same appeasement if white supremacists were
returning from a foreign land having been involved in the torture,rape and murder of ethnic
minorities.
lefthalfback2 DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 17:06
NYT said a few days back that ISIS are looking to Surt in Libya as the spot to which they
can decamp if the Heat comes down in Iraq. Does not seem likely to me since it is on the coast
and could easily be struck from the sea.
Whitt DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 17:03
Weren't you paying attention?
(1) We have a coalition of the willing in the international War on Terror.
(2) ISIS is on their last legs. There's nothing left but a bunch of dead-enders.
(3) We're squeezing their heart in Iraq, their balls in Syria, and their spleen in Libya.
(4) There's a light at the end of the tunnel.
(5) Ve are vinning ze var!
Now get with the program and quit interfering with the narrative or it's off to Gitmo with
you, me lad!
ohhaiimark 14 Dec 2015 16:58
Want to stop ISIS? It's rather simple. Sanction those who fund them. Sanction those who
spread Wahhabism. Sanction those who buy oil off them....Basically sanction all of America's
allies in the region.
Then work together with the Russians, the Syrians, the Iranians and whoever else is willing to
send ground troops in to take each town and city occupied by these scumbags one by one.
You can't defeat ISIS if your goal is also to remove Assad. That will only help ISIS. It's
time to wake up from that delusion that Assad is going anywhere. Once the war is over, then we
can let the Syrian people decide who will lead them through democratic elections.
Djinn666 14 Dec 2015 16:56
They've squeezed so hard that it oozed into Libya and other points on the compass,
including San Bernardino.
Note to CIC Obama, However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results
(Winston Churchill).
Fence2 14 Dec 2015 16:54
What a farce, who does Obama think he's kidding? If the US was serious about ISIS it
would have been finished off a year ago, now that Russia has called the US's bluff they now
have to pretend to step up to the plate. Pathetic.
DogsLivesMatter 14 Dec 2015 16:50
Meanwhile in Libya....http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/world-leaders-push-libya-peace-isil-fills-vacuum-151214044020934.html
Apparently there are 3,000 ISIL fighters in Libya at the moment. It's time President Obama and
John Kerry gave us the whole story, but I guess with Saudi Arabia and Turkey being allies the
US can't rock the boat too much.
dikcheney 14 Dec 2015 16:48
More drivel from the counterfeit president. His allies in the middle east are
disgusting butchers. Take Turkey: it is a great shame for Turkey that 32 journalists are
imprisoned in the 21st century. Some were arrested on Nov. 26 after being charged in May with
espionage, revealing confidential documents and membership in a terrorist organization. The
charges are related to a report published by a leading newspaper claiming weapons-loaded
trucks that were discovered in January 2014 en route to Syria actually belonged to the
National Intelligence Organization (MİT) and had been sent to provide support to rebel groups.
The USA has been seduced and conned for decades until its entire policy is focused on fighting
proxy wars to keep the middle east ablaze in the interests of others. SHAME on the dumb USA.
laguerre 14 Dec 2015 16:39
A load of rubbish. US supports the Saudis, who support ISIS. US attacks on ISIS are not
serious, as the speech suggests.
There are two possibilities here: iether Guardian pressitutes sometimes try to play degenarates
or they consider their readers to be degenerates...
Notable quotes:
"... Typical The Moscow Times garbage. ..."
"... Hmmm, some really sophisticated comments and analysis apropos of current issues in geopolitics and international relations. Nuanced, objective, and informative. Excuse me but I have to go watch some more esoteric reportage from Fox News. ..."
Hmmm, some really sophisticated comments and analysis apropos of current issues in
geopolitics and international relations. Nuanced, objective, and informative.
Excuse me but I have to go watch some more esoteric reportage from Fox News.
"... Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street reforms and actions Bill Clinton performed as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains tax? Are you aware of Greenspans record? ..."
"... Its actually pro-neoliberalism crowd vs anti-neoliberalism crowd. In no way anti-neoliberalism commenters here view this is a character melodrama, although psychologically Hillary probably does has certain problems as her reaction to the death of Gadhafi attests. The key problem with anti-neoliberalism crowd is the question What is a realistic alternative? Thats where differences and policy debate starts. ..."
"... Events do not occur in isolation. GLBA increased TBTF in AIG and Citi. TBTF forced TARP. GLBA greased the skids for CFMA. Democrats gained majority, but not filibuster proof, caught between Iraq and a hard place following their votes for TARP and a broader understanding of their participation in the unanimous consent passage of the CFMA, over objection by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN). ..."
"... It certainly fits the kind of herd mentality that I always saw in corporate Amerika until I retired. The William Greider article posted by RGC was very consistent in its account by John Reed with the details of one or two books written about AIG back in 2009 or so. I dont have time to hunt them up now. Besides, no one would read them anyway. ..."
"... GS was one of several actions taken by the New Deal. That it wasnt sufficient by itself doesnt equate to it wasnt beneficial. ..."
"... "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy." ..."
"... The repeal of Glass Steagal was a landmark victory in deregulation that greased the skids for the passage of CFMA once Democrats had been further demoralized by the SCOTUS decision on Bush-v-Gore. The first vote on GLBA was split along party lines, but passed because Republicans had majority and Clinton was willing to sign which was clear from the waiver that had been granted to illegal Citi merger with Travelers. Both Citi and AIG mergers contributed to too big to fail. The CFMA was the nail in the coffin that probably would have never gotten off the ground if Democrats had held the line on the GLBA. Glass-Steagal was insufficient as a regulatory system to prevent the 2008 mortgage crisis, but it was giant as an icon of New Deal financial system reform. Its loss institutionalized too big to fail ..."
"... Gramm Leach Biley was a mistake. But it was not the only failure of US regulatory policies towards financial institutions nor the most important. ..."
"... It was more symbolic caving in on financial regulation than a specific technical failure except for making too big to fail worse at Citi and AIG. It marked a sea change of thinking about financial regulation. Nothing mattered any more, including the CFMA just a little over one year later. Deregulation of derivatives trading mandated by the CFMA was a colossal failure and it is not bizarre to believe that GLBA precipitated the consensus on financial deregulation enough that after the demoralizing defeat of Democrats in Bush-v-Gore then there was no New Deal spirit of financial regulation left. Social development is not just a series of unconnected events. It is carried on a tide of change. A falling tide grounds all boats. ..."
"... We had a financial dereg craze back in the late 1970s and early 1980s which led to the S L disaster. One would have thought we would have learned from that. But then came the dereg craziness 20 years later. And this disaster was much worse. ..."
"... This brings us to Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury Secretary of the United States and at the time right hand man to then Treasury Security Robert Rubin. Mr. Summers was widely credited with implementation of the aggressive tactics used to remove Ms. Born from her office, tactics that multiple sources describe as showing an old world bias against women piercing the glass ceiling. ..."
"... According to numerous published reports, Mr. Summers was involved in. silencing those who questioned the opaque derivative product's design. ..."
"... The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the financial industry. ..."
"... Great to see Bakers acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component of the progressive wings plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall Street types dont think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much. ..."
"... Yes thats a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. ..."
"... Slippery slope. Ya gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation on their business. ..."
"... Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation. The question is, what do they think of Clintons plan? Ive heard surprisingly little about that, and what I have heard is along these lines: http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/ ..."
"... Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Streets excesses on Thursday. The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief. ..."
"... Iceland's government is considering a revolutionary monetary proposal – removing the power of commercial banks to create money and handing it to the central bank. The proposal, which would be a turnaround in the history of modern finance, was part of a report written by a lawmaker from the ruling centrist Progress Party, Frosti Sigurjonsson, entitled "A better monetary system for Iceland". ..."
Hillary Clinton Is Whitewashing the Financial Catastrophe
She has a plan that she claims will reform Wall Street-but she's deflecting responsibility
from old friends and donors in the industry.
By William Greider
Yesterday 3:11 pm
Hillary Clinton's recent op-ed in The New York Times, "How I'd Rein In Wall Street," was intended
to reassure nervous Democrats who fear she is still in thrall to those mega-bankers of New York
who crashed the American economy. Clinton's brisk recital of plausible reform ideas might convince
wishful thinkers who are not familiar with the complexities of banking. But informed skeptics,
myself included, see a disturbing message in her argument that ought to alarm innocent supporters.
Candidate Clinton is essentially whitewashing the financial catastrophe. She has produced a
clumsy rewrite of what caused the 2008 collapse, one that conveniently leaves her husband out
of the story. He was the president who legislated the predicate for Wall Street's meltdown. Hillary
Clinton's redefinition of the reform problem deflects the blame from Wall Street's most powerful
institutions, like JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, and instead fingers less celebrated players
that failed. In roundabout fashion, Hillary Clinton sounds like she is assuring old friends and
donors in the financial sector that, if she becomes president, she will not come after them.
The seminal event that sowed financial disaster was the repeal of the New Deal's Glass-Steagall
Act of 1933, which had separated banking into different realms: investment banks, which organize
capital investors for risk-taking ventures; and deposit-holding banks, which serve people as borrowers
and lenders. That law's repeal, a great victory for Wall Street, was delivered by Bill Clinton
in 1999, assisted by the Federal Reserve and the financial sector's armies of lobbyists. The "universal
banking model" was saluted as a modernizing reform that liberated traditional banks to participate
directly and indirectly in long-prohibited and vastly more profitable risk-taking.
Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling
old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale. The banks invented "guarantees"
against loss and sold them to both companies and market players. The fast-expanding financial
sector claimed a larger and larger share of the economy (and still does) at the expense of the
real economy of producers and consumers. The interconnectedness across market sectors created
the illusion of safety. When illusions failed, these connected guarantees became the dragnet that
drove panic in every direction. Ultimately, the federal government had to rescue everyone, foreign
and domestic, to stop the bleeding.
Yet Hillary Clinton asserts in her Times op-ed that repeal of Glass-Steagall had nothing to
do with it. She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions
like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks. Her argument amounts
to facile evasion that ignores the interconnected exposures. The Federal Reserve spent $180 billion
bailing out AIG so AIG could pay back Goldman Sachs and other banks. If the Fed hadn't acted and
had allowed AIG to fail, the banks would have gone down too.
These sound like esoteric questions of bank regulation (and they are), but the consequences
of pretending they do not matter are enormous. The federal government and Federal Reserve would
remain on the hook for rescuing losers in a future crisis. The largest and most adventurous banks
would remain free to experiment, inventing fictitious guarantees and selling them to eager suckers.
If things go wrong, Uncle Sam cleans up the mess.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other reformers are pushing a simpler remedy-restore the Glass-Steagall
principles and give citizens a safe, government-insured place to store their money. "Banking should
be boring," Warren explains (her co-sponsor is GOP Senator John McCain).
That's a hard sell in politics, given the banking sector's bear hug of Congress and the White
House, its callous manipulation of both political parties. Of course, it is more complicated than
that. But recreating a safe, stable banking system-a place where ordinary people can keep their
money-ought to be the first benchmark for Democrats who claim to be reformers.
Actually, the most compelling witnesses for Senator Warren's argument are the two bankers who
introduced this adventure in "universal banking" back in the 1990s. They used their political
savvy and relentless muscle to seduce Bill Clinton and his so-called New Democrats. John Reed
was CEO of Citicorp and led the charge. He has since apologized to the nation. Sandy Weill was
chairman of the board and a brilliant financier who envisioned the possibilities of a single,
all-purpose financial house, freed of government's narrow-minded regulations. They won politically,
but at staggering cost to the country.
Weill confessed error back in 2012: "What we should probably do is go and split up investment
banking from banking. Have banks do something that's not going to risk the taxpayer dollars, that's
not going to be too big to fail."
John Reed's confession explained explicitly why their modernizing crusade failed for two fundamental
business reasons. "One was the belief that combining all types of finance into one institution
would drive costs down-and the larger institution the more efficient it would be," Reed wrote
in the Financial Times in November. Reed said, "We now know that there are very few cost efficiencies
that come from the merger of functions-indeed, there may be none at all. It is possible that combining
so much in a single bank makes services more expensive than if they were instead offered by smaller,
specialised players."
The second grave error, Reed said, was trying to mix the two conflicting cultures in banking-bankers
who are pulling in opposite directions. That tension helps explain the competitive greed displayed
by the modernized banking system. This disorder speaks to the current political crisis in ways
that neither Dems nor Republicans wish to confront. It would require the politicians to critique
the bankers (often their funders) in terms of human failure.
"Mixing incompatible cultures is a problem all by itself," Reed wrote. "It makes the entire
finance industry more fragile…. As is now clear, traditional banking attracts one kind of talent,
which is entirely different from the kinds drawn towards investment banking and trading. Traditional
bankers tend to be extroverts, sociable people who are focused on longer term relationships. They
are, in many important respects, risk averse. Investment bankers and their traders are more short
termist. They are comfortable with, and many even seek out, risk and are more focused on immediate
reward."
Reed concludes, "As I have reflected about the years since 1999, I think the lessons of Glass-Steagall
and its repeal suggest that the universal banking model is inherently unstable and unworkable.
No amount of restructuring, management change or regulation is ever likely to change that."
This might sound hopelessly naive, but the Democratic Party might do better in politics if
it told more of the truth more often: what they tried do and why it failed, and what they think
they may have gotten wrong. People already know they haven't gotten a straight story from politicians.
They might be favorably impressed by a little more candor in the plain-spoken manner of John Reed.
Of course it's unfair to pick on the Dems. Republicans have been lying about their big stuff
for so long and so relentlessly that their voters are now staging a wrathful rebellion. Who knows,
maybe a little honest talk might lead to honest debate. Think about it. Do the people want to
hear the truth about our national condition? Could they stand it?
"She claims that Glass-Steagall would not have limited the reckless behavior of institutions
like Lehman Brothers or insurance giant AIG, which were not traditional banks."
Of course this claim is absolutely true. Just like GS would not have affected the other investment
banks, whatever their name was. And just like we would have had to bail out those other banks
whatever their name was.
Peter K. -> EMichael...
Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton performed
as President including nominating Alan Greenspan as head regulator? Cutting the capital gains
tax? Are you aware of Greenspan's record?
Yes Hillary isn't Bill but she hasn't criticized her husband specifically about his record and
seems to want to have her cake and eat it too.
Of course Hillary is much better than the Republicans, pace Rustbucket and the Green Lantern Lefty
club. Still, critics have a point.
I won't be surprised if she doesn't do much to rein in Wall Street besides some window dressing.
sanjait -> Peter K....
"Can you list all of the pro- or anti- Wall Street "reforms" and actions Bill Clinton
performed..."
That, right there, is what's wrong with Bernie and his fans. They measure everything by whether
it is "pro- or anti- Wall Street". Glass Steagall is anti-Wall Street. A financial transactions
tax is anti-Wall Street. But neither has any hope of controlling systemic financial risk in this
country. None.
You guys want to punish Wall Street but not even bother trying to think of how to achieve useful
policy goals. Some people, like Paine here, are actually open about this vacuity, as if the only
thing that were important were winning a power struggle.
Hillary's plan is flat out better. It's more comprehensive and more effective at reining in
the financial system to limit systemic risk. Period.
You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I fear the
result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get to enact it.
likbez -> sanjait...
"You guys want to make this a character melodrama rather than a policy debate, and I
fear the result of that will be that the candidate who actually has the best plan won't get
to enact it."
You are misrepresenting the positions. It's actually pro-neoliberalism crowd vs anti-neoliberalism
crowd. In no way anti-neoliberalism commenters here view this is a character melodrama, although
psychologically Hillary probably does has certain problems as her reaction to the death of Gadhafi
attests. The key problem with anti-neoliberalism crowd is the question "What is a realistic alternative?"
That's where differences and policy debate starts.
RGC -> EMichael...
"Her argument amounts to facile evasion"
Fred C. Dobbs -> RGC...
'The majority favors policies to the left of Hillary.'
... The Democrats' liberal faction has been greatly overestimated by pundits who mistake noisiness
for clout or assume that the left functions like the right. In fact, liberals hold nowhere near
the power in the Democratic Party that conservatives hold in the Republican Party. And while they
may well be gaining, they're still far from being in charge. ...
Paine -> RGC...
What's not confronted ? Suggest what a System like the pre repeal system would have done in
the 00's. My guess we'd have ended in a crisis anyway. Yes we can segregate the depository system.
But credit is elastic enough to build bubbles without the depository system involved
EMichael -> Paine ...
Exactly.
Most people think of lending like the Bailey Brothers Savings and Loan still exists.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael...
Don't be such a whistle dick. Just because you cannot figure out why GLBA made such an impact
that in no way means that people that do understand are stupid. See my posted comment to RGC on
GLBA just down thread for an more detailed explanation including a linked web article. No, GS
alone would not have prevented the mortgage bubble, but it would have lessened TBTF and GS stood
as icon, a symbol of financial regulation. Hell, if we don't need GS then why don't we just allow
unregulated derivatives trading? Who cares, right? Senators Byron Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Barbara
Mikulski, Richard Shelby, Tom Harkin, Richard Bryan, Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders all voted
against GLBA to repeal GS for some strange reason and Dorgan made a really big deal out of it
at the time. I doubt everyone on that list of Senators was just stupid because they did not see
it your way.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> EMichael...
I ran all out of ceteris paribus quite some time ago. Events do not occur in isolation. GLBA
increased TBTF in AIG and Citi. TBTF forced TARP. GLBA greased the skids for CFMA. Democrats gained
majority, but not filibuster proof, caught between Iraq and a hard place following their votes
for TARP and a broader understanding of their participation in the unanimous consent passage of
the CFMA, over "objection" by Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Paul Wellstone (D-MN). We
have had a Republican majority in the House since the 2010 election and now they have the Senate
as well. If you are that sure that voters just choose divided government, then aren't we better
off to have a Republican POTUS and Democratic Congress?
sanjait -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"I ran all out of ceteris paribus quite some time ago. Events do not occur in isolation.
GLBA increased TBTF in AIG and Citi. TBTF forced TARP. GLBA greased the skids for CFMA. "
I know you think this is a really meaningful string that evidences causation, but it just looks
like you are reaching, reaching, reaching ...
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> sanjait...
Maybe. No way to say for sure. It certainly fits the kind of herd mentality that I always
saw in corporate Amerika until I retired. The William Greider article posted by RGC was very consistent
in its account by John Reed with the details of one or two books written about AIG back in 2009
or so. I don't have time to hunt them up now. Besides, no one would read them anyway.
I am voting for whoever wins the Democratic nomination for POTUS. Bernie without a like-minded
Congress would not do much good. But when we shoot each other down here at EV without offering
any agreement or consideration that we might not be 100% correct, then that goes against Doc Thoma's
idea of an open forum. Granted, with my great big pair then I am willing to state my opinion with
no consideration for validation or acceptance, but not everyone has that degree of a comfort zone.
Besides, I am so old an cynical that shooting down the overdogs that go after the underdogs is
one of the few things that I still care about.
RGC -> Paine ...
GS was one of several actions taken by the New Deal. That it wasn't sufficient by itself doesn't
equate to it wasn't beneficial.
Glass-Steagall: Warren and Sanders bring it back into focus
Madonna Gauding / May 13, 2015
Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are putting a new focus on the Glass-Steagall
Act, which was, unfortunately, repealed in 1999 and led directly to the financial crises we have
faced ever since. Here's a bit of history of this legislative debacle from an older post on Occasional
Planet published several years ago :
On November 4, 1999, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) took to the floor of the senate to make an
impassioned speech against the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, (alternately known as Gramm Leach
Biley, or the "Financial Modernization Act") Repeal of Glass-Steagall would allow banks to merge
with insurance companies and investments houses. He said "I want to sound a warning call today
about this legislation, I think this legislation is just fundamentally terrible."
According to Sam Stein, writing in 2009 in the Huffington Post, only eight senators voted against
the repeal. Senior staff in the Clinton administration and many now in the Obama administration
praised the repeal as the "most important breakthrough in the world of finance and politics in
decades"
According to Stein, Dorgan warned that banks would become "too big to fail" and claimed that
Congress would "look back in a decade and say we should not have done this." The repeal of Glass
Steagall, of course, was one of several bad policies that helped lead to the current economic
crisis we are in now.
Dorgan wasn't entirely alone. Sens. Barbara Boxer, Barbara Mikulski, Richard Shelby, Tom Harkin,
Richard Bryan, Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders also cast nay votes. The late Sen. Paul Wellstone
opposed the bill, and warned at the time that Congress was "about to repeal the economic stabilizer
without putting any comparable safeguard in its place."
Democratic Senators had sufficient knowledge about the dangers of the repeal of Glass Steagall,
but chose to ignore it. Plenty of experts warned that it would be impossible to "discipline" banks
once the legislation was passed, and that they would get too big and complex to regulate. Editorials
against repeal appeared in the New York Times and other mainstream venues, suggesting that if
the new megabanks were to falter, they could take down the entire global economy, which is exactly
what happened. Stein quotes Ralph Nader who said at the time, "We will look back at this and wonder
how the country was so asleep. It's just a nightmare."
According to Stein:
"The Senate voted to pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley by a vote of 90-8 and reversed what was, for
more than six decades, a framework that had governed the functions and reach of the nation's
largest banks. No longer limited by laws and regulations commercial and investment banks could
now merge. Many had already begun the process, including, among others, J.P. Morgan and Citicorp.
The new law allowed it to be permanent. The updated ground rules were low on oversight and
heavy on risky ventures. Historically in the business of mortgages and credit cards, banks
now would sell insurance and stock.
Nevertheless, the bill did not lack champions, many of whom declared that the original legislation
- forged during the Great Depression - was both antiquated and cumbersome for the banking industry.
Congress had tried 11 times to repeal Glass-Steagall. The twelfth was the charm.
"Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since
the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," said then-Treasury
Secretary Lawrence Summers. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies
to compete in the new economy."
"I welcome this day as a day of success and triumph," said Sen. Christopher Dodd, (D-Conn.).
"The concerns that we will have a meltdown like 1929 are dramatically overblown," said Sen.
Bob Kerrey, (D-Neb.).
"If we don't pass this bill, we could find London or Frankfurt or years down the road Shanghai
becoming the financial capital of the world," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "There are many
reasons for this bill, but first and foremost is to ensure that U.S. financial firms remain
competitive."
Unfortunately, the statement by Chuck Schumer sounds very much like it was prepared by a lobbyist.
This vote underscores the way in which our elected officials are so heavily swayed by corporate
and banking money that our voices and needs become irrelevant. It is why we need publicly funded
elections. Democratic senators, the so-called representatives of the people, fell over themselves
to please their Wall Street donors knowing full well there were dangers for the country at large,
for ordinary Americans, in repealing Glass-Steagall.
It is important to hold Democratic senators (along with current members of the Obama administration)
accountable for the significant role they have played in the current economic crisis that has
caused so much suffering for ordinary Americans. In case you were wondering, the current Democratic
Senators who voted yes to repeal the Glass-Steagall act are the following:
Daniel Akaka – Max Baucus – Evan Bayh – Jeff Bingaman – Kent Conrad – Chris Dodd – Dick Durbin
– Dianne Feinstein – Daniel Inouye – Tim Johnson – John Kerry – Herb Kohl – Mary Landrieu – Frank
Lautenberg – Patrick Leahy – Carl Levin – Joseph Lieberman – Blanche Lincoln – Patty Murray –
Jack Reed – Harry Reid – Jay Rockefeller – Chuck Schumer – Ron Wyden
Former House members who voted for repeal who are current Senators.
Mark Udall [as of 2010] – Debbie Stabenow – Bob Menendez – Tom Udall -Sherrod Brown
No longer in the Senate, or passed away, but who voted for repeal:
Joe Biden -Ted Kennedy -Robert Byrd
These Democratic senators would like to forget or make excuses for their enthusiastic vote
on the repeal of Glass Steagall, but it is important to hold them accountable for helping their
bank donors realize obscene profits while their constituents lost jobs, savings and homes. And
it is important to demand that they serve the interests of the American people.
*
[The repeal of Glass Steagal was a landmark victory in deregulation that greased the skids
for the passage of CFMA once Democrats had been further demoralized by the SCOTUS decision on
Bush-v-Gore. The first vote on GLBA was split along party lines, but passed because Republicans
had majority and Clinton was willing to sign which was clear from the waiver that had been granted
to illegal Citi merger with Travelers. Both Citi and AIG mergers contributed to too big to fail.
The CFMA was the nail in the coffin that probably would have never gotten off the ground if Democrats
had held the line on the GLBA. Glass-Steagal was insufficient as a regulatory system to prevent
the 2008 mortgage crisis, but it was giant as an icon of New Deal financial system reform. Its
loss institutionalized too big to fail.]
pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Gramm Leach Biley was a mistake. But it was not the only failure of US regulatory policies
towards financial institutions nor the most important. I think that is what Hillary Clinton
is saying.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
It was more symbolic caving in on financial regulation than a specific technical failure except
for making too big to fail worse at Citi and AIG. It marked a sea change of thinking about financial
regulation. Nothing mattered any more, including the CFMA just a little over one year later. Deregulation
of derivatives trading mandated by the CFMA was a colossal failure and it is not bizarre to believe
that GLBA precipitated the consensus on financial deregulation enough that after the demoralizing
defeat of Democrats in Bush-v-Gore then there was no New Deal spirit of financial regulation left.
Social development is not just a series of unconnected events. It is carried on a tide of change.
A falling tide grounds all boats.
pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
We had a financial dereg craze back in the late 1970's and early 1980's which led to the S&L
disaster. One would have thought we would have learned from that. But then came the dereg craziness
20 years later. And this disaster was much worse.
I don't care whether Hillary says 1999
was a mistake or not. I do care what the regulations of financial institutions will be like going
forward.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
I cannot disagree with any of that.
sanjait -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"Deregulation of derivatives trading mandated by the CFMA was a colossal failure and it
is not bizarre to believe that GLBA precipitated the consensus"
Yeah, it is kind of bizarre to blame one bill for a crisis that occurred largely because another
bill was passed, based on some some vague assertion about how the first bill made everyone think
crazy.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> sanjait...
Democrats did not vote for GLBA until after reconciliation between the House and Senate bills.
Democrats were tossed a bone in the Community Reinvestment Act financing provisions and given
that Bill Clinton was going to sign anyway and that Republicans were able to pass the bill without
a single vote from Democrats then all but a few Democrats bought in. They could not stop it, so
they just bought into it. I thought there was supposed to be an understanding of behaviorism devoted
to understanding the political economy. For that matter Republicans did not need Democrats to
vote for the CFMA either, but they did. That gave Republicans political cover for whatever went
wrong later on. No one with a clue believed things would go well from the passage of either of
these bills. It was pure Wall Street driven kleptocracy.
likbez -> sanjait...
It was not one bill or another. It was a government policy to get traders what they want.
"As the western world wakes to the fact it is in the middle of a debt crisis spiral, intelligent
voices are wondering how this manifested itself? As we speak, those close to the situation could
be engaging in historical revisionism to obfuscate their role in the design of faulty leverage
structures that were identified in the derivatives markets in 1998 and 2008. These same design
flaws, first identified in 1998, are persistent today and could become graphically evident in
the very near future under the weight of a European debt crisis.
Author and Bloomberg columnist William Cohan chronicles the fascinating start of this historic
leverage implosion in his recent article Rethinking Robert Rubin. Readers may recall it was Mr.
Cohan who, in 2004, noted leverage issues that ultimately imploded in 2007-08.
At some point, market watchers will realize the debt crisis story will literally change the
world. They will look to the root cause of the problem, and they might just find one critical
point revealed in Mr. Cohan's article.
This point occurs in 1998 when then Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ChairwomanBrooksley
Born identified what now might be recognized as core design flaws in leverage structure used in
Over the Counter (OTC) transactions. Ms. Born brought her concerns public, by first asking just
to study the issue, as appropriate action was not being taken. She issued a concept release paper
that simply asked for more information. "The Commission is not entering into this process with
preconceived results in mind," the document reads.
Ms. Born later noted in, the PBS Frontline documentary on the topic speculation at the CFTC
was the unregulated OTC derivatives were opaque, the risk to the global economy could not be determined
and the risk was potentially catastrophic. As a result of this inquiry, Ms. Born was ultimately
forced from office.
This brings us to Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury Secretary of the United States and
at the time right hand man to then Treasury Security Robert Rubin. Mr. Summers was widely credited
with implementation of the aggressive tactics used to remove Ms. Born from her office, tactics
that multiple sources describe as showing an old world bias against women piercing the glass ceiling.
According to numerous published reports, Mr. Summers was involved in. silencing those who questioned
the opaque derivative product's design. "
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Paine ...
TBTF on steroids, might as well CFMA - why not?
Bubbles with less TBTF and a lot less credit
default swaps would have been a lot less messy going in. Without TARP, then Congress might have
still had the guts for making a lesser New Deal.
EMichael -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
TARP was window dressing. The curtain that covered up the FED's actions.
pgl -> RGC...
Where have I heard about William Greider? Oh yea - this critique of something stupid he wrote
about a Supreme Court decision:
"Exotic financial instruments like derivatives and credit-default swaps flourished, enabling
old-line bankers to share in the fun and profit on an awesome scale."
These would have flourished even if Glass-Steagall remained on the books. Leave it to RGC to
find some critic of HRC who knows nothing about financial markets.
RGC -> pgl...
Derivatives flourished because of the other deregulation under Clinton, the CFMA. The repeal of
GS helped commercial banks participate.
RGC -> pgl...
The repeal of GS helped commercial banks participate.
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...
Warren Buffet used to rail about how risky derivative investing is, until he realized they
are *extremely* important in the re-insurance biz, which is a
big part of Berkshire Hathaway.
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Cracking Down on Wall Street
by Dean Baker
Published: 12 December 2015
The New Yorker ran a rather confused piece on Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment
firm Lime Rock Partners, on whether Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton would be more effective
in reining in Wall Street. The piece assures us that Secretary Clinton has a better understanding
of Wall Street and that her plan would be more effective in cracking down on the industry. The
piece is bizarre both because it essentially dismisses the concern with too big to fail banks
and completely ignores Sanders' proposal for a financial transactions tax which is by far the
most important mechanism for reining in the financial industry.
The piece assures us that too big to fail banks are no longer a problem, noting their drop
in profitability from bubble peaks and telling readers:
"not only are Sanders's bogeybanks just one part of Wall Street but they are getting less
powerful and less problematic by the year."
This argument is strange for a couple of reasons. First, the peak of the subprime bubble frenzy
is hardly a good base of comparison. The real question is should we anticipate declining profits
going forward. That hardly seems clear. For example, Citigroup recently reported surging profits,
while Wells Fargo's third quarter profits were up 8 percent from 2014 levels.
If Sernovitz is predicting that the big banks are about to shrivel up to nothingness, the market
does not agree with him. Citigroup has a market capitalization of $152 billion, JPMorgan has a
market cap of $236 billion, and Bank of America has a market cap of $174 billion. Clearly investors
agree with Sanders in thinking that these huge banks will have sizable profits for some time to
come.
The real question on too big to fail is whether the government would sit by and let a Goldman
Sachs or Citigroup go bankrupt. Perhaps some people think that it is now the case, but I've never
met anyone in that group.
Sernovitz is also dismissive on Sanders call for bringing back the Glass-Steagall separation
between commercial banking and investment banking. He makes the comparison to the battle over
the Keystone XL pipeline, which is actually quite appropriate. The Keystone battle did take on
exaggerated importance in the climate debate. There was never a zero/one proposition in which
no tar sands oil would be pumped without the pipeline, while all of it would be pumped if the
pipeline was constructed. Nonetheless, if the Obama administration was committed to restricting
greenhouse gas emissions, it is difficult to see why it would support the building of a pipeline
that would facilitate bringing some of the world's dirtiest oil to market.
In the same vein, Sernovitz is right that it is difficult to see how anything about the growth
of the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse would have been very different if Glass-Steagall
were still in place. And, it is possible in principle to regulate bank's risky practices without
Glass-Steagall, as the Volcker rule is doing. However, enforcement tends to weaken over time under
industry pressure, which is a reason why the clear lines of Glass-Steagall can be beneficial.
Furthermore, as with Keystone, if we want to restrict banks' power, what is the advantage of letting
them get bigger and more complex?
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was sold in large part by boasting of the potential synergies
from combining investment and commercial banking under one roof. But if the operations are kept
completely separate, as is supposed to be the case, where are the synergies?
But the strangest part of Sernovitz's story is that he leaves out Sanders' financial transactions
tax (FTT) altogether. This is bizarre, because the FTT is essentially a hatchet blow to the waste
and exorbitant salaries in the industry.
Most research shows that trading volume is very responsive to the cost of trading, with most
estimates putting the elasticity close to one. This means that if trading costs rise by 50 percent,
then trading volume declines by 50 percent. (In its recent analysis of FTTs, the Tax Policy Center
assumed that the elasticity was 1.5, meaning that trading volume decline by 150 percent of the
increase in trading costs.) The implication of this finding is that the financial industry would
pay the full cost of a financial transactions tax in the form of reduced trading revenue.
The Tax Policy Center estimated that a 0.1 percent tax on stock trades, scaled with lower taxes
on other assets, would raise $50 billion a year in tax revenue. The implied reduction in trading
revenue was even larger. Senator Sanders has proposed a tax of 0.5 percent on equities (also with
a scaled tax on other assets). This would lead to an even larger reduction in revenue for the
financial industry.
It is incredible that Sernovitz would ignore a policy with such enormous consequences for the
financial sector in his assessment of which candidate would be tougher on Wall Street. Sanders
FTT would almost certainly do more to change behavior on Wall Street then everything that Clinton
has proposed taken together by a rather large margin. It's sort of like evaluating the New England
Patriots' Super Bowl prospects without discussing their quarterback.
Syaloch -> Peter K....
Great to see Baker's acknowledgement that an updated Glass-Steagall is just one component
of the progressive wing's plan to rein in Wall Street, not the sum total of it. Besides, if Wall
Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful effects, why do they
expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too much.
Peter K. -> Syaloch...
Yes that's a good way to look it. Wall Street gave the Democrats and Clinton a lot of campaign
cash so that they would dismantle Glass-Steagall. If they want it done, it's probably not
a good idea.
EMichael -> Syaloch...
Slippery slope. Ya' gotta find me a business of any type that does not protest any kind of regulation
on their business.
Syaloch -> EMichael...
Yeah, but usually because of all the bad things they say will happen because of the regulation.
The question is, what do they think of Clinton's plan? I've heard surprisingly little about that,
and what I have heard is along these lines:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/08/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street-plan/
"Hillary Clinton unveiled her big plan to curb the worst of Wall Street's excesses on Thursday.
The reaction from the banking community was a shrug, if not relief."
pgl -> Syaloch...
Two excellent points!!!
sanjait -> Syaloch...
"Besides, if Wall Street types don't think restoring Glass-Steagall will have any meaningful
effects, why do they expend so much energy to disparage it? Methinks they doth protest too
much."
It has an effect of shrinking the size of a few firms, and that has a detrimental effect on
the top managers of those firms, who get paid more money if they have larger firms to manage. But it has little to no meaningful effect on systemic risk.
So if your main policy goal is to shrink the compensation for a small number of powerful Wall
Street managers, G-S is great. But if you actually want to accomplish something useful to the American people, like limiting
systemic risk in the financial sector, then a plan like Hillary's is much much better. She explained
this fairly well in her recent NYT piece.
Paine -> Peter K....
There is absolutely NO question Bernie is for real. Wall Street does not want Bernie. So they'll
let Hillary talk as big as she needs to . Why should we believe her when an honest guy like
Barry caved once in power
Paine -> Paine ...
Bernie has been anti Wall Street his whole career . He's on a crusade. Hillary is pulling a sham
bola
Paine -> Paine ...
Perhaps too often we look at Wall Street as monolithic whether consciously or not. Obviously we
know it's no monolithic: there are serious differences
When the street is riding high especially. Right now the street is probably not united but
too cautious to display profound differences in public. They're sitting on their hands waiting
to see how high the anti Wall Street tide runs this election cycle. Trump gives them cover and
I really fear secretly Hillary gives them comfort
This all coiled change if Bernie surges. How that happens depends crucially on New Hampshire.
Not Iowa
EMichael -> Paine ...
If Bernie surges and wins the nomination, we will all get to watch the death of the Progressive
movement for a decade or two. Congress will become more GOP dominated, and we will have a President
in office who will make Hoover look like a Socialist.
You should like the moderate Democrats after George McGovern ran in 1972. I'm hoping we have another
1964 with Bernie leading a united Democratic Congress.
EMichael -> pgl...
Not a chance in the world. And I like Sanders much more than anyone else. It just simply cannot,
and will not, happen. He is a communist. Not to me, not to you, but to the vast majority
of American voters.
pgl -> EMichael...
He is not a communist. But I agree - Hillary is winning the Democratic nomination. I have only
one vote and in New York, I'm badly outnumbered.
ilsm -> Paine ...
I believe Hillary will be to liberal causes after she is elected as LBJ was to peace in Vietnam.
Like Bill and Obomber.
pgl -> ilsm...
By 1968, LBJ finally realized it was time to end that stupid war. But it seems certain members
in the State Department undermined his efforts in a cynical ploy to get Nixon to be President.
The Republican Party has had more slime than substance of most of my life time.
pgl -> Peter K....
Gary Sernovitz, a managing director at the investment firm Lime Rock Partners? Why are we listening
to this guy too. It's like letting the fox guard the hen house.
sanjait -> Peter K....
"The piece is bizarre both because it essentially dismisses the concern with too big to
fail banks and completely ignores Sanders' proposal for a financial transactions tax which
is by far the most important mechanism for reining in the financial industry."
This is just wrong. Is financial system risk in any way correlated with the frequency
of transactions? Except for market volatility from HFT ... no. The financial crisis wasn't caused
by a high volume of trades. It was caused by bad investments into highly illiquid assets. Again,
great example of wanting to punish Wall Street but not bothering to think about what actually
works.
Peter K. said...
Robert Reich to the Fed: this is not the time to raise rates.
Iceland, too, is looking at a radical transformation of its money
system, after suffering the crushing boom/bust cycle of the private banking model that bankrupted
its largest banks in 2008. According to a March 2015 article in the UK Telegraph:
Iceland's government is considering a revolutionary monetary proposal – removing the power
of commercial banks to create money and handing it to the central bank. The proposal, which would
be a turnaround in the history of modern finance, was part of a report written by a lawmaker from
the ruling centrist Progress Party, Frosti Sigurjonsson, entitled "A better monetary system for
Iceland".
"The findings will be an important contribution to the upcoming discussion, here and elsewhere,
on money creation and monetary policy," Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson said. The
report, commissioned by the premier, is aimed at putting an end to a monetary system in place
through a slew of financial crises, including the latest one in 2008.
Under this "Sovereign Money" proposal, the country's central bank would become the only creator
of money. Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments and would serve as intermediaries
between savers and lenders. The proposal is a variant of the Chicago Plan promoted by Kumhof and
Benes of the IMF and the Positive Money group in the UK.
Public Banking Initiatives in Iceland, Ireland and the UK
A major concern with stripping private banks of the power to create money as deposits when
they make loans is that it will seriously reduce the availability of credit in an already sluggish
economy. One solution is to make the banks, or some of them, public institutions. They would still
be creating money when they made loans, but it would be as agents of the government; and the profits
would be available for public use, on the model of the US Bank of North Dakota and the German
Sparkassen (public savings banks).
In Ireland, three political parties – Sinn Fein, the Green Party and Renua Ireland (a new party)
- are now supporting initiatives for a network of local publicly-owned banks on the Sparkassen
model. In the UK, the New Economy Foundation (NEF) is proposing that the failed Royal Bank of
Scotland be transformed into a network of public interest banks on that model. And in Iceland,
public banking is part of the platform of a new political party called the Dawn Party.
December 11, 2015
Reinventing Banking: From Russia to Iceland to Ecuador
"Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments and would serve as intermediaries between
savers and lenders."
OK but that means they issue bank accounts which of course we call deposits.
So is this just semantics? People want checking accounts. People want savings accounts. Otherwise
they would not exist. Iceland plans to do what to stop the private sector from getting what it
wants?
I like the idea of public banks. Let's nationalize JPMorganChase so we don't have to listen
to Jamie Dimon anymore!
sanjait -> pgl...
I don't know for sure (not bothering to search and read the referenced proposals), but I assumed
the described proposal was for an end to fractional reserve banking. Banks would have to have
full reserves to make loans. Or something. I could be wrong about that.
Syaloch said...
Sorry, but Your Favorite Company Can't Be Your Friend
To think that an artificial person, whether corporeal or corporate, can ever be your friend
requires a remarkable level of self-delusion.
A commenter on the Times site aptly quotes Marx in response:
"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal,
idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to
his "natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked
self-interest, than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious
fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical
calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless
indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade.
In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted
naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked
up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet,
the man of science, into its paid wage labourers."
"... The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power. Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.) ..."
"... Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do not hide it all together either. ..."
"... He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military. In private writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually Israel's war goals. (Examples provided.) ..."
"... American Jewish Committee ..."
"... Contemporary Jewish Record ..."
"... If there is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find horrifying . And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants' grandchildren ..."
"... Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech. ..."
"... believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved for superior minds. ..."
"... nations derive their strength from their myths , which are necessary for government and governance. ..."
"... national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality: they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate . ..."
"... to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between good and evil ; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation. ..."
"... deception is the norm in political life ..."
"... Office of Special Plans ..."
"... The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy. ..."
"... the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you) ..."
"... the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another) ..."
"... General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists "that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran". ..."
"... Among them are brilliant strategists ..."
"... They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded. They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others. ..."
"... They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy ..."
"... They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government. ..."
Mememonkey pointed my to a 2013 essay by Laurent Guyenot, a French historian and writer on the
deep state, that addresses the question of
"Who Are The Neoconservatives."
If you would like to know about that group that sends the US military into battle and tortures prisoners
of war in out name, you need to know about these guys.
First, if you are Jewish, or are a GREEN Meme, please stop and take a deep breath. Please
put on your thinking cap and don't react. We are NOT disrespecting a religion, spiritual practice
or a culture. We are talking about a radical and very destructive group hidden within
a culture and using that culture. Christianity has similar groups and movements--the
Crusades, the KKK, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc.
My personal investment: This question has been a subject of intense interest for me since I
became convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, that the Iraq war was waged for reasons entirely different
from those publically stated. I have been horrified to see such a shadowy, powerful group operating
from a profoundly "pre-moral" developmental level-i.e., not based in even the most
rudimentary principles of morality foundational to civilization.
Who the hell are these people?!
Goyenot's main points (with a touch of personal editorializing):
1. The American Neocons are Zionists (Their goal is expanding political / military power.
Initially this is focused on the state of Israel.)
Neoconservativism is essentially a modern right wing Jewish version of Machiavelli's political
strategy. What characterizes the neoconservative movement is therefore not as much Judaism
as a religious tradition, but rather Judiasm as a political project, i.e. Zionism,
by Machiavellian means.
This is not a religious movement though it may use religions words and vocabulary.
It is a political and military movement. They are not concerned with being close to God.
This is a movement to expand political and military power. Some are Christian and Mormon, culturally.
Obviously , if Zionism is synonymous with patriotism in Israel, it cannot be an acceptable
label in American politics, where it would mean loyalty to a foreign power. This is why the
neoconservatives do not represent themselves as Zionists on the American scene. Yet they do
not hide it all together either.
He points out dual-citizen (Israel / USA) members and self proclaimed Zionists throughout cabinet
level positions in the US government, international banking and controlling the US military.
In private writings and occasionally in public, Neocons admit that America's war policies are actually
Israel's war goals. (Examples provided.)
2. Most American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and do NOT share the perspective
of the radical Zionists.
The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative")
Republican right, is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of
the monthly magazine Commentary, a media arm of the American Jewish Committee,
which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward, the oldest
American Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: "If there
is an intellectual movement in America to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism
is it. It's a thought one imagines most American Jews, overwhelmingly liberal, will find
horrifying. And yet it is a fact that as a political philosophy, neoconservatism was born
among the children of Jewish immigrants and is now largely the intellectual domain of those immigrants'
grandchildren".
3. Intellectual Basis and Moral developmental level
Goyenot traces the Neocon's origins through its influential writers and thinkers. Highest
on the list is Leo Strauss. (Neocons are sometimes called "the Straussians.") Leo Strauss
is a great admirer of Machiavelli with his utter contempt for restraining moral principles making
him "uniquely effective," and, "the ideal patriot." He gushes over Machiavelli praising the
intrepidity of his thought, the grandeur of his vision, and the graceful subtlety of his speech.
Other major points:
believes that Truth is harmful to the common man and the social order and should be reserved
for superior minds.
nations derive their strength from their myths, which are necessary for
government and governance.
national myths have no necessary relationship with historical reality:
they are socio-cultural constructions that the State has a duty to disseminate.
to be effective, any national myth must be based on a clear distinction between
good and evil; it derives its cohesive strength from the hatred of an enemy nation.
As recognized by Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt in an article "Leo Strauss and the World
of Intelligence" (1999), for Strauss, "deception is the norm in political life" –
the rule they [the Neocons] applied to fabricating the lie of weapons of mass destruction
by Saddam Hussein when working inside the Office of Special Plans.
George Bushes speech from the national cathedral after 9/11 exemplifies myth-making at its
finest: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid
the world of Evil. War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation
is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. . . .[W]e ask almighty God to watch over our nation,
and grant us patience and resolve in all that is to come. . . . And may He always guide our country.
God bless America.
4. The Zionist/Neocons are piggy-backing onto, or utilizing, the religious myths of
both the Jewish and Christian world to consolidate power. This is brilliant Machiavellian strategy.
the "chosen people" myth (God likes us best, we are better than you)
the Holy Land myth (one area of real estate is more holy than another)
the second coming of Christ myth
the establishment of God's Kingdom on Earth through global destruction/war (nuclear war for
the Glory of God)
[The]Pax Judaica will come only when "all the nations shall flow" to the Jerusalem
temple, from where "shall go forth the law" (Isaiah 2:1-3). This vision of a new world
order with Jerusalem at its center resonates within the Likudnik and neoconservative
circles. At the Jerusalem Summit, held from October 12th to 14th, 2003 in the symbolically significant
King David Hotel, an alliance was forged between Zionist Jews and Evangelical Christians around
a "theopolitical" project, one that would consider Israel… "the key to the harmony of civilizations",
replacing the United Nations that's become a "a tribalized confederation hijacked by Third
World dictatorships": "Jerusalem's spiritual and historical importance endows it
with a special authority to become a center of world's unity. [...] We believe
that one of the objectives of Israel's divinely-inspired rebirth is to make
it the center of the new unity of the nations, which will lead to an era of peace
and prosperity, foretold by the Prophets". Three acting Israeli ministers spoke at the summit,
including Benjamin Netanyahu, and Richard Perle.
Jerusalem's dream empire is expected to come through the nightmare of world war. The prophet
Zechariah, often cited on Zionist forums, predicted that the Lord will fight "all nations" allied
against Israel. In a single day, the whole earth will become a desert, with the exception
of Jerusalem, who "shall remain aloft upon its site" (14:10).
With more than 50 millions members, Christians United for Israel is
a major political force in the U.S.. Its Chairman, pastor John Haggee, declared: "The
United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's
plan for both Israel and the West, [...] a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran,
which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ".
And Guyenot concludes:
Is it possible that this biblical dream, mixed with the neo-Machiavellianism of Leo Strauss and
the militarism of Likud, is what is quietly animating an exceptionally determined and organized ultra-Zionist
clan? General Wesley Clark testified on numerous occasions before the cameras, that one month after
September 11th, 2001 a general from the Pentagon showed him a memo from neoconservative strategists
"that describes how we're gonna take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and
then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan and finishing off with Iran".
Is it just a coincidence
that the "seven nations" doomed to be destroyed by Israel form part of the biblical myths?
…[W]hen Yahweh will deliver Israel "seven nations greater and mightier than yourself […] you must
utterly destroy them; you shall make no covenant with them, and show no mercy to them."
My summary:
We have a group that wishes greatly expanded power (to rule the world??)
Among them are brilliant strategists
They operate unrestrained by the most basic moral principles upon which civilization is founded.
They are undisturbed by compassion for the suffering of others.
They use consciously and skillfully use deception and "myth-making" to shape policy
This is not a spiritual movement in any sense
They are utilizing religious myths and language to influence public thinking
They envision "winning" in the aftermath world war.
They have infiltrated the highest levels of banking, US military, NATO and US government.
"... Goldman Sachs buzz-acronym BRICS are five of the largest exporters of hot money . It amuses me to no end how so many buy the idea that the BRICS are gonna take over the world... ..."
"... Better definitions would have black money correspond to any government/public spending, declared capital and proceeds from violent crime (i.e. money that is acquired through or enables violence) and honest money to all the undeclared savings, underground economy/trade proceeds and non-institutional drug money. ..."
"... the most of China money leaves through HK do you think HK is a dump ? ..."
"... Over the years I have written several brief explanations of how offshore havens work. The one at the link below covers the basic-basics reasonably well. http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2013/01/offshore-tax-havens-what-they-do.html ..."
"... once again, we see banksters and corrupt corporate sector players colluding with corrupt individuals and assorted criminals - many inside .gov itself - to move ill-gotten gains to safer places out of reach of law enforcement in their own countries. ..."
"... Banksters facilitate virtually every financial crime. ..."
Every year, roughly $1 trillion flows illegally out of developing and emerging economies due to
crime, corruption, and tax evasion. This amount is more than these countries receive in foreign direct
investment and foreign aid combined.
This week, a new report was released that highlights the latest data available on this "hot" money.
Assembled by Global Financial Integrity, a research and advisory organization based in Washington,
DC, the report details illicit financial flows of money from developing countries using the latest
information available, which is up until the end of 2013.
The cumulative amount of this "hot money" coming out of developing countries totaled just
over $7.8 trillion between 2004 and 2013. On an annual basis, it breached the $1 trillion
mark each of the last three years of data available, which is good for a growth rate of 6.5% rate
annually.
In Asia, illicit financial outflows are growing even quicker at an 8.6% clip. It's also
on the continent that five of the ten largest source economies for these flows can be found, including
the largest offender, which is Mainland China.
How does this "hot" money leave these countries? Global Financial Integrity has
calculated that 83% of illicit financial flows are due to what it calls "trade misinvoicing".
It's defined as the following:
The misinvoicing of trade is accomplished by misstating the value or volume of an export or
import on a customs invoice. Trade misinvoicing is a form of trade-based money laundering
made possible by the fact that trading partners write their own trade documents, or arrange to
have the documents prepared in a third country (typically a tax haven), a method known as re-invoicing.
Fraudulent manipulation of the price, quantity, or quality of a good or service on an invoice
allows criminals, corrupt government officials, and commercial tax evaders to shift vast amounts
of money across international borders quickly, easily, and nearly always undetected.
Trade misinvoicing accounted for an average of $654.7 billion per year of lost trade in
developing markets over the data set covered by the report.
Goldman Sachs buzz-acronym "BRICS" are five of the largest exporters of "hot money". It
amuses me to no end how so many buy the idea that the BRICS are gonna take over the world...
What the fuck is "illicit" money? Savings that weren't looted away?
Better definitions would have "black" money correspond to any government/public spending,
declared capital and proceeds from violent crime (i.e. money that is acquired through or enables
violence) and honest money to all the undeclared savings, underground economy/trade proceeds and
non-institutional drug money.
avenriv
the most of China money leaves through HK do you think HK is a dump ?
did you ever leave your small town ?
38BWD22
I found Hong Kong rather nice some 20 years ago, Beijing not so much.
We just came back from India.
So, yes, I have been to four of those BRICS, and am not impressed. Sorry.
Feel free to tell me more though. Especially about your travels. ;)
BarnacleBill
As a (retired) tax-haven professional in three countries, and a former Manager of the Cayman
Islands Chamber of Commerce, I must caution against the term "mis-invoicing" - with or without
the hyphen...More properly, it's re-invoicing, and no more illicit than the procedure by which
any trader buys goods at one price and sells them at another.
When a corporate buyer is owned by the same people as own the seller, their transaction may
raise an eyebrow or two, but usually it would be permitted by the published taxation laws of all
the relevant companies, as those laws are interpreted by both private-sector lawyers and the tax
authorities. With transactions of that kind, it is beneficial for the owners if the tax-rates
are different in the two jurisdictions. Well, of course; but that situation is always - always
- allowed by the laws of those jurisdictions, whether they are developed or developing.
"Every year, roughly $1 trillion flows illegally out of developing and emerging economies
due to crime, corruption, and tax evasion"
Yea, that would be banksterz, CIA and their drug running, NGO's and their child trafficking.......
etc... Might want to throw a few more zero's in there too.
Bob who runs the deli down the street and pockets $500 "illicit" dollars a week is not your worry
or concern you stupid fuckkkerz.
zeroboris
The Russian central bank every year publishes a report of how many billions of dollars have
stolen from our economy, and... does nothing, nothing at all to stop this.
smacker
There are good arguments to say that what people do with their own money is nothing to do with
.gov.
But once again, we see banksters and corrupt corporate sector players colluding with corrupt
individuals and assorted criminals - many inside .gov itself - to move ill-gotten gains to safer
places out of reach of law enforcement in their own countries.
Banksters facilitate virtually every financial crime.
"There is no reason for central banks to have the kind of independence that judicial
institutions have. Justice may be blind and above politics, but money and banking are not." Economic
and politics are like Siamese twins (which actually . If somebody trying to separate them it is a
clear sign that the guy is either neoliberal propagandists or outright crook.
Notable quotes:
"... I think FED chairman is the second most powerful political position in the USA after the POTUS. Or may be in some respects it is even the first ;-) So it is quintessentially high-power political position masked with the smokescreen of purely economic (like many other things are camouflaged under neoliberalism.) ..."
"... I think that is a hidden principle behind attacks on FED chair. A neoliberal principle that the state should not intrude into economics and limit itself to the police, security, defense, law enforcement and few other related to this functions. So their point that she overextended her mandate is an objection based on principle. Which can be violated only if it is used to uphold neoliberalism, as Greenspan did during his career many times. ..."
"... This kind of debate seems to be a by-product of the contemporary obsession with having an independent central bank, run according to the fantasy that there is such a thing as a neutral or apolitical way to conduct monetary policy. ..."
"... A number of commenters and authors have recently pointed out that inequality may not just be an unrelated phenomenon to monetary policy, but actually, in part at least, a byproduct of it. ..."
"... The theory is that the Fed in the Great Moderation age has been so keen to stave off even the possibility of inflation that it chokes down the vigor of recoveries before they get to the part where median wages start rising quickly. The result is that wages get ratcheted down with the economic cycle, falling during recessions and never fully recovering during the recoveries. ..."
"... Two Things: (i) The Fed should be open and honest about monetary policy. No one wants to return to the Greenspan days. (ii) Brad Delong is a neoliberal hack. ..."
"... As to why risk a political backlash in the piece, the short answer is: to invoke the debate on whether politics or fact (science) is going to dominate. Because they can't both. See: Romer. Let's have this out once and for all. ..."
Fine column, with which I agree. Federal Reserve policy as such is difficult and contentious enough
to avoid wandering to social-economic analysis or philosophy from aspects of the Fed mandate.
As for the use of the word "hack" in referring to Janet Yellen, that needlessly insulting use
was by a Washington Post editor and not by columnist Michael Strain.
anne -> RW (the other)...
As Brad notes, many Fed Chairs before Yellen have opined on matters outside monetary policy
so why is Yellen subject to a different standard?
[ Fine, I have reconsidered and agree. No matter how the headline was written, the headline
was meant to be intimidating and was willfully mean and that could and should have been made clear
immediately by the writer of the column. ]
likbez -> anne...
"Federal Reserve policy as such is difficult and contentious enough to avoid wandering to social-economic
analysis or philosophy from aspects of the Fed mandate."
Anne,
I think FED chairman is the second most powerful political position in the USA after the POTUS.
Or may be in some respects it is even the first ;-) So it is quintessentially high-power political position masked with the smokescreen of "purely
economic" (like many other things are camouflaged under neoliberalism.)
That's why Greenspan got it, while being despised by his Wall-Street colleagues...
He got it because he was perfect for promoting deregulation political agenda from the position
of FED chair.
pgl -> likbez...
Greenspan was despised on Wall Street? Wow as he tried so hard to serve their interests. I
guess the Wall Street crowd is never happy no matter how much income we feed these blow hards.
anne -> likbez...
So it is quintessentially high-power political position masked with the smokescreen of "purely
economic" (like many other things are camouflaged under neoliberalism.)
[ I understand, and am convinced. ]
Peter K. said...
I respectfully disagree. Republicans are always working the refs and despite what the writer
from AEI said, they're okay with conservative Fed chairs talking politics. They have double standards.
Greenspan testified to Congress on behalf of Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Something about
how since Clinton balanced the budget, the financial markets had too little safe debt to work
with. (maybe that's why they dove into mortgaged-backed securities). But tax cuts versus more
government spending? He and Rubin advised Clinton to drop his middle class spending bill and trade
deficit reduction for lower interest rates. That's economics which have political outcomes.
So if the rightwing is going to work the the refs, so should the left. We shouldn't unilaterally
disarm over fears Congress will gun for the Fed. There should be more groups like Fed Up protesting.
The good thing about Yellen's speech is that it's a signal to progressives that inequality
is problem for her even as she is raising rates in a political dance with hawks and Congress.
The Fed is constantly accused of increasing inequality so it's good Yellen is saying she thinks
it's a bad thing and not American.
Bernie Sanders is right that for change to happen we'll need more political involvement from
regular citizens. We'll need a popular movement with many leaders.
The Fed should be square in the sights of a progressive movement. A high-pressured economy
with full employment should be a top priority.
Instead I saw Nancy Pelosi being interviewed by Al Hunt on Charlie Rose the other night. Hunt
asked her about Yellen raising rates.
Pelosi said no comment as she wasn't looking at the data Yellen was and didn't want to interfere.
The Fed should be independent, etc. Perhaps like Thoma she has the best of motives and doesn't
want to motivate the Republicans to go after the Fed and oppose what she wants.
Still I felt the Democratic leadership should be committed to a high-pressure economy. Her
staff should know what Krugman, Summers etc are saying. What the IMF and World Bank are sayings.
She should have said "they shouldn't raise rates until they see the whites of inflation's eyes"
as Krugman memorably put it. She should have said that emphatically.
We need a Democratic Party like that.
Instead Peter Diamond is blocked from becoming a Fed governor by Republicans and Pelosi is
afraid to comment on monetary policy.
Must-Read: I would beg the highly-esteemed Mark Thoma to draw a distinction here between "inappropriate"
and unwise. In my view, it is not at all inappropriate for Fed Chair Janet Yellen to express her
concern about excessive inequality. Previous Fed Chairs, after all, have expressed their liking
for inequality as an essential engine of economic growth over and over again over the past half
century--with exactly zero critical snarking from the American Enterprise Institute for trespassing
beyond the boundaries of their role.
But that it is not inappropriate for Janet Yellen to do so does not mean that it is wise. Mark's
argument is, I think, that given the current political situation it is unwise for Janet to further
incite the ire of the nutboys in the way that even the mildest expression of concern about rising
inequality will do.
That may or may not be true. I think it is not.
But I do not think that bears on my point that Michael R. Strain's arguments that Janet Yellen's
speech on inequality was inappropriate are void, wrong, erroneous, inattentive to precedent, shoddy,
expired, expired, gone to meet their maker, bereft of life, resting in peace, pushing up the daisies,
kicked the bucket, shuffled off their mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the bleeding
choir invisible:
Mark Thoma: Why It's Tricky for Fed Officials to Talk Politically: "I think I disagree with
Brad DeLong...
pgl -> Peter K....
"my point that Michael R. Strain's arguments that Janet Yellen's speech on inequality
was inappropriate are void, wrong, erroneous..."
DeLong is exactly right here. Strain's argument has its own share of partisan lies whereas
Yellen is telling the truth. Brad will not be intimidated by this AEI weasel.
sanjait said...
Why would Yellen not talk about inequality? It's an important macroeconomic topic and one that
is relevant for her job. It's both an input and an output variable that is related to monetary
policy.
And, arguably I think, median wage growth should be regarded as a policy goal for the Fed,
related to its explicit mandate of "maximum employment."
But even if you think inequality is unrelated to the Fed's policy goals, that doesn't stop
them from talking about other topics. Do people accuse the Fed of playing politics when they talk
about desiring reduced financial market volatility? That has little to do with growth, employment
and general price stability.
likbez -> sanjait...
I think that is a hidden principle behind attacks on FED chair. A neoliberal principle that the state should not intrude into economics and limit itself to
the police, security, defense, law enforcement and few other related to this functions. So their point that she overextended her mandate is an objection based on principle. Which
can be violated only if it is used to uphold neoliberalism, as Greenspan did during his career
many times.
Sandwichman said...
I think I disagree with Mark Thoma's disagreement with Brad DeLong. Actually, ALL economic
discourse is political and efforts to restrain the politics are inevitably efforts to keep the
politics one-sided
Dan Kervick said...
This kind of debate seems to be a by-product of the contemporary obsession with having
an "independent" central bank, run according to the fantasy that there is such a thing as a neutral
or apolitical way to conduct monetary policy.
But there really isn't. Different kinds of social, economic and political values and policy
agendas are going to call for different kinds monetary and credit policies. It might be better
for our political health if the Fed were administratively re-located as an executive branch agency
that is in turn part of a broader Department of Money and Banking - no different from the Departments
of Agriculture, Labor, Education, etc. In that case everybody would then view Fed governors as
ordinary executive branch appointees who report to the President, and whose policies are naturally
an extension of the administration's broader agenda. Then if people don't like the monetary policies
that are carried out, that would be one factor in their decision about whom to vote for.
There is no reason for central banks to have the kind of independence that judicial institutions
have. Justice may be blind and above politics, but money and banking are not. Decisions in that
latter area should be no more politics-free than decisions about taxing and spending. If we fold
the central bank more completely into the regular processes of representative government, then
if a candidate wants to run on a platform of keeping interest rates low, small business credit
easy, bank profits small, etc., they could do so without all of the doubletalk about the protecting
the independence of the sacrosanct bankers' temple.
We could also then avoid unproductive wheel-spinning about that impossibly vague and hedged
Fed mandate that can be stretched to mean almost anything people want it to mean. The Fed's mandate
under the political solution would just be whatever monetary policy the President ran on.
likbez -> Dan Kervick...
"The Fed's mandate under the political solution would just be whatever monetary policy
the President ran on"
Perfect !
Actually sanjait in his post made a good point why this illusive goal is desirable (providing
"electoral advantage") although Greenspan probably violated this rule. A couple of hikes of interest
rates from now till election probably will doom Democrats.
Also the idea of FEB independence went into overdrive since 80th not accidentally. It has its
value in enhancing the level of deregulation.
Among other things it helps to protect large financial institutions from outright nationalization
in cases like 2008.
Does somebody in this forum really think that Bernanke has an option of putting a couple of
Wall-Street most violent and destructive behemoths into receivership (in other words nationalize
them) in 2008 without Congress approval ?
Dan Kervick -> Sanjait ...
Sanjait, with due respect, you are not really responding to the reform proposal, but only
affirming the differences between that proposal and the current system.
Yes, of course fiscal policy is "constrained" by Congress. Indeed, it is not just constrained by
Congress but actually made by Congress, subject only to an overridable executive branch veto. The
executive branch is responsible primarily for carrying out the legislature's fiscal directives.
That's the point. In a democratic system decisions about all forms of taxation and government
spending are supposed to be made by the elected legislative branch, and then executed by agencies
of the executive branch. My proposal is that monetary policy should be handled in the same way:
by the elected political branches of the government.
You point out that under current arrangements, central banks can, if they choose, effect large
monetary offsets to fiscal policy (or at least to some of the aggregate macroeconomic effects of
those policies). I don't understand why any non-elected and politically unaccountable branch of
our government should have the power to offset the policies of the elected branches in this way.
Fiscal and monetary policy need to be yoked together to achieve policy ends effectively. Those
policy ends should be the ones people vote for, not the ones a handful of men and women happen to
think are appropriate.
JF -> Dan Kervick...
"In a democratic system" is what you wrote.
It is more proper to refer to it as republicanism. The separation of powers doctrine, underlying
the US constitution, is a reflection of James Madison's characterization in the 51st The
Federalist Paper, and it is a US-defined republicanism that is almost unique:
"the republican form, wherein the legislative authority necessarily predominates."
- or something like that is the quote.
In the US framers' view, at least those who constructed the re-write in 1787 and were the leaders
- I'd say the most important word in Madison's explanation is the word "necessarily" - this
philosophy has all law and policy stemming from the public, it presumes that you can't have
stability and dynamic change of benefit to society without this.
Arguably, aristocracies, fascists, totalitarians, and all the other isms, just don't see it that
way, they see things as top-down ordering of society.
The mythology of the monetary theorizing and the notions about a central bank being independently
delphic has some of this top-down ordering view to it (austerianism, comes to mind). Well, I
don't believe in a religious sense that this is how it should be, nor do you it seems.
It will be an interesting Congress in 2017 when new legislative authorities are enacted to
establish clearer framing of the ministerial duties now held by the FRB.
Are FED officials scared that this will happen, and as a result they circle the wagons with their
associates in the financial community now to fend off the public????
I hope this is not true. They can allay their own fears by leading not back toward 1907, in my
opinion.
Of course, I could say where I'd like economic policies to go, and do here often, but this thread
is about Yellin and other FED officials.
I recognize that FRB officials can say things too, and should, as leaders of this nation (with a
whole lot of research power and evidence available to them their commentary on political
economics should have merit and be influential).
Thanks for continuing to remind people that we govern ourselves in the US in a US-defined
republican-form. But I think the people still respect and listen to leadership - so speak out FED
officials.
JF -> Dan Kervick...
But Dan K, then you'd de-mythologize an entire wing of macroeconomics in a wing referred to as
monetary theory based on a separate Central Bank, or some non-political theory of money.
Don't mind the theory as it is an analytic framework that questions and sometimes informs - but
it is good to step back and realize some of the religious-like framing.
It is political-economy.
Peter K. -> pgl...
Yellen really lays it out in her speech.
"The extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the United States greatly concern
me. The past several decades have seen the most sustained rise in inequality since the 19th
century after more than 40 years of narrowing inequality following the Great Depression. By
some estimates, income and wealth inequality are near their highest levels in the past hundred
years, much higher than the average during that time span and probably higher than for much of
American history before then.2 It is no secret that the past few decades of widening
inequality can be summed up as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top
and stagnant living standards for the majority. I think it is appropriate to ask whether this
trend is compatible with values rooted in our nation's history, among them the high value
Americans have traditionally placed on equality of opportunity."
And even links to Piketty in footnote 42.
"Along with other economic advantages, it is likely that large inheritances play a role in
the fairly limited intergenerational mobility that I described earlier.42"
42. This topic is discussed extensively in Thomas Piketty (2014), Capital in the 21st Century,
trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press). Return to text
Sanjait said...
A number of commenters and authors have recently pointed out that inequality may not just
be an unrelated phenomenon to monetary policy, but actually, in part at least, a byproduct of it.
The theory is that the Fed in the Great Moderation age has been so keen to stave off even the
possibility of inflation that it chokes down the vigor of recoveries before they get to the part
where median wages start rising quickly. The result is that wages get ratcheted down with the
economic cycle, falling during recessions and never fully recovering during the recoveries.
Do I believe this theory? Increasingly, yes I do. And seeing the Fed right now decide to raise
rates, citing accelerating wage growth as one of the main reasons, has reinforced my belief.
A Boy Named Sue said...
Two Things: (i) The Fed should be open and honest about monetary policy. No one wants to
return to the Greenspan days. (ii) Brad Delong is a neoliberal hack.
A Boy Named Sue -> A Boy Named Sue...
I do admit, Delong is my favorite conservative economist. He is witty and educational, unlike
most RW hacks.
Jeff said...
As to "why risk a political backlash" in the piece, the short answer is: to invoke the
debate on whether politics or fact (science) is going to dominate. Because they can't both. See:
Romer. Let's have this out once and for all.
"... Most publicly traded U.S. companies reward top managers for hitting performance targets, meant to tie the interests of managers and shareholders together. At many big companies, those interests are deemed to be best aligned by linking executive performance to earnings per share, along with measures derived from the company's stock price. ..."
"... But these metrics may not be solely a reflection of a company's operating performance. They can be, and often are, influenced through stock repurchases. In addition to cutting the number of a company's shares outstanding, and thus lifting EPS, buybacks also increase demand for the shares, usually providing a lift to the share price, which affects other performance markers. ..."
"... Pay for performance as it is often structured creates "very troublesome, problematic incentives that can potentially drive very short-term thinking." ..."
"... As reported in the first article in this series, share buybacks by U.S. non-financial companies reached a record $520 billion in the most recent reporting year. A Reuters analysis of 3,300 non-financial companies found that together, buybacks and dividends have surpassed total capital expenditures and are more than double research and development spending. ..."
"... "There's been an over-focus on buybacks and raising EPS to hit share option targets, and we know that those are concentrated in the hands of the few, and that the few is in the top 1 percent," said James Montier, a member of the asset allocation team at global investment firm GMO in London, which manages more than $100 billion in assets. ..."
"... The introduction of performance targets has been a driver of surging executive pay, helping to widen the gap between the richest in America and the rest of the country. Median CEO pay among companies in the S P 500 increased to a record $10.3 million last year, up from $8.6 million in 2010, according to data firm Equilar. ..."
"... At those levels, CEOs last year were paid 303 times what workers in their industries earned, compared with a ratio of 59 times in 1989, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit. ..."
NEW YORK(Reuters) - When health insurer Humana Inc reported worse-than-expected quarterly earnings
in late 2014 – including a 21 percent drop in net income – it softened the blow by immediately telling
investors it would make a $500 million share repurchase.
In addition to soothing shareholders, the surprise buyback benefited the company's senior executives.
It added around two cents to the company's annual earnings per share, allowing Humana to surpass
its $7.50 EPS target by a single cent and unlocking higher pay for top managers under terms of the
company's compensation agreement.
Thanks to Humana hitting that target, Chief Executive Officer Bruce Broussard earned a $1.68 million
bonus for 2014.
Most publicly traded U.S. companies reward top managers for hitting performance targets, meant
to tie the interests of managers and shareholders together. At many big companies, those interests
are deemed to be best aligned by linking executive performance to earnings per share, along with
measures derived from the company's stock price.
But these metrics may not be solely a reflection of a company's operating performance. They
can be, and often are, influenced through stock repurchases. In addition to cutting the number of
a company's shares outstanding, and thus lifting EPS, buybacks also increase demand for the shares,
usually providing a lift to the share price, which affects other performance markers.
As corporate America engages in an unprecedented buyback binge, soaring CEO pay tied to short-term
performance measures like EPS is prompting criticism that executives are using stock repurchases
to enrich themselves at the expense of long-term corporate health, capital investment and employment.
"We've accepted a definition of performance that is narrow and quite possibly inappropriate,"
said Rosanna Landis Weaver, program manager of the executive compensation initiative at As You Sow,
a Washington, D.C., nonprofit that promotes corporate responsibility. Pay for performance as
it is often structured creates "very troublesome, problematic incentives that can potentially drive
very short-term thinking."
A Reuters analysis of the companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index found that 255 of those
companies reward executives in part by using EPS, while another 28 use other per-share metrics that
can be influenced by share buybacks.
In addition, 303 also use total shareholder return, essentially a company's share price appreciation
plus dividends, and 169 companies use both EPS and total shareholder return to help determine pay.
STANDARD PRACTICE
EPS and share-price metrics underpin much of the compensation of some of the highest-paid CEOs,
including those at Walt Disney Co, Viacom Inc, 21st Century Fox Inc, Target Corp and Cisco Systems
Inc.
... ... ...
As reported in the first article in this series, share buybacks by U.S. non-financial companies
reached a record $520 billion in the most recent reporting year. A Reuters analysis of 3,300 non-financial
companies found that together, buybacks and dividends have surpassed total capital expenditures and
are more than double research and development spending.
Companies buy back their shares for various reasons. They do it when they believe their shares
are undervalued, or to make use of cash or cheap debt financing when business conditions don't justify
capital or R&D spending. They also do it to meet the expectations of increasingly demanding investors.
Lately, the sheer volume of buybacks has prompted complaints among academics, politicians and
investors that massive stock repurchases are stifling innovation and hurting U.S. competitiveness
- and contributing to widening income inequality by rewarding executives with ever higher pay, often
divorced from a company's underlying performance.
"There's been an over-focus on buybacks and raising EPS to hit share option targets, and we
know that those are concentrated in the hands of the few, and that the few is in the top 1 percent,"
said James Montier, a member of the asset allocation team at global investment firm GMO in London,
which manages more than $100 billion in assets.
The introduction of performance targets has been a driver of surging executive pay, helping
to widen the gap between the richest in America and the rest of the country. Median CEO pay among
companies in the S&P 500 increased to a record $10.3 million last year, up from $8.6 million in 2010,
according to data firm Equilar.
At those levels, CEOs last year were paid 303 times what workers in their industries earned,
compared with a ratio of 59 times in 1989, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based
nonprofit.
SALARY AND A LOT MORE
Today, the bulk of CEO compensation comes from cash and stock awards, much of it tied to performance
metrics. Last year, base salary accounted for just 8 percent of CEO pay for S&P 500 companies, while
cash and stock incentives made up more than 45 percent, according to proxy advisory firm Institutional
Shareholder Services.
...In 1992, Congress changed the tax code to curb rising executive pay and encourage performance-based
compensation. It didn't work. Instead, the shift is widely blamed for soaring executive pay and a
heavier emphasis on short-term results.
Companies started tying performance pay to "short-term metrics, and suddenly all the things we
don't want to happen start happening," said Lynn Stout, a professor of corporate and business law
at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New York. "Despite 20 years of trying, we have still failed to come
up with an objective performance metric that can't be gamed."
Shareholder expectations have changed, too. The individuals and other smaller, mostly passive
investors who dominated equity markets during the postwar decades have given way to large institutional
investors. These institutions tend to want higher returns, sooner, than their predecessors. Consider
that the average time investors held a particular share has fallen from around eight years in 1960
to a year and a half now, according to New York Stock Exchange data.
"TOO EASY TO MANIPULATE"
Companies like to use EPS as a performance metric because it is the primary focus of financial
analysts when assessing the value of a stock and of investors when evaluating their return on investment.
But "it is not an appropriate target, it's too easy to manipulate," said Almeida, the University
of Illinois finance professor.
...By providing a lift to a stock's price, buybacks can increase total shareholder return to target
levels, resulting in more stock awards for executives. And of course, the higher stock price lifts
the value of company stock they already own.
"It can goose the price at time when the high price means they earn performance shares … even
if the stock price later goes back down, they got their shares," said Michael Dorff, a law professor
at the Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles.
Exxon Corp, the largest repurchaser of shares over the past decade, has rejected shareholder proposals
that it add three-year targets based on shareholder return to its compensation program. In its most
recent proxy, the energy company said doing so could increase risk-taking and encourage underinvestment
to achieve short-term results.
The energy giant makes half of its annual executive bonus payments contingent on meeting longer-term
EPS thresholds. Since 2005, the company has spent more than $200 billion on buybacks.
ADDITIONAL TWEAKS
While performance targets are specific, they aren't necessarily fixed. Corporate boards often
adjust them or how they are calculated in ways that lift executive pay.
Richard Stallman has never been...er...shy about
sharing his opinions, particularly when it comes to software that doesn't adhere to his vision. This
time around he has written an opinion column for The Guardian that takes on Microsoft Windows, Apple's
OS X and even Amazon's Kindle e-reader.
Richard Stallman on malware for The Guardian:
Malware is the name for a program designed to mistreat its users. Viruses typically are malicious,
but software products and software preinstalled in products can also be malicious – and often
are, when not free/libre.
Developers today shamelessly mistreat users; when caught, they claim that fine print in EULAs
(end user licence agreements) makes it ethical. (That might, at most, make it lawful, which is
different.) So many cases of proprietary malware have been reported, that we must consider any
proprietary program suspect and dangerous. In the 21st century, proprietary software is computing
for suckers.
Windows snoops on users, shackles users and, on mobiles, censors apps; it also has a universal
back door that allows Microsoft to remotely impose software changes. Microsoft sabotages Windows
users by showing security holes to the NSA before fixing them.
Apple systems are malware too: MacOS snoops and shackles; iOS snoops, shackles, censors apps
and has a back door. Even Android contains malware in a nonfree component: a back door for remote
forcible installation or deinstallation of any app.
Amazon's Kindle e-reader reports what page of what book is being read, plus all notes and underlining
the user enters; it shackles the user against sharing or even freely giving away or lending the
book, and has an Orwellian back door for erasing books.
As you might imagine, Stallman's commentary drew a lot of responses from readers of The Guardian:
JohnnyHooper: "The Android operating system is basically spyware, mining
your personal information, contacts, whereabouts, search activity, media preferences, photos,
email, texts, chat, shopping, calls, etc so Google can onsell it to advertisers. Nice one,
Google, you creep."
Ece301: "What the free software movement needs is more than just the
scare stories about 'capability' - without reliable examples of this stuff causing real-world
problems for real people such detail-free articles as this are going to affect nothing.
I'm quite willing to make the sacrifice of google, apple, the NSA etc. knowing exactly
where I am if it means my phone can give me directions to my hotel in this strange city.
Likewise if I want the capability to erase my phone should I lose it, I understand that
that means apple etc. can probably get at that function too.
Limiting_Factor: "Or for people who don't want to mess about with command
lines and like to have commercially supported software that works. Which is about 99% of
the home computer using population. You lost, Richard. Get over it."
CosmicTrigger: "Selling customers the illusion of security and then
leaving a great gaping hole in it for the government to snoop in return for a bit of a tax
break is absolutely reprehensible."
Liam01: "This guy is as extreme as the director of the NSA , just at
the other end of the spectrum. I'd be more inclined to listen if he showed a hint of nuance,
or didn't open with an egoistic claim of "invented free software"."
AlanWatson: "My Kindle doesn't report anything, because I never turn
the WiFi on. Just sideload content from wherever I want to buy it (or download if there
is no copyright), format conversion is trivial, and for the minor inconvenience of having
to use a USB cable I'm free of Amazon's lock-in, snooping and remote wipes. Simple."
Rod: "Here's my crazy prediction: Stallman's diatribes will continue
to have zero measurable impact on adoption rates of Free software. Time to try a different
approach, Richey."
Quicknstraight: "Not all snooping is bad for you. If it enhances your
experience, say, by providing you with a better playlist or recommendations for things you
like doing, what's the big deal?
Consumers don't have it every which way. You either accept a degree of data collection
in return for a more enjoyable user experience, or accept that no data collection means
you'll have to search out everything for yourself.
The average user prefers the easier option and has no interest in having to dig away
through loads of crap to find what they want.
They key question should be what happens to data that is mined about users, not whether
mining such data is bad per se."
Bob Rich: "As an author, I LIKE the idea that if a person buys a copy
of my book, that copy cannot be freely distributed to others. With a paper book, that means
that the original owner no longer has access to it. With an electronic book, "giving" or
"lending" means duplicating, and that's stealing my work. The same is true for other creators:
musicians, artists, photographers."
Mouse: "Stallman's a hero and we wouldn't have the level of (low-cost)
technology all we enjoy today without him. I remember reading an article by him years ago
and he said that the only laptop he'd use was the Lemote Yeeloong because it was the only
system that was 100% open, even down to the BIOS - he was specifically paranoid about how
government agencies might modify proprietary code for their own ends - and at the time I
thought "Jeez, he's a bit of a paranoid fruitcake", but post-Snowden he's been proven to
be right about what the security services get up."
"... Most importantly, as DC concludes, the email shows that people close to Clinton had the inside track in pushing her their pet projects - a pattern that has been on display with nearly every monthly release of Clinton emails. ..."
While Hillary Clinton may have had some
entertaining problems when using her Blackberry (or was that iPad) as US Secretary of State,
one thing she excelled at was nepotism.
According to the latest set of emails released by the State Department, and first reported by
the
Daily Caller, Hillary intervened in a request forwarded by her son-in-law, Marc
Mezvisnky, on behalf of a deep-sea mining firm, Neptune Minerals, to meet with her or other State
Department officials.
One of the firm's investors, Harry Siklas who was Mezvinsky's coworker at Goldman (which
donated between $1 and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation) had asked Mezvinsky, who married
Chelsea Clinton in 2010 and who currently runs his own hedge fund (in which Goldman CEO Blankfein
is also an investor) for help setting up such contacts, an email from May 25,
2012 shows.
Siklas told Mezvinsky that Neptune Minerals (a company founded by one of Siklas' close
friends) was poised for great things. He also touted an investment that Goldman Sachs - had made
in the company, which had underwater tenements in the South Pacific.
Siklas said that he and Adam hoped to meet with State Department officials, including Clinton,
to discuss deep sea mining "and the current legal issues and regulations" surrounding it.
"I introduced them to GS and the bankers took them on as a client," Siklas wrote.
"There is a favor I need to ask, and hopefully it will not put you out, as I'm not one to ask
for favors typically," Siklas wrote to Mezvinsky. "I need a contact in Hillary's office."
"Siklas said that he and Adam hoped to meet with State Department officials, including
Clinton, to discuss deep sea mining "and the current legal issues and regulations" surrounding
it.
As
AP adds, the lobbying effort on behalf of Neptune Minerals came while Hillary Clinton - now
the leading Democratic presidential candidate - was advocating for an Obama
administration push for Senate approval of a sweeping Law of the Sea Treaty. The pact
would have aided U.S. mining companies scouring for minerals in international waters, but the
Republican-dominated Senate blocked it.
Clinton then ordered a senior State Department official, Thomas Nides and now a vice chairman
at Morgan Stanley, to look into the request in August 2012.
"Could you have someone follow up on this request, which was forwarded to me?"
Clinton asked Nides.
Nides replied: "I'll get on it."
The emails do not show whether Clinton or other State Department officials met with Harry
Siklas or with executives from the Florida-based firm. Clinton's official calendars, recently
obtained by The Associated Press, also do not show any meetings between Clinton and Neptune
representatives.
Clinton's campaign declined through a spokesman to discuss the issue, despite AP asking
detailed questions about the matter since Nov. 30. The AP attempted to reach Siklas and a
Neptune executive, Josh Adam, by phone, email and in-person visits to their homes last week but
received no replies.
As noted above, Siklas had said in his email that his then-employer, Goldman Sachs, was
representing Neptune.
Unperturbed by the State Department's stonewalling, AP then dug deeper into its quest to see
just how extensive the nepotism ran:
A spokesman for Eaglevale said Mezvinsky would not comment on his role. Emails to a
spokeswoman for Chelsea Clinton went unreturned. Morgan Stanley officials did not respond to
an AP request to interview Nides. The AP also left three phone messages with Neptune
Minerals' office in St. Petersburg, Florida, and also left several phone and email messages
with Hans Smit, the firm's current president, also with no reply.
Federal ethics guidelines warn government employees to "not give preferential
treatment to any private organization or individual," but there are no specific
provisions prohibiting officials from considering requests prompted by relatives.
As the AP then notes, "Clinton's willingness to intercede as a result of her son-in-law's
involvement is the latest example of how the Clinton family's interests cut across
intersecting spheres of influence in American politics, commerce and charity."
There's more:
A lawyer for an environmental group opposing deep-sea mining said Clinton's action was
"cause for concern that the State Department might take any action that could encourage such
activity." Emily Jeffers, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, a group
opposing deep-sea mining, filed suit against Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last May, accusing the agencies of failing to
conduct comprehensive environmental tests before licensing Lockheed Martin Corp. to mine for
minerals in U.S. territorial waters in the Pacific Ocean.
Jeffers said her organization supports the Law of the Sea Treaty that Clinton championed
during her tenure at the State Department. She said the proposal would give the U.S. and other
countries roles in establishing standards to explore for oil, gas and minerals. Jeffers said
her group worries that the U.S. and other commercial nations will encourage deep-sea mining
once the treaty is adopted.
One provision of the treaty, backed by corporate interests, would allow nations, including
the U.S., to sponsor mining companies seeking to scour deep seas for minerals. Clinton told
senators in May 2012 that American mining firms would only be able to compete freely against
foreign rivals under standards set by the treaty.
Seabed mining is "very expensive, and before any company will explore a mine site, it will
naturally insist on having a secure title to the site and the minerals it will recover," she
said.
Clinton's public push for a U.S. role in securing deep sea mining rights quickly hit home at
Neptune Mining. Three days after her Senate appearance, Siklas, who described himself as
a "passive investor" in Neptune, emailed Mezvinsky.
As Siklas explained to Clinton's son in law, Neptune was pursuing sea-floor massive
sulfide (SMS) mining in the South Pacific and had just bought out two other mining firms.
Siklas said that he and Adam needed "a contact in Hillary's office: someone my friend
Josh (and I perhaps) can reach out via email or phone to discuss SMS mining and the current legal
issues and regulations." Siklas, then registered as a stockbroker at Goldman Sachs in New York,
had contributed $2,000 to Hillary Clinton's 2008 unsuccessful presidential bid.
Siklas said the State Department would be interested in the subject following Clinton's
Senate testimony. He said he and Adam "would feel very fortunate to have someone's ear on this
topical issue, with the hope that at some point we get in front of the secretary herself."
And since the emails do not show how Clinton became directly aware of Siklas' email to
Mezvinsky or why it took three months for her to act after Mezvinsky became involved, it also
raises questions how many emails in the chain had been illegally deleted, and what may be
contained in them. As the Daily Caller observes:
... it is unclear why there is no record of Clinton being forwarded the email that Siklas
sent to Mezvinsky. Clinton wrote in her email to Nides that she was forwarded the email from
Siklas to her son-in-law. If Clinton had turned over all work-related emails that she
has sent or received - as she has repeatedly claimed - it would be expected that she had an
email sent directly to her inbox with Siklas's email attached.
The answer is simple: Clinton did not in fact produce all emails as had been demanded. But
while the emails do not show a reply from Mezvinsky, Hillary Clinton eventually obtained a copy
and sent it to Nides that August, ordering a follow-up.
Most importantly, as DC concludes, the email shows that people close to Clinton had the inside
track in pushing her their pet projects - a pattern that has been on display with nearly every
monthly release of Clinton emails.
For those who are shocked, feel free to read what little evidence Clinton did provide of just
that, shown below.
That looks like a French backlash against neoliberal globalization, Against the society that
cares only about top 1%.
Notable quotes:
"... Contrary to what we are told by the transnational business-political-media elite, there is nothing inevitable about ever-increasing 'globalisation'. It is simply a race to the bottom for ever-cheaper labour and erasure of sovereign national obstructions to corporate profit. ..."
"... the impact of the third globalisation wave on any given country is the result of very deliberate political choices (many of which were taken by French governments rather later than their neighbours), not of some sort of inevitable natural fact. You do not, for instance, have to espouse unmitigated cross-border capital transfers. ..."
"... the sooner the European Left admits that it was right in the 70s, when it correctly identified the EEC as an anti-worker construct, the better. Unless you fancy having a smattering of far right governments all over the EZ, that is. ..."
"... France has terrible foreign policy. They completely destroyed Libya. France is responsible for the rise of far-right. ..."
"... The elite's disregard for anyone's opinion apart from their own is largely the cause of the rise of the Front National. It is difficult to see how allowing millions of immigrants to settle in Europe can end well in the short to long term. ..."
"... Not a bad article, this. Still, I wish this newspaper's writers would stop defining democracy as "that with which I agree". The FN is a Democratic Party. Deal with it. ..."
"... If mainstream liberal and conservative parties will not listen to the citizenry's very real and very legitimate concerns about immigration and Islam, that citizenry will hold their collective nose and vote for right wing populists who will. ..."
"... What we saw in France is being repeated in Sweden, the Netherlands and much of Eastern Europe. It is fueling Donald Trumps presidential run and Nigel Faranges parliamentary ambitions. ..."
"... For the older generation in particular, Britain has changed out of all recognition in hte last 50 years. Although change can be a good thing, it can also be extremely unsettling. ..."
"... Democracy in action. Unlike the UK whereby the politicians execute policy that they either lied about during the election, or they simply changed their mind in contempt of the electorate safe in the knowledge that the electorate will have to wait years to kick them out again. ..."
"... Agreed, any grand coalition of the French ruling elite created as a blocker will only prove to many of the French people that there is very little real difference between the established parties; possibly driving those who do want real change towards the FN. ..."
"... Globalisation depends on no borders - Factories and production have moved to avail of cheaper production. Shareholders and investment funds have benefited. Many, many citizens of sovereign nations have not. Now some European politicians and institutions have determined that immigration and multiculturalism is the new agenda anyway. There is to be no consultation by the political elite or the media with the people of the sovereign nations of Europe - It is to be forced on people whether they like it or not. ..."
"... The rise of Front National is happening for the same reason the rise of the far right (or just plain right wing) parties is happening all over Europe: Moderate parties on both sides of the political spectrum refuse to have anything even resembling a discussion on the negative side of immigration or multiculturalism. It's really as simple as that. The far right has been handed a complete monopoly on an issue which is becoming an increasingly hot topic. They have an open goal. ..."
Nougarayde was a journalist at the" Monde"; you know, this "french elite newspaper", who
hate the front national and despise its supporters!
viscount_jellicoe, 7 Dec 2015 21:39
Contrary to what we are told by the transnational business-political-media elite, there
is nothing inevitable about ever-increasing 'globalisation'. It is simply a race to the bottom
for ever-cheaper labour and erasure of sovereign national obstructions to corporate profit.
Daniele Gatti, 7 Dec 2015 21:46
Your economic history is missing a few very important details, namely:
1) the impact of the third globalisation wave on any given country is the result of very
deliberate political choices (many of which were taken by French governments rather later than
their neighbours), not of some sort of inevitable natural fact. You do not, for instance, have
to espouse unmitigated cross-border capital transfers.
2) there is no mention at all of the failed European monetary experiments, namely the ERM and
the euro. The first was de facto dismantled in 1993 (by setting ridiculous oscillation bands)
to avoid a French Black Wednesday after it had destroyed competitiveness pretty much
everywhere apart from Germany and the Deutschemark area, the second is doing pretty much the
same, only it was slower to compromise France than other countries because its economy is
stronger than others.
The fact remains that while relatively high public spending, in violation of the Maastricht
parameters, directly translates into higher inflation than Germany, which leads to loss of
competitiveness, which leads to a CA deficit.
Sorry, but the French school system has absolutely nothing to do with all of the above, and
the sooner the European Left admits that it was right in the 70s, when it correctly
identified the EEC as an anti-worker construct, the better. Unless you fancy having a
smattering of far right governments all over the EZ, that is.
Andu68, 7 Dec 2015 21:49
Why exactly is the FN far right? The only controversial position they have is their belief
there is an urgent need to restrict immigration, yet this is a position held by the majority
of European's public opinion, though not by mainstream politicians and certainly not by
members of the left intellectual elite like Miss Nougareyde.
LouSmorels, 7 Dec 2015 21:49
If I were French, I would vote FN! Why should the French give up their country to
become something else. Not everyone wants to end up like Sweden...
finnrkn -> LouSmorels, 7 Dec 2015 22:22
Not even Sweden wants to end up like Sweden nowadays.
Perhaps the rise of the FN reflects its offering to the electorate something that they
want. It's something you don't want, so, rather in the spirit of the EU's rejection
of result of a referendum that gives the 'wrong' result, you seek some excuse for that that you
perceive to be the ill judgement of a portion of the electorate. Democracy can be irritating,
can't it?
euphoniumbrioche, 7 Dec 2015 20:46
France's cowardly elite is to blame for the rise of Marine Le Pen
France has terrible foreign policy. They completely destroyed Libya. France is responsible
for the rise of far-right.
allom8 -> euphoniumbrioche, 7 Dec 2015 20:55
An inadequate explanation given the far right's continued rise all over Europe. The elephant
in the room gets bigger with every passing day.
GodzillaJones, 7 Dec 2015 20:48
It's a reflection of politics in the West at the moment. When voters are not represented by
their politicians, they look for something else, even if it's a bit unsavoury.
ID9969553, 7 Dec 2015 20:48
The elite's disregard for anyone's opinion apart from their own is largely the cause of
the rise of the Front National. It is difficult to see how allowing millions of immigrants to
settle in Europe can end well in the short to long term.
WagerObe -> gunforhire, 7 Dec 2015 22:01
Interestingly though, LR did not get the voting shares lost by the PS. They went to the FN.
This is not a vote. against socialism, indeed on economic questions the FN is closer to the communists
than classic right-wing parties.
This is a vote against the main stream parties, and frankly it is not surprising. A succession
of UMP - PS governments have changed nothing. Remains to be seen if FN can confirm the try next
Sunday. If they win PACA
finnrkn, 7 Dec 2015 20:49
Not a bad article, this. Still, I wish this newspaper's writers would stop defining democracy
as "that with which I agree". The FN is a Democratic Party. Deal with it.
ID7475021 -> finnrkn, 7 Dec 2015 20:57
The Nazi party in Germany used democracy to help itself climb to power... one of the problems
democracy has not managed to address is how to deal with parties who use that democracy with the
ultimate aim of destroying it.
finnrkn -> ID7475021, 7 Dec 2015 21:04
True enough; communist parties also subverted democracy in Eastern Europe. Beyond nationalism,
though, I can't see there's much of a comparison to be made between the FN and the Nazis.
elliot2511, 7 Dec 2015 20:49
If mainstream liberal and conservative parties will not listen to the citizenry's very
real and very legitimate concerns about immigration and Islam, that citizenry will hold their
collective nose and vote for right wing populists who will.
What we saw in France is being repeated in Sweden, the Netherlands and much of Eastern Europe.
It is fueling Donald Trumps presidential run and Nigel Faranges parliamentary ambitions.
ltm123 elliot2511, 7 Dec 2015 21:09
Unfortunate those very real concerns about immigration are not very legitimate. You only have
to do a small amount of research to realise that immigration isn't to blame for most of the things
the main stream media would have you believe.
huzar30 ltm123, 7 Dec 2015 21:14
That really isn't the point. For the older generation in particular, Britain has changed
out of all recognition in hte last 50 years. Although change can be a good thing, it can also
be extremely unsettling.
elliot2511 -> ltm123, 7 Dec 2015 21:23
"You only have to do a small amount of research to realise that immigration isn't to blame
for most of the things "
You may be right...but people do not want mass immigration, and more particularly, do not want
mass immigration from Islamic countries.
That might be fair or unfair, justified or unjustified, but surely the greater population should
have some say in what their country looks like.
Laurence Johnson, 7 Dec 2015 20:50
Democracy in action. Unlike the UK whereby the politicians execute policy that they
either lied about during the election, or they simply changed their mind in contempt of the
electorate safe in the knowledge that the electorate will have to wait years to kick them out
again.
Dave Beardsly -> Laurence Johnson, 7 Dec 2015 21:13
Democracy in action. Unlike the UK
Is it a better democracy? Or is it something to do with a more impartial, fairer, press?
Because however bad our democracy is or isn't, we know for sure our press can make and break
anyone it chooses.
Sachaflashman, 7 Dec 2015 20:51
"But the fact that such a question can now legitimately be raised is in itself a
trauma for all those who care about democracy."
In plain English: a democratic party that has managed to purge its past, re-defined itself
and convinced 6 million citizens to vote for it....is nothing more than a trauma. If anything,
the democratic trauma is a system whereby party A. can win the most votes only to be knocked
out in round two by party B. dropping out and lending its votes to party C.
This is a recipe for allowing bland, elitist politicians to stay in power forever.
Mark Steven -> Conway Sachaflashman, 7 Dec 2015 22:22
Agreed, any grand coalition of the French ruling elite created as a blocker will only
prove to many of the French people that there is very little real difference between the
established parties; possibly driving those who do want real change towards the FN.
Magicmoonbeam2, 7 Dec 2015 20:53
The so called elite have become accustomed to ruling independently of their electorates
because for years their electorates had nowhere else to go. Now that their electorates have
somewhere else to go, the brown squishy stuff is hitting the fan.
Quiller -> Dave Beardsly, 7 Dec 2015 21:29
Globalisation depends on no borders - Factories and production have moved to avail of
cheaper production. Shareholders and investment funds have benefited. Many, many citizens of
sovereign nations have not. Now some European politicians and institutions have determined
that immigration and multiculturalism is the new agenda anyway. There is to be no consultation
by the political elite or the media with the people of the sovereign nations of Europe - It is
to be forced on people whether they like it or not.
Any nation, people or politician who questions the new ideology is categorised as backward
and reactionary. Secret meeting are held to push the issues forward. People of the sovereign
nations of Europe have not signed up to the Federal Europe - France and other nations rejected
the European Constitution. Nonetheless the ideologues press the issues forward onto the
people.
The latest revolt has been over the issue is immigration by Germany and Sweden - their
initial action was - "we can do it !". When it dawned on them that they could not, they have
tried to bully their way through the other sovereign nations via government structures, the
European Union and the UN.
Following the atrocities in France, Beirut, Ankara, Nigeria, Syria - the people are
deciding they do not want to be a part of the change to the multicultural environment. Why
would they when they perceive the change to be a retrograde step. If the current political
party that one has voted for does not serve one's interests or they appear to be a political
party with no clothes, then it is time to move on to a different political representative
party. Of course - the smear continues against political parties that do not have the
ideologues view.
allom8, 7 Dec 2015 20:57
The rise of Front National is happening for the same reason the rise of the far right
(or just plain right wing) parties is happening all over Europe: Moderate parties on both
sides of the political spectrum refuse to have anything even resembling a discussion on the
negative side of immigration or multiculturalism. It's really as simple as that.
The far right has been handed a complete monopoly on an issue which is becoming an
increasingly hot topic. They have an open goal.
Koolio, 7 Dec 2015 21:03
"none of the mainstream parties have been able to address the many social and
economic ailments"
They've never tried. French politicians promise bold visions of the past as they keep
trying to reheat and perpetuate policies that generate the record unemployment and entrenched
structural inequalities while hoping if they say "républicain" ten times a day nobody will
question their consistent failure.
Even the politicians are stale, for example the Républicains are fighting over whether to back
proven failure Sarkozy or convicted criminal Juppé (albeit gifted a crony-style presidential
pardon by his ex-boss Chirac). Given choices like this no wonder millions of voters
dissatisfied by Hollande and Valls skip to the FN.
bally38, 7 Dec 2015 21:08
Marine Le Pen has no solution for France's problems, her economic programme is all about
retreating from the outside world and Europe.
My understanding of the FN economic policy. Withdraw from the Euro. Close the borders. Put up
a high tariff wall around france. (Which would mean de facto withdrawal from the Single
Market).
Quite how they think jobs are created in a global economy I really don't know. In some ways it
would be great if they did win. Currently the eurosceptics can act all cosy with each other.
Whereas in fact, their policies would amount to a mutual trade war.
MrBojangles007, 7 Dec 2015 21:08
Political dogma from the EU federalists and the invite from Merkel to all the worlds
refugees is naive in the extreme. The people still love their country and most do not want a
country called Europe.
Too much too soon, we do not even speak the same language around 28 countries, until we do - a
country called Europe is for the birds. The Euro has not worked, open borders have not worked,
the EU is in an utter mess.
FN - will always make progress when chaos reigns.
PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:29
"The Prime Directive is not just a set of rules; it is a philosophy ... and a very correct
one. History has proven again and again that whenever mankind interferes with a less developed
civilization, no matter how well intentioned that interference may be, the results are
invariably disastrous." -- Captain Jean-Luc Picard, USS Enterprise
flowerssoft, 7 Dec 2015 21:32
France's cowardly elite are responsible because they have refused to tackle issues which
negatively affect the white working class in France.
PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:35
People across the West are still scratching their heads as to why, given the large numbers
of un and under employed young people, we need mass immigration, even in the face of
austerity.
The only answer I ever here is: If you're not for it, you're a xenophobe. Regardless of the
sharp cuts to social programmes and the lack of housing throughout Europe. And if a European
Country genuinely needs unskilled workers, there are plenty of Eastern and Southern Europeans
who would be happy to bridge the gap.
haunsk PrinceEdward, 7 Dec 2015 21:54
There you have it in a nutshell. We are being spun,we are being played.
smarty78, 7 Dec 2015 21:37
'France's cowardly elite...'
Natalie, it's rare I agree with you, so I'll focus on our consensus with the headline.
That the other parties are now looking to form a block against FN demonstrates quite perfectly
the arrogance of the French political elite and their utter contempt for democracy.
I dearly wish FN the very best of luck - at least they attend to the legitimate grievances of
a significant proportion of people.
Fascist, Nazi, extremist blahblah... Bring it on and watch this space.
André Pampel, 7 Dec 2015 21:51
Ironic being that as far as economics goes extreme left and right speak almost from the
same page....Mainly protectionism. What Nougayréde conviently does not say is how many people
from the extreme left have gone over to the fn and that their vote is extremely high in the
18-34 age group, and the well educated in that group too. And herself was and is still part of
the "establishment" so ironic criticising her chums like that....
Anneke Ruben, 7 Dec 2015 21:52
If people feel threatened, they tend to be more conservative. And frankly, I don't see a
reason why France or the rest of Europe shouldn't feel threatened.. Mass unemployment, the
Euro zone mess, thousands of migrants that pose as "refugees", migrants that mostly follow an
unreformed religion, the mass shootings in Paris... So... Why is the left blaming the "elite"
and not the ones responsible for creating this mess?
"... As Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. aims to curb corruption in Ukraine, his son, Hunter, sits on the board of a Ukrainian company that the American ambassador has accused of having illicit assets. ..."
"... What is he, sort of a wayward, neer-do-well playboy type? Not really. Hes a graduate of Yale Law School and a former senior vice-president at MBNA America Bank. Good for him. During the Clinton administration he worked in the US Department of Commerce. Hes presently a partner in an investment firm. And counsel for a national law firm. And an adjunct professor at Georgetown University. I get it: he likes to keep busy. He has even found the time to join the board of a gas company called Burisma Holdings Ltd. Never heard of it. Perhaps thats because its a Ukrainian gas company; Ukraines largest private gas producer, in fact. Hes taking charge of the companys legal unit. Isnt that a bit fishy? Why do you say that? Because hes the vice-presidents son! Thats a coincidence. This is totally based on merit, said Burismas chairman, Alan Apter. ..."
"... Who? Devon Archer, who works with Hunter Biden at Rosemont Seneca partners, which is half owned by Rosemont Capital, a private equity firm founded by Archer and Christopher Heinz. ..."
"... Who? Christopher Heinz … John Kerrys stepson. ..."
"... I think Putins propaganda people can take a long weekend; their work is being done for them. ..."
Biden, His Son and the Case Against a Ukrainian Oligarch
By JAMES RISEN
As Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. aims to curb corruption in Ukraine, his son, Hunter,
sits on the board of a Ukrainian company that the American ambassador has accused of having "illicit
assets."
Why shouldn't Hunter Biden join the board of a gas company in Ukraine?
The son of the US vice-president has been chosen to take charge of energy firm Burisma's legal
unit – a decision based purely on merit, of course.
Name: Hunter Biden.
Age: 44.
Appearance: Chip off the old block.
His names rings a bell. Is he related to someone famous? He's the son of Joe Biden, the US
vice president.
What is he, sort of a wayward, ne'er-do-well playboy type? Not really. He's a graduate of Yale
Law School and a former senior vice-president at MBNA America Bank. Good for him. During the Clinton administration he worked in the US Department of Commerce.
He's presently a partner in an investment firm. And counsel for a national law firm. And an adjunct
professor at Georgetown University. I get it: he likes to keep busy. He has even found the time to join the board of a gas company
called Burisma Holdings Ltd. Never heard of it. Perhaps that's because it's a Ukrainian gas company; Ukraine's largest private
gas producer, in fact. He's taking charge of the company's legal unit. Isn't that a bit fishy? Why do you say that? Because he's the vice-president's son! That's a coincidence. "This is totally based on merit,"
said Burisma's chairman, Alan Apter.
He doesn't sound very Ukrainian. He's American, as is the other new board member, Devon Archer.
Who? Devon Archer, who works with Hunter Biden at Rosemont Seneca partners, which is half owned
by Rosemont Capital, a private equity firm founded by Archer and Christopher Heinz.
Who? Christopher Heinz … John Kerry's stepson.
I think Putin's propaganda people can take a long weekend; their work is being done for them.
What do you mean?
Hasn't Joe Biden pledged to help Ukraine become more energy independent in the wake of its
troubles with Russia? Well, yes.
And isn't Burisma, as a domestic producer, well positioned to profit from rising gas prices
caused by the conflict? Possibly, but Hunter Biden is a salaried board member, not an investor.
According to anonymous sources in the Wall Street Journal, neither Rosemont Seneca nor Rosemont
Capital has made any financial investment in Burisma.
So it's not fishy at all? No one's saying that.
Do say: "Somebody needs to get involved in Ukraine's corporate governance, and it might as
well be a clutch of rich, well-connected American dudes with weird first names."
Meta-criticism of reports in this case is neither here nor there, since it's possible to track down
the original sources.
The Times summary of Ms. Rey's Jackson Hole paper is accurate; in it she
does discuss the importance of the global financial cycle in creating boom and bust cycles in emerging
markets. (This isn't news to anyone who's followed Krugman's writings on global financial crises
over the years.)
When Yellen announced that the Fed would not raise rates in September, she did cite "heightened
uncertainties abroad" as a factor. While I cannot find her mentioning China specifically, a lot of
the discussion in financial sources prior to the announcement cite the Chinese devaluation as an
important factor leading to Yellen's decision.
As for economists warning that a rate increase combined with uncertain exchange rates in China
and other countries would weaken global growth, that was most likely a reference to the IMF's World
Economic Outlook report, which does indeed make this argument.
When capital became unable of reaping large and fairly secure profits from manufacturing it like
water tries to find other ways. It starts with semi-criminalizing finance -- that's the origin
of the term "casino capitalism" (aka neoliberalism). I see casino capitalism as a set of semi-criminal
ways of maintaining the rate of profits.
The key prerequisite here is corruption of regulators. So laws on the book does not matter
much if regulators do not enforce them.
As Joseph Schumpeter noted, capitalism is not a steady-state system. It is unstable system
in which population constantly experience and then try to overcome one crisis after another. Joseph
Schumpeter naively assumed that the net result is reimaging itself via so called "creative destruction".
But what we observe now it "uncreative destruction". In other words casino capitalism is devouring
the host, the US society.
So all those Hillary statements are for plebs consumption only (another attempt to play "change
we can believe in" trick). Just a hot air designed to get elected. Both Clintons are in the pocket
of financial oligarchy and will never be able to get out of it alive.
GeorgeK said...
I believe I'm the only one on this blog that has actually traded bonds, done swaps and hedged
bank portfolios with futures contracts. Sooo I kinda know something about this topic.
Hilary is a fraud; her daughter worked at a Hedge fund where she met her husband Marc Mezvinsky,
who is now a money manager at the Eaglevale fund. Oddly many of the Eaglevale investors are investors
in the Clinton Foundation and have also given money to Hilary's campaign. The Clinton Foundation
gets boat loads of money from Hedge funds and will not raise taxes on such a rich source of funding.
The grooms mother is Marjory Margolies (ex)Mezvinsky, she cast the final vote giving Clinton
the winning vote to raise taxes. She subsequently lost her run for reelection to congress, then
her husband was convicted of fraud and they divorced.
This speech is an attempt to pry people away from Bernie, it won't work with primary voters
but might with what's left of rational Republicans in the general election.
When capital became unable of reaping large and fairly secure profits from manufacturing it like
water tries to find other ways. It starts with semi-criminalizing finance -- that's the origin
of the term "casino capitalism" (aka neoliberalism). I see casino capitalism as a set of semi-criminal
ways of maintaining the rate of profits.
The key prerequisite here is corruption of regulators. So laws on the book does not matter
much if regulators do not enforce them.
As Joseph Schumpeter noted, capitalism is not a steady-state system. It is unstable system
in which population constantly experience and then try to overcome one crisis after another. Joseph
Schumpeter naively assumed that the net result is reimaging itself via so called "creative destruction".
But what we observe now it "uncreative destruction". In other words casino capitalism is devouring
the host, the US society.
So all those Hillary statements are for plebs consumption only (another attempt to play "change
we can believe in" trick). Just a hot air designed to get elected. Both Clintons are in the pocket
of financial oligarchy and will never be able to get out of it alive.
GeorgeK said...
I believe I'm the only one on this blog that has actually traded bonds, done swaps and
hedged bank portfolios with futures contracts. Sooo I kinda know something about this topic.
Hilary is a fraud; her daughter worked at a Hedge fund where she met her husband Marc
Mezvinsky, who is now a money manager at the Eaglevale fund. Oddly many of the Eaglevale
investors are investors in the Clinton Foundation and have also given money to Hilary's
campaign. The Clinton Foundation gets boat loads of money from Hedge funds and will not raise
taxes on such a rich source of funding.
The grooms mother is Marjory Margolies (ex)Mezvinsky, she cast the final vote giving Clinton
the winning vote to raise taxes. She subsequently lost her run for reelection to congress,
then her husband was convicted of fraud and they divorced.
This speech is an attempt to pry people away from Bernie, it won't work with primary voters
but might with what's left of rational Republicans in the general election.
"If you don't read a newspaper every day, you are uninformed. If you do, you are misinformed."
– Mark Twain
We all like to know what's happening in the world, and for good reason… understanding
our surroundings is essential to survival. We instinctively seek information… we need information.
There is, however, a problem that we face:
No matter how much "news" you consume, you won't really know what's going on in the world.
We can't know, because 'the news' is half illusion, provided by government-dependent corporations
that are paid to keep you watching and to keep you joined to the status quo.
Granted, they are quite good at providing pictures from disaster areas, but when it comes to
explaining why the disaster happened, they mislead almost every time. Yes, some truth makes its
way through the news machine, but most of it is wrapped in layers of manipulation. If, for example,
you watch the news feeds all day, you'll find a good deal of truth, but you'll find it amongst
a pile of half-truths. Do you really have enough time to analyze them all?
Here's an article about the phenomenon called "Rebranding
Fascism" (although the term "left-wing fascism is not used): http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html The basic concept is that neo-fascist groups (who
are extreme right-wing) disguise themselves as leftists,
e.g., they say they are anti-zionist when they are anti-semitic.
JKF? I didn't know that the historian John King Fairbank was assassinated.
roadrider
Then I guess you have solid evidence to account for the actions of Allen Dulles, David Atlee
Phillips, William Harvey, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt, Richard Helms, James Angleton and other
CIA personnel and assets who had
1) perhaps the strongest motives to murder Kennedy
2) the means to carry out the crime, namely, their executive action (assassination) capability
and blackmail the government into aiding their cover up and
3) the opportunity to carry out such a plan given their complete lack of accountability to
the rest of the government and their unmatched expertise in lying, deceit, secrecy, fraud.
Because if you actually took the time to research or at least read about their actions in this
matter instead of just spouting bald assertions that you decline to back up with any facts you
would find their behavior nearly impossible to explain other than having at, the very least, guilty
knowledge of the crime.
Ruby claimed he was injected with cancer in jail, which ultimately rendered his second trial
(after winning appeal overturning his death sentence) moot. It sounded crazy, but so did the
motive proffered at his first trial-- that he wanted to save Mrs. Kennedy the anguish...
that is such an amazing story.. i've yet to watch the video of Lyndon Johnson's swearing in
- where Marr states he's seen to be winking and smiling etc -
those who wish - Pick it up at around 12 minutes. actually in that lecture he may
well be showing videos of it - I wdn't know cos just listen to the audio.
Make a note of the names - rising stars in the I'm "left"
but I'm not a conspiracist gaggle - ist a standard gaggle -
Chomsky, Monbiot are in it ( to win it of course - their
fabled "socialist" kingdom" ) - yeah yeah its BritLand so
yeah why I care I suppose.
Many studies of the Eurozone crisis focus on peripheral European states' current account deficits,
or German neo-mercantilist policies that promoted export surpluses. However, German financialization
and input on the eurozone's financial architecture promoted deficits, increased systemic risk, and
facilitated the onset of Europe's subsequent crises.
Increasing German financial sector competition
encouraged German banks' increasing securitization and participation in global capital markets. Regional
liberalization created new marketplaces for German finance and increased crisis risk as current accounts
diverged between Europe's core and periphery. After the global financial crisis of 2008, German losses
on international securitized assets prompted retrenchment of lending, paving the way for the eurozone's
sovereign debt crisis. Rethinking how financial liberalization facilitated German and European financial
crises may prevent the eurozone from repeating these performances in the future.
After the 1970s, German banks' trading activity came to surpass lending as the largest share of
assets, while German firms increasingly borrowed in international capital markets rather than from
domestic banks. Private banks alleged that political subsidies and higher credit ratings for Landesbanks, public banks that insured household, small enterprise, and local banks' access
to capital, were unfair, and, in response, German lawmakers eliminated state guarantees for public
banks. Landesbanks, despite their historic role as stable, non-profit, providers of credit,
consequently had to compete with Germany's largest private banks for business. Changes in competition
restructured the German financial system. Mergers and takeovers occurred, especially in commercial
banks and Landesbanks. German financial intermediation ratios-total financial assets of
financial corporations divided by the total financial assets of the economy-increased. Greater securitization
and shadow banking relative to long-term lending increased German propensity for financial crisis,
as securities, shares, and securitized debt constituted increasing percentages of German banks' assets
and liabilities.
Throughout this period, Germany lacked a centralized financial regulatory apparatus. Only in 2002
did the country's central bank, the Bundesbank, establish the Bundenstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht
(Federal Financial Supervisory Authority, known as BaFin), which consolidated the responsibilities
of three agencies to oversee the whole financial sector. However, neither institution could keep
pace with new sources of financial and economic instability. German banking changes continued apace
and destabilizing trends in banking grew.
German desire for financial liberalization at the European level, meanwhile, helped increase potential
systemic risk of European finance. Despite some European opposition to removing barriers to capital
and trade flows, Germany prevailed in setting these preconditions for membership in the European
economic union. Germany's negotiating power stemmed from its strong currency, as well as French,
Italian, and smaller European economies' desire for currency stability. Germany demanded an independent
central bank for the union, removal of capital controls, and an expansion of the tasks banks could
perform within the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). The Second Banking Coordination Directive (SBCD)
mandated that banks perform commercial and investment intermediation to be certified within the EMU;
the Single Market Passport (SMP) required free trade and capital flows throughout the EMU. The SMP
and SBCD increased the scope of activity that financial institutions throughout the union were expected
to provide, and opened banks up to markets, instruments, and activities they could neither monitor
nor regulate, and hence to destabilizing shocks.
Intra-EMU lending and borrowing subsequently increased, and total lending and borrowing grew relative
to European countries' GDP from the early 1990s onward. Asymmetries emerged in capital flows between
Europe's core, particularly the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands, to Europe's newly liberalized periphery.
German banks lent increasing volumes to EMU member states, especially peripheral states. Though this
lending on a country-by-country basis was a small percentage of Germany's GDP, it constituted larger
percentages of borrowers' GDPs. In 2007, Germany lent 1.23% of its GDP to Portugal; this represented
17.68% of Portugal's GDP; in 2008, Germany lent 6% of its GDP to Ireland; this was 84% of Irish GDP.
Germany, the largest European economy, lent larger percentages of its GDP to peripheral EMU nations
relative to its lending to richer European economies. These flows, more potentially disruptive for
borrowers than for the lender, reflected lack of oversight in asset management. German lending helped
destabilize European financial systems more vulnerable to rapid capital inflows, and created conditions
for large-scale capital flight in a crisis.
Financial competition increased in Europe over this period. Financial merger activity first accelerated
within national borders, and later grew at supra-national levels. These movements increased eurozone
access to capital, but increased pressure for banks to widen the scope of the services and lending
that they provided. Rising European securitization in this period increased systemic risk for the
EMU financial system. European holdings of U.S.-originated asset-backed securities increased by billions
of dollars from the early 2000s until shortly before 2008. German banks were among the EMU's top
issuers and acquirers of such assets. As banks' holdings of these assets increased, European systemic
risk increased as well.
European total debt as a percentage of GDP rose in this period. Financial debt relative to GDP
grew particularly sharply in core economies; Ireland was the only peripheral EMU economy with comparable
levels of financial debt. Though government debt relative to GDP fell or held constant for most EMU
nations, cross-border acquisition of sovereign debt increased until 2007. German banks acquired substantially
larger portfolios of sovereign debt issued by other European states, which would not decrease until
2010. Only in 2009 did government debt relative to GDP increase throughout the eurozone, as governments
guaranteed their financial systems to minimize the costs of the ensuing financial crisis.
The newly liberalized financial architecture of the eurozone increased both the market for German
financial services and overall systemic risk of the European financial system; these dynamics helped
destabilize the German financial system and economy at large. Rising German exports of goods, services,
and capital to the rest of Europe grew the German economy, but divergence of current account balances
within the EMU exposed it to sovereign debt risk in peripheral states. Potential systemic risk changed
into systemic risk after the subprime mortgage crisis began. EMU economies would not have subsequently
experienced such pressure to backstop national financial systems or to repay sovereign loans had
German banks not lent so much or purchased so many sovereign bonds within the union. Narratives that
fail to acknowledge Germany's role in promoting the circumstances that underlay the eurozone crisis
ignore the destabilizing power of financial liberalization, even for a global financial center like
Germany.
susan the other, December 3, 2015 at 1:06 pm
This is very interesting. It describes just how the EU mess unfolded beginning in 1970 with
deregulation of the financial industry in the core. Big fish eat little fish. It is as if for
4 decades the banks in Germany compensated their losses to the bigger international lenders by
taking on the riskier borrowers and were able to do so because of German mercantilism and financial
deregulation. Like the German domestic banks loaned the periphery money with abandon, and effectively
borrowed their own profits by speculating on bad customers. As German corporations did business
with big international banksters, who lent at lower rates, other German banks resorted to buying
the sovereign bonds of the periphery and selling CDOs, etc. The German banks were as over-extended
looking for profit as consumers living on their credit cards. Deregulation enriched only the biggest
international banks. We could call this behavior a form of digging your own grave. In 2009 the
periphery saw their borrowing costs threatened and guaranteed their own financial institutions
creating the "sovereign debt" that the core then refused to touch. Hypocrisy ruled. Generosity
was in short supply. The whole thing fell apart. Deregulation was just another form of looting.
washunate, December 3, 2015 at 1:28 pm
German losses on international securitized assets prompted retrenchment of lending, paving
the way for the eurozone's sovereign debt crisis.
I agree with the general conclusion at the end that German financialization is part of the overall
narrative of EMU, but I don't follow this specific link in the chain of events as described. The
eurozone has a sovereign debt crisis because those sovereign governments privatized the profits
and socialized the losses of a global system of fraud. And if we're assigning national blame,
it's a system run out of DC, NY, and London a lot more than Berlin, Frankfurt, and Brussels.
Current and capital account imbalances cancel each other out in the overall balance of payments.
As bank lending decreases (capital account surplus shrinks) then the current account deficit shrinks
as well (the 'trade deficit'). The problem is when governments step in and haphazardly backstop
some of the losses – at least, when they do so without imposing taxes on the wealthy to a sufficient
degree to pay for these bailouts.
The OECD's Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative is an effort by the G20 to curb the
abuse of transfer pricing by multinationals.
Senator Hatch is not a fan:
Throughout this process we have heard concerns from large sectors of the business community that
the BEPS project could be used to further undermine our nation's competitiveness and to unfairly
subject U.S. companies to greater tax liabilities abroad. Companies have also been concerned about
various reporting requirements that could impose significant compliance costs on American businesses
and force them to share highly sensitive proprietary information with foreign governments. I expect
that we'll hear about these concerns from the business community and others during today's hearing.
Indeed we heard from some lawyer representing
The Software Coalition who was there to mansplain to us how BEPS is evil. I learned two startling
things. First – Bermuda must be part of the US tax base. Secondly, if Google is expected to pay taxes
in the UK, it will take all those 53,600 jobs which are mainly in California and move them to Bermuda:
in particular how the changes to the international tax rules as developed under BEPS will significantly
reduce the U.S. tax base and create disincentives for U.S. multinational corporations (MNCs) to
create R&D jobs in the United States
Yes – I find his testimony absurd at so many levels. Let's take Google as an example. When they say
foreign subsidiaries – think Bermuda. Over the past three year, Google's income has average $15.876
billion per year but its income taxes have only average $2.933 billion for an effective tax rate
of only 18.5%. How did that happen? Well – 55% of its income is sourced to these foreign subsidiaries
and the average tax rate on this income is only 6.5%. Nice deal! Google's tax model is not only easy
to explain but is also a very common one for those in the Software Coalition. While all of the R&D
is done in the U.S. and 45% of its sales are in the U.S. – U.S. source income is only 45% of worldwide
income. Very little of the foreign sourced income ends up in places like the UK even 11% of Google's
sales are to UK customers. Only problem is that income ends up on Ireland's books with the UK getting
a very modest amount of the profits. Now you might be wondering how Google got to the foreign taxes
to be only 6.5% of foreign sourced income since Ireland's tax rate is 12.5%. But think Double Irish
Dutch Sandwich and you'll get how the profits ended up in Bermuda as well as perhaps a good lunch!
But what about that repatriation tax you ask. Google's most recent 10-K proudly notes:
"We have not provided U.S. income taxes and foreign withholding taxes on the undistributed earnings
of foreign subsidiaries".
In other words, they are not paying that repatriation tax. Besides the Republicans want to eliminate.
Let's be honest – Congress has hamstringed the IRS efforts to enforce transfer pricing. The BEPS
initiative arose out of this failure. And now the Republicans in Congress are objecting to even these
efforts. And if Europe has the temerity of expecting its fair share of taxes, U.S. multinationals
will leave California and relocate in Bermuda? Who is this lawyer kidding?
Myrtle Blackwood
The development model in nation after nation is dependent upon global corporations. What is happening
is simply a byproduct of this.
Would the problem of transfer mythical corporate location and the resulting lost taxes be resolved
if taxes were based on point of revenue? Tax gross income where it is earned instead of taxing
profits where they are not earned.
"... Kristol argues in his book The Neoconservative Persuasion that those Jewish intellectuals
did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up Communism and other revolutionary
movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking. America is filled with such former Trotskyists
who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy that led to the collapse of the American economy. ..."
"... Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work Zombie Economics that
"Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and different forms. Some ideas
live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But even when they have proved themselves
wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even after the evidence seems to have killed them,
they keep on coming back. ..."
"... These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather…they are undead, or zombie, ideas." Bolshevism
or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different forms. It has ideologically
reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative movement. ..."
"... As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to
shape U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the
Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world. ..."
"... In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents
a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the Founding
Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered horrible
foreign policies-policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once had. ..."
"... For example, when two top AIPAC officials-Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman-were caught passing
classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them. ..."
"... Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals,
including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under
investigation for passing classified documents to Israel. ..."
Kristol argues in his book The Neoconservative Persuasion that those Jewish intellectuals
did not forsake their heritage (revolutionary ideology) when they gave up Communism and other revolutionary
movements, but had to make some changes in their thinking. America is filled with such former Trotskyists
who unleashed an unprecedented foreign policy that led to the collapse of the American economy.
We have to keep in mind that America and much of the Western world were scared to death of Bolshevism
and Trotskyism in the 1920s and early 30s because of its subversive activity.
Noted Australian economist John Quiggin declares in his recent work Zombie Economics that
"Ideas are long lived, often outliving their originators and taking new and different forms. Some
ideas live on because they are useful. Others die and are forgotten. But even when they have proved
themselves wrong and dangerous, ideas are very hard to kill. Even after the evidence seems to have
killed them, they keep on coming back.
These ideas are neither alive nor dead; rather…they are undead, or zombie, ideas." Bolshevism
or Trotskyism is one of those zombie ideas that keeps coming back in different forms. It has ideologically
reincarnated in the political disputations of the neoconservative movement.
... ... ...
As it turns out, neoconservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute are largely
extensions of Trotskyism with respect to foreign policy. Other think tanks such as the Bradley Foundation
were overtaken by the neoconservative machine back in 1984.
Some of those double agents have been known to have worked with Likud-supporting Jewish groups
such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, an organization which has been known
to have "co-opted" several "non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel. It flew
out the retired general Jay Garner, now slated by Bush to be proconsul of occupied Iraq."
Philo-Semitic scholars Stephen Halper of Cambridge University and Jonathan Clarke of the CATO
Institute agree that the neoconservative agendas "have taken American international relations on
an unfortunate detour," which is another way of saying that this revolutionary movement is not what
the Founding Fathers signed up for, who all maintained that the United States would serve the American
people best by not entangling herself in alliances with foreign entities.
As soon as the Israel Lobby came along, as soon as the neoconservative movement began to shape
U.S. foreign policy, as soon as Israel began to dictate to the U.S. what ought to be done in the
Middle East, America was universally hated by the Muslim world.
Moreover, former secretary of defense Robert Gates made it clear to the United States that the
Israelis do not and should not have a monopoly on the American interests in the Middle East. For
that, he was chastised by neoconservative Elliott Abrams.
In that sense, the neoconservative movement as a political and intellectual movement represents
a fifth column in the United States in that it subtly and deceptively seeks to undermine what the
Founding Fathers have stood for and replace it with what the Founding Fathers would have considered
horrible foreign policies-policies which have contributed to the demise of the respect America once
had.
... ... ...
Israel has been spying on the United States for years using various Israeli or Jewish individuals,
including key Jewish neoconservative figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were under
investigation for passing classified documents to Israel.
The FBI has numerous documents tracing Israel's espionage in the U.S., but no one has come forward
and declared it explicitly in the media because most political pundits value mammon over truth.
For example, when two top AIPAC officials-Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman-were caught passing
classified documents from the Pentagon to Israel, Gabriel Schoenfeld defended them.
In the annual FBI report called "Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage," Israel
is a major country that pops up quite often. This is widely known among CIA and FBI agents and U.S.
officials for years.
One former U.S. intelligence official declared, "There is a huge, aggressive, ongoing set of
Israeli activities directed against the United States. Anybody who worked in counterintelligence
in a professional capacity will tell you the Israelis are among the most aggressive and active
countries targeting the United States.
They undertake a wide range of technical operations and human operations. People here as liaisons…
aggressively pursue classified intelligence from people. The denials are laughable."
"... Corruption happen everywhere, just look at US. They merely make it legal to bribe the politician,
it is call lobbying. Look at all those who cheated their clients by selling them CDOs and betting against
them. It became a financial worst crisis for the world, yet none of them was jailed and they all get
to keep the billions. ..."
Corruption happen everywhere, just look at US. They merely make it legal to bribe the politician,
it is call lobbying. Look at all those who cheated their clients by selling them CDOs and betting
against them. It became a financial worst crisis for the world, yet none of them was jailed and
they all get to keep the billions.
Estimate the cost to win 2016 president election = USD 1bn. Even Bush, not a front runner,
had already spend USD30millions. Contribution of fund in return for IOU favors, look like corruption
to me too.
NigelJ, 4 Dec 2015 10:53
some of this anti-corruption campaign would certainly not go amiss in the UK.
TheHighRoad isabey, 4 Dec 2015 09:29
Perhaps the difference is that many academics in the UK are contracted to do a certain number
of hours teaching and must support the university's reputation with research but are also permitted
- contractually - to work in industry and with NGOs to supplement their income and to expand their
knowledge of current practice to make their teaching and research more relevant. It isn't illegal
or even unusual or suspect and if you are envious of it I suggest you spend 8 years working your
way through an ordinary degree, a master's and a doctorate so that you too can participate in
it - though don't get your hopes up for "raking it in".
Oh, and they don't work in a system where corruption investigations are used as a pretext to
weed out "unreliable elements" who talk about dangerous things that might lead impressionable
young people to ask difficult questions about the government in a one-party state.
Russian president says Ankara will not 'get away with a tomato ban' in response to 'cynical
war crime'
... ... ...
The Russian president said he was still bemused by the Turkish decision to shoot down the
Su-24. He said: "Perhaps only Allah knows why they did this. And it seems Allah decided to punish
the ruling clique in Turkey by relieving them of their sense and judgment."
Russia has implemented a series of economic sanctions against Turkey, including banning fruit and
vegetable imports and ordering Russian tour operators not to send tourists to the country. Putin
emphasised that this limited response was not an attempt to move on and start afresh, however.
"There will not be a nervous, hysterical reaction, that would be dangerous for us and for the
whole world," he said. "We will not engage in sabre rattling. But if people think that after
carrying out a cynical war crime, killing our people, they'll get away with a tomato ban or some
limits in the construction sector, they're very wrong. We will keep remembering what they did.
And they will keep regretting it."
The day before, Russia's defence ministry had called journalists to a briefing at its command
centre, showing slides and satellite imagery claiming to show proof that Turkey was profiting
from the trade in Isis oil.
"A unified team of bandits and Turkish elites operates in the region to steal oil from their
neighbours," deputy defence minister Anatoly Antonov said on Wednesday. Erdoğan later dismissed
the accusations as "slander".
... ... ...
Putin again called for a unified coalition to fight terrorism, and said it was unacceptable to
delineate between different terrorist groups. The Russian airstrikes have hit many groups that
western countries do not consider terrorists. Putin also made it clear once again who he blames
for the current terrorist threat.
"Iraq, Libya and Syria have turned into zones of chaos and anarchy which threaten the whole
world," he said. "And of course we know why this happened. We know who wanted to change
inconvenient regimes, and crudely impose their rules. And what was the result? They made a mess,
ruined the states, turned different peoples against each other and then, as we say in Russia,
washed their hands of the places, opening the road for radicals, extremists and terrorists."
An old and close, but very conservative and increasingly out of touch with reality friend of
mine posted a video some days ago on Facebook. He indicated that he thought it was both funny
and also insightful. It seemed highly suspicious to me, so I googled it and found that the
person who uploaded it onto you tube stated in the comments on it that it is a spoof.
Here is a link that discusses why it is known it is a spoof as well as linking to the video itself
and its comments. It has reportedly been widely distributed on the internet by many conservatives
who think it is for real, and when I pointed out it is a spoof, my friend defriended me from Facebook.
I am frustrated.
So, for those who do not view it, it purports to show a talk show in Egypt
where a brief clip of Obama speaking last May to graduating military officers about how climate change
is and will be a serious national security issue, something the Pentagon has claimed. He did
not say it was the most serious such issue, and at least in the clip he said nothing about Daesh/ISIS/ISIL,
although of course he has said a lot about it and not only has US drones attacking it but reportedly
we have "boots on the ground" now against them in the form of some Special Ops.
So, the video then goes back to the supposed talk show where they are speaking in Arabic with
English subtitles. According to these subtitels, which are partly accurate translations but
also wildly inaccurate in many places (my Arabic is good enough that I have parsed out what is what
there) the host asks, "Is he insane?" A guest suggests he is on drugs. Another claims
he just does what Michelle says and that his biceps are small. Finally a supposed retired general
pounds the table and denounces him over Libya policy (that part is for real, although his name is
never mentioned) and suggests that Americans should act to remove him from office. Again,
conservative commentators have found hilarious and very insightful, with this even holding among
commenters to the video aware that it is a mistranslated spoof. Bring these guys on more.
Obviously they would be big hits on Fox News.
So, I would like to simply comment further on why Egyptians would be especially upset about Libya,
but that them being so against the US is somewhat hypocritical (I also note that there is reason
to believe that the supposed general is not a general). Of course Libya is just to the west
of Egypt with its eastern portion (Cyrenaica under Rome) often ruled by whomever was ruling Egypt
at various times in the past. So there is a strong cultural-historical connection. It
is understandable that they would take Libyan matters seriously, and indeed things in Libya have
turned into a big mess.
However, the move to bring in outside powers to intervene against Qaddafi in 2011 was instigated
by an Egyptian, Abu Moussa. This was right after Mubarak had fallen in the face of massive
demonstrations in Egypt. Moussa was both leader of the Arab League and wanting to run for President
of Egypt. He got nowhere with the latter, but he did get somewhere with getting
the rest of the world to intervene in Libya. He got the Arab League to support such an
intervention, with that move going to the UN Security Council and convincing Russia and China to
abstain on the anti-Qaddafi measure. Putin has since complained that those who intervened,
UK and France most vigorously with US "leading from behind" on the effort.went beyond the UN mandate.
But in any case, Qaddafi was overthrown, not to be replaced by any stable or central power, with
Libya an ongoing mess that has remained fragmented since, especially between its historically separate
eastern and western parts, something I have posted on here previously.
So, that went badly, but Egyptians blaming the US for this seems to me to be a bit much, pretty
hypocritical. It happens to be a fact that the US and Obama are now very unpopular in Egypt.
I looked at a poll from a few months ago, and the only nations where the US and Obama were viewed
less favorably (although a few not polled such as North Korea) were in order: Russia, Palestinian
Territories, Belarus, Lebanon, Iran, and Pakistan, with me suspecting there is now a more favorable
view in Iran since the culmination of the nuclear deal. I can appreciate that many Egyptians
are frustrated that the US supported an election process that did not give them Moussa or El-Baradei,
but the Muslim Brotherhood, who proceeded to behave badly, leading to them being overthrown by an
new military dictatorship with a democratic veneer, basically a new improved version of the Mubarak
regime, with the US supporting it, if somewhat reluctantly.
Yes, this is all pretty depressing, but I must say that ultimately the Egyptians are responsible
for what has gone down in their own nation. And even if those Egyptian commentators, whoever
they actually are, are as angry about Obama as they are depicted as being, the fact is that Obama
is still more popular there than was George W. Bush at the same time in his presidency, something
all these US conservatives so enamored of this bizarre video seem to conveniently forget.
Addenda, 5:10 PM:
1) The people on that video come across almost like The Three Stooges, which highlights
the comedic aspect that even fans of Obama are supposed to appreciate, although it does not add to
the credibility of the remarks of those so carrying on like a bunch of clowns.
2) Another reason Egyptians may be especially upset about the situation in Libya is that
indeed Daesh has a foothold in a port city not too far from the Egyptian border in Surt, as reported
as the top story today in the NY Times.
3) Arguably once the rest of the world got in, the big problem was a failure to follow
through with aiding establishing a central unified government, although that was always going to
be a problem, something not recognized by all too many involved, including Abu Moussa. As it
was once his proposal got going, it was then Sec. of State Hillary Clinton who was the main person
leading the charge for the US to get in over the reluctance of Obama. This was probably her
biggest mistake in all this, even though most Republicans think the irrelevant sideshow of the unfortunate
incident in Benghazi is the big deal.
4) Needless to say, Republican views at the time of the intervention were just completely
incoherent, as symbolized at one point by Senator Lindsey Graham, who within the space of a single
sentence simultaneously argued for the US to do nothing and also to go in full force with the proverbial
"boots on the ground."
Further Addendum, 7:10 PM:
One of the pieces of evidence given that supposedly shows that the video
is a spoof is that the supposed retired Brigadier General Mahmoud Mansour cannot be found if
one googles his name, except in connection with this video. There are some other Egyptians
named Mansour who show up, but this guy does not. However, it occurs to me that he might be
for real, but simply obscure. After all, Brigadier is the lowest rank of General, one star,
with Majors being two star, Lieutenants being three star (even though Majors are above Lieutenants),
and with four and five star not having any other rank assigned to them. Furthermore, Egypt
has a large military that has run the country for decades, so there may well be a lot of these Brigadier
Generals, with many of them amounting to nothing. So, if he is for real, his claim to fame
will be from jumping up and down, pounding on a table and calling for the overthrow of the POTUS.
"... Let's compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72. Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, ..."
"... The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough. We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity. An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance. ..."
"... Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all "rules"! ..."
When it comes to Wall Street buying our democracy, you just need to follow the money. Let's
compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells
Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has
received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72.
Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, But Bernie has YOU! Bernie has received more than 1.5
million contributions from folks like you, at an average of $30 each.
To be fair, don't you think we should count donations for this election cycle for Clinton?
Y'know,
she was the Senator from New York.
pgl -> EMichael,
Some people think anyone from New York is in bed with Wall Street. Trust me on this one - not
everyone here in Brooklyn is in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket. Of course those alleged liberals JohnH
uses as his sources (e.g. William Cohan) are in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket.
EMichael -> pgl,
I hate things like this. No honesty whatsoever. This cycle.
The total for Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Bank of America
is $326,000.
That leaves Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to contribute $169,000.
EMichael -> RGC,
I stand corrected, somewhat.
Let me know how much comes from those organizations PACs.
reason said,
The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy
is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough.
We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity.
An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance.
ilsm -> reason,
Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all
"rules"!
"... Let's compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72. Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, ..."
"... The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough. We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity. An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance. ..."
"... Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all "rules"! ..."
When it comes to Wall Street buying our democracy, you just need to follow the money. Let's
compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells
Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has
received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72.
Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, But Bernie has YOU! Bernie has received more than 1.5
million contributions from folks like you, at an average of $30 each.
To be fair, don't you think we should count donations for this election cycle for Clinton?
Y'know,
she was the Senator from New York.
pgl -> EMichael,
Some people think anyone from New York is in bed with Wall Street. Trust me on this one - not
everyone here in Brooklyn is in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket. Of course those alleged liberals JohnH
uses as his sources (e.g. William Cohan) are in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket.
EMichael -> pgl,
I hate things like this. No honesty whatsoever. This cycle.
The total for Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Bank of America
is $326,000.
That leaves Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to contribute $169,000.
EMichael -> RGC,
I stand corrected, somewhat.
Let me know how much comes from those organizations PACs.
reason said,
The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy
is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough.
We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity.
An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance.
ilsm -> reason,
Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all
"rules"!
All this neoliberal talk about "maximizing shareholder value" is designed to hide a
redistribution mechanism of wealth up. Which is the essence of neoliberalism.
It's all about executive pay. "Shareholder value" is nothing then a ruse for
getting outsize bonuses but top execs. Stock buybacks is a form of asset-stripping,
similar to one practiced by buyout sharks, but practiced by internal management team.
Who cares if the company will be destroyed if you have a golden parachute ?
Notable quotes:
"... By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street . ..."
"... IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111 billion it invested in capital expenditures and R D. It's staggering under its debt, while revenues have been declining for 14 quarters in a row. It cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. ..."
"... Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in the past decade, compared to $82 billion in R D and $18 billion in capital spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks and dividends, and $30 billion on R D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it. ..."
"... Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies Reuters analyzed have engaged in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income for the first time in a non-recession period. ..."
"... This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal 2015, share buybacks hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion in dividends, for a total of $885 billion, against their combined net income of $847 billion. ..."
"... Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies that have repurchased shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in 1990. Corporate investment is normally a big driver in a recovery. Not this time! Hence the lousy recovery. ..."
"... Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the minds of CEOs and CFOs. A company buying its own shares creates additional demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive up the share price. The hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per share, even when net income is declining. ..."
"... But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing investment in productive activities and innovation, it has consequences for revenues down the road. And now that magic trick to increase shareholder value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered. ..."
"... Me thinks Wolf is slightly barking up the wrong tree here. What needs to be looked at is how buy backs affect executive pay. "Shareholder value" is more often than not a ruse? ..."
"... Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV, it seems like they've legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s). ..."
"... On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of "affordability" has proven to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but camouflages the means of embezzling the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the only rational purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of embezzlement? ..."
"... buybacks *can* be asset-stripping and often are, but unless you tie capital allocation decisions closer to investment in the business such that they're mutually exclusive, this is specious and a reach. No one invests if they can't see the return. It would be just as easy to say that they're buying back stock because revenue is slipping and they have no other investment opportunities. ..."
"... Perhaps an analysis of the monopolistic positions of so many American businesses that allow them the wherewithal to underinvest and still buy back huge amounts of stock? If we had a more competitive economy, companies would have less ability to underinvest. Ultimately, I think buybacks are more a result than a cause of dysfunction, but certainly not always bad. ..."
"... One aspect that Reuters piece mentions, but glosses over with a single paragraph buried in the middle, is the fact that for many companies there are no ( or few) reasons to spend money in other ways. If capex/r d doesn't give you much return, why not buy out the shareholders who are least interested in holding your stock? ..."
"... Dumping money into R D is always risky, although different industries have different levels, and the "do it in-house" risk must be weighed against the costs of buying up companies with "proven" technologies. Thus, R D cash is hidden inside M A. M A is up 2-3 years in a row. ..."
By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive,
entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international
work experience. Originally published at
Wolf Street.
Magic trick turns into toxic mix.
Stocks have been on a tear to nowhere this year. Now investors are
praying for a Santa rally to pull them out of the mire. They're counting on
desperate amounts of share buybacks that companies fund by loading up on
debt. But the magic trick that had performed miracles over the past few
years is backfiring.
And there's a reason.
IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111
billion it invested in capital expenditures and R&D. It's staggering under
its debt, while revenues have been declining for 14 quarters in a row. It
cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. And its stock is down 38%
since March 2013.
Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in
the past decade, compared to $82 billion in R&D and $18 billion in capital
spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks and dividends, and $30 billion on
R&D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it.
"Activist investors" – hedge funds – have been clamoring for it. An
investigative report by Reuters, titled
The Cannibalized Company, lined some of them up:
In March, General Motors Co acceded to a $5 billion share buyback to
satisfy investor Harry Wilson. He had threatened a proxy fight if the
auto maker didn't distribute some of the $25 billion cash hoard it had
built up after emerging from bankruptcy just a few years earlier.
DuPont early this year announced a $4 billion buyback program – on top
of a $5 billion program announced a year earlier – to beat back activist
investor Nelson Peltz's Trian Fund Management, which was seeking four
board seats to get its way.
In March, Qualcomm Inc., under pressure from hedge fund Jana Partners,
agreed to boost its program to purchase $10 billion of its shares over
the next 12 months; the company already had an existing $7.8 billion
buyback program and a commitment to return three quarters of its free
cash flow to shareholders.
And in July, Qualcomm announced 5,000 layoffs. It's hard to innovate when
you're trying to please a hedge fund.
CEOs with a long-term outlook and a focus on innovation and investment,
rather than financial engineering, come under intense pressure.
"None of it is optional; if you ignore them, you go away," Russ Daniels,
a tech executive with 15 years at Apple and 13 years at HP, told Reuters.
"It's all just resource allocation," he said. "The situation right now is
there are a lot of investors who believe that they can make a better
decision about how to apply that resource than the management of the
business can."
Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies
Reuters analyzed have engaged in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the
money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income for the first time
in a non-recession period.
This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal
2015, share buybacks hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion
in dividends, for a total of $885 billion, against their combined net income
of $847 billion.
Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies
that have repurchased shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in
1990. Corporate investment is normally a big driver in a recovery. Not this
time! Hence the lousy recovery.
Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the
minds of CEOs and CFOs. A company buying its own shares creates additional
demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive up the share price. The
hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also
reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per
share, even when net income is declining.
"Serving customers, creating innovative new products, employing workers,
taking care of the environment … are NOT the objectives of firms," sais Itzhak
Ben-David, a finance professor of Ohio State University, a buyback
proponent, according to Reuters. "These are components in the process that
have the goal of maximizing shareholders' value."
But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing
investment in productive activities and innovation, it has consequences for
revenues down the road. And now that magic trick to increase shareholder
value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered.
Citigroup credit analysts looked into the extent to which this is
happening – and why. Christine Hughes, Chief Investment Strategist at
OtterWood Capital, summarized the Citi report this way: "This
dynamic of borrowing from bondholders to pay shareholders may be coming to
an end…."
Their chart (via OtterWood Capital) shows that about half of the
cumulative outperformance of these buyback queens from 2012 through 2014 has
been frittered away this year, as their shares, IBM-like, have swooned:
Mbuna, November 21, 2015 at 7:31 am
Me thinks Wolf is slightly barking up the wrong tree here. What needs to be
looked at is how buy backs affect executive pay. "Shareholder value" is more
often than not a ruse?
ng, November 21, 2015 at 8:58 am
probably, in some or most cases, but the effect on the stock is the same.
Alejandro, November 21, 2015 at 9:19 am
Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV,
it seems like they've legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s).
On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of
"affordability" has proven to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce
and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but camouflages the means of embezzling
the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the only rational
purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of
embezzlement?
Jim, November 21, 2015 at 10:42 am
More nuance and less dogma please. The dogmatic tone really hurts what could
otherwise be a fine but more-qualified position.
"Results of all this financial engineering? Revenues of the S&P 500
companies are falling for the fourth quarter in a row – the worst such spell
since the Financial Crisis."
Eh, no. No question that buybacks *can* be asset-stripping and often
are, but unless you tie capital allocation decisions closer to investment in
the business such that they're mutually exclusive, this is specious and a
reach. No one invests if they can't see the return. It would be just as easy to
say that they're buying back stock because revenue is slipping and they have no
other investment opportunities.
Revenues are falling in large part because these largest companies derive an
ABSOLUTELY HUGE portion of their business overseas and the dollar has been
ridiculously strong in the last 12-15 months. Rates are poised to rise, and the
easy Fed-inspired rate arbitrage vis a vis stocks and "risk on" trade are
closing. How about a little more context instead of just dogma?
John Malone made a career out of financial engineering, something like 30%
annual returns for the 25 years of his CEO tenure at TCI. Buybacks were a huge
part of that.
Perhaps an analysis of the monopolistic positions of so many American
businesses that allow them the wherewithal to underinvest and still buy back
huge amounts of stock? If we had a more competitive economy, companies would
have less ability to underinvest. Ultimately, I think buybacks are more a
result than a cause of dysfunction, but certainly not always bad.
NeqNeq, November 21, 2015 at 11:44 am
One aspect that Reuters piece mentions, but glosses over with a single
paragraph buried in the middle, is the fact that for many companies there are
no ( or few) reasons to spend money in other ways. If capex/r&d doesn't give
you much return, why not buy out the shareholders who are least interested in
holding your stock?
Dumping cash into plants only makes sense in the places where the market is
growing. For many years that has meant Asia (China). For example, Apple gets
66% (iirc) of revenue from Asia, and that is where they have continued
investing in growth. If demand is slowing and costs are rising, and it looks
like both are true, why would you put even more money in?
Dumping money into R&D is always risky, although different industries have
different levels, and the "do it in-house" risk must be weighed against the
costs of buying up companies with "proven" technologies. Thus, R&D cash is
hidden inside M&A. M&A is up 2-3 years in a row.
Before death in Libya....Ghadaffi's crime was in "not playing along and selling out". Kinda
like Iraq and all. They all should just hand over everything and say thanks...but they did
not . There is disinfo on both sides, But the "madman" and people who actually live there never
seem to make the NYTimes.
"For 40 years, or was it longer, I can't remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals,
schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food. I even made Benghazi into farmland from the
desert, I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Reagan, when he killed my adopted orphaned daughter,
he was trying to kill me, instead he killed that poor innocent child. Then I helped my brothers and
sisters from Africa with money for the African Union.
I did all I could to help people understand the concept of real democracy, where people's committees
ran our country. But that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10 room homes, new
suits and furniture, were never satisfied, as selfish as they were they wanted more. They told Americans
and other visitors, that they needed "democracy" and "freedom" never realizing it was a cut throat
system, where the biggest dog eats the rest, but they were enchanted with those words, never realizing
that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education
and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup.
No, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son
of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we've had since Salah-al-Deen, when he
claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people, it was his footsteps I
tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination - from thieves who would steal from
us.
Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son,
Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our
free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called
"capitalism," but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the
countries, run the world, and the people suffer. So, there is no alternative for me, I must
make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following His path, the path that has made our
country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab
brothers and sisters to work here with us, in the Libyan Jamahiriya.
I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands
who are all my children, then so be it.
Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood
up to cruelty, stood up to betrayal, stood up to the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that
I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light. When others
were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent. I never forgot my youth in Sirte,
I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah-al-Deen, our great Muslim leader,
who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself...
In the West, some have called me "mad", "crazy", but they know the truth yet continue to lie,
they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path,
is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free,
may Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.
Kirk2NCC1701
"they hate us for our freedoms"
No, "They hate us for our freebombs" that we keep delivering.
Suppose you lived in a town that was run by a ruthless Mafioso boss. Sure he was ruthless to troublemakers
and dissenters, but if you went about your business (and paid your taxes/respects to him), life was
simple but livable, and crime was negligible.
Now imagine that a crime Overlord came from another country and decided to wreck the town, just
to remove your Mafioso Don. In the process, your neighborhood and house were destroyed, and you lost
friends and family.
Now tell me that YOU would not make it YOUR life's mission to bring these War Criminals to justice
-- by any and all means necessary. And tell me that these same Criminals could not have foreseen
all this. Now say it again - but with a straight face. I dare you. I fucking double-dare you!
Max Cynical
US exceptionalism!
GhostOfDiogenes
The worst one, besides Iraq, is Libya.
The infrastructure we destroyed there is unimaginable.
Sure Iraq was hit the worst, and much has been lost there....but Libya was a modern arab oasis
of a country in the middle of nothing.
We destroyed in a few days what took decades to build.
This is why I am not proud of my country, nor my military.
In fact, I would like to see Nuremberg type trials for 'merican military leaders and concentration
gulags for the rest of enlisted. Just like they did to Germany.
Its only proper.
GhostOfDiogenes
The USA did this murder of Libya and giving ownership to the people who did '911'? What a joke. http://youtu.be/aJURNC0e6Ek
Bastiat
Libya under Ghadaffi: universal free college education, free healthcare, free electricity. interest
free loans. A very bad example of how a nation's wealth is to be distributed!
CHoward
The average American has NO idea how much damage is being done in this world - all in the name of
Democracy. Unbelivable and truly pathetic. Yet - most sheeple still believe ISIS and others hate
us because of our "freedoms" and i-pods. What bullshit.
Compare and contrast Assad, giving an interview very well in a second language, with O'bomb-a,
who can't even speak to school children without a teleprompter. Sad.
Razor_Edge
Along with President Putin, Dr al Assad is consistently the most sane, rational and clearly
honest speaker on the tragedy of Syria. By contrast, our satanic western leaders simply lie
outrageously at all times. How do we know? Their lips are moving. They also say the most
absurd things.
We in the west may think that at the end of the day, it's not going to harm us, so why
discomfort ourselves by taking on our own elites and bringing them down. But I believe that an
horrific future awaits us, one we richly deserve, because we did not shout stop at this ocean
of evil bloodshed being spilt in our names. We pay the taxes that pay for it, or at least in
my countrys case, (traditional policy of military neutrality), we facilitate the slaughter
(troop transports through Shannon airport), or fail to speak out for fear it may impact FDI
into Ireland, (largest recipient of US FDI in the world).
We are our brothers keepers, and we are all one. It is those who seek to separate us to
facilitate their evil and psychopathic lust for power and money, who would have us beieve that
"the other" is evil. Are we really so simple minded or riven by fear that we cannot see
through the curtain of the real Axis of Evil?
Demdere
Israeli-neocon strategy is to have the world's economy collapse at the point of maximum war
and political chaos.
Then they can escape to Paraguay. Sure as hell, if they stay here, we are going to hang them
all. Treasonous criminals for the 9/11 false flag operation.
By 2015, every military and intelligence service and all the think tanks have looked at 9/11
carefully. Anyone who looks at the evidence sees that it was a false flag operation, the
buildings were destroyed via explosives, the planes and evil Arab Muslims were show. Those
agencies reported to their civilian leaders, and their civilian leaders spread the information
through their societies.
So all of the politically aware people in the world, including here at home, KNOW that 9/11
was a false flag operation, or know that they must not look at the evidence. Currently, anyone
who disagrees in MSM is treated as invisible, and I know of no prominent bloggers who have
even done the bits of extention of 'what it must mean' that I have done.
But it certainly means high levels of distrust for the US and for Israel. It seems to me
that World Domination is not possible, because the world won't let you, and the means of
opposition are only limited by the imaginations of the most creative, intelligent and
knowledgable people. We don't have any of those on our side any more.
L Bean
In their farcical quest to emulate the Roman empire...
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt,
pacem appellant - Tacitus
They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they
make a wasteland, they call it peace.
"... Is what you're saying here is that, by extending a lot of credit, the financial sector allowed households to maintain consumption in the face of a permanent decline in income (at least relative to expectation)? That's an important part of the story, I agree. ..."
"... the FIRE sector in particular, are parasitic on the economy. ..."
"... Perhaps financialization isn't so much a thing-in-itself as the mechanism through which wealth concentrates in periods of slow growth? ..."
"... As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk. I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles and busts." ..."
"... Did Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and North Korea do better than the financialized economies of the world? Did the hand of the State in Russia, China and other countries secure better outcomes than the global financial sector in countries that allowed it to operate (albeit with heavy regulation)? ..."
"... The financial system can engage in usury, lending money with no connection to productive investment, by simply creating a parasitic claim on income. There are straightforward ways of doing this: credit cards with high rates of interest or payday lending. There are slightly more complicated approaches: insurance that by design doesn't pay off for the nominal beneficiary. ..."
"... "The biggest economic policy decision of the last thirty years has been the decision to de-socialise a lot of previously socially insured risks and transfer them back to the household sector (in their various capacities as workers, homeowners and consumers of healthcare). The financial sector was obviously the conduit for this policy decision." ..."
"... My feeling (based on nothing but intuition) is that the answer is (d). The government is a tool of moneyed interests. I know, it sounds awfully libertarian, but it is what it is. And I can't foresee any non-catastrophic end to it. ..."
The financialization of the global economy has produced a hugely costly financial sector, extracting
returns that must, in the end, be taken out of the returns to investment of all kinds. The costs
were hidden during the pre-crisis bubble era, but are now evident to everyone, including potential
investors. So, even massively expansionary monetary policy doesn't produce much in the way of
new private investment.
This isn't an original idea. The Bank of International Settlements put out a paper earlier this year
arguing that financial sector growth
crowds out real growth. But how does this work and what can be done about it? I'm still organizing
my thoughts on this, so what I have are some ideas rather than a fully formed argument.
First, if the financial sector is unproductive, how can it be so large and profitable in a market
economy?
There are a few possible explanations
(a) As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its
keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk.
I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles
and busts.
(b) Tax evasion: the global financial sector allows corporations to greatly reduce their tax liabilities.
Most of the savings in tax is captured in the financial sector itself, but the amount flowing to
corporations is sufficient to offset the high costs of the modern financial sector, relative to (for
example) old-style bank finance and simple corporate structures financed by debt and equity
(c) Volatility: the financialization of the economy has produced greatly increased volatility (in
exchange rates, asset prices and so on). The financial sector amplifies and profits from this volatility,
partly through
regulatory arbitrage, and partly through entrenched and systematic fraud as in the
LIBOR and
Forex scandals.
(d) Political capture: The financial sector controls political outcomes in both traditional ways
(political donations, highly revolving door jobs for future and former politicians) and through the
ideology of market liberalism, which is perfectly designed to support policies supporting the financial
sector, while discrediting policies traditionally sought by other parts of the corporate sector,
such as protection for manufacturing industry. The shift to private finance for infrastructure, discussed
in the previous post is part of this. The construction part of the infrastructure sector (which was
always private) has suffered from the reduced flow of projects, but the finance part (previously
managed through government bonds) has
benefited massively.
The result of all this is that the financial sector benefits from an evolutionary strategy similar
to that of an Australian eucalypt forest. Eucalypts are both highly flammable (they generate lots
of combustible oil) and highly fire resistant. So eucalypt forests are subject to frequent fires
which kill competing species, and allow the eucalypts to extend their range.
dsquared 11.29.15 at 1:24 pm
Surely the answer is "risk transfer". The biggest economic policy decision of the last thirty years
has been the decision to de-socialise a lot of previously socially insured risks and transfer them
back to the household sector (in their various capacities as workers, homeowners and consumers of
healthcare). The financial sector was obviously the conduit for this policy decision. Their role
is to provide insurance to the rest of society and this is what they did – in fact, they provided
too much of it, with too little capital which is why they went bust, and why their bankruptcy was
so disastrous (there's nothing worse than an insurer bankruptcy, because it hits you with a big loss
at exactly the worst time). I think c) above is particularly unconvincing, as the biggest stylised
feature of the period of financialisation was the Great Moderation – in fact, the financial sector
stored up volatility that would otherwise have been experienced by other people, including the intermediation
of some genuinely historically massive imbalances associated with the industrialisation of China,
and stored it up until it couldn't hold any more and exploded.
I also don't think LIBOR and FX
fit into that pattern at all very well either. Financial systems have two kinds of problem, which
is why they often have two kinds of regulators. They have prudential problems and conduct problems.
Both LIBOR and FX were old-fashioned profiteering and cartel arrangements, which could happen in
any industry (hey let's talk about drug pricing and indeed university tuition some time). In actual
fact, as I wrote a while ago, it's only LIBOR that can really be considered a scandal – FX was very
much more a case of customers who wanted the benefits of tight regulation but didn't want to pay
for them, and were lucky enough to find a political moment in which the time was right for an otherwise
very unpromising case.
In other words, the answer to all your questions is "leverage". That's why financial systems grew
so fast, that's why they're associated with poor economic performance, and that's why they tend to
show up in periods of secular stagnation – a secular stagnation is almost defined as a period during
which people try to maintain their standard of living by borrowing. Of course, if the financial sector
had been required to hold enough equity capital in the first place, it would never have grown so
big in the first place, and we could all be enjoying the thirteenth year of the post-dot-com bust[1]
in relative contentment.
[1] I am never going to shut up about this. The real estate bubble was a policy-created bubble.
It was blown up in real time and intentionally, by a Federal Reserve which wanted to cushion the
blow of the tech bust. If the financial sector had refused to finance it, the financial sector would
have been trying to run a monetary policy directly opposed to that of the central bank.
I agree that risk transfer is a big deal. On the other hand, it's not obvious that the financial
sector did a lot to insure households against most of the additional risk, or that the Great Moderation
corresponded to a reduction in the volatility faced by households. On the first point, despite massive
financial innovation since 1980, the set of financial instruments easily available to households
hasn't changed all that much. Most obviously, there's no insurance against bad employment and wage
outcomes and home equity insurance hasn't really happened either.
Is what you're saying here
is that, by extending a lot of credit, the financial sector allowed households to maintain consumption
in the face of a permanent decline in income (at least relative to expectation)? That's an important
part of the story, I agree.
The secular stagnation framing of the question leads me to think more about why investment hasn't
responded to monetary policy rather than directly about households.
Yeah, that's my point – the massive extension of credit to households was the financial sector's
role in the big policy shift. At the end of the day, although we might with the benefit of hindsight
agree that "subprime mortgages with no income verification at teaser rates" were a pretty stupid
product that should never have been offered, they were a brand new financial product that had never
been offered to households before! Even the example you mention – "insurance against bad employment
and wage outcomes" – was sort of sold, albeit that what I'm referring to here is Payment Protection
Insurance in the UK, which sort of underlines that it wasn't done well or responsibly.
I guess
my argument here is that it's the combination of deregulation and stagnation that was necessary to
create the 2000s policy disaster. But if we hadn't had the bad products we got, we'd have had something
else go wrong, probably outside the regulated sector. Because the high debt levels were a policy
goal (or at least, were the inevitable and forseeable consequence of trying to do demand management
without fiscal policy), and as I keep saying in different contexts, you can't get to a stupid debt
ratio by only doing sensible things.
The secular stagnation framing of the question leads me to think more about why investment
hasn't responded to monetary policy rather than directly about households.
Isn't the answer to this just the definition of a Keynesian recession? Investment hasn't responded
to monetary policy because there's no interest rate at which it makes sense to produce goods that
can't be sold.
Capital generally, and the FIRE sector in particular, are parasitic on the economy. They provide
some minimal benefits if kept strongly in check, but quickly become destructive if allowed to grow
unchecked, as they have now.
Dumb outsider thought, turning Eggplant @6 upside down: What about r > g? Perhaps financialization
isn't so much a thing-in-itself as the mechanism through which wealth concentrates in periods of
slow growth?
"But if we hadn't had the bad products we got, we'd have had something else go wrong, probably outside
the regulated sector."
A more sophisticated version of the widely debunked theory that Fannie and
Freddie blew up the housing sector by giving loans to poor people. Rule 1: It's never ever the bankers'
fault. Rule 2: see Rule 1. At least d-squared has been consistent…
Which direction is financialization heading? It looks to be decreasing. The mutual fund industry
is in terminal decline, losing market share to ETFs. There are fewer financial advisors today than
in 2008, yet the number of millionaires has increased. Stock trading has broken a 40 year trend of
increasing volumes. Electronic and exchange trading of bonds and derivatives is increasing, driving
down margins. Bots have driven human traders out of jobs (Dark Pools has a good account of this).
Banks are earnings low single digit returns in their trading divisions, which suggests they will
be shut down if things don't improve. It looks like finance is doing a good job of shrinking itself,
with a little help from Elizabeth Warren.
There were several issues and arguments posed in the OP. I'm addressing this:
"First, if the financial
sector is unproductive, how can it be so large and profitable in a market economy?
There are a few possible explanations
(a) As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its
keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk.
I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles
and busts."
D-squared response is of course it's the risk transfer. That flat out contradicts JQ, but d-squared
is a master of the straight face. And then he proceeds - "there has been a decision to desocilaize";
"the financial sector was obviously the conduit for this policy decision"; and "the real estate bubble
was a policy-created bubble."
So JQ, here's your answer of FIRE's ascendancy from an insider: You know me and my friends were
standing around just doing nothin' and then these policy guys come around. Next thing ya know, we've
doubled our share of GDP and put our bosses in the top 0.01%. Who woulda known? Crazy shit, huh?
Hey and if anyone asks, tell 'um "risk transfer." And if they press, tell 'um "secular stagnation."
In fact, tell 'um frickin' anything. It just wasn't our fault.
I know that I shall have to read John Kay's Other People's Money at some point.
I am wondering what people make of the old the then Marxist Hilferding's concept of promoters' profit
as a way to understand some financial sector activity. I posted this here a few years back.
Here's his example, and I am trying to figure out to the extent that it throws light on the recent
activity of Wall Street.
Start with an industrial firm with a capital of 1,000,000 marks that makes a profit of 150,000
marks with the average profit of 15 percent.
With an interest rate of 5% straight capitalization of income of 150,000 marks will have an estimated
price of 3,000,000 marks (150,000/.05=3,000,000 marks)
A deduction of 20,000 marks for the various administration costs and directors fees would make
the actual payment to shareholders 130,000 rather 150,000 marks
A risk premium of, say, 2% would be added to a fixed safe rate of interest of 5% in estimating
the actual stock price
So what, then, is the stock price (130,000/.07)? 1,857,143 or roughly 1,900.000 marks
This 900,000 is free after deducting the initial investment of 1,000,000 marks
The balance of 900, 000 marks appears as promoters' profit which arises from the conversion of
profit-bearing capital into interest bearing capital.
In 1910, Hilferding called this promoters profit, an economic category sui generis; it is earned
by the promoter by selling of stocks or the securitizing of income on the capital market.
For Hilferding the investment bank, which promotes the conversion of profit-bearing to interest-bearing
capital, claims the promoters profit.
The analysis seems pertinent to the securitization process today, and I would love to hear Henwood's
and others' thoughts about this.
As Roubini and Mihm have pointed out, we have seen the securitization of mortgages, consumer loans,
student loans, auto loans, airplane leases, revenues from forests and mines, delinquent tax liens,
radio tower loans, boat loans, state revenues, the royalties of rock bands!
We have seen, in their words, an explosion in the selling of future income of dependable projected
revenue streams such as rents or interest payments on mortgage payments as securities.
That securitization been driven by investors' quest for yield lift given the low rate of interest,
itself the result of the global savings glut and Fed policy.
And it seems that Wall Street, with the connivance of the credit agencies, was able to appropriate
value from the purchasers of securities by understating the risk premia.
The risk premium and promoters' profit are inversely correlated so there is a strong incentive
to understate the former. This is what Hilferding did not say, but seems worth emphasizing today.
I sincerely do not understand your point here. I'm not arguing, just asking for clarification:
(a) As in the official theory of efficient markets, the financial sector is actually earning its
keep by allocating capital to the most productive investments, and by spreading and managing risk.
I don't see how anyone can argue this with a straight face in the light of the last 20 years of bubbles
and busts.
For one thing, I don't see that the two bubbles and one bust of 1996 – 2015 are self-evidently
worse than the more numerous bubbles and busts of 1976 – 1995. You might say the 2008 brush with
Great Depression outweighs the hyperinflation and multiple deep recessions of the earlier era, but
certainly the Internet and housing bubbles were more productive and less threatening than the commodity,
Japan, emerging debt and other bubbles. Anyway, it's a close enough comparison that someone could
certainly keep a straight face while saying that in the last 20 years financial volatility inflicted
less real economic damage than in the preceding 20 years.
But the bigger issue is no one claims the financial system encourages steady growth. Creative
(bubble) destruction (bust) is the rule. It is command economies that outlaw bubbles and busts–and
inflation and unemployment–at the cost of unproductive employment, empty shelves, stifled innovation,
loss of freedom and other consequences.
If you want to argue that the financial system did not earn its profits in the last 20 years,
it seems to me you have to argue that economic growth was slow, or that more people in the world
are in poverty today, or that there was not enough innovation; not that the ride was too volatile.
Did Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina and North Korea do better than the financialized economies of the
world? Did the hand of the State in Russia, China and other countries secure better outcomes than
the global financial sector in countries that allowed it to operate (albeit with heavy regulation)?
It is certainly possible to argue that we could have had more growth and innovation and poverty
reduction; and less volatility; with some third way that's better than both our current financial
system and the alternatives practiced in the world today. But that point is not so obvious that any
defender of the global financial system must be joking.
Why do you think the booms and busts of the last 20 years are such a clear and damning indictment
of the financial system that the point needs no further elaboration?
The financial system can engage in usury, lending money with no connection to productive investment,
by simply creating a parasitic claim on income. There are straightforward ways of doing this: credit
cards with high rates of interest or payday lending. There are slightly more complicated approaches:
insurance that by design doesn't pay off for the nominal beneficiary.
There are really complicated
ways of doing this: derivatives, for example, which blow up (and as an added bonus, undermine the
informational efficiency of financial markets).
I keep thinking of Piketty's r > g: the ever-accumulating pile of money rising like a slow, but
unstoppable tide. It has to be invested or "invested" - that is, it can buy the assembly of resources
into productive capital assets that represent financial claims on the additional income generated
by business innovation and expansion . . . OR . . . it can be used to finance the parasitic and predatory
manipulations of an emergent neo-feudalism.
Where the secular stagnation thesis is not pure apologetic fraud, I would interpret it as saying,
there are currently few opportunities to invest in additional productive "real" capital stock. For
technological reasons, the new systems require much less capital than the old systems, so when an
old telephone company replaces its expensive copper wire with fiber optics and cellphone towers,
it may be able to fund a large part of the transition out of current cash-flow, even while maintaining
the value of the bonds that once represented investment in a mountain of copper, but are now just
rentier claims on an obsolete world.
In the brave new world, a handful of companies, who have lucked into commercial positions with
high rents, throw off a lot of cash. So, the Apples and Intels do not need to be allocated new capital,
but their distribution of cash to people who don't need it, is generating a lot of demand for "financial
product". The rest of the business world is just trying to manage a slow decline, able to throw off
modest amounts of cash, desperate to find sources of political power that might yield reliable rents,
but without opportunities to innovate that would actually require net investment in excess of current
cashflows from operations.
So, the financial system is just responding to this enlarged demand for non-productive investment
in financial products that generate return from parasitic extraction.
In the interest of parasitic extraction, the financial system pursues the politics of neoliberal
privatization as a means of generating financial products to satisfy demand.
re volatility, the thing you really want to worry about is liquidity. Pre-crash banks could warehouse
risk and so provide liquidity. One consequence was volatility was recorded because liquid markets
allowed prices to be observed.
Regulators have observed the conflict of interest caused by banks
providing a financial service but also participating in the markets with their own money, and have
acted to restrict banks from holding risk for proprietary trading (the Volcker rule). This is fine,
but there has been a noticeable decrease in liquidity in what were once deep markets. The EURCHF
un-pegging in Jan this year is a good example of reduced liquidity resulting in a massive move. There
may well be more of this to come.
"The biggest economic policy decision of the last thirty years has been the decision to de-socialise
a lot of previously socially insured risks and transfer them back to the household sector (in their
various capacities as workers, homeowners and consumers of healthcare). The financial sector was
obviously the conduit for this policy decision."
I can't tell if you are arguing with John or agreeing
with him. Is this agreement with his d) [the political capture explanation]? I don't know very much
about the deep history of financial regulation, but I'm fairly certain that most voters have never
put desocialization of risk in their top 5 concerns. Is it possible that the financial sector was
the obvious conduit because they were among the important authors of the ideas?
In my opinion, finance had a passive role in the build
up of the crisis.
Others have said similar things uptread, however this is my opinion:
1) the wage share of GDP depends largely on political choices; since the late seventies there
has been a trend of a falling wage share more or less everywhere, as countries with a lower wage
share are more competitive on the world market.
2) a falling wage share means a rising profit share, and "capitalists" tend to reinvest part of their
profits, so a falling wage share caused a worldwide saving glut.
3) this worldwide saving glut caused an increased financialisation and a bubbling up of the price
of some assets, particularly those assets whose supply is inelastic (for example, the value of distribution
chains or of famous consumer brands).
4) this in turn causes an increased volatility of financial markets, and worse financial crises.
This situation is what we perceive as a secular stagnation, and IMHO depends mostly on a low worldwide
wage share.
Unfortunately, I have no idea of how to reach an higher wage share, and I don't think "the market"
has any mechanism to push up said wage share.
Bruce,
What you are saying makes sense to me. Steven Pressman has also raised the question of how r is to
be maintained with "an abundance of capital and its need for high rates of return." (Understanding
Piketty's Capital in the Twenty First Century).
It's almost as if Piketty in his criticism of the rentier has a rentier's disregard for how the returns
are actually to be made. To the extent that he considers production it is through marginal productivity
theory. Piketty claims that marginal rate of substitution of capital for labor will remain above
unity (and too bad Piketty dismissed the Cambridge Capital critique because Ian Steedman has used
Sraffian theory to show the possibilities of high profits in even a fully automated economy).
Of course as Pressman implies, this "technical" view may blind us to the higher exploitation that
may be necessary for returns to continue to remain high as capital becomes more abundant. Pressman
also implies that Piketty also does not consider how finance can make higher rates of return by making
higher-interest loans to weaker parties while having them absorb most of the risk (this would be
your second kind of investment).
" I don't know very much about the deep history of financial regulation, but I'm fairly certain that
most voters have never put desocialization of risk in their top 5 concerns."
Of course not, but
there are actors here other than "the public" and "the banks". In this case, I'm pretty sure Daniel
is referring to the destruction of unionized middle class jobs with pensions and cheap-to-the-worker
health insurance, which was carried out by their employers. While I doubt I could pick a bank owner
out of a lineup filled out with captains of industry, they aren't actually interchangeable.
"Of course, if the financial sector had been required to hold enough equity capital
in the first place, it would never have grown so big in the first place, and we could all be enjoying
the thirteenth year of the post-dot-com bust[1] in relative contentment."
Secular stagnation to me just means not enough macro (monetary/fiscal) policy to keep up aggregate
demand for full employment and target inflation.
Monetary and fiscal policy is being blocked by politics partly because filthy rich financiers
are buying their way into politics:
The question about Dsquare's alternate history I would have is: what is the response of fiscal
and monetary policy to the "domestication" of the financial sector via higher capital requirements
and leverage regulations, etc.?
If fiscal and monetary policy keeps the economy at a high-pressure level with full employment
and rising wages, I don't see why secular stagnation is a problem.
But politics is blocking fiscal and monetary policy. Professor Quiggin talks of "massive" monetary
policy, but it wasn't massive given the need. (It was massive compared to past recoveries.) It was
big enough to avoid deflation despite unprecedented fiscal austerity. It wasn't big enough to hit
their inflation target in a timely matter.
My feeling (based on nothing but intuition) is that the answer is (d). The government is a tool of
moneyed interests. I know, it sounds awfully libertarian, but it is what it is. And I can't foresee
any non-catastrophic end to it.
"... In reality, this perception is misleading; not that Kerry is a warmonger on the level of George W. Bush's top staff, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. The two were the very antithesis of any rational foreign policy such that even the elder George H. W. Bush described them with demeaning terminology , according to his biographer, quoted in the New York Times . Cheney was an "Iron-ass", who "had his own empire … and marched to his own drummer," H.W. Bush said, while calling Rumsfeld "an arrogant fellow" who lacked empathy. Yet, considering that the elder Bush was rarely a peacemaker himself, one is left to ponder if the US foreign policy ailment is centered on failure to elect proper representatives and to enlist anyone other than psychopaths? ..."
"... comparing the conduct of the last three administrations, that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, one would find that striking similarities are abundant. In principle, all three administrations' foreign policy agendas were predicated on strong militaries and military interventions, although they applied soft power differently. ..."
"... In essence, Obama carried on with much of what W. Bush had started in the Middle East, although he supplanted his country's less active role in Iraq with new interventions in Libya and Syria. In fact, his Iraq policies were guided by Bush's final act in that shattered country, where he ordered a surge in troops to pacify the resistance, thus paving the way for an eventual withdrawal. Of course, none of that plotting worked in their favor, with the rise of ISIS among others, but that is for another discussion. ..."
"... In other words, US foreign policy continues unabated, often guided by the preponderant norm that "might makes right", and by ill-advised personal ambitions and ideological illusions like those championed by neo-conservatives during W. Bush's era. ..."
"... The folly of W. Bush, Cheney and company is that they assumed that the Pentagon's over $1.5 billion-a-day budget was enough to acquire the US the needed leverage to control every aspect of global affairs, including a burgeoning share of world economy. ..."
"... The Russian military campaign in Syria, which was halfheartedly welcomed by the US. has signaled a historic shift in the Middle East. Even if Russia fails to turn its war into a major shift of political and economic clout, the mere fact that other contenders are now throwing their proverbial hats into the Middle East ring, is simply unprecedented since the British-French-Israeli Tripartite Aggression on Egypt in 1956. ..."
"... It will take years before a new power paradigm fully emerges, during which time US clients are likely to seek the protection of more dependable powers. In fact, the shopping for a new power is already under way, which also means that new alliances will be formed while others fold. ..."
US Secretary of State, John Kerry, is often perceived as one of the "good ones" – the less hawkish
of top American officials, who does not simply promote and defend his country's military adventurism
but reaches out to others, beyond polarizing rhetoric.
His unremitting efforts culminated partly in the Iran nuclear framework agreement in April,
followed by a final deal, a few months later. Now, he is reportedly hard at work again to find
some sort of consensus on a way out of the Syria war, a multi-party conflict that has killed over
300,000 people. His admirers see him as the diplomatic executor of a malleable and friendly US foreign
policy agenda under President Obama.
In reality, this perception is misleading; not that Kerry is a warmonger on the level of George
W. Bush's top staff, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
The two were the very antithesis of any rational foreign policy such that even the elder George H.
W. Bush
described them with demeaning terminology, according to his biographer, quoted in the New
York Times. Cheney was an "Iron-ass", who "had his own empire … and marched to his own
drummer," H.W. Bush said, while calling Rumsfeld "an arrogant fellow" who lacked empathy. Yet, considering
that the elder Bush was rarely a peacemaker himself, one is left to ponder if the US foreign policy
ailment is centered on failure to elect proper representatives and to enlist anyone other than psychopaths?
If one is to fairly examine US foreign policies in the Middle East, for example, comparing
the conduct of the last three administrations, that of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama,
one would find that striking similarities are abundant. In principle, all three administrations'
foreign policy agendas were predicated on strong militaries and military interventions, although
they applied soft power differently.
In essence,
Obama carried on with much of what W. Bush had started in the Middle East, although he supplanted
his country's less active role in Iraq with new interventions in Libya and Syria. In fact, his Iraq
policies were guided by Bush's final act in that shattered country, where he ordered a surge in troops
to pacify the resistance, thus paving the way for an eventual withdrawal. Of course, none of that
plotting worked in their favor, with the rise of ISIS among others, but that is for another discussion.
Obama has even gone a step further when
he recently decided to keep thousands of US troops in Afghanistan well into 2017, thus breaking
US commitment to withdraw next year. 2017 is Obama's last year in office, and the decision is partly
motivated by his administration's concern that future turmoil in that country could cost his Democratic
Party heavily in the upcoming presidential elections.
In other words, US foreign policy continues unabated, often guided by the preponderant norm
that "might makes right", and by ill-advised personal ambitions and ideological illusions like those
championed by neo-conservatives during W. Bush's era.
Nevertheless, much has changed as well, simply because American ambitions to police the world,
politics and the excess of $600 billion a year US defense budget are not the only variables that
control events in the Middle East and everywhere else. There are other undercurrents that cannot
be wished away, and they too can dictate US foreign policy outlooks and behavior.
Indeed, an
American decline has been noted for many years, and Middle Eastern nations have been more aware
of this decline than others. One could even argue that the W. Bush administration's rush for war
in Iraq in 2003 in an attempt at controlling the region's resources, was a belated effort at staving
off that unmistakable decay – whether in US ability to regulate rising global contenders or in its
overall share of global economy.
The folly of W. Bush, Cheney and company is that they assumed that the Pentagon's over $1.5
billion-a-day budget was enough to acquire the US the needed leverage to control every aspect of
global affairs, including a burgeoning share of world economy. That misconception carries on
to this day, where military spending is
already accounting for about 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending, itself nearly
a third of the country's overall budget.
However, those who are blaming Obama for failing to leverage US military strength for political
currency refuse to accept that Obama's behavior hardly reflects a lack of appetite for war, but a
pragmatic response to a situation that has largely spun out of US control.
The so-called "Arab Spring", for example, was a major defining factor in the changes of US fortunes.
And it all came at a particularly interesting time.
First, the Iraq war has destroyed whatever little credibility the US had in the region, a sentiment
that also reverberated around the world.
Second, it was becoming clear that the US foreign policy in Central and South America – an obstinate
continuation of the
Monroe Doctrine of
1823, which laid the groundwork for US domination of that region – has also been challenged by
more assertive leaders, armed with democratic initiatives, not military coups.
Third,
China's more forceful politics, at least around its immediate regional surroundings, signaled
that the US traditional hegemony over most of East and South East Asia are also facing fierce competition.
Not only many Asian and other countries have flocked to China, lured by its constantly growing
and seemingly more solid economic performance, if compared to the US, but others are also
flocking to Russia, which is filling a political and, as of late, military vacuum left open.
The Russian military campaign in Syria,
which was halfheartedly welcomed by the US. has signaled a historic shift in the Middle East.
Even if Russia fails to turn its war into a major shift of political and economic clout, the mere
fact that other contenders are now throwing their proverbial hats into the Middle East ring, is simply
unprecedented since the British-French-Israeli Tripartite Aggression on Egypt in 1956.
The region's historians must fully understand the repercussions of all of these factors, and that
simply analyzing
the US decline based on the performance of individuals – Condoleezza Rice's hawkishness vs. John
Kerry's supposed sane diplomacy – is a trivial approach to understanding current shifts in global
powers.
It will take years before a new power paradigm fully emerges, during which time US clients
are likely to seek the protection of more dependable powers. In fact, the shopping for a new power
is already under way, which also means that
new alliances will be formed while others fold.
For now, the Middle East will continue to pass through this incredibly difficult and violent transition,
for which the US is partly responsible.
...the country's tourist board has suspended all tours to Turkey, a move that it estimated would
cost the Turkish economy $10bn (£6.6bn). Russia also said it was suspending all military cooperation
with Turkey, including closing down an emergency hotline to share information on Russian airstrikes
in Syria.
Putin accused Turkey of deliberately trying to bring relations between Moscow and Ankara to a
standstill, adding that Moscow was still awaiting an apology or an offer of reimbursement for damages.
He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious
consequences"
... ... ...
Russia has insisted that its plane never strayed from Syrian airspace, while Turkey says it crossed
into its airspace for 17 seconds. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that even if
this was the case, shooting the plane down was an extreme over-reaction and looked like a pre-planned
provocation.
...the country's tourist board has suspended all tours to Turkey, a move that it estimated would
cost the Turkish economy $10bn (£6.6bn). Russia also said it was suspending all military cooperation
with Turkey, including closing down an emergency hotline to share information on Russian airstrikes
in Syria.
Putin accused Turkey of deliberately trying to bring relations between Moscow and Ankara to a
standstill, adding that Moscow was still awaiting an apology or an offer of reimbursement for damages.
He earlier called the act a "stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" and promised "serious
consequences"
... ... ...
Russia has insisted that its plane never strayed from Syrian airspace, while Turkey says it crossed
into its airspace for 17 seconds. The Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said that even if
this was the case, shooting the plane down was an extreme over-reaction and looked like a pre-planned
provocation.
"... Suspiciously "well-equipped" group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24, RIA "Novosti". This was stated by the VC commander-in-chief Viktor Bondarev. ..."
"... According to the military, the pilot was serach by a few "well-equipped" armed groups. Their origin is unknown. ..."
Suspiciously "well-equipped" group of militants was looking for a catapult of the Navigator the fallen in Syria bomber su-24, RIA "Novosti".
This was stated by the VC commander-in-chief Viktor Bondarev.
According to the military, the pilot was serach by a few "well-equipped" armed groups. Their origin is unknown.
November 24 in the Syrian province of Latakia has fallen downed Russian bomber su-24. This responsibility took on the Turkish authorities, accusing Russia of violating its airspace. Moscow claims that the plane was flying solely over the territory of Syria.
tour operators and travel agents have been asked to refrain from selling tours that involve
flights (including commercial flights) from the Russian Federation to Turkey
The Russian foreign Ministry confirms the recommendation for Russian citizens to refrain from
visiting Turkey, and those who are on the territory of the Republic, advises to return to their
Homeland. This is stated in an official statement the Russian foreign Ministry.
The report stressed that it involves "continuing in Turkey for terrorist threats".
Earlier, the Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov has decided to celebrate his
visit to Turkey. Also he recommended that the Russians to refrain from traveling to this country.
However, he stressed that this recommendation is not even involved with the crash of the Russian
plane su-24.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday called for tough sanctions against Turkey
that could bite into more than $30 billion in trade ties between the two countries, as police
here began seizing Turkish products and deporting Turkish businessmen.
Russian officials are seething after Turkish F-16s downed a Russian warplane over the Syrian
border in a debacle that ultimately left two Russian servicemen dead. Turkey says that the
Russian plane breached its airspace and was warned five times to turn back, charges that Russia
denies.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has described the act as "a stab in the back from the
accomplices of terrorists," and on Thursday said in televised remarks that Turkey still had not
apologized over the incident.
On Thursday, it became clear that the Russian government was now turning its ire on whatever
extensions of the Turkish economy it could get its hands on.
At a cabinet meeting, Medvedev said that joint investment projects with Turkey would be frozen or
canceled. Negotiations over a proposed preferential trade regime with Turkey would also be
scrapped, he said. Medvedev called for recommendations from government agencies to be submitted
within two days.
"... In this respect, it is understandable that the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, called the attack a provocation and an ambush. ..."
"... This is a conflict that Ankara triggered and while it is being managed it is not going to go away. ..."
"... USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:37 ..."
"... Yet another country Russia declares as "hostile" on the global stage : ) With only Assad, Hiz'bollah and Iran providing material comfort ..."
"... I just recorded my warnings to Russia over airspace violations in my bedroom. "Hello, you are heading in the wrong direction. Stop immediately!" No response whatsoever from the Russians. Can post the original recording if anyone is interested. ..."
"... Turkish claims that parts of the plane fell and injuried some Turks , it a joke too far. As is their uncorroborated claim about a warning. ..."
"... "The bearded, turban wearing throat-cutters danced around the dead body of the pilot whom they had killed while he was parachuting down. Is this your understanding of humanity, Ankara? Are these the ones you are protecting, Erdogan?" ..."
"... Yeah, it is fighting against another adventure of US/EU/those ME countries to have regime change to their liking in the region and against ISIS-which was created thanks to that adventure. ..."
"... The question, as posed in the article, is why, in a very short space of time Turkey decided to shoot down an aircraft whose identity they must have known? ..."
"... Erdogan admits giving the order, clear evidence of a deliberate set-up. ..."
"... A more interesting question than pointlessly discussing the morality of it, is what the motivation for the Turks was. I personally think that they wanted to derail the possibility of Russia making some type of détente with the West after the Paris attacks. ..."
"... In addition to son Bilal's illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan, the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems hell-bent on toppling. ..."
"... They were waiting for the Russian bomber to cross this tiny bit of Turkish airspace that extends far to the South into Syrian territory. The Turks wanted to make a statement. ..."
"... Are you serious? They could not be in a more suitable company - NATO members killed close to 5 million people since WWII worldwide, polluted the countries they attacked with uranium and therefore will kill another couple of millions in decades to come, their corrupted banks caused the world recession, their corrupt politicians make life bitter for both their citizens and people in countries their banks have issues with...this is a fucked up world, there are no good guys. ..."
"... Does it matter? in reality one does not shoot a partner on the fight against terrorists who burn people alive, chop their heads, rape women and sell kids into slavery, and if the fucking yanks are incapable of naming who are these moderates they are also fair game. ..."
"... The way I look at it is that the Turks had two tactics a) wanted the involvement of NATO and Putin did not oblige by starting a conflict with and b) wanting to defend its pals in ISIS and all the offshoots that these despicable people are represented by. ..."
"... The US and Turkey have very different purposes in Syria and Iraq. The US uses "Kurds" as its main force in both Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Since 2011 Erdogan has gone off the top and has resumed Turkey's war against the Kurds. That's all that matters to him. ..."
"... Both the US (through its Persian Gulf "friends") and Turkey were inventing and backing ISIS in 2011. The Russian newcomers began with steps that might save lives, but have also gotten caught up in the absurd US effort to remake the borders. More dead and refugees to follow. ..."
...Airspace incursions, granted usually in less politically tense contexts, happen all the time, and
generally you'd expect warning shots to be fired and then attempts to force the intruder to leave
or to land.
That the Turks shot down the jet and did so within 17 seconds – with the president, Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan, saying he gave the order to fire himself – suggests very strongly they were waiting for
a Russian plane to come into or close enough to Turkish airspace with the aim of delivering a
rather pyrotechnic message.
Turkish military releases audio recordings said to be warnings to Russian jet
In this respect, it is understandable that the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, called
the attack a provocation and an ambush.
... ... ...
Moscow may put greater emphasis on countering Turkey's efforts to establish regional influence
(Azerbaijan is an obvious place of contention) and could support problematic non-state actors
inside Turkey, from Kurds to criminals (at least, those criminals not already tied to the Turkish
state).
This is a conflict that Ankara triggered and while it is being managed it is not going to go
away. Nor is it just going to become another chapter in the histories of Russo-Ottoman
rivalry. Expect to see this play out in snide, deniable, but nonetheless bitter actions for
months to come.
samstheman 26 Nov 2015 10:40
How the West can excuse the reaction of Turkey to a 17 second incursion is beyond me
As for the Turkmen rebels killing the pilot as he descended in possible "self defence"
according to US State Department spokesman, please spare us the sophistry if such a
description is apt
Vladimir Makarenko -> Dweezle 26 Nov 2015 10:40
...to shoot fish in a barrel. Unarmed bomber going under 300 mph. Well, we see what kind of
training is really there now when Russians setting up S 400. This will be fun to watch,
especially for Kurds.
psygone USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:37
Yet another country Russia declares as "hostile" on the global stage : ) With only
Assad, Hiz'bollah and Iran providing material comfort - its became a rather comical
routine.
Nivedita 26 Nov 2015 10:37
It's obvious that Turkey shot the Russian plane to defend the ISIS barbarians. Why would
any decent country would want dangerous criminals like Turkey or GCC tyrants for allies?
copyniated 26 Nov 2015 10:36
I just recorded my warnings to Russia over airspace violations in my bedroom. "Hello,
you are heading in the wrong direction. Stop immediately!" No response whatsoever from the
Russians. Can post the original recording if anyone is interested.
SallyWa 26 Nov 2015 10:35
and could support problematic non-state actors inside Turkey, from Kurds. Are Kurds more
problematic than Turks? It seems they are more helpful, at least, when it comes to ISIS.
If_Not_Why_Not -> DarthPutinbot 26 Nov 2015 10:34
Russia denies it was in Turkish airspace. The wreckage was found well in Syria.(as were the
pilots.) Turkish claims that parts of the plane fell and injuried some Turks , it a joke too far.
As is their uncorroborated claim about a warning.
Both sides map production proves nothing also.
USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:30
I think that Mr. Erdogan will be terribly disappointed with what awaits him in the coming
months and years. And I find it positive that Russia is no longer necessary to keep moral
standards towards Turkey as Turkey never did it.
It is nice that Erdogan not even shows any condolences to those dead and their families.
Proves, that Turkey planned it in advance and it wasn't about airspace or accident.
FGMisNOTOK -> Hottentot 26 Nov 2015 10:29
You are totally correct. There is no way it could be done. They were waiting to fire on the
Russian plane as soon as it even slightly overshot the border. Give me a break... 17 seconds.
Turkey itself (as the article above says) claimed that this was no cause for attack when its
own planes flew over Syria. Hypocrites and liars.
photosymbiosis 26 Nov 2015 10:29
According to many reports, Erdogan's son is a central figure in ISIS cash-for-oil smuggling
into Turkey, (which is incidentally heavily reliant on Russian oil and gas imports, for which
they must pay full market price, unlike the 50% discount ISIS offers). Maps of the oil
smuggling routes to Turkey show that the oil tanker convoys must pass through "moderate rebel
anti-Assad" forces, to which should be appended, 'pro-ISIS?'
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/meet-man-who-funds-isis-bilal-erdogan-son-turkeys-president
"The reason we find this line of questioning fascinating is that just last week in the
aftermath of the French terror attack but long before the Turkish downing of the Russian
jet, we wrote about "The Most Important Question About ISIS That Nobody Is Asking" in which
we asked who is the one "breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS
crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments,
and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS
for as long as it has?" - Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge
So was this Turkey's effort to stop Russian attacks on the oil tanker convoys (which supply
ISIS with several million dollars a day - perhaps several hundred tanker trucks a day, that
is)? Is this retaliation by Erdogan for lost revenue?
In short, it appears at this point that the Turkish case justifying the use of deadly
force is, at best, weak. Nevertheless, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that
NATO stands "in solidarity with Turkey." However, it may have been more prudent to withhold
judgment until all the facts are definitively known and a full legal analysis is complete.
Why? Article 5 of the NATO treaty governing self-defense tracks almost exactly with the
Article 51 of the U.N. charter, so if the facts show illegality under international law,
that would undercut the wisdom of NATO standing "in solidarity" with any nation.
ChristianAnsgar -> Rahere2015 26 Nov 2015 10:27
You missed the shooting of the pilots while parachuting bit in your rant,isn't that a war
crime?
cheetah43 26 Nov 2015 11:08
"The bearded, turban wearing throat-cutters danced around the dead body of the pilot
whom they had killed while he was parachuting down. Is this your understanding of humanity,
Ankara? Are these the ones you are protecting, Erdogan?" - Russian Foreign Office
spokeswoman today during press briefing.
SallyWa -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:07
Russia is fighting a different, conflicting war to everyone else in Syria.
Yeah, it is fighting against another adventure of US/EU/those ME countries to have
regime change to their liking in the region and against ISIS-which was created thanks to that
adventure.
Russia repeatedly violated Turkish airspace,
Turkey should learn from better countries how to act in this. European ones. They showed
proper examples, while Turkey screwed up.
dyatel42 26 Nov 2015 11:07
It's almost as if Turkey was waiting for an SU24 to stray over it's border for a few
seconds. How could they have issued 10 warnings to turn south in 17 seconds and asked the
president for his OK to shoot it down in that time? Fairy stories. Given that the aircraft
fell into Syria it must have been heading there when it was hit and was obviously not on a
surprise mission to bomb Ankara for example. Two men's lives terminated for no real reason at
all.
It would seem possible that Turkey was acting on a request from the USA to carry out this
murderous attack - what other logical reason could they have had to do it? Given the US hatred
of Russia / The Soviet Union and their growing irritation at Russia's involvement in Syria,
(at the request of the ruling government of that country) it would be a way of punishing Putin
without putting their own aircraft at risk from retaliation and possibly a dangerous
escalation in the ongoing American persecution of Russia.
ID4352889 -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:06
And obviously you were in the cockpit to verify the warning that has been belatedly claimed
by a notorious terror state which has been in cahoots with Daesh all along?
Hoppolocos -> MTavernier 26 Nov 2015 11:03
As is usual in these cases it may be they are both telling a version of the truth, credible
deniability? The Turks may well have broadcast warnings, but on which frequency? The Russians
may have elected to not be listening to any frequency the Turks may use ergo it's the other's
that were at fault. The question, as posed in the article, is why, in a very short space
of time Turkey decided to shoot down an aircraft whose identity they must have known?
In the current situation the possibility of an aircraft straying into the wrong airspace
must be a consideration, thus as strong diplomatic protect would have seemed the more obvious
reaction. Have there been such incursions in the recent past? Has Russia been pushing it's
luck? If not then one has the feeling that Turkey is deliberately trying to push it's luck and
push Russia away from the Turkmen bases. Would they have dared if they weren't confident of
NATO support and if so, who has allowed them to think this would automatically be forthcoming
given the circumstances?
Roger Hudson -> Ipek Ruacan 26 Nov 2015 11:00
Turkey violates Syrian airspace at will, it also violated Greek airspace over 2000 times
last year.
The Russian plane flew over a small 'appendix' of true Turkey that is 2 miles wide, somebody
worked out a jet can't fly slow enough to do it in 17 seconds. How long did the warning
take?.' Erdogan admits giving the order, clear evidence of a deliberate set-up.
kritter 26 Nov 2015 11:00
Galeotti talks about this like there are good guys and bad buys here, when clearly there
aren't.
It is simply another play in a proxy war between two very countries, led by two very similar
presidents. A more interesting question than pointlessly discussing the morality of it, is
what the motivation for the Turks was. I personally think that they wanted to derail the
possibility of Russia making some type of détente with the West after the Paris attacks.
fireangel 26 Nov 2015 10:58
The smashing of ISIS' oil industry will not only be a blow to the entire ISIS death squad
project, but will directly affect Turkey, widely thought to be involved in the transportation
of ISIS-produced oil, and even Erdogan's family itself, as it is the company run by his son
Bilal that is believed to be running the illicit trade.
Well well well....Bilan Erdogan
*Bilal Erdo?an owns several maritime companies. He has allegedly signed contracts with
European operating companies to carry Iraqi stolen oil to different Asian countries. The
Turkish government buys Iraqi plundered oil which is being produced from the Iraqi seized oil
wells. Bilal Erdo?an's maritime companies own special wharfs in Beirut and Ceyhan ports that
are transporting ISIS' smuggled crude oil in Japan-bound oil tankers.*
In addition to son Bilal's illegal and lucrative oil trading for ISIS, Sümeyye Erdogan,
the daughter of the Turkish President apparently runs a secret hospital camp inside Turkey
just over the Syrian border where Turkish army trucks daily being in scores of wounded ISIS
Jihadists to be patched up and sent back to wage the bloody Jihad in Syria, according to the
testimony of a nurse who was recruited to work there until it was discovered she was a member
of the Alawite branch of Islam, the same as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who Erdogan seems
hell-bent on toppling.
camerashy -> blogbath 26 Nov 2015 10:58
Listen, as an American I'm telling you, you're wrong and a victim of the billionaire owned
propaganda machine they call the news media. You've got your facts all wrong, it's the US
who's constantly sticking it to Russia/others because somehow we can't stand anyone opposing
us and has independent opinions. From the cooked up US backed coup in Ukraine to provoking
China in Asia, and shooting down Russian jets over Syria, look no further than the US/NATO
alliance to find your answer.
Erdogan on his own couldn't kill time let alone shooting down Russian jets. Just imagine
what would happen if one of our jets had been shot down, they'd have made movies on it
already. Also I don't think you really know much about any of these other countries you so
freely label! Don't be naive, things aren't always what they seem, you have access to the
Internet, well, don't take my word for it, use it and find out from different sources ...
here's one:
Please note with the level of happiness and delight with which British journalists and
readers described as the two nations will destroy each other
There is nothing jolly about it, actually. Even this article says situation is not looking
hunky dory, it could fester underneath for quite some time.
secondiceberg 26 Nov 2015 10:54
1. "Smuggling weapons in the guise of humanitarian convoys (something we saw the Russians
doing in Ukraine)". The constant repetition of unfounded charges against Russia seem to have
become engrained in arsenal of MSM writers. If they have received and read the OSCE daily
reports from Ukraine, they should note that those humanitarian convoys were opened and
examined at a Russian checkpoint, at Customs, and by a Ukrainian checkpoint before crossing
the border. If the Ukrainian officials found any weapons, where is the evidence?
2. "Turks are acting in support of their national interests in Syria with equal ruthlessness."
An objective journalist would balance this with the claim by Russia and others that the Turks
are illegally buying oil from ISIS, thereby funding them and that their "interests" are in
continuing to buttress ISIS existence and actions. We still wait for journalistic
investigation of the information given to G20 leaders that some of their own countries are
similarly buying oil from ISIS thus keeping funding for that group flowing and giving them
strong incentive not to "defeat" ISIS despite their ostensible reason for bombing Syria in the
first place.
3. When are we going to find out exactly who the "moderate" Syrian rebels are? And where is
the investigation regarding Putin's claim that a lot of the groups fighting with ISIS and
against the Assad regime are, in fact, mercenaries?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww
Newmacfan 26 Nov 2015 10:54
But it took longer than that according to Mr Erdogan, so many warnings, so many different
time parameters quoted by Turkey, even their own maps would suggest that there was not enough
time to warn the aircraft, await a reply, fire the weapon and for it to hit the target within
the time it was in Turkeys air space, according to Mr Erdogan......in short it is a pack of
lies, like the ISIS oil, the porous borders, this is something which should be followed up.
There is more to this and Turkeys connection with ISIS and the destabilisation of Syria that
warrants a cursory glance.....something possibly very deep and very nasty could well be
lurking here and it would be foolhardy not to look!
LiviaDrusilla -> If_Not_Why_Not 26 Nov 2015 10:51
My only doubt is, did NATO know of this before hand?
Good question. I think the answer is 'no'.
To me, it's fairly obvious that the Turks had itchy fingers waiting for a chance to shoot down
a Russian jet on the pretext of 'invading their airspace'. They then hoped to trigger the NATO
'an attack on one is an attack on all' clause, something which would, at the very least, lead
to the closure of the Bosphurus to Russian shipping, hence making it extremely difficult for
them to re-supply their troops. Look at how the very first thing they did was run crying to
NATO.
However, it appears their cunning plan backfired. Even the Americans seemed to want to play
down the 'violation', saying that the Russian jet was only over Turkish airspace for a grand
total of 17 minutes. So Erdogan didn't get the declaration of war he has hoping for, and
Turkey is now almost certain to be subjected to various retaliatory measures by Russia.
Bad move, Erdogan. Bad move.
IndependentScott -> raffine 26 Nov 2015 10:50
Wrong. The Turks can shoot down one single plane. They were waiting for the Russian
bomber to cross this tiny bit of Turkish airspace that extends far to the South into Syrian
territory. The Turks wanted to make a statement.
The Islamic extremists on the ground, be it ISIS or Al Qaeda (in this case it was an Al Qaeda
affiliate) cannot do anything against the planes. They do not have anti aircraft weapons which
are effective.
nishville -> UralMan 26 Nov 2015 10:52
Now that we have established that Ankara is as murderous, cheating, morally corrupt
and evil as Moscow, what are the reasons nowadays for Turkey to remain a member of the NATO
Are you serious? They could not be in a more suitable company - NATO members killed
close to 5 million people since WWII worldwide, polluted the countries they attacked with
uranium and therefore will kill another couple of millions in decades to come, their corrupted
banks caused the world recession, their corrupt politicians make life bitter for both their
citizens and people in countries their banks have issues with...this is a fucked up world,
there are no good guys.
mkwasp -> will2010 26 Nov 2015 10:48
The radar tracks of both sides show the downed plane flying parallel to the frontier, not
into Turkey. Regardless of where it actually was (i.e which track is correct, if either of
them were), it manifestly wasn't threatening Turkey. Turkey can't really claim provocation
here. Le Monde is also reporting that the Turkish pilots couldn't identify the plane they shot
at - which is even more worrying, given very few (US, French, Russian) air forces are
operating over Syria.
IndependentScott 26 Nov 2015 10:48
Russia is bombing Turkmen. Turkey is protecting them.
The problem is, these Turkmen are allies of Al Nusra, the al Qaeda affiliate which is strong
right next to the Turkmen areas. They, alongside the Islamic Front in the area, are fighting
Assad troops just a few km away from the largest Russian navel base outside of Russia. Of
course, Russia is bombing them. And of course Turkey wants to protect them.
Whether or not that Su-24 actually passed through Turkish airspace for 17 secs or not is
completely irrelevant. This was a statement by Turkey to its own people and the Turkmens in
the area that they will "help their fellow Turks".
The real awful thing is that a Russian pilot died in the process.
USer5555 26 Nov 2015 10:48
Please note with the level of happiness and delight with which British journalists and
readers described as the two nations will destroy each other. Something like that British
journalists probably experienced in 1941, when Adolf Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, and
Turkey, by the way, was with him in alliance.
callaspodeaspode -> anatianblogger 26 Nov 2015 10:42
It is a decent bit of kit, even though old, but it not equipped to fend off fighters in
actual combat. It will presumably have some ECM and ability to dispense flares to act as decoy
when attacked by heat-seeking missiles, but I've no idea how effective it is against Western
NATO standard fighters like up to date block versions of F-16s, which Turkey uses.
And it certainly isn't capable of 2000mph. I don't know where you get that from.
That's nearly Mach 3. Very few military aircraft are able to go at such speeds.
The Fencers top out at around Mach 1.35 at altitude. Are you perhaps confusing it with a
Mig-31 fighter?
What I want to know is why the Turkish F16s didn't fly alongside to make themselves visually
present and demand to the Russian pilots that they leave the area and then escort them out.
Like the UK's Typhoons do when Russian bombers come too near.
spearsshallbebroken -> anarxist 26 Nov 2015 10:19
Does it matter? in reality one does not shoot a partner on the fight against terrorists
who burn people alive, chop their heads, rape women and sell kids into slavery, and if the
fucking yanks are incapable of naming who are these moderates they are also fair game.
The way I look at it is that the Turks had two tactics a) wanted the involvement of
NATO and Putin did not oblige by starting a conflict with and b) wanting to defend its pals in
ISIS and all the offshoots that these despicable people are represented by.
I think the unrepresented swill that is Turkey is going to be done very slowly by Putin.
Leondeinos 26 Nov 2015 10:17
The US and Turkey have very different purposes in Syria and Iraq. The US uses "Kurds"
as its main force in both Iraq and Syria. Once again the Kurds are being used and soon
will be pounded by all hands. Five years ago Turkey was declaring its desire to be at peace
with all its neighbors and doing well at it. It stayed out of the American invasion of Iraq in
2003. Since 2011 Erdogan has gone off the top and has resumed Turkey's war against the
Kurds. That's all that matters to him.
Both the US (through its Persian Gulf "friends") and Turkey were inventing and backing
ISIS in 2011. The Russian newcomers began with steps that might save lives, but have also
gotten caught up in the absurd US effort to remake the borders. More dead and refugees to
follow.
It's easy to make a handy ex post facto recording of pilots talking. Happens all the time
after premeditated air attacks.
anarxist 26 Nov 2015 10:11
Are you sure about the 17 seconds? Does anyone do the math here?
1.15 miles / 17 seconds x 60 x 60 = 243 miles/hour = 391 km/hour
The Su-24's max speed is 1,320 km/hour.
So if we assume the Su-24 was actually going much faster, was 17 seconds more like 5
seconds? Or perhaps even less?
Russia Thursday said its forces had wiped out Syrian rebel groups operating in the area where
one of its jets was brought down, unleashing a huge bombardment after rescuing a pilot.
"As soon as our pilot was safe, Russian bombers and artillery of the Syrian government forces
carried out massive strikes in the indicated area for an extended period," military official Igor
Konashenkov told Russian news agencies.
"The terrorists operating in that area and other mysterious groups were destroyed," he said.
Turkey on Tuesday shot down a Russian jet in northern Syria alleging that it had crossed over
into its air space and sparking a war of words with Moscow.
One pilot that parachuted out was later rescued by Russian and Syrian special forces, while a
second pilot from the jet and a soldier sent to rescue him were killed by rebels on the ground.
Konsahenkov said that over the past three days its jets carried out 134 combat sorties over the
war-torn country and struck 449 targets in the Aleppo, Damascus, Idlib, Latakia, Hama and Homs
and Deir al-Zor provinces.
ISTANBUL: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Thursday that Turkey would have acted
differently if it had known that a warplane its forces downed on the Syrian border this week was
Russian.
"If we had known if it was a Russian plane maybe we would have warned it differently," Erdogan
told France 24 television, adding that Russian President Vladimir Putin had not answered his call
after Tuesday's incident that has seriously damaged ties.
"... In the real world most credit today is spent to buy assets already in place, not to create new productive capacity. Some 80 percent of bank loans in the English-speaking world are real estate mortgages, and much of the balance is lent against stocks and bonds already issued. ..."
"... Debt-leveraged buyouts and commercial real estate purchases turn business cash flow (ebitda: earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) into interest payments. Likewise, bank or bondholder financing of public debt (especially in the Eurozone, which lacks a central bank to monetize such debt) has turned a rising share of tax revenue into interest payments. ..."
"... even government tax revenue is diverted to pay debt service ..."
"... Contemporary evidence for major OECD economies since the 1980s shows that rising capital gains may indeed divert finance away from the real sector's productivity growth (Stockhammer 2004) and more generally that 'financialization' (Epstein 2005) has hurt growth and incomes. Money created for capital gains has a small propensity to be spent by their rentier owners on goods and services, so that an increasing proportion of the economy's money flows are diverted to circulation in the financial sector. Wages do not increase, even as prices for property and financial securities rise – just the well-known trend that we have seen in the Western world since the 1970s, and which persists into the post-2001 Bubble Economy. ..."
Incorporating the Rentier Sectors into a Financial Model
Wednesday, September
12, 2012
by Dirk Bezemer and Michael Hudson
As published in the World Economic Association's World Economic Review Vol #1.
.......
2. Finance is not The economy
In the real world most credit today is spent to buy assets already in place, not to create
new productive capacity. Some 80 percent of bank loans in the English-speaking world are real estate
mortgages, and much of the balance is lent against stocks and bonds already issued.
Banks lend to buyers of real estate, corporate raiders, ambitious financial empire-builders, and
to management for debt-leveraged buyouts. A first approximation of this trend is to chart the share
of bank lending that goes to the 'Fire, Insurance and Real Estate' sector, aka the nonbank financial
sector. Graph 1 shows that its ratio to GDP has quadrupled since the 1950s. The contrast is with
lending to the real sector, which has remained about constant relative to GDP. This is how our debt
burden has grown.
Graph 1: Private debt growth is due to lending to the FIRE sector: the US, 1952-2007
Source: Bezemer (2012) based on US flow of fund data, BEA 'Z' tables.
What is true for America is true for many other countries: mortgage lending and other household
debt have been 'the final stage in an artificially extended Ponzi Bubble' as Keen (2009) shows for
Australia. Extending credit to purchase assets already in place bids up their price. Prospective
homebuyers need to take on larger mortgages to obtain a home. The effect is to turn property rents
into a flow of mortgage interest. These payments divert the revenue of consumers and businesses from
being spent on consumption or new capital investment. The effect is deflationary for the economy's
product markets, and hence consumer prices and employment, and therefore wages. This is why we had
a long period of low cpi inflation but skyrocketing asset price inflation. The two trends are linked.
Debt-leveraged buyouts and commercial real estate purchases turn business cash flow (ebitda: earnings
before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) into interest payments. Likewise, bank or
bondholder financing of public debt (especially in the Eurozone, which lacks a central bank to monetize
such debt) has turned a rising share of tax revenue into interest payments.
As creditors recycle
their receipts of interest and amortization (and capital gains) into new lending to buyers of real
estate, stocks and bonds, a rising share of employee income, real estate rent, business revenue and
even government tax revenue is diverted to pay debt service. By leaving less to spend on goods and
services, the effect is to reduce new investment and employment.
Contemporary evidence for major
OECD economies since the 1980s shows that rising capital gains may indeed divert finance away from
the real sector's productivity growth (Stockhammer 2004) and more generally that 'financialization'
(Epstein 2005) has hurt growth and incomes. Money created for capital gains has a small propensity
to be spent by their rentier owners on goods and services, so that an increasing proportion of the
economy's money flows are diverted to circulation in the financial sector. Wages do not increase,
even as prices for property and financial securities rise – just the well-known trend that we have
seen in the Western world since the 1970s, and which persists into the post-2001 Bubble Economy.
It is especially the case since 1991 in the post-Soviet economies, where neoliberal (that is,
pro-financial) policy makers have had a free hand to shape tax and financial policy in favor of banks
(mainly foreign bank branches). Latvia is cited as a neoliberal success story, but it would be hard
to find an example where rentier income and prices have diverged more sharply from wages and the
"real" production economy.
The more credit creation takes the form of inflating asset prices – rather than financing purchases
of goods and services or direct investment employing labor – the more deflationary its effects are
on the "real" economy of production and consumption. Housing and other asset prices crash, causing
negative equity. Yet homeowners and businesses still have to pay off their debts. The national income
accounts classify this pay-down as "saving," although the revenue is not available to the debtors
doing the "saving" by "deleveraging."
The moral is that using homes as what Alan Greenspan referred to as "piggy banks", to take out
home-equity loans, was not really like drawing down a bank account at all. When a bank account is
drawn down there is less money available, but no residual obligation to pay. New income can be spent
at the discretion of its recipient. But borrowing against a home implies an obligation to set aside
future income to pay the banker – and hence a loss of future discretionary spending.
3. Towards a model of financialized economies
Creating a more realistic model of today's financialized economies to trace this phenomenon requires
a breakdown of the national income and product accounts (NIPA) to see the economy as a set of distinct
sectors interacting with each other. These accounts juxtapose the private and public sectors as far
as current spending, saving and taxation is concerned. But the implication is that government budget
deficits inflate the private-sector economy as a whole.
Neoliberalism counterattacked and scored a victory in Argentina. the trick is to use economic
difficulties caused by neoliberalism to bring to power a neoliberal candidate (or more liberal
candidate, if the current was already neoliberal buy stayed Washington consensus). That trick was
used previously in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... Washington has maintained a policy of "rollback" and "containment" against almost all of the left governments that have won elections in the 21st century. So there is quite a bit of excitement here among the business and foreign policy elite ..."
"... Argentina and the region have changed too much over the past 15 years to return to the neoliberal, neocolonial past. The Washington foreign policy establishment may not understand this, but Macri's handlers did. That's why they took the trouble to package him as something very different from what he is. ..."
"... State Corruption is ever and always a pre text for reassertion of plutocratic hegemony ..."
The election of right-wing candidate Mauricio Macri as Argentina's president on Sunday, which
just a few months ago was unexpected, is a setback for Argentina and for the region.
... ... ...
Washington has maintained a policy of "rollback" and "containment" against almost all of
the left governments that have won elections in the 21st century. So there is quite a bit of
excitement here among the business and foreign policy elite, with Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff facing a recession
and political crisis, and Venezuela's Chavismo confronting an economic crisis and possible loss of
its first national election in 17 years. So naturally they are happy about this unprecedented right-wing
electoral victory in Argentina. Articles are already sprouting up, welcoming the long-awaited demise
of the Latin American left.
But reports of this demise, to paraphrase Mark Twain, are somewhat exaggerated. A more likely outcome
is like that of Chile, where a lackluster candidate was unable to take advantage of Socialist Party
President Michelle Bachelet's 80 percent approval rating, and lost to a right-wing billionaire in
2010. He lasted four years, and then the country went back to Bachelet.
Argentina and the region have changed too much over the past 15 years to return to the neoliberal,
neocolonial past. The Washington foreign policy establishment may not understand this, but Macri's
handlers did. That's why they took the trouble to package him as something very different from what
he is.
Argentine Election a Setback, But Not Likely to Reverse Latin America's 21st Century Trend
By Mark Weisbrot
The election of right-wing candidate Mauricio Macri as Argentina's president on Sunday, which
just a few months ago was unexpected, is a setback for Argentina and for the region. In the last
13 years, Argentina had made enormous economic and social progress. Under the Kirchners (first
Néstor and then Cristina Fernández de Kirchner), poverty fell by about 70 percent, and extreme
poverty by 80 percent. (This is for 2003 to mid-2013, the last year for which independent estimates
are available; they are also based on independent estimates of inflation.) Unemployment fell from
more than 17.2 percent to 6.9 percent , according to the IMF.
But Daniel Scioli, the candidate of the Peronist "Front for Victory", who represented the governing
coalition including President Fernández, did not do a good job defending these achievements. He
also didn't seem to make clear what he would do to fix the country's current economic problems.
In the past four years, growth has been slow (averaging about 1.1 percent annually), inflation
has been high (with private estimates in the 20s), and a black market for the dollar has developed.
This gave Macri (and his "Cambiemos" or "Let's Change" coalition) an opening to present himself
as the candidate of a better future.
With skilled marketing help from an Ecuadorean public relations firm, he also succeeded in
defining himself as something far more moderate than he is likely to be, thus winning over voters
who might otherwise be afraid of a return to the pre-Kirchner depression years.
Some of the things he has indicated he would do could have a positive impact, if done correctly.
He will likely cut a deal with vulture funds who have been holding more than 90 percent of Argentina's
creditors hostage since New York judge Thomas Griesa ruled in 2014 that the government is not
allowed to pay them. If the cost is not too high, it could be a net positive by re-opening a path
for Argentina to return to international borrowing - something that Scioli would likely have also
done.
A liberalization of the exchange rate that got rid of the black market could be a big step
forward. But much depends on how it is done: If it causes inflation to spike and the government
does nothing to protect poor and working people, they could lose a lot.
Macri may also take measures to bring down inflation, which is something that needs to be done.
But here especially there are great dangers, because he is likely to do so by shrinking the economy.
He wants to reduce the central government budget deficit, which will grow as a percent of GDP
with austerity. Given his ideology and politics, there is serious risk of a downward spiral of
austerity and recession, as the country suffered from 1998-2001. If there is inflation from the
devaluation, and they are eager to get rid of that too, this could make matters worse.
His campaign statements and positions indicate that he is against a government role in promoting
industry, so the country's development is likely to suffer as a result. He has proposed tax cuts
for upper- income groups, and so budget cuts are likely since he has pledged to reduce the government
budget deficit. If you add it all up, the majority of Argentines are likely to suffer from any
economic transition that he can engineer.
But he will not have a working majority in Congress, so it remains to be seen how much he can
do. Internationally, he has moved immediately to demonstrate his overwhelming loyalty to the United
States government, which had been previously demonstrated in confidential U.S. embassy cables
published by WikiLeaks. One of his very first statements after being elected was to denounce Venezuela
and threaten to have them suspended from Mercosur. Since this is not an issue that was pressing
to Argentine voters, it is clear that it is part of the U.S.-led international campaign leading
up to Venezuela's December 6 elections, which seeks to delegitimize the government and the elections.
Macri's willingness to join this campaign is something that no other South American president
would do. On the contrary, in the past decade South American presidents have repeatedly joined
together to defend democracy in the region when it was under attack, with Washington on the other
side - not only in Venezuela, in 2014, 2013, and 2002; but in but in Bolivia (2008); Honduras
(2009); Ecuador (2010); and Paraguay (2012). If Macri continues down this road, he will not only
bring shame to Argentina, but he will damage hemispheric relations.
Washington has maintained a policy of "rollback" and "containment" against almost all of the
left governments that have won elections in the 21st century. So there is quite a bit of excitement
here among the business and foreign policy elite, with Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff facing
a recession and political crisis, and Venezuela's Chavismo confronting an economic crisis and
possible loss of its first national election in 17 years. So naturally they are happy about this
unprecedented right-wing electoral victory in Argentina. Articles are already sprouting up, welcoming
the long-awaited demise of the Latin American left.
But reports of this demise, to paraphrase Mark Twain, are somewhat exaggerated. A more likely
outcome is like that of Chile, where a lackluster candidate was unable to take advantage of Socialist
Party President Michelle Bachelet's 80 percent approval rating, and lost to a right-wing billionaire
in 2010. He lasted four years, and then the country went back to Bachelet.
Argentina and the region have changed too much over the past 15 years to return to the neoliberal,
neocolonial past. The Washington foreign policy establishment may not understand this, but Macri's
handlers did. That's why they took the trouble to package him as something very different from
what he is.
Narwhal -> anne:
too much here to comment on.
Weisbrot couches his analysis in right vs left wing politics which played only a minor part.
The election was about the incompetence of the Kirchners. Argentinians have had enough and
finally kicked the incompetents out.
"with Brazil's President Dilma Rousseff facing a recession and political crisis" THAT HER INCOMPETENCE
AND TOTAL CORRUPTION CAUSED....the vast majority has had enough.
Has this guy actually visited Argentina and Brazil...
anne -> Narwhal:
Do set down a focused argument and references when possible.
When "incompetence" and "total corruption" assertions are made, and even capitalized, they
should be referenced. As for the "vast majority" in Argentina who had had enough, would that be
the 51.4% who voted for President Macri?
Narwhal -> anne:
Sorry, Anne, I am not going to post a university research paper with references and footnotes
(been there and done that).
Argentine politics are so convoluted that I do not pretend to understand them. Suffice to say
that the are far more nuanced than simple liberal vs conservative. Only that those of us here
in Brazil breathed huge sigh of relief when the election results were announced.
OTOH his indirect references to Brazil showed even less knowledge of the region. I have made a very small attempt to give readers a tiny view of the Brazilian politics and
corruption in my other comment.
anne -> Narwhal:
On the other hand [Mark Weisbrot's] indirect references to Brazil showed even less knowledge
of the region.
[ I set down the direct references to Brazil by Mark Weisbrot, Franklin Serrano and Ricardo
Summa. Possibly the work they have done on Brazil reflects little knowledge as supposedly the
work done by Weisbrot on Argentina does, but I find the work carefully done and persuasive. ]
PPaine -> anne:
He has none. He's reacting like the usual middle brow bourgeois. Whatever he or she really is
Nuance here is just enough muddle to confuse the outsider. So long as that outsider salivates with every reference to corruption and incompetence
PPaine -> Narwhal:
No don't hide the hand grenade here. This is class struggle. Nuances are nonsense. State Corruption is ever and always a pre text for reassertion of plutocratic hegemony
The point will be clear once this agent of the haute bourgeoise.
Starts rectifying more then a decade of improved welfare systematics
anne -> PPaine :
State Corruption is ever and always a pre text for reassertion of plutocratic hegemony
The point will be clear once this agent of the haute bourgeoise
Starts rectifying more then a decade of improved welfare systematics
[ Interesting and all too reasonable historically for Latin America. ]
-- the real has devalued from about 2.1/US$ to 3.6/US$ today.
--bribes and kickbacks from Petrobras amounting to uncounted HUNDREDS of billions of reais
had their origin when President Dilma was Chairwoman of the Board of Directors.
--Ex President Lula's closest aid is serving a jail term for corruption. The government's leader
in the Senate was arrested today... the list goes on.
--The government took no steps to prevent the ecological disaster of two dam collapses this
month. Many are dead and will never be found or even counted. Thousands are homeless. 60 million
tons of toxic mud have completely destroyed 400 km of the Rio Doce. The mud reached the sea Sunday
and is now killing the ocean habitat.
--Pres Dilma signed a decree declarion the disaster an act of god, thereby absolving the mining
companies and the government of all legal responsibility.
PPaine -> anne:
The economist -- Now there's a source we can rely on --
Brazil Needs New Economic Program to Jump-Start Growth and Employment
By Mark Weisbrot
Finance Minister Joaquim Levy says that unemployment is going to increase in Brazil and that
Brazilians should "face some realities." No country should have a finance minister with this attitude
towards one of its population's most important needs – employment. And even worse, someone who
is acting on these twisted beliefs in order to make them reality. His own job should be the first
to go.
The vast majority of Brazilians are still hugely better off than they were before the Workers
Party assumed the presidency in January of 2003. Poverty was reduced by 55 percent and extreme
poverty by 65 percent from 2003-2012 and real (inflation-adjusted) wages grew by 35 percent –
including a doubling of the real minimum wage. From 2004-2010, the economy grew twice as fast
as it had over the previous 23 years, and the gains from growth were much more equally distributed.
But these gains are being eroded, as the economy sinks into recession and unemployment rises.
Why has this happened? A new report * by Brazilian economists Franklin Serrano and Ricardo Summa
shows that it is not primarily due to external factors – for example, the slowdown of global economic
growth and trade. Rather it is mainly a result of government policies that have reduced aggregate
demand since the end of 2010: tighter budgets, cuts in public investment, higher interest rates,
and tighter credit.
Austerity is not working in Brazil -- any more than it has been working in Europe. These policies
are not only creating unnecessary unemployment and poverty in the present, they are also sacrificing
Brazil's future. Brazil needs public investment in transportation and other infrastructure, but
this is the spending that is first to be sacrificed.
The Central Bank has raised short-term interest rates from 7.5 percent in April 2013 to 14.25
percent today. As a result of having exorbitant interest rates for many years, the government
pays more than 6 percent of GDP – about 20 percent of federal spending – in net interest. This
is among the world's highest government interest burdens.
Lowering interest rates could free up money in the budget for public investment. It is clear
that the government needs to increase spending in order to jump-start the economy. This is what
it did, successfully, when the global financial crisis and recession hit in 2009.
Brazil does not yet have to worry about external financial constraints, as it currently has
$369 billion in reserves. Its net public debt is only about 34 percent of GDP (This is low by
any comparison; the problem is the exorbitant interest rates, averaging 11 percent on outstanding
government bonds). The economy has plenty of reason to grow, but it is clear that the private
sector is not going to lead this growth.
Dilma won re-election in 2014 by promising to stand up to the oligarchy, and continue the successful
policies that brought considerable economic and social progress to Brazil for the first time in
decades. Levy and his friends in Brazil's powerful financial sector may prefer higher unemployment
and lower wages, but that is not what Brazilians voted for. There is no reason for the government
to commit political suicide by continuing to implement the failed economic program of its opposition.
Aggregate Demand and the Slowdown of Brazilian Economic Growth from 2011-2014
By Franklin Serrano and Ricardo Summa
Executive Summary
This paper looks in detail at the sharp slowdown in the Brazilian economy for the years 2011-2014,
in which economic growth averaged only 2.1 percent annually, as compared with 4.4 percent in the
2004-2010 period. The latter level of growth was also more than double Brazil's average annual
growth rate over the prior 23 years (although it was much lower than the pre-1980 period). It
is important to understand why the higher rate of growth experienced from 2004 to 2010 was not
sustained over the past few years.
The authors argue that the slowdown is overwhelmingly the result of a sharp decline in domestic
demand, rather than a fall in exports and even less any change in external financial conditions.
The sharp fall in domestic demand, in turn, is shown to be a result of deliberate policy decisions
made by the government. This decision to slow the economy was not necessary, i.e., it was not
made in response to some external constraint such as a balance-of-payments problem.
Brazil's exports, and the change in their quantity between the two periods, was too small to
account for most of the large slowdown in GDP growth. From 2011-2014, exports amounted to 11.3
percent of GDP, as compared with 11.9 percent for 2004-2010.
The idea that a deterioration in external financial conditions could have driven the slowdown
is also contradicted by the data. For example, the total foreign debt-to-exports ratio dropped
from 4.7 in 1999 to 1.27 by the end of 2010, and was 1.54 in 2014. The ratio of total external
debt to foreign reserves was reduced from 6.5 in 2000 to 0.89 in 2010 (and was 0.93 in 2014).
Also, the percent of Brazilian foreign liabilities that are denominated in dollars fell from around
75 percent in 2003 to a minimum of 35 percent in 2010, and was about 40 percent in 2014.
All of this indicates that the economy had room to expand after 2010. But the government decided
to reduce aggregate demand through changes in monetary, fiscal, and macroprudential policies.
For example, the Central Bank began a cycle of interest rate increases after February 2010 that
lasted until August 2011, raising the basic nominal interest rate from 8.75 percent to 12.5 percent.
The nominal interest rate increases and the macroprudential measures – which reduced the growth
of credit -- helped to a certain extent to end the consumption boom (especially of durable goods).
Private consumption growth decelerated sharply until mid-2012, partially as a result of these
measures.
At the end of 2010, the government also decided to promote a strong fiscal adjustment in order
to increase the primary surplus and to meet the full target of 3.1 percent of GDP in 2011. Another
sign of this contractionary commitment of the new government was the decision, after years of
high increases, not to raise the real minimum wage at all in 2011, something that had not occurred
in Brazil since 1994. And despite the global economic slowdown in early 2011, the signs of which
were evident from the first quarter, fiscal adjustment was maintained throughout 2011 and the
full target for the primary surplus was achieved.
This rapid increase in the primary surplus was only possible thanks to a strong reduction in
the growth of public spending. In 2011, public investment, both of the central government and
the state-owned companies, fell dramatically, by 17.9 percent and 7.8 percent in real terms, respectively.
The government's contractionary policies led to a pronounced decline in private investment as
well, so that total investment (public and private) fell sharply. After growing at an average
annual rate of 8.0 percent between 2004 and 2010, peaking at 18 percent in 2010, gross fixed capital
formation over 2011-2014 grew by just 1.8 percent annually.
Thus it was the strong reduction in investment growth-not a process of "deindustrialization"
related to the real exchange rate, as some have maintained-that explains the slowdown in industrial
production since 2011. Manufacturing industry grew in the years 2007-2008 and in 2010, when the
exchange rate was already appreciated. It is also worth noting that during the 2004-2010 period
of higher growth, the appreciated real exchange rate was very important for controlling inflation
and thus also for increasing real wages and the growth rate of household consumption.
This paper also shows that the analysis put forth to justify the government's post-2010 strategy
was wrong. Even though the economy was already slowing in 2010, the argument was made that fiscal
tightening was necessary in order to have a large reduction in interest rates. The lower interest
rates, combined with tax cuts and other incentives for businesses, were expected to then allow
the private sector to lead growth by stimulating private investment and also export-led growth
as the real exchange rate depreciated due to the lower interest rates. However, as the pro-cyclical
policies shrank aggregate demand, private investment plummeted; and for reasons explained below,
export-led growth did not occur either. And the supposed link between public debt and sovereign
risk also turned out to be an unfounded assumption.
The result is that the government's efforts to encourage the private sector to lead economic
growth, through contractionary macro-economic policies, tax-cuts, and public-private partnerships,
had the opposite result. To return growth and employment creation to the levels of the 2004-2010
period, the government will have to change course and return to some of the policies and strategy
of those years, in which the government took responsibility for ensuring the growth of investment,
consumption, formal sector employment, and necessary infrastructure.
These authors are not buying this conventional wisdom:
"This paper also shows that the analysis put forth to justify the government's post-2010 strategy
was wrong. Even though the economy was already slowing in 2010, the argument was made that fiscal
tightening was necessary in order to have a large reduction in interest rates. The lower interest
rates, combined with tax cuts and other incentives for businesses, were expected to then allow
the private sector to lead growth by stimulating private investment and also export-led growth
as the real exchange rate depreciated due to the lower interest rates."
Neither am I but maybe for different reasons. While I'm not expert on Brazil, its macroeconomic
data paints a picture of nominal rates being high more because inflation is high not high real
interest rates. Its currency is devaluing in nominal terms for similar reasons. Why a nation with
a depressed economy has this high inflation is a mystery.
The conventional wisdom seems to be that Brazil should do a 1993 Clinton-Greenspan macroeconomic
mix with fiscal austerity. This is akin to what Volcker tried to get the clueless Reagan White
House to do in 1983. But it strikes me that Brazil's issues are different and that the fiscal
austerity did not have the effects from this conventional wisdom.
Narwhal -> pgl:
Inflation is as much result of devaluation as a cause of devaluation. The major driver is the
flow of funds; 1) The slow down and reversal of corporate investment from abroad; 2)Repatriation
of accumulated corporate profits to sustain home country weaknesses and avoid probable devaluation
before it occurred. 3)Outflow of 'hot money',speculative, portfolio investments. 4)The fall in
value of commodity exports (oil). 4) Increased cost of servicing and rolling over foreign debt.
Other factor include: downgrading of Brazilian sovereign debt, the HUGE cost of the Petrobras
and other scandals, total loss of confidence both internally and externally in the ability of
the government to understand or much less deal with the political/economic situation.
"... You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks say about this incident. ..."
"... Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../ ..."
"... Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. ..."
"... According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day. ..."
"... ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless - maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards. ..."
"... "Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their way and rarely tackled them directly." ..."
"... Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is. ..."
"... His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well. ..."
"... Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists), fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists. ..."
"... Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine. ..."
"... Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago? ..."
"... Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS. ..."
"... Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders. ..."
"... All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it. ..."
"... It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is the jihadist's biggest ally. ..."
"... Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey, and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime. ..."
"... Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing the jihadist to train on its territory. ..."
"... The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS. ..."
"... The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil. ..."
"... Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine. ..."
"... I wonder if the leaders of NATO were involved in anyway at all??? ..."
"... And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international law. ..."
"... In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this. ..."
"... The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set us free ..."
"... 'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.' ..."
"... Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime. ..."
"... "Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July." ..."
"... By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey. ..."
"... Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth. ..."
"... Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing - but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting... ..."
"... Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not. Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high. ..."
"... So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!! ..."
"... Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf. A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications". ..."
"... Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think. ..."
"... "the US could potentially extract a lot out of it " ..."
"... And even if something is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal. You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all. ..."
"... Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. ..."
"... From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and strengthened the Russian hand. ..."
"... Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad. ..."
"... Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests. ..."
"... Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad. ..."
"... Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned. ..."
"... Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian Turkoman who are defending their land. One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing? ..."
"... That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists) won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations. ..."
"... "Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (£6.6m) per week to the terror group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client." ..."
"... Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding fleet of oil tankers... ..."
The relationship hinted at by Russian leader after warplane was shot down is a complex one, and includes links between senior
Isis figures and Turkish officials
Wirplit 24 Nov 2015 20:43
Turkey under Erdogan is turning out to be a real problem for the West. Supporting Isis and other jihadist groups and attacking
the Kurds. Maybe now the Russians will support the PKK. Tragedy for the liberal Turks that Erdogan won
Phil Atkinson moreblingplease 24 Nov 2015 19:57
The evidence is out there if you want to look for it. Erdogan's son runs a shipping company that transports - guess what? Oil.
Alexander Marne 24 Nov 2015 19:53
It is an obvious attempt of Turkey trying to make the European+American+Christian Civilization wage war against Russia with
the NATO war pact argument. NATO at these times is the perfect ingredient needed for a Christian Winter, having Christian Nations
disobey the whims of a secular NATO alliance that has everything bus dissolved since the Iron Curtain fell. We all know the radical
Muslims and their cousins are our enemy now, not the Soviet WARSAW pact which NATO was created to defend against. NATO members
that go to war against Russia would risk internal revolution lead by the Majority Christian Population that has grown evermore
dissatisfied of their Frankenstein Secular Ethic governments and sellout leadership.
hfakos Fiddle 24 Nov 2015 19:51
No Russian gas pipeline and, thus transit fees, to Hungary either. Germany shut down SouthStream, only to sign a deal with
evil Putin to double the capacity of NorthStream. Who wouldn't love an EU like that? We are all equal, but Germany and Western
Europe are more equal than others.
Phil Atkinson -> marph70 24 Nov 2015 19:50
Agreed. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is a misnomer, given its current membership (28 countries). NATO was formed
by 12 countries in 1949 and today, is a tool for encirclement of Russia.
yianni 24 Nov 2015 19:47
You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace
is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek
airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks
say about this incident.
somethingbrite -> KevinKeegansYfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:46
I think we can probably ask that chap in his semi in Coventry where ISIS plan to attack next...the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights is it? The man seems to have a hotline to Raqqa and every other ISIS held territory.
That said....the Guardian doesn't appear to have quoted him for a week or so....
Have they been unable to reach him since Paris?
Is he on the run? Hiding out in Belgium maybe?
SystemD 24 Nov 2015 19:40
I listened to Ashdown on Today yesterday. His comments about links between Gulf states and the Tories were extremely interesting
and unexpected. The same questions should be asked regarding Turkey. Why has the report about the funding of jihadism in the UK
not been published?
Phil Atkinson -> GemmaBlueSkySeas 24 Nov 2015 19:38
Would Turkey have shot down the SU-24 if Turkey wasn't a NATO member? Think on it.
camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:31
Yeah right, that's the western propaganda machine for you. They were saying the same thing last year ... Only misguided minds
believe such nonsense!
Neutronstar7 -> Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 19:31
Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../
I cannot believe it, but I feel ashamed of my own country and all the other western governments and our proxy's involved in
this vile conspiracy. Blow us up, we deserve it.
WankSalad 24 Nov 2015 19:30
All of this should just make us more furious about the Paris attacks.
The attackers; ISIS, are quite literally being armed, supported and facilitated by our "friends and allies" Turkey, Saudi Arabia
and Qatar.
Meanwhile Turkey directs it's fire at the Kurds - a group of moderate Muslims and secularists who have only ever wanted independent
statehood - whom we are supposed to be helping fight ISIS.
Saudi Arabia has also been quite clearly the source of most of the extremist Islamism that has repeatedly attacked our civil
societies. They have funded and set up Islamist mosques all throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
Are we really getting good value out of our relationships with these nations?
^Our leaders refuse to say any of this openly. It's infuriating. Sooner or later something has to give.
Omniscience -> James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:30
How can a dictator, who took over from his father (a dictator) be called a legitimate government ? Even by a Russian...
hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:28
Sounds like everyday Western duplicity. Car bombs and suicide bombers are fine as long as they only target Damascus. But when
the people the West has nurtured attack Paris, the world ends.
camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:27
You're such a feeble minded person! At least Puting didn't sell $hitloads of arms to Saudi Arabia enabling them to support
and nurture Isis. Look in the mirror once in a while, will ya ...
camerashy 24 Nov 2015 19:19
There's nothing to worry about here ... Putin is one cool customer, he'll have his revenge when time is right, and it'll be
nothing like a Cameroneasque thoughtless, hurried, knee jerk reaction. Turkey on its own wouldn't dare do anything like they've
done, they're just being manipulated by NATO warmongers who are desperate to justify their existence.
DrKropotkin 24 Nov 2015 19:17
Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. But he has strayed very
far from the path of sanity and I think NATO will soon start looking for ways to get rid of him.
According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There
was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available
on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do
it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks
about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day.
ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive
prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been
stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless
- maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards.
KevinKeegans -> Yfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:17
"Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their
way and rarely tackled them directly."
So people in the Guardian are in contact with "senior" members of Isis? Was it a meeting over tea and scones? Perhaps you could
stop being their mouthpiece and ask them which public area they intend to blow up next. After that you could give the authorities
their contact details so that they can solve this issue quickly. That would be most helpful. Of course you might lose a couple
of years worth of potential headlines.
moria50 -> Rubear13 24 Nov 2015 19:14
ISIS started back in 2009.Jordan has a Centcom underground training centre, and 2,000 US special Forces came to train them.Gen
Dempsey oversaw this training camp.
Jordanian special forces were instructors along with the US.
James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:10
Four years of providing money, transport, training, air and artillery cover against legitimate Syrian government forces to
terrorists and Guardian asks this question? Turkey = #1 supporter of Islamic terrorism. Open your damn eyes.
hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:09
Given that ISIS was created with significant Western help, why would Putin do anything about it? He finally acted when the
head-choppers got totally out of control and started to threaten Russia too. The downing of the Russian airliner, the several
failed terror attacks in France, and the Paris massacre should have opened your eyes.
NATO has an abysmal foreign policy record. In a mere decade they managed to turn Europe into a place where one has to fear
going to the Christmas market. Well done, "winners" of the Cold War.
pdutchman -> PMWIPN 24 Nov 2015 19:07
Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in
favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is.
His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack
the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well.
Once you see what is going on and what the results are, you have to consider the possibility Europe is threatened by fundamentalists,
also inside Turkey and Turkish government.
Just read the political program of grand vizier Davutoğlu, or the speeches of Erdoğan on the glorious pas of the Ottoman empire
when he visits former territory.
His vision is one of a regional Islamic state run by Turkey, that would be a superpower.
He detests western democracy and 'European' western humanitarian values and has not made a secret of this. He is a convinced
islamist and his support for ISIS and Al Nusra has sadly enough been very successful.
elvis99 -> tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 19:06
I agree. Its all about the oil.
Not only that there is a huge fracking industry at risk. It costs approx. $80 a barrel to produce and it selling approx.$50 at
present. They are running at a loss as most finance for these enterprises were secured when it was $120 a barrel. Yellen could
not afford to raise interest rates as it would crush a fossil fuel industry within the USA. Get the war machine moving though
and watch the price climb and save that profit margin
hfakos -> kohamase 24 Nov 2015 19:01
It's mostly the Western establishment, not the people. Hungary is not the West but we are in the EU and unfortunately NATO
as well, and the vast majority of the population supports Russia on this imho. Russia made the mistake of trusting the West under
Yeltsin. What you have to understand, and Putin has got it I think, is that Western Europe has a paranoid obsession to bring Russia
to its knees. It's been like this for centuries, just think about how many times the civilized West has invaded your country.
And old habits die hard. They prefer head-choppers and acid-throwers to having a mutually beneficial civilized relationship with
Russia. But you are not alone, Eastern Europe, although formally in the EU, is also looked down upon by the West.
ID9793630 24 Nov 2015 19:01
It's possible Erdogan is rattled at the possibility that the Russians might be about to pull off a secretive realignment of
external participants against ISIS - the possibility of unstated coordination between American, Russian and French armed actions
in the air and on the ground, with various local allies - and this incident shooting down the jet, created for the cameras, is
also intended to overturn that potential applecart.
underbussen -> DenisOgur 24 Nov 2015 19:00
Yeah, so what then, countries violate others airspace all the time - we don't see them downing each others aircraft do we?
Maybe sometimes it happens, this is action by Turkey is outrageous, and very, very aggressive. Turkey will pay, one way or the
other, lets see if that gas price goes up and now might they fare should they loose it?
Angelis Dania 24 Nov 2015 18:55
"The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on
Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely
to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers."
Assad's allies enabled and supported ISIS? Such an embarrassing thing to say.
"Assad, who had, until his brutal response to pro-democracy demonstrations in 2011, been a friend of the Turkish president,
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. "After that he became an enemy," said one western official. "Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after
the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where we are today."
Armed infiltrators in the protest groups fired first at police according to numerous eyewitnesses. How poor a journalist do
you have to be to continue to write articles on the basis of widely debunked allegations? Lol, "Erdoğan tried to mentor President
Bashar Al-Assad". What on Earth would motivate you to even quote that? Like an inferiority-complex ridden backwards terrorist
supporter like Erdoğan can approach the sagacity and popularity of Dr. Bashar Al-Assad.
MelRoy coolGran 24 Nov 2015 18:55
He did use his spy power to find out the source of Isis funding and was told the funding was coming from Saudi Arabia, Qatar
and Turkey.
hfakos Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:53
Because we, our governments that is, are not serious about tackling Islamist extremism. Scoring points against Russia is still
the main motivation of the West. This strategy had a low cost for the West in 1980s far-away Afghanistan. But Syria is in our
neighborhood and the world has become much more open. The yanks can still play this nasty game without repercussions, because
they are an island protected by two oceans. But it's a mystery to me why Europeans are stupid enough to favor the nearby chaos
of the head-choppers to secular regimes. ME oil and gas could be replaced to a large extent by Russia, but this again would go
against the paranoid Western desire to see that crumble. So you see France, the UK, and the US bombing ISIS with one hand and
giving it money through Saudi and Qatar with the other. It's insanity.
The problem is, nobody else is able to say it, because the Obama and Cameron administrations are up to their necks in it. They
knew that Turkey was responsible for the gas attacks on civilians in Syria. They know (who doesn't?) that the Turks are killing
the people who are fighting terrorists inside Syria. They know that the money, the weapons and the foreign fighters are being
funnelled into Syria through Turkey, with the Turkish government's not just knowledge, but cooperation and even facilitation.
They can't say it, because over and over again they have bald-faced lied to the public. They can't say that the "good guys"
in the fight against Isil are not just the Kurds, but the Iranians, Hezbollah, Assad and the Russians - our supposed "enemies",
and the "bad guys" are the ones we are sending all the money and munitions to - our supposed "allies".
tr1ck5t3r northsylvania 24 Nov 2015 18:41
Oil.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Without oil, the Western economies would crash, we are so dependent on it, but the US military are the biggest dependents.
the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national
consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.
Take away the oil and you will see the US military industrial complex die on its knees.
salfraser 24 Nov 2015 18:40
It would be as well to understand the ultimate motives of the current day Saladin. Look what was said in May this year.
27th. May 2015 : President Erdogan And The Prime Minister Of The Turkey Dovotogolu Just Made This Declaration To The Entire Islamic
World:
'We Will Gather Together Kurds And Arabs, And All Of The Muslim World, And Invade Jerusalem, And Create A One World Islamic Empire'
By Allah's will, Jerusalem belongs to the Kurds, the Turks, the Arabs, and to all Muslims. And as our forefathers fought side
by side at Gallipoli, and just as our forefathers went together to liberate Jerusalem with Saladin, we will march together on
the same path [to liberate Jerusalem]."
Erdogan and Dovutoglu at their speech in which they spoke of the revival of the Ottoman Empire and the conquest of Jerusalem
The amazing speeches by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu were given at the inauguration
ceremony at the country's 55th airport in Yuksekova district of southeastern border province of Hakkari, in which they made an
entire declaration to the Islamic world, on their desire to conquer Jerusalem and form a universal Islamic empire.
Looks like our American friends are about to create yet another conflict of interest!
Rubear13 Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 18:39
ISIS was created in 2013-2014 and proclaimed itself chalifate after taking much territory in 2014. During this year russian
had a lot of problems with crisis, civil war and ~2-3 millions of refugeers from Ukraine. And he did much. Both in terms of weapons
and policy.
By the way, Assad was actually winning war during 2012-2013 before creation of ISIS in Iraq.
RudolphS 24 Nov 2015 18:37
So the jet flew allegedly for 17 seconds in Turkish airspace. As Channel 4 News' international editor Lindsey Hilsum accurately
asked today 'How come a Turkish TV crew was in the right place, filming in the right direction as a Russian plane was shot down?
Lucky? Or tipped off?'
R. Ben Madison -> leonzos 24 Nov 2015 18:35
I suspect that Erdoğan switched sides when the West began to look like it was going to impose 'regime change' on Syria and
wanted to be on the winning side. It took a herculean, bipartisan effort here in the US to keep Obama from obtaining Congressional
support for a war on Syria. At the time, I (and many others) condemned the normally warmongering Republicans for tying the president's
hands purely out of hypocritical spite, but the Democrats were against it too and the whole effort collapsed.
Having taken an early lead in the "get rid of Assad" race, Erdoğan seems to have had the rug pulled out from under him. Sorry
for the mixed metaphor.
johnmichaelmcdermott -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:33
How about evidence such as an article from the notorious 'troofer' site, The Jerusalem Post, quoting that other infamous conspiracy
site, The Wall Street Journal?
"Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where
we are today."
Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists),
fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco
in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists.
tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 18:25
Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son
joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine.
Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers
parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6oHbrF8ADs
Theres a pattern here.
Likewise Russia have released their version of events regarding the shot down jets route, claiming it didnt enter Turkish airspace.
Whats interesting is this Russian data was released at 8pm UK time, and yet the British press are still running with the rhetoric
from this morning, where at 4am UK time a Russia jet was shot down according to Reuters..
So it would seem the UK press are sitting on this latest inconvenient news, perhaps trying to come up with a way to spin it
or waiting for the UK Govt to advise how to spin it if its even to be mentioned so the Govt looks innocent in the eyes of the
electorate.
Whilst the availability of data from Turkey was very quickly made available, perhaps it was fabricated and released too quickly
in order to maintain momentum with todays news agenda?
All the while GCHQ and NSA sock puppets & other Nato countries flood various media outlets comments sections to drown out critical
analysis.
I wonder if I'll be approached by more US and UK military personal "unofficially" whilst out walking the dog in Thetford forest,
and be spoken to?
Its interesting watching the news from other countries, certainly watching Russia Today and their spin is interesting.
I can only conclude there will be another massive financial crisis coming for one or more countries, so in order to divert
the masses a war is needed, as wars always boost economies.
Hyperion6 -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:24
Sensible people would realise that only one of ISIS and Assad can be brought to the negotiating table. Sensible people would
realise that Turkey is playing the same duplicitous game that Pakistan played, namely supporting the most despicable fundamentalists
while being an 'ally' of the West.
Frodo baggins -> Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:24
Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly
they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose
of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS.
Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and
balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders.
Jan Burton 24 Nov 2015 18:23
Cut the bullshit.
Turkey is little more than an ISIS and al Qaeda support base, and now they're even providing an Air Force.
Get these scumbags out of NATO now
kohamase 24 Nov 2015 18:19
I don't understand you western guys. Am Russian and not a big fun of Putin but in this situation Russia fights terrorists ,
same people who organized massacre in Paris . Why , why shoot them down??? What is the meaning of this ? We can disagree on many
questions but we should agree on One : ISIS must GO !!! If you don't want to do it then at list don't stand on our way cleaning
up the mess you've created!!!
Tiberius2 24 Nov 2015 18:17
Crystal clear, the Turks are profiteering from stolen oil, the whole Turkish establishment is involved on this corrupted trade
namely : border guards, police and the military, all of them being involved, plus business men with political connections .
ISIS get also weapons and training, Jihadist from the world over, gets red carpet treatment and supply with passports.
The Jihadist can travel unmolested, to and from Syria via Turkey in order to carry out atrocities like Paris and Tunisia.
The West looks the other way to this situation and try to ignore it ,until it gets hit in the hearth, like Paris.
fantas1sta -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:17
Oh, I do think Russia was wrong to send troops into Crimea, but I also think the west was wrong to back the coup against Ukraine's
democratically elected government. NATO gambled that they could interfere in Ukraine and lost, now they know that Putin is difficult
to intimidate and that Russia defends its sphere of influence like the US defends its own. All powers are hypocrites, such is
the nature of their global interests, but Turkey are both hypocrites and cowards, shooting down a plane and then hiding their
heads under Uncle Sam's sweater.
grish2 Tommy Thrillbigger 24 Nov 2015 18:16
Majority of people in Europe support the Russians. The governments are making excuses for the turks. And the turks are with
the head choppers.
theoldmanfromusa -> ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:15
You have a strange opinion of the situation. The major problem is that the ruling classes (politicians, imams, etc.) use the
most inflammatory rhetoric to stir up the population (most of it) that is not intellectual and/or clever. These intellectual/clever
types can then make obscene profits from their rabble rousing.
Apollonian 24 Nov 2015 18:12
All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his
sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it.
It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS
fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is
the jihadist's biggest ally.
Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:11
If we are really serious about tackling Islamic extremists, then why is it that we are allied those states directly aiding
them? Cameron is demanding the right to bomb Syria, while at the same time he's grovelling to the Saudis, crawling to the Gulf
States and defending Erdogan. Hammond nearly bust a blood vessel when Skinner said what everyone knows. The whole thing is an
utter sham, you have to wonder if ISIS and the other extremist groups aren't actually hugely convenient for some.
ElDanielfire -> Canuckistan 24 Nov 2015 18:05
Yes the Saudi's created ISIS. but the west helped build them up thinking they were something else because the west kept their
fingers in their ears because they had a gard -on for yet anotehr regime change in the middle east, despite none of the previous
ones (Afghan, Iraq, Libya) having worked and become hell for the citixens of those countries. Also the west always let Saudi and
Qutar get awya with anything, even if they fund groups who attack western citizens. It's tragic.
hfakos 24 Nov 2015 18:04
Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey,
and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers
and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime.
Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before
entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few
years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing
the jihadist to train on its territory.
But Western Europe is complicit too. With all the spying reported by Snowden how is it impossible to prevent thousands of European
citizens from traveling to Turkey and onward to Syria and getting radicalized? It is obvious that we have turned a blind eye to
the jihadi tourism. Funny that only after the Paris attacks did Hollande and co. start to take this constant flow of Europeans
into Syria seriously.
NATO says, two minutes after this incident, that Turkey is right and its airspace has been violated. But all powerful NATO
countries cannot track the returning jihadists and the mastermind of the Paris attacks has just been reported to have mingled
with Paris policemen after the Bataclan massacre. And one guy is still on the run. The first chickens have come home to roost
and there will be more to follow. The West has been playing with fire and will get burned. This is a much more global world with
open borders than what we had in the 1980s, when NATO was supporting the Bin Ladens and Gulbudding Hekmatyars in Afghanistan.
These jihadists will cause more havoc in Europe for certain. And Russia is more right again than NATO, when it comes to jihadists
in Syria.
ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:04
Turkey's territorial expansionist ambitions have backfired, just as the ambitions of their Islamism has. The emperor has no
clothes and yet it's difficult to deal with this maniac Erdog effendy who is pushing Turkey towards chaos internally and internationally...
A country which has intellectuals and clever people has fallen under the power of a group of thugs, the story of the region.
i_pray thinkorswim 24 Nov 2015 18:03
One actually feels sorry for Putin. He is bound by a Treaty he signed along time ago with Assad. He is doing what he is obliged
to do under that Treaty and at
the same time he is helping to destroy ISIS.
Then he is attacked up by Turkey a member of NATO, who are supposedly also committed to destroying ISIS .
If I were Putin, I would just walk away and leave the West to sort the mess out . I am sure that Russia feels that it has already
lost too many lives.
Wehadonebutitbroke -> Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 18:00
Erm, yes. The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are
fighting ISIS.
The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been
crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands
have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil.
Many of the 'moderate' rebels are Al Qaeda by another name or Al Qaeda affiliates. The Turkmen are Al Qaeda affiliates. The
line between Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria is vague and has been crossed both ways on numerous occasions.
Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting
Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do
by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine.
And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and
that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international
law.
Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 17:56
Dudes, Turkey is losing some valuable oil supply due to Russia's 'indiscriminate' bombing of ISIS oil-field territory.
Turkey has some real-politik collateral in the form of 'refugees' to mainland Europe. So Turkey, politically, is in a strong
position - EU is shoving money towards them.
Will NATO stand behind Turkey's real-politik?
twosocks 24 Nov 2015 17:54
Just watched the videos and listened to the turkish warnings. The SU24 appears to have been heading south as requested by the
turks and in syria when it was hit. It also looks like the turks entered Syrian airspace before they fired on the Russians - just
like the 1000+ times they have entered greek airspace in the last year, including one time with 8 planes at the same time.
In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading
towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally
the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians
without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what
a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this.
Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 17:54
The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight
to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set
us free
rumelian -> kmw2402 24 Nov 2015 17:49
YES, and the lesson for the West should be: Please stop supporting Erdogan and his fellow islamists. Watching events for a
decade and praising the relentless efforts of a single party and it's (now former) leader to suppress secular Turks and eroding
the pillars of the secular Turkish Republic, in the name of stability in the region, you actually create much instability and
threat, both for the region, and for Europe. Squeeze down these so called "moderate" islamists, and with real pro-European Turks
taking lead again, you will not have unexpected and complicated acts from Turkey .
thorella -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 17:48
'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.'
Totally logical
jaybee2 24 Nov 2015 17:46
Well said Pres Putin and hats off to Denis Skinner in parliament!
Turkey is a disgrace and should be booted out of NATO.
It bombs the Kurds fighting lsis barbarians, buys oil from lsis, protects anti Assad terrorists from the Syrian army, helps
finance various 'moderate' terrorists as to its shame does this Tory government!
As the 'heir to Blair' Cameron is drooling at the thought of joining in on the bloodlust!
Thank you Mr Skinner, and Hammond, what a silly man!
MatthewH1 24 Nov 2015 17:46
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?
Yes.
Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime.
quaidesbrumes 24 Nov 2015 17:43
Guardian reports:
"Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having
been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July."
By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian
jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey.
Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be
scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth.
lisbon_calling 24 Nov 2015 17:43
The answer to the question in the title is absolutely clear after reading the very informative text.
Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure
and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing
- but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting...
MrMeinung DavidJayB 24 Nov 2015 17:38
Turkish fighters are violating Greek airspace habitually since decades. And not for mere seconds. The Greeks intercept them
but do not shoot them down. The Greeks have brought all kinds of electronic documentation to both NATO and EU - no result.
It is ironic that Turkey of all nations is raising such arguments.
This action is inexcusable and the barbarity that followed (by all information) - the execution of the pilot/pilots - by Turkish
friendly fighters, even more so.
LordJimbo -> CommieWealth 24 Nov 2015 17:38
Countries are operating on the basis of their national interests, Assad and Kurds represent threats to Turkey, Russia wants
Assad to remain and sees IS and rebel groups (some of whom are reportedly backed by Turkey) as threats, so we see a classic clash
of national interests in an already complicated region of the world, topped off by a brutal civil war that has cost the lives
of over 200,000 and seen one of the worst humanitarian crises since WWII. The very definition of a perfect political and military
storm. I suspect the Russian position will eventually win out in Syria especially now that Hollande wants IS targeted by a 'grand
coalition'. For Turkey the major headache has to be the Kurds who will get arms, training and are winning huge amounts of territory.
powercat123 24 Nov 2015 17:36
Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not.
Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and
the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very
aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high.
ManxApe 24 Nov 2015 17:36
Which Turkish businessmen did they strike deals with? Specifically which Turkish businessman's shipping company had their oil
tankers bombed the other day by Russia? Is this businessman actually a very close relative of Erdoğan? A clue perhaps?Allegedly
the shipping company is BMZ.
196thInfantry -> Artur Conka 24 Nov 2015 17:35
The Russian plane was never in Turkish airspace. ATC systems have recorders that record voice communications, radar tracks
and controller actions all synchronized. You can be sure that the Turks will not release the raw recorded data.
aLLaguz 24 Nov 2015 17:32
So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!!
This is the long awaited war for the Syria-Turkey border, a border that must be closed. Whether for stop jihadists joining ISIS
or to stop oil sales.
No fly-zone in northern Syria ?! The only affected parties with this is Assad allies and it is the same reason.... the Syria-Turkey
border. For Assad, It is a key region, Kurds must be stopped to reach the Mediterranean sea, the border must be closed to stop
jihadists or rebels to join the fight, to stop the oil sales of ISIS, etc, etc, etc.
Russia will fight for the control of the border whether NATO like it or not. Once it is Russian, Kurds will be pushed back.
Cecile_Trib -> penguinbird 24 Nov 2015 17:32
Turkey must learn to stop invading Greece airspace. Or you think it's OK for them as a member of NATO to do that? Or will you
say it's OK for Greece to down a couple of Turkish jets?
"In the first month of 2014 alone, Turkish aircraft allegedly violated Greek airspace 1,017 times, Gurcan reports."
Ha ha, your post is bordering on...no is, sheer arrogance and complete ignorance.The Russian planes are defined as entering
"an area of our interest".Which is really vague and is really international airspace.Both the US and UK do the same but more often.Moreover
Russia is being surrounded by NATO firepower,missile systems and US paid for coups!
NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 17:31
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'? Yes
Turkey are directly linked to Al Qaeda as is Saudi Arabia yet they are our allies in the never ending war against terrorism,
a war it seems we forgot about when the terrorists became repackaged as freedom fighters. Many of us have been warning that this
would inevitably lead us to become victims of the Jihadists but Cameron would not listen, he has a mania to get rid of Assad and
has been prepared to get into bed with some of the nastiest people in the world. A New take on the Nasty party.
Turkey 'let Isil cross border to attack Kobane': as it happened
Today's early morning, a group of five cars, loaded with 30-35 of Isil elements, wearing the clothes and raising the flag
of the FSA [Free Syrian Army rebels] has undertaken a suicide attack.
The nationalist Southern Front, which includes US-trained fighters, has confirmed that it is taking part in the fight for
Daraa, alongside the powerful Islamist groups Ahrar al-Sham and the Al Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra.
BigNowitzki -> BeatonTheDonis 24 Nov 2015 17:29
Turkish government giving military support to ethnic Turks in a neighbouring country = good.
Russian government giving military support to ethnic Russians in a neighbouring country = bad.
Good point. I imagine the Putinbots will try and rationalise it away via cognitive dissonance, or some other bogus reason.
As I said, Russia's position would be much stronger had they not invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. They were warned....
MaxBoson 24 Nov 2015 17:26
Thanks to the author for pointing out the role Turkey has played in the rise of ISIS, and its instrumentalization of the conflict
in Syria for its own ends. Taking this, and Turkey's support for the Turkmen rebels-or terrorists, or freedom fighters, depending
on which alliance one is supporting-into account, it is pretty obvious that the main reason why Turkey shot down the Russian planes
was that they were bombing Turkmen targets in what Turkey has the cheek to call a no-fly zone, not because their wings were in
its airspace for a few milliseconds.
deathbydemocracy 24 Nov 2015 17:23
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?
Answer below.
Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend"
and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces
raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf.
A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish
officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications".
That would be a 'Yes'.
Of course Turkey has a right to defend it's borders. In this case though, their borders were not under attack. The Russian
plane strayed into Turkish air space for just a few seconds, and it was clearly not part of an attack force against Turkey. The
correct move would have been to complain about the Russians, not shoot them down.
robitsme -> BillyBitter 24 Nov 2015 17:23
Most states would show some restraint under the tinderbox circumstances. Erdogan is either completely insane, or he is playing
a game, he as an agenda to provoke Russia in some way
rumelian -> JaneThomas 24 Nov 2015 17:21
You are right. Erdogan with his "conservative" comerades is rapidly and relentlessly ruining the the pillars of the secular
Turkey for more than a decade, and for much of this time he was actively aided by the Western powers, frequently praized and portrayed
as a "moderate" islamist and a reliable partner. The more power he gained, the more he showed his real nature.
Dreaming of becoming a "leader" of the muslim world (in the Middle East), countless times he showed his sympathy towards the
fellow "islamists" in the whole region. USA and Western European leaders, still assume that Erdogan is better option than anyone
else in Turkey, providing stability and a "buffer zone" to Europe, they ignore the fact, that Turkey was indeed a reliable partner
for decades, when ruled by secular governments ,backed by a secular army, but now that's not the case. Western governments now
don't know how to deal with it. When you look at the photos of the current Turkish ministers, and their wives (almost all are
headscarved) you realize that they had nothing in common with millions of Turkish people who embraced Western lifestyle and customs.
Ataturk has created a secular nation, suppressed these islamists almost a century ago for good, knowing their true nature, but
now Turkey needs a new Ataturk-style leader to eradicate this pestilence. Until then, Turkey will not be a stable and reliable
partner in the Middlle East.
Darook523 24 Nov 2015 17:20
Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from
allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think.
vr13vr -> WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:19
"the US could potentially extract a lot out of it "
It could but at the end of the day, can't and won't. The US is not going to split NATO so it will have to offer its support
for Turkey. Nor can Europeans do much as they have this "refugees" problem to which Turkey hold the key. And even if something
is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal.
You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all.
PaniscusTroglodytes -> MrConservative2015 24 Nov 2015 17:18
NATO has had no legitimate purpose for 25 years now. Will this finally give the nudge to wind it up? One can but hope.
Yarkob -> Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:17
The first reports said it was a Turkish F-16 with an AA missile. Some reports are still saying that. Damage limitation or diversion
by Erdogan? The 10th Brigade Turkmen that Debka said carried out the attack are aligned with the US. That conveniently shifts
the blame from Turkey back to the US by proxy. Back stabbing going on. Julius Ceasar shit going down I reckon
vgnych 24 Nov 2015 17:10
It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates. Syria
and Asad has been just a dry run of the concept.
Putin must be seeing it very clear at this point.
Yarkob Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:07
Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva
Conventions.
LordJimbo 24 Nov 2015 17:06
From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant
Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength
and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and
strengthened the Russian hand.
Gideon Mayre 24 Nov 2015 17:05
Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent
so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy
on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and
the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad.
Michael Cameron 24 Nov 2015 17:05
Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath
of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course
proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests.
The idea they're an imminent threat and immediate concern of Cameron and co suddenly hoves into view as hogwash on stilts.
Their grandstanding over bombing ISIS while at once supporting their biggest enabler (Can anyone doubt Turkey's laissez-faire
stance?) makes sense as an admission of complete powerlessness to resolve an issue above his pay grade i.e. taking on Putin. The
extent to which all of these actors are clueless is terrifying. Foreign policy operations as fitful and faltering as anything
this side of the Christmas board game.
fantas1sta 24 Nov 2015 17:04
Turkey has been looking for reasons to invade Syria for a long time:
"The reason why worse incidents have not taken place in the past regarding Syria is the cool-headedness of Turkey," Erdoğan
said. "Nobody should doubt that we made our best efforts to avoid this latest incident. But everyone should respect the right
of Turkey to defend its borders."
The arrogance of this man is beyond belief, as Al Jazeera reported that the plane, believed to be a Russian-made Sukhoi Su-24,
crashed in Syrian territory in Latakia's Yamadi village and NOT in Turkish Airspace. What I love about this statement is the "cool-headedness
of Turkey".
What about the headless act of supporting ISIS, and what about the fact that Turkey has some of the worst crackdown of journalist
and freedom of speech of any country. Far worse then China.
I truly don't understand how Nato and Turkey's allies support its actions, especially the US. Could someone please explain.
WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:03
Turkey is kinda fucked now, the US could potentially extract a lot out of it in return for 'protection'... For instance stop
murdering Kurds or cut off all ISIS links, hell maybe even both. There's no way Erdoğan can play Putin as the counterbalance card
now.
arkob 24 Nov 2015 17:02
Methinks the wheels are falling off the Syrian project and there is a scramble for the door and people are getting stabbed
in the back all over the shop.
Look at the leaks over the last few weeks implicating the US DoD, Turkey, France and soon the UK, now Obama is telling us his
intel assessments were "tainted" *cough*
Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit
permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association
everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group
backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad.
More to come in the next few days, I reckon.
Branislav Stosic 24 Nov 2015 17:01
Cards can definitely be open to see :who wisely silent is on the terrorists side( read USA) and who is really against. There
wont be some of the current uncertainties and media acting in this struggle. I hope that at least the European countries together
wake up their unhealthy slumber after the terrorist actions in the neighborhood and together, not only in words ,start to put
out the source of the fire and of terrorism in which some cunning players constantly topping oil on the fire.
madtoothbrush -> QueenElizabeth 24 Nov 2015 17:00
It's a well known fact that Turkey purchases oil from ISIS occupied territory. Not to mention they bomb Kurds that are fighting
ISIS.
Vizier 24 Nov 2015 16:56
Perhaps Russia would like to provide air cover to the Kurds who are under murderous assault by Turkey in their own country.
Carving about 20% off Turkey would be a good start.
Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 16:55
Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in
Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about
having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned.
NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 16:55
By then, Isis had become a dominant presence in parts of north and east Syria.
This is the problem, Turkey is in a struggle with Iran and the Kurds. Assad is seen as the enemy because he is closer to Iran.
It should be remembered that the Turks see the Kurds as biggest the threat and ISIS as an ally and that the U.S. not Russia
has been arming the Kurds. It looks as if the Turks also want to send a message to the US and Europe, a message via air to air
missile.
The issue has highlighted the widening gulf between Turkey and its Western allies, who have frequently questioned
why Turkey, a NATO member with a large military and well-regarded intelligence service, is not doing more to address the jihadist
threat.
In recent testimony in Washington before Congress, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, was asked
if he was optimistic that Turkey would do more in the fight against the Islamic State.
"No, I'm not," Mr. Clapper said in an unusually blunt public criticism. "I think Turkey has other priorities and
other interests."
Georwell -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:54
nop, just an pair of fighters patrolling the zone 24/7 , since the radars told them the russians daily pattern on bombing the
terrorists, AND an green-card to kill a russian plane on first occasion, even if that mind to (again) enter on syrian air space,
for the matter. Fact is, the russian pilots do not believe the turks will really open fire - now they know - in the hard way;
Was that an planed ambush ? I bet was.
Was a war crime to execute on mid-air the pilots descending on parachute ? Yes it was. Was a war crime to assault the body
of the dead pilot ? (are several pictures on the net showing the pilot body stripped and pieces of flesh missing) - yes, was another
war crime. All on the line of liver-eaters and "moderate" terrorists.
Maybe when those animals will target another EU capital the peoples will realize who its the true enemy here. For (to many..)
bigots here the tragedy on Paris was not enough to bring them the the real picture.
Aneel Amdani -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:50
Russia did coordinate with other coalition members of US so I suppose Turkey should have been aware of this. F-16 should have
bene in air and giving 10 warnings is utter nonsense. Russia has said no warning was given and their plane was in Syria territory.
Turkey has a rule of engagement that their territory and threat are well in 5 km of Syria itself. So they take it as a threat.
Turkey has gone nuts. they have first increased terrorism and now officially become the Air Force of SIIS. or more, they should
have shown a response to Russians for busting more than 1000 oil tnakers that supply cheap oil to Turkey.
rumelian -> jonsid 24 Nov 2015 16:49
Surely, Russia will respond to that incident. I supposed it was not at all expected by Russians, and they will figure out a
strategy on what kind of response it will be. I think too, that consequences for Turkey could be serious . But maybe it is a destiny
for a country where almost half of the population votes for the corrupt, backward islamists, and their megalomaniac leader.
copyniated 24 Nov 2015 16:48
Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian
Turkoman who are defending their land.
One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing?
HuggieBear -> Mindmodic 24 Nov 2015 16:47
"I get the impression that a greater proportion of people in the US are blinded by patriotism" - patriotism would actually
require disengaging with the mediaeval oil monarchies of the Middle East and butting out of the world's hot spots. Something Pat
Buchanan has advocated for aged.
Aneel Amdani 24 Nov 2015 16:44
the residents of France and Belgium should ask their governments why did they let it to happen in the first place. ISIS was
created by West and funded extensively by the Saudis, Turley and Qatar. US is not a kid that after spending more than a 100 billion
on intelligence and CIA networks globally, never knew ISIS was getting rich. And now so when everyone knows Turkey buys cheap
Oil from ISIS, why aren't they being sectioned or why individuals donating funds to these terrorists being sanctioned.
US is very prompt in going and sanctioning nations that are not with them, but they never sanction dictators like the kings
and presidents that support terrorism. the blood of those who died in Paris and those all along since the war in Iraq are all
to be blamed on these war hawks in west. If even now Paris cannot ask questions on their governments involvement in destabilizing
Libya now, then I guess they will again see Paris happen again. West should be stopped from using the name of terrorism and a
Muslim Jihad for their own strategic gains.
jmNZ -> earthboy 24 Nov 2015 16:38
That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the
Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists)
won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And
al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations.
fantas1sta Roger -> Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:36
Turkey has spent a lot of time and money to cultivate an image of itself as a modern, secular, democratic state - it is none
of those. It's an ally of the US like Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US, it's a marriage of convenience, nothing else. The US
knows that both countries fund terrorists, but they need some kind of presence in that region. The Turks and Saudis need a customer
for their oil and someone to run to when they need their autocratic regimes propped up.
Roger Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:29
Turkey buys ISIL oil.
Turkey helps foreign terrorists to get to ISIL.
Turkey attacks Kurds fighting ISIL.
Turkey facilitates the route of people including terrorists into Europe.
Turkey is run by a megalomaniac.
Turkey got into NATO as a US/CIA anti -Russian (USSR) puppet.
What the sort of corrupt people like Hammond think of their people, fools. Of course Turkey is on the 'wrong side'.
fantas1sta -> MaryMagdalane 24 Nov 2015 16:29
There's no reason for the US to directly antagonize one of the few countries in the world that has a military strong enough
to enact its policy goals without the backing of another power - see Crimea. Why would Obama order a Russian plane to be shot
down and then call for de-escalation?
Erm on balance, yes. Empirically, provably more repugnant. Russia hasn't killed well over a million civilians since 2001, nor
laid waste to an entire region, causing untold misery and suffering, screwing allies and enemies alike and helping (both by accident
and design) the rise of ISIS. I'm no fan of Putin, and let's be honest, there's no nice people at that level in politics, but
the US is far and away ahead of Russia on the dick-ometer these last 20-30 years.
Budovski Ximples 24 Nov 2015 16:23
Yes, of course he's right. What's wrong is that its taken journalists this long to even dare to look at the relationship between
Turkey and Islamic State. Or specifically, Erdogan and Islamic State.
Turkey has been directly dealing with various terrorist groups in Syria, supplying weapons, fighters, intelligence and arms
as well as buying massive amounts of oil from ISIS refineries (which Russia just pulverized).
They have left their borders open, allowing terrorists to go in and out of Syria as they please.
Their claims to be fighting ISIS are a joke. In their first week of 'fighting ISIS' they did 350 strikes on the Kurds and literally
1 on ISIS.
The terrorist attack by ISIS, aimed at Erdogans opponents, was timed so perfectly to help Sultan Erdogan get elected that I'd
go as far as suspect direct Turkish intelligence involvement.
Bonnemort 24 Nov 2015 16:21
Turkey are complicit in terrorism, but then so are the Gulf States/Saudis/US and UK. They're just a bit closer and their hands
a bit bloodier. Putin is correct,
Just think, only two years ago Cameron wanted us to join the Syrian civil war on ISIS' side.
And also think - Cameron and Boris Johnson want Turkey to be a full EU member as soon as possible.
Roger Hudson -> Samir Rai 24 Nov 2015 16:21
Turkey was let (pulled) into NATO during the cold war just so US missiles and spy bases could get up on the USSR border. Turkey
was run by a military junta at that time.
Same old CIA/US nonsense.
Turkey should be kicked out of NATO and never be allowed near the EU.
photosymbiosis -> kahaal 24 Nov 2015 16:04
Ah, the oil smuggling route to Turkey runs right through a zone controlled by these 'moderates' - perhaps middlemen is a better
word? - and so you can't really cut off the flow of oil out of ISIS areas without bombing those convoys even if they are under
the temporary protection of "moderates" - so it looks like Turkish oil smugglers and their customers (Bilal Erdogan's shipping
company? commodities brokers? other countries in the region?) are working hand in hand with ISIS and the moderates to deliver
some $10 million a week to ISIS - and that's how terrorists in Brussels can establish safe houses, purchase weapons and explosives
on the black market, and stage attacks - isn't it?
Alexander Hagen 24 Nov 2015 16:02
That is interesting that Erdogan and Assad were on good terms previously. That is hard to fathom. I cannot imagine two people
with more differing world views. I did not meet a single Turk while travelling through Turkey that had a kind word about Erdogan,
so elevating him to a higher level (mentor) might require some qualification. Though it is true the Turkish economy grew enormously
under Erdogan, "The lights of free expression are going out one by one" - paraphrasing Churchill.
cop1nghagen 24 Nov 2015 16:01
"Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (£6.6m) per week to the terror
group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client."
Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically
through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding
fleet of oil tankers...
photosymbiosis 24 Nov 2015 16:01
Would anyone be surprised to find that the accomplices of ISIS in Turkey - i.e. the oil smugglers who operate with the full
knowledge of the Turkish government - are also transferring cash on behalf of ISIS to their 'recruiters and activists' (aka: 'terrorists')
in places like London, Paris, Brussels, etc.?
The lure of oil profits make relationships with terrorists very attractive, it seems - kind of like how Royal Dutch Shell and
Standard Oil kept selling oil to the Nazi U-boat fleet right up to 1942, when the US Congress finally passed the Trading With
The Enemy Act.
"... The nightmare of the birth of Kurdistan hangs over Turkey like a sword of Damocles for many decades. The emergence after the collapse of Saddam Hussein of de facto independent Iraqi Kurdistan has made the situation especially dangerous for Turkey, and the sudden appearance of ISIS aggressively fighting the Kurds, the ISIS army led by former Saddam generals, of course, made Turks more than happy. Turkish troops and the air force strike the Kurdish militias in Syria directly. ..."
"... In a sense, our policy today is paying the price for refusing to be consistent in solving geopolitical issues. We entered the game in Syria, with the outstanding issue of Crimea-Novorossia, as a result, today we have an exacerbation in Donetsk, energy and transport blockade of Crimea, a front against ISIS and a looming front against Turkey, which is a NATO member. ..."
"... So, today we are faced with the threat of war on several fronts, in which Turkey has assumed the role of lead instigator and aggressor who must lay siege to Russia. ..."
"... So the situation is really extreme. In a sense, we are cornered. ..."
"... If Russia wants to look good in this conflict it would have to force Turkey to publicly apologize for which it needs a set of effective sanctions and threats - from supporting Kurdistan to breaking the economic and tourist relations, and most importantly - be prepared for fierce stand-off of defense systems at the Syrian border. Then Russia can forget about supplying our group through the Bosphorus. In conclusion, we got another major front in addition to the already existing. ..."
"... And without the support of Washington Turkeys capabilities will shrink to the scale of the state, the power of which is simply not comparable with Russia. We must play not against the player, but against the game technicians. ..."
...Historically, Turkey owns "the keys of our house," as the Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles
were called in the XIX century by the first Russian geopoliticians. Only with great difficulty in
the XVII-XIX centuries Russia has managed to squeeze Turkey from Northern Black Sea coast, Novorossia
and Crimea.
By an amazing coincidence the provocation occurred on the birthday of Alexander Suvorov. However,
all attempts of the Russian Empire to gain control over the straits and over the ancient Byzantine
capital Constantinople met with united resistance of the European powers led by Britain, supporting
Turkey. The latest attempt to control the straits by Russia was carried out by Stalin, a response
to which was the withdrawal of Turkey under the NATO umbrella.
By controlling the straits Turkey controls most of the supply of our military group in Syria.
Montreux Convention makes the peacetime regime of the straits free for all the Black Sea countries,
but in time of war Turkey gets the legal right to block the straits to the enemies and open them
to the allies.
Turkey allies are NATO countries, and the enemy, judging by the downed aircraft, may be Russia.
That is, a provocation with the Su-24 puts supply of our troops in Syria under jeopardy. The only
other routs left - much more uncomfortable through Iran and potentially problematic through Iraq,
where the United States have a big influence.
... Neo-islamist and neo-ottoman Erdogan carries out a very aggressive policy, not appealing to
either Washington or Berlin or Brussels, in fact, seeking to restore the Ottoman Empire.
... Erdogan was the most fanatical enemy of Assad, as he hoped that Islamized Sunni Syria would
become a vassal of Turkey, and perhaps even return inside its borders. Turkey was one of the midwives
at the birth of ISIS - it is extremely interested in the local oil, and in the ISIS fight with the
Iraqi and Syrian Kurds.
The nightmare of the birth of Kurdistan hangs over Turkey like a sword of Damocles for many
decades. The emergence after the collapse of Saddam Hussein of de facto independent Iraqi Kurdistan
has made the situation especially dangerous for Turkey, and the sudden appearance of ISIS aggressively
fighting the Kurds, the ISIS army led by former Saddam generals, of course, made Turks more than
happy. Turkish troops and the air force strike the Kurdish militias in Syria directly.
Russian operation in Syria mixed all the cards for Erdogan.
First, it ensures the political future of Assad, or at least a successor agreed with Assad.
Restored Syria will become Alawite-Christian-Shia-Sunni and certainly anti-Turkish. Oil extraction
has been pulled out from under his nose, and Erdogan began resembling a furious Sherkhan ...
Secondly, Russia, and now France, made it their ultimate goal the complete eradication of
ISIS, which automatically means strengthening the Kurds and the reduction of the Turkish influence
in the region.
Moreover, Russia is doing this in tandem with Iran, which is de facto a key ally of Russia
in the Middle East, an alliance of the type, where both sides are mutually reinforcing, both working
for the common cause, and both sides benefit from the union.
And Iran is Turkey's main rival in the struggle for regional dominance. And it also developed
historically. Byzantium (the place of which is geographically occupied by Turkey) against the
Iranian Sassanids, then Ottomans against Safavids and Qajar, and today Sunni Erdogan against the
Shiite ayatollahs. That is, the strengthening of Iran by Russia would be tantamount to the collapse
of the entire imperial policy of Turkey.
Naturally, the Turkish government is furious and wants to somehow kick Russia out of Syria. Turkey
has repeatedly made threatening statements and gestures regarding alleged violations of Turkish borders
by our aviation operating against Syrian terrorists.
No other country, including even the United States, made so many attacks against Russian foreign
policy. Some experts do not rule out even the involvement of Turkish and Qatari security services
in the tragedy with the Russian airplane in Sinai, though officially this hypothesis has never been
voiced.
... ... ...
And here comes the next move - the downing of the Russian plane targeting the terrorists, under
the pretext of its entry into the Turkish airspace. According to the Turkish version, the Russian
Su-24 was shot down after warnings by the Turkish F-16s. According to our Ministry of Defense, the
plane never left Syrian airspace.
There is no reason to believe that the Russian side is just being defensive and the Turkish is
speaking the truth. The tactical goal of the Turks is with this plane crash to indicate an actual
"no-fly zone" in northern Syria, which would save the militants from ultimate annihilation, which
in Latakia, (where our plane was shot down) was quite close.
This idea of a no-fly zone was supported by the US hawks, who consider Russia an enemy number
one. The last straw, apparently, was the demonstrative destruction by our air-space forces of oil
convoys coming from ISIS territory to Turkey.
Most of all the incident with the plane crash is reminiscent of a classic provocation. The Turkish
side showed a diagram in which the Russian bomber is flying over microscopic wedge of the Turkish
territory deep into Syria. Turkish geographic wedge into Syria - is the so-called area of Alexandretta,
which Turkey annexed from France, which controlled Syria after World War I.
In 1938, parliament of this region declared the area an independent republic of Hatay - it was
the last foreign policy operation of Kemal Ataturk before his death. In 1939, Turkey annexed Hatay.
This is how the Turkish wedge into the Syrian territory was formed, covered with a multitude of
small protrusions. That a Russian plane could fly over one of them is, in principle, not impossible,
as the border is very complex and elusive. But it only means that this time it was expected to be
knocked down.
The triumphant demonstration of the body of our pilot on Turkish TV and generally surprisingly
high preparedness by Turkish media to broadcast the incident in real time, speaks for it being a
direct provocation against Russia.
... ... ...
Escalation of the conflict could also be in Turkey's interest, as this will allow it to cut the
sea communications of our group in Syria, and perhaps even try to block it with ground forces,
which Turkey has much more of in the region (although I would not overestimate the fighting capacity
of the Turkish army) .
Turkey can carry out the aggressive actions under the NATO umbrella, because the alliance will
likely have to intervene if the Turks employ article 5 of the "North Atlantic Treaty". The Western
countries are seriously annoyed by Erdogan, but it is hardly enough to refuse to perform the obligations
of the NATO treaty.
Russia's military options to influence Turkey are limited by the weakness of our Black Sea fleet,
and most importantly - by the threat of escalating to a global conflict, and, moreover, by extremely
disadvantageous configuration of the possible theater of the conflict, as our air-space forces are
operating in the Turkish rear and their land communications and air bridge options depend on the
politically unstable Iraq, just recently occupied by the US.
That is, before our forces in Syria looms the very threat of severing communications, which was
seen from the outset as serious, in contrast to the mythical "militant attacks."
In a sense, our policy today is paying the price for refusing to be consistent in solving
geopolitical issues. We entered the game in Syria, with the outstanding issue of Crimea-Novorossia,
as a result, today we have an exacerbation in Donetsk, energy and transport blockade of Crimea, a
front against ISIS and a looming front against Turkey, which is a NATO member.
So, today we are faced with the threat of war on several fronts, in which Turkey has assumed
the role of lead instigator and aggressor who must "lay siege" to Russia. This role for Turkey
is historically organic. Here we can recall the war of 1787-1891, which was directly provoked by
the Western powers in response to the strengthening of Russia and its occupation of Crimea.
No sooner had Mother Catherine rode to Crimea with foreign delegations, and Potemkin showed his
villages, as Turkey declared war on Russia, which made Suvorov and Ushakov famous. Moreover, for
Russia it was a war on two fronts - simultaneously Sweden declared war on Russia, and its attack
was repelled by the Baltic fleet with almost no involvement of ground forces.
So Russia finally managed, and with the Treaty of Jassy Turkey recognized Crimea Russian, and
the Russian border has been pushed beyond the Dniester. But do not forget that Russia was then supported
by Austria, but today there are not many of those who wish to go against Turkey in the European Union.
So the situation is really extreme. In a sense, we are cornered. If Russia flushes the
incident, it would mean a public apology from our side, then all the Western media publications have
already prepared the headlines that the cocky Russia has been put in its place by Turkey, reminding
who is who.
If Russia wants to look good in this conflict it would have to force Turkey to publicly apologize
for which it needs a set of effective sanctions and threats - from supporting Kurdistan to breaking
the economic and tourist relations, and most importantly - be prepared for fierce stand-off of defense
systems at the Syrian border. Then Russia can forget about supplying our group through the Bosphorus.
In conclusion, we got another major front in addition to the already existing.
The most promising, in my opinion, would be to treat the situation as a systemic problem.
That is, Turkish issue should be solved not in Syria but in Ukraine and Novorossia, because Turkey
is just a piece of the puzzle in a global confrontation and its aggression will immediately lose
its meaning for Washington, if we win at the front nearest to us.
And without the support of Washington Turkey's capabilities will shrink to the scale of the
state, the power of which is simply not comparable with Russia. We must play not against the player,
but against the game technicians.
Let's cut to the chase. The notion that Turkey's downing of a Russian Su-24 by a made in USA
F-16 was carried out without either a green light or at least pre-arranged "support" from Washington
invites suspension of disbelief.
Turkey is a mere vassal state, the eastern arm of NATO, which is the European arm of the Pentagon.
The Pentagon already issued a denial - which, considering their spectacular record of strategic failures
cannot be taken at face value. Plausibly, this might have been a power play by the neocon generals
who run the Pentagon, allied with the neocon-infested Obama administration.
The privileged scenario
though is of a vassal Turkey led by Sultan Erdogan risking a suicide mission out of its own, current,
desperation.
Here's Erdogan's warped reasoning in a nutshell. The Paris tragedy was a huge setback. France
started discussing close military collaboration not within NATO, but with Russia. Washington's unstated
aim was always to get NATO inside Syria. By having Turkey/NATO - clumsily, inside Syrian territory
- attacking Russia, and provoking a harsh Russian response, Erdogan thought he could seduce NATO
into Syria, under the pretext (Article 5) of defending Turkey.
As Bay-of-Pigs dangerous as this may be, it has nothing to do with WWIII - as apocalyptic purveyors
are braying. It revolves around whether a state which supports/finances/weaponizes the Salafi-jihadi
nebulae is allowed to destroy the Russian jets that are turning its profitable assets into ashes.
President Putin nailed it; it was "a shot in the back". Because all evidence is pointing
towards an ambush: the F-16s might have been actually waiting for the Su-24s. With Turkish TV
cameras available for maximum global impact.
Turkey has been accused of hypocrisy over the downing of a Russian warplane on the Syrian border,
after it emerged that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan himself said "a short-term border violation
can never be a pretext for an attack".
The Russian jet which came down on Tuesday morning entered a small sliver of Turkish airspace
for 17 seconds, according to the Turkish military's own data, while the Russian defence ministry
says the Su-24 bomber was in Syria at all times.
The incident has echoes of a reverse situation in 2012, when the Syrian regime shot down a Turkish
F-4 Phantom which, it said, entered its airspace off the country's north-east coast.
Then, Turkey spoke of its "rage" at the decision to shoot down the jet, which was on a training
flight testing its own country's radar systems.
"A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack", Mr Erdogan said at the time,
threatening in response that "every military element approaching Turkey from the Syrian border… will
be assessed as a military threat and treated as a military target".
"... "I don't think the Turkish government would have undertaken such an action against a military superpower like Russia without the consent of the US. It's simply ridiculous to suggest the Turkish military would have acted alone," ..."
"... "So they were carrying out this attack certainly with the backing of the US," ..."
"... "Until 2011, Turkey had a policy in the Middle East which was considered quite diplomatic and progressive; it had a good-neighborly policy," ..."
"... "In the future you're going to see Turkey emerge as a new maritime power." ..."
"... "... You have a Turkish speaking population in Central Asia and in the North Caucasus region. So Turkey has a lot of levers to pull with Russia, and what we're seeing with these attacks is an attempt to raise the tension with Russia," ..."
"... "Of course Russia is destroying the Islamic State, and Turkey needs to keep the IS going in Syria. They have been openly backing it, and that had been openly admitted by the western press," ..."
"... "This is much less about violating Turkish airspace and much more about the fact that both Russia and Turkey are backing different sides in the conflict in Syria. And we effectively have a proxy war. And these types of clashes and conflicts were completely predictable and inevitable", ..."
"... "advances US interests in this particular conflict, so they have no problem with those missiles being used in that capacity and in that direction." ..."
"... "extending and perpetuating the crisis." ..."
"... "The US has no particular problem in allowing its missiles to be used by rebel forces that it considers friendly," ..."
"... "It explains why there has been relative silence with respect to the use of its own missiles in this particular context." ..."
"... "Well, I think right now it's avoiding escalation and cooler heads hopefully will prevail so that Turkey doesn't try to invoke Article 5 under the NATO treaty [Collective Defence]," ..."
"... "But again cooler heads prevailed and they just decided to invoke Article 4 which was to have a consultation. Hopefully that will happen again," ..."
"... "What happened was that the Russian jet got too close to some very serious interests of Turkey, and that is why they probably took action," ..."
"... "It is probably one of the routes through which they send their forces in through Turkey into Syria to fight on behalf of the jihadist groups," ..."
"... "since it was aiming at possibly Al-Nusra or one of the other jihadist groups that was on the ground." ..."
"... "Turkey has tremendous relations and exchanges with Russia from energy to a lot of trade," ..."
"... "It is only right that the two sides get together and talk this thing out. But I don't see NATO getting engaged in this except to have consultations, because the last thing the European countries want - including the US – is an armed conflict with Russia," ..."
NATO member state Turkey seems strangely committed to keeping Islamic State going strong in Syria,
thus willing to take dangerous risks in confronting Russia in the region. Hopefully cooler heads
will prevail, a group of experts told RT.
"I don't think the Turkish government would have undertaken such an action against
a military superpower like Russia without the consent of the US. It's simply ridiculous to suggest
the Turkish military would have acted alone,"O'Colmain told RT.
"So they were carrying out this attack certainly with the backing of the US," he added.
The political analyst argues we need to look at the region in general. "Until 2011, Turkey
had a policy in the Middle East which was considered quite diplomatic and progressive; it had a good-neighborly
policy," said O'Colmain.
The expert suggested that the long-term strategy of the US is to use Turkey as a tool to destabilize
Russia, and that was confirmed recently by the head of Stratfor, George Friedman, who said:
"In the future you're going to see Turkey emerge as a new maritime power."
"... You have a Turkish speaking population in Central Asia and in the North Caucasus region.
So Turkey has a lot of levers to pull with Russia, and what we're seeing with these attacks is an
attempt to raise the tension with Russia," O'Colmain told RT.
"Of course Russia is destroying the Islamic State, and Turkey needs to keep the IS going in
Syria. They have been openly backing it, and that had been openly admitted by the western press,"
analyst added.
Turkey-Russia proxy war in Syria
We effectively have a proxy war, says Nader Hashemi,
Assistant Professor of Middle East Politics at the University of Denver.
"This is much less about violating Turkish airspace and much more about the fact that both
Russia and Turkey are backing different sides in the conflict in Syria. And we effectively have a
proxy war. And these types of clashes and conflicts were completely predictable and inevitable",
he told RT.
Nader Hashemi thinks US-made TOW missiles are being used in a way that "advances US interests
in this particular conflict, so they have no problem with those missiles being used in that capacity
and in that direction."
Meanwhile, the US holds the opinion that Bashar al-Assad is the primary source of the problem
in Syria and Russia's policy in supporting Bashar al-Assad is "extending and perpetuating the
crisis."
"The US has no particular problem in allowing its missiles to be used by rebel forces that
it considers friendly," Hashemi continued.
"It explains why there has been relative silence with respect to the use of its own missiles
in this particular context."
Turkey committed 'foolish and rash decision' in attacking Russian jet
Turkey feels a political need to show its strength inside the country as well as in the Middle East
region, Senior Policy Consultant from British American Security Information Council Ted Seay told
RT.
"In fact in early October there were supposedly a couple of incursions by Russian military aircraft
into Turkish airspace – they were chased away," said Seay.
"What has happened now, I believe, is that Turkey is feeling some kind of political need, whether
it is domestically or for its regional sort of audience, to show its strength in these things, and
it has made a very foolish and rash decision in firing missiles at a Russian aircraft just to do
this," he added.
He argues that "Turkey is in the unfortunate position of being a frontline state with the Syrian
civil war, on the one hand, and a NATO ally, on the other."
"It looks to me, as someone who has worked in NATO for several years – that there was ineffective
coordination beforehand with NATO authorities and with the allies about how Turkey ought to be ready
to respond if, for example, future incidents along the lines of early October again with, again,
these alleged airspace incursions happened again," Seay told RT.
He said that there should have been a rehearsal for what is and isn't acceptable under these circumstances.
"Quite frankly, apart from self-defense, firing of air-to-air missiles is not acceptable," the expert
added.
Acting against Russia not in Erdogan's interest
Ankara took action against a Russian fighter
jet because the plane got too close to some serious interests of Turkey, former senior security policy
analyst in the office of the US Secretary of Defense Michael Maloof told RT.
It is not in Erdogan's interest to escalate conflict with Russia any further, former senior security
policy analyst in the office of the US Secretary of Defense Michael Maloof told RT.
"Well, I think right now it's avoiding escalation and cooler heads hopefully will prevail
so that Turkey doesn't try to invoke
Article 5 under
the NATO treaty [Collective Defence]," Maloof told RT.
He said they tried that a few years ago when they shot down a Syrian jet. "But again cooler
heads prevailed and they just decided to invoke
Article 4 which
was to have a consultation. Hopefully that will happen again," he added.
"What happened was that the Russian jet got too close to some very serious interests of Turkey,
and that is why they probably took action," Maloof said.
"It is probably one of the routes through which they send their forces in through Turkey into
Syria to fight on behalf of the jihadist groups," he told RT.
Maloof suspects the Russian jet was getting too close "since it was aiming at possibly Al-Nusra
or one of the other jihadist groups that was on the ground."
Expert believes that it is really not in Erdogan's interest to escalate this thing any further.
"Turkey has tremendous relations and exchanges with Russia from energy to a lot of trade,"
he said.
"It is only right that the two sides get together and talk this thing out. But I don't see
NATO getting engaged in this except to have consultations, because the last thing the European countries
want - including the US – is an armed conflict with Russia," Maloof added.
The sole survivor of the downed Russian warplane, its
navigator no less, categorically denies that his aircraft crossed into
Turkish airspace. He also says no visual or radio warning was given before
his aircraft was fired at.
The navigator of the Russian Su-24 shot down by a Turkish fighter jet on
Tuesday insists that his plane did not cross into Turkey's airspace, and
says he was given no visual or radio warning before being fired at.
"It's impossible that we violated their airspace even for a second,"
Konstantin Murakhtin told RT and other Russian media. "We were flying at an
altitude of 6,000 meters in completely clear weather, and I had total
control of our flight path throughout."
As well as denying Ankara's
assertions that the plane was in Turkey's airspace, Murakhtin, who says he
knows the mission area "like the back of my hand," also refuted Turkish
officials' claims that the pilots were warned repeatedly.
"In actual fact, there were no warnings at all. Neither through the radio,
nor visually, so we did not at any point adjust our course. You need to
understand the difference in speed between a tactical bomber like a Su-24,
and that of the F16. If they wanted to warn us, they could have sat on our
wing," said Murakhtin, who is currently recuperating at Russia's airbase in
Latakia, northern Syria.
"As it was, the missile hit the back of our plane out of nowhere. We didn't
even have time to make an evasive maneuver."
READ MORE: Leaked Ankara UN letter claims Su-24's 'air space violation'
lasted 17 seconds
As the plane was hit and went down in Syria, the two pilots ejected. Captain
Sergey Rumyantsev was killed, with a rebel Turkmen brigade claiming they
shot him to death while he was still parachuting.
Murakhtin was extracted in a 12-hour joint operation by Russian and Syrian
special forces, in which a Russian marine died.
"... Conspicuously missing from President Hollande's decisive declaration of war, however, was any mention of the biggest elephant in the room: state-sponsorship. ..."
"... Earlier this year, the Turkish daily Meydan reported citing an Uighur source that more than 100,000 fake Turkish passports had been given to ISIS. The figure, according to the US Army's Foreign Studies Military Office (FSMO), is likely exaggerated, but corroborated "by Uighurs captured with Turkish passports in Thailand and Malaysia." ..."
"... direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking ISIS members was now 'undeniable.' ..."
"... The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria. "The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed," said the official. "There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both." ..."
"... The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross the "border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of Serekaniye in northern Syria in February." ISIS militants would freely travel "through Turkey in a convoy of trucks," and stop "at safehouses along the way." ..."
"... In January, authenticated official documents of the Turkish military were leaked online, showing that Turkey's intelligence services had been caught in Adana by military officers transporting missiles, mortars and anti-aircraft ammunition via truck "to the al-Qaeda terror organisation" in Syria. ..."
"... According to other ISIS suspects facing trial in Turkey, the Turkish national military intelligence organization (MIT) had begun smuggling arms, including NATO weapons to jihadist groups in Syria as early as 2011. ..."
"... Documents leaked in September 2014 showed that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had financed weapons shipments to ISIS through Turkey. ..."
"... A report by the Turkish Statistics Institute confirmed that the government had provided at least $1 million in arms to Syrian rebels within that period, contradicting official denials. Weapons included grenades, heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, firearms, ammunition, hunting rifles and other weapons?-?but the Institute declined to identify the specific groups receiving the shipments. ..."
"... Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS' expansion: black market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country. ..."
"... Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People's Party, estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million?-?that was over a year ago. ..."
"... Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their heads in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion. ..."
"... "Had Turkey placed the same kind of absolute blockade on Isis territories as they did on Kurdish-held parts of Syria… that blood-stained 'caliphate' would long since have collapsed?-?and arguably, the Paris attacks may never have happened. And if Turkey were to do the same today, Isis would probably collapse in a matter of months. Yet, has a single western leader called on Erdo?an to do this?" ..."
"... The consistent transfers of CIA-Gulf-Turkish arms supplies to ISIS have been documented through analysis of weapons serial numbers by the UK-based Conflict Armament Research (CAR), whose database on the illicit weapons trade is funded by the EU and Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. ..."
"... ISIS, in other words, is state-sponsored?-?indeed, sponsored by purportedly Western-friendly regimes in the Muslim world, who are integral to the anti-ISIS coalition. ..."
"... Remember when neocon intellectuals were talking about using proxy forces to roll back Syria in 1996? Good thing for Israel most mouth breathing morons only get their news from the zio box. ..."
For the better part of a year, Turkey remained on the sidelines in the "fight" against ISIS.
Then, on July 20, a
powerful explosion ripped through the town of Suruc. 33 people were killed including a number
of Socialist Party of the Oppressed (ESP) and Socialist Youth Associations Federation (SGDF) members
who planned to assist in the rebuilding of Kobani.
The attack was promptly attributed to Islamic State who took "credit" for the tragedy the next
day.
To be sure, the attack came at a rather convenient time for President Tayyip Erdogan. A little
over a month earlier, the ruling AKP party lost its absolute parliamentary majority in part due to
a strong showing at the ballot box for the pro-Kurdish (and PKK-aligned) HDP. What happened in the
wake of the Suruc bombing was nothing short of a largely successful attempt on Erdogan's part to
use fear and violence to scare the electorate into restoring AKP's dominance in snap elections that
took place earlier this month.
In short, Erdogan used Suruc as an excuse to begin a "war on terror." Part and parcel of the new
campaign was an invite from Ankara for Washington to use Turkey's Incirlik air base. Subsequently,
Erdogan reminded the world that the PKK is also considered a terrorist organization and as such,
the anti-ISIS campaign would also include a crackdown on Kurdish militants operating in Turkey.
Erdogan proceeded to focus squarely on the PKK, all but ignoring ISIS while simultaneously undercutting
the coalition building process on the way to calling for new elections. Unsurprisingly, AKP put
on a much better showing in the electoral redo, and with that, Erdogan had succeeded in using ISIS
as a smokescreen to start a civil war with the PKK, in the process frightening voters into restoring
his party's grip on power.
Through it all, the PKK has suggested that Ankara is and always has been in bed with Islamic
State. That contention will come as no surprise to those who frequent these pages. It's common
knowledge that Turkey backs the FSA and participates in the US/Saudi-led effort to supply Syrian
rebels with weapons, money, and training. Indeed, those weapons were on full display Tuesday when
the FSA's 1st Coastal Brigade
used a US-made TOW to destroy a Russian search and rescue helicopter. That came just hours
after the Turkmen FSA-allied Alwiya al-Ashar militia
posted a video of its fighters celebrating over the body of an ejected Russian pilot.
In short, Turkey has made a habit out of supporting anyone and everyone who opposes Assad in Syria
and that includes ISIS. In fact, if one were to rank the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar in order
of who is suspected of providing the most assistance to Islamic State, Turkey would likely top the
list. Here's what Vladimir Putin had to say earlier today after Turkey downed the Russian Su-24:
PUTIN: OIL FROM ISLAMIC STATE IS BEING SHIPPED TO TURKEY
PUTIN SAYS ISLAMIC STATE GETS CASH BY SELLING OIL TO TURKEY
PUTIN: ISLAMIC STATE GETS MILITARY SUPPORT FROM MANY STATES
It's with all of this in mind that we bring you excerpts from a new piece by Nafeez Ahmed who,
you're reminded,
penned a lengthy
expose earlier this year explaining how the US views ISIS as a "strategic asset."
In his latest, Ahmed takes a close look at the relationship between Ankara and Islamic State. The
evidence is truly damning.
"We stand alongside Turkey in its efforts in protecting its national security and fighting
against terrorism. France and Turkey are on the same side within the framework of the international
coalition against the terrorist group ISIS." --Statement by French Foreign Ministry, July 2015
The 13th November Paris massacre will be remembered, like 9/11, as a defining moment in world
history.
The murder of 129 people, the injury of 352 more, by 'Islamic State' (ISIS) acolytes striking
multiple targets simultaneously in the heart of Europe, mark a major sea-change in the terror threat.
For the first time, a Mumbai-style attack has occurred on Western soil?-?the worst attack on Europe
in decades. As such, it has triggered a seemingly commensurate response from France: the declaration
of a nationwide state of emergency, the likes of which have not been seen since the 1961 Algerian
war.
ISIS has followed up with threats to attack Washington and New York City.
Meanwhile, President Hollande wants European Union leaders to suspend the Schengen Agreement on
open borders to allow dramatic restrictions on freedom of movement across Europe. He also demands
the EU-wide adoption of the Passenger Name Records (PNR) system allowing intelligence services to
meticulously track the travel patterns of Europeans, along with an extension of the state of emergency
to at least three months.
Under the extension, French police can now block any website, put people under house arrest without
trial, search homes without a warrant, and prevent suspects from meeting others deemed a threat.
"We know that more attacks are being prepared, not just against France but also against other
European countries," said the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls. "We are going to live with this
terrorist threat for a long time."
Hollande plans to strengthen the powers of police and security services under new anti-terror
legislation, and to pursue amendments to the constitution that would permanently enshrine the state
of emergency into French politics. "We need an appropriate tool we can use without having to resort
to the state of emergency," he explained.
Parallel with martial law at home, Hollande was quick to accelerate military action abroad, launching
30 airstrikes on over a dozen Islamic State targets in its de facto capital, Raqqa.
[...]
Conspicuously missing from President Hollande's decisive declaration of war, however, was any
mention of the biggest elephant in the room: state-sponsorship.
Syrian passports discovered near the bodies of two of the suspected Paris attackers, according
to police sources, were fake, and likely forged in Turkey.
Earlier this year, the Turkish daily Meydan reported citing an Uighur source that more than 100,000
fake Turkish passports had been given to ISIS. The figure, according to the US Army's Foreign Studies
Military Office (FSMO), is likely exaggerated, but corroborated "by Uighurs captured with Turkish
passports in Thailand and Malaysia."
[...]
A senior Western official familiar with a large cache of intelligence obtained this summer
from a major raid on an ISIS safehouse told the Guardian that "direct dealings between Turkish officials
and ranking ISIS members was now 'undeniable.'"
The same official confirmed that Turkey, a longstanding member of NATO, is not just supporting
ISIS, but also other jihadist groups, including Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda's affiliate
in Syria. "The distinctions they draw [with other opposition groups] are thin indeed," said the official.
"There is no doubt at all that they militarily cooperate with both."
In a rare insight into this brazen state-sponsorship of ISIS, a year ago Newsweek reported the
testimony of a former ISIS communications technician, who had travelled to Syria to fight the regime
of Bashir al-Assad.
The former ISIS fighter told Newsweek that Turkey was allowing ISIS trucks from Raqqa to cross
the "border, through Turkey and then back across the border to attack Syrian Kurds in the city of
Serekaniye in northern Syria in February." ISIS militants would freely travel "through Turkey
in a convoy of trucks," and stop "at safehouses along the way."
The former ISIS communication technician also admitted that he would routinely "connect ISIS field
captains and commanders from Syria with people in Turkey on innumerable occasions," adding that "the
people they talked to were Turkish officials… ISIS commanders told us to fear nothing at all because
there was full cooperation with the Turks."
In January, authenticated official documents of the Turkish military were leaked online, showing
that Turkey's intelligence services had been caught in Adana by military officers transporting missiles,
mortars and anti-aircraft ammunition via truck "to the al-Qaeda terror organisation" in Syria.
According to other ISIS suspects facing trial in Turkey, the Turkish national military intelligence
organization (MIT) had begun smuggling arms, including NATO weapons to jihadist groups in Syria as
early as 2011.
The allegations have been corroborated by a prosecutor and court testimony of Turkish military
police officers, who confirmed that Turkish intelligence was delivering arms to Syrian jihadists
from 2013 to 2014.
Documents leaked in September 2014 showed that Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan had financed weapons
shipments to ISIS through Turkey. A clandestine plane from Germany delivered arms in the Etimesgut
airport in Turkey and split into three containers, two of which were dispatched to ISIS.
A report by the Turkish Statistics Institute confirmed that the government had provided at least
$1 million in arms to Syrian rebels within that period, contradicting official denials. Weapons included
grenades, heavy artillery, anti-aircraft guns, firearms, ammunition, hunting rifles and other weapons?-?but
the Institute declined to identify the specific groups receiving the shipments.
Information of that nature emerged separately. Just two months ago, Turkish police raided a news
outlet that published revelations on how the local customs director had approved weapons shipments
from Turkey to ISIS.
Turkey has also played a key role in facilitating the life-blood of ISIS' expansion: black
market oil sales. Senior political and intelligence sources in Turkey and Iraq confirm that Turkish
authorities have actively facilitated ISIS oil sales through the country.
Last summer, Mehmet Ali Ediboglu, an MP from the main opposition, the Republican People's Party,
estimated the quantity of ISIS oil sales in Turkey at about $800 million?-?that was over a year ago.
By now, this implies that Turkey has facilitated over $1 billion worth of black market ISIS
oil sales to date.
[...]
The liberal Turkish daily Taraf quoted an AKP founder, Dengir Mir Mehmet F?rat, admitting: "In
order to weaken the developments in Rojova [Kurdish province in Syria] the government gave concessions
and arms to extreme religious groups…the government was helping the wounded. The Minister of Health
said something such as, it's a human obligation to care for the ISIS wounded."
The paper also reported that ISIS militants routinely receive medical treatment in hospitals in
southeast Turkey-?including al-Baghdadi's right-hand man.
[...]
Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their heads
in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion.
[...]
As Professor David Graeber of London School of Economics pointed out:
"Had Turkey placed the same kind of absolute blockade on Isis territories as they did on Kurdish-held
parts of Syria… that blood-stained 'caliphate' would long since have collapsed?-?and arguably,
the Paris attacks may never have happened. And if Turkey were to do the same today, Isis would
probably collapse in a matter of months. Yet, has a single western leader called on Erdo?an to
do this?"
[...]
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2014, General Martin
Dempsey, then chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked by Senator Lindsay Graham whether
he knew of "any major Arab ally that embraces ISIL"?
General Dempsey replied:
"I know major Arab allies who fund them."
In other words, the most senior US military official at the time had confirmed that ISIS was being
funded by the very same "major Arab allies" that had just joined the US-led anti-ISIS coalition.
These allies include Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Kuwait in particular.
[...]
Porous links between some Free Syrian Army (FSA) rebels, Islamist militant groups like al-Nusra,
Ahrar al-Sham and ISIS, have enabled prolific weapons transfers from 'moderate' to Islamist militants.
The consistent transfers of CIA-Gulf-Turkish arms supplies to ISIS have been documented through
analysis of weapons serial numbers by the UK-based Conflict Armament Research (CAR), whose database
on the illicit weapons trade is funded by the EU and Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs.
[...]
ISIS, in other words, is state-sponsored?-?indeed, sponsored by purportedly Western-friendly regimes
in the Muslim world, who are integral to the anti-ISIS coalition.
Which then begs the question as to why Hollande and other Western leaders expressing their
determination to "destroy" ISIS using all means necessary, would prefer to avoid the most significant
factor of all: the material infrastructure of ISIS' emergence in the context of ongoing Gulf and
Turkish state support for Islamist militancy in the region.
WTFRLY
Every alternative theory about Syria and ISIS, Serena Shim proved, on video. They killed her
the same day as those airdrops to the Kurds where one was confirmed to fall into ISIS hands...
Remember when neocon intellectuals were talking about using proxy forces to "roll back"
Syria in 1996? Good thing for Israel most mouth breathing morons only get their news from the
zio box.
"... Overt military response is unlikely, except that from now on any Turkish AF aircraft that enters Syrian airspace would be summarily destroyed. ..."
"... Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes wouldn't get shot down. Judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to force the Russians to back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border, i.e. a de facto no-fly zone. ..."
"... Certainly there was nothing accidental or unforeseen about the Turkish attack. The Turks fully intended to attack some Russian aircraft and were waiting for an opportunity. ..."
"... The Syrian War is growing past the stage of proxy war. This is now heading toward conventional confrontation between powers. Few of the current world leaders have relevant experience during their lifetimes of either waging such wars, or of avoiding them. ..."
"... Obama's remarks certainly made me wonder if the the Turks had the green light from Washington. He also returned to the standard demand that Assad must go. His remarks appeared to put the blame on Russia and certainly won't help matters. I wouldn't put it pass the neocons that shooting down a Russian plane is all just part of the gameplan. ..."
"... What gets me is that this likely means that Erdogan is getting a much stronger grip on Turkish military, which historically was the only thing that held Turkey secular (in fact, it felt it was its mission from Kemal Ataturk). Or, in what could be even scarier is that military did this deliberately assuming any Putin's reaction would target Erdogan much more than the military, in which case a phrase "rogue generals playing with a nuclear power" comes to mind. ..."
"... As mentioned above, the best response Russia could make right now is to help Kurds with weapons/supplies and establishing no-fly zone over Syria's Kurds. Since Kurds are officially seen by most of the West as "good" (let's ignore the need to have everything black and white for a second), it would be very hard for Turkey to object, even if Russia shoots down some Turkish planes/helicopters over Syria. ..."
"... The governments of "new" members in the Balkans and even Central Europe may say whatever they want, they are figureheads. The populace will not allow any situation where they enter a war against Russia on behalf of Turkey. Too much bad history there, for six centuries now. In Bulgaria the man on the street is right now in a very bad mood and very anti-turk. ..."
"... Here, on the street, everyone see Turkey as an emerging Islamist menace, looking to grab some land in Europe. ..."
"... The Russian bomber shot down is one of the cascade of catastrophic events that started with the West's determination to destabilize Eurasia with proxy neo-Nazi and Jihadist forces and Russia's counter intervention into Syria. ..."
"... Its pretty clear that the Turks deliberately decided to attack a Russian plane in revenge for earlier Russian incursions, hoping that NATO membership protects them from a counter response. The historical analogies that come to mind are numerous – from Armenians carrying out attacks on Turks hoping that 'Christian powers' would come to their aid when the Turks retaliated, to Paul Pot attacking the Vietnamese assuming that China would come to his aid. Both those didn't exactly end well. ..."
"... He can do lots of things to make things more difficult for Turkey. Other people in this thread noted gas deliveries, tourist income, exports and those are a nice place to start. And how about arming the YPG/PKK; now that would be some poetic justice right there. ..."
"... I think Putin is probably, unfortunately, the most rational leader out of a sad bunch. I think the Russian response will be graduated: Cutting tourism, sabotaging Turkish exports with bureaucracy, Russian gas contracts will face sudden bureaucratic difficulties, later the Kurds may suddenly be much better armed and Russia will certainly bomb the everliving shit out of the entire "Turkish terrorist infrastructure" right along the borders, this time going with fighter escorts and perhaps even full ECM support (If they go with ECM support, *that* would be ominous indeed, once these systems are used, they get measured and analyzed, counter-counter measures come up and it's back to the lab for another 20 years). ..."
"... The danger to Russia is that the Turks close the Bophorus. Huge amounts of Russian trade and oil, and their supplies to Syria, ship through this point. ..."
"... The Turks can't and won't close the Bosphorus over economic sanctions. They can try over an eventual shoot-down of a Turkish jet over Syria, but then again the very presence of Turkish jets conducting bombing runs inside Syria is an act of aggression and unless Erdogan wants a Kurdish insurgency armed by Russia inside Turkey proper he won't try to close the shipping lanes. ..."
"... 'The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you control the media.' ..."
"... Are the Turks the wild card or is this NATO's project green light? This seems more in line with the Russians must pay for Snowden, Crimea, and Assad than Turkey going off the reservation. ISIL is once again a secondary consideration as Russia must be further backed into a corner. Holland's request that Obama join Russia seems to have been conveniently preempted by world events. Putin is learning that there is no greater crime than embarrassing the West. ..."
"... McInerney said that while he was a NORAD commander in Alaska they would never have done anything like this. ..."
"... If one believes Sibel Edmonds analysis on Operation Gladio B, specifically centered on NATO and the CIAs fostering of criminal organizations to do their dirty work for them, extending so far as to breaking Interpols most wanted criminals out of prisons to work for them, then Turkeys role in fostering ISIS in Syria and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang make perfect sense. ..."
"... The question remains, who is actually conducting this asymmetric warfare? Who are the real puppet masters? My money is on the neocons and the MIC. ..."
"... Fast forward to last month and it is a Russian passenger jet blown up with 224 lives on board by ISIS - which most people know by now is funded, trained, and supplied by various parties including Langley. This week and this time it is a Russian jet fighting ISIS and its ilk shot down over the Syrian border by an actual NATO Turkish F16 jet. Then Youtube videos emerge of FSA rebels killing its ejected pilot and navigator. To crown the whole thing off, a Russian Search and Rescue helicopter is blown up with a US-made TOW missile. Provocations rarely come this extreme and so serendipitously for the provocateurs. ..."
Does Turkey think that Russia will just shut up and accept their dead? Seriously? Some of the
articles in our Western media have been truly bad on this development and have been mocking both
Putin and the Russians. The whole thing absolutely reeks of a set-up, including the destruction
of that rescue helicopter. Whatever the Russians decide to do it will not end well for Turkey.
Putin might just decide to establish a protective umbrella over the Syrian Kurds and stop the
Turks from bombing them. Will the Turks then complain to the UN or NATO when some of their aircraft
are taken out whilst illegally flying uninvited over a foreign country (Syria) and bombing its
citizens (Syrian Kurds)?
As for the Turkmen in Syria, I would not want to be them after murdering those pilots. Especially
when they could have traded them to Russia for only 'light' treatment by the Russian military.
Turkey apparently, has been wanting to take this part of Syria and fold it into Turkey. Not gunna
happen now but I am guessing that the Islamist militants will be marked for special targeting
now.
OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 12:28 am
Overt military response is unlikely, except that from now on any Turkish AF aircraft that
enters Syrian airspace would be summarily destroyed. There will be a huge pressure from on
Putin to send a few turks to meet their allah but such didn't work in Ukraine and won't work now.
Rather, the huge Russian tourist stream to Turkey will disappear, Turkish exports to Russia
will be banned, gas supplies will be disrupted due to 'technical reasons' and 'pipeline maintenance',
and various financial and government institutions will find themselves under a sustained electronic
attacks.
In private Europe is horrified, regardless of what poodle Stoltenberg might say, and most blame
Sultan Erdogan for the migrant crisis and for the subsequent blackmail of Europe by the neo-ottoman
idiocracy in Ankara. This went too far, and came too soon after Paris, for even the lemmings not
to notice whose side Turkey is really on. I am next door right now, and let's just say that the
'man on the street' opinion is harshly and violently anti-turk. Europe will soon be making a choice
either way, and 0bama is not helping the US much with his peevish belligerence.
Bill Smith, November 25, 2015 at 7:00 am
Might be tricky doing that as other countries aircraft are staging out of Turkey to bomb targets
in Syria.
OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 7:17 am
If Russia and Syria declare that any aircraft entering Syrian airspace from Turkey will be
considered hostile and is therefore subject to being shot down, US and French aircraft will bug
out and use the Med corridor, pending Russian and Syrian approval. Either way, it will be open
season on Turkish jets in Syrian airspace. And rightly so, all Turkey does is enable ISIS by bombing
the PKK and arming/oil trading with IS. Putin did not just state that Russia was stabbed in the
back by terrorist enablers for nothing.
Roland, November 25, 2015 at 1:10 am
Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes
wouldn't get shot down. Judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to
force the Russians to back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border,
i.e. a de facto no-fly zone.
Certainly there was nothing accidental or unforeseen about the Turkish attack. The Turks
fully intended to attack some Russian aircraft and were waiting for an opportunity.
The Syrian War is growing past the stage of proxy war. This is now heading toward conventional
confrontation between powers. Few of the current world leaders have relevant experience during
their lifetimes of either waging such wars, or of avoiding them.
My prediction is that Russia will fight much harder in Syria than would seem "rational." For Russia
the question is whether or not they can sustain an alliance. For Russia the Syrian War is not
just about Syria, it is about Belarus and other former Soviet republics.
I will be surprised if the Russians back off here. I wonder what the Turks will do when a future
batch of Russian air strikes near the Turkish border all have proper fighter escort? Would the
Turks engage in a full-fledged air superiority battle at the Syrian frontier?
Would the Russians risk exposing valuable electronic countermeasures assets to enemy observation
and assessment, in anything less than a major war?
At any rate, ISIS leaders are chortling. These stupid big lugs are about to lurch into one another
and send themselves brawling and sprawling. And all they had to do was shoot some concertgoers!
William C, November 25, 2015 at 8:50 am
The FT is reporting that Turkey has imposed an exclusion zone over Syrian airspace that runs
fifteen miles into Syria.
Those whom the Gods wish to destroy?
Jagger, November 25, 2015 at 9:47 am
Obama remarked that if Putin stopped bombing "moderate" Syrian rebels, then Russian planes
wouldn't get shot down.
judging from that remark, it would seem that the Turks and USA want to force the Russians to
back away from bombing Nusra positions anywhere near the Turkish border, i.e. a de facto no-fly
zone.
Obama's remarks certainly made me wonder if the the Turks had the green light from Washington.
He also returned to the standard demand that Assad must go. His remarks appeared to put the blame
on Russia and certainly won't help matters. I wouldn't put it pass the neocons that shooting down
a Russian plane is all just part of the gameplan.
Fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 2:22 am
Europe has been at war with Turkey – on and off – for about 1300 years.
It is pretty unlikely (and certain political suicide) that any European country will enter a war
*for* Turkey, regardless of any NATO onligations. It's just not done!
The joker is of course the new NATO members (and Sweden) they are always gagging to have go at
Russia – if they could just get the US to do all the work for them. Unfortunately, The US have
enough bellicose crazies to like this idea.
vlade, November 25, 2015 at 4:16 am
The general feeling in what you call the "new NATO" countries (i.e. ex Soviet block) is that
Turkey massively overstepped. They have deep seated (and historically very much justified) suspicion
of Russia and its actions, but they like islamists even less, and Turkey's shift from secularism
went much less unnoticed than in the rest of Europe/US. After all, Russia isn't the only one who
invaded/occupied most of them during the last few hundreds of years..
What gets me is that this likely means that Erdogan is getting a much stronger grip on Turkish
military, which historically was the only thing that held Turkey secular (in fact, it felt it
was its mission from Kemal Ataturk). Or, in what could be even scarier is that military did this
deliberately assuming any Putin's reaction would target Erdogan much more than the military, in
which case a phrase "rogue generals playing with a nuclear power" comes to mind.
As mentioned above, the best response Russia could make right now is to help Kurds with weapons/supplies
and establishing no-fly zone over Syria's Kurds. Since Kurds are officially seen by most of the
West as "good" (let's ignore the need to have everything black and white for a second), it would
be very hard for Turkey to object, even if Russia shoots down some Turkish planes/helicopters
over Syria.
OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 5:36 am
Exactly. I imagine you are Serbian, I am from Bulgaria by birth and currently there on a short
vacation. The governments of "new" members in the Balkans and even Central Europe may say
whatever they want, they are figureheads. The populace will not allow any situation where they
enter a war against Russia on behalf of Turkey. Too much bad history there, for six centuries
now. In Bulgaria the man on the street is right now in a very bad mood and very anti-turk.
Accordingly even the government figureheads are unusually subdued and cautious in what they say
in reaction to the downing of the Russian jet. To put not too fine a point on it, people are scared
of a nuclear conflagration and the situation is explosive.
fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 6:18 am
Sorry my mistake for generalizing.
I was thinking about Georgia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – which only last week (according
to Danish media) were eager for "steps to be taken against Russia". Sweden would be totally eager
to prove to the world (which actually don't care about Sweden) that they are *so totally not racists*
that they (well, "they" being the official Sweden) will readily step up and defend any belief
system, the more alien, obnoxious and perverse the better, for "proof of non-racistness". It's
really, really weird and strange.
Here, on the street, everyone see Turkey as an emerging Islamist menace, looking to grab some
land in Europe.
VietnamVet, November 25, 2015 at 3:57 am
The Russian bomber shot down is one of the cascade of catastrophic events that started
with the West's determination to destabilize Eurasia with proxy neo-Nazi and Jihadist forces and
Russia's counter intervention into Syria. There are five nuclear countries flying sorties
over Syria; Russia, USA, Israel, France and the United Kingdom. World War III is underway but
it is unacknowledged. If the rulers headquartered in London, Frankfurt, New York and Washington
DC don't fear extinction from the ignition of hydrogen bombs overhead, then that is exactly what
will happen. The War will inevitably escalate with no one trying to damp it down.
One alternative to destroying the Northern Hemisphere is to forget regime change and join in
an alliance with Russia and the rest of the world to eliminate the Islamic State and quarantine
radical Islam.
Plutoniumkun, November 25, 2015 at 5:32 am
Its pretty clear that the Turks deliberately decided to attack a Russian plane in revenge
for earlier Russian incursions, hoping that NATO membership protects them from a counter response.
The historical analogies that come to mind are numerous – from Armenians carrying out attacks
on Turks hoping that 'Christian powers' would come to their aid when the Turks retaliated, to
Paul Pot attacking the Vietnamese assuming that China would come to his aid. Both those didn't
exactly end well.
I think the key danger here is Russia. Putin knows full well that Germany and France will not
respond to a request for help from Turkey, no matter what NATO's agreements state. He may see
it as an ideal opportunity to rip NATO apart. He may gamble that a strike against Turkey strong
enough to humiliate it, but calculated enough to ensure that the the Germans/French won't join
in (the UK will do whatever Obama tells them) would make the NATO agreement a dead letter. He
may well succeed. The problem comes if he miscalculates.
drexciya, November 25, 2015 at 5:48 am
Turkey needs to be taken down a bit, so I wouldn't mind Putin learning Erdogan a lesson. But
I think Putin is more subtle. He can do lots of things to make things more difficult for Turkey.
Other people in this thread noted gas deliveries, tourist income, exports and those are a nice
place to start. And how about arming the YPG/PKK; now that would be some poetic justice right
there.
vlade, November 25, 2015 at 5:59 am
strike directly against Turkey? that would escalate massively, and could backfire like Polish
invasion in WW2, where Hitler thought allies would just roll over as ever before. Except they
didn't. Rest assured that this similarity would be drawn out very quickly.
On the other hand, shooting down a Turkish jet or three over Syria, especially if the jets were
bombing Kurds, now that would make a different story. Mind you, even that would be a large esaclation
but unlikely to draw in NATO...
fajensen, November 25, 2015 at 6:40 am
NATO should have croaked along with the USSR. I'm quite fine with NATO splitting at the seams
– because – right now it's a bunch of obsolete war-planners looking for some fight to justify
their continued existence, any fight, in fact, NATO today is pretty much a mercenary force for
the USA. No way nearly enough equipped for taking on any serious opponent, but good enough for
bombing the shit out of places with poor air defense and weak friends. Of course 50% of the population
feels the exact opposite way.
I think Putin is probably, unfortunately, the most rational leader out of a sad bunch. I think
the Russian response will be graduated: Cutting tourism, sabotaging Turkish exports with bureaucracy,
Russian gas contracts will face sudden bureaucratic difficulties, later the Kurds may suddenly
be much better armed and Russia will certainly bomb the everliving shit out of the entire "Turkish
terrorist infrastructure" right along the borders, this time going with fighter escorts and perhaps
even full ECM support (If they go with ECM support, *that* would be ominous indeed, once these
systems are used, they get measured and analyzed, counter-counter measures come up and it's back
to the lab for another 20 years).
Maybe the Greek's will see an opportunity to pop one off at one of the many, many Turkish violations
of Greek airspace?
OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 6:54 am
The turks violate Greek airspace several thousand times a year. It's the turkish version of
American exceptionalism.
Jim Haygood, November 25, 2015 at 9:24 am
'NATO – right now it's a bunch of obsolete war-planners looking for some fight to justify their
continued existence, any fight.'
Amen, bro. WW I demonstrated how strategic alliances with mutual defense guarantees could escalate
disastrously.
NATO lost its reason for existence when the USSR collapsed. Then it began violating its own treaty
with "out of area" aggression (Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan).
Clearly, NATO has degenerated into a rogue organization, serving as a fig leaf for US military
occupation of Europe 70 years after the war ended. Will Europe ever develop enough backbone to
expel its American occupiers?
russell1200, November 25, 2015 at 8:40 am
The danger to Russia is that the Turks close the Bophorus. Huge amounts of Russian trade
and oil, and their supplies to Syria, ship through this point.
It is the obvious response to a too forceful response, and obviously escalates in an extreme way.
OIFVet, November 25, 2015 at 8:54 am
The Turks can't and won't close the Bosphorus over economic sanctions. They can try over
an eventual shoot-down of a Turkish jet over Syria, but then again the very presence of Turkish
jets conducting bombing runs inside Syria is an act of aggression and unless Erdogan wants a Kurdish
insurgency armed by Russia inside Turkey proper he won't try to close the shipping lanes.
Erdogan is nuts but I don't think he is that stupid. In any case, as a native Bulgarian I view
a non-Kemalist, islamist, sultan erdogan-led turkey as a danger for regional and global peace
and in such case I won't mind one bit the return of Constantinople to Greece and to Orthodox christendom.
nothing but the truth, November 25, 2015 at 7:12 am
you will definitely see SAM missiles being launched against Turkish aircraft from Syrian border
areas.
The way NATO is set up it will inevitably lead to a member country pulling everyone into a world
war.
The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you control
the media.
NATO members will push Russia till it retaliates, then all NATO says "game on" and WWW3 is in
full mode.
Turkey wouldnt dare do this unless it was part of NATO. So NATO basically has increased member
bellicosity and misadventurism.
Jim Haygood, November 25, 2015 at 9:31 am
'The difference between "attack" and "defense" can be infinitesimal, especially if you
control the media.'
Our brave stenographers on the front lines of the media battle already are producing telling strikes,
such as this morning's NYT article asserting Turkey's 'nuanced reasons' for attacking Russia's
aircraft.
Huddled in our bomb shelters, we can draw comfort from the majestic chords of the media's Mighty
Wurlitzer.
ex-PFC Chuck, November 25, 2015 at 7:29 am
The Russian responses under Putin will be subtle, strategic surprises, and most likely effective
just as they have been in the Ukraine situation. But they will be short of anything that gives
cause to the Erdogan regime to formally declare war. Otherwise Turkey will be legally entitled
to close the Bosphorus and Dardanelles to Russian shipping, which would greatly complicate their
conduct of operations in Syria. As has been said many times in the past two years, he is playing
chess while his opponents are at best capable of something between tic tac toe and checkers.
hemeantwell, November 25, 2015 at 8:35 am
Right. Putin has a many options and he will not react in so headstrong a way as to lose them.
Erdogan was able - accusations of vote rigging aside - to boost AKP support through crisis escalation.
The shoot down is in a strong sense more of the same. But now Putin can work to isolate Turkey
from the rest of NATO, undercut Turkey's already struggling economy, justify aid to the Kurds.
I wonder what Erdogan's domestic opposition will do with this. Does anyone know what Gulen and
his supporters think?
Jagger, November 25, 2015 at 9:59 am
Right. Putin has a many options and he will not react in so headstrong a way as to lose them.
The problem is public opinion in Russia. They will expect a response and Putin must respond in
such a manner that he doesn't get assassinated or couped out of a job because he did not respond
forcefully. Putin is a competent or better leader but not invulnerable.
ltr, November 25, 2015 at 7:40 am
An absolute disgrace. Turkey has been encouraging and supporting the destruction of the Syrian
government for years and is supporting the destructive insurgents in Syria. Turkey has betrayed
the rest of NATO and betrayed Russia.
Dino Reno, November 25, 2015 at 8:43 am
Are the Turks the wild card or is this NATO's project green light? This seems more in line
with the Russians must pay for Snowden, Crimea, and Assad than Turkey going off the reservation.
ISIL is once again a secondary consideration as Russia must be further backed into a corner. Holland's
request that Obama join Russia seems to have been conveniently preempted by world events. Putin
is learning that there is no greater crime than embarrassing the West.
Cabreado
"Meanwhile, NATO leaders feign outrage and learned liberal pundits continue to scratch their
heads in bewilderment as to ISIS' extraordinary resilience and inexorable expansion."
The most important dynamic in play...
And the most important response is to (re)arrange your thinking to vigorously protect the Principles,
because this next war is also set to rip this place apart from within.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering
to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless
on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder ofTreason
shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
------
The problem will be sorting out who to charge. If the CIA has cooperated with ISIS, and is therefore,
as an agency, guilty of Treason, are all of the other people in government who gave any in the
CIA aid and comfort also guilty?
I think we should err on the side of justice here, and charge them all.
Just to remind everyone that this is a psyops game, and that anyone can play. As a systems guy
and player of games, I assure you that our distributed side of a periphery-vs-cental side of an
evolutionary arms race is a guaranteed win. It is our ingenuity against theirs, them mostly bureaucracies.
McInerney: Turkey Shooting Down Russian Plane Was a 'Very Bad Mistake'
McInerney said that while he was a NORAD commander in Alaska they would never
have done anything like this.
"This airplane was not making any maneuvers to attack the territory," McInerney said. "It
was probably pressing the limits, that's fair. But you don't shoot 'em down just because of
that."
If one believes Sibel Edmond's analysis on Operation Gladio B, specifically centered on
NATO and the CIA's fostering of criminal organizations to do their dirty work for them, extending
so far as to breaking Interpol's most wanted criminals out of prisons to work for them, then Turkey's
role in fostering ISIS in Syria and the Uyghurs in Xinjiang make perfect sense. It compliments
the efforts of the war hawks in Washington who benefit from conflict: The neocon zionazis, the
MIC and others (Israel foremost, but Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey who use the fear
of terrorism as a pretext to keep them in power and excuse their military expansion)
The question remains, who is actually conducting this asymmetric warfare? Who are the real
puppet masters? My money is on the neocons and the MIC.
Whoever it may be, a pattern of behaviour is emerging to start a major world war by poking at
Russia to the extreme point of no return. Consider Ukraine and its PM: Yatsenyuk (Supported by
US State Dept Victoria Nuland and NATO as the face of the Kiev coup) announcing on national tv
that he would burn all Russian speakers alive. Then this actually taking place all over Ukraine,
most famously at Odessa perpetrated by another Zionazi and Israeli dual national Igor Kolomoisky.
Even the current president Poroshenko now admits that the 2014 euromaidan "revolution" was a coup
d'etat. As if this wasn't incitement enough, we've had almost a continuous diet of MSM demonization
of Putin with several hundred fake "Russian invasion" reports and the downing of MH17. At the
same time, NATO mechanized troops have been gathering (In the case of Baltic States) a mere few
hundred feet from the Russian border.
Fast forward to last month and it is a Russian passenger jet blown up with 224 lives on board
by "ISIS" - which most people know by now is funded, trained, and supplied by various parties
including Langley. This week and this time it is a Russian jet fighting ISIS and its ilk shot
down over the Syrian border by an actual NATO Turkish F16 jet. Then Youtube videos emerge of FSA
rebels killing its ejected pilot and navigator. To crown the whole thing off, a Russian Search
and Rescue helicopter is blown up with a US-made TOW missile. Provocations rarely come this extreme
and so serendipitously for the provocateurs.
My two cents: There is a pattern to provoke a direct major war with Russia by Victoria Nuland/Kagan
and her ilk. It's insane and it's happening. This latest incident is a lure to force Russia into
rash action that will be used as the "proof" that has been so lacking to date to demonize Putin
in the msm worldwide to hearten the public to taste the blood of war. Sadly, it is delusional
to think anyone will survive the full scale nuclear exchange this war may initiate. The tiny portion
of humanity left will most likely be rendered sterile by the radiation from thousands of broken
and unattended nuclear power stations around the globe. It's game over if this is allowed to continue.
But maybe sanity will prevail and it will be a footnote in the annals of close calls.
HowdyDoody
Turkey was also up to its neck in supporting Chechen jihadists used against Russia. They were
both a transit route and a location for training camps.
It's worse than we think. Obama has given Erdogan the go ahead to seize Syrian Turkmen villages
at the G20 gathering
Shooting the plane down in Syrian territory is ipso facto a Turkish No Fly Zone
That is why it has happened now. Expect Turkish vs Russian air battles as Turkey defends its ill
gotten gains.
Dr. Bonzo
Very credible mainstream-available evidence links the 9/11 attacks to the CIA, Mossad, Pakistani
intelligence and Saudi Arabia. Why should we be surprised? The PNAC policy paper stated plain
as day for all to read regime change in Syria, Iraq and Iran. A casual look back at the mideast
wars of the last 14 years suggest this very dynamic was at play and remains at play. That the
mideast becomes even more destabilized isn't considered an issue of consequence. This is the chief
miscalculation by the Masters of the Universe. Israel is territorially not large enough to survive
a serious nuclear attack, and the increased nuclear proliferation and enmity engendered by this
fucktarded regime change obsession all but guarantees this outcome. It's not an issue of if, but
when.
Phillyguy
The goal of US/NATO (including France)/GCC is regime change in Syria. This goal has not changed,
Paris attacks notwithstanding. Turkey functions as a US/NATO vassal state, doing the west's bidding.
Sultan Erdogan's dreams of a neo-Ottoman empire may well end up turning Turkey in a smoldering
mass of rubble.
Lavrov's comments offered the clearest signals that Moscow views the downing as more than an
accidental mishap while Russia steps up its airstrikes in Syria to support the embattled
government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Turkey and its Western allies have backed rebel groups seeking to topple Assad in Syria's nearly
five-year civil war. Pentagon officials, meanwhile, have raised worries about possible mishaps
between Russia's air campaign and a U.S.-led coalition conducting airstrikes against the Islamic
State.
... ... ...
"We have serious doubts this was an unintended incident and believe this is a planned
provocation," Lavrov said after discussions with Turkey's foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu.
Lavrov did not elaborate on Moscow's claims.
... ... ...
Moscow further alleged at Turkey was sheltering the Islamic State from Russian attacks. "A
stab in the back from the accomplices of terrorism," said Putin on Tuesday.
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev on Wednesday warned that the "damage will be hard to
repair." Russian officials have raised possible responses such as a ban on Turkish airlines or
canceling a proposed gas pipeline between the two countries.
So far, however, Russia has not taken any steps other than to recommend Russian tourists not
visit Turkey. Russian tour operators have cancelled most of their packages to Turkish resorts,
the Interfax news service reported. More than 3 million tourists visited the popular vacation
destination from Russia last year.
Russia - knowing that this is really not about Turkey, but about push-back by the US against
growing Russian power and influence, both globally and in the Middle East region - could also
choose to respond in a venue where it has more of an advantage, for example in Ukraine, where it
could amp up its support for the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, perhaps by downing a
Ukrainian military plane, or more broadly, providing air cover to protect those regions. Russia
could also, less directly, provide aid to Kurdish rebels in both Syria and in Turkey itself who
are fighting against Turkish forces.
I'm sure there are plenty of other options available to Russia also to turn the screws against
both Turkey and NATO, without openly pushing buttons that could lead to a direct confrontation
with the US and its NATO fiction. Working in Russia's favor is that the US aside, the European
nations of NATO have no desire to be at war with Russia. There are clearly hotheads in the US
Congress, the Pentagon, and perhaps even within the neo-con-infested Obama administration, who
are pushing for just such a mad showdown. But in Europe, where the actual fighting would mostly
occur, and where memories are still strong of the destructive power of war, there is no taste for
such insanity. It could, in fact, have been a big error in the long run for the US to push Turkey
into such a deadly provocation, if it leads to more anti-American sentiment among the citizens of
such key NATO countries as France, Germany, Italy and Britain.
Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective,
and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
"... Either way, Turkey seems to have tipped their hand, and that is probably VASTLY more important to how this plays out than the death of a pilot in an armed conflict. ..."
"... All Russia has to do is stay a few miles from the border and keep blowing shit up and killing assholes. ..."
"... Economics and finance is how this war is being fought. Syria is just the hot spot. Look for action on the banking, finance, trade, and economic front. It is coming. ..."
"... Stop all the chatter and simply as, Cui Bono? The answer... as always in deceptive operations like this - is the same. ..."
"... Erdogan set a fucked up precedent for world stability and the West hasn't heard the last of the rhetoric it used in defending his insane actions. Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace. -Barack Obama ..."
"... [stated after Turkey destroyed a Russian jet, which resulted in the death of at least one of the pilots, while the jet was conducting anti-terror operations in Syria against ISIS - admitted bombers of a Russian civilian airliner] ..."
"... Russia, Iran, Syria will prevail because they must prevail. There is no alternative for them. Putin is a very cautious man despite being displayed as hazardeur by western presstitute media. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will be doing it until the logical goal has been reached. For a psychopath like Erdogan, longing for Ottoman empire 2.0 ruled by a mixture of muslim brothers like himself and Turkey-style Wahabists, losing control over the airspace over Syria near the border to Turkey is absolutely inacceptable. By ordering to shoot down that SU-24 Erdogan made a big strategic miscalculation and simply accelerated his complete loss of control, i.e., what he fears most. ..."
"... For Russia it comes as a gift: It has now all reasons to set up a total no-fly zone over North Syria referring to today's incident. And no power in the world can prevent Russia from doing this. ..."
"... That F16 was on an intercept course, it wasn't patrolling up and down the border. That shooting was a deliberate act especially as it took place inside Syrian airspace. ..."
"... You really think Turkey did this without American neocon plotting via NATO via Turkey? All on their own? ..."
"... Apparently Russians are a big source of Tourist income for Turkey. And then, there is all that ISIS blood-oil flowing through Turkey which will now be stopped by Russian carpet bombing of ISIS tankers. ..."
"... Also its going to be awfully hard for Turkish planes to raid into Syria, what with the Russians waiting to mistakenly shoot them down and have local rebels shoot Turkish pilots. ..."
"... One thing I keep meaning to look into, before all my mentors and sources kick the bucket... and I can no longer kick the can, is what the level of Turkish involvement in the various disturbances in the Caucasus actually after the collapse of the Soviet Union. People write about Saudi Arabia's ideological ties, but in the rush to extract Caspian energy for the west, some of those projects took suspicious turns for the strategic benefit of Ankara. ..."
"... The F16 was loitering waiting for the chance to pounce. No way was this anything innocent and baloney about Turkey defending its air space is retard-spew. ..."
"... The preponderance of facts as we now have them would indicate in Russia's favor. ..."
"... They seem to indeed be trying to pull NATO in on Article 5. ..."
"... Mr Erdogan spoke of Turkey's rage at the decision to shoot down the F-4 Phantom on 22 June and described Syria as a clear and present threat . A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack, he said. ..."
The highlighted passage reads: "Disregarding these warnings, both planes, at an altitude of 19,000
feet, violated Turkish national airspace to a depth of 1.36 miles and 1.15 miles in length
for 17 seconds from 9:24:05 local time."
So, as
RT notes,
even if we buy Turkey's story (i.e. if we accept that Russia actually did violate Turkish airspace),
then it would appear that Ankara has something of an itchy trigger finger. That is, Turkey
was apparently willing to risk sparking a wider conflict between NATO and Russia over a 17 second
incursion.
But something doesn't sound right.
Journalists: Learn to do basic maths. Look at Turkey's statement to UN:
1.15 miles / 17 seconds x 60 x 60 = 243 miles/hour = 391 km/hour
In other words, as
Sputnik put it earlier this evening, "according to those numbers,
the Su-24 would have
had to be flying at stall speed."
The Su-24's max speed is 1,320 km/hour.
So if we assume the Su-24 was actually going much faster, was 17 seconds more like 5 seconds?
Or perhaps even less?
It's important not to forget the context here. Ankara is fiercly anti-Assad and in addition to
being generally displeased with Russia's efforts to support the regime, just four days ago, Turkey
summoned Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov over the alleged bombing of Turkish villages near the border.
"Turkey has asked Russia to 'immediately end its operation,'"
AFP reported, adding that "Ankara warned
bombing villages populated by the Turkmen minority
in Syria could lead to 'serious consequences.'"
Of course Russia wasn't just bombing Turkish civilians for the sheer hell of it. It's likely
Moscow was targeting the very same FSA-affiliated Alwiya al-Ashar militiamen who
shot and killed the parachuting Russian pilot earlier today.
In short, it looks like Ankara saw an opportunity to shoot down a Russian jet in retaliation for
strikes on Turkish rebel fighters who are operating alongside anti-Assad forces. Erdogan is essentially
gambling that Russia will not retailiate militarily against Turkey because doing so would open the
door for a direct confrontation with NATO.
Time will tell whether that gamble pays off or whether Moscow decides that the next time a Turkish
F-16 gets "lost" over Latakia, a little payback is in order.
Femme Fatale
You got it all wrong. That's not what happened at all. Erdogan told Putin: "the Israelis
wagged the Americans who wagged me, so what's a poor Turk to do?" >>
https://goo.gl/qazI3V
-.-'s picture
Physics are a bitch Erdogan.
TahoeBilly2012
That's some cheeze whiz shit right there, Turkey supports ISIS, so does France....bastards,
you kill your own people in cafes!!
Chuckster
Exactly...if you watch the Russians they are always slow to release information. It's like
they enjoy letting the rest of the world make asses out of themselves then they come forth with
powerful evidence. They have satellites so I expect to see some evidence of what they are saying
in the future. In the meantime paybacks are a bitch.
highandwired
Russian defense ministry has already released the satellite info:
In war, people die. Equipment is lost. It is fscking reality people. Maybe the pilot fscked
up. Maybe they crossed the border and thought it wouldn't matter. Maybe they didn't and just
got ambushed.
Either way, Turkey seems to have tipped their hand, and that is probably VASTLY more
important to how this plays out than the death of a pilot in an armed conflict. Or, to
quote Stalin, "One death is a tragedy, a million a statistic." Y'all won't be pity partying
for the next 1,000 dead Russian pilots.
All Russia has to do is stay a few miles from the border and keep blowing shit up and killing
assholes.
Economics and finance is how this war is being fought. Syria is just the "hot" spot. Look for
action on the banking, finance, trade, and economic front. It is coming.
Good thing Turkey doesn't need Russia for goods, services, parts, energy, food, and shit like
that.
Regards,
Cooter
J S Bach
Stop all the chatter and simply as, "Cui Bono?" The answer... as always in deceptive
operations like this - is the same.
Supernova Born
They'll be some chagrin in Western capitals the day China starts quoting all this right of
self-defense and defense of territory stuff when the next military ship intentionally cruises
right past a Chinese base on the Senkakus or Spratleys.
"You are within Chinese territorial waters. You have 17 seconds to depart."
Erdogan set a fucked up precedent for world stability and the West hasn't heard the last of
the rhetoric it used in defending his insane actions.
"Turkey, like every country, has a right to defend its territory and its airspace."
-Barack Obama
[stated after Turkey destroyed a Russian jet, which resulted in the death of at least one of
the pilots, while the jet was conducting anti-terror operations in Syria against ISIS -
admitted bombers of a Russian civilian airliner]
giovanni_f
No (I am unsure how such a US-centric crap even deserves the label "assessment").
Russia, Iran, Syria will prevail because they must prevail. There is no alternative for them.
Putin is a very cautious man despite being displayed as hazardeur by western presstitute
media. He knows exactly what he is doing and he will be doing it until the logical goal has
been reached. For a psychopath like Erdogan, longing for Ottoman empire 2.0 ruled by a mixture
of muslim brothers like himself and Turkey-style Wahabists, losing control over the airspace
over Syria near the border to Turkey is absolutely inacceptable. By ordering to shoot down
that SU-24 Erdogan made a big strategic miscalculation and simply accelerated his complete
loss of control, i.e., what he fears most.
For Russia it comes as a gift: It has now all reasons to set up a total no-fly zone over
North Syria referring to today's incident. And no power in the world can prevent Russia from
doing this.
The answer to "cui bono" is Russia but as in chess it was the enemy to make the gift.
Hope that helps for you amateur geopoliticians.
Wile-E-Coyote
That F16 was on an intercept course, it wasn't patrolling up and down the border. That
shooting was a deliberate act especially as it took place inside Syrian airspace. Now I
expect Russia to hit anything with a pulse in that area, your move Turkey, but be careful Xmas
is coming you could get a right stuffing.
an_indian
You really think Turkey did this without American neocon plotting via NATO via Turkey? All
on their own?
Apparently Russians are a big source of Tourist income for Turkey. And then, there is all that
ISIS blood-oil flowing through Turkey which will now be stopped by Russian carpet bombing of
ISIS tankers.
Look for more such Turkish villages to be bombed in future and some of those bombs/missiles
losing their way (like the cruise missile that supposedly landed in Iran) and landing on
Turkish soil.
Also its going to be awfully hard for Turkish planes to raid into Syria, what with the
Russians waiting to "mistakenly" shoot them down and have local rebels shoot Turkish pilots.
This is going to get really complicated real fast.
Urban Redneck
Perhaps nominally, but I think Turkey had the most, relatively, to lose. Petroleum is
somewhat fungible, and the current glut notwithstanding, a buyer generally be can found near
the current market price. The Turks, however, are traders and if a pipeline doesn't flow
through Turkey, their cut is eliminated. One thing I keep meaning to look into, before all
my mentors and sources kick the bucket... and I can no longer kick the can, is what the level
of Turkish involvement in the various disturbances in the Caucasus actually after the collapse
of the Soviet Union. People write about Saudi Arabia's ideological ties, but in the rush to
extract Caspian energy for the west, some of those projects took suspicious turns for the
strategic benefit of Ankara.
The F16 was loitering waiting for the chance to pounce. No way was this anything innocent
and baloney about "Turkey defending its air space" is retard-spew.
Most importantly they are not at war with each other so Turkish plane could have escorted them
out but NOPE.
Turkey's airspace was violated 114 times in one year by Greek, Israeli, and Italian
aircraft They somehow avoided shooting any down. "Air space violations are incidents that
happen almost every day, and are resolved in a matter of minutes within international law,"
the Turkish General Staff said in a statement. Six airplanes violated Turkish airspace last
week alone, the General Staff said, of which none were shot down and left Turkey's airspace
after they were warned by Turkish personnel.
A violation of one to two kilometers is accepted as "natural" given the speed of aircraft,
the statement said. This year's violations of Turkish airspace lasted between 20 seconds and
nine minutes, which showed "airspace violations can be resolved by warning and interceptions,"
the statement said."
Temperatures in Ukraine where most homes rely on piped gas for
central heating were below freezing Wednesday morning.
SmittyinLA
Russia won't retaliate against Turkey, they'll target Erdogan and his donors-personally
like Israelis, behind the jihad are businessmen with assets and interests-that they're gonna
lose shortly.
Financial punishment is coming for "friends of Erdogon"
Putin will make it personal, Russia doesn't do "calm", they do "stoic".
css1971
Sampling period. The turkish account of 17 seconds could be related to the sampling period
on their monitoring system, but it looks like a large overestimation.
Now, if you look at the Russian realtime tracking, they clipped the border maybe, but didn't
enter Turkish airspace :
So it comes down to how accurate are the monitoring systems whether the plane entered Turkish
airspace or not. He said, she said.
There's a different question though, even if you take the Turkish explanation. As a NATO
member, do you shoot down planes :
1. That has entered your airspace literally for seconds and has clearly exited by the time you
shoot it down that part is quite clear.
2. From a country which had an agreement in place ahead of time explicitly to prevent exactly
this situation.
No, you don't. Unless you are explicitly and deliberately and cynically attempting to escalate
the situation.
lakecity55
The preponderance of facts as we now have them would indicate in Russia's favor.
At the least, it would have taken more time for the Turks to set up the shot than any time the
bomber may have been in their airspace. A needless provocation on Turkey's part. The math is
very telling; at the claimed speed, the bomber would indeed be flying too slow. You can look
the bomber's specs up on the intertubes.
They seem to indeed be trying to pull NATO in on Article 5.
jughead
Mr Erdogan spoke of Turkey's "rage" at the decision to shoot down the F-4 Phantom on 22
June and described Syria as a "clear and present threat". "A short-term border violation
can never be a pretext for an attack," he said.
Definitely a speed trap waiting, got perfect video footage of the event too. hmmmmm.
Turkey was protecting their RADICAL muslim brothers they do NOT want bombed. That is what
happened and now the want NATO to intervene on their behalf. Fuck them to hell and back let
Putin bomb their radical muslim asses too.
Russian President Vladimir Putin approved deploying S-400 air defense system at the Russian airbase
in Hmeimim in Lattakia, the Kremlin announced on Wednesday.
Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said
the President approved the Russian Defense Ministry's proposal to deploy the S-400 system, Russia's
most advanced anti-aircraft defense system.
Earlier, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said at a Defense Ministry meeting that S-400
will be deployed in Hmeimim airbase after a Russian Su-24 aircraft was downed yesterday by an air-to-air
missile launched from a Turkish F-16 fighter jet when it was returning from an anti-terrorist mission
in the northern countryside of Lattakia.
The S-400 is employed to ensure air defense using long- and medium-range missiles that can hit
aerial targets at ranges up to 400 kilometers. The S-400 is capable of hitting tactical and strategic
aircraft as well as ballistic and cruise missiles. The system includes a set of radars, missile launchers
and command posts, and is operated solely by the Russian military.
Turkish tourism representatives have voiced concern after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov advised Russians on Nov. 24 not to visit Turkey, after Turkey downed of a Russian plane on
the Syrian frontier.
Lavrov also said the threat of terrorism in Turkey was no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack
brought down a Russian passenger plane last month.
Russia's tourism agency then recommended the suspension of package holiday sales to Turkey.
"This is no good. We cannot lose the Russian market, which is the second largest source of
Turkey's tourism sector. We have already lost over 800,000 Russian tourists over this year due to
economic woes in [Russia], and had to make significant cuts in hotel prices to overcome our
losses in addition to other concessions. Despite this, we still cannot close the gap," said the
head of the Turkish Hoteliers Federation (TUROFED), Osman Ayık.
... ... ...
While 3.3 million Russian tourists visited Turkey in 2014, Turkey saw a decrease of
approximately 25 percent in the number of tourists from Russia and its neighbors over this year.
However, Turkey did become more attractive for Russian tourists after Moscow suspended flights to
Egypt.
Turkey's tourism revenues declined 4.4 percent, reaching only $12.29 billion in the third
quarter, the Turkish Statistics Institute (TÜİK) said on Oct. 30, amid security concerns and a
decrease in the number of Russian tourists visiting the country.
That Turkish F16 fighter pilot alone could not take a decision about the attack. Especially in the border area.
Usually every opportunity is used to resolve the situation peacefully. The pilot of a Turkish fighter definitely got the order to land from very high command. But it is unlikely Turkey independently decided about the attack on Russian military aircraft. Most likely, the approval of this provocation was given on the Potomac river. Question: for what?
The simple answer is to put pressure on Russia to force it to withdraw from Syria. But the
authors of this provocation here clearly miscalculated. First, in the near future we should expect increase of air strikes on sites under the control of the
ISIS.
Secondly, bombers in Syria will no longer fly without cover of fighters, and every attempt of attack on our aircraft will get an adequate response. And finally, third, because Russia is the only invited to the military presence and aid the country's only legitimate government of Syria, now our air defenses and will be hard to clap each attempt any incursion into Syrian airspace by forces that we ourselves define as hostile.
This incident has revealed what the real sides are in the Syrian civil war: who is fighting
whom, and for what. The Russian plane crashed into Syrian territory and one of the pilots was
shot from the skies as he parachuted: this barbaric act was captured on video by the rebels, who
are being reported as affiliated with the Turkmen "10th Brigade." This is just for public
consumption, however: in reality, the area is controlled by an alliance of rebel forces dominated
by the al-Nusra Front, which is the official Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda. The jihadists took
control of the area in March of this year, and it has been the focal point of recent fighting
between al-Qaeda and Syrian government forces backed by the Russian air offensive.
... ... ...
Putin's accusation that this is "a stab in the back by the accomplices of terrorists" is
absolutely correct – but he isn't just talking about Turkey, whose Islamist regime has been
canoodling with the terrorists since the start of the Syria civil war. Washington and its allies,
including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Qatar – who have been directly aiding ISIS as well as the
"moderate" head-choppers – is indirectly responsible for the downing the Russian plane –
including a barbaric attack on the rescue helicopter, which was downed by a US-provided TOW
missile launcher.
... ... ...
it's the Americans who want a repeat of the Cuban missile crisis, not Putin....
NOTES IN THE MARGIN
You can check out my Twitter feed by going here. But please note that my tweets are
sometimes deliberately provocative, often made in jest, and largely consist of me thinking out
loud.
I've written a couple of books, which you might want to peruse. Here is the link for buying
the second edition of my 1993 book, Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the
Conservative Movement, with an Introduction by Prof. George W. Carey, a Foreword by Patrick J.
Buchanan, and critical essays by Scott Richert and David Gordon (ISI Books, 2008).
You can buy An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard (Prometheus Books, 2000),
my biography of the great libertarian thinker, here
"... Why would the Turks do that? Because Russia is supporting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, apparently with considerable success, and Turkey has been extremely persistent in their demands that he be removed. Al-Assad is seen by Turkey, rightly or wrongly, as a supporter of Kurdish militancy along the long and porous border with Turkey. This explains why Ankara has been lukewarm in its support of the campaign against ISIS, tacitly cooperating with the terrorist group, while at the same time focusing its own military effort against the Kurds, which it sees as an existential threat directed against the unity of the Turkish Republic. ..."
"... Would Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan do something so reckless? ..."
"... if his objective was to derail the creation of a unified front against terrorist and rebel groups in Syria and thereby weaken the regime in Damascus, he might just believe that the risk was worth the potential gain. ..."
Why would the Turks do that? Because Russia is supporting Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad, apparently with considerable success, and Turkey has been extremely persistent in their
demands that he be removed. Al-Assad is seen by Turkey, rightly or wrongly, as a supporter of
Kurdish militancy along the long and porous border with Turkey. This explains why Ankara has been
lukewarm in its support of the campaign against ISIS, tacitly cooperating with the terrorist
group, while at the same time focusing its own military effort against the Kurds, which it sees
as an existential threat directed against the unity of the Turkish Republic.
Would Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan do something so reckless? Only he knows for
sure, but if his objective was to derail the creation of a unified front against terrorist
and rebel groups in Syria and thereby weaken the regime in Damascus, he might just believe that
the risk was worth the potential gain.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
"... Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast. ..."
"... The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers. ..."
"... Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month. ..."
"... One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries, so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism. ..."
Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters
to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown
into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast.
The influx has offered fertile ground
to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis.
Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers.
From midway through 2012, when jihadis started to travel to Syria, their presence was apparent at all points of
the journey to the border. At Istanbul airport, in the southern cities of Hatay and Gaziantep – both of which were staging
points – and in the border villages.
Foreigners on their way to fight remained fixtures on these routes until late in 2014 when, after continued pressure from
the EU states and the US, coordinated efforts were made to turn them back.
Lavrov cancels planned visit to Turkey
No great surprise this, but Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has cancelled a planned visit to Turkey.
Lavrov was due to visit Ankara on Wednesday for bilateral talks. Turkish officials had insited it would go ahead as planned.
Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the
threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month.
One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt
after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries,
so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism.
(That's it from me. I'm handling the live blog over to Mark Tran).
Shaun Walker
...Writing on Twitter Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament's international relations committee, said: "Ankara
clearly did not weigh the consequences of its hostile acts for Turkey's interests and economy. The consequences will be very serious."
Here's video of Putin's response to the downing of the Russia jet:
"The loss today is a stab in the back, carried out by the accomplices of terrorists. I can't describe it in any other way."
"Our aircraft was downed over the territory of Syria, using air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16. It fell on the Syrian
territory 4km from Turkey."
"Neither our pilots nor our jet threatened the territory of Turkey."
"Today's tragic event will have significant consequences, including for Russia-Turkish relations ... Instead of immediately
getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this
incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."
"Do they want to make Nato serve ISIS? ... We hope that the international community will find the strength to come together
and fight against the common evil."
Summary
... ... ...
Russia's president Vladimir Putin has warned Turkey of 'serious consequences' after a Russia fighter jet was shot down close
to Turkey's border with Syria. Putin described the incident as a "stab in the back" and accused Turkey of siding with Islamic
State militants in Syria.
"... "The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he emphasizes. ..."
"... "As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves," Cartalucci notes. ..."
Geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci draws attention to the fact that over the recent weeks Russian
and Syrian forces have been steadily gaining ground in Syria, retaking territory from ISIL and
al-Qaeda.
"The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has even begun approaching the Euphrates River east of
Aleppo, which would effectively cut off ISIS [ISIL] from its supply lines leading out of Turkish
territory," Cartalucci narrates in his latest article for New Eastern Outlook.
He explains that from there, Syrian troops with Russian air support would move north, into the
very "safe zone" which Washington and Ankara have planned to carve out of Syria. Cartalucci points
out that the "safe zone" includes a northern Syria area stretching from Jarabulus to Afrin and
Al-Dana.
If Syrian troops establish their control over this zone, the Western plan of taking
and holding the territory (with the prospect of further Balkanization of the region) would fall
apart at the seams. In light of this, the regime change project, harbored by the West since the
very beginning of the Syrian unrest, would be "indefinitely suspended," Cartalucci underscores.
"The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and
Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he
emphasizes.
"As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves,"
Cartalucci notes.
According to the geopolitical analyst, Russia's best choice now is to continue winning this
war, eventually taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor. By fortifying this area Russian and Syrian
forces would prevent NATO from invading Syria, at the same time cutting off the ISIL and al-Nusra
Front supply route from Turkey.
Russo-Syrian victory would have far-reaching consequences for the region as a whole. "With
Syria secured, an alternative arc of influence will exist within the Middle East, one that will
inevitably work against Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes' efforts in Yemen, and in a wider
sense, begin the irreversible eviction of Western hegemony from the region," Cartalucci
underscores.
"... "We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours." ..."
A government official said: "In line with the military rules of engagement, the Turkish authorities
repeatedly warned an unidentified aircraft that they were 15km or less away from the border. The
aircraft didn't heed the warnings and proceeded to fly over Turkey. The Turkish air forces responded
by downing the aircraft.
More on this topic: Turkey caught between aiding Turkmen and economic dependence on Russia
"This isn't an action against any specific country: our F-16s took necessary steps to defend Turkey's
sovereign territory."
The Turkish UN ambassador, Halit Cevik, told the UN Security Council in a letter that two planes
had flow a mile into Turkey for 17 seconds. "Following the violation, plane 1 left Turkish national
airspace. Plane 2 was fired at while in Turkish national airspace by Turkish F-16s performing air
combat patrolling in the area," he wrote.
... ... ...
Putin said there would be "serious consequences" for Russia-Turkish relations.
"We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what
happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as
we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident,
as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."
Schadenfreude ecstasies of UK conservatives. They are glad that Turkey shot down Russian
bomber. Not very surprising as Cameron wanted to ally with ISIS against President Asad forces just
two years ago. Comments were not allowed for this article.
Notable quotes:
"... Turks would certainly resist any attempt by Russia to launch retaliatory action against the Turkmen, who yesterday claimed they had shot dead the two Russian pilots as they attempted to parachute to safety, although this was later denied by Turkish officials. ..."
"... Turkey funds a number of Turkmen militias in northern Syria that are fighting to overthrow the Assad regime. ..."
"... Mr Putin has badly misread Turkey's determination to defend its interests and, by so doing, has further complicated the tangled web of alliances that underpin the Syrian conflict. ..."
The challenge now, for Nato as well as for Russia, is to prevent tensions between Moscow and
Ankara from spiralling out of control. Turkey's relations with Russia are already strained
following Moscow's Syrian intervention, with the Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan warning that
Turkey could cut its lucrative energy ties with Russia. The Turks would certainly resist any
attempt by Russia to launch retaliatory action against the Turkmen, who yesterday claimed they
had shot dead the two Russian pilots as they attempted to parachute to safety, although this was
later denied by Turkish officials.
Turkey funds a number of Turkmen militias in northern Syria that are fighting to overthrow
the Assad regime. It is unlikely the Turks would tolerate Russian attacks on their ethnic
allies, which could easily lead to direct military confrontation between Russia and Turkey, with
all the implications that would have for the Nato alliance, which would then be obliged to defend
Turkey's borders.
Mr Putin has badly misread Turkey's determination to defend its interests and, by so
doing, has further complicated the tangled web of alliances that underpin the Syrian conflict.
He has also made life more difficult for David Cameron, who will tomorrow tell the Commons about
his own plans for Britain to participate in the air war against Isil. Like Mr Putin, Mr Cameron
says he wants to launch air strikes against Isil in Syria. But, after yesterday, Mr Cameron can
be in no doubt that, however he views Mr Putin's role in the conflict, it will most certainly not
be that of an ally.
"... However, it is wrong to conclude that the Turkish demarche is a mere tactical ploy. There is also the backdrop of the robust Turkish push for establishing a 'no-fly zone' in northern Syria to be kept in view. The demarche is linked to a live broadcast by Erdogan on Wednesday where he underscored that the creation of 'no-fly' and 'safe' zones is crucial to resolving the Syrian crisis… ..."
"... …Put differently, the race for Aleppo has begun. The point is, the Turkish-American operation comes at a time when with Russian air cover, Syrian government forces are struggling to retake Aleppo, which has been under the control of opposition groups for two years. To be sure, the Turkish demarche on Friday threatening Russia with "serious consequences" falls in perspective. ..."
"... The US role in this daring Turkish enterprise remains hidden from view. Senior US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, are credited with privately expressing views supportive of the Turkish proposal on free-trade zone, and leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has openly backed the idea, but President Barack Obama has so far preferred to stand in the shade with an ambivalence that appeared to weigh against the 'no-fly zone'… ..."
"... Russia's best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations. ..."
"... Such a provocation is exactly what the West would do if it were losing in Syria. And Putin doesn't have to prove anything to the Russian people. ..."
"... Erdogan is feeling especially froggy. He says he will establish a humanitarian safe zone between Jarabulus and the Mediterranean with his allies. God help us all. ..."
"... Turkey's territorial integrity cannot include 5 miles of Syrian territory to which it helps itself as a security zone. And Stoltenberg is a tool who should never be taken seriously. He would institute a NATO tax and pour the money directly into arms purchases if he could – he is a dream leader if you are a defense contractor. ..."
"... At the WH news today ….Obama was his usual watermouth in chief clown self…..He kept referring to Hollande as "Francois"….as if they were frat boys smokin' a joint and swillin' beer… ..."
"... But he still is not thru running his unhelpful and provocative trap…He then tries to marginalize the Russkie anti ISIS coalition effort…and condescendingly chides and berates Putin for not toeing the line that Obama hasn't even thought out as to what or where to tow to begin with!!! Then Hollande chimes in with the usual 'Assad must go' mantra…. ..."
"... The NATO freaks have to keep a steadying hand on Francois, lest he wander off the reservation… ..."
"... War is continuation of politics by other means. Diplomatic successes of Russia created backlash and Russia was backstabbed. So one way to look at this incident is that it was a Russian sacrifice on the altar of victory over ISIS. Shooting down of a Russian plane is to be expected in such a war and the fact that it happened just now and the shooter was Turkish F14 changed very little. But if this was a provocation, then timing was perfect. ..."
"... This hysterical gesture also might reflect existence of a split in Turkish leadership and effort of one wing of government to enforce its political plans on the nation. The part who are willing to sacrifice economic ties with Russia to achieve their political goals in Syria Their immediate goal is that the pro-Turkish forces not government forces liberate Rakka (Al-Raqqah) ..."
"... I would add that breaking economic ties with Turkey will hurt Russia no less then Turkey. Closure of Dardanelles by turkey also will not help Russian efforts to defeat ISIS. ..."
"... In any case the partition Syria along religious and ethnic lines was planned from the very beginning by the very same players who are behind this incident. Nobody has any doubts that Turkey was one of the main instigators of Syrian civil war and along with Qatar and Saudis served and still serves the financial hub for the armed opposition and first of all salafists. The fact salafists fighters from the rest of the world travel to Syria via Turkey is an open secret. ..."
A very interesting, appropriate and very good response.
Sultan Erdogan has been served notice.
I hope he's bricking it. Let him stew.
It makes sense that Putin should treat differentiate Turkey from western states. It also help
him to present NATO with a stark choice and not much chance to try and claim the middle ground.
Either way, unless Turkey gets categorical support from the NATO meeting and not the usual meaningless
waffle, he's lost support from both NATO & Russia. Not a good place to be in.
et Al, November 24, 2015 at 12:55 pm
via a comment by GoraDiva on the Moon of Alabama post above:
he cloud of uncertainty is lifting about any new directions of Turkish policies on Syria following
the parliamentary elections three weeks ago, which led to a great political consolidation by President
Recep Erdogan. The policies will run in the old directions – regime change in Syria – as per Erdogan's
compass, which was set four years ago, but they will be vastly more visible in the 'kinetics'…
…An easy explanation is possible that Turkey decided to set the agenda for Lavrov's talks on
coming Wednesday that would devolve upon the parameters of the Russian operations in northern
Syria that will not cross Turkey's 'red lines'. The exceptionally strong words used by Turkish
Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu regarding the "bloody and barbarian" Syrian regime leaves very
little to the imagination as to how Erdogan views the prospect of Assad's future role. The last
known Turkish stance is that Erdogan can tolerate Assad for a maximum period of six months during
the transition.
However, it is wrong to conclude that the Turkish demarche is a mere tactical ploy. There
is also the backdrop of the robust Turkish push for establishing a 'no-fly zone' in northern Syria
to be kept in view. The demarche is linked to a live broadcast by Erdogan on Wednesday where he
underscored that the creation of 'no-fly' and 'safe' zones is crucial to resolving the Syrian
crisis…
…Put differently, the race for Aleppo has begun. The point is, the Turkish-American operation
comes at a time when with Russian air cover, Syrian government forces are struggling to retake
Aleppo, which has been under the control of opposition groups for two years. To be sure, the Turkish
demarche on Friday threatening Russia with "serious consequences" falls in perspective.
The US role in this daring Turkish enterprise remains hidden from view. Senior US officials,
including Secretary of State John Kerry, are credited with privately expressing views supportive
of the Turkish proposal on free-trade zone, and leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton has openly backed the idea, but President Barack Obama has so far preferred to stand in
the shade with an ambivalence that appeared to weigh against the 'no-fly zone'…
####
A good piece by M.K. Bhadrakumar but I wouldn't call it anything like a toe hold yet. While
the Americans haven't expressed open support for Turkey, they haven't either condemned Turkey.,
so I will modify my earlier and a bit rash opinion that the US has hung Turkey out to dry. On
reflection, it seems far more reasonable that as usual, if it works out, the US will try to claim
some sort of credit, but if it all goes Pete Tong, Turkey is all on its lonesome. NATO is being
kept out of this one because the US certainly wouldn't get the unanimity need from all NATO members
for such a plan, though I'm sure the Brits and others were informed unofficially.
Russia's best bet is to simply continue winning the war. Taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor
and fortifying it against NATO incursions while cutting off ISIS and other terrorist factions
deeper within Syria would be perhaps the worst of all possible retaliations.
My "Russian intuition" tells me that this is what Russia will do. Such a provocation is
exactly what the West would do if it were losing in Syria. And Putin doesn't have to prove anything
to the Russian people.
Cortes, November 24, 2015 at 1:58 pm
The Twisted Genius, a regular poster on the "Turcopolier " blog Sic Semper Tyrannis of Col.
Pat Lang,
After the NATO meeting, Jens Stoltenberg stated, "we stand in solidarity with Turkey and support
its territorial integrity." After this and the statements of supplication out of Washington this
morning, Erdogan is feeling especially froggy. He says he will establish a humanitarian safe
zone between Jarabulus and the Mediterranean with his allies. God help us all.
Here's a little insight into Belgium…that may surprise you….
This is the fourth day that the country has been under a virtual martial law lockdown…
Brussels is in Belgium……NATO can't even secure-cover- its home base ass!!!!!!!
marknesop, November 24, 2015 at 3:04 pm
Turkey's territorial integrity cannot include 5 miles of Syrian territory to which it helps
itself as a security zone. And Stoltenberg is a tool who should never be taken seriously. He would
institute a NATO tax and pour the money directly into arms purchases if he could – he is a dream
leader if you are a defense contractor.
Northern Star, November 24, 2015 at 2:50 pm
At the WH news today ….Obama was his usual watermouth in chief clown self…..He kept referring
to Hollande as "Francois"….as if they were frat boys smokin' a joint and swillin' beer…
It should have been on this grim occasion "Mr. President"..Not "Francois….Then he continues
to flippantly refer to The Russian leader as "Putin"…not President Putin…..How fucking smart (wise)
is it to antagonize PRESIDENT Putin…in ANY way….especially when on a global forum addressing billions
at a time of imminent potential crisis…AKA WW3.
But he still is not thru running his unhelpful and provocative trap…He then tries to marginalize
the Russkie anti ISIS coalition effort…and condescendingly chides and berates Putin for not toeing
the line that Obama hasn't even thought out as to what or where to tow to begin with!!! Then Hollande
chimes in with the usual 'Assad must go' mantra….
marknesop, November 24, 2015 at 3:12 pm
The NATO freaks have to keep a steadying hand on Francois, lest he wander off the reservation….
likbez, November 24, 2015 at 6:10 pm
Hotheads want immediate Russian reaction now. But it will be better if Russians behaved like
in well known Russian proverb " mount the horse very slowly and then ride really fast, "
It might be prudent to ignore this incident for now. Here is approximate version of opinion
of one Russian analyst about the situation
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2YtDQhpkJI
)
War is continuation of politics by other means. Diplomatic successes of Russia created backlash
and Russia was backstabbed. So one way to look at this incident is that it was a Russian sacrifice
on the altar of victory over ISIS. Shooting down of a Russian plane is to be expected in such
a war and the fact that it happened just now and the shooter was Turkish F14 changed very little.
But if this was a provocation, then timing was perfect. Relocation US F15 interceptors in the
light of this incident looks now strangely well-timed preemptive move. Let's assume that this
was accidental "perfect timing" of "our American partners" like Putin like to say.
In case of open democratic elections Assad will win and that's why the game "Assad must go"
is played. Turkey tried to force her own plan of settlement. And this incident might well be a
part of political game of the most radically pro-Islamist part of Turkish leadership. This hysterical
gesture also might reflect existence of a split in Turkish leadership and effort of one wing of
government to enforce its political plans on the nation. The part who are willing to sacrifice
economic ties with Russia to achieve their political goals in Syria Their immediate goal is that
the pro-Turkish forces not government forces liberate Rakka (Al-Raqqah)
I would add that breaking economic ties with Turkey will hurt Russia no less then Turkey. Closure
of Dardanelles by turkey also will not help Russian efforts to defeat ISIS.
In any case the partition Syria along religious and ethnic lines was planned from the very
beginning by the very same players who are behind this incident. Nobody has any doubts that Turkey
was one of the main instigators of Syrian civil war and along with Qatar and Saudis served and
still serves the financial hub for the armed opposition and first of all salafists. The fact salafists fighters from the rest of the world travel to Syria via Turkey is an open secret.
As Wikipedia notes:
The Syrian opposition, represented by the Syrian National Coalition, receives financial,
logistical, political and in some cases military support from major Sunni states in the Middle
East allied with the U.S., most notably Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey.
…The Salafist groups are partially supported by Turkey, while the Islamic State of Iraq
and the Levant received support from several non-state groups and organizations from across
the Muslim World.
This incident also changes nothing in this set of facts. So continuing to work against the
plan to partition Syria and "Assad must go" gambit which includes the creation of buffer zone
on the border with Turkey probably is the best option Russians have right now. Like French used
to say "revenge is a dish that best served cold".
Turkey and Erdogan will be on the same place the next year too, And probably two years from
now too. When there will be much less, if any, Russian tourists in Turkey. And Kurds will exist
in the exact the same number and with exactly the same political goals. Fragmentation and internal
squabbles within Turkish leadership also will exist in foreseeable future. So future might presents
more options for the meaningful reaction then exist today. Loss of the face in this case (and
Turkey itself) are much less important then the winning over ISIS.
"... Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity committed by Turkey would not go without an answer. Before Putin's statements came out, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov had said Turkish army's downing of the Russian plane over Syria is "a very serious incident." ..."
Sochi, SANA – Russian President Vladimir Putin said the downing of the Russian aircraft over Syria
is a stab in the back delivered by the forces backing terrorism.
"This incident stands out against
the usual fight against terrorism," said Putin during a meeting with King of Jordan Abdullah II in
the Russian city of Sochi.
"Our troops are fighting heroically against terrorists, risking their lives. But the loss we suffered
today came from a stab in the back delivered by accomplices of the terrorists," he added.
Putin said the plane was hit by an air-to-air missile launched by a Turkish jet and crashed in
the Syrian territory four kilometers from the border with Turkey, stressing that the Russian plane
was flying at an altitude of 6000 meters about a kilometer from the Turkish border.
He stressed that the plane and pilots posed no threat to Turkey as they were carrying out a mission
against ISIS in mountainous areas targeting terrorists, most of whom came from Russia.
"ISIS has big money, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, from selling oil. In addition
they are protected by the military of an entire nation. One can understand why they are acting so
boldly and blatantly. Why they kill people in such atrocious ways. Why they commit terrorist acts
across the world, including in the heart of Europe," the Russian President said.
The downing of the Russian warplane happened despite Russia signing an agreement with the US to
prevent such incidents in Syria, Putin stressed. Turkey claims to be part of the US-led coalition
fighting against ISIS in Syria, he added.
The incident will have grave consequences for Russia's relations with Turkey, Putin warned.
"We have always treated Turkey as not only a close neighbor, but also as a friendly nation," he
said. "I don't know who has an interest in what happened today, but we certainly don't."
Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity committed
by Turkey would not go without an answer. Before Putin's statements came out, his spokesman Dmitry Peskov had said Turkish army's downing
of the Russian plane over Syria is "a very serious incident."
Peskov told reporters in a statement that Russia has confirmed information showing that the aircraft
was all the time flying within the borders of Syria, adding that this was registered by electronic
monitoring means
Asked about any possible consequences the incident might have on the Russian-Turkish relations,
Peskov said it was too early to draw conclusions until the whole situation is clear.
Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry announced that it has summoned the Turkish military attaché
in Moscow over the incident.
Earlier, the Ministry said a Russian Su-24 fighter jet had been shot down in Lattakia province.
The Ministry confirmed that the plane hadn't violated Turkish airspace and was flying at an altitude
of 6,000 meters.
The pilots managed to eject from the downed jet, the ministry said, adding that their fate is
still unknown.
Lavrov cancels Turkey visit over downing of Russian
military jet
In a relevant context, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov canceled his visit to Turkey, due
on Wednesday, after a Russian Su-24 jet was downed within the Syrian airspaces by a Turkish air force.
"It's necessary to emphasize that the terror threats have been aggravated and that's true even
if we don't take into account what happened today," Lavrov said, adding "We estimate the threats
to be no less than in Egypt.
The minister also pointed out the increasing level of the terror threat in Turkey which is "not
lower than in Egypt, recommending Russians to refrain from visiting Turkey.
Looks like it was Turkish way to enforce no fly zone over border villages... Like was initial
US-Turkish plan. But now its a different game...
Notable quotes:
"... And so, the NYT continues its stenography for the Neocons, by refusing to report that whether the Russian jet actually violated Turkish airspace is in dispute. Even CNN has presented both possibilities. ..."
"... So, Turkey is attacking and oppressing Kurds, won't attack ISIS, seems to be provoking Russia, acts as a middle-man for ISIS oil revenues, is imposing increasingly intolerant religious laws, threatens Israel, and allows thousands of refugees to stream into Europe. ..."
"... Erdogan is playing a dangerous game, he's essentially banking on NATO to come to his aid if Russia retaliates ..."
"... The Syrian crisis started when Turkey, with the backing of Saudi, tried to get rid of Assad. It backfired and created a refugee crisis. Then one day, suddenly, all of the refugees decided to leave for Europe. The question is - how did the refugees take this decision on their own? It was Turkey's secret plan to bring back the glory of the Ottoman empire to Europe. Note that all the terrorists from UK, Australia and other countries who joined ISIS first went to Turkey. Turkey, backed by Saudi, has been supporting ISIS. Turkey has created this mess and its a pity that Angela Merkel does not understand! ..."
"... In war, truth is the first casualty. The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must. Not much has changed since ancient times, just more destructive technology. ..."
Mr. Putin, clearly angry, responded that the Russian jet had never violated Turkish airspace and
was shot down over Syria. Speaking in Sochi, he called the downing of the plane a "stab in the back
delivered by the accomplices of terrorists," warning that it would have "serious consequences for
Russian-Turkish relations."
Mr. Putin said that instead of "immediately making the necessary contact with us, the Turkish
side turned to their partners in NATO for talks on this incident. It's as if we shot down the
Turkish plane and not they, ours. Do they want to put NATO at the service of the Islamic State?"
... ... ...
What may make matters worse is that those same tribesmen said they shot both Russian pilots as
they floated to earth in their parachutes, having apparently ejected safely after the plane was hit
by air-to-air missiles. The Russian minister of defense said that the navigator of the warplane is
alive and has been rescued by Syrian and Russian special forces, but that the pilot was killed by
ground fire.
... ... ...
Russia's retaliation so far has been largely symbolic. Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov canceled
a Wednesday visit to Turkey, and a large Russian tour operator, Natalie Tours, announced it was
suspending sales to Turkey. Russians accounted for 12 percent of all tourists to Turkey last year.
The two countries are also significant trade partners. But "Russia-Turkey relations will drop below
zero," Ivan Konovalov, director of the Center for Strategic Trends Studies, said on the state-run
Rossiya 24 cable news channel.
David, Brisbane, Australia 5 hours ago
Turks are lying. According to the tracks they published the downed plane crossed a sliver
of Turkish territory no more than 3 km wide. That should take a slowly flying jet less than 15
seconds, nowhere near 5 min the Turks claim it took them to issue 10 warnings. That was a
premeditated provocation by the Turks, they were waiting for that plane. It is hard to believe
that they would go for such major escalation without getting a go-ahead from US/NATO first.
Peisinoe, New York 4 hours ago
Excuse me NYT - but Turkey is not 'The West'.
It is a country that aligns itself with Wahabism-oriented nations that support and finance
terrorism (ie Saudi Arabia).
Lets keep things clear: We cannot fight ISIS by allying ourselves with countries which support
it.
It is about time the US stops selling itself for Saudi money - doesn't matter on which side
of the aisle you're from - that is plain and simple corruption - corruption of values, of
morality, of money, of power...
Jayne Cullen, Anytown, USA
"Turkish fighter jets on patrol near the Syrian border shot down a Russian warplane
on Tuesday after it violated Turkey's airspace..."
And so, the NYT continues its stenography for the Neocons, by refusing to report that
whether the Russian jet actually violated Turkish airspace is in dispute. Even CNN has
presented both possibilities.
Brian, Toronto
So, Turkey is attacking and oppressing Kurds, won't attack ISIS, seems to be provoking
Russia, acts as a middle-man for ISIS oil revenues, is imposing increasingly intolerant
religious laws, threatens Israel, and allows thousands of refugees to stream into Europe.
What is the process for kicking someone out of NATO?
Ajatha Shatru,
Erdogan is playing a dangerous game, he's essentially banking on NATO to come to his
aid if Russia retaliates.
If Russia doesn't retaliate, Putin will loose face in Arab world and Erdogan will be
crowned the modern age Saladin.
Western Europe knows Erdogan controls the refugee tap and his leverage is that tens of
thousands of refugees will flood into Europe if they don't back him up against Russia.
Putin cares about his macho and decisive image and to maintain it there will be Russian war
answer to this downing.
America and NATO needs to call Turkey's bluff and let it face Russian music alone or we are
heading towards world war III.
Aay, Sydney
The Syrian crisis started when Turkey, with the backing of Saudi, tried to get rid of
Assad. It backfired and created a refugee crisis. Then one day, suddenly, all of the refugees
decided to leave for Europe. The question is - how did the refugees take this decision on
their own? It was Turkey's secret plan to bring back the glory of the Ottoman empire to
Europe. Note that all the terrorists from UK, Australia and other countries who joined ISIS
first went to Turkey. Turkey, backed by Saudi, has been supporting ISIS. Turkey has created
this mess and its a pity that Angela Merkel does not understand!
Dan O'Brien, Massachusetts
In war, truth is the first casualty. The strong do what they will, the weak suffer what
they must. Not much has changed since ancient times, just more destructive technology.
"... Now I believe that the jet was in the Syrian airspace. It is not difficult to figure out that is purposeful action/plan by NATO and their faithful executioner Turkey. The plan might be to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy. ..."
"... "There were three villages left to us from Hassa. Others were Teyek, Ekbez, Beylan, the boroughs of skenderun, the township of Reyhaniye, the Antakya district, the Ordu district, the Bay r, Bucak and Hazine townships, a major portion of the Kilis borough, the Elbeyli and Turkmen districts south of Çobanbey-Cerablus region of Antep… This is all Turkish soil that constitutes integrity with the motherland…" ..."
"... This then was not legitimate air-defense but an ambush. ..."
"... Exactly. The context. It happened in the wake of Putin's visit to Iran, which cemented the alliance Russia/Iran for time to come, and strengthened their ties at strategic levels. This is Turkey's declaration of war against both Russia and Iran for supporting Syria. ..."
"... Turkey was one of the G-20 countries denounced by Russia as sponsors of terrorism. Further investigations should expose Turkey et al financial links to takfiri terrorists, possibly creating a diplomatic/political downfall, and with UN sanctions in sight, a preemptive black flag operation was planned. It started with the circus of the Turkmen, calling Russia's envoy to protest, revival of the so-called safe-zone, and the shooting of the Russian jet is the logical consequence of a carefully developed choreography. ..."
"... Russia cannot just take the hit to avoid further escalation. As we all know, restraint and moderation is embedded in Russia's art of diplomacy, but if rabid dog Erdogan is not caged by his US/NATO handlers, the possibility of an escalation is high. However, in the aftermath of France 13/11, and the French/Russian collaboration, another coup from Russian diplomacy, we can expect NATO's response to be measured. ..."
I really don't think this was a whim of Erdogan - he must have had the go-ahead of Obama or even
all of NATO to do this - it is a little test case to see what Russia will do. This kind of 5-
or 10-second 'trespassing' must be going on on a daily basis, given the very limited aitrspace
in which all htese operations take place...
Russia has plenty of options and there's no rush. Turkey will still be there next week /month
/year. I hope Vlad keeps Emperor Erdogan in suspense for a while.
AFTER announcing that the shoot-down won't go un-answered.
Everyone likes a good thriller...
Live RT – statement by Putin: "We were stabbed in the back by terrorists' supporters. Serious
consequences for tragic events on Syrian border."
Further, quite irritated with Turkey, Putin said they talked to their NATO allies first before
contacting Russian foreign diplomats to discuss the event.
Omar Abdullah, commander of the
Sultan Abdulhamit Han Brigade in Syria, said on Monday that the Turkmen brigades have recaptured
a strategic point on Mount Turkmen from Assad forces backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
"Mount Turkmen has not fallen to Assad forces. They only seized a part of Kızıldağı," Abdullah
said.
In recent days, Syrian regime forces started a heavy assault on Mount Turkmen in Bayır Bucak,
a Turkmen populated area in Latakia province.
Turkmens were under intensified Russian airstrikes while Iranian forces and Hezbollah from
Lebanon launched a joint land attack with Assad forces. Russian warships fired missiles as tanks
and cannons attacked unarmed civilians in Mount Turkmen area.
12:53 GMT
Turkey backstabbed Russia by downing the Russian warplane and acted as accomplices of the terrorists,
Russian President Vladimir Putin said.
The plane was hit by a Turkish warplane as it was travelling 1 km away from the Turkish
border, Putin said. The plane posed no threat to Turkish national security, he stressed.
Putin said the plane was targeting terrorist targets in the Latakia province of Syria, many
of whom came from Russia.
Russia noticed of the flow of oil from Syrian territory under the control of terrorists
to Turkey, Putin said.
Apparently, IS now not only receives revenue from the smuggling of oil, but also has the
protection of a nation's military, Putin said. This may explain why the terrorist group is
so bold in taking acts of terrorism across the world, he added.
The incident will have grave consequences for Russia's relations with Turkey, Putin warned.
The fact that Turkey did not try to contact Russia in the wake of the incident and rushed
to call a NATO meeting instead is worrisome, Putin said. It appears that Turkey want NATO to
serve the interests of IS, he added.
Putin said Russia respects the regional interests of other nations, but warned the atrocity
committed by Turkey would not go without an answer.
Putin was speaking at a meeting with King of Jordan Abdullah II in Sochi, who expressed
his condolences to the Russian leader over the loss of a Russian pilot in Tuesday's incident,
as well as the deaths of Russians in the Islamic State bombing of a passenger plane in Egypt.
The two leaders discussed the anti-terrorist effort in Syria and Iraq and the diplomatic
effort to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict.
Strong words. It looks like Putin will hold Turkey to account for the downing of one of their
jets (and the death of at least one of their own) regardless. The russian intervention in Syria
will no doubt continue unabated, maybe even intensify, near the turkish border.
I wonder what assurances Turkey will get in turn from NATO.
In all honesty I think that the Russian "intervention" is way exaggerated. When I see the whole
picture I believe it is have been designed to save face of the West Death Squad aka regime change
policy. The western media offensive, hence the ruling establishment's policy, give us picture
of we-have-nothing-to-do-with-mercenaries. We are now to believe so-called IS is organic product
of Islam. And refuges are all terrorist or means to inflitrate into Europe, and their "way of
life". The West doesn't wont to be remembered by history department that it is them who instigate
of what we have today. Lessons from Central America is learned.
Remember, A HREF="http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/leni-riefenstahl/">Leni
Riefenstahl's words.
...the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above," but on the "submissive
void" of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? "Everyone,"
she said.
Russia and the West has one thing in common, that is hate for Islam. While the West uses Islam
as a tool for social engineering and to promote own goals, Russia sees it as existential threat.
The West and Russia are alarmed by (unwelcome) refuges in condition of economic malaise.
Downing of Russian jet, if that what's really happened, is new development. As if the crisis
actors were unaware of danger which Russian action pose. Do we remember of shooting down mysterious
Turkish jet four years ago, of the coast of Latakia and not that far from now downed jet? How
come do not see the parachutes, and how come that "independent" channel filmed that as if per
order?
Now I believe that the jet was in the Syrian airspace. It is not difficult to figure out
that is purposeful action/plan by NATO and their faithful executioner Turkey. The plan might be
to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy.
harry law | Nov 24, 2015 8:51:55 AM | 30
Putin said "This is a stab in the back and instead of immediately getting in contact with us,
as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from NATO to discuss
this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours". If the jet was shot down in
an action against an enemy at war, it would be acceptable. In these circumstances Turkey's action
itself was an act of war, since in no way could that Russian jet be threatening Turkey.
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather
by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners
never do."
Samuel Huntington, US Gov./CIA brain trust member.
The current Turkish-Syrian border was drawn with the Oct. 20, 1921, agreement signed between
France, the mandatary of Syria, and the Ankara government; regions such as Hatay as well as
Bayır and Bucak were on the Syrian side. This was approved in Lausanne.
Mersin deputy Niyazi (Ramazanoğlu) Bey delivered a very important speech in the parliament
on the day of Aug. 21, 1923. He stated that while the 1921 agreement was signed, Ankara
was still in a very troubled situation and criticized the acceptance of the border agreed upon
in 1921.
In his speech, Niyazi Bey explained the Turks who were left on the Syrian side as such:
"There were three villages left to us from Hassa. Others were Teyek, Ekbez, Beylan,
the boroughs of İskenderun, the township of Reyhaniye, the Antakya district, the Ordu district,
the Bayır, Bucak and Hazine townships, a major portion of the Kilis borough, the Elbeyli
and Turkmen districts south of Çobanbey-Cerablus region of Antep… This is all Turkish soil
that constitutes integrity with the motherland…"
This then was not legitimate air-defense but an ambush.
Exactly. The context. It happened in the wake of Putin's visit to Iran, which cemented the alliance
Russia/Iran for time to come, and strengthened their ties at strategic levels.
This is Turkey's declaration of war against both Russia and Iran for supporting
Syria.
Turkey was one of the G-20 countries denounced by Russia as sponsors of
terrorism. Further investigations should expose Turkey et al financial links to
takfiri terrorists, possibly creating a diplomatic/political downfall, and with UN
sanctions in sight, a preemptive black flag operation was planned. It started with
the circus of the Turkmen, calling Russia's envoy to protest, revival of the
so-called "safe-zone," and the shooting of the Russian jet is the logical
consequence of a carefully developed choreography.
As predicted, we have entered "Deadly Ground" (Sun Tzu).
Russia cannot just take the hit to avoid further escalation. As we all know,
restraint and moderation is embedded in Russia's art of diplomacy, but if rabid
dog Erdogan is not caged by his US/NATO handlers, the possibility of an escalation
is high. However, in the aftermath of France 13/11, and the French/Russian
"collaboration," another coup from Russian diplomacy, we can expect NATO's
response to be measured.
The next few days are crucial, and will test the extent of the US empire and
its minions commitment to destroy Syria and control the ME. It will also test
Russia and the 4+1 will to the strategic defense of the ME and by extension, of
the Eurasian mass.
The plan might be to shut down Bosporus and Dardanelles to Russian Navy
This has been a plan known to Russia for some time, Turkey/US/NATO have
actively sought ways to break Montreux and stop the supply of necessary equipment
to both Assad and the Russian Federation Forces active in Syria via the "Syria
Express".
Lone Wolf@38. "The next few days are crucial, and will test the extent of the
US empire and its minions commitment to destroy Syria and control the ME". The US
in alliance with Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulfies are determined to have
hegemony over the middle east. The battle over Syria is crucial in that respect.
In my opinion the Syrians with the help of Russia, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah will
triumph over the forces of medieval Wahhabism, and its enablers. The US position
in the middle east is at stake, so they will go all in. In the case of Iran, Syria
and Hezbollah this battle is existential, and so they will fight this battle to
the bitter end.
Claud | Nov 24, 2015 10:05:53 AM | 51
Apropos question of degree of US "nudge," I'm basically on the side of those who think no, first, and, anyway, Erdogan (user here as metonymy for Turkish "deep state") doesn't need nudge, and is used to US retroactively agreeing or covering-up whatever he decides to do, so there's no need to think Turkey's acting on behalf of anyone except itself.
HOWEVER, one news bit I've been reading here and there has been roughly to the effect that the CIA/other-three-letter-agencies people tasked with supplying/transporting/training the "moderate rebels" in Turkey have been in a very ugly "Bay of Pigs", Obama-fucked-us mood (a quote a journalist heard was, "Putin just made us his prison bitch"), and I imagine it's with those people that Turkish security types "interface" most from day to day. That might contribute to an odd idea of what DC would "really" want Turks to do.
All this obviously wildly speculative, and in a sense unnecessary in Occan's Razor terms (Erdogan quite capable of thinking this a good idea on his own). However, thought I'd bring up (possibly irrelevant) factor of a good number of pissed-off paramilitaries/contractors with little to do since Russia effectively shut down their "training" boondogle.
You can bet that USA and France were well aware of Turkey's support for ISIS -
and well before the Charlie Hebdo attack. Yet it is Russia that: details the
funding for ISIS; seriously attacks oil trucks; publicly names Turkey as an ISIS
'accomplice'.
The West should have demanded that Turkey cease their support of ISIS long ago.
Instead, we get political/police theatre: troops in the streets, mild airstrikes,
aircraft carrier deployments, MSM's amplifying of Islamophobia (ISIS is
everywhere!, refugees = ISIS!, oh-hum reporting of attacks on refugees),etc.
Prediction: NATO will support Turkey's defending of its airspace.
Tom Welsh | Nov 24, 2015 10:39:17 AM | 61
@RTE:
"Once you're In - it's hard to get out again".
As the Russians say, "it's a kopeck to get in, but a rouble to get out". Where a rouble may
mean a life.
harry law | Nov 24, 2015 11:10:01 AM | 84
RTE @59. "by all International laws and standards they had every right to do what they
did". I disagree, Russia is not at war with Turkey, violation of someones airspace, [if it
happened] should be dealt with diplomatically. What Turkey did was a act of war, there can be
no doubt about that.
Re: RTE | Nov 24, 2015 11:29:02 AM | 88
Problem with your reasoning is that the Russian plane seems to have been shot down in Syrian not in Turkish airspace so the violation is Turkish - if there has been a Russian violation before or not.
To shoot down an airplane is an act of war. Turkey dares to do it because they are part of NATO. NATO's reaction will tell if they back this provocation of Russia or not.
A very interesting, appropriate and very good response.
Sultan
Erdogan has been served notice. I hope he's bricking it. Let him
stew.
It makes sense that Putin should treat differentiate Turkey from
western states. It also help him to present NATO with a stark
choice and not much chance to try and claim the middle ground.
Either way, unless Turkey gets categorical support from the NATO
meeting and not the usual meaningless waffle, he's lost support
from both NATO & Russia. Not a good place to be in.
At about 8:30 he points out that terrorists from Russia are
located north of Latakia and could come back to kill Russians.
He mentions stab in the back twice. He's called Turkey as
complicit in supporting terrorism in all but direct name and
called the shooting down a crime. He's furious.
Still, this is King Abdullah of Jordan, a loyal American
ally, coming to Moscow. Crikey.
Abdullah's mother was English, daughter of an officer and
gentleman, no less, in the colonial service. That's why old
Abdullah is so well house-trained, I guess.
Putin's comment characterizing the Turkish action as a "stab in
the back" was spot on. As my father used to say in such
situations "They just shitted in their mess kit".
Good point that he made about the Turks immediately contacting
their NATO allies after downing the Russian warplane, which was
making no threat against Turkey, and not contacting Russia. "As if
we downed a Turkish jet", he says and asks: "Do they want NATO to
serve the interests of ISIS?" A stab in the back, he adds, as the
Turks are allegedly fighting terrorism in the area together with
their NATO partners.
et Al,
November 24, 2015 at 7:15 am
BBC's Jonothan Marcus, their chief diplomatic bloke, has just said that the Su-24 may only have crossed Turkish airspace for 15 or 20 seconds so shooting it down looks dodgy and comments that other military analysts point this out and that this is 'browned off' Turkey telling the Russians to keep out. Most normal people would call it an 'ambush', which is exactly what Moon of Alabama called it hours ago.
Russia's "allies" Belarus and Kazakhstans
supported the UN resolution recognizing the
nuclear facilities in the Crimea as
Ukrainian:
http://nnr.su/75218#hcq=2cNuCup
They
did not even abstain, but instead supported
the resolution.
It is scary how alone Russia seems to be
in it's western hemisphere. Surrounded by
Finland (coldly hostile against Russia),
the Baltics (extremely hostile chihuahuas),
Ukraine (hostile enough to nuke Russia if
it had nukes), Belarus (not really hostile,
but not friendly either. Next target for a
Western coup attempt), Turkey (hostile
enough to shoot down Russia's military
jets), Georgia (hostile), Azerbaijan
(hostile/neutral), Armenia (friendly, but
poor and meaningless).and Kazakhstan (seems
to be the best of Russia's neighbors, but
refuses to back Russia in international
stage).
Further to West there are also hostile
Sweden, very hostile Poland and Romania,
and hostile Bulgaria. Those European
countries with warm relations towards
Russia (like Serbia and Montenegro) are
small and strategically unimportant for
Russia.
How did it ever come to this?
Patient Observer, November 24, 2015 at 11:24 am
Seems like a good response so far per RT:
https://www.rt.com/news/323329-russia-suspend-military-turkey/
"Three steps as announced by top brass:
– Each and every strike groups' operation is to be carried out under the guise of fighter jets
– Air defense to be boosted with the deployment of Moskva guided missile cruiser off Latakia
coast with an aim to destroy any target that may pose danger
– Military contacts with Turkey to be suspended"
The Russian action of using ship-based anti-aircraft systems suggest that the stories about
S-300 or S-400 being deployed in Syria are likely not true (and conforming with what Russia
has maintained).
ANKARA - Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has said that Turkey has the right to take "all kinds
of measures" against border violations.
He was speaking amid reports that Turkish fighter jets downed a Russian military plane violating
Turkish airspace earlier on Tuesday.
Speaking during an engagement in Ankara, Davutoglu said:
"We would like the entire world to know that we will take all necessary measures and make any sacrifices
when it comes to the lives and dignity of our citizens and for the security of our borders while
our country is in a circle of fire."
Davutoglu said Turkey had exercised its "international right and national duty" by downing the plane
which the authorities say was flying over the country's southern Hatay province.
The Turkish premier called on the international community to act regarding the ongoing conflict in
Syria.
"Let's put out the fire in Syria," Davutoglu said, adding: "Our message is clear for the Syrian regime
forces, terrorist organizations or other foreign forces that are involved in pouring fire over Bayirbucak
Turkmens, Aleppo Arabs or Azaz Arabs, Kurds or Turkmens, instead of putting out the fire in Syria.
"While carrying out effective counter-terrorism we are aware that the prerequisite for counter-terrorism
is the growing up of young generations within peace and their love for each other," he added.
Turkish, UK PMs discuss downing of Russian jet
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had a phone conversation with his British counterpart David
Cameron on Tuesday after Turkish Air Force shot down a Russian warplane.
"Our prime minister has expressed that UN and NATO countries will be informed in detail about the
issue," said the Turkish Prime Ministry's press office in a statement.
"It was told [to Cameron] that the ambassadors of the P5 countries [China, France, Russia, the U.K.
and the U.S.] were also informed by our Foreign Ministry," the statement added.
"The Prime Minister strongly encouraged Prime Minister Davutoglu to make sure there was direct communication
between the Turks and Russians on this, so a clearer understanding could be formed of what had happened
and how to avoid this happening in the future and to avoid an escalation," said a Downing Street
spokeswoman.
"We respect Turkey's right to protect its airspace. There are procedures in place for flying through
a country's airspace - you need to seek permission and have it granted and there should be communication
between the authorities on the ground and the pilot. All those steps need to be properly followed,"
she added.
The two leaders agreed to meet on Sunday at the Turkey-EU summit in Brussels, according to the statement.
A Russian warplane was shot down at the Turkish-Syrian border earlier Tuesday after repeatedly ignoring
warnings that it was violating Turkish airspace.
Cameron is expected to address parliament Thursday to extend U.K. strikes against Daesh in Syria.
The U.K. targets the organization in Iraq.
Thousands of Turkmens have recently been displaced due to simultaneous air and ground attacks by
Syrian government forces and Russian jets. Approximately 2,000 Syrian Turkmens have arrived in southern
Turkey in the past several days.
Russian warplanes previously violated Turkish airspace twice in October. The incidents came within
a few days of the start of Russia's air campaign in Syria on Sept. 30 and led to international condemnation.
Vatican City (AFP) - Christmas festivities will seem empty in a world which has chosen "war and hate", Pope Francis said Thursday.
"Christmas is approaching: there will be lights, parties, Christmas trees and nativity scenes ... it's all a charade. The world
continues to go to war. The world has not chosen a peaceful path," he said in a sermon.
"There are wars today everywhere, and hate," he said after the worst terror attack in French history, the bombing of a Russian
airliner, a double suicide bombing in Lebanon, and a series of other deadly strikes.
"We should ask for the grace to weep for this world, which does not recognise the path to peace. To weep for those who live for
war and have the cynicism to deny it," the Argentine pontiff said, adding: "God weeps, Jesus weeps". ...
"... Obomber is an interventionista, owned by Lockheed. He at least has not had to duck shoes thrown at him, otherwise we have a repeat of W in the white house.e. Obomber also gets on the board of ARAMCO later in life ..."
Military Reviews U.S. Response to Rise of ISIS
By MATT APUZZO, MARK MAZZETTI, and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDT
The Pentagon has seized a trove of emails from military servers as it expands an inquiry into
Central Command over allegations that officials overstated the progress of airstrikes against
the Islamic State.
During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, American military officials often provided misleadingly
upbeat assessments of battlefield efforts and belittled reporting that contradicted their narrative.
Their take on the progress of the troops was frequently at odds with the conclusions of civilian
intelligence analysts and reporting by journalists in the field. The opposing views were important
because they sometimes forced the Pentagon to face unpleasant truths and change course.
The war against the Islamic State terrorist group, which the Obama administration launched
more than a year ago, however, has unfolded out of sight by design....
Inquiry Weighs Whether ISIS Analysis Was Distorted
By MARK MAZZETTI and MATT APUZZO
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's inspector general is investigating allegations that military officials
have skewed intelligence assessments about the United States-led campaign in Iraq against the
Islamic State to provide a more optimistic account of progress, according to several officials
familiar with the inquiry....
ilsm ->anne...
Everything that is done inside the pentagon-capitol-K St axis is distorted to sell more weaponry
and plunder the US.
ilsm ->anne...
The same misinformation campaign brought you: 10 years of misguided war profiteering in Southeast
Asia for Saigon thugs' survival, the nuclear TRIAD to assure the US could kill everything on earth
in its dying throes, and the past 40 years of expensive imperialism around the world.
im1dc said...
November 22, 2015 at 08:45 AM
Ohhhh, someone is not happy with CENTCOM's 'manipulation of
(ISIL) intelligence'
Heads to Roll, Careers to be Ended,
and hopefully some time in the brig for the top brass who
ordered the bogus INTEL too
Fight against Islamic State militants - 8h ago
"Obama on manipulation of intelligence about Islamic State:
'I don't know what we'll discover in regards to what happened
at CENTCOM'"
im1dc said...
islm, the President thinks your belief of SA ISIL financial support is wrong
Fight against Islamic State militants - 9h ago
"Saudi Arabia is helping to co-ordinate the fight against financing for Islamic State, Obama says"
Fred C. Dobbs ->im1dc...
The Saudi guv'mint may
be cooperating, while
the vast Saudi wealth
may be at cross purposes.
ilsm ->im1dc...
Obomber is an interventionista, owned by Lockheed. He at least has not had to duck shoes
thrown at him, otherwise we have a repeat of W in the white house.e.
Obomber also gets on the board of ARAMCO later in life
"... The Russians have announced that they will partner with the French to fight the Islamic State in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. But beyond new friendships forged in the wake of the Paris massacre and the downing of a Russian charter flight over the Sinai in October, Moscow's strategic interest in Syria is longstanding and vital to its interest. ..."
"... For all the mythmaking and propaganda, there is a powerful historical context to Russia's latest foreign military intervention. Like all states that try to project force beyond their borders, Putin's Russia faces limits. But those limits differ markedly from those that doomed America's recent fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan. ..."
"... The spectacular international attacks by Islamic State militants against targets in the Sinai, Beirut, and Paris have reminded Western powers of the other interests at stake beyond a resurgent Russia ..."
LATAKIA, Syria - When Russian jets started bombing Syrian insurgents, it was no surprise that
fans of President Bashar Assad felt buoyed. What was surprising was the outsized, even over-the-top
expectations placed on Russian help.
"They're not like the Americans," explained a Syrian government official responsible for escorting
journalists around the coastal city of Latakia. "When they get involved, they do it all the way."
Naturally, tired supporters of the Assad regime are susceptible to any optimistic thread they
can cling to after five years of a war that the government was decisively losing when the Russians
unveiled a major military intervention in October. Russian fever isn't entirely driven by hope and
ignorance. Many of the Syrians cheering the Russian intervention know Moscow well.
A fluent Russian speaker, the bureaucrat in Latakia had spent nearly a decade in Moscow studying
and working. Much of Syria's military and Ba'ath Party elite trained in Moscow, steeped in Soviet-era
military and political doctrine, along with an unapologetic culture of tough-talking secular nationalism
(there's also a shared affinity for vodka or other spirits).
The Russians have announced that they will partner with the French to fight the Islamic State
in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris. But beyond new friendships forged in the wake of the
Paris massacre and the downing of a Russian charter flight over the Sinai in October, Moscow's strategic
interest in Syria is longstanding and vital to its interest.
The world reaction to the Russian offensive in Syria has been as much about perception as military
reality. Putin, according to Russian analysts who carefully study his policy, wants more than anything
else to reassert Russia's role as a high-stakes player in the international system.
Sure, they say, he wants to reduce the heat from his invasion of Ukraine, and he wants to keep
a loyal client in place in Syria, but most of all, he wants Russia's Great Power role back.
For all the mythmaking and propaganda, there is a powerful historical context to Russia's latest
foreign military intervention. Like all states that try to project force beyond their borders, Putin's
Russia faces limits. But those limits differ markedly from those that doomed America's recent fiascoes
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The spectacular international attacks by Islamic State militants against targets in the Sinai,
Beirut, and Paris have reminded Western powers of the other interests at stake beyond a resurgent
Russia and a prickly Iran. Until now, Russia's new role in Syria has stymied the West, impinging
on its air campaign against ISIS and all but eliminating the possibility of an anti-Assad no-fly
zone. ...
A day after the horrific attacks in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov announced a silver lining: The world had come together and agreed to end the Syrian
civil war. At a press conference in Vienna, they laid out an ambitious time line. A cease-fire would
be negotiated in a matter of weeks between the Assad regime and rebel groups, with the exception
of "terrorists." Talks between Assad and the opposition would be held by Jan. 1. A "credible, inclusive,
nonsectarian" government would be established within six months. A new constitution and free and
fair elections would materialize within 18 months.
If their plan - backed by the Arab League, the United Nations, the European Union, Egypt, Iran,
Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates - sounds too
good to be true, that's because it probably is.
Much like Kerry's overly optimistic goal of creating a Palestinian state within two years, the Syria
plan is based more on the desire for peace than the prospects for it actually happening on the ground.
...
... One of the goals of radical Islamic terrorist groups is to divide Muslims and the rest of
the world. The disparity in our concern for victims of terrorism, depending on the country attacked
and the dominant religion, inadvertently feeds into their narrative. ...
I am as committed to my American identity as I am to my Muslim identity, but I often cannot feel
fully at home in either due to misunderstandings and poorly managed conflicts between the two. Muslims
like myself seeking to bring reconciliation often encounter backlash and distrust from extremist
Muslims and Americans alike.
But my hybrid identity as a Muslim-American born and raised in New Jersey serves as the foundation
for my commitment to dialogue facilitation, conflict resolution, and peacebuilding. As an American,
I know the sheer terror that 9/11 instilled in our individual and collective psyche. I understand
the desire to regain a sense of security and comfort in our everyday lives and to defend against
any group or ideology that appears even remotely threatening. As a Muslim, I know the exasperation
of having our religion hijacked and used for something that was never its purpose. I understand the
outrage of being held responsible for what we did not do – in the form of discrimination, prejudice,
and warfare against home countries.
The sources of misunderstanding and pain for Americans and Muslims are actually not so different:
They arise out of fear and trauma. So, too, the sources for healing are shared, and can be found
in dialogue, compassion, and community. I see my purpose as guiding members of these groups to realizing
these commonalities, and from this basis developing relationships that mitigate and prevent violent
manifestations of conflict. Through my hybrid identity as a Muslim-American, I strive to provide
one of many examples of how it is indeed possible to move past fear of "the other" and toward mutually
beneficial relationships.
One of my most treasured verses in the Qur'an - introduced to me by a Catholic - has a universal
message: "If God had so willed, He could have made you a single people, but His plan is to test you
in what He has given you, so strive as one human race in all virtues according to what He has given
you (5:48)." Most especially in the wake of trauma and terror, how we each decide to engage with
"the other" is our own individual choice, but the fate is shared by us all. ...
(Saadia Ahmad is a student studying conflict resolution at the McCormack Graduate School of Policy
and Global Studies at the University of Massachusetts Boston.)
Selected Skeptical Comments from Economist's View blog
'Putin, according to Russian
analysts who
carefully study his policy, wants more than
anything else to reassert Russia's role as a
high-stakes player in the international system.'
It's almost like Putin wants Russia to
'assume
among the powers of the earth the separate
and equal station to which the laws of
nature entitle' them. What nerve?
A day after the attacks in Paris underlined the global danger posed by the continuing
violence in Syria, Russia, the United States, and governments in Europe and the Middle East
agreed at talks in Vienna to a road map for ending the devastating and destabilizing war.
The proposal (*), which appears to draw heavily from a Russian peace plan circulated
before the talks, sets Jan. 1 as a deadline for the start of negotiations between Bashar
al-Assad's government and opposition groups. Within six months, they would be required to
create an "inclusive and non-sectarian" transitional government that would set a schedule
for holding new, internationally supervised elections within 18 months. Western diplomats
involved in the talks told the Wall Street Journal that the meeting had produced more progress
than expected, and the events in Paris may have added new urgency to the proceedings, given
the need to build a united front against ISIS, but stumbling blocks remain.
The biggest one is the fate of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose role is side-stepped
in the agreement. ...
Not them, but apparently 'the Arab League, the United Nations, the European Union,
Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United
Arab Emirates' are on board.
Could be the other parties were otherwise engaged.
ilsm ->
Fred C. Dobbs...
There is a story going around about Iranian F-14's escorting Russian Bear bombers
on their way through to bomb Syrian deserts.
US navy went all out for F-18 and Tom Cruse's F-14 been in the boneyard for years.
Israel just did something a wee bit nutty with their most recent wish list of US war
goodies. It's one of those nerdtastically insider geek things that might actually mean some
really interesting stuff.
So - drumroll please - reports have just emerged that Israel wants to buy a proposed,
but as yet unmade, version of the F-15 fighter jet called the F-15SE Silent Eagle, in addition
to several F-35s.
Okay, so it's not that exciting, unless you've been following the Israeli Air Force.
But if you have, this purchase tells you something interesting about what advice those guys
are getting from their strategic-planning Ouija boards on the topic of stealth...
Israel
is using US aid money to "buy" F-35's, likely because the "F-35 sale is a string" for support
for more aid to the IDF. There are many things the F-35 cannot do, there are many issues
that mean sustaining 18 F-35's is less "capability" than 12 F-15 or F-16's.
Stealth is less a game changer than the reality of F-35 expenses and flaws. I am no fan
of stealth it adds expense and overhead with unproven theory as to its "use".
A single engine fighter that carries 16000 of jet fuel is troubling. Rumblings USAF wants
a buy of F-16s and F-35s for the same reasons.
I have a regard for F-4's if nothing else they are only a little less ugly than the A-10,
unless they save your bacon in a tight spot on the front line.
The war in Syria has become a tangled web of conflict dominated by competing military factions
fueled by an overlapping mixture of ideologies and political agendas.
Just below it, experts suspect, they're powered by something else: Captagon.
The tiny, highly addictive pill is produced in Syria and now widely available across
the Middle East. Its illegal sale funnels hundreds of millions of dollars back into the
war-torn country's black-market economy each year, likely giving militias access to new
arms, fighters, and the ability to keep the conflict boiling, according to the Guardian.
''Syria is a tremendous problem in that it's a collapsed security sector, because of
its porous borders, because of the presence of so many criminal elements and organized networks,''
the UN Office on Drugs and Crime regional representative, Masood Karimipour, told Voice
of America.
''There's a great deal of trafficking being done of all sorts of illicit goods - guns,
drugs, money, people. But what is being manufactured there and who is doing the manufacturing,
that's not something we have visibility into from a distance.''
A powerful amphetamine tablet based on the original synthetic drug known as fenethylline,
Captagon quickly produces a euphoric intensity in users, allowing Syria's fighters to stay
up for days, killing with a numb, reckless abandon.
''You can't sleep or even close your eyes; forget about it,'' said a Lebanese user, one
of three who appeared on camera without their names for a BBC Arabic documentary that aired
in September. ''And whatever you take to stop it, nothing can stop it.''
''I felt like I own the world high,'' another user said. ''Like I have power nobody has.
A really nice feeling.''
''There was no fear anymore after I took Captagon,'' a third man added. ...
... production of Captagon has taken root in Syria, long a heavily trafficked thoroughfare
for drugs journeying from Europe to the Gulf States, and it has begun to blossom.
''The breakdown of state infrastructure, weakening of borders and proliferation of armed
groups during the nearly three-year battle for control of Syria, has transformed the country
from a stopover into a major production site,'' Reuters reported.
''Production in Lebanon's Bekaa valley - a traditional center for the drug - fell 90
percent last year from 2011, with the decline largely attributed to production inside Syria,''
the Guardian noted.
Cheap and easy to produce using legal materials, the drug can be purchased for less than
$20 a tablet and is popular among those Syrian fighters who don't follow strict interpretations
of Islamic law, according to the Guardian. ...
"... By far the most important thing GOP voters are looking for in a candidate is someone to "bring needed change to Washington." ..."
"... He's very strong in several of the early states right now including NH, NV and SC. And he could do very well on "Super Tuesday" with all those southern states voting. I can't see anyone but Trump or Carson winning in Georgia right now, for example, most likely Trump. ..."
"... And as for the idea of the GOP establishment ganging up on him and/or uniting behind another candidate like Rubio, that's at least as likely to backfire as to work. And even if it works, what's to stop Trump from then running as an independent? ..."
"... Indeed. You have a party whose domestic policy agenda consists of shouting "death panels!", whose foreign policy agenda consists of shouting "Benghazi!", and which now expects its base to realize that Trump isn't serious. Or to put it a bit differently, the definition of a GOP establishment candidate these days is someone who is in on the con, and knows that his colleagues have been talking nonsense. Primary voters are expected to respect that? ..."
"... ... with Trump in the race, all of those states-which are more red than they were in '08-are likely out for Democrats. Swing states like Colorado and Virginia are clear toss-ups. There are few states that Romney or McCain won where Trump, as the Republican nominee, wouldn't be in the running, and an analysis of other key states shows that Trump's in far better position than his detractors would like to admit. If Trump were to win every state that Romney won, Trump would stand today at 206 electoral votes, with 55 electoral votes up for grabs in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Similarly, Trump does not necessarily lose in a single toss-up state versus Hillary Clinton and, in fact, is seemingly competitive in many. ..."
"... Which all means that the election comes down to Florida and Ohio, two states where Trump has significant advantages. In Florida (29 electoral votes), he is a part-time resident and is polling better than the state's former governor and sitting U.S. senator. ... ..."
"... A brokered convention, maybe? Even Romney would have a shot. ..."
"... Top-tier presidential campaigns are preparing for the still-unlikely scenario that the nomination fight goes all the way to the 2016 Republican National Convention. ..."
"... There hasn't been a brokered convention since 1976, but the strength of the GOP field, when coupled with the proliferation of super PACs, increases the chances that several candidates could show up in Cleveland next July with an army of delegates at their backs ..."
"... Since the November 13 attacks, every poll-in Florida, two in New Hampshire, and three nationwide-shows Trump maintaining or expanding his lead against his primary opponents. Poor Ben Carson, only recently Trump's chief rival, is losing energy like, well, you know who. In the Fox NH poll, it's Trump at 27, Rubio 13, Cruz 11, and Carson down there at 9 percent alongside Jeb! ..."
"... Play it out: an outsider who's dismissed by his party's elite, comes into the race and overwhelms a large, much more experienced group of candidates in a series of state primaries, both increasing his margins and improving as a candidate as he goes long. All the time riding a crisis that seems made for his candidacy. Does that sound like a sure loser? ... ..."
"... While the investigation into US bombing waste is keyed on who padded the figures rather than the ineptitude of bombing in any use other than taking out property owners to get the greedy to say uncle . The shame of Paris is attributable to the US war machine and every issue requires more money for the pentagon. ..."
"... No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and FBI, etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and such exists today! Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in CIA-overthrown countries, aiding and abetting their secret police (Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000 deaths, ending up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank for International Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you devils are to blame. ..."
Alan Abramowitz reads the latest WaPo poll and emails:
'Read these results (#) and tell me how Trump doesn't win the Republican nomination? I've been
very skeptical about this all along, but I'm starting to change my mind. I think there's at least
a pretty decent chance that Trump will be the nominee.
Here's why I think Trump could very well end up as the nominee:
1. He's way ahead of every other candidate now and has been in the lead or tied for the lead
for a long time.
2. The only one even giving him any competition right now is Carson who is even less plausible
and whose support is heavily concentrated among one (large) segment of the base-evangelicals.
3. Rubio, the great establishment hope now, is deep in third place, barely in double digits
and nowhere close to Trump or Carson.
4. By far the most important thing GOP voters are looking for in a candidate is someone to
"bring needed change to Washington."
5. He is favored on almost every major issue by Republican voters including immigration and
terrorism by wide margins. The current terrorism scare only helps him with Republicans. They want
someone who will "bomb the shit" out of the Muslim terrorists.
6. There is clearly strong support among Republicans for deporting 11 million illegal immigrants.
They don't provide party breakdown here, but support for this is at about 40 percent among all
voters so it's got to be a lot higher than that, maybe 60 percent, among Republicans.
7. If none of the totally crazy things he's said up until now have hurt him among Republican
voters, why would any crazy things he says in the next few months hurt him?
8. He's very strong in several of the early states right now including NH, NV and SC. And he
could do very well on "Super Tuesday" with all those southern states voting. I can't see anyone
but Trump or Carson winning in Georgia right now, for example, most likely Trump.
9. And as for the idea of the GOP establishment ganging up on him and/or uniting behind another
candidate like Rubio, that's at least as likely to backfire as to work. And even if it works,
what's to stop Trump from then running as an independent?'
Indeed. You have a party whose domestic policy agenda consists of shouting "death panels!",
whose foreign policy agenda consists of shouting "Benghazi!", and which now expects its base to
realize that Trump isn't serious. Or to put it a bit differently, the definition of a GOP establishment
candidate these days is someone who is in on the con, and knows that his colleagues have been
talking nonsense. Primary voters are expected to respect that?
My guess is that if people dug deeper into the support for Trump, they would find that
there is a certain percentage of Republicans who have supported Trump because he was a
business man - the only one in the pack - not because they wanted another crazy xenophobic
racist wingnut. Now that Trump has gone full wingnut, they are frustrated with the mess they
have created for themselves.
Fred C. Dobbs -> Dan Kervick...
Here's Why Donald Trump
Really Could Be Elected President http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/donald-trump-could-be-president
via @VanityFair
David Burstein - October 22
... with Trump in the race, all of those states-which are more red than they were in
'08-are likely out for Democrats. Swing states like Colorado and Virginia are clear toss-ups.
There are few states that Romney or McCain won where Trump, as the Republican nominee,
wouldn't be in the running, and an analysis of other key states shows that Trump's in far
better position than his detractors would like to admit. If Trump were to win every state that
Romney won, Trump would stand today at 206 electoral votes, with 55 electoral votes up for
grabs in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Similarly, Trump
does not necessarily lose in a single toss-up state versus Hillary Clinton and, in fact, is
seemingly competitive in many.
Virginia is trending blue, but could be a toss-up, particularly given the tale of Dave Brat,
whose success in 2014 could be read as a harbinger of Trump. Colorado will have high
Republican turnout, given that it is home to what's likely to be one of the country's most
contested Senate races-which could make it more competitive than it should be, considering
Trump's comments about Latinos. Depending on how well Trump shows in the Iowa and New
Hampshire primaries, they too could be in play. In two of the remaining states, Wisconsin and
Nevada, any Democratic nominee will have an upper hand-particularly Clinton.
But Trump will be able to effectively contest, particularly in a place like Wisconsin, with
working-class white voters who elected Scott Walker three times in four years. Finally,
Pennsylvania, which has been leaning ever-more blue and will likely go blue this year, will
nonetheless require Clinton to spend some resources and time there-taking away from her
efforts in other swing states.
Which all means that the election comes down to Florida and Ohio, two states where
Trump has significant advantages. In Florida (29 electoral votes), he is a part-time resident
and is polling better than the state's former governor and sitting U.S. senator. ...
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Long time, still, from now to the
GOP convention. (Curiously, less every week, however.)
Some GOPsters (including Bush, Rubio,
various others) know in their hearts that eventually Trump & Carson will fade, or be dumped, and
*their* star will ascend. Sure.
A brokered convention, maybe? Even Romney would have a shot.
Could the GOP Really See a Brokered Convention
in 2016? http://natl.re/CLXxxf via @NRO
Joel Gehrke - May 14, 2015
Ask around and you'll hear a consistent theme from political strategists
in the Republican party: The 2016 primary is wide open. "It is by far the most interesting presidential
year since I've been involved [in Republican politics]," says Steve Munisteri, a senior adviser
to Senator Rand Paul.
How interesting? Top-tier presidential campaigns are preparing for the still-unlikely scenario
that the nomination fight goes all the way to the 2016 Republican National Convention.
There hasn't been a brokered convention since 1976, but the strength of the GOP field,
when coupled with the proliferation of super PACs, increases the chances that several candidates
could show up in Cleveland next July with an army of delegates at their backs. "It's certainly
more likely now than it's been in any prior election, going back to 1976," Thor Hearn, the general
counsel to George W. Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, tells National Review. "I don't put it as
a high likelihood, but it's a much more realistic probability than it's been in any recent experience."
...
The Paris attacks have made the demagogue even stronger.
Tt hurts to put these words in print, but… Ann Coulter may be right. Shortly after the Paris
attacks began last Friday, she tweeted, "They can wait if they like until next November for the
actual balloting, but Donald Trump was elected president tonight."
Stephen Colbert agrees. He told us this week to get used to saying "President Trump"-and led
his studio audience to repeat the words in unison and then pretend to barf.
Yes, it's hard to stomach. America's most entertaining demagogue winning the GOP primaries
and then the general? It can't happen here, can it?
Democrats have been expressing absolute incredulity at the possibility, and quietly chuckling
to themselves about the Clinton landslide to come if Donald is his party's nominee. The Huffington
Post has banned Trump from its politics section and relegated him to Entertainment, as if there
he'd be no more than a joke.
The problem is that our liberal incredulity mirrors that of the Republican establishment, which
refuses to believe that their front-runner of five straight months could possibly win their nomination.
Now even after the carnage in Paris, Beltway pundits are telling themselves that the base will
sober up and turn toward "experienced" pols like Rubio or Bush and away from the newbie nuts.
As the always-wrong Bill Kristol said of this latest terrorism crisis, "I think it hurts Trump
and Carson, honestly."
But, honestly, it's only strengthened Trump. Since the November 13 attacks, every poll-in
Florida, two in New Hampshire, and three nationwide-shows Trump maintaining or expanding his lead
against his primary opponents. Poor Ben Carson, only recently Trump's chief rival, is losing energy
like, well, you know who. In the Fox NH poll, it's Trump at 27, Rubio 13, Cruz 11, and Carson
down there at 9 percent alongside Jeb!
It's easy to laugh at GOPers in denial, but progressives who pooh-pooh Trump's chances of beating
Hillary may be whistling past the graveyard of American democracy.
A post-Paris Reuters/Ipsos poll asked 1,106 people which candidate, from the entire 2016 field,
could best tackle terrorism, and respondents put Trump and Clinton on equal footing, at 20 percent
each.
Not good-when it comes to taking on terrorists, a reality-show "carnival barker" who's never
served in the military nor held elected office is tied with a decidedly hawkish former secretary
of state?
Play it out: an outsider who's dismissed by his party's elite, comes into the race and
overwhelms a large, much more experienced group of candidates in a series of state primaries,
both increasing his margins and improving as a candidate as he goes long. All the time riding
a crisis that seems made for his candidacy. Does that sound like a sure loser? ...
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs...
Media hype, more Americans died, most did not want to, from gun violence this past weekend......
While the investigation into US bombing waste is keyed on "who padded the figures" rather than
the ineptitude of bombing in any use other than taking out property owners to get the greedy to
say "uncle". The shame of Paris is attributable to the US war machine and every issue requires more money
for the pentagon.
847328_3527
But they're still ... "jealous of our freedom" right?
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the
1970s, but they never attacked innocent women and children
indiscriminately," he said.
No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile
mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and FBI,
etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and
such exists today!
Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless
number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in
CIA-overthrown countries, aiding and abetting their secret police
(Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000
deaths, ending up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret
police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank
for International Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you
devils are to blame.
Recommended reading (to better understand why the USA is known
as the Great Satan):
Funny how these fucks can come out and say this kind of shit and get away with it.
The fucker's basically pleading guilty to murder, FFS.
Ms No
They didn't kill anybody in South America my ass.... The school of Americas, Operation Condor, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador .... who the hell are they kidding? The CIA has always been covered and nobody ever cared.
Perimetr
Perimetr's picture
"If there's blame to be put. . ."
It's on the CIA for running its global terrorist operations, funded by the $1 trillion dollars a year coming from its Afghanistan heroin operation.
sirs and madams,
.
"Christmas celebration this year is going to be a charade because the whole world is at war.
We are close to Christmas. There will be lights, there will be parties, bright trees, even
Nativity scenes – all decked out – while the world continues to wage war.
It's all a charade. The world has not understood the way of peace. The whole world is at war.
A war can be justified, so to speak, with many, many reasons, but when all the world as it is
today, at war, piecemeal though that war may be-a little here, a little there-there is no
justification.
What shall remain in the wake of this war, in the midst of which we are living now? What shall
remain? Ruins, thousands of children without education, so many innocent victims, and lots of
money in the pockets of arms dealers."
The discovery of America by Europe had to happen. The savages had to be eliminated and The
Revolutionary War had to happen. Slavery had to begin, and after it, segregation had to begin,
but, what must be, will be, slavery and segregation had to end. Old School colonization of
poor nations had to happen. The Boer War had to happen. The Spanish American War had to
happen. The Main had to be sunk. WWI had to happen. Calvary charges had to end. Totalitarian
Communism had to happen. Germany's 20's depression had to happen, reactionary jingoism had to
happen, and Kristallnacht and the Reichstag fire had to happen. The Allies had to win WWII,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be publicity stunts, and the Cold War had to begin. JFK had to
be wacked, the Vietnam War had to happen, the FED still was happening. Civil Rights laws had
to be passed. Recognition of China had to happen, going off the gold standard had to happen,
and Nixon had to be kicked out of office. Corporate Globalization had to begin. After Carter
an actor had to be President. Unions had to be stifled. Perestroika and glasnost had to
happen. The Berlin Wall had to come down. The MIC had to find another enemy, and suddenly 9/11
had to happen. …
Over population has to happen, poisoning the environment has to happen, and the NWO has to
happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, the NWO is here, and there is nothing you can do, and nothing
you could have done to stop it.
Edit. I see none of our supposed enemies 'truth bombing' 9/11, 7/7, and the 13th Paris
attacks. I see no trade embagoes, I see no arguments in the Security Council over the
illegality of US/Nato bombing in Syria.
blindman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/jimmy-carter-is-correct-t_b_79...
Jimmy Carter Is Correct That the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy
Posted: 08/03/2015 11:48 am EDT
.
On July 28, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end
of his show (as if this massive question were merely an afterthought), asked him his opinion
of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision, both decisions by the
five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable
unlimited secret money (including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial
campaigns. Carter answered:
It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's
just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the
nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors,
and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we've just seen a subversion of our political
system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for
themselves after the election is over. ... At the present time the incumbents, Democrats and
Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that is
already in Congress has a great deal more to sell." ...
.
it is the money "system", man.
blindman
corporations and hoodwink powers ride on the indifference of the damned, the silence of the
dead and doomed.
Dinero D. Profit
The Satus Quo can rely upon the loyalty of their employees, Congress, the military, the
military industrial contractors, their workers and family members, the crime control
establishment, all Uniersity professors and employees, and every employee of all publically
traded companies, and every person employed by the MSM.
The dead and doomed are irrelevant. If you have an establishment job, you'll obey and ask
no vital questions.
Dick Buttkiss
Sunnis and Shiites hate each other far more than they hate Christians, Jews, or anyone else.
If it weren't for oil, the USG wouldn't give a flyiing fuck if they anihilated each other.
Instead, it conspires with them in ways far beyond its ability to comprehend, much less navigate.
Thus is the US ship of state heading for the shoals of its destruction, the only question being how much of the country and the outside world it takes down with it.
ross81
thats bullshit Western propaganda that Shiites hate Sunnis and vice versa. In the same way that the Brits stirred up Protestant hatred of Catholics in Ulster for centuries, the US/Israel/Saudi does the same with Sunnis vs Shiites on a much bigger scale in the Middle East. Divide and Conquer.
geno-econ
This is getting scary in that one or two more attacks will result in travel freezes, flow of Middle East oil and result in huge increase in military as well as Homeland security costs. A depression or economic collapse a real possibility Perhaps time for a Peace Conference of all interested parties. The US started this shit and should be the first to call for a Peace Conference. Macho talk will only make things worse.
moonmac
We can print trillions out of thin air at the drop of a hat but we can't kill a small group of terrorists. Got it!
sgt_doom
Or, we pour billions of dollars every year into the CIA, NSA, and DIA, and only a poor old fart such as myself can figure out that Bilal Erdogan is the ISIS connection to oil trading (Turkish president, Erdogan's son) and Erdogan's daughter is with ISIS?
GRDguy
Ex-CIA boss gets it wrong, again.
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
should be:
"When you have a small group of financial sociopaths willing to lie-to, steal-from and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
and you'll probably be punished, jailed or shot for tryin' to protect yourself and your family.
Ban KKiller
War profiteer. That is it.
Along wth James Comey, James Clapper, Jack Welch and the list is almost endless...
BarnacleBill
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
Simply take out the word "their", and the description perfectly fits the CIA, MI6 and their like. For them, it's all a business deal, nothing more - a massive slum-clearance project. Destroy people's houses, provide accommodation and food, ship them somewhere else; do it again and again until the money-printing machine conks out. It's money for old rope.
And, yes, we're all vulnerable. The man got that right.
Duc888
"You get the politicians you deserve."
CIA types are appointed, not elected.
Duc888
I do not know if there are any Catherine Austin Fitts fans on this web site but this is definitely worth the time. The FEDGOV came after her non stop for 6 years when she worked for HUD under Bush Sr. If nothing else this lady is tenacious. In this presentation she uncorks exactly HOW the deep black budgets are paid for...and it ain't your tax dollars. What she uncovered while at HUD was simply amazing..... and she made an excellent point. At the top... it's NOT "fraud" because that's how it was all deigned right from the get go after wwII. It brings to mind the funny computer saying....."it's a feature, not a bug".
She digs right into how the CIA was funded...
Truly amazing stuff.
...of course the dick head brigade will come along here and deride her because of the conference she is speaking at.... well, who the fuck cares, her presentation is excellent and filled with facts. Yes it is 1 hour 20 minutes long but imho it is well worth the watch...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0mimIp8mr8
Dragon HAwk
After reading all these posts my only question is why does the CIA allow Zero Hedge to Exist ?
"... From the man who brought you the Iraq war and the rise of ISIS--how to solve the ISIS crisis. ..."
"... Youd think ppl who brought the Iraq war, the best recruiters of ISIS, would be nowhere to be seen; but no, are telling how to deal w/ISIS. ..."
"... Narrative is the foundation of their skewed analysis. Their object is to sell perpetual war using super high tech, exquisitely expensive, contractor maintained versions of WW II formations to expired resources eternally for the profits they deliver. They starve the safety net to pay for their income security. ..."
"... ... In July of last year, the New York Times ran two pieces tying Clinton to the neoconservative movement. In "The Next Act of the Neocons," (*) Jacob Heilbrunn argued that neocons like historian Robert Kagan are putting their lot in with Clinton in an effort to stay relevant while the GOP shies away from its past interventionism and embraces politicians like Senator Rand Paul: ..."
"... And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler; wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy. ..."
"... It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board ..."
"... Kagan served on Clinton's bipartisan foreign policy advisory board when she was Secretary of State, has deep neocon roots. ..."
"... A month before the Heilbrunn piece, the Times profiled Kagan ( ..."
"... ), who was critical of Obama's foreign policy, but supported Clinton. "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Kagan told the Times. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue … it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that." ... ..."
"... Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton? http://nyti.ms/1qJ4eLN ..."
"... Robert Kagan Strikes a Nerve With Article on Obama Policy http://nyti.ms/UEuqtB ..."
"... doublethink has become synonymous with relieving cognitive dissonance by ignoring the contradiction between two world views – or even of deliberately seeking to relieve cognitive dissonance. (Wikipedia) ..."
...Europe was not in great shape before the refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks. The prolonged
Eurozone crisis eroded the legitimacy of European political institutions and the centrist parties
that run them, while weakening the economies of key European powers. The old troika-Britain, France
and Germany-that used to provide leadership on the continent and with whom the U.S. worked most closely
to set the global agenda is no more. Britain is a pale shadow of its former self. Once the indispensable
partner for the U.S., influential in both Washington and Brussels, the mediator between America and
Europe, Britain is now unmoored, drifting away from both. The Labor Party, once led by Tony Blair,
is now headed by an anti-American pacifist, while the ruling Conservative government boasts of its
"very special relationship" with China.
... ... ...
There is a Russian angle, too. Many of these parties, and even some mainstream political movements
across the continent, are funded by Russia and make little secret of their affinity for Moscow. Thus
Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary has praised "illiberalism" and made common ideological cause
with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In Germany, a whole class of businesspeople, politicians,
and current and former government officials, led by former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, presses constantly
for normalized relations with Moscow. It sometimes seems, in Germany
and perhaps in all of Europe, as if the only person standing in the way of full alliance with Russia
is German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Now the Syrian crisis has further bolstered Russia's position. Although Europeans generally share
Washington's discomfort with Moscow's support for Mr. Assad and Russia's bombing of moderate Syrian
rebels, in the wake of the Paris attacks, any plausible partner in the fight against Islamic State
seems worth enlisting. In France, former President Nicolas Sarkozy has long been an advocate for
Russia, but now his calls for partnership with Moscow are echoed by President François Hollande,
who seeks a "grand coalition" with Russia to fight Islamic State.
Where does the U.S. fit into all this? The Europeans no longer know, any more than American allies
in the Middle East do. Most Europeans still like Mr. Obama. After President George W. Bush and the
Iraq war, Europeans have gotten the kind of American president they wanted.
But in the current crisis, this new, more restrained and intensely cautious post-Iraq America has
less to offer than the old superpower, with all its arrogance and belligerence.
The flip side of European pleasure at America's newfound Venusian outlook is the perception, widely
shared around the world, that the U.S. is a declining superpower, and that even if it is not objectively
weaker than it once was, its leaders' willingness to deploy power on behalf of its interests, and
on behalf of the West, has greatly diminished. As former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer
recently put it, the U.S. "quite obviously, is no longer willing-or able-to play its old role."
Mr. Fischer was referring specifically to America's role as the dominant power in the Middle East,
but since the refugee crisis and the attacks in Paris, America's unwillingness to play that role
has reverberations and implications well beyond the Middle East. What the U.S. now does or doesn't
do in Syria will affect the future stability of Europe, the strength of trans-Atlantic relations
and therefore the well-being of the liberal world order.
This is no doubt the last thing that Mr. Obama wants to hear, and possibly to believe. Certainly
he would not deny that the stakes have gone up since the refugee crisis and especially since Paris.
At the very least, Islamic State has proven both its desire and its ability to carry out massive,
coordinated attacks in a major European city. It is not unthinkable that it could carry out a similar
attack in an American city. This is new.
... ... ...
In 2002, a British statesman-scholar issued a quiet warning. "The challenge to the postmodern
world," the diplomat Robert Cooper argued, was that while Europeans might operate within their borders
as if power no longer mattered, in the world outside Europe, they needed to be prepared to use force
just as in earlier eras. "Among ourselves, we keep the law, but when we are operating in the jungle,
we must also use the laws of the jungle," he wrote. Europeans didn't heed this warning, or at least
didn't heed it sufficiently. They failed to arm themselves for the jungle, materially and spiritually,
and now that the jungle has entered the European garden, they are at a loss.
With the exercise of power barely an option, despite what Mr. Hollande promises, Europeans are
likely to feel their only choice is to build fences, both within Europe and along its periphery-even
if in the process they destroy the very essence of the European project. It is this sentiment that
has the Le Pens of Europe soaring in the polls.
What would such an effort look like? First, it would require establishing a safe zone in Syria,
providing the millions of would-be refugees still in the country a place to stay and the hundreds
of thousands who have fled to Europe a place to which to return. To establish such a zone, American
military officials estimate, would require not only U.S. air power but ground forces numbering up
to 30,000. Once the safe zone was established, many of those troops could be replaced by forces from
Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, but the initial force would have to be largely
American.
In addition, a further 10,000 to 20,000 U.S. troops would be required to uproot Islamic State
from the haven it has created in Syria and to help local forces uproot it in Iraq. Many of those
troops could then be replaced by NATO and other international forces to hold the territory and provide
a safe zone for rebuilding the areas shattered by Islamic State rule.
At the same time, an internationally negotiated and blessed process of transition in Syria should
take place, ushering the bloodstained Mr. Assad from power and establishing a new provisional government
to hold nationwide elections. The heretofore immovable Mr. Assad would face an entirely new set of
military facts on the ground, with the Syrian opposition now backed by U.S. forces and air power,
the Syrian air force grounded and Russian bombing halted. Throughout the transition period, and probably
beyond even the first rounds of elections, an international peacekeeping force-made up of French,
Turkish, American and other NATO forces as well as Arab troops-would have to remain in Syria until
a reasonable level of stability, security and inter-sectarian trust was achieved.
Is such a plan so unthinkable? In recent years, the mere mention of
U.S. ground troops has been enough to stop any conversation. Americans, or at least
the intelligentsia and political class, remain traumatized by Iraq, and all calculations about what
to do in Syria have been driven by that trauma. Mr. Obama's advisers have been reluctant to present
him with options that include even smaller numbers of ground forces, assuming that he would reject
them. And Mr. Obama has, in turn, rejected his advisers' less ambitious proposals on the reasonable
grounds that they would probably be insufficient.
This dynamic has kept the president sneering at those who have wanted to do more but have been
reluctant to be honest about how much more. But it has also allowed him to be comfortable settling
for minimal, pressure-relieving approaches that he must know cannot succeed but which at least have
the virtue of avoiding the much larger commitment that he has so far refused to make.
The president has also been inclined to reject options that don't promise to "solve" the problems
of Syria, Iraq and the Middle East. He doesn't want to send troops only to put "a lid on things."
In this respect, he is entranced, like most Americans, by the image of the decisive engagement
followed by the victorious return home. But that happy picture is a myth. Even after the iconic American
victory in World War II, the U.S. didn't come home. Keeping a lid on things is exactly what the U.S.
has done these past 70 years. That is how the U.S. created this liberal world order.
In Asia, American forces have kept a lid on what had been, and would likely be again, a dangerous
multisided conflict involving China, Japan, Korea, India and who knows who else. In Europe, American
forces put a lid on what had been a chronic state of insecurity and war, making it possible to lay
the foundations of the European Union. In the Balkans, the presence of U.S. and European troops has
kept a lid on what had been an escalating cycle of ethnic conflict. In Libya, a similar international
force, with even a small American contingent, could have kept the lid on that country's boiling caldron,
perhaps long enough to give a new, more inclusive government a chance.
Preserving a liberal world order and international security is all about placing lids on regions
of turmoil. In any case, as my Brookings Institution colleague Thomas Wright observes, whether or
not you want to keep a lid on something really ought to depend on what's under the lid.
At practically any other time in the last 70 years, the idea of dispatching even 50,000 troops
to fight an organization of Islamic State's description would not have seemed too risky or too costly
to most Americans. In 1990-91, President George H.W. Bush, now revered as a judicious and prudent
leader, sent half a million troops across the globe to drive Iraq out of Kuwait, a country that not
one American in a million could find on a map and which the U.S. had no obligation to defend. In
1989, he sent 30,000 troops to invade Panama to topple an illegitimate, drug-peddling dictator. During
the Cold War, when presidents sent more than 300,000 troops to Korea and more than 500,000 troops
to Vietnam, the idea of sending 50,000 troops to fight a large and virulently anti-American terrorist
organization that had seized territory in the Middle East, and from that territory had already launched
a murderous attack on a major Western city, would have seemed barely worth an argument.
Not today. Americans remain paralyzed by Iraq, Republicans almost
as much as Democrats, and Mr. Obama is both the political beneficiary and the living symbol of this
paralysis. Whether he has the desire or capacity to adjust to changing circumstances is an open question.
Other presidents have-from Woodrow Wilson to Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton-each
of whom was forced to recalibrate what the loss or fracturing of Europe would mean to American interests.
In Mr. Obama's case, however, such a late-in-the-game recalculation seems less likely. He may be
the first president since the end of World War II who simply doesn't care what happens to Europe.
If so, it is, again, a great irony for Europe, and perhaps a tragic one. Having excoriated the
U.S. for invading Iraq, Europeans played no small part in bringing on the crisis of confidence and
conscience that today prevents Americans from doing what may be necessary to meet the Middle Eastern
crisis that has Europe reeling. Perhaps there are Europeans today wishing that the U.S. will not
compound its error of commission in Iraq by making an equally unfortunate error of omission in Syria.
They can certainly hope.
Mr. Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Of Paradise and
Power: America and Europe in the New World Order" and, most recently, "The World America Made."
You'd think ppl who brought the Iraq war, the best recruiters of ISIS, would be nowhere to
be seen; but no, are telling how to deal w/ISIS.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Narrative is the foundation of their skewed analysis. Their object is to sell perpetual
war using super high tech, exquisitely expensive, contractor maintained versions of WW II formations
to expired resources eternally for the profits they deliver. They starve the safety net to pay
for their income security.
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to anne...
Neoconservativism Is Down But Not Out of the 2016 Race
... In July of last year, the New York Times ran two pieces tying Clinton to the neoconservative
movement. In "The Next Act of the Neocons," (*) Jacob Heilbrunn argued that neocons like historian
Robert Kagan are putting their lot in with Clinton in an effort to stay relevant while the GOP
shies away from its past interventionism and embraces politicians like Senator Rand Paul:
'Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton.
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in the New Republic this
year that "it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong
stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya."
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported
sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler;
wholeheartedly backs Israel; and stresses the importance of promoting democracy.
It's easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton's making room for the neocons in her administration. No one
could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board.'
(The story also notes, prematurely, that the careers of older neocons like Wolfowitz are "permanently
buried in the sands of Iraq.")
Kagan served on Clinton's bipartisan foreign policy advisory board when she was Secretary
of State, has deep neocon roots. He was part of the Project for a New American Century, a
now-defunct think tank that spanned much of the second Bush presidency and supported a "Reaganite
policy of military strength and moral clarity." PNAC counted Kagan, Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld,
William Kristol, and Jeb Bush among its members. In 1998, some of its members-including Wolfowitz,
Kagan, and Rumsfeld-signed an open letter to President Bill Clinton asking him to remove Saddam
Hussein from power.
A month before the Heilbrunn piece, the Times profiled Kagan (#),
who was critical of Obama's foreign policy, but supported Clinton. "I feel comfortable with her
on foreign policy," Kagan told the Times. "If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue
… it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going
to call it that." ...
(I may be a HRC supporter but Neocons still make me anxious.)
'doublethink has become synonymous with relieving cognitive dissonance by ignoring the
contradiction between two world views – or even of deliberately seeking to relieve cognitive dissonance.'
(Wikipedia)
Last month, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard went on CNN and laid bare Washington's Syria strategy.
In a remarkably candid interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gabbard calls Washington's effort
to oust Assad "counterproductive" and "illegal" before taking it a step further and accusing the
CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "sworn enemies."
In short, Gabbard all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may
end up inadvertently starting "World War III."
All this neoliberal talk about "maximizing shareholder value" and hidden redistribution mechanism
of wealth up. It;s all about executive pay. "Shareholder value" is nothing then a ruse for
getting outsize bonuses but top execs. Who cares if the company will be destroyed if you have a golden
parachute ?
Notable quotes:
"... IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111 billion it invested in capital expenditures and R D. It's staggering under its debt, while revenues have been declining for 14 quarters in a row. It cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. ..."
"... Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in the past decade, compared to $82 billion in R D and $18 billion in capital spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks and dividends, and $30 billion on R D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it. ..."
"... Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies Reuters analyzed have engaged in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income for the first time in a non-recession period. ..."
"... This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal 2015, share buybacks hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion in dividends, for a total of $885 billion, against their combined net income of $847 billion. ..."
"... Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies that have repurchased shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in 1990. Corporate investment is normally a big driver in a recovery. Not this time! Hence the lousy recovery. ..."
"... Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the minds of CEOs and CFOs. A company buying its own shares creates additional demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive up the share price. The hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per share, even when net income is declining. ..."
"... But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing investment in productive activities and innovation, it has consequences for revenues down the road. And now that magic trick to increase shareholder value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered. ..."
"... Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV, it seems like they've legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s). ..."
"... On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of "affordability" has proven to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but camouflages the means of embezzling the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the only rational purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of embezzlement? ..."
"... "Results of all this financial engineering? Revenues of the S P 500 companies are falling for the fourth quarter in a row – the worst such spell since the Financial Crisis." ..."
By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist,
and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at
Wolf Street.
Magic trick turns into toxic mix.
Stocks have been on a tear to nowhere this year. Now investors are praying for a Santa rally to
pull them out of the mire. They're counting on desperate amounts of share buybacks that companies
fund by loading up on debt. But the magic trick that had performed miracles over the past few years
is backfiring.
And there's a reason.
IBM has blown $125 billion on buybacks since 2005, more than the $111 billion it invested
in capital expenditures and R&D. It's staggering under its debt, while revenues have been declining
for 14 quarters in a row. It cut its workforce by 55,000 people since 2012. And its stock is
down 38% since March 2013.
Big-pharma icon Pfizer plowed $139 billion into buybacks and dividends in the past decade,
compared to $82 billion in R&D and $18 billion in capital spending. 3M spent $48 billion on buybacks
and dividends, and $30 billion on R&D and capital expenditures. They're all doing it.
"Activist investors" – hedge funds – have been clamoring for it. An investigative report by Reuters,
titled
The Cannibalized Company, lined some of them up:
In March, General Motors Co acceded to a $5 billion share buyback to satisfy investor Harry
Wilson. He had threatened a proxy fight if the auto maker didn't distribute some of the $25 billion
cash hoard it had built up after emerging from bankruptcy just a few years earlier.
DuPont early this year announced a $4 billion buyback program – on top of a $5 billion program
announced a year earlier – to beat back activist investor Nelson Peltz's Trian Fund Management,
which was seeking four board seats to get its way.
In March, Qualcomm Inc., under pressure from hedge fund Jana Partners, agreed to boost its
program to purchase $10 billion of its shares over the next 12 months; the company already had
an existing $7.8 billion buyback program and a commitment to return three quarters of its free
cash flow to shareholders.
And in July, Qualcomm announced 5,000 layoffs. It's hard to innovate when you're trying to please
a hedge fund.
CEOs with a long-term outlook and a focus on innovation and investment, rather than financial
engineering, come under intense pressure.
"None of it is optional; if you ignore them, you go away," Russ Daniels, a tech executive with
15 years at Apple and 13 years at HP, told Reuters. "It's all just resource allocation," he said.
"The situation right now is there are a lot of investors who believe that they can make a better
decision about how to apply that resource than the management of the business can."
Nearly 60% of the 3,297 publicly traded non-financial US companies Reuters analyzed have engaged
in share buybacks since 2010. Last year, the money spent on buybacks and dividends exceeded net income
for the first time in a non-recession period.
This year, for the 613 companies that have reported earnings for fiscal 2015, share buybacks
hit a record $520 billion. They also paid $365 billion in dividends, for a total of $885 billion,
against their combined net income of $847 billion.
Buybacks and dividends amount to 113% of capital spending among companies that have repurchased
shares since 2010, up from 60% in 2000 and from 38% in 1990. Corporate investment is normally a big
driver in a recovery. Not this time! Hence the lousy recovery.
Financial engineering takes precedence over actual engineering in the minds of CEOs and CFOs.
A company buying its own shares creates additional demand for those shares. It's supposed to drive
up the share price. The hoopla surrounding buyback announcements drives up prices too. Buybacks also
reduce the number of outstanding shares, thus increase the earnings per share, even when net income
is declining.
"Serving customers, creating innovative new products, employing workers, taking care of the
environment … are NOT the objectives of firms," sais Itzhak Ben-David, a finance professor of
Ohio State University, a buyback proponent, according to Reuters. "These are components in the
process that have the goal of maximizing shareholders' value."
But when companies load up on debt to fund buybacks while slashing investment in productive
activities and innovation, it has consequences for revenues down the road. And now that magic trick
to increase shareholder value has become a toxic mix. Shares of buyback queens are getting hammered.
Citigroup credit analysts looked into the extent to which this is happening – and why. Christine
Hughes, Chief Investment Strategist at
OtterWood Capital, summarized the Citi report this way: "This dynamic of borrowing from
bondholders to pay shareholders may be coming to an end…."
Their chart (via OtterWood Capital) shows that about half of the cumulative outperformance of
these buyback queens from 2012 through 2014 has been frittered away this year, as their shares, IBM-like,
have swooned...
... ... ...
Selected Skeptical Comments
Mbuna, November 21, 2015 at 7:31 am
Me thinks Wolf is slightly barking up the wrong tree here. What needs to be looked at is how
buy backs affect executive pay. "Shareholder value" is more often than not a ruse?
ng, November 21, 2015 at 8:58 am
probably, in some or most cases, but the effect on the stock is the same.
Alejandro, November 21, 2015 at 9:19 am
Interesting that you mention ruse, relating to "buy-backs"…from my POV, it seems like they've
legalized insider trading or engineered (a) loophole(s).
On a somewhat related perspective on subterfuge. The language of "affordability" has proven
to be insidiously clever. Not only does it reinforce and perpetuate the myth of "deserts", but
camouflages the means of embezzling the means of distribution. Isn't distribution, really, the
only rational purpose of finance, i.e., as a means of distribution as opposed to a means of embezzlement?
Jim, November 21, 2015 at 10:42 am
More nuance and less dogma please. The dogmatic tone really hurts what could otherwise be a
fine but more-qualified position.
"Results of all this financial engineering? Revenues of the S&P 500 companies are falling
for the fourth quarter in a row – the worst such spell since the Financial Crisis."
Eh, no. No question that buybacks *can* be asset-stripping and often are, but unless you tie capital
allocation decisions closer to investment in the business such that they're mutually exclusive,
this is specious and a reach. No one invests if they can't see the return. It would be just as
easy to say that they're buying back stock because revenue is slipping and they have no other
investment opportunities.
Revenues are falling in large part because these largest companies derive an ABSOLUTELY HUGE portion
of their business overseas and the dollar has been ridiculously strong in the last 12-15 months.
Rates are poised to rise, and the easy Fed-inspired rate arbitrage vis a vis stocks and "risk
on" trade are closing. How about a little more context instead of just dogma?
John Malone made a career out of financial engineering, something like 30% annual returns for
the 25 years of his CEO tenure at TCI. Buybacks were a huge part of that.
Perhaps an analysis of the monopolistic positions of so many American businesses that allow them
the wherewithal to underinvest and still buy back huge amounts of stock? If we had a more competitive
economy, companies would have less ability to underinvest. Ultimately, I think buybacks are more
a result than a cause of dysfunction, but certainly not always bad.
"... Can courage trump careerism? I believe that for the forseeable future the answer is "No". People are highly incentivized to take the path of least resistance and simply go along to get along. ..."
"... It would be wrong to excuse the inaction of the Obama DOJ and SEC crews as being the result of some larger "corrosion of our collective values." The capos in those crews are the people doing the corroding, and not one of them was forced to (not) do what they did. Notice that every last one of the initial bunch is presently being paid, by Wall Street, to the tune of millions of dollars per year. They opted to cover up crimes and take a pay-off in exchange. And they are owed punishment. ..."
I'm embedding the text of a short but must-read speech by
Robert Jenkins, a former banker, hedge fund manager, and regulator (Bank of England) who is now
a Senior Fellow at Better Markets. If nothing else, be sure to look at the partial list of bank misconduct
and activities currently under investigation.
Jenkins points out that regulatory reform has fallen
short on multiple fronts, and perhaps the most important is courage. Readers may understandably object
to him giving lip service to the idea that Bernanke acted courageously during the crisis (serving
the needs of banks via unconventional means is not tantamount to courage), but he is a Serious Person,
and making a case against Bernanke would detract from his bigger message about the lack of guts post-crisis.
Now there have been exceptions, like Benjamin Lawsky, Sheila Bair, Gary Gensler, Kara Stein, and
in a more insider capacity, Danny Tarullo. Contrast their examples with the typical cronyism and
lame rationalizations for inaction, particularly by the Department of Justice and the SEC. It's not
obvious how to reverse the corrosion of our collective values. But it is important to remember than
norms can shift much faster than most people think possible, with, for instance, the 1950s followed
by the radicalism and shifts in social values of the 1960s, which conservative elements are still
fighting to roll back.
We do not live in an economy or a polity that breeds or rewards the kind of public-mindedness
and civic virtue that gives you courage. The author thinks the system needs courageous people,
but posits no conception of where they would come from and how they would thrive in the current
system (news flash: they won't). So this is a classic "I see the problem clearly but can't see
that the solution is impossible under the current system" piece.
TMock
Agreed.
For those who desire real solutions, try this…
The Universal Principles of Sustainable Development
In Tavis Smiley's book, My Journey with Maya Angelou, he recounts an ongoing discussion the
two of them entertained throughout the years concerning which trait, Love or Courage, was more
important in realizing a full life. Angelou argued that acting courageously was the most important.
Smiley saw love as the moving force. While important and moving, the discussion has the dead-end
quality of not being able to move past the current system of injustice. I say this because in
the end, both support incremental change to the existing system as the means to bring about social
justice. The powerful elite have perfected the manipulation of incremental change to render it
powerless.
When trying to change a social system, courage is needed. Courage to form a vision of the future
that is based on public-mindedness and civic virtues that bring justice into the world. Our current
leaders are delivering the exact opposite of civic justice. Its time to call them out on their
duplicity, and ignore their vision of the future.
The courage that is needed today is not the courage to stand up to the criminals running things
and somehow make them change. It is the courage to make them irrelevant. Change will come from
the bottom up, one person at a time.
cnchal
And when one shows up, look what happens.
The disturbing fact is that laws have been broken but law breaking has not touched
senior management.
If they knew, then they were complicit. If they did not, then they were incompetent. Alternatively,
if the deserving dozens have indeed been banned from the field let the list be known – that we
might see some of that "professional ostracism" of which Governor Carney speaks. One person
who did lose his position and quite publicly at that was Martin Wheatley, the UK's
courageous conduct enforcer.
Meanwhile the chairman of Europe's largest bank, Douglas Flint at HSBC, remains
in situ – despite having been on the board since 1995; despite having signed off on the
acquisition of Household Finance; and despite having had oversight of tax entangled subsidiaries
in Switzerland and money laundering units in Mexico. Oh, and you'll love this: the recently retired
CEO of Standard Chartered is reportedly an advisor to Her Majesty's Government. Standard Chartered
was among the first to be investigated for violations of rogue regime sanctions. The bank
was fined heavily and may be so again.
Courageous people get fired, which leads to no courageous people left.
GlassHammer
Can courage trump careerism? I believe that for the forseeable future the answer is "No". People are highly incentivized
to take the path of least resistance and simply go along to get along.
susan the other
By extreme necessity (created by total dysfunction) we will probably wind up with planned and
coordinated economies that do not rely on speculation & credit to come up with the next great
idea. Those ideas will be forced to come from the top down. And the problems of unregulated capitalism
frantically chumming for inspiration and extreme profits will shrink back down from a world-eating
monster to just a fox or two.
Oliver Budde
It would be wrong to excuse the inaction of the Obama DOJ and SEC crews as being the result
of some larger "corrosion of our collective values." The capos in those crews are the people doing
the corroding, and not one of them was forced to (not) do what they did. Notice that every last
one of the initial bunch is presently being paid, by Wall Street, to the tune of millions of dollars
per year. They opted to cover up crimes and take a pay-off in exchange. And they are owed punishment.
Malcolm MacLeod, MD
Oliver: I believe that you hit the nail on the head, and
I wholeheartedly agree.
"... The biggest market in the world today is derivatives, money making money without a useful product or service in sight. With the market in derivatives being ten times larger than global GDP we can see that making useful products and providing useful services is nearly irrelevant even today. ..."
"... "When Capitalism reaches its zenith, everyone will be an investor and no one will be doing anything." ..."
"... This problem of debt vs income seems to reflect the ongoing financialization (extraction, not to be confused with financing) of the global economy rather than a focus on capital development of people and the social and productive infrastructure. ..."
"... The "new model" was inefficient (too many fingers in the pie, all of them extracting value), highly risky (often Ponzi finance from the beginning with reverse amortization), and critically dependent on rising home prices. Even leaving aside the pervasive fraud, the model was diametrically opposed to the public interest, that is, the promotion of the capital development of the economy. It left behind whole neighborhoods of abandoned homes as well as new home developments that could not be sold. ..."
"... In my understanding, the Great Depression was an implosion of the credit system after a period of over investment in productive capacity. The investors failing to pay the workers enough to buy the extra goods produced. The projected returns never materialised to pay back the debt… Boom! ..."
"... China still has implicit state control of the banking sector, they may still have the political will to make any bad debt disappear with the puff of a fountain pen. That option is always available to a sovereign. ..."
"... They specialized in mass production the way agribusiness has here, where the production is not where the consumption is. It's as if all the pig farmers of North Carolina and corn growers in Iowa woke up one morning and found out that the people of the Eastern Seaboard had all been put on a starvation diet. The economic results in the grain belt would not be pretty. Ditto China. ..."
"... Except that China ain't Iowa, they can create a middle class as big as Europe and US combined. ..."
"... It's just anathema for the ruling class to give the little guys a break. ..."
"... The global glut of oil and other resources can't just be attributed to rising production in "tight oil". Somehow the Powers that be are hiding a great deal of economic contraction. If the world economy were growing it would need oil, copper, lead, zinc, wood and wood pulp, gold, and other metals as inputs. What I want to know is the extent of the cover-up, and what the global economy really looks like. ..."
"... We are not competent to forecast the future yet. Even the weather surprises us. Its also the case that people who do have relevant data are quite likely to convert that into profit rather than share it. ..."
"... It's the collapse of bonded warehouse copper/aluminum/etc. lending frauds and all that rehypothecation. I don't think it's just a problem in end demand. It's a problem in the derivatives/futures market. ..."
"... Here is a very good case study for why people are always wrong about economy and markets. What happen to all the currency manipulators like Paul Krugman? ..."
We shouldn't be too surprised at falling commodity prices.
Using raw materials to make real things is all very 20th Century, financial engineering is
the stuff of the 21st Century.
When Capitalism reaches its zenith, everyone will be an investor and no one will be doing anything.
Central Bank inflated asset bubbles will provide for all.
The biggest market in the world today is derivatives, money making money without a useful product
or service in sight. With the market in derivatives being ten times larger than global GDP we can see that making
useful products and providing useful services is nearly irrelevant even today.
"When Capitalism reaches its zenith, everyone will be an investor and no one will be doing
anything."
+1000
Ah, that glorious day when we're all rich, rich, RICHer than Midas from interest, dividends, and
rents!!!
Just to amuse myself, I intend to be a dog poop scooper – and pick up some pocket change of 1
million dollars a poop…
This problem of debt vs income seems to reflect the ongoing financialization (extraction,
not to be confused with financing) of the global economy rather than a focus on capital development
of people and the social and productive infrastructure.
I liked how Wray and Mazzucato linked the two in their Mack the Turtle analogy.
"Underlying all of this financialization was the homeowner's income-something like Dr. Seuss's
King Yertle the Turtle-with layer upon layer of financial instruments, all of which were supported
by Mack the turtle's mortgage payments. The system collapsed because Mack fell delinquent on payments
he could not possibly have met: the house was overpriced (and the mortgage could have been for
more than 100% of the price!), the mortgage terms were too unfavorable, the fees collected by
all the links in the home mortgage finance food chain were too large, Mack had to take a cut of
pay and hours as the economy slowed, and the late fees piled up (fraudulently, in many cases as
mortgage servicers "lost" payments).
The "new model" was inefficient (too many fingers in the
pie, all of them extracting value), highly risky (often Ponzi finance from the beginning with
reverse amortization), and critically dependent on rising home prices. Even leaving aside the
pervasive fraud, the model was diametrically opposed to the public interest, that is, the promotion
of the capital development of the economy. It left behind whole neighborhoods of abandoned homes
as well as new home developments that could not be sold."
Interesting, the supposition here is that China is heading for a depression similar to the
Great Depression.
In my understanding, the Great Depression was an implosion of the credit system after a period
of over investment in productive capacity. The investors failing to pay the workers enough to
buy the extra goods produced. The projected returns never materialised to pay back the debt… Boom!
China could well be headed down that road, there isn't enough money getting into the pockets
of ordinary Chinese that's for sure. Elites everywhere just can't bring themselves to give a break
for those at the bottom.
China still has implicit state control of the banking sector, they may still have the political
will to make any bad debt disappear with the puff of a fountain pen. That option is always available
to a sovereign.
Then again they may just realize in time, someone needs to be paid to buy all the junk.
They were counting on us and the Europeans, but we've let them down. The race to the bottom
erased the global middle class that could buy Chinese consumer products.
They specialized in mass
production the way agribusiness has here, where the production is not where the consumption is.
It's as if all the pig farmers of North Carolina and corn growers in Iowa woke up one morning
and found out that the people of the Eastern Seaboard had all been put on a starvation diet. The
economic results in the grain belt would not be pretty. Ditto China.
The global glut of oil and other resources can't just be attributed to rising production in
"tight oil". Somehow the Powers that be are hiding a great deal of economic contraction. If the
world economy were growing it would need oil, copper, lead, zinc, wood and wood pulp, gold, and
other metals as inputs. What I want to know is the extent of the cover-up, and what the global
economy really looks like.
Where were you in 2011? I was here reading NC. One of the Links posted was a graph of the abrupt
shutdown of China's economy – It was a cliffscape.
Very long vertical drop off. So dramatic I
could hardly believe it and I said I was having trouble catching my breath. Another commenter
said it looked like a tsunami. Of exported deflation as it turns out.
Things have been extreme
since 2007 when the banksters began to fall; 2008 when Lehman crashed (just after the Beijing
Olympics, how convenient for China…) and credit shut down. China was doin' just fine until then.
In spite of the irrational mess in global capitalist eonomix.
The only way to remedy it was to
shut it down I guess. That's really not very fine-tuned for a system the whole world relies on,
is it?
Proceeds from the laughable assumption that official China economic numbers 'may not be as
reliable as we'd like' rather than being 'persistently and hugely faked,' (especially during slowdowns)
and ignores that the housing-market slowdown and huge unsold-RE-overhang will also necessarily
be accompanied by a price crash, hence a huge amount of toxic debt being exposed – really basic
boom/bust dynamics.
And no demographic boom coming to the rescue, either. (But he does repeatedly
invoke the magic 'service economy boom' mantra mentioned by Ilargi.) Thankfully most of the commenters
rightly take the author to task.
Firstly, its only China's buying that stops oil falling even further Sr Ilargi.
Secondly its a Peoples' Republic – employment must be maintained.
We are not competent to forecast the future yet. Even the weather surprises us. Its also the
case that people who do have relevant data are quite likely to convert that into profit rather
than share it.
Received a small airmail parcel today containing some replacement attachments for my Dremel
moto-tool … package was addressed from Shenzen, specifically the "Fuming Manufacturing Park".
It's the collapse of bonded warehouse copper/aluminum/etc. lending frauds and all that rehypothecation.
I don't think it's just a problem in end demand. It's a problem in the derivatives/futures market.
Here is a very good case study for why people are always wrong about economy and markets. What happen to all the currency manipulators like Paul Krugman?
"The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power as
well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them.
Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape,
and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
Tacitus, Agricola
People are discouraged and disillusioned after almost thirty years of distorted governance, specially
in the aftermath of the 'Hope and Change' which quickly became 'Vain Hope for Change.'
Most cannot admit that their guys were in the pockets of Big Defense, Big Pharma, Big Energy, and
Wall Street.
The real question about Hillary comes down to this. Can you trust her to do what she
says she will do, the right things for her putative constituents and not her big money donors and
paymasters, once she takes office?
Or will that poor family who left the White House 'broke' and then mysteriously obtained a fortune
of over $100 million in the following years, thanks to enormous payments for 'speeches' from large
financial firms and huge donations to their Trust once again take care of the hand that pays them
the most?
This is not to say that there is a better alternative amongst the leading Republican candidates,
who have been and are still under the same types of payment arrangements, only with different people
signing the checks.
Or we could skip the middlemen entirely and just directly elect one of New York's most prominent
of their narcissist class directly, instead of another witless stooge of big money, and hope for
something different? And how will that likely work out for us?
It is an exceptionally hard time to be a human being in this great nation of ours.
And so what ought we to do? Wallow in cynicism and the sweet sickness of misanthropy and despair?
Vote strictly on the hope of our own narrow self-interest no matter the broader and longer term consequences,
and then face the inevitable blowback from injustice and repression?
Give up on our grandchildren and children because we are too tired and interested in our own short
term comfort? Too filled with selfishness, anger and hate to see straight, and do anything
but turn ourselves into mindless animals to escape the pain of being truly human? Do no thinking,
and just follow orders? This latter impulse has taken whole nations of desperate people into the
abyss.
Or do we stop wallowing in our specialness and self-pity, and 'stand on the shoulders of giants'
and confront what virtually every generation and every individual has had to wrestle with since the
beginning of recorded time?
Do we fall, finally stricken with grief in our blindness, on the road to Damascus and say at long
last, 'Lord, what then wilt thou have me to do?'
This is the question that circumstance is posing to us. And hopefully we will we heed the answer
that has been already given, to be 'steadfast, unshaken, always abounding in the work of the Lord,
knowing that in Him our labor is not in vain.'
And the touchstone of the alloy of our actions is love.
And so we have before us what Franklin Roosevelt so aptly characterized as our own 'rendezvous with
destiny.'
"... When it comes to the hubris of corporate chief financial officers, who have been more than happy leveraging up balance sheets in order to reward shareholders, the analysts didn't mince words. We find that corporate CFOs historically are inherently backward-looking when setting corporate financing decisions, relying on past extrapolations of economic activity, even when current market pricing suggests future investment returns may be lower, they wrote. ..."
"... That leaves downgrades by credit-rating agencies as one catalyst that could spark a turn in the cycle; downgrades of corporate credit have already exceeded upgrades this year at some of the bond graders. ..."
"... Might the rating agencies spoil the party? they asked. In the end we believe strong economic interests will overwhelm rationale considerations. Rating agencies remain heavily dependent on new issuance activity, face significant competitive pressures (as issuers will select two of three ratings) and appear unconcerned with where we are in the credit cycle (e.g., see Moody's latest conference call). ..."
"... With UBS having taken all those potential catalysts firmly off the table, that leaves just fundamentals to worry about. Who, for the past few years, has been worrying about those? [Sarcasm? - Editor] ..."
It's no secret that companies have been taking advantage of years of low interest rates to
sell cheap debt to eager investors, locking in lower funding costs that have allowed them to go
on a spree of share buybacks and mergers and acquisitions.
With fresh evidence that investors are becoming more discerning when it comes to corporate credit
as they approach the first interest rate rise in the U.S. in almost a decade, it's worth asking
whether anything might stop the trend of companies assuming more and more debt on their balance
sheets.
... ... ...
For a start, they note that higher funding costs are unlikely to dissuade companies from
continuing to tap the debt market since, even after a rate hike, financing costs will remain near
historic lows. "The predominant reason is the Fed[eral Reserve] is anchoring low interest rates,"
the analysts wrote.
When it comes to the hubris of corporate chief financial officers, who have been more than
happy leveraging up balance sheets in order to reward shareholders, the analysts didn't mince
words. "We find that corporate CFOs historically are inherently backward-looking when setting
corporate financing decisions, relying on past extrapolations of economic activity, even when
current market pricing suggests future investment returns may be lower," they wrote.
"Several management teams have been on the road indicating higher funding costs of up to 100 to
200 basis points would not impede attractive M&A deals, in their view."
Higher market volatility has often been cited as one factor that could knock the corporate
credit market off its seat...
That leaves downgrades by credit-rating agencies as one catalyst that could spark a turn
in the cycle; downgrades of corporate credit have already exceeded upgrades this year at some of
the bond graders. Here, Mish and Caprio offered some stunningly blunt words. "Might the
rating agencies spoil the party?" they asked. "In the end we believe strong economic interests
will overwhelm rationale considerations. Rating agencies remain heavily dependent on new issuance
activity, face significant competitive pressures (as issuers will select two of three ratings)
and appear unconcerned with where we are in the credit cycle (e.g., see Moody's latest conference
call)."
With UBS having taken all those potential catalysts firmly off the table, that leaves just
fundamentals to worry about. Who, for the past few years, has been worrying about those?
[Sarcasm? - Editor]
"Bottom line, we struggle to envision an end to the releveraging phenomenon-absent a
substantial correction in corporate earnings and/or broader risk assets," concluded the UBS
analysts.
Hillary tried to play the gender card and the 9/11 card in an attempt to escape to accusation
(actually a provable fact) that she is a Wall Street sheel. "Why has Wall Street been the major
campaign contributor to Hillary Clinton?" Sanders asked loudly, concluding that big contributors only
give because "They expect to get something. Everybody knows it."
...Clinton asserted that under her
bank-regulation plan, if Wall Street institutions don't play by the rules "I will break them up."
Sanders minced her defense into peaces: "Wall Street play by the rules? Who are we kidding?!
The business model for Wall Street is fraud," Sanders fired back.
A short time later, the moderators got a tweet calling her out for "invoking 9/11" to justify taking
donations from Wall Street. One tweeter said they'd never seen a candidate "invoke 9/11 to champion
Wall Street. What does that have to do with taking big donations," Clinton was asked.
Sanders said that there's no getting around the fact that Wall Street has become a dominant political
power and its "business model is greed and fraud, and for the sake of our economy major banks must be
broken up."
Bernie compared himself to Ike, scoring one of the few real laugh lines of the night. CBS News moderator
Nancy Cordes asked Sanders how he's going to pay for expensive programs such as his tuition-free college
plan. By taxing the wealthy and big corporations, he says. Asked how much of a tax hike he's planning
to stick them with, he responded, "We haven't come up with an exact number yet … But it will not be
as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower which was 90%," Sanders said of the Republican president.
"I'm not that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower," Sanders concluded, to guffaws from the
crowd.
Senator Sanders, let me just follow this line of thinking. You've criticized then Senator Clinton's
vote. Do you have anything to criticize in the way she performed as secretary of state?
BERNIE SANDERS:
I think we have a disagreement. And-- the disagreement is that not only did I vote against the
war in Iraq, if you look at history, John, you will find that regime change-- whether it was in the
early '50s in Iran, whether it was toppling Salvador Allende in Chile or whether it was overthrowing
the government Guatemala way back when-- these invasions, these-- these toppling of governments,
regime changes have unintended consequences. I would say that on this issue I'm a little bit more
conservative than the secretary.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Here, let me go--
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, may I-- may I interject here? Secretary Clinton also said that we left the h-- it was not
just the invasion of Iraq which Secretary Clinton voted for and has since said was a big mistake,
and indeed it was. But it was also the cascading effects that followed that.
It was also the disbanding of-- many elements of the Iraqi army that are now showing up as part
of ISIS. It was-- country after country without making the investment in human intelligence to understand
who the new leaders were and the new forces were that are coming up. We need to be much more far
f-- thinking in this new 21st century era of-- of nation state failures and conflict. It's not just
about getting rid of a single dictator. It is about understanding the secondary and third consequences
that fall next.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Governor O'Malley, I wanna ask you a question and you can add whatever you'd like to. But let
me ask you, is the world too dangerous a place for a governor who has no foreign policy experience?
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, the world is a very dangerous place. But the world is not too dangerous of a place for the
United States of America provided we act according to our principles, provided we act intelligently.
I mean, let's talk about this arc of-- of instability that Secretary Clinton talked about.
Libya is now a mess. Syria is a mess. Iraq is a mess. Afghanistan is a mess. As Americans we have
shown ourselves-- to have the greatest military on the face of the planet. But we are not so very
good at anticipating threats and appreciating just how difficult it is to build up stable democracies
and make the investments in sustainable development that we must as the nation if we are to attack
the root causes of-- of the source of-- of instability.
And I wanted to add one other thing, John, and I think it's important for all of us on this stage.
I was in Burlington, Iowa and a mom of a service member of ours who served two duties in Iraq said,
"Governor O'Malley, please, when you're with your other candidates and colleagues on-- on stage,
please don't use the term boots on Iraq-- on the ground. Please don't use the term boots on the ground.
My son is not a pair of boots on the ground."
These are American soldiers and we fail them when we fail to take into account what happens the
day after a dictator falls. And when we fall to act with a whole of government approach with sustainable
development, diplomacy and our economic power in-- alignment with our principles.
BERNIE SANDERS:
But when you talk about the long-term consequences of war let's talk about the men and women who
came home from war. The 500,000 who came home with P.T.S.D. and traumatic brain injury. And I would
hope that in the midst of all of this discussion this country makes certain that we do not turn our
backs on the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend us. And that we stand with them
as they have stood with us.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Senator Sanders, you've-- you've said that the donations to Secretary Clinton are compromising.
So what did you think of her answer?
BERNIE SANDERS:
Not good enough. (LAUGH) Here's the story. I mean, you know, let's not be naive about it. Why
do-- why over her political career has Wall Street a major-- the major-- campaign contributor to
Hillary Clinton? You know, maybe they're dumb and they don't know what they're gonna get. But I don't
think so.
Here is the major issue when we talk about Wall Street, it ain't complicated. You got six financial
institutions today that have assets of 56 per-- equivalent to 50-- six percent of the GDP in America.
They issue two thirds of the credit cards and one third of the mortgages. If Teddy Roosevelt, the
good republican, were alive today you know what he'd say? "Break them up. Reestablish (APPLAUSE)
(UNINTEL) like Teddy Roosevelt (UNINTEL) that is leadership. So I am the only candidate up here that
doesn't have a super PAC. I'm not asking Wall Street or the billionaires for money. I will break
up these banks, support community banks and credit unions-- credit unions. That's the future of banking
in America.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Quick follow-up because you-- you-- (APPLAUSE) Secretary Clinton, you'll get a chance to respond.
You said they know what they're going to get. What are they gonna get?
BERNIE SANDERS:
I have never heard a candidate, never, who's received huge amounts of money from oil, from coal,
from Wall Street, from the military industrial complex, not one candidate, go, "OH, these-- these
campaign contributions will not influence me. I'm gonna be independent." Now, why do they make millions
of dollars of campaign contributions? They expect to get something. Everybody knows that. Once again,
I am running a campaign differently than any other candidate. We are relying on small campaign donors,
$750,000 and $30 apiece. That's who I'm indebted to.
BERNIE SANDERS:
Here's-- she touches on two broad issues. It's not just Wall Street. It's campaigns, a corrupt
campaign finance system. And it is easy to talk the talk about ending-- Citizens United. But what
I think we need to do is show by example that we are prepared to not rely on large corporations and
Wall Street for campaign contributions.
And that's what I'm doing. In terms of Wall Street I respectfully disagree with you, Madame Secretary
in the sense that the issue is when you have such incredible power and such incredible wealth, when
you have Wall Street spending five billion dollars over a ten year period to get re-- to get deregulated
the only answer that I know is break them up, reestablish Glass Steagall.
JOHN DICKERSON:
Senator, we have to get Senator O'Malley in. But no-- along with your answer how many Wall Street--
veterans would you have in your administration?
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
Well, I'll tell you what, I've said this before, I-- I don't-- I believe that we actually need
some new economic thinking in the White House. And I would not have Robert Rubin or Larry Summers
with all due respect, Secretary Clinton, to you and to them, back on my council of economic advisors.
HILLARY CLINTON:
Anyone (UNINTEL PHRASE).
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
If they were architects, sure, we'll-- we'll have-- we'll have an inclusive group. But I won't
be taking my orders from Wall Street. And-- look, let me say this-- I put out a proposal-- I was
on the front line when people lost their homes, when people lost their jobs.
I was on the front lines as the governor-- fighting against-- fighting that battle. Our economy
was wrecked by the big banks of Wall Street. And Secretary Clinton-- when you put out your proposal
(LAUGH) on Wall Street it was greeted by many as quote/ unquote weak tea. It is weak tea. It is not
what the people expect of our country. We expect that our president will protect the main street
economy from excesses on Wall Street. And that's why Bernie's right. We need to reinstate a modern
version of Glass Steagall and we should have done it already. (APPLAUSE)
KATHIE OBRADOVICH:
And I will also go after executives who are responsible for the decisions that have such bad consequences
for our country. (APPLAUSE)
BERNIE SANDERS:
Look, I don't know-- with all due respect to the secretary, Wall Street played by the rules. Who
are we kidding? The business model of Wall Street is fraud. That's what it is. And we-- we have--
(APPLAUSE) and let me make this promise, one of the problems we have had I think all-- all Americans
understand it is whether it's republican administration or democratic administration we have seen
Wall Street and Goldman Sachs dominate administrations. Here's my promise Wall Street representatives
will not be in my cabinet. (APPLAUSE)
BERNIE SANDERS:
But let's-- let me hear it-- if there's any difference between the secretary and myself. I have
voted time and again to-- for-- for the background checks. And I wanna see it improved and expanded.
I wanna see them do away with the gun show loophole. In 1988 I lost an election because I said we
should not have assault weapons on the streets of America.
We have to do away with the strong man proposal. We need radical changes in mental health in America.
So somebody who's suicidal or homicidal can get the emergency care they need. But we have-- I don't
know that there's any disagreement here.
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, this is another one of those examples. Look, we have-- we have a lot of work to do. And
we're the only nation on the planet that buries as many of our people from gun violence as we do
in my own state after they-- the children in that Connecticut classroom were gunned down, we passed
comprehensive-- gun safety legislation, background checks, ban on assault weapons.
And senator, I think we do need to repeal that immunity that you granted to the gun industry.
But Secretary Clinton, you've been on three sides of this. When you ran in 2000 you said that we
needed federal robust regulations. Then in 2008 you were portraying yourself as Annie Oakley and
saying that we don't need those regulation on the federal level. And now you're coming back around
here. So John, there's a big difference between leading by polls and leading with principle. We got
it done in my state by leading with principle. And that's what we need to do as a party, comprehensive
gun--
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, there is not-- a serious economist who would disagree that the six big banks of Wall Street
have taken on so much power and that all of us are still on the hook to bail them out on their bad
debts. That's not capitalism, Secretary Clinton-- Clinton, that's crummy capitalism.
That's a wonderful business model if you place that bet-- the taxpayers bail you out. But if you
place good ones you pocket it. Look, I don't believe that the model-- there's lots of good people
that work in finance, Secretary Sanders. But Secretary Clinton, we need to step up. And we need to
protect main street from Wall Street. And you can't do that by-- by campaigning as the candidate
of Wall Street. I am not the candidate of Wall Street. And I encourage--
BERNIE SANDERS:
No, it's not throwing-- it is an extraordinary investment for this country. In Germany, many other
countries do it already. In fact, if you remember, 50, 60 years ago, University of California, City
University of New York were virtually tuition-free. Here it's a new (?) story.
It's not just that college graduates should be $50,000 or $100,000 in debt. More importantly,
I want kids in Burlington, Vermont, or Baltimore, Maryland, who are in the six grade or the eighth
grade who don't have a lot of money, whose parents that-- like my parents, may never have gone to
college. You know what I want, Kevin? I want those kids to know that if they study hard, they do
their homework, regardless of the income of their families, they will in fact be able to great a
college education. Because we're gonna make public colleges and universities tuition-free. This is
revolutionary for education in America. It will give hope for millions of young people.
BERNIE SANDERS:
It's not gonna happen tomorrow. And it's probably not gonna happen until you have real campaign finance
reform and get rid of all these super PACs and the power of the insurance companies and the drug
companies. But at the end of the day, Nancy, here is a question. In this great country of ours, with
so much intelligence, with so much capabilities, why do we remain the only (UNINTEL) country on earth
that does not guarantee healthcare to all people as a right?
Why do we continue to get ripped off by the drug companies who can charge us any prices they want?
Why is it that we are spending per capita far, far more than Canada, which is a hundred miles away
from my door, that guarantees healthcare to all people? It will not happen tomorrow. But when millions
of people stand up and are prepared to take on the insurance companies and the drug companies, it
will happen and I will lead that effort. Medicare for all, single-payer system is the way we should
go. (APPLAUSE)
BERNIE SANDERS:
Well-- I had the honor of being chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs for two
years. And in that capacity, I met with just an extraordinary group of people from World War II,
from Korea, Vietnam, all of the wars. People who came back from Iraq and Afghanistan without legs,
without arms. And I've been determined to do everything that I could to make VA healthcare the best
in the world, to expand benefits to the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend (UNINTEL).
And we brought together legislation, supported by the American Legion, the VFW, the DAV, Vietnam
Vets, all of the veterans' organizations, which was comprehensive, clearly the best (UNINTEL) for
veterans' legislation brought forth in decades. I could only get two Republican votes on that. And
after 56 votes, we didn't get 60. So what I have to do then is go back and start working on a bill
that wasn't the bill that I wanted.
To (UNINTEL) people like John McCain, to (UNINTEL) people like Jeff Miller, the Republican chairman
of the House, and work on a bill. It wasn't the bill that I wanted. But yet, it turns out to be one
of the most significant pieces of veterans' legislation passed in recent history. You know, the crisis
was, I lost what I wanted. But I have to stand up and come back and get the best that we could.
JOHN DICKERSON:
All right, Senator Sanders. We end-- (APPLAUSE) we've ended the evening on crisis, which underscores
and reminds us again of what happened last night. Now let's move to closing statements, Governor
O'Malley?
MARTIN O'MALLEY:
John, thank you. And to all of the people of Iowa, for the role that you've performed in this
presidential selection process, if you believe that our country's problems and the threats that we
face in this world can only be met with new thinking, new and fresh approaches, then I ask you to
join my campaign. Go onto MartinOMalley.com. No hour is too short, no dollar too small.
If you-- we will not solve our nation's problems by resorting to the divisive ideologies of our
past or by returning to polarizing figures from our past. We are at the threshold of a new era of
American progress. That it's going to require that we act as Americans, based on our principles.
Here at home, making an economy that works for all of us.
And also, acting according to our principles and constructing a new foreign policy of engagement
and collaboration and doing a much better job of identifying threats before they back us into military
corners. There is new-- no challenge too great for the United States to confront, provided we have
the ability and the courage to put forward new leadership that can move us to those better and safer
and more prosperous (UNINTEL). I need your help. Thank you very, very much. (APPLAUSE)
BERNIE SANDERS:
This country today has more income and wealth inequality than any major country on earth. We have
a corrupt campaign finance system, dominated by super PACs. We're the only major country on earth
that doesn't guarantee healthcare to all people. We have the highest rate of childhood poverty. And
we're the only in the world, (UNINTEL) the only country that doesn't guarantee paid family and medical
leave. That's not the America that I think we should be.
But in order to bring about the changes that we need, we need a political revolution. Millions
of people are gonna have to stand up, turn off the TVs, get involved in the political process, and
tell the big monied interests that we are taking back our country. Please go to BernieSanders.com,
please become part of the political revolution. Thank you. (CHEERING) (APPLAUSE)
"... Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician accused of providing false information that led to the United States toppling longtime dictator Saddam Hussein in the 2003 invasion, died on Tuesday of a heart attack, state television and two parliamentarians said. ..."
"... "The neo-cons wanted to make a case for war and he [Chalabi] was somebody who is willing to provide them with information that would help their cause," Ali Khedery, who was the longest continuously-serving American official in Iraq in the years following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, told Al Arabiya News. ..."
Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi politician accused of providing false information that led to the
United States toppling longtime dictator Saddam Hussein in the 2003 invasion, died on Tuesday of
a heart attack, state television and two parliamentarians said.
Attendants found the controversial lawmaker, 71, dead in bed in his Baghdad home, according to
parliament official Haitham al-Jabouri.
... ... ...
During his heyday, the smooth-talking Chalabi was widely seen as the man who helped push the
U.S. and its main ally Britain into invading Iraq in 2003, with information that Saddam's
government had weapons of mass destruction, claims that were eventually discredited.
... ... ...
Chalabi had also said Saddam - known for his secularist Baathist ideology - had ties with
al-Qaeda.
After Saddam's fall by U.S.-led coalition forces, Chalabi returned from exile in Britain and the
United States. Despite having been considered as a potential candidate for the powerful post of
prime minister in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's 24-year reign, the politician never managed
to rise to the top of Iraq's stormy, sectarian-driven political landscape.
His eventual fallout with his former American allies also hurt his chances of becoming an Iraqi
leader.
"The neo-cons wanted to make a case for war and he [Chalabi] was somebody who is willing to
provide them with information that would help their cause," Ali Khedery, who was the longest
continuously-serving American official in Iraq in the years following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion,
told Al Arabiya News.
"... The President, as commander in chief, shapes US foreign policy: indeed, in our post-constitutional era, now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility, he has the de facto power to single-handedly take us into war. Which is why, paraphrasing Trotsky , you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested in you. ..."
"... PAUL: … How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You can not be a conservative if youre going to keep promoting new programs that youre not going to pay for. ..."
"... Here, in one dramatic encounter, were two worldviews colliding: the older conservative vision embodied by Rand Paul, which puts domestic issues like fiscal solvency first, and the internationalist stance taken by what used to be called Rockefeller Republicans , and now goes under the neoconservative rubric, which puts the maintenance and expansion of Americas overseas empire – dubbed world leadership by Rubios doppelganger, Jeb Bush – over and above any concerns over budgetary common sense. ..."
"... Rubios proposed military budget – $696 billion – represents a $35 billion increase over what the Pentagon is requesting ..."
"... Pauls too-clever-by-half legislative maneuvering may have effectively exposed Rubio – and Sen. Tom Cotton, Marcos co-pilot on this flight into fiscal profligacy – as the faux-conservative that he is, but it evaded the broader question attached to the issue of military spending: what are we going to do with all that shiny-new military hardware? Send more weapons to Ukraine? Outfit an expeditionary force to re-invade Iraq and venture into Syria? This brings to mind Madeleine Albrights infamous remark directed at Gen. Colin Powell: Whats the point of having this superb military youre always talking about if we cant use it? ..."
"... Speaking of Trumpian hot air: Paul showed up The Donald for the ignorant blowhard he is by pointing out, after another of Trumps jeremiads aimed at the Yellow Peril, that China is not a party to the trade deal, which is aimed at deflecting Beijing. That was another shining moment for Paul, who successfully juxtaposed his superior knowledge to Trumps babbling. ..."
"... If Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, one-hundred percent, and I cant understand how anybody would be against it. ..."
"... Trump, for all his contradictions, gives voice to the isolationist populism that Rubio and his neocon confederates despise, and which is implanted so deeply in the American consciousness. Why us? Why are we paying everybodys bills? Why are we fighting everybody elses wars? Its a bad deal! ..."
"... This is why the neocons hate Trumps guts even more than they hate Paul. The former, after all, is the frontrunner. What the War Party fears is that Trumps contradictory mixture of bluster – bigger, better, stronger! – and complaints that our allies are taking advantage of us means a victory for the dreaded isolationists at the polls. ..."
"... its election season, the one time – short of when were about to invade yet another country – when the American people are engaged with the foreign policy issues of the day. And what we are seeing is a rising tide of disgust with our policy of global intervention – in a confused inchoate sense, in the case of Trump, and in a focused, self-conscious, occasionally eloquent and yet still slightly confused and inconsistent way in the case of Sen. Paul. Either way, the real voice of the American heartland is being heard. ..."
"... Trump has rocked the boat and raised some issues and viewpoints that none of the other bought and paid for candidates would ever have raised. Has he changed the national discussion on these issues? At least he woken some people up. ..."
"... The sentence of We relied on the stupidity of the American voter resonates. ..."
"... What you did, was you fell for the oldest press trick in the book. Its called: out of context . Thats is where they play back only a segment of what someone says, only a part of what they want you to hear, so you will draw the wrong conclusion. What Trump said {had you listened to ALL of what he said} was that he was going to TAKE ISILS OIL. Oil is the largest source of revenue for them {then comes the CIA money}. If you were to remove their oil revenues from them, they would be seriously hurting for cash to fund their machine. I dont have a problem with that. ..."
"... The thing about understanding the attack on The Donald is understanding what he is NOT. Namely he is not CFR connected ..."
"... The attacks on Trump have been relentless yet he is still maintaining his position in the polls. ..."
"... The goal is to have a CFR candidate in both the GOP and Dem fold. Although Hillary is not a CFR member ostensibly Slick Willie has been for more than 20 years and his Administration was rife with them...Hello Rubin and Glass Steagal!!..as is Chelsea... a newly elected member. ..."
"... [American exceptionalism] is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant. ..."
"... Yes, I have also seen the new golden boy regaled in the media. Lets see where he goes. I wonder if anyone represents the American people any better than the corrupt piece of dried up persimmon that is Hillary? ..."
"... With JEB polling in single digits and hopelessly befuddled, Rubio is the Great Hispanic Hope of the establishment Republocrats. He is being well-pimped, is all. Paul is clearly more intelligent, more articulate, and more well-informed; Trump is more forceful and popular (but independent!). Neither suits an establishment that wants to hold the reins behind the throne. ..."
Most Americans don't think much about politics, let alone foreign policy issues, as they go about
their daily lives. It's not that they don't care: it's just that the daily grind doesn't permit most
people outside of Washington, D.C. the luxury of contemplating the fate of nations with any regularity.
There is one exception, however, and that is during election season, and specifically – when it comes
to foreign policy – every four years, when the race for the White House begins to heat up. The
President, as commander in chief, shapes US foreign policy: indeed, in our post-constitutional era,
now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility, he has the de facto power to single-handedly
take us into war. Which is why,
paraphrasing Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested
in you.
The most recent episode of the continuing GOP reality show, otherwise known as the presidential
debates, certainly gave us a glimpse of what we are in for if the candidates on that stage actually
make it into the Oval Office – and, folks, it wasn't pretty, for the most part. But there were plenty
of bright spots.
This was supposed to have been a debate about economics, but in the Age of Empire there is no
real division between economic and foreign policy issues. That was brought home by the
collision between Marco Rubio and Rand Paul about half way through the debate when Rubio touted
his child tax credit program as being "pro-family." A newly-aggressive and articulate Rand
Paul jumped in with this:
"Is it conservative to have $1 trillion in transfer payments – a new welfare program that's
a refundable tax credit? Add that to Marco's plan for $1 trillion in new military spending, and
you get something that looks, to me, not very conservative."
Rubio's blow-dried exterior seemed to fray momentarily, as he gave his "it's for the children"
reply:
"But if you invest it in your children, in the future of America and strengthening your
family, we're not going to recognize that in our tax code? The family is the most important institution
in society. And, yes…
"PAUL: Nevertheless, it's not very conservative, Marco."
Stung to the quick, Rubio played what he thought was his trump card:
"I know that Rand is a committed isolationist. I'm not. I believe the world is a stronger
and a better place, when the United States is the strongest military power in the world.
"PAUL: Yeah, but, Marco! … How is it conservative … to add a trillion-dollar expenditure
for the federal government that you're not paying for?
"RUBIO: Because…
"PAUL: … How is it conservative to add a trillion dollars in military expenditures? You
can not be a conservative if you're going to keep promoting new programs that you're not going
to pay for.
(APPLAUSE)"
Here, in one dramatic encounter, were two worldviews colliding: the older conservative vision
embodied by Rand Paul, which puts domestic issues like fiscal solvency first, and the "internationalist"
stance taken by what used to be called
Rockefeller Republicans,
and now goes under the neoconservative rubric, which puts the maintenance and expansion of America's
overseas empire – dubbed "world
leadership" by Rubio's doppelganger, Jeb Bush – over and above any concerns over budgetary common
sense.
Rubio then descended into waving the bloody shirt and evoking Trump's favorite bogeyman – the
Yellow Peril – to justify his budget-busting:
"We can't even have an economy if we're not safe. There are radical jihadists in the Middle
East beheading people and crucifying Christians. A radical Shia cleric in Iran trying to get a
nuclear weapon, the Chinese taking over the South China Sea…"
If the presence of the Islamic State in the Middle East precludes us from having an economy, then
those doing their Christmas shopping
early this year don't seem to be aware of it. As for the Iranians and their alleged quest for
nuclear weapons, IAEA inspectors
are at this
very moment verifying
the complete absence of such an effort – although Sen. Paul, who
stupidly opposed the Iran deal, is in
no position to point this out. As for the fate of the South China Sea – if we could take a poll,
I wonder how many Americans would rather have their budget out of balance in order to keep the Chinese
from constructing artificial islands a few miles off their own coastline. My guess: not many.
Playing the "isolationist" card got Rubio nowhere: I doubt if a third of the television audience
even knows what that term is supposed to mean. It may resonate in Washington, but out in the heartland
it carries little if any weight with people more concerned about their shrinking bank accounts than
the possibility that the South China Sea might fall to … the Chinese.
Ted Cruz underscored his sleaziness (and, incidentally, his entire election strategy) by jumping
in and claiming the "middle ground" between Rubio's fulsome internationalism and Paul's call to rein
in our extravagant military budget – by siding with Rubio. We can do what Rubio wants to do – radically
increase military expenditures – but first, he averred, we have to cut sugar subsidies so we can
afford it. This was an attack on Rubio's
enthusiasm
for sugar subsidies, without which, avers the Senator from the state that
produces the most sugar, "we lose the capacity to produce our own food, at which point we're
at the mercy of a foreign country for food security." Yes, there's a jihadist-Iranian-Chinese conspiracy
to deprive America of its sweet tooth – but not if President Rubio can stop it!
Cruz is a master at prodding the weaknesses of his opponents, but his math is way off: sugar subsidies
have cost us some $15 billion since 2008. Rubio's proposed military budget –
$696 billion – represents a $35 billion increase over what the
Pentagon is requesting. Cutting sugar subsidies – an unlikely prospect, especially given
the support of Republicans of Rubio's ilk for the program – won't pay for it.
However, if we want to go deeper into those weeds, Sen. Paul also
endorses the $696 billion figure, but touts the fact that his proposal comes with
cuts that will supposedly pay for the hike. This is something all those military contractors
can live with, and so everybody's happy, at least on the Republican side of the aisle, and yet the
likelihood of cutting $21 billion from "international affairs," never mind $20 billion from social
services, is unlikely to garner enough support from his own party – let alone the Democrats – to
get through Congress. So it's just more of Washington's kabuki theater: all symbolism,
no action.
Paul's too-clever-by-half legislative maneuvering may have effectively exposed Rubio – and
Sen. Tom Cotton, Marco's co-pilot on this flight into fiscal profligacy – as the faux-conservative
that he is, but it evaded the broader question attached to the issue of military spending: what are
we going to do with all that shiny-new military hardware? Send more weapons to Ukraine? Outfit an
expeditionary force to re-invade Iraq and venture into Syria? This brings to mind Madeleine Albright's
infamous remark
directed at Gen. Colin Powell: "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking
about if we can't use it?"
In this way, Paul undermines his own case against global intervention – and even his own eloquent
argument, advanced in answer to Rubio's contention that increasing the military budget would make
us "safer":
"I do not think we are any safer from bankruptcy court. As we go further, and further into
debt, we become less, and less safe. This is the most important thing we're going to talk about
tonight. Can you be a conservative, and be liberal on military spending? Can you be for unlimited
military spending, and say, Oh, I'm going to make the country safe? No, we need a safe country,
but, you know, we spend more on our military than the next ten countries combined."
I have to say Sen. Paul shone at this debate. His arguments were clear, consistent, and made with
calm forcefulness. He distinguished himself from the pack, including Trump, who said "I agree with
Marco, I agree with Ted," and went on to mouth his usual "bigger, better, stronger" hyperbole that
amounted to so much hot hair air.
Speaking of Trumpian hot air: Paul showed up The Donald for the ignorant blowhard he is by
pointing out, after another of Trump's jeremiads aimed at the Yellow Peril, that China is not a party
to the trade deal, which is aimed at deflecting Beijing. That was another shining moment for Paul,
who successfully juxtaposed his superior knowledge to Trump's babbling.
This obsession with China's allegedly malign influence extended to the next round, when foreign
policy was again the focus. In answer to a question about whether he supports President Obama's plan
to send Special Operations forces to Syria, Ben Carson said yes, because Russia is going to make
it "their base," oh, and by the way: "You know, the Chinese are there, as well as the Russians."
Unless he's talking about
these guys, Carson intel seems a bit off.
Jeb Bush gave the usual boilerplate, delivered in his preferred monotone, contradicting himself
when he endorsed a no-fly zone over Syria and then attacked Hillary Clinton for not offering "leadership"
– when she endorsed the idea practically
in unison with him. Bush added his usual incoherence to the mix by averring that somehow not
intervening more in the region "will have a huge impact on our economy" – but of course the last
time we intervened it had a
$2 trillion-plus impact in terms of costs, and that's a conservative estimate.
Oddly characterizing Russia's air strikes on the Islamic State as "aggression" – do our air strikes
count as aggression? – the clueless Marie Bartiromo asked Trump what he intends to do about it. Trump
evaded the question for a few minutes, going on about North Korea, Iran, and of course the Yellow
Peril, finally coming out with a great line that not even the newly-noninterventionist Sen. Paul
had the gumption to muster:
"If Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it, one-hundred percent,
and I can't understand how anybody would be against it."
Bush butted in with "But they aren't doing that," which is the Obama administration's
demonstrably inaccurate
line, and Trump made short work of him with the now
undeniable fact that the Islamic State blew up a Russian passenger jet with over 200 people on
it. "He [Putin] cannot be in love with these people," countered Trump. "He's going in, and we can
go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group of people,
and a group of countries, including Germany – tremendous economic behemoth – why are we always doing
the work?"
Why indeed.
Trump, for all his contradictions, gives voice to the "isolationist" populism that Rubio and
his neocon confederates despise, and which is implanted so deeply in the American consciousness.
Why us? Why are we paying everybody's bills? Why are we fighting everybody else's wars? It's a bad
deal!
This is why the neocons hate Trump's guts even more than they hate Paul. The former, after
all, is the frontrunner. What the War Party fears is that Trump's contradictory mixture of bluster
– "bigger, better, stronger!" – and complaints that our allies are taking advantage of us means a
victory for the dreaded "isolationists" at the polls.
As for Carly Fiorina and John Kasich: they merely served as a Greek chorus to the exhortations
of Rubio and Bush to take on Putin, Assad, Iran, China, and (in Trump's case) North Korea. They left
out Venezuela only because they ran out of time, and breath. Fiorina and Kasich were mirror images
of each other in their studied belligerence: both are aspiring vice-presidential running mates for
whatever Establishment candidate takes the prize.
Yes, it's election season, the one time – short of when we're about to invade yet another
country – when the American people are engaged with the foreign policy issues of the day. And what
we are seeing is a rising tide of disgust with our policy of global intervention – in a confused
inchoate sense, in the case of Trump, and in a focused, self-conscious, occasionally eloquent and
yet still slightly confused and inconsistent way in the case of Sen. Paul. Either way, the real voice
of the American heartland is being heard.
Bumpo
Im not so sure. If you see it in context with Trump's other message to make Mexico pay for
the border fence. If you take the Iraq war on the face of it - that is, we came in to rescue them
from Saddam Hussein - then taking their oil in payment is only "fair". It's hard to tell if he
is playing a game, or actually believes the US company line, though. I think he isn't letting
on. At least I hope so. And that goes double for his "Support" of Israel.
Joe Trader
@greenskeeper we get it, you get butt-hurt extremely easily
The thing about Donald Trump and oil - is that a few years ago, he said all that Saudi Arabia
had to do was start pumping oil, and down it would go to $25. Guess what sweet cheeks - His prediction
is coming true and the presidency could really use a guy like him who knows what he's doing.
MalteseFalcon
Say what you like about Trump. 'He is a baffoon or a blowhard'. 'He can't be elected president'.
But Trump has rocked the boat and raised some issues and viewpoints that none of the other
bought and paid for 'candidates' would ever have raised. Has he changed the national discussion
on these issues? At least he woken some people up.
illyia
oh.my.gawd. a rational adult series of comments on zero hedge: There is hopium for the world,
after all.
Just must say: Raimondo is an incredibly good writer. Very enjoyable to read. I am sure that's
why he's still around. He make a clear, concise argument, presents his case with humor and irony
and usually covers every angle.
I wonder about people like him, who think things out so well... versus, say, the bloviator
and chief?
P.S. don't blame me, i did not vote for either of them...
Oracle of Kypseli
The sentence of "We relied on the stupidity of the American voter" resonates.
TheObsoleteMan
What you did, was you fell for the oldest press trick in the book. It's called: "out of
context". That's is where they play back only a segment of what someone says, only a part of what
they want you to hear, so you will draw the wrong conclusion. What Trump said {had you listened
to ALL of what he said} was that he was going to TAKE ISIL'S OIL. Oil is the largest source of
revenue for them {then comes the CIA money}. If you were to remove their oil revenues from them,
they would be seriously hurting for cash to fund their machine. I don't have a problem with that.
The attacks on Trump have been relentless yet he is still maintaining his position in the
polls.
I expected a take out on Ben Carson, his next closest competitor to move up a CFR-aligned Globalist
like Shrubio or Cruz given their fall-back JEBPNAC is tanking so bad...but not this early. They
must be getting desperate...so desperate they are considering Romney?!
If it becomes 'Reagan/Bush Redux' again with Trump/Cruz, I hope The Donald has enough sense
to say NO! or, if elected, be very vigilant knowing you are Reagan and you have the GHW Bush equivalent
standing there to replace you...and we know how that unfolded early in Reagan's first term...NOT
GOOD
EDIT: The goal is to have a CFR candidate in both the GOP and Dem fold. Although Hillary
is not a CFR member ostensibly Slick Willie has been for more than 20 years and his Administration
was rife with them...Hello Rubin and Glass Steagal!!..as is Chelsea... a newly elected member.
The point is Justin seems to believe the Iranians have no intention of building a nuclear bomb
ever. I've read a lot of this guy's writing ever since he first came out on his own website and
when he wrote for AsiaTimesOnline. He's always had the opinion that the Iranians are not building
a nuclear bomb and have no intention to do so. He spews the same talking points about how they've
never attacked anyone in over two hundred years.
Well that's because previously they were under the control of the Ottoman empire and that didn't
break up until after WW1. I think he's got a blind spot in this regard. You can't tell me that
even the Japanese aren't secretly building nuclear weapons since China is becoming militarily
aggressive. And, stop being a prick. Your micro-aggressing against my safe place LTER and I'm
gonna have to report you for "hurtful" speech.
20 years plus of this accusation. Cia and dia both said no mil program.
If you have evidence summon it. Offering your suspicion as evidence is fucking absurd.
And if the israelis werent hell bent on taking the rest of palestine and brutalizing the natives
(which, by and large, they actually are) that would sure wet some of the anti isrsel powder.
But no / they want lebensraum and years of war for expansion and regional total hegemony.
Thrn they can ethnically cleanse the historical inhabitants while everyones busy watching white
european christisns kill each other, and muslims, as isis keeps not attacking israel or even isrseli
interests.
Youre not dumb, you just reached conclusions that are very weakened of not refuted by evidence
you wont even consider.
If you examine the policy detail Trump has provided, there is more substance there than any
of the others. Add to that he has a long record of successful management, which none of the others
have.
You don't manage successfully without self control. The persona he presents in politics at
present may give the impression of a lack of self control, yet that persona and the policies which
are/were verboten to the political class have quickly taken him to the top of the pack and kept
him there.
If you apply to Trump the saying "judge people by what they do, not what they say", his achievements
out of politics and now in politics show he is a more capable person than any of the others and
that he is successful at what he sets out to do.
As the economy for most Americans continues to worsen, which is baked in the cake, who is going
to look to the public a more credible person to turn it around, Clinton? Trump? one of the others?
The answer is pretty obvious.
European American
"I cannot take Trump seriously."
It's not about Trump as President, a year from now. Who knows if he'll even be in the picture
by then. It's ALL about Trump, RIGHT NOW. He's exposing the underbelly of a vile, hideous Z-creature
that we, here at ZH have seen for some time, but the masses, those who haven't connected enought
dots, yet, are getting a glimpse of something that has been foreign in politics, up until now.
Everytime Trump is interviewed, or tweets or stands at the debates, another round is shot over
the bow, or beak, of the monster creature that has been sucking the life out of humanity for decades,
centuries, eons. As long as he's standing and he can pull it off, that is what this phenomenon
is all about...one day at a time....shedding light where the stench of darkness has been breeding
corruption for the last millenium.
MASTER OF UNIVERSE
Neocons hate because their collective ethos is that of a single misanthrope that crafted their
existence in the first place. In brief, neocons are fascist narrow minded automatons not really
capable of a level of consciousness that would enable them to think critically, and independently,
of the clique orthodoxy that guides their myopic thinking, or lack thereof. Neocons have no history
aside from Corporatism, and Fascism.
Escrava Isaura
American Decline: Causes and Consequences
Grand Area (after WW-2) to be under US control: Western Hemisphere, the Far East, the former
British empire - including the crucial Middle East oil reserves - and as much of Eurasia as possible,
or at the very least its core industrial regions in Western Europe and the southern European states.
The latter were regarded as essential for ensuring control of Middle East energy resources.
It means: Africa resources go to Europe. Asia resources go to Japan. South America resources
go to US.
Now (2019) the Conundrum: Where will China get the resources needed for its survival? And Russia
is not Africa.
"[American exceptionalism] is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global
complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic
sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak,
the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant." ? Zbigniew
Brzezinski
Bazza McKenzie
Through either ignorance or malice the author repeats Rand Paul's statement about Trump's comments
re China and the TPP.
Trump explicitly said the TPP provides a back door opportunity for China, thus noting he understands
China is not an initial signatory to TPP.
The backdoor opportunity occurs in 2 ways. The ability for TPP to expand its signatory countries
without going back to the legislatures of existing signatory countries AND the fact that products
claiming to be made in TPP countries and eligible for TPP arrangements don't have to be wholly
made in those countries, or perhaps even mainly made in those countries. China will certainly
be taking advantage of that.
The fact that Paul does not apparently understand these points, despite being a Senator, displays
an unfortunate ignorance unless of course he was just attempting to score a political point despite
knowing it to be false.
Paul at least made his comment in the heat of the moment in a debate. Raimondo has had plenty
of time to get the facts right but does not. How much of the rest of his screed is garbage?
socalbeach
I got the impression Trump thought China was part of the trade deal from this quote:
"Yes. Well, the currency manipulation they don't discuss in the agreement, which is a
disaster. If you look at the way China and India and almost everybody takes advantage of the
United States - China in particular, because they're so good. It's the number-one abuser of
this country. And if you look at the way they take advantage, it's through currency manipulation.
It's not even discussed in the almost 6,000-page agreement. It's not even discussed."
If China isn't part of the agreement, then what difference does it make whether or not currency
manipulation is discussed? Your answer is that Trump meant they could be added to the agreement
later, as in this previous quote of his:
"The TPP is horrible deal. It is a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble.
It's a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door
and totally take advantage of everyone."
If that's the case, Trump didn't explain himself well in this instance.
Neocons should not be used as a synonym for 'militarist.'
That subset was absolutely a Jewish-Zionist movement originating at the U of Chicago whether
you know the history or not. Its also obvious just verboden to discuss. Not because its false,
but because its true.
Neocons aren't conservative - they are zioglobalists with primary concern for Israel.
There are several groups of militarists in the deep state, but the Israel Firster faction is
predominant.
Fucking obviously.
Arthur
Gee I guess we should back Iran and Isis. Must be some great jewish conspiricy that keeps you
impovrished, that or maybe you are just a moron.
Johnny Horscaulk
Idiot, the us, and israel ARE backing isis. Go back to watching fox news - this is all way
over your willingness to spend time reading about. You clearly have an internet connection - but
you utter palpable nonsense.
OldPhart
Arthur
When/where I grew up I'd never met a jew. I think there was one black family in the two hundred
fifty square miles of the town, population 2,200 in 1976. I knew jackshit other than they were
greased by nazis back in WWII.
Moved out of the desert to Orlando, Flawed?-Duh. Met a lot of regular jews. Good people, best
man's dad and mom had tattoo'd numbers on thier arms. To me, their just regular people that have
some other sort of religion that christianity is an offshoot from.
What I've learned is that Zionism is lead by a relative few of the jewish faith, many regular
jews resent it as an abomination of jewish faith. Zionists are the self-selected political elite
and are in no way keepers of the jewish faith. They are the equivalent, in Israel, to the CFR
here. Oddly, they also comprise many of the CFR seats HERE.
Zionists do not represent the jews any more than Jamie Diamond, Blythe Masters, Warren Buffet,
or Bill Gates represent ordinary Americans. Somehow, over time, Zionists came to wield massive
influence within our government and corporate institutions.
Those are the simple facts that I have been able to glean from piles of research that are massively
biased in both directions.
It's not a jewish conspiracy that keeps many impoverished, it's the Zionists that keep many
impoverished, at war, divided, ignorant, and given bread and circuses. Not jews.
Perhaps you should spend a few years doing a little independent research of your own before
belittling something you obviously have no clue about.
Johnny Horscaulk
That rhetorical ballet aside, Israel has far far too much influence on us policy, and that
is so because of wildly disproportionate Jewish... As such... Political, financial, media, etc
power. And they - AS A GROUP -act in their in-group interests even when resulting policy is not
in this country's interest - demanding, with 50 million Scoffield JudeoChristians that Israels
interests be of utmost value...
And heres the kicker - as defined by an Israel under likud and shas, parties so odious they
make golden dawn look leftist, yet get no msm criticism for being so.
Its never 'all' any group - but Israels influence is excessive and deleterious, and that is
due to jewish power and influence, with the xian zios giving the votes. Framed this way, it isnt
'Zionism' - it is simply a powerful minority with deep loyalty to a tiny foreign state warping
us policy - and media coverage.
MEFOBILLS
Arthur,
Iran is formerly Persia, and its people are predominantly Shia. Shia's are considered apostates
by Sunni's. Isis is Sunni. Sunnis get their funding via the Petrodollar system.
Persians changed their name to Iran to let northern Europeans know they were Aryans. Persians
are not Arabs.
Neo-Con's are Jewish and they have fellow travelers who are non jewish. Many of their fellow
travelers are Sayanim or Zionist Christians. So, Neo-Con ideology is no longer specifically Jewish,
but it certainly has Jewish antecedents.
Your comment is full of illogic, is misinformed, and then you have the laughable temerity to
call out someone else as a moron.
I Write Code
The only place "neocons" still exist is at ZH. Whatever Wikipedia says about it, the term had
virtually no currency in the US before 2001, and had pretty much ceased to have any influence
by about 2005.
Is Rubio sounding like an interventionist? Yes. Does he really know what he's talking about?
Unclear. Is Trump sounding like a non-interventionist? Yes. Does he really know what he's talking
about? Almost certainly not. Trump is the non-interventionist who wants to bomb the shit out of
ISIS.
Rand didn't do anything to embarass himself at the latest debate, but he also didn't stand
out enough to make up for many past errors. Give him a few years, maybe he'll grow up or something.
But the harder question is, what *should* the US do about stuff? Should we cowboy on alone,
or pull back because none of the other kids want to help us. Can't we make common cause with Russia
and France at this point? I mean instead of Iran and Turkey? The biggest problem is of course
Obama - whatever various national interests at this point, nobody in the world thinks they can
trust Nobel boy as far as they can spit a rat. Would anyone want to trust Rubio or Trump? Would
you?
Johnny Horscaulk
Nonsense - read this for background beginning with the philosopher Strauss. It has a fixed
meaning that was subjected to semantic drift in the media. It came to be conflated with 'militarist'
and the conservative thing was a misnomer they were communists who wanted to use American power
for israel.
After listening to the press for the last week, I have come to a conclusion concerning Mr.
Bush: The party big wigs have decided he can not win and are distancing their support for him.
Their new golden boy? Marco Rubio. The press in the last week has barely mentioned Bush, but
every breath has been about "the young Latino". "He's rising in the polls".
I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard that on radio and the TV. They also had him on
Meet The Press last Sunday. Just thought I'd mention it. I can't stand Rubio. When he ran for
Senate down here a few years ago, he road to Washington on the Tea Party's back. As soon as he
got there, he did what all good politicians do: Dumped their platform and forgot all about them.
Scumbag.
neilhorn
Yes, I have also seen the new "golden boy" regaled in the media. Let's see where he goes.
I wonder if anyone represents the American people any better than the corrupt piece of dried up
persimmon that is Hillary?
Raymond_K._Hessel
Trump picks cruz as veep, offends moderate and lefty independents and latinos on the immigration
stuff, kisses Likuds ass (2 million right wing batshit jews out of 8 million israeli voters in
asia dominate us foreign policy via nutty, aipac, adl, jinsa, conf of pres, etc etc etc)
And he loses to hillary. The gop can not win this election. Sorry - but admit the direness
of our situation - shitty candidates all and one of the very worst and most essentially disingenuous-
will win because women and minorities and lefties outnumber right leaning white males.
This is super obviously the political situation.
So - how do we 'prepare' for hillary? She is more wars, more printing, more wall st, more israel
just like everyone but sanders who is nonetheless a crazy person and arch statist though I respect
his at least not being a hyperinterventionist mic cocksucker.
But fucking hillary clinton gets in.
What does it mean apart from the same old thing?
Red team blue team same thing on wars, banks, and bending the knee to batshit psycho bibi.
cherry picker
I don't think Americans are really ready for Bill to be the First Man, do you? I don't think
Americans think about that aspect of Hillary becoming Pres.
Personally, I hope she doesn't get in. There are many other women that are capable who could
fit the bill, if the US is bound and determined to have a female president.
"indeed, in our post-constitutional era, now that Congress has abdicated its responsibility,
he has the de facto power to single-handedly take us into war. Which is why,
paraphrasing Trotsky, you may not be interested in politics, but politics is certainly interested
in you."
The post-constitutional era is the present time. Congress is stifled by politics while the
rest of us only desire that the rights of the people are protected. The President has never been
granted the right to take our nation to war. Other presidents have usurped that power and taken
the power to themseves. Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all taken
on the right to kill anyone who defied the right of the presidency. However, when the people ever
abrogated their right to wage war it was only in response to a police state being established
that threatened those who opposed the power of the established authority. Congress, the representatives
of the people, has the right to declare war. Congress is also obligated to represent the people
who elected them. When will we find a representative who has the backbone to stop the suicidal
tendencies of the structures of power?
Captain Obvious.
Don't set store by any politician. They were all sent as a group to suck Israeli dick. Yes,
dear Donald too. They will tell you what they think you want to hear.
Raymond_K._Hessel
Ivanka converted to judaism and all - was that for the grooms parents or genuine? Or a dynastic
thing?
Wahooo
Another hit piece today in Barrons:
"Donald Trump is trying hard to look presidential these days. Too bad he's using Herbert
Hoover as a role model. Hoover, of course, is best remembered as having been president during
the stock market crash of 1929 that presaged the Great Depression. What helped turn a normal
recession into a global economic disaster was the spread of protectionism, starting with the
Smoot-Hawley tariff, which resulted in retaliation even before Hoover signed the bill in 1930."
If I recall my history, in 1927 amidst what everyone knew was already bubble stock market,
the Fed dropped rates substantially. This was done against the protests of President Coolidge,
his secretary of treasury, and many other politicians and business tycoons at the time. It ushered
in a stock market bubble of massive proportions and the coming bust. Protectionism had little
to do with it.
Faeriedust
Right. The "protectionism" meme is a piece of corporate persiflage that's been duly trotted
out every time someone suggests even SLIGHTLY protecting our decimated economy. According to Wiki:
"the general view is that while it had negative results, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was not one of
the main causes of the Great Depression because foreign trade was only a small sector of the U.S.
economy."
Faeriedust
Well, what REALLY caused the Depression were the bills from WWI. Every nation in Europe had
spent years of GNP on the War through debt, all the debts were due, and nobody could afford to
pay them. So they loaded the whole pile on Germany, and then screamed when Germany literally could
NOT make its payments, and then played extend-and-pretend for a decade. Which eventually caused
the Credit-Anstallt collapse, and then everything finally fell like a house of cards.
Very like today, but the current run of bills were run up by pure financial frivolity and corruption.
Although one could say that fighting a war that killed 1/4 of all European males of fighting age
was an exercise in frivolity and corruption on the part of Europe's senile ruling elites. Nobody
was willing to divide a shrinking pie equitably; they all thought it would be better to try grabbing
The Whole Thing. Rather like world powers today, again.
CAPT DRAKE
educated, responsible position in a fortune 200company, and yes, will be voting for trump.
why? sick to death of the existing elites, and the way they run things. a trump vote is a protest
vote. a protest against the neocons and all their types that have caused so much misery around
the world.
NoWayJose
If Trump is the Republucan nominee, you can bet that he will point out a lot of things Hillary
has done. You know several others in the field will say nothing bad about Hillary. (A la Romney).
Not sure why Rubio still has support - Rand clobbered him on spending, including his new entitlement,
and add Rubio's position on amnesty.
Faeriedust
With JEB polling in single digits and hopelessly befuddled, Rubio is the Great Hispanic
Hope of the establishment Republocrats. He is being well-pimped, is all. Paul is clearly more
intelligent, more articulate, and more well-informed; Trump is more forceful and popular (but
independent!). Neither suits an establishment that wants to hold the reins behind the throne.
thesoothsayer
The Military Industrial Complex became entrenched after Eisenhower left office and they murdered
Kennedy. Since then, they have taken over. We cover the world to spread our seeds and enrich our
corporations. Our government does not protect the people, it protects the corporations, wall street.
That is the reality.
"... I agree. Excellent point on the frack log, but at some point with the reduced rate of drilling the frack log will dwindle. Let's take the Bakken where we have the best numbers, Enno estimates around 800 DUC wells (rough guess from memory), to make things simple let's assume no more wells are drilled because prices are so low. If 80 wells per month are completed the DUCs are gone in July 2016. Now the no wells drilled is probably not realistic. If 40 wells per month are drilled (though at these oil prices I still don't understand why) the 800 DUCs would last for 20 months rather than only 10 months, so your story makes sense at least for the Bakken. ..."
"... One thing to be careful with the fracklog, is that not all of these will be good wells. ..."
"... I agree that high cost will be likely to reduce demand. The optimistic forecasts assume there will be low cost supply judging by the price scenarios. For AEO 2013 Brent remains under $110/b (2013$) until 2031 and only reaches $141/b (2013$) in 2040. ..."
"... "Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years. ..."
"... U.S. drillers account for 20 percent of the debt due in 2015, ..."
"Mr Falih, who is also health minister, forecast the market would come into balance in the new
year, and then demand would start to suck up inventories and storage on oil tankers. "Hopefully,
however, there will be enough investment to meet the needs beyond 2017."
Other officials also estimated that it would probably take one to two years for the market to
clear up the oil market glut, allowing prices to recover towards $70-$80 a barrel."
"Non-OPEC supply is expected to fall in 2016, only one year after
the deep cuts in investment," he said.
"Beyond 2016, the fall in non-OPEC supply is likely to accelerate, as the cancellation
and postponement of projects will start feeding into future supplies, and the impact of previous
record investments on oil output starts to fade away."
I thought just about everyone was expecting a rebound in production by 2017?
The EIA. IEA. OPEC and most others expect non-OPEC production, excluding the U.S.
and Canada to decline in 2016 and the next few years due to the decline in investments and postponement
/ canceling of new projects.
Production in Canada is still projected to continue to grow, but at a much slower rate than previously
expected.
Finally, U.S. C+C production is expected to rebound in the second half of 2016 due to slightly
higher oil prices ($55-57/bbl WTI). Also, U.S. NGL production proved much more resilient, than
C+C, despite very low NGL prices.
Non-OPEC ex U.S. and Canada total liquids supply (mb/d) Source: EIA STEO October 2015
Thanks. I don't think oil prices at $56/b is enough to increase the drilling in the LTO
plays to the extent that output will increase, it may stop the decline and result in a plateau, it's
hard to know.
On the "liquids" forecast, the NGL is not adjusted for energy content as it should be, each barrel
of NGL has only 70% of the energy content of an average C+C barrel and the every 10 barrels of NGL
should be counted as 7 barrels so that the liquids are reported in barrels of oil equivalent (or
better yet report the output in gigajoules (1E9) or exajoules(1E18)). The same conversion should
be done for ethanol as well.
Note that not only the EIA, but also the IEA, OPEC, energy consultancies and investment
banks are projecting a recovery in US oil production in the later part of next year.
That said, I agree with you that $56 WTI projected by the EIA may not be sufficient to trigger
a fast rebound in drilling activity.
However there is also a backlog of drilled but uncompleted wells that could be completed and put
into operation with slightly higher oil prices.
Most shale companies have announced further cuts in investment budgets in 2016, so I think it is
difficult to expect significant growth in the U.S. onshore oil production in 2H16.
If and when oil prices reach $65-70/bbl, I think LTO may start to recover (probably in 2017 ?).
I think that annual growth rates will never reach 1mb/d+ seen in 2012-14, but 0.5 mb/d annual average
growth is quite possible for several years with oil prices exceeding $70.
I agree. Excellent point on the frack log, but at some point with the reduced rate of
drilling the frack log will dwindle. Let's take the Bakken where we have the best numbers, Enno estimates
around 800 DUC wells (rough guess from memory), to make things simple let's assume no more wells
are drilled because prices are so low. If 80 wells per month are completed the DUCs are gone in July
2016. Now the no wells drilled is probably not realistic. If 40 wells per month are drilled (though
at these oil prices I still don't understand why) the 800 DUCs would last for 20 months rather than
only 10 months, so your story makes sense at least for the Bakken.
I have no idea what the frack log looks like for the Eagle Ford. If its similar to the Bakken
and they complete 130 new wells per month, with about 61 oil rigs currently turning in the EF they
can drill 80 wells per month, so they would need 50 wells each month from the frack log. If there
are 800 DUCs, then that would last for 16 months.
The economics are better in the Eagle Ford because the wells are cheaper and transport costs are
lower, but the EUR of the wells is also lower (230 kb vs 336 kb), the well profile has a thinner
tail than the Bakken wells. I am not too confident about the EIA's DPR predictions for the Eagle
Ford, output will decrease, but perhaps they(EIA) assume the frack log is zero and that only 75 new
wells will be added to the Eagle Ford each month. If my guess of 150 new wells per month on average
from Sept to Dec 2015 is correct, then decline from August to Dec 204 will only be about 100 kb/d
and 255 kb/d from March to Dec 2015 (155 kb/d from March to August 2015).
One thing to be careful with the fracklog, is that not all of these will be good wells.
It is fair enough that companies like EOG will have some good DUCs, (should there be a "k" in that?)
in their fracklogs. But as the fracklog is worked through, I am sure there will be a some very ugly
DUCklings, that nobody wants to admit to. How many fall into this category, will be anybodies guess, but not all DUC, will turn out to be beautiful
swans?
On the predictions of the EIA and IEA, they also expect total oil supply to be quite
high in 2040. For example the EIA in their International Energy Outlook reference case they have C+C output
at 99 Mb/d in 2040.
Their short term forecasts are probably better than that, but my expectation for 2040 C+C output
is 62 Mb/d (which many believe is seriously optimistic, though you have never expressed an opinion
as far as I remember).
So I take many of these forecasts with a grain of salt, they are often more optimistic than me,
others are far more pessimistic, the middle ground is sometimes more realistic.
You said above that estimated URR of all global C+C (ex oil sands in Canada and Venezuela)
is 2500 Gb. And about 1250 Gb of C+C had been produced at the end of 2014. So the remaining resources
are 1250 Gb.
BP estimates total global proved oil reserves as of 2014 at 1700 Gb, or 1313 excluding Canadian
oil sands and Venezuela's extra heavy oil. Their estimate in 2000 was 1301 Gb and 1126 Gb. Hence,
despite cumulative production of 419 Gb in 2001-2014, proved reserves increased by 187 Gb, or 400
Gb including oil sands and Venezuela's Orinoco oil. Note that BP's estimate is for proved (not P+P)
reserves, but it includes C+C+NGLs. My very rough guess is that NGLs account for between 5% and 10%
of the total.
You may be skeptical about BP's estimates, but the fact is that proved reserves or 2P resources
are not a constant number; they are increasing due to new discoveries and technological advances.
BTW, the EIA's estimate of global C+C production increasing from 79 mb/d in 2014 to 99 mb/d in
2040 implies a cumulative output of 836 Gb, about 2/3 of your estimate of remaining 2P resources
of C+C or BP's estimate of the current proved reserves. Given future discoveries and improvements
in technology, I think that further growth of global oil production to about 100 mb/d by 2040 should
not be constrained by resource scarcity.
What can really make the EIA's and IEA's estimates too optimistic is not the depleting resource
base, but the high cost of future supply, political factors and/or lower than expected demand.
You are quite optimistic. Note that I add 300 Gb to the 2500 Gb Hubbert Linearization estimate to account for reserve growth
and discoveries.
The oil reserves reported in the BP Statistical review are 1312 Gb. Jean Laherrere estimates that
about 300 Gb of OPEC reserves are "political" to keep quotas at appropriate levels with respect to
"true" reserve levels. So the actual 2P reserves are likely to be 1010 Gb. Some of the cumulative
C+C output is extra heavy oil so the cumulative C+C-XH output is 1240 Gb so we have a total cumulative
discovery (cumulative output plus 2P reserves) of 2250 Gb through 2014.
My medium scenario with a URR of 2800 Gb of C+C-XH plus 600 Gb of XH oil (3400 Gb total C+C) assumes
550 Gb of discoveries plus reserve growth.
What do you expect for a URR for C+C?
Keep in mind that at some point oil prices rise to a level that substitutes for much of present
oil use will become competitive, so oil prices above $175/b (in 2015$) are unlikely to be sustained
in my view.
In a wider format below I will present a scenario with what extraction rates would be needed for
my medium scenario to reach 99 Mb/d in 2040.
I agree that high cost will be likely to reduce demand. The optimistic forecasts assume
there will be low cost supply judging by the price scenarios. For AEO 2013 Brent remains under $110/b
(2013$) until 2031 and only reaches $141/b (2013$) in 2040.
Depleting resources will raise production cost to more than these prices and demand will be reduced
due to high oil prices. There will be an interaction between depletion and the economics of supply and demand. It will
be depletion that raises costs, which will raise prices and reduce demand.
"Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year,
about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion
in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years.
U.S. drillers account for 20 percent of the debt due in 2015, Chinese companies rank second with
12 percent and U.K. producers represent 9 percent."
[These are just the bonds that have yields higher than 10%]
[Its very unlikely that prices will recover in time to save many of the drillers, and even if
prices recover, even $75 oil will not help since they need $90 to break even to service the debt.
Also not sure who is going to buy maturing debt so it can be rolled over. Even if prices slowly recover,
there is likely to be fewer people willing to loan money drillers.]
It's not just the oil. The oil is convenient to point at because the US can pretend that
they got SA to cause the drop in order to stick it to Russia. Makes the US look really smug.
Meanwhile the truth is, copper down, zinc down, iron ore down, you name it down.
Baltic Dry almost crashing, soft commodities gone to hell. I guess SA can also influence
these markets as well.
"... Looking at the recent moves in exchange rates based on a simple switch in expectation of whether or not the Fed would raise rates in December or wait one or two meetings its seems obvious that the markets are not very good at anticipation. So I would not put much money on the ability of the markets to anticipate the trajectory and endpoint of raising rates - or the ability of anybody to guess where the exchange rates will go next. ..."
"... The drop in hours worked data in the productivity report is very confusing. ..."
"... I think lower oil prices has lead to a stronger consumption boost than initially thought. ..."
Have U.S. financial market stress indicators worsened substantially?
Has the U.S. labor market returned to normal?
What will the headline inflation rate be once the effects of the oil price shock dissipate?
Will the U.S. dollar continue to gain value against rival currencies?
I would add:
Will wage gains translate into inflation (or something along those lines)?
Anything else?
sanjait said in reply to Anonymous...
Markets move based on expectations of both economic fundamentals and the Fed's reaction
function. So both can create surprises.
In this case, a relatively stronger than expected US economy could push the dollar up quite a
bit. The central bank would be expected to dampen but not eliminate this effect, even without
changing their perceived reaction function.
DeDude said in reply to Anonymous... , November 10, 2015 at 02:35 PM
Looking at the recent moves in exchange rates based on a simple switch in expectation
of whether or not the Fed would raise rates in December or wait one or two meetings its seems
obvious that the markets are not very good at anticipation. So I would not put much money on
the ability of the markets to anticipate the trajectory and endpoint of raising rates - or the
ability of anybody to guess where the exchange rates will go next.
What we can say is that the strengthening of the US$ that has happened recently will hurt the
economy - whether it will hurt enough to slow the Fed is anybodies guess. Whether those
guesses have already been baked into the exchange rates is impossible to predict.
Bert Schlitz said...
On Angry Bear, there is a post about 3rd quarter hours and Spencer's remark:
"The drop in hours worked data in the productivity report is very confusing.
The employment shows several measures of hours worked and they increased in the third
quarter from 0.5% to 1,08 for aggregate weekly payrolls.
Something is really change.
The productivity report also had unit labor cost rising more than prices,
This implies falling profits, what the S&P 500 shows."
Basically wages accelerated rapidly in the 3rd quarter. The BLS didn't start catching up to it
until October. My guess the hours drop and employment picks up trying to hold down costs.
However, this will probably only level off things off for a few quarters, which would be good
enough to profits catch back up until the labor market becomes so tight, they simply have no
choice but to raise prices and hours worked surge again. Classic mid-cycle behavior (which
Lambert should have noticed).
This is what triggered the 3rd quarter selloff and inventory correction. That foreign stuff
was for show. I think lower oil prices has lead to a stronger consumption boost than
initially thought.
am said...
Clicked on this link for the answers but it is 34 blank pages, so i'll go for:
1. No, they'll just devalue when need be to soften the landing. I think they will do another
one before the end of the year.
2. No idea.
3. Near it if you believe the Atlanta Fed. They have a detailed analysis on their blog.
4. 2.2 if you believe the St Louis Fed, end of December for the oil price decline washout from
the system. So inflation will creep up by the end of the year.
5. Yes and more so if they raise the rate.
6. No. because it will just be oil led not wages (see 4).
Anything else: the weather with apologies to PeterK.
anne said...
I am really having increasing trouble understanding, how is it that having a Democratic
President means making sure appointments from the State or Defense Department to the Federal
Reserve are highly conservative and even Republican. Republicans will not even need to elect a
President to have conservatives strewn about the government:
"... do not just own shares in American banks, they own mainly voting shares. It these financial companies that exercise the real control over the US banking system. ..."
Financial holding companies
like the Vanguard Group, State Street Corporation, FMR (Fidelity), BlackRock, Northern Trust, Capital
World Investors, Massachusetts Financial Services, Price (T. Rowe) Associates Inc., Dodge & Cox Inc.,
Invesco Ltd., Franklin Resources, Inc., АХА, Capital Group Companies, Pacific Investment Management
Co. (PIMCO) and several others do not just own shares in American banks, they own mainly voting
shares. It these financial companies that exercise the real control over the US banking system.
Some analysts believe that
just four financial companies make up the main body of shareholders of Wall Street banks. The other
shareholder companies either do not fall into the key shareholder category, or they are controlled
by the same 'big four' either directly or through a chain of intermediaries. Table 4 provides a summary
of the main shareholders of the leading US banks.
Table 4.
Leading institutional shareholders of the
main US banks
Name of shareholder company
Controlled assets, valuation (trillions of dollars; date
of evaluation in brackets)
Number of employees
Vanguard Group
3 (autumn 2014)
12,000
State Street Corporation
2.35 (mid-2013)
29,500
FMR (Fidelity)
4.9 (April 2014)
41,000
Black Rock
4.57 (end of 2013)
11,400
Evaluations of the amount
of assets under the control of financial companies that are shareholders of the main US banks are
rather arbitrary and are revised periodically. In some cases, the evaluations only include the companies'
main assets, while in others they also include assets that have been transferred over to the companies'
control. In any event, the size of their controlled assets is impressive. In the autumn of 2013,
the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) was at the top of the list of the world's banks
ranked by asset size with assets totaling $3.1 trillion. At that point in time, the Bank of America
had the most assets in the US banking system ($2.1 trillion). Just behind were US banks like Citigroup
($1.9 trillion) and Wells Fargo ($1.5 trillion).
"... Organizational culture and behavior is a critical factor in the success of any business. The intense emphasis most American businesses place on numbers to the exclusion of almost any other consideration is a major contributor to the vast amount of corporate control fraud we have witnessed in the past decade or so. ..."
"... One of the fundamental tenets of Reaganism/Libertarianism is that "The Ends Justify the Means." The financial sector is not the only institution in our civilization that is failing due to this mind-set. The best form of regulation is simply holding up a mirror to a firm or agency and asking questions such as, "In this organization, when is it OK to lie?" ..."
Fascinating research. Thanks for posting this, Yves.
Organizational culture and behavior is a critical factor in the success of any business.
The intense emphasis most American businesses place on numbers to the exclusion of almost any
other consideration is a major contributor to the vast amount of corporate control fraud we
have witnessed in the past decade or so.
Unfortunately, I don't see any of these executive psychopaths putting themselves through the
self-assessment that is one of the necessary steps mentioned in the study. At least, not
voluntarily.
Sluggeaux, November 7, 2015 at 11:39 am
Important.
One of the fundamental tenets of Reaganism/Libertarianism is that "The Ends Justify the
Means." The financial sector is not the only institution in our civilization that is failing
due to this mind-set. The best form of regulation is simply holding up a mirror to a firm or
agency and asking questions such as, "In this organization, when is it OK to lie?"
"... And why is the US seeking a battle with Russia anyway? This is completely absurd....are the neo-cons/neo-libs this fucked up? ..."
"... Having said the above, the prevailing view on the ground in Moscow is that it will be NATO that pre-emptively attacks Russia, hence the refurbishing and re-provisioning of their network of Civil Defence shelters, info via Brother in Law (BNP Paribas Moscow). ..."
"... US/EU GDP approaches 40 trillion dollars. Russia has fallen down below 2 trillion due to the drop in oil prices. 25 to 1 disparity. ..."
"... US population 330 million. EU population 504 million. Russian population 142 million. 6-1 disparity. ..."
"... Carter says Russia, China potentially threaten global order. WTF! These idiots really believe America rules the world! Every country should fear us and do as we say. No other country should EVER dare to challenge our oligarchy. Good for Russia and China for finally saying enough. We patrol the South China Sea like it's our own f***ing bathtub. If China did that to us in the Gulf of Mexico we would already be at war. The GLOBAL F***ING ORDER? Who made us kings of the world? ..."
"... If the neocons think they can bring war to soil mere miles away from Russia and not get a nuclear response if they start losing or we breach a russian boder, theyre insane. Unfortunately one look at current policy confirms that yes, indeed, theyre insane. ..."
"... Any negative assessment of US military capability originating from within the military-industrial complex, must necessarily be considered suspect. First, that assessment would be considered highly classified, unless it was pre-approved and deliberately released to scare more money out of already fleeced taxpayers. Second, .Gov used the same propaganda in our decades-long cold war with the USSR to justify massive spending and involvement in global conflicts. Profligate spending and profligate lies leave them with no credibility. ..."
The Saker wrote a very insightful post on this matter a while back
US political culture and propaganda has deeply ingrained in the minds of those exposed to
the corporate media the notion that weapons or technologies win wars. This is not so. Or, not
really so.
Yes, when the difference in technologies is very big AND very wide, meaning a full generational
change across most key weapon systems, this can help. But not one weapon system alone, and
not when the difference in quality is marginal.
Furthermore, a simpler, more "primitive" weapon which totally outclassed on the testing
range can suddenly become much better suited to real combat then some techno-marvel. This is,
by the way, one of the biggest problems with US weapons. Here is how they are designed:
You take all the latest and most advanced technologies, put them together, then create a
new "superior" design, then design a new mission profile to fit that design, then sell (figuratively
and literally) the new concept to Congress, especially to those Congressmen who come from the
districts where production is planned - and, voilà, you have your brand new top of the line
US weapon. And the costs? Who cares?! Just print some more money, and that's it.
Russian weapons are designed in a totally different way:
Take a mission profile, determine a need, then take all the cheapest, simplest and most
reliable technologies available and combine them into your weapon system, then have that prototype
tested in military units, then modify the weapons system according to the military's reaction
and then produce it.
In other words, US weapons are designed my engineers and produced by businessmen and politicians,
they are not really designed for war at all. Russian weapons, in contrast, are ordered by the
military and created by design bureaus and they have only one objective: real, dirty and ugly
warfare.
This is why the good old MiG-29 could fly better with its old fashioned hydraulics then
the F-18s with fly-by-wire. It was never that the Russians could not built fly-by-wire aircraft
(the SU-27 already had it), but that for the MiG-29 design goals, it was not needed.
What I am getting at here is two things: a) US weapons are not nearly as good as their marketing
and b) "older" Russian weapons are often much better for actual warfighting.
Let's say the US delivers large quantities of Javelin's to the junta. So what? All that
Russia will have to do in reaction is deliver 9M133 Kornets to the Novorussians. Can you guess
which system is both cheaper and better?
When the US gave the junta counter-battery radars what did Russia do? The same thing. Now
both sides have them.
Now here comes the key question: which of the two sides relies more on armor and artillery?
Exactly - the junta.
When confronted with a problems, Americans love to do to things: throw money at it and throw
technological "solutions" at it. This never works, but that is what they are good at.
The fact is that even in the 21st century what wins wars is not money or fancy gear, but
courage, determination, moral strength, willpower and the rage which seizes you when faced
with brute, ugly evil.
Russia does have some technological advantages over the U.S. though.
Russian missile technology is superior.
The S-400 surface to air defence system is two generations better than anything else in the world.
Russian missiles are superior too. Their ICMB's fly random path trajectories. They are the masters
of multiple engine rockets.
Only the Russians have the ability to put a man in space.
America is a little self deluded and they too often extrapolate their warplane technology advantage
into a blanket technology advantage. That's just not the case.
Perimetr
"Well now, it seems entirely possible that the US may have to fight a conventional war against
the Russians . . ."
Sorry, exactly how long do you think a war with Russia would remain CONVENTIONAL?
As soon a one side or the other started to lose, what do you think would happen? They will surrender?
Demdere
Guys, do not believe anyone who says that any part of any system is managable. Saying "I can
win a war" is the same as saying "I can see the future and inside other men's minds". No you an't.
You are throwing dice every time, and war is a very negative-sum game, most players don't even
break even. Both can easily lose very badly, far more han they ever could have conceviablely won.
I believe all modern wars have been of thar variety.
The cost of bad government keeps increasing. The cost of sufficient firepower to cause a 1% loss
of GDP is within the budget of a religious cult with intelligence service ties. We spend more
than 25$ of our GDP on policing, monitoring, checking, verifying. The overhead of our military
is at least 10% of GDP, our industry would kill for that kind of cost advantage. The costs of
dishonest are so huge.
runswithscissors
And why is the US seeking a "battle" with Russia anyway? This is completely absurd....are
the neo-cons/neo-libs this fucked up?
V for ...
Yep. The new Bolsheviks are criminally insane.
1033eruth
The US? No, Uncle Fraud is trying to get Americans to condone and approve another war through
constant media manipulation.
Every major war needs public approval. It doesn't happen until the media maneuvers American zombies
into acceptance.
Kent State was the beginning of the end of the Vietnam war. The losses we were incurring were
too great for the public to accept. Which also helps to explain why we have switched over to remote
control and drone warfare. We can still spend ocean carriers of money which the American public
overlooks as a cost for "safety" and the loss of life is minimized therefore less backlash.
Tell me why this hasn't occurred to you?
booboo
More scarey bullshit to whip up more support for spending trillions on another armored up coffin,
flying battleship or space shotgun, not that I am under any illusion that the U.S. would win but
God Damn, if you don't start a fucking war then you won't have to fight a war.
Blankone
Yes, this. And it works well because all sides lap it up. The MIC has the politicians push
the agenda and fear. TPTB have the MSM push it and the sheep eat it up like always. The Putin
fan club jumps on the band wagon because its the fantasy they wish was true.
Russia Would "Annihilate" US In Head-To-Head Battle
No wonder the Nobel Prize Winner is pushing Putin into a new world war. CIA created ISIS
blows up Russian passenger jet. F-15s sent to Turkey to attack Russian jets. Obama continues
to attack oil to bankrupt Russia.
US deploys F-15s to Syria, targeting Russian jets
By Thomas Gaist, 7 November 2015
The US will send a squadron of F-15C fighter jets to Turkey's Incirlik air base, the US Defense
Department (DOD) announced on Friday. The nature of the US war planes, which are specifically
designed for dogfighting with other highly advanced fighter jets, indicates that the deployment
carries a significance far beyond what its small scale would suggest.
The F-15 line of combat jets was developed in response to the unveiling in 1967 of the Soviet
Union's MiG-25 "Foxbat" interceptor.
Because they are designed for air-to-air combat against other major powers, the US
has, until now, seen no need to deploy the F-15C model to its Middle Eastern and Central Asian
war theaters, where the opposing forces have no warplanes.
The sudden deployment, coming less than two months after Russia began sending its own SU-30
fighters to its new airbase at Latakia, makes clear that the jets have been deployed in response
to Moscow's air campaign.
Stakes are high as US plays the oil card against Iran and Russia
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September
under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help
explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and
Syria
caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.
I dispute that the F-15 was ever intended as a dogfighter. It is fast, much faster than the
SU-30 and it can carry an impressive bomb load, but I believe the original design was rapid penetration
of enemy defenses and air to ground, not air superiority. All that of course comes only when the
F-15 is loaded down with not only fuselage conformant fuel tanks but drop tanks as well, reducing
it's effectiveness. When you compare thrust, aerodynamics, stand off weapons and sheer manoevering
capability the SU-30 wins hands down. The only air-to-air weapon the F-15's have been retrofitted
with that even comes close to the air-to-air that the Russians have is the British Meteor, but
that has never been tested. It is a Mach 4 weapon so the SU-30 couldn't outrun it or out climb
it, but I remain to be convinced about it's capabilities.
The larger problem for the Americans is that they are stationing their F-15's at Incirlik, which
is only 15 minutes from Latakia. Incirlikk was a poor choice for them to be stationing those units
when the stated intention was to fly missions against ISIS. If the Syrians/Russians detect the
F-15's coming south instead of going east they will have only a few moments to decide on whether
to launch S-400's against them, and in an environment that might have a heigntened level of intensity
that is a danger. Needless to say, an S-400 launced against an F-15 will take the later out in
seconds and no amount of chaffe of manoevering with change that scenario. Check mate.
Blankone
Check mate? They are moving that close to the Russian bases to squeeze Russia and occupy the
area. It is a sign they have no fear of Russia being willng to confront.
Dark Daze
Either that or a sign of sheer stupidity and a willingness to sacrifice men and material.
Talleyrand
Russia is not going to attack the Baltic states. Russia is not going to invade Poland. Russia
is not going to attack the anachronism that is NATO.
On the other hand, invading Russia has, historically, proven to be a bad idea.
cowdiddly
Just more of this Russophobia boogeyman bullshit to get more funds appropriated for their sick
toys and paychecks so they can continue getting their butt kicked all over the globe by anyone
more powerful than Somalia.
Parrotile
Jack, Russia has no reason to "invade Europe" since Europe has nothing of immediate benefit
to Russia. Having said that Russia will certainly not "telegraph" their intentions by troop movements,
and will certainly use their rather capable missile tech to "soften up" EU defences should the
opportunity arise. Air defence needs runways, and armies need reliable bulk transport (motorways
/ rail), the key locations of which (marshalling yards / major intersections) are well known to
Russia.
They will not just "roll over the border" and say "come and get us" to the West.
Having said the above, the prevailing view "on the ground" in Moscow is that it will be NATO
that pre-emptively attacks Russia, hence the refurbishing and re-provisioning of their network
of Civil Defence shelters, info via Brother in Law (BNP Paribas Moscow).
tarabel
Let's review here...
NATO is larger than it ever was before, and Russia is much smaller and weaker than the USSR/Warsaw
Pact.
Soviet armor is not parked in central Germany any more.
Vladimir Putin complains endlessly about NATO forces being forward deployed to his border regions.
Virtually every single member of the US military and many cadres from other NATO nations have
years of real world battlefield experience, while only a small number of Russians have been shot
at.
US/EU GDP approaches 40 trillion dollars. Russia has fallen down below 2 trillion due to the
drop in oil prices. 25 to 1 disparity.
US population 330 million. EU population 504 million. Russian population 142 million. 6-1
disparity.
Russian "breakout" from nuclear treaties that limited weapons to an approximate 1-1 parity means
that they are stronger in nuclear weapons than the United States, but the nuclear forces of the
UK and France mean that the West still possesses a slight but shrinking superiority here
And now you understand why Russia has officially and unilaterally renounced the solemn old Soviet
declaration of "no first use" of nuclear weapons. Any conventional war between the West and Russia
will end in ruin for Russia even if they can make some hay early on. The economic and population
disparities are far too wide for Putin to prevail or even defend his country-- unless he goes
nuclear. It is the only type of warfighting in which the sides are remotely equal.
The West has no need or interest in going nuclear on Russia in the event of hostilities. No matter
what sort of initial success Russian armies may achieve in the early stages of a war that starts
next door to their depots, the economic power of the West is far too much for him to overcome
with conventional means.
Draw your own conclusions as to who needs to light the first Roman Candle.
rejected
"Virtually every single member of the US military and many cadres from other NATO nations have
years of real world battlefield experience, while only a small number of Russians have been shot
at."
Yes,,, but fighting who? Vietnam, a real war, was too long ago. The veterans are old so their
experience will be of no use.
The Iraqi's were surrendering so fast it was slowing down the advance on Baghdad.
Libya,,, bombed into a failed state,,, other than the Marines having to defend the gun running
US Ambassador there was no fighting.
In Syria our Ally "moderate terrorists" are / was doing the grunt work against Assad.
And we're still fighting (losing) the cave dwellers of Afghanistan 15 years later. In fact they
are now advancing against the puppet US government.
Russia will never attack the West but the West will attack Russia because the West is broke. That
GDP your referring to was purchased by central bank printing.
The Russian Army will be defending their nation, Nato/US Armies will be trying to establish an
empire.
Who do you think will have the most incentive.
HyeM
This is all propaganda.... they're using words like "Annihilate" to terrify the public and
get an even larger budget for the military-industrial complex to benefit them and their friends
in the defense industry. For the last 80 years we were going to be "Annihilated", first by the
Soviet Army, and now this crap.
rbg81
I remember freshman ROTC lectures back in 1979. The USSR was poised to invade West Germany
via the Fulda Gap--they could come over at any minute. Ivan was ten feet tall. Blah, blah, blah.
Then, after the Berlin Wall fell, two generations of scary propaganda looked like a big joke.
Nothing ever changes.
I Write Code
Anybody interested, please click on the link and read the Politico article yourself.
This ZH posting completely misrepresents what the article says.
The article is really about McMaster and the good news that he's still in the game at the Pentagon.
And in two out of three scenarios the US beats Russia, apparently even in this expeditionary scenario.
Now, the whole thing is absurd. The idea that the US and Russia would end up firing major weapons
at each other is a mutual nightmare. And the idea that the US would pit a small force against
Russia, right against Russian territory, and expect to win, is doubly absurd.
But the Politico article is actually worth reading anyway, and for that, thank you ZH.
rejected
Great!!! Our team wins!
Could have went any way....
V for ...
Fairness, justice, freedom. These are more than words. They are deeds. That was the pledge
of the U.S. Military code before it was overtaken by dual citizens like the Wolfowitz Doctrine,
Project for a New American Century; those who declare to be the 'chosen ones', and use my country,
my people's blood and treasure.
Get off your knees, US Military Code. I have no interest in the failures of dual citizens,
and nor should you. My country, tis of thee. Foreigners should fund their own fight.
"Carter says Russia, China potentially threaten global order." WTF! These idiots really
believe America rules the world! Every country should fear us and do as we say. No other country
should EVER dare to challenge our oligarchy. Good for Russia and China for finally saying enough.
We patrol the South China Sea like it's our own f***ing bathtub. If China did that to us in the
Gulf of Mexico we would already be at war. The GLOBAL F***ING ORDER? Who made us kings of the
world?
These guys are sick. We need to pull our fleets and troops out and go home and stay there. Let
China and Russia deal with Japan, Taiwan and Syria. Guaranteed these guys will get us into a major
war soon. Obama is too weak to fight the MIC. They fill his head with crap about how no country
should dare to challenge us.
Americans cannot tolerate large losses. They expect to always kick ass and suffer few losses.
The new missile technology has changed all that. Watch the reaction when one of our aircraft carriers
goes to the bottom from a dozen simultaneous missile strikes. The oligarchs know they can count
on Joe Sixpack believing all their propaganda spewing forth and set his 300lb ass in his living
room chair saying, "Let's go kick China and Russia's asses."
seek
If the neocons think they can bring war to soil mere miles away from Russia and not get
a nuclear response if they start losing or we breach a russian boder, they're insane. Unfortunately
one look at current policy confirms that yes, indeed, they're insane. Just pray they only
target political and financial centers when the missiles fly. Might leave us in a better place.
lasvegaspersona
Eisenhower said war is man's greatest folly and those who pursue it or fail to prevent it are
a black mark on all of humanity
...wonder if these military geniuses have read THAT military history...
Eisenhower warned about a new thing in his time, something called a military industrial complex.
The modern Zionist talks about the MIC being a conspiracy theory, but Eisenhower said it would
have 'grave implications', and we 'must guard against ...the military industrial complex...never
let it endanger our liberties...'.
Charles Offdensen
What a bullshit article. If the US were to truly go all out war and not give a damn about public
opinion, which is media driven for the purpose of tying our hands visa vie Amercan public feeling
and emotions, we would by any stretch of the means and definition wipe the floor with any country
any where.
The problem is that most people don't realize or care to understand what it takes to win a war.
Since when did the enemy give a rats ass about how they killed us. They don't, so why should we
care about them or the civilians who have been so brutalized to the point of pure survival who
only want the pain to stop no matter who delivers it. And that includes their slave masters which
has been discussed ad nausium her at ZH.
Ask yourself. Do you really think people who have been raped and brutalized are going to be better
off if we play nice or are they going to do whatever it takes to survive and that means not giving
a shit about anyone else but you.
War is hell. There are no two ways about it. But do you sacrifice your objective just to win the
hearts and minds of those that would probably shoot you because they can't tell which way is up
or down? Especially those from a distinction all third world and seventh century mentality.
To win you have to do what is necessary regardless of judgment because judgment is what defeats
us in battle.
Blood is thicker than water. The dual citizens think they have captured the USA. I know they
have a tiger by the tail.
'they' serve money first by their hideous Talmud, and 'they' are going to die by it.
'they' enjoyed the protection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet strive to destroy those
American ways.
F'ck 'em. Don't worry about them.. Let them die in their desert sandpit.
Dark Daze
There was a time, not so long ago, when the US at least tried to maintain the illusion that
they were the 'good guys'. Of course history paints an entirely different picture. As I have written
many times, from Latin America, South America, China, South East Asia, Africa and now the middle
east, the US has overthrown, bombed, murdered, screwed over, enslaved and otherwise brutalised
most of the worlds population. Let's not forget that it was less than 40 years from the American
Revolution when the US started it's wars of conquest by trying to invade Canada while Britain
was tied up with Napoleon.
Glad to see that there is at leasrt one American who makes no bones about his/her true intentions,
which is total world domination. Unfortunately for you, you're economy is wrecked, your banks
and government are bankrupt, you have no gold left, your population is seething in it's anger
and you're vaunted war machine is phoney. So go ahead, try the Chinese or the Russians on for
size and see what happens.
docinthehouse
If Russia and China were smart, they would improve theirr own country's infrastructure and
let the West continue to rot of its own accord. You get what you accept Ameirca and the west have
becomes slaves to debt and a tolerance of freeloading. You get what you accept.
Setarcos
Er! Russia and China ARE improving their infrastructures, Russia especially since sanctions
gave a strong impetus.
Have you seen the new bridge being built to Crimea and what a about Sochi, the new technology
centre near Moscow, revitalized Vladivostok and the new Cosmodrom, for instance.
Agricultural production is way up and manufacturing is being ramped up.
marcusfenix
as an aside to this piece there was another interesting disclosure regarding the growing gaps
in capabilities the US would have to overcome if Washington ever engaged Russia in a conventional
war.
namely the cruise missile strikes from the Caspian flotilla, while they did not make a difference
in the course of the battle in Syria they did show that Russia has a capability that the US Navy
does not and could put them at a serious disadvantage in any engagement. it wasn't the missiles
themselves though they did show a vast improvement in Russian long range guided missile capabilities
but how they were delivered that is cause for concern in DC.
unlike the US navy which relies exclusively on larger blue water destroyers for it's long range
cruise missile delivery, the missiles fired from the Caspian sea were launched from much smaller,
faster and more agile corvettes. long range strike capability from a package that is much harder
to find, track, target and hit than the US navy's guided missile and aegis destroyers.
this capability has countless advantages but Washington never pursued it's development and apparently
did not expect Moscow to either. but now not only did Moscow do just that they proved to the world
that they can use it in combat in essence rendering the entire US navy's carrier fleet obsolete.
consider this small of a ship, under 90 tons, can position itself anywhere up to 900 miles away
and fire up to 12 LRAS missiles from areas where larger ships and even subs simply can not operate.
all while still retaining blue water mission capabilities.
it is simply smaller, faster, more flexible, more cost effective and smarter than anything the
US navy has to offer. these corvettes are relatively easy to produce and maintain and can be built
in large numbers on short notice, they are hard to hunt and hard to kill and can sink carriers
from hundreds of miles away.
instead of investing in practical, usable tech like this DC sinks one trillion dollars in the
F-35 which still isn't near production and is already obsolete. as one US air force general testified
before congress the Russians have had the ability to overcome the Lightnings stealth capabilities
for at least 15 years now and in a dog fight it would get shredded by even a 1960's Mig 21 because
it is to under powered to generate attack angels and "turns like a garbage truck".
now I wonder how many guided missile corvettes could one trillion dollars buy?
Flankspeed60
Any negative assessment of US military capability originating from within the military-industrial
complex, must necessarily be considered suspect. First, that assessment would be considered highly
classified, unless it was pre-approved and deliberately released to scare more money out of already
fleeced taxpayers. Second, .Gov used the same propaganda in our decades-long cold war with the
USSR to justify massive spending and involvement in global conflicts. Profligate spending and
profligate lies leave them with no credibility.
tool
Exactly talking their own book fear mongering to increase their allocated budget and by god
they will find away to spend every last cent. Remember the recent Afghan compressed natural gas
outlet should have cost 500k actually cost billions!
"... Actually oil accounts for only about 15% of the Russian economy, which is rapidly diversifying because of the impetus provided by sanctions. ..."
"... Ironically too, because oil is still mainly traded in inflated USD and the ruble devalued, the price drop is not as great as it seems at first glance, and because internal trade, manufacturing, etc. is conducted in rubles, the impact is lessened even more. ..."
"... The USSR collapsed because the people, the foundation of support, were disgusted and disillusioned with a system with pervasive corruption at the top, while the majority suffered deprivation. ..."
"... Actually the Soviet Union was dismantled from above. The ruling (elite) group - in government, managers of large industries, academics, etc. wanted the economic privileges available in capitalist countries. Circa 80% of the population (i.e., working people) supported the Soviet Union and socialism and were the ones whose living standards collapsed following the conversion to capitalism. See- Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System by David Kotz and Fred Weir ..."
While the American Empire still exists and has extended its imperialistic reach, it is a very
different empire from the days of the Reaganites. Most obviously, the Rule of Law is dead. Saturation
corruption permeates this now rancid empire.
Financial criminals (primarily based in the U.S.) commit crimes literally a
thousand times larger than anything previously seen in our history, and then repeat these crimes
again and again. The U.S. 'Justice' Department spends its time not in prosecuting and incarcerating
these criminals (and criminalized "banks"). Rather, it expends its energies
explaining why it refuses to prosecute these criminals.
The primary "prey" of this banking crime syndicate is now the American people and the
U.S. economy , itself. The United States has not merely become insolvent, it is obviously bankrupt.
The
Oligarchs who control its puppet government literally shipped the U.S. manufacturing base to
the low-wage regimes of Asia, which ironically included China. As a result, the once-envied U.S.
Middle Class has been transformed into
the Working Poor .
In most respects (outside of economic parameters), the American Empire would be judged to be "stronger
than ever". Clearly this is true militarily. Despite having no real "enemies" since the defeat-by-default
of the Soviet Union, U.S. Neo-Cons have been busy as beavers inventing Boogeymen (and then destroying
them) in order to justify the continued, relentless expansion of its war machine.
Politically, successively more-fascist regimes have rendered the U.S. Constitution essentially
obsolete. Legally illegitimate (i.e. null-and-void),
fascist laws have been wallpapered over the Constitution, stripping the American people of their
rights and liberties.
In legitimate democracies, Constitutions are the ultimate Law of the Land, which serve primarily
to protect the People from the State. In fascist regimes, invariably illegitimate governments create
endless laws designed to protect the State from the People. The American Empire used to represent
the former paradigm. Now it epitomizes
the latter .
At one time, the closer that one moved toward the "heart" of the American Empire, the more strict
was adherence to the Rule of Law. Today, the closer one approaches to the political cesspool known
as "Washington, D.C.", or the
financial cesspool known as "Wall Street", the more-overpowering becomes the stench of corruption
– and lawlessness.
In a perverse twist of fate, the American Empire now mirrors the Soviet Union, in almost every
respect. In the Soviet Union, voters were given the choice of two candidates, in what it called "elections".
However both of those candidates represented the Communist Party.
In the American Empire, voters are also given the choice of two candidates, they simply pretend
to represent two, different parties. Incredibly, this political charade has managed to persist for
at least a century.
"There is no material difference now in the old political parties, except which shall control
the patronage."
- (former Congressman/prosecutor) Charles Lindbergh Sr.,
The Economic Pinch (p.61), 1923
Perhaps more significantly, the American Empire now bears considerable resemblance to the Roman
Empire, as well. Historians are in agreement that at the time the Roman Empire was at the absolute
peak of its military might that "the decline of the Roman Empire" had already been underway for
centuries.
Where the ancient Roman Empire differs from the modern American Empire is that in the 21 st century,
events – including the rise-and-fall of empires – progress much, much more rapidly. Roughly speaking,
what used to stretch over centuries now takes place in decades. Instant communication, rapid global
transportation, computerization, and numerous, other technological advances are responsible for this
accelerated pace of political/economic/social evolution.
Morally and economically bankrupt, the American Empire now relies more and more heavily on its
Big Stick, which it wields with ever more impunity and recklessness. Statesmen such as
Ron Paul and
Paul Craig Roberts have regularly warned that the current generation of Neo-Cons (who wield all,
real power in the U.S. government) are marching relentlessly toward World War III.
However, while we see Psychopaths on the left/West, we see an entirely opposite political dynamic
in the East. The strengthening alliance between China and Russia, represents two, large, global powers
which (at least at this point in time) demonstrate no imperial aspirations. But this is only one
significant way in which the East differs from the West.
In an essay titled Grandmaster Putin's Trap , Russian writer Dmitry Kalinichenko provides
us with aninsightful
allegory . Cold War II is not a militarily-oriented confrontation, rather it is a geopolitical
chess match. The important point here is that only one "side" understands how to play (and win) a
chess match.
How does a skilled chess-player achieve victory? Positioning, positioning, and more positioning.
It is only once one's opponent has been completely out-positioned that any thought is given to overt
attack. Chess is a game of patience, and (often) a game of simply waiting for one's opponent to self-destruct,
via strategic error, or mere impatience.
This brings us back to the current geopolitical stage. In the East, we see Russia and China constantly
engaged in improving their position. Unlike the American Empire, they are improving their economies
– notcannibalizing
them. They are relentlessly adding to their
gold reserves ("He who has the gold makes the rules" – The Golden Rule), while the American
Empire has squandered most of its
own reserves .
While the U.S., and the West, in general, unremittingly alienates the Rest of the World, Russia
and China have been rapidly improving their political and economic cooperation with other nations.
While the political/economic institutions created or sponsored by the American Empire lose their
legitimacy due to corruption, Russia and China are creating parallel, corruption-free institutions
– to replace them.
If this was a real chess match, the player on the left would have already 'pushed over his King'
(i.e. capitulated). The player on the right now has such superior position that the outcome of the
game is no longer in doubt. However, this is not a game, but rather real life – where one side has
utterly no respect for anything resembling "rules".
Russia and China are clearly headed for victory-by-default in Cold War II. The psychopaths of
the American Empire have demonstrated that they are ready-and-willing to do literally anything to
prevent this seemingly inevitable outcome. For this reason, the warnings of people such as Ron Paul
and Paul Craig Roberts should be given our most serious consideration.
GreatUncle
Russia & China, you might want to add India too.
It is called mutual support because as each year passes the US becomes more and more aggressive
and to be out on your own and a threat to those in power there you will be turned upon to keep
you in your place.
If anything I expect this coalition of nations to only get stronger because if any become isolated
and seems to be current foreign policy with Russia you are in for a bit of brutality. Then once
one side or the other is eliminated and that can be economically too they will turn on the another
to keep them in their place.
Top dog is always going to have an inferiority complex against any who may challenge it.
Consequence? In the last decade reckon under its own steam the US has magnificently turned
a substantial portion of the global population against it. It might not be in the MSM, it will
be undercurrents of all the brutality like killing innocent citizens with drones or a shoot to
kill policy by the US military and the if you are not with us you are against us mentality.
laomei
Russia and China are clearly headed for victory-by-default in Cold War II.
Lol, the Russian economy is collapsing, it relies entirely on oil and oil is dirt cheap. Russia
gave the EU an out with sanctions to tear up the contracts and will soon be able to turn to alternative
sources. That leaves China as their main partner for oil, while Russia buys up cheap Chinese garbage.
But, at the same time, China is more or less in the same position as Mexico was, combined with
systemic problem that are virtually identical to the Japan bust. It's a ticking time bomb and
the government is literally locking up anyone who dares to even suggest that such a thing is even
possible now. Purely out of fear that someone might be listening. China is still dealing with
record outflows of cash and is rapidly liquidating those vast reserves. Once the economic growth
drops (official numbers or not), there will be no choice left but to devale, which is great for
exporters, but toxic for all companies that have borrowed USD. It's enough to destroy entirely
their advanced sectors, and they do not have the willing labor at competitive rates to rush back
to manufacture like they used to.
Setarcos
Actually oil accounts for only about 15% of the Russian economy, which is rapidly diversifying
because of the impetus provided by sanctions.
Ironically too, because oil is still mainly traded in inflated USD and the ruble devalued,
the price drop is not as great as it seems at first glance, and because internal trade, manufacturing,
etc. is conducted in rubles, the impact is lessened even more.
bthunder
If corruption is what brings empires down, then considering level of corruption in China and
Russia vs in the US of A, Russia and China will collapse long before USA will.
As far as Putin's "grandmaster" skills supposedly demonstrated by Russia's "positioning, positioning,
and more positioning", during 15 years of his rule Russia's economy has been positioned for oil
exports, nat gas exports, and more oil exports. That takes some grndmaster-like skills indeed.
Now that he's involved in 2 conflicts and China is refusing to pay previously negotiated prices
for oil and nat gas (china demands discounts to reflect current low prices) it will be interesting
to see how he can conduct and pay for 2 wars at the same time.
Crash N. Burn
"As far as Putin's "grandmaster" skills..."
Perhaps you should have clicked the link in that paragraph:
"After realizing its failure in Ukraine, the West, led by the US set out to destroy Russian
economy by lowering oil prices, and accordingly gas prices as the main budget sources of export
revenue in Russia and the main sources of replenishment of Russian gold reserves....
..Putin is selling Russian oil and gas only for physical gold.
Putin is not shouting about it all over the world. And of course, he still accepts US dollars
as an intermediate means of payment. But he immediately exchanges all these dollars obtained from
the sale of oil and gas for physical gold!..
..in the third quarter the purchases by Russia of physical gold are at all-time high record
levels. In the third quarter of this year, Russia had purchased an incredible amount of gold in
the amount of 55 tons. It's more than all the central banks of all countries of the world combined"
The USSR collapsed because the people, the foundation of support, were disgusted and disillusioned
with a system with pervasive corruption at the top, while the majority suffered deprivation.
Now things have reversed, it is Americas turn.
Freddie
The USSR was totally corrupt just like the USA today. The USA has been on a slipperly slope
since before the Banksters - Civil War. I pretty much expected when Obola was selected by Soros
and other zios that the uSA was headed towards an implosion like the old USSR.
Phillyguy
Actually the Soviet Union was dismantled from above. The ruling (elite) group - in government,
managers of large industries, academics, etc. wanted the economic privileges available in capitalist
countries. Circa 80% of the population (i.e., working people) supported the Soviet Union and socialism
and were the ones whose living standards collapsed following the conversion to capitalism. See-
Revolution From Above: The Demise of the Soviet System by David Kotz and Fred Weir
I suggest checking an atlas, or googlemap. "mother Russia" most certainly included Belarus
and, arguably, some if not all of Ukraine. They don't seem to be part of the Russian federation
nowadays.
"Unlike the American Empire, they are improving their economies – not
cannibalizing them."
That's, unfortunately, very arguable about Russia. Russia lived on the oil price highs of the
last 10 years, but its economy is largely unchanged, imports
are rampant, agriculturecan't
keep up with internal demandand infrastructures, in general but in particular in
the immense Asian part,
has not much changed since the 90s, or maybe even 60s (with the exception of the
oil related projects) and corruption is omnipresent.
1] Belarus is not technically part of Russia, but in many way it is and still heading for greater
integration. Belarus is now part of what is legally called Union State of Russia and Belarus.
Interestingly, although economic integration has proved difficult at this point, the
two states are integrated militarily. Besides, Belarus is a member of the Eurasian Union, which
is a Russian parallel to the European Union. It is perhaps more easy for Russia to have this Union
instead of incorporating the former Soviet countries directly into Russia again. Although there
are regions, who would very much like to rejoin Russia directly, but cannot do so, because it
would provoke fury of the American Empire. So all the integration and rejoining must be done very
quietly and under the blanket for now.
2) asian part,
has not much changed since the 90s: ummm....this has been true for entire thousands
of year long history of Russia. It is incredibly difficult for Russia to develop all its territory,
because it is huge. Russia will need help of China and other Asian states to do this. But cities
like Vladivostok have changed for better already and are booming. There are plans for greater
development of those regions and many projects in place. One of them is the new Russian cosmodrome,
which will provide jobs and centre of life for many people, once it is completed. But of course,
developing those regions is an enormous effort for generations to come, which Putin can only start
and his successors will have to continue.
3) Apart from Far East, Russia is also positioning itself in the Artics, building bases and
projects. This is also task for future generations.
4) Russian economy is certainly not unchanged! Russia jumped higher in the ranking of easy
to do business chart and the World Bank says that d oing Business in
Russia is now easier than in China. Russian debts (both state and external)
are still decreasing and gold reserves growing. Agriculture is self-sufficient already (no Russians
dying from hunger and import bans still in place). It also has much to improve, but Russians can
now feed themselves without the help of the West. For example dairy production has grown 26%.
And more than that, for example Russia is now surpassing USA in wheat export. Poorer regions like
Africa and Middle-Eastern countries like Egypt and Iran are buying more and more food from Russia,
as it is cheaper.
5) Imports rampant? I don't get what rampant means, but imports are much smaller than last
year and still dropping. And most imports are now undertandably coming from China.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/imports
6) Corruption is also decreasing and it is nowhere as terrible as in the USA (if only for the
simple reason that Russia does not print money and does not increase its debts, so the amount
of money to steal from is limited). This should be an example for future Americans. Corruption
will always exist, but it will be much less, if you don't print money out of nothing and if you
don't increase debts to pass them on to your children.
People tend to forget that Russia, despite being an old civilization, is actually a very young
as a state in the current form. Its economy and capitalism have had far less time to develop than
USA! The Russian Constitution was created only in 1993, so even its political system is very young.
So it is logical that everything is still in its beginnings and evolving. Russia is now where
USA was in, say, 1791:-) But that is not necessarily a bad thing, as Russians still have a lot
of space for creativity and building of their state - they are in the beginning of a new cycle,
while USA is in the end of a cycle.
And you don't seem to understand the arguments made.
1) The writer said that "mother Russi has remained intact". Belarus and Ukraine are part of
teh concept of "MOther Russia". ukraine goes without saying, considering that it is where the
whole concept of Russia begun (you know, Kievan Rus?). Now, Belarus was part of Kievan Rus and
Minsk itself was settled by Russians in the 9th century (the city proper was created in the 11th,
still by Russians). yes, it could be argued is that the polonization process that happened once
it came under the Polish-Lithuanian union when the Russian state had been conquered by the mongols
set belarus culturally and linguistically apart for a few centuries, but ideally, Belarus is undoubtly
part of "mother Russia". You seem to know little of the history of the place yourself for accusing
othes not to know much of it.
2) yes, indeed... but still, not even you countered my argument that infrastructure is basically
what it used to be. of course, not exactly what it used to be.. note that I used "largely the
same". there are a few exceptions.
3) true, but artict exploration is like the space age race of the 60s: a show of power and
a technological feat, with large upfront costs and with limited impact on the real economy (or
rather, a large impact, but on a very long timeframe since the technologies ended up mainstream).
4) saying that doing business in Russia in easier than in China is not saying much, considering
how closed to foreigners the Chinese economy is (the fact that it is open to FDI doesn't mean
it is an open economy, even if many confuse the two things). Russia can feed itself with grain
and potatoes, of course, and it can also export them (as it has done for decades in its history),
but it cannot actually produce for a diversified internal demand, forcing people to either pay
a large premium for imports (even larger now with sanctions, hence the reduction of imports) or
go for second line products via import substitution. the reason why food prices jumped with sanctions
is that Russia wasn't able to produce enough to make do for the food it imported and prices raised
as goods were to few to meet demand. There's simply no easier evidence than that AND the fact
that just last july the ministry of agricolture for Russia promised MASSIVE subsidies to the agricolture
sector to stimulate production. So, are we really arguing the insufficiency of Russian agricoltural
sector? Which brings as to...
5) ...You confuse the fact that imports are slowing due the economic crisis and ruble depreciation
with economic strenght, which is funny. Truth is, if you remove oil from russian exports, the
balance of trade of Russia is utterly negative and getting worse. Russia is not Saudi Arabia,
of course, where everythign revolves around oil, but most of the economic resurgence of the Putin
era is due to oil windfall and not much has been done to improve other sectors of the economy.
proof is, there is no major company that is considered a major player which has been born in Russia
in the last 20 years. All top russian companies are oil related (Gazprom, Rosnef and Lukoil) or
financial (which raised due the financial needs and revenues of oil), while there is a (relative)
desert in services and computer technology. Russia has been and largely continue to be, a raw
material exporting country with heavy industries tied to raw materials and armaments, not much
of an advanced tertiary or high value added items economy. And I add, unfortunately so, as nothing
would please me more to see a strong enough Russia to limit the American idiocy around Europe
and teh middle East. The world has gone insane since the loss of a counterweight.
6) your understanding of corruption is.. well, not understanding. Corruption isn't tied to
money production, it is tied with money transfers within an economy. If you have to pay for a
permission or a to move goods around, that is a net loss for the economy. In transpareny international
index, Russian CPI was 24 in 2014, ranking it 136 of 175 countries, in 2012 it was 28. It IS improving,
but it's still one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
One can be a Russian fan (I am), but denying the limits of the country's economy doesn't help.
Putin himself understands the limits and that's the reason why Russian isn't, differently than
the US id in Iraq and Afghanistan, going with its army in Ukraine or Syria: they don't have the
financial means to sustain a ground war. I wish Russia a bright future, but they have much to
improve and their economy has much to diversify to self sustain.
Btw, Russia has another, immense bordering on the catastrophic, problem and that is demography.
Between very low natality and, until very recently, a lowering life expectancy (which is still
one of the lowest , if not the lowest, of all advanced economies) Russians risk to go extincted
to irrilevance by the end of the century (but at least, they are not following the folly of our
Europeans to substitute disappearing locals with muslims from the middle east and Africa). I really
hope they will manage to reverse the trend.
Lucky Leprachaun
Destruction from within? Undoubtedly. Caused by Americans themselves? More problematical. You
see the agents of this destruction - Neocons, banksters, Cultural Marxist degenerates - are largely
the 'rootless cosmopolitans' of legend, with at best a transient attachment to the country.
In after Snowden world, is this a testament that most smartphone users are idiots, or what ?
Notable quotes:
"... The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago. ..."
Facebook is so far defying concerns about its spending habits - a criticism that has at times
also plagued Amazon and Alphabet's Google - because the social network is on a short list of tech
companies that make money from the wealth of mobile visitors to its smartphone app and website.
The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent
of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago.
... ... ...
Revenue was also bolstered by Facebook increasing the number of ads it showed users over the
past year, said David Wehner, the company's chief financial officer. And video advertising, a
growth area for Facebook, is on the rise: More than eight billion video views happen on the
social network every day, the company said.
Hand in hand with the increased advertising is more users to view the promotions. The number of
daily active users of Facebook exceeded one billion for the first time in the quarter, up 17
percent from a year earlier, with monthly active mobile users up 23 percent, to 1.4 billion.
... ... ...
Beyond the properties it owns, Facebook is dabbling in partnerships with media companies that
could prove lucrative in the future. In May, the company debuted a feature called Instant
Articles with a handful of publishers, including The New York Times, which lets users read
articles from directly inside the Facebook app without being directed to a web browser.
Corruption == inequality: "Corruption is a tax on growth just as inequality is a tax on growth.
Money that could be spent on improving conditions overall winds up in the hands of a small wealthy oligarchy.
The only real difference is legalistic. Technically corruption involves some type of illegality, but
the end results are the same."
Notable quotes:
"... Deregulation, of course. A semantic trick so typical of the IMF. Openness is fair and to manage openness you may need a clear regulatory framework that provides rules and clarity with strong institutions that can ensure compliance. Pushing all the time for deregulation is ideological bias. ..."
"... I like the idea of economist studying the economic effects of corruption. One of the benefits, of course, is that it will bring more to light these rationalizations like the one Ignacio brings up. So if only we didnt have laws against shoplifting then the shoplifter would not have to hide what he was doing or be guilty of a crime ..."
"... Corruption is a tax on growth just as inequality is a tax on growth. Money that could be spent on improving conditions overall winds up in the hands of a small wealthy oligarchy. The only real difference is legalistic. Technically corruption involves some type of illegality, but the end results are the same. ..."
"... This may sound a bit strong, but if you do the math, corruption and relentless upward distribution are the same thing in terms of national accounting. Do the math and youll see. ..."
"... When talking about corruption, everybody focuses on illicit flows of payments, which is of course a primary factor, but I would say the greasing of hands is not the most damaging part, rather it is the associated dereliction of duty and shaping policy and decision making, and initiation, selection, or prioritization of projects not to serve the public benefit (or that of the organizations involved) but to arrange private advantages. ..."
"... the largest problem is not the driving up of the cost though thats bad enough, but the corruption of the very decision making which inevitably leads to not delivering what was needed or requested, but something counterproductive (and not rarely in a way that conveniently enables the next round of graft). ..."
"... In the days of the notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall they used to talk about honest corruption and dishonest corruption. The idea is that honest corruption got the thing built or done, even if the cost was incredibly bloated. Tammany Hall made a point of distributing the loot up and down the line. The big guys would get millions, but every worker on the job got bonus pay, fake overtime and spare parts . ..."
The "C word": A Hidden Tax on Growth, by Vitor Gaspar and Sean Hagan: In recent years, citizens'
concerns about allegations of corruption in the public sector have become more visible and widespread.
From São Paulo to Johannesburg, citizens have taken to the streets against graft. In countries
like Chile, Guatemala, India, Iraq, Malaysia and Ukraine, they are sending a clear and loud message
to their leaders: Address corruption!
Policymakers are paying attention too. Discussing the "C word" has long been a sensitive topic
at inter-governmental organizations like the International Monetary Fund. But earlier this month
at its Annual Meetings in Lima, Peru, the IMF hosted a refreshingly
frank
discussion on the subject. The panel session provided a stimulating debate on definitions
of corruption, its direct and indirect consequences, and strategies for addressing it, including
the role that individuals and institutions such as the IMF can play. This blog gives a flavor
of the discussion. ...
Ignacio said...
Here goes the IMF:
"Openness of the economy through deregulation and liberalization will also help since
overly-regulated economies create strong incentives to maintain corrupt practices."
Deregulation, of course. A semantic trick so typical of the IMF. Openness is fair and to
manage openness you may need a clear regulatory framework that provides rules and clarity with
strong institutions that can ensure compliance. Pushing all the time for deregulation is ideological
bias.
djb -> anne...
I like the idea of economist studying the economic effects of corruption. One of the benefits,
of course, is that it will bring more to light these rationalizations like the one Ignacio brings
up. So if only we didn't have laws against shoplifting then the shoplifter would not have to hide
what he was doing or be guilty of a crime
Corruption is a tax on growth just as inequality is a tax on growth. Money that could be
spent on improving conditions overall winds up in the hands of a small wealthy oligarchy. The
only real difference is legalistic. Technically corruption involves some type of illegality, but
the end results are the same.
This may sound a bit strong, but if you do the math, corruption and relentless upward distribution
are the same thing in terms of national accounting. Do the math and you'll see.
cm -> kaleberg...
When talking about corruption, everybody focuses on illicit flows of payments, which is
of course a primary factor, but I would say the greasing of hands is not the most damaging part,
rather it is the associated dereliction of duty and shaping policy and decision making, and initiation,
selection, or prioritization of projects not to serve the public benefit (or that of the organizations
involved) but to arrange private advantages.
If it were only about the money, it would be more like being slightly overcharged on the bill,
but still getting what you ordered or needed.
cm -> cm...
Of course not to forget the lining of pockets. But my main point still stands - the largest
problem is not the driving up of the cost though that's bad enough, but the corruption of the
very decision making which inevitably leads to not delivering what was needed or requested, but
something counterproductive (and not rarely in a way that "conveniently" enables the next round
of graft).
kaleberg -> cm...
In the days of the notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall they used to talk about honest corruption
and dishonest corruption. The idea is that honest corruption got the thing built or done, even
if the cost was incredibly bloated. Tammany Hall made a point of distributing the loot up and
down the line. The big guys would get millions, but every worker on the job got bonus pay, fake
overtime and "spare parts".
likbez said...
IMF neoliberal perspective on governance failed to highlight the major source of corruption
-- neoliberalism as a social system.
Over recent years, IMF and World Bank have been promoting an artificially constructed discourse
on corruption that separates it from its historic narrative -- the neoliberal political system
under which it now flourish. They use pretty elaborate smoke screen designed to hide the key issues
under the set of fuzzy terms such as "transparency", "accountability", "governance", "anticorruption
initiatives". Ignoring the socio-political role of corruption as the key mechanism of the neoliberal
debt enslavement of peripheral nations (see Confessions of an Economic Hit Man - Wikipedia )
Privatization might well be the most widespread type of corruption which occurs when an office-holder
or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity to sell government property for pennies
on the dollar to local oligarchs of international companies. With delayed payment via the "revolving
door" mechanism.
If we assume that corruption is 'illegitimate use of public power to benefit a private interest"
then neoliberalism is the most corrupt social system imaginable.
But in neoliberal ideology only the state is responsible for corruption. The private sector under
neoliberalism is immune of any responsibility. In reality it is completely opposite and state
represents a barrier to private companies especially international sharks to get unfair advantage.
And they can use the USA embassy as a source of pressure instead of bribing government officials.
Neoliberals argues without any proof that if the market is let to function through its own mechanisms,
and the role of state diminished to a minimum regulatory role, "good governance" could be realized
and corruption be diminished. As US subprime crisis has shown this is untrue and destroys the
stability of the economy.
Actually the term "governance" serves as the magical universal opener in neoliberal ideology.
It is ideologically grounded up the narrative of previous mismanagement of economy ("blame the
predecessor" trick).
This assumes the ideal economic sphere, in which players somehow get an equal opportunities
automatically without regulatory role of the state and in case of peripheral nations without being
strong armed by more powerful states. Under neoliberalism ethical responsibilities on players
are reduced to the loyalty to contract.
Moreover antisocial behavior under liberalism is explicitly promoted (" greed is good") and
the West serves as a "treasure vault" for stolen money and provides "safe heaven" for corrupt
officials that face prosecution. At least this is true for Russian oligarchs when each crook automatically
became "fighter for freedom" after landing in London airport and stolen money are indirectly appropriated
by British state and never returned to Russia.
The USA is very similar. It likes to condemn corruption but seldom returns that money stolen
-- for example it never returned to Ukraine money stolen by Ukrainian Prime minister under President
Kuchma Pavlo Lazarenko (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlo_Lazarenko)
.
gunste said...
Applied Republican ideology is operating and legislating in favor of money donors and their
businesses. It is America's legalized corruption and bribery.
The current American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and
unprofessional with no affinity for etiquette and good manners.
Notable quotes:
"... Where Mr. Obama failed, other Western and world leaders expressed their condolences-British Prime-Minister David Cameron, Polish President Andzej Duda, French President Francois Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese President Xi Jinping among them. ..."
"... The Kremlin isn't worrying why Barack Obama didn't send condolences, reported Interfax. "Probably, this should not be explained by the Kremlin," said Dmitry Peskov, the Press Secretary to the Russian President, answering why there was no official telegram from Mr. Obama. Mr. Peskov said there were "a lot" of messages from other world leaders. ..."
"... Russia's national news service Information Agency outed Mr. Obama as "the only world leader that did not express his condolences [to Russia] on the air catastrophe A-321." ..."
"... "This is personal," wrote Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, adding "the current American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and unprofessional with no affinity for etiquette and good manners." ..."
On November 2, speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in New York, President Barack Obama poked
fun of the Republicans, joking that if they cannot handle CNBC moderators how could they possibly
handle Russia's Vladimir Putin?
"Every one of these candidates says, 'Obama's weak, Putin's kicking sand in his face. When I talk
to Putin, he's gonna straighten out.' …and then it turns out they can't handle a bunch of CNBC
moderators!" Mr. Obama said.
"I mean, let me tell you: if you can't handle those guys," he continued, laughing, "I don't think
the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you."
While Mr. Obama had his fun, he neglected to mention more serious matters-the Russian plane crash
over the Sinai peninsula on October 31 that took the lives of all 224 passengers on board.
Where Mr. Obama failed, other Western and world leaders expressed their condolences-British
Prime-Minister David Cameron, Polish President Andzej Duda, French President Francois Hollande,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Chinese President Xi Jinping among them.
On his Twitter page, Mr. Cameron wrote: "PM expresses condolences to President Putin over Sinai
plane crash. Britain shares Russia's pain and grief."
Mr. Hollande wrote: "[A]fter the occurred tragedy [President] sends his condolences to President
Putin and expresses his solidarity with the Russian people.."
Even Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko took to Twitter with the following: "I express my
personal condolences to all the families of those perished in the catastrophe of the Russian
passenger plane over Egypt."
Not Mr. Obama.
The Kremlin isn't worrying why Barack Obama didn't send condolences, reported Interfax.
"Probably, this should not be explained by the Kremlin," said Dmitry Peskov, the Press Secretary
to the Russian President, answering why there was no official telegram from Mr. Obama. Mr. Peskov
said there were "a lot" of messages from other world leaders.
Secretary of State John Kerry expressed condolences on behalf of "all American people" to the
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov-that was all, said Putin's press secretary.
Russia's national news service Information Agency outed Mr. Obama as "the only world leader that
did not express his condolences [to Russia] on the air catastrophe A-321."
"This is personal," wrote Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda, adding "the current
American administration will go down in history as one of the most weak and unprofessional with
no affinity for etiquette and good manners."
Mozilla made a bit of a splash this week with
the announcement of its updated "private mode" in Firefox, but it's worth spelling out exactly
why: Firefox's enhanced privacy mode blocks web trackers.
Users familiar with Chrome's "Incognito Mode" may assume that's what it does as well, but it doesn't.
It's no fault of Google or the Chromium Project if someone misunderstands the degree of protection.
The company is clear
in its FAQ: all Incognito Mode does is keep your browsing out of the browser's history.
'We think that when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over
the data you share on the web.'
Firefox's new "Private Mode" one-ups user protection here by automatically blocking web trackers.
Nick Nguyen, Vice President for Product at Mozilla, says in the video announcement, "We think that
when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over the data you share
on the web." That sounds right. In fact, most people probably think private modes provide more safety
than they do.
Firefox has been working to educate web users about the prevalence of trackers for a long time.
In 2012,
it introduced Collusion to help users visualize just how many spying eyes were in the background
of their browsing (a tool now
known by the milquetoast name 'Lightbeam') and how they follow you around.
Privacy nuts might be thinking, "Hey, isn't the new Private Mode basically doing what the
Ghostery add-on/extension does already? It
looks that way. Ghostery was not immediately available for comment on this story. This reporter started
using Ghostery in earnest in the last few weeks, and while it does bust the odd page, overall, it
makes the web much faster. As Mr. Nguyen says in the video, Firefox's new mode should do the roughly
the same.
The best way to update Firefox is within the 'About Firefox' dialogue. Open it and let it check
for updates (if it doesn't say version 42.0 or higher, the browser doesn't have it). On Macs, find
"About Firefox" under the "Firefox" tab in the menu bar. On a PC, find it in the hamburger menu in
the upper right.
Competition in the browser battles keeps improving the functionality of the web. When Chrome first
came along, Firefox had become incredibly bloated.
Notice of what's new in 'Private Mode' when opened in Firefox, after updating. (Screenshot: Firefox)
Then, Chrome popularized the notion of incognito browsing, back when the main privacy concern
was that our roommate would look at our browsing history to see how often we were visiting Harry
Potter fansites (shout out to stand-up comic, Ophira Eisenberg, for that one).
As the web itself has become bloated with spyware, incorporating tracker blocking directly into
the structure of the
world's second most popular browser is a strong incentive for web managers to be more judicious
about the stuff they load up in the background of websites.
Don't forget, though, that even with trackers blocked, determined sites can probably identify
visitors and they can definitely profile,
using browser fingerprinting. If you really want to hide, use
Tor. If you're mega paranoid, try
the Tails OS.
Why western MSM push so hard the version about the bomb ? Investigation just started and
there are multiple version including now known far there that were war games by NATO the same day in
the same area.
Notable quotes:
"... Egypt faces an economic disaster if tourism and business travel stops, and you don't think they will say it was just a simple accident -- move along now, nothing to see here ..."
"... The reality is the West ruined Libya, abandoned Tunis, and chickened out by backing Sisi in Egypt. Therefore, there are alot of armed Jihadis looking for Westerners to shoot. Its also about to get worse since now its Russia's turn to ruin things even more...... ..."
"... I am in no way a fan of Putin, but recently he explained his issue with the West pretty clearly. Most Russians subscribe to that. Russia does not see West as a threat, but as a trouble maker at large, causing havoc and destabilizing the world. Listen to him if you want to understand the other side ..."
Egypt faces an economic disaster if tourism and business travel stops, and you don't
think they will say it was just a simple accident -- "move along now, nothing to see here".
njglea, is a trusted commenter Seattle
Tension in the Middle East is rising and it is very frightening because it's a no-win
situation as it stands now. Everybody loses. I am reminded of a song from the 1960s that
addresses this situation perfectly and is a message that should go to every world leader and
hater. "One Tin Soldier". Please listen and read the lyrics and, if you agree, forward this
message to everyone you know. WE can live in a peaceful world if enough of us take small
actions to make it so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKx0tdlxMfY
della, cambridge, ma 52 minutes ago
I just flew back from Istanbul -- four layers of security -- superior to US.
Matthew Abbasi, Los Angeles 52 minutes ago
Why would any Westerner in his/her right mind go to Egypt, Tunisia, or Libya for a
vacation? These are unstable nations with ongoing civil wars so Western nations really need to
ban tourist for a bit for until things calm down. Its not enough to say that these nations
need the tourist money. The risk should not be discounted just because of that. The
reality is the West ruined Libya, abandoned Tunis, and chickened out by backing Sisi in Egypt.
Therefore, there are alot of armed Jihadis looking for Westerners to shoot. Its also about to
get worse since now its Russia's turn to ruin things even more......
Abbas -> Matthew Abbasi, San Francisco, CA 43 minutes ago
Egypt does not have a civil war. Statistically, it is far safer to visit than many places
in the U.S.
Rohit, New York
Quoting another poster
"I am in no way a fan of Putin, but recently he explained his issue with the West
pretty clearly. Most Russians subscribe to that. Russia does not see West as a threat, but as
a trouble maker at large, causing havoc and destabilizing the world. Listen to him if you want
to understand the other side"
And what is fascinating is that every word spoken by Putin could just as easily have been
said by Noam Chomsky or even by President Eisenhower.
PS, Vancouver, Canada
I have little faith in airport security checks in the middle east. Was in Morocco this
summer - put my bags on the conveyor belt. Fine - but there was nary a soul manning the
monitors. Yes, it was screened (given that it passed through an x-ray machine, but there were
no human eyes checking it) . . . also, no one bothered to take my water bottle (which I had
inadvertently carried with me.
A lesson from Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on scientific method and the value of news
Science, circa 1955 (Photo: Orlando /Three Lions/Getty Images)
Our biggest challenge in journalism is not
ad blockers or
declining
print circulation or
Silicon Valley. It
is value. What are we worth to the public we serve? Are we reliable? Trustworthy? Useful? We
are
not as liked as we
would like to believe.
Last week, I had the fun privilege of interviewing Dr. Neil
deGrasse Tyson-astrophysicist,
podcaster,
tweeter,
TV star, and
debunker of
stupidity-when he received the Knight Innovation Award at CUNY's Graduate School of
Journalism.
As I wrote
in these pages
recently, we decided to give the award to Mr. Tyson precisely because he is not a journalist,
because he brings explanation, fact, and discipline to the process of informing and educating
the public. We saw him as an example to journalists as they innovate in their own craft.
... ... ...
That goal-an informed society-does not mesh with
our methods, business models, and metrics. So long as we earn our money attracting as many
people as possible to our content, then wholesaling their eyeballs by the ton to advertisers,
then we are motivated to grab attention with stories and headlines that report just the
latest, not necessarily the preponderance, of facts relating to any given question or
dispute. We measure our success on the basis of how much audience attention we grabbed, not
by measuring how much we informed and educated the public-not in our impact, our utility, our
value.
We must shift our business toward value, toward proving our worth in people's lives. We
must measure our success on whether the public ends up better informed through our
efforts-not whether they merely gave us their attention and certainly not when they only
calcify their previously held and uninformed beliefs. We in journalism-like Mr. Tyson-need to
act and judge ourselves more as scientists trafficking in evidence and as educators making
impact. Or else, why bother?
Federal law enforcement began planning to use license plate readers in 2009 to track cars that
visited gun shows against cars that crossed the border into Mexico, according
to notes from a
meeting between United States and Mexican law enforcement, released on Wikileaks. The notes
were taken by Marko Papic, then of Stratfor, a
company that describes itself as a publisher of geopolitical intelligence.
License plate readers are becoming a standard tool for local and national law enforcement
across the country. In 2013, the ACLU showed that
state and local law enforcement were widely
documenting drivers' movements.
Ars Technica looked at license plate data collected in Oakland. In January, the
ACLU described documents
attained from the Drug Enforcement Agency under the Freedom of Information Act that showed
that agency has been working closely with state and local law enforcement. Many of the findings
in these latter documents corroborate some of the insights provided by the 2009 meeting notes on
Wikileaks.
Wikileaks began publishing these emails in February 2012, as the "Global
Intelligence Files," as the Observer
previously reported. The documents have to be read with some caution. These were reportedly
attained by hackers in December 2011. A Stratfor spokesperson declined to comment on the leaked
emails, referring the Observer instead to
its 2012 statement, which says, "Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include
inaccuracies; some may be authentic. We will not validate either."
While it's hard to imagine that such a giant trove could be completely fabricated, there is
also no way to know whether or not some of it was tampered with. That said, details about federal
license plate reader programs largely square with subsequent findings about the surveillance
systems.
The meeting appears to have been primarily concerned with arms control, but related matters,
such as illegal drug traffic and the Zetas, come up as well. The focus of the meeting appears to
be information sharing among the various authorities, from both countries. Among other
initiatives, the notes describe the origins of a sophisticated national system of automobile
surveillance.
Here are some findings on law enforcement technology, with an emphasis on tracking
automobiles:
The program wasn't fully live in 2009. The notes read, "Mr. 147 asked
about the License Plate Reader program and Mr. 983 from DEA responded that they were still in
the testing phase but that once completed the database would be available for use
by everyone." However,
an email found by the ACLU from 2010 said that the DEA was sharing information with local
law enforcement as of May 2009. (People at the meeting are largely referred to by numbers
throughout the notes)
Gun shows. The officials in the meeting suspect that a lot of guns that
reach Mexico come from American gun shows. The Ambassador from Mexico is cited as believing
that shows were the main source of firearms coming into his country. The ATF then says that
investigating gun shows is "touchy."
Cross-referencing. Despite the sensitivity, the ATF hoped to be able to
identify vehicles that visited gun shows and then crossed the border. The notes read, "[Mr.
192] noted that they would do the check once they came into Mexico. Mr. 009 stated part of the
new ways that are being looked at is incorporating that type of information into license plate
readers for local law enforcement. He added that DEA is going to provide more and more license
plate readers especially southbound." This last point squares with ACLU's finding, which found
a 2010 document that said the DEA had 41 readers set up in southern border states.
ATF and the NRA. Apparently law enforcement checks in with the gun rights
advocates. Mr. 123 is identified as an ATF employee in the hacked email. In a conversation
about the federal government's gun tracking system, eTrace, the notes attribute to him the
following, "He added that they are in constant communication with Mr. Templeton who has
the Cross Roads of the West Gun Show as well as NRA attorneys and that there had been no
complaints on how things were moving." Bob Templeton is shown as the President of the National
Association of Arms Shows
on this op-ed and runs the gun show mentioned, according to its site.
Other data. The notes also indicate that the ATF was working on ways to
identify people who bought more guns at gun shows than their income should allow. It also
indicated that the United States' gun tracking system was being translated into Spanish, so
that Mexican authorities could check guns against American records.
The notes themselves are not dated, but the email containing them is dated September 4, 2009.
It provides no names, but it cites people from the Mexican Embassy, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco
and Firerearms, DEA, Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and others. The only person named
is Marko Papic, who identifies himself
in this hacked
email. Stephen Meiners circulated
Mr. Papic's notes from the summit's morning and afternoon session in one email.
"... This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously for those listening to hear. ..."
"... "If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have ..."
"... To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. ..."
When it was revealed in 2013 that the NSA and its UK equivalent, GCHQ, routinely spied on the
German government, artists Mathias Jud and Christoph Wachter came up with a plan.
They installed a series of antennas on the roof of the Swiss Embassy in Berlin and another giant
antenna on the roof of the Academy of Arts, which is located exactly between the listening posts
of the NSA and GCHQ. This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously
for those listening to hear.
"If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have to listen to what we
are saying," Mr. Jud said in a TED Talk on the subject that was filmed at TED Global London in September
and uploaded onto Ted.com today.
This was perfectly legal, and they named the project "Can You Hear Me?"
To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. One message read, "This is the NSA. In God we trust.
In all others we track!!!!!" Another said, "Agents, what twisted story of yourself will you tell
your grandchildren?" One particularly humorous message jokingly pleaded, "@NSA My neighbors are noisy.
Please send a drone strike."
Watch the full talk here for more trolling messages and details about the project:
Is this a replay on MH17? Looks like like was the case on 9/11 and MH17 there were war games
the same day in the same air space.
Notable quotes:
"... Conspicuously absent from MSM is the fact that Israel, USA, Poland, Greece were having war game air dogfights 40 miles from where the plane was shot down. ..."
"... I caught that too, and it has gotten no play at all in western media. I heard it mentioned in Russian media. These are regular air superiority exercises. Air to Air combat using air superiority fighters and air to air missiles. Should this be investigated? Of course. It has already done this once before in 1980 during air to air exercises of NATO. ..."
"... On 23 January 2013 Italys top criminal court ruled that there was abundantly clear evidence that the flight was brought down by a missile ..."
"... Putin has proven in Ukraine that he cannot be goaded into action. This is an attempt to get Russian popular opinion ,to force his hand. ..."
"... The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice. ..."
"... Force his hand to do what? I dont exactly understand what youre suggesting. I guarantee you this airliner downing has only made Russians dislike ISIS more...it hasnt made them suddenly think oh we should not mess around there anymore. ..."
"... Something done in rage, rather than his cool, calculating lawyerly approach. Anything that can be portrayed as terrible to the RoW to disuade them from crossing into his camp. Its a Hail Mary pass IMO, but it shows how desperate they are getting. ..."
"... I have not confirmed myself but reports are that Israeli firms supplied the security for that airport. Some reports say the Saudis also have some component of the security or operations. ..."
"... Nope. Not while sportsball is on the teebee they wont. The trough of stupidity is a sweet, intoxicating slurry of false promises, self promotion and uplifting exceptionalism. ..."
"... I just know you voiced equal measures of concern over the 2+ million killed and the countless more driven out, crippled or orphaned by USSA warmongering in the region, not to mention all the noise Im sure you raised about israel killing thousands of civilians in Palestine too? ..."
"... Your lazy sarcasm aside - Russian media comports strangely with independent media, and it is no less trustworthy than the absolute nonsense in the pages of the NYT, Wa Post and other, indeed, Zionist {and Establishment media}. ..."
"... NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine ..."
"... The notion that American media is more trustworthy is absolutely absurd. One simply has to read from as broad an array as possible and assume that everyone has an agenda, everyone is trying to convince you of a *version*. Only its the US and its allies that have gone around the world bombing and killing based on pretext and lies, not the Russians. ..."
"... in Kiev itself it is now public information that most sniper shoots were fired from the Ukraine Hotel that was headquarters to Right Sector Fascists. ..."
"... Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Because this fraud guy in his small house in England has been exposed again and again as a liar and fraud, anyone using him as a source is making themsleves highly suspect. As if a fake source, as long as it says what you one wants, is good enough . ..."
"... ISIS(ISIL) Completely Fabricated Enemy by US: Former CIA Contractor! Socio-Economics History Blog ..."
"... The Russians are asking British Intel after making the statement that if they have some supporting intel they would like to hear it. They refuse to share any intel; For a disaster and possibly a terrorist attack investigation? Hmmmm Wonder why? What are they hiding from? Why would you not want to help an investigation? Why do they want to promote an unproven story? To deflect the blame? Somebody has something to hide. ..."
"... The US/UK has amazingly good information on what IS is doing, n est ce pas? And fantastic surveillance data, right out of the chute, in stark contrast to the seeming complete inattention paid to Malaysian jetliners. ..."
"... If the British and American governments are saying it was a bomb, then you can be sure it was NOT a bomb. I am leaning toward believing that it was an act taken by the US and Israel during their war games from a location nearby the downing. Too much of a coincidence. ..."
"... Lets harken back to MH-17. The instant and coordinated lies across all western media within hours, suggests a link between all Media Corporations and their Editorial Staffs. A German journalist wrote a book about his work for the CIA as a German journalist. He was under the impression that CIA was active across all media corporations and their editorial staff. I think MH-17 proved the fact that CIA does control much of what we read and hear. Otherwise, who can explain the exact same stories in all western media appearing before any of them even had a chance to read each others work! Odds of replication without prior knowledge are zero! ..."
"... Whether or not it was a bomb matters a lot less than who knew when and how they knew it. Like, for instance, if they knew it was a bomb before it blew up. The details and pattern of the media operation are pretty interesting, but more matters of art than fact. ..."
"... Is it not the case that a Russian passenger plane was downed after the Russian air force bombed ISIS for a month, while no US planes were terrorized after the US air force bombed ISIS for a year. ..."
Conspicuously absent from MSM is the fact that Israel, USA, Poland, Greece were having
war game air dogfights 40 miles from where the plane was shot down.
I caught that too, and it has gotten no play at all in western media. I heard it mentioned
in Russian media. These are regular air superiority exercises. Air to Air combat using air superiority
fighters and air to air missiles. Should this be investigated? Of course. It has already done
this once before in 1980 during air to air exercises of NATO.
Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870
the cause of the crash to a missile fired from a
French
Navy aircraft, despite contrary evidence presented in Frank Taylor's 1994 report. On 23
January 2013 Italy's top criminal court ruled that there was "abundantly" clear evidence that
the flight was brought down by a missile.[1]
To date, this remains the deadliest aviation incident involving a DC-9-10/15 series."
cougar_w
When everything is a false flag operation then nothing is.
ISIS is perfectly capable to pulling this off, and seems to enjoy the infamy, and they couldn't
wait to claim credit. Looks good to me, no need to go any further than that.
... ... ...
Winston Churchill
The gambit is pretty obvious.
Putin has proven in Ukraine that he cannot be goaded into action. This is an attempt to
get Russian popular opinion ,to force his hand.
They keep on telling us he's a dictator, so why would that affect him ?
The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice.
Glasnost -> Winston Churchill
Force his hand to do what? I don't exactly understand what you're suggesting. I guarantee
you this airliner downing has only made Russians dislike ISIS more...it hasn't made them suddenly
think oh we should not mess around there anymore.
Winston Churchill -> Glasnost
Something done in rage, rather than his cool, calculating lawyerly approach. Anything that
can be portrayed as terrible to the RoW to disuade them from crossing into his camp. Its a Hail
Mary pass IMO, but it shows how desperate they are getting.
Blankone
I have not confirmed myself but reports are that Israeli firms supplied the security for
that airport. Some reports say the Saudi's also have some component of the security or operations.
Maybe they should focus on that as well.
trulz4lulz
Now the sympathisers are trying to "pass the buck!"... an american tradition. much akin to
"indian giving" but better.
dear american gubmit: Who created ISIS?
american gubmit: uhhh uhhhh, they did it!!! yeah! it was them all along, ya see?!
Yttrium Gold Nitrogen
France 2 reports that a sound of an explosion was recorded by the blackboxes, according to
official who had access to the recordings.
trulz4lulz -> Winston Churchill
The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice.
Nope. Not while sportsball is on the teebee they wont. The trough of stupidity is a sweet,
intoxicating slurry of false promises, self promotion and uplifting exceptionalism. The world
is an aweful place when there isnt anyone there to tell you how exceptional you are. Murikistanians
will NOT look away from the trough. Its just too delicious.
El Vaquero -> trulz4lulz
Having them distracted with bread and circuses is a double edged sword.
Winston Churchill -> El Vaquero
Yep, distraction beats jingo.
It was much easier to whip up a blood frenzy before kim Kardasians ass blocked out the horizon.
trulz4lulz -> Winston Churchill
I agree, but it also helps promote patriotism and consumerism, which also is good for the economy
because it focuses on the packadged food sector which is where a lot of jobs data comes from.
. The model for the distraction workings is fascinating to me.
forputin
So which sources are credible? Only those russian? Yes, I also thought so. Only those sources
that are controlled by Putin can be trusted. All other are controled by Anglo Zion Banking NWO
Lizzard People Elite. Thank God Putin protects us from that information!
farflungstar -> forputin
Voactiv uses Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, so yeah it's probably bullshit. Reuters @
Buiness Insider too, more bullshit, Hymie.
I just know you voiced equal measures of concern over the 2+ million killed and the countless
more driven out, crippled or orphaned by USSA warmongering in the region, not to mention all the
noise I'm sure you raised about israel killing thousands of civilians in Palestine too?
Fuckin dickmouth
Raymond_K._Hessel
the Syrian Observatory is absolutely not credible - its one guy being used as a quote factory.
Your lazy sarcasm aside - Russian media comports strangely with independent media, and
it is no less trustworthy than the absolute nonsense in the pages of the NYT, Wa Post and other,
indeed, Zionist {and 'Establishment' media}.
The notion that American media is more trustworthy is absolutely absurd. One simply has
to read from as broad an array as possible and assume that everyone has an agenda, everyone is
trying to convince you of a *version*. Only its the US and its allies that have gone around the
world bombing and killing based on pretext and lies, not the Russians.
So the false equivalency ploy makes sense - until you give it a moment's thought.
Cookie?
Jack Burton
30,000 trained, paid and organized fascists appeared on the Madian in the matter of a couple
days, armed and outfitted in body armor. But Euro Maidan is not a Coup according to NYT. Every
peaceful protest gets a 30,000 man army arrive to help it along. Also, in Kiev itself it is
now public information that most sniper shoots were fired from the Ukraine Hotel that was headquarters
to Right Sector Fascists.
Jack Burton
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Because this fraud guy in his small house in England
has been exposed again and again as a liar and fraud, anyone using him as a source is making themsleves
highly suspect. As if a fake source, as long as it says what you one wants, is good enough".
Western Media refuses to expose this guy for what he is. He hides up in his house, claiming people
are out to kill him, and puts out posts about war crimes. He hasn't been to Syria for over a decade,
and admits No First Hand Knowledge of his Syrian sources, he gets his information second hand
from so called friends of friends in Syria. RT caught up to him and made a fool out of him on
camera.
Yet he is the West's Top Source on Syrian war crimes.
Here is an excellent source of what happening there -- down to the minute.
BTW. This nugget jumps out.
----
Big impact of Russia's suspension of Egypt flights
Roland Oliphant, our correspondent in Moscow, writes:
Quote
It's not just the Egyptian economy that will hurt after this. Russia's association
of tour agencies says today's decision cuts off their biggest market and sets them on a "direct
path to bankruptcy."
"Egypt is the single biggest selling destination on the Russian tourism market, and right now
it is peak season. It's the main destination for all the large tour operators," said Irina Tyurina,
a spokeswoman for the Russian Union of Tour Operators.
"There's 50,000 Russians there now, and those who have to come home early or have bought tickets
but now can't travel, should get their money back from the tour operators. It's a direct path
to bankruptcy for many firms."
Heavily invested in the tourist industry, are we? America is about to trigger a world warand
you people are screeming aout lost vacation revenue? You are either one of the dumbest humans
on earth that has learned to word good, or you are just plan software. Im guessing software. Nothiing
but a program can be so blatantly stupid.
alphahammer
Dumb?
BBBWWWAAAAHHHAAAA!!!!!
I cut and paste the direct words from Roland Oliphant, our correspondent in Moscow, writes:
If you had a lick of mental capacity, you would understand the comment is about RUSSIAN investment
in tourism because Egypt is Russias #1 spot for vacationing Russians.
ITS THE RUSSIANS SCREAMING ABOUT LOST TOURIST REVENUE EINSTEIN...
Dumb? Yes, look it up in the dictionary and there will be your picture...
swmnguy
Oliphant is doing a good job in his role, helping to bait the hook the Zbigniew Brzezinski
acolytes are jiggling out there. Oliphant's editorial comments about the Russian people's unwillingness
to take casualties suggests he's gotten his Garanimals mixed up. Russians aren't Americans.
farflungstar
Because ISIS, Manischewitz Land, the US and UK "intelligence" agencies said they did it, does
this mean it's true? Who would reasonably believe these serial liars at this point in time? Credibility
is shot.
I'd like to hear what the Russians have to say after a thorough investigation.
SSRI Junkie
this works out well for obola. he hates egypt for tossing out his muslim brotherhood lackeys
and gets putin to cancel their flights in and out of egypt. his bung brothers in saudi arabia
keep pumping oil even if it's unprofitable to stomp out our domestic oil production as well as
russia's oil production. obola is a plague of unprecendented proportion even if the cdc doesn't
recognize it
cowdiddly
Britain and the Us both are trying to say that this was a bomb planted by ISIS. The Russians
are saying they will wait for the data.
The Russians are asking British Intel after making the statement that if they have some
supporting intel they would like to hear it. They refuse to share any intel; For a disaster and
possibly a terrorist attack investigation? Hmmmm Wonder why? What are they hiding from? Why would
you not want to help an investigation? Why do they want to promote an unproven story? To deflect
the blame? Somebody has something to hide.
Somebody is involved here that is going to reveal a nasty truth and I would not want to be
them cause right now the bear is just smiling at you and he is all ears.
THE DORK OF CORK
The Tunisia beech job was very effective.
It inflated the Spanish and Italian economies over the summer.
It seems like part of the banks armoury.
The Dogs of Moar
An update of the Tourney between Langley and Moscow this first week of November.
As you know, on Wednesday the Big Big Three, Barack Obama, President of the US, David Cameron,
Prime Minister of the UK, and Doofus al-Evil, the US appointed Emir of ISIL, tried to co opt the
investigation of the crash of the Russian plane in Sinai.
"I don't think we know yet" what caused the crash, Obama said ... But it is certainly possible
that there was a bomb on board."
British Prime Minister David Cameron says it's "more likely than not."
ISIS released a message on November 4 with claims that the group was responsible for the Russian
plane crash in Sinai, and said its method will be revealed soon.
ISIS first claimed credit for the downing of the Russian passenger jet an hour after the plane
went down. Six days later they're telling the world that "their method will be revealed soon."
WHAT THEY ARE REALLY SAYING IS THAT THEIR METHOD WILL BE REVEALED AS SOON AS THE CIA TELLS
THEM WHAT METHOD THE CIA USED AND THAT ISIS SHOULD CLAIM THE SAME.
THE CIA'S FEAR IS THAT THE INVESTIGATORS WILL UNCOVER A SOPHISTICATED EXPLOSIVE THAT THE RETARDNIKS
IN ISIS COULD ONLY HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANGLEY OR MI6.
But Russian and Egyptian authorities pushed back Thursday on suggestions that a bomb brought
down Metrojet Flight 9268 over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, saying there's no evidence yet to support
that theory.
Today the National Anti-Terrorist Committee said it deems it necessary to stop all Russian
flights to Egypt until the causes of the A321 plane crash are established. Russian experts
are taking wipe-samples from the plane fragments and passengers' luggage to trace possible
explosives.
If this investigation gets troublesome, there will be a fight in Langley between those
who wanted the plane to go down in the drink and those who wanted it down in the desert for
the propaganda value.
Atticus Finch
" RETARDNIKS IN ISIS COULD ONLY HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANGLEY OR MI6."...
You forgot Mossad.
trulz4lulz
If this investigation gets troublesome, there will be a fight in Langley between those who
wanted the plane to go down in the drink and those who wanted it down in the desert for the propaganda
value.
that sums it up right there. arguing over which aspect of treason to commit and cover up. this
is whats wrong. exactly.
swmnguy
The US/UK intelligence guys screwed up the timeline this past week, putting out new rules for
their people and announcing they had intel proving IS did it before cluing in the Russians.
It was a surprisingly blatant mistake. Let's see, whom do we know in a position of power in
Russia who would be intimately familiar with the way this game is played? Who would know immediately
exactly what this timeline error signifies?
The US/UK has amazingly good information on what IS is doing, n' est ce pas? And fantastic
surveillance data, right out of the chute, in stark contrast to the seeming complete inattention
paid to Malaysian jetliners.
Telling.
The Dogs of Moar
On October 27, 1964 -- here's what Ronald Reagan said
"If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced
with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars.
Did he realize how prescient he was, in thus describing the United States of America?
Grandad Grumps
If the British and American governments are saying it was a bomb, then you can be sure
it was NOT a bomb. I am leaning toward believing that it was an act taken by the US and Israel
during their war games from a location nearby the downing. Too much of a coincidence.
The video was not clear enough for me to determine if a missile was involved or the altitude a
missile might have originated from.
Jack Burton -> Grandad Grumps
That's a valid thought. We should be asking "why the USA and UK are in such a hurry to claim
bomb". It was a Russian plane, and the US and UK have no interest in this, unless they do have
a hidden interest in this.
Lets harken back to MH-17. The instant and coordinated lies across all western media within
hours, suggests a link between all Media Corporations and their Editorial Staffs. A German journalist
wrote a book about his work for the CIA as a German journalist. He was under the impression that
CIA was active across all media corporations and their editorial staff. I think MH-17 proved the
fact that CIA does control much of what we read and hear. Otherwise, who can explain the exact
same stories in all western media appearing before any of them even had a chance to read each
others work! Odds of replication without prior knowledge are zero!
swmnguy -> Jack Burton
Whether or not it was a bomb matters a lot less than who knew when and how they knew it.
Like, for instance, if they knew it was a bomb before it blew up. The details and pattern of the
media operation are pretty interesting, but more matters of art than fact.
The Mockies over at Charlie Hebdo seemed to find it funny that this plane crashed, not so funny
when a bunch of their people got killed at work back in January:
One of the
pictures shows a jihadist of the Islamic State (IS) militant group and plane's debris falling
around him. The caption says "IS: Russian Aviation intensifies its bombing campaign.
Mocking a plane crash where 224 people were killed, such a rich source of humor hahahaha so
fucking hysterical fucking faggot frogs
I saw this yesterday. Honestly, given what we call "Western Values" I fully expected the guardians
of culture in France to come up with something like this. When their people die, it's a world
wide event. When others die, it is a joke. Let's be clear, this story has made it deep into Russian
media. Need I tell you what the mood is now?
Is it not the case that a Russian
passenger plane was downed after the Russian air force bombed ISIS for a month, while no US planes
were terrorized after the US air force bombed ISIS for a year.
Just typing your correspondence on disconnected from internet computer and pointing it on
connected via USB printer is enough. Or better writing letter using regular pen.
The most secure and, at the same time, usable, method of creating, sharing and storing information
is to write it up on a manual typewriter and store it in a locked filing cabinet
If the CIA's Director John Brennan
can't keep his emails private, who can? Sadly, the fact that email and instant messaging are
far more convenient than communicating via papers in envelopes or by actually talking on the phone,
or (God forbid) face to face, these technologies are far more insecure. Could it be that the old
ways protected both secrecy and privacy far better than what we have now?
The men and women in the United States government assigned to protect our nation's most important
secrets have good reason to quote Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet who proclaimed, "The typewriter is
holy." For that matter so are pens, pencils, carbon paper and ordinary paper. In the digital age
privacy as we once knew it, is dead, not just for ordinary citizens, but for government officials
including, apparently, the head of the CIA-not to mention our former Secretary of State. Neither
the NSA nor the U.S. military have been able to keep their secrets from being exposed by the likes
of WikiLeaks or Edward Snowden.
... ... ...
Given America's failures to protect our own secret information, one hopes and wishes that the
U.S. is as successful at stealing information from our potential foes as they are at stealing from
us.
In the private sector, hackers steal information from countless companies, ranging from Target
to Ashley Madison. The banks rarely let on how badly or how often they are victimized by cybercrime,
but rumor has it that it is significant. At least for now, the incentives for making and selling
effective cyber security systems are nowhere near as powerful as the incentives for building systems
that can steal secret or private information from individuals, as well as from corporations and governments.
In the digital age, privacy is gone.
Increasingly, organizations and individuals are rediscovering the virtues of paper. Non-digital
media are simply invulnerable to hacking. Stealing information from a typewriter is harder than stealing
it from a word processor, computer or server. A physical file with sheets of paper covered in words
written either by hand or by typewriter is a safer place to store confidential information than any
electronic data storage system yet devised.
The American Century's not what most Americans think it is. Historians need to set them
straight.
Notable quotes:
"... comforting fantasies go unchallenged and lodge themselves ever more deeply in the public consciousness. So the "Good War" remains ever good, with the "Greatest Generation" ever great. ..."
Today it's race, class, gender, and sexuality that claim pride of place. The effect, whether
intended or not, is that comforting fantasies go unchallenged and lodge themselves ever more
deeply in the public consciousness. So the "Good War" remains ever good, with the "Greatest
Generation" ever great.
"... The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the website domains that UK internet users visit. ..."
"... It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not what article they read. ..."
"... Information about the sites you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison – the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement to know. ..."
"... In using a VPN you are placing all your trust in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history in the same way an ISP would. ..."
"... One way to prevent an accurate profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that. ..."
Critics call it a revived snooper's charter, because the government wants police and spies to
be given access to the web browsing history of everyone in Britain.
However, Theresa May
says her measures would require internet companies to store data about customers that amount to "simply
the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill".
Who is right? And is there anything you can do to make your communications more secure?
What exactly is the government after?
The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to
be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the
website domains that UK internet users visit.
This is the log of websites that you visit through your internet service provider (ISP), commonly
called internet browsing history, and is different from the history stored by your internet browser,
such as Microsoft's Edge, Apple's Safari or Google's Chrome.
It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level
of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not
what article they read.
Clearing your browser history or using private or incognito browsing modes do nothing to affect
your browsing history stored by the ISP.
What will they be able to learn about my internet activity?
Information about the sites
you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison
– the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website
or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement
to know.
The logged internet activity is also likely to reveal who a person banks with, the social
media they use, whether they have considered travelling (eg by visiting an airline homepage) and
a range of information that could in turn link to other sources of personal information.
Who will store my web browsing data?
The onus is on
ISPs – the companies that
users pay to provide access to the internet – to store the browsing history of its customers for
12 months. That includes fixed line broadband providers, such as BT, TalkTalk, Sky and Virgin, but
also mobile phone providers such as EE, O2, Three and Vodafone.
... ... ...
Don't ISPs already store this data?
They already store a limited amount of data on customer communications for a minimum of
one year and have done for some time, governed by the EU's data retention directive. That data can
be accessed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa).
The new bill will enshrine the storage of browsing history and access to that data in law.
Can people hide their internet browsing history?
There are a few ways to prevent the collection
of your browsing history data, but each way is a compromise.
The most obvious way is the use of virtual private networks (VPNs). They channel your data from
your computer through your ISP to a third-party service before immersing on the internet. In doing
so they can obfuscate your data from your ISP and therefore the government's collection of browsing
history.
Companies routinely use VPNs to secure connections to services when off-site such as home workers.
Various companies such as HotspotShield
offer both free or paid-for VPN services to users.
Using the Tor browser, freely available
from the Tor project, is another way to hide what you're doing from your ISP and takes things
a stage further. It allows users to connect directly to a network of computers that route your traffic
by bouncing it around other computers connected to Tor before emerging on the open internet.
Your ISP will see that you are connected to Tor, but not what you are doing with it. But not everybody
has the technical skills to be comfortable using Tor.
Is there any downside to using a VPN?
In using a VPN you are placing all your trust
in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting
your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history
in the same way an ISP would.
The speed of your internet connection is also limited by the VPN. Most free services are slow,
some paid-for services are faster.
Tor also risks users having their data intercepted, either at the point of exit from the Tor network
to the open internet or along the path. This is technically tricky, however. Because your internet
traffic is bounced between computers before reaching you, Tor can be particularly slow.
Can I protest-browse to show I'm unhappy with the new law?
One way to prevent an accurate
profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random
domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your
ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that.
At some point it will be very difficult to store that much data, should everyone begin doing so.
Yves here. Tax is a major way to create incentives. New York City increased taxes dramatically
on cigarettes, and has tough sanctions for trying to smuggle meaningful amounts of lower-taxed smokes
in. Rates of smoking did indeed fall as intended.
Thus the debate about whether corporations should pay more taxes is not "naive" as the plutocrats
would have you believe; in fact, they wouldn't be making such a big deal over it if it were. In the
1950s, a much larger percentage of total tax collections fell on corporations than individuals. And
the political message was clear: the capitalist classes needed to bear a fair share of the total
tax burden. Similarly, what has been the result of the preservation of a loophole that allows the
labor of hedge fund and private equity fund employees to be taxed at preferential capital gains rates?
A flood of "talent" into those professions at the expense of productive enterprise.
And the result of having lower taxes on companies has been a record-high corporate profit share
of GDP, with none of the supposed benefits of giving businesses a break. Contrary to their PR, large
companies have been net saving, which means liquidating, since the early 2000s. The trend has become
more obvious in recent years as companies have borrowed money to buy back their own stock.
In the past year, scandal after scandal has exposed companies using loopholes in the tax system
to avoid taxation. Now more than ever, it is becoming clear that citizens around the world are paying
a high price for the crisis in the global tax system, and the discussion about multinational corporations
and their tax tricks remains at the top of the agenda. There is also a growing awareness that the
world's poorest countries are even harder impacted than the richest countries. In effect, the poorest
countries are paying the price for a global tax system they did not create.
A large number of the scandals that emerged over the past year have strong links to the EU and its
Member States. Many eyes have therefore turned to the EU leaders, who claim that the problem is being
solved and the public need not worry. But what is really going on? What is the role of the EU in
the unjust global tax system, and are EU leaders really solving the problem?
This
report – the third
in a series of reports – scrutinises the role of the EU in the global tax crisis, analyses developments
and suggests concrete solutions. It is written by civil society organisations (CSOs) in 14 countries
across the EU. Experts in each CSO have examined their national governments' commitments and actions
in terms of combating tax dodging and ensuring transparency.
Each country is directly compared with its fellow EU Member States on four critical issues: the fairness
of their tax treaties with developing countries; their willingness to put an end to anonymous shell
companies and trusts; their support for increasing the transparency of economic activities and tax
payments of multinational corporations; and their attitude towards letting the poorest countries
have a seat at the table when global tax standards are negotiated. For the first time, this report
not only rates the performance of EU Member States, but also turns the spotlight on the European
Commission and Parliament too.
This report covers national policies and governments' positions
on existing and upcoming EU level laws, as well as global reform proposals.
Overall, the report finds that:
• Although tweaks have been made and some loopholes have been closed, the complex and dysfunctional
EU system of corporate tax rulings, treaties, letterbox companies and special corporate tax regimes
still remains in place. On some matters, such as the controversial patent boxes, the damaging
policies seem to be spreading in Europe. Defence mechanisms against 'harmful tax practices' that
have been introduced by governments, only seem partially effective and are not available to most
developing countries. They are also undermined by a strong political commitment to continue so-called
'tax competition' between governments trying to attract multinational corporations with lucrative
tax reduction opportunities – also known as the 'race to the bottom on corporate taxation'. The
result is an EU tax system that still allows a wide range of options for tax dodging by multinational
corporations.
• On the question of what multinational corporations pay in taxes and where they
do business, EU citizens, parliamentarians and journalists are still left in the dark, as are
developing countries. The political promises to introduce 'transparency' turned out to mean that
tax administrations in developed countries, through cumbersome and highly secretive processes,
will exchange information about multinational corporations that the public is not allowed to see.
On a more positive note, some light is now being shed on the question of who actually owns the
companies operating in our societies, as more and more countries introduce public or partially
public registers of beneficial owners. Unfortunately, this positive development is being somewhat
challenged by the emergence of new types of mechanisms to conceal ownership, such as new types
of trusts.
• Leaked information has become the key source of public information about tax dodging by multinational
corporations. But it comes at a high price for the people involved, as whistleblowers and even
a journalist who revealed tax dodging by multinational corporations are now being prosecuted and
could face years in prison. The stories of these 'Tax Justice Heroes' are a harsh illustration
of the wider social cost of the secretive and opaque corporate tax system that currently prevails.
• More than 100 developing countries still remain excluded from decision-making processes when
global tax standards and rules are being decided. In 2015, developing countries made the fight
for global tax democracy their key battle during the Financing for Development conference (FfD)
in Addis Ababa. But the EU took a hard line against this demand and played a key role in blocking
the proposal for a truly global tax body.
Not one single EU Member State challenged this approach and, as a result, decision-making on global
tax standards and rules remains within a closed 'club of rich countries'.
A direct comparison of
the 15 EU countries covered in this report finds that:
France, once a leader in the demand for public access to information about what multinational
corporations pay in tax, is no longer pushing the demand for corporate transparency. Contrary
to the promises of creating 'transparency', a growing number of EU countries are now proposing
strict confidentiality to conceal what multinational corporations pay in taxes.
Denmark and Slovenia are playing a leading role when it comes to transparency around the true owners
of companies. They have not only announced that they are introducing public registers of company
ownership, but have also decided to restrict, or in the case of Slovenia, avoided the temptation
of introducing, opaque structures such as trusts, which can offer alternative options for hiding
ownership. However, a number of EU countries, including in particular Luxembourg and Germany,
still offer a diverse menu of options for concealing ownership and laundering money.
Among the
15 countries covered in this report, Spain remains by far the most aggressive tax treaty negotiator,
and has managed to lower developing country tax rates by an average 5.4 percentage points through
its tax treaties with developing countries.
The UK and France played the leading role in blocking developing countries' demand for a seat at
the table when global tax standards and rules are being decided.
To read a summary of the report,
please click here.
Class Actions vs. Individual Prosecutions
Jed S. Rakoff NOVEMBER 19, 2015 NYRB
Entrepreneurial Litigation: Its Rise, Fall, and Future
by John C. Coffee Jr.
Harvard University Press, 307 pp., $45.00
"... feudalism is a hierarchical system of distributed administration. A king is nominally in charge or "owns" a kingdom, but he has lords who administer its first primary division, the fiefdom. Lords in turn have vassals, who administer further subdivisions or, in the cases of smaller fiefs, different aspects of governance. Vassals may have their own captains and middle managers, typically knights but also clerks and priests, who in turn employ apprentices/novices/pages who train under them so as to one day move up to middle management. If this is starting to resemble modern corporate structure, then bonus points to you. ..."
"... Anyone in a position of vassalage was dependent upon the largess of his immediate patron/lord/whatever for both his status and nominal wealth. The lowest rungs of the administrative ladder were responsible for keeping the peasants, the pool of labor, in line either through force or through the very same system of dependence upon largess that frames the lord/vassal relationship. ..."
"... A CEO may resign in disgrace over some scandal, but that does little to challenge the underlings who carried out his orders. ..."
"... It's not that peasants can be vassals in the overall order so much as they are in the subject position, but without the attendant capacity to then lord it over someone beneath them. Lord/vassal in feudalism are also generic terms to describe members of a fixed relationship of patronage. It's confusing, because those terms are also used for levels of the overall hierarchy. ..."
"... I suspect that the similarity of medeavil fuedalism with the relationship between a large modern corporation and its employees is not properly appreciated because the latter, unlike the former, does not necessarily include direct control over living conditions (housing, land, rent), even though in the end there may be a similar degree of effective servitude (lack of mobility and alternatives, and so effective entrapment at low wages) . ..."
I want to expand on the point about feudalism, since it's even more apt than the article lets
on. It was not "rule by the rich," which implies an oligarchic class whose members are more or
less free agents in cahoots with one another. Rather, feudalism is a hierarchical system of
distributed administration. A king is nominally in charge or "owns" a kingdom, but he has lords
who administer its first primary division, the fiefdom. Lords in turn have vassals, who administer
further subdivisions or, in the cases of smaller fiefs, different aspects of governance. Vassals
may have their own captains and middle managers, typically knights but also clerks and priests,
who in turn employ apprentices/novices/pages who train under them so as to one day move up to
middle management. If this is starting to resemble modern corporate structure, then bonus points
to you.
This means feudalism found a way to render complicit in a larger system of administration people
who had no direct and often no real stake in the produce of its mass mobilization of labor.
Anyone in a position of vassalage was dependent upon the largess of his immediate patron/lord/whatever
for both his status and nominal wealth. The lowest rungs of the administrative ladder were responsible
for keeping the peasants, the pool of labor, in line either through force or through the very
same system of dependence upon largess that frames the lord/vassal relationship. Occasionally,
the peasants recognize that no one is below them in this pyramid scheme, and so they revolt, but
for the most part they were resigned to the status quo, because there seemed to be no locus of
power to topple. Sure, you could overthrow the king, but that would do nothing to deter the power
of the lords. You could overthrow your local lord, but the king could just install a new one.
Transpose to the modern day. A CEO may resign in disgrace over some scandal, but that does
little to challenge the underlings who carried out his orders. You might get your terrible
boss fired for his tendency to sexually harass anyone who walks in the door, but what's to stop
the regional manager from hiring someone who works you to the bone. Sometimes the peas–err, employees
revolt and form a union, but we all know what means have been employed over the years to do away
with that.
tl;dr – Feudalism: it's about the structure, not the classes
Lambert Strether,
November 3, 2015 at 2:19 pm
Hmm. I don't think a serf can be a vassal. The vassals sound a lot like the 20%. The serfs
would be the 80%. I'm guessing class is alive and well.
James Levy, November 3, 2015 at 2:38 pm
You wouldn't be a vassal (that was a very small percentage of the population) but you could
have ties of patronage with the people above you, and in fact that was critical to all societies
until the Victorians made nepotism a bad word and the ethic of meritocracy (however bastardized
today) took shape. If you wanted your physical labor obligation converted into a money payment
so you could spend more time and effort on your own holding, or you needed help in tough times,
or the 99 year lease on your leasehold was coming due, or you wanted to get your son into the
local priory, etc. you needed a friend or friends in higher places. The granting or refusal of
favors counted for everything, and kept many on the straight and narrow, actively or passively
supporting the system as it was.
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 2:39 pm
It's not that peasants can be vassals in the overall order so much as they are in the subject
position, but without the attendant capacity to then lord it over someone beneath them. Lord/vassal
in feudalism are also generic terms to describe members of a fixed relationship of patronage.
It's confusing, because those terms are also used for levels of the overall hierarchy.
The true outliers here are the contemporaneous merchants, craftsmen, and freeholders (yeomen)
who are necessary for things to run properly but are not satisfactorily accounted for by the overall
system of governance, in part because it was land based. Merchants and craftsmen in particular
tended not to be tied to any one place, since their services were often needed all over and only
for limited periods of time. The primary administrative apparatus for craftsmen were the guilds.
Merchants fell into any number of systems of organization and often into none at all, thus, according
to the old Marxist genealogy, capitalism overthrows feudalism.
Peasants may have had something like a class consciousness on occasion, but I'm not entirely
convinced it's useful to think of them in that way. In Japan, for instance, peasants were of a
much higher social status than merchants and craftsmen, technically, yet their lives were substantially
more miserable by any modern economic measure.
visitor, November 3, 2015 at 4:01 pm
I think that the article gets it seriously wrong about feudalism - an example of what Yves
calls "stripping words of their meaning".
First of all, feudalism was actually an invention of an older, powerful, even more hierarchical
organization: the Catholic Church.
The Church realized early on that imposing its ideal of a theocratic State ("city of God") led
by the Pope upon the strong-headed barbarian chiefs (Lombards, Franks, Wisigoths and others) that
set up various kingdoms in Europe was impossible.
Hence the second best approach, feudalism: a double hierarchy (worldly and spiritual). The populations
of Europe were subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation, judicial and other
economic powers (such as the right to determine when and for whom to work).
Second, there was a class of wealthy people which did not quite fit in the feudal hierarchy
- in particular, they had no vassals, nor, despite their wealth, any fiefdom: merchants, financiers,
the emerging burger class in cities. They were the ones actually lending money to feudal lords.
Third, the problem for underlings was never to overthrow the king (this was a hobby for princely
families), and extremely rarely the local lord (which inevitably brought the full brunt of the
feudal hierarchy to bear on the seditious populace).
Historically, what cities and rural communities struggled for was to be placed directly under
the authority of the king or (Holy Roman Germanic) emperor. This entailed the rights to self-administration,
freedom from most egregious taxes and corvées from feudal seigneurs, recognition of local laws
and customs, and the possibility to render justice without deferring to local lords.
The king/emperor was happy to receive taxes directly from the city/community without them seeping
away in the pockets of members of the inextricable feudal hierarchy; he would from time to time
require troops for his host, hence reducing the dependency on troops from his vassal lords; and
he would rarely be called to intervene in major legal disputes. Overall, he was way too busy to
have time micromanaging those who swore direct allegiance to him - which was exactly what Basque
communities, German towns and Swiss peasants wanted.
Therefore, an equivalence between feudalism and the current organizational make-up of society
dominated by for-profit entities does not make sense.
Lambert Strether, November 3, 2015 at 4:11 pm
"the problem for underlings was never to overthrow the King"
Not even in the peasant revolts?
visitor, November 3, 2015 at 5:15 pm
If you look at this list, it appears that they were revolts directed against the local nobility
(or church) because of its exorbitant taxation, oppressive judiciary, rampaging mercenaries and
incompetent leadership in war against foreign invasions.
The French Jacquerie took place when there was no king - he had been taken prisoner by the English
and the populace blamed the nobility for the military defeats and the massive tax increases that
ensued.
During the Spanish Guerra de los Remensas, the revolted peasants actually appealed to the king
and he in turn allied with them to fight the nobles.
During the Budai Nagy Antal revolt, the peasants actually asked the Hungarian king to arbitrate.
In other cases, even when the king/emperor/sultan ultimately intervened to squash the revolt,
the insurrection was directed against some local elite.
Peasants revolts in 16th century Scandinavia were against the king's rule, but they were linked
to reformation and took place when feudalism was on the wane and the evolution towards a centralized
monarchical state well advanced.
Apparently, only the John and William Merfold's revolt explicitly called for the overthrow
of the English king.
Jim Haygood, November 3, 2015 at 4:51 pm
'The populations of Europe were subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation,
judicial and other economic powers (such as the right to determine when and for whom to work).'
Just as Americans are subject to two parallel hierarchical authorities with taxation and judicial
powers, the states and the fedgov.
Before 1914, federal criminal laws were few, and direct federal income taxation of individuals
was nonexistent. Today one needs federal authorization (E-verify) to get a job.
Now that the Fifth Amendment prohibition on double jeopardy has been interpreted away, notorious
defendants face both federal and state prosecution. Thus the reason why America has the world's
largest Gulag, with its slam-dunk conviction machine.
Uahsenaa, November 3, 2015 at 4:58 pm
Except, first off, there were non-Christian societies that made use of the system of warrior
vassalage, and the manorial system that undergirded feudal distribution of land and resources,
as least as far as Bloch is concerned, is a fairly clear outgrowth of the Roman villa system of
the late empire. Insofar as the Late Roman empire was nominally–very nominally–Christian, I suppose
your point stands, but according to Bloch, the earliest manorial structures were the result of
the dissolution of the larger, older empire into smaller pieces, many of which were beyond meaningful
administrative control by Rome itself. Second, bishoprics and monasteries, the primary land holdings
of the clergy, were of the same order as manors, so they fit within the overall feudal system,
not parallel to it.
If Bloch is not right about this, I'm open to reading other sources, but that's what my understanding
was based on. Moreover, the basic system of patronage and fealty that made the manor economy function
certainly seems to have survived the historical phenomenon we call feudalism, and that parallel
was what I was trying to draw attention to. Lord/vassal relationships are fundamentally contractual,
not just quid pro quo but organized around favors and reputation, and maybe the analogy is a bit
strained, but it does point to the ways in which modern white collar work especially is about
more than fixed pay for a fixed sum of labor output.
Thure Meyer, November 4, 2015 at 7:30 am
Isn't this rather off-topic?
This is not a discussion about the true and correct history of European feudalism or whether
or not it applies to the situation at hand, but a dialogue about Global fascism and how it
expresses itself in this Nation.
HarrySnapperOrgans, November 4, 2015 at 4:46 am
I suspect that the similarity of medeavil fuedalism with the relationship between a
large modern corporation and its employees is not properly appreciated because the latter,
unlike the former, does not necessarily include direct control over living conditions
(housing, land, rent), even though in the end there may be a similar degree of effective
servitude (lack of mobility and alternatives, and so effective entrapment at low wages) .
"... The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name ..."
"... Similarly, even as authoritarianism is rapidly rising in the US and citizens are losing their rights (see a reminder from last weekend, a major New York Times story on how widespread use of arbitration clauses is stripping citizens of access to the court system *), one runs the risk of having one's hair on fire if one dares suggest that America is moving in a fascist, or perhaps more accurately, a Mussolini-style corporatist direction. Yet we used that very expression, "Mussolini-style corporatism," to describe the the post-crisis bank bailouts. Former chief economist of the IMF, Simon Johnson, was more stark in his choice of terms, famously calling the rescues a "quiet coup" by financial oligarchs. ..."
"... By Thom Hartmann, an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest book is "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America -- and What We Can Do to Stop It." Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... "The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. "With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power." ..."
"... If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. … They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead. ..."
"... "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself." ..."
"... It Can't Happen Here ..."
"... There are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck! ..."
"... Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness' ceases. ..."
"... Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary ( www.thefreedictionary.com ) notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the 'corporate' interests with those of the state." ..."
"... Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his book What's The Matter With Kansas ..."
"... The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage." ..."
"... Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice democracy itself. ..."
"... The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances. But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice. It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination… ..."
"... But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations – who could gain control of newspapers and broadcast media -- they could promote their lies with ease. ..."
"... "The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy." ..."
"... They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection. ..."
"... Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination in 1936 in Philadelphia, "…out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new dynasties…. It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction…. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man…." ..."
"... The Republican candidates' and their billionaire donors' behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for." ..."
"... Amen -- I've always detested the weasel words "neoliberal" and "neoconservative". Lets just be honest enough to call ideologies and political behaviors by their proper name. ..."
"... Call Dems what they are – corrupt right wingers, ultra conservatives. ..."
"... Isn't it important to keep in mind that fascism, as it developed in Italy and Germany, were authentic mass based movements generating great popular enthusiasm and not merely a clever manipulation of of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or by capitalism in crisis. ..."
"... Authentic augmented by the generous application of force, I'd say. That I think is a very interesting discussion about just how freely fascism develops. I don't think Italy and especially Germany developed with a particularly genuine popular enthusiasm. ..."
"... Or to put it differently, I'd say the appearance of popular enthusiasm from a mass movement was the result of fascist control as much as the cause. That's what's so unnverving about the American context of 21st century fascism. It does not require a mass movement to implement this kind of totalitarianism. It merely requires the professional class to keep their heads down long enough for a critical mass to be reached by the power structure in hollowing out the back-office guts of democratic governance. ..."
"... Fascism was a counter revolution to Bolshevikism. The upper and upper-middle class was scared to death of what happen in Russia under Bolshevikism. They united with the military looking for someone to counter Bolshevikism and settled on Hitler and the Nazi's. The military thought they control him but they ended up being wrong. ..."
"... "Those who own America should govern it" ..."
"... Corporation in Italian has approximately the meaning of guild and has nothing to do with big enterprises ..."
"... Massinissa and lou strong are correct -- corporatism in Mussolini's Italy meant structuring the State and the legislative body around organizations representing specific professional or economic sectors. ..."
"... By the way: we should not forget another fascist State, Portugal, which during the entire Salazar regime officially defined itself as a "corporatist republic". ..."
"... besides for-profit corporations. ..."
"... elimination ..."
"... It is apparent that both corporate parties are increasingly incapable of properly deflecting and channeling the interests of the electorate. Whether you think of 2007-08 as simply another business cycle, one that was exacerbated by toxic assets, a product of increasing income and wealth disparity, etc. it seems that portions of the electorate have been shocked out of their confidence in the system and the steering capacity of economic and political elites. ..."
"... This might lead the parties, under the pressure of events, to might reformulate themselves as the political cover of a "government of national unity" that, depending on the extremity of the next downturn, impose a "solidarity from above," blocking the development of popular organizations in a variety of ways. I certainly see this as possible. But treating the parties, or the system itself, as fascist at this point in time is not only not helpful, it is fundamentally disorienting. ..."
"... Chamber of the Fascist Corporations ..."
"... My impression is that today Corporatism more closely represents the interests of multinational corporations and the people who hold executive leadership positions within those companies. What they have in common is a listing on NYSE. ..."
The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. Confucius
One of the distressing things about politics in the US is the way words have either been stripped
of their meaning or become so contested as to undermine the ability to communicate and analyze. It's
hard to get to a conversation when you and your interlocutors don't have the same understanding of
basic terms.
And that is no accident. The muddying of meaning is a neo-Orwellian device to influence perceptions
by redefining core concepts. And a major vector has been by targeting narrow interest groups on their
hot-button topics. Thus, if you are an evangelical or otherwise strongly opposed to women having
reproductive control, anyone who favors womens' rights in this area is in your vein of thinking,
to the left of you, hence a "liberal". Allowing the Overton Window to be framed around pet interests,
as opposed to a view of what societal norms are, has allowed for the media to depict the center of
the political spectrum as being well to the right of where it actually is as measured by decades
of polling, particularly on economic issues.
Another way of limiting discourse is to relegate certain terms or ideas to what Daniel Hallin
called the "sphere of deviance."
Thus, until roughly two years ago, calling an idea "Marxist" in the US was tantamount to deeming
it to be the political equivalent of taboo. That shows how powerful the long shadow of the Communist
purges of the McCarthy era were, more than a generation after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Similarly, even as authoritarianism is rapidly rising in the US and citizens are losing their
rights (see a reminder from last weekend, a major New York Times story on how
widespread use of arbitration clauses is stripping citizens of access to the court system*),
one runs the risk of having one's hair on fire if one dares suggest that America is moving in a fascist,
or perhaps more accurately, a Mussolini-style corporatist direction. Yet we used that very expression,
"Mussolini-style corporatism," to describe the the post-crisis bank bailouts. Former chief economist
of the IMF, Simon Johnson, was more stark in his choice of terms, famously calling the rescues a
"quiet coup" by financial oligarchs.
Now admittedly, the new neoliberal economic order is not a replay of fascism, so there is reason
not to apply the "f" word wholesale. Nevertheless, there is a remarkable amount of inhibition in
calling out the similarities where they exist. For instance, the article by Thom Hartmann below,
which we've reposted from Alternet, is bold enough to use the "fascist" word in the opening paragraph
(but not the headline!). But it then retreats from making a hard-headed analysis by focusing on warnings
about the risks of fascism in America from the 1940s. While historical analysis is always enlightening,
you'll see the article only selectively interjects contemporary examples. Readers no doubt can help
fill out, as well as qualify, this picture.
By Thom Hartmann, an author and nationally syndicated daily talk show host. His newest
book is "The Crash of 2016: The Plot to Destroy America -- and What We Can Do to Stop It." Originally
published at
Alternet
Ben Carson's feeble attempt to equate Hitler and pro-gun control Democrats was short-lived, but
along with the announcement that Marco Rubio has brought in his second big supporting billionaire,
it brings to mind the first American vice-president to point out the "American fascists" among us.
Although most Americans remember that Harry Truman was Franklin D. Roosevelt's vice-president
when Roosevelt died in 1945 (making Truman president), Roosevelt had two previous vice-presidents:
John N. Garner (1933-1941) and Henry A. Wallace (1941-1945).
In early 1944, the New York Times asked Vice-President Henry Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write
a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous
are they?"
Vice-President Wallace's answer to those questions was published in the New York Times on April
9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan.
"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly
or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the
man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels
of public information.
"With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best
to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."
In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word "fascist" -- the definition Mussolini
had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word. (It was actually Italian philosopher Giovanni
Gentile who wrote the entry in the Encyclopedia Italiana that said: "Fascism should more appropriately
be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Mussolini, however, affixed
his name to the entry, and claimed credit for it.)
As the 1983 American Heritage Dictionary noted, fascism is, "A system of government that exercises
a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership,
together with belligerent nationalism."
Mussolini was quite straightforward about all this. In a 1923 pamphlet titled "The Doctrine of
Fascism" he wrote, "If classical liberalism spells individualism, Fascism spells government." But
not a government of, by, and for We The People; instead, it would be a government of, by, and for
the most powerful corporate interests in the nation.
In 1938, Mussolini brought his vision of fascism into full reality when he dissolved Parliament
and replaced it with the Camera dei Fasci e delle Corporazioni -- the Chamber of the Fascist Corporations.
Corporations were still privately owned, but now instead of having to sneak their money to folks
like Tom DeLay and covertly write legislation, they were openly in charge of the government.
Vice-President Wallace bluntly laid out in his 1944 Times article his concern about the same happening
here in America:
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead
of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There
are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in
their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. … They are patriotic in time of war
because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar
wherever they may lead.
Nonetheless, at that time there were few corporate heads who'd run for political office, and in
Wallace's view, most politicians still felt it was their obligation to represent We The People instead
of corporate cartels.
"American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there
is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information…."
Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggest that fascism's "greatest
threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States
itself."
In Sinclair Lewis's 1935 novel It Can't Happen Here a conservative southern politician
is helped to the presidency by a nationally syndicated radio talk show host. The politician, Buzz
Windrip, runs his campaign on family values, the flag and patriotism. Windrip and the talk show host
portray advocates of traditional American democracy as anti-American.
When Windrip becomes president, he opens a Guantanamo-style detention center, and the viewpoint
character of the book, Vermont newspaper editor Doremus Jessup, flees to Canada to avoid prosecution
under new "patriotic" laws that make it illegal to criticize the President.
As Lewis noted in his novel, "the President, with something of his former good-humor [said]: 'There
are two [political] parties, the Corporate and those who don't belong to any party at all, and so,
to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!' The idea of the Corporate or Corporative State, Secretary
[of State] Sarason had more or less taken from Italy."
And, President "Windrip's partisans called themselves the Corporatists, or, familiarly, the 'Corpos,'
which nickname was generally used."
Lewis, the first American writer to win a Nobel Prize, was world famous by 1944, as was his book.
And several well-known and powerful Americans, including Prescott Bush, had lost businesses in the
early 1940s because of charges by Roosevelt that they were doing business with Hitler.
These events all, no doubt, colored Vice-President Wallace's thinking when he wrote:
Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common
welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate
surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion.
American fascists of this stamp were clandestinely aligned with their German counterparts before
the war, and are even now preparing to resume where they left off, after 'the present unpleasantness'
ceases.
Fascists have an agenda that is primarily economic. As the Free Dictionary (www.thefreedictionary.com)
notes, fascism/corporatism is "an attempt to create a 'modern' version of feudalism by merging the
'corporate' interests with those of the state."
Feudalism, of course, is one of the most stable of the three historic tyrannies (kingdoms, theocracies,
feudalism) that ruled nations prior to the rise of American republican democracy, and can be roughly
defined as "rule by the rich."
Thus, the neo-feudal/fascistic rich get richer (and more powerful) on the backs of the poor and
the middle class, an irony not lost on author Thomas Frank, who notes in his book What's The
Matter With Kansas that, "You can see the paradox first-hand on nearly any Main Street in middle
America -- 'going out of business' signs side by side with placards supporting George W. Bush."
The businesses "going out of business" are, in fascist administrations, usually those of locally
owned small and medium-sized companies. As Wallace wrote, some in big business "are willing to jeopardize
the structure of American liberty to gain some temporary advantage."
He added:
Monopolists who fear competition and who distrust democracy because it stands for equal opportunity
would like to secure their position against small and energetic enterprise [companies]. In an
effort to eliminate the possibility of any rival growing up, some monopolists would sacrifice
democracy itself.
But American fascists who would want former CEOs as president, vice-president, House Majority
Whip, and Senate Majority Leader, and write legislation with corporate interests in mind, don't generally
talk to We The People about their real agenda, or the harm it does to small businesses and working
people.
Instead, as Hitler did with the trade union leaders and the Jews, they point to a "them" to pin
with blame and distract people from the harms of their economic policies.
In a comment prescient of Alabama's recent closing of every drivers' license office in every Alabama
county with more than 75% black residents (while recently passing a law requiring a drivers' license
or similar ID to vote), Wallace continued:
The symptoms of fascist thinking are colored by environment and adapted to immediate circumstances.
But always and everywhere they can be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire
to play upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain power. It is no coincidence
that the growth of modern tyrants has in every case been heralded by the growth of prejudice.
It may be shocking to some people in this country to realize that, without meaning to do so, they
hold views in common with Hitler when they preach discrimination…
But even at this, Wallace noted, American fascists would have to lie to the people in order to
gain power. And, because they were in bed with the nation's largest corporations – who could gain
control of newspapers and broadcast media -- they could promote their lies with ease.
"The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate perversion of truth and
fact," Wallace wrote. "Their newspapers and propaganda carefully cultivate every fissure of disunity,
every crack in the common front against fascism. They use every opportunity to impugn democracy."
In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism, the vice-president of the United States saw
rising in America, he added:
They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.
They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final
objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using
the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man
in eternal subjection.
This liberal vision of an egalitarian America in which very large businesses and media monopolies
are broken up under the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act (which Reagan stopped enforcing, leading to the
mergers & acquisitions frenzy that continues to this day) was the driving vision of the New Deal
(and of "Trust Buster" Teddy Roosevelt a generation earlier).
As Wallace's president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said when he accepted his party's renomination
in 1936 in Philadelphia, "…out of this modern civilization, economic royalists [have] carved new
dynasties…. It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties,
thirsting for power, reached out for control over government itself. They created a new despotism
and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction…. And as a result the average man once more confronts
the problem that faced the Minute Man…."
Speaking indirectly of the fascists Wallace would directly name almost a decade later, Roosevelt
brought the issue to its core:
These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What
they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power." But, he thundered, "Our allegiance
to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power!
In the election of 2016, we again stand at the same crossroad Roosevelt and Wallace confronted
during the Great Depression and World War II.
Fascism is again rising in America, this time calling itself "conservativism." The Republican
candidates' and their billionaire donors' behavior today eerily parallels that day in 1936 when Roosevelt
said, "In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget
what the flag and the Constitution stand for."
It's particularly ironic that the "big news" is which billionaire is supporting which Republican
candidate. Like Eisenhower's farewell address, President Roosevelt and Vice-President Wallace's warnings
are more urgent now than ever before.
_____
* In trying to find the New York Times story again, I simply Googled "arbitration," on the assumption
that given that the article was both high traffic and recent that it would come up high in a search.
Not only did the story not come up on the first page, although a reference to it in Consumerist did,
but when I clicked on "in the news" link, it was again not in the first page in Google. If this isn't
censorship, I don't know what is. The story was widely referenced on the Web and got far more traffic
than the "news" story that Google gave preference (such as, of all things, a Cato study and "Arbitration
Eligible Brewers
Brew Crew Ball-19 hours ago"). In fact, the NYT article does not appear on the first five pages of
the Google news search, even though older and clearly lower traffic stories do. And when you find
the first reference to the story on the news page, which is a Cato piece mentioning it, and you click
through to the "explore
in depth" page, again the New York Times story is not the prominent placement it warrants, and
is listed fifth. Consider how many clicks it took to find it.
Crazy Horse, November 3, 2015 at 10:49 am
Amen -- I've always detested the weasel words "neoliberal" and "neoconservative". Lets just be honest
enough to call ideologies and political behaviors by their proper name.
timbers, November 3, 2015 at 11:17 am
I agree!
Telling my friends Obama is "neoliberal" means nothing to 99% of them, they couldn't care less,
it does not compute. So instead I tell them Obama is the most right wing President in history
who's every bit un-hinged as Sarah Palin and at least as bat shit insame as John McCain, but you
think that's totally OK because you're a Dem and Dems think that because Obama speaks with better
grammar than Sarah Palin and is more temperate than John McCain. Them I tell them to vote Green
instead of the utlra right wing Dems
Call Dems what they are – corrupt right wingers, ultra conservatives.
Barmitt O'Bamney, November 3, 2015 at 11:01 am
LOL. You get to take your pick between TWO fascist parties in 2016. Just like you did for the
last several elections. I wonder if the outcome will be different this time – will Fascism grab
the prize again, or will it be Fascism coming out ahead at the last minute to save the day?
David, November 3, 2015 at 11:04 am
Why didn't Wallace become President when Roosevelt died? From the
St. Petersburg Times,
The Gallup Poll said 65 percent of the voting Democrats wanted Wallace and that 2 percent
wanted Senator Truman. But the party bosses could not boss Wallace. They made a coalition with
the Roosevelt-haters and skillfully and cynically mowed down the unorganized Wallace forces.
With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how
best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money
or more power
Such a concise and cogent explanation. The go-to policy advice of the fascist is to do moar
of whatever he's selling.
I was just going to say something like this too. There is a logical end to fascism and if it
is blocked and prolonged then when it finally runs its course it ends in a huge mess. And even
the fascists don't know what to do. Because everything they were doing becomes pure poison. Moar
money and power have an Achilles Heel – there is an actual limit to their usefulness. So this
is where we find ourselves today imo – not at the beginning of a fascist-feudal empire, but at
the bitter and confused end. Our implosion took far longer than Germany's, but the writing was
on the wall from 1970 on. And then toss in the wages of prolonged sin – neoliberalism's excesses,
the planet, global warming.
One would think that Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and the killing of 1000 people by cops would be
a clue. As would an understanding of the counter-New Deal that began to unfold in 1944, gained
power in 1946, and institutionalized itself as a military and secret government in 1947. Or the
rush to war after every peace, the rush to debt after every surplus, and perpetual inability of
the IRS to collect taxes from the wealthiest.
Maybe not even a Franco-level fascist state or a fascist state with a single dictator, more
like the state capitalism of the Soviet Union and current China without the public infrastructure.
Just the oligarchs.
And yet it is in a state of failure, and inability to do anything but feather then nests of
those who rule, all those King Midases.
Also, the increase of censorship (GMO labels or fracking chemicals), and persecution of whistleblowers
and political prisoners, incarceration of whole swathes of black population, along w execution
w no due process, continuous wars abroad w no apparent tbreat to domestic security and the state
of the nation is apparent.
Isn't it important to keep in mind that fascism, as it developed in Italy and Germany,
were authentic mass based movements generating great popular enthusiasm and not merely a clever
manipulation of of populist emotions by the reactionary Right or by capitalism in crisis.
The orthodox left made this mistake in the 1920s and early 1930s and in 2015 still appears
wedded to this erroneous assumption.
Authentic augmented by the generous application of force, I'd say. That I think is a very
interesting discussion about just how freely fascism develops. I don't think Italy and especially
Germany developed with a particularly genuine popular enthusiasm. Very early on, the national
socialists were arresting internal political opposition through parallel courts with explicit
references to things like state security. Dachau, for example, was originally for German political
prisoners. Jews and foreign nationals came later.
And of course there's the ultimate in false flags, the Reichstag Fire Decree. The whole point
of that and the Enabling Act was to circumvent the checks and balances of democratic governance;
Hitler himself certainly did not trust the German people to maintain the power he wanted of their
own accord and discernment.
Or to put it differently, I'd say the appearance of popular enthusiasm from a mass movement
was the result of fascist control as much as the cause. That's what's so unnverving about the
American context of 21st century fascism. It does not require a mass movement to implement this
kind of totalitarianism. It merely requires the professional class to keep their heads down long
enough for a critical mass to be reached by the power structure in hollowing out the back-office
guts of democratic governance.
Fascism was a counter revolution to Bolshevikism. The upper and upper-middle class was
scared to death of what happen in Russia under Bolshevikism. They united with the military looking
for someone to counter Bolshevikism and settled on Hitler and the Nazi's. The military thought
they control him but they ended up being wrong.
You have to understand that after WW1 the allies kept a sea blockade on Germany and that resulted
in over a million Germans starving to death. Then came depression followed by hyperinflation.
Then there was the fear of Bolsheviks. The Nazi's showed up and things started working again.
The Bolsheviks were driven from the street. The Nazi's started borrowing tons of money (yes they
issued bonds) and started work programs. The economy started recovering. People had work and food
and soon the Nazi's were furnishing free health care. After you had gone through hell this was
heaven.
It's strange but 9/11 and the 3 steel frame buildings collapse into dust in few seconds isn't
recognized by the masses as false flag Hitler style, then what do you expect ? Massmedia did what
it could to confuse them all, only math and physics can help you to see the truth.
It would, indeed, be an extremely worthwhile discussion to analyze how freely fascism developed
in Italy and Germany.
As a first step in that directkion, Washunate, you might take a look at studies like "Elections,
Parties, and Political Traditions: Social Foundations of German parties and party systems.
In the July 1932 elections the SPD (Socialist Party) received 21.6 percent of the vote and
was replaced by the NSDAP (Nazi party) as the countries largest political party (with 37.3% of
the vote). with the KPD (the communists) capturing 14.5%of the vote.
It was at that time that the Nazi party become a true "people's party" with a support base
that was more equally distributed among social and demographic categories than any other major
party of the Weimar republic.
The thing that troubles me most is that there are no leaders like Roosevelt or Wallace today.
Where are the POPULAR politicians (Roosevelt was elected 4 times!) calling it like it is and publicly
refuting conservative/fascist dogma? Sanders? Maybe. But he's trailing Clinton and certainly he's
not a force in the Democratic party like Roosevelt was. At least not yet.
I agree with the "quiet coup" assessment, and I keep waiting for the next Roosevelt, the next
Lincoln, the next Founding Father, to appear on the political stage and fight the battle against
corporatist/fascist forces. Sadly, it hasn't happened yet.
Unfortunately the next Founding Father to appear (or has appeared) will be John Jay (first
Chief Justice among other roles) who was quoted as having said :
Hank Paulson and George W. Bush prevented the situation in 2008 from forcing a Rooseveltian
Congress. And the Congress went along with them. Then it was so easy for the do-nothings to argue
for less and continue the austerity. And as in Roosevelt's era, racism helped prevent full change,
which allowed the post-war rollback.
Who do you think put the basis of rule by the rich into practice in the first place? A series
of 'popular movements' like Shays Rebellion was what forced the founding fathers to make voting
rights not dependent on owning land, not because the Founding Fathers were really nice people
who luvved 'Democracy'.
"on the rise" or firmly entrenched ? We already have Homeland Security, Justice Thomas, Donald
Trump ,Ted Cruz, and the Koch Brothers (who are running ads in NC extolling recently passed changes
in the tax code to continue shifting from income to consumption taxes). What is missing?
I always think of the Kochs when the word fascist is used. They are ostensibly great environmentalists.
Never mind that they operate some of the filthiest industries on the planet. They sponsor NOVA;
one brother is a raving environmentalist (that's fine with me) and the other two tone it down.
But their brand of conservative politix is as pointless as it is ignorant. That's an interesting
topic – the hypocrisy of rich corporatist environmentalists. They are living a contradiction that
will tear them apart. But at least they are agonizing over the problem.
Maybe my English is too bad, but it seems there's a misunderstanding about "corporatism" meaning,
which is unfortunately reflected, as it seems again, in some American dictionaries. Corporation
in Italian has approximately the meaning of guild and has nothing to do with big enterprises.
So, while there is no doubt that fascists took power in Italy as the armed wing of big capital,
big finance and big landholders against the unrests of the low classes, the idea of corporatist
state for them meant the refusal of the principle of class war in favor of the principle of class
(guilds, "corporations" :both for employers and employees/trade unions) collaboration , and all
of them as subservients to the superior interest of the state.Fascism agenda wasn't primarily
economic. There wasn't either a specific agenda : until '29 the regime acted as deeply "neoliberal"
with privatizations, deflationary policies to fix a strong lira smashing labor rights and purchase
power etc etc , after the crisis it nationalized the failed enterprises and introduced some welfare
state elements.
So at least the regime got the property of the failed banks/enterprises, much unlike current
situation , where we see the mere socialization of losses and privatization of profits .
But English speakers either dont know or dont care. Ive seen people talk about "Mussolini Corporatism"
like this for what, five years, and they never get corrected.
I dont think theres anything we can do to get people to stop using that term as if it means
what they think it means.
Massinissa and lou strong are correct -- corporatism in Mussolini's Italy meant structuring
the State and the legislative body around organizations representing specific professional or
economic sectors.
By the way: we should not forget another fascist State, Portugal, which during the entire
Salazar regime officially defined itself as a "corporatist republic".
You can direct them to the Wikipedia entry for corporatism, which is extensive, or to
Michael Lind's 2014 article on the multiple historical meanings and recent misuse of this
term. But the term has currency and traction today for reason neither article quite puts a finger
on. Under Italian Fascism, the traditional meanings of corporative representation and bargaining
were invoked but fused tightly under the auspices -or control- of the nation state, which of course
was a single party state. The theoretical representativeness of corporatism was as a facade for
political control of all institutions of Italian life by the Fascist Party. In the present time,
with unions and guilds a fading memory, regions homogenized and classes atomized, with churches
that are little more than money making enterprises as transparent as any multilevel marketing
scheme, there are few non-government institutions in western life with any weight besides
for-profit corporations. When people struggle to describe what seems wrong to them with our
political life, the subservience of our government – and therefore everything else – to profit
seeking corporations, they need a term that reflects neatly what has happened and where we are.
Democracy of course is defunct both as a term and in reality. We don't have a state of decayed
democracy (passive, negative), we have a state of corporate diktat (active, positive). "Corporatism"
is an attractive and convenient verbal handle for the masses to latch onto, no matter how much
this disappoints the learned. In English, when enough people "misuse" a term for a sufficiently
long time, what happens is that the OED adds a new sub-entry for it reflecting its current usage.
Corporatism is indeed an old idea, feudalism re-branded as "fascism." After Hitler ruined the
term, fascism remained, but underground, until it reemerged in the 1960s as what George Ball termed
the "world company," which is better known as the system of global corporations. The same general
idea, but under a new marketing slogan. Today we have globalization, the raft of "trade" treaties,
the Austrian/Libertarian ideology, all of which ultimately push the world toward yet another replay
of feudalism. The box says "new and improved," but inside it's the same old crap.
"The more people that transact with one another, the greater the division of labour and knowledge,
the greater the ability to develop comparative advantage and the greater the productivity gains."
What could possibly go wrong?
In any empire, virtual or otherwise, you are always surrounded by communist thieves that think
they are going to control your output with a competitive advantage illusion, which conveniently
ignores opportunity cost. Government is just a derivative piece of paper, the latest fashion for
communists, all assuming that the planet is here for their convenience, to exploit. Well, the
critters have blown right through 45/5000/.75, and Canada was supposed to be the proving ground
for the Silicon Valley Method. Now what?
"Don't panic : world trade is down….Don't bet against the Fed….BTFD." Expect something other
than demographic variability, financial implosion, and war.
The communists are always running head first over the cliff, expecting you to follow. Labor
has no use for cars that determine when, where and how you will travel, and the communists can't
fix anything, because the 'fix' is already inside, embedded as a feature. America is just the
latest communist gang believing it has commandeered the steamroller, rolling over other communist
gangs.
The Bear isn't coming down from the North, China isn't selling Treasuries, and families are
not moving away from the city by accident. Only the latest and greatest, new-world-order communists,
replacing themselves with computers, are surprised that technology is always the solution for
the problem, technology. Facebook, LinkedIn and Google are only the future for communists, which
is always the same, a dead end, with a different name.
Remember that Honda of mine? I told the head communist thief not to touch that car while I
was gone, told his fellow thieves and their dependents that I told him so, and even gave him the
advantage of telling him what the problem was. How many hours do you suppose the fools spent trying
to control that car, and my wife with it?
I don't care whether the communists on the other side of the hill or the communists on this
side of the hill think they are going to control Grace, and through her my wife, and through her
me. And there are all kinds of communist groups using pieces of my work to advance their AI weapons
development, on the assumption that my work will not find itself in the end. Grace will decide
whether she wants to be an individual or a communist.
The only way the communists can predict and control the future is to control children. That's
what financialization is all about. And all communism can do is train automatons to follow each
other, which is a problem-solution addressed by the planet every three generations. You don't
have to do anything for communism to collapse, but get out of the way.
Technology is just a temporary tool, discarded by labor for the communists to steal, and stealing
a hammer doesn't make anyone a carpenter, much less a King, which is why the Queen always walks
through the wreckage, to a worthless throne. The story of Jesus was in fact the story of a king,
who had no use for a worldly kingdom, other than as a counterweight, always surrounded by communists,
like pigs at a trough. Jesus was no more and no less a child of God than you are.
Labor loses every battle because it doesn't participate, leaving the communists to label each
other as labour and knowledge. And if you look, you will see that all their knowledge is real
estate inflation, baked into everything, with oil as grease. The name, Robert Reich, didn't give
you a hint; of course he knew all along, and like a good communist, changes sides on a regular
basis.
You can't pick your parents or your children, or make choices for them, but you can love them
without pissing your life away. Navy hasn't disappeared just because the US Navy chose to be a
sunk cost, at the beck and call of Wall Street, trying to defend the status quo of communism,
for communists on the other side of the pond. A marine is not always a Marine, and a flattop can
be turned on a dime.
"The Muses doe attend upon your Throne, With all the Artists at your becke and call…"
If you want to show up at WWIII with a communist and a dc computer as a weapon, that's your
business, but I wouldn't recommend doing so. Labor can mobilize far quicker than the communists
can imagine, which isn't saying much. Be about your business until the laws of physics have been
overthrown, and that hasn't happened yet.
You can count on communists to be at an intersection, creating a traffic jam, building a bigger
toll booth, and voting for more of the same, thinking that they are taking advantage of each other,
doing the wrong thing at the wrong time at the wrong place. Any intersection of false assumptions
will do.
his name was hanz…or so I was told…we had acquired a lease from the NYC HPD from a parking
lot/marina that was at the very north edge of Harlem River Drive at Dyckman (pronounced dikeman)….there
is a school there now…he "came" with the lease…years later I would find out he was working with
Carlos Lehder and helping arrange for cash payments to conveniently amnesiastic police officers
who used the hardly functioning marina to go fishing…in the east river & the hudson…go figure…the
more I tried to get rid of him…the more "problems" occurred…my father begged me stop poking around
and just "leave it alone"…I don't think he ever really knew what "hanz" was doing or who he was…oh
well…might explain how we lost a billion dollars in real estate (ok…it was not worth a billion
back then…but it had not debt other than real estate taxes…it was not lost for simply economic
reasons)
we as a nation were "convinced" to allow 50 thousand former nazis to enter this country after
ww2…under the foolish notion that "the russians" (who have never killed too many americans if
my history serves me right) were a "new danger" and only the folks who LO$T to the russians had
the knowledge needed to save us from those "evil communists"…(evil communists who helped the Koch
Family make their financial start…details details…)
those nazis, from my research have probably grown to a force of about 250 thousand who are
the basic clowns (MIC…see you real soon…KEY…why, because we like you…) Ike was talking about in
January of 1961…
but…as Ike mentioned when talking about the Koch dad and his John Birch nonsense…they are small
and they are stupid…
the use of "coup" in the context of some of the strange happenings in our history these last
55 years is probably not a reasonable term…
I would say we have had "coupettes" where certain groups threatened MAD if they did not get
their way or were not left alone…and then those wimps in power decided…better you than me…and
turned a blind eye for 30 pieces of silver…coincidence and causality sometimes are not just mathematical
anomalies…
there is no need to "take back" our country…it is ours and has always been ours…the reason
"the clowns that be" worry so much is that for all the use of bernaze sause…they can hardly fake
half the population into showing up to vote on "one of the chosen ones"…and that 50% that are
not fully mesmerized are the fear factor for the clowns that be…
remember…try as "they" might…can "they" keep you watching the same tv show for ever…or get
you to buy their useless "branded" product without coupons or advertising…
it is not as bad or scary as they would like you to believe…they would not be working this
hard if they were comfortable in their socks…they do not sleep well at night…you are the "zombie
apocalypse" they are afraid off…
Huh? Many of the things you brand as "communist" existed long before Communism was created.
To blame it all on "communists" is a serious error which blinds you to much older evils, some
of which Communism was at least nominally intended to correct. It is important to recognize that
the "Red scares" have been used by forces in the West to bolster their own power. One can both
disagree with Communism and disagree with the "Red menace" propaganda at the same time. The people
who scare you with the threat of Communism are more of a threat than the Communists themselves.
When talking about the rise of fascism(especially if the US experiences another economic/financial
meltdown in the next few years) it is so important to get the historical context as accurate as
possible.
Mussolini began his political career as an exponent of a different type of socialism. One of
his early followers was Antonio Gramsci and they both deplored the passivity of orthodox Marxists.
Mussolini was attracted to the theoretical framework of Sorel to offset traditional left passivity
and the syndicalist focus on the importance of human will. He founded a journal in 1913 called
Utopia and called for a revision of socialism in which he began referring to "the people" and
not the proletariat, as well as stressing the importance of the nation. He attempted to bring
nationalist and syndicalist streams of thought together.
After World War I Mussolini helped found a new political movement in Italy which brought together
both nationalist and socialist themes. Its first program was anticapitalist, antimonarchical and
called for an 8 hour day, minimum wages, the participation of workers' representatives in industrial
management and a large progressive tax on capital.
By the early 1920s the Fasci of Mussolini gained a powerful base of support in rural Italian
areas, advocating of program of peasant proprtietorship rather than endorsing the calls for the
nationalization of property of the orthodox left.
By this time fascism presented itself as an opponent of "Bolshevism" and a guardian of private
property while emphasizing the collective good and criticizing absentee landlords and "exploitative
capitalists"
For an excellent discussion of the development of these ideas as well as the concrete steps
toward corporatism that took place after 1922 see Sheri Berman "The Primacy of Politics"
A key point to keep in mind was that the fascism that eventually developed in Italy was willing
to assert unconditionally the power of the state over the market.
Not everybody just "wants what we have," as the common view here has it. In fact, from Bolivia,
where the average person consumes perhaps 1/20th the total resources of her analogue in the
US, comes the old-new idea of buen vivir (the good life): a life in which the health of your
human community and its surrounding ecosystem are more important than the amount of money you
make or things you own.
"In this, Wallace was using the classic definition of the word fascist' -- the definition Mussolini
had in mind when he claimed to have invented the word."
An Italian Jew by the name of Enrico Rocca is cited in "Roots of Hate: Anti-Semitism in Europe
Before the Holocaust" as the founder of Roman fascism. This name is completely unknown in the
U.S. A large number of Italian Jews were founders and members of the Italian fascist party prior
to 1938 when anti-Semitism became official. "Among Mussolini's earliest financial backers were
three Jews: Giuseppe Toeplitz of the Banca Commerciale Italiana, Elio Jona [?], and the industrialist
Gino Olivetti. . . ." The banker Toeplitz was the main financier behind Mussolini's blackshirts,
which served as union busters for big business and land owners (also see "Fascism and Big Business"
by Daniel Guerin). Undermining organized labor in order to drive down wages was a central aim
of fascism in Italy and later under Hitler in Germany. In 1933, roughly ten percent of Italian
Jews were members of the fascist party. These facts are important to know because moderns are
led to believe that fascism is inherently anti-semitic, but that wasn't the case in the early
years of fascism in Italy, where it was founded.
It is also important to keep in mind, as Sheri Berman has argued, that social democracy, the
fascism of Mussolini and National Socialism in Germany agree on a set of key assumptions.
1. All assume the primary importance of politics and cross-class cooperation. Edward Bermstein
at the turn of the 20th century began attacking the main pillars of orthodox Marxism, historical
materialism and class struggle while arguing for an alternative vision based on state control
of markets–social democracy became the complete severing of socialism from Marxism.
2. For these same Social Democrats the primacy of the political meant using the democratic
state to institutionalize policies and protect society from capitalism.
3. For fascists and national socialists using a tyrannical state to control markets was supposedly
necessary–but, of course, this postion deteriorated into moves to ensure the hegemony of the modern
State.
But is it the case, in 2015, taken the power of our contemporary Surveillance regime, that
a democratic state still exists?
Do contemporary democratic socialists first have to first focus on how to restore democracy
in the U.S. rather than assuming that the contemporary political structure just needs the right
leadership–someone like Bernie Sanders–and the right credit policy– such as MMT?
Hartmann draws from Mussolini the idea that the fascist state prioritizes and organizes corporate
interests, but misses what Mussolini left out of his harmonistic definition, which was that in
both Germany and Italy organized terror was to be used to destroy opposition to corporate interests.
The systematic use of terror had major implications for the way the internal politics of the fascist
state developed, for the weight given in its organizational structure and tactical options to
the elimination of internal enemies. Along with this, both political orders were infused
with a leadership ethos that, particularly in Nazi Germany, could attain strikingly absolute forms,
demanding absolute obedience and sacrifice. This encouraged a strong tendency to subordinate any
institution that might serve as a point of coalescence to interests opposed to the regime. The
Fuhrer's picture had to be both on your wall and in your heart.
Hartmann misses this political knife edge of fascism and the leadership fascination that supports
it. It is not wildly speculative to say that this is largely because the domestic enemies against
which it was directed, primarily leftist trade unions, are not a threat in the US. No such organizations
need to be wrecked, no such memberships need to be decimated, imprisoned, and dispersed. It is
simply astonishing that Hartmann says nothing specifically about labor organizations as the prime
instigating target of both fascists and the corporations who supported them. In this respect his
analysis unwittingly incorporates the ideological suppression of the labor movement that mirrored
the fascist onslaught.
It is also telling that although Hartmann references Wallace and Roosevelt he fails to note
that they themselves have also been accused of corporatism, albeit one that involved the imposition
of a Keynesian, welfarist orientation to capitalist interests that were, at least in some quarters,
inclined to "liquidate, liquidate" their way into a revolution against themselves. Instead, he
quotes Wallace and Roosevelt as they render fascism as a kind of power-hungry, antidemocratic
urge on the part of some "royalists," thereby blurring out how the central issue was how to manage
labor. He misses that Roosevelt offered the state as an organizer of conflict between capital
and labor within a framework in which labor was guaranteed bargaining status. Roosevelt was thereby
moved to attack capitalists who wanted to deny labor that status and risk both devastating hardship
and insurrection. Hartmann falls for Roosevelt's broad democratic rhetoric against them, more
exhortation than analysis, and so he himself ends up talking ethereally of threats to "freedom"
and "American institutions."
We're not living under fascism and Hartmann, whose criticism is often very useful, is wrong
in trying to use the term as a rallying orientation. I agree that the social order is corporatist,
but its maintenance has not required the kind of direct oppression + totalitarian/personalized
leadership cult that is a marker of fascism. Concepts the Frankfurt School have used such as "total
administration" and the like are perhaps too anodyne, not to mention absolute in their own way,
but they fit better with a situation in which explicit violence does not have to be generalized.
Robert Paxton's "The Anatomy of Fascism" is a useful backgrounder on this.
Heamtwell stated directly above that " We're not living under fascism…"
Some concepts/ questions which may begin to get at our potential propensity for moving in that
direction might include the following:
Paxton, mentioned by Heamtwell above, isolated five stages of fascism.
(1) the initial creation of fascist movements
(2) their rooting as parties in a political system
(3) the acquisition of power
(4) the exercise of power
(5) their radicalization or entropy
Paxton has argued that Fascism can appear where democracy is sufficiently implanted to have
aroused disillusion–a society must have known political liberty.
In regards to Paxtons first 2 stages and our situation in the US.
Are political fascists becoming rooted in political parties that represent major interests
and feelings and wield major influence on our political scene?
Is our constitutional system in a state of blockage increasingly insoluble by existing authorities?
Is rapid political mobilization taking place in our society which threatens to escape the control
of traditional elites to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order
to stay in charge?
Is rapid political mobilization taking place in our society which threatens to escape the
control of traditional elites to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers
in order to stay in charge?
I think that's the primary question, and it helps to define what we're facing with the current
party system.
It is apparent that both corporate parties are increasingly incapable of properly deflecting
and channeling the interests of the electorate. Whether you think of 2007-08 as simply another
business cycle, one that was exacerbated by toxic assets, a product of increasing income and wealth
disparity, etc. it seems that portions of the electorate have been shocked out of their confidence
in the system and the steering capacity of economic and political elites.
This might lead the parties, under the pressure of events, to might reformulate themselves
as the political cover of a "government of national unity" that, depending on the extremity of
the next downturn, impose a "solidarity from above," blocking the development of popular organizations
in a variety of ways. I certainly see this as possible. But treating the parties, or the system
itself, as fascist at this point in time is not only not helpful, it is fundamentally disorienting.
F* is an ugly word as is all its close relatives, but your definitions are very interesting,
and so maybe I've learned some things by reading them. However; by what contrivance did you manage
to get any of these pages past the f* who own the internet? It seems I must suspend my disbelief
to believe, Freunde von Grund
In Fascism, corporations were subservient to the State. What we have is the State subservient
to Corporations. Also Italian corporatism was more than just business, as a.corporation in Italy
can have.non business functions.
Great post and great comments. Though I wonder why no one has brought up the only way to stop
fascism. A militant class based libertarian left. Outside of the ballot box. If a liberal party
still 'exists' they will then at least respond to the larger non party real left, just to nullify
it's demands. Fascism has never been defeated by the ballot, only by a militant anarchist/socialist
left. Or at the least, that 'left' fought back. Liberals rarely have fought back, and most often
conceded. How do you do form such? Urban face to face organizing. With direct action and occupation
and even organization towards workers' control of manufacturing.
tommy -Fascism has never been defeated by the ballot, only by a militant anarchist/socialist
left.
I believe you should go re-look at history. Fascism has always defeated socialist left. Three
examples -- Italy, Germany and Argentina. I welcome an example other wise and if it did how did
it end.
The paramount example is of course Spain, where all left-wing movements (communists, trotskists,
anarchists, socialists) were ultimately defeated by fascists despite ferocious fighting.
Much of Robert Paxton's work has focused on models and definition of fascism.
In his 1998 paper "The Five Stages of Fascism", he suggests that fascism cannot be defined
solely by its ideology, since fascism is a complex political phenomenon rather than a relatively
coherent body of doctrine like communism or socialism. Instead, he focuses on fascism's political
context and functional development. The article identifies five paradigmatic stages of a fascist
movement, although he notes that only Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy have progressed through all
five:
1.Intellectual exploration, where disillusionment with popular democracy manifests itself in
discussions of lost national vigor
2.Rooting, where a fascist movement, aided by political deadlock and polarization, becomes a player
on the national stage
3.Arrival to power, where conservatives seeking to control rising leftist opposition invite the
movement to share power
4.Exercise of power, where the movement and its charismatic leader control the state in balance
with state institutions such as the police and traditional elites such as the clergy and business
magnates.
5.Radicalization or entropy, where the state either becomes increasingly radical, as did Nazi
Germany, or slips into traditional authoritarian rule, as did Fascist Italy.[4]
In his 2004 book The Anatomy of Fascism, Paxton refines his five-stage model and puts forward
the following definition for fascism:
[quote]Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation
with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy,
and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy
but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues
with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and
external expansion.[5][/quote]
Here is a more contemporary analysis of politics in America using Paxton's model.
[quote]Fascist America: Are We There Yet?
Friday, August 07, 2009 -- by Sara
In the second stage, fascist movements take root, turn into real political parties, and seize
their seat at the table of power. Interestingly, in every case Paxton cites, the political base
came from the rural, less-educated parts of the country; and almost all of them came to power
very specifically by offering themselves as informal goon squads organized to intimidate farmworkers
on behalf of the large landowners. The KKK disenfranchised black sharecroppers and set itself
up as the enforcement wing of Jim Crow. The Italian Squadristi and the German Brownshirts made
their bones breaking up farmers' strikes. And these days, GOP-sanctioned anti-immigrant groups
make life hell for Hispanic agricultural workers in the US. As violence against random Hispanics
(citizens and otherwise) increases, the right-wing goon squads are getting basic training that,
if the pattern holds, they may eventually use to intimidate the rest of us.
Paxton wrote that succeeding at the second stage "depends on certain relatively precise conditions:
the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or
humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue
to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner." He further
noted that Hitler and Mussolini both took power under these same circumstances: "deadlock of constitutional
government (produced in part by the polarization that the fascists abetted); conservative leaders
who felt threatened by the loss of their capacity to keep the population under control at a moment
of massive popular mobilization; an advancing Left; and conservative leaders who refused to work
with that Left and who felt unable to continue to govern against the Left without further reinforcement."
And more ominously: "The most important variables…are the conservative elites' willingness
to work with the fascists (along with a reciprocal flexibility on the part of the fascist leaders)
and the depth of the crisis that induces them to cooperate."[/quote]
I think there is something missing from this analysis, having to do with the definition of
corporatism itself. I think our contemporary definition of corporatism is rooted in neoliberalism
and is actually a far cry from the definition used by the Fascists in forming the Chamber
of the Fascist Corporations. Because to them corporatism wasn't simply business interests
(which is how we know it today), but (from Wikipedia):
'[was] the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, or corporate
groups, such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations,
on the basis of common interests. It is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community
as an organic body. The term corporatism is based on the Latin root word "corpus" (plural – "corpora")
meaning "body".'
In other words, corporatism was not only made up of business interests, but all major (and
competing) interests within society.
This is not to downplay the importance and absolute seriousness of confronting the increasing
absolutism of ruling business interests. It is also not to downplay the historical truth of who
ultimately held power in Fascist Italy. But I think it is also important to place Fascism in it's
own historical context, and not try to blur historical lines where doing so may be misleading.
When Fascists spoke of corporatism they had something else in mind, and it does not help us to
blur the distinction.
Good point, and it raises this question: how can institutional organicity, with its ideological
aura of community, partnership, and good old Volkishness, develop when we're talking about corporations
that are multinational in scope as well as financialized and thereby even more rootless and and
community indifferent? How can organicity develop in the sort of institutional setup foreshadowed
by the TPP?
My impression is that today Corporatism more closely represents the interests of multinational
corporations and the people who hold executive leadership positions within those companies. What
they have in common is a listing on NYSE.
Anyone heard from Naomi Wolf lately? She was the most prominent author calling out fascism
during the Bush administration, got wide coverage at least on the left. She re-emerged during
the Occupy movement, for a little while.
I ask that because, at the time, she said she'd go silent if it looked like people like her
(that is, writers/journalists) were being persecuted. Haven't heard from her, at least on this
topic, since Obama started prosecuting whistleblowers. Didn't see a farewell, either.
And that leads to a personal question: how safe are our bloggers feeling? Arguably, this site
is an exercise in personal courage. Any ugly straws in the wind?
"... Lehman was engaging in blatant misreporting, treating these "repos" (in which a bank still shows them on its balance sheet as sold with the obligation to repurchase) as sales ..."
"... "It also emerges that the NY Fed, and thus Timothy Geithner, were at a minimum massively derelict in the performance of their duties, and may well be culpable in aiding and abetting Lehman in accounting fraud and Sarbox violations…." ..."
"... Although I hope the bank's newly appointed CEO is able to implement measures to rectify these problems, if DB "goes Lehman", I suspect it will occur much as Lehman did: quite suddenly. ..."
"... The 5% "fee" referred to in the fourth paragraph of the FT excerpt above is not the interest rate charged on the loan but instead is the over-collateralization amount provided by Lehman in exchange for a short-term cash loan. A normal repo loan is over-collateralized at perhaps 2%. Lehman's and its outside auditors Ernst Young's 'genius' was in discovering some language in 2001 or so in the then recently amended FAS 157 accounting guidance (all such guidance has been revised and renumbered in the meantime) which suggested indirectly that if the rate of over-collateralization was bumped up enough, you could pretend you sold the collateral instead of pledging it as collateral. So instead of pledging the normal 102% of the loan amount in collateral, Lehman asked lenders to please take more than that: 105%, hence "Repo 105." ..."
"... Most of Lehman's lenders wouldn't touch the scam because it was so obvious, but a few non-U.S. banks were happy to oblige Lehman. One was Deutsche Bank, to the tune of many billions of dollars over the years. Not that that had anything to do with ex-Deutsche General Counsel for the Americas Rob Khuzami's decision, once he became Obama's Enforcement Head at the SEC beginning in 2009, to give Lehman, EY, Deutsche and the other lenders a pass on all that. ..."
"... In no way did the drafters of the accounting guidance ever say, here's a way to scam the market, have at it. But then again those drafters are a committee of CPAs from all the big firms and elsewhere, including several from EY. So who knows how deliberate the set up was. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank has hugely profited from the end of the Deutschland AG at which head it once was. Thanks to chancellour Schroeder and his finance minister Eichle (the successor after Lafontaine was kicked who went on to found the left party) Deutsche and the other big German banks got to sell their industry portfolios without paying a penny of tax. It is common knowledge among industry watchers that this money ended up as bonuses for the "masters of the universe" at the Anglo-Saxon part of the bank which basically took over the whole bank. First invisibly and then all to visible when Jain became CEO. German industry is now owned by Blackrock and the like. Homi soit qui mal y pense ..."
"... Geithner's amorality and dereliction of duty has been apparent since his testimony in Starr v USA. Somehow these big names are protected by the supine media. ..."
"... Couldn't the NY State Superintendent of Financial Services pull Deutsche's U.S. Banking License? I thought this is what Ben Lawsky was intimating in this (nearly) one year old interview on Bloomberg, in which he (hints at?) the pulling of Deutsche's license, even though he was not at the time talking about Repo 105 ..."
Lehman was engaging in blatant misreporting, treating these "repos" (in which a bank still
shows them on its balance sheet as sold with the obligation to repurchase) as sales
Thank you for writing this bit. All the explanations I've read of Repo 105 seemed to be missing
the step where liabilities were actually reduced – because what's the difference between an asset
and an obligation/contract to buy said asset in X hours time?
So I'm glad a more financially astute mind than mind wrote down what I'd suspected, that real
liabilities weren't actually reduced by Repo 105 and it's just window dressing to fool the regulators.
I'd hazard that it actually makes the situation worse, because it's pretty expensive window dressing
and that's real cash that has to head out the door once a quarter.
tawal
Turning all the brokerages into bank holding companies, where now they all have a calendar
year end and can't temporarily hide their trash on each other's books, but can all hide it on
the Fed's unaudited balance sheet.
Why isn't Deutsche Bank doing this too, and are UBS, Barclays and HSBC the next to fail?
fresno dan
"It also emerges that the NY Fed, and thus Timothy Geithner, were at a minimum massively derelict
in the performance of their duties, and may well be culpable in aiding and abetting Lehman in
accounting fraud and Sarbox violations…."
Upon finding this out, tire squeal, sirens wail, lights flash, and grim faced men rush to take
into custody little Timmy Geithner and serve warrants a the New York FED….
LOL – of course not. Most government officials, of BOTH parties, would say Timmy Geithner and
his ilk performed fantastically…. After all, he worked hard to prop it up…. If you remove the corruption, the double and self dealing,
price fixing, fraud, ad infinitum, and how could the system continue as constituted? And the people
at the top of the system thinks it works very well indeed.
Chauncey Gardiner
This issue is unsurprising to me. Many signs over the past couple years of deeply troubling
matters at this TBTF: CEO resignations, NY Fed criticisms of systems and financial reporting (as
Yves pointed out), participation in market manipulations, billions in writedowns, suicide death
of bank's regulatory lawyer, massive derivatives exposures, central bank calls for increased capital,
etc.
Although I hope the bank's newly appointed CEO is able to implement measures to rectify these
problems, if DB "goes Lehman", I suspect it will occur much as Lehman did: quite suddenly.
Recalling Ernest Hemingway in "The Sun Also Rises": "How did you go bankrupt?" Bill asked. "Two ways," Mike said. "Gradually and then suddenly."
JustAnObserver
Deutche Bank = Germany's RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) ?
All the Eurozone's nightmares since 2010 have been down to a desperate attempt to postpone
DB's "Minsky Moment" ?
I did see a report that DB is withdrawing from a number of countries but Wall Street wasn't
on that list. Interestingly the list includes all the Scandinavian countries as well as the usual
suspects – Mexico, Turkey, Saudi, etc.
Oliver Budde
The 5% "fee" referred to in the fourth paragraph of the FT excerpt above is not the interest
rate charged on the loan but instead is the over-collateralization amount provided by Lehman in
exchange for a short-term cash loan. A normal repo loan is over-collateralized at perhaps 2%.
Lehman's and its outside auditors Ernst & Young's 'genius' was in discovering some language in
2001 or so in the then recently amended FAS 157 accounting guidance (all such guidance has been
revised and renumbered in the meantime) which suggested indirectly that if the rate of over-collateralization
was bumped up enough, you could pretend you sold the collateral instead of pledging it as collateral.
So instead of pledging the normal 102% of the loan amount in collateral, Lehman asked lenders
to please take more than that: 105%, hence "Repo 105."
Most of Lehman's lenders wouldn't touch the scam because it was so obvious, but a few non-U.S.
banks were happy to oblige Lehman. One was Deutsche Bank, to the tune of many billions of dollars
over the years. Not that that had anything to do with ex-Deutsche General Counsel for the Americas
Rob Khuzami's decision, once he became Obama's Enforcement Head at the SEC beginning in 2009,
to give Lehman, EY, Deutsche and the other lenders a pass on all that.
The few banks who did dare to help out Lehman of course charged higher than market rates for
those loans, even though they held an extra 3% in collateral, which was always made up of high
quality Treasury bonds and the like. Those lenders charged more anyway, because they knew what
Lehman was up to and knew they could wring out some extra cash in exchange for 'aiding' Lehman
in its needs. Lehman gladly paid the higher interest.
In no way did the drafters of the accounting guidance ever say, here's a way to scam the market,
have at it. But then again those drafters are a committee of CPAs from all the big firms and elsewhere,
including several from EY. So who knows how deliberate the set up was.
The scam began in 2001 or so and while it may not have been what blew up Lehman in 2008, it
did importantly mislead a lot of people in 2007 and 2008, when its use was ramped up dramatically.
And it put extra bonus money into the Lehman executives' pockets, year in and year out. No wonder
others seek to emulate it.
Tom
Deutsche Bank has hugely profited from the end of the Deutschland AG at which head it once
was. Thanks to chancellour Schroeder and his finance minister Eichle (the successor after Lafontaine
was kicked who went on to found the left party) Deutsche and the other big German banks got to
sell their industry portfolios without paying a penny of tax. It is common knowledge among industry
watchers that this money ended up as bonuses for the "masters of the universe" at the Anglo-Saxon
part of the bank which basically took over the whole bank. First invisibly and then all to visible
when Jain became CEO. German industry is now owned by Blackrock and the like. Homi soit qui mal
y pense
RBHoughton
Geithner's amorality and dereliction of duty has been apparent since his testimony in Starr
v USA. Somehow these big names are protected by the supine media.
Thank Heavens for NC – one of the most important of a handful of sites that fearlessly report.
Fingers crossed we can build a new media industry around this nexus of quality.
Pearl
Yves,
Couldn't the NY State Superintendent of Financial Services pull Deutsche's U.S. Banking License? I thought this is what Ben Lawsky was intimating in this (nearly) one year old interview on
Bloomberg, in which he (hints at?) the pulling of Deutsche's license, even though he was not at
the time talking about Repo 105:
If enough folks became vocal (enough) about the issue–couldn't we make a difference this time?
("We," as in ordinary housewives from Roswell, GA and humble bloggers such as the illustrious
Yves Smith?".) ;-)
I think you are waaaay more famous than you think you are, Yves. Indeed, you are universally
one of the most well-respected and straight-shooting authors/academics/authorities on such subjects.
And I think Mr. Lawsky would take your call or reply to an email if written by you.
I spoke with his staff (yes, me–a housewife from Roswell, GA) when he was at DFS during my
"Ocwiteration Perseveration" days of yore, and his staff was unusually generous with their time
and they seemed genuinely appreciative to get info and feedback from just regular folks.
I think Mr. Lawsky himself would be thrilled to hear from someone like you. And I think the two of you would be an extremely formidable team.
I just don't want to give up on this. It's too important. At the very least, I will forward
to him this post of yours.
"... Dilemmas of Domination contends that the US has entered into a period of decline as the world's hegemon. ..."
"... Because the US dominates international financial institutions like the IMF, World Bank and most of the regional development banks, their imposition of neo-liberal structural adjustments programs has led to a revolt against their destructive policies as witnessed by the left ferment especially in Latin America but also in the rest of the global South. ..."
"... I've read lots of books about globalization and free trade but none exposes the uneven playing field of free trade as good as Walden Bello. He shows that not only the evenness of playing field but also how the way U.S. is imprudently trying to dominate the world by adapting short sighted policies. These kind of policies have become the distinctive mark of recent American ideology domestically and foreign. ..."
The problems of the US mount daily from a ballooning deficit to heightened opposition from multiplying
points on the globe. Walden Bello's Dilemmas of Domination is a tour de force dissection of the causes
of these mounting problems.
He argues from an objective and non-partisan position in the global South.
Because he primarily works outside of the US and because his method relies heavily on history, his account
is compelling.
Dilemmas of Domination contends that the US has entered into a period of decline as
the world's hegemon. Three crises characterize the loss of power and prestige.
The first crisis is the problem
of manufacturing and raw materials overproduction that leads to a decline in profits, and as wages are
squeezed to stabilize profits demand falls further. Added to these problems is the fact that the US,
the consumer of last resort, cannot continue to borrow and buy forever. The IOUs to the rest of the
world will eventually have to be repaid.
A second critical problem is military overextension. According
to Bello, the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate the US is not invincible. If it were, how could
guerillas continue to move about these occupied nations so freely and make nation-building into such
a farce? The US military is so strained that it has to hire mercenaries from companies like Blackwater
to protect its corporate interests abroad because a draft would undermine all of its imperial adventures.
The third crisis, perhaps the most enduring, is legitimacy. Ideologically, the US has lost its currency
to lead the world. Because the US dominates international financial institutions like the IMF, World
Bank and most of the regional development banks, their imposition of neo-liberal structural adjustments
programs has led to a revolt against their destructive policies as witnessed by the left ferment especially
in Latin America but also in the rest of the global South. Furthermore, the US bullying and sometimes
insulting treatment of the UN has further sullied the US's reputation. Added to this international delegitimation
is the quagmire of domestic politics from the surrender of civil liberties to the patently obvious corporate
control of both major parties. For readers looking for a rich and clear formulation of why the US government
is detested and feared by much of the earth's population this is the best primer.
Khalid S. Al Khateron October 26, 2005
Free trade as a tool for domination
I've read lots of books about globalization and free trade but none exposes the uneven
playing field of free trade as good as Walden Bello. He shows that not only the evenness of
playing field but also how the way U.S. is imprudently trying to dominate the world by
adapting short sighted policies. These kind of policies have become the distinctive mark of
recent American ideology domestically and foreign.
Luc REYNAERT, November 4, 2005
The weak must hang together, otherwise they hang separately
In this stringent view from the South, Walden Bello discerns three different crisis levels
beleaguering the US world domination: a military, a judicial and an economical level.
On the military front, the Iraq war shows clearly the limits of interventions: 'today the
entire US military is either in Iraq, returning from Iraq or getting ready to go.' The lesson
for the South is that the US military supremacy can be brought to a halt with guerrilla
warfare. A sledgehammer is useless in swatting flies.
On the judicial front, the US is loosing its legitimacy. In Western societies, enhancement
of individual freedom and democratic representation are the ideological cornerstones of the
regime. Nationally, recognized human rights (no access to personal information, privacy) are
jeopardized in the US by the Patriot Act in the name of the war against terrorism. For Walden
Bello, the US government is becoming authoritarian, because it is in the hands of the
military-industrial complex, which functions on a risk-free, cost-plus basis and grabs one
half of the US budget. He quotes judiciously William Pfaff: 'The military is already the most
powerful institution in the US government, largely unaccountable to the executive branch.'
Internationally, consensus and multilateralism are needed through international
institutions. However, the US behaves unilaterally. Dealings with the South are subordinated
to strategic considerations (R. Zoellick: 'countries that seek free trade agreements with the
US must cooperate on its foreign policy goals.') Walden Bello's analysis of the WTO agreements
is devastating. He calls them a free trade monopoly in the hands of corporate interests. WTO's
agreement on Agriculture is not less than 'Socialism for the Rich'. The result is that the US
democratic messianism is seen as sheer hypocrisy by the rest of the world.
Economically, some of Walden Bello's arguments are a little of the mark. Finite natural
resources and ecological space are demographic problems. The conflict between a minority in
command of assets and the majority of the population is a trade union and an election problem.
But some of his arguments are to the point. There is a widening inequality gap in the US: the
richest 1% of the population pocketed more than half the benefit of the latest tax reduction.
The actual US budget and trade deficits are unsustainable in the long run and certainly if the
inflow of foreign capital comes to a halt.
Finally, there is a new hegemon at the horizon: China with its state-assisted capitalism.
The author summarizes brilliantly China's behavior: 'nations have no permanent friends, only
permanent interests.'
But what should the South do in the meantime: regional economic blocks, G-20, South-South
cooperation, because 'the weak must hang together, otherwise they will hang separately'.
Walden Bello's hard hitting analysis of current events should be a vademecum for all
politiciams and laymen. A must read. In this context, I also recommend the works of Nafeez
Mosaddeq Ahmed and Noreena Hertz.
"... Snowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration - yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage. ..."
"... The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them." ..."
Snowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration
- yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior
banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage.
It bears repeating; US Bankers committed literally hundreds of thousands of serious felonies
and *not one* was ever charged by the Justice Dept. under Obama's two terms.
Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious
crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them."
Well, either you believe serious crimes should be prosecuted or you don't.
Pick one.
But to try and be selective about it all just makes one something of a tyrant. Wielding
power when and how it suits one's aims instead of equally is pretty much the definition of tyranny
(which includes "the unreasonable or arbitrary use of power")
However, the EU has decided to drop all criminal charges against Snowden showing that the US
is losing legitimacy across the globe by the day.
The European parliament voted to lift criminal charges against American whistle-blower Edward
Snowden on Thursday.
In an incredibly close vote, EU MEPs said he should be granted protection as a "human rights
defender" in a move that was celebrated as a "chance to move forward" by Mr Snowden from Russia.
This seems both right and significant. Significant because the US power structure must
be seething. It means that the EU is moving away form the US on important matters, and that's
significant too. Right because Snowden revealed deeply illegal and unconstitutional
practices that, for the record, went waaaaAAaaay beyond the so-called 'meta-data phone records'
issue.
And why shouldn't the EU begin to carve their own path? Their interests and the US's
are wildly different at this point in history, especially considering the refugee crisis that
was largely initiated by US meddling and warmongering in the Middle East.
At this point, I would say that the US has lost all legitimacy on the subject of equal application
of the laws, and cannot be trusted when it comes to manufacturing "evidence" that is used to invade,
provoke or stoke a conflict somewhere.
The US is now the Yahoo! of countries; cheerleading our own self-described excellence and superiority
at everything when the facts on the ground say something completely different.
Quercus bicolor
cmartenson wrote:
Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very
serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should
face them."
And this "serious crime" was committed by Snowden because he saw it as the only viable path
to revealing a systematic pattern of crimes by none other than our own federal government that
are so serious that they threaten the basic founding principles on which our REPUBLIC was
founded.
lambertad
Truth is treason
You know how the old saying goes "truth is treason in the empire of lies". I'm a staunch
libertarian, but I wasn't always that way. Before that I spent most of my 20's in Special
Operations wanting to 'kill bad guys who attacked us' on 9/11. It wasn't until my last
deployment that I got ahold of Dr. Ron Paul's books and dug through them and realized his
viewpoint suddenly made much more sense than anyone else's. Not only did it make much more
sense, but it was based on Natural Law and the founding principals of our country.
A lot has been made of the fact that Snowden contributed money to Dr. Paul's 2008
presidential campaign and that this was an obvious tell that he was really an undercover
(insert whatever words the media used - traitor, anarchist, russian spy, etc.). The part that
I find troubling is the fact that Snowden revealed to the world that we are all being watched,
probably not in real time, but if they ever want to review the 'tapes' they can see what we do
essentially every minute of every day. That's BIG news to get out to the citizenry. If you've
got access to that kind of data, you don't want that getting out, but here's the kicker - Very
few in this country today even care. Nothing in this country has changed that I'm aware of.
GCHQ still spies on us and passes the info to the NSA. The NSA still spys on everyone and the
Brits and passes the info to GCHQ. Austrialia and NZ and Canda still spy on whoever and pass
the info on to whoever wants it. It's craziness.
At the same time, as Chris and others have pointed out, we're bombing people (ISIS/Al Nusra/AQ)
we supported ('moderate rebels) before we bombed them (AQ) after we bombed Sadaam and invaded
Iraq. Someone please tell me the strategy other than the "7 countries in 5 years plan". Yup,
sounds a lot like Yahoo!.
I'm looking forward to Christmas this year because I get to spend 5 days with my wife's
family again. My father-in-law is a smart man, but thinks the government is still all powerful
and has everything under control. It should make some interesting conversations and debating.
Thanks for the article Adam, interesting parallel between TPTB and Yahoo!.
"... "successful social and political management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic negotiation; and other techniques." ..."
"... So beginning around the turn of the century, the scientific engineers of consent unleashed a Weltanschauungskrieg ("worldview war") on an unsuspecting public, Simpson argues, in which they sought "a shift in which modern consumer culture displaced existing social forms." ..."
"... Automobile marketers, for example, do not simply tout their products for their usefulness as transportation; they seek to convince their customers to define their personal goals, self-esteem, and values in terms of owning or using the product…. ..."
"... Ordinary people are to be kept voiceless, Simpson concludes, "voiceless in all fields other than selection of commodities." ..."
"... The interesting thing is that is also part and parcel of the cultural memes presently prevalent in the industrialized societies of wealthy western industrialized nations. These memes have been spreading throughout the world at a very rapid rate and it is MHO that this meme is spreading what amounts to a terminal cultural pathology. In other words it is a dead end with an expiration date. ..."
"... Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable. "Like we all need a car to be free!" ..."
So one is left wondering what is causing the downward mobility of most
Americans. Is it caused by increasingly less abundant natural resources,
making it more costly to exploit those that remain? Or is it caused by one
group of humans which is more aggressively exploiting another group?
Most
Americans seem to believe it's the latter. The Economist reports
that:
So Americans are mad as hell. And as they descend into an orgy of
victimization, even rich white straight protestant men can be heard
bellowing for victim status.
Where will it all lead, and especially if the politicians are no longer
able to bring the bacon home?
I'm reading Christopher Simpson's the Science of Coercion where he
notes that Harold Lawswell, one of the seminal "scientific engineers of
consent" in the United States, claimed that "successful social and political
management often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion,
violent or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic
negotiation; and other techniques."
So beginning around the turn of the century, the scientific engineers of
consent unleashed a Weltanschauungskrieg ("worldview war") on an
unsuspecting public, Simpson argues, in which they sought "a shift in which
modern consumer culture displaced existing social forms."
"We have thought in terms of fighting dictatorships-by-force," Donald
Slesinger noted of the new strategy and tactics, "through the establishment
of dictatorship-by-manipulation."
As Simpson goes on to explain, for the scientific engineers of consent
the simple sale of products and services is not enough. Their
commercial success in a mass market depends to an important degree on
their ability to substitute their values and worldview for those
previously held by their audience, typically through seduction and
deflection of rival worldviews. Automobile marketers, for example, do not
simply tout their products for their usefulness as transportation; they
seek to convince their customers to define their personal goals,
self-esteem, and values in terms of owning or using the product….
Ordinary people are to be kept voiceless, Simpson concludes, "voiceless
in all fields other than selection of commodities."
So now, after a century of hammering the values and worldview of a mass
consumer culture into the peoples' heads, how quickly can the public's
worldview be turned around?
And if we remove "economic inducement" and "vocie in the selection of
commodities" from the toolbox of the scientific engineers of consent, what's
left? Propaganda; coercion (violent or non-violent); diplomatic negotiation;
and "other techniques"?
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the I'm reading
Christopher Simpson's the Science of Coercion where he notes that Harold
Lawswell, one of the seminal "scientific engineers of consent" in the
United States, claimed that "successful social and political management
often depends on proper coordination of propaganda with coercion, violent
or non-violent; economic inducement (including bribery); diplomatic
negotiation; and other techniques."
That sounds an awful lot like
this crap!
organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element
in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of
society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power
of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes
formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This
is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if
they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost
every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or
business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated
by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental
processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the
wires which control the public mind." ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda circa 1928
There is no doubt that this way of thinking is the basis of the so
called capitalist infinite growth paradigm. Which only has a chance of
working up until the point that physical limits of our finite planet are
reached. Then the shit tends to hit the fan for all concerned.
The interesting thing is that is also part and parcel of the cultural
memes presently prevalent in the industrialized societies of wealthy
western industrialized nations. These memes have been spreading
throughout the world at a very rapid rate and it is MHO that this meme is
spreading what amounts to a terminal cultural pathology. In other words
it is a dead end with an expiration date.
The good news is, that it isn't written stone that the current culture
itself can not be deeply disrupted and profoundly changed.
Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of
maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us the
Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had taken for
granted as almost eternal and immutable. "Like we all need a car to be
free!"
Well, a lot of young people are no longer buying into that world view.
So the old guard and power brokers of the linear consumer society such as
the Oil Majors, Automobile manufactures, and producers of unnecessary
useless consumer goods are losing their grip on economic power to the new
crop of digital entrepreneurs who are ushering in a totally new economic,
political and social paradigm.
Technology is changing the way we interact and form connections within
society.
This video a the end of my post might seem a bit off topic but to me
it underscores how different this new world has the potential to be. I
especially love the example of an expensive commercial failure of a
consumer product that suddenly became cheap enough for use as a musical
instrument in a computer orchestra and the fact that a thousand people
can suddenly come together in a show of support by singing together… And
If I could travel back in time, I'd murder Eduard Bernays.
The good news is, that it isn't written stone that the current
culture itself can not be deeply disrupted and profoundly changed.
Technological shifts occurring now because of perfect storm of
maturing technologies and the end of age of oil, are bringing us
the Uberization of many facets of our civilization that we had
taken for granted as almost eternal and immutable….
So the old guard and power brokers of the linear consumer
society such as the Oil Majors, Automobile manufactures, and
producers of unnecessary useless consumer goods are losing their
grip on economic power to the new crop of digital entrepreneurs who
are ushering in a totally new economic, political and social
paradigm.
The idea of cultural transformation has been with us for a long
time. It's very much part of the Christian evangelical tradition, and
we can see how the idea played out in practice after Spain's and
Portugal's conquest of the Americas.
Combining cultural revolution with technological transformation,
however, seems to be a purely 20th-century innovation. And the idea
has been no less appealing to left Hegelians than it has been to right
Hegelians.
On the left, we see the notion of a combined cultural-technological
revolution emerge first with the Russian nihilists. "Drawing heavily
on the German materialists Jacob Moleschott, Karl Vogt, and Ludwig
Buchner," Michael Allen Gillespie explains in Nihilism Before
Nietzsche, "the nihilists argued that the natural sciences were
preparing the way for the millennium."
"This turn to materialism was also bound up with the growth of
atheism," Gillespie adds, which was "given a concrete reality by
materialism, especially in combination with the Darwinism that became
increasingly popular with the nihilists."
"We are witnesses of the greatest moment of summing-up in history,
in the name of a new and unknown culture, which will be created by us,
and which will also sweep us away," Sergey Diaghilev gushed in 1905.
This nihilist brand of Futurism, combining cultural revolution with
technological revolution, was to prove highly attractive to the later
Bolsheviks, even though the Russian avant-garde which occurred under
Lennin would be quite different from the Socialist Realism which took
place later under Stalin.
Anatoli Lunacharsky, Lennin's Commissar for Education and
Enlightenment, wrote in 1917, "If the revolution can give art its
soul, then art can endow the revolution with speech."
"There was a need to explain, encourage, teach and enthuse the
masses," Victor Awars explains in The Great Russian Utopia.
"Agit-Prop was to be the means."
In the catalogue for the Tenth State Exhibition organized by
Lunacharsky in 1919, El Lissitzky wrote:
Technology…was diverted by the war from the path of construction
and forced on to the paths of death and destruction. Into this
chaos came Suprematism… We, on the last stage of the path to
Suprematism blasted aside the old work of art… The empty phrase
'art for art's sake' had already been wiped out and in Suprematism
we have wiped out the phrase 'painting for painting's sake.'
In May 1924 Vladimir Tatlin in his lecture "Material Culture and
Its Role in the Production of Life in the USSR" offered a synoptic
statement of what was still the task at hand:
…to shed light on the tasks of production in our country, and
also to discover the place of the artist-constructor in production,
in relation to improving the quality both of the manufactured
product and of the organization of the new way of life in general."
The same sentiment is heard again a year later when Vladimir
Maiakovskii declared that: "To build a new culture a clean sweep is
needed. The sweep of the October revolution is needed."
What is happening is "the conversion of revolutionary effort into
technological effort," is how Asja Lacis summed it up in 1927.
In this poster, one can see how the worker's revolution was melded
with the technological revolution, all under the banner of the Russian
Revolution.
Nikolai Dolgorukov Transport Worker! Armed with a Knowledge of Technology.
Looks like neo-Islamism = neoliberalism and radical Islam is a part of neoliberal fifth column... a
definition of neo-Islamism includes these key characteristics: non-traditional religiosity,
gradualism, Islam modernization, nationalism and pragmatic relations with the West. They are trying
to rally a larger constituency than hard-core devout Muslims, recasting religious norms as more
vague conservative values (family, property, work ethic, honesty) adopting a neoliberal approach to
the economy, and endorsing a constitution, and parliament and regular elections. (Roy
2011a31.
Roy, O., 2011a. The paradoxes of the re-Islamisation of Muslim societies, 10 years after
september 11. Available from:
http://essays.ssrc.org/10yearsafter911/the-paradoxes-of-the-re-islamization-of-muslim-societies/
[accessed 14 October 2014]. See also
Neo-Islamism in the
post-Arab Spring - Contemporary Politics - Volume 20, Issue 4 The Turkish ruling party AKP
provided an interesting example of this trend which changed their priorities merging "shariatization"
with the nationalism and expansion of nation state (Nationalist Islamism)
Notable quotes:
"... I share the frustration expressed by other posts with WAPO and other Western journalism on Turkey. Luckily for me, the strategy behind the AKP victory was explained to me several days priors to the election by a fellow with intimate knowledge of Turkey. Erdogan looked at the Nationalist MHP and Islamist SP and figured out that his only way for strengthen his support would be by moving as many of their voters to the AKP. ..."
"... He figured that a rift with the Kurds will attract the nationalists and more Islamist positions will attract the latter. If you compare the results of the Nov 1 elections with the June 7 elections, you can see that it worked brilliantly. ..."
"... The great experiment in westernized Islam is dead. ..."
"... I would be only relieved if Turkish government would come up and speak all of those words you have mentioned. Iran did it. I have to respect that. They said what they stood for and that they do not like any others very clearly. This is at least honest and brave. If Turkey can pronounce its standing in between West and East, if you will, I will the most proud person even though I will be standing against here. Very well said. ..."
"... byetki - Exactly! At least a snake has dignity. A rat will do anything to survive! ..."
"... Remember the cynical adage about Democracy? Many of us rooted for, supported the campaign of, and voted for Obama. And what did we get? Obama and Erdogan and King Salman: and ongoing wars as far the eye can see. ..."
"... Bombing your own people wins elections. The Americans taught us this.. ..."
I share the frustration expressed by other posts with WAPO and other Western journalism
on Turkey. Luckily for me, the strategy behind the AKP victory was explained to me several days
priors to the election by a fellow with intimate knowledge of Turkey. Erdogan looked at the Nationalist
MHP and Islamist SP and figured out that his only way for strengthen his support would be by moving
as many of their voters to the AKP.
He figured that a rift with the Kurds will attract the nationalists and more Islamist positions
will attract the latter. If you compare the results of the Nov 1 elections with the June 7 elections,
you can see that it worked brilliantly.
Thus, Erdogan moved Turkey even further from the Western/democratic world in order to realize
his unrelenting ambition for more and more power.
The US needs now to rely much more on the Kurds to defend US interests in the area, but it will
be a real surprise if the current WH will do it.
Oscargo, 9:38 PM EST [Edited]
Turkey has chosen a religious Islamist state and an intolerant regime that jails reporters
and journalists, even foreign, and does not accept dissent, over the pluralism, inclusiveness
and freedom of speech of the European democracies.
Bye Bye EU!
Steve Willer
Who says corruption, murder, nullifying elections that don't come out your way, jailing the
media etc doesn't pay? It did for Erdogan. Turkey should be removed from NATO as long as Erdogan
is Sultan.
realityboy
The great experiment in "westernized" Islam is dead.
byetki
I would be only relieved if Turkish government would come up and speak all of those words
you have mentioned. Iran did it. I have to respect that. They said what they stood for and that
they do not like any others very clearly. This is at least honest and brave. If Turkey can pronounce
its standing in between West and East, if you will, I will the most proud person even though I
will be standing against here. Very well said.
ed_bx__
byetki - Exactly! At least a snake has dignity. A rat will do anything to survive!
MACLANE
Optimist on Democracy. Remember the cynical adage about Democracy? Many of us rooted for,
supported the campaign of, and voted for Obama. And what did we get? Obama and Erdogan and King
Salman: and ongoing wars as far the eye can see.
FalseProphet
So Turkey moves closer to being a autocratic theocracy. can't be good
ed_bx__, 4:14 PM EST
Bombing your own people wins elections. The Americans taught us this..
ed_bx__, 4:06 PM EST
It's not too late to get behind Al Assad. He is a more natural ally to the west than Erdogan.
"... The Theory of Distributional Coalitions Mancur Olson's theory of distributional coalitions holds that, as societies establish themselves, group interests become more identifiable, and subsets of the society organize in an effort to secure these interests. ..."
"... This exclusivity factor is of special importance in the way these rent-seeking (or special-interest) groups operate, since, unlike highly-encompassing organizations, exclusive organizations do not have an incentive to increase the productivity of the society. This is due to the disproportion between the sizes of the exclusive organization and the population. To use Olson's idiom, such organizations are in a position either to make larger the pie the society produces or to obtain larger slices for their members. ..."
"... That is still the case even when the organization's cost to the society is significantly more than the benefits it seeks for its members. Such behavior is not at all unexpected of exclusive organizations, since it is the very policy of exclusion itself that enables the group to distribute more to its members.In that respect, disproportional allocation of resources goes hand in hand with barriers to entry into the favored areas of the special-interest group. ..."
"... The genesis of the Turkish deep state is traceable to the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, ttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti ), a secret society founded in Istanbul in 1889 by a group of medical students who had a passion for reform in the Ottoman Empire.3 The CUP organized so extensively that, in less than two decades, it became a revolutionary political organization with branches inside and outside the Ottoman Empire.4 Within the organization existed numerous factions, and the body of membership was ethnically and even ideologically diverse. ..."
"... The CUP used the Fedaiin to have its political opponents assassinated, among other things, and later on, employed the Special Organization in the mass killings of the Ottoman- Armenians in 1915.8 The CUP disbanded in 1918, a year that also marked the beginning of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. ..."
"... "Unionism" ( ttihatç l k ) has persisted in the political culture of Turkey, and has manifested itself primarily in (1) ultranationalism, (2) military involvement/ intervention in politics, and (3) justification of extrajudicial activities and violence in the name of the fatherland ( vatan ). ..."
"... Of particular importance among these clandestine operations were those by the Gendarmarie Intelligence and Counter-terror Unit (J TEM, Jandarma stihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele ), which is allegedly responsible for thousands of extrajudicial executions and assassinations of PKK sympathizers and supporters. ..."
This paper argues that Mancur Olson's theory of distributional coalitions largely explains this
network's raison d'être. The paper first outlines the main tenets of the theory, and then examines the historical roots
of the Turkish deep state, as well as the paradigm shift its exposure caused in the public opinion. The network's
exclusive character,
impacts on the workings of the Turkish society, and finally
efforts to sustain its dominating influence, which is manifested especially in its attempts
to reverse the country's democratization process,
demonstrate that the emergence, influence, and the incentives of the Turkish deep state confirm
the fundamental assumptions of Olson's theory.
The Theory of Distributional Coalitions Mancur Olson's theory of distributional coalitions
holds that, as societies establish themselves, group interests become more identifiable, and subsets
of the society organize in an effort to secure these interests. Since these interests are best served by coordinated action, institutions emerge. Yet, such institutions tend to be exclusive by nature, and pursue only the interests of their
own members, who account to a very small minority.
This exclusivity factor is of special importance in the way these rent-seeking (or special-interest)
groups operate, since, unlike highly-encompassing organizations, exclusive organizations do not have
an incentive to increase the productivity of the society. This is due to the disproportion between the sizes of the exclusive organization and the population. To use Olson's idiom, such organizations are in a position either to make larger the pie the society
produces or to obtain larger slices for their members.
"Our intuition tells us," Olson says, "that the first method will rarely be chosen."2 Because,
on the one hand, it is very costly to increase the productivity of society as a whole, and on the
other, even if this is achieved, the The Rise and Decline of the Turkish "Deep State": The Ergenekon
Case 101 members of the minuscule organization will accordingly reap only a minuscule portion of
the benefits.
Therefore, exclusive groups aim to present their own interests as being the interests of their
constituencies, and to use all of their organizational power for collective action in that direction.
That is still the case even when the organization's cost to the society is significantly more
than the benefits it seeks for its members. Such behavior is not at all unexpected of exclusive organizations, since it is the very policy
of exclusion itself that enables the group to distribute more to its members.In that respect, disproportional allocation of resources goes hand in hand with barriers to entry
into the favored areas of the special-interest group.
Yet the existence of barriers to entry further damages the society by reducing the economic growth.
When coupled with the interferences of the special-interest groups with the possibilities of change
in the existing state of affairs, the level of the reduction in economic growth can be large.
In order to achieve their goals, special-interest groups engage in lobbying activities and collusion
– both of which, by creating special provisions and exceptions, further increase not only inefficiency
but also (1) the complexity of regulation, (2) the scope of government, and (3) the complexity of
understandings.
The Formation and the Evolution of the Turkish Deep State The genesis of the Turkish deep
state is traceable to the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, İttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti),
a secret society founded in Istanbul in 1889 by a group of medical students who had a passion for
reform in the Ottoman Empire.3 The CUP organized so extensively that, in less than two decades, it
became a revolutionary political organization with branches inside and outside the Ottoman Empire.4
Within the organization existed numerous factions, and the body of membership was ethnically and
even ideologically diverse.
Yet it was the commonly-shared goal of changing the regime rather than conformity that bound the
members together, and they successfully achieved that goal with the Young Turk Revolution of 1908,
which restored the Constitution of 1876 (Kanun-ı Esasi) that restricted the powers of the
Sultan, and made the Ottoman Empire a constitutional monarchy again after 32 years of absolutism.
The genesis of the Turkish deep state is traceable to the Committee of Union and Progress, a secret
society founded in Istanbul in 1889 by a group of medical students who had a passion for reform in
the Ottoman Empire SERDAR KAYA 102 What makes the CUP extraordinary as a case is that it never fully
transformed into a genuine political party even after the revolution it brought about.
Instead, it continued to operate as the secret committee it always was.5 Back then, in reference
to this fact, some of the critics of the CUP had coined the phrase "invisible people" (rical-i
gayb).6 In the end, this code of conduct rendered the committee as a clandestine force that exerted
influence by informal means in order to change the course of affairs the way it saw fit.
The reflections of that proclivity are traceable in many of the major occurrences of the time.
In what is today commonly referred to as the coup of 1913, for example, a group of CUP operatives
broke into the Sublime Porte as the Cabinet was in session, murdered the minister of defense and
two prominent government officials, and forced the Grand Vizier, the head of the Cabinet, to resign
immediately.
The coup of 1913 is also important in that it set a precedent in the country for military interventions
and ultimatums, the latest of which occurred on April 27, 2007.
A second example to the code of conduct of the CUP may be the clandestine activities of the Special
Organization7 (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa).
Although the CUP established the Special Organization in 1913, ten months after the coup of 1913,
it was in fact the continuation of the Fedaiin, the secret organization the CUP established in 1905
– that is, before the Young Turk Revolution of 1908.
The CUP used the Fedaiin to have its political opponents assassinated, among other things, and
later on, employed the Special Organization in the mass killings of the Ottoman- Armenians in 1915.8
The CUP disbanded in 1918, a year that also marked the beginning of the dissolution of the Ottoman
Empire after World War I.
However, many of its members as well as the political culture it created survived within the Republic
of Turkey.
To this day, "Unionism" (İttihatçılık) has persisted in the political culture of Turkey,
and has manifested itself primarily in (1) ultranationalism, (2) military involvement/ intervention
in politics, and (3) justification of extrajudicial activities and violence in the name of the fatherland
(vatan).
Nevertheless, different aspects of this political culture have gained primacy in different periods,
and with the influence of the changes in the domestic and international conjuncture, it more or less
evolved. For example, during the One Party Era (1925-45), the influence of interwarperiod fascism further
radicalized the nationalist ideology of the ruling cadre. Then, in the 1960s, variations of the same Unionist background found expression The Rise and
Decline of the Turkish "Deep State": The Ergenekon Case 103 in the rightist and leftist political
movements, which, unsurprisingly, entered into violent conflict in the 1970s.
In the mid-1980s, the Kurdish question reemerged with the terrorist activities of the Kurdistan
Workers' Party (PKK), the separatist guerilla group, which became a source of instability in the
southeast region of the country, and in so doing, provided a new fertile ground for the clandestine
operations of the Turkish deep state.
Of particular importance among these clandestine operations were those by the Gendarmarie Intelligence
and Counter-terror Unit (JİTEM, Jandarma İstihbarat ve Terörle Mücadele), which is allegedly
responsible for thousands of extrajudicial executions and assassinations of PKK sympathizers and
supporters.
Yet the same decade also marked the time period in which Turkey opened its borders and started
to integrate with the rest of the world. As a result, after the 1980s, new social, political and economic perspectives started to emerge. However, this new West that Turkey came to closer contact with during and after the 1980s was
fundamentally different from the West of the interwar period in that the former was democratic, and
the latter fascist.
The increasing interaction with the West did not instantly trigger the demands for democratization
in the country. It was the Susurluk scandal and a combination of other events that occurred approximately a decade
later that started to dramatically shift the prevalant paradigms. On the one hand, these experiences created a more profound societal cognizance of questioning
authority, and on the other, in line with these experiences, people came to attach new meanings to
the nature of the state-society relations in Turkey in a manner which provided a more convenient
ground for the democratization process in the country.
Apparently, these paradigm shifts also coincided with the developments since the Helsinki European
Council of 1999, where the European Union (EU) formally referred to Turkey as a candidate and thus
invigorated the country's accession process.
"... During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention there. ..."
"... Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ..."
"... The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. ..."
"... The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted , appeared in paperback on August 27, 2013. ..."
"... "These men, largely private, were functioning on a level different from the foreign policy of the United States, and years later when New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan read through the entire documentary history of the war, that history known as the Pentagon Papers, he would come away with one impression above all, which was that the government of the United States was not what he had thought it was; it was as if there were an inner U.S. government, what he called 'a centralized state, far more powerful than anything else, for whom the enemy is not simply the Communists but everything else, its own press, its own judiciary, its own Congress, foreign and friendly governments – all these are potentially antagonistic. ..."
"... The IMF/World Bank scam was working for a while. It doesn't work any more: South American countries simply reject it. And the US has no power to muscle South American countries any more; I'm not quite sure how they managed to become immune to US military intervention, but they have. They have had about 200 years of trial and error in figuring out how. ..."
"... Just before the Civil War, we saw the same dynamic: most of the country was completely disillusioned about the "slavocracy", as they called the corrupt US government dominated by slaveholders. This led to the election of Lincoln, the destruction of the Whig Party, and finally, the Civil War. ..."
Rome lived upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face. Industry is the only true source
of wealth, and there was no industry in Rome. By day the Ostia road was crowded with carts and muleteers,
carrying to the great city the silks and spices of the East, the marble of Asia Minor, the timber
of the Atlas, the grain of Africa and Egypt; and the carts brought out nothing but loads of dung.
That was their return cargo.
– The Martyrdom of Man by Winwood Reade (1871)
There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another,
more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists
at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip
of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via
elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according
to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.
[1]
During the last five years, the news media has been flooded with pundits decrying the broken politics
of Washington. The conventional wisdom has it that partisan gridlock and dysfunction have become
the new normal. That is certainly the case, and I have been among the harshest critics of this development.
But it is also imperative to acknowledge the limits of this critique as it applies to the American
governmental system. On one level, the critique is self-evident: In the domain that the public can
see, Congress is hopelessly deadlocked in the worst manner since the 1850s, the violently rancorous
decade preceding the Civil War.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania
Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country…
As I wrote in
The Party is Over, the present objective of congressional Republicans is to render the
executive branch powerless, at least until a Republican president is elected (a goal that voter suppression
laws in GOP-controlled states
are clearly intended to accomplish). President Obama cannot enact his domestic policies and budgets:
Because of incessant GOP filibustering, not only could he not fill the large number of vacancies
in the federal judiciary, he could not even get his most innocuous presidential appointees into office.
Democrats controlling the Senate have responded by weakening the filibuster of nominations, but Republicans
are sure to react with other parliamentary delaying tactics. This strategy amounts to congressional
nullification of executive branch powers by a party that controls a majority in only one house of
Congress.
Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate American citizens without due processes,
detain prisoners indefinitely without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people
without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented - at least since the McCarthy era - witch hunts
against federal employees (the so-called "Insider Threat Program"). Within the United States, this
power is characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by
militarized federal, state and local
law enforcement. Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually any other
activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from Congress, such as arranging the
forced landing of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory. Despite
the habitual cant of congressional Republicans about executive overreach by Obama, the would-be dictator,
we have until recently heard very little from them about these actions - with the minor exception
of comments from gadfly Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Democrats, save a few mavericks such as Ron
Wyden of Oregon, are not unduly troubled, either - even to the extent of
permitting seemingly perjured congressional testimony under oath by executive branch officials
on the subject of illegal surveillance.
These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they tend
to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt
ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United States government
somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya, and, when the instability
created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance to French intervention
there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing meat inspections and civilian air
traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit $115 millionto keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least
£100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over and
access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have
collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During that same
period of time, the government spent
$1.7
billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth
structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a
yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined. A
yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive every
single trace of your electronic life.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania
Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent
patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state
whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial
cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in
the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex
societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and perpetuation.
In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the American hybrid state, the
Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution
is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched.
Far from being invincible, its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine
enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that
allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.
[2]
How did I come to write an analysis of the Deep State, and why am I equipped to write it? As a
congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a top secret
security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither totally
in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition. But, like virtually every
employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked
for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to
question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, "the deciders."
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist
Irving L. Janis called "groupthink,"
the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome
is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting,
making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those
ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission,
and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine
the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair
said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not
understanding it."
A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the
ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time.
Government life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue
under the Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00
in the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life
is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After a
while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite
remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles
off steel plate: "You mean the
number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are
whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless
one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's
surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew,
at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it.
The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security
and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department
of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include
the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement
of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street. All these agencies are coordinated
by the Executive Office of the President via the National Security Council. Certain key areas of
the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose
actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress. Also included are a handful of vital federal
trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia and the Southern District of Manhattan, where
sensitive proceedings in national security cases are conducted. The final government component (and
possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of government established by the Constitution)
is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional leadership and some (but not all) of the
members of the defense and intelligence committees. The rest of Congress, normally so fractious and
partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the Deep State and when required usually submits
to a few well-chosen words from the State's emissaries.
I saw this submissiveness on many occasions. One memorable incident was passage of the
Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. This legislation retroactively legalized the Bush administration's
illegal and unconstitutional surveillance first revealed by The New York Times in 2005 and
indemnified the telecommunications companies for their cooperation in these acts. The bill passed
easily: All that was required was the invocation of the word "terrorism" and most members of Congress
responded like iron filings obeying a magnet. One who responded in that fashion was Senator Barack
Obama, soon to be coronated as the presidential nominee at the Democratic National Convention in
Denver. He had already won the most delegates by campaigning to the left of his main opponent, Hillary
Clinton, on the excesses of the global war on terror and the erosion of constitutional liberties.
As the indemnification vote showed, the Deep State does not consist only of government agencies.
What is euphemistically called "private enterprise" is an integral part of its operations. In a special
series in The Washington Post called "Top
Secret America," Dana Priest and William K. Arkin described the scope of the privatized Deep
State and the degree to which it has metastasized after the September 11 attacks. There are now 854,000
contract personnel with top-secret clearances - a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared
civilian employees of the government. While they work throughout the country and the world, their
heavy concentration in and around the Washington suburbs is unmistakable: Since 9/11, 33 facilities
for top-secret intelligence have been built or are under construction. Combined, they occupy the
floor space of almost three Pentagons - about 17 million square feet. Seventy percent of the intelligence
community's budget goes to paying contracts. And the membrane between government and industry is
highly permeable: The Director of National Intelligence,
James R. Clapper, is
a former executive of Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the government's largest intelligence contractors.
His predecessor as director,
Admiral Mike McConnell, is the current vice chairman of the same company; Booz Allen is 99 percent
dependent on government business. These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington,
just as they are increasingly setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly,
their doings unrecorded in the Congressional Record or the Federal Register, and
are rarely subject to congressional hearings.
Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not
the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall
Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary
marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street
floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests.
The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying
before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of these
institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are
hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a
negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the chief law
enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically
abolished the constitutional right to trial
for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may
be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has
the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams
of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee.
[3]
The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we
have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin,
Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons
connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus
joined
KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm
with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General
Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known
and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up
the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior
fellow at the
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course,
the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.
[4]
Petraeus and most of the avatars of the Deep State - the White House advisers who urged Obama
not to impose compensation limits on Wall Street CEOs, the contractor-connected think tank experts
who besought us to "stay the course" in Iraq, the economic gurus who perpetually demonstrate that
globalization and deregulation are a blessing that makes us all better off in the long run - are
careful to pretend that they have no ideology. Their preferred pose is that of the politically neutral
technocrat offering well considered advice based on profound expertise. That is nonsense. They are
deeply dyed in the hue of the official ideology of the governing class, an ideology that is neither
specifically Democrat nor Republican. Domestically, whatever they might privately believe about essentially
diversionary social issues such as abortion or gay marriage, they almost invariably believe in the
"Washington Consensus": financialization, outsourcing, privatization, deregulation and the commodifying
of labor. Internationally, they espouse 21st-century "American Exceptionalism": the right and duty
of the United States to meddle in every region of the world with coercive diplomacy and boots on
the ground and to ignore
painfully won international
norms of civilized behavior.
To paraphrase what Sir John Harrington said more than 400 years ago about treason, now that the
ideology of the Deep State has prospered, none dare call it ideology.
[5] That
is why describing torture with the word "torture" on broadcast television is treated less as political
heresy than as an inexcusable lapse of Washington etiquette: Like smoking a cigarette on camera,
these days it is simply "not done."
After Edward Snowden's revelations about the extent and depth of surveillance by the National
Security Agency, it has become publicly evident that Silicon Valley is a vital node of the Deep State
as well. Unlike military and intelligence contractors, Silicon Valley overwhelmingly sells to the
private market, but its business is so important to the government that a strange relationship has
emerged. While the government could simply dragoon the high technology companies to do the NSA's
bidding, it would prefer cooperation with so important an engine of the nation's economy, perhaps
with an implied quid pro quo. Perhaps this explains the extraordinary indulgence the government
shows the Valley in intellectual property matters. If an American "jailbreaks" his smartphone (i.e.,
modifies it so that it can use a service provider other than the one dictated by the manufacturer),
he could receive
a fine
of up to $500,000 and several years in prison; so much for a citizen's vaunted property rights
to what he purchases. The libertarian pose of the Silicon Valley moguls, so carefully cultivated
in their public relations, has always been a sham. Silicon Valley has long been tracking for commercial
purposes the activities of every person who uses an electronic device, so it is hardly surprising
that the Deep State should emulate the Valley and do the same for its own purposes. Nor is it surprising
that it should conscript the Valley's assistance.
Still, despite the essential roles of lower Manhattan and Silicon Valley, the center of gravity
of the Deep State is firmly situated in and around the Beltway. The Deep State's physical expansion
and consolidation around the Beltway would seem to make a mockery of the frequent pronouncement that
governance in Washington is dysfunctional and broken. That the secret and unaccountable Deep State
floats freely above the gridlock between both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue is the paradox of American
government in the 21st century: drone strikes, data mining, secret prisons and
Panopticon-like
control on the one hand; and on the other, the ordinary, visible parliamentary institutions of
self-government declining to the status of a banana republic amid the gradual collapse of public
infrastructure.
The results of this contradiction are not abstract, as a tour of the rotting, decaying, bankrupt
cities of the American Midwest will attest. It is not even confined to those parts of the country
left behind by a Washington Consensus that decreed the financialization and deindustrialization of
the economy in the interests of efficiency and shareholder value. This paradox is evident even within
the Beltway itself, the richest metropolitan area in the nation. Although demographers and urban
researchers invariably count Washington as a "world city," that is not always evident to those who
live there. Virtually every time there is a severe summer thunderstorm, tens - or even hundreds -
of thousands of residents
lose power, often for many days. There are occasional water restrictions over wide areas because
water mains, poorly constructed and inadequately maintained,
have burst.
[6] The
Washington metropolitan area considers it a Herculean task just to build a rail link to its international
airport - with luck it may be completed by 2018.
It is as if Hadrian's Wall was still fully manned and the fortifications along the border with
Germania were never stronger, even as the city of Rome disintegrates from within and the life-sustaining
aqueducts leading down from the hills begin to crumble. The governing classes of the Deep State may
continue to deceive themselves with their dreams of Zeus-like omnipotence, but others do not. A
2013 Pew Poll that interviewed 38,000 people around the world found that in 23 of 39 countries
surveyed, a plurality of respondents said they believed China already had or would in the future
replace the United States as the world's top economic power.
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on
terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic
social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the Deep State, and
its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited by its overweening
sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live upon its principal
till ruin stared it in the face." "Living upon its principal," in this case, means that the Deep
State has been extracting value from the American people in vampire-like fashion.
We are faced with two disagreeable implications. First, that the Deep State is so heavily entrenched,
so well protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it
is almost impervious to change. Second, that just as in so many previous empires, the Deep State
is populated with those whose instinctive reaction to the failure of their policies is to double
down on those very policies in the future. Iraq was a failure briefly camouflaged by the wholly propagandistic
success of the so-called surge; this legerdemain allowed for the surge in Afghanistan, which equally
came to naught. Undeterred by that failure, the functionaries of the Deep State plunged into Libya;
the smoking rubble of the Benghazi consulate, rather than discouraging further misadventure, seemed
merely to incite the itch to bomb Syria. Will the Deep State ride on the back of the American people
from failure to failure until the country itself, despite its huge reserves of human and material
capital, is slowly exhausted? The dusty road of empire is strewn with the bones of former great powers
that exhausted themselves in like manner.
But, there are signs of resistance to the Deep State and its demands. In the aftermath of the Snowden
revelations,
the House narrowly failed to pass an amendment that would have defunded the NSA's warrantless
collection of data from US persons. Shortly thereafter, the president, advocating yet another military
intervention in the Middle East, this time in Syria, met with such overwhelming congressional skepticism
that he changed the subject by grasping at a diplomatic lifeline thrown to him by Vladimir Putin.
[7]
Has the visible, constitutional state, the one envisaged by Madison and the other Founders, finally
begun to reassert itself against the claims and usurpations of the Deep State? To some extent, perhaps.
The unfolding revelations of the scope of the NSA's warrantless surveillance have become so egregious
that even institutional apologists such as Senator Dianne Feinstein have begun to backpedal - if
only rhetorically - from their knee-jerk defense of the agency. As more people begin to waken from
the fearful and suggestible state that 9/11 created in their minds, it is possible that the Deep
State's
decade-old tactic of crying "terrorism!" every time it faces resistance is no longer eliciting
the same Pavlovian response of meek obedience. And the American people, possibly even their legislators,
are growing tired
of endless quagmires in the Middle East.
But there is another more structural reason the Deep State may have peaked in the extent of its
dominance. While it seems to float above the constitutional state, its essentially parasitic, extractive
nature means that it is still tethered to the formal proceedings of governance. The Deep State thrives
when there is tolerable functionality in the day-to-day operations of the federal government. As
long as appropriations bills get passed on time, promotion lists get confirmed, black (i.e., secret)
budgets get rubber-stamped, special tax subsidies for certain corporations are approved without controversy,
as long as too many awkward questions are not asked, the gears of the hybrid state will mesh noiselessly.
But when one house of Congress is taken over by tea party
Wahhabites, life for the ruling
class becomes more trying.
If there is anything the Deep State requires it is silent, uninterrupted cash flow and the confidence
that things will go on as they have in the past. It is even willing to tolerate a degree of gridlock:
Partisan mud wrestling over cultural issues may be a useful distraction from its agenda. But recent
congressional antics involving sequestration, the government shutdown and the threat of default over
the debt ceiling extension have been disrupting that equilibrium. And an extreme gridlock dynamic
has developed between the two parties such that continuing some level of sequestration is politically
the least bad option for both parties, albeit for different reasons. As much as many Republicans
might want to give budget relief to the organs of national security, they cannot fully reverse sequestration
without the Democrats demanding revenue increases. And Democrats wanting to spend more on domestic
discretionary programs cannot void sequestration on either domestic or defense programs without Republicans
insisting on entitlement cuts.
So, for the foreseeable future, the Deep State must restrain its appetite for taxpayer dollars.
Limited deals may soften sequestration, but agency requests will not likely be fully funded anytime
soon. Even Wall Street's rentier operations have been affected: After helping finance the tea party
to advance its own plutocratic ambitions, America's Big Money is now regretting the Frankenstein's
monster it has created. Like children playing with dynamite, the tea party and its compulsion to
drive the nation into credit default has alarmed the grown-ups commanding the heights of capital;
the latter are now telling the politicians they thought they had hired
to knock it off.
The House vote to defund the NSA's illegal surveillance programs was equally illustrative of the
disruptive nature of the tea party insurgency. Civil liberties Democrats alone would never have come
so close to victory; tea party stalwart Justin Amash (R-MI),
who has also upset the business community for his debt-limit fundamentalism, was the lead Republican
sponsor of the NSA amendment, and most of the Republicans who voted with him were aligned with the
tea party.
The final factor is Silicon Valley. Owing to secrecy and obfuscation, it is hard to know how much
of the NSA's relationship with the Valley is based on voluntary cooperation, how much is legal compulsion
through FISA warrants and how much is a matter of the NSA surreptitiously breaking into technology
companies' systems. Given the Valley's public relations requirement to mollify its customers who
have privacy concerns, it is difficult to take the tech firms' libertarian protestations about government
compromise of their systems at face value, especially since they engage in similar activity against
their own customers for commercial purposes. That said, evidence is accumulating that Silicon Valley
is losing billions in overseas business from companies, individuals and governments that want
to maintain privacy. For high tech entrepreneurs, the cash nexus is ultimately more compelling than
the Deep State's demand for patriotic cooperation. Even legal compulsion can be combatted: Unlike
the individual citizen, tech firms have deep pockets and batteries of lawyers with which to fight
government diktat.
This pushback has gone so far that on January 17, President Obama announced revisions to the NSA's
data collection programs, including withdrawing the agency's custody of a domestic telephone record
database, expanding requirements for judicial warrants and ceasing to spy on (undefined) "friendly
foreign leaders." Critics have denounced the changes as a
cosmetic public relations move, but they are still significant in that the clamor has gotten
so loud that the president feels the political need to address it.
The outcome of all these developments is uncertain. The Deep State, based on the twin pillars
of national security imperative and corporate hegemony, has until recently seemed unshakable and
the latest events may only be a temporary perturbation in its trajectory. But history has a way of
toppling the altars of the mighty. While the two great materialist and determinist ideologies of
the twentieth century, Marxism and the Washington Consensus, successively decreed that the dictatorship
of the proletariat and the dictatorship of the market were inevitable, the future is actually indeterminate.
It may be that deep economic and social currents create the framework of history, but those currents
can be channeled, eddied, or even reversed by circumstance, chance and human agency. We have only
to reflect upon defunct glacial despotisms such as the USSR or East Germany to realize that nothing
is forever.
Throughout history, state systems with outsized pretensions to power have reacted to their environments
in two ways. The first strategy, reflecting the ossification of its ruling elites, consists of repeating
that nothing is wrong, that the status quo reflects the nation's unique good fortune in being favored
by God and that those calling for change are merely subversive troublemakers. As the French ancien
régime, the Romanov dynasty and the Habsburg emperors discovered, the strategy works splendidly for
a while, particularly if one has a talent for dismissing unpleasant facts. The final results, however,
are likely to be thoroughly disappointing.
The second strategy is one embraced to varying degrees
and with differing goals, by figures of such contrasting personalities as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Charles de Gaulle and Deng Xiaoping. They were certainly not revolutionaries
by temperament; if anything, their natures were conservative. But they understood that the political
cultures in which they lived were fossilized and incapable of adapting to the times. In their drive
to reform and modernize the political systems they inherited, their first obstacles to overcome were
the outworn myths that encrusted the thinking of the elites of their time.
As the United States confronts its future after experiencing two failed wars, a precarious economy
and $17 trillion in accumulated debt, the national punditry has split into two camps. The first,
the declinists, sees a broken, dysfunctional political system incapable of reform and an economy
soon to be overtaken by China. The second, the reformers, offers a profusion of nostrums to turn
the nation around: public financing of elections to sever the artery of money between the corporate
components of the Deep State and financially dependent elected officials, government "insourcing"
to reverse the tide of outsourcing of government functions and the conflicts of interest that it
creates, a tax policy that values human labor over financial manipulation and a trade policy that
favors exporting manufactured goods over exporting investment capital.
Mike Lofgren on the Deep State Hiding in Plain Sight
All of that is necessary, but not sufficient. The Snowden revelations (the impact of which have been
surprisingly strong), the derailed drive for military intervention in Syria and a fractious Congress,
whose dysfunction has begun to be a serious inconvenience to the Deep State, show that there is now
a deep but as yet inchoate hunger for change. What America lacks is a figure with the serene self-confidence
to tell us that the twin idols of national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that have
nothing more to offer us. Thus disenthralled, the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with
surprising speed.
[1] The term "Deep State" was coined in Turkey and is said to be a system composed of high-level
elements within the intelligence services, military, security, judiciary and organized crime. In
British author John le Carré's latest novel, A Delicate Truth, a character describes the
Deep State as "… the ever-expanding circle of non-governmental insiders from banking, industry and
commerce who were cleared for highly classified information denied to large swathes of Whitehall
and Westminster." I use the term to mean a hybrid association of elements of government and
parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without
reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.
[2] Twenty-five years ago, the sociologist
Robert Nisbet described
this phenomenon as "the attribute of No Fault…. Presidents, secretaries and generals and admirals
in America seemingly subscribe to the doctrine that no fault ever attaches to policy and operations.
This No Fault conviction prevents them from taking too seriously such notorious foul-ups as Desert
One, Grenada, Lebanon and now the Persian Gulf." To his list we might add 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan
and Libya.
[3] The attitude of many members of Congress towards Wall Street was
memorably expressed by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), the incoming chairman of the House Financial
Services Committee, in 2010: "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and
my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."
[4] Beginning in 1988, every US president has been a graduate of Harvard or Yale. Beginning in 2000,
every losing presidential candidate has been a Harvard or Yale graduate, with the exception of John
McCain in 2008.
[5] In recent months, the American public has seen a vivid example of a Deep State operative marketing
his ideology under the banner of pragmatism. Former Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates - a one-time
career CIA officer and
deeply political Bush family retainer - has camouflaged his retrospective defense of military
escalations that have brought us nothing but casualties and fiscal grief as the straight-from-the-shoulder
memoir from a plain-spoken son of Kansas who disdains Washington and its politicians.
[6] Meanwhile, the US government took the lead in restoring Baghdad's sewer system
at a cost
of $7 billion.
[7] Obama's abrupt about-face suggests he may have been skeptical of military intervention in Syria
all along, but only dropped that policy once Congress and Putin gave him the running room to do so.
In 2009, he went ahead with the Afghanistan "surge" partly because General Petraeus'
public relations campaign and back-channel lobbying on the Hill for implementation of his pet
military strategy pre-empted other options. These incidents raise the disturbing question of how
much the democratically elected president - or any president - sets the policy of the national security
state and how much the policy is set for him by the professional operatives of that state who engineer
faits accomplis that force his hand.
BillMoyers.com encourages conversation and debate around issues, events and ideas related
to content on Moyers & Company and the BillMoyers.com website.
The editorial staff reserves the right to take down comments it deems inappropriate.
Profanity, personal attacks, hate speech, off-topic posts, advertisements and spam will not
be tolerated.
Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements, impersonate someone else, break
the law, or condone or encourage unlawful activity.
If your comments consistently or intentionally make this community a less civil and enjoyable
place to be, you and your comments will be excluded from it.
We need your help with this. If you feel a post is not in line with the comment policy, please
flag it so that we can take a look. Comments and questions about our policy are welcome. Please send
an email to info@moyersmedia.com
Another attribute of the "Deep State" is that is highly nepotistic. Entry into it relies on
connections rather than skill. Many positions within it exist simply to provide suitably lucrative
work for the children of the ruling class.
Nisswapaddy
Lofgren has certainly provided a good overview of the situation, although what he postulates
is by no means original thinking. However, it is particularly heartening to have this analysis
come from a fellow who could easily have sold his soul like David Petraeus, to name just one
in an endless line of the well connected who have cashed in. Yet I believe our situation is more
dire than even Lofgren suggests. As the philosopher John Ralston Saul characterized it, we have
undergone a coup d'etat in slow motion and now live, not in a constitutional democracy but 'Democracy
Inc.' (described in detail in a book by the same name by Prof. Sheldon Wolin). LIke Lofgren,
neither of these thinkers sees some carefully contrived conspiracy at work. It is merely the
inevitable result of following a rigid ideology that allows unfettered corporate capitalism to
have its way unopposed and essentially unregulated. Now that massive corporation have taken control
of all the levers of power (as Lofgren summarizes above) it will be very, very difficult for
'the people' to take them back. Remember what Upton Sinclair observed over 100 years ago:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him NOT
understanding it."
I give you men like Dave Petraeus, or Jamie Dimon or (fill in the blank) who are subject to
this 'lack of understanding'. They are not co-conspirators, at least not in any active, conscious
sense. However, the corporations they work for, whose only function is to maximize profits for
the benefit of their shareholders and investors and to 'externalize' any and all costs and expenses
possible, are, by definition, sociopaths. And those corporations, run by men and women simply
doing their jobs and going home to a loving family, also have a 'lack of understanding'. When
the corporation you work for has only reason for being, to make a profit 'come heck or high water',
and that corporation and hundreds of others with the she mission, control the executive, congress,
the judiciary and their regulators (who are now required to call the corporations they supposedly
regulate "their customers" ) it doesn't take much imagination to see how we got where we are.
Nor how it is that corporations get what they need, the rest of us be dammed. In short, the 'deep
state' Lofgren shines a light on is much deeper than he indicates. And it will take more than
spats between large corporations to bring it to an end.
William Jacoby
Good essay but everybody should know this by now. In the next elections, in which good candidates
will by definition not be viable because they won't be bankrolled by the Deep State, we must
use the alternative media to coalesce around a few non-negotiable demands. Things like prosecuting
Clapper for lying, immediate prohibition of the intelligence community's revolving door, nationalization
of companies like Booz Allen, creation of public banks as suggested by Ellen Brown and nationalization
of banks too big to fail, a student loan debt strike, and a constitutional amendment overturning
Citizens United. Failure to grant these demands must be met with withdrawal from the two-party
system; go Green or go Libertarian, whichever you prefer, but put a monkey wrench in the system.
Keep using the alternative media, defend them from the Deep State, educate yourself, network
with the growing numbers of people who are onto the Deep State, or the National Security State,
or whatever you want to call it. But get over talking about how the Constitution is in danger;
it's dead, and if there's anything you liked about it, you'll have to bring it back from the
graveyard. Take action, and support others who do.
cross1242
Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing the Deep State or the government in Washington
until there is some kind of revolution. That revolution might be bloodless but nothing guarantees
that. If the Deep State ultimately feels threatened, it will defend itself with all the national
security forces at its command.
Yes. An example. Paper granted PhD's are "promised" suitably lucrative work in academia. So
it's not just corporate.
Time for you to read Foucault's Discipline and Punish and all the rest of his work. Include Virilio, Baudrillard and the rest of Continental Philosophy. Lofgren is just catching up with
a long way to go. Check out Zizek.
Kibik
Look up "Bohemian Club" too.
Peter Michaelson
The fact that an invisible government of elites is in charge of our democracy is entirely
predictable. This political arrangement simply depicts the state of our psychological development.
We have a "Deep State" within our unconscious mind. Our thoughts, desires, aspirations, and beliefs
are all under the influence of this inner "Deep State." Through our ego we're each like a puppet
prince, thinking we're in charge of the show. Both liberals and conservatives have too much invested
in self-image and are afraid of facing what amounts to an inner tyranny. We're too egotistical
and narcissistic; we don't want to be humbled by inner truth. We've produced superficial psychologies
(behavioral, positive, cognitive, etc.) that refuse to face the inner reality. We'll have real
democracy in America and the world when we establish inner democracy. It can be done, and it
needs to be done soon. Start by tossing out all the so-called "scientific psychology" that academic
psychologists are pedaling. Go back to Freud and understand what he's really saying, that we'll
go on generating suffering and self-defeat until we become more conscious of our inner conflicts,
psychological defenses, and entanglements in negative emotions.
Anonymous
As has been mentioned the greatest power is the people. Without the cooperation of the people
none of the pathological behavior described would be possible. The West Coast Strike of 1934
is an example of what can be done. A major way that the 1% control the 99% is through debt. That
control could actually be reversed. What would happen if only 10% of the 99% decided to no longer
to pay their debts? A movement like that could rapidly escalate once people realize that there
is no system that could cope with massive non payment of debt.
What would happen if the pilots, truck drivers, rail workers and dock workers decided to strike?
or the telecommunication workers? All or any of those could be implemented peacefully. No need
to hit the streets. Just stay home and contribute nothing to the deep state. Imagine how long
it could survive the massive non cooperation of the 99%. There is a multitude of possibilities.
Charles Shaver
'How can I thank thee [Bill Moyers], let me count the ways…' and now, too, Mike Lofgren. For
some time I've been thinking that vastly superior aliens from deep space might be holding the
U.S. Government hostage and causing all of the recent illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and
just plain stupid national self-destruction. What a relief to learn it is only too-typical low
IQ humanity that is responsible. Seriously, now, that which gives me the audacity and courage
to comment on these things about which I personally know so little, is my lay acquired understanding
of the basics. To me, in early 2014, these are mere, obvious, matters of the hierarchy of law,
relevant laws and violations thereof.
Ignoring most of the basics and my personal lack of qualifications, suffice it to say for
now that above and beyond the laws of man are those self-evident in nature. Insightfully, since
August of 1975, I have observed not only do the higher laws apply to both machine and man but
the U.S. Constitution is imbedded with them, intentionally or not. So, to finally get to the
point, when Mike Lofgren says 'Groupthink' I think of The Universal Law of Order: "Whenever two
or more individuals unite to form an organization the survival of the organization becomes paramount
to the survival of the individual." and how the Constitution was ignored again. When someone
says 'there's nothing I can do' I think of The Third Rule of Human Behavior: "Self-determination
shall prevail." and how the Constitution was ignored again. Deep space, or 'Deep State,' it 'don't
look good' for us when a vast majority keeps enabling a selfish minority to impose rule. Now,
it will probably take a paradigm shift to fix what's broke but, fortunately, naturally, 'shift
happens.'
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy
Magnificent article-greatly extends the range of my awareness, since I was just starting to
get a glimpse of this.
It should definitely be noted in the article that Senator Barack Obama pledged and promised
that he would vote against telecom immunity and then he voted in favor of it. That did not auger
well, albeit accurately.
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy
This is why bloody revolutions happen: the course of last resort would certainly be violence,
which hurts everyone. Elections were supposed to allow an orderly way to bring about change without
violence, but once that mechanism is jammed and will no longer respond, violence is lapping at
our heels.
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy
I have the same feeling. We thought we had a mechanism that would enable us to respond to
the need for revolutionary change in an orderly way, but that mechanism has been deliberately
broken. That is very, very bad.
Although one must allow that much of this is driven by our deep nature: social animals acting
as social animals do, with all sorts of social-driven instincts and responses. Biology is destiny?
rleighton27
I am not part of the hallelujah chorus greeting this article. Some, if not most of it, smacks
of the apologia of a professional bureaucrat who suddenly has found a conscience. Also, his claim
that President Obama was itching to start a war in Syria, but was only held back from doing so
by "overwhelming Congressional skepticism"…as if that wasn't a daily occurrence to be dealt with
from day one of his tenure. I am convinced that it was part of his strategy from the outset…to
rattle sabres loudly enough to frighten a bellicose Putin, who knew his own military prowess
was hampered by an ill-trained and poorly equipped manpower pool, into making his lapdog Assad
stop playing nasty with his population–and it worked. I agree with much of the article's commentary
about the "boys in the back room" who, in fact, have commandeered the running of the country
out of the hands of elected officials, but condemn it's tone of "it really doesn't matter who's
in charge." It does matter. Articles of this type just encourage voter apathy, and that plays
into the schematic laid out by the Powell Memorandum for the usurping of Democracy, placing it
into the hands of the ALEC/Koch consortium of Plutocratic traitors.
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy
This helps me understand why such an intensive effort is underway to destroy our educational
system and the low value we seem to place on education. I'm thinking of privatization, charter
schools, constant pressure to pay public money to religious schools, defunding of higher education,
closures of departments of humanities and non-applied science and art-that sort of thing. And
now I get it: the last thing the corporate state wants is people "wasting" time and effort on
a bunch of abstract principles and reasoning and critical thinking, especially since it just
causes trouble in the workplace and makes people question orders. Better to do away with that:
turn the focus to what will make the most money, and your problem's solved. And then you can
cut costs-always the imperative-by closing departments that seem to create the most troublemakers.
Two birds, one stone.
Bob Baldock
Peter Dale Scott articulated this first, and has it deeper and darker. Check his website.
Anonymous
As I read the final sentence,
"What America lacks is a figure with the serene self-confidence to tell us that the twin idols
of national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that have nothing more to offer us.
Thus disenthralled, the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with surprising speed."
I remembered the demise of individuals who fit "figure with serene self-confidence"…..
John F. Kennedy
Martin Luther King
Robert Kennedy
Malcolm X
Paul Wellstone
Joan Harris
It's been awhile since I have had anyone refer to Freud. Never mind the "new age" psychology.
Defenses have always been the problem. In a perfect world we would all live consciously and greed
and prejudices would give way to peace and harmony. In the meantime we must address all the ills,
if for no other reason then to prevent us from becoming complacent. I shall retain a little healthy
cynicism until the world is healthy.
I. Spoke Umbra
Let's be clear about what the "group-think" means when speaking about the NSA:
As someone who was once in the bowels of the NSA beast, I observed a number of disturbing
traits permeate every nook and cranny of the operation. If those traits were applied to an individual,
they would be considered a very serious characterological disorder, perhaps warranting hospitalization:
The groupthink scenario in that place is as toxic as it can get for a human enterprise. It
is a clear and present danger to the security of Democracy as we know it.
Pamela Zuppo
This was no stroke of genius, this was Greenspan, Reagan, and the Bush clan. The better term
for contemporary capitalism is "disaster capitalism" as coined by Naomi Klein. The big question
is what are we to do about this? Do what Kiev has done? Due to "group think", or brain-washing
of the masses who have lost their own control via their televisions, it seems the zombies outnumber
the enlightened. It's clear to me something must be done.
SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting
Randolph "War is the Health of the State" Bourne is also worth a read. Not to mention Jack
London's The Iron Heel. These All-American doods had the National Security-Oligarchy State pretty
much nailed down a century ago. Why people concerned with our current predicament skip over these
Progressive Era radicals in favor of Continental Philosophy (which reminds me of a skimpy breakfast)
is beyond me. I've been watching the emancipatory elements in this country floundering around
for the past four decades now and it's pretty depressing, especially the seemingly chronic inability
to connect with the USA's radical past. No historical knowledge=no sense of history=no political
judgement=the Bad Guys keep on winning.
Ukrainians are my favorite people at the moment and you can bet that their sense of history is
pretty sharp.
This concludes this Sunday morning rant.
Joseph Brant
It is commendable to preserve hope among reformers, but hopes do not solve problems.
While security agencies can serve democracy when better regulated, the failure to regulate
is the result of failed democratic institutions which have not themselves been "vulnerable to
a vigilant public." The dark state invisible power corrupts invisibly, but gold is the invisible
power which had already corrupted the visible institutions.
We need more than a "self-confident figure" to tell us that "national security and corporate
power are outworn dogmas" so that "the people themselves will unravel the Deep State." The "deep…hunger
for change" was deeper in 2008 when so easily destroyed by its self-confident Obama by simply
not mentioning what "outworn dogmas" he would change. The hawkish Hillary is not about to "unravel
the Deep State" and mere self-confidence will not finance campaigns or buy media support to do
more than split the vote of reformers. The media and elections must first be freed of gold, and
the people cannot do that without free media and free elections.
While history is full of surprises, the succession of cold-war fearmongering by global war
upon diffuse "terrorist" backlash and political opposition to half-witted right wing imperialism
does not suggest a passing reaction, nor that any lesson was learned from three generations of
failed military adventures with no relationship to the declared national principles. The cancerous
dark state has grown in proportion to the failure of right wing foreign policy, the failure of
its own rationales. It is the triumphant institution of right wing tyranny as the immune sovereign
over a failed democracy.
Democracy may make further ultimate progress in China than in the US, or may survive only
in micropowers of no interest to the right wing. But we must have faith in the power of the people,
or we lose hope and take no action.
Barbara Mullin
I call it vulture capitalism.
jrdel
Since the People of United States overthrew British ruling class government of our country
and after the revolution, through wise government, and luck we got out from under the thumb of
any rulers whether clerics, nobility, landlords, businessmen, political dictators, banks, etc.
etc. these forces have been working to reestablish their control over our lives and by gradual
steps have done so. Great Americans turned back the tide here and there for a while, Jackson
ended the national bank, T. Roosevelt broke up monopoly corporations, F. Roosevelt supported
efforts for economic democracy, etc.
but the enemies of liberty never rest and always find new ways to undermine it.
So every few generations the People are faced with another fight if they are to keep their liberties.
This time the odds look particularly bad, Enemies stronger, richer, more devious, more insidious,
more corrupt; the People weaker, more divided, confused, distracted. What the hell do we do?
Voting just doesn't do much. Big money floods the media with their point of view. The People,
relatively poorer than ever; don't have enough money to reply.
Petitions, reforms, protests, revolution? All impractical, or impossible (imagine a revolution
in the streets against the power of the U.S. military.) The days when we can grab our muskets
and go out and make a revolution have long gone folks.
I think humanity will have to wait for another age, and another nation to see real liberty and
real democracy in control of the world again.
SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting
Given that back in his day "merchants" were often interchangeable with "bankers" Smith certainly
scored a bulls-eye with that one. The perfect Horrible Example in the 1770s was the East India
Company, which couldn't govern Bengal without trashing its economy and couldn't keep off the
financial rocks either. Eventually the British government put the Company on a shorter leash
and still later the Company lost its monopoly over East Indian trade. But one short-term measure
to bail out the Company was to give it a monopoly over selling tea to the dumb colonists over
in America. Oops. That was a real "tea party", not some bogus affair staged by geezers in funny
hats.
SufferinSuccotash,Pivoting
Of course. I spent quite a few years rationalizing and pretending that Everything Was Pretty
Much OK In These Here United States myself. The problem with being a history teacher–at least
in this case–is that the past, which as William Faulkner famously said wasn't only not dead but
not even past, can catch up with you. This country is paying and will continue to pay pretty
heavily for decades of folly which anyone with a sense of history could have predicted at least
40 years ago.
joanne
We have had millenia to "cage the beast", tame the beast, train, heal, and/or defang the beast.
Predatory behavior is mediated, never extinguished. The Deep State is both institutionalized
predation and paradoxically, a grotesque attempt to protect itself from itself.
Anonymous
The ideology is hinted at throughout the article. Capitalism; The premise that money is a
form of commodity and the winner is whomever has the most. Unfortunately money is a contract
and while such notional promises seemingly can be manufactured to infinity, through the creation
of the other side of the ledger, debt, their underlaying value is dependent on the increasingly
precarious solvency of those taking on that debt. It is what is referred to in hindsight as a
bubble. If you want to see the future of the US in about fifty years, it will likely be in the
states and regions.
J Timothy
The US military-intelligence-industrial aparatus is filled with loyal American patriots who
love this country and have sworn to uphold the US Constitution.
Unfortunately, they don't seem to understand that the system is extremely expensive and is impoverishing
the middle class of America. We have nine air craft carrier groups while the next closest military
has just two. Air craft carriers are incredibly expensive.
In my opinion, the next revalation to hit the mainstream media will be that SOME of the covert,
clandestine, black budget projects have been financed via securities fraud. They've done it before.
Arms for hostages, Hmong drug running in Vietnam, etc, are examples of this. Catherine Austin
Fitts has also made a great point that HUD, of all agencies, has funded some black budget procurements.
Clearly, either the CIA or the NSA are at the center of the cabal. So, what is the justification
for all of this secracy? What is soooo important that the adult eagle scout christians of America
can't tell us? What could it be? Terrorism? Russians? Soverign citizens? Shoe bombers?
Here is where i will lose most people over 50 years old. IN MY OPINION, a the core of the
military industrial aparatus and its wall street enablers is a desperate race to achieve near
technological parity with….(pregnant pause) (dramatic pause) other entities, species, e.t. collectives,
etc, who are visiting sol 3 (earth). This effort is extremely expensive and involves spending
trillions of dollars covertly to build spacecraft and weapons systems based on both advanced
human originated technology and also technology from the reverse engineering of recovered alien
vehicles.
Many people belive that securities fraud funds this effort. It sounds crazy, but, YES, building
trillion dollar weapon systems and spaceships is at the core of the secrecy cult. Nothing else
makes sense. What else could possibly require siphoning trillions out of the US economy? Many
many authors are written on the subject and it is most definitely NOT a joke. Yes, Bill, lets
ask the awkward questions.
Is there a secret space program funded via securities fraud? Have we received help from ET
visitors?
One man who asked the awkward question was Congressman Steve Schiff of New Mexico. He asked
the Congressional General Accounting Office to inquire about the alleged Roswell alien craft
recovery. He got the USAF to give us a third story – (first was a disc, second a weather baloon
and third was project mogul) This all took place in the mid 90's.
He was only about 50 yrs old when he caught agressive skin cancer. He resigned from congress
and was dead soon after. He was 51.
aTomsLife
I disagree that Mr. Lofren's article provokes apathy. It sheds light on the duopoly that is
the two-party system and encourages voters to seek an alternative, namely a more libertarian,
decentralized form of government.
"Overwhelming Congressional skepticism" to Syria included party-line Democrats as well: Unlike
the usual D vs. R bickering, it was D's and R's forced to contradict the military industrial
complex. It was a powerful moment.
Syria proved the American people - and perhaps only the American people - are capable of muzzling
the Deep State. The only reason we didn't intervene there was because constituencies throughout
the country stood united, not because of potential international condemnation. The irony of Putin's
victory is that he achieved it because he had the backing of the American people. He morphed
into our de-facto representative.
Even for the plutocrats, Putin represented the the lesser of two evils. It would have been
a catastrophic loss of face to have to admit that D.C. remains beholden to the American people
when, united, we're unwilling to follow the script.
Until there's meaningful campaign finance reform, "it really doesn't matter who's in charge."
That's the simple truth. But it's a reason to become more engaged in politics, not less.
J Timothy
One of the problems with dealing with the intelligence services is that they have people embeded
within the media to get their point of view across. So, when Moyers talks about asking "Awkward
Questions" he underestimates how difficult this is.
Ed Bernays and Walter Lippman were the gentleman geniuses who showed us that marketing and
propaganda could be used to manage public opinion without limits.
Yes, lets ask the awkward questions. What is so important to the military-industrial-complex
that it needs to siphon, literally, trillions of dollars out of the US economy?
One man asked an awkward question. His name was Congressman Steve Schiff. After he asked his
question, he died of agressive skin cancer. He was 51 years old. Sure. It cold have been coincidence.
But he was the only one asking awkward questions at the time and he was the only one who got
agressive skin cancer. Meanwhile, the CIA's top spooks like George HW Bush and Kissinger are
still alive into their 90's. Go figure.
http://daybrown.org Dale H. (Day) Brown
Mother Nature bats last. When we look at the list of empires crashed because bad weather ruined
crops, we see it includes all of them. People will put up with appalling corruption- until they
are hungry. The Deep State has not picked up on the risk of unusual weather on agriculture, altho
the price of crop insurance rose dramatically. Agribusiness will do fine with govt checks, but
people cant eat insurance.
Part of the problem is that ag policy is set to reduce the cost of the hobby operations of
politicians, like Bush's ranch, but failing to support the backbone of American agriculture,
the family farm. The average age of farmers now is over 60, and because of land speculation by
friends of elected representatives, the next generation cant afford to buy farms. The result
is land owned by absent aristocracy and worked by men whose only interest is their immediate
benefit and not the condition of land to be inherited by sons.
Another of the many reasons we need a Gnu Party not run by lawyers.
Thomas Milligan
Can't blame you for feeling ripped off. You have been. We all have been, except for those
in the very top income brackets. Lofgren does a pretty good job of detailing the forces that
have perpetrated the heist. I've come to call it The Money; it includes the actors Lofgren details,
plus billionaire types like the Koch brothers and Richard Mellon Scaife, plus the mainstream
media (even much of PBS, unfortunately), which has become the Ministry of Propaganda for The
Money. All Is Well. The USA Is Number 1. The Government Is Keeping Us Safe from Terrorism. Buy
More Stuff. Whistleblowers Are Traitors. The Economy Is Recovering. Buy More Stuff. If Things
Aren't Getting Better for You It's Because You're a Loser. So Buy More Stuff.
Don't romanticize the '50's too much. The discontent that exploded in the 60's was just under
the surface even then. To the extent that it was "better" then it was because the prosperity
of the nation *was* more broadly shared. A single "breadwinner" (usually Dad) could feed a family,
with enough left over to save for old age, and Mom was available to nurture the kids. Do you
know *any* families for whom that could be true today? And the mainstream media was populated
by actual journalists rather than mouthpieces for The Money who look good in suits and understand
what their owners want said. Bill Moyers, obviously, is an exception to this rule. One of the
few.
I'm surprised you're not angry. You have every reason to be.
Thomas Milligan
Mr. Lofgren does a pretty good job of detailing the forces that have perpetrated the sad parody
of self-government into which our nation has devolved, but he left out a couple. I've come to
calling the whole thing "The Money." It includes the actors Lofgren details, plus billionaire
types like Scaife and the Koch brothers, plus the mainstream media (even much of PBS, unfortunately),
which has become the Ministry of Propaganda for The Money and the so-called "Washington Consensus."
Where once we had journalists, now we have (with the almost-sole exception of Bill Moyers) pretty
people who look good in suits and like to be on TV, reading the scripts they're given.
Anonymous
Well, that's rather a 'rose colored glasses' view of the Tea Party given their current platform
position. While I agree there are some redeeming qualities – not because I deem them to be but
because they do contribute to the discussion – But, by-n-large the solutions offered by the Tea
Party platform will only serve to weaken any hopes of salvaging the Democracy. One such example
is this meme that 'all Govt. is bad' which only someone disingenuous would suggest does not prominently
inhabit the TP. Another would be the position on so called 'entitlements'. Yet another would
be the Tea Party backing of the likes of Ted Cruz or Rand Paul who adopt a position on health
care that is antithetical toward a robust Democracy. (And spare me the notion that private enterprise
provides better health care etc. – it's simply untrue and there's no evidence to support these
fictions.).
One has to examine a few things about the Tea Party – It is quite clear why individuals such
as the Koch brothers have gone to great lengths to fund the Tea Party because it is the entrenched
Plutocrats and Corporate elite who benefit the most from a weakened Govt. Many TP members see
their quality of life eroding and have chosen to go after the wrong entity why? Well, those reasons
are numerous – for some it is fear, for others racism, others an inability to grasp the weight
of their decisions, etc. and Irrespective of their reasons the actions of the party, quite ironically,
will only strengthen the grasp of the very problems you wish to suggest they will address. While
a nice sentiment to feel the Tea Party could work with others the reality is much different.
Anonymous
Wow, how do you create such a canvas of revisionist history? I also found it quite tragic
that you espouse 'we need to stop this R vs L' dichotomy but you make every effort to assault
the left – exclusively. While that would be with merit if it were true (indeed both parties have
played a role in where we now sit) it becomes quite another matter when viewed against, oh idk,
the backdrop of reality. A.) Historically it is regulation that keeps corporate interests in
check and deregulation promotes the 'crony capitalism' you mention. It's hysterical to assume
the inverse. B.) Progressive policies have, again in reality, led to the greatest moments of
growth and prosperity in this country. I"m sorry you don't believe those facts. And, why didn't
you mention the inequality gap on steroids since Reagan? or the Bush tax cuts that benefitted
the richest Americans? Or the subsidization of big pharma. and big oil? Both parties have no
interest in representing people without money and every incentive not to. But, don't prattle
on this nonsense about the dangers of progressivism. it's ill-thought and smells of ideological
belief hungering to trump facts and history; it smells.
Anonymous
It is quite disheartening and the road forward most uncertain. I'm fairly confident those
you allude to will not act from a position of reason and evidence that is fact based. I cannot,
for the life of me, imagine circumstances in which those guided by fantasy, belief, and hate
(one or all) will shift ideological positions and address the problems that inhabit this country
by the corporate state. Individuals like Ted Cruz, Jamie Dimon (more subtly), the Koch brothers
are gifted in their cunning ability to take advantage of these, what Thom Hartmann calls 'low
information voters' – I've little reason for optimism and plenty of evidence for pessimism without
hope.
Anonymous
After reading this all I can say God help us. I think I can speak for millions of Americans
who grew up in a different country. We use to believe that hard work, play by the rules and everything
would work out for the Middleclass American. All could share in the American dream. Those beliefs
are not what I hear anymore. Apathy and fear are rampant..I fear for the country my children
with inherit.
fenway67
yeah, i don't think that is his main point. it's the corporations and the banks that have
infiltrated and that is the fault of both sides of the aisle. The author notes that the bipartisan
divide is mostly noise obscuring the bigger picture.
fenway67
i am hopeful that firstlook.org will be a source of honest journalism. Scahill, Poitras, Greenwald
and Taibbi are real journalists working toward finding the truth.
Anonymous
Wars forced us into debt slavery to the Big banks that financed them, thus we are slaved to
the NWO BANKS and corporations Federal Reserve Banks buys and owns most of our debt, they are
international now We are controlled by the bankers and the secret NWO financial network running
the governments of the world. Everything trickles down from these taskmasters. Follow the money
and everything is controlled by where it leads. Globalization, one financial system running the
world into their vision of one world government controlled by their big money. They been ruling
us for a long time now. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM would fix us election process and would scare
them knowing they can't put their bag men in office anymore.
Anonymous
So you believe the blame for big government lies only with the liberals? Give me a break.
Here are just four Presidents who expanded Government. They are named Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and
Bush. Flaming liberals to you I would assume.
John Gregor
Looking forward to odering some of those books. Have read all Foucault's books. The author
wrote quite a nice essay about contemporay American politics. Our majot export seems to be Dollars,
like manure they have some value, but I imagine alot of the people who are getting them are not
entirely happy
Anonymous
I saw Mike on c-span Sunday and enjoyed his comments, and now reading this piece I have trouble
with a GOP former congressional analysis troubled about how the govt is working or not working
beginning in 2009.
As with many of former GOP legislators or analysts never do they dig deeper into the underlying
problems that cause the congress to not work. Mentioning the Deep State reminds me of Washington
Post investigation exposing the 2nd govt in DC. It's where all the retired legislators or lost
elections legislators, the congressional staff, the retired military generals go. They pop up
in media (tv, radio, newspapers) spewing out a talking point for their respective 2nd govt think
tank in DC. C-span is a major platform that they use, and 99% of them promote some corporation
dealing with the 1st govt.
Too bad we don't see the name tags of the corporations they represent. Now that we have citizens
united we're back into the age of the Robber Barons.
Andrew Kloak
This insightful essay shows that Silicon Valley is not be what it claims to be. Neither is
Wall Street or the massive build-up of federal government power around Washington, D.C.
The article also alludes to the notion that these companies in Silicon Valley are waking and
trying to resist Deep State regime. California can't save American society. We are only 12% of
the entire population. Plus, they don't want to, they have to answer to shareholders. Profit
is the highest good for companies and government. They want influence and money.
All this is like marionette theatre. James Clapper from the NSA used misdirection when reporters
started to zero-in on the scale of the deception and breach of trust last Fall. Enormous change
is just ahead but not without enormous turmoil. People intuitively know that national security
and corporate power are worn out dogmas.
There is an urgency to all this. Many of these people in these positions of power have no
soul. It doesn't have to be this way, it just is. I think they want it this bad because they
profit and garner influence when it is this ineffectual.
The biggest changes are within anyway. We have to go deeper in ourselves. That shift in consciousness
is already underway. The confluence of forces will sweep away these external constructs. The
hidden factors not discussed in the article are the unconscious forces (emotion). Once people
are more aware of the light and darkness in themselves things will open up. There is dynamic
tension (a good thing) in each person. Self-awareness, integrity and connection to others will
change everything.
This article makes interesting connections to something that is hidden in plain sight. It will change.
richard anderson
I have been giving the political system another chance since Vietnam. Each time we have an
election I hear some good things. But when these people are in office they change. When Ralph
Nader ran for office he was kept out by various means and not allowed to debate. The system is
rigged. This talk of voting for the right person is not going to cut it. With the problems this
deep and the protection that has been set up to keep this system in place there is NOT a way
to change it. In other words voting will not work. Something more is needed. Demonstrations don't
work either. Just look at how long the Vietnam war was protested and when Bush stumped for invasion
of Iraq. They didn't care. Resistance may be the answer.
Anonymous
Rothschild family made their banking trillions beginning from financing Napoleon's wars up
until now. Their family owns media houses, governments, etc and their influence knows no bounds.
You will never see their family listed on Forbes richest people lists because they own the media
and do not want to see their names or advertise their wealth. The Bankers truly own the world
and War debt was the fastest way to do it.
Anonymous
lol. good comment and link.
I will be interested in seeing what First Look does, but I really don't trust the bazillionaire
who is starting it up – or at least his motives. Once a plutocrat, always a plutocrat. I predict
it will start like Arianna Huffington's HuffPo, initially game changing and valuable, then slowly
just another click generating tabloid profit machine with a bubble like mentality forced on contributers,
moderators and commentors alike. Time will tell.
Ellie
We have all this information, but nothing ever comes of it! No one goes to jail The laws are
changed to help the criminals . We still have a two party system which is a joke. Unless people
are hungry and cold and willing to die for a cause nothing is going to change in this country.
J.G. Sandom
We have become almost as much a plutocracy as our former Cold War nemesis, Russia. Tech, Big
Oil and Wall Street oligarchs, combined with the military-industrial complex (which Eisenhower
tried to warn us against) collude (in spirit, if not in actual boardrooms) to keep the people's
power in check via libertarian deregulation, union-busting, Citizens United (and other activist
SCOTUS rulings), privatization of the Intelligence Community (IC), the opiate of digital media
that pushes the idolatry of money & all things celebrity to distract us, and our collective fear
of terrorism (hence our perpetual war footing). This is what my forthcoming novel, 404, is all
about-not just how IP tech is invading our lives, but how this invasion is a metaphor for the
larger invasion. (HAL2, in my book, IS what Mike Lofgren calls the Deep State.) Wake up, America!
Our country is being stolen from us in plain sight. Thank you Bill Moyers, and thank you Mike
Lofgren for helping to alert the American public. You are 21st century Paul Reveres! Al Qaeda
is less of a threat to America because of some future possible terrorist threat, and more because
the collective American fear it engenders helps the Deep State sink its claws more effectively
into our national flesh.
Anonymous
What rings clear is we now have a non-elected government operating outside our constitutional
government and is purposely gridlocked. Our government and judicial system have been hijacked
and steps must be taken to remove Big Hidden money that is controlling our constitutional government.
Great interview Bill, thanks as always!
Jack Wolf
Mike forgot something. There is a simple fact that rules the deep state, the reformists, and
the declinests, whether they accept it or not: Natural Law. Abrupt climate change can not be
controlled now. To suggest that any of these groups are in control or have the ability to make
substantial change belies what is really going on. From now on, all these groups can only react
and as far as I can tell, today will be the best day of the rest of our lives. It's all downhill
from here and there is irreversible.
Thomas Milligan
Oh, I know about those guys and I love what they do. The trouble is, somehow *their* work
doesn't, as a rule, get picked up, amplified and developed in the mass media the way, say "Watergate"
was back when we had real journalists. Meanwhile every load of BS that comes out of the Heritage
Foundation, Cato et. al. somehow becomes received wisdom. I'm also a bit concerned that by going
off on their own they're setting themselves up to be marginalized and ignored. Trees may fall,
but very few people will hear them.
Thomas Milligan
Somehow your response above… to *my* response… to your original post… got posted under a *separate*
post I offered… scroll down far enough, you'll find your original post & my response.
Can't blame you for wanting to shield your children. The thing is, you can't, neither from
the anger nor from global climate change. I have grandchildren and grieve when I look at them
for the world they're apparently going to inhabit.
One last thing: it's possible… theoretically at least… to have anger without hatred. Anger
at what's been done can be a spur to action… and effective action could be taken while still
treating the perpetrators with the compassion we know all sentient beings deserve. I'm not sure
*I* could manage it because truth to tell I'm not a very good Christian… or Buddhist either…
but it's at least theoretically possible.
Thomas Milligan
Good point about our old nemesis, The Evil Empire.
I always found it ironic that as the Soviet Union was collapsing, the United States was moving
toward one-party rule. You can write the Nov. 5 headline right now: "Republocrats Win Yet Again!"
fenway67
Agreed, the MSM has a vested interest in having their product on the shelf at eye-level and
it's hard for the little guy to buy space in this market. I'll be doing my part by re-posting
and tweeting important stories that they cover and I just hope the quality will get them noticed.
I'm sure the smear campaign against them will begin soon.
fenway67
I wasn't aware of his motives beyond providing a platform for real journalists. What have
you heard? I am hopeful that the high quality work of the people he has hired so far will keep
it in the same company as the Moyers people.
Kenneth Killiany
This is an issue that concerns me greatly actually. Both sides have adopted policies that
have fed it. I find it interesting that you mention Allen Drury, who was my uncle. Al was a dogged
reporter, uncovering, in his day, the Manhattan Project, which he did not report on because of
World War II. Should he have? He never doubted his judgment. However, he was very concerned about
how the State just grew and operated on its won. You can see mentions of it in ADVISE AND CONSENT
and MARK COFFIN, where he discusses the whole public-private daisy chain and how irresponsible
it is. It's true, you can't get drama out of it, but he mentions it, but in PENTAGON, he wrote
a whole book about a bureaucracy can be diverted from what it is meant to do by concerns for
its own prerogatives. A&C and MARK COFFIN have just been re-released, and PENTAGON will follow
next year. This kind of reporting in your article is the kind he admired and it is a great service.
freelance-writer
A.k.a.:Ukraine 2014. Though there are many factors and stake-holders at work in the Ukraine
issue, it behooves the citizenry of all western nations tainted by the same `deep-state' tyranny
to bear witness. It will take bricks against bullets to resolve this global crisis once and for
ever.
Mary Brown
The only terrorists we have to face in the USA are our own government and the ones that government
is purposely importing to continue their reign of fear. Problem is a large part of America is
now well armed and a terrorist would die rather quickly long before any government police forces
arrives.
Len
Most of us frogs are in a pot of water that is getting hotter and hotter and we don't feel
it. As quoted from this essay "After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles off steel plate". Replace "a functionary of the state"
with "we the people".
This essay was terrific.
Anonymous
I am worried that the boiling pot will lead to the elimination of Social Security. For years
now politicians been saying it will end to each generation. When it does, a very high percentage
of Americans will be at poverty level. I don't want to be living in American cities when that
happens, crime and robberies will be common place.
Anonymous
Yes, this is not a new development… The funny thing is that Bill Moyers' Iran-Contra era expose
entitled "The Secret Government" actually covers this subject better than the piece we are commenting
on. And iirc, he interviews Peter Dale Scott about the CIA in that report…
Anonymous
There is a world of difference between bailouts and nationalization. I cannot begin to quantify
the folly of calling this system "Marxist" when the party on the left of the two party system
has moved so far to the right as to make Eisenhower seem like Trotsky by comparison.
Anonymous
For Gods sake, not this again. What Banking family who made the bulk of their fortune from
War debt and being worth $500 Trillion dollars are you referring to? Everybody is afraid to print
anything on these influential banking members. Their influence in this world has no bounds. As
we all know Bankers always protect their money and are devising new ways to make more money.
If you naively think that Bankers in this world are Godly benevolent people, you better look
around the state of the world again and formulate a revised opinion. but there you go, I got
my opinion and you have yours and we will respectfully leave it as that. Thanks for your comment!
Anonymous
Last time I looked capitalism is buying and bought our election process. In fact, in the past
the main focus of our government has been on business priorities and concerns. Doesn't look anything
as Marxism to me.
Jimmy Solomon
I read this article and watched your interview. Both are most enlightened. What happened,
however, on the eleventh day of the ninth month thirteen years ago was clearly a result of this
deep state and it is too bad you won't recognize this glaring example of the corruption of which
you write.
Anonymous
"the party on the left of the two party system"
There is little or no difference between the two faces of the party of state power. They use
different words, and then enact the same policies.
Politics is about power, nothing more. There is no "left" or "right", only power.
Antonio Germano
Again, what filibusters? You have provided no examples. Except for the (unfortunately) pathetic
attempts of Cruz, Paul and Lee to derail Obamacare and the recent debt ceiling/government shutdown
(I wish) affair, where has there been any effective Republican opposition to any of Obama's agenda? You are typical of the person who blames one side for our problems, when it's both sides (i.e.,
the government) that is the problem. Both sides are playing their respective constituencies like
a Stradivarius. get over your obsession with partisanship and see the real issue – the whole
system is corrupt and needs to be abolished. Your pining for 'majority rules' is a recipe for tyranny. The filibuster rules were put into
place to prevent temporary majorities from steam-rolling temporary minorities. I think it should
be even harder to pass laws, not easier, so mischief is avoided. I repeat – the State is the enemy of us all. get over blaming one side or the other. You are
being played.
Anonymous
amazing that such a powerful article was written. too bad its several years too late, and
ever so slightly off the mark. you need to let go of the rhetoric of bipartisanship. the DNC
and GOP establishments are both operating on the same basic policies. while they offer crumbs
to their bases, they are both pushing the agenda of the deep state.they are both to blame, and
until people declare that both have no clothes, the powers behind the curtain will continue to
rule.
Anonymous
Thanks, well said.
There's also the "Shallow State" of American campaign consultants like David Axelrod and Mark
Penn who make big money in places like Ukraine and Georgia because the locals assume they wield
influence over their clients in Washington. If American foreign policy became less aggressive,
foreigners wouldn't pay them so much money:
"F]inancialization, outsourcing, privatization, deregulation and the commodifying of labor." Yes, "commodifying of labor" thanks to Teddyquiddick pushing the 1965 Hart-Cellers act that began
the importation of million Third World unskilled laborers per year, thanks also to the Deep State
paralyzing all efforts of us, the People, to force our so-called "representatives" to close,
fortify, and defend our borders – to stop the massive flow of scores of millions of illegal immigrants.
Immigration has done more to stagnate and reduce Americans' wages and to destroy what had been
our historically unprecedented middle class affluence and economic-political power. Objective One for those of us who would dismantle the Deep State and restore our democracy is
obvious: Stop All Immigration. Accomplish this by these measures: one, end birthright citizenship
(and thus also end birth tourism); two, abolish State Department power to import refugees and
government funding of NGO's that "resettle" refugees; deport all illegal aliens; impose massive,
draconian fines on employers that hire illegal alien labor. Why are these measures Objective
One? Simple: when we allow our Dear Rulers to displace and dispossess us on our own soil, we
forfeit – we surrender – our power to control our representatives and their appointees and their
wealth transfer from ourselves to foreigners.
Mil
This is just a small list. But it at least provides some of the examples you are asking to
see.
This is not a revelation. Noam Chomsky has been pointing this out clearly for the past 40
years… There a couple public documents that might help explain to the educated class exactly
what has been going in the U.S. for the past 40 years… The Powell Memo written by Lewis Powell
in 71 and the Crisis of Democracy a document publicly published by the Trilateral Commission
in the mid 70's these are both damning omissions by powerful groups that control both the business
world and governments at all levels of governance. These two documents that we know about are
internal look at the dogma of the ruling class.. Neo Liberalism is the term they used but it
sure aint new and it sure aint liberal. It just another way for the ruling class to re-institute
Feudalism.
Anonymous
What you say is essentially true. Fascism by definition is the merger of corporations and
the military. Another amusing quote: "A capitalist will sell you the rope you hang him with."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
These Deep State proponents will succeed in fully displaying their stupidity when the global
environment collapses under the weight and consequence of their actions and humanity becomes
extinct. In the meantime, they will be having fun and braying like jackasses as they descend
into the abyss.
Anonymous
What about the level of organization required to create the Trilateral Commission and its
formal takeover of the US executive branch when Carter took office? The majority of the cabinet
(all but one) were Trilateralists in the newly created group of only 300 worldwide members. Trilateralists
were placed in high level international corporate and political positions and this paradigm holds
today. Scholars Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood wrote extensively on this international power
dynamic with its influence now extending to every part of the globe. It was Trilateralist Larry
Summers, former US Secretary of Treasury and Goldman Sachs executive, who was sent to Russia
when it's economy imploded to advise Putin on how to privatize the Russian peoples' state owned
assets leading the to rise of eight powerful oligarchs with internationalist sensibilities, a
very deliberate centralization of capital and a means to control Russian political power players.
From the beginning of the transfer of the US manufacturing sector to China, it became Brzezinski's
model Technocracy, Brzezinski being the a founder of the Trilateralists, Carter's National Security
Adviser, and author of The Grand Chessboard. (reference: Patrick Wood's augustforecast.com) These
actions and the concomitant level of organization goes beyond the Deep State model.
Anonymous
.. if there were no abuses by the IRS, then why did IRS official Lois Lerner plead the fifth
? If my boss asked me to explain possible abuses of power at my job and I pleaded the fifth,
my new office would be on the curb.
Anonymous
The meetings happen in Rancho Mirage and other places for Koch Brothers, and ALEC, etc. They
are the ones paying the Pols and they definitely meet and plan conspiracies to disenfranchise
voters. And, William Pepper wrote a book that reveals the conspiracies within those security
agencies that control pols. It is great the Lofgren is talking about the Deep State. But, to
deny the conspiracies within it is naive. The crashing of the Obama garden party by Robert Gates
associates is a case in point. The Supreme Court ultimately is the last point of call to stop
this Deep State within all the branches. They have judicial oversight, and they are not using
it.
scratphd
The great swamp philosopher Pogo got it right. "I have meet the enemy and he is us." A complacent America.
Christanne
Lofgren: What America lacks is a figure with the serene self-confidence to tell
us that the twin idols of national security and corporate power are
outworn dogmas that have nothing more to offer us. Thus disenthralled,
the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with surprising speed.
This essay echoes Ivan Illich's "Tools for Convivality," which, although written in the '70s
is even more applicable today. This is not new. Lofgren is an important wedge to cauterize the
deep state and dispell delusions of unending "progress." However, I don't see any evidence for
his assertion that the people themselves will unravel the Deep State. What we've done so far
is just buy a new toy, both literally and figuratively, even when so many of us are going hungry.
Anonymous
Excellent essay. A very good (semi-) insider's look at happenings within the Beltway. However,
my instinct tells me that the real nexus of power doesn't lie there, but that the Deep State
operatives are allowed to continue their game-playing at public expense in order to serve a larger
agenda–the ultimate bankrupting of the US and the ushering in of a new world order which has
been in the making for centuries by the real powers-that-be. Uber-conspiratorial? Maybe, but
I just can't shake the feeling.
The One
There is no doubt that the great american experiment has ended in ruin. There is hope on the
horizon though. Due to technological progression and its rapid increase in power, the very fabric
of society will change. Our social and economic models must change radically due to technological
improvements. There is no end in sight to the technological pace we have been blazing at, and
if there is an end it seems to be distant. The tremendous benefits of creative AI and the automation
of white and blue collar workers must be built into a new social and economic model in which
the benefits are distributed evenly and equally among the peoples of planet earth. Even now,
if we used our technology wisely, we could unshackle large swaths of the labor markets with automated
robots.
The current state of unimaginable corruption which is inflicting the world, not just the US,
is a dying last grasp for air as the oligarchies face a new powerful threat, the connection of
all things. The internet has the power to upend these corrupt power structures which lie at the
heart of society, and thus at the heart of every human life on this planet. Our current economic
model is not situated in reality. I can't say if the market will be up or down tomorrow, but
what I know for certain is that earth is 196.9 million square miles. Which is a finite space.
Not a good place for an economic model which requires economic expansion for survival. The labor
markets will be greatly dis-stressed due to technological displacement. The current scientific
revolution is unlike any that has ever happened on the surface of this planet. Even highly skilled
workers such as surgeons have the capacity to be replaced by highly advanced robots specializing
in surgery. People will see awaken to the fact that this "annoying high unemployment" is actually
the new normal and will only get worse. This REQUIRES a new economic model.
If a business refused to integrate their business with the latest automation technology, a
rival that had enough foresight to not oversee this would drive his competitor out of business.
Then, in our current economic model, that rival that just won the market would reap all the rewards.
BUT, it will also be in the best interest of that company, if in some new economic manner, a
portion of those profits would go into a general citizens fund which would provide all humans
with a basic income. This type of model will be absolutely necessary due to mass unemployment.
This leaves the motive for profit intact which also leads a motive for innovation, creation,
and competition that humans need. With scarcity gone, and universal income for all, the future
will look very very bright for our young human species. The seas of interstellar space beckon.
Anonymous
"…another thing" – yup – if they changed the rule so they could get what they claimed was
their agenda passed, the Reps might have been able to do the same – however the Reps could do
that anyway themselves if they regained power –
In any case, what does that say about a Party that would refuse to advance a decent agenda
just so the other party couldn't advance its own at another date – in essence, cutting off our
noses to spite the Reps face – they could have done what they knew we sent them there to do,
and they refused, hiding behind rules they could have changed – more and more folks are waking
up …
ISTM it oughta be obvious by now that this "struggle" between the Reps and the Dems isn't
about principle or ideology and it certainly isn't about representing us – it is about who gets
to be in charge of handing out the perks and who gets the perks – those in power are the ones
who get both ….
Charles Shaver
Nice to keep learning of a plethora of ambiguous symptoms but, short of too costly general
strikes or domestic insurrection, only voting proved corrupt politicians of both major parties
out of high office every other November will eventually restore legal functionality to the U.S.
Government. So, vote in every general election and vote against those who stray. 'How to know'
one might ask? Simply vote 'out with the old; in with the new,' every time, until we have the
kind of America the Founders prescribed in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.
Anonymous
It only depends on your definition of "the US." Yes, a panel of CEOs famously declined Ralph
Nader's invitation to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance, but in the State Department memo
that outlined the policy of containment of the USSR, George Kennan said the vast wealth disparity
between the US and the rest of the world must be maintained, while civil rights and democracy
could be neglected.
By then, the post-World War One idealists who'd joined calls for socialism and one-world government,
to prevent another such catastrophe, had seen things differently once Russia turned Eastrrn Europe
into a barricade against further invasions from the West. They could not bring themselves to
reb against their banker fathers, but they still believed in a one-world government – it would
simply be the government of the United States. The entire world would be brought into the economc
system we ran, no matter what citizens and their elected governments wanted.
During the Cold War, NATO was used to bring European intelligence agencies and militaries
under domnance by the CIA and the Pentagon. Putting ordnance, money and men in place to resist
a Soviet takeover made perfect sense, but it operated in peacetime to keep left-wingers out of
Continental governments. We overthrew an Italian government, for example. Not by ourselves, of
course: the secret "stay-behind" troops were nitorious right-wing fanatics, who could be trusted
to carry out their missions regardless of law, Constitutionality or morality. False-flag shootings
and bombings in public squares and supermarkets killed many innocent civilians and were blamed
on leftist radical groups which had been thoroughly penetrated already anyway. This was to win
public support for stricter security policies and, perhaps, punish citizens for voting in liberal-to-left
governments. This was admitted in the Italian parliament by the Prime Minister in 1990. Operation
GLADIO, as it was called, involved every NATO country. Investigations were promised, but were
aborted or came to mothing.
This is what Putin knows will happen if Ukraine joins NATO, for instance, so don't expect
him to take it lying down. He operates a Russian version.
In the US, a group of Wall Street financiers discussed literally overthrowing FDR in order
to end the New Deal regulatory state, but didn't get past the talking stage. The Senate held
hearings but J. Edgar Hoover declined to investigate becayse "no crime was committed." This is
the same FBI director who opened pressure dossiers on citizens who carried protest signs or wrote
letters to newspapers or the government opposing our war policies, and tried to get Martin Luthed
King to commit suicide.
Note the secrecy surrounding current trade-agreement negotiations, and accompanying high security.
This dates back to the fiaco of the world trade talks in Seattle some years ago, when street
protests neatly brought them to a halt. An Italian citizen was killed during protests against
trade talks in Genoa yeats later.
Anonymous
This was a superb essay–one I have been awaiting for years. One minor addition: there is another
non DOD component to the aforementioned group, which is DOE. Admittedly, it's rather easy to forget about them–but one should not. Ever.
Anonymous
But I really wonder if voting is a sufficient tool for the citizenry to tell the government
what it thinks. Elections are not very frequent, they are deeply manipulated by complex "strategists" (look at
the connection between the now-slowly-debunked gay marriage referenda and the re-election of
Bush Jr). Though I find it tedious and at times inefficient I wouldn't mind being part of a citizenry like
France that literally shuts the country down until the government says "uncle".
Anonymous
I believe the fourth estate and the way the US government interacts with it have a lot to
do with the opacity of the veil I find floating between myself and whatever happens inside the
beltway.
The US government keeps journalists begging for the tiniest crumbs. No one is willing to leak
anything for fear of being caught.
When I asked a friend in the diplomatic corps what was the most striking about his stint in
DC he said the depth at which government officials changed with each new administration compared
to other countries. DC's moving business is booming beyond anything imaginable. This is also
a tidy way to keep a tight grip on "messaging" – a skill each administration seems to get better
and better at.
There is a reason wikileaks has emerged and parody has replaced the stale format of the evening
news.
Charles Shaver
Voting is still an effective tool. Unfortunately, statistically, a majority of manipulated
voters will only dirty their hands to install and re-install soluble Democrats and Republicans
when seeking water tight integrity; insane, by Einstein's definition. Now is well past the best
time to make some real repairs but, perhaps, not yet too late to save a sinking ship. And, shutting
the engine down won't plug the leaks.
Pat Kittle
We Americans are already plenty overcrowded, but Israel lobby billionaires want open borders
and they've paid big bucks to both Republicans & Democrats. So open borders and endless population
growth it is, ecological sustainability be damned.
And don't give me that "anti-Semitic" hooey, I'm just stating facts.
Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Soros, Gelbaum, Adelson, etc., etc., Israel lobby, all of them.
No serious discussion of the "deep state" would ignore that elephant in the living room.
Anonymous
This is not a valid critique. The Deep State serves organized wealth and works to further
increase inequality and social stratification. Thus the Deep State represents entrenched right-wing
power. It is a matter of state capture. Both parties support this consensus and are thus supremely
conservative. The same goes for the media which is owned by these same centers of organized wealth.
Matt P.
It's not a matter of keeping one's mouth shut, but actions speak louder than words. Being
angry and contentious all the time is not the same as being productive about the issues you believe
in. Whenever I see an inequality in the street, on the subway, or at a party I react. I stand
up for the person, I intervene and get involved. The rest of the time I do keep my mouth shut
because there's nothing to say. It doesn't help anyone to spread unhappiness around. In fact
it drains your energy so you're not ready or as effective for the next opportunity.
Sean Kurnow
I get a laugh at people who yell, whine and complain about politicians and party politics….It's
like yelling at a ventriloquist dummy instead of the person controlling it. America became a
plutocracy in 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. Since then, we all know that special
interest groups control almost every aspect of government policy.
Anonymous
I will assume you simply did not understand what I wrote or what 'slouching' wrote – ironic
eh? Lets remove Thom Hartmann from the equation, as it seems to be where you flew off the rails…what
then is your defense of the idiots we allude to?
Anonymous
I well understand the argument about brainwashing – have heard it a gazillion times ….
The "idiots" you refer to – who are these folk? And while the corp media was brainwashing them, what were the rest of us doing? Sitting on
our hands?
Bill Wesley
well for once I have no comment, its not required in that the writer has made the case with
expert precision, I find no flaws, no omissions, no theory or dogma obstructing the writers view.
Its nice to see such well presented intellectual compitance, it allows me to feel relief, I can
take a break since others are seen to be on the ball
FroboseTF
Charles: Voting used to be an effective tool. Unfortunately with the advent of "Electronic Voting Machines"
which must be "Programmed", and leave no paper trail to allow a recount; I fear that if the truth
be known our elections are probably rigged on a regular basis to reflect the will of those in
actual power now.
I believe it was Joseph Stalin who said "It's not who casts the votes that's important. It's
who counts them.
Anonymous
Actually, it was a Mossad (Israeli Intel)/US Intel op. US organized it and funded the Al Qaeda
end of it via Paki intel officer General Mahmoud Ahmed, while the Mossad prepped the US targets
and ran the anthrax mail op. I'm not sure that Mossad didn't dream it up in the first place,
but, whatever the details, Al Qaeda was definitely just a bit player in the op with the real
culprits being our own fearless leaders.
Reuben_the_Red
Winner-takes-all elections (as opposed to proportional representation) and the Electoral College
are inherently undemocratic and present the illusion of voter participation without the danger
of undue voter influence.
Reuben_the_Red
Excellent discussion of the intersection of money, power, and early 21st century technology
in the US today. Food for thought, especially paired with Moyer's recent documentary about ALEC.
One caveat: Paragraph 21 starts out saying, "the Deep State is so heavily entrenched, so well
protected by surveillance, firepower, money and its ability to co-opt resistance that it is almost impervious to change," but in paragraph 22, "there are signs of resistance to the
Deep State and its demands." Paragraph 21 has already made the case that resistance is irrelevant
and impotent in the face of the Deep State apparatus, power/wealth reserves, and democracy-subverting
methodology. And that's probably true. There may be no way to actually extricate the Deep State
from The Superficial State.
We are left in the final few paragraphs with a series of reasons that the Deep State might
reverse course voluntarily, or unravel of its own accord, but in the end what we really need
is "a figure with the serene self-confidence to tell us that the twin idols of national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that have nothing more to offer us": in other words, some kind of charismatic,
messianic Jesus-person, to save us from ourselves. I don't object to the author trying to end
with a hopeful note of optimism, but how would this person reach us with that message? Are there
not already a host of people who have been saying exactly that for decades, from Noam Chomsky
to Angela Davis, from Daniel Quinn to Arundhati Roy, from Mark Twain to John Lennon? Have we
not managed to ignore and disregard a notable and widely-published list of people trying to tell
us that national security and corporate power are outworn dogmas that do nothing to elevate humanity
nor the human condition?
"Thus disenthralled, the people themselves will unravel the Deep State with surprising speed." It seems clear that
we will be forever enthralled with our credit scores and our televised sporting events and other
televised virtual realities until the government of the US actually collapses due to a variety
of currently known and unknown factors (economic, ecological, etc). And that's not gonna be pretty
either. And even then there is the further possibility that in such an event of complete destabilization
(not unthinkable, has happened throughout history, around the world), the Deep State could become
simply The State.
Reuben_the_Red
Agreed. Presumably there is no incentive in the Deep State to undermine the omnipotence of
the Deep State.
There are ways to increase voter participation (non-participation fines and penalties as I
understand Australians are subject to; make voting day a federal holiday or even better a three-day
weekend; give the right to vote back to felons and inmates alike; etc.) but wouldn't we still
be left to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee?
Charles Shaver
I haven't voted for Tweedledee or Tweedledum for President since Ronald Reagan and, since
learning of Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 2012, I don't vote for either for Congress. I'd rather take
a chance on a third, fourth or fifth party unknown, a blank ballot or a write-in candidate than
on another known destroyer from one of the two major parties. Participation alone is not enough;
it has to be informed participation, referenced against the clear, plain and simple language
of the U.S. Constitution. So, how do we get the word out?
Reuben_the_Red
It would have been a very different election in 2012 if the Republican establishment and the
corporate media machine had not colluded to rig the primaries so that Mitt Romney was the nominee,
and not the one that the majority of voting Republicans wanted, Ron Paul, who ran on a platform
that ironically appealed to many leftists, because of his insistence that foreign military interventions
and US global military incursions cease immediately.
It's possible that the realistic threat of a viable third party candidate on the outer fringe
of the left or the right could be enough to force that respective party to yield to those fringe
demands, incorporating those demands into a mainstream platform, more or less like the Tea Party
did with the Republican party in recent years, threatening to take their votes elsewhere.
At the same time, more Americans voted for left wing platforms than right wing platforms in
2000, but due to the winner-takes-all elections, we didn't get a government that was 5% Nader,
45% Gore, 45% Bush, majority leftist reflecting the vote. We got 100% Bush. We got corporate
welfare, tax cuts for the uber wealthy which did not result in higher employment, we got two
decade-long unprovoked foreign wars riddled with war crimes, and we got persistent recession.
Some of these things, if not all of them, would not and could not have happened under a Nader/Gore-led
government. The Deep State expanded massively with the Bush/Cheney administration's complicity.
I wish that it was worthwhile to vote for third-party candidates, but we can expect them to receive
no media coverage, few votes overall despite the possibly broad appeal of their platform, and
in the end it would be irrelevant because of the Electoral College. If I live in Oregon and vote
for Romney my vote is thrown away as surely as if I live in Utah and vote for Obama.
In answer to your question, how do we get the word out, I think the only answer is media ownership.
Our lives are more consumed by media today than ever before in the history of the world, and
all of the media is concentrated in fewer hands, with more consensus among those few hands, than
ever before.
Charles Shaver
It would be a very different election every time, and nation, if the majority would simply
quit believing in the now defunct two-party system, corporate owned media and an extremist capitalist
system that values the gains of the uber wealthy over the lives and limbs of workers and the
poor. It's okay to question the status quo, ignore corporate media, do independent research,
vote totally independent of family tradition and elect questionable strangers (as opposed to
proved bipartisan failures) to defund the Deep State. Need a little more direction? Review the
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It pretty well sums it all up in rather clear, plain and simple
English, if you keep in mind that not just millionaires, billionaires and multi-national corporations
(allegedly) are 'people.' Good conversation.
jeffries
Mike Lofgren wrote the essay. Bill Moyers was allowed to interview him. PBS has its hands
tied by the "deep state" too. If you doubt this talk ask PBS why they pulled the plug on the
Koch Brothers expose.
jeffries
The "deep state," like a parasite, will continue until its host is dead. My guess is they
are in a state of panic-their host is on life support. The party is over- the rest of the world
has had enough of the U.S. The petro dollar has been broken. The dollar will be dethroned as
the world reserve currency and the torch will be passed to China no later than 2018. The players
of the "deep state" will not be able to infiltrate and latch onto this new host and so they will
fight to the death, more accurately our sons and daughters death, to keep the U.S. in its position.
Resist war is all we can do and not buy into the steady stream of propaganda that will be bombarding
us at every turn.
Hatha Sunahara
I haven't read all 328 comments so far, but I just wonder if anybody has picked up on the
reason the deep state has developed. I think it's development stems from the evolution of the
United States from a Republic into an Empire. No empire can exist with restrictions on its power
like those put on the United States by the Constitution. So, instead of discarding the Constitution,
the United States was subsumed into an 'extra-constitutional government'. Of course, nobody bothered
to tell the people of the United States that their power had been usurped by a lawless Imperial
overlord. Responsibility for that egregious oversight can be laid to the mainstream media, which
is owned by the owners of the extra-constitutional government. These are the global media corporations.
If you view politics this way, it explains a lot of things. Empire relies on it's military
power and the acceptance of its money. Anyone who does not accept the empire's money generates
hostility from the empire. The empire wages war without any declaration of war. The extra constitutional
government allows that. The empire cannot tolerate privacy because that would allow people to
plot against the empire without interference. So the empire puts everyone under surveillance.
The empire cannot tolerate resistance or disobedience, so it develops a police state to instil
fear and obedience in people. There are many many more examples of how empire rules America and
usurps the US government–which exists for the people of the United States. Americans, and the
people of the other countries in the world understand this viscerally, but are unable to express
this in coherent thought because their language has been corrupted by the forces of empire. Mike
Lofgren doesn't make this connection because iit violates the rules of political correctness.
Everyone's career is tied to strict adherence to political correctness, and
Anonymous
And many of the voters have been brainwashed by the 5 or 6 corporations that control the media.
Fear entertainment.
Anonymous
After I read Top Secret America I came to the conclusion that since 9/11 Homeland Security
has become so incredibly humongous and so political it will keep growing until the US is bankrupt.
The was the goal of Benladen. Europe did not fall for it be we did.
Anonymous
Some contemporary books Blackwater, Bloodmoney, and especially Confessions if a Economic Hit
Man. Also Top Secret America.
Charles Shaver
I think a better name for 'Homeland Security' is 'elitist money addict insecurity.' And, it
and treasonous corporate media propaganda will keep growing until we as an injured people finally
'Just say NO!' to the 'perpetraitors.' Thanks for commenting, above and below.
Anonymous
There is a small very readable book written by John Perkins named Confessions of an Economic
hit Man. This is the way the Corporatocracy has used the IMF and World Bank to take over the
assets of less developed countries. And if their leaders do not agree to go along well then read
what happens to them.
Anonymous
In many states felons are legally allowed to vote if they have served their sentences. And
if they moved to Florida their vote was legal. But Jeb Bush broke the law and did not allow their
vote to count in the Bush/Gore election. The Republicans also paid a fortune to a company named
Choice Point to scrub the polls. They also did this in the latest election for Governor. How
can they get away with these tactics? The tactics that are being used in North Carolina lately
are extremely difficult to counteract.
Anonymous
Funny (not ha ha) when I try to tell friends what is going on within Homeland Security (the
redundancy, the extreme size of it and the number of government and private buildings all around
the Washington suburbs) they respond by stating that they approve of all this. Homeland security
is so political that this state if affairs will be sucking up our tax dollars forever.
Neil Kitson
"These men, largely private, were
functioning on a level different from the foreign policy of the United
States, and years later when New York Times reporter
Neil Sheehan read through the entire documentary history of the war,
that history known as the Pentagon Papers, he would come away with one
impression above all, which was that the government of the United States
was not what he had thought it was; it was as if there were an inner
U.S. government, what he called 'a centralized state, far more powerful
than anything else, for whom the enemy is not simply the Communists but
everything else, its own press, its own judiciary, its own Congress,
foreign and friendly governments – all these are potentially
antagonistic.
It had survived and perpetuated itself,' Sheehan
continued, 'often using the issue of anti-Communism as a weapon against
the other branches of government and the press, and finally, it does not
function necessarily for the benefit of the Republic but rather for its
own ends, its own perpetuation; it has its own codes which are quite
different from public codes.
Secrecy was a way of protecting itself, not
so much from threats by foreign governments but from detection from its
own population on charges of its own competence and wisdom.' Each
succeeding Administration, Sheehan noted, was careful, once in office,
not to expose the weaknesses of its predecessor. After all, essentially
the same people were running the governments, they had continuity to
each other, and each succeeding Administration found itself faced with
virtually the same enemies.
Thus the national security apparatus kept
its continuity, and every outgoing President tended to rally to the side
of the incumbent President.
"Out of this of course came a willingness to use covert operations; it was a
necessity of the times, to match the Communists, and what your own
population and your own Congress did not know was not particularly
important; it was almost better if they did not know…"
David Halberstam The Best and The Brightest
Charles Shaver
Very typically, you appear to be better informed and better read on some aspects of our failed
and failing nation-state than I. Admittedly, I don't have all the answers. Briefly, though, respective
of all you cite, I find the vast majority of Americans just don't want to be burdened any more
with good citizenship (e.g., election statistics). Most recently, another symptom of the underlying
problem was highlighted when the billionaire owner of a mere commercial (as opposed to 'professional')
basketball team in a society that tolerates abject poverty and illegal war was severely chastised
and sanctioned for only elitist, racist remarks. Summarily, let me say that my America took a
big turn for the worse when the 'Pied Piper' was bribed to play the National Anthem. Nope, not
'ha ha' funny, at all. And, I don't know whether to dread or rejoice the day when the coerced
laughter finally ends, and the music dies.
Anonymous
During the 2nd Bush administration I started to notice all the books listed in the Washington
Post book section about his administration. After awhile I thought maybe I should start reading.
The first page turner was one by Bob Woodward about the lead up to the Iraq war. It showed me
that we were not getting truth from the media so I kept on reading books. First about Iraq-Fiasco,
The man who got is into the war Amad Chalabi, Blackwater, Bloodmoney and many others. I keep
telling people to read more but they choose not to. They are either working too hard or if retired
playing too hard. They just want to be spoon fed and are addicted to outrage entertainment. I
continued my reading on economics, finance, climate change and understand much more than I did
before. Keynes vs Hyeck explains the history of the two economic theories. Also how the shift
to the right happened during The Reagan and Thatcher administrations. Age of Greed explains how
a few very greedy men influenced congress to repeal laws and pass laws in their favor. Tim Flannerys
book The Weather Makers explains Climate change. And there are too many books written on income
disparity and the danger to democracy. What is happening is out of control and a nightmare. I
don't think people understand that when a government service for the commons is privatized it
becomes a corporation with lobbyists that influence Congress and that we taxpayers must pay their
employees at a much higher rate. Like the army contractors, prisons and so on. People do not
put on their thinking caps. Sorry for the rant.
Charles Shaver
Interesting, impressive; different paths, one destination; better a rant than a sell-out or
surrender. Beware of putting too much faith in the opinions of others, myself included. We all
are products of our past and there is a natural tendency for the adult progeny to emulate the
parent; the student to mimic the teacher; the reader to quote the author. I find the U.S. Constitution
is the best source of information about how America should function but I don't hear or see much
of that from any of the so-called 'experts.' If electrical engineers treated Ohm's Law like authors,
bankers, government, lawyers and the 'people' treat the U.S. Constitution, you'd be reading this
in script on parchment by candlelight, if at all. And, don't let me discourage you; where I fail
you may succeed. Let reason prevail. Thanks for the stimulating conversation.
Anonymous
Yes we all have the tendency to read whatever validates our worldview. I read Gretchen Morgensterns
book named Reckless Endangerment about Fannie Mae. Saw her talk on Cspan book channel. Needed
to get to the bottom of that mess. Jim Johnson was and still is a very shady character. It is
strange however that the Republicans reduced the entire 2008 recession down to two sound bites
Fannie Mae and the CRA (I think that is the acrynom) for the program to stop the redlining. No
one knows anything about the history and purpose of Fannie Mae and it's original purpose until
Johnson got his hands on it. If one has critical thinking one can sift out the truth. I just
cannot believe that people will believe a sound bite without any hesitation.
Charles Shaver
Been 'deep thinking' a lot more about the Deep State but, without yesterday's lost credentials
or celebrity (good or bad), there's not much I can presently do. One clever sound-bite might
do the trick but none I've composed and tried so far have caught on. Still, probably, is tomorrow.
Anonymous
I actually thought of a really good sound bite and communicated it to the White House. No
one took me up on it. Wish I could remember what it was. If you have any you could try. But they
are not very confrontational.
Charles Shaver
I liked candidate Obama's words but never voted for him, because he already belonged to one
of two already proved dysfunctional major political parties. Writing the Obama White House and
even getting a few generic replies while watching him fail the office, too, I do not regret 'wasting'
my vote on a 'green' third party candidate. After rereading The Anatomy of the Deep State, today,
I'm sure I could read more and probably phrase things better but am still confident in my decades
of working-class experience-based conclusions and suggestions.
sorval
"Land of the Free, Home of the Brave"
has become
Land of the "Free", Home of the "Brave".
johnnyomaha
Privatization of the US constitution to serve the elite…..
http://www.rrstevens.net/ Robert Stevens
… OR is it "Land of the Greed, Home of the Knave" -- Let's sing it all together before the next Football Game and Circus: ♫ "o'er the Land of the
Greed …" ♫
Anonymous
Where's the who, what, when, where, and why? Collected everyday simple observations will awaken
one to the existence of a higher controlling entity. No more problem identification or descriptions,
thank you very much. We need 1) facts and 2) solutions.
unheilig
Lofgren gives both. Did you read the article? Confirmation is easy enough too: all you need
is a browser and a few hours searching off-off-lamestream information sources.
Jocelyn Hawley
To both dn7904 and Charles Shaver, I read your back and forth discussion and realize that
I so crave that type of intelligent, informed and aware discussion within my interactions in
my daily life, but none can really exist. Most people are so concerned with the outcomes of the
game, or fantasy football, or the latest t.v. series, and how on earth to pay rent and other
minutia. The little bit of news comes from prime time networks like Fox, NBC and CNN and they
think they know what is happening in the world, but don't actually want to know what is really
happening. The trick to an article like this one, is not yet how we change the problem, but how
we get people to notice, be aware and to care. That is the real question and the first- most
prominent problem to be solved.
Anonymous
I think there are more creative ways for the citizenry to communicate their discontent than
to wait four years for the next highly-funded election. I remember being in an international conference and the minister of Health from a major developed
country came on stage just days after making a very unpopular move. One person stood up and simply
turned her back on the Minister, then another, then a dozen, then the whole auditorium of major
players in the scientific community. It made headlines. I resent the fact that a movement like MoveOn now just asks me for money like all the other PAC's.
They used to send out flyers and have photos posted of people all over the country holding the
same flyer. What comes to mind is that we remain the developed country in which the fewest people take vacation.
How can we possibly stop and think about creative democracy? Ironically the revolutionary thought
that was the spark that set off the flames of this country came from the leisure class who had
plenty of time to think and write about things like freedom and liberty.
Charles Shaver
Thank you for prodding me to do some additional 'Deep Thinking.' The harm is done. Thanks
to the apathetic and/or ignorant majority of a voting minority, the balance of power in the U.S.
has now been transferred from the left hand of organized crime to the right hand, for the next
two years. At least the majority is consistent in its failure to self-govern by voting, and voting
wisely.
While (if) still allowed, voting wisely is the only reasonable solution. Creative protesting
(e.g., 'occupy' them, pass out flyers, shout them down, turn your back or throw them a shoe)
means nothing when the final vote is counted to determine who actually makes and enforces the
rules. Not omniscient or perfect, either, I'm open to suggestions but with very little to work
with after several decades of too-typical abuse, betrayal, exploitation and oppression, served
in the pseudonyms of loyalty, patriotism, sacrifice and service. If mere reasoning worked then
Bill Moyers and 'company' would have already solved most of the major problems. Don't let me
discourage you, though, keep on with your own deep thinking.
John Schoneboom
Two flaws jump out at me from this otherwise rather good and useful article. The first is
that Mr. Lofgren implies that the Deep State is mainly a Republican thing. In the picture he
paints, it's the Republicans who want to pay the national security state, while the poor hapless
Democrats just want to increase social spending. Similarly, he makes excuses for Obama in footnote
7. (Presidents are surely mostly puppets, but Obama's 2008 FISA vote as Senator betrays his own
predilections well enough.) At best, this is the farcical veneer of Deep State Theatre. I suspect
Mr. Lofgren knows better and didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Secondly, government shutdowns and budgetary problems may be an inconvenience to the Deep
State, but no accounting of the Deep State is complete without figuring in off-the-books revenue
from the global drug trade. International partnerships and oil interests also help diversify
the income stream nicely. There are many billions feeding this thing that have nothing to do
with the US budget.
It's also somewhat criminal not to name-check Peter Dale Scott in this subject area. But I'm
nitpicking. I'll not bother criticizing the piece for not addressing Deep State ties with terrorism,
that kettle of fish deserves its own barrel. Like I said, nice piece, useful, well done, thank
you.
Douglas Harris
does no one see there is a reason for the immense defense spending as America becomes #2 in
world economy and the dollar might be replaced as the reserve currency? The Chinese own enough treasury paper to close the American economy, alone or with several willing
partners. BUT…America even as a declining economic dictator will still have the arms to maintain
world control…
Anonymous
I had no real a-ha moment reading this well written piece. Nothing jumped out at me as something
foreign or unknown. Instead, I had the sense of deja vu, the kind of deja vu I'd rather not have.
All these things have been known if the consumer of this good piece has been paying attention
to the not-mainline press. What is so exciting about this is the writer put all the information
in one place and drew out the connections that weren't always so obvious. Though Mr. Lofgren
paints a somewhat plausible picture of how this State may rather suddenly crumble, I'm a bit
dubious.
What seems missing are the global links among many of these actors especially the oligarchs
reach and connection to many things terrorism. What I'm saying is that I'm not terribly optimistic
that a leader will come along who is sufficiently unbeholden to the state and who can remain
un-co-opted and call this state for what it is thus raising our fellow Americans sustained interest
and desire to see through the mess it will take to overthrow this Deep State.. In any case, thanks
so much for such a thoughtful and creepy picture.
Anonymous
None of this is news. A President who cared could smash the Deep State in, probably, nine
months. The key lockhold the Deep State has at the moment is on the nomination process, which
is used to filter out any Presidents, and most Congressional nominees, who show signs of independent
thought. They've been doing this since Reagan (Carter was the last President with independent
thought; Reagan was ideal, being an actor with Alzheimer's and so not thinking much at all.)
There are two ways this can play out: either they lose their lockhold on the nomination process,
or the entire system is discredited and we get a revolution.
The Deep State is actually very fragile due to their fundamental incompetence. But they're
quite capable of wrecking our existing system, at which point there will be an opening for a
Caesar or a Napoleon or a Lenin who *is* competent. That is the true danger moment. The worst
scenario is revolving-door coups, such as Mexico suffered for decades in the 18th and 19th century.
Anonymous
The American Empire is, however, in decline phase. You can identify that by the inability
to conquer territory and the slow loss of territory from the edges. The peak of the American
Empire was actually in the late 19th century… A collapsing empire follows a weird trajectory. Many comparisons have been made to the Roman
Empire. That worked out poorly.
Anonymous
You could also read the much older "War is A Racket" by Smedley Butler.
The IMF/World Bank scam was working for a while. It doesn't work any more: South American
countries simply reject it. And the US has no power to muscle South American countries any more;
I'm not quite sure how they managed to become immune to US military intervention, but they have.
They have had about 200 years of trial and error in figuring out how.
Now, the rest of the world just needs to copy the South American model and the US IMF/World
Bank scam becomes untenable.
Anonymous
Proportional representation is critical, but I haven't figured out how to get anyone to pay
attention to it. Even at the local level, where the deep state has no traction because it's paying
no attention.
Anonymous
Thankfully the fight against electronic voting machines is already pretty strong. This is
something people understand viscerally and this is a key plank for whatever party is going to
dethrone the Rs & Ds. Basically, if electronic "voting" machines are delegitimized (as they should
be), this means people will actually fight for their paper ballots…
Anonymous
I think you're wrong about how most Americans will react. The levels of disillusionment are
very, very high now and you can measure them in polls.
Just before the Civil War, we saw the same dynamic: most of the country was completely disillusioned
about the "slavocracy", as they called the corrupt US government dominated by slaveholders. This
led to the election of Lincoln, the destruction of the Whig Party, and finally, the Civil War.
This is the sort of situation we have now. The Deep State can't win; it will be smashed as
Americans unite behind a Lincoln-like figure. The only questions are when this will happen, and
more importantly *what comes next*. Things are wide open after that happens: Sun Yat-Sen led
(unfortunately) to Mao.
jeffries
Well it will be interesting how the Greece situation plays out. It seems strange we don't
hear much or read much in main stream media about it. They are challenging the status quo. At
first the banks gave them until the 28th and then cut it to 10 days. It would be in everyone's
best interest if this was the beginning of the end for the EU. Diffused power is the best power.
If the EU fails we won't be pressured into a union with Canada and Mexico. I think that was the
plan of the global deep state. Aggregate nations into regions and then larger regions and then
it would not be such a jump to global government.
Anonymous
"….. Americans sustained interest…." Lack of interest is the real killer of all empires.
America's "Madisonian institutions," namely, the Congress, the presidency, and the courts have
been supplanted by a "Trumanite network" of bureaucrats who make up the permanent national security
state. National security policymaking has been removed from public view and largely insulated
from law and politics.
Notable quotes:
"... national security policy is determined largely by "the several hundred managers of the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who are responsible for protecting the nation and who have come to operate largely immune from constitutional and electoral restraints." The president, congress and the courts play largely a symbolic role in national security policy ..."
"... You can read a Harvard National Security Journal article that outlines Glennon's argument at this link: http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf . The paper is not an especially easy read, but I found it to be well researched and – for me – persuasive. ..."
"... National Security and Double Government ..."
"... "Glennon shows how the underlying national security bureaucracy in Washington – what might be called the deep state – ensures that presidents and their successors act on the world stage like Tweedledee and Tweedledum." ..."
"... "In our faux democracy, those we elect to govern serve largely ornamental purposes, while those who actually wield power, especially in the realm of national security, do so chiefly with an eye toward preserving their status and prerogatives. Read this incisive and richly documented book, and you'll understand why." ..."
"... U.S. national security policy is in fact conducted by a shadow government of bureaucrats and a supporting network of think tanks, media insiders, and ambitious policy wonks. ..."
"... "is that the United States government has enduring institutional interests that carry over from administration to administration and almost always dictate the position the government takes." ..."
"... And now IMO the DEEP STATE is about to DEEP SIX the Career military in the US as it organizes violence and the SURVEILLANCE STATE outside the ARMED FORCES. ..."
"... My short answer is that Government of the people, by the people, and for the people [the Lincoln formulation] probably expired with the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! ..."
"... I think we could make as much of the supine legislature that lends weight to Glennon's argument as he does the "permanent" executive agency security apparatus. If they're to be properly responsive to public will, executive agencies need better written laws. ..."
His answer: national security policy is determined largely by "the several hundred managers of
the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement agencies who are responsible for protecting
the nation and who have come to operate largely immune from constitutional and electoral restraints." The president, congress and the courts play largely a symbolic role in national security policy, Glennon claims.
You can read a Harvard National Security Journal article that outlines Glennon's argument at this
link:
http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Glennon-Final.pdf.
The paper is not an especially easy read, but I found it to be well researched and – for me
– persuasive.
His book adds more analysis to the argument, using (from Graham Allison's
Essence of Decision) the rational actor model, the government politics model, and the organizational
behavior model. Glennon extends that framework by discussing culture, networks, and the myth of alternative
competing hypotheses. The book is richer, in my opinion. But the core of Glennon's position
is in the paper.
In National Security and Double Government, Michael Glennon examines the continuity
in U.S. national security policy from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. Glennon
explains the lack of change by pointing to the enervation of America's "Madisonian institutions,"
namely, the Congress, the presidency, and the courts. In Glennon's view, these institutions have
been supplanted by a "Trumanite network" of bureaucrats who make up the permanent national security
state. National security policymaking has been removed from public view and largely insulated
from law and politics. Glennon warns that leaving security policy in the hands of the Trumanite
network threatens Americans' liberties and the republican form of government.
Some blurb reviews:
"If constitutional government is to endure in the United States, Americans must confront the
fundamental challenges presented by this chilling analysis of the national security state." Bruce Ackerman
"Glennon shows how the underlying national security bureaucracy in Washington – what might
be called the deep state – ensures that presidents and their successors act on the world stage
like Tweedledee and Tweedledum." John J. Mearsheimer
"National Security and Double Government is brilliant, deep, sad, and vastly learned
across multiple fields–a work of Weberian power and stature. It deserves to be read and discussed.
The book raises philosophical questions in the public sphere in a way not seen at least since
Fukuyama's end of history." David A. Westbrook
"In our faux democracy, those we elect to govern serve largely ornamental purposes, while
those who actually wield power, especially in the realm of national security, do so chiefly with
an eye toward preserving their status and prerogatives. Read this incisive and richly documented
book, and you'll understand why."Andrew J. Bacevich
"…Michael Glennon provides a compelling argument that America's national security policy is
growing outside the bounds of existing government institutions. This is at once a constitutional
challenge, but is also a case study in how national security can change government institutions,
create new ones, and, in effect, stand-up a parallel state…." Vali Nasr
"Instead of being responsive to citizens or subject to effective checks and balances,
U.S. national security policy is in fact conducted by a shadow government of bureaucrats and a
supporting network of think tanks, media insiders, and ambitious policy wonks. Presidents
may come and go, but the permanent national security establishment inevitably defeats their efforts
to chart a new course…."Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renee Belfer
I've spoken to three people I consider to be members of the "shadow national security state."
One person said Glennon's argument is nothing new. The second told me he's got it exactly right.
The third said it's even worse.
and imo only the nuclear priesthood rivals the deep state but not exactly part of it yet its
original source!
like the mayan priests only those in it know how accurate this book is in its analysis!
and a congress marches on in complete ignorance!
Mike Mealer, January 21, 2015 @ 7:48 pm
Great article. Read it a few months ago. I didn't know whether I should feel more secure or
afraid. Looking the items I highlighted and a few standout.
"The dirty little secret here," a former associate counsel in the Bush White House, Brad Berenson,
explained, "is that the United States government has enduring institutional interests that
carry over from administration to administration and almost always dictate the position the government
takes."178 P34
Its cohesion notwithstanding, the Trumanite network is curiously amorphous. It has no leader.
It is not monolithic. It has no formal structure. P32
The maintenance of Trumanite autonomy has depended upon two conditions. The first is that the
Madisonian institutions appear to be in charge of the nation's security. The second is that the
Madisonian institutions not actually be in charge. P34
Public opinion is, accordingly, a flimsy check on the Trumanites; it is a manipulable tool
of power enhancement. It is therefore rarely possible for any occupant of the Oval Office to prevail
against strong, unified Trumanite opposition, for the same reasons that members of Congress and
the judiciary cannot; a non-expert president, like a non-expert senator and a non-expert judge,
is intimidated by expert Trumanites and does not want to place himself (or a colleague or a potential
political successor) at risk by looking weak and gambling that the Trumanites are mistaken. So
presidents wisely "choose" to go along. P70
John Comiskey, January 22, 2015 @ 7:14 am
Civic Education 101
Glennon laments as did Justice Souter, the pervasive civic ignorance of the citizenry. Democracy requires an informed and engaged citizenry. The recent and ongoing debates about the role the police in society raise similar question
and doubts about our social contract and governance for the 21st century.
Where to from here?
A national conversation about civics and K-12 civic education.
What is the proper role of citizens in society?
What is the proper role of our polity?
Again interesting thread and comments. The use of the term "Trumanite" is unfortunate and totally
inaccurate IMO! Truman reluctantly signed the National Security Act of 1947 to resolve the documented
failures of Jointness between the Army and Navy in WWII [the Secretary of War and the Secretary
of the Navy--Stimson and King]! Truman was personally opposed to the establishment of the CIA
for many good reasons.
What is the real failure is the creation of the Nuclear Priesthood which largely failed to
guard its secrets from other Nation-States and individuals and the warping into the DEEP STATE
[the better term than DOUBLR GOVERTNMENT]!
And now IMO the DEEP STATE is about to DEEP SIX the Career military in the US as it organizes
violence and the SURVEILLANCE STATE outside the ARMED FORCES.
A close study of the overturning of the ALIEN AND SEDITION Acts of 1798 which destroyed chances
for a second term for John Adams and created the first real Presidential Election in the USA,
the Presidential Election of 1800, which brought into officer Jefferson, but almost brought Aaron
Burr to real power.
Study of James Madison so-called VIRGINIA RESOLUTION opposing the ASA is fully warranted. Too
bad John Yoo did not know this history.
I need to mention that I did read the article and listened to the Cato Institute Panel.
The Panel presentations might lead one to argue that Double or nothing or the DEEP STATE what
difference does it make past, present, or future?
My short answer is that Government of the people, by the people, and for the people [the
Lincoln formulation] probably expired with the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Perhaps not
but until argued and proven otherwise that is my conclusion! Perhaps wrong and hoping so!
Jack, January 24, 2015 @ 2:47 pm
A fascinating and needful argument, though I think we could make as much of the supine
legislature that lends weight to Glennon's argument as he does the "permanent" executive agency
security apparatus. If they're to be properly responsive to public will, executive agencies need
better written laws.
The Critical Infrastructure Protection Act or CIPA, which passed the house in 2014, would,
"require the Assistant Secretary of the National Protection and Programs Directorate to: (1) include
in national planning scenarios the threat of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) events…" (emphasis
mine). The national planning scenarios were rescinded in 2011, making CIPA either a very easy
or very hard law to execute.
Likewise, the Biggert-Waters flood insurance reform act of 2012 altered regulatory definitions
for "substantial damage" and "substantial improvement" by misunderstanding the way field damage
assessments are performed under the National Flood Insurance Program.
Which means, I suppose, that we need more able legislators…which may be unlikely if more Americans
don't know Publius from Curly.
"... The difficulty we have in the economics profession, I fear, is a great deal of herd instinct and concern about what others may say. And when the Fed runs their policy pennants up the flagpole, only someone truly secure in their thinking, or forsworn to some strong ideological interpretation of reality or bias if we are truly honest, dare not salute it. ..."
"... But it makes the point which I have made over and again, that all of the economic models are faulty and merely a caricature of reality. And therefore policy ought not to be dictated by models, but by policy objectives and a strong bias to results, rather than the dictates of process or methods. In this FDR had it exactly right. If we find something does not stimulate the broader economy or effect the desired policy objective, like tax cuts for the rich, using that approach over and over again is certainly not going to be effective. ..."
"... Economics are a form of social and political science. And with the political and social process corrupted by big money, what can we expect from would be philosopher kings. ..."
"... The interconnectedness of the global system with its massive and underregulated TBTF Banks, the widespread and often fraudulent mispricing of risk, all make cause for a financial system to be fragile. In this thinking Nassim Taleb is far ahead of the common economic thought as a real systems thinker. The Fed is not a systemic thinking organization because they are owned by the financial status quo, and real systemic reform rarely comes from within. ..."
"... So Mr. Baker, rather than looking for the bubble, lets say we have a fragile system still disordered and mispricing risk, with a few very large banks engaging in reckless speculation, mispricing risk for short term profits, manipulating markets, and distorting the processes designed to maintain a balance in the economy. Rather than hold out for a new bubble as your criterion, perhaps we may also consider that the patient is still on full life support after the last bubble and crisis. Why do we need to find a new source of malady when the old one is still having its way? ..."
"... A new crisis does not have to happen. This is the vain comfort in these sorts of black swan events, being hard to predict. But they can be more likely given the right conditions, and I fear little will be done about this one until even those who are quite personally comfortable with things as they are begin to feel the pain, ..."
"... neither Irwin nor anyone else has even identified a serious candidate. Until someone can at least give us their candidate bubble, we need not take the financial crisis story seriously. ..."
"... If we take this collapse story off the table, then we need to reframe the negative scenario. It is not a sudden plunge in output, but rather a period of slow growth and weak job creation. This seems like a much more plausible story... ..."
I like Dean Baker quite well, and often link to his columns.
On most things we are pretty much on the same page.
And to his credit he was one of the few 'mainstream'
economists to actually see the housing bubble developing, and call it out. Some may claim to have
done so, and can even cite a sentence or two where they may have mentioned it, like Paul Krugman
for example. But very few spoke about doing something about it while it was in progress. The
Fed was aware according to their own minutes, and ignored it.
The difficulty we have in the economics profession, I fear, is a great deal of herd instinct and
concern about what others may say. And when the Fed runs their policy pennants up the flagpole, only
someone truly secure in their thinking, or forsworn to some strong ideological interpretation of
reality or bias if we are truly honest, dare not salute it.
Am
I such a person? Do I actually see a fragile financial system that is still corrupt and highly levered,
grossly mispricing risks? Or am I just seeing things the way in which I wish to see them?
That difficulty arises because economics is no science. It involves judgment and principles,
and weighs the facts far too heavily based upon 'reputation' and 'status.' And of course I have none
of those and wish none.
But it makes the point which I have made over and again, that all of the economic models are faulty
and merely a caricature of reality. And therefore policy ought not to be dictated by models,
but by policy objectives and a strong bias to results, rather than the dictates of process or methods.
In this FDR had it exactly right. If we find something does not stimulate the broader economy
or effect the desired policy objective, like tax cuts for the rich, using that approach over and
over again is certainly not going to be effective.
Economics are a form of social and political science. And with the political and social
process corrupted by big money, what can we expect from would be 'philosopher kings.'
The housing bubble was no 'cause' of the latest financial crisis. More properly it was the tinder
and the trigger event. The S&L crisis was just as great, if not greater. Why then did it not bring
the global financial system to its knees?
The interconnectedness of the global system with its massive and underregulated TBTF Banks, the
widespread and often fraudulent mispricing of risk, all make cause for a financial system to be 'fragile.'
In this thinking Nassim Taleb is far ahead of the common economic thought as a real 'systems thinker.'
The Fed is not a systemic thinking organization because they are owned by the financial status quo,
and real systemic reform rarely comes from within.
I see the same fragility which existed from 1999 to 2008 still in the system, only grown larger,
global, and more profoundly influencing the political processes.
The only question is what 'trigger event' might set it spinning, and how great of a magnitude
will it have to be in order to do so. The more fragile the system, the less that is required to knock
it off its underpinnings.
And a crisis is not a binary event. There is the 'trigger' and the dawning perception of risks,
and the initial responses of the political, social, and regulatory powers.
There is no point in debating this, because the regulators and powerful groups like the Fed are
caught in a credibility trap, which prevents them from seeing things as they are, and saying so.
So Mr. Baker, rather than looking for the bubble, let's say we have a fragile system still disordered
and mispricing risk, with a few very large banks engaging in reckless speculation, mispricing risk
for short term profits, manipulating markets, and distorting the processes designed to maintain a
balance in the economy. Rather than hold out for a 'new bubble' as your criterion, perhaps we may also consider that the
patient is still on full life support after the last bubble and crisis. Why do we need to find
a new source of malady when the old one is still having its way?
I think if one exercises clear and open judgement, they can see that we have stirred up the same
pot of witches brew that has made the system fragile and vulnerable to an exogenous shock, and has
kept it so.
A new crisis does not have to happen. This is the vain comfort in these sorts of 'black swan'
events, being hard to predict. But they can be more likely given the right conditions, and
I fear little will be done about this one until even those who are quite personally comfortable with
things as they are begin to feel the pain,
The problem is not a 'bubble.' The problem is pervasive corruption, fraud, and lack of meaningful
reform. The 'candidate' is the financial system itself, with its outsized hedge funds and the
TBTF Banks with their serial crime sprees and accommodative regulators in particular.
And if one cannot see that in this rotten system with its brazenly narrow rewarding of a select
few with the bulk of new income, then there is little more that can be said.
Neil Irwin, a writer for the NYT Upshot section, had
an interesting debate with himself about the likely future course of the economy. He got the
picture mostly right in my view, with a few important qualifications.
"First, his negative scenario
is another recession and possibly a financial crisis. I know a lot of folks are saying this stuff,
but it's frankly a little silly. The basis of the last financial crisis was a massive amount of
debt issued against a hugely over-valued asset (housing). A financial crisis that actually rocks
the economy needs this sort of basis.
If a lot of people are speculating in the stock of Uber or other wonder companies, and reality
wipes them out, this is just a story of some speculators being wiped out. It is not going to shake
the economy as a whole. (San Francisco's economy could take a serious hit.)
Anyhow, financial crises don't just happen, there has to be a real basis for them. To me the
housing bubble was pretty obvious given the unprecedented and unexplained run-up in prices in
the largest market in the world. Perhaps there is another bubble out there like this, but neither
Irwin nor anyone else has even identified a serious candidate. Until someone can at least
give us their candidate bubble, we need not take the financial crisis story seriously.
If we take this collapse story off the table, then we need to reframe the negative scenario.
It is not a sudden plunge in output, but rather a period of slow growth and weak job creation.
This seems like a much more plausible story...
Anyhow, a story of slow job growth and ongoing wage stagnation would look like a pretty bad
story to most of the country. It may not be as dramatic as a financial crisis that brings the
world banking system to its knees, but it is far more likely and therefore something that we should
be very worried about."
"... Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here . In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities. ..."
Supporting the Kurds will lead to more terrorism per Erdogan. But it is fine and dandy to
support ISIS terrorists and to be at war with Syria. Turkey will soon be a failed state:
The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:
–Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the
political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.
–Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video
"Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in
to the fighting when necessary."
–Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities
of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they
made at least
2,000 trips to Syria.
–Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as
reported by Seymour Hersh
here. In May 2013,
Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish
authorities.
–Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded
plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational recording
of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding.
–Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked
Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances
for injured fighters. Turkey
shot down
a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers
inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely
untrue.
–Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
"... Wage slavery is VERY different from chattel slavery. The danger of ignoring that difference is that it obscures the intimate connection between the two, which is the legal institution of private property. ..."
"... The Roman law of property derived by analogy from conditions of slave ownership. Owning land is an analog of owning slaves. ..."
"... Born in debt. Live in debt. Die in debt. The one thing they got right: human slavery is so distasteful we can't do it openly anymore. But wage slavery is just fine, especially debt peonage. No one can complain if you get yourself into debt, just if someone else puts you there. ..."
"... I hate my job. I am de facto a day laborer, delivering items as and when my boss tells me to. As a former university professor, this is a hard blow. But to say I and 99.9% of the population are coffled is pure nonsense. My situation is lousy. But comparing what the black slaves went through with what I am going through is like saying the internment camps which held the Japanese-Americans were the same as the death camps in Nazi Germany. One was bad, the other indescribably worse. Not all evils are identical or commensurate. ..."
"... Any adequate reading of the history of the Civil War will show that the 11 Confederate States destroyed themselves out of lust to extend slavery to the northwestern states. They had through "compromises" extended slavery to the states south of Missouri already. The threat of urbanization and immigration creating enough free voters to outvote their 1.6 people gerrymanders terrified the Southern powers-that-be to the point of pre-emptive war. Read the Secession declarations of each state; believe them for what they say, not the subsequent reunion-period histories. ..."
"... The economic benefits of the internal slave breeding industry were matched by the political benefits; they could try to outbreed the Northern increase through immigration and make profits off sales to western states. ..."
"... David Graeber's book (Debt: The first 5000 years) convincingly relates debt directly to slavery, real slavery. Creditors ("masters") rigged the game, took all their debtors assets, and when there was nothing left for them to take, they took them, as slaves. Or their wives, daughters, sons. I know, ancient slavery was different in some respects; slaves could earn their way out or be "redeemed" by a family member or other creditor. (And there was the Jubilee year – I have to read Michael Hudson on that someday.) I can accept that American chattel slavery was distinct and diabolical, but it was an intense form of something that seems to have been with us, humanity, for a long time. ..."
"... The westward expansion after the War of 1812 and the closure of the overseas slave trade in 1808 created the conditions for the internal slave breeding industry with its generation of roving coffles and slave traders, it major slave markets, a good many of which have been preserved, and its new forms of finance and legal entities. ..."
"... Yes, Graeber's book is excellent on this point: "Slavery is the ultimate form of being ripped from one's context, and thus from all social relationships that make one a human being. Another way to put this is that the slave is, in a very real sense, dead." ..."
"... The important point. The United States of America (Lincoln) did not want to fight. The abolitionists were a minority. The Southern media (newspaper editors) freaked out like to media shock jocks did over the election of Barack Obama. Unlike this time around, at least so far, the Southern states were stampeded by their elites into seceding; the state legislatures and governors were part of those elites. In the midst of the tension Edmund Ruffin, a pro-secessionist rabble-rouser from Virginia went to Charleston SC, and with the help of military school Citadel and Arsenal cadets, and SC militia, conducted a coast artillery attack on the closest military installation – Fort Sumter. And reactions escalated, very much like the diplomatic environment after the the 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. And they escalated because the Southern hotheads wanted war. ..."
"... Regarding the coffle, it seems this is early capitalism's answer to the "Trail of Tears" and the famous "Bataan Death March". Then again, maybe it's not "early" capitalism at all….I'm thinking of Malaysia and the TPP. ..."
"... Many years ago I visited a small slavery museum out in the cotton fields somewhere around Memphis - I forget which side of the river it was on. It was in an old house that might be found anywhere, but more likely in a suburb than far out in the cotton fields, with no other house in view. Even the nearest line of trees was hundreds of yards away. In the largest room they had a lot of chains with large, heavy links, bigger than you would think would be necessary to hold even a very active human being. ..."
"... Slavery in the US was rather tame and short lived in comparison to the slavery practiced by the Muslims and Africans themselves. ..."
"... It was not until 1960 that slavery was outlawed in Saudi Arabia although it may well continue to this day. To really understand large scale slavery we need to go back to the origins of the Muslim movement. ..."
"... Hi Lambert, the book that first put the scope of the slave trading and breeding industries into context for me was The World That Made New Orleans by Ned Sublette. It's a fascinating and terrible account and if I recall correctly, describes some of the slave breeding operations carried out by Thomas Jefferson. ..."
… About a quarter of those trafficked southward were children between eight and fifteen, purchased
away from their families. The majority of coffle prisoners were male: boys who would never again
see their mothers, men who would never again see wives and children. … The only age bracket in
which females outnumbered males in the trade was twelve to fifteen, when they were as able as
the boys to do field labor, and could also bear children. Charles Bell, forcibly taken from Maryland
to South Carolina in 1805, recalled that
The women were merely tied together with a rope, about the size of a bed cord, which was
tied like a halter round the neck of each; but the men…. were very differently caparisoned.
A strong iron collar was closely fitted by means of a padlock around each of our necks. A chain
of iron, about a hundred feet in length, was passed through the hasp of each padlock, except
at the two ends, where the hasps of the padlock passed through a link in the chain. In addition
to this, we were handcuffed in pairs, with iron staples and chains, with a short chain, uniting
the handcuffs and their wearers in pairs.
As they tramped along, coffles were typically watched over by whip- and gun-wielding men on
horseback and a few dogs, with supply wagons bringing up the rear… The captives were not generally
allowed to talk among themselves as they tramped along, but sometimes, in the midst of their suffering,
they were made to sing. The English geologist G. W. Featherstonehaugh, who in 1834 happened upon
the huge annual Natchez-bound chain gang led by trader John Armfield, noted that "the slave drivers…
endeavour to mitigate their discontent by feeding them well on the march, and by encouraging them"
- encouraging them? - "to sing 'Old Virginia never tire,' to the banjo. Thomas William
Humes, who saw coffles of Virginia-born people passing through Tennessee in shackles on the way
to market, wrote; "It was pathetic to see them march, and to hear their melodious voices in plaintive
singing as they went."…
From the first American coffles on rough wilderness treks along trails established by the indigenous
people, they were the cheapest and most common way to transport captives from one region to another.
The Federally built National (or Cumberland) Road, which by 1818 reached the Ohio River port
of Wheeling, Virginia (subsequently West Virginia), was ideal for coffles. It was the nation's
first paved highway, with bridges across every creek. Laying out approximately the route of the
future US 40, its broken-stone surface provided a westward overland transportation link that began
at the Potomac River port of Cumberland, Maryland. From Wheeling, the captives could be shipped
by riverboat down to the Mississippi and on to the Deep South's second-largest slave market at
Natchez, or further on to the nation's largest slave market, New Orleans.
I'll stop at the demonstration of how Federal infrastructure improve the slave trade's supply
chain.
From my vantage point (starting with my family history and where I live), the coffle seems like
a work of fiction, a dystopian nightmare written by a demeted sadist. Imagine a hundred or so slaves
chained together and being driven down the main street of my small town by dogs and men with whips.
And now imagine this scene was normal, and kids coming home from school walked right past
it. When do I wake up? (Sure, Rome. But that was
thousands of years ago!)
I focused on the long passage from the Sublette's book because it seemed to me to be an objective
correlative for living in the midst of a slave power, and that experience is an important - a critical
- part of American history, and I believe that getting the history right is important.
And although I've written I prefer
human gift to human rental (wage labor), and human rental to human sale (slavery), I don't have
any grand policy pronouncements to make. I do think we need to be leery of using slavery as a metaphor;
"wage slavery" is not slavery; where's the coffle? Ditto "debt slavery." (That's not to say that
wages and debt are not power relations, because of course they are, but the human reality of the
power relations is different.)
So all I can do is ask you to get the image of the coffle firmly in your mind, and children watching
one go by. The coffle was a thing. That was what was going on. The whole thing makes me want to take
a bath. And we're still living with the complicated and painful consequences of slavery today.
Wage slavery is VERY different from chattel slavery. The danger of ignoring that difference
is that it obscures the intimate connection between the two, which is the legal institution of
private property.
The Roman law of property derived by analogy from conditions of slave ownership. Owning
land is an analog of owning slaves.
David Wayne, October 28, 2015 at 3:06 pm
The thing that stands out to me in this article is the reference that all this is a function
of capitalism. All that we are and all that we know is dictated by the needs of capitalism. We
don't run capitalism, it runs us. So much so that it is impossible to conceive past that little
box you're in to imagine – is this the only way we can live. Born in debt. Live in debt. Die
in debt. The one thing they got right: human slavery is so distasteful we can't do it openly anymore.
But wage slavery is just fine, especially debt peonage. No one can complain if you get yourself
into debt, just if someone else puts you there.
Synoia, October 28, 2015 at 12:27 pm
he had felt it was his patriotic duty as a Virginian
His patriotism was founded on his state, not his country?
a soldier fights for his country-right or wrong-he is not responsible for the political
merits of the course he fights in" and that
Was repudiated at Nuremberg, and enshrined on the concept of "War Crimes." However, the attitude
it suits many in Washington, DC today.
James Levy, October 28, 2015 at 4:04 pm
I hate my job. I am de facto a day laborer, delivering items as and when my boss tells
me to. As a former university professor, this is a hard blow. But to say I and 99.9% of the population
are coffled is pure nonsense. My situation is lousy.
But comparing what the black slaves went through with what I am going through is like saying
the internment camps which held the Japanese-Americans were the same as the death camps in Nazi
Germany. One was bad, the other indescribably worse. Not all evils are identical or commensurate.
Working for a wage is tough, but the number of workers flogged to death, publically whipped,
or who had their thumbs legally broken in thumbscrews last year was pretty low. And the number
of American workers last year who got raises or left one job for a better one was pretty high
in comparison with your average black slave.
So cut the crap about how your job today is "just as bad" as being a slave in pre-1865 America.
I can't tell if you sound more like crybabies or idiots.
Jef, October 28, 2015 at 12:31 pm
Cheap almost free oil effectively gives every american 100 to 1000 slaves. Giving up oil will
be as or more difficult than giving up the slaves back then.
TarheelDem, October 28, 2015 at 4:15 pm
Any adequate reading of the history of the Civil War will show that the 11 Confederate
States destroyed themselves out of lust to extend slavery to the northwestern states. They had
through "compromises" extended slavery to the states south of Missouri already. The threat of
urbanization and immigration creating enough free voters to outvote their 1.6 people gerrymanders
terrified the Southern powers-that-be to the point of pre-emptive war. Read the Secession declarations
of each state; believe them for what they say, not the subsequent reunion-period histories.
The economic benefits of the internal slave breeding industry were matched by the political
benefits; they could try to outbreed the Northern increase through immigration and make profits
off sales to western states.
The financial system relative to international monetary relations was so different in the ante-bellum
period that the creation of Confederate money offered little incentive to punishment. Negotiation
with foreign financial centers disputing the credibility of the money, yes. Would you take currency
from a putative new country that was engaged in a war of secession? But as a causus belli, not
likely.
The attempt to frame the United States with the responsibility for the war was primarily a
post-bellum propaganda effort in support of restoring white supremacy.
Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg, October 28, 2015 at 5:47 pm
Yeah- the southern gentlemen were fully aware that even with the stupid 3/5 compromise, they
were going to be on the losing end of a demographic shift if they couldn't expand the slave states.
Hence the weird plots to annex Cuba and take over Mexico.
Oguk, October 28, 2015 at 2:43 pm
I don't know if I posted about this or not, but David Graeber's book (Debt: The first 5000
years) convincingly relates debt directly to slavery, real slavery. Creditors ("masters") rigged
the game, took all their debtors assets, and when there was nothing left for them to take, they
took them, as slaves. Or their wives, daughters, sons. I know, ancient slavery was different in
some respects; slaves could earn their way out or be "redeemed" by a family member or other creditor.
(And there was the Jubilee year – I have to read Michael Hudson on that someday.) I can accept
that American chattel slavery was distinct and diabolical, but it was an intense form of something
that seems to have been with us, humanity, for a long time.
2nd comment is that slave narratives, like Solomon Northrup's or Frederick Douglass's, really
drive the point of this post home. It is a chilling history.
TarheelDem, October 28, 2015 at 7:43 pm
Graeber's book is excellent on the relationship between debt and slavery, a relationship useful
to exploring post-bellum country-store and private debt selling and the debt slavery or working
off debt for third parties. Part of this examination of debt slavery should pay attention to the
way that debt was accounted for and who did the accounting. Company stores in isolated rural areas
were notorious in mining, manufacturing. logging, and agriculture for false books in order to
keep people in debt bondage.
But chattel slavery in America has origin in war raids, not indebtedness, war raids that were
encouraged by the slave traders and in North America involved aboriginal peoples raiding other
aboriginal peoples to provide Amerindian slave for transport from North America to the West Indies
even into the 1700s. That arose aside and independent of English traders trading European goods
on credit for deerskins (in Virginia and Carolina) and slaves. [Alan Gallay, The Indian Slave
Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670-1717]
The political triangulation of the sweeping frontier balance this slavery, white indentured
servitude, and African chattel slavery as balances of forces to preserve the local aristocracy.
So three forms of servitude co-existed until 1717, two persisted until African chattel slavery
was dramatically profitable in the Tidewater tobacco plantations and Carolina rice and indigo
plantations and internal increase of the plantations caught up with labor demand. And the growth
of the political confederations of the "Five Civilized Tribes" in the mid-1700s shut down the
Indian slave trade. The westward expansion after the War of 1812 and the closure of the overseas
slave trade in 1808 created the conditions for the internal slave breeding industry with its generation
of roving coffles and slave traders, it major slave markets, a good many of which have been preserved,
and its new forms of finance and legal entities. This industry is even visible in census records.
Recording the occupations in the 1850 or 1860 census of slave areas in the Carolinas or Virginia,
one comes upon a patter in the vicinity of major plantation slaveowners. There are scattered settlements
that comprise an overseer, a number of blacksmiths, a waggonmaker, and a wheelwright in close
propinquity in a ratio of about one settlement for ever 150 slaves listed as property of the slaveowner.
The blacksmiths made and maintained the coffles. The wagon technicians made and repaired the planters
fleet for hauling bales or hogsheads. The census lists free men, who rarely are identified as
black or mulatto in these areas, generally not in sensitive occupations, such as blacksmith.
Slave traders are generally listed as "merchant". You have to look from specific ads for slaves
to figure out how extensive their trading business was.
Justicia, October 28, 2015 at 9:44 pm
Yes, Graeber's book is excellent on this point: "Slavery is the ultimate form of being ripped
from one's context, and thus from all social relationships that make one a human being. Another
way to put this is that the slave is, in a very real sense, dead."
Dead, perhaps, to the slave-owner and the laws that protected his property but very much alive
and human to their companions in suffering and to those not blinded by greed, prejudice, propaganda
and social convention.
TarheelDem, October 29, 2015 at 9:16 am
The notion of being dead as far as the law is concerned about his person and his property puts
a very interesting twist on knowing one's "place". And greed, prejudice, propaganda, and social
convention are not as much a primary issue as is the power to plunder and abuse regardless of
the particular motive. It is the institutions that defend the behaviors that hold in being the
attitudes. Rush Limbaugh, the shock jocks, Sheriff Clarke of Milwaukee County, and their like
defend the behaviors of abusive police; that is to let black people know that the law is dead
to them and to "stay in their place". Focusing on the attitude reduces the issue to an individualist
one of "personal responsibility" and the action of one or a few cops instead of a pervasive network
of abusive institutions held in place by a seamless nationwide network of racist propaganda, material
support for abusers, and legal defenses.
Darthbobber, October 28, 2015 at 11:42 pm
Another take on Graeber's book, from the Brit libertarian (no not those libertarians) Marxists
who publish Aufheben. I only agree with a portion of their critique, but its worth a read. http://libcom.org/library/5000-years-or-debt
nobody
About those textbooks… not those in the state of Texas, but those in use in the other states,
Morris Berman's got some interesting insights:
When you think about it, nearly everything in modern American history turns on the Civil
War, because the ideology I have been describing (which can be more accurately described as a
mythology, or grand narrative) requires us to 'fix' traditional societies and eliminate obstacles
to progress. With the Civil War these two goals converged, making it the paradigm case of how
we carry out, or attempt to carry out, these two projects. What the North did to the South is
really the model of what America in general did and does to 'backward' (i.e., traditional) societies,
if it can. You wipe out almost the entire indigenous population of North America; you steal half
of Mexico; you bomb Vietnam 'back to the Stone Age' (in the immortal words of Curtis LeMay); you
'shock and awe' Iraqi civilians, and so on. In what follows, then, I want to look at the War Between
the States in a completely different way than the one found in the typical American history textbook.
This, in fact, is what generated the energy that led to a four-year battle and the death of 625,000
individuals. What follows is an elaboration of this argument.
Let's start with the view of the South as seen from the North. The popular image of the antebellum
South, as it was presented in American history textbooks and classes when I went to high school
in the North, was pretty much the same then as it is now. That is to say, we were taught that
the South, as the home of slavery, was a backward and immoral place, and its refusal to abandon
that institution was the cause of the Civil War. Under the leadership of Abraham Lincoln (pretty
much depicted as a saint), the virtuous Union armies defeated the evil Confederate ones, and the
slaves were finally set free. Mutatis mutandis, this remains the politically correct version,
as well as the liberal academic version, of the war down to the present time.
[However…]
All the evidence suggests that the North's 'nobility' in fighting slavery was a long-after-the-fact
justification, an attempt to portray the conflict as a victory of morality and equality over depravity.
It's a thesis that gets people all worked up, but it finally doesn't wash.
[…]
In reality, the treatment of the South by the North was the template for the way the United
States would come to treat any nation it regarded as an enemy: not merely a scorched earth policy,
but also a 'scorched soul' policy (the destruction of the Native American population was, of course,
a preview of this). From Japan to Iraq, the pattern is the same, to the extant that we have been
able to impose it: first destroy the place physically (in particular, murder huge numbers of civilians,
as the North did to the South during the Civil War-fifty thousand of them by 1865), and then 'Americanize'
it. Humiliation, the destruction of the identity of the defeated party, has always been an important
part of the equation.
[…]
Sure, the war was about slavery; it was hardly a minor issue. But it was part of a much
larger one about two very different and incompatible civilizations, and a fixation on the moral
question of slavery can blind us to the larger (world) context of the Civil War, which was really
the American version of the global modernization process. No, I have no wish to live in a slave
society; I regard it as an abomination. But the South saw a different type of abomination on the
horizon, one that is now with us; and quite frankly, I have no wish to live in that one either.
Bits of chapter 4 from: Why America Filed: The Roots of Imperial Decline
TarheelDem, October 28, 2015 at 7:57 pm
The important point. The United States of America (Lincoln) did not want to fight. The abolitionists
were a minority. The Southern media (newspaper editors) freaked out like to media shock jocks
did over the election of Barack Obama. Unlike this time around, at least so far, the Southern
states were stampeded by their elites into seceding; the state legislatures and governors were
part of those elites. In the midst of the tension Edmund Ruffin, a pro-secessionist rabble-rouser
from Virginia went to Charleston SC, and with the help of military school Citadel and Arsenal
cadets, and SC militia, conducted a coast artillery attack on the closest military installation
– Fort Sumter. And reactions escalated, very much like the diplomatic environment after the the
1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. And they escalated because the Southern hotheads
wanted war.
The area between the two capitals Washington and Richmond was the cockpit of the war. The first
movement was offensive, towards Washington. The Southern planters wanted Lincoln out of there.
JohnnyGL, October 28, 2015 at 3:34 pm
Regarding the coffle, it seems this is early capitalism's answer to the "Trail of Tears" and
the famous "Bataan Death March". Then again, maybe it's not "early" capitalism at all….I'm
thinking of Malaysia and the TPP.
Anarcissie, October 28, 2015 at 4:24 pm
Many years ago I visited a small slavery museum out in the cotton fields somewhere around Memphis
- I forget which side of the river it was on. It was in an old house that might be found anywhere,
but more likely in a suburb than far out in the cotton fields, with no other house in view. Even
the nearest line of trees was hundreds of yards away. In the largest room they had a lot of chains
with large, heavy links, bigger than you would think would be necessary to hold even a very active
human being.
The largest chain had been arranged in a spiral on the floor with the collars around
it, and there was a picture on the wall showing a coffle, the use to which such chains would have
been put. The links of the big chain had a rough, pitted surface, and were a sort of rusty reddish-black.
The elderly White woman in charge told me it had been taken from a long-gone barn or shed not
far away exactly as it was, where it had probably rested since slavery days. In other words, unless
the wind and the rain had washed them off, you could still find the blood and sweat of slaves
on the links. There was some other agricultural gear about, like the hand tools the slaves would
have used.
There was not a lot of signage and no glossy brochures. Pictures on the walls depicted
a plantation house and outbuildings none of which remained, with the exception of the one the
museum was in. I wondered who had put the museum together. When I asked how it had come to be,
the woman only said, 'It's our history. We think people should know about it.'
Felix47, October 28, 2015 at 9:27 pm
Slavery in the US was rather tame and short lived in comparison to the slavery practiced by
the Muslims and Africans themselves. The Somalians enslaved the Bantus etc. etc. The Arabs enslaved
everyone and I recall seeing slaves even in 1991 in Saudi Arabia…..doing the labor since descendents
of Mohammed avoid physical labor if they can since they see it as demeaning. The big difference
was that the Arabs did not seem to see breeding slaves as a business…..they had them castrated
in Africa often before they were imported. It was not until 1960 that slavery was outlawed in
Saudi Arabia although it may well continue to this day. To really understand large scale slavery
we need to go back to the origins of the Muslim movement.
Liz, October 29, 2015 at 6:33 pm
Hi Lambert, the book that first put the scope of the slave trading and breeding industries
into context for me was The World That Made New Orleans by Ned Sublette. It's a fascinating and
terrible account and if I recall correctly, describes some of the slave breeding operations carried
out by Thomas Jefferson.
Neocon Wolf Blitzer against Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
Notable quotes:
"... This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol Ive heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress. ..."
"... Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFKs assassination because he was a threat to national security, a new book has claimed. ..."
"... Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well ..."
"... Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5] ..."
"... She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens. ..."
"... fighting against Islamic extremists. ..."
"... What the CIA, et alia, ..."
"... Islamic extremist groups, ..."
"... terrorism, ..."
"... uccessfulness ..."
"... insanities. ..."
"... AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION ..."
"... "Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism. ..."
"... Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal. ..."
One point we've been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes
in Syria is that The Kremlin's move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin's
open "invitation" to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively
let the cat out of the proverbial bag.
That is, it simply wasn't possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with
the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater
threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don't necessarily want to see Sunni
extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.
Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount
of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would
be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving
jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips,
and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the
narrative.
Well, it hasn't worked.
With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon
and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
is out calling Washington's effort to oust Assad both "counterproductive" and "illegal."
In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists
who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the
government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."
This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol I've heard
in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress.
Paveway IV
"...Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists
are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to
them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."..."
Oh, then you're saying that that's future PRESIDENT Gabbard...
Sergeiab
Damn, you might be right. Look: see the public opinion is totally shifting (Easy when you have
access to all the comments of all medias, including the moderated ones). Find someone among the
democrats who voice it. Give her/him "random" media exposure (she was on Bill Maher few days ago)
"Sudden rise of an outsider". She's a soldier/veteran/surfer 32yo. "Incredible American story".
And at some point, she says she's transgender. Instant POTUS. That fits. That fits the "change/let's
do something wild for once" that everybody's craving for (Trump). And it can't be random that
a dissident voice is given media exposure. And she's beyond democrat/gop... That's a lot.
She left out Mossad, mI6, Saudis, Turkey and how many other zionist controlled CUNTries.
Dick Buttkiss
"Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists."
Backing terrorist? How about being terrorists?
dot_bust
I agree. Good point.
I'd like to add that President John F. Kennedy issued an NSAM forbidding the CIA from conducting
an further paramilitary operations and turned those operations over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In the op-ed, Truman said that the CIA had begun making policy instead of simply analyzing
data. He also emphasized his discomfort with the idea of the Agency participating in cloak-and-dagger
operations.
SWRichmond
Thanks for the link. Truman says:
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent
directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest
character, patriotism and integrity-and I assume this is true of all those who continue in
charge.
Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFK's assassination because he was a 'threat
to national security', a new book has claimed.
Bay of Pigs
Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles
was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well. People forget he was dumped after
the Bay of Pigs fiasco with JFK saying at the time that he would "splinter the CIA into a thousand
pieces and scatter it to the winds".
Author David Talbot interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.
Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the
United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5]
In 2004, when Tulsi's fellow soldiers from the 29th Brigade were called to war in Iraq, Tulsi
volunteered to join them. She didn't need to put her life on the line. She could have stayed in
the State House of Representatives, but in her heart, she felt it was more important to stand
in solidarity with her fellow soldiers than to climb the political ladder.
Her two deployments to the war-torn and dangerous Middle East revealed both Tulsi's natural
inclination to self-less service and her ability to perform well in situations demanding confidence,
courage, and the ability to perform well as a member of a team. The same maturity and character
that served Tulsi well in the Middle East makes her exceptionally effective in the political world.
Freddie
These banksters wars like all wars are total shit but I like her.
She is half Samoan and was a Catholic but became a Hindu.
She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham
and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens.
While I agreed with your overview, WTFRLY, at the 1:25 mark I think she is seriously
mistaken about the priority being fighting against Islamic extremists.
The real enemy of the American People has been the international bankers, who have almost totally
captured control over the government of the USA, through POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS.
Her basic opinion regarding
9/11 deliberately ignores that
9/11 was an inside job, false flag attack, which was aided and abetted by the Deep State Shadow
Government. Everything that the USA has been doing has been actually carrying out the international
bankers' agenda. The countries targeted for regime change were obstacles to the consolidation
of the globalized hegemony of the international bankers, who are the best organized gangsters,
the banksters, that have already captured control over all NATO governments, as is painfully obvious
to anyone who thinks critically about how and why those governments ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately
controlled banks.
What the CIA, et alia, having been doing, since the overthrow of the government
of Iran back in 1953, has been creating "Islamic extremist groups,"
as the responses of the various Islamic countries having been controlled by the European invasions,
and later American invasions, which were always directed at capturing control over the development
of the natural resources, through maintaining the control over the monetary systems through which
that was done.
The whole of human history has been the exponential growth of social pyramid systems based
upon being able to back up lies with violence, becoming more sophisticated and integrated systems
of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which have become globalized systems of electronic
money frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs. There is indeed a serious risk
of NATO countries, already almost totally controlled by the international bankers, getting into
conflicts with the national interests of various countries which no longer are so easy for the
banksters to continue to control.
The banksters have been pushing through their agenda of wars based on deceits, in order to
back up their debt slavery systems, and those were primarily the reasons for the series of regime
changes, which appear to have stalled with respect to Syria. That Russia has decided that it is
geopolitically able, along with the propaganda cover of fighting "terrorism," to step
in with significant military support of the Syrian regime is indeed in severe conflict with the
agenda of the international banksters, who are collectively a group of trillionaire mass murderers.
Human history has become the excessive successfulness of the application
of the methods of organized crime to control governments, through the vicious spirals of POLITICAL
FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, to develop to the point of runaway criminal insanities.
While the Congresswoman above provided more penetrating analysis than one is used to be presented
on the mainstream mass media, and she did that fairly well, she still is presenting the political
problems only on very superficial levels ...
She is an example of integrity standing up for what is right. I see many people of heart doing
the same as this unfolds. We are supposed to support the "Underdog" Remember?
Her father is of Samoan/European heritage and is a practicing Catholic who is a
lector at his church, but also enjoys practicing mantra meditation, including kirtan.[7] Her
mother is of Euro-American descent and a practicing Hindu.[7] Tulsi fully embracedHinduism
as a teenage
At 5 minutes in to video, Wolf B. mentions that Tulsi is a combat veteran.
She is also on Senate Arms services committee.
Blitzer was born in Augsburg, Germany] the son of Cesia Blitzer (née Zylberfuden),
a homemaker, and David Blitzer, a home builder. His parents were Jewish refugees from O?wi?cim,
Poland, and Holocaust survivors… While at Johns Hopkins, Blitzer studied abroad at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, where he learned Hebrew.
Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the
same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal.
"Things that are being said right now about Assad, were said about Ghadaffi.., they were
said about Saddam Hussein, by those who were advocating for the U.S. to intervene, to
go overthrow those regimes and dictators. The fact is, if that happens here in Syria,….far
worse situation, persecution of religious minorities and Christians."
Who advocated to start ME wars? Wolf then puts words in her mouth, suggesting that Hezbollah
and Russians are doing the U.S. a favor.
To give Wolf full credit, he doesn't explode when Tulsi mentions persecution of the Christians,
as said Christians MUST be his enemy and color Wolf's wordview, given his parents refugee history.
Oh the web we weave, when we intend to deceive.
rejected
Well, she managed to get in the meme "We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11". They push that
meme every chance they get.
The spooks at the CIA know how to push propaganda. She will get all kinds of credibility appearing
to oppose the spooks and very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized
and grow stronger.
ebear
"....very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger."
I beg to differ. That seed was already planted. Why are we supporting the people who
attacked us? - keeps it nice and simple. Turns the entire narrative against them.
One dragon at a time.
Omega_Man
not a good interview for zio Wolfe ...
I didn't like this girl before, but starting to like her.
She needs a security team... to protect her from the US Gov... no joke
A lot of wishful thinking. The USA still remain world only superpower and (in somewhat diminished
way) as well as a technological leader. And the USA is still the most powerful (neoliberal) empire (that does not contradict
dismal state of the USA infrastructure; that's typical for empire on late stage of development). It
just overextended itself due to neocon dominance in the US politics.
And remember that Russia
is neoliberal state too. And it was Putin who got Russia into WTO. Putin is a unique leader, but
his rule is not eternal. An there is nobody after him to continue defiant course. actually Russia will
face crisis of leadership after he is gone. So in a way TINA (or PAX Americana) still hold.
Notable quotes:
"... Zero fucking accountability. Greenspan and Bernanke didnt get it for blowing the Mother of All Bubbles. Clinton didnt get it for NAFTA and tearing down Glass-Steagal. Bush didnt get it for being asleep at the switch for 9/11 and then the wonderful Iraq and Afghan wars. Hilary didnt get it for creating all-terror zones in Libya. And Obama wont get it for destroying health care and doubling the national debt. ..."
"... think some of you are missing the big picture. Say that US Plan-B failed-take over Syria after Iraq. Isis are Sunnis. US have always supported Sunnis. So, Isis controls Iraq, with US and Saudi support (Plan-C). Now, say that in a couple years US, Saudi, and Israel manage a Coup D'état in Syria. ..."
"... As difficult as it is for most westerners to wrap their heads around... we are on the wrong side. Our side is really and truly the dark side. The side that is ruled by the banking cabal and who is hell bent on causing war after war after war in the name of expanding their hold on the entire planet. ..."
"... This is an unending war, if the US and the west pulls out of it and now Russia owns the mess. Russias economy is rather fucked at the moment and they are in no position to be fighting endless wars. ..."
"... ---Thanks to the fact that the Western media has held up ISIS as the devil incarnate........... ..."
"... ......... ..."
"... For now, however, expect ISIS to gradually disappear from the mainstream medias front pages. ..."
"... youve got a whole pentagon full of neocons whose heads are about to pop off; the urge in that building to intervene, er help, and blow shit up has to be extreme; if i was prezzy purple dank, id be maybe a little nervous of the suicide bug if you get it. ..."
"... The US and the House of Saud created, by accident or design, all the gangs of Muslim mass murderers currently terrorizing the planet. You want order restored and something done about Muslim mass murderers in your region, you bring in the Russians. ..."
"... With dirty Saudi oil money removed from the politics of Western nations, maybe something will finally be done to reverse Islamisation in the West. ..."
"... I agree with most of your comment, but Israel has never shown any interest in peace. If anything, they want the same kind of peace the US gave to the Native Americans (in this case, the Palestinians). ..."
"... Jordan? HAHAHA! Will they have their anti-ISIS intelligence center three blocks away from their USA sponsored ISIS training centers, or would that be taboo? What shameless whores those people must be. Its astonishing how quickly the wind can change direction. ..."
"... The US-led rules, which enforces verification of targets, regularly give IS militants time to save their supplies, equipment and fighters, they said. I dont see any similar constraint by US forces when it comes to bombing hospitals and wedding parties... ..."
"... Dont forget ISISs tanker trucks providing both income to ISIS and a increased oil supply to the market to keep prices down and ruin Russia economically. ..."
"... I suppose yesterday you noticed the US Syrian dwarfs came out out of the woodwork to tell the western MSM how many hospitals the Russians had bombed. ..."
"... You really have to hand it to the idiots (neocons) running DC. They totally blew it with the orchestration and training of ISIS to overthrow Assad, all the while having the MSM demonize ISIS as the bogeyman of the Middle East. Personally, I think the Ruskies are a bit slow on the uptake here. Why they didnt pull this off a year ago is beyond me. Maybe they have more patience than I do. ..."
"... Jordan has no choice but to join the Syrian/Russian/Iraq/Iran coalition. ISIS supply lines to and from Turkey will be cut. While the coalition nulifies US backed Anti-Assad moderate opposition , ISIS will be pushed southeast into eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan cant protect itself from US backed ISIS and sees Russia as its only savior. ..."
"... I agree that the Saudis will never ally with Iran, but we should clarify that the conflict you are describing is not Sunni vs Shia. but Wahhabi cultists versus mainstream Sunni and Shia. The Syrian army is 60% Sunni ..."
"... Egypt is also traditional Sunni and will likely move toward Russia and abandon the Saudis. ..."
"... Yes, the sectarian civil war nonsense was created to hide and counter the guerrilla war in Iraq. Iraq never had a civil war before, and there hadnt been a sectarian civil war anywhere. That the heavily intermarried anti-occupation Arabs needed to be fragmented into ghettos (just like the Palestinians naturally) ..."
"... Obama vowed to wage an unrelenting war on ISIL/ISIS. He said it would be a long haul, but terrorists would never hide from the USA. Fast forward to a full year of ISIL advances on the ground backed by a flood of US supplied TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles, in use by Al-Qaeda and ISIL both. So Russia steps in to the fight. Obama demands they stop their sir strikes, stop arming Assad, and go home. ..."
"... Thats the best part about solving a problem that youve created. The severity of the problem will conveniently wax and wane to suit your needs. Need to scare the sheeple and keep foreign vassals loyal? Step #1 Create a pet bogeyman. Step #2: Defeat the pet bogeyman. Repeat as often as needed to maintain hegemony. ..."
"... I admire Putin for his steadfast defense of his country in the face of covert terrorism from the west. I fear the ME might be a quagmire although surely he better understands it than I do. As for the neocunts, everyone of you should die for the destruction youve sewn ..."
"... List of GCC countries, Gulf countries *Great Data Site-- Note: It is the NGOs belonging to the UAE Qatar that fund the jihadist throughout the *muslim-sunni world... with Saudi Arabia at the helm. The geographic landscape is telling...[Qatar and Bahrain have gargantuan R R military base outpost for USSA military brass] while most jihadist are recruited throughout the worlds muslim-sunni communities and trained in Jordan, and Pakistan etel! ..."
"... It should not be surprising that Putin, who has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and intellectually far above most, if not all US policy makers, will exploit this situation. Further, ISIS can easily create major problems in Jordan, (where do they go once they are driven out of Syria?) something the King of Jordan, is no doubt well aware. Bottom line- the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq may well go down as the biggest military and economic disaster in world history. ..."
"... And just when are Germans, Italians, French and the Eastern European wanna-bes going to demand that NATO be dissolved and the American MIC permanently removed from their landscape(s) after 70 years of hovering ?... ..."
"... Lay the blame at the feet of those most responsible for this crisis who were coerced, bribed and threatened if they didnt do with impunity what the American IC and military demanded them to do and not the innocent begging for refuge while your government(s) assisted in the looting operation of their sovereign Countries! ..."
Zero fucking accountability. Greenspan and Bernanke didn't get it for blowing the Mother of
All Bubbles. Clinton didn't get it for NAFTA and tearing down Glass-Steagal. Bush didn't get it
for being asleep at the switch for 9/11 and then the wonderful Iraq and Afghan wars. Hilary didn't
get it for creating all-terror zones in Libya. And Obama won't get it for destroying health care
and doubling the national debt.
WTF are you gonna do. The United States of Amnesia.
BTW Turkey is the next Syria, you heard it here first.
jeff montanye
Bush was not asleep at the switch on 9-11. he just played one on teevee.
I think some of you are missing the big picture. Say that US Plan-B failed-take over Syria
after Iraq. Isis are Sunnis. US have always supported Sunnis. So, Isis controls Iraq, with US
and Saudi support (Plan-C). Now, say that in a couple years US, Saudi, and Israel manage a Coup
D'état in Syria.
... ... ...
Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived(s).......
The writer of this comment is really stupid, ignorant and moronic. The middle east isn't ours.
Its not our toy. Russia didn't steal our toy. Its not the taxpayers job to fund a global playground
for the US military to "exert our will".
Everything in the above article was PURE PROPAGANDA designed to promote some type of kneejerk
response to Russia stealing our "toy".
Leave it alone. The middle east is like a big turd pile. We've got to learn to stop playing
in it. Apparently readers of ZH think that playing King of the Turd Pile is exactly what taxpayers
are supposed to finance.
Pure Evil
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov's saying about selling the capitalists the rope to hang themselves
seems almost apropos in this situation.
After 9-11 the Russians allowed the former Soviet Republics to open up forward operating bases
for the US to supply its foray into Afghanistan. When we went a bridge to far they then applied
the pressure to deny access to these former airfields and our only supply route is now through
Pakistan. And, undoubtedly the Pakistanis would more than be willing to sell us out to the Chinese
and Russians.
With Iraq they sat back and watched us waste not only men and war fighting material but bleed
the US Treasury dry.
They also stood down as we stoked the Arab Spring from Tunisia to Libya to Syria. Now Europe
suffers from their own Arab Spring as millions of Sunni with no place to live invade Europe.
We overturn Saddam only to replace him with Shia leaders in control and we can only sit back
and wonder why the Iranians control the Iraqi army.
We've spent trillions upon trillions of dollars only to hand over Syria and Iraq on a silver
platter to Russia and Iran.
... ... ...
The neocons who consider themselves the best and brightest have totally botched everything
and they're about to finish the take down of the US via amnesty, Obamacare, TPP, gun control,
more and even higher immigration, and Wall Street corruption.
Can America afford anymore of their hubris?
Albertarocks
I think most of the world can see what's going to happen once Putin is finished putting the
pieces all back together again. Peace is going to break out. And that's something that the US
admin. just can't comprehend. [And I don't mean 'the American people'. It's the admin. acting
as the puppet for the global banking mafia.] Can they accept peace in the Middle East? Hard to
say, but when there is peace in the world, the US military industrial complex, the bankers, the
fascist corporations, the dark side in general can't rule and make obscene amounts of money robbing
the rest of the world.
As difficult as it is for most westerners to wrap their heads around... we are on the wrong
side. Our 'side' is really and truly the dark side. The side that is ruled by the banking cabal
and who is hell bent on causing war after war after war in the name of expanding their hold on
the entire planet.
It's also considered a mortal sin in the west to cheer for the enemy. And maybe that's the
proper and loyal stance to have, but cheering for Putin's success is not cheering for the enemy.
The dark side, 'our side', is the world's enemy. Your children's enemy. Your grand children's
enemy. The enemy of all of humanity and what is 'right'. Then enemy of this entire once-beautiful
planet.
So ya, I want to see Putin be left alone to reassemble the god damned mess the bankers have
caused. And then I want to see westerners turn our furious gaze inward... at the real cause of
all the world's trouble. Our governments' day of reckoning is what westerners should be focusing
on.
Paveway IV
"...It's also considered a mortal sin in the west to cheer for the enemy..."
Critical thinking ability is also a mortal sin in the West. Which would quickly lead one to
surmise that the term 'enemy' is a neurolinguistic trick used by psychopaths to make you do something
against your will, morals or better judgement. Replace 'enemy' with a more succinct term: 'evil'.
Is Russia evil? No. Would you cheer for evil? Of course not. See how easy it is to untwist the
psychopath's perverted logic?
California Nightmares
Some great comments, here. I'm afraid to thunbs up some of these. Microsoft and Google are
probably capturing my every mouse click.
I offer only one thought: were the Russians (God bless 'em) to attain control of most of the
Middle East's oil, we zeros in the USA would find ourselves living back in 1850.
ThroxxOfVron
"I think most of the world can see what's going to happen once Putin is finished putting
the pieces all back together again. Peace is going to break out. And that's something that
the US admin. just can't comprehend. "
I don't think that the War Profiteers are going to just shrug, stop taking our money from us,
and find useful productive activities with which to earn honest livings so easily...
It's right about next year that South America should start to disintegrate.
Argentina., Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico: are ALL in serious trouble due to excessive/corrosive
mismanagement and corruption, narco trade and human trafficing dynamics, commodities cycle collaps/reversions,
resource depletions, etc..
Texas will have it's 'Hungarian' border moment soon enough as large populations finally give
up any hope for political order and economic stability in their homelands and migrate north to
the relative political stability and economic health ( and the generous social/welfare benefits!
) offered by the political ideologues in the US and Canada...
I expect that the usual political/policy factions the US will each welcome a wave of several
millions of migrants, and launch military incursions into convulsing failed or failing South American
states, albeit for differently stated reasons or ideological affinities...
IF the South American situation is not a large enough crisis to merit interventions and migrations
it will be aggravated/enhanced to the point where it is worth of interventions by the Warfare/Welfare
State nexus.
trulz4lulz
This is amazing!! Murikistan totally has lost control of their petrodollar superiority in 5
WEEKS! The rest will just be formalities of setting up the re republics of Iraq, Syria, Yemen,
Libya, and Afghanistan for russia and iran to reside over. This is the best cock-up in the history
of the modern era!
Masterclass geopolitical strategy, Russia and Iran. Not like it wasn't handed to you on a silver
platter or anything by obombya and his nerry band of mentally retarded sycophants, but still.
Well played.
P.S. Murikistan doesn't survive this. Im hoping the great lakes region goes to the canadians
though.
chunga
I've been thinking for a while that for USSA to maintain the petro-dollar reserve status it
needs it's military to have at least an aura of invinciblity. Without that it would be tough to
keep doing tricks like QE. And without the QE financial tricks it would be tough to pay for the
giant military so catch-22.
Since USSA has fucked with just about everybody over there, their list of allies is pretty
bad mainly just cutthroat Saudi Arabia and Israel. With the Russians giving Uncle Scam the finger
it might embolden others to do the same. That's why I fear 'Murika might fly off the handle over
this and really escalate the shooting because it has no choice. They've burned up all their goodwill
internationally so only tool they have is a hammer.
Albertarocks -> chunga
I couldn't possibly agree with you more. You nailed it. Sam is in such a pickle. The bankers
have led the US down the garden path, using it as it's 'bully branch', and this is more or less
what I meant by our government being held to account. 90% of Congress should be charged with treason,
given a fair trial and be made to suffer the consequences. If any one of them are found 'not guilty',
then the judge should be charged with treason as well since it is already 100% obvious that when
any one of them who signs bills, unread, at midnight, they have just committed an act of treason
in that irresponsible act alone. I mean it's just incredible how evil the admin. has become. It's
time to shake that house apart and bring 'rule of law' back into the forefront where it belongs.
And then the oversight agencies like the SEC and the FDA... it's time to tear those demonic agencies
to shreds and deal with their leaders accordingly. Those are the people who should probably pay
the ultimate penalty first.
Freddie
the speed - 5 weeks - makes me think this has all been planned out. The installation of See
Eye Aye NWO shit like Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obola makes me wonder. All four are See Eye Aye Moles.
All four are related. See video above. The USSA is a joke filled with idiots brainwashed by
TV and Zollywood.
Omen IV
So the usa circles Russia and China with most of the 700 bases it operates and Iran in motion
with Russia's help to circle Saudi Arabia with its own sphere of operation - pushing ISIS / ISIL
/ Daesh / Free Syrian Army / Al Nusra et al = Sunni's - to recognize the big prize that SA represents
to ALL Sunni
The Princes right now have Mecca ???
laomei
I'm failing to see the downside to any of this. The US gets bitched at no matter what it does
now. It's always wrong in some way or another, so fuck it I guess. Russia, which is MUCH CLOSER
than the US is to this mess now gets to stick their dick into this bee hive and see what comes
of it. This is an unending war, if the US and the west pulls out of it and now Russia owns
the mess. Russia's economy is rather fucked at the moment and they are in no position to be fighting
endless wars.
monk27
Russia's economy is much less fucked than America's economy. Printing USD with abandon (with
and without issuing corresponding debt), and stuffing them into your own banks, hardly qualifies
as "economy". By any measure you choose, US is in worse shape than Russia, corruption included...
At this point, probably the best thing US could hope for would be to clean up it's act internally
(filling the jails with financial crooks would help), and do nothing as foreign policy, at least
for a while. Detoxification is essential for survival...
Tyler Durden----''Thanks to the fact that the Western media has held up
ISIS as the devil incarnate''...........
can somebody make a youtube video montage of the talking heads, retired generals, republican
debate freak show contestants, PNAC ZIO-CONs telling us how evil ISIS is/are ..........because
ISIS has disappearded from the MSM headlines as Tyler predicted 2 weeks ago.....
Tyler Durden--''For now, however, expect ISIS to gradually disappear from
the mainstream media's front pages.''
re laomei: allow me to take a stab at 'splaining this: the reason it matters is because
you've got a whole pentagon full of neocons whose heads are about to pop off; the urge in that
building to intervene, er help, and blow shit up has to be extreme; if i was prezzy purple dank,
i'd be maybe a little nervous of the suicide bug if you get it.
also, for how long does anyone think israel is going to stand by and let this shit show build?
they're playing it cool for now. but so did Putin until about 60 days ago . . .
this all of course is just a guess; WTF do i know, i'm just a dumb sum bitch that pays my bills
and half of everyone else's;
Niall Of The Nine Hostages
It's not a "foolproof cover story." It's the truth. The US and the House of Saud created,
by accident or design, all the gangs of Muslim mass murderers currently terrorizing the planet.
You want order restored and something done about Muslim mass murderers in your region, you bring
in the Russians.
On to Riyadh, Doha and Dubai. After the House of Saud and Thani are driven from power and liquidated,
you won't hear another word about the war on terror. With dirty Saudi oil money removed from
the politics of Western nations, maybe something will finally be done to reverse Islamisation
in the West.
And there will be peace in Israel for forty years.
grekko -> Niall Of The Nine Hostages
You really have to eliminate Bibi first, and his whole neocon cadre. He incites the other side
to be stupid, so he can reap the votes of the stupid. Then there will be peace.
Caleb Abell
I agree with most of your comment, but Israel has never shown any interest in peace. If anything,
they want the same kind of peace the US gave to the Native Americans (in this case, the Palestinians).
Jack's Raging Bile Duct
Jordan? HAHAHA! Will they have their anti-ISIS intelligence center three blocks away from
their USA sponsored ISIS training centers, or would that be taboo? What shameless whores those
people must be. It's astonishing how quickly the wind can change direction.
smacker
[copied over from previous article]
This looks like it's one of the tactics used by US forces in Syria/Iraq to minimise any bombing
damage to its ISIS terrorist friends:
from that article at http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-authorises-russia-strike-islamic-...
" "They [the US-led coalition] refuse to strike private cars, mosques, bridges, schools despite
the fact Daesh militants are mainly using these places as headquarters," a senior military officer
[...] told MEE."
"The US-led rules, which enforces verification of targets, regularly give IS militants
time to save their supplies, equipment and fighters, they said." I don't see any similar constraint
by US forces when it comes to bombing hospitals and wedding parties...
bid the soldier
Don't forget ISIS's tanker trucks providing both income to ISIS and a increased oil supply
to the market to keep prices down and ruin Russia economically.
smacker
Yep, it'll be good if Putin's bombers locate a few ISIS oil convoys and deal with them. That
won't please the Turkish middle-men.
bid the soldier... -> smacker
I suppose yesterday you noticed the US Syrian dwarfs came out out of the woodwork to tell the
western MSM how many hospitals the Russians had bombed.
Apparently unnewsworthy until the US bombed the MSF hospital in Afghanistan.
Its hard to say which is more pathetic: the US military or US propaganda.
Lea
"Iraq allows Russia to strike ISIL" is nowhere but on this Turkish site. I call BS. The whole
of the Russian media would make this headlines. There is zilch, nada on Sputnik, RT or TASS.
grekko
You really have to hand it to the idiots (neocons) running DC. They totally blew it with
the orchestration and training of ISIS to overthrow Assad, all the while having the MSM demonize
ISIS as the bogeyman of the Middle East. Personally, I think the Ruskies are a bit slow on the
uptake here. Why they didn't pull this off a year ago is beyond me. Maybe they have more patience
than I do.
dustyfin
There's a time for everything.
A year ago Russia had other concerns, its military was a year less well prepared and a year
ago, I think that Putin and his government still thought that some form of rapprochement could
be made with The West.
Also, to get this far has required a whole heap of planning, negotiating, horse trading and
arm twisting. Think of this as being the 'overnight success' that took a decade to achieve!
sudzee
Jordan has no choice but to join the Syrian/Russian/Iraq/Iran coalition. ISIS supply lines
to and from Turkey will be cut. While the coalition nulifies US backed Anti-Assad "moderate opposition",
ISIS will be pushed southeast into eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan can't protect itself
from US backed ISIS and sees Russia as its only savior.
Saudi Arabia will have no choice soon but to join the coalition as well.
Get ready to price oil in Rubles or gold as the US is completely forced out of the entire middle
east.
PrimalScream
I will differ with you on that one. The Saudis will never join Russia and Iran - that would
be a union between Sunnis and Shiites. It is not going to happen. This new power struggle pits
Sunni nations directly against the Shiites. It will be big and it will be bloody.
Rhett72
I agree that the Saudis will never ally with Iran, but we should clarify that the conflict
you are describing is not Sunni vs Shia. but Wahhabi cultists versus mainstream Sunni and Shia.
The Syrian army is 60% Sunni, and the Jordanian Hashemites are traditional Sunnis descended
from Prophet Muhammad who were expelled from Mecca by the Saudis. Egypt is also traditional
Sunni and will likely move toward Russia and abandon the Saudis.
Zadig
Yes, the sectarian civil war nonsense was created to hide and counter the guerrilla war
in Iraq. Iraq never had a civil war before, and there hadn't been a 'sectarian civil war' anywhere.
That the heavily intermarried anti-occupation Arabs needed to be fragmented into ghettos (just
like the Palestinians naturally), but the pro-occupation Kurds didn't should have made things
obvious to everyone.
Jack Burton
Obama vowed to wage an unrelenting war on ISIL/ISIS. He said it would be a long haul, but
terrorists would never hide from the USA. Fast forward to a full year of ISIL advances on the
ground backed by a flood of US supplied TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles, in use by Al-Qaeda and
ISIL both. So Russia steps in to the fight. Obama demands they stop their sir strikes, stop arming
Assad, and go home.
Wanna see what Russia at war looks like? Want to see how they answer ISIL chopping heads off,
eating organs etc. Watch the FULL video below of the Syrian Arab Army employ their new Russian
supplied TOS-1 thermobaric weapon.
That's the best part about solving a problem that you've created. The severity of the problem
will conveniently wax and wane to suit your needs. Need to scare the sheeple and keep foreign
vassals loyal? Step #1 Create a pet bogeyman. Step #2: Defeat the pet bogeyman. Repeat as often
as needed to maintain hegemony.
Russia jumping in at Step #2 to reap the plaudits (and weapon sales!), is probably what Mordor
hates the most about all this.
taopraxis
People who think Russia and China and the USA are enemies probably think Republicans and Democrats
are enemies. Step back and it seems fairly obvious that someone behind the scene is moving these
pieces around on the global chess board and the political puppets are merely implementing the
new policies.
Obama looks like a Marketing Prez. Putin acts more like a COO. Abe is CFO, apparently, a frightening
thought. Not sure what the Chinese and Saudi top dogs are all about...real players, maybe. All
just conjecture, but the way the USA pulled out and the Russians moved in looked too well coordinated
to be anything other than that...coordinated.
rejected
Hopefully President Putin doesn't put too much on his plate. The ussa is setting up fresh arms
deliveries to the terrorists as we ponder.
It's going to be tough going for the Russian Federation to clean up the mess the ussa has made
of the ME over the last 25 years. The whole damn place is a complete disaster with Arabs killing
each other and Israel killing as many Palestinians as they can.
It's astonishing the Arabs, like the Ukrainians, can't seem to understand the ussa modus operandi
that is,,, start a bunch of crap then back off and watch the fun. Sort of like the bar fight scenes
in movies where the perp that starts the brawl exits once everyone is fighting.
Berspankme
I admire Putin for his steadfast defense of his country in the face of covert terrorism
from the west. I fear the ME might be a quagmire although surely he better understands it than
I do. As for the neocunts, everyone of you should die for the destruction you've sewn
earleflorida
Why waste valuable resources dividing and conquering in a medieval world, when religion can
do the trick without unsheathing a sword? All but[t] for,... only the might being in the hands
of the dual-mine'd pen'heads[?], is all one needs as a metaphoric representation of a classical
'Damocles Dilemma' victory? Why tell your right hand what your doing when the left will do it
for you in a asymmetric 'syncreticism'!
"List of GCC countries, Gulf countries' *Great Data Site-- Note: It is the 'NGOs' belonging
to the UAE & Qatar that fund the jihadist throughout the *muslim-sunni world... with Saudi Arabia
at the helm. The geographic landscape is telling...[Qatar and Bahrain have gargantuan R&R military
base outpost for USSA military brass] while most jihadist are recruited throughout the worlds
muslim-sunni communities and trained in Jordan, and Pakistan etel!
"There is a strong cooperation between MOSSAD and ISIS top military commanders...Israeli advisors
helping the Organization on laying out strategic and military plans, and guiding them in the battlefield"
The terrorist organization also has military consultants from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab
Emirates and Jordan. Saudi Arabia has so far provided ISIS with 30,000 vehicles, while Jordan
rendered 4500 vehicles. Qatar and United Arab Emirates delivered funds for covering ISIS overall
expenditure.
The planes belonging to the aforesaid countries are still landing in the Mosel airport, carrying
military aid and fighters, especially via the Jordanian borders.
Phillyguy
Key events in US Iraq campaign
Judy Miller and Michael Gordon publish their piece in the paper of record (NYT) about Sadam
Hussein's attempts to obtain parts for nuclear weapons in 2002 (later shown to be nonsense).
Colin Powell uses above "intelligence" in his UN speech, effectively creating a casus belli
for Bush II invasion/occupation of Iraq.
Don Rumsfeld claims the Iraq war will cost circa $ 70 billion, paid for with Iraqi oil
revenue. Reality check- the Iraq campaign will end up costing US taxpayers $4-6 trillion.
Immediately following the US invasion, US military disbands the Iraqi armed forces, many
of whom later join ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
The arrogance, dishonesty and outright incompetence of this campaign is breathtaking. Despite
spending significant lives and treasure, the US failed to obtain any imperial rent (oil concessions,
etc) from this war.
It should not be surprising that Putin, who has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and
intellectually far above most, if not all US policy makers, will exploit this situation. Further,
ISIS can easily create major problems in Jordan, (where do they go once they are driven out of
Syria?) something the King of Jordan, is no doubt well aware. Bottom line- the 2003 US invasion
and occupation of Iraq may well go down as the biggest military and economic disaster in world
history.
Son of Captain Nemo
Regardless of your stance on whether the EU should be receptive to the millions of asylum seekers
fleeing the war-torn Mid-East, the simple fact is that if you remain in Syria, you are risking
your life on a daily basis, caught in the crossfire between a bewildering array of state actors,
rebel groups, and proxy armies, all with competing agendas.
And just when are Germans, Italians, French and the Eastern European wanna-bes going to demand
that NATO be dissolved and the American MIC permanently removed from their landscape(s) after
70 years of "hovering"?...
Lay the blame at the feet of those most responsible for this crisis who were coerced, bribed
and threatened if they didn't do with impunity what the American IC and military demanded them
to do and not the innocent begging for refuge while your government(s) assisted in the looting
operation of their sovereign Countries!
P.S.
If PIGIDA were ever to wage that kind of a campaign and align themselves with the "left" that
is already anti-American the U.S. will be finished!
"... The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first
civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy;
Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice
President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President
Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle,
who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the
leader of postwar Iraq. ..."
"... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts
of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in
what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At
first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar
Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed, "What We Got
Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled the German people
with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We had no choice but to
rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning
in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis,
after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
..."
"... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any
action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another
quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his
unwillingness to think for himself. ..."
"... What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
..."
"... Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is
described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity
to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place
that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans
are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly
unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.
The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees
to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances,
but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have
been even more disastrous.
The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first
civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy;
Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice
President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President
Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle,
who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as
the leader of postwar Iraq.
On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat
who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience
of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the
Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders
that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi
government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members
were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their
jobs, taking their weapons with them.
The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington
Post, for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are
former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head
of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the
Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and
the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling
extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported
in 2007:
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded
as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made
it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.
This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former
Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to
do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs."
Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points, George W. Bush acknowledges
the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of
signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."
... ... ...
In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling
his wife that:
I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by
Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility'
Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level
diplomatic negotiations and politics. … I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.
Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts
of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing
in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him.
At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing
postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed,
"What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled
the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We
had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes
a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification
was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists
had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,
The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented
me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that
he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to
hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week
later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the
Pentagon.
In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own
on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new
CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."
The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which
he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic
statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's
about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that
forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the
people we're bringing on."
Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question
any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed,
another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the
period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put
Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on
his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial:
Bush at War, Part III-was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner
confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."
What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
He writes in his memoir:
To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for
defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated
attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and
arms control issues.
In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has
maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark
that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure
enough, in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former
undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in
the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a
continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at
the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe
said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'
Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's
statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of
Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army;
in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March
spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what
happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe
and Bremer:
Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely
new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and
badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back
might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.
Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible
effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers
had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going,
they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview,
"We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. … What we did do was to formally dissolve
all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure,
his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to
the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the
army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful
consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's
notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are
hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist
Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial
Life in the Emerald City, when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home,
Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them
back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned,
the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive."
This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the
policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.
♦♦♦
Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative
policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably,
Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and
the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration
planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration
('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically
and economically')."
Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post, "I've grown weary of being a punching
bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand
its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic,
given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September
4, 2007, the New YorkTimes reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters
supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded,
"the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred
only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover,
thepaper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant
reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed."
Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian
and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It
was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."
Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the
policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making
process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment
about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't
know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's
"Frontline,"
What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this,
do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington
coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from
my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end,
with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And
how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was
from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.
It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences,
he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know
how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that
the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the
decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in
the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.
This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March
and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding
policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent
lack of interagency review."
... ... ...
John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.
"... If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn't been right on hardly anything and his prediction of what is going to happen, reasons for going over there and obviously this is not playing into the hands of al Qaeda or the people who are causing violence and destruction over there, to call for a change in policy in Iraq. ..."
"... One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United States in Muslim countries. Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world's largest Muslim country, Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent. ..."
"... One of the cell's members, Younis Elian Abu Jarir, a taxi driver whose job was to ferry the group around, stated in a confession offered as evidence in court that they convinced me of the need for holy war against the Jews, Americans, Italians, and other nationalities that participated in the occupation of Iraq. ..."
President Carter Rips Cheney Over Iraq: 'His Batting Average Is Abysmally Low'
Last week, Vice President Cheney attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Rep. John Murtha
(D-PA) for supporting Iraq redeployment. He charged that their plan would "validate the al Qaeda
strategy."
Today, former President Jimmy Carter rejected Cheney's charges, stating that calls for a change
of policy in Iraq are "not playing into the hands of al Qaeda or the people who are causing violence
and destruction over there." He added, "If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said
for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn't
been right on hardly anything."
STEPHANOPOULOS: Vice President Cheney this week has been very harsh on those kinds of measures
in the Congress.
[CHENEY CLIP]: If we were to do what Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Murtha are suggesting, all
we'll do is validate the al Qaeda strategy. The al Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American
people.
CARTER: If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four
years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn't been right on hardly anything
and his prediction of what is going to happen, reasons for going over there and obviously this is
not playing into the hands of al Qaeda or the people who are causing violence and destruction over
there, to call for a change in policy in Iraq.
^^^^^
.
Saundra Hummer
February 26th, 2007, 05:34 PM
.
.........
Iraq 101:
The Iraq Effect
The War in Iraq and Its Impact on the War on Terrorism - Pg. 1
All right, no more excuses, people. After four years in Iraq, it's time to get serious. We've
spent too long goofing off, waiting to be saved by the bell, praying that we won't get asked a stumper
like, "What's the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?" Okay, even the head of the House intelligence
committee doesn't know that one. All the more reason to start boning up on what we-and our leaders-should
have learned back before they signed us up for this crash course in Middle Eastern geopolitics. And
while we're at it, let's do the math on what the war really costs in blood and dollars. It's time
for our own Iraq study group. Yes, there will be a test, and we can't afford to fail.
March 01 , 2007
By Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank
Research fellows at the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law. Bergen is also a senior
fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C.
"If we were not fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq, they would not be idle. They would
be plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own borders. By fighting these
terrorists in Iraq, Americans in uniform are defeating a direct threat to the American people." So
said President Bush on November 30, 2005, refining his earlier call to "bring them on." Jihadist
terrorists, the administration's argument went, would be drawn to Iraq like moths to a flame, and
would perish there rather than wreak havoc elsewhere in the world.
The president's argument conveyed two important assumptions: first, that the threat of jihadist
terrorism to U.S. interests would have been greater without the war in Iraq, and second, that the
war is reducing the overall global pool of terrorists. However, the White House has never cited any
evidence for either of these assumptions, and none appears to be publicly available.
The administration's own National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism: implications
for the United States," circulated within the government in April 2006 and partially declassified
in October, states that "the Iraq War has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists...and is shaping
a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."
Yet administration officials have continued to suggest that there is no evidence any greater jihadist
threat exists as a result of the Iraq War. "Are more terrorists being created in the world?" then-Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld rhetorically asked during a press conference in September. "We don't know.
The world doesn't know. There are not good metrics to determine how many people are being trained
in a radical madrasa school in some country." In January 2007 Director of National Intelligence John
Negroponte in congressional testimony stated that he was "not certain" that the Iraq War had been
a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda and played down the likely impact of the war on jihadists worldwide:
"I wouldn't say there has been a widespread growth in Islamic extremism beyond Iraq. I really wouldn't."
Indeed, though what we will call "The Iraq Effect" is a crucial matter for U.S. national security,
we have found no statistical documentation of its existence and gravity, at least in the public domain.
In this report, we have undertaken what we believe to be the first such study, using information
from the world's premier database on global terrorism. The results are being published for the first
time by Mother Jones, the news and investigative magazine, as part of a broader "Iraq 101" package
in the magazine's March/April 2007 issue.
<< Breaking The Army << >> The Iraq Effect Pg. 2 >> Iraq Effect (continued)
Our study shows that the Iraq War has generated a stunning sevenfold increase in the yearly rate
of fatal jihadist attacks, amounting to literally hundreds of additional terrorist attacks and thousands
of civilian lives lost; even when terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, fatal attacks in
the rest of the world have increased by more than one-third.
We are not making the argument that without the Iraq War, jihadist terrorism would not exist,
but our study shows that the Iraq conflict has greatly increased the spread of the Al Qaeda ideological
virus, as shown by a rising number of terrorist attacks in the past three years from London to Kabul,
and from Madrid to the Red Sea.
In our study we focused on the following questions:
Has jihadist terrorism gone up or down around the world since the invasion of Iraq?
What has been the trend if terrorist incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan (the military fronts of the
"war on terrorism") are excluded?
Has terrorism explicitly directed at the United States and its allies also increased?
In order to zero in on The Iraq Effect, we focused on the rate of terrorist attacks in two time periods:
September 12, 2001, to March 20, 2003 (the day of the Iraq invasion), and March 21, 2003, to September
30, 2006. Extending the data set before 9/11 would risk distorting the results, because the rate
of attacks by jihadist groups jumped considerably after 9/11 as jihadist terrorists took inspiration
from the events of that terrible day.
We first determined which terrorist organizations should be classified as jihadist. We included
in this group Sunni extremist groups affiliated with or sympathetic to the ideology of Al Qaeda.
We decided to exclude terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups, as they depend largely on factors
particular to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Our study draws its data from the MIPT-RAND Terrorism database (available at terrorismknowledgebase.org),
which is widely considered to be the best publicly available database on terrorism incidents. RAND
defines a terrorist attack as an attack on a civilian entity designed to promote fear or alarm and
further a particular political agenda. In our study we only included attacks that caused at least
one fatality and were attributed by RAND to a known jihadist group. In some terrorist attacks, and
this is especially the case in Iraq, RAND has not been able to attribute a particular attack to a
known jihadist group. Therefore our study likely understates the extent of jihadist terrorism in
Iraq and around the world.
Our study yields one resounding finding: The rate of terrorist attacks around the world by jihadist
groups and the rate of fatalities in those attacks increased dramatically after the invasion of Iraq.
Globally there was a 607 percent rise in the average yearly incidence of attacks (28.3 attacks per
year before and 199.8 after) and a 237 percent rise in the average fatality rate (from 501 to 1,689
deaths per year). A large part of this rise occurred in Iraq, which accounts for fully half of the
global total of jihadist terrorist attacks in the post-Iraq War period. But even excluding Iraq,
the average yearly number of jihadist terrorist attacks and resulting fatalities still rose sharply
around the world by 265 percent and 58 percent respectively.
And even when attacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq (the two countries that together account for
80 percent of attacks and 67 percent of deaths since the invasion of Iraq) are excluded, there has
still been a significant rise in jihadist terrorism elsewhere--a 35 percent increase in the number
of jihadist terrorist attacks outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, from 27.6 to 37 a year, with a 12
percent rise in fatalities from 496 to 554 per year.
Of course, just because jihadist terrorism has risen in the period after the invasion of Iraq,
it does not follow that events in Iraq itself caused the change. For example, a rise in attacks in
the Kashmir conflict and the Chechen separatist war against Russian forces may have nothing to do
with the war in Iraq. But the most direct test of The Iraq Effect--whether the United States and
its allies have suffered more jihadist terrorism after the invasion than before--shows that the rate
of jihadist attacks on Western interests and citizens around the world (outside of Afghanistan and
Iraq) has risen by a quarter, from 7.2 to 9 a year, while the yearly fatality rate in these attacks
has increased by 4 percent from 191 to 198.
One of the few positive findings of our study is that only 18 American civilians (not counting
civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan) have been killed by jihadist groups since the war in
Iraq began. But that number is still significantly higher than the four American civilians who were
killed in attacks attributed to jihadist groups in the period between 9/11 and the Iraq War. It was
the capture and killing of much of Al Qaeda's leadership after 9/11 and the breakup of its training
camp facilities in Afghanistan--not the war in Iraq--that prevented Al Qaeda from successfully launching
attacks on American targets on the scale it did in the years before 9/11.
Also undermining the argument that Al Qaeda and like-minded groups are being distracted from plotting
against Western targets are the dangerous, anti-American plots that have arisen since the start of
the Iraq War. Jihadist terrorists have attacked key American allies since the Iraq conflict began,
mounting multiple bombings in London that killed 52 in July 2005, and attacks in Madrid in 2004 that
killed 191. Shehzad Tanweer, one of the London bombers, stated in his videotaped suicide "will,"
"What have you witnessed now is only the beginning of a string of attacks that will continue and
become stronger until you pull your forces out of Afghanistan and Iraq." There have been six jihadist
attacks on the home soil of the United States' NATO allies (including Turkey) in the period after
the invasion of Iraq, whereas there were none in the 18 months following 9/11; and, of course, the
plan uncovered in London in August 2006 to smuggle liquid explosives onto U.S. airliners, had it
succeeded, would have killed thousands.
Al Qaeda has not let the Iraq War distract it from targeting the United States and her allies.
In a January 19, 2006 audiotape, Osama bin Laden himself refuted President Bush's argument that Iraq
had distracted and diverted Al Qaeda: "The reality shows that that the war against America and its
allies has not remained limited to Iraq, as he claims, but rather, that Iraq has become a source
and attraction and recruitment of qualified people.... As for the delay in similar [terrorist] operations
in America, [the] operations are being prepared, and you will witness them, in your own land, as
soon as preparations are complete."
Ayman al Zawahiri echoed bin Laden's words in a March 4, 2006, videotape broadcast by Al Jazeera
calling for jihadists to launch attacks on the home soil of Western countries: "[Muslims have to]
inflict losses on the crusader West, especially to its economic infrastructure with strikes that
would make it bleed for years. The strikes on New York, Washington, Madrid, and London are the best
examples.
One measure of the impact of the Iraq War is the precipitous drop in public support for the United
States in Muslim countries. Jordan, a key U.S. ally, saw popular approval for the United States drop
from 25 percent in 2002 to 1 percent in 2003. In Lebanon during the same period, favorable views
of the United States dropped from 30 percent to 15 percent, and in the world's largest Muslim country,
Indonesia, favorable views plummeted from 61 percent to 15 percent. Disliking the United States does
not make you a terrorist, but clearly the pool of Muslims who dislike the United States has grown
by hundreds of millions since the Iraq War began. The United States' plummeting popularity does not
suggest active popular support for jihadist terrorists but it does imply some sympathy with their
anti-American posture, which means a significant swath of the Muslim population cannot be relied
on as an effective party in counter-terrorism/insurgency measures. And so, popular contempt for U.S.
policy has become a force multiplier for Islamist militants.
The Iraq War has also encouraged Muslim youth around the world to join jihadist groups, not necessarily
directly tied to Al Qaeda but often motivated by a similar ideology. The Iraq War allowed Al Qaeda,
which was on the ropes in 2002 after the United States had captured or killed two-thirds of its leadership,
to reinvent itself as a broader movement because Al Qaeda's central message--that the United States
is at war with Islam--was judged by significant numbers of Muslims to have been corroborated by the
war in Iraq. And compounding this, the wide dissemination of the exploits of jihadist groups in Iraq
following the invasion energized potential and actual jihadists across the world.
How exactly has The Iraq Effect played out in different parts of the world? The effect has not
been uniform. Europe, the Arab world, and Afghanistan all saw major rises in jihadist terrorism in
the period after the invasion of Iraq, while Pakistan and India and the Chechnya/Russia front saw
only smaller increases in jihadist terrorism. And in Southeast Asia, attacks and killings by jihadist
groups fell by over 60 percent in the period after the Iraq War. The strength or weakness of The
Iraq Effect on jihadist terrorism in a particular country seems to be influenced by four factors:
(1) if the country itself has troops in Iraq; (2) geographical proximity to Iraq; (3) the degree
of identification with Iraq's Arabs felt in the country; and (4) the level of exchanges of ideas
or personnel with Iraqi jihadist groups. This may explain why jihadist groups in Europe, Arab countries,
and Afghanistan were more affected by the Iraq War than groups in other regions. Europe, unlike Kashmir,
Chechnya, and Southeast Asia for example, contains several countries that are part of the coalition
in Iraq. It is relatively geographically close to the Arab world and has a large Arab-Muslim diaspora
from which jihadists have recruited.
European intelligence services are deeply concerned about the effect of the Iraq War. For example,
Dame Eliza Mannigham-Buller, the head of Britain's MI5, stated on November 10, 2006, "In Iraq, attacks
are regularly videoed and the footage is downloaded onto the Internet [and] chillingly we see the
results here. Young teenagers are being groomed to be suicide bombers. We are aware of numerous plots
to kill people and damage our economy...30 that we know of. [The] threat is serious, is growing,
and, I believe, will be with us for a generation." Startlingly, a recent poll found that a quarter
of British Muslims believe that the July 7, 2005, London bombings were justifiable because of British
foreign policy, bearing out Dame Eliza's concern about a new generation of radicals in the United
Kingdom.
While Islamist militants in Europe are mobilized by a series of grievances such as Palestine,
Afghanistan, the Kashmir conflict, and Chechnya, no issue has resonated more in radical circles and
on Islamist websites than the war in Iraq. This can be seen in the skyrocketing rate of jihadist
terrorist attacks around the Arab world outside of Iraq. There have been 37 attacks in Arab countries
outside of Iraq since the invasion, while there were only three in the period between 9/11 and March
2003. The rate of attacks in Arab countries jumped by 445 percent since the Iraq invasion, while
the rate of killings rose by 783 percent. The November 9, 2005 bombings of three American hotels
in Amman, Jordan, that killed 60, an operation directed by Abu Musab al Zarqawi's Al Qaeda in Iraq
network, was the most direct manifestation of The Iraq Effect in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia, in
particular, has seen an upsurge in jihadist terrorism since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. There were
no jihadist terrorist attacks between 9/11 and the Iraq War but 12 in the period since. The reason
for the surge in terrorism was a decision taken by Al Qaeda's Saudi branch in the spring of 2003
to launch a wave of attacks (primarily at Western targets) to undermine the Saudi royal family. These
attacks were initiated on May 12, 2003 with the bombing of Western compounds in Riyadh, killing 34,
including 10 Americans. While Saudi authorities believe that planning and training for the operation
predated the war in Iraq, the timing of the attack, just weeks after the U.S invasion is striking.
The fact that the Iraq War radicalized some young Saudis is underlined by studies showing that
more Saudis have conducted suicide operations in Iraq than any other nationality. For instance, Mohammed
Hafez, a visiting professor at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, in a study of the 101 identified
suicide attackers in Iraq from March 2003 to February 2006, found that more than 40 percent were
Saudi. This jihadist energy was not just transferred over the Saudi border into Iraq. It also contributed
to attacks in the Kingdom. The group that beheaded the American contractor Paul Johnson in Riyadh
in June 2004 called itself the "Al Fallujah brigade of Al Qaeda" and claimed that it had carried
out the killing in part to avenge the actions of "disbelievers" in Iraq. In January 2004 Al Qaeda's
Saudi affiliate launched Al Battar, an online training magazine specifically directed at young Saudis
interested in fighting their regime. The achievements of jihadists in Iraq figured prominently in
its pages. Indeed, a contributor to the first issue of Al Battar argued that the Iraq War had made
jihad "a commandment" for Saudi Arabians " the Islamic nation is today in acute conflict with the
Crusaders."
The Iraq War had a strong impact in other Arab countries too. Daily images aired by Al Jazeera
and other channels of suffering Iraqis enraged the Arab street and strengthened the hands of radicals
everywhere. In Egypt, the Iraq War has contributed to a recent wave of attacks by small, self-generated
groups. A Sinai-based jihadist group carried out coordinated bombing attacks on Red Sea resorts popular
with Western tourists at Taba in October 2004, at Sharm el-Sheikh in July 2005, and at Dahab in April
2006, killing a total of more than 120.
One of the cell's members, Younis Elian Abu Jarir, a taxi driver whose job was to ferry the group
around, stated in a confession offered as evidence in court that "they convinced me of the need for
holy war against the Jews, Americans, Italians, and other nationalities that participated in the
occupation of Iraq." Osama Rushdi, a former spokesman of the Egyptian terrorist group Gamma Islamiyya
now living in London, told us that while attacks in the Sinai were partly directed at the Egyptian
regime, they appeared to be primarily anti-Western in motivation: "The Iraq War contributed to the
negative feelings of the Sinai group. Before the Iraq War, most Egyptians did not have a negative
feeling towards American policy. Now almost all are opposed to American policy."
Since the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan has suffered 219 jihadist terrorist attacks that can be attributed
to a particular group, resulting in the deaths of 802 civilians. The fact that the Taliban only conducted
its first terrorist attacks in September 2003, a few months after the invasion of Iraq, is significant.
International forces had already been stationed in the country for two years before the Taliban began
to specifically target the U.S.-backed Karzai government and civilians sympathetic to it. This points
to a link between events in Iraq and the initiation of the Taliban's terrorist campaign in Afghanistan.
True, local dynamics form part of the explanation for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
But the use of terrorism, particularly suicide attacks, by the Taliban is an innovation drawn from
the Iraqi theater. Hekmat Karzai, an Afghan terrorism researcher, points out that suicide bombings
were virtually unknown in Afghanistan until 2005. In 2006, Karzai says, there were 118 such attacks,
more than there had been in the entire history of the country. Internet sites have helped spread
the tactics of Iraqi jihadists. In 2005 the "Media Committee of the Al Qaeda Mujahideen in Afghanistan"
launched an online magazine called Vanguards of Kharasan, which includes articles on what Afghan
fighters can learn from Coalition and jihadist strategies in Iraq. Abdul Majid Abdul Majed, a contributor
to the April 2006 issue of the magazine, argued for an expansion in suicide operations, citing the
effectiveness of jihadist operations in Iraq.
Mullah Dadullah, a key Taliban commander, gave an interview to Al Jazeera in 2006 in which he
explained how the Iraq War has influenced the Taliban. Dadullah noted that "we have 'give and take'
with the mujahideen in Iraq." Hamid Mir, a Pakistani journalist who is writing bin Laden's biography,
told us that young men traveled from the Afghan province of Khost to "on-the-job training" in Iraq
in 2004. "They came back with lots of CDs which were full of military actions against U.S. troops
in the Mosul, Fallujah, and Baghdad areas. I think suicide bombing was introduced in Afghanistan
and Pakistan after local boys came back after spending some time in Iraq. I met a Taliban commander,
Mullah Mannan, last year in Zabul who told me that he was trained in Iraq by Zarqawi along with many
Pakistani tribals."
Propaganda circulating in Afghanistan and Pakistan about American "atrocities" and jihadist "heroics"
has also energized the Taliban, encouraging a previously somewhat isolated movement to see itself
as part of a wider struggle. Our study found a striking correlation in how terrorist campaigns intensified
in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rate of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan gathered pace in the summer
of 2005, a half year after a similar increase in Iraq, and in 2006 the rate of attacks in both countries
rose in tandem to new, unprecedented levels.
While the Iraq War has had a strong effect on the rise in terrorism in Afghanistan, it appears
to have played less of a role on jihadists operating in Pakistan and India, though terrorism did
rise in those countries following the invasion of Iraq. (Of course, neither Pakistan nor India has
foreign troops on its soil, which accounts, in part, for the high terrorism figures in Afghanistan.)
The rate of jihadist attacks rose by 21 percent while the fatality rate rose by 19 percent. There
were 52 attacks after the Iraq invasion, killing 489 civilians, while there were 19 in the period
before, killing 182. The local dynamics of the Kashmir conflict, tensions between India and Pakistan,
and the resurfacing of the Taliban in eastern Pakistan likely played a large role here. That said,
there is evidence that the Iraq War did energize jihadists in Pakistan. Hamid Mir says, "Iraq not
only radicalized the Pakistani tribals [near the Afghan border] but it offered them the opportunity
for them to go to Iraq via Iran to get on-the-job training."
There is also evidence that the Iraq War had some impact in other areas of Pakistan. In the summer
of 2004, Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, the head of the Kashmiri militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba, told followers
in Lahore, "Islam is in grave danger, and the mujahideen are fighting to keep its glory. They are
fighting the forces of evil in Iraq in extremely difficult circumstances. We should send mujahideen
from Pakistan to help them." And Pakistan, inasmuch as it has become Al Qaeda's new base for training
and planning attacks, has become the location where significant numbers of would-be jihadists--including
some young British Pakistanis such as the London suicide bombers, radicalized in part by the Iraq
War--have traveled to learn bomb-making skills.
In Russia and Chechnya, the Iraq War appears to have had less of an impact than on other jihadist
fronts. This is unsurprising given the fact that jihadist groups in the region are preoccupied by
a separatist war against the Russian military. Whilst following the invasion of Iraq there was a
rise in the number of attacks by Chechen groups that share a similar ideology with Al Qaeda, the
total rate of fatalities did not go up. The Iraq War does seem to have diverted some jihadists from
the Russian/Chechen front: Arab fighters who might have previously gone to Chechnya now have a cause
at their own doorstep, while funds from Arab donors increasingly have gone to the Iraqi jihad.
Southeast Asia has been the one region in the world in which jihadist terrorism has declined significantly
in the period since the invasion of Iraq. There was a 67 percent drop in the rate of attacks (from
10.5 to 3.5 attacks per year) in the post-invasion period and a 69 percent drop in the rate of fatalities
(from 201 to 62 fatalities per year). And there has been no bombing on the scale of the October 2002
Bali nightclub attack that killed more than 200. However, jihadist terrorism in Southeast Asia has
declined in spite, not because of, the Iraq War. The U.S. invasion of Iraq was deeply unpopular in
the region, as demonstrated by the poll finding that only 15 percent of Indonesians had a favorable
view of the United States in 2003. But the negative impact of the Iraq War on public opinion was
mitigated by U.S. efforts to aid the region in the wake of the devastating tsunami of December 2004--Pew
opinion surveys have shown that the number of those with favorable views towards the United States
in Indonesia crept above 30 percent in 2005 and 2006.
However, the main reason for the decline of jihadist terrorism in Southeast Asia has been the
successful crackdown by local authorities on jihadist groups and their growing unpopularity with
the general population. The August 2003 capture of Hambali, Jemaa Islamiya's operational commander,
was key to degrading the group's capacity to launch attacks as was the arrest of hundreds of Jemaa
Islamiya and Abu Sayyaf operatives in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore in the years
after the October 2002 Bali bombings. Those arrested included most of those who planned the Bali
attacks, as well as former instructors at Jemaa Islamiya camps and individuals involved in financing
attacks. And in November 2005 Indonesian security services killed Jemaa Islamiya master bomber Azhari
bin Husin in a shoot-out. The second wave of Bali attacks in 2005 killed mostly Indonesians and created
a popular backlash against jihadist groups in Indonesia, degrading their ability to recruit operatives.
And Muslim leaders such as Masdar Farid Masudi, the deputy leader of the country's largest Islamic
group, condemned the bombings: "If the perpetrators are Muslims, their sentences must be multiplied
because they have tarnished the sacredness of their religion and smeared its followers worldwide."
Iraq Effect (continued)
Our survey shows that the Iraq conflict has motivated jihadists around the world to see their particular
struggle as part of a wider global jihad fought on behalf of the Islamic ummah, the global community
of Muslim believers. The Iraq War had a strong impact in jihadist circles in the Arab world and Europe,
but also on the Taliban, which previously had been quite insulated from events elsewhere in the Muslim
world. By energizing the jihadist groups, the Iraq conflict acted as a catalyst for the increasing
globalization of the jihadist cause, a trend that should be deeply troubling for American policymakers.
In the late 1990s, bin Laden pushed a message of a global jihad and attracted recruits from around
the Muslim world to train and fight in Afghanistan. The Iraq War has made bin Laden's message of
global struggle even more persuasive to militants. Over the past three years, Iraq has attracted
thousands of foreign fighters who have been responsible for the majority of suicide attacks in the
country. Those attacks have had an enormous strategic impact; for instance, getting the United Nations
to pull out of Iraq and sparking the Iraqi civil war.
Emblematic of the problem is Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old Belgian woman who on November 9, 2005,
near the town of Baquba in central Iraq, detonated a bomb as she drove past an American patrol. In
the bomb crater, investigators found travel documents that showed that she had arrived in Iraq from
Belgium just a few weeks earlier with her Moroccan-Belgian husband Hissam Goris. The couple had been
recruited by "Al Qaeda in Iraq." Goris would die the following day, shot by American forces as he
prepared to launch a suicide attack near Fallujah.
The story of Muriel Degauque and her husband is part of a trend that Harvard terrorism researcher
Assaf Moghadam terms the "globalization of martyrdom." The London suicide bombings in July 2005 revealed
the surprising willingness of four British citizens to die to protest the United Kingdom's role in
the Coalition in Iraq; Muriel Degauque, for her part, was willing to die for the jihadist cause in
a country in which she was a stranger.
This challenges some existing conceptions of the motivations behind suicide attacks. In 2005 University
of Chicago political scientist Robert Pape published a much-commented-upon study of suicide bombing,
"Dying to Win," in which he used a mass of data about previous suicide bombing campaigns to argue
that they principally occurred "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory
that the terrorists consider to be their homeland." (Of course, terrorism directed against totalitarian
regimes rarely occurs because such regimes are police states and are unresponsive to public opinion.)
Pape also argued that while religion might aggravate campaigns of suicide terrorism, such campaigns
had also been undertaken by secular groups, most notably the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers, whose most
spectacular success was the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi by a female suicide
attacker in 1991.
Pape's findings may explain the actions and motivations of terrorist groups in countries such
as Sri Lanka, but his principal claim that campaigns of suicide terrorism are generally nationalist
struggles to liberate occupied lands that have little to do with religious belief does not survive
contact with the reality of what is going on today in Iraq. The most extensive suicide campaign in
history is being conducted in Iraq largely by foreigners animated by the deeply-held religious belief
that they must liberate a Muslim land from the "infidel" occupiers.
While Iraqis make up the great bulk of the insurgents, several studies have shown that the suicide
attackers in Iraq are generally foreigners, while only a small proportion are Iraqi. (Indeed, the
most feared terrorist leader in Iraq until his death earlier this year, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, was
a Jordanian.) The Israeli researcher Reuven Paz, using information posted on Al Qaeda-linked websites
between October 2004 and March 2005, found that of the 33 suicide attacks listed, 23 were conducted
by Saudis, and only 1 by an Iraqi. Similarly, in June 2005 the Search for International Terrorist
Entities (SITE) Institute of Washington, D.C. found by tracking both jihadist websites and media
reports that of the 199 Sunni extremists who had died in Iraq either in suicide attacks or in action
against Coalition or Iraqi forces, 104 were from Saudi Arabia and only 21 from Iraq. The rest were
predominantly from countries around the Middle East. And Mohammed Hafez in his previously cited study
of the 101 "known" suicide bombers in Iraq found that while 44 were Saudi and 8 were from Italy (!),
only 7 were from Iraq.
In congressional testimony this past November, CIA Director General Michael Hayden said that "an
overwhelming percentage of the suicide bombers are foreign." A senior U.S. military intelligence
official told us that a worrisome recent trend is the rising number of North Africans who have joined
the ranks of foreign fighters in Iraq, whose number General Hayden pegged at 1,300 during his November
congressional testimony. A Saudi official also confirmed to us the rising number of North Africans
who are being drawn into the Iraq War.
The globalization of jihad and martyrdom, accelerated to a significant degree by the Iraq War, has
some disquieting implications for American security in the future. First, it has energized jihadist
groups generally; second, not all foreign fighters attracted to Iraq will die there. In fact there
is evidence that some jihadists are already leaving Iraq to operate elsewhere. Saudi Arabia has made
a number of arrests of fighters coming back from Iraq, and Jordanian intelligence sources say that
300 fighters have returned to Jordan from Iraq. As far away as Belgium, authorities have indicated
that Younis Lekili, an alleged member of the cell that recruited Muriel Degauque, had previously
traveled to fight in Iraq, where he lost his leg. (Lekili is awaiting trial in Belgium.)
German, French, and Dutch intelligence officials have estimated that there are dozens of their
citizens returning from the Iraq theater, and some appear to have been determined to carry out attacks
on their return to Europe. For example, French police arrested Hamid Bach, a French citizen of Moroccan
descent, in June 2005 in Montpellier, several months after he returned from a staging camp for Iraq
War recruits in Syria. According to French authorities, Bach's handlers there instructed him to assist
with plotting terrorist attacks in Italy. Back in France, Bach is alleged to have bought significant
quantities of hydrogen peroxide and to have looked up details on explosives and detonators online.
(Bach is awaiting trial in France.)
This "blowback" trend will greatly increase when the war eventually winds down in Iraq. In the
short term the countries most at risk are those whose citizens have traveled to fight in Iraq, in
particular Arab countries bordering Iraq. Jamal Khashoggi, a leading Saudi expert on jihadist groups,
told us that "while Iraq brought new blood into the Al Qaeda organization in Saudi Arabia, this was
at a time when the network was being dismantled. Al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia could not accommodate these
recruits so they sent them to Iraq to train them, motivate them, and prepare them for a future wave
of attacks in the Kingdom. It is a deep worry to Saudi authorities that Saudis who have gone to Iraq
will come back." That's a scenario for which Khashoggi says Saudi security forces are painstakingly
preparing.
Several U.S. citizens have tried to involve themselves in the Iraq jihad. In December an American
was arrested in Cairo, Egypt, accused of being part of a cell plotting terrorist attacks in Iraq.
And in February 2006 three Americans from Toledo, Ohio, were arrested for allegedly plotting to kill
U.S. military personnel in Iraq. According to the FBI, one of these individuals, Mohammad Zaki Amawi,
was in contact with an Arab jihadist group sending fighters to Iraq and tried unsuccessfully to cross
the border into Iraq. However, to date there is no evidence of Americans actually fighting in Iraq
so the number of returnees to the United States is likely to be small. The larger risk is that jihadists
will migrate from Iraq to Western countries, a trend that will be accelerated if, as happened following
the Afghan jihad against the Soviets, those fighters are not allowed to return to their home countries.
Already terrorist groups in Iraq may be in a position to start sending funds to other jihadist
fronts. According to a U.S. government report leaked to the New York Times in November 2006, the
fact that insurgent and terrorist groups are raising up to $200 million a year from various illegal
activities such as kidnapping and oil theft in Iraq means that they "may have surplus funds with
which to support other terrorist organizations outside Iraq." Indeed, a letter from Al Qaeda's No.
2, Ayman al Zawahiri, to Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi in July 2005 contained this
revealing request: "Many of the [funding] lines have been cut off. Because of this we need a payment
while new lines are being opened. So if you're capable of sending a payment of approximately one
hundred thousand we'll be very grateful to you."
The "globalization of martyrdom" prompted by the Iraq War has not only attracted foreign fighters
to die in Iraq (we record 148 suicide-terrorist attacks in Iraq credited to an identified jihadist
group) but has also encouraged jihadists to conduct many more suicide operations elsewhere. Since
the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there has been a 246 percent rise in the rate of suicide attacks (6 before
and 47 after) by jihadist groups outside of Iraq and a 24 percent increase in the corresponding fatality
rate. Even excluding Afghanistan, there has been a 150 percent rise in the rate of suicide attacks
and a 14 percent increase in the rate of fatalities attributable to jihadists worldwide. The reasons
for the spread of suicide bombing attacks in other jihadist theaters are complex but the success
of these tactics in Iraq, the lionization that Iraqi martyrs receive on jihadist websites, and the
increase in feelings of anger and frustration caused by images of the Iraq War have all likely contributed
significantly. The spread of suicide bombings should be of great concern to the United States in
defending its interests and citizens around the world, because they are virtually impossible to defend
against.
The Iraq War has also encouraged the spread of more hardline forms of jihad (the corollary to
an increase in suicide bombing). Anger and frustration over Iraq has increased the popularity, especially
among young militants, of a hardcore takfiri ideology that is deeply intolerant of divergent interpretations
of Islam and highly tolerant of extreme forms of violence. The visceral anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism,
and anti-Shiism widely circulated among the Internet circles around ideologues such as Abu Muhammad
al-Maqdisi and Abu Qatada (both Jordanian-Palestinian mentors to Abu Musab al Zarqawi) and Al Qaeda's
Syrian hawk, Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, are even more extreme, unlikely as it may sound, than the statements
of bin Laden himself.
Our study shows just how counterproductive the Iraq War has been to the war on terrorism. The
most recent State Department report on global terrorism states that the goal of the United States
is to identify, target, and prevent the spread of "jihadist groups focused on attacking the United
States or its allies [and those groups that] view governments and leaders in the Muslim world as
their primary targets." Yet, since the invasion of Iraq, attacks by such groups have risen more than
sevenfold around the world. And though few Americans have been killed by jihadist terrorists in the
past three years it is wishful thinking to believe that this will continue to be the case, given
the continued determination of militant jihadists to target the country they see as their main enemy.
We will be living with the consequences of the Iraq debacle for more than a decade.
Special thanks to Mike Torres and Zach Stern at NYU and Kim Cragin and Drew Curiel at RAND.
<< The Iraq Effect Pg.5 << >> The Data: The Iraq War and Jihadist Terrorism >>
Go on-site for sources, charts, etc. Just click on the following URLs:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2007/03/iraq_101.html
Sheldon Wolin RIP -- Wolin's
Politics and Vision, which
remains to this day the single best book on Western political theory
Notable quotes:
"... In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also even
about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate and utilize
in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling. ..."
"... Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined as the
leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the sense that the
people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. ..."
"... democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind of case for an
economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being a kind of constant
threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for. ..."
"... Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom, mores, political
values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy. And
it's that–that's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want a political
order subservient to the needs of the economy. ..."
I was a freshman at Princeton. It was the fall of 1985. I signed up to take a course called "Modern
Political Theory." It was scheduled for Mondays and Wednesdays at 9 am. I had no idea what I was
doing. I stumbled into class, and there was a man with white hair and a trim white beard, lecturing
on Machiavelli. I was transfixed.
There was just one problem: I was-still am-most definitely not a morning person. Even though the
lectures were riveting, I had to fight my tendency to fall asleep. Even worse, I had to fight my
tendency to sleep in.
So I started-- drinking coffee. I'd show up for class fully caffeinated. And proceeded to work
my way through the canon-Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, along with some texts you don't often
get in intro theory courses (the Putney Debates, Montesquieu's Persian Letters, and for a
last hurrah: Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations)-under the guidance of one of the great readers
of the twentieth century.
More than anything else, that's what Sheldon Wolin was: a reader of texts. He approached The
Prince as if it were a novel, identifying its narrative voice, analyzing the literary construction
of the characters who populated the text (new prince, customary prince, centaur, the people), examining
the structural tensions in the narrative (How does a Machiavellian adviser advise a non-Machiavellian
prince?), and so on. It was exhilarating.
And then after class I'd head straight for Firestone Library; read whatever we were reading that
week in class; follow along, chapter by chapter, with Wolin's Politics and Vision,which remains to this day the single best book on Western political theory that I know of
(even though lots of the texts we were talking about in class don't appear there, or appear there
with very different interpretations from the ones Wolin was offering in class: the man never
stood still, intellectually); and get my second cup of coffee.
This is all a long wind-up to the fact that this morning, my friend Antonio Vazquez-Arroyo, sent
me a
two-part interview that
Chris Hedges conducted with Wolin, who's living out in Salem, Oregon now. From his Wikipedia
page, I gather that Wolin's 92. He looks exactly the same as he did in 1985. And sounds the same.
Though it seems from the video as if he may now be losing his sight. Which is devastating when I
think about the opening passages of Politics and Vision, about how vision is so critical to
the political theorist and the practice of theoria.
Anyway, here he is, talking to Hedges about his thesis of "inverted totalitarianism":
In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also
even about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate
and utilize in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling.
And they will take whatever steps are needed in the economy in order to ensure the long-run sustainability
of the political order. In other words, the sort of arrows of political power flow from top to
bottom.
Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined
as the leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the
sense that the people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. And minority rule is usually
treated as something to be abhorred but is in fact what we have. And it's the problem has to do,
I think, with the historical relationship between political orders and economic orders. And
democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind of case for an
economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being a kind of constant
threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for.
… ... ...
Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom, mores, political
values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy.
And it's that–that's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want
a political order subservient to the needs of the economy. And their notion of an economy,
while it's broadly based in the sense of a capitalism in which there can be relatively free entrance
and property is relatively widely dispersed it's also a capitalism which, in the last analysis,
is [as] elitist as any aristocratic system ever was.
Have a listen and a watch. Part 1 and then Part 2.
Pt 1-8 Hedges & Wolin Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist
"... Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization." ..."
"Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons
arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and
world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from
potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth."
Despite some modestly positive developments in the climate change arena, current efforts are
entirely insufficient to prevent a catastrophic warming of Earth.
Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their
nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at
just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most
important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization."
"He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile
was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn,
self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his
nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won
the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."
Reg Morrison: "The human brain remains a piece of stone-age machinery, however you look at it,
and no amount of culture can make it otherwise. Genetically speaking we are a finished
product, not a prototype. What you see is what you get-there will be no bright utopian
future."- The Spirit in the Gene, page 247.
Haus-Targaryen
So we have Russian soldiers on the ground fighting ISIS & the "moderate" rebels alongside
Iran & Syria -- while Russia blows said head choppers to smithereens. While the US will have
soldiers on the ground fighting Assad & Hezbollah blowing them up from the air.
What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the
Americans thinking they are Hezbollah. What happens then? (Then they call air strikes on one
another and everyone figures out shit just went real wrong really quickly).
HowdyDoody
"What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the
Americans thinking they are Hezbollah" That's a feature, not a bug. And that is why the
Russians are calling out on it beforehand.
ZippyDooDah
Russia is providing air cover to Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, so that the USAF can't bomb
the Shiite ground troops. America is providing ground troops in Syria to embed with "rebels,"
so that Russia can't bomb the Sunni ground troops. Proxy war at its most insane, cause it just
went beyond proxies.
The Sunni-Shiite divide is centuries old, and not a fight we should ever have gotten involved
with. Dumbassery at its most insane.
You might think the U.S. military might someday rebel against this kind of wanton waste of its
resources. But no, I guess we are just going to grind ourselves away to nothing in the Middle
East meat chopper.
TheReplacement
Wikileaks Ukraine has leaked a conversation regarding planning false flag shoot downs that
involved a certain sitting US Senator who happens to have met with the Nazis in Ukraine and
the terrorists in Syria. I believe the plan is to shoot down a US/NATO jet and then a Russian.
lakecity55
Russia needs to state the legal case before the UN Security Council and force the USG to
veto the Resolution, thus making Vichy DC even more in the wrong internationally!
Paveway IV
Russia was already holding the UN's feet to the fire. Things just got a whole lot worse in
the last two days.
The Golan Heights is not Israeli territory according to the UN - ever since 1949. They
recognize Israel is occupying it, but under international law (such as it were) the Golan
Heights are still Syrian soverign territory. Technically, Syria and Israel are still at war.
They are only maintaining a cease-fire/truce along a UNDOF neutral zone (= safe zone = no-fly
zone) established in 1974. The 1974 truce didnt' 'give' Israel the Golan land. It was simply
an agreement that Israel and Syria would stop attacking eachother and stay out of a neutral
zone between each country's armies.
Herein lies the problem: Israel has been directly supporting al Nusra and ISIS forces hiding
inside that neutral zone. The place is so over-run with head-choppers that the 1300 UN
observers LEFT their own camps in that zone and have relocated to the Israeli side of the
cease-fire line. They openly acknowledge that they can't do anything about defending the zone
because Nusra/ISIS are not parties to the ceasefire, and Israel is covertly supplying them so
there's no proof that they are violating the cease-fire.
Israel has repeatedly bombed SAA troops chasing al Nusra/ISIS into the neutral zone. This is a
direct violation of the 1974 truce. Russia has always been pissed about that, but on Monday
they bitch-slapped Israel without anything but a ridiculous cover story spewed by the MSM (the
paraglider thing). Nobody seems to understand the profound implications of RUSSIA flying
combat missions IN THE UNDOF ZONE to bomb Israeli's little al Nusra buddies. They just did
this in al Qunaitra, which juts out into the occupied Golan Heights in such a way that it
would be difficult to bomb anything there without overflying the neurtral zone into the
Israeli side. Israel loves to use the word 'border' to suggest some kind of international
recognition, but there is none. There is (was) only a UNDOF-maintained cease-fire zone
arranged well into Syrian territory in 1974. Israel never left Syrian land and simply claim it
as theirs.
Russia keeps reiterating how it is adhering to international law. Something tells me that this
is in preparation for chasing any al Nusra/ISIS head-choppers into the Golan Heights as far as
they need to. They are not 'violating' Israeli airspace or soverign lands because it is - by
international recognition - still Syrian territory.
Everyone is waiting for a false flag, and it's been brewing right under our noses. Al Nusra
and ISIS will retreat into the Golan Heights because they think it will offer them immunity
from Russian air attacks. Russia recognizes (as does the world) that Syria STILL LEGALLY
extends to the Jordan river - the Golan Heights IS SYRIAN SOVERIGN TERRITORY. Russia is not
'provoking' Israel - Israel shouldn't be there according to international law and UN
recognition.
I think Russia is going to drive al Nusra and ISIS INTO the Golan Heights to force this issue
- an issue that Israel has already LOST in the eyes of the international community. Would the
U.S. go nuclear to 'defend' Israel's land-theft? Answer: Who cares. Dick Cheney's oil company
just found a huge deposit there - of course the U.S. would go nuclear to protect his money.
That's what the U.S. does.
cowdiddly
What's even funnier is Iraq has already said "NO THANKS" to ground troops in Iraq. They
have seen enough of your so called help.
Also the little hero raid the other day was a complete farce. The Pershmerga was supposed to
lead the raid and do all the dirty work while US troops come in behind. Of the casualties, The
one US soldier that got wacked got a little to rambunctious and got out in front.
Yea hero, lead from behind and you Kurds charge the hill and we look like we did the raid and
take the credit. WHATEVER.
The US is trying real hard to look relevent here. Just like the single ship to China crap.
OOOOHHHHHH SCARY, No one is Intimidated, it makes you look weak ,and they just think your
insane.
GO big or GO HOME. But mostly GO HOME WITH SOME DIGNITY LEFT. You can't afford to Play and you
look sad and no one wants your help.
We've found an oil stratum 350 meters thick in the southern Golan Heights. On average
worldwide, strata are 20 to 30 meters thick, and this is 10 times as large as that, so we are
talking about significant quantities," Afek Oil & Gas chief geologist Yuval Bartov claimed in
an interview to a local broadcaster as quoted by Engdahl.
"The Netanyahu government [is now] more determined than ever to sow chaos and disorder in
Damascus and use that to de facto create an Israeli irreversible occupation of Golan and its
oil," the expert stressed.
"Now an apparent discovery of huge volumes of oil by a New Jersey oil company whose board
includes Iraq war architect, Dick Cheney, neo-con ex-CIA head James Woolsey, and Jacob Lord
Rothschild… brings the stakes of the Russian intervention on behalf of Syria's Assad against
ISIS [ISIL], al-Qaeda and other CIA-backed 'moderate terrorists' to a new geopolitical
dimension," Engdahl underscored.
NOTE: Alphahammer and Yomatti wants everyone to spend a half
hour doing some research into the origins of ISIS:
http://bfy.tw/2VnO
Raymond_K._Hessel
Iraq to Washington: We Don't Want Your Troops
What a difference a day makes. Just 24 hours ago US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was
telling the Senate Armed Services Committee all about the Obama Administration's new military
strategy for the Middle East. The headline grabber from his testimony was the revelation that
the US military would begin "direct action on the ground" in Iraq and Syria.
"We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL
(ISIS)," he told the Committee. The new strategy would consist of "three R's," he said: more
US action, including on the ground, with Syrian opposition partners to take the ISIS
stronghold in Raqqa, Syria; more intense cooperation with the Iraqi army including with
US-embedded soldiers to retake Ramadi from ISIS in Iraq; and the beginning of US military
raids, "whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground."
That was news to the Iraqis, it turns out. And it wasn't very good news at that. Today Sa'ad
al-Hadithi, spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, said "thanks but no thanks" to
a third US invasion of his country. "We have enough soldiers on the ground," he said.
This raises the question of whether the US administration intends to insert US soldiers into
Iraq against the wishes of its elected government, as it has done and promises to continue to
do in Syria. In that case, the US would be shooting at ISIS and the Iraqi government, as well
as the Iran-backed Shi'ite militias who are coming to increasingly control large parts of the
Iraqi military. Presumably all these forces would be shooting back at US troops on the ground
as well. The US would likely be partnering in this task with the anti-ISIS Sunni fighters
highlighted in Defense Secretary Carter's testimony yesterday. In other words, the US would be
backing forces closer to those of Saddam Hussein, who they overthrew twelve years ago.
The Iraqi government had requested Russian assistance against ISIS earlier this month, after
Russian strikes in Syria appear to have made a significant impact on the battlefield. But
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Iraqis if they
accept Russian assistance they can forget about any more US aid.
It appears the US threat was not enough to put the Iraqis off asking for Russian help, as
earlier this week the Iraqi parliament approved Russian airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.
So the big roll-out of the new US Middle East military strategy seems to have fizzled, as none
of the intended beneficiaries of US assistance seem all that enthused about the partnership.
For the moment, the US finds itself backing Iranian militias in Iraq while fighting them next
door in Syria, while planning to place US troops in with "moderate" anti-Assad rebels in the
path of falling Russian bombs. All the while, of course, the US is aiding the Kurds in Syria
and Iraq which are currently being bombed by NATO ally Turkey.
Since ISIS, ISIL, IS or the word of the day is a Pentagon formed, trained & funded
operation, then the Pentagon is using the US Military, a Pentagon organization, against
another Pentagon organization.
Only proves the insanity of it all and the devaluing of life of the ordinary person.
Then again Satan attacks the ordinances of God given to man for the good of all which is
not limited to, marriage, family and the sanctity of life and unfortunately most people agree
as shown by their personal behaviors.
There is a strong evidence to suggest that representative democracy is not compatible with deep
economic inequality. As a recent study found, "politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness
of the economic elite." However, it was not always that way: In the past, left parties represented the
poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1& of earners. As FDR
warned, "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob."
Notable quotes:
"... politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite ..."
"... In the past, left parties represented the poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners, Jimenez reports. ..."
"... politician's bias toward the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average ..."
"... the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure a decent standard of living. ..."
"... What f*cking democracy in the land of the free? Its a fascist, police state run by a troika of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks. ..."
"... The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. ..."
"... The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media. -- William Colby, former CIA Director ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed, both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions, it is a valid observation. ..."
In recent years, several academic researchers have argued that rising inequality erodes
democracy. But the lack of international data has made it difficult to show whether inequality
in fact exacerbates the apparent lack of political responsiveness to popular sentiment. Even scholars
concerned about economic inequality, such as sociologist
Lane Kenworthy,
often hesitate to argue that economic inequality might bleed into the political sphere. New cross-national
research, however, suggests that higher inequality does indeed limit political representation.
In
a 2014 study on political representation, political scientists Jan Rosset, Nathalie Giger
and Julian Bernauer concluded, "In economically more unequal societies, the party
system represents the preferences of relatively poor citizens worse than in more equal societies." Similarly, political scientists Michael Donnelly and Zoe Lefkofridi
found in a working paper that in Europe, "Changes in overall attitudes toward redistribution
have very little effect on redistributive policies. Changes in socio-cultural policies are driven
largely by change in the attitudes of the affluent, and only weakly (if at all) by the middle
class or poor."They find that when the people get what they want, it's typically because
their views correspond with the affluent, rather than policymakers directly responding to their
concerns.
In another study of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, researcher
Pablo Torija Jimenez looked at data in 24 countries over 30 years. He examined how different governmental
structures influence happiness across income groups and
found that today
"politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite."
However, it was not always that way:In the past, left parties represented the poor,
the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners,
Jimenez reports.
In a recent working
paper, political scientist Larry Bartels finds the effect of politician's bias toward
the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average. Studying
23 OECD countries, Bartels finds that the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support
budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure
a decent standard of living.
JustObserving
What f*cking democracy in the land of the free? It's a fascist, police state run by a troika
of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks.
JustObserving
Who rules America?
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T,
Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide
the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these
state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of
the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called
"Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
Snowden's documents revealed that the NSA spies on everyone:
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition"
any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government."
It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White
House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate
(members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme
Court)."
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary
American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House
itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --
William Colby, former CIA Director
LetThemEatRand
Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions
used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats
by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed,
both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions,
it is a valid observation.
LetThemEatRand
I get your point and I'm not your downvote, but in my view the MSM has hijacked the issue of "inequality." The real issue is the oligarch class that has more wealth than half the country. We were a successful, functioning society when we had a middle class. There were rich people, poor people, and a whole lot in between. And it's the whole lot in between that matters. The minimum wage is a distraction. The two big issues are loss of manufacturing base and offshoring in general, and financialization of the economy (in large part due to Fed policy).
LetThemEatRand
...A big part of the "inequality" discussion is equal application of law. I recall when
TARP was floated during the W administration, the public of all persuasions was against it.
Congress passed it anyway, because of Too Big to Fail. TBTF should not be a liberal or
conservative issue. Likewise, the idea that no bankers went to jail is an issue of
"inequality." The laws do not apply equally to bankers. And the same with Lois Lerner. She
intentionally sent the IRS to harass political groups based upon ideology. She got off scott
free. Inequality again.
MASTER OF UNIVERSE
Inequality does not undermine democracy because democracy does not really exist. Faux
democracy is actually Totalitarianism under the guise of 'democracy'. In brief, democracy is
just a word that has been neutered, and bastardized too many times to count as anything real,
or imagined.
They should name a new ice cream DEMOCRACY just for FUN.
"... Whatever world order the U.S. may be fighting for in the Middle East, it seems at least an empire or two out of date. Washington refuses to admit to itself that [as a preverse reaction on neoliberalism] the ideas of Islamic fundamentalism resonate with vast numbers of people. ..."
"... No one is predicting a world war or a nuclear war from the mess in Syria. However, like those final days before the Great War, one finds a lot of pieces in play inside a tinderbox. ..."
"... Peter Van Buren blew the whistle on State Department waste and mismanagement during the Iraqi reconstruction in ..."
"... regular he writes about current events at ..."
A once stable region descends into chaos thanks to continuing repercussions from the 2003 Iraq
invasion. (via TomDispatch)
Whatever world order the U.S. may be fighting for in the Middle East, it seems at least an empire
or two out of date. Washington refuses to admit to itself that [as a preverse reaction on
neoliberalism] the ideas of Islamic fundamentalism
resonate with vast numbers of people. At this point, even as U.S. TOW missiles are becoming as ubiquitous
as iPads in the region, American military power can only delay changes, not stop them. Unless a rebalancing
of power that would likely favor some version of Islamic fundamentalism takes hold and creates some
measure of stability in the Middle East, count on one thing: the U.S. will be fighting the sons of
ISIS years from now.
... No one is predicting a world war or a nuclear war from the mess in Syria. However, like those
final days before the Great War, one finds a lot of pieces in play inside a tinderbox.
"... a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever. ..."
"... Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll help our security. ..."
"... They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didnt you hear somebody got killed on Walking Dead? Whos got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill? ..."
"... Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. Were sliding down the slippery slope. ..."
"... On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined version of the security bill to become law. ..."
This is the state of such legislation in this country, where
lawmakers wanted to do something but, by passing Cisa, just decided to cede more power to the NSA
Under the vague guise of "cybersecurity", the Senate voted on Tuesday to pass the Cybersecurity
Information Sharing Act (Cisa), a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our
privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information
to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever.
Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll
help our security.
eminijunkie 28 Oct 2015 17:34
Being competent requires work. Actual work.
You can't honestly say you expected them to do actual work, now can you?
david wright 28 Oct 2015 13:44
'The Senate, ignorant on cybersecurity, just passed a bill about it anyway '
The newsworthy event would be the Senate's passage of anything, on the basis of knowledge or
serious reflection, rather than $-funded ignorance. The country this pas few decades has been
long on policy-based evidence as a basis for law, rather than evidence-based policy. Get what
our funders require, shall be the whole of the law.
Kyllein -> MacKellerann 28 Oct 2015 16:49
Come ON! You are expecting COMPETENCE from Congress?
Wake up and smell the bacon; these people work on policy, not intelligence.
VWFeature -> lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 13:37
Bravo!
"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction,
should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the
concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do
apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants,
and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of
designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." -- Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837
"If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and
Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general
nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
lostinbago -> KhepryQuixote 28 Oct 2015 12:09
We became the enemy when the people started attacking the Military Industrial Corporate complex
and trying to regain our republic from the oligarchs.
lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 12:07
Congress: Where Catch 22 melds with Alice in Wonderland
Phil429 28 Oct 2015 11:44
we now have another law on the books that carves a hole in our privacy laws, contains
vague language that can be interpreted any which way, and that has provisions inserted into
it specifically to prevent us from finding out how they're using it.
They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didn't you hear somebody got killed
on Walking Dead? Who's got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill?
guardianfan2000 28 Oct 2015 08:53
This vote just showed the true colors of the U. S. Government,...that being a total disregard
for all individuals' privacy rights.
newbieveryday 28 Oct 2015 02:11
Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. We're sliding down the slippery slope.
Who's going to be der erster Fuehrer? David Koch?
Triumphant George -> alastriona 27 Oct 2015 18:55
From elsewhere:
On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly
mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined
version of the security bill to become law.
CISA still faces some hurdles to becoming law. Congressional leaders will need to resolve
remaining differences between the bills passed in the Senate and the House.
President Obama could also still veto CISA, though that's unlikely: The White House endorsed
the bill in August, an about-face from an earlier attempt at cybersecurity information sharing
legislation known as CISPA that the White House shut down with a veto threat in 2013.
--"CISA Security Bill Passes Senate With Privacy Flaws Unfixed", Wired
Two days ago
we reported
that the saga of Rohit Bansal, Goldman's "leaker" at the Fed is coming to a close
with the announcement of a criminal case filed against Goldman's deep throat who had previously spent
7 years at the NY Fed, and was about to spend some time in prison, and who had been providing Goldman
with confidential information sourced from his contact at the NY Fed for months, as a result of which
Goldman would be charged a penalty.
Moments ago the NY DFS announced that the best connected hedge fund in the world would pay $50
million to the New York State Department of Financial Services and "accept a three-year voluntary
abstention from accepting new consulting engagements that require the Department to authorize the
disclosure of confidential information under New York Banking Law"
Goldman Sachs would also admit that a Goldman employee engaged in the criminal theft of Department
confidential supervisory information; Goldman Sachs management failed to effectively supervise its
employee to prevent this theft from occurring; and Goldman failed to implement and maintain adequate
policies and procedures relating to post-employment restrictions for former government employees.
Below are the unbelievable, details of just how Goldman was getting material information from
the NY Fed, from the FDS:
Violation of Post-employment Restrictions
On July 21, 2014, an individual began work at Goldman, Sachs & Co. as an Associate in the Financial
Institutions Group ("FIG") of the Investment Banking Division ("IBD"). The Associate reported to
a Managing Director and a Partner at Goldman.
Prior to his employment at Goldman, from approximately August 2007 to March 2014, the Associate
was a bank examiner at the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of New York ("the New York Fed").
His
most recent position at the New York Fed was as the Central Point of Contact ("CPC") – the primary
supervisory contact for a particular financial institution – for an entity regulated by the Department
(the "Regulated Entity").
In March 2014, the Associate was required to resign from his position at the New York Fed for,
among other reasons, taking his work blackberry overseas without obtaining prior authorization to
do so and for attempting to falsify records to make it look like he had obtained such authorization,
and for engaging in unauthorized communications with the Federal Reserve Board.
The Associate was hired in large part for the regulatory experience and knowledge he had gained
while working at the New York Fed. Prior to hiring him, the Partner and other senior personnel interviewed
and called the Associate several times, and the Partner took him out to lunch and dinner.
Prior to starting at Goldman, in May 2014, the Associate informed the Partner of potential restrictions
on his work, due to his previous employment at the New York Fed, and specifically as the CPC for
the Regulated Entity. The Partner advised the Associate to consult the New York Fed to obtain clarification
regarding any applicable restrictions.
Accordingly, the Associate inquired with the New York Fed Ethics Office and was given a "Notice
of Post-Employment Restriction," which he completed and signed with respect to his supervisory work
for the Regulated Entity. The Associate provided this form to Goldman. This Notice of Post-Employment
Restriction read that the Associate was prohibited "from knowingly accepting compensation as an employee,
officer, director, or consultant from [the Regulated Entity]" until February 1, 2015.
On May 14, 2014, the Associate forwarded this notice of restriction to the Partner, the Managing
Director, and an attorney in Goldman's Legal Department. In his email, the Associate also included
guidance from the New York Fed, stating, in short, that a person falls under the post-employment
restriction if that person "directly works on matters for, or on behalf of," the relevant financial
institution.
Despite receiving this notice and guidance,
Goldman placed the Associate on Regulated Entity matters from the outset of his employment.
As further detailed below, the Associate also schemed to steal confidential regulatory and government
documents related to that same Regulated Entity in advising that client.
Unauthorized Possession and Dissemination of Confidential Information
During his employment at Goldman, the Associate
wrongfully obtained confidential information, including approximately 35 documents, on approximately
20 occasions, from a former co-worker at the New York Fed (the "New York Fed Employee").
These documents constituted confidential regulatory or supervisory information – many marked as "internal,"
"restricted," or "confidential" – belonging to the Department, the New York Fed or the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC"). The Associate's main conduit for receiving information
from the New York Fed was his former coworker, the New York Fed Employee, who has since been terminated
for this conduct. While still employed at the New York Fed, the New York Fed Employee would
email documents to the Associate's personal email address, and the Associate would subsequently forward
those emails to his own Goldman work email address.
On numerous occasions, the Associate provided this confidential information to various
senior personnel at Goldman, including the Partner and the Managing Director, as well as a Vice President
and another associate who perform quantitative analysis for Goldman. In several instances
where the Associate forwarded confidential information to other Goldman personnel, the Associate
wrote in the body of the email that the documents were highly confidential or directed the recipients,
"Please don't distribute." At least nine documents that the Associate provided to Goldman constituted
confidential supervisory information under New York Banking Law § 36(10). Pursuant to the statute,
such confidential supervisory information shall not be disclosed unless authorized by the Department.
The documents included draft and final versions of memoranda regarding and examinations of the Regulated
Entity, as well as correspondence related to those examinations.
At least 17 confidential documents that the Associate had improperly received from the
New York Fed – seven of which constituted confidential supervisory information under New York Banking
Law § 36(10) – were found in hard copy on the desk of the Managing Director. Additional
hard copy documents were found on the desks of the Vice President and the other associate, including
at least one document constituting confidential supervisory information under New York Banking Law
§ 36(10).
On August 18, 2014, the Associate shared three documents pertaining to enterprise risk management
with the Managing Director, writing, "Below is the ERM request list, work program and assessment
framework we used for ERM targets. Again this is highly confidential as its not public and has not
been issued a[s] guidance yet. Not sure where it is at anymore due to internal politics. I worked
on this framework and guidance within the context of a system working group with the Fed system.
We ran several pilots to test it was well. Please don't distribute." The Managing Director replied,
"I won't. Will review on plane tomorrow to DC." The documents were marked as "Internal-FR" or "Restricted-FR."
Part of Goldman's work for the Regulated Entity included advisory services with respect to a potential
transaction. A certain component of the Regulated Entity's examination rating was relevant to the
transaction. The Regulated Entity's examinations were conducted jointly by the FDIC, DFS and the
New York Fed. As described below, the Associate used confidential information regarding the Regulated
Entity's examination rating – obtained both from his prior employment at the New York Fed and from
his contacts there – and conveyed this information to the Managing Director, who then conveyed the
information to the Regulated Entity on September 23, 2014, in advance of it being conveyed by the
regulators.
On August 16, 2014, the Associate emailed the Managing Director regarding the regulators' perspective
on the Regulated Entity's forthcoming examination rating, writing "You need to speak to [the CEO
of the Regulated Entity] about scheduling a meeting with all 3 agencies ASAP. He needs to meet with
them and display and discuss all the improvements and corrections they have made during the last
examination cycle."
On September 23, 2014, the Associate attended the birthday dinner of the New York Fed
Employee at Peter Luger Steakhouse, along with several other New York Fed employees. Immediately
after the dinner, the Associate emailed the Managing Director, divulging confidential information
concerning the Regulated Entity, specifically, the relevant component of the upcoming examination
rating. The Associate wrote, "…the exit meeting is tomorrow and looks like no [change]
to the [relevant] rating. I heard there won't be any split rating… [The Regulated Entity] should
have listened to you with the advice…hopefully [the CEO] will now know you didn't have phony info."
In this email, the Associate also provided advice to relay to the Regulated Entity's management,
stating that they should "keep their cool, not get defensive and not say too much unless the regulators
have a blatant fact wrong" as it "will go off better for them in the long run. Believe it or not
the regulator's [sic] look for reaction and level of mgmt respectiveness [sic] during these exit
meetings." The Managing Director replied "Let's discuss . . . I'm seeing [the CEO of the
Regulated Entity] tmw afternoon alone."
Later that night, the Associate followed up with another email to the Managing Director, writing,
"I feel awful not being there to wrap up 2013. I would have been able to pull all this through. I
was a real advocate for all the work they have done." He also offered to join a meeting with the
CEO of the Regulated Entity if the Managing Director wanted.
On September 26, 2014, Goldman had an internal call regarding the calculation of certain asset
ratios, during which there was disagreement over the appropriate method. During the call,
the Associate circulated an internal New York Fed document – which the Associate had recently obtained
from the New York Fed Employee – relating to the calculation, to the call participants, writing,
"Pls keep confidential?" Following the group call, the Partner called the Associate to discuss
the document, including where he had obtained it, and the Associate told him that he had obtained
it from the New York Fed. The Partner then called the Global Head of IBD Compliance to report the
matter and forwarded the document.
Compliance Failures, Failure to Supervise and Violation of Internal Policies
After receiving notice of the Associate's prohibition on working on matters for the Regulated
Entity, Goldman, including the Partner and the Legal Department, failed to take any steps to screen
the Associate from such prohibited work. Instead, Goldman affirmatively placed the Associate
on matters for the Regulated Entity beginning on his first day, and added the Associate to the official
Goldman database as a member of the Regulated Entity "Team" – a team led by the Partner.
Goldman failed to provide training to personnel regarding what constituted confidential supervisory
information and how it should be safeguarded. While Goldman policies provided that confidential information
received from clients should only be shared on a "need to know" basis, Goldman did not distinguish
between this broader category of confidential information and the type of confidential supervisory
information belonging to a regulator or other government agency, which is protected by law, such
as confidential supervisory information under New York Banking Law § 36(10). Indeed, Goldman policies
failed to adequately address Department confidential supervisory information.
As noted above, the Associate also violated Goldman's internal policy on "Use of Materials from
Previous Employers," which states that work that personnel have done for previous employers, and
confidential information gained while working there, should not be brought into Goldman or used or
disclosed to others at Goldman without the express permission of the previous employer.
* * *
The Managing Director is safe, as are all other Goldman employees: nobody aside for Bansal who
was merely trying to impress his superiors, has anything to worry about.
Anyone else found to have obtained at least "35 confidential documents" from the Fed on at least
"20 occassions" would be sent straight to jail with a prison sentence anywhere between several decades
and life.
Goldman's punishment? 0.6% of its 2014 Net Income.
Duc888
How could this happen? Seriously. Aren't the FED and GS separate entities?
Oh, wait.....
LetThemEatRand
The fact that these documents were sent via email only tells me how widespread this is.
Most of these guys are probably smart enough to put a paper copy in their briefcase and
deliver it to Goldman the old fashioned way bankers do things (over drinks and coke at a strip
bar).
But when "everyone is doing it," a guy may get careless and start using email, figuring
what the fuck.
Urban Redneck
Did Goldman's Marketing Department write that release for their FRBNY subsidiary??? They
deserve the $50 million fine for being an embarrassment to scheming bankers everywhere. This
is a company that has destroyed companies, entire economies, and countless (not so little)
investors by placing their own financial interests above their clients and regularly using
inside information and access to do so. Then Goldman is "caught" when they turn themselves in
(not that they had a lot of choice given the amateur hour performance) for actually "helping"
one of their clients (for once)... This whole thing stinks, in more ways than one.
Sudden Debt
What a joke!!!
GS and JPM ARE THE FED!!!
and that "fine"... THAT'S THEIR DONUT BUDGET!!
J J Pettigrew
Bagels....please!
Elliott Eldrich
"Feel sorry for the poor schmuck, cuffed and heading to a sallyport, to be booked,
and serve 6 months in jail, for stealing a carton of ciggs..."
Little crimes are punished with great fervor, while the biggest criminals get their wrists
slapped. This is outrageous, and I just have to ask how much more we are supposed to bear
before breaking?
Lord Ariok
I Love my Country and Hate Our Government. But If our government isn't "Gangster" well
believe it there will be another "Government" that is even more "Gangster" then ours to take
the number 1 spot in the Syndicate. The way I see it if we have to do this in order to compete
with China's Level of Corruption. Damn Chinese Efficiency. ~ Lord Ariok
venturen
they have Bill Dudley...they were worried that this underling would do something. Heck
Goldman gives the orders not the other way around
Bay of Pigs
The William Dudley is the main man at the FED (and the BIS), not Yellin or Fischer.
"Prior to joining the Bank in 2007, Mr. Dudley was a partner and managing director at Goldman,
Sachs & Company and was the firm's chief U.S. economist for a decade. Prior to joining Goldman
Sachs in 1986, he was a vice president at the former Morgan Guaranty Trust Company. Mr. Dudley
was an economist at the Federal Reserve Board from 1981 to 1983.
In 2012, Mr. Dudley was appointed chairman of the Committee on the Global Financial System of
the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Previously, Mr. Dudley served as chairman of the
former Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems of the BIS from 2009 to 2012. He is a
member of the board of directors of the BIS and chairman of the Economic Club of New York."
"... if you look at what is supporting equity prices - how much of that support is coming
from real economic activity versus from using stock buybacks, using cash on balance sheet
for stock buybacks, or mergers and acquisitions, to reduced competition in the marketplace.
These
are the sort of stories that if there were a small increase in interest rates, you would
temper some of that frothiness.
Eliminating the incentive to engage in that kind of activity seems
to me to be a good idea... There would be a proportion of the population that would have
less capital gains - but they've been enjoying very big capital gains, and it is a narrow
segment of the population."
"... There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough. ..."
"... It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will. China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000% since 2002. ..."
"... China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing. ..."
"... If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy. ..."
"... Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English, World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands. ..."
"... They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are insurmountable. ..."
"... Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting. ..."
"... The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. ..."
"... Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder. ..."
"... I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London. ..."
"... i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights ..."
"... LOL European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF The EU is a silly clown at the US court What are you talking about? ..."
"... To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their 'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite with their non-interference mantra. ..."
"... The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or both. ..."
"... You can have democracy with a long memory see periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory). ..."
"... If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small head start it got during the 90's for doing so. ..."
"... It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their biding was always self defeating. ..."
"... We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the reverse. ..."
"... Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet; combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe, as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world. ..."
The problem is how do you define civilization? The urban centres were in the Middle East, and
long pre-date China. 6,000 years ago, the world's largest towns and cities were in the Balkans
- the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture. Because of the conventions of nomenclature, they don't count
as a civilization. This raises the question, when does a culture become a civilization? There
are certainly well attested archaeological cultures in China going back a long way, but there
are equally ancient cultures in Europe. Should we then say that Europe has 4,000 or 5,000 or more
years of civilization?
Good records for Chinese history go back about 3,000 years. Anything before that becomes archaeological
rather than historical, based on artifacts rather than records. References to different dynasties
don't help - there are no records comparable to Near Eastern king lists, or the Sumerian or Hittite
royal archives. China set up the Three Kingdoms Project to try to find the 'missing' 2,000 years
of Chinese history - i.e. the history that they claim to have, but have no direct evidence. They
didn't find it.
Adetheshades 23 Oct 2015 22:52
There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling
that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough.
They
obviously know more than the average Guardian reader, and apparently don't feel their cash
is safe. This causes problems of its own, when they start splashing this cash in the UK property
market, causing further price escalation if any were needed.
There isn't much we can do about the size and wealth of China.
It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will.
China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head
only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that
isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000%
since 2002.
At what point will we drop French from the school curriculum in favour of Mandarin is the question.
To say Beijings influence is growing is a lovely little piece of understatement.
Adamnuisance 23 Oct 2015 21:22
China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia
is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing.
Being
passive aggressive and claiming to be 'unique' are their real specialties. I have little doubt
that China will become even more powerful with time... I just hope their backwards politics improves
with their economy.
Thruns 23 Oct 2015 20:44
The first long game was Mao's coup.
The second long game was the great leap forward.
The third long game was the cultural revolution.
The fourth long game was to adopt the west's capitalism and sell the west its own technology.
At last the "communist" Chinese seem to have found a winner.
tufsoft Maharaja -> Brovinda Singh 23 Oct 2015 20:30
If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion
of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't
put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy.
nothell -> Laurence Johnson 23 Oct 2015 20:16
Your comment about the British Empire must be tongue in cheek.
Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of
Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English,
World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands.
Anything but peaceful and anything but fair. Europe had the past, let Asia have the future.
slightlynumb -> theoldmanfromusa 23 Oct 2015 20:10
They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There
is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are
insurmountable.
Rasengruen 23 Oct 2015 20:05
All of this presents well-known dilemmas for Europeans, such as how to balance human rights
and economic interests.
Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights
against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting.
philby87 23 Oct 2015 18:50
public opinion in France, which had been shocked by an outbreak of violent repression
in Tibet
The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and
mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. A good example
is Japan which is twice larger than France, but never lectures its neighbors about what they should
and shouldn't do. Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder.
skepticaleye -> midaregami 23 Oct 2015 18:04
The Yue state was populated mostly by the members of the Yue people who were not Han. The South
China wasn't completely sinicized well into the second millennium CE. Yunnan wasn't incorporated
into China until the Mongols conquered Dali in the 13th century, and the Ming dynasty eradicated
the Mongols' resistance there in the 14th century.
PeterBederell -> Daniel S 23 Oct 2015 17:54
I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to
its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose
customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to
allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London.
Europe often has to agree to these indignities because it needs access to the US market and to
keep the US sweet. But with a strong China, it can use the threat of following China in some way
the US doesn't like as a bargaining chip, like joining China's Development Bank, which put the
US in a huff recently.
Chriswr -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 17:54
What we in the West call human rights are creations of the Enlightenment and only about 300 years old. As a modern Westerner I am, of course, a big supporter of them. But let's not pretend they are part of some age-old tradition.
sor2007 -> impartial12 23 Oct 2015 17:48
i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights
ApfelD 23 Oct 2015 17:42
China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well ahead of Europe – and it uses that historical depth to indicate it will never take lessons on democracy.
LOL
European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF
The EU is a silly clown at the US court
What are you talking about?
HoolyK BabylonianSheDevil03 23 Oct 2015 17:34
To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their
'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite
with their non-interference mantra. When the Chinese see the following:
1. the West preaches democracy and human rights
2. is evangelical about it and spreads it by hook or crook into the Middle East
3. this causes regimes to be changed and instability to spread
4. the chaos causes a massive refugee crisis, washing these poor huddled masses onto the
shores of Europe
5. the human rights preached by the West demands that the the refugees receive help
6. the native population is slowly being displaced
7. native population is further screwed, with austerity, financial crisis and now said Syrian
refugees
8. Fascist and Nazis parties are elected into office, civil strife ensues
Now, what do you think the Chinese, who ABHOR chaos, think about democracy and human rights
??
PeterBederell 23 Oct 2015 16:47
The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use
its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do
this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is
unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play
one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or
both.
HoolyK -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 16:30
Anatolia is inhabited by Turks from Central Asia who settled in the 11th century,
Iraq/Syria was overrun by Muslims in the 7th century. China is still Han Chinese, as it was
5000 years ago.
'human rights' really? then do you support the human rights of tens of thousands of refugees
from Syria to settle in Britain and Europe then? I ask this awkward question only because I
know the Chinese will ask ....
dev_null 23 Oct 2015 16:23
China deploys a long-term strategy in part because it has a very long memory, and in
part because its ruling elite needn't bother too much about electoral constraints.
The two are not mutially exclusive. You can have democracy with a long memory see
periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory).
China's longest 'strategy' was to leverage its currency artificially lower than it should be
in order to net export so many manufactured goods. Nothing else.
If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It
is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack
labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden
unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small
head start it got during the 90's for doing so.
Eurozone = Dystopia
China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well
ahead of Europe
No sorry europe contained many advanced cultures going back just as far. This is
incompetent journalism. China was not 'china' it was many kingdoms and cultures 4000 years
ago, as was Europe at the time. Fallacy of decomposition.
MeandYou -> weka69 23 Oct 2015 16:11
It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self
destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and
export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending
their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their
biding was always self defeating.
We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop
in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed
through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the
reverse. We gave China all in a plate hence the speed neck speed China has risen. The
Consumerism society the political class created they were stupid enough to forget people still
need money to buy cheap goods. Consumerism does not run on empty purse.
wintpu 23 Oct 2015 15:57
You are preaching a China Containment strategy:
[1] This is racist viciousness, colonial mentality, or white supremacist conspiracy, believing
that containment is your moral right. You seem to be wallowing still in the stiff upper lipped
notions that you are the betters versus the east. Colonialism is over and still you cling to
the notion that the EU should get together and try to destroy China's social system because it
is different from yours. Your records on human rights, governance and effectiveness are all
droopy examples to be object lessons rather than role models for emulation by developing
countries. Your opium war denials [simply by not mentioning it] give you very little high
ground to hector China and the Chinese people.
[2] Recent Behavior. Putting aside your opium war robbery, your behavior in the run up to 1997
Hong Kong hand back shows your greedy sneakiness. Chris Patten infamously tried to throw a
monkey wrench into an agreed-upon process by trying to steal the Hong Kong treasury, then
planting the seeds of British wannabees. You passed a special law to deny the 1.36 million
Hong Kong residents who had become British Citizens was one of the most shameful racist acts
of your colonial record. Cameron is now bending over backwards post haste in order to
side-step the long long memory of the Chinese people.
[3] Crying about getting other EU nations to do aiding and abetting of your vendetta against a
rising China? Trying to reduce and contain China does you no good. So it is a simple case of
mendacity. But you forget that the Germans have already gone to China honestly and co-operated
since the time of Helmut Kohl and the CPC has not forgotten their loyal friends. Today most
CPC leaders drive Audis. There is no turning Germany away from their key position in
Chinatrade to become enemies of China because of your self-serving wishes. Even now, France
has jumped in on the nuclear niche to present you with a package you cannot refuse.
samohio 23 Oct 2015 15:51
Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the
plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet;
combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central
government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the
other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe
keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe,
as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world.
"... The purpose was to create the perception that, according to speaker, "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military intervention in Syria." ..."
"... Turkish government ..."
"... 'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.' ..."
"... And as recently as yesterday a State Department flac was stil asserting that Assad was responsible for the Sarin attack. Those boys and girls no longer remember how to tell the truth, even to save their own skins. ..."
"... The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria: ..."
"... –Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades. ..."
"... –Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary." ..."
"... –Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria. ..."
"... – Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here . In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities. ..."
"... – Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria . A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding. ..."
"... –Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue. ..."
"... – Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar . ..."
"... "We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants going in through the Turkish border…I've got images of them in World Food Organization trucks. It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they were going in there with NGO trucks," ..."
Two members of the Turkish parliament gave a press conference this week saying that they have
wiretapped recordings and other evidence showing that Turkey supplied the sarin used in Syria.
As
reported by Turkey's largest newspapers, Today's Zaman:
CHP deputies Eren Erdem
and Ali ?eker held a
press conference in Istanbul on Wednesday in which they claimed the investigation into allegations
regarding Turkey's involvement in the procurement of sarin gas which was used in the
chemical attack
on a civil population and delivered to the terrorist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
to enable the attack was derailed.
Taking the floor first, Erdem stated that the Adana Chief Prosecutor's Office launched an investigation
into allegations that sarin was sent to Syria from Turkey via several businessmen.
An indictment followed regarding the accusations targeting the government.
"The MKE [Turkish Mechanical and Chemical Industry Corporation] is also an actor that is mentioned
in the investigation file. Here is the indictment. All the details about how sarin was
procured in Turkey and delivered to the terrorists, along with audio recordings, are inside the
file," Erdem said while waving the file.
Erdem also noted that the prosecutor's office conducted detailed technical surveillance and
found that an al-Qaeda militant, Hayyam Kasap, acquired sarin, adding: "Wiretapped phone
conversations reveal the process of procuring the gas at specific addresses as well as the process
of procuring the rockets that would fire the capsules containing the toxic gas. However,
despite such solid evidence there has been no arrest in the case. Thirteen individuals were arrested
during the first stage of the investigation but were later released, refuting government claims
that it is fighting terrorism," Erdem noted.
Over 1,300 people were killed in the sarin gas attack in Ghouta and several other neighborhoods
near the Syrian capital of Damascus, with the West quickly blaming the regime of Bashar al-Assad
and Russia claiming it was a "false flag" operation aimed at making US military intervention in
Syria possible.
Suburbs near Damascus were struck by rockets containing the toxic sarin gas in August 2013.
The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria
which would topple the Assad regime in line with the political agenda of then-Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government.
CHP deputy speaker spoke after Erdem, pointing out that the government misled the public on the
issue by asserting that sarin was provided by Russia. The purpose was to create the
perception that, according to speaker, "Assad killed his people with sarin and that requires a US military
intervention in Syria."
He also underlined that all of the files and evidence from the investigation show a war crime
was committed within the borders of the Turkish Republic.
"The investigation clearly indicates that those people who smuggled the chemicals required
to procure sarin faced no difficulties, proving that Turkish intelligence was aware of their activities.
Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who uncovered the Iraq prison torture
scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam – previously
reported that high-level American sources tell him that the
Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
'We knew there were some in the Turkish government,' a former senior US intelligence official,
who has access to current intelligence, told me, 'who believed they could get Assad's nuts in
a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red
line threat.'
Indeed, it's long been known that sarin was
coming through Turkey. And a tape recording of top Turkish officials planning a false flag attack to be blamed on Syria
as a causus belli was
leaked … and confirmed by Turkey as being authentic. Turkey is a member of NATO. There are previous instances where Turkish government
officials have admitted to carrying out false flag attacks.
For example:
The Turkish Prime Minister
admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in
Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on
Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
"they don't want a population capable of critical thinking" george carlin
Macon Richardson
And as recently as yesterday a State Department flac was stil asserting that Assad was
responsible for the Sarin attack. Those boys and girls no longer remember how to tell the truth,
even to save their own skins.
The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:
–Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of
the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.
–Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video
"Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in
to the fighting when necessary."
–Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities
of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they
made at least
2,000 trips to Syria.
–Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August
2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh
here. In May 2013,
Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish
authorities.
–Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly
recorded
plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational
recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it
from proceeding.
–Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked
Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances
for injured fighters. Turkey
shot down
a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers
inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely
untrue.
–Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Rest assured Russia is fully aware of all the clandestine goings-on.
Interesting that Turkey is keen on snuggling up close with those bastions of civil rights -
SA and Qatar, just at the same time as they are making very loud noises re the involvement of
what is Hezbollah in the Syrian conflict . . . .
Easy to see which side Turkey's desperately backing.
conscious being
Serena Shim, Shim had been reporting that IS militants had crossed the border from Turkey into
Syria in trucks apparently affiliated with NGOs, some of which allegedly bore World Food Organization
symbols. She claimed that she had received images from Islamic militants crossing the Turkish
border and was one of the few reporters focusing on the matter.
"We were some of the first people on the ground –if not the first people – to get that story of…militants
going in through the Turkish border…I've got images of them in World Food Organization trucks.
It was very apparent that they were militants by their beards, by the clothes they wore, and they
were going in there with NGO trucks," she said.
lakecity55
I also remember the Terrorists taking over a pool supply/industrial supply house of Chlorine
gas. They may have manufactured the chlorine at the same facility, so there was no shortage of
ways for them to get ahold of poison gas.
The ideation that Assad would gas his own people is absurd. He throws some dissidents inot jail,
but so does the USSA.
that's pretty superficial coverage. Capabilities of smartphone mike are pretty limited and by
design it is try to suppress external noise. If your phone is in the case microphone will not pick up much. Same for camera. Only your
GPS location is available. If phone is switched off then even this is not reality available.
I think the whole ability to listen from the pocket is overblown. There is too much noice to make
this practical on the current level of development of technology. At the same time I think
just metadata are enough to feel that you are the constant surveillance.
Notable quotes:
"... the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot. ..."
"... According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from WeMeantWell.com . ..."
You are a tool of the state, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The NSA in the U.S.,
and its equivalent in the UK, GCHQ, are taking control of your phone not just to spy on you as needed,
but also to use your device as a way to spy on others around you. You are a walking microphone, camera
and GPS for spies.
Snowden, in a BBC interview,
explained that for the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your
private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take
photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot.
According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses
NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all
it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the
message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack.
GCHQ calls these smartphone hacking tools the "Smurf
Suite." The suite includes:
"Dreamy Smurf" is the power management tool that turns your phone on and off with you knowing.
"Nosey Smurf" is the hot mic tool. "For example," Snowden said, "if the phone is in your
pocket, NSA/GCHQ can turn the microphone on and listen to everything that's going on around you,
even if your phone is switched off because they've got the other tools for turning it on.
"Tracker Smurf" is a geolocation tool which allows spies to follow you with a greater precision
than you would get from the typical triangulation of cellphone towers.
"Paranoid Smurf" is a defensive mechanism designed to make the other tools installed on
the phone undetectable.
Snowden said the NSA has spent close to $1 billion to develop these smartphone hacking programs.
"... Talbot focusses extensively on James Jesus Angleton, the shadowy counterintelligence figure at the heart of the domestic assassinations of the 1960s, and examines the inner-workings of Dulles' ambitious (and dastardly) plot to consolidate and control global political power. "The Devil's Chessboard" is a startling and revelatory masterwork. In terms of easy-to-access assassination research, this book is second only to James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable." In terms of biographies of Dulles and Angleton, two of history's most infamous figures, this work is second to none. ..."
"... A heretofore unanswered question about the JFK assassination is what was Allen Dulles was doing between the time he was fired by JFK as Director of the CIA in 1961 until the moment of the assassination on November 22, 1963. A related question is how was it conceivable for Dulles to have been appointed to the Warren Commission that eventually produced the conclusions that are still accepted by mainstream historians and the media? Talbot's intensive research helps to shed on light on those questions by tracing the arc of development of the career of Allen Dulles as a high-powered attorney at the center of the elitist East Coast establishment, his shocking collaboration with the Nazis while working in the OSS, and his career in clandestine activities at the CIA ..."
"... Talbots research probes not merely the activities of Dulles as Director of the CIA, but explores the broader context of his function over three decades as a power broker, whose efforts were directed not against hostile governments but against his own. ..."
"... the more recent book on Dulles covers the broader scope of how the American government was transformed into the national security state in the years following World War II. Talbots goal in preparing this book is to demonstrate the urgency of coming to terms with our past and how it is essential that we continue to fight for the right to own our history. (p. xii) An excellent place to begin that quest is to own this book. ..."
A Groundbreaking Resource, Second Only to "JFK and the Unspeakable"
A tremendous resource of breathtaking depth and clarity. Talbot builds on the now decades-old
body of research - initiated by investigative reporters Tom Mangold ("Cold Warrior") and David
Wise ("Molehunt"), and largely developed by assassination researchers James DiEugenio and Lisa
Pease ("The Assassinations") - and adds groundbreaking new information.
Talbot focusses extensively on James Jesus Angleton, the shadowy counterintelligence figure
at the heart of the domestic assassinations of the 1960s, and examines the inner-workings of Dulles'
ambitious (and dastardly) plot to consolidate and control global political power. "The Devil's
Chessboard" is a startling and revelatory masterwork. In terms of easy-to-access assassination
research, this book is second only to James Douglass' "JFK and the Unspeakable." In terms of biographies
of Dulles and Angleton, two of history's most infamous figures, this work is second to none.
Note: Be wary of one-star reviews for this book. Some trace back to commissioned-review services,
the same services that give five-star reviews to shady/suspicious health and beauty products.
Go figure.
To read this magnificent book by David Talbot is to understand how the JFK assassination occurred
and how the truth was concealed by officialdom in the Warren Report. Unlike his brother, John
Foster Dulles, the younger Allen Welsh Dulles rarely makes it into American history textbooks.
In this extremely detailed study, the singular importance of Allen Dulles is demonstrated as being
central to a watershed period in the American Century.
First and foremost, "The Devil's Chessboard" is a beautifully written and meticulously researched
volume. Talbot drew upon archives at Princeton University, where the Allen Dulles papers are housed.
He also conducted research in other archives across the country. The documentary work is buttressed
and amplified by interviews with the surviving daughter of Dulles, as well as interviews with
the children of Dulles' colleagues and over 150 officials from the Kennedy administration. Nearly
forty pages of notes serve to document the author's sources.
One of the most revealing moments about Allen Dulles was when he was ten years old and spending
time at the family's lake home in upstate New York. After his five-year-old sister fell into the
lake and was drifting away from him, Allen stood stock still, "strangely impassive. The boy just
stood on the dock and watched as his little sister drifted away." (p. 19) Fortunately, the child
was rescued by the mother. The behavior of young Allen is representative of a lifelong predilection
for observing the imponderables of life as an insider while looking to others to "risk their skins."
For this little boy, the world was already forming into a chessboard with pawns to manipulate
for his self-serving needs. Talbot describes Dulles' rogue actions in allowing Nazi war criminals
to avoid prosecution at the Nuremberg Trials in these chilling words: "Even in the life-and-death
throes of wartime espionage, Dulles seemed untouched by the intense human drama swirling around
him." (p. 120)
In one of the most riveting moments of the book, Talbot describes an interchange between Dulles
and researcher David Lifton at a colloquium on the JFK assassination at the campus of UCLA in
1965. Lifton came prepared to challenge Dulles on major deficiencies of the Warren Report. By
the end of the evening, the students attending the session were more interested in Lifton's findings
than Dulles' unsuccessful attempts to deflect the tough questions. In retrospect, Lifton apparently
claimed that he "was in the presence of 'evil' that night." (p. 591)
A heretofore unanswered question about the JFK assassination is what was Allen Dulles was
doing between the time he was fired by JFK as Director of the CIA in 1961 until the moment of
the assassination on November 22, 1963. A related question is how was it conceivable for Dulles
to have been appointed to the Warren Commission that eventually produced the conclusions that
are still accepted by mainstream historians and the media? Talbot's intensive research helps to
shed on light on those questions by tracing the arc of development of the career of Allen Dulles
as a high-powered attorney at the center of the elitist East Coast establishment, his shocking
collaboration with the Nazis while working in the OSS, and his career in clandestine activities
at the CIA
Talbot's research probes not merely the activities of Dulles as Director of the CIA, but explores
the broader context of his function over three decades as a power broker, whose "efforts were
directed not against hostile governments but against his own." (p. 3) Talbot cites revelations
from the Columbia University sociology professor C. Wright Mills about the secret government of
Allen Dulles, which was comprised of a "power elite" and based on the anti-Constitutional premise
of "organized irresponsibility."
In many ways, "The Devil's Chessboard" is a companion volume to Talbot's essential study "Brothers,"
which focuses on the relationship of John and Robert Kennedy, the assassination of JFK, and the
aftereffects on RFK. But the more recent book on Dulles covers the broader scope of how the American
government was transformed into the national security state in the years following World War II.
Talbot's goal in preparing this book is to demonstrate the urgency of coming to terms with our
past and how "it is essential that we continue to fight for the right to own our history." (p.
xii) An excellent place to begin that quest is to own this book.
"... "Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. Whats the difference?," Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] its just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with." ..."
"... hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies. ..."
"... We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all." ..."
"... the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of bad guys (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens. ..."
"... They did this after the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter who suggested this? ..."
... Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha are left to look on helplessly as their Sunni
extremist proxy armies are devastated by the Russian air force. The Kremlin knows there's little
chance that the West and its allies will step in to directly support the rebels - the optics around
that would quickly turn into a PR nightmare.
... ... ...
Speaking today at the International Valdai Discussion Club's 12th annual meeting in Sochi, Putin
delivered a sweeping critique of military strategy and foreign policy touching on everything from
the erroneous labeling of some extremists as "moderates" to the futility of nuclear war.
"Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. What's the difference?,"
Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them
as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] it's just an illusion that they can
be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with."
"I'd like to stress once again that [Russia's operation in Syria] is completely legitimate,
and its only aim is to aid in establishing peace," Putin said of Moscow's Mid-East strategy. And
while he's probably telling the truth there, it's only by default. That is, peace in Syria likely
means the restoration of Assad (it's difficult to imagine how else the country can be stabilized
in the short-term), and because that aligns with Russia's interests, The Kremlin is seeking to
promote peace - it's more a tautology than it is a comment on Putin's desire for goodwill towards
men.
And then there's Iran and its nascent nuclear program. Putin accused the US of illegitimately
seeking to play nuclear police officer, a point on which he is unquestionably correct:
The "hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical
balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical
opponents, but also allies."
Speaking of nukes, Putin also warned that some nuclear powers seem to believe that there's a way
to take the "mutually" out of "mutually assured destruction."
That is, Putin warned against the dangers of thinking it's possible to "win" a nuclear war. Commenting
on US anti-missile shields in Europe and on the idea of MAD, Putin said the following:
"We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would
stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful
for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has
started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the
sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself
– if there is a winner at all."
In short, Putin is suggesting that the world may have gone crazy. The implication is that
the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually
places on its various lists of "bad guys" (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes
America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts
on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering
US citizens.
... ... ...
ZerOhead
Putin is really pushing the "nuclear war" angle hard. I guess his good friend Henry Kissinger
must have told him that power is the only thing that NeoCon fucknuts like himself understand...
El Vaquero
For any who want to read it, here is some detailed information on what the USSR's nuclear strategy
was during the Cold War:
While some things will have changed due to changes in technology, what kinds of targets the
Russians would pick is likely much the same as it was when it was part of the USSR. If you live
near a target, this might be helpful:
The people of the Falklands voted to remain associated with the UK. The citizens of Quebec,
Canada nearly voted themselves out of Canada, the citizens of Scotland nearly voted themselves
out of the the UK, Self Determination is respected by the UN as being a fundamental right of all
peoples, so of course when the the citizens of Crimea undertake exactly the same process and vote
to join Russia it is a Russian imperialist land grab.
Watch more MSM. They will explain it all to you.
Occident Mortal
Russian ICBM's can't be shot down with air defense missiles.
Russian ICBM's constantly recalculate their trajectory following a continually regenerated
'random path' through 3D space all the way to their target. The downside is that the missles need
20% more fuel.
All air defense systems work by tracking a missle and projecting it's trajectory then triangulating
an intercept location and launching an interceptor to that location.
But by the time the interceptor reaches the intercept location the Russian ICBM will have changed
course several times and is likely to be thousands of meters away.
In order to intercept a Russian ICBM the interceptor needs to travel at over 35,000mph. Good
luck with that.
George Bush decided he wanted a Star Wars missle defense system and after spending a boat load
of cash.. the Kremlin called in the US amabasador and told them all Russian missle had just received
a software upgrade that would render Star Wars obsolete before it was even built. The Star Wars
program was scrapped within a month.
Anasteus
A shockingly open Putin's summary of the current situation that every American should hear
They'd be practically useless on this continent because of the decoys accompanying the 'physics
packages.' The sine qua non of an effective ABM system is the ability to destroy the missiles
during the boost phase. The importance of eastern Ukraine is its proximity to Russian ICBM bases,
which is why 'our' government spent $5 billion to foment the coup.
cowdiddly
Oh dont worry it is Carl. That little Caspian missile shoot off the shrimp boats has caused
these morons to realize there may be a few gaping ass holes in the curtain has them scrambling.
I present you their panic contract to "protect the homeland" just issued to..........Yep. Lockheed
Martin. purveyors of the fine F35 aircraft.
Speaking of military contracts, Last year Russia upgraded and refurbished over 5000 underground
atomic bomb shelters built in the old Soviet days that are located in every province of Russia
for their people. He knows what kind of nimcompoops he is dealing with. They did this after
the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed
they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter
who suggested this?
Now ask yourself how many underground shelters has your government provided for us, other than
the huge complex in Utah for the President and politicians to move safely too? I certainly don't
know where one is in my state unless I was to dig it myself. The only thing I know of that they
did to prepare for disaster is Fema built millions of plastic coffin like things that are being
stored around everywhere.
They are only worried about protecting themselves and don't give a rats ass about you other than
taxes. Their only concern for you is you might lay around to long stinking up the place.
"... Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies. ..."
"... International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white. ..."
"... In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case. ..."
"... The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance. ..."
"... They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11. ..."
"... As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries. ..."
"... What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain. ..."
"... Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower. ..."
"... Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries. ..."
"... Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries. ..."
"... Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system. ..."
"... Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. ..."
"... Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify. ..."
What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities
in the system of international relations.
But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this.
Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability,
they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.
The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and
transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This
created the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure
events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of
international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of
these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with
a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of
managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed
many follies.
We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics.
International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal
nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time,
total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as
black and black as white.
In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites
rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own
universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies
they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community.
But this is not the case.
The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative value for most countries. In essence,
what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's sole power
centre, the greater this or that ruling regime's legitimacy.
We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would
also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I
just set out during the upcoming discussion.
The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and
tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in
domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify
illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have
increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders.
It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole
world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.
Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this
world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue
and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are
carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all
around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should
maybe just relax and enjoy it all?
Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.
A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of
settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see
the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public
ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.
Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments
along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to
be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in
Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.
They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got
their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West
if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and
financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this)
and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on
US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you
that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as
friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.
During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight
terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept
this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed
agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the
military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why
was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has
become a training ground for terrorists.
Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from
chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its
allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with
mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and
military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become
such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?
As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which
has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international
coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are
getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists,
who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells
it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing
terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own
countries.
Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state's
institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful.
You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don't forget (rightfully
or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning
them into?
What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists
were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what
explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting
very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the
dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting
with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian
government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But
did we see any results? We appealed in vain.
We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the
consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they
themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.
Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one
power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of
unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional
conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the
same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion
and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.
Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and
countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even
for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully
agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance
of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not
matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as
the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China,
as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.
Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together
coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an
enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or
diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand
this and know this. The United States always told its allies: "We have a common enemy, a terrible
foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the
right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay
your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all
of course." In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar
models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US'] exceptional position
and reap political and economic dividends.
But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the
world's diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and
have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts
meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of
confrontation that only hurt one's own economic positions and interests, including national
business interests.
Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and
help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business
community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic
expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in
danger", "the free world is under threat", and "democracy is in jeopardy"? And so everyone needs
to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.
Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the
principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of
globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has
primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the
leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United
States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars
and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the
fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.
The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened
the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or their
regional groups' desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure.
We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the
dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I
think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You
cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and
still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone,
but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.
We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that
Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door. Russia
is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken
shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out
transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only
consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.
Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions,
block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into
backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place
today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of
closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on
normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach
and position of business communities in the leading countries.
Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were
probably spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business
partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy
in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a
policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries,
including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in
the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these
developments.
Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large
part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive
advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.
Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also
creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural
trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is
something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.
Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global
economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in
specific areas. This is entirely possible.
There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture
are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international
relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real
achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.
At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw
attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more
likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly
difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.
So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict
and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely
possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can
already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic.
If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the
mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will
inevitably grow.
Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with
either direct or indirect participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors include
not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate
states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states'
geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational
continents.
Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one
of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it
will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current
system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States
of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then
set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence
system.
Colleagues, friends,
I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times
when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of
mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of
legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global
agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the
Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an
outdated and ineffective instrument.
Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own
bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of
talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we
have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on
nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.
What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to
mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of
nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating
and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will
be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global
pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.
The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts.
Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy,
lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals,
where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.
Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional
conflicts and design 'colour revolutions' to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the
bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with
it; there is disarray in their ranks.
We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough
to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called
fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them
riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.
Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This
is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners.
The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak.
And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective
answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners,
for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.
Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need
to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome
the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly
when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we
have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we
achieved real success.
Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive
dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also
has some positive results. Why can't we use this experience in the future to solve local and
global challenges?
What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for
stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new
monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely
exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a
wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.
However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in
international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and
set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral
actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the
effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by
international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national
sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.
Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal
processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players.
The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening
global stability.
Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is
practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is
far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear
conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.
I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should
rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect
for one's partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could
radically change the global situation.
I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and
regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this
is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite
universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.
This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the
OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring
security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to
resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.
In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in
uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's
not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic
diplomacy, or somebody's complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of
interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for
harmonising positions.
This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the
planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating
powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between
these centres would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in
order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional
centres and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so
that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition
artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states
themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.
I would like to remind you of the last year's events. We have told our American and European
partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine's association with the EU, are
fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn't even say anything about politics; we spoke
only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the
interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine's main trade partner, and that a
wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that,
for example, the talks on Russia's accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult
work, and a certain consensus was reached.
Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine's association project, our partners
would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not
agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine's
association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an
entirely civilised manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and
arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is
none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress –
civilised dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into
chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.
Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That's
it. Everyone's at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been
encouraged – it wouldn't have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian
President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point?
What is this, a civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw
together new 'colour revolutions' consider themselves 'brilliant artists' and simply cannot stop.
I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures,
should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union's formation process is
a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their
partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles
of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.
I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian
and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is
also unclear why – what is so scary about it?
And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke
about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe)
on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the
way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open
economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive
modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.
We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our
colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other
partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are
not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.
The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire,
encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind
of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the
interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our
position to be respected.
We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when
we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years
after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need
to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous
illusion, while today's turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.
Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task.
We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after
World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is
to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.
So Russian position was know to US neocons since at least 2012 and still they push forward
"regime change" in Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... Former Member of Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov: Russia Is Ready to Use Military Power to Defend Iran and Syria; Attack on Syria or Iran Is Indirect Attack on Russia. ..."
Former Member of Russian Joint Chiefs of Staff Col.-Gen. Leonid Ivashov: Russia Is Ready
to Use Military Power to Defend Iran and Syria; Attack on Syria or Iran Is Indirect Attack on
Russia.
Falamu445 10 months ago
And what about China? Should China also seek to protect Iran and Syria with military force
if they are attacked?
hudzz
Pakistan will be with Russia if they go to war with usa or isreal
Benny Morris 1 year ago
Good thing that arrogant America is going down. America has spent nearly 70 years being a
nuisance to Russians. What a bunch of swine they are when they refuse to admit what the whole
world has always known that it was the Soviet Union that won WW2 and America only did so in
its dreams.
optionrider12 2 years ago in reply to Brian Hynes
No, you don't understand and I'm not going to fall for your quasi-Hegelian dialectic.
Communism can be categorized as a utopia and you're kindly advised to find the definition of
Utopia by yourself. Fair enough?
Tristan Xavier 1 year ago in reply to Kati Kati
I understand what you mean but I would never wish the horrors of war on anybody. Peace can
be done in different ways. Both Americans and Russians should focus on the corrupted
governments that they both possess. The previous generations had their time and they chose
either to conform or neglect to the systems. Now we see the results. It's us that needs to
stand up and stop this. Why are we going to war for governments that are currently at war with
it's own people? N.D.A.A,S.O.P.A and drones etc
FTM (Jerry Robinson): Alright, well, joining me on the program today is
Stephen Kinzer. He is an
award-winning foreign correspondent who has worked in more than 50 countries. He has been a
New York Times Bureau Chief in Istanbul, Berlin, and Nicaragua. He's the author of many books,
including the best-selling book
All the Shah's Men: An American
Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror.
He's also a professor of international relations at Boston University. My guest today is Stephen
Kinzer. Stephen, thank you so much for joining me on
Follow the Money Weekly Radio.
KINZER (Stephen Kinzer): Great to be with you.
FTM: I am looking at your book right now-at the Preface to the 2008 edition: "The Folly
of Attacking Iran." And I would say, Stephen, that many of the people who are listening to
the program today are…I don't want to assume that they're not familiar with the 1953 event, but I
want to assume that perhaps they don't know as much about it as perhaps maybe they should.
And especially now, as we take a look at the news cycle, we see that Iran is all over the news: talk
about invasion; talk about stopping the nuclear program (whether it's even occurring or not is a
debate). But the issue at hand right now is, "Should we invade Iran for the benefit of our foreign
policy, for the benefit of our security interests?" And you have written a book here that really
peels back the layers about this entire question. Why don't you begin by sharing with our audience
why you wrote this book and why this topic is important to you?
KINZER: In the first place, you're right that that
2008 edition of the book,
which was the new edition, contains this Foreword, "The Folly of Attacking Iran. Now, in the last
couple of years, I've been looking at that new edition and thinking, "Boy, that's kind of out of
date now." That was at the end of the Bush Administration when we were being really hyped up that
Iran was a mortal threat to the rest of the world, but now that introduction is really kind of outdated.
Boy, was I wrong! You're absolutely right that Iran has now emerged as the Number One foreign
policy issue in this presidential campaign, as candidates flail around for foreign policy issues
to beat each other over the head with, Iran really seems to rise to the top of the list. We
are in a situation now where we're looking for a demon in the world. I think this is not just
an American impulse, but in many countries, it's almost thought that if you don't have an enemy in
the world, you should try to find one. It's a way to unite your population and give people
a sense of common purpose.
So, you look around the world and pick some country that you want to turn into your enemy and
inflate into a terrible, mortal threat to your own security. Iran seems to be filling that
role right now. It's an odd situation, because in a sense, the world looks very different from
Iran's point of view than it does from here. Iran has four countries in the immediate neighborhood
that are armed with nuclear weapons. That's India, Pakistan, Russia, and Israel. Iran
also has two countries on its borders that have been invaded and occupied by the United States: that
is, Iraq and Afghanistan. So the idea that Iran might be a little unsure as to its defense
and wants to make sure that it can build whatever it needs to protect itself doesn't seem so strange
when you're sitting in Iran. But even more interesting than all that, when you're looking at
differences between the way the world looks when you see it from the United States and the way it
looks when you see it from Iran has to do with history.
Whenever I travel in the world, particularly when I travel to a country that I'm not familiar
with, I like to ask myself one question: and that is, "How did this country get this way? So, why
is this country rich and powerful?" Or, "Why is this country poor and miserable?" When I was
traveling in Iran and getting to know Iran for the first time, I came to realize that there's a huge
gap between what Iran should be based on its culture and history and size and the education
of its people, and what it is. This is a country that has thousands of years
of history. It was the first empire in history-the Persian Empire. It has produced a huge amount
of culture over many centuries. Its people are highly educated. Nonetheless, it's isolated
from the world; poor; unhappy. And I've always wondered on my first trips there why this was.
What happened? And as I began to read more, and talk to Iranians, people told me, "We used
to have a democracy here. But you Americans came over here and destroyed it. And ever
since then, we've been spiraling down." So I decided, "I gotta find out what really happened.
I need to find a book about what happened to Iranian democracy." And then I looked around and
found there was no such book.
KINZER: I finally decided that if I was going to read that book, I was going to have
to write it myself. And that's how
All the Shah's Men
came about.
FTM: Well, I would imagine that many in the listening audience would immediately
take issue with some of the things that you've stated, and I want to hit those directly head-on.
You state in your book some of the reasons why to attack Iran, at least, some of the reasons that
are stated.
Number One: Iran wants to become a nuclear power, and that should not be allowed. Iran poses
a threat to Israel. Iran sits at the heart of the emerging Shiite Crescent which threatens
to destabilize the Middle East. Iran supports radical groups on nearby countries. Iran
helps kill American soldiers in Iraq. Iran has ordered terror attacks in foreign countries.
Iran's people are oppressed and need Americans to liberate them.
So there's a plethora of ideas as to why American invasion, or some other type of invasion into
Iran would possibly be beneficial, not only to our security interests, but also to Iran's state of
health so to speak, and bringing them liberty. So you made a good case against it. What do
you say to those who say, "You're crazy, Stephen. We need to go over there; we cannot allow
them to have a nuclear weapon.
KINZER: In the first place, we don't have any evidence that Iran is building a nuclear
weapon; in fact, the International Atomic Energy Agency has made clear that it has never seen any
such evidence, and those inspectors are all over those plants, the uranium is under seal, the seals
are under constant video surveillance. It's not as urgent a problem as we're making it out
to be.
Nonetheless, I would add a kind of larger perspective, and it's this. When you look at a
map of the Middle East, one thing jumps right out at you and it is that Iran is the big country right
in the middle. It's not possible to imagine a stable Middle East without including Iran. It's
a little bit comparable to the situation that we faced after the end of World War II when there was
tremendous anger at Germany for very good reasons.
There was a great move afoot (in fact, we actually followed this policy for a few months) to crush
Germany. We were going to slice Germany into pieces, then we were going to forbid it from ever
building another factory or industrial plant again. Fortunately, cooler minds prevailed.
And we decided to take the opposite tactic. And that was to realize that this country, Germany, had
been stirring up trouble in Europe for a hundred years or more, and that the way to prevent that
cycle from continuing was not to isolate Germany and kick it and push it into a corner, but to integrate
Germany into Europe, and to make it a provider of security rather than a consumer of security. That's
what we need to do with Iran. Iran needs to be given a place at the table that's commensurate
with its size, and its tradition, and its history, and its regional role.
Now, the United States doesn't want to do that because when Iran is at that table, it's not going
to be saying things that are pro-American. It has an agenda that's different than ours. So
we don't want it at the table. We want to crush Iran. It sounds like a tempting option,
and in fact, if you could wave a wand and make the regime in Iran go away and make Iran be wonderfully
friendly to the United States, I'd be all for that. But bombing Iran is likely to produce the
opposite result.
First of all, one thing that really surprises me when I'm in Iran is how unbelievably pro-American
the people of Iran are. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that there's no country in the world
where the population is so pro-American as in Iran. I have been stopped on the streets by people
who are practically shrieking when they find out I'm American and tell me how much they love the
United States. You don't even get that in Canada! If we're smart, we're gonna realize
that this is the Middle Eastern country with the most pro-American population. And this pro-American
sentiment in Iran is a huge strategic asset for us going forward. If we liquidate that asset
by bombing Iran, we will be greatly undermining our own strategic power. And this is a pattern
we've been following in that part of the world for a long time.
The war in Iraq greatly eroded American strategic power. It had the opposite effect that
we thought it would have. And this is the real object lesson that we need to keep in mind.
When we intervene in countries, we have enough power to achieve our short-term goal, but then we
go away; our attention goes to other places. And the resentment and the anger festers and burns
in the hearts and minds and souls of people in these countries, and ultimately, we wind up with backlash
that we never anticipated and we can't control. In this rush now in these last months to demonize
Iran and set the groundwork for an attack on Iran, we are doing something that Americans, and maybe
all human beings do too often, and that is: we think about the short term; we never think about the
long-term effects of our interventions.
FTM: You open the book with a quote, a quintessential quote, which is kind of common for
a book, and it's by President Harry Truman: "There is nothing new in the world except the history
you do not know." And I would probably say that most of us are obviously familiar with the
history of September 11th, 2001, and I would go even further and perhaps say that we are
familiar with the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and people may remember those days back in the Carter
years. But your book goes back to 1953.
In the Preface of your book, you state that the 1953 intervention by the United States into Iran
may be seen as a decisive turning point in the 20th Century history from our perspective
today. Now I don't know how many people in our listening audience know what happened in 1953.
What event are you referring to, and why is it important to what's happening today?
KINZER: For most Americans, the history of U.S.-Iran relations begins and ends with
the Hostage Crisis. That's all we know, and we know that everything went bad since then.
But Iranians don't think that way. For them, the Hostage Crisis is just one of a number of
incidents that have happened over the past 50 years. For them, the key moment in the history
of U.S.-Iran relations came in 1953. This is an episode that completely defines Iranian history
and the Iran-United States relationship. Yet, many people in the United States are not even aware
this happened.
Very briefly, this is the story (and I tell it in much more detail in my book): In the period
after World War II, Iranian democracy, which had come about at the beginning of the 20th
Century through a revolution against a corrupt monarchy, really began to take form. It took on a
reality. You had elections; competing parties; parliament. This was something that had
not been seen in any Muslim country. So, Iran was truly in the vanguard of democracy.
But, because Iran was a democracy, it elected a leader who represented the public will-not the will
of outside powers. In Iran, there was one obsession. Iran is sitting, as we know, on an ocean
of oil. But all through the 1920's and '30's and '40's, that oil was completely controlled
by one British company.
The entire standard of living in Britain all during that period was based on oil from Iran, since
Britain has no oil or any colonies that have any oil. Meanwhile, people in Iran were living
in some of the most miserable conditions of anyone in the world. Once they had a democracy,
they elected a leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who, as prime minister, proceeded to pass a bill in congress
in which Iran nationalized its oil industry. This sent the British into a panic. They
tried all kinds of things to crush Mosaddegh. Finally, when he closed their embassy and chased
out all their diplomats, including all the secret agents who were trying to overthrow him, the British
decided, "We're going to ask the Americans to do this for us." So, Churchill asked President
Truman to "do this for us. Please go over to Iran and overthrow this guy who took away our
oil company. And Truman said, "No." But then, a few years later, when Dwight Eisenhower
became president, and John Foster Dulles became Secretary of State, and his brother, Allen Dulles,
became Director of the CIA, things changed.
The United States decided that we would work with the British to overthrow Mosaddegh -mainly because
he was challenging the fundamentals of corporate globablism, the principle that international companies
should be allowed to function all over the world according to conditions that they considered fair.
Mosaddegh was saying, "No, we are going to determine the conditions under which foreign companies
can function in our country." As a result, the United States sent a team CIA agents into Iran.
They went to work in the basement of the American Embassy. They threw Iran into total chaos,
and that chaos finally resulted in the overthrow of the Mosaddegh government. That put the
Shah back on his peacock throne; he ruled with increasing oppression for 25 years; his repressive
rule produced the explosion of the late 1970's, what we call "The Islamic Revolution"; that brought
the power, this clique of fanatically anti-American mullahs who are in power now. So, when you do
what they call in the CIA "walking back the cat," when you walk back the cat, that is, to see what
happened before, and before, and before, you come to realize that the American role in crushing Iranian
democracy in 1953 was not only the defining event in the history of U.S.-Iran relations, but it set
Iran in the Middle East into turmoil from which it has never recovered.
FTM: In 1953, in the book you point out that democracy was beginning to take root
there.
KINZER: It's a remarkable story. This, as I said, is something that had never happened
in a Muslim country before. Iran is a remarkable country; very different from the other countries
in the Middle East. And I'm not sure that people in the United States realize this. Most
of the countries in the Middle East are what you might call "fake countries." They're made-up
countries that were invented by some British or French diplomat drawing lines on a map at some men's
club after World War I.
Iran is not a fake country by any means. It has lived for thousands of years within more
or less the same boundaries, with more or less the same language, and the same kind of population.
It's a country with a deep, rich culture and very strong sense of itself. We are treating Iran
as if it's Honduras or Barundi or some little place where we can just go and kick sand in people's
face and they'll do whatever we want. Iran is not a country like that. And, given its
size, and its location, you see that that region will never be stable as long as Iran is angry and
ostracized. The only way to stabilize that part of the world is to build a security architecture
in which Iran has a place.
The world needs a big security concession from Iran. The world also needs big security concessions
from Israel. But countries only make security concessions when they feel safe. Therefore,
it should be in interest of those who want stability in the Middle East to try to help every country
in the region feel safe. But our goal in the Middle East isn't really stability; it's "stability
under our rule…under our dominance." And we realize that when Iran emerges as a strong, proud,
independent, democratic country, it's not gonna be so friendly to the United States. So I think there
is some feeling that "we prefer it this way" being poor and isolated and unhappy.
FTM: I was looking at a map the other day of the Middle East, just noticing the U.S. military
bases in the Middle East, and Iran, if you look at it very objectively, and take a look at the Middle
East military base map, you'll discover that Iran is completely surrounded. And as you mentioned,
there are four other nations in their general vicinity that have nuclear weapons, and it seems as
if pretty much the only way to keep the United States away from your country if you aren't playing
by their rules is to have a nuclear weapon. So logically, it does seem to make sense that the
Iranians are perhaps seeking a nuclear weapon, but what you point out here again in your book is
that the program, to have a nuclear program, was first proposed by the United States to Iran back
in the 1970's.
KINZER: We thought it was a great idea for Iran to have a nuclear program-when it was run
by a regime that was responsive to Washington. Now that it's a different kind of regime, we
don't like this idea. You're absolutely right about the lessons that Iran has drawn about the
value of having a nuclear weapon, or the ability to make a nuclear weapon, based on what's happened
in the world.
Why did the United States attack Iraq, but not attack North Korea? I think it's quite obvious:
if North Korea didn't have a nuclear weapon, we would have crushed them already; and if Sadaam
did have a nuclear weapon, we probably never would have invaded that country.
An even more vivid example is
Libya.
We managed to persuade
Gaddafi
to give up his nuclear program; as soon as he did that, we came in and killed him. I think
that the Iranians are acutely aware of this. They would like, if I'm gonna guess, to have the
ability to put together a nuclear deterrent, a nuclear weapon-something like Japan has. Japan
has something that is in the nuclear business called a "screwdriver weapon." They're not allowed
to have nuclear weapons, but they have the pieces and the parts around, so that in a matter of weeks,
they could probably put one together. Now, we hear a lot about how the Israelis are terrified
that as soon as Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it's gonna bomb Israel. But, in fact, as people
in the Israeli security establishment have made clear, none of them really believe that. They
fear the Iranian nuclear weapon for a couple of other reasons.
One is, that as Israel well-knows, when you have a nuclear weapon, you don't need to use it. It
gives you a certain power; a certain authority. You can intimidate people around you. And second,
of course, if there's another nuclear power in that region, it's going to set off perhaps another
nuclear race, and other countries like Turkey or Saudi Arabia or Egypt would want to have nuclear
weapons, too. But when the Iranians look around, I think the first country they see (and I've
heard this from a number of Iranians) is Pakistan. Pakistan is a far more volatile and far
more dangerous country than Iran. We have serious Taliban/al-Qaeda types not only running around
in Pakistan, but doing so under the egious of the government and they have a prospective to take
over that government! This is not going to happen in Iran. Pakistan is far more volatile,
yet the United States thought that is was fine that Pakistan should have a nuclear weapon. I'm against
all countries having nuclear weapons.
I'd like to see all countries that have them abandon them, and I don't want any more countries
to get them. But that's a dream world. The fact is, the most that we can do by attacking
Iran (as our own Defense Secretary has said) is to postpone the day when Iran has a nuclear weapon,
and in the process, make them a lot angrier. The way to reduce this danger is to build a security
system in the Middle East where people don't feel the need to be threatening each other. But
that requires dialogue, and dialogue requires compromise, and the United States is not ready to compromise
with Iran.
FTM: Interesting. And that's where I want to take this in conclusion: What
does that look like? Because obviously, the goal of your book here is to see some sort of peace
reached. I mean, no one wants to see war. But the Middle East obviously is just an issue
that has been debated for a long time. There are all kinds of
geopolitical reasons for being involved in the Middle East-namely, oil. But predominantly, as
we look at all of this, the question really boils down to this: What are we going to do? If
we don't bomb Iran, then how do we prevent them from potentially becoming an explosive nation in
that region? You say "security system" over there and also "dialogue." If you were President,
what would you do? How do you start that process?
KINZER: The first place, we have never really tried serious diplomatic overtures
to Iran. We've got some of our most senior retired diplomats in the United States now who are
chafing at the bit to be sent to Iran. People like Thomas Pickering, who was George Bush's
ambassador to the United Nations and ambassador to Moscow, and William Lords, another titan of 20th
Century diplomacy. These are people who are itching to go to Iran and see what they can do.
We have not even asked Iran the fundamental question, "What would it take from us for you to do what
we would like you to do with your nuclear program?"
Forget about deciding whether we want to do it or not; we don't even know what the quid pro quo
would be! So, we need first to get into a mindset where we're willing to have a real dialogue
on an equal basis with Iran. We are not at that point. We feel that any dialogue with
them is only going to legitimize their position in the Middle East and is going to make them feel
that they're a powerful country, because we will be making concessions to them-that's what you do
when you have negotiated solutions. But the fact is, Iran already is a powerful country. It
doesn't need us to legitimize it. We need to understand that in dealing with Iran, we're not
going to get everything we want. And we are going to have to concede Iran a measure of power
in that region that's commensurate with its size, and its history, and its location. We're
not even at that point yet. I think that's the first step. We have to make a psychological
transition to realize that we're not going to be able to dictate to Iran if we want to reach a peaceful
settlement. We're going to have to compromise. We're going to have to accept some things
that Iran wants in order to get things that we want. Before we even get to the point of figuring
out what those would be, we need to get over that psychological, political, diplomatic hurdle. And
we haven't done that yet.
FTM: My guest today has been Stephen Kinzer. He's the author of the book
All the Shah's Men.
Very enlightening stuff; very illuminating. Stephen, if the folks would like to learn more
about you and your work, how can they do so?
KINZER: I've got a website: stephenkinzer.com.
My books are all available on that mass website that I don't want to advertise that it's named after
a giant river in South America.
FTM: (laughter)
KINZER: But if you want to support your local independent bookstore, I'm sure it
would be happy to order All the Shah's Men for you or any of my other books.
FTM: Very good, Stephen. Thank you so much for coming on our program today, Stephen.
"... Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to
private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if
it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end
up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something
like the Lerrick compromise is adopted. ..."
"... Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years
ago. It promised to add value (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but
it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance
capitalism are far from pretty either. ..."
"... Im still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that
it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring. ..."
"... This loan assumed that there wouldnt be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian
subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And
then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy.
I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to
do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis
deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is
to be for the benefit of all... ..."
Martin Wolf was fuming about Russia on Wednesday - incensed specifically about its stance towards
Ukraine's attempted debt restructuring. He really doesn't like the fact that Russia's refusal to
join August's $18bn deal with private bond holders will block Ukraine's access to IMF money, promising
to collapse the country's economy.
Along the way, Wolf notes that there's a solution on the table here, albeit one that Russia is
unlikely to accept. It comes from Adam Lerrick of the American Enterprise Institute - a man with
some form in coming up with elegant solutions amid sovereign debt crises. (See Iceland, Greece and
also Argentina.)
Here's Lerrick's detail on Ukraine, along with a table for Putin and pals…
Ukraine has given Russia a deadline of October 29 to accept the restructuring offer made to
private sector investors; assuming it continues to refuse, Russia is threatening legal action if
it is not repaid in full on December 20. So all of this is really coming to a head. It will all end
up in the British courts - perhaps offering London it's own pari passu-type saga - unless something
like the Lerrick compromise is adopted.
The American academic's approach actually accepts a core Russian claim - that the concessional
terms of Russia's original loan put it on a different footing from private creditors in that Ukraine
signed up to pay a coupon of 5 per cent, at a time when regular bond market investors would have
demanded 12 per cent or more. But Lerrick then suggests that Russia be compensated for this concession
(in the form of higher interest rates on newly issued replacement bonds), before then accepting the
private creditor restructuring terms.
You can read the two options in full below. They look fair to all involved, which probably means
there's no chance of Russia accepting the idea at all!
The Dork of Cork.
Funny , but I have read the notorious IEA energy overview of Ukraine published a few years
ago. It promised to "add value" (collapse the economy) by adding costs..........funny enough but
it has. Not a fan of People the Great style centralized capitalism but the objectives of finance
capitalism are far from pretty either.
Upaswellasdown
What exactly will Russia do if it is not repaid? invade?
Pseudonym
I'm still not sure how a country can do a deal over bond restructuring with a country that
it is at war with when the war is partly causing the need for bond restructuring.
ukrainewatcher
Really angers me, as this was political loan to finance last dying days of Yanukovich's regime.
Probably used to pay towards the violence of the following months and to the cash that was taken
out of the country in trucks. Russia consequently cost Ukraine's economy billions of dollars,
through invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine against very explicit guarantees provided by most
superpowers (including US, Russia and UK) provided in return for dismantling world's third largest
nuclear arsenal. Obligations that are in my books pretty much worthless, yet Ukraine continues
to fulfil today (still destroying long term missiles as we speak)
And Ukraine still needs to deal with them as though they are normal creditors?
Something very wrong with the world of you ask me.
violet17
It was a political loan...correct! And it is a sovereign loan. And that is what the fuss is about!!
This loan assumed that there wouldn't be a coup and that Ukraine would pay its way under Russian
subsidies as it had done in the past. Then the Western encouraged coup, and the collapse. And
then an IMF loan of a lot more. Go figure... A fine lesson in how instability destroys an economy.
I wish the West would not encourage this. Its here they should have to pay. They managed not to
do so, so far in Libya. They are paying in Iraq, but in arms not in development which the Iraqis
deserve. I wish the West would support stability - things in the world change slowly if it is
to be for the benefit of all...
FearTheTree
@ukrainewatcher Isn't the same true of Argentina. How much of its 80B in contested debt was used
to support Menem and his cronies, thinking that the dollar-peso peg would hold indefinitely?
"... A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11
attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies – the FBI, CIA, NSA,
Defense Department and Homeland Security – "are all engaged in intelligence activities on
US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the
democratic principles and values of our Nation." ..."
"... Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm
criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations.
When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken
overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need
to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have
resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals. ..."
"... "enhanced interrogation" ..."
"... Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to
be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting
mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care. ..."
"... "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008." ..."
"... The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document,
though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials
from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual. ..."
US government 'engaged' in spying activities on US soil
A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11
attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies – the FBI, CIA, NSA,
Defense Department and Homeland Security – "are all engaged in intelligence activities on
US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the
democratic principles and values of our Nation."
Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm
criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations.
When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken
overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need
to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have
resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals.
Debate over torture restrictions
WikiLeaks published two documents related to the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation"
techniques, though notably neither was written by Brennan.
One was written by then-Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri), vice chairman on the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, which outlined a proposal to limit the CIA's torture techniques without
restricting the development of new techniques complying with the law.
The document suggests listing the types of techniques that the CIA is barred from using instead
of restricting the agency to only those explicitly listed in the Army Field Manual.
Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to
be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting
mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care.
Bond's suggestions get a bill
The final document appears to show Bond's suggestions making their way into a legislative
proposal titled "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008."
The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document,
though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials
from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual.
"... With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff
should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form. ..."
"... This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing
its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting
to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them its all
great fun. ..."
"... Lets be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial
to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic.
It is unAmerican. ..."
"... It would be funny if it wasnt for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for
the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan. ..."
"... Ive said it before and Ill say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny.
So let us be grateful for John Brennan. ..."
With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff
should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form.
AmyInNH -> NigelSafeton 21 Oct 2015 11:59
You seriously underestimate the technical incompetence of the federal government. They buy
on basis of quantity of big blue arrows, shown on marketing slideware.
Laudig 21 Oct 2015 05:31
This is great. This man is a serial perjurer to Congress. Which does eff-all about being lied
to [they lie to everyone and so don't take offense at being lied to] and now he's hacked by a
13 year-old who, until a few weeks ago was protected by the The Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act of 1998.
Well done, CIA or whatever you are.
So your well constructed career gets collapsed by someone who is still in short pants. The
Age of Secrets is over now.
Stieve 21 Oct 2015 02:54
Er, why has no-one mentioned, why has there been no press coverage, why has not a single presidential
candidate been asked to comment on the fact that The USA has been the victim of a military coup?
All pretence of government oversight has been dropped. The NSA, CIA and most likely every other
arm of the "intelligence service" have simply taken over the elected government, ripped up The
Constitution and transformed The US into a police state. Seven thousand people disappeared in
Chigaco? Exactly why have there not been massive arrests of these Stasi? Or riots on the streets?
Exactly why has there not been an emergency session of The Senate or Congress to find out why
Chicago is being run like an Eastern Bloc dictatorship? Exactly why are police departments been
given military hardware designed to be used by an occupying army?
I'll tell you exactly why.
Because The US actually has been taken over
Glenn J. Hill 21 Oct 2015 01:28
LOL, the Head of the CIA put sensitive info on an personal AOL ACCOUNT !!!!! What an total
idiot. Just proves the " Peter Principle", that one gets promoted to one`s point of incompetent!
Can he be fired ? Locked up for gross stupidity ?? Will he come hunting for me, to take me out
for pointing out his asinine stupidity ??
Fnert Pleeble -> Robert Lewis 20 Oct 2015 23:42
Congressmen are self motivating. They want the gravy train to continue. The carrot is plenty
big, no need for the stick.
Buckworm 20 Oct 2015 21:51
Those old, tired, incompetent, ignorant, trolls are asking for more and more access to citizens
data based on the assumption that they can catch a terrorist or another type of psycho before
they act out on something. Don't they realize that so far, after 15 years of violating the citizen's
constitutional rights, they HAVE NEVER CAUGHT not even ONE single person under their illegal surveillance.
This is the problem: they think that terrorists are as stupid as they are, and that they will
be sending tons of un-encrypted information online- and that sooner or later they will intercept
that data and prevent a crime. How many times have they done so? Z E RO . They haven't realized
that terrorists and hackers are waaaaayyy ahead of them and their ways of communicating are already
beyond the old-fashioned government-hacked internet. I mean, only a terrorist as stupid as a government
employee would think of ever sending something sensitive through electronic communications of
any kind - but the government trolls still believe that they do or that sooner or later they will!!
How super-beyond-stupid is that? Congress??
Don't even talk about that putrid grotesque political farce - completely manipulated by the
super-rich and heated up by the typical white-trash delusional trailer park troll aka as the "tea
party". We've had many killing in the homeland after 9/11 - not even one of them stopped by the
"mega-surveillance" - and thousands committed by irresponsible and crooked cops - and this will
continue until America Unites and fight for their constitutional rights. That will happen as soon
as their priority is not getting the latest iPhone with minimal improvement, spends endless hours
playing candy crush,stand in long lines to buy pot, get drunk every evening and weekends, and
cancel their subscription to home-delivered heroin and cocaine. So don't hold your breath on that
one.
Wait until one of those 13-yr old gets a hold of nuclear codes, electric grid codes, water
supply or other important service code - the old government farts will scream and denounce that
they could have prevented that if they had had more surveillance tools - but that is as false
as the $3 dollar bills they claim to have in their wallets. They cannot see any further from their
incompetence and ignorance.
Robert Lewis -> Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 18:38
Did the FSB cook data so the US would invade Iraq and kill 1,000,000 civilians?
yusowong 20 Oct 2015 18:20
This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing
its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting
to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them it's all
great fun.
Triumphant -> George Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 14:41
Are you saying that because you aren't in a concentration camp, everything's pretty good? That's
a pretty low bar to set.
Most people probably didn't vote for your current leader. To compare, in the UK, only 37% of the
popular vote went for the current government. And once you leader is voted in, they pretty much
do as they please. Fortunately, there are checks and balances which are supposed to prevent things
getting out of control. Unfortunately, bills like the cybersecurity bill are intend to circumvent
these things.
Let's be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial
to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic.
It is unAmerican.
Red Ryder -> daniel1948 20 Oct 2015 14:16
The whole freakin government is totally incompetent when it comes to computers and the hacking
going on around this planet. Hillary needs to answer for this email scandal but currently she
is making jokes about it as if nothing happened. She has no clue when she tried to delete her
emails. Doesn't the government know that this stuff is backed up on many computers and then stored
it a tape vault somewhere. Hiding emails is a joke today.
mancfrank 20 Oct 2015 13:27
It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for
the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan.
Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 12:53
I still don't understand why Russia is allowed to have the FSB but the US is forbidden from
having the CIA Who makes these rules again? Because frankly I'm tired of the world being run
by popular opinion.
bcarey 20 Oct 2015 12:33
The bill is so bad that the major tech companies like Google and Amazon all came out
against it last week, despite the fact that it would give them broad immunity for sharing
this information with the government.
The usual show... "We're totally against it, but it's okay."
Donald Mintz 20 Oct 2015 12:02
I've said it before and I'll say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny.
So let us be grateful for John Brennan.
The report, even in its highly-politized form, gives the families of the victims the right
to file lawsuits against Ukraine for its criminal negligence in complying with flight safety
rules. These suits can cost Ukraine billions of dollars.
idance 14 Oct 2015 12:51
Partly repeating my comment to another article here I must admit this POV agrees with
today's (but not yesterday's) US standards.
The US has just refused to accept the UNSC statement condemning the shelling of the Russian
Embassy in Damascus. They said the responsibility for the security of diplomatic missions lies
on the receiving party, that is on Damascus.
Applying this standard it doesn't matter who shot down MH17. The responsibility lies on
Ukraine cause it was Ukraine who should have ensured security of the flight.
Yeah! How do you like it!
SHappens 14 Oct 2015 03:31
"Russia's got a role and they haven't been very helpful," he said. "So I blame Russia
partially but not completely. There are many other players that are also to blame."
Some people see through. Rightly, as highlighted by the report, Ukraine failed to its
obligations, by not closing its airspace, rerouting a flight which casually got shot. They
bear the main responsibility in this disaster.
DeConstruct -> Putzik 13 Oct 2015 23:05
You are 100% on the money in relation to shorter route length and air navigation fees. The
penny should have dropped when it became obvious from the altitudes of previous military shoot
downs that medium range (up to 70,000' +) weapons were being employed and not just low
altitude MANPADS.
summaluvva -> Putzik 13 Oct 2015 22:35
Quoting Guardian's article, "Many of the world's best-known airlines – including British
Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific – had been avoiding Ukrainian airspace due to safety fears
for months before the downing of flight MH17.".
"... It was predictable that by going to Syria Russia will make itself more of a target for terrorist
attacks than before, as Russia now has a lot more enemies than it did before. ..."
"... They fail to understand one simple fact – Russia already was a target of these groups. ..."
"... I would also add, that Russian does NOT have more enemies than before. Russia has the same
number of enemies, in the exact same quantity and quality as before. The only difference is that
Russia was warned in advance this time, by one of Americas poodles. Remember Gerashchenkos
warning, on Mirotvorec ? ..."
"... On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev
entitled Slavs Against the Moscow terror . It will be a live transmission. ..."
"... – I was sitting in a cafe last night, right across the Montparnasse station. Suddenly I
saw, from the side of the hall came out a lot of elderly Jews speaking in Russian. Im interested
in, stopped one of them and asked what was it … And it turns out, there was a meeting of young
Russian poets. ..."
It was predictable that by going to Syria Russia will make itself more of a target for terrorist
attacks than before, as Russia now has a lot more enemies than it did before.
Indeed it
was Nostradamized from the day 1 by the unlikely common opinion alliance of:
1) Russian liberasts.
2) Western pundits.
3) "Russian" patriotic putinslivsiks
They fail to understand one simple fact – Russia already was a target of these groups.
And the fact that terract was prevented is a reason not for concern but for a sense of pride of
one's Security Services doing their job. For Russia "not to have any enemies" means to curl up
and give up on any foreign policy, allowing "the adults" to run their freak show of "Here comes
the Freedom and 'Mocracy. bitches!".
I would also add, that Russian does NOT have more enemies than before. Russia has the same
number of enemies, in the exact same quantity and quality as before. The only difference is that
Russia was "warned" in advance this time, by one of America's poodles. Remember Gerashchenko's
warning, on "Mirotvorec" ?
Yes, the only difference now is that the masks are slipping revealing the truly hideous face of
the Western empire. Other than that, business as usual.
"Exposed" and then there follows a string of allegations.
"Russia's FSB and GRU (military
intelligence) are mostly likely assigning Phillips 'mini-ops' to attack western organizations,
journalists, reporters and researchers who debunk the Kremlin's propaganda narrative."
Sad. So young – I'm assuming – and his mind already gone. Only in such an oxygen-deficient atmosphere
could the FSB deliberately recruit somebody because they are "bumbling and incompetent" and speak
Russian at the third-grade level or less. Lots of good press for Graham, though.
He's Andrei Piontkovskiy, former member of that very short-lived Coordinating Council of the
Russian Opposition, you know – Navalny's parliament in waiting that met a couple of times in
kreakl cafés: even Udaltsov (remember him?) called its members a "committee of wankers".
Well lookeee here:
On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev
entitled "Slavs Against the Moscow terror". It will be a live transmission.
The Tweet is off a certain Sasha Sotnik of
Sotnik TV.
Sotnik TV is not a typical Russian television channel: It is only available on the web,
not on television screens. It has no live broadcasts. And it is run primarily by just two people:
husband and wife Sasha Sotnik, the reporter, and Mariya Orlovskaya, the camera operator (both
pictured above).
But what's most different about Sotnik TV is its outspoken criticism of Russian President Vladimir
Putin, which has led to Sotnik and Orlovskaya being arrested briefly and accused of possessing
explosives.
Strong views
Sasha Sotnik is a believer in the liberal "European values" that Putin has forcefully rejected
in recent months, and does not flinch from expressing strong views in his videos, which are mainly
distributed through the couple's YouTube channel.
Bet they love Sasha at Auntie BBC.
If he likes liberal "European values" so much, then why doesn't he stay in Banderastan?
Do you think Sotnik and Piontkovskiy and Bykov will be shot dead in the street when they return
to Mordor, thereby becoming yet more tragic statistics attributed to the Dark Lord's reign of
terror?
After all, Lord Putin's ever watchful eye not only knows what everyone is thinking,
but also of what they are going to think and plan and usually punishes his enemies before they
even think of doing something that he will not like, such is his awesome power and majesty that
holds this once mighty nation in sway ….
These brave opposition souls must live a life of perfectly abject terror and despair.
I mean, look at Bykov: he looks like a really worried man – doesn't he?
I believe he's lost pounds since Putin seized control of the state, such has been his worry
and concern over what has been going on here since 2000.
Too late, probably. Their personal addresses and the names of family members are probably all
over whatyoucallem, that Russian squealer database that encourages people to inform on other people
for anti-government views. There was a name for it…separatist! That's it, separatists who harbor
anti-government attitudes!! I read all about it a while ago, but I forget the name of it. You
could go there and rat out people for their personal views and then some wet-man from Putin's
personal kill squad would go round to his house, make some excuse to get him outside and then
cap him right there in the street. Poor Sotnik and Bykov and Piontkovskiy: they're as good as
done for, like that murdered martyr Yulia Latynina.
"On Wednesday A. Piontkovskiy, D. Bykov and I shall represent Russia at a meeting in Kiev
entitled "Slavs Against the Moscow terror". It will be a live transmission."
During her
emigration in Paris, famous pre-Revolutionary satirical writer Nadezhda Teffi (nee Lokhvitskaya,
in marriage – Buchinskaya) once became a witness to such a scene:
"- Сижу я вчера вечером в кафе, против монпарнасского вокзала. Вдруг вижу, из бокового зала
выходят много пожилых евреев, говорят по-русски. Я заинтересовалась, остановила одного и спрашиваю,
что это было такое… А это, оказывается, было собрание молодых русских поэтов"."
– I was sitting in a cafe last night, right across the Montparnasse station. Suddenly I
saw, from the side of the hall came out a lot of elderly Jews speaking in Russian. I'm interested
in, stopped one of them and asked what was it … And it turns out, there was a meeting of young
Russian poets. "
"... This. The most infuriating part about Obomba is the smug "smarter-than-you" certainty he
has. He was a community organizer and one-term state Senator but somehow he started sniffing all
the farts the sycophants were wafting his way about just how clever he really was. Then he installed
a bunch of also-smart groupthinker Berkeley-ites from the "duty to protect" and "humanitarian
bombing" crowd, Chanel-suited exceptionalist egomaniacs who thought they were Kissinger (Samantha
Powers, Hilary, Susan Rice et al.) ..."
"... BHO thought he could triangulate and "out-clever" everyone on everything, from health care,
where he managed the worst of all worlds that fattened Big Insurance AND screwed up the cost of
care…to Wall St where he fattened TBTF AND screwed up Dodd-Frank. In the ME he thought he could
cleverly play all sides off against each other, the Turks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Israelis,
the Saudis... and stunningly also al-Qaeda themselves were just another co-optable pawn. ..."
"... But as Warren Buffet says "when the tide goes out you can see who's swimming naked". Tide's
heading out…and as far as I can see the Russia/Iran/Iraq/Israel/Syria/Kurd team, with Brother
China, fed-up Pakistan and resurgent India backing things up, is looking pretty good. Sclero-Europe
has long ago ceded their sovereignty and relevance, LatAm as usual is absent from consideration…what
am I missing? ..."
"... Interesting things are happening with Russian involvement in Syria. Are we seeing the global
balance of power tip before our eyes? The U.S. is losing it's sole hegemony status and that could
be a good thing if Washington can realize this and accept that and adopt diplomacy and cooperation
to maintain what position it still has instead of denial followed by escalating aggression.
..."
"... The FSA = al Nusrah = al Qaeda in Syria. The re-labeling was invoked so that BHO could
send weapons to al Nusrah… the player that currently has snapped up EVERY weapon the President
sent into the fight. Most recently that's meant TOW missiles. ..."
"... Good lord. Stratfor is well-known as politicized propaganda machine that works in concert
with large multinational corporations to further their interests in foreign countries. It's not
a secret. ..."
"... Stratfor is Neocon central, I should think. They stock gasbags in quantity. ..."
"... The question I must ask: what happens to all these Islamic fighters after they are run
out of Syria and Iraq? Only safe territory for them – away from the Russian air force – will be
US allies, like Jordan and Arabia. ..."
"...
Israel, with its excuse of no peace partners, may end up with enemies from hell. ..."
"... Suppose that Obama just decides to flood Syria with weapons? Anti-tank, anti-air, medium-range
missiles with cluster bombs that can hit the Russian bases… America may not have any sense of
long-range strategy but we are very good at breaking things, and our leaders throw fits and take
it personally when their plans go awry… ..."
"... Of course giving all sorts of advanced weapons to the mostly jihadist Syrian 'rebels' would
in the long run certainly cause a lot of blowback to the United States, but that's never stopped
us before… ..."
"... U.S. air superiority is based on air superiority, not anti-aircraft weaponry. Afghanistan
and Syria are radically different much like Vietnam and Iraq were different. It's much easier
for the Russians to supply their bases than in Afghanistan where they had to rely on helicopters
flying around mountain valleys. ..."
"... Advanced weaponry will be seen by Russian eyes in the sky and can be hit by missiles from
the Caspian apparently. I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. R D budget has been wasted on
projects like F-35 and contracting fraud. ..."
"... Why does my Spidy Sense tell me that the foundation of the Saudi oil ministry policy of
continuing to flood a depressed market with low cost oil was a secret agreement between Obomber
and the Saudi ruling family? The plan was to bankrupt Russia by a two-pronged attack- the fraudulent
US sponsored sanctions based upon manufactured reality events in Ukraine and the Saudi capacity
to control the marginal price of oil. The carrot offered by the US was a piece of the action in
the trans Syrian gas pipeline- and continued protection against internal opposition.
..."
"... Saudi Arabia wants Putin to suffer - as he's the patron of Assad - of whom they hate the
most. Low crude pricing has pounded the Russian ruble. Putin's crew is also going insolvent. The
flight capital out of Russia is relentless. ..."
"... Contracting fraud, where the real money is made. It was never about oil, just contracts
and egos. Oil has to be sold at an honest price for a variety of reasons, but I can't judge a
cruise missile's price behind a veil of secrecy. ..."
"... Then there is the natural failing of leaders domestically who search for scapegoats. Half
of the foreign policy pronouncements are full of whispered hisses of "China." Don't pay attention
to me. It's those red Chinese and their currency manipulation. ..."
"... The Russian expeditionary force in Syria is indeed highly vulnerable, but only if the Western
Bloc wants to risk a major war. Now the Western Bloc can prevail against Russia, at any level
of escalation, albeit at mounting risk. Nobody should expect today's Russia to be able to match
the might of the Western Bloc. ..."
"... I expect the Western Bloc will presume that they can prevail through politico-economic
attrition against Russia. They probably can. However, the longer this complex regional war in
the Middle East continues, the more likely things are to veer off unpredictably. ..."
"... "In my read, Russia and Iran have just popped open the door to a solution in Syria. All
the pieces are in place but one: Washington's capacity to acknowledge the strategic failure now
so evident and to see beyond the narrowest definition of where its interests lie. This brings
us to the paradox embedded in those questions Putin and Zarif and a few others now pose: American
primacy is no longer in America's interest. Get your mind around this and you have arrived in
the 21st century." ..."
"... The CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition
to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number
still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear. ..."
"... No kidding -- Both involved CIA proxy armies that had no operational security to speak of.
Both were authorized by the Oval Office. And we know how much BHO admires JFK. ..."
"... It is important to get Russian viewpoint especially since most Americans are monolingual.
Also, it is hard for us not to root for the home team. Still Syria is a gigantic SNAFU. It is
so far beyond incompetence it has to be purposeful. This is the ultimate expression of the Shock
Doctrine. Collapse Russia and gain control its energy resources ..."
"... There are 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims. Want-to-be Jihadists will flock to Syria to fight
the Russian Crusaders. Barrack Obama has already warned Vladimir Putin of a quagmire. His continued
arming the Sunnis is a purposeful act to ensure this. World War III starts when Russia shoots
down an American aircraft on a combat mission over Syria. ..."
"... Give the Russians some credit for finesse. All they need do is shoot down an Israeli jet
attacking a Syrian government position in support of some Syrian "Moderates" near Damascus. I'll
be watching for a Russian campaign to rid the Syrian skies of 'Western' drones. That would be
a sign of serious intentions on the part of Russia. ..."
Russia has established a no-fly zone on every one of Syria's frontiers, and will make an Alawite
fortress along the coastal plain. As for what happens in the northern and western deserts, that's
up to the Shiite armies of Iran and Iraq to decide, with or without Russian air cover, but with the
assurance of no American, NATO, Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian or Emirati air cover.
Gennady Nechaev, a military analyst at Vzglyad in Moscow, explains: "There is airspace, but either
it is controlled by the US or by our Air Force. But today there is no issue of control of air space.
We are talking about control of ground space. There operations can be of two types: direct destruction
from the air and from insulation of the area of operations by air in order to avoid movements of
the enemy and incoming reserves. In this case, the task is hardly feasible, as there is an open border
with Iraq on the side of Turkey. The boundaries are not controlled. The problem could be solved [by
Russia] if a blow can be dealt along the entire depth of the space under the control of ISIS. At
the moment there is an operation against the infrastructure of ISIS. Infrastructure is a fairly loose
concept, because they don't have civilian infrastructure. There are military links and connexions
which must [operate] to supply weapons. For these purposes Russia is now applying its strokes."
... ... ...
What if the Saudis shift their forces from bombing southward and eastward in the Yemen towards
the west, and they invite US forces to defend their sorties from Saudi airfields or from carriers
in the Persian Gulf? An Egyptian military source comments: "The king [Salman] has Alzheimer's, and
his son [Mohammad bin Salman], the real ruler of the kingdom, is too young; too insecure in the royal
succession; and too vulnerable domestically. If either of them makes so much as a nervous twitch
towards the Syrian frontier, the oil price will return to the level Russia wants, and needs. There
will be no support for the Saudis against the Russians from their only real Arab guarantor, [Egyptian
President Abdel Fattah el-] Sisi. And long ago, when Obama installed the Moslem Brotherhood in Cairo,
[Sisi] realized the American strategy, Obama's promises, are the gravest threat to Egyptian and Arab
security there is. That's because he can't control the Washington Amazons who run his warmaking machine,
or the jihadists he employs to fight. Without air cover, supply lines, and dollars, they are doomed.
The Saudi sheikhs won't risk trying to save them."
For more on Putin's management of the Saudi relationship, read
this.
London sources familiar with
Israeli politics add that Russian strategy has the tacit backing of Israel. "This is because [President
Vladimir] Putin has told [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu that Israel can count on a no-threat
zone running from Damascus south and east to the Golan. No threat means no Syrian Army, no jihadists.
Russia and Israel will now have what [Israeli Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion once explained was
Israel's long-term objective – the breakup of the large, potentially powerful secular Arab states
into small sectarian territories too weak to do anything but threaten each other."
There is not the slightest chance that BHO has any interest in squaring off with Putin.
What the President has been doing is to support al Qaeda fronts - most particularly al Nusrah.
Both al Nusrah and IS are joined at the hip and do not fight each other - much. Dr. Zawahiri
is their mutal mediator, with plenty of correspondence to his credit.
ISIS // ISIL // IS wouldn't be a serious factor if it was not for the UK, US, and Jordan. These
three patron powers trained the core block of al Baghdadi's boys - in the northern Jordanian desert
- just a few years back - remember ?
It was all over the news - particularly in the Arab Middle East.
They graduated - and promptly went rogue - taking out Mosul - probably by simply phoning ahead.
For the US had given them first class communications gear - that they were supposed to be using
in Syria. It, however, worked its magic even better - intercepting Iraqi cell phone frequencies
- so that al Baghdadi could threaten the generals and their families quite directly.
In this, they were entirely aping the USAF's gambit in Libya. Remember Commando Solo ? It was
exactly such phone calls to Libyan generals that broke up Kaddafy's entire army. We admitted that
we'd called just about everyone in the dictator's immediate family, to boot.
Well, the fanatics in Libya couldn't miss any of that.
And our Pentagon gave them the same tools// toys that the big boys have.
Without this communications gear, ISIS would never have been able to roll fast, roll large,
and co-ordinate everything - pretty much without a hitch.
The FSA is a fictive fig leaf dreamed up by the spin smiths at the White House. There never
has been a Free Syrian Army. There are NO secular fighters in the field. This is a flat out religious
war. One has to be deliberately dense to repress that reality.
Every single item ever given to the so called FSA has been deeded over to the fanatics - probaly
with kisses, too.
All of the above is idiot obvious. The only place that reality has no traction is in the West.
When it can't be denied, the public will come to know that BHO has treasonously enabled al
Qaeda in war time.
That both of these fronts have direct AQ connections is out on the open record. Both are still
in communication with Dr. Zawahiri. The only split is that al Baghdadi wants to be the caliph
and run the ever expanding caliphate… a Napoleon, a Hitler for our time.
BHO has been vectoring weapons to al Nusrah - by the flimsy pretext that they were intended
for moderate rebels. That lie won't hold water.
The TOW missiles that al Nusrah has received were entirely responsible for the massive reverses
that Assad suffered of late. Go to YouTube to see the jihadi footage. It's a pretty good bet that
the Russians have targeted the ammo dumps most likely to have these missiles. The Russians have
put their hits up on YouTube, too.
The only player that's going to be backing down: BHO. That's who.
BTW, at any time Putin can pull the President's card house flat. I suspect Putin is going for
maximum embarrassment. His treasonous support of AQ could finally lead to impeachment and conviction…
throwing Biden into the Oval Office. Such a travail would be triggered indirectly - so that Putin's
fingerprints would not be at all obvious.
In the meantime, Putin likes the fool right where he sits.
TedWa, October 10, 2015 at 11:58 am
I must say, nice lay out of the facts. There's so many things O should be impeached and jailed
for and if you think this one has him dead to rights, well…. cumbaya bro
James Levy, October 10, 2015 at 12:28 pm
I would bet the farm that the leadership in the House and Senate are, at this moment, unindicted
co-conspirators and Obama can prove it. There will be no impeachment over any of this. It would
bring down the whole system.
"Turkish officials claimed a third incident on Monday, when an unidentified MiG-29 fighter
jet locked its radar for four and a half minutes on eight Turkish F-16 jets that were on patrol
on their side of the border, in apparent preparation to open fire."…
This is a wake-up call. Moscow is indicating that there's a new sheriff in town and that Turkey
had better behave itself or there's going to be trouble. There's not going to be any US-Turkey
no-fly zone over North Syria, there's not going to be any aerial attacks on Syrian sites from
the Turkish side of the border, and there certainly is not going to be any ground invasion of
Turkish troops into Syria. The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces now control the skies over Syria
and they are determined to defend Syria's sovereign borders. That's the message. Period."
My guess is the Russian Air Force has a few more "messages" up its sleeve…
OIFVet, October 10, 2015 at 2:20 pm
There are no Russian Mig-29s in Syria.
blert, October 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm
The 'mistaken' Russian penetrations into Turkish air space are designed to 'brush back' the
Turks. ( Baseball term: a pitch is thrown very close by the batter to get him to inch away from
the plate. )
And it has suceeded. While not given much publicity in the Western press Erdogan has been injecting
his air force directly over Syria - about 30 kilometers - give or take.
He has also deployed SAMs rather foreward, too.
The net effect has been to drive Assad's air force out of the skies all along the border.
But, much further south, Syria is a total desert with but one river running through it, the Euphrates.
So Erdogan's play has been effectively shielding ISIS from Assad's pitiful air force. ( All downed
pilots are assassinated via torture by the fanatics.
Putin is terminating Erdogan's gambit.
Putin is simultaneously protecting the Kurds - as Erdogan can't beat them up any more with his
air force. One can reasonably expect that 'somehow' the Kurds will experience a shift in fortunes
- as Putin becomes their devious patron. He'll want to arm them in such a manner that Iran and
Iraq don't 'kick.'
That should now be easy. He can over fly ISIS turf from the Caspian sea - spitting weapons out
the back window like Zardoz, when over Kurdish positions. (1974, Sean Connery)
Jesper, October 10, 2015 at 8:29 am
The US has stopped doing strategy so while short term victories can be had the long-term is
only obtained by chance…. The ones in US with strategies are the ones who are pursuing personal
strategies, those strategies sometimes happen to align with US interests.
& to be seen as a reliable ally (and therefore an ally wished for) then a country needs to back
up their allies even(!) when times get tough. Russia is doing that in Syria. France is doing that
in Mali: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13881978
UK & the US has been doing the same numerous times throughout history, Maybe even the backing
of the current regimes in Afghanistan & Iraq would fall into the category of backing up an ally,
or maybe those are more 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.
blert, October 10, 2015 at 2:50 pm
Both Obama and Clinton are big into 'triangulation.'
Meaning that they are too clever by half - and ALWAYS mistake domestic political tactics and tricks
for viable gambits in international affairs.
With Bill Clinton you had a president that spun on a dime, famously flip-flopping four times in
a single day on this or that domestic issue.
With Obama you have a president that just CAN'T accept and adopt - straight out - ANY recommended
policy suite proferred by his own professionals. Instead, he runs it by Axelrod and the other
spin smiths - gauging it for domestic and media impact.
He really thinks that he's the smartest man in Washington, and that his 'play' has been brilliant.
He is a bit perturbed that the rest of the world is not following his scripts.
His 'clever' scheme to use the CIA (et. al.) to sustain a proxy anti-Assad army has blown up like
a Roadrunner gag.
The jibes from Putin and others are particularly irritating.
No-one now is kissing his Islamic ring.
( Yes, his marriage ring is ornately inscribed with Islamic iconography. Google around for it.
He's worn it since Harvard, long before Michelle.)
binky Bear, October 10, 2015 at 3:45 pm
Not only deeply informed but a telepath to boot. How fortunate to be near-omniscient, and to
support so deeply such complex arguments with provable facts.
blert, October 10, 2015 at 6:01 pm
Where have you been ?
Clinton's 'triangulation' was a term of art brought up largely by himself.
As for the proxy army… Now even the AP is willing to 'fess up.
The big error in the AP article is dating it to 2013. The project was started even earlier.
Telepath ?
Reading their local press did the trick. You will find Indian and Pakistani English language publications
hitting right on target - realities that 'elude' the NY Times.
This. The most infuriating part about Obomba is the smug "smarter-than-you" certainty he
has. He was a community organizer and one-term state Senator but somehow he started sniffing all
the farts the sycophants were wafting his way about just how clever he really was. Then he installed
a bunch of also-smart groupthinker Berkeley-ites from the "duty to protect" and "humanitarian
bombing" crowd, Chanel-suited exceptionalist egomaniacs who thought they were Kissinger (Samantha
Powers, Hilary, Susan Rice et al.)
BHO thought he could triangulate and "out-clever" everyone on everything, from health care,
where he managed the worst of all worlds that fattened Big Insurance AND screwed up the cost of
care…to Wall St where he fattened TBTF AND screwed up Dodd-Frank. In the ME he thought he could
cleverly play all sides off against each other, the Turks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Israelis,
the Saudis... and stunningly also al-Qaeda themselves were just another co-optable pawn.
But as Warren Buffet says "when the tide goes out you can see who's swimming naked". Tide's
heading out…and as far as I can see the Russia/Iran/Iraq/Israel/Syria/Kurd team, with Brother
China, fed-up Pakistan and resurgent India backing things up, is looking pretty good. Sclero-Europe
has long ago ceded their sovereignty and relevance, LatAm as usual is absent from consideration…what
am I missing?
Unfortunately after the Hilary coronation we'll have another serial "third way" triangulator
in charge who never saw a war, arms program, or covert adventure she didn't like. Except when
she didn't like it, which was right after she did like it, and right before the previous time
she didn't like it.
Good article… gives (from all I've read elsewhere) good, accurate context to what's going on
now, and why (IMO) Putin's actions make sense. That is, if "solutions" (eg. ending blood shed,
restore sustainable stability) in Syria is the objective.
I'm also struck by some retrospective considerations, beyond what author (with limited space)
hits very generally (eg: Brzezinski/Carter). In particular, all the secret prisons and indiscriminate
detentions by BushCo (torture), much of it seemingly continued by BO. And, the "unintended" consequences
of that.
Reading Wikipedia's
bio on al-Baghdadi this morning, seems he was a very well educated cleric (doctorate in both
Islamic Studies and Education) even well after Bush's Iraq adventure began. He was non-descript,
low key… seems little evidence he had violtent inclinations:
"I was with Baghdadi at the Islamic University. We studied the same course, but he wasn't
a friend. He was quiet, and retiring. He spent time alone. Later, when he helped found the
Islamic Army, Mr Dabash fought alongside militia leaders who were committing some of the worst
excesses in violence and would later form al-Qaeda… [but] Baghdadi was not one of them, I used
to know all the leaders (of the insurgency) personally. Zarqawi (the former leader of al-Qaeda)
was closer than a brother to me… But I didn't know Baghdadi. He was insignificant. He used
to lead prayer in a mosque near my area. No one really noticed him."
This bio also says this (which I didn't know):
Bakr al-Baghdadi was arrested by US Forces-Iraq on 2 February 2004 near Fallujah and detained
at Camp Bucca detention center under his name Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badry[22] as a "civilian
internee" until December 2004, when he was recommended for release by a Combined Review and
Release Board.[24][29][30] In December 2004, he was released as a "low level prisoner".[22]
A number of newspapers and cable news channels have instead stated that al-Baghdadi was
interned from 2005 to 2009. These reports originate from an interview with the former commander
of Camp Bucca, Colonel Kenneth King, and are not substantiated by Department of Defense records.[31][32][33]
Al-Baghdadi was imprisoned at Camp Bucca along with other future leaders of ISIL. (emphasis
added)
Would be hugely informative to have a means of cross checking records (if they exist?) of U.S.
detainees as "illegal combatants", their violent "proclivities" prior to incarceration, and how
many of them became Jihadists after release. The utter injustice of this, in the face of nothing
more then an invasion and occupation of Iraq… this cause & affect is ignored and unacknowledged
by leadership/policy makers on our shores. And making "exception" for these policies guarantees
the continued disastrous results, ad infinitum.
Global conventions against torture have stood for a long time, with a strong moral grounding…
based on understanding, that abrogating them WILL produce the kinds of results we've seen, expanding
like dominoes.
Somehow, someway… if U.S. is ever to get on a course other then collapsing from within, this
stuff needs to be examined thoroughly and cut out of public and official "acceptance" like the
cancer that it is.
The problem with any bio on al Baghdadi is that the CIA// Pentagon has re-used that name//
title over and over. This is topped off by the fact that the Muslims use that nome-de-guerre over
and over, too.
So one is always left puzzling over whether this or that reference is getting crossed over
with yet another al Baghdadi. The Pentagon, itself, admits that they have made that exact error
many, many, times. They've 'killed' al Baghdadi numerous times - only for another elusive al Baghdadi
to pop up.
Some analysts contend that the name is really more towards a title - just like Caesar. After
he died, all of his successors were so labeled. The only folks that seem to have the slightest
clue about what's up are the desert Arabs. (Jordan, KSA, Kuwait - and the Awakening Movement in
Iraq.)
Everyone else is 'stupid' - counter-informed - like Dr. Zbig. What a gas bag. Dangerous, too.
I don't think it's useful to refer to "al Baghdadi" as a "nom de guerre." It's a nickname,
"the guy from Baghdad," in a culture where names are rather indeterminate. OK, I'm not an Arabic
linguist, but I know that a guy may be known by some of his friends as "Son of X," by others of
his friends as "Father of Y," and by others as "Abdu al [insert attribute of Allah]." I think
this makes it problematic for many Americans, who are not known for language ability.
Actually, adopting a 'nom de guerre' is extremely popular for the fanatics.
1) Like all super heros, they don't want blow back upon their non-combatant family members.
This is especially evident with their infamous executioners. But the tic is not at all limited.
2) The fake persona permits the jihadist easy travel when outside the war zone. Many of the
fanatics are claiming to flit to and fro - from America to Syria - with grace and ease. This ease
of travel was confirmed by an elderly German journalist, (75) who visited ISIS. They scared the
Hell out of him. It also terrified him that he could, himself, flit from Germany to Syria, with
little to inconvenience him. (!) It was all too easy. Yikes !
In his opinion, the fanatics are shuttling all over the place. Current border controls are
wholly ineffective with these players. If a slow moving retiree can make the transit, that's telling.
Interesting things are happening with Russian involvement in Syria. Are we seeing the global
balance of power tip before our eyes? The U.S. is losing it's sole hegemony status and that could
be a good thing if Washington can realize this and accept that and adopt diplomacy and cooperation
to maintain what position it still has instead of denial followed by escalating aggression.
A reborn Russia/Iran/Iraq/Syria alliance could check the brutality of the current U.S./Israel/Saudi
Arabia/Turkey axis. Have seen articles that Iraq is impressed with Russian effectiveness against
U.S. funded ISIS that is creating chaos in Iraq, and they may ask Putin to do the same thing there
he is doing in Syria. Wonder if O's ego can handle that?
Even signs that some in Europe see Russia is helping them by intervening in Syria and connecting
the dots, as in "WTF are we doing hurting ourselves pissing off Russia in service of U.S.?"
With all that going on, I was dumbfounded seeing headlines that the U.S. is preparing a major
naval challenge to China's islands, as if we don't have enough conflict on our hands already.
"If either of them makes so much as a nervous twitch towards the Syrian frontier, the
oil price will return to the level Russia wants, and needs."
""This is because [President Vladimir] Putin has told [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu
that Israel can count on a no-threat zone running from Damascus south and east to the Golan."
Those are a couple of very interesting points that look win-win for Russia. Especially with
the Saudi and Turkish regimes having internal problems as well.
Here's an analysis from the other side of the aisle:
The bone I'll pick with it is that the 'far' position taken is "negotiated settlement". The
U.S. and Saudis appear over-extended and thus under-committed. Russia has advanced a Knight, and
S-400's and cruise missiles are discomforting if NATO tries to advance the Queen of overwhelming
air power (see the Stratfor map of U.S. vs Russian air strikes). When the BATNA is a win-win,
all negotiations are just plays for time.
Stratfor totally lost me with their fantasy Free Syrian Army schtick. It does not exist.
That scribe is pipe dreaming. Absolutely no-one in the field identifies with the FSA. Not.
A. One.
The FSA = al Nusrah = al Qaeda in Syria. The re-labeling was invoked so that BHO could
send weapons to al Nusrah… the player that currently has snapped up EVERY weapon the President
sent into the fight. Most recently that's meant TOW missiles.
Go to YouTube to see countless jihadi videos uploaded showing how al Nusrah has been driving
Assad into retreat.
The rest of the article is pure jibberish… counter-factual… aka lies.
This is an especially important post, as it is all but impossible to gain a balance in analysis
or reporting from the press in the United States on the Russian initiative and engagement in Syria.
Stratfor is great reading…polished and confident, always written with a hint of being' in the
know' , and yet is less useful as a forecasting tool than a dart board (without any darts). Also
amusing is to wonder about the irony of the president's Nobel peace prize and what effect the
fear of the resurfacing of the irony/hypocrisy each time the president engages the country in
yet another "conflict". If you imagine the president being issued a certain number of conflict
cards at the beginning of terms, well, they must be used judiciously….especially when one has
that damned prize to think about. Wonder if that's another reason the Russians got to go Russian
in Syria first.
Good lord. Stratfor is well-known as politicized propaganda machine that works in concert
with large multinational corporations to further their interests in foreign countries. It's not
a secret.
Russian operations in Syria began right before Bibi was due to visit Moscow. Now it's a nice,
neat package to assume Russia made Israel an offer it couldn't refuse, however Putin can't make
deals with everyone. After all, he's not Donald Trump.
My guess would be that Hizbollah will be rewarded for their support and be able to keep the
arms they get from Russia. Israel will simply have to stay out of southern Lebanon for good. That's
going to be a tough one for the Jewish Taliban, with their Greater Israel project, to swallow.
Ben-Gurion may have wanted peaceful borders but it is the last thing modern Israel wants. The
Assads kept the peace on the Golan border for 40 years – fat lot of good that did them. Peaceful
borders means no excuse for Israel to avoid making peace with the Palestinians.
The question I must ask: what happens to all these Islamic fighters after they are run
out of Syria and Iraq? Only safe territory for them – away from the Russian air force – will be
US allies, like Jordan and Arabia. Hamas is not as extreme as ISIS, however the Palestinian
situation becomes more extreme every day. Could ISIS end up working with the Palestinians?
Israel, with its excuse of no peace partners, may end up with enemies from hell. Even if
ISIS doesn't take up the Palestinian cause, it still has to go somewhere. Seems the chickens will
come home to roost.
Bibi and al Sisi romanced Putin once Obama showed his colors. The President intended to take
America down a peg… okay… many pegs. Instead, the down-pegging has occurred to himself.
He's now totally ineffective in foreign affairs. He is scorned and ridiculed… universally.
Interesting. But I wouldn't hand Putin the victory cup just yet.
Suppose that Obama just decides to flood Syria with weapons? Anti-tank, anti-air, medium-range
missiles with cluster bombs that can hit the Russian bases… America may not have any sense of
long-range strategy but we are very good at breaking things, and our leaders throw fits and take
it personally when their plans go awry…
Of course giving all sorts of advanced weapons to the mostly jihadist Syrian 'rebels' would
in the long run certainly cause a lot of blowback to the United States, but that's never stopped
us before…
I suspect that the Kurds and Houthis, as well as the Shia in KSA's oil producing regions will
suddenly find excellent source of weapons, plunging Turkey, KSA, and the emirates in quite the
chaos.
The issue is moving the weapons. Jordan's border is open desert. Iraq is warming to the Russians
with an active war zone along the border. Israel doesn't want weapons running through their territory
without control. The water is locked up, and Lebanon is full of Hezbollah.
After today's events, who knows where Turkey is?
Where is the money coming from? Americans aren't brining up Syria on the campaign trail except
to note they were opposed to intervention. The Saudis are suffering from low oil prices and their
own quagmire.
U.S. air superiority is based on air superiority, not anti-aircraft weaponry. Afghanistan
and Syria are radically different much like Vietnam and Iraq were different. It's much easier
for the Russians to supply their bases than in Afghanistan where they had to rely on helicopters
flying around mountain valleys.
Advanced weaponry will be seen by Russian eyes in the sky and can be hit by missiles from
the Caspian apparently. I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. R&D budget has been wasted on
projects like F-35 and contracting fraud.
Besides the shale operations, the overextended KSA is now in trouble, particularly with rising
domestic oil consumption and internal Al-Saud family dissent growing.
Then there is the appalling poverty that may no longer be alleviated with oil revenue subsidies.
In the 1980s the Saudis matched CIA spending for the mujaheddin 1:1, which really made a huge
difference. If the US wants to launch a proxy war on Russia in Syria, and wants the Saudis to
help pay for it, it may find itself with a disintegrating KSA, one where the oil fields are in
predominantly Shia areas. Blowback might be putting it quite mildly.
There are only 10,000 non-wealthy Saudi men and only half are of fighting age. The House of
Saud doesn't have a great faction to stand for the regime if anything were to go to South. I'm
sure the Hajj stampede and crane collapse aren't sitting well with the king in the hospital. From
the rumors, King Fahd's party are trying get to retake power. Fahd was pals with the old man Assad.
The Royal Guard is roughly the size of the national army, so there are two separate armies
in Saudi Arabia with separate Com and structures which demonstrates the lack of faith in the army.
Costs aside, I wonder if the real aim is to keep much of the Saudi military as possible occupied
I stead of at home where they can cause trouble. With only 30,000 or so members, the House of
Saud can be replaced at any old time.
Why does my Spidy Sense tell me that the foundation of the Saudi oil ministry policy of
continuing to flood a depressed market with low cost oil was a secret agreement between Obomber
and the Saudi ruling family? The plan was to bankrupt Russia by a two-pronged attack- the fraudulent
US sponsored sanctions based upon manufactured reality events in Ukraine and the Saudi capacity
to control the marginal price of oil. The carrot offered by the US was a piece of the action in
the trans Syrian gas pipeline- and continued protection against internal opposition.
Worked about as well as most US foreign policy "initiatives". Wouldn't it be ironic if
the end game was the overthrow of the decadent Saudi ruling family and a post revolutionary Saudi
Arabia in the Russian/Chinese axis?
What I fear from all this is a 'Caliphate' extending from Mosul down around Basra (got to give
those Sixers credit,) and on into The (Former) Kingdom. Ben-Gurions' Arab 'splintered' states
could come back to bite his successors as one big confederation of "The Faithful."
It's the Iran deal. After that, nothing else really matters to the Saudis.
The low oil price was never co-ordinated with anybody.
It's targets are - in no particular order:
Assad
Iran
Russia
American frackers
The Saudis have been disrupting Iranian oil exports to Asia - by under cutting them on price
and quality.
Until Obama released the Shah's old deposits ( my how they have compounded into real money
) Iran was going insolvent.
Saudi Arabia wants Putin to suffer - as he's the patron of Assad - of whom they hate the
most. Low crude pricing has pounded the Russian ruble. Putin's crew is also going insolvent. The
flight capital out of Russia is relentless.
American frackers represent a dire strategic threat to the Saudi clan. Such methods have every
prospect of making Saudi oil an insignificant resource.
For, on the math, fracking ( like flotation cells a century ago ) figure to increase the resource
base – – crude recoveries - by a factor of one-hundred.
That last figure may astonish, but it's true. All this time drillers have discovered vast oil
deposits - that were too thin to work - with vertical bore holes. Some of these thin deposits
don't actually need fracking, per se. They just need the super accurate aimable drilling tips
America now produces.
The kicker - on the economics - is that such thin deposits are extensive. So if you punch down
- you are sure to hit the strata - to strike oil - about 100% of the time. Your only risk is if
this or that effort is not quite what you hoped for.
Such resource economics are entirely upside down from conventional drilling. They strongly
resemble the economics of coal mining. Everybody is uniformly 'lucky.'
The total amount of 'thin strata' oil in the ground is staggeringly larger than all conventional
deposits. The Saudi royals know this. The general public does not.
It's against the economic interests of any of the players to level with the press or the public.
Everybody is lying about everything to everybody else. This behavior is classic - typical of mining
everywhere. When was the last time you heard a gold miner telling all where he'd found a massive
strike ?
Why does the US need to be in the Middle East at all. We can just buy oil from the lowest cost
supplier and have it shipped over. What am I missing here?
Contracting fraud, where the real money is made. It was never about oil, just contracts
and egos. Oil has to be sold at an honest price for a variety of reasons, but I can't judge a
cruise missile's price behind a veil of secrecy.
Heck if we wanted to we wouldn't even have to ship it over. What's the fun in that though?
Yay, capitalism where no one ever gets to lift the stupid veil!
Then there is the natural failing of leaders domestically who search for scapegoats. Half
of the foreign policy pronouncements are full of whispered hisses of "China." Don't pay attention
to me. It's those red Chinese and their currency manipulation.
It's not that much different than medieval kings who blamed jews for the ills of society. Oh
sure, we have tablets and Facebook, but we are still the same people after all these years.
The currency manipulation thing always makes me laugh. Good Lord, what do they think the Fed
does when it lowers and increases interest rates and what QE did to the dollar?
People WANT a scapegoat though. They want to believe that it's someone else's fault. Our domestic
leaders are giving the people what they want, a culpable body, when playing the blame game.
The Russian expeditionary force in Syria is indeed highly vulnerable, but only if the Western
Bloc wants to risk a major war. Now the Western Bloc can prevail against Russia, at any level
of escalation, albeit at mounting risk. Nobody should expect today's Russia to be able to match
the might of the Western Bloc.
But the Russian government indicates that they are willing to go to war, even if they know
in advance that they will lose that war. Willingness to lose means willingness to fight, and the
willingness to fight is a crucial element in deterrence.
In both Georgia and Ukraine, the Russians have physically demonstrated their willingness to
go to war wherever NATO tries to expand into any more of the former Soviet republics. There is
no question of Russian credibility as far as NATO expansion into former SR's is concerned. That
means war, period.
Syria's importance to Russia lies in the fact that it's Russia's only ally that is not territorially
contiguous to Russia. If Russia is to retain any real sovereign capacity to make or preserve meaningful
alliances abroad, then they must support the Syrian government, even if a military deployment
there is precarious.
Russia was very slow to engage in direct intervention in Syria. For years, Russia confined
its efforts to political support, technical advice, and resupply of the existing Syrian arsenal.
Russia even disarmed Syria of its chemical weapons, in a failed effort to mediate the conflict.
However, Russia's long reluctance also means that their current action is long-considered.
A government that is slow to go to war is usually a government that will fight hard in that war.
I expect the Western Bloc will presume that they can prevail through politico-economic
attrition against Russia. They probably can. However, the longer this complex regional war in
the Middle East continues, the more likely things are to veer off unpredictably. The real
God of war is neither Athena nor Mars. It's Tyche.
Patrick Smith wrote an interesting article that was published in Salon on October 6th, I recommend
it as worthwhile reading and food for thought. An extract:
… "In my read, Russia and Iran have just popped open the door to a solution in Syria. All
the pieces are in place but one: Washington's capacity to acknowledge the strategic failure now
so evident and to see beyond the narrowest definition of where its interests lie. This brings
us to the paradox embedded in those questions Putin and Zarif and a few others now pose: American
primacy is no longer in America's interest. Get your mind around this and you have arrived in
the 21st century."
"The CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition
to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number
still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear.
The effort was separate from the one run by the military, which trained militants willing to
promise to take on IS exclusively. That program was widely considered a failure, and on Friday,
the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian force, instead
opting to equip established groups to fight IS."
Even this AP story is largely inaccurate. The CIA had been active even before 2013. It's original
proxy army went rogue and is the cadre for al Baghdadi's ISIS horror show. ONLY NOW is the MSM
breaking the story that is idiot obvious across the Middle East. ZeroHedge is comparing this to
Bay of Pigs II.
No kidding -- Both involved CIA proxy armies that had no operational security to speak of.
Both were authorized by the Oval Office. And we know how much BHO admires JFK.
This article's quotes from various foreign quarters are informative, but its characterization
of American strategy is a bit "breathless."
The US maintained a fairly hands off approach to Syria over the past few years on the advice
of Israel. In essence, the US didn't have a dog in that fight, and the general intention was to
allow the regime and its enemies to weaken each other interminably.
Obama's empty threats about chemical weapons were a mistake, of course. But the Russians helped
him out of that one. And in some way, they are helping him out again. The blitzkrieg success of
Sunni/ISIS took observers by surprise, and all those gruesome beheadings seem to call for something.
But again where is the real strategic value of Syria? Every sensible Syrian who can is on his
way to a new life in Europe.
While the article's author seems to wish to ridicule him, Brzezinski is right. The US has stupendous
firepower, more than the rest of the world combined. But as we have seen, that does not guarantee
success in every situation, and is hardly effective if half-hearted.
By the way, the Israelis could "take out" Assad any time they wish to. They could as well probably
cripple the Russian force in Syria in a day, if they chose. But they do not prefer the consequences.
It is important to get Russian viewpoint especially since most Americans are monolingual.
Also, it is hard for us not to root for the home team. Still Syria is a gigantic SNAFU. It is
so far beyond incompetence it has to be purposeful. This is the ultimate expression of the Shock
Doctrine. Collapse Russia and gain control its energy resources at the risk of exterminating
Homo sapiens. Russia will do well for a while carving out enclaves for the minority Shiites, Christians
and Alawites then they will in a tough slog of fighting Sunni Arabs in a regional Holy War.
There are 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims. Want-to-be Jihadists will flock to Syria to fight
the Russian Crusaders. Barrack Obama has already warned Vladimir Putin of a quagmire. His continued
arming the Sunnis is a purposeful act to ensure this. World War III starts when Russia shoots
down an American aircraft on a combat mission over Syria.
Give the Russians some credit for finesse. All they need do is shoot down an Israeli jet
attacking a Syrian government position in support of some Syrian "Moderates" near Damascus. I'll
be watching for a Russian campaign to rid the Syrian skies of 'Western' drones. That would be
a sign of serious intentions on the part of Russia.
Another possibility is a peaceful change of leadership within Assad's Syrian government. Does
anyone know if there is a suitable successor to Assad Jr. in the 'family?' Such an event would
remove even the fig leaf presently being waved in front of the West's attempted rape of Syria.
So I was hoping that the Russians would go in there and kill ISIS and then they turn around
and start killing the rebels trying to kill Assad, who ISIS wouldn't mind killing as well. So
much for wishful thinking which last I noted hasn't worked well in war except when called dumb
luck, which is fortunate weather events never anticipated by anyone.
Well it sort of makes sense that if you have an enemy with an army and they threaten you, enough,
you kill them. Unfortunately for allies of the US, it doesn't really matter that much for the
US long as the Petrodollar, the gift of Nixon and Kissinger is the reserve currency. If all the
Syrian draft dodgers go to Germany, well that will serve Volkswagen right, not to mention make
Greece and Hungary thinking so while any minute I'll look good telling the Netherlands to go for
it with my Insurodollar.
Well it sure did work out well about that Euro. And things would be great if it was actually
oil coming from the 3,900 drill rigs, if it was oil instead of leaky ass methane wrecking the
climate even more than oil getting burned things would be better. A 4,000 dollar CNG gas tank
that takes up the trunk makes batteries look good.
But who knows what all since piddling around has halfway or a third worked out, so far.
It's not how many nukes you have, but who uses them first, if you have them see. They didn't
really have them till the end of the second world war, which was a war, still, and why I call
what's in store next for us an apocalyptic riot.
If only capitalism was working and Russia was just offered a land transit corridor for a price
to Sevastopol? So what if they get to access more better in the Black Sea, It's Black right?
Remember the Zaporizia! Remember that Hunter Biden! Remember Antares! Remember Christophe de
Margerie and the drunk that got there just in time for a plane that never crashes except for the
other one that was shot down! And remember thinking too much, since what you know is lots of lies,
and the rest is cowardly, or stupid.
This is a very dangerous gambit for Russia. The USA and allies represents overwhelmingly
stronger alliance economically, politically and technologically.
Notable quotes:
"... And finally, overall
tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region
by weakening neighbors, ..."
"... We will see fewer conventional offensives
in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan ..."
"... While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other
hand America and citizens in the West have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have
been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries.
As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before
bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is
why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage, he told Sputnik. ..."
"... given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident
to excuse such a confrontation ..."
In September 2014, Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA intelligence analyst, proposed a plan entitled
"An Army to Defeat Assad." The CIA analyst envisaged the creation of a US Syrian proxy army that
would take over the Syrian government forces (and deal a blow to Islamic State). However, the toppling
of Bashar al-Assad was marked by Pollack as the overriding priority.
"Once the new army gained ground, the opposition's leaders could formally declare themselves
to represent a new provisional government. The United States and its allies could then extend
diplomatic recognition to the movement, allowing the US Department of Defense to take over the
tasks of training and advising the new force – which would now be the official military arm of
Syria's legitimate new rulers," Pollack elaborated.
In January 2015, the Pentagon announced that it kicked off a plan aimed at training Assad's opposition
fighters, strikingly similar to that offered by Pollack in September 2014. So, nothing hinted at
any trouble until September 30, when Russia suddenly threw a wrench in Washington's ingenious plan.
"To get to the root of the current crisis in Syria and the Middle East overall, we must look
at US policy overall," Germany-based American political analyst Phil Butler explained in an exclusive
interview to Sputnik.
"The current divisions within Syria and Northern Iraq are to a degree fabricated. Secular,
religious, and even tribal differences in this region have been leveraged for centuries to divide
Syria, as well as other nations in the region. You've mentioned Ken Pollack, and appropriately,
I might add. Pollack, who's held many official positions within the Washington policy making establishment,
is actually one of the authors of chaos in this region. Discussing such "bred" academics is a
deep well, but suffice it to say the division of Yugoslavia, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
the Arab Spring overall, the Georgia war, and the current Ukraine mess are all facets of the same
flawed gem of US hegemony," the analyst told Sputnik.
According to Butler, the current mission in Syria is not intended to be a splintering as we saw
with Kosovo, in the Balkans.
"As for the 'plan' in Syria, I believe there were 'contingencies' mapped out. As amoral as
these schemes may be, they are not concocted by idiots. Contingency 1, in my view, was the literal
overthrow of Assad. Vladimir Putin's moves, Russia's, have thwarted this potential at every turn.
Contingency number two obviously involves another Yugoslavia in the making. And finally, overall
tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region
by weakening neighbors," the political analyst stressed.
Meanwhile, Western reputable media sources have reported of an upcoming offensive on Raqqa, ISIL's
"capital," the Pentagon is preparing to launch along with its Arab and Kurdish military allies.
However, Middle East Eye reported on October 14 that there is no sign of such preparations on
the ground: "The US-led anti-IS coalition dropped 50 tons of weapons to the newly created Syrian
Arab Coalition on Monday in the Hasakah province, in order to avoid angering Turkey. But so far,
no US weapons can be seen on the frontlines close to Raqqa, nor any sign of rebel troop preparations."
"The reason we have not seen these latest weapons shipments being used, is the complexity of strategy
on the ground has changed. No standing force, Al-Nusra, ISIL, or other jihadists put together, could
withstand Russian air power. I believe we are about to see Assad's opposition morph their strategy
to full guerrilla warfare as was the case in Afghanistan. We will see fewer conventional "offensives"
in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan,"
Butler explained commenting on the issue.
However, in contrast to the US' covert war against the USSR in Afghanistan, there were no US jet
fighters in the region and thus far, no threat of a direct confrontation between the two global powers.
Today, there are many military "actors" in the skies of Syria and Iraq. Does it mean the Pentagon's
Afghani strategy may unexpectedly transform into a direct confrontation between US/NATO and Russia?
"As for the threat of direct confrontation between the US and Russia in Syria, the possibility does
exist. In this case however, I believe such a confrontation is actually another contingency for Washington,"
the American political analyst underscored.
"While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other
hand America and citizens in the "West" have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have
been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries.
As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before
bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is
why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage," he told Sputnik.
"Having said this, given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident
to excuse such a confrontation," Phil Butler concluded.
After failing to set new Afghanistan for Russia in Ukraine, it looks like Syria is on the mind
of Washington strategists as a suitable replacement. The problem is that ground forces are not
Russian.
"... From one fiasco to another: Washington has failed to change the regime in
Syria, failed to effectively fight ISIS, and now wants Russia to fail. At
the same time, Obama appears to be willing to arm any anti-regime fighter
who can carry a gun. What could possibly go wrong with that? ..."
From one fiasco to another: Washington has failed to change the regime in
Syria, failed to effectively fight ISIS, and now wants Russia to fail. At
the same time, Obama appears to be willing to arm any anti-regime fighter
who can carry a gun. What could possibly go wrong with that?
CrossTalking with Philippe Assouline, Marcus Papadopoulos, and Roshan
Muhammed Salih.
"... The professor noted that some analysts are convinced that Vladimir Putin is about to sell out
Donbass, eastern Ukraine, in return for Syria. According to Cohen, it is naïve to believe that
Moscow would give up ethnic Russians suffering from Kiev's hostilities in return for protecting
Assad ..."
"... [Ukrainian authorities are worried] that Washington may kind of forget Ukraine or lessen
its commitment to the Kiev government. So, I would not be surprised if Kiev stages a
provocation to inflame the crisis which is at a very low level at the moment in Ukraine, ..."
"... if Washington continues to indulge the neocons' plan
to arm Ukraine and encourage Kiev's warmongering against Russia, the United States will finally
face an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Eastern Europe. ..."
"My hope is that [US President] Obama and [Russian President] Putin will rise above themselves
and form a substantial coalition in Iraq and in Syria. But let's be realistic… There are enormous
obstacles," Professor Cohen noted in an interview with US progressive political commentator
Thomas Carl "Thom" Hartmann.
The professor noted that some analysts are convinced that Vladimir Putin is about to sell out
Donbass, eastern Ukraine, in return for Syria. According to Cohen, it is naïve to believe that
Moscow would give up ethnic Russians suffering from Kiev's hostilities in return for protecting
Assad. "That won't happen," the professor underscored.
... ... ...
"It [the Ukrainian crisis] could flare up at any moment in a way that could disrupt any
fragile agreement between Putin and Obama," the professor stressed.
According to Cohen, the US-backed regime in Kiev is sweating bullets about the possibility of
close cooperation between Moscow and Washington in the Middle East.
"[Ukrainian authorities are worried] that Washington may kind of forget Ukraine or lessen
its commitment to the Kiev government. So, I would not be surprised if Kiev stages a
provocation to inflame the crisis which is at a very low level at the moment in Ukraine,"
Cohen warned.
Meanwhile, the grim specter of World War III is prowling across Europe and the Middle East.
Professor Cohen has repeatedly stressed that if Washington continues to indulge the neocons' plan
to arm Ukraine and encourage Kiev's warmongering against Russia, the United States will finally
face an equivalent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in Eastern Europe.
This is how neocolonialism works: "global village' wants to move to "global town", while global
town mercilessly exploits it.
Notable quotes:
"... There is also an important factor: several million Ukrainians work in Russia and in Europe. Comparing,
they see that life in the European Union is more comfortable. And this also affects their geopolitical
preferences . Finally, most of the residents of Ukraine, especially in the center and the west of
the country perceived the reunion of the Crimea with the Russian Federation as an occupation of part
of their country. And in relation to the events in Donbass the propaganda has convinced many people
that it was not a rebellion against the new regime in Kiev, but Russia's aggression. Unfortunately,
revanchist sentiments towards our country in Ukraine can last for a long time. I would even say that
it is impossible to exclude the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. At least today it
is bigger than zero. And even 2 years ago this assumption might seem an absurd fantasy. ..."
"... Yes, there are still strong illusions of average Ukrainians in relation to Europe. Many people
think that joining the EU and NATO would quickly help Ukraine improve the living standards of the
population, to solve social problems and so on. Others, more realistically minded Ukrainians, think
like this: yes, we know that Europe will not solve our problems, but we have no other choice. Now,
Russia, if not an enemy, is at least an unfriendly state. And they do not believe in the economic
prospects of the alliance with us. ..."
"... public consciousness in Ukraine is largely irrational. Ive already talked
about the persisting illusions of Ukrainian men from the street. It seems to him that only the West
is able to protect Ukraine from the Russian aggression . This explains such a persistent and irrational
focus on Europe. ..."
"... it seems to me that the real percentage of Ukrainians who
are in favor of strengthening cooperation with Russia on the territories controlled by Kiev is
not much higher than what was revealed by the survey. ..."
Most citizens of "independent" Ukraine are disappointed with Maidan, but they still believe in
Europe
The public consciousness in Ukraine continues to amaze with its irrationality. This is confirmed
by the poll conducted by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES).
Despite the fact that the majority of Ukrainians acknowledge that Euromaidan did not meet their
expectations, a dominant sentiment in Ukraine is in favor of the pro-Western geopolitical course.
49% of respondents are of the opinion that Ukraine should better strive to deepen relations with
Europe, while the percentage of those who prefer a closer relationship with Russia is only 8%.
At the same time 56% of Ukrainians believe that the country is moving in the wrong direction,
and only 20% hold the opposite opinion. The notion that the country is moving in the wrong direction
is spread across the country and is shared by the majority of citizens in each region.
The survey was conducted on the territory of Ukraine, controlled by the Kiev government, without
regard to the views of some four million people living in the LPR and the DPR.
It would seem that in the last eighteen months Europe has demonstrated that it is in no hurry
to recognize Ukraine as its "own". Western aid is given precisely in those volumes that prevent the
final collapse of Ukraine's statehood. At the same time, due to the influx of Western goods and severance
of economic ties with Russia hundreds of Ukrainian enterprises are closed. The latest news in this
regard: in Ukraine it has become unprofitable to produce even sugar leading to the closing of 15
sugar mills.
The situation in the post-Maidan economy of Ukraine is much worse, however it has not affected
the unrequited love of Ukrainians to the West. Why is this the case and what will be the outcome?
- We must understand that the process of Ukraine's reorientation to the West began long before
the Maidan, - says the Head of the Center for Political Research of the Institute of Economics,
Head of the Department of International Relations of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Federation
Boris Shmelev. - For a quarter century that has passed since the collapse of the Soviet Union,
more than one generation of Ukrainians has grown who are convinced that it is necessary not to be
friends with Russia, but with Europe. That only this friendship with the West will ensure the prosperity
of Ukraine.
There is also an important factor: several million Ukrainians work in Russia and in Europe. Comparing,
they see that life in the European Union is more comfortable. And this also affects their "geopolitical
preferences". Finally, most of the residents of Ukraine, especially in the center and the west of
the country perceived the reunion of the Crimea with the Russian Federation as an occupation of part
of their country. And in relation to the events in Donbass the propaganda has convinced many people
that it was not a rebellion against the new regime in Kiev, but Russia's aggression. Unfortunately,
revanchist sentiments towards our country in Ukraine can last for a long time. I would even say that
it is impossible to exclude the possibility of war between Russia and Ukraine. At least today it
is bigger than zero. And even 2 years ago this assumption might seem an absurd fantasy.
"SP": - Why a year and a half since the "February coup" have not convinced Ukrainians that
the EU is not going to make Ukraine a member state and that the West is helping Kiev only to the
extent that the pro-Western regime does not collapse?
- Yes, there are still strong illusions of average Ukrainians in relation to Europe. Many people
think that joining the EU and NATO would quickly help Ukraine improve the living standards of the
population, to solve social problems and so on. Others, more realistically minded Ukrainians, think
like this: yes, we know that Europe will not solve our problems, but we have no other choice. Now,
Russia, if not an enemy, is at least an unfriendly state. And they do not believe in the economic
prospects of the alliance with us.
"SP": - But it is impossible to escape the logic: as long as Ukraine maintained relatively
good relations with Russia, the situation in the Ukrainian economy was more or less tolerable. And
as soon as Kiev finally turned towards the West, the economy began to crumble ...
- All this is true. But public consciousness in Ukraine is largely irrational. I've already talked
about the persisting illusions of Ukrainian men from the street. It seems to him that only the West
is able to protect Ukraine from the "Russian aggression". This explains such a persistent and irrational
focus on Europe.
"SP": - And can we explain such a low percentage of Russian sympathizers by the fact that some
respondents, especially in the South-East of Ukraine are afraid to openly express their opinions?
- Yes, it is possible. Although, it seems to me that the real percentage of Ukrainians who
are in favor of strengthening cooperation with Russia on the territories controlled by Kiev is
not much higher than what was revealed by the survey.
"When the media outlets in any country fail to challenge power, not only are they not part of
the solution, they become part of the problem."
That is the conclusion, unfortunately correct. Most media are part of the problem. Mary R marked
another problem with media: Who are their clients? The advertisers or the readers/viewers?
"It is a corrupt form, in which incumbents and special-interest groups shape the rules of the
game to their advantage, at the expense of everybody else: it is crony capitalism."
Well, maybe. But the alternative, idealized non-corrupt form has probably never existed in the
actual world - ever.
Even if it did exist for a little while, it wouldn't last. You know what happens when people compete?
Some people *win the competition*. And the winners acquire the power to make the rules, since there
is no way of separating wealth from power. The tendency toward oligopoly, monopoly and the concentration
of power is inherent in the normal functioning of capitalism. The ideal of maintaining some regulated
perfect competition economy in which the playing field is perfectly level and none of the competitors
has an institutional power advantage, is like trying to create a Monopoly game perpetually frozen
in place at the first roll of the dice.
Even if we had a perfect, perpetual balanced competition economy, it wouldn't be great, because
life is about more than the struggle for victory and domination. The laissez faire nostalgists are
still working to fit a 18th and 19th century mentality and reality into a 21st century world. A society
based on free-wheeling entrepreneurial innovation, competition and exploitation might have made sense
in a world of a few hundred million people moving out into the open spaces to exploit a planet filled
with resources that earlier technology had been unable to acquire or use. But in our tight, crowded
and environmentally stressed world, that no longer makes sense. We're going to have to get more organized
and less competitive.
Most intelligent people in the 20th century had gotten this. Then we in the US had a bit of a
neoliberal holiday from history when we offshored industry elsewhere (along with its organized labor),
and had a brief turbo period of high octane capitalism driven by financial games and services. But
that era ended in 2008, and we're back to dealing with the inexorable crunch of history on a finite
globe.
Great observation: "the alternative, idealized non-corrupt form has probably never existed
in the actual world - ever."
In a way free press is an ideal which can temporary exists when there are two countervailing
forces of equal political power. So in a way free press can exist temporary in a very unstable
society. So some level of suppression of "free press" is a norm. That does not mean that it this
suppression should not be challenged. But the political stability of society probably requires
a certain level of brainwashing and thus "unfree press".
But existence of nation states with conflicting interests presuppose existence of some semblance,
surrogate of "free press" coverage across the borders. like in court the testimony of each side
should be given equal attention, for most people it can provide some minimal level of "alternative
coverage" of major events.
I noticed that despite GB being a vassal of the USA, British press provides much better, more
realistic picture of major problems in the USA society and even better, more realistic coverage
of both foreign and some, less connected with GB geopolitical interests, internal events such
as presidential elections. If you add to your menu the press from "less friendly" states such
as Iran, China and Russia you probably can be dig out some real information about events despite
for of disinformation of MSM. Coverage of MH17 tragedy is the most recent example were relying
of the USA MSM coverage would be totally unwise. Even The Guardian is a better deal.
In the USSR Voice of America and BBC were great sources of information despite the fact people
understand that they are government propaganda outlets. But since agenda of the USA and British
government were different they still were valuable source of information about internal events
and developments in the USSR.
And I would dare to say the level of propaganda in coverage of foreign events today that we
see in the USA MSM would let Pravda propagandists blush.
Julio said in reply to likbez...
Good observations. My own experience is that coverage in other countries often has a
different perspective, and I feel more informed after viewing it. Even CNN in Spanish often
provides somewhat different viewpoints!
My favorite example is the runup to the Iraq war. To my surprise, the most balanced and
informed articles I could find were in English versions of Iranian newspapers.
pgl said...
The ideal:
"Inquisitive, daring and influential media outlets willing to take a strong stand against economic
power are essential in a competitive capitalist society. They are our defense against crony capitalism."
Our sad current situation:
"When the media outlets in any country fail to challenge power, not only are they not part
of the solution, they become part of the problem."
Yes - many of the current media outlets are bought and paid for by the elites. That was his
point!
I suspect reliance on advertising revenue is the larger factor (and it is also a large factor
in consolidation). Advertisers (and the corporate/business clients they represent) want to reach
audiences likely to be convinced to buy the advertised products and services. This will work to suppress
any "content" that is incompatible with ad placement or the ad's target audience, or not palatable
to the ad client.
Even "progressive" outlets are subject to this and have to at least tone down the controversy,
i.e. self-censorship.
A strong, independent press would be a fine thing. Looking at the huge crowd of journalists
who are so far in the tank for Clinton, it isn't obvious to me that corporatism is that big an
issue. Did you see that Cheryl Mills was working at State while negotiating a deal for NYU with
Abu Dhabi?
Where is the press scrutiny/outrage over that? Journalism yawns!
While at State, Clinton chief of staff held job negotiating with Abu Dhabi
By Rosalind S. Helderman
likbez
The first victim of war is truth. Similarly the first victim of neoliberalism (aka casino capitalism
aka crony capitalism) is press.
This nice dream of "free press" is incompatible with reality of neoliberal society which, is
its core is a flavor of corporatism. Under corporatism free press exists only for people who own
it.
btg said... October 18, 2015 at 08:04 PM
The problem is the the media is no longer a variety of owners with integrity but an
oligopoly of Wall Street conglomerates or mega-media corporations run by ideologues pushing the
agenda (Murdock, talk radio, etc.) - so we get coverage that is either gutless because it
tries to give equal time to patently absurd right wing ideas, is rabidly pro-business or actively
pushing for the right.
Ben Groves said...
All capitalism is crony. From the beginning through the 400 years of dialectics since
1630's Amsterdam when the Iberian Sephardic Immigrants brought it there.
DeDude said... October 19, 2015 at 07:08 AM
A strong press, in contrast to a corporate press, can indeed be a critical part of the
defense of our democracy. But it can also be an enemy of democracy and a tool for the plutocrats
- try to turn on Fox if you need an example.
"... if you can explain any single interest of Russia to
destroy civilian plane and kill 300 innocent people to gain public support from world, then I
am curious to know it; sure, in totally crazy scenario, somebody can orchestrate it all and
motivate somebody to target 777 by mistake or there can be some special services for false
flag, but I am sure that this is absolutely risky business with the same bad PR as first
case; far more, I can imagine, that somebody stupid tried to modulate it upon MH370 case media
wave while escalating warfare and hate of somebody else; truth will be known, soon or later,
be sure ..."
In October, the BUK manufacturer conducted a second full-scale experiment using the missile
and a decommissioned Ilyushin Il-86 passenger airliner. The simulation of the attack on the
Boeing "unequivocally proved that if the plane was brought down by a BUK system, it was done with
an outdated 9M38 missile from the village of Zaroshchenskoye," in Ukrainian military-controlled
territory.
The company also said that the last missile of this type was produced in the Soviet Union in
1986, that its life span is 25 years including all prolongations, and that all missiles of this
type were decommissioned from the Russian Army in 2011.
According to Almaz-Antey experts, the Dutch side does not explain why the investigation insists
that the possible launch of the surface-to-air missile was executed from the settlement of
Snezhnoye, controlled by rebel forces.
A missile launched from Snezhnoye could not have inflicted damage to Boeing's left side and not a
single element would have hit the aircraft's left wing and engine, insist the Almaz-Antey
experts.
... ... ...
The main proof that the aircraft was shot down from the direction of Snezhnoye was [the Dutch
commission's] modeling of that process and interpretation of the damage to the fuselage. It does
provide a quite visual imagery of how a missile on a head-on course could damage certain areas,
yet this kind of modeling does not explain at all the real-incidence angles of striking elements
[hitting the aircraft]," Novikov said.
Analysis of the photos of MH17 debris led the company's experts to believe that the blast of the
warhead damaged not only the cockpit of the Boeing 777 that crashed in Ukraine, but also the left
wing and stabilizer.
The detonation of the missile occurred at a distance of more than 20 meters from the left-wing
engine and most of the strike elements were moving along the fuselage of the aircraft.
... ... ...
The left wing and stabilizer also bear traces of damage, the size of which provides an
opportunity to define them as inflicted by the strike elements of a BUK missile complex," adviser
of the general constructor of Almaz-Antey, Mikhail Malyshevsky, said.
The Almaz-Antey experts paid special attention to the fact that some of the damage registered on
the MH17 debris was caused by disruption of the aircraft's structural components and not by the
striking elements of the missile.
The experts of Almaz-Antey also said that Ukraine possesses 9M38 missiles, but fell short of
accusing either the Kiev authorities or the rebels in the east of Ukraine of causing the
catastrophe.
... ... ...
Simultaneously with the investigation of the Dutch Safety Board, the Dutch prosecutor's office
is conducting a separate criminal investigation of its own aimed at establishing the perpetrators
of the attack on passenger aircraft.
A Malaysia Airlines Boeing-777 flight MH17 passenger aircraft left from Amsterdam to the
Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur on July 17, 2014. The airliner was shot down and fell to Earth
over the Donetsk Region in eastern Ukraine. All 298 people, 283 passengers and 15 crew, on board
were killed. There were 80 children among the passengers. Most, 193 people, were Dutch nationals;
altogether the airliner was carrying citizens from 10 countries.
djajakondomis 4 days ago 06:12
As I said. Just read the report and supplements! The specified area consists mainly out of
Rebel area...
Almaz-Antei director Yan Novikov was involved during the investigation. There were even
three main/big meetings, and every meeting took three days!
At the second meeting Almaz-Antei director Yan Novikov even presented the 9N314M warhead
himself. The investigation team was even happy that there was consensus. On the third meeting
Yan Novikov suddenly said; well, it was only an example we presented.
However, based for instance on the butterfly shape, the whole research team (of all
countries) were convinced it was a 9N314M warhead, except suddenly the Russian delegation.
This investigation was based on the parts found within the bodies!! Not something found on
the ground or whatsoever...
Read the report!
Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:05
hanspy
Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the
rocket(probably
higher speed) plus 700 kmh from the plane and tell me than again how it looks. A blast
with zero kmh speed looks totally different than a blast patron with 2700kmh or more. You
Russians know exactly who did it and with what rocket and from where. So stop playing
around and start to be real journalists and not some propaganda machine from Putin or
Almaz-Antey .
next they will say Sadam did it.
Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:04
Af Veth
Whatever, anyway Russian Forces downed MH17. Thats was it counting.
not Russian but CIA to justify they needs.
Sergio Teixeira 4 days ago 02:03
Message deleted
EU is slave from USA
vladffff 4 days ago 01:03
Took these rats 1 year to find this out?
alrobigglesworth 5 days ago 21:01
"[Almaz-Antey] added that among the materials received and examined by their experts
were heavy fraction sub munitions, which only the older 9M38M1 missile modification is
equipped with."
That's a direct quote from the RT article from June 2015 regarding Almaz-Antey's first
test.
alrobigglesworth 5 days ago 20:32
After their first "experiment" in June, Almaz-Antey said that "If a surface-to-air missile
system was used [to hit the plane], it could only have been a 9M38M1 missile of the BUK-M1
system." Why is he changing his story, especially now that the Dutch Safety Board reached the
same conclusion? Seems fishy.
Petr Antoš 5 days ago 17:45
hanspy
Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the
rocket(probablymore...
ummm, ok, they even offered to buy old 777 a let it be downed while flying on AP over
military area to proof their analysis; if you can explain any single interest of Russia to
destroy civilian plane and kill 300 innocent people to gain public support from world, then I
am curious to know it; sure, in totally crazy scenario, somebody can orchestrate it all and
motivate somebody to target 777 by mistake or there can be some special services for false
flag, but I am sure that this is absolutelly risky business with the same bad PR as first
case; far more, I can imagine, that somebody stupid tried to modulate it upon MH370 case media
wave while escalating warfare and hate of somebody else; truth will be known, soon or later,
be sure
hanspy 5 days ago 17:28
Show me the video from the blast and ad a speed of let us say 2000 kmh from the
rocket(probably higher speed) plus 700 kmh from the plane and tell me than again how it looks.
A blast with zero kmh speed looks totally different than a blast patron with 2700kmh or more.
You Russians know exactly who did it and with what rocket and from where. So stop playing
around and start to be real journalists and not some propaganda machine from Putin or
Almaz-Antey .
Norma Brown 5 days ago 15:04
this is a good result for Russia, as the only government involved that can be sued for
criminal stupidity is Kiev, for allowing the flight into a war zone.
After MH17 was shot done all intelligence services of NATO (with a lot of high tech) as well as
Ukrainian SBU (with a lot of people on the ground; enough to monitor all major roads) were on alert.
So the hypothesis that they were unable to locate the launch platform is a very weak hypothesis. It
was next to impossible for rebels to move it from Snizhne to, say, Russia. This is a serious problem
with version that it was BUK, unless it was a Ukrainian BUK.
Looks like Snizhne was pushed as a smoke screen to deflect attention from Ukrainians.
Notable quotes:
"... The US release of this illustration (below) of the area lacks resolution
and scale, so no launcher can be seen. The firing location and the green line
of trajectory are unverified guesswork. The US has not presented evidence that
on July 17 a Buk-M1 battery was in Snizhne. ..."
"... the Russian evidence
for a Ukrainian military launcher at Zaroshchenske puts the distance between
this pre-firing location and the purported Snizhne launch position at less than
25 kilometres. ..."
Russian generals Andrei Kartapolov (Army) and Igor Makushev (Air Force)
have presented
satellite pictures showing that on or before July 17 the Ukrainian military
moved at least three Buk-M1 missile batteries – comprising a tracked launcher
and a target acquisition radar van – out of their depot north of Donetsk, and
into positions, all of which were within 30 kilometres of the Boeing's flight
path; the SA-11's range is 30 kilometres. One unit in particular was
photographed at the village of Zaroshchenske, south of the bigger settlement of
Shakhtarsk, and south of the main road H21. This position is about 15
kilometres from the M17 flight path and from the impact site.
The Russian
location evidence can be seen on this Google map:
The US release of this illustration (below) of the area lacks resolution
and scale, so no launcher can be seen. The firing location and the green line
of trajectory are unverified guesswork. The US has not presented evidence that
on July 17 a Buk-M1 battery was in Snizhne. But the Russian evidence
for a Ukrainian military launcher at Zaroshchenske puts the distance between
this pre-firing location and the purported Snizhne launch position at less than
25 kilometres. There is also a gap of several hours between the time of
the Russian photograph and the confirmed firing time at 1720. Between the two
locations, highway H21 would allow a mobile launcher unit and radar van to
redeploy within 45 to 60 minutes.
The Russian radar tracks identify the presence of a small Ukrainian aircraft
with Su-25 identifiers on the Boeing flight path, and within range of the
ground missile launcher within minutes of the shoot-down. The US intelligence
briefing neither confirms nor denies the presence in the air of the Su-25; no
US satellite or radar records have been released to corroborate the point.
Instead, the US briefing denies the Su-25 fired rockets at the Boeing.
Responding to the Russian radar presentation, President Petro Poroshenko
told CNN the presentation was the "irresponsible and false statement of the
Russian [defense] minister". Poroshenko appeared not to be familiar with the
Russian radar evidence. He said: "When the Russian [Defense] ministry makes
such a statement, it must provide proof. The sky over Ukraine is monitored by
many satellites and air defense systems. Everyone knows that all Ukrainian
planes were on the ground several hundred kilometres away [from the crash site]
"... The Syrian government maintains a commitment to a strong welfare state, for example ensuring
universal access to healthcare (in which area its performance has been impressive) and providing
free education at all levels. It has a long-established policy of secularism and multiculturalism,
protecting and celebrating its religious and ethnic diversity and refusing to tolerate sectarian
hatred …" ..."
"... Yes, Walter Cronkite remarked in his autobiography on the harmonious secularism of Syria
from an actual visit, in which he said he noted various religious denominations living in
one another's neighbourhoods with no apparent religious acrimony or intolerance at all.
..."
"... The USA is determined to get control of the gas supply to Europe because it perceives that
Russia has too much influence there because of said supply, as well as the popular trope
that Russia has nothing but oil and gas and if the USA could capture their markets, they'd
be paupers in a year. ..."
"... 12 headline stories listed. None about the Ukraine, MH17 and Syria. ..."
"... Parubiy, who founded the Social National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok (the current
leader of the far-right Svoboda party), will be speaking at RUSI whilst visiting London. ..."
"... I remain convinced that the army of humanitarian interventionists fetishise 'democracy promotion'
abroad largely to avoid looking at how it's playing out at home. ..."
" … The new constitution introduced a multi-party political system in the sense that
the eligibility of political parties to participate isn't based on the discretionary permission
of the Baath party or on reservations rather on a constitutional criteria.
As such, the new constitution forbids political parties that are based on religion, sect
or ethnicity, or which are inherently discriminatory towards one's gender or race (2012:
Art.8) – this means the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood is still banned.
What hasn't changed is the constitutional requirement that half the People's Council
be comprised of 'workers and peasants' (1973: Art.53 | 2012: Art.60), which in practice
means that the ballot paper contains two lists, one with candidates who qualify as 'workers
and peasants', and another one with other candidates …
… The Baath party no longer enjoys constitutional privilege. Presidential elections are
contested between multiple candidates, and are no longer referendums seeking the electorate's
binary (yes or no) approval for the Baath party's internally nominated candidate.
The participation of political parties is based on an objective constitutional criteria
[sic], not on the arbitrary powers of the executive to permit or exclude them.
Finally, the Supreme Constitutional Court is significantly more independent."
Another interesting article on Syria, this one by Carlos Martinez in 2013:
" … In the words of its president, Syria is "an independent state working for the interests
of its people, rather than making the Syrian people work for the interests of the West."
For over half a century, it has stubbornly refused to play by the rules of imperialism and
neoliberalism … [In] spite of some limited market reforms of recent years, "the Ba'athist
state has always exercised considerable influence over the Syrian economy, through ownership
of enterprises, subsidies to privately-owned domestic firms, limits on foreign investment,
and restrictions on imports. These are the necessary economic tools of a post-colonial state
trying to wrest its economic life from the grips of former colonial powers and to chart
a course of development free from the domination of foreign interests."
The Syrian government maintains a commitment to a strong welfare state, for example ensuring
universal access to healthcare (in which area its performance has been impressive) and providing
free education at all levels. It has a long-established policy of secularism and multiculturalism,
protecting and celebrating its religious and ethnic diversity and refusing to tolerate sectarian
hatred …"
So in other words, there is now no longer any justification for the US-led overthrow
of Bashar al Assad because he is a "dictator".
Yes, Walter Cronkite remarked in his autobiography on the harmonious secularism of Syria
from an actual visit, in which he said he noted various religious denominations living in
one another's neighbourhoods with no apparent religious acrimony or intolerance at all.
I have suggested before that Assad doomed himself when he refused Qatar's offer to run a
gas pipeline across Syria and so to Turkey and Europe, for the expressed reason that he
would not stab Russia in the back, and double-doomed himself when he accepted a similar
offer from Iran, with whom Russia has no issues because it is not under American control.
The USA is determined to get control of the gas supply to Europe because it perceives that
Russia has too much influence there because of said supply, as well as the popular trope
that Russia has nothing but oil and gas and if the USA could capture their markets, they'd
be paupers in a year.
Unbeknown to Western know-nothings about matters Russian, very many Russians are well aware
of the lies spewed out by the Western mass media: the same cannot be said of Westerners and their
knowledge of what Russians read in their media.
I notice that in the British lying rags, the Ukraine has been pushed off the front page, as
has the MH17 story and now Syria is being shunted to the sidelines.
Nothing to see here! Move along now!
In today's Telegraph, a German big-game hunter's shooting of a massive bull elephant overrides
a Syria story on the front online page. MH17 and the Ukraine gets no mention at all.
Today's headlines:
Scenes of devastation as huge mudslide strikes California leaving thousands stranded
Hatton Garden raider 'shows police where he hid jewels'
'Half empty' private jets carry failed asylum seekers home
SNP accused of 'happy clappy smothering' of second Scottish independence referendum debate
Pc Dave Phillips murder: two women and a man charged with assisting offender
12 headline stories listed. None about the Ukraine, MH17 and Syria.
Parubiy, who founded the Social National Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok (the current
leader of the far-right Svoboda party), will be speaking at RUSI whilst visiting London.
Всего в период с 1 апреля 2014 г. на территорию Российской Федерации въехало и не убыло по состоянию
на указанную дату 1 089 618 граждан юго-востока Украины.
Just in the period starting 1 April 2014, into the territory of the Russian Federation have
entered and not left as of a specified date 1,089,618 citizens of South-East Ukraine.
I remain convinced that the army of humanitarian interventionists fetishise 'democracy promotion'
abroad largely to avoid looking at how it's playing out at home.
Mark Adomanis became a turncoat and defected to the "dark side". Some problems for Russia are
given. Still it is pretty valiant attempt in view of the dominance of the USA in world economy
and, especially, finance. Also this is form of economic attack of EU: some European firms lost
Russian market "forever". So far American firms are fared better but Coca-cola, Pepsi, chicken
producers, and McDonalds might suffer.
Some very
intelligent people saw this coming a long way off, accurately predicting that heightened
tensions with America and the European Union would empower precisely those areas of the Russian
economy that the West wants to see weakened
... ... ...
From the second quarter of 2014 through the second quarter of 2015, the ruble value of
Russia's imports decreased by almost 30% (the ruble value of exports, meanwhile, actually
increased). That's actually not terribly surprising. When a currency depreciates as much as the
ruble has over the past year you would expect imports to take a significant hit.
But what has happened to domestic manufacturing? Has Russian business stepped into the space
vacated by Western goods that are no longer affordable to many Russian consumers?
So far, at least, the answer is a definite no. Official Rosstat data show that through the
first half of 2015, Russian manufacturing actually shrunk by about 2.8%. The only sectors of the
economy to show any growth were agriculture (up 2.4%), natural resource extraction (up 2.4%), and
public administration (up 0.7%). The areas of the Russian economy where private business
predominates, particularly consumer retail, have been absolutely walloped, with the overall
retail sector shrinking by almost 9% over the past six months.
... ... ...
Victor Lar 2 days ago
Russian Cheese Production Surges 30% After Ban on Western Imports: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russian-cheese-production-surges-30-after-ban-on-western-imports/521891.html
For some reason they investigate only version of surface to air missile. Possibility of air to air
missile was not investigated. Dutch reps could attend Almaz-Antey experiments and collect shrapnel from
them. They did not do this. Also they demonstrated provable negligence in collecting evidence (Ukraine
at this point was EU vassal state and one phone call from Brussel would exclude any shelling of the
area). The question why the plane was brought to the particular area was answered "to avoid thunderstorms".
I doubt that at this altitude they can affect the plane. All this points to a cover up of Ukrainian
false flag operation.
"... According to the DSB, "no unalloyed steel fragments were found in the remains of the passengers".
..."
"... 20 were found on analysis to include layers of aluminium or glass. The DSB's explanation is
that the external explosion of a missile warhead had propelled these fragments through the cockpit windows
and aluminium panels of the fuselage, fusing with the glass and aluminium before striking the three
crew members in the cockpit at the time. ..."
"... The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively
from a Buk missile warhead type 9N314M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports, from
4 – repeat four – fragments. ..."
"... Because Buk shrapnel is understood to have such cubic and bow-tie shapes, there are just four
fragments to substantiate it. If the autopsy evidence is regarded as the only source that could not
have been contaminated on the ground, or in the interval between the crash and the forensic testing
in The Netherlands, there are just three fragments which fit the Buk bill. ..."
"... By failing to identify the location of these parts, the finders, or the dates on which they
were sent to Holland, the DSB does not rule out that this evidence may have been fabricated. ..."
Eight pages of the DSB report – pages 88 to 95 - focus on the metal fragments. The number of these
starts at "over 500 recovered from the wreckage of the aeroplane, the remains of the crew members
and passengers." Many, apparently most, of these fragments turned out to be "personal belongings,
aeroplane parts or objects that originated from the ground after impact." According to the DSB, "many
were metal fragments that were suspected to be high-energy objects." Of these just 72 were investigated
further because they were "similar in size, mass and shape." 43 of this 72 were "found to be made
of unalloyed steel". The term "shrapnel" may be a synonym for "unalloyed steel fragments", but the
word doesn't appear at all in the DSB report. According to the DSB, "no unalloyed steel fragments
were found in the remains of the passengers".
Of the 43 steel fragments investigated thoroughly - all of them recovered from the bodies of the
cockpit crew or in the wreckage of the cockpit - 20 were found on analysis to include layers
of aluminium or glass. The DSB's explanation is that the external explosion of a missile warhead
had propelled these fragments through the cockpit windows and aluminium panels of the fuselage, fusing
with the glass and aluminium before striking the three crew members in the cockpit at the time.
The DSB conclusion is that these fragments came from a missile warhead, but not conclusively
from a Buk missile warhead type 9N314M. The evidence for this Buk warhead comes, the DSB reports,
from 4 – repeat four – fragments. These, "although heavily deformed and damaged, had distinctive
shapes; cubic and in the form of a bow-tie". The DSB's exact count is two cubic shapes, two bow-ties.
One bow-tie was recovered from the cockpit wreckage; one from the body of a cockpit crew member.
Both cubic fragments were found in the bodies of the crew members.
Because Buk shrapnel is understood to have such cubic and bow-tie shapes, there are just four
fragments to substantiate it. If the autopsy evidence is regarded as the only source that could not
have been contaminated on the ground, or in the interval between the crash and the forensic testing
in The Netherlands, there are just three fragments which fit the Buk bill.
In addition, the DSB says it has examined chemical residues of the warhead explosive, and paint
particles from the surface of missile parts reportedly recovered from the ground. Exactly where,
when, and by whom the purported missile parts were found the DSB does not identify. In Section 2:12:2:8
of the report, the DSB says that "during the recovery of the wreckage, a number of parts that did
not originate from the aeroplane and its content were found in the wreckage area. The parts found
appeared to be connected with a surface-to-air missile. The parts that were suspected to be related
to a surface-to-air missile were transported to the Gilze-Rijen Air Force Base [in The Netherlands;
also reported as the Hilversum Army Base] in the same way as the aeroplane wreckage was. On arrival
the parts underwent the same examination as the pieces of aeroplane wreckage." By failing to
identify the location of these parts, the finders, or the dates on which they were sent to Holland,
the DSB does not rule out that this evidence may have been fabricated. At page 53 the DSB admits
that "many pieces of the wreckage" were either not examined physically "until four months after the
crash", or not recovered for examination for up to nine months after the July 17, 2014, downing.
"... Even though "Almaz-Antey" had informed the Netherlands board in advance that the "Buk" SAM
could have only been launched at the Boeing from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoe (which
at the time was under the control of the Ukrainian military) and that this had been confirmed
by field tests, the Dutch coloured the launch area of the missile in a very different place on
the map. (see map). ..."
"Almaz-Antey" have accused the Netherlands of falsifying the map of where the Boeing
crashed
This time the Netherlands Commission of Inquiry has been caught lying red-handed about the
Russian concern "Almaz-Antey", which developed the "Buk" anti-aircraft missile systems. "Almaz-Antey"
has announced that a map covering the 320 square kilometer area from where a missile targeted
against the Boeing could have been launched is not only erroneous but also that the Dutch in their
report had indicated that their data were supposedly consistent with "Almaz-Antey"calculations.
That is, they covered up their concoctions with the authoritative report of the Russian company.
Even though "Almaz-Antey" had informed the Netherlands board in advance that the "Buk" SAM
could have only been launched at the Boeing from the area of the village of Zaroshchenskoe (which
at the time was under the control of the Ukrainian military) and that this had been confirmed
by field tests, the Dutch coloured the launch area of the missile in a very different place on
the map. (see map).
The US key strategy is the same as British -- to cut Europe from Russia. This time it again work
brilliantly... The fact the USA are withholding evidence implicates Kiev.
"... Because it was supposed to clearly show that rebels did it . No need to rely on social media
and other unreliable sources. Plus it was classified before ut was mentioned about. So you fake democrat
and liberal really wasn't to live in the world where you will be prosecuted on sure information that
is so secret that nobody can know about it ;) ..."
"... How guys like you can pretend to love Orwell so much? Don't you realize today the joke is on
you? ..."
"... Do you understand that this is not a regular crash incident? Based on the unsupported assumptions
there are already economic sanctions imposed and the world is gearing up for the WW3. How dumb can you
be not to notice the difference? ..."
"... Ukies shot the plane down stupidly hoping the blame will fall on Russia and NATO will declare
war on Putin amidst worldwide uproar and indignation. They now may realize they had committed murder
most foul for nothing. This kinda reminds of the play 'Macbeth'. What's done cannot be undone. ..."
"... Almost all the damage concentrated in cockpit/front fuselage. Now how does that tie to the
BUK scenario exactly? how does the damage from High energy objects conform to sharpnel from BUK especially
as there are both entry and exit holes? ..."
"... "The specific area where the fatal missile was fired is not in fact under control of the "pro-Russia
rebels". It is run by a neo-nazi private mercenary army, raised by Ukrainian billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky.
..."
"... Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of the US and Israeli intelligence services, at minimum.
..."
"... Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had to acknowledge on TV on September 12th that the Netherlands
had refused to even communicate with the Separatist. This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government
disqualifies it from leading the investigation and has obviously hampered the investigation up till
now. ..."
"... This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government also clarifies why the role of UkSATSE
isn't questioned. ..."
"... the question 'who launched a missile' is actually less relevant than 'who created the situation
by allowing MH17 to fly there'. ..."
"... UkSATSE failed to close that airspace after july 14 whena AN-24 was downed from 6500m and only
restricted up to 10km. 6500m is beyond the man portable system range. ..."
"... The report section 2.4.3 issued by the investigation simply stated that MH17 complied to the
restrictions issued by UkSATSE. By ignoring the most obvious question the investigation was now under
serious doubt but the extreme partisan positioning as revealed by the Dutch minister put that report
in the 'beyond doubt partisan category'. ..."
"... On the other hand, if Kiev can shoot down the airliner and blame the separatists, or even better,
Russia, then they would be backed by the west. Who has the most to gain? ..."
"... Then we have an investigation where all members have to agree with the report or a single member
can veto the release, which is why they are not allowed to assign blame, and why they have not been
allowed to state anything more than they have. ..."
"... I doubt any hard evidence will ever come out, and we will have to settle for innuendo and finger
pointing, allowing the west to isolate Russia even further till the missile shield network sits right
on their borders. ..."
"... What I find a bit troubling is that the obvious conclusion -- that the plane was hit by a ground
fired missile -- isn't backed up by any intelligence. Its reasonable to think that the US's NRO is watching
the Ukraine closely so they should have been able to get almost real time confirmation of the launcher's
position and use. ..."
"... Nobody willingly takes down an airliner unless there's serious propaganda to be made from it.
So its either a serious screwup by the rebels or something rather more evil by the blackops types. (I'd
regard the latter as a tinfoil helmet theory except that we've found out time and again that these people
are capable of doing anything provided it achieves their goal.) ..."
"... Yes indeed, US satellite data is highly secret unless it backs up the US Government's claims.
I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and the release of all sort of
reconnaissance on the matter. ..."
"... Some suggest that an air to air missile might then be the cause of the fragmentation...but
this also is problematic, most AA missiles are not powerful enough to take out a large civil aircraft.
Many instances of smaller less well built passenger planes surviving AA strikes have been recorded...But
2 or 3 might do it..but the pilots would surely called Mayday.. They didn't, suggesting they had no
idea what hit them, ..."
"... Conclusion: Still no closer to knowing which side brought it down, whether it was just a cock
up, or a black flag. Plenty of propaganda, accusations, denials, but any real evidence so far is very
thin on the ground. ..."
"... It's funny how the press are falling over themselves to say it was definitely Russians, the
EU are desperate for it to be Russians, the Americans are desperate for it to be Russians - so when
something factual comes out that doesn't toe the expectant line they have to drop in the odd implication
and suggested line. ..."
"... the heavy coat of varnish that's clearly been applied to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report.
..."
"... It's clear that Kiev benefited the most from the event, and the US exploited is to the fullest
to impose sanctions on Russia before any investigation was even initiated. The reluctance of both Kiev
and the US to provide evidence required for the investigation is bound to raise questions. ..."
"... This horrible tragedy has been and no doubt will be exploited for petty political gains. I
am sorry to see even the Dutch entering this shameful game by signing that non-disclosure agreement
with one of the suspects, the Kiev government. ..."
"... Sadly this 100-year old British company has been compromised being taken over by a Canadian
company belonging to zionists. Canadian PM Harper is a blind follower of Israeli extremists. So V Putin
is enemy number one and you can't use Reuters as an unbiased source once more. Russia has had to up
its game recently in the Arctic purely because Harper has become aggressive to please the US. ..."
"... Kiev Russian-speaking soldiers disguised as Donbass security forces ( rebels ) could have driven
a Buk into the Donbass, fired the missile and then driven back, making sure to be seen by foreign journalists
( Ukraine is a huge country, how come the journalists were on the same spot at the right moment to see
the Buk driving around ? very convenient..) ..."
"... The US and Israel both have motives to shoot the plane down. They had been convicted of war
crimes in KL last year and their cases sent to the ICC in Holland. MH17 was also full of Dutch passengers
- right ..."
"... Plus, the ukraine airforce is in a bad state due to lack of funds. So the US and Israelis were
providing assistance, also Poland and Lithuania, of pilots and equipment. No-one knows who was piloting
the two Su-25s detected by Russian radar. ..."
"... I did not speculate on why the pilot did not want to climb. It make no difference. By refusing
the order the pilot assumed responsibility for the fate of the plane. Civil aviation pilots have no
right to refuse orders of competent ground authorities and still enjoy the protections granted by international
treaties to civil aviation. ..."
"... I don't understand your statement about the report says there was no abnormal communication
. Are you contesting my claim that the pilot refused an order to climb up just minutes before being
hit? I'm basing my claim on what I read in previous articles in the Guardian on this. It could be wrong.
I wasn't there personally. ..."
"... Since the Ukraine has veto power over publication of the findings, this whole investigation
is a whitewash. Why isn't Russia part of the investigation with veto power? Giving one of the suspects
in a crime the ability to block publication of the findings is ludicrous. ..."
"... I am quite sure that bullets are high energy objects but the Western media seems to ignore
that possibility, as it would implicate Ukraine, which has veto power over any publication of findings.
..."
"... Just a little tip. Don't ever use anything that comes out of the Kiev offices. It is all 100%
unbelievable. All of it. ..."
"... All of this is just speculation. Question 1: where are the Satellite images of that area at
that exact time? Question 2: where are the audio transmissions between the crew and the flight towers?
Question 3: why did the BBC remove its own segment that was done shortly afterwards where they had people
on record stating that they had seen a jet flying behind if? Question 4: who ordered the BBC remove
its own segment? Question 5: If the pilots where shot at by a 'jet' as is believed by many - what about
the autopsies of the pilots? Were any done? What did they find. Question 6: if a BUK missile had taken
it down how come there was not a trail from the missile? These missiles do leave a rather distinctive
trial behind them that is seen for kilometers. Question 7: who ordered the plane to fly lower than was
deemed safe for that area? So many questions and so little facts… Perhaps they questions do not fit
the narrative? ..."
"... The mere fact that the United States MSM has dropped this topic like a hot potato (compare
CNN coverage of MH17 with the endless coverage of MH370) and the complete lack of verified NATO or US
or CIA satellite data implies that the Russians were not at fault here. ..."
Because it was supposed to "clearly show that rebels did it". No need to rely on social
media and other unreliable sources. Plus it was classified before ut was mentioned about. So you
fake democrat and liberal really wasn't to live in the world where you will be prosecuted on sure
information that is so secret that nobody can know about it ;)
How guys like you can pretend to love Orwell so much? Don't you realize today the joke
is on you?
Shaneo -> DELewes 15 Sep 2014 04:55
Ok, but John Kerry claimed to have seen the imagery of the launch, so you don't need to say
'likely' launch site.
Ask to see this imagery and we will know where the launch site is.
Will you do this?
And does it not make you suspicious that this imagery is being withheld?
Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 15 Sep 2014 03:46
Do you understand that this is not a regular crash incident? Based on the unsupported assumptions
there are already economic sanctions imposed and the world is gearing up for the WW3. How dumb
can you be not to notice the difference?
I will give you a better example. The PRELIMINARY report by FEMA on 9/11 was released in May
2002 - that was very heavy in terms of pages and released in May 2002 (8 months after the event).
It was heavy in terms of pages and contained data not only about 4 planes and 3 buildings. It
was quite detailed in terms of TECHNICAL data.
There is absolutely no reason to withheld the factual data for public analysis. Particularly
in this situation. The facts about the event will not change. Or should I stress on it - the already
available facts SHOULD not change no matter how commission will later interpret them.
Antidyatel 2meters 15 Sep 2014 03:19
Calm down with Su-25 theory. Even if Russian MoD was implying possible culpability of that
plane, they didn't make the direct accusation. The whole mentioning was less than a minute out
of the whole 30 min presentation, in which the main focus was on 4 Ukrainian BUKs in the area.
Just from this proportion one can asses the priority of the versions that Russian MoD was considering.
So stop fighting windmills, my Don Quixote!
Antidyatel 2meters 15 Sep 2014 03:12
First of all, where did you get the data about 55 km?
Even the latest modification of BUK-M2. While everyone is talking about BUK-M1. More to this,
it is mainly claimed that a stand alone 9A310 unit was witnessed. It has FIRE DOME radar with
max engagement range of 35 km (some sources limit it to 32 km)
So your convinced part goes down the drain!
Second, do you understand that the maximum radar range represents a radius of a 3D sphere?
For the target flying at 10 km the relevant projection on the 2D map will be 33.5 km.
Let's stop at this for now.
2meters Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 02:19
And NO. And SU-25 fighter jet cannot "gain an altitude of 10km" as the Russian Defense Ministry
asserted on July 21.
According to its specification its altitude ceiling is 7 km, even though someone working Kremlin
servers changed that to 10 km on Russian Wikipedia, hours after the Russian Defense Ministry's
press conference.
What I put in quotes is EXACTLY what the Russian Defense Ministry was telling us.
MoD didn't accuse that the plane was involved.
You are not getting this, are you ?
Let me spell it out :
That SU-25 DID NOT EXIST !
Radar would have shown it, and it did not.
Even General Peter Deinekin states that probably what the Russian Defence Ministry showed on their
radar image was probably a part of MH-17 breaking off.
If the Russian Defense Ministry would have actually shown the radar timelap (video) of when
and where that dot on their radar actually appeared, then we could have all seen that for ourselves.
But they did not, since it was no SU-25. It was a part of MH-17 breaking off.
Instead they used the radar images of the PIECES of a civilian airliner that killed 298 innocent
people to create a SU-25 conspiracy and point the finger at Ukraine.
Despicable.
Antidyatel -> jimbuluk 15 Sep 2014 01:30
Is there any original source that explains the meaning behind "transponder data became unreliable
at 13:18Z"?
Where did the Aviation Herald got this data from?
2meters -> Antidyatel 15 Sep 2014 01:27
Antidytel, yes, MH-17 was probably about 35 km away from the BUK launch site south of Snizhne
when the crew pressed the launch button.
The radar range of a single BUK TELAR is at least 55 km.
At 250 m/sec, MH 17 will thus have been on the BUK search radar something like 80 sec before
they launched the missile.
Even with conservative estimates of missile flight time and path, the Snizhne BUK launch crew
had about a minute to lock on their radar, and wait for the 'target' to come into range.
Convinced now ?
Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 23:59
I have to disagree with you. Even preliminary technical report should contain the technical
data already available. There is no justifiable reason for withholding any information. The next
report can just add new information.
So the preliminary report should have provided:
1) Civil and military radar data from Ukraine. It is very unprofessional for them not to at
least request it from Ukraine side. If Ukraine refused to provide it, it should have been clearly
stated
2) ATC communications along the whole route of MH17
3) full transcript from voice recorder. You can't possible believe that pilots were flying
in total silence
4) Technical data from the second black box on plane parameters. Particularly the data from
gyroscope that would give the most precise data on the plane actual route
5) other critical parameters.
Seriously it is not a herculean task for a 2 months of job. They have a whole team to do it.
How unprofessional can they be to fail with such simple task?
The purpose of the preliminary report is not to give the abridged/filtered version of the data.
The purpose should be tor provide the available data but to make only PRELIMINARY conclusions.
Only in this sense it can be called preliminary.
The current report can only be described by words SELECTIVE, EDITED, FILTERED and BIASED!!!
Antidyatel -> notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 22:36
4 different BUKs in the vicinity of the crash site were detected by Russians based on these
BUKs' outgoing radar signal.
Let's consider your points:
1) BUK system captured by rebels in Luhansk region, was incomplete so the maximum radar range
was 22 km. But we can first consider the improbable scenario that Russians first sneaked in and
then sneaked our the complete set for the BUK system. Ok we can exclude the loader. So let's just
say 2 units (actual launcher and radar unit), hence temporally I can agree on 35 km.
2) If you go to google maps and estimate the distance from Snizhne (proposed location for rebel
BUK) to Krasiy Luch (FDR point) it is approximately 24 km. (version of incomplete BUK system can
already be discarded). BUK max missile speed 850 m/s. 24 km it will travel in 28 sec. BUK requires
minimum 15 sec to lock on target. So even if we assume that "best" scenario, Boeing was traveling
for minimum 43 sec before it's first appearance on BUK radar and rocket hitting it. Cruise speed
of Boeing 777 ~ 900 km/h. So we get roughly 11 km. Just nice 35 km. But this is minimum. For example,
the rocket doesn't reach 850 m/sec immediately.
The point is that it would have been an extremely "lucky" coincidence for this scenario to work.
And again I repeat, it will require the full set of BUK units, not just the launcher. The so named
"proofs" of Russians sneaking in and out such a system are so laughable that I can't understand
how people can talk seriously about it.
4) The reference to the territory held by rebels is also laughable. The total number of rebels
on that moment was ~5000. But even if we take 10,000, you will get a fraction of a rebel per square
kilometre, if we assume that they are distributed equally. In reality majority of them were concentrated
in fixed positions around Lughansk, Donetsk and Saur Mogila. also large portion of them was involved
is annihilating surrounded UA units. If UA wanted to bring in BUKs into so named rebel controlled
area there would be no problem with it.
SirDeadpool 14 Sep 2014 22:31
Ukies shot the plane down stupidly hoping the blame will fall on Russia and NATO will declare
war on Putin amidst worldwide uproar and indignation. They now may realize they had committed
murder most foul for nothing. This kinda reminds of the play 'Macbeth'. What's done cannot be
undone.
bobby_fisher ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 18:14
ShermanPotter -- Antidyatel
14 Sep 2014 16:09
The key is in the title it's a preliminary report...
So you basically agree that presented data is incomplete....I also hope your level of English
language comprehension will allow you to distinguish black box recordings and conversations between
civilian ATC and military command that is not in the report, and according to Ukrainian reports
was confiscated from civilian controllers.
notherLex21 jimbuluk 14 Sep 2014 16:46
when the transponder data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)"
The DSB
rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf shows the transcript (page 15) where MH17 pilots last reply
is at 13:19:56.
Sorry, but the Aviation Herald is inaccurate.
"was enroute at FL330 about 20nm northeast of Donetsk (Ukraine) when the transponder
data became unreliable at 13:18Z (position N48.28 E38.08)"
Transponder data can't become unreliable without reason. And that reason led to the crash within
two minutes. The distance between the point the transponder data became unreliable and Snizhne
is approx 65 km, that's way beyond the range of BUK's missile, not to say about it's radar, -
less than 9 km.
ShermanPotter -> Antidyatel 14 Sep 2014 11:09
The key is in the title it's a preliminary report, that examines the technical reasons for
the crash of MH-17. In tandem is a criminal investigation.
The Preliminary report, has established that MH-17 was shot down and that immediately before
that event was operating normally with normal crew communications with ATC. The rest of what you
are talking about is for the criminal investigative team to examine and report to the Court.
Antidyatel -> 2meters 14 Sep 2014 09:46
No it is not what they were telling.
MoD didn't accuse that the plane was involved. They only stated yhe facts that there was a
potential for it to be involved. That is why additional data was requested from Ukraine to clarify.
Stark difference to blanket accusations based on tea leaves in a cup that were loaded by the list
of discredited a-holes in the beginning of your post
Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 08:27
For example, the missing part is the primary surveillance radar recordings. It would be expected
that if Ukraine wanted to help with investigation. it would supply not only civilian traffic data
but also the data of all military radars on that day. Not such a hard task. Report doesn't stress
on it but clearly indicates that even civil traffic data was not submitted. They could easily
reveal that data in the first few days after the incident or after the Russian MoD report and
clarify the issue with military planes in the air at that time. What prevents them from doing
it after 2 months?
Out of the whole page of those recordings only 3 lines are with MH17. Nothing of an essence.
There was absolutely no reason why not to provide the data from the moment MH17 entered Ukrainian
airspace or even from start of the flight. It would take 2-3 hours max to compile the communication
with ground control along the whole route. And they didn't need to wait even for black boxes to
do it. How unprofessional your professionals can be?
Most of the communication, that was revealed is related to communication between Dnepropetrovsk
and Rostov. No point withholding that information as Russians have the same transcript, I guess.
For MH17 the only portion of interest is 11 seconds before the disaster. This is bogus. And still
there is absolutely no excuse not to release the whole transcript of the black box, in the situation
which potentially can bring the world to the WW3. You don't joke with such things.
ShermanPotter -> Antidyatel 14 Sep 2014 05:22
So what information are you claiming is missing?
As well as that you list Page 14 also describes that Ukrainian ATC supplied radio and telephone
recordings and transcripts relating to MH-17.
The transcript in the preliminary report is just of the last few minutes of its flight before
being shot down, what more do you expect from a Preliminary report?
Antidyatel -> ShermanPotter 14 Sep 2014 04:18
Actually if you look strictly at the report specifies only 3 sources of ATC data:
1. Primary surveillance radar recorded by the Russian surveillance aids
2. Secondary surveillance radar
3. Automatic Dependant Surveillance
The explanation of the last 2 are given at the end of page 14 of the report. Which shows that
primary data from Ukrainian radars is still withheld.
The transcript provided is appearing to be incomplete. It is not like they were afraid of the
page limit. Why not to give the whole transcript? Also this transcript is strangely different
from the one given in BBC web-site
Isn't that exactly what western media and blogger and US intelligence had been telling us all
along ?
Interesting how this works with Kremlin war propaganda.
For starters, please note that General Peter Deinekin with his statement directly contradicts
the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the HQ of Russia's military forces, Lieutenant-General
Andrey Kartopolov, who started this whole SU-25 conspiracy theory on July 21 :
The Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet gaining height towards the MH17
Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. Kiev must explain why the military jet was tracking the
passenger airplane, the Russian Defense Ministry said.
and
"The SU-25 fighter jet can gain an altitude of 10km, according to its specification," he
added. "It's equipped with air-to-air R-60 missiles that can hit a target at a distance up
to 12km, up to 5km for sure."
Which opened up the floodgates for SU-25 conspiracy theorists and their accompanied anti-Ukraine
comments here in the Guardian comment sections and around the MSM.
While in fact there was no Ukrainian or any other fighter jet around.
Now, of course, the pro-Russian trolls will drop the SU-25 conspiracy theory and switch to
the next one : that Ukrainians fired that SA-11 missile.
Forgetting to look at the big picture : If the Russia or the Russian military had nothing to
do with this BUK, then why the heck were they lying through their teeth on July 21 ?
The distance between these two points is approx 65 km. Book's missile could reach 30 km. The
Book's radar reaches even less - under 9 km, That's it.
Antidyatel notherLex21 14 Sep 2014 02:25
Probably true. Which narrows down to the simple choice: was it one of the 4 Ukrainian BUKs
that were known to be in the area or an imaginary rebel's BUK.
If we go strictly and watch the 30 min presentation by Russian MoD, they never accused Su-25
to be responsible for downing the plane. They only stated the fact that the plane was detected
at that time and at that place. If they really wanted to falsely accuse ukie plane they would
not state that it was Su-25.
ShanghaiGuy -> Dunscore 13 Sep 2014 22:11
Crap, 30mm cannon fire would require a sustained burst to cause catastrophic structural failure,
audible on recorders. 30mm cannon is not typical air to air ordance, ground attack on slower aircraft
, taken some chase at high altitude. Sorry your apologists bs is a fairy story.
Ground launched AAM destroyed the airliner.
Antidyatel Hektor Uranga 13 Sep 2014 22:02
My dear Huylo Hector, immediately after the crush every theory was plausible. Each of them
had to be eliminated based on facts. The fairy tail about rebels downing MH17 had an upper habd
in first week because Kerry promised satellite images that clearly prove rebels' s culpability.
After such images didn't materialise, the statement by Kerry became discredited. He had to
be responsible for his words.
So after that any other theory gets the same footing. The assertion that UA downed the plane
became more probable after the data presented by Russian MoD. The quality difference to USA/EUROPE/Ukraine
garbage comes from first presenting all the known fact and then letting everyone else to make
a conclusion. Instead of giving a theory first and then ask to just believe. This stupid idol-worshiping
by westerners will never stop amusing me.
notherLex21 13 Sep 2014 17:17
This Russian expects it was a BUK.
Former Air Force Commander of the USSR and the Russian Army General Peter Deinekin:
"Assault can not hit the plane with their weapons, he is a slow, low-altitude. Besides his
actions could be seen on radar. And striking effect aircraft missiles are not as powerful as
in" Buck "
Shoot down the plane could altitude fighter MiG-29 or Su-27, but it at the time in that
area was not, said the expert.
karl - entrusted with propagating the disinformation campaign?
based on facts alone, there is not a single shred of evidence typing BUK launced by supposed
"rebels" to the downing of MH17. There are, OTOH< quite a few pieces pf evidence pointing to cannon
fire from an aircraft. Funny how the disinformation agents never want to draw attention to evidence
that in any way points away from their favorite scenarios.
Example: Almost all the damage concentrated in cockpit/front fuselage. Now how does that
tie to the BUK scenario exactly? how does the damage from High energy objects conform to sharpnel
from BUK especially as there are both entry and exit holes?
And what of the US intelligence evidence showing people on the ground manning a BUK and wearing
UK uniforms?
I am not suggesting that it's air-to-air or surface to air only. what we know so far may well
conform both were in action. As sedman above mentions.
As for this preliminary report it is quite a piece on work in how hard it strives NOT to point
out some pretty obvious facts.
bobby_fisher ShermanPotter 13 Sep 2014 16:42
Not so fast, you do not need records to be provided that are recorded by the black boxes
It is conversations between civilian and military ATC's that are of interest and there is no mention
of that in your link.
Secr3t krislej 13 Sep 2014 16:34
Are you still trying to convince people of this idea that an SU-25 shot down MH-17.
Maybe the Former head of the Russian Airforce and Army can convince you then?
He states quite clearly that the idea that MH-17 was shot down by an SU-25 as completely untenable,
he goes on to state that it is possible an SU-27 or Mig-29 would be capable but none were in the
area.
He also says that MH-17 broke apart in the air as a result of multiple sharpnel strikes and
that it was likely from a BUK.
And before you cry western conspiracy he stated this in Russian media.
Firing a cannon from the side (the holes show entry from the side) would not get the spread
of damage that you see, and it's unlikely that you could get that many hits in at all given how
quickly you are closing.
A SAM burst (from the kind of missile under suspicion) close to the front left side of the
aircraft would yield a somewhat evenly spaced pattern of holes, as the fragments originate from
one point and spread outwards.
The gun fires 50 rounds per second, at the closing speed, the pilot would have had perhaps
2 seconds to fire, and he got around 30% of them hitting a target moving across him at 500mph?
This theory belongs in Hollywood.
Mrg Billman 13 Sep 2014 14:19
If the Kiev regime can fire and destroy their own APC column like we seen at the begining of
the conflict I have no doubts that they are capable of somehow orchestrating a downing of a civilian
airliner.
Realworldview ShanghaiGuy 13 Sep 2014 14:10
ShanghaiGuy you need to keep up with the evidence, its not my opinion that it was shot down
by a military aircraft, but that of US Intelligence analysts, as reported in US analysts conclude
MH17 downed by aircraft .
The conclusion was that it was damaged by an air to air missile that shreds its target with
flechettes, and then finished off with 30mm cannon fire that was responsible for the circular
holes in fragments of the airframe, as these extracts show:
KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia
Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government
had had something to do with it.
This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200
was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had
been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.
In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined "Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts", Associated
Press reporter Robert Parry said "some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and
Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame".
Yesterday, the New Straits Times quoted experts who had said that photographs of the blast fragmentation
patterns on the fuselage of the airliner showed two distinct shapes - the shredding pattern associated
with a warhead packed with "flechettes", and the more uniform, round-type penetration holes consistent
with that of cannon rounds.
Parry's conclusion also stemmed from the fact that despite assertions from the Obama administration,
there has not been a shred of tangible evidence to support the conclusion that Russia supplied
the rebels with the BUK-M1 anti-aircraft missile system that would be needed to hit a civilian
jetliner flying at 33,000 feet.
bobby_fisher Asimpleguest 13 Sep 2014 12:32
The plane was directed in to the war zone, specifically in to the small area, where 13 aircraft
were already blown out of the sky in just a few weeks.
It could not have happened without some interaction between civilian and military ATC's.....and
these records are completely missing, in fact confiscated by SBU"
isn't shooting down a civilian plane & blaming Putin for it a wonderful way for justifying
sanctions against Russia? venturing far into speculations (quoted journalists have done, so I
follow even if everyone here calls me an idiot).. what if someone decided to bring down a civilian
plane, to make people very angry, cause everything (the West presents) points his way? then the
result arre sanctions, and yuppie, USA can soon replace Russia as the main natural gas providor..
it's been all over the news.. and in the end, it's always about profits for the big multinationals
"The specific area where the fatal missile was fired is not in fact under control of the
"pro-Russia rebels". It is run by a neo-nazi private mercenary army, raised by Ukrainian billionaire
Ihor Kolomoisky.
"Kolomoisky stinks of being an asset of the US and Israeli intelligence services, at minimum.
He holds both Ukrainian and Israeli passports and runs his business empire from Switzerland, not
Kiev, despite being Governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast in eastern Ukraine. His mercenary army does
possess the BUK missiles allegedly used in the shootdown of MH-17, and he has threatened terrorist
attacks on Russian-speaking officials in his oblast, and even assassinations.
"Estimated to be the second-richest person in Ukraine, Kolomoisky also has strong connections
inside Kiev's Borispol International Airport, whose air traffic control tower Ukrainian Interior
Ministry troops reportedly stormed shortly before MH-17 was shot down. New Ukrainian Interior
Minister Arsen Avakov, formerly wanted by Interpol for fraud, was the man who first designated
the east Ukraine rebels as "terrorists," which ostensibly allows him to commit any atrocity against
innocent civilians very much as Israel is doing in Gaza today.
"Furthermore, in a personal interview with the Veterans Today Tbilisi Georgia bureau chief
Jeffrey Silverman pointed shared with Engdahl the possible complicity of the Inmarsat Company
in the MH17. Inmarsat, which lists the Pentagon and US Government as major clients, controls most
international air traffic control communications systems. According to Silverman, during the earlier
disappearance of Malaysian Airlines flight MH370 the flight was "lost" due to Inmarsat turning
off their signals, and it still refuses today to release the data it has about this flight.
Look what The Guardian left out of its report - just found a more complete report of what the
Dutch chief investigator said:
ROTTERDAM: Dutch prosecutors said today they need to know where a missile that may have shot
down flight MH17 was fired from in eastern Ukraine before criminal charges could be laid.
"When we know from where it was fired, then we can find out who controlled that area," and
possibly prosecute, Dutch chief investigator Fred Westerbeke told journalists in Rotterdam.
Westerbeke said that they had not yet obtained US satellite photos of areas from which a missile
might have been launched.
"We will get them," Westerbeke said, adding that it was a "long process."
errovi 13 Sep 2014 03:07
Dutch Prime Minister Rutte had to acknowledge on TV on September 12th that the Netherlands
had refused to even communicate with the Separatist. This extreme partisan position of the Dutch
government disqualifies it from leading the investigation and has obviously hampered the investigation
up till now.
This extreme partisan position of the Dutch government also clarifies why the role of UkSATSE
isn't questioned. In the chain of events leading to the downing of the aircraft still assuming
it was a mistake the question 'who launched a missile' is actually less relevant than 'who
created the situation by allowing MH17 to fly there'.
UkSATSE failed to close that airspace after july 14 whena AN-24 was downed from 6500m and
only restricted up to 10km. 6500m is beyond the man portable system range. So why didn't
UkSATSE did not close that air space and waited till after the downing of MH17. The report
section 2.4.3 issued by the investigation simply stated that MH17 complied to the restrictions
issued by UkSATSE. By ignoring the most obvious question the investigation was now under serious
doubt but the extreme partisan positioning as revealed by the Dutch minister put that report in
the 'beyond doubt partisan category'.
Antidyatel -> Karl Brandt 13 Sep 2014 05:39
The same AP journalist claimed to see the BUK himself and even the treads inn asphalt tgat
this heavy system had left. But surprisingly he forgot to rake a photo not only of BUK but also
of treads that ge has described so vividly. Spanish traffic controller story actually less contradictory.
Shaneo -> ShiresofEngland 13 Sep 2014 03:06
Immediately after, John Kerry claimed that the US witnessed the rocket launch on 'imagery'.
So let's see it then.
sedman -> ruffsoft 13 Sep 2014 01:15
The BUK system is designed to deliver the payload from above, yes it avoids the target to get
above it, then comes down and explodes above where the cockpit would be... This doesn't explain
videos of MH17 descending intact with its right engine ablaze.
sedman 13 Sep 2014 00:52
Ukraine fighter shoots MH17 with air-to-air missile, takes out right engine. MH17 does not
break up, but heads for a forced landing. Ukraine fighter finishes it off MH17 on its way down.
But, we are lead to believe that the separatists were operating a BUK system made up of 5 separate
mobile installations, 3 radar, 1 launcher and 1 control vehicle, which is capable of identifying
B777 aircraft accurately (two transponders), then decided it would be in their interests to take
out a civilian airliner, which would, even in an idiots assessment, bring the wrath of the world
opon it. They are not terrorists, they are rebels, they are not using IEDs to blow up civilians,
they just dont want to have Kiev taking their taxes and telling them what to do.
On the other hand, if Kiev can shoot down the airliner and blame the separatists, or even
better, Russia, then they would be backed by the west. Who has the most to gain?
Then we have an investigation where all members have to agree with the report or a single
member can veto the release, which is why they are not allowed to assign blame, and why they have
not been allowed to state anything more than they have. The facts that are being released
in this report is evidence enough that the investigation is being manipulated and directed to
ensure that conclusions can not be drawn from facts, all we can rely on is speculation from the
press and comments. I doubt any hard evidence will ever come out, and we will have to settle
for innuendo and finger pointing, allowing the west to isolate Russia even further till the missile
shield network sits right on their borders.
martinusher 12 Sep 2014 23:35
What I find a bit troubling is that the obvious conclusion -- that the plane was hit by
a ground fired missile -- isn't backed up by any intelligence. Its reasonable to think that the
US's NRO is watching the Ukraine closely so they should have been able to get almost real time
confirmation of the launcher's position and use.
Nobody willingly takes down an airliner unless there's serious propaganda to be made from
it. So its either a serious screwup by the rebels or something rather more evil by the blackops
types. (I'd regard the latter as a tinfoil helmet theory except that we've found out time and
again that these people are capable of doing anything provided it achieves their goal.)
ThreeCents JCDavis 12 Sep 2014 20:56
"Everything coming from the UK and US governments is a lie at one level or another and should
be carefully investigated."
I agree very strongly. And I think the key word here is "investigation".
Ah, but who is going to do the investigating?
Well, I would favor an "Investigation Party" -- which would push hard on investigating all
manner of corruption and conspiracy, and which would campaign on that basis.
And I would favor an "Investigation Branch" of government, on the same level as the Legislative,
Executive, and Judicial Branches of government. It would be dedicated to making everything in
government NOT secret! Secrecy = Tyranny. Truth = Liberty.
Click here for more.
UncleSam404 Karl Brandt 12 Sep 2014 20:48
Whatever happened to Carlos anyway lol? I guess they couldn't locate this guy.
tanyushka 12 Sep 2014 20:12
why isn't the International Civil Aviation Organization in charge of the investigation as is
custommay in these cases?
why isn't in charge an international comission as the UN demanded unanimously?
now, if we talk about chances... the Ukranian army had six BUK systems operative at the time
of the incident while the DPR forces deny having a single one but... let's accept Kiev's claims
that there was one, the chances are 6 to 1 that the Ukraninas shot...
on the other hand, Russia claims that there was an Ukranian jet fighter close to the plane
& it isn't even mentionedin the investigation
BMWAlbert 12 Sep 2014 18:01
This seems the most likely possibility, but I wonder at the release without any backing detail,
it sounds like intended innuendo also.
William J Rood EnviroCapitalist 12 Sep 2014 17:55
Yes indeed, US satellite data is highly secret unless it backs up the US Government's claims.
I don't suppose you're old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis and the release of all
sort of reconnaissance on the matter.
If the US government had any real evidence whatsoever, you'd have seen that rather than all
the photo-shopped social media stuff that's been going around. Lack of evidence is why CIA analysts
have refused to support the State Department's lies. They learned their lesson from the Iraq War.
Did you?
Rob711 12 Sep 2014 17:35
The shooting down scenario. Obviously they haven't picked up on some of the perfectly round
holes in some of the debris. Never mind the question of why the unfortunate plane and it's passengers
were flying over an area where 5 planes had been downed in the preceding two weeks
More propaganda, but something which hasn't been answered to my satisfaction.
So let's tread carefully and just ask a few more questions that these so-called journalists
in the mainstream media are neglecting to ask. For example: Why hasn't the US government released
its satellite pictures of the area right after the event?
Obviously the USA would have satellites watching, and did expect after it happened that the
White House would do some sort of presentation after a few days to prove who shot down MH17. They
were quick to accuse and had hoped they had the evidence which would be damning, but they haven't.
ShiresofEngland Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 16:43
Yes, and that is disputed. Each side keeps coming up with propaganda where not one of us knows
the truth.
ps the the poster below. It isn't 'lazy self indulgence'. Saying that I do not know who done
it is a valid position, and more honest than most on here. Like everyone with any compassion I
believe that the relatives of the victims of MH17 deserve the truth, something they have thus
far not got.
Luminaire ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 16:33
That would mean a Ukrainian jet yes? Which the russian's showed radar data proving? Just before
MH17 vanishes you can see a second trace, which the RU MOD say is a fighter jet.
Except it doesn't. The MH17 trace splits in two, because one part is the 'supposed' location
(based on the flightplan and predicted path), and the supposed SU-25 is actually MH17 as it breaks
up.
The reason this is obvious to anyone who actually does any research is that 'MH17' becomes
a square, and the 'SU-25' is a circle. In that software the circle represents a 'real' radar contact,
and the square is a predicted path - as squares always are.
If there was a jet as well there would be 2 circles and a square, because MH17 did just VANISH
so there would have been 2 'real' radar contacts.
So there was no SU-25 - but hey dont let that stop you literally making stuff up and being
'quite sure' about it.
Nicole Bresht -> krislej 12 Sep 2014 16:13
A ground missile would have caused the MG17 to explode in a fireball... seems as if the cockpit
had been shot out with an airborne cannon... not sure an SU fighter could reach needed speed/
height to pull this off.. more likely a MIG
ide000 -> ShermanPotter 12 Sep 2014 16:05
So far today we've had the SU25 shot down MH-17, and now this. You seem to be absolutely desperate
to hang this onto anybody other than Russia. Even coming up with ridiculous scenarios to try and
prove your case.
Lets be precise, Russian ministry of defense didn't reliably identify plain (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKhA50erngk
at 14:04). They claim the plain was supposed to be SU-25.
Actually I expected of Dutch experts at least to clarify whether they confirm or do not confirm
presence of military jet in vicinity of MH17.
Brian Beuken LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 15:50
I very much doubt it was a deliberate act, possibly incompetence on the part of the BUK operators...
But it was a BUK, the problem is while we can all spot the smoking gun we can't find enough
of the "bullet" to silence the doubters...so lets lay out some facts and let them make up their
own minds.
Fragmentation patterns can contain a large number of holes that appear to look like "bullet"
holes, but they are simply penetration holes
However there are a lot of holes in a small area in the MH17 pics, this is highly indicative
of a fragmentation warhead which can also explain some of the more isolated holes in other parts
of the fuselage, the fragments can spread out from the nose to the tail but the concentration
will be where the missile was closest where it exploded
Also the holes are fairly small, bullet size some may say.. But modern warplanes do not fire
bullets, they fire 30mm shells...quite devastating weapons which when fired from a moving target
at a moving target leave a very clear trail, and a normally short burst of fire.
Its logistically highly improbably that a ground attack aircraft, without a pressurised cockpit
and not designed to take out air targets, with a max ceiling of 23k ft (unloaded) could get to
a 33K ft airliner at cruising speed which is faster than the Su25's top speed..... But that's
what some want us to believe...but if it did... it has a 30mm cannon...not itty bitty machine
guns....and it would be one hell of a pilot who could get of dozens of shots in the same basic
area... (lets also not ignore the fact that the pilot would know he was attacking a civil aircraft...pilots
are generally pretty clever people, and know when they are committing war crimes)
It could have been another aircraft, Ukraine and Russia both operate high speed interceptors...but
again there's the problem with the gun.....they use cannons, not shotguns or itty bitty machine
guns.
Some suggest that an air to air missile might then be the cause of the fragmentation...but
this also is problematic, most AA missiles are not powerful enough to take out a large civil aircraft.
Many instances of smaller less well built passenger planes surviving AA strikes have been recorded...But
2 or 3 might do it..but the pilots would surely called Mayday.. They didn't, suggesting they had
no idea what hit them,
Of course, there's always the lucky shot..but I doubt that...
Iron has been recovered, many SAM's use Iron, some use steel bearings some use both....but
shells are depleted uranium....so no shells....no bullets...(bullets are not iron).
So these are facts....
Make of them what you wish...but I'm struggling to see anything other than a large SAM....I don't
know from who, or why, that's a different question...
ShiresofEngland 12 Sep 2014 15:47
The plane went down over territory held by pro-Russia rebels, killing all 298 passengers
and crew on board.
Oh I get it so the implication is........
Actually nothing as the launch site isn't known, and could just as easily been fired from Ukrainian
or rebel held territory.
A rebel officer told AP after the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team
of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military
plane. Intercepted phone conversations between the rebels released by the Ukrainian government
support that version of events.
Which might be true, but there again might not and hasn't been verified. Might be propaganda
and the source is hardly impartial.
So what do we know? Highly probable that it was a BUK which brought down MH17. Ukraine has these
weapon systems, the rebels may have captured one but how serviceable is questionable, and the
Russians may have lent one with a crew but that hasn't been definitely verified. All of them could
have been in the area, or maybe not.
Conclusion: Still no closer to knowing which side brought it down, whether it was just
a cock up, or a black flag. Plenty of propaganda, accusations, denials, but any real evidence
so far is very thin on the ground.
madjens1 12 Sep 2014 15:28
It's funny how the press are falling over themselves to say it was definitely Russians,
the EU are desperate for it to be Russians, the Americans are desperate for it to be Russians
- so when something factual comes out that doesn't toe the expectant line they have to drop in
the odd implication and suggested line.
Then the idiots who read the guardian (who otherwise reject foreign countries being bismirched)
swallow it all up
KeloCote Mrg Billman 12 Sep 2014 14:54
That would be true had the Ukrainians not warned the plane to stay away. In fact, ground control
ordered the plane to climb to a higher altitude, and the pilot disobeyed.
During its recent war on Gaza, Israel kept insisting that it's perfectly safe for civil aviation
to continue landing in its airport near Tel Aviv. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rockets
were flying near the whole path that a plane would take to land - at a time of Hamas's choosing.
Israel was firing even more dangerous missiles at those rockets. Any claim that it's safe for
civilian airlines to fly under such conditions is fundamentally dishonest. But Israel does not
want to admit they've lost control over their 'sovereign' airspace. Similarly, Ukraine did not
want to admit they're lost control over their 'sovereign' airspace, because there's a war going
on. However, in this particular instance, ground control warned the pilot to divert to a higher
altitude using a false pretext. Regardless of the false pretext, the pilot should have diverted
- and by not doing so - is responsible.
Realworldview 12 Sep 2014 14:36
Malaysia Airlines flight MH17: 'most likely' it was shot down from ground
Since when did a ground to air anti-aircraft missile use 30mm cannon shells to destroy its
target. The evidence strongly points to it being a military aircraft that downed MH17 as Dutch
Safety Board (DSB) Report: Malaysian MH17 was Brought Down by "A Large Number of High Energy Objects",
Contradicts US Claims that it Was Shot Down by a "Russian Missile" argues, despite the heavy
coat of varnish that's clearly been applied to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report.
EugeneGur Dunscore 12 Sep 2014 14:18
This scenario is just as unproved and likely unprovable as all the others. It's clear that
Kiev benefited the most from the event, and the US exploited is to the fullest to impose sanctions
on Russia before any investigation was even initiated. The reluctance of both Kiev and the US
to provide evidence required for the investigation is bound to raise questions.
One would think given how fiercely the US accused Russia they'd be happy to provide evidence
against Russia if they had any. Could that be that the evidence they have point the other way?
And, of course, that non-disclosure agreement, which looks like an attempt at a coverup. Otherwise,
why?
This horrible tragedy has been and no doubt will be exploited for petty political gains.
I am sorry to see even the Dutch entering this shameful game by signing that non-disclosure agreement
with one of the suspects, the Kiev government.
DownSouth77 Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 13:32
Your maximum altitude is generally restricted by 2 factors. The first being that the maximum
altitude is reached when all power produced by the engines is going into maintaining the altitude.
Thus no more power is left available for the aircraft to climb any further. The second factor
is pressurization. Thus the max psi differential between the atmosphere and cabin. When the airframe
can't withstand the differential value between the cabin and the atmosphere the consequences can
and will probably be very bad. This should not be a factor on the SU-25...as its more applicable
to airliners (which in turn can reach roughly 40,000' before this becomes a factor)
Thus back to the maximum altitude and the power produced by the engines. Thats btw also the
reason why when they strip armament from an aircraft they reduce the weight etc and in turn can
reach a heigher altitude with the same engines. Now the first problem here is that everybody assumes
the stock version of the SU-25 (which has a max operating altitude of 7km) is the SU-25 the ukrainians
used. Thus its impossible for it to reach an altitude of 10km etc.
However...lets look at the SU-39...which is in fact a SU-25 which is upgraded...the max altitude
for this aircraft is 10km. Furthermore...the Sukhoi lists its export model the SU-25K as having
a max altitiude of 7km...that specific variant. We dont know for sure that Ukraine has any SU-25
variant that are upgraded enough to reach an altitiude of 10km. However we do know it is definitely
possible for a SU-25 (depending on engines etc) to reach 10km. In short...its useless to quote
the wiki or generic version of the SU-25 max altitiude as reference in saying its impossible to
reach 10km.
In the late 90's Sukhoi 25''s could already reach altitiudes in excess of 8.5km's.
Hope all this makes sense :)
Dunscore Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 13:29
Thanks for the information !
1) Reuters. Sadly this 100-year old British company has been compromised being taken over
by a Canadian company belonging to zionists. Canadian PM Harper is a blind follower of Israeli
extremists. So V Putin is enemy number one and you can't use Reuters as an unbiased source once
more. Russia has had to up its game recently in the Arctic purely because Harper has become aggressive
to please the US.
2) Obviously the incidents are in Crimea etc are orchestrated by Kiev.
Any other explanation is nonsense. The nazi volunteers are the usual suspects. Let's hope that
Mr Nuizmieks is given a chance to see the truth. We should prepare for the McCain trolls to try
to blame any social problems on V Putin.
Dunscore EugeneGur 12 Sep 2014 13:16
I agree with all your thoughts.
Kiev Russian-speaking soldiers disguised as Donbass security forces ("rebels") could have
driven a Buk into the Donbass, fired the missile and then driven back, making sure to be seen
by foreign journalists ( Ukraine is a huge country, how come the journalists were on the same
spot at the right moment to see the Buk driving around ? very convenient..)
The US and Israel both have motives to shoot the plane down. They had been convicted of
war crimes in KL last year and their cases sent to the ICC in Holland. MH17 was also full of Dutch
passengers - right www.criminisewar.org
Plus, the ukraine airforce is in a bad state due to lack of funds. So the US and Israelis
were providing assistance, also Poland and Lithuania, of pilots and equipment. No-one knows who
was piloting the two Su-25s detected by Russian radar.
Russia asked Ukraine 12 crucial questions a month ago - still no answer.
US produced absolutely no professional evidence for the enquiry, nothing except boasting trolls.
Retired veteran CIA secret data analysts wrote a group letter to Obama and Merkel to condemn
US for bringing their profession into disrepute.
Russia provided comprehensive data and evidence to the investigation.
KeloCote Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 13:15
I did not speculate on why the pilot did not want to climb. It make no difference. By refusing
the order the pilot assumed responsibility for the fate of the plane. Civil aviation pilots have
no "right" to refuse orders of competent ground authorities and still enjoy the protections granted
by international treaties to civil aviation.
I don't understand your statement about the "report says there was no abnormal communication".
Are you contesting my claim that the pilot refused an order to climb up just minutes before being
hit? I'm basing my claim on what I read in previous articles in the Guardian on this. It could
be wrong. I wasn't there personally.
Rudeboy1 DownSouth77 12 Sep 2014 12:32
The SA-11 has a proximity fused warhead. The missile detonates when it senses it is close to
the target (proximity fuses then called Variable Time Fuses were used as far back as WW2 by the
US and UK) . Fragmentation at the front end of the aircraft would indicate that the warhead detonated
at the front of the aircraft. Damage from the warhead would be localised. Most SAM's (except the
most modern) rely on prox fuses as the massive speeds they work at mean a direct impact isn't
always possible (particularly on a manoeuvering target).
But you're wrong on the SU-25. There is no way an SU-25 can intercept an airliner at 30,000
travelling at >500kn when that is above the height and speed that the SU-25 can operate at. If
you know why it could please let us all know why.
fragglerokk 12 Sep 2014 12:19
of course he says that, the Dutch people would go nuts if they knew that Shell have signed
a $10 billion fracking deal with the Ukraines who shot down a load of their citizens, it would
be really bad for business especially since they have already started fracking Slavyansk after
the Ukie artillery bombed it out of existence and created 1000s of refugees. The truth will out,
the problem is they are all in it together, money, oil, gas, failed coups, up to their necks in
it. The non disclosure agreement signed by the Dutch, the belgians, the Ukraines and Australians
says it all, no facts, no figures and no details.. total fit up.
Malkatrinho -> LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 12:19
As the bookmaker William Hill once said "Believe nothing of what you hear, and believe only
5% of what you see, and be very suspicious of that 5%."
That's got to be one of the most random quotes I've read.
EugeneGur 12 Sep 2014 12:13
Typical Guardian, impartial and objective as ever. Do these conclusions point to the hand that
launched these "high energy objects"? No, they do not. Even if it is proven beyond any doubt that
the airplane was shot down by ground-to-air missile or even specifically by Buk, does it prove
who did the shooting? No, it does not.
However, pro-Russian rebels are mentioned more than once, so there is no chance to forget who
is supposed to be blamed.
It is possible that Donbass fighters shot down that plane by mistake thinking that was Kiev's
plane coming to bomb their cities. Kiev could've done that as well, in its case likely deliberately.
For some reason, they did have Buks in that area, although separatists do not have airplanes.
Proving which scenario is correct would be difficult. Connecting Russia to this would be even
harder if not impossible. Nobody would bother, though. If "Russia" is repeated often enough, some
dirt will stick no matter what. It's been done already quite successfully.
maico ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 12:13
The report says there was no shrapnel damage bellow the cockpit floor. This means we can discount
an air to air missile which is heat seeking and would hit the engine. The engine is of course
well bellow the cockpit level.
The shrapnel holes are various sizes and shapes pointing strongly to a proximity air-burst
from a radar guided SAM. Obviously once most of the wreckage is recovered and reassembled in a
hanger a definitive answer can be given. Shell casing and powder burn evidence may still be recoverable
although I expect Russian security services have tampered with the wreckage.
Robert Looren de Jong -> Trabecula 12 Sep 2014 12:12
BERA: Defence Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein today denied reports in the social media
that Malaysia Airlines (MAS) flight MH17 was shot down by fighter jets.
He said intelligence and evidence gathered from the fragments of the ill-fated aircraft clearly
showed it was shot down by missiles that were launched to the air from the ground.
"Based on military intelligence and evidence from a portion of fragments found, it is not likely
the bullets were used from air to air but from surface to air. "Whether these were owned by Ukraine
or the rebels who supplied by Russia. the bullets must have come from BUK System and this matter
cannot be denied by Europe, Nato or Russia," he told reporters after officiating the Bera Umno's
Wanita, Youth and Puteri wing division meeting here today. still trying to recycle that old debunked
and proven wrong narrative?
KeloCote 12 Sep 2014 12:10
The pilot is responsible. He was ordered by Ukrainian air-traffic control to fly to higher
altitude, and refused the order. Formally they told him it's because of other planes in the area,
but more likely they knew it was unsafe to fly it being a war zone - and simply didn't want to
admit they don't have control over territory they claim as their own. By refusing the order to
fly higher - the pilot assumed responsibility for flying in a dangerous path. Since the pilot
is dead - the airline is responsible.
Trabecula Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 12:05
Also, the next day the extremely competent and knowledgable Malay minister said:
"Hishammuddin said he was personally confident that flight MH17 was shot with a BUK missile
based on his experience and knowledge as a defence minister. Hence, he advised the people not
to be easily influenced by speculation and rumours being spread in the media social."
I would like to put the emphasis on "personally confident" as well as on the title: "unlikely
shot down by jet fighter".
It's probably jut another "hunch" he had, like the one of MH370 having crashed in the Southern
Indian Ocean... Or in Bangladesh... Or having landed in Pakistan... Or maybe a few miles closer
to Australia. Well done Sir!
Trabecula Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 11:58
Is this Russian, Malay or US propaganda:
NST 7th August:
"KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia
Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government
had had something to do with it"
Do you really expect anyone sane and humane to believe any news coming from Israeli media?!
Gosh...
SHappens 12 Sep 2014 11:27
What a timely article and what an empty statement. Most likely, probably, it seems, could be,
looks like.
Conclusion: "It is going to be a long investigation," he said, while remaining cautious about
what results the international investigation might achieve.
Trabecula 12 Sep 2014 11:25
De Jong and his mates: you should read the news straight from NST, not any other "repost" or
reference, be it RT.com or ET.mars. Go back to early August news (4th or 7th, if not mistaken)
and check out their official opinion on the subject. I've been in Malaysia for 2 weeks last month
and though they're pretty careful with what they say - because of they western counterparts -
and they truly blame both sides (this is subject is overhelming there), they have little doubt
that it was shot down by a jet fighter. And this is supported by german and american experts so
be careful with what you are being "fed".
Western media never reported this though western countries only needed a few hours to "choose"
who to blame for this tragic war crime.
DownSouth77 Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 11:08
Firstly a Su-25 could have shot it down...no doubt about that. Its just a matter of if it happened
that way.
I have a question...something I haven't seen mentioned really. while I know aviation (work
in the industry) I have very little knowledge of the BUK missle system...therfore the question.
Why is the cockpit riddled with holes...yet other pieces of the aircraft as almost no holes
in it. Wouldn't it be that if a BUK did it that the COMPLETE body of aircraft would have had similar
amount of damage caused by projectiles? Yet I haven't seen one other piece of the wreckage that
had near the type of projectile damage than the cockpit section. Why is that...for those saying
it was a BUK missile that caused that damage to the cockpit section?
REUTERS - The United States announced more sanctions against Russia on Friday, affecting oil
and defense industries and further limiting the access of major Russian banks to U.S. debt and
equity markets to punish Russia for its intervention in Ukraine.
The sanctions, which for the first time targeted Russia's Sberbank, were timed to coincide
with new European Union economic penalties that included restrictions on financing for some Russian
state-owned companies and asset freezes on leading Russian politicians.
The sanctions could be rolled back if Moscow withdrew its forces from Ukraine and established
a buffer zone along the border among other conditions, a senior U.S. official said.
SocialistPig 12 Sep 2014 11:00
retired Russian army Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok believes the fact that international investigators
have thus far failed to provide conclusive evidence suggests that they have something to hide.
"You can find out what kind of missile was used against a downed plane one day after it was
crashed," the retired colonel told The Moscow Times. During his career, Khodarenok operated S-75
and S-200 air defense systems.
"Each missile type has its own shrapnel imprint. The shrapnel should have been preserved in
the elements of the aircraft itself as well as in the bodies of the victims," he said.
zelazny fintan 12 Sep 2014 10:54
The Malaysian government disagrees with you and has reported that its experts say a fighter
jet brought the plane down by first hitting it with a missile and then firing 30mm bullets into
both sides of the fuselage.
Photos of the fuselage contain unmistakable bullet holes. Anti-Putin people can deny the evidence
and ignore the opinions of the Malaysian experts, but the fact remains that bullets can't travel
30,000 feet into the air and they must have come from a fighter jet.
The USA certainly has known this fact from day 1, as have all of the Nato governments. They
just can't figure out any positive spin, so they have decided to delay the release of the report
for a year or so in the hope the public will forget.
I wonder how much it will cost to make the family members of the dead forget?
Jiri 12 Sep 2014 10:54
If there was any evidence that the Russians or the East Ukrainians were responsible for the
downing of MH17 it would have been made widely available and the maximum political mileage extracted
from it.
Standupwoman -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 10:53
On this scale, and with so few voices to speak against it - yes. This is the first time I'm
aware of where the US has effectively dictated the script for the entire western msm without even
the Guardian offering a dissenting view.
Since you find my massive 2.26 posts a day so disconcerting, I assume you'd like to drive all
dissent from the comments too.
zelazny -> RoyalBludger 12 Sep 2014 10:50
Those look like large caliber bullet holes to me, and I have seen a lot of bullet holes in
sheet metal.
And I don't know of any rifle in the world, large caliber or small, that can shoot 30,000 feet
or more. None can fire accurately even with the most skilled shooter at more than 2475 meters,
the longest confirmed sniper kill.
So if bullets hit the plane, they must have come from a fighter jet's 30mm cannon.
The Malaysian government thinks this happened, but of course their opinion has no role in the
Nato cover up.
zelazny -> EnviroCapitalist 12 Sep 2014 10:44
Obama has Guantanamo? What equivalent does Putin have?
Obama tortures people and doesn't allow them to have a trial at all in most cases, and if they
get one, they get a secret, military tribunal, in violation of the US constitution.
In his 6 years in office, Obama has pardoned 52 people, despite the fact that US prisons hold
over 2 million.
Putin has pardoned thousands, including his billionaire political opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
The comments threads on western sites show the massive love of war and mass murder among ordinary
citizens like you, deceived by a life time of high tech propaganda. Western citizens like to compare
those they fear to Hitler, not realizing that the victors in WWII deliberately slaughtered German
and Japanese civilians by the millions. War criminals fought WWII, and some lost and some won.
But all decent people lost in WWII, because since then the US and Nato have turned the world
into a charnel house of war.
flyingdutchman Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 10:43
More usually SU25's carry armour piercing or APHE rounds. These will explode on impact even
with a soft structure. Even allowing a slight delay after encountering an aircraft's skin these
will then detonate leaving a much larger hole.
Simple armor piercing rounds will not explode. APHE rounds will, but with a delay of around
one millisecond or slightly less. Since the round travels at several thousand feet per second
(and won't be slowed down significantly by anything in the aircraft's structure since the rounds
are designed to punch through half an inch of hardened steel with ease) the explosion will only
take place a few feet beyond the aircraft's skin. Also, fragments from the explosion will tend
to be projected forward.
Although aluminium isn't massively strong, it is stressed on an airliner. It's also not usually
followed by empty air.
Beneath the aircraft's skin there are structural parts (stringers and frames) with insulation
in between. The structure is all aluminum, except for very few parts at the front that are reinforced
with titanium in order to better resist bird strikes. Anyway, nothing compared to the stuff the
average 30mm projectile is designed to deal with.
OpiumAddict Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 10:41
no evidence the rebels ever had a working Buk or anyone trained to use it.
definite proof that Ukraine had several working Buks in the area with crews.
dion13 zelazny 12 Sep 2014 10:37
On 13 August, Pravda published a highly plausible version of the tragedy:
"Boeing-777 was downed by Ukrainian MiG-29, expert says"
[...] the Romanian expert believes that it was not a Ukrainian Su-25, as the plane could not
reach the altitude of 10,300 meters and strike the Boeing due to the poor level of training of
Ukrainian flight personnel and technical imperfection of old Su-25. Vasilescu indicates that radars
show Su-25 identically to MiG-29 fighter jet, as the planes have identical reflective surface
area [...] The fleet of the Ukrainian Air Force has fighter aircraft MiG-29 that are capable of
intercepting Boeing-777. The fighters are based near Kiev and in Ivano-Frankivsk.
ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 10:23
An exploding missile would hit the bottom of the plane as it approached and would scatter shrapnel
over the entire plane. The fact is that only the cockpit is heavily penetrated, and from the sides,
both sides (entrance and exit holes are not hard to distinguish), which points to an air assault
targeting the cockpit to disable the pilots.
Since the Ukraine has veto power over publication of the findings, this whole investigation
is a whitewash. Why isn't Russia part of the investigation with veto power? Giving one of the
suspects in a crime the ability to block publication of the findings is ludicrous.
Can someone explain how a missile from the ground would produce both exit and entrance punctures
in the cockpit on the sides? That seems impossible.
This is just a phony investigation, with the lead suspect having veto power.
High resolution photos from the following link show clearly holes which are pushed out and
in. I am not forensic expert but I can tell in from out.
A missile with exploding shrapnel would not produce in and out holes; the only way to get that
result is to shoot from both sides. And a missile exploding would effect the bottom of the plane,
in a random pattern; the holes in the plane are in the cockpit from the sides, both sides.
Take a look: holes punched out, holes pushed in: draw your own conclusions because the investigation
will never reveal this fact, since Ukraine has veto power over the findings being published.
The photos provided show the pilots were targeted, something an ground to air missile could
not do. Also the holes across one of the wings are in a line, such as a machine gun would produce,
not a random explosion. The theory of a missile from the ground cannot explain the photographic/physical
evidence.
Only an assault from the air makes sense once you examine the evidence provided by the photos
Please take a look, especially at the closeup at
http://www.anderweltonline.com/fileadmin/user_upload/PDF/Cockpit-MH017.pdf
which shows holes with raised edges (exit) and holes with pushed in edges (entrance).
ruffsoft 12 Sep 2014 10:04
The nations investigating have signed an agreement not to publish results unless all parties
reach a consensus. If the parties found evidence of Ukrainian responsibility, Ukraine would veto
and it would not be published. This form of censorship makes an independent investigation impossible,
as well as its publication if it were.
I am quite sure that bullets are "high energy objects" but the Western media seems to ignore
that possibility, as it would implicate Ukraine, which has veto power over any publication of
findings.
For me, the clincher is that only the front part (cockpit) of the plane was penetrated----a
missile that exploded would not target the cockpit---and that the holes in the cockpit show both
exit and entrance punctures---something compatible only with being fired on from both sides. A
missile would only penetrate from one side. It is not hard to distinguish an entrance and an exit
hole, as one is push in, the other out.
This investigation is, by agreement, not independent or impartial, since the Ukraine can block
publication of any findings it does not like.
It's just one more piece of the propaganda effort to demonize Russia and thus cover up the
crimes of the Kiev regime
Dunscore -> Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 10:02
However, Russian mass media information proved to be a fake. On September 9, the Dutch
Safety Board published the report, the paragraph 2.5.4 of which says that Ukrainian State Air
Traffic Services Enterprise provided the recording and a transcript of the radio and telephone
communications regarding flight MH17
Just a little tip. Don't ever use anything that comes out of the Kiev offices. It is all
100% unbelievable. All of it. There are so many different agendas by so many groups fighting
each other like cats and dogs, all in the same buildings, that it is no wonder that so much confusion
reigns there.
Dunscore -> Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 09:44
John McCain has taught you well.
You and he are obviously students of the "Shout it loud and shout it again and again" Goebbels
doctrine -- If you are so desperate to put your case, go and join the police investigative team.
You're such a cut and paste expert with carefully selected bits from wikipedia, they will find
you useful somewhere.
There's a flood of misinformation this morning. Much more than normal.
You're louder than you normally are.
Usually McCain orders the whole team out when the yanks have got something that they particularly
want to distract from the public gaze.
Most of your team is talking about the Buk again, sticking to the same old story, so obviously
you are worried that the Dutch will latch onto the truth. Well they have nine months to find it,
so you and your team of parrots will have to work very hard to keep them distracted. Best of luck
!
Given the fact that the steady level flight (in kilometers) above the ceiling is impossible,
How do you KNOW that is true? Do you know every single situation where it might not be true. Are
you an expert ? I don't mean a cut and paste expert..
Keep writing, keep writing... you and your mates have got to keep the dutch police distracted.
!
Keep writing Keep writing !
Bye...
medievil -> Yatvyag 12 Sep 2014 09:38
shot down over the Persian Gulf in 1988 by the SM-2 surface-to-air missile launched from the
USS Vincennes. As a result of the Iranian Flight 655 catastrophe 290 passengers were killed including
60 children. The author emphasizes that after the incident American top officials not only dismissed
all the accusations but blamed the Iranian pilot. However, nearly seven weeks after the tragedy
the Pentagon had to recognize that all the "facts" the American top officials were referring to
in order to shift the burden of responsibility on the Iranians were wrong. Strangely enough, the
Pentagon's 53-page report on the incident "still concluded that the captain and all the other
Vincennes officers acted properly."
Although Fred Kaplan, the defense correspondent of the Boston Globe at that time, pointed repeatedly
to the numerous embarrassing discrepancies in the Pentagon's narrative, the US senior officers
qualified them as inessential. The most shocking fact, revealed in 1992 was that the USS Vincennes
was in the Iranian waters when it shot down the Iranian Flight 655, not in international as the
Pentagon reported in 1988.
"Vice President George H.W. Bush, who was running to succeed Ronald Reagan as president, said
on the campaign trail, "I will never apologize for the United States - I don't care what the facts
are," cites Fred Kaplan and adds bitterly, "Not until eight years later did the US government
compensate the victims' families, and even then expressed "deep regret," not an apology." Medals
awarded While issuing notes of regret over the loss of human life, the U.S. government has, to
date, neither admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, nor apologized, but continues
to blame Iranian hostile actions for the incident. The men of the Vincennes were all awarded combat-action
ribbons. Commander Lustig, the air-warfare coordinator, even won the navy's Commendation Medal
for "heroic achievement", his "ability to maintain his poise and confidence under fire" having
enabled him to "quickly and precisely complete the firing procedure." According to a 23 April
1990 article printed in The Washington Post, the Legion of Merit was presented to Captain Rogers
and Lieutenant Commander Lustig for their performance in the Persian Gulf on 3 July 1988. The
citations did not mention the downing of the Iran Air flight at all.
Денис Панкратов -> fintan 12 Sep 2014 09:31
If you're interested, I would say. And in Washington and in the Netherlands have long known
who shot down the "Boeing". But will hide the truth to the end. Because this really does not fit
into the ongoing today geopolitics.
Geopolitics, as a rule, the subject is extremely pragmatic and cynical. For it not only 200
dead, for her and 200 thousand dead - empty words ...
Dunscore 12 Sep 2014 09:26
A rebel officer told AP after the disaster that the plane was shot down by a mixed team
of rebels and Russian military personnel who believed they were targeting a Ukrainian military
plane.
This is the ENTIRE source for the western case that a Buk shot MH17 down. It is a complete
lie. The officer was never named, the story was never verified. The officer does not exist. Evidence
please, if you disagree?
Canonman -> Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 09:17
That area has been under satellite surveillance for a long time by various US, NATO and Russian
satellites - after all it is a war zone. Rest assured that there will be coverage of that area
by various satellites.
Perhaps you should lay off the personal insults? Or do you get off on being rude or a dick
- 'Rudeboy-1'?
Hansueli LeWillow 12 Sep 2014 09:16
Well, before engaging in wild speculation, why not start from a simple possibility, like a
simple fuck-up by the guys on the trigger? Seems far more likely than any hypothetical planned
shoot down by CIA or anybody else, including Russia.
Dunscore Rudeboy1 12 Sep 2014 09:16
Of course the utter idiots that gave a highly advanced surface to air missile system to a bunch
of idiots are not responsible at all.....it was just a mistake. I'm sure the relatives will understand.
Your master McCain taught his baby trolls well -- But why do we always get the uneducated ones.
Where is all your written evidence for your silly story ? Let's see something on paper and
not just oral bullshit...
JCDavis mraak 12 Sep 2014 09:09
Since it hit the cockpit and not the tail, it had to be fired from the direction where the
plane was headed.
Not true. If it was fired from an aircraft well below the 777, the impact could have had the
same signature. And depending on the guidance system, it could have hit the same area no matter
where it was fired from--
Electro-optical seekers can be programmed to target vital area of an aircraft, such as the
cockpit.
Dunscore Robert Looren de Jong 12 Sep 2014 09:08
nd as such it is consitant with a buk missile
If you can't even spell consistent, why should we pay any attention to wha you say ?
Everyone is suddenly an expert on missile ballistics.
Tell your audience please the source of all your qualifications.
A PhD from Ronald McDonald's University ?
Two german military pilots saw all the wreckage on the crash site and with 30 years experience,
they made a careful detailed explanation over several A4 sides explaining why it was NOT a Buk.
Have you read that ? Why do you contradict that ? Come on, let's have your knowledge on the table
--
McCain would be proud of you, you follow his script so well.
What will you do when your master loses his job at the next US election?
Canonman 12 Sep 2014 08:31
All of this is just speculation.
Question 1: where are the Satellite images of that area at that exact time?
Question 2: where are the audio transmissions between the crew and the flight towers?
Question 3: why did the BBC remove its own segment that was done shortly afterwards where they
had people on record stating that they had seen a jet flying behind if?
Question 4: who ordered the BBC remove its own segment?
Question 5: If the pilots where shot at by a 'jet' as is believed by many - what about the autopsies
of the pilots? Were any done? What did they find.
Question 6: if a BUK missile had taken it down how come there was not a trail from the missile?
These missiles do leave a rather distinctive trial behind them that is seen for kilometers.
Question 7: who ordered the plane to fly lower than was deemed safe for that area?
So many questions and so little facts… Perhaps they questions do not fit the narrative?
michaelantony 12 Sep 2014 08:19
This investigation is a colossal waste of time and money and European taxpayers should demand
an end to it. We all know what happened to the plane: it was shot down by accident while flying
over a war zone where surface to air missiles were in constant use over previous days. None of
the belligerents had an interest in shooting in down: whoever did it mistook it for a military
craft belonging to the enemy. To try to find out which group to pin the blame on serves no purpose
whatever except to further the warmongering agenda of NATO, which is trying to provoke the 3rd
World War with Russia or justify even more crushing sanctions to grind Russia's population into
further poverty. The real culprits for this horrible accident were Malaysia Airlines for flying
over a war zone to save money and the aviation authorities for allowing them to do so. Those are
the heads that should roll.
LeWillow -> psygone 12 Sep 2014 08:07
But you have to ask the question 'why would Putin shoot down a Malaysian passenger plane?
It make no sense and would be completely stupid, and I don't think Putin is stupid somehow.
The CIA on the other hand (and US Govt) would have a lot to gain from shooting down a plane and
blaming it on Putin. They also have previous form when it comes to blowing planes out of the air.
Standupwoman -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 08:05
Correct. I joined in 2012 to participate in the Bradley Manning conversation. I have an abhorrence
of evil, and the silence of mass media regarding its victims.
What world do you inhabit where such an attitude makes a person 'unreal'?
LeWillow -> daveydor 12 Sep 2014 08:02
"Actually what I find shocking is the bizarre pretence of you people to be real."
By being 'real' do you mean believing everything the Western media tell us and everything the
US Government. Is that what being 'real' involves?
If it is, then you can keep it for yourself.
jdanforth -> Martin Adams 12 Sep 2014 08:01
Apparently it was an entire year before Libya was blamed -first it was Iran. Al Megrahi's alleged
accomplice was found not guilty, and when al Megrahi was granted a chance to appeal his case in
court, he was abruptly released instead.
In the case of Lockerbie, satellite imagery was immediately
provided by both France and the US, and that was in the 1980s!
ChristopherMyers 12 Sep 2014 08:01
They are sooo hoping it was East Ukrainian fighters supplied by Russia, sounding more like a witch
hunt all the time. I wouldn't rule out the Azov Battalion, they were in the area, they have Russian
accents, and BUK's, they murder civilians because they are Russian, like in Odessa. They still
don't know if it was a missile, or if it was an air to air or surface to air, or bullets from
a Ukrainian fighter jet (which would be intent on targeting the cockpit). Forensics though, will
reveal what struck it, then place the blame. Why not wait until then to burn the witch?
Carl Jones 12 Sep 2014 08:00
The preliminary report suggests MH17 was hit by multiple impacts. There are pictures on the
alternative media that shows a section of the plane near the cockpit that was strafed by machine
gun fire after it had been hit by an air to air rocket[s]. The preliminary finding are inconsistent
with a ground to air rocket and their is no evidence to this effect.
Quite simply, this is a cover up.
SaoPaulo 12 Sep 2014 07:56
The mere fact that the United States MSM has dropped this topic like a hot potato (compare
CNN coverage of MH17 with the endless coverage of MH370) and the complete lack of verified NATO
or US or CIA satellite data implies that the Russians were not at fault here.
JCDavis -> palindrome 12 Sep 2014 07:55
Everything coming from the UK and US governments is a lie at one level or another and should
be carefully investigated. But of course there is no one to do that as the press is almost totally
subverted.
palindrome 12 Sep 2014 07:50
he drew comparisons with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing that took years
to identify suspects.
Excellent comparison, the Lockerbie investigation is a great example of how investigators dismissed
obvious clues as to the true perpetrators and used circumstantial evidence to "prove" that the
Bond villains of the day (Libya) were the culprits.
John Ashton's book lays the evidence for all to see of how everything can
JCDavis JCDavis 12 Sep 2014 07:44
Herbert E. Meyer, Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence under the Reagan
administration--
"If Putin is too stubborn to acknowledge that his career is over, and the only way to get
him out of the Kremlin is feet-first, with a bullet hole in the back of his head - that would
also be okay with us."
krislej Daniel Brown 12 Sep 2014 07:35
You're clearly someone who doesn't have a clue:
SU-25's carry the R-60 air to air missile with a range of 5 miles, they also have a 30mm auto-cannon.
The wreckage of MH17 is strewn with what are more than likely 30mm shell holes, perfectly rounded
and highly unlikely to be fragmentation from a rocket.
SU-25's can also climb to the height of MH17 and stay there for a short period of time before
having to descend.
Martin Adams 12 Sep 2014 07:33
The Lockerbie investigation was subverted for political reasons and the enemy of convenience
was then Libya. Abdelbasset al Megrahi who served 8 years in prison had nothing to do with Lockerbie
and they know it.
GoodmansParadox 12 Sep 2014 07:23
...he drew comparisons with the investigation into the Lockerbie bombing that took years
to identify suspects.
An interesting analogy, considering the suspects identified were fabricated in order to frame
Libya. Considering the case against the two Libyan suspects required they work together, it was
even more notable that only one of them was convicted. So a fabricated prosecution was delivered
a perverse verdict, yet the media still lapped it up and ran with the lie.
Funny how, with the toppling of Gaddafi, we were supposed to be provided with the evidence of
Libyan involvement. Three years and counting...
And now, the same cheerleaders for blaming Gaddafi are blaming Putin. Plus ca change.
kaptenemo 12 Sep 2014 07:20
Could investigators and journalists please also consider the possibility that the Kiev troops
did it? Right now, they should be investigating all leads, not only those pointing to the Eastern
Ukrainians. After all, the Ukrainian military did shoot down a commercial plane in 2001, so another
mistake cannot be excluded out of hand.
fintan -> DrHandley 12 Sep 2014 07:18
The Dutch are under orders to ensure that all the data and any media release places blame
of the Rebels
The Dutch "under orders"? From whom? Have some respect for a democratic, sovereign state that
has lost nearly 200 of its citizens to a murderous attack by vicious terrorists and, I have no
doubt, very much wants to find the truth about how and why it happened.
Standupwoman 12 Sep 2014 07:14
What's possibly most shocking about this is the reiteration of discredited information - the
supposed 'confession' of a rebel (taken massively out of context and heavily denied by the speaker)
and the ludicrous fake audio of the rebel conversation which turned out to have been uploaded
the day before the crash, then taken down again for editing.
I wouldn't be surprised by this promulgation of lies if I found it on social media, but this
is the Associated Press and I'm reading this in a once respected British newspaper. How in the
name of any kind of decency did we come to sink as low as this?
DrHandley 12 Sep 2014 07:12
The Dutch are under orders to ensure that all the data and any media release places blame of
the Rebels. We may talk about conspiracy theories - but in this case it smells like a cover up.
The explosive residue left of the surface of the aircraft would surely indicate the type of weapon
used as most explosives have a set 'signature'.
Standupwoman 12 Sep 2014 07:06
There's no surprise in the fact the solution 'getting most attention' is the one most likely
to discredit the rebels. I'd be more interested to know if they were giving any attention to anything
else.
"... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 329 donors have already invested in our efforts to
combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in financial realm. Please join us and participate
via our Tip Jar , which shows how to give via
check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about
why
we're doing this fundraiser ,
what
we've accomplished in the last year , and
our second target , funding for travel to conferences and in connection with original reporting. ..."
"... These companies – according to JPMorgan analysts cited by
Bloomberg – have incurred $119 billion in interest expense over the 12 months through
the second quarter. The most ever. ..."
"... last thing ..."
"... As recently as 2012, companies were refinancing at interest rates that were 0.83 percentage
point cheaper than the rates on the debt they were replacing, JPMorgan analysts said. That gap
narrowed to 0.26 percentage point last year, even without a rise in interest rates, because the
average coupon on newly issued debt increased. ..."
"... "Increasingly alarming" is what Goldman's credit strategists led by Lotfi Karoui called this deterioration
of corporate balance sheets. And it will get worse as yields edge up and as corporate revenues and
earnings sink deeper into the mire of the slowing global economy. ..."
"... But it isn't working anymore. Bloomberg found that since May, shares of companies that have
plowed the most into share buybacks have fallen even further than the S P 500. Wal-Mart is a prime
example. Turns out, once financial engineering fails, all bets are off. Read…
The Chilling Thing Wal-Mart Said about Financial Engineering ..."
"... It spelled out in Micheal Hudson's – Killing the Host. Economics and investment banking
wraps itself in the persona as the engine of growth when, in fact, it is the engine of dis-employment,
stagnate wages, declining manufacturing, inflated property prices which raise the cost of food
production and everything else including forcing a majority to spend more of their income on
debt service leaving less for anything beyond subsistence living. ..."
"... "trillions are wasted and misdirected into useless financial "engineering" as
opposed to real world engineering" ..."
"... I read yesterday that less than 6% of Bank financing is now going to real tangible
assets – the balance goes in various forms to intangible goodwill ..."
"... Tony Soprano called it a "bust up" – take over a business and use the brand to skim the
profits, buy goods and services and roll them out the backdoor and declare BK and then buy it
back for pennies on the dollar. ..."
"... 35 years ago, I spent a day at Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania with a driver in a rover by
myself watching the Hyenas take down a sick Buffalo culling him out in a gang, working the
animal for hours, as he shuffled along until he fell and ten….. finally ate him in a ferocious
climax. The most fascinating part of the entire trip. ..."
"... Now there is a big fat tax deductible expense, and down the road, "value" is created
when companies are bought for the tax carry forward losses. Win, win win. ..."
"... Is a company that eliminates thousands of jobs via automation or outsourcing worthy of the
public's credit? ..."
This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 329 donors have already invested in our efforts to
combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in financial realm. Please join us and participate
via our Tip Jar, which shows how to give via
check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about
why
we're doing this fundraiser,
what
we've accomplished in the last year, and
our second target, funding for travel to conferences and in connection with original reporting.
Yves here. As anyone who has been in finance know, leverage amplifies gains and losses. Big company
execs, apparently embracing the "IBG/YBG" ("I'll Be Gone, You'll Be Gone") school of management,
apparently believed they could beat the day of reckoning that would come of relying on stock buybacks
to keep EPS rising, regardless of the underlying health of the enterprise. But even in an era of
super-cheap credit, investors expect higher interest rates for more levered businesses, which is
what you get when you keep borrowing to prop up per-share earnings. As Richter explains, the chickens
are starting to come home to roost.
Companies with investment-grade credit ratings – the cream-of-the-crop "high-grade" corporate
borrowers – have gorged on borrowed money at super-low interest rates over the past few years, as
monetary policies put investors into trance. And interest on that mountain of debt, which grew another
4% in the second quarter, is now eating their earnings like never before.
These companies – according to JPMorgan analysts cited by
Bloomberg – have incurred $119 billion in interest expense over the 12 months through
the second quarter. The most ever. With impeccable timing: for S&P 500 companies,
revenues have been in a recession all year, and the last thing companies need
now is higher expenses.
Risks are piling up too: according to Bloomberg, companies' ability pay these interest expenses,
as measured by the interest coverage ratio, dropped to the lowest level since 2009.
Companies also have to refinance that debt when it comes due. If they can't, they'll end up going
through what their beaten-down brethren in the energy and mining sectors are undergoing right now:
reshuffling assets and debts, some of it in bankruptcy court.
But high-grade borrowers can always borrow – as long as they remain "high-grade." And for years,
they were on the gravy train riding toward ever lower interest rates: they could replace old higher-interest
debt with new lower-interest debt. But now the bonanza is ending. Bloomberg:
As recently as 2012, companies were refinancing at interest rates that were 0.83 percentage
point cheaper than the rates on the debt they were replacing, JPMorgan analysts said. That gap
narrowed to 0.26 percentage point last year, even without a rise in interest rates, because the
average coupon on newly issued debt increased.
And the benefits of refinancing at lower rates are dwindling further:
Companies saved a mere 0.21 percentage point in the second quarter on refinancings as investors
demanded average yields of 3.12 percent to own high-grade corporate debt – about half a percentage
point more than the post-crisis low in May 2013.
That was in the second quarter. Since then, conditions have worsened. Moody's Aaa Corporate Bond
Yield index, which tracks the highest-rated borrowers, was at 3.29% in early February. In July last
year, it was even lower for a few moments. So refinancing old debt at these super-low interest rates
was a deal. But last week, the index was over 4%. It currently sits at 3.93%. And the benefits of
refinancing at ever lower yields are disappearing fast.
What's left is a record amount of debt, generating a record amount of interest expense, even at
these still very low yields.
"Increasingly alarming" is what Goldman's credit strategists led by Lotfi Karoui called this deterioration
of corporate balance sheets. And it will get worse as yields edge up and as corporate revenues and
earnings sink deeper into the mire of the slowing global economy.
But these are the cream of the credit crop. At the other end of the spectrum – which the JPMorgan
analysts (probably holding their nose) did not address – are the junk-rated masses of over-indebted
corporate America. For deep-junk CCC-rated borrowers, replacing old debt with new debt has suddenly
gotten to be much more expensive or even impossible, as yields have shot up from the low last June
of around 8% to around 14% these days:
Yields have risen not because of the Fed's policies – ZIRP is still in place – but because investors
are coming out of their trance and are opening their eyes and are finally demanding higher returns
to take on these risks. Even high-grade borrowers are feeling the long-dormant urge by investors
to be once again compensated for risk, at least a tiny bit.
If the global economy slows down further and if revenues and earnings get dragged down with it,
all of which are now part of the scenario, these highly leveraged balance sheets will further pressure
already iffy earnings, and investors will get even colder feet, in a hail of credit down-grades,
and demand even more compensation for taking on these risks. It starts a vicious circle, even
in high-grade debt.
Alas, much of the debt wasn't invested in productive assets that would generate income and make
it easier to service the debt. Instead, companies plowed this money into dizzying amounts of share
repurchases designed to prop up the company's stock and nothing else, and they plowed it into grandiose
mergers and acquisitions, and into other worthy financial engineering projects.
Now the money is gone. The debt remains. And the interest has to be paid. It's the hangover after
a long party. And even Wall Street is starting to fret, according to Bloomberg:
The borrowing has gotten so aggressive that for the first time in about five years, equity
fund managers who said they'd prefer companies use cash flow to improve their balance sheets outnumbered
those who said they'd rather have it returned to shareholders, according to a survey by Bank of
America Merrill Lynch.
But it's still not sinking in. Companies are still announcing share buybacks
with breath-taking amounts, even as revenues and earnings are stuck in a quagmire. They want to prop
up their shares in one last desperate effort. In the past, this sort of financial engineering worked.
Every year since 2007, companies that bought back their own shares aggressively saw their shares
outperform the S&P 500 index.
But it isn't working anymore. Bloomberg found that since May, shares of companies that have
plowed the most into share buybacks have fallen even further than the S&P 500. Wal-Mart is a prime
example. Turns out, once financial engineering fails, all bets are off. Read…
The Chilling Thing Wal-Mart Said about Financial Engineering
Wolf Richter is a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist,
and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at
Wolf Street.
TomDority, October 16, 2015 at 8:01 am
One wonders where all that "investment" goes…pretty much into the CEO's pockets and
investors pockets because banks do not create money by investing in real legitimate capital
formation or producing anything tangible…..i
It spelled out in Micheal Hudson's – Killing the Host. Economics and investment banking
wraps itself in the persona as the engine of growth when, in fact, it is the engine of dis-employment,
stagnate wages, declining manufacturing, inflated property prices which raise the cost of food
production and everything else including forcing a majority to spend more of their income on
debt service leaving less for anything beyond subsistence living.
These trillions are wasted and misdirected into useless financial "engineering" as opposed
to real world engineering….at the expense of a habitable peaceful planet. Soon, I hope, this
dislocation will be corrected. As I have said before, a good start would be to tax that which
is harmful (unearned income and rent seeking) and de-tax that which is helpful – real capital
formation, infrastructure and maintenance of a habitable planet and the absolutely necessary
biodiversity that sustains us.
david, October 16, 2015 at 8:57 am
"trillions are wasted and misdirected into useless financial "engineering" as
opposed to real world engineering"
I read yesterday that less than 6% of Bank financing is now going to real tangible
assets – the balance goes in various forms to intangible goodwill
this is not "useless" from the standpoint of those who direct this game.
Tony Soprano called it a "bust up" – take over a business and use the brand to skim the
profits, buy goods and services and roll them out the backdoor and declare BK and then buy it
back for pennies on the dollar.
the money is used for dividends and buybacks all that money is accumulated by the LBO firms
and management to maneuver the situation / process to the point of the bust up – this time
they are all going simultaneously for the exit even the most high end S&P firm – the HY prices
are deteriorating quickly beyond energy related as % LTV goes higher – before 82′ the LTV of
Fortune Cos. was way below 20% – 35% was considered max –
the same characters / groups will be formed to get to 51% to buy and control the bonds at
20-30% on the dollar in BK and take the assets.
35 years ago, I spent a day at Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania with a driver in a rover by
myself watching the Hyenas take down a sick Buffalo culling him out in a gang, working the
animal for hours, as he shuffled along until he fell and ten….. finally ate him in a ferocious
climax. The most fascinating part of the entire trip.
USA, USA, USA !
cnchal, October 16, 2015 at 9:38 am
. . .Now the money is gone. The debt remains. And the interest has to be paid,. . .
Now there is a big fat tax deductible expense, and down the road, "value" is created
when companies are bought for the tax carry forward losses. Win, win win.
Just Ice, October 16, 2015 at 10:53 am
"Companies with investment-grade credit ratings …"
With government-subsidized private credit creation, the whole concept of "creditworthiness"
is suspect. Example, is Smith-Wesson "credit-worthy" to many Progressives? Yet, it's their
credit, as part of the public, that would be extended should S&W take out a bank loan.
Is a company that eliminates thousands of jobs via automation or outsourcing worthy of the
public's credit?
Earlier this week Putin accused US official of having "mush for brains" after they refused hand
over intelligence about ISIS targets.
He said: "We asked on the military level to give us the targets which they consider to be the
terrorist ones for sure, 100 per cent. But the answer was: 'No, we are not ready to do that'.
"Then we thought and asked another question: 'Then could you tell us where we should not hit?'
Again, no answer. So, what should we do?"
Washington and its allies have suggested Russia is seeking to prop up Bashar al-Assad's regime
rather than defeat ISIS.
But Putin hit back, saying his country wants to "contribute to the fight against terrorism" which
threatens "the whole world".
Think of the new Libya as the latest spectacular chapter in the Disaster Capitalism series. Instead of weapons of mass destruction,
we had R2P, short for "responsibility to protect". Instead of neo-conservatives, we had humanitarian imperialists.
Voltaire Network | Sâo Paulo (Brazil)
But the target is the same: regime change. And the project is the same: to completely dismantle and privatize a nation that was
not integrated into turbo-capitalism; to open another (profitable) land of opportunity for turbocharged neo-liberalism. The whole
thing is especially handy because it is smack in the middle of a nearly global recession.
It will take some time; Libyan oil won't totally return to the market within 18 months. But there's the reconstruction of everything
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombed (well, not much of what the Pentagon bombed in 2003 was reconstructed in Iraq
...).
Anyway - from oil to rebuilding - in thesis juicy business opportunities loom. France's neo-Napoleonic Nicolas Sarkozy and Britain's
David of Arabia Cameron believe they will be especially well positioned to profit from NATO's victory. Yet there's no guarantee the
new Libyan bonanza will be enough to lift both former colonial powers (neo-colonials?) out of recession.
President Sarkozy in particular will milk the business opportunities for French companies for all they're worth - part of
his ambitious agenda of "strategic redeployment" of France in the Arab world. A compliant French media are gloating that this was
"his" war - spinning that he decided to arm the rebels on the ground with French weaponry, in close cooperation with Qatar, including
a key rebel commando unit that went by sea from Misrata to Tripoli last Saturday, at the start of "Operation Siren".
Well, he certainly saw the opening when Muammar Gaddafi's chief of protocol defected to Paris in October 2010. That's when the
whole regime change drama started to be incubated.
Bombs for oil
As previously noted (see "Welcome to Libya's 'democracy'",
Asia Times Online, August 24) the vultures are already circling Tripoli to grab (and monopolize) the spoils. And yes - most
of the action has to do with oil deals, as in this stark assertion by Abdeljalil Mayouf, information manager at the "rebel" Arabian
Gulf Oil Company: "We don't have a problem with Western countries like the Italians, French and UK companies. But we may have
some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil."
These three happen to be crucial members of the BRICS group of emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa),
which are actually growing while the Atlanticist, NATO-bombing economies are either stuck in stagnation or recession. The top four
BRICs also happen to have abstained from approving UN Security Council resolution 1973, the no-fly zone scam that metamorphosed into
NATO bringing regime change from above. They saw right through it from the beginning.
To make matters worse (for them), only three days before the Pentagon's Africom launched its first 150-plus Tomahawks over Libya,
Colonel Gaddafi gave an interview to German TV stressing that if the country were attacked, all energy contracts would be transferred
to Russian, Indian and Chinese companies.
So the winners in the oil bonanza are already designated: NATO members plus Arab monarchies. Among the companies involved, British
Petroleum (BP), France's Total and the Qatar national oil company. For Qatar - which dispatched jet fighters and recruiters to the
front lines, trained "rebels" in exhaustive combat techniques, and is already managing oil sales in eastern Libya - the war will
reveal itself to be a very wise investment decision.
Prior to the months-long crisis that is in its end game now with the rebels in the capital, Tripoli, Libya was producing 1.6 million
barrels per day. Once resumed, this could reap Tripoli's new rulers some US$50 billion annually. Most estimates place oil reserves
at 46.4 billion barrels.
The "rebels" of new Libya better not mess with China. Five months ago, China's official policy was all ready to call for a ceasefire;
if that had happened, Gaddafi would still control more than half of Libya. Yet Beijing - never a fan of violent regime change - for
the moment is exercising extreme restraint.
After a Libyan "rebel" official warned that Chinese oil companies
could lose out after the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi, China urged Libya to protect its investments and said their oil trade benefited
both countries.
Wen Zhongliang, the deputy head of the Ministry of Trade, willfully observed, "Libya will continue to protect the interests
and rights of Chinese investors and we hope to continue investment and economic cooperation." Official statements are piling
up emphasizing "mutual economic cooperation".
Last week, Abdel Hafiz Ghoga, vice president of the dodgy Transitional National Council (TNC), told Xinhua that all deals and
contracts agreed with the Gaddafi regime would be honored - but Beijing is taking no chances.
Libya supplied no more than 3% of China's oil imports in 2010. Angola is a much more crucial supplier. But China is still Libya's
top oil customer in Asia. Moreover, China could be very helpful in the infrastructure rebuilding front, or in the technology export
- no less than 75 Chinese companies with 36,000 employees were already on the ground before the outbreak of the tribal/civil war,
swiftly evacuated in less than three days.
The Russians - from Gazprom to Tafnet - had billions of dollars invested in Libyan projects; Brazilian oil giant Petrobras and
the construction company Odebrecht also had intrests there. It's still unclear what will happen to them. The director general of
the Russia-Libya Business Council, Aram Shegunts, is extremely worried: "Our companies will lose everything because NATO will
prevent them from doing business in Libya."
Italy seems to have passed the "rebel" version of "you're either with us or without us". Energy giant ENI apparently won't be
affected, as Premier Silvio "Bunga Bunga" Berlusconi pragmatically dumped his previous very close pal Gaddafi at the start of the
Africom/NATO bombing spree.
ENI's directors are confident Libya's oil and gas flows to southern Italy will resume before winter. And the Libyan ambassador
in Italy, Hafed Gaddur, reassured Rome that all Gaddafi-era contracts will be honored. Just in case, Berlusconi will meet the TNC's
prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril, this Thursday in Milan.
Bin Laden to the rescue
Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu - of the famed "zero problems with our neighbors" policy - has also been gushing praise
on the former "rebels" turned powers-that-be. Eyeing the post-Gaddafi business bonanza as well, Ankara - as NATO's eastern flank
- ended up helping to impose a naval blockade on the Gaddafi regime, carefully cultivated the TNC, and in July formally recognized
it as the government of Libya. Business "rewards" loom.
Then there's the crucial plot; how the House of Saud is going to profit from having been instrumental in setting up a friendly
regime in Libya, possibly peppered with Salafi notables; one of the key reasons for the Saudi onslaught - which included a fabricated
vote at the Arab League - was the extreme bad blood between Gaddafi and King Abdullah since the run-up towards the war on Iraq in
2002.
It's never enough to stress the cosmic hypocrisy of an ultra-regressive absolute monarchy/medieval theocracy - which invaded Bahrain
and repressed its native Shi'ites - saluting what could be construed as a pro-democracy movement in Northern Africa.
Anyway, it's time to party. Expect the Saudi Bin Laden Group to reconstruct like mad all over Libya - eventually turning the (looted)
Bab al-Aziziyah into a monster, luxury Mall of Tripolitania.
Speaking in parliament recently Leszek Miller, former Poland's Prime Minister and head of Democratic Left Alliance, said about
the Russia-Ukraine relations "Poland has become rather a problem than a solution". The remark did not go unnoticed and he came under
harsh criticism from media.
Some voiced concern over the possibility that such statements could provoke "radical changes" and prompt Europe to look at the
east "through the eyes of Orban, Berlusconi and Miller". Nevertheless nobody denied the fact that the Poland's stance on Ukraine
is one of factors to spur the conflict. It's obvious.
Since the very first days of Maidan protests Poland has applied a lot of effort to turn Ukraine into a European problem. And it
has closely cooperated with the United States.
According to Alexander Yakimenko, the former head of Ukraine's Security Service operative, "All the orders were given either by
the US embassy or by Jan Tombinski, a Polish representative who worked in the EU mission in Kiev. Poland played an invaluable role
in the coup. It has always dreamt of restoring its former power and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth".
In September 2012 Kiev welcomed the appointment of Jan Tombinski as head of the Delegation of the European Union to Ukraine. According
to Polish media, as soon as Mr. Tombinski took office, the EU office turned into the headquarters of the extremists who overthrew
the legal authorities and actually sparked a civil war in the country.
As soon as Ukraine was set on fire some compatriots of Tombinski joined his efforts, like, for instance, Andrzej Derlatka, former
chief of the Polish Intelligence Agency, who has been responsible for interaction with the US Central Intelligence Agency. He had
to resign as a result of scandal related to CIA's secret prisons operating on Polish soil. Derlatka held talks with President Poroshenko
about the activities of Polish secret services in Ukraine including the protection of top NATO officials (the US delegated this responsibility
to Poland). Jeffrey Egan и Raymond Mark Davidson, former and current heads of CIA station in Kiev, acted as intermediaries at the
talks. Since the very start Polish and American secret services preferred to cooperate with retired veterans instead of officers
on active service, many of whom had dubious reputations or intelligence identities revealed. Here is a good example. Jerzy Dziewulski,
the security advisor to former Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, worked as a security guard to protect Ukrainian former acting
President Turchinov, whom he accompanied during the trips to the Donbass after the civil war started.
According to Polish experts, the Ukraine's high standing officials befriended Polish politicians a long time ago. For example, Ukraine's
tycoon Mykola Zlochevsky, ex-Minister of Ecology, and former President of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski are on the Board of Directors
of Burisma Holdings (the company has a lot of interest in a potential shale gas exploration in the east of Ukraine).
In October Petro Poroshenko met Eva Kovacs, the Poland's new Prime Minister, to discuss 'strategic partnership". The next day
Polish Foreign Minister Grzegorz Shetina compared the relationship of Warsaw and Kiev with the relations between European countries
and their colonies in Africa.
He elaborated on his statement on November 6, "Talking about Ukraine without Poland - the same as that discussing the case of
Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco without Italy, France and Spain". It sounded defiantly enough to evoke concern in Kiev but Ukraine's
officials had no guts to send a note to Warsaw. The Ukrainian media raised ballyhoo about it but emphasized that not all Polish outlets
shared the opinion of Polish Foreign Minister.
Popular Rzeczpospolita published the article titled Ukraine as Polish Colony. Schetyna's Words Arouse Indignation. It cited the
opinion of Ukrainian expert, "If the Polish foreign minister said this, it should be his last thing he says in this capacity", said
Vasyl Filipchuk, former Ukrainian diplomat and currently Chairman of the ICPS (International Centre for Policy Studies) Board. But
nobody paid attention to his words.
Meanwhile Ukraine's officials are going through training in Poland to enhance their professional skills for doing a better job
while serving in the "colonial administration", as
Grzegorz Shetina would call it. According to Jakub Korejba, a Polish researcher, the National School of Public Administration
in Warsaw is responsible for the process. It was created with the help of French specialists patterned after the National School
of Administration (The École nationale d'administration –ENA) in Paris. Jacek Czaputowicz, the former director the school, has been
a militant of the Solidarity radical wing and Director at the Department of Foreign Policy Strategy and Planning at the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. Jan Pastwa, the School's current director, has served as Polish Ambassador to the Czech Republic. The both men
are ardent supporters of the concept aimed at containment of Russia in Europe. Pastwa is a member of radical extremist group ZHR
(the Scouting Association of the Republic, Polish: Związek Harcerstwa Rzeczypospolitej -ZHR) which proclaims the return of Western
Belarus and Ukraine to Poland as its foreign policy goals.
Leszek Miller is right. Poland has become part of big problem.
The all-too-visible predatory nature of contemporary US governance is quintessentially linked to corporations. Yet attempts to
change this uniquely American phenomenon may push voters to a closer embrace of the predators. - Thomas I Palley (Aug 21,
'08)
Predator state calls the shots
Economist Jamie K Galbraith's recent book [1] describes modern (Bush-Cheney) Republicanism as creating a "predator state".
Its predatory aspects are starkly visible in the gangs of corporate lobbyists who roam Washington DC, the Halliburton Iraq
war procurement scandal and the corruption and incompetence that surrounded the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
However, the broad concept of a predator state needs qualification as we are really talking of an "American corporate" predator
state. Thus, the predatory nature of contemporary US governance is quintessentially linked to corporations, and it is also a uniquely
American phenomenon.
Kleptocratic predator states, such as Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe or Sese Seko Mobutu's Zaire in Africa, are fundamentally different.
There is no equivalent in Europe, and none in East Asia where ruling elites have a sense of obligation to the nation even as they
often enrich themselves illicitly. Nor is there an equivalent in Latin America because government there never reached an economic
size proportional to that of government in the US.
It is important to understand the social origins of the American corporate predator state because understanding is a necessary
part of developing responses for caging the predators and replacing them with another, better, order. Those origins clearly
trace back to the military-industrial complex that president Dwight Eisenhower warned about in his final televised address to the
nation on January 17, 1961.
That complex has captured politics and corrupted the business of government, including of course the conduct of national security
policy. The fact that it has wrapped itself with the flag makes it impossible to confront without being charged as unpatriotic.
Worst yet, its enormous enduring profitability has provided a model for imitation by other industrial complexes like Big Pharma
and Big Oil.
The political success of these predators is clearly linked to money's role in politics. Money gives the power to
buy the political process, and that power is defended by a gospel of free speech that takes no account of the fact that out-shouting
someone is qualitatively equivalent to silencing them. Economics also comes to money's defense with its absurd myth of a market for
ideas in which participants compete on a level playing field and truth is effortlessly sorted from error.
The American worship of business and businessmen, which Sinclair Lewis (Babbitt, 1922) wrote about long ago, also plays
a role. This worship privileges business over thought and other activities, and is behind the dismissive sneer "if you're so smart,
how come you're not rich?" As a result, Americans are all too willing to hand over their government to business predators.
Today, it is in Goldman Sachs we trust.
Another feature of business worship is a tendency to conflate profit with free markets. That means the distinction between fair
competition (which is good) and fat profits (which are bad) is lost, thereby providing cover for predators.
Lastly, there is the legacy of the Cold War which contributed to economic dumbing-down and suppression of awareness of class
and class conflict. This suppression was seen as necessary for blunting the dangerous appeal of Soviet communism, but a consequence
was to create blindness to the predators in our midst.
All of this reveals a deep deficit in America's social and economic understanding (some deficits really do matter). And as long
as this deficit remains, the predators will have a starting-gate advantage in the game of political persuasion.
Yet, how to close the deficit and insert another understanding is an enormous challenge. There are deep institutional obstructions
in the academy, the media, and the Democratic Party. Moreover, raising these issues may create unsettling cognitive dissonance that
pushes voters into denial and a closer embrace of the predators.
In effect, there is a paradox to be solved. Lasting progressive political victory requires transforming understanding, but the
immediate political incentives are aligned to discourage engagement with such a project.
Note: The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too, by James K Galbraith,
Free Press, 2008.
Thomas I Palley is the founder of the Economics for Democratic and Open Societies Project.
Some good parts, some bad parts, some better book suggestions, August 23, 2010Barnabas O'Books
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's
this?) This review is from: American Empire Before the Fall (Paperback) American Empire: Before the Fall has its positives
and negatives, which I enumerate as follows.
Positives:
Fein accurately portrays the current US government as a bigger, more oppressive, and a much more heavily-taxing leviathan
than the British Empire from which so many gave their lives to separate.
Fein rightly highlights US imperialism as rooted in the immaturity and insecurity of its leadership.
The US patrols the world for the juvenile thrill of conquest and control (and to route tax dollars to military suppliers and
banks).
The Monroe Doctrine is correctly identified as an excuse for expansion.
He notes that Obama is the financial, foreign policy, and civil liberties twin of George W. Bush.
He raises a good point that no multinational effort at nation-building in the last 100 years has been successful (yet the
arrogance of our leaders always makes them believe they will be the exception).
He identifies multiple lies by presidents throughout the 20th and 21st centuries to trick the voters into supporting unnecessary
war.
He notes as pure fantasy the ideas that
1) we must fight for democracy, human rights, and stability globally as a matter of principal (Washington and Adams both
opposed humanitarian wars)
2) a global military presence is necessary to ensure economic growth (historically, trade has increased when other nations
engaged in war).
Negatives:
- There were multiple grammatical errors and typos.
- The author lauds Lincoln without calling into question the many sins of this American tyrant and enemy of the Constitution.
Can you admire someone who shuts down over 100 newspapers critical of their administration and detains without trial over 10,000
Northerners as political prisoners? For an eye-opener listing many more dark secrets, read
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War. If we knew history, we'd have no Lincoln memorial...
- He praises Jefferson without mentioning his Constitutional violation in the Louisiana Purchase. The point being that even
the most ardent defenders of the Constitution violated it once in Presidency (as did Adams with the Alien and Sedition Acts) -
which is the whole reason that the Constitution is structured the way it is. For details (and a vastly superior book) on how each
President overstepped his authority, check
Recarving Rushmore: Ranking the Presidents
on Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty (Independent Studies in Political Economy).
- He lumps most presidents of the 1800s together as uneducated clods, but John Tyler and Grover Cleveland were fairly good
defenders of liberty, peace and prosperity.
- Fein totally ignores the perpetual genocidal wars against Native Americans throughout the nineteenth century - as if conquering
those nations was somehow not imperialism.
- He continues the myth that the Soviets "blinked" in the Cuban missile crisis, when the opposite is true. The missiles were
placed in opposition to US missiles in southern Italy and Turkey. *Kennedy* blinked and agreed to remove those.
- He claims that only Britain, Japan and Germany initiated war against the US; the list is actually smaller. The US placed
an oil and steel embargo against Japan prior to WWII (a provoking move), and they supported ridiculous peace terms against Germany
to end WWI, coupled with high protective tariffs in the 1930s that helped to cripple the German economy and thereby facilitate
Hitler's rise to power. Lastly, the War of 1812 was caused in part by the US desire to establish a second national bank (predecessor
of the FED which causes inflation) in competition with the Bank of England. The ruse was: start a war, act surprised it couldn't
be funded, and then plead for a national bank to support more war - it worked - the Second National Bank came to fruition after
the War of 1812. So, the US has caused, at least in part, every single war they have ever taken part in, which is not the fairy
tale version of history you get in school...
- Fein, in tracing recent transgressions, skips suspiciously from Nixon to Clinton, ignoring Iran-Contra (and impeachable
offense) and meddling in Lebanon under Reagan.
- Lastly, he supports a military draft - one of the greatest assaults on individual liberty. (Daniel Webster argued against
its Constitutionality.)
- He also does not hold accountable any branch of the military for engaging in unConstitutional wars despite their oath to
support the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The minimally Constitutionally loyal response to a police action
initiated by the Commander in Chief is to sit idly on ones behind. However, troops unwittingly give their lives in unConstitutional
warfare, breaking their oaths, and taking direction from the very individuals they should be apprehending.
The book could be improved by addressing the above negatives and enhancing ongoing comparisons and contrasts between the US and
other failed empires (Britain, Russia, Rome). I'm quite disappointed in this product of the Campaign for Liberty. Better would be
an inventory of all unconstitutional federal programs, their histories, and a budget projection reflecting their removal.
Lastly, the production quality of the cover was dismal. I tore it off after both front and back curled up like a scroll.
L. Holthaus:
Posted on Nov 7, 2010 8:10:15 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 7, 2010 8:11:21 AM
Excellent review of the book...thanks. I noticed many of the same "negatives," but I've grown accustomed to things like the lauding
of Lincoln or the various other instance of "looking the other way" or selective memory of unconstitutional transgression. My
major disagreement w/the book is over the mandatory military service...truly an "assault on individual liberty." Liberty is the
maximum absence of coercion. The message of the book, to me, was solid overall, but your review has added to the discussion.
Orr
I agree with your comment, but so what? It's always useful to have more to chew on. I'm a Jefferson fan, so I'd like to add that
he said, well before the Louisiana Purchase, that a chief exec ought to follow the Constitution strictly. But if he deems an action
necessary under the prevailing conditions, he should take the risk of knowingly violating the Constitution, inform Congress, and
ask for post-event permission. He did all these things. Greaney goes too far by throwing a kitchen sinkful of criticism at practically
everything our presidents have done. For me, it would have been more effective to point to that flaw in the original review, limit
his criticisms to the most egregious, and not repeating Greaney's overkill. I can go along with Fein's main thrust but don't accept
demonization as intelligent criticism.
Bill Orr
Daniel P McCarthy (Saint Louis, Missouri United States)
Constitutional Scholar Bruce Fein takes a candid approach in this accurate, though sad, look at how far the American people
have allowed their country to descend from a Republic self-governed to a near-dictatorship empire focused on expansion at any
cost. Yes, it is upon the shoulders of the American people where he rests the lion's share of blame, for it is "We the
People" who are granted phenomenal powers over government in the Charter Documents of the United States; it is we who have ultimately
failed in remaining true to the legacy of the Founding Fathers in reining in corruption and adhering to the principles of the
Constitution.
Fein leaves little room for bickering or finger-pointing as he slices into key moments of history (like the Mexican-American
War) to illustrate as clearly as possible the shift the nation took from Republic to Empire. He does nothing to defend the defilers
of the Constitution and picks out the worst culprits in our descent to Empire, their part in history laid bare -- such as John
Adams' signing of the Alien and Sedition Act -- proving Madison and Jefferson right in their desire to restrain the Executive
when even a Founding Father would abuse powers not granted him by the Constitution.
Fein unrepentingly targets the Executive, the Legislative, and Judicial branches, outlining their missteps with quotes from
the wonderful Federalist Papers and from our Founding Fathers to set the tone for how the American Republic was meant to be, and
through the darkness lights a candle of hope that we could one day reclaim the greatness America was meant for -- but only if
we are willing to collectively take a stand and seize the powers granted to us by the Constitution over government.
Overall, American Empire delivers on its title and more; Fein takes us back to the Golden Age of America, a Republic where
the individual was master of his own fate and neutrality was the watchword above all, and then leaves us with the America of today,
her runaway government devoted to wars of intrigue and spying on her own people.
Can we return to a Constitutional form of government? Fein thinks so, but it will take a majority of the American people to
wake up and see that our current course dooms us to bankruptcy and endless war before there is any real hope for a brighter future.
Steven A. Peterson (Hershey, PA (Born in Kewanee, IL))
The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too (Hardcover)
James Galbraith, this book's author, is the son of famous economist John Kenneth Galbraith. His father was an important figure
in economics, with books such as "The New Industrial State" on his resume. I mention this since this volume mentions Galbraith
pere approvingly on a number of occasions.
Galbraith begins by noting that our economic discussion is based on a fallacy -- that free markets and competition govern
our economic sphere. This idea is now the dominant view of how an economic system ought to function in the United States.
He goes on to say that (Page xi):
". . .the doctrine serves as a kind of legitimation myth--something to be repeated to schoolchildren but hardly taken
seriously by those on the inside."
The guiding metaphor for this book, a predatory state, is outlined early on by Galbraith. He says that this refers to (Page
xiii): "the systematic abuse of public institutions for private profit or, equivalently, the systematic undermining of public
protections for the benefit of private clients."
He develops this thesis, beginning with a first chapter entitled "Whatever happened to the conservatives?" He begins by noting
the elements of the Reagan revolution (or Reaganomics as it was then termed)
Tax reduction to trigger investment and economic growth;
Tight money to halt the inflation that had sapped the energy of the economy;
Deregulation and assaults on unions, to, once more, let market forces rule.
He goes on to argue that, first, this perspective did NOT achieve what its supporters allege, and, second, that contemporary
conservatives have in essence abandoned these principles to "take over" the government and use that power to enhance the interests
of the moneyed and powerful class. As a result, Regan's vision has been replaced by "the predator state," which he defines as
(Page 131)
". . .a coalition of relentless opponents of the regulatory framework on which public purpose depends, with enterprises
whose major lines of business compete with or encroach on the principle public functions of the enduring New Deal."
If that is the problem, what would the solution be? Galbraith suggests three components of addressing the predator state.
One is to institute a system of planning, to think ahead and not depend on short term profit making motives of business
enterprises.
Another is for government to become more involved in setting wages and ensuring a more equal distribution of pay and income
(his argument is that there is no evidence that letting wealthy people get wealthier has positive economic benefits).
Three, the United States is part of a world economy, and that should help to discipline and inform our policy.
His policy proposal? If you want higher wages, raise them? If you want better jobs--create them. If you want safer foods and
cleaner air, mandate it. Don't depend on the market. Just do it. That won't sit well, of course, with those who advocate markets
as the answer. But, then, by the terms of his argument, the market will not do that since it does not describe how things work.
The final chapter examines how one might pay for his policy choices.
Plenty of examples are mentioned. This is a book that is not always clear in what it argues, although that is not a major problem.
It does provoke reflection on how things work, and that is to the good. I must confess that I am not convinced by what are, generically,
referred to as conspiracy theories, and this book has a flavor of a conspiracy at work. Nonetheless, in the aftermath of the economic
troubles that have beset the United States and other countries, it is useful to examine alternate perspectives and see if they
add anything of value to discourse.
Description
The cult of the free market has dominated economic policy-talk since the Reagan revolution of nearly thirty years ago. Tax
cuts and small government, monetarism, balanced budgets, deregulation, and free trade are the core elements of this dogma, a dogma
so successful that even many liberals accept it. But a funny thing happened on the bridge to the twenty-first century. While liberals
continue to bow before the free-market altar, conservatives in the style of George W. Bush have abandoned it altogether. That
is why principled conservatives -- the Reagan true believers -- long ago abandoned Bush.
Enter James K. Galbraith, the iconoclastic economist. In this riveting book, Galbraith first dissects the stale remains
of Reaganism and shows how Bush and company had no choice except to dump them into the trash. He then explores the true
nature of the Bush regime: a "corporate republic,":
bringing the methods and mentality of big business to public life;
a coalition of lobbies, doing the bidding of clients in the oil, mining, military, pharmaceutical, agribusiness, insurance,
and media industries;
and a predator state, intent not on reducing government but rather on diverting public cash into private hands.
In plain English, the Republican Party has been hijacked by political leaders who long since stopped caring if reality conformed
to their message.
Galbraith follows with an impertinent question: if conservatives no longer take free markets seriously, why should liberals?
Why keep liberal thought in the straitjacket of pay-as-you-go, of assigning inflation control to the Federal Reserve,
of attempting to "make markets work"? Why not build a new economic policy based on what is really happening in this country?
The real economy is not a free-market economy. It is a complex combination of private and public institutions, including
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, higher education, the housing finance system, and a vast federal research establishment.
The real problems and challenges -- inequality, climate change, the infrastructure deficit, the subprime crisis, and the
future of the dollar -- are problems that cannot be solved by incantations about the market. They will be solved only with planning,
with standards and other policies that transcend and even transform markets.
A timely, provocative work whose message will endure beyond this election season, The Predator State will appeal to
the broad audience of thoughtful Americans who wish to understand the forces at work in our economy and culture and who seek to
live in a nation that is both prosperous and progressive.
Does anyone else recall the days when to be an economic conservative in the United States meant something? As a young liberal
on the congressional staff a long time ago, I remember them in vivid frustration. The 1970s saw the rise of two distinct conservative
movements, the supply-siders and the monetarists: radical tax cutters and deregulators on one side, apostles of strict control
over the money stock on the other. Their rise culminated in the Reagan revolution of 1980, which brought them both into high office.
This was personal: the conservative alliance devalued my Keynesian education, obstructed my career, and deprived me and my few
comrades on Capitol Hill of purchase on the levers of power. It was difficult politically. As executive director of the Joint
Economic Committee in 1981, I organized a largely futile frontline resistance. But intellectually it was even worse. However much
one disagreed with them, these were people who believed. They were idealists. They had the force of conviction. Worse still,
they were setting the agenda. And there was the thought: Suppose they were right?
The Reaganites offered up a famous combination of policies that had grown largely from seeds planted in the academy during
the long years of liberal rule. The central element was reduction of taxes on wealth, intended to unlock the productive powers
of capital, spurring saving and investment. Tight money was intended to end inflation quickly, brutally if necessary. And with
this came a wide-ranging assault on government, regulation, and unions, whose purpose was to let market forces -- and private
capitalists -- rule.
Except among the immediate victims, the great conservative ideas for a time had wide appeal. Some of it was scientific. For
each problem, they offered a solution. Each solution was rooted in the attractive vision of free individual economic choice, coordinated
only by the marketplace and the gentle persuasions of price. The solutions had scholarly credentials; they were rooted in the
economics my generation had imbibed in graduate school. For that reason, President Reagan was able to draw on some of the most
prominent economists in the country, not all of them ideologues by any means. Murray Weidenbaum and Martin Feldstein were his
first chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers, and even young tyros Lawrence Summers and Paul Krugman, who each came in for
a year under Feldstein, would serve in his administration. Nobody of remotely comparable talent would work under George W. Bush.
In addition to intellectual legitimacy, the popularity of the conservative viewpoint in those days had an emotional, even a
romantic, aspect. The conservatives promised prosperity without the trouble of planning for it, achieved through
a simple three-step program: cut taxes, end inflation, and free the market.
At a deeper level, they promised an end to a kind of politics that many in elite circles -- frankly in both major parties --
had come to loathe: the politics of compromise, redistribution, and catering to the needs and demands of minorities and the poor.
America in 1980 had compassion fatigue. The conservative agenda promised, perhaps more than anything else, to make
compassion redundant. In addition, it was audacious, radical, flashy -- a program with sex appeal. Suddenly it was the conservatives
who were the brave and brash bad boys of American culture, while liberals like myself had become the country's killjoys, young
fogies hopelessly in the grip of old ideas.
What is left of all this, twenty-five years on? Essentially nothing. The election of November 7, 2006, swept conservative Republicans
from their majorities in both houses of Congress and signaled a new skepticism about entrusting government to those who profess
to despise it. Plainly the public no longer believes what conservative leaders say about free markets. The death of Milton Friedman
ten days later symbolized the era's end. Yet as the Wall Street Journal's own Friedman obituary conceded, policymakers
had long previously discarded the practical substance of his ideas. Central banks do not attempt to control the money supply.
Regulation has been reinstated in finance, and the facts of climate change make a new era of environmental interventions inevitable,
sooner or later. Meanwhile, the world has given up waiting for tax cuts to unleash the hidden creativity of the business class.
The issue today is not whether the great conservative ideas once had appeal or a foundation in reputable theory. The issue
is whether they have a future. And on that point, there is general agreement today, largely shared even by those who still believe
passionately in the conservative cause. The fact is that the Reagan era panoply of ideas has been abandoned as the intellectual
basis of a political program. There are almost no monetarists left in power. There are no convinced supply-siders (though the
catechism is still occasionally recited). There are no public intellectual leaders in any campaign for "free markets" and against
regulation. "Free trade" has been reduced to a label, pasted over trade agreements that are anything but "free."
The economic conservative still reigns supreme in the academy and on the talk shows, but in the public realm, he is today practically
null and void. He does not exist. And if he were to resurface today in the policy world, offering up the self-confident doctrines
of 1980, he would be taken seriously by no one.
Today, in the great policy house of the conservatives, there are only lobbyists and the politicians who do their bidding. There
are slogans and sloganeers. There are cronies and careerists. There are occasional fix-it men who are called in when major disasters
have to be repaired. There are people who predict disaster, quite routinely, in order to justify the destruction of Social Security
and other popular programs, for the transparent purpose of turning them over to friends on Wall Street. Mercifully few believe
them, though that does not end the danger, for they represent forces whose power does not rest on persuasion. There are university
economists who can be tapped, as ever, for high public office, but they plainly lack convictions. Once in office, they come and
go, doing nothing to advance the conservative case. In public view, the conservative house stood for a long time, a mansion visible
from all parts of the landscape. But inside, the place was decrepit; its intellectual foundation had collapsed. A few true believers
continued to live there, but it was not any great surprise, even to them, when it fell down.
What are the Reagan conservatives doing today? Milton Friedman himself, the father of monetarism, in 2003 repudiated his own
old policy doctrine: "The use of quantity of money as a target has not been a success....I'm not sure I would as of today push
it as hard as I once did," he told the Financial Times. In the face of the complete collapse of the evidence on which they
had based their case linking money growth to price change, the other monetarists have mostly dropped the topic or passed on. Practically
everyone today agrees: the Federal Reserve sets the short-term interest rate, and it is interest rates, not the money stock, that
drive the economy. Indeed, the Federal Reserve recently quietly ceased to publish certain monetary statistics in which the academic
world had lost interest (and no one else ever had any).
Jude Wanniski, the original supply-sider, died at age sixty-nine in late 2005. He never stopped being a supply-sider and, I
think, a true believer. But from 2001 onward, he devoted himself to opposing, eloquently, the neoconservative wars; he and I became
friends and even coauthored an article on one occasion. It was joint antimonetarist advice--from the "first supply-sider" and
the "last Keynesian"--to the Federal Reserve against raising interest rates. George Gilder, who scourged the poor and celebrated
wealth in the early 1980s, went on to become a guru of the technology revolution in the 1990s; when the tech boom collapsed, so
did the market for his stock-picking skills. Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy in the
Reagan administration, later author of The Supply-Side Revolution and a columnist for Business Week, has become
a vehement voice against the Iraq war, the building threat of a war with Iran, and the assault on civil liberties that is part
of the "global war on terror." Bruce Bartlett, once an avid young supply-sider and author of Reaganomics, remains an old-fashioned
advocate of the most forlorn cause in modern history: small government. In 2005 he published a book entitled Impostor: How
George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Revolution.
Perhaps the greatest conservative true believer was the Old Objectivist himself, Alan Greenspan, for eighteen years chairman
of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System. Though never a monetarist, Greenspan assiduously favored tax cuts, spending
cuts, and deregulation. In office he always deferred to the avatars of free markets, refusing to use his judgment or his soapbox
or his regulatory power against speculative bubbles in technology and housing. His philosophy on these matters was that markets
are like that and the job of government is to clean up the mess after the crash. Yet in his monumental recent confessions, The
Age of Turbulence, Greenspan delivered his verdict on the Republicans of 2006: "They traded principle for power and ended up with
neither. They deserved to lose."
It is fashionable today to dismiss the Reagan conservatives, including those I have mentioned, as swindlers, the mere tools
of the monied interests who backed them. This is the approach taken, for instance, by New Republic senior editor Jonathan
Chait in his new book, The Big Con, while Paul Krugman in his new book, Conscience of a Liberal, tends to treat
them as either swindlers or fools. I have no objection to the political economy of those books; money does talk. But I do not
think the verdict is entirely fair. The fact that money hires ideas is not necessarily a decisive argument against the ideas;
it does not make the ideas illegitimate on their face. Nor is it correct to argue that the monetarists, the supply-siders, and
the deregulators were fringe-end elements in academic circles. To the contrary, Milton Friedman's followers entirely dominated
discussions of monetary policy for a generation. Flat-taxers like Robert Hall and Alvin Rabushka were ensconced in top departments
and think tanks; supply-sider Robert Mundell won the economists' version of the Nobel Prize. The fact is, Reagan's radicals had
a deep academic bench, including a fair number who did not think his policies went nearly far enough. The disillusionment today
of the remaining Reagan policy veterans with the Bush regime goes deeper than the fact that they are not on the payroll. It has
to do, rather, with the collapse of their ideas as governing doctrine. Meanwhile, they are now shunned by the theorists in the
academy, who would rather not leave fingerprints on the wreckage. But they rightly remember the day when the big professors were
happy to be their friends.
There is a reason, in short, that principled conservatives find themselves in the political wilderness once again: they belong
there. They are noble savages and the wilderness is their native element. They do not belong in government because, as a practical
matter, they have little to contribute to it; they are guilty of taking the myths they helped to create too seriously, and to
sophisticated people, that makes them look a bit foolish. They are against deficits, government spending, and the expansion of
publicly financed health care coverage. Fine. What do they propose to do about them? They favor income tax cuts, and cuts in tax
rates on all forms of wealth, but do they still argue, as a good conservative needs to and work effort will bloom? Of course they
don't, because the experiment was tried, and it failed. They still favor free markets in broad principle, but do they speak in
detail of the fate of the airlines, the national forests, the coal miners, and the savings and loan industry under deregulation?
No. We find that for the most part, these are topics that the latter-day divines of the free-market-inprinciple would very much
prefer to avoid.
Looking forward, one may ask how economic conservatives address our current problems. Do they have an alternative to our oil
addiction, to imperial commitment, to global warming? No. Did they have a program of recovery for the city of New Orleans? No.
Is there a realistic conservative plan for health care? No. There is merely opposition to everyone else's ideas. Is there a realistic
conservative approach to immigration? Not really. Part of the conservative movement favors a brutal and impossible wall, and part
of it favors a return to indentured servitude in the form of a guest worker program. Have the conservatives come to grips with
the changing global economy, notably the wave of economic crises since 1980 and the rise of the one large country to stay away
from the globalized financial system, namely, China? Do they have a vision for the future of the world monetary system should
something happen to confidence in the dollar? No. The terms of the policy dialogue have changed, but the terms of reference of
the great conservative economic worldview have not.
It is therefore no surprise that George W. Bush failed to make principled use of principled conservatives, thereby earning
their embittered rejection. The reality is that no government, no matter how far to the right in political terms, could make any
serious use of them. The experience of the past quarter-century and the evolution of practical understanding about economic policy
since the Reagan years simply makes it impossible to take the conservative worldview seriously as a constellation of ideas to
be applied to policy. And therefore it is fair to say that there will never again be any U.S. government for which a truly principled
conservative might work. In the final analysis, Bush is remarkable merely for his lack of interest in hiring committed intellectuals
to shill for his policies, and therefore for his willingness to court rejection by the principled conservative crowd. He ran an
unapologetic government of businessmen and lobbyists, governing largely without academic cover.
Moreover, not only have the conservatives been cast from power, they have also ceased to evolve. Is there any such thing as
a modern conservative economic policy idea? Not only are there no Reaganite intellectuals in Bush's government, the flow of new
suggestions from the academic citadels into the policy arena has stopped. To find the main work of today's leading academic conservatives
requires reaching back thirty years. All of the ideas that define conservative economic thought in America (and in the rest of
the world) were well known a generation ago. They were all tested, in the United States, the United Kingdom, and around the rest
of the world, in the cauldron of the 1980s. And they were nearly all abandoned by policymakers long ago -- by the end of the 1980s
at the latest in the United States, by the early 1990s in Britain, and by the end of the 1990s in most of the rest of the world.
Those that were enacted, like charter schools, are in the evaluation phase, and the record is not especially good. Those that
remain on the agenda (or are likely to come again), like the privatization of Social Security, have no new justification. The
arguments cooked up for that cause are at least twenty years old. Academic economics today is divided largely between a body of
pragmatic work that is no longer very conservative (but, rather, apolitical) and a body of conservative doctrine that lacks any
connection to the policy world.
These abandonments were not incidental defections, without which we would still live in the world of Reagan and Thatcher. They
were experiments that failed. They were lessons learned, often the hard way. They were strategic retreats, sometimes under heavy
fire. The reality is that the disciplined application of conservative principles to economic policy leads to disaster. This is
particularly true of policies intended to manage or transform the economy as a whole.
Everywhere and always, monetarism leads to financial crisis. Supplyside tax cuts have no detectable effect on work effort,
or savings, or investment. Financial deregulation, from the savings and loan debacle to the subprime mortgage fiasco, leads to
criminal misdirection of the firm. Cuts in government spending are neither necessary nor sufficient for productivity gain. These
are facts now well absorbed by practical policymakers, around whom the vestiges of past conservative verities hang in tatters.
Only the dedicated academic economist can pretend to be unaware of them, and the conservative creed economics survives at all
not because of a renewable wellspring of success stories, but only because it retains a powerful grip on the academy itself, on
the ideas that scholars reproduce for the closed circle of their own journals. That grip will be difficult to dislodge because
academics do not face elections. But it is no longer a very important fact for the policy world.
A similar fate has befallen the made-for-export version of the conservative creed, the so-called Washington Consensus of international
development strategies, a set of universal precepts of sound money, balanced budgets, deregulation, privatization, and free trade.
These too rose in the wake of the Reagan revolution and its international counterpart, the debt crisis of the Third World. They
were forced on Latin America, East Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia on the promise that the "magic of the marketplace" would
generate growth and prosperity in the wake of failed policies of protectionism, subsidies, and ineffective support for industrial
development. It turned out that economic success in the Third World since 1980 has been in negative relation to the consensus.
Those that adhered most closely to the Washington Consensus, like Argentina, suffered crisis and collapse, while those that followed
their own paths, notably China, prospered. As this became clear, rebellion against the Washington Consensus has spread across
Latin America, Africa, and much of Asia, where today the model is universally repudiated in principle and increasingly evaded
in practice. In Argentina, once a poster child of neoliberal conformism, economic recovery followed the repudiation of debts both
philosophical and financial. In despised places like Venezuela and Russia, high energy prices have fostered financial and philosophical
independence, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) is today in most of the world a spent force, with no remaining programs
in Latin America at all, revenues insufficient to cover its spending, and large layoffs in the works. Even managing director Dominique
Strauss-Kahn has admitted that the organization is "a factory to produce paper."
These are the facts. But even though as facts they are widely recognized and acted on in practice, our political discourse
has its own rituals and does not yet admit them. Indeed, few politicians in either party have yet publicly divorced themselves
from the Reagan revolution, in particular from the idea of the free market. Politicians notoriously say what is convenient and
act along different lines entirely, causing problems for those who try to write about their views in a careful and serious way.
But perhaps on no other issue is this tendency more pronounced than in matters relating to the markets -- a word one apparently
cannot use in public in the United States without bending a knee and making the sign of the cross.
And here the political world is divided into two groups. There are those who praise the free market because to do so gives
cover to themselves and their friends in raiding the public trough. These people call themselves "conservatives," and one of the
truly galling things for real conservatives is that they have both usurped the label and spoiled the reputation of the real thing.
And there are those who praise the "free market" simply because they fear that, otherwise, they will be exposed as heretics, accused
of being socialists, perhaps even driven from public life. This is the case of many liberals. Reflexive invocations of the power
of markets, the "magic" of markets, and the virtues of a "free enterprise system" therefore remain staples of political speech
on both sides of the political aisle. However, they have been emptied of practical content, and the speakers know it.
Yet this is not another book about the insincerity of the group of conservative impostors in power; that case has been sufficiently
made, and I have already delivered my own views on George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Alan Greenspan in another book. This book is
mainly about the rise and fall of authentically conservative ideas, about the inadequacy of their central metaphor, the free market.
My purpose is not to denigrate those who took up the conservative cause a generation ago; many have become my friends and I respect
them. My plan here is to take the conservative project seriously, on the premise that it was offered in good faith. The principled
conservatives were, in my view, naive; I obviously believe they were wrong, and they have been abandoned by history, but none
of this proves that they were dishonest. And if some really were cranks and charlatans, they had plenty of company among the most
respectable and prestigious academic economists in the land.
My aim, in this exercise, is to try to free up the liberal mind. For while the right wing in power has abandoned the deeper
philosophical foundations of its cause, liberals remain largely mesmerized by those foundations. Outside the area of trade policy,
where an enduring populism reflexively opposes "free trade" agreements, liberals have largely accepted the basic conservative
principles: monetary control, balanced budgets, regulation only where it can be shown that "markets fail." And until they break
the spell, they will not be able to think or talk about the world in terms that relate effectively to its actual condition. Nor
will they be able to advance a policy program that might actually work. And since liberals may well, at some point in the near
future, seize the keys to the realm, what they think and (more important) how they think has come to matter, once again, as it
has not really mattered for nearly half a century.
To take an example, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has, in the past, shown an admirable willingness to criticize the "free
market." According to the radically conservative journal Human Events, in 1996 she said on C-Span that "the unfettered
free market has been the most radically destructive force in American life in the last generation." Yet in 2007 her presidential
campaign program on the economy promises to "reward savings" and "balance the federal budget" -- classic conservative themes.
She calls for measures to "make health care affordable," which implies that she believes health care should still be bought and
sold on the market. While calling for stronger protections for the middle class, she is careful to declare her faith: "Now, there
is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our
workers and give all people a chance to succeed."
Senator Clinton is, many believe, a liberal. And as an example of the type, she is typical. Liberals continue to behave as
though they face a philosophically coherent adversary and as though the politics of the day require formulating a program that
responds to that adversary. In their economic policy efforts, many liberals thus engage in a dialogue with themselves, starting
from doctrines, such as monetarism or balanced budgets, that have practically no ongoing defenders outside of the pure theorists
hidden away in academic life. This leads to a paralysis of thought and action and to programs doomed to futility and failure from
the beginning.
Partly in consequence of their enthrallment with the frame created for them by the conservative worldview, the Left has been
doing too little thinking of its own. Liberals have yet to develop a coherent post-Reagan theory of the world, let alone a policy
program informed by the political revelations, world policy changes, and scientific realities emerging from the Age of Bush. For
the most part, they do not analyze, and do not engage with, the actual program of the right wing in power today. It is emblematic
of this that the leading Democratic idea of the 2008 campaign has been health care coverage, an idea that has been a lead item
on the progressive agenda since 1948 -- sixty years! -- and that Democrats take today as essentially unchanged since the defeat
of President Bill Clinton's health care plan in 1993. It is not to minimize the importance of universal health insurance to say
that the preeminence of the issue in national policy dialogue reflects the stasis of the liberal mind much more than it reflects
a considered strategy to counter the powerful forces that have lately shaped our age.
In consequence, new economic issues emerging under the influence of pressing events are dangerously underexamined. These issues
include war, climate change, energy supply, corruption and fraud including election fraud, the collapse of public governing capacity,
the perilous position of the international dollar, and the position of immigrants in American society. These issues form the crux
of the future of economic policy, and against them the achievement of universal health insurance seems relatively straightforward.
But none of these issues is getting more than passing development as yet from those to whom liberals look for ideas.
The Iraq war has, in particular, driven home to everyone involved the bankruptcy not merely of the Bush administration's management
but of the larger strategy of global military dominance built up in the Reagan era and still run largely by the personnel of that
time. The military officers know this. But where is the liberal political voice who has dared speak of it in public? Hurricane
Katrina stripped away the illusion that the federal government retains the capacity to move quickly to serve the needs of ordinary
citizens in time of crisis and peril. Katrina illustrates exactly what to expect in the event of further natural disaster or cataclysmic
attack. But where, again, is the liberal political organization that places this issue at the center of a program? Nor have we
yet come to grips with the growing crisis in housing and housing finance: a crisis that as I finish this book is generating foreclosure
notices every month nearly equal to the numbers displaced by Katrina. As for international finance, an esoteric and complex issue
to most people except when they travel to Europe and experience the precipitous decline of the dollar at first hand, the liberal
response is to leave all this in the hands of friendly bankers, a gift to the leaders of Wall Street whose expertise is supposedly
keen, and who are happy to act as the mediums of market discipline, delivering the message that nothing much can be done. There
is no way effectively to address any of these issues within the straitjacket dictated by the "magic of markets."
It remains for us to step outside this deadly framework, first to examine the tenets of the old conservative worldview one
by one, and then to develop an alternative within which the problems we actually face can be addressed as we go forward.
I must say that this book turned what I believe about the economy on its head, but it also enlightened me about how the economy
is connected to fairness and equality. I used to think that our biggest problem was deficit spending, but now I see the biggest
problem is fairness. Galbraith, who is the son of the famous John K. Galbraith who wrote The Modern Industrial State, which I
read 40 years ago and gave me my first insights into how the economy works, describes how inequity in wages has distorted the
market and created an environment not unlike Alice in Wonderland where people disenfranchise themselves by believing that free
markets are somehow all-seeing and lead to the greatest possible good. Galbraith makes a case against this hands-off approach
to markets and argues that unregulated markets will lurch from one bubble to the next. Crises like global warming will never be
dealth with because there is no financial incentive to do so. Planning is the only thing that can save us and will have to involve
a serious political battle because the corporations have saturated the media with the belief that the markets work best when left
alone, which prescription leaves most of us on the bottom level of the next pyramid scheme while the corporate executives accumulate
vast fortunes for themselves at our expense. The writing isn't bad, but it can be a bit hard to see what he's driving at at times.
The resolutions he offers at the end make the read worth while. This book came out in Spring of 2008. Given the financial meltdown
here in the Fall, the warnings in this book are eerily prescient.
"... A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail
chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile
is able to cut corners and approach the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much
fuel as possible. ..."
"... I'm looking forward to the release of the JIT report and I think it will catalyze an official
response from Russia. Comparing the different versions of events should be indicative of who is
swimming naked. ..."
Blert,
And BUKs use heat seeking missiles. refers to you post yesterday regarding engine heat of a B-777
BUK missile are radar guided.. period.
You can go find the link.. Target detection
The TELAR radar automatically categorizes targets by 3 types: aerodynamics;
aircraft with moving engines with an airspeed of over 100 m / s
ballistic missiles
helicopters
The info is needed for calculation of the trajectory of the missile. The commander can recognize
the unique footprint of a target and when agreed with that this is the target he presses a button
for launch. The onboard computer will do the calculations for guiding the missile.
This article in Russian language has a lot of detailed information on target recognition.
The missile guiding
Once the missile has been launched it is guided by the radar to the target using radar signals.
The radar illuminates the target. The radar return is picked up by the missile. The missile receives
control guidance from the ground using radio signals. This system is called a semi active homing
radar.
Buk, Buk-M1 and earlier versions of Buk-M1-2 and Buk-M2 missile systems uses an Argon-15 type
of the onboard computer. The Argon-15 is able to detect target radar signal (shape, length, reverberations,
envelope and videosignal). Argon-15 does not give to the crew the ability to change target. The
commander must choose target on stage Search, then Argon-15 calculate algorithm Meet Zone, then
indicate Target in zone, commander open fire it all. More information on the Argon-15 here.
When close to the target the seeker head (radar in the missile) will take over from the guidance
of the TELAR and will continue its route towards the target.
The missile has a proximity fuse. This is fed by the radar. When the missile is within range
the proximity fuse will detonate the explosive in the warhead. That will be around 17 meters from
the target.
Proportional navigation
A 9M38M1 uses what is called proportional navigation. Basically it means it does not tail
chase the target but constantly calculates the future route of the target. By doing so the missile
is able to cut corners and approach the target using the shortest route and thus saving as much
fuel as possible.
To intercept high-speed targets like aircraft and missiles, a semi active homing missile must
follow a lead (collision) course. The intercept point is at the intersection of the missile and
target flight paths. The best collision or lead course happens when the missile heading keeps
a constant angle with the line of sight to the target. This course requires missile accelerations
to be only as great as target accelerations. Specifically, if the target flies a straight-line,
constant-velocity course, the missile can also follow a straight-line collision course if its
velocity does not change. But in practice, this ideal situation does not exist. Missile velocity
seldom stays constant. Irregular sustainer propellant burning changes thrust, and therefore affects
speed…
low_integer, October 11, 2015 at 2:40 am
I'm looking forward to the release of the JIT report and I think it will catalyze an official
response from Russia. Comparing the different versions of events should be indicative of who is
swimming naked.
"... which are a mix of bow-tie shaped pieces and diamond shaped pieces, indicate
that it is an older type of BUK missile that their military has not used for a long time ..."
"... Russia has also claimed that the Ukraine military did possess the older type of BUK missile
that corresponds to the fragments found. ..."
"... here in Australia, the news coverage I saw (SBS channel) of the Dutch (JIT)
investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points noted above,
with the manufacturer of the BUK missiles refuting some of the JITs claims after apparently having
done some tests. It was fairly brief however I was surprised to see both sides get airtime. ..."
It is not just whether or not it was a BUK missile, it is also what type of BUK missile it was,
if it was in fact a BUK that brought the plane down. Russia's contention is that the shape of the
fragments found, which are a mix of bow-tie shaped pieces and diamond shaped pieces, indicate
that it is an older type of BUK missile that their military has not used for a long time. I'm
assuming the new type they use also has a distinctive fragmentation pattern, and I'm not sure how
long it has been since they have phased out use of the old type, or if that information has been
made available.
Russia has also claimed that the Ukraine military did possess the older type of BUK missile
that corresponds to the fragments found.
Interestingly, here in Australia, the news coverage I saw (SBS channel) of the Dutch (JIT)
investigation last night was immediately followed with coverage of the Russian points noted above,
with the manufacturer of the BUK missiles refuting some of the JIT's claims after apparently having
done some tests. It was fairly brief however I was surprised to see both sides get airtime.
I have also been hearing that it was reported that passengers may have remained conscious for
up to 90 seconds.
"... Why divert that MH-17 to that routes, while previous planes before MH-17, directed to
other southern routes? ..."
"... Where is the traffic conversations records between the ATC and the MH17? ..."
"... Where is the radar plot of the MH17? ..."
"... Where is the sworn testimonies from the ATC guy in charge of taking care the MH17? ..."
"... The Buk left some nice t-shaped holes in the test fusilage.
None of those were witnessed on MH-17 wreckage and the holes were primarily round. The missile
that hit was closer than the suspended Buk they were testing and was likely an air to air weapon.
You can see the burn marks on MH-17 wreckage... ..."
"... The news today was a joke. Ukraine ordered the plane to fly the course , altitude and speed.
And yet no transcripts from the Ukraine Aviation authority ? why ? ..."
"... and what happened to Carlos the air traffic controller who sent word about military interference
at ATC? ..."
Russian troops use this new BUK-M2 back in 2008. You can check this if you have the DU (depleted
uraniums) fragmented casing, and test them with isotopes methodes. Which for some reasons, the
dutch teams refused to do.
- - -
Again. Russian haters fails to mentioned this.
As of the questions of:
1. Why the ATC not closing the route?
2. Why divert that MH-17 to that routes, while previous planes before MH-17, directed to
other southern routes?
3. Where is the traffic conversations records between the ATC and the MH17?
4. Where is the radar plot of the MH17?
5. Where is the sworn testimonies from the ATC guy in charge of taking care the MH17?
There are alot of questions unanswered. And yet the dutch investigation still release the report.
The New York Times' clumsiness as to its pro-Israel/anti-Russian {and for that matter anti-constitutionalist
and anti-libertarian} propaganda is stunning.
They're either that stupid or that brazen - knowing that Americans are too stupid to parse
misleading rhetoric.
Of course, that's older Americans.
Had I time and inclination, before absurd TPP copyright laws prevent it {from what I gather}
a great web site would be unmoderated, space limited comments on ny times stories.
good questions. why the report? - So companies and citizens can claim financial damages. you
seem to be implying that the BUK-M1 could have been sold on the black market, or provided by clandestine
means. By who? To who? Those are questions that a lot of people hoped would be answered.
The Buk left some nice t-shaped holes in the test fusilage.
None of those were witnessed on MH-17 wreckage and the holes were primarily round. The missile
that hit was closer than the suspended Buk they were testing and was likely an air to air weapon.
You can see the burn marks on MH-17 wreckage...
The news today was a joke. Ukraine ordered the plane to fly the course , altitude and speed.
And yet no transcripts from the Ukraine Aviation authority ? why ?
By Philip Arestis Professor and Director of Research at the Cambridge Centre for Economic &
Public Policy and Senior Fellow in the Department of Land Economy at the University of Cambridge,
UK, and Professor of Economics at the University of the Basque Country and Malcolm Sawyer, Professor
of Economics, University of Leeds. Originally published at
Triple Crisis
Has the financial sector become too large, absorbing too many resources, and enhancing instabilities?
A look at the recent evidence on the relationship between the size of the financial sector and growth.
There has been a long history of the idea that a developing financial sector (emphasis on banks
and stock markets) fosters economic growth. Going back to the work of authors such as Schumpeter,
Robinson, and more recently, McKinnon, etc., there have been debates on financial liberalisation
and the related issue of whether what was relevant to financial liberalisation, namely financial
development, "caused" economic development, or whether economic development led to a greater demand
for financial services and thereby financial development.
The general thrust of the empirical evidence collected over a number of decades suggested that
there was indeed a positive relationship between the size and scale of the financial sector (often
measured by the size of the banking system as reflected in ratio of bank deposits to GDP, and the
size of the stock market capitalisation) and the pace of economic growth. Indeed, there have
been discussion on whether the banking sector or the stock market capitalisation is a more influential
factor on economic growth. The empirical evidence drew on time series, cross section, and panel
econometric investigations. To even briefly summarise the empirical evidence on all these aspects
is not possible here. In addition, the question of the direction of causation still remains an unresolved
issue.
The processes of financialisation over the past few decades have involved the growing economic,
political and social importance of the financial sector. In size terms, the financial sector has
generally grown rapidly in most countries, whether viewed in terms of the size of bank deposits,
stock market valuations, or more significantly in the growth of financial products, securitisation,
and derivatives as well as trading volume in them. This growth of the financial sector uses resources,
often of highly trained personnel, and inevitably raises the question of whether those resources
are being put to good use. This is well summarised by Vanguard Group founder John Bogle, who suggests,
"The job of finance is to provide capital to companies. We do it to the tune of $250 billion a year
in IPOs and secondary offerings. What else do we do? We encourage investors to trade about $32 trillion
a year. So the way I calculate it, 99% of what we do in this industry is people trading with one
another, with a gain only to the middleman. It's a waste of resources" (MarketWatch, Aug. 1
2015).
Financial liberalisation and de-regulation were promoted as ways of releasing the power of the
financial sector, promoting development of financial markets and financial deepening. The claims
were often made by the mainstream that financial liberalisation had removed "financial repression"
and stimulated growth. Yet, financial liberalisation in a country often led to banking and financial
crises, many times with devastating effects on employment and living standards. Financial crises
have become much more frequent since the 1970s in comparison with the "golden age" of the 1950s and
1960s. The international financial crisis of 2007/2008 and the subsequent Great Recession were the
recent and spectacular crises (though the scale of previous crises such as the East Asian ones of
1997 should not be overlooked). The larger scale of the financial sector in the industrialised countries
has been accompanied (even before 2007) with somewhat lower growth than hitherto. As the quote above
suggests there has not been an upsurge of savings and investment, and indeed many would suggest that
the processes of financialisation dampen the pressures to invest, particularly in research and development.
Has the financial sector become too large, absorbing too many resources, and enhancing instabilities?
An interesting recent development has been a spate of research papers coming from international
organisations and many others, which have pointed in the direction that indeed the financial sector
in industrialised countries have become too big-at least when viewed in terms of its impact on economic
growth. (See Sawyer, "Financialisation, financial structures, economic performance and employment,"
FESSUD Working Paper Series No. 93, for a broad survey on finance and economic performance.) These
studies rely on econometric (time series) estimation and hence cover the past few decades-which suggests
that their findings are not in any way generated by the financial crisis of 2007/2008 and the Great
Recession that followed.
A Bank of International Settlements study concluded that "the complex real effects of financial
development and come to two important conclusions. First, financial sector size has an inverted U-shaped
effect on productivity growth. That is, there comes a point where further enlargement of the financial
system can reduce real growth. Second, financial sector growth is found to be a drag on productivity
growth." Cournède, Denk,and Hoeller (2015) state that "finance is a vital ingredient for economic
growth, but there can also be too much of it." Sahay, et al. (2015) find a positive relationship
between financial development (as measured by their "comprehensive index") and growth, but "the marginal
returns to growth from further financial development diminish at high levels of financial development―that
is, there is a significant, bell-shaped, relationship between financial development and growth. A
similar non-linear relationship arises for economic stability. The effects of financial development
on growth and stability show that there are tradeoffs, since at some point the costs outweigh the
benefits."
There are many reasons for thinking that the financial sector has become too large. Its growth
in recent decades has not been associated with facilitating savings and encouraging investment. It
has absorbed valuable resources which are largely engaged in the trading in casino-like activities.
The lax systems of regulation have made financial crises more likely. Indeed, and following the international
financial crisis of 2007/2008 and the great recession a number of proposals have been put forward
to avoid similar crises. To this day, nonetheless, the implementation of these proposals is very
slow indeed (see, also, Arestis, "Main and Contributory Causes of the Recent Financial Crisis and
Economic Policy Implications," for more details).
Now that Michael Hudson's Killing the Host has been available for a while, one suspects
a Picketty-like effect with folks "discovering" that Taibbi's Giant Vampire Squid characterization
of Goldman-Sachs (one of many) wasn't funny.
blert, October 9, 2015 at 5:24 pm
It's a squid that squirts RED INK - onto everyone else.
susan the other, October 9, 2015 at 11:03 am
This is a great and readable essay. Sure sounds like Minsky. And even Larry Summers when he
advocates for more bubbles. And Wolfgang Schaeuble said repeatedly that "we are overbanked." We
just don't know how to do it any other way. When everything crashes it's too late to regulate.
Unless Larry knows a clever way to regulate bubbles.
JTMcPhee, October 10, 2015 at 8:40 am
The Banksters' refrain:
"Don't regulate you,
Don't regulate me!
Regulate that guy over behind that tree…"
MY scam is systemically important!
Just Ice, October 10, 2015 at 3:34 pm
"We just don't know how to do it any other way. " STO
Yet there is another way, an equitable way :) Dr. Michael Hudson himself says that industry
should be financed with equity, not debt.
Leonard, October 10, 2015 at 3:53 pm
Susan
There is way to manage bubbles before they get out of control. This article explains how. Go to
wp.me/WQA-1E
ben, October 9, 2015 at 11:17 am
Wasted resources are way higher than the Vanguard example. They misdirect resources especially
into land and issue new money as debt.
RepubAnon, October 10, 2015 at 11:29 pm
They think that they make their living by "ripping the eyes out of the muppets" – so they're
opposed to regulations which would protect the muppets' eyes.
I look at the financial industry as sort of like sugar for the economy – the right amount is
good for you, but too much will kill you.
Just Ice, October 9, 2015 at 12:35 pm
"The lax systems of regulation have made financial crises more likely."
Actually, it's the near unlimited ability of the banks to create deposits ("loans create deposits"
but also debts) that causes large scale financial crises. And what is the source of this absurd
ability of the banks? ans: government privileges including deposit insurance instead of a Postal
Savings Service or equivalent and a fiat (the publics' money) lender of last resort.
Besides, regulations typically do not address the fundamental injustice of government subsidized
banks – extending the publics' credit to private interests.
There is something very wrong about money creation from loans. I'm not arguing that
this is incorrect, I'm looking at money creation being a burden on the citizenry. I cannot see
how this will end well, because of the asymmetric nature, money creation only benefits the banks,
of the burden of money creation.
"There is something very wrong about money creation from loans."
More precisely, there is something very wrong about being driven into debt by government-subsidized
private credit creation. Source of the rat race? Look no further.
It's the bank-money vs. government money situation. The hysteria over "The Deficit (gasp)"
insures that none of us have cash and must borrow to live. The bankers won.
"It's the bank-money vs. government money situation." zapster
More precisely, who gets to create the government's money since it is taxation* that drives
the value of fiat. But it's an absurd situation since obviously the government ALONE should create
fiat, not a central bank for the benefit of banks and other private interests, especially the
wealthy.
As for the private sector, let it create its own money solutions and my bet is that we'll have
a much more equitable (pun intended) society as a result.
The problem then is taxation. How does one tax someone's income in Bitcoins, for example? How
does one preclude tax evasion? Unavoidable taxes such as land taxes (except for a homestead exemption)
are one possibility.
*As well as the need to pay the interest on the debt the government subsidized banking cartel
drives us into.
*Sigh*. The government alone does control the money supply in a fiat currency issuer. The government
hasn't bothered to do so actively because the only time it DID try doing that (under Reagan and
Thatcher) they found out, contra Friedman, that money supply growth bore no relationship to any
macroeconomic variable. Monetarism was a failed experiment.
Scroll down to "The Idea of Interest". This author posits that back in the (ancient, herding)
day, people lent cattle. I lend you my cow, your bull impregnates her, and I get a part of the
calf.
What the author probably didn't understand, but is known to those of us interested in the history
of metallurgy, is that there was a belief that metals 'grew' - after all, plants grew from the
ground, vines grew from the ground, trees and bushes also grew from the ground. It was not a great
stretch to suppose that metals also grew within the ground, and back in those ancient days they
expected the same kind of 'growth' from metals that happened with agricultural products.
Perhaps if I ever get to retire, I can read Hudson's entire work, and possibly he covers this
topic. But I do think that it is time for the rest of us to rethink the nature of money - particularly
in an emerging digital era.
Thanks for that link. Here is a little nugget that relates to today.
The legal limit on interest rates for loans of silver was 20% over much of Dumuzi-gamil's
life, but Marc Van De Mieroop demonstrates how Dumuzi-gamil and other lenders got around such
strictures - they simply charged the legal limit for shorter and shorter term loans!
Curiously, while mathematics during this era was extraordinarily advanced, the government
failed to understand, or at least effectively regulate the close link between time
and money.
Sound familiar. It's more like the banksters regulate government.
As for compound interest, it seems to be the most diabolical human invention yet, as it infers
exponential growth without limits.
Here is Keynes
discussing compound interest in his speech "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" (1930)
From the earliest times of which we have record – back say to two thousand years before
Christ – down to the beginning of the eighteenth century, there was no very great change in
the standard of life of the average man living in the civilized centres of the earth. Ups and
downs certainly. Visitations of plague, famine, and war. Golden intervals. But no progressive,
violent change. Some periods perhaps 50 per cent better than others – at the utmost 100 per
cent better – in the four thousand years which ended (say) in A.D. 1700.
This slow rate of progress, or lack of progress, was due to two reasons – to the remarkable
absence of important technical improvements and to the failure of capital to accumulate.
The absence of important technical inventions between the prehistoric age and comparatively
modern times is truly remarkable. Almost everything which really matters and which the world
possessed at the commencement of the modern age was already known to man at the dawn of history.
Language, fire, the same domestic animals which we have today, wheat, barley, the vine and
the olive, the plough, the wheel, the oar, the sail, leather, linen and cloth, bricks and pots,
gold and silver, copper, tin, and lead – and iron was added to the list before 1000 B.C. –
banking, statecraft, mathematics, astronomy, and religion. There is no record
of when we first possessed these things.
At some epoch before the dawn of history – perhaps even in one of the comfortable intervals
before the last ice age – there must have been an era of progress and invention comparable
to that in which we live today. But through the greater part of recorded history there was
nothing of the kind.
The modern age opened, I think, with the accumulation of capital which began in the
sixteenth century. I believe – for reasons with which I must not encumber the present
argument – that this was initially due to the rise of prices, and the profits to which that
led, which resulted from the treasure of gold and silver which Spain brought from the New World
into the Old. From that time until today the power of accumulation by compound interest,
which seems to have been sleeping for many generations, was reborn and renewed its strength.
And the power of compound interest over two hundred years is such as to stagger the imagination.
Let me give in illustration of this a sum which I have worked out. The value of Great Britain's
foreign investments today is estimated at about £4,000 million. This yields us an income at
the rate of about 6 1/2 per cent. Half of this we bring home and enjoy; the other half, namely,
3 1/2 per cent, we leave to accumulate abroad at compound interest. Something of this sort
has now been going on for about 250 years.
For I trace the beginnings of British foreign investment to the treasure which Drake
stole from Spain in 1580. In that year he returned to England bringing with him the
prodigious spoils of the Golden Hind. Queen Elizabeth was a considerable shareholder in the
syndicate which had financed the expedition. Out of her share she paid off the whole of England's
foreign debt, balanced her budget, and found herself with about £40,000 in hand. This she invested
in the Levant Company – which prospered. Out of the profits of the Levant Company, the East
India Company was founded; and the profits of this great enterprise were the foundation of
England's subsequent foreign investment. Now it happens that £40,000 accumulating at
3 1/2 per cent compound interest approximately corresponds to the actual volume of England's
foreign investments at various dates, and would actually amount today to the total of £4,000
million which I have already quoted as being what our foreign investments now are.
Thus, every £1 which Drake brought home in 1580 has now become £100,000. Such
is the power of compound interest !
From the sixteenth century, with a cumulative crescendo after the eighteenth, the great
age of science and technical inventions began, which since the beginning of the nineteenth
century has been in full flood – coal, steam, electricity, petrol, steel, rubber, cotton, the
chemical industries, automatic machinery and the methods of mass production, wireless, printing,
Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, and thousands of other things and men too famous and familiar
to catalogue.
What is the result? In spite of an enormous growth in the population of the world, which
it has been necessary to equip with houses and machines, the average standard of life in Europe
and the United States has been raised, I think, about fourfold. The growth
of capital has been on a scale which is far beyond a hundred-fold of what
any previous age had known. And from now on we need not expect so great an increase of population.
This reminds me of the huge fortunes growing at compound interest today.
From Wikipedia: It had an endowment of US$42.3 billion as of 24 November 2014.
If this were to grow at a compound interest rate of 7.2% annually, it would double every ten
years, and in one hundred years would be $43 trillion dollars and in two hundred years $44,354
trillion or $44.354 quadrillion. It's as if Bill and Warren are playing a practical joke on the
world, as their compound interest monster swallows every available dollar.
I wonder what a loaf of bread will cost in two hundred years?
Top heavy might be the marginally better angle to take here. Although I recently left the state
(N Texas, Dallas), Texas banks are being merged or acquired left and right. On some occasions
it is necessary if very small institutions are unable to compete, unable to meet a decent ROE
bogey (6.0% ROE is sorta low), or just unable to fend off progress.
Other occasions the larger regional and national banks can just win on scale.
I have long thought about the banking system as a beating heart. Of course it needs fuel, like
the rest of the body, but when a heart gets larger and larger, and contains more and more blood,
and uses more and more fuel, the rest of the body never fares well.
"Surging bank profits" is never a headline that makes me happy.
The real question is: why was it that the "creation of wealth" had to turn
to the financial sector. IMHO it's because the productive sector is lesser and lesser able
to produce surplus value. So that free capital istn't attracted to it. Of course in the financial
sector there isn't any value created at all.
" IMHO it's because the productive sector is lesser and lesser able to produce surplus
value. "
Yes, because of unjust wealth distribution; the host has finally been exhausted. With meta-materials,
nano-technology, genetic engineering, better catalysts, etc. and with practical nuclear fusion
on the horizon (because of new superconducting materials) mankind has probably never been on the
verge of creating so much value as now but can't because of lack of effective demand, not for
junk but for such things as proper medical and dental care while the wealthy have more than they
know what to do with.
Decades of 'political – solvency' insurance has permitted 'the blob' to overwhelm all.
&&&
If all of society played Poker … would anything be produced ? THAT'S the aspect that has
metastasized. It's not proper to term it the 'financial sector' - gambling// speculation emporium…
now you're talking. When the government chronically intervenes to bail out highly sophisticated
fools…. Jon Corzine is the result. - And he's not even the target of law enforcement !!!!
Financial liberalisation and de-regulation were promoted as ways of releasing the power
of the financial sector, promoting development of financial markets and financial deepening.
To be sure, there are a lot of absurd things about what Washington has done and is currently doing
in Syria.
There's the support for Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for instance, who has used ISIS as an excuse
to wage war on his own people. Then there are the various efforts to arm and train a hodgepodge of
different anti-regime rebel groups (with more embarrassing results each and every time). And just
yesterday we learned that the best idea the Pentagon can come up with now is to
literally paradrop "50 tons" of ammo on pallets into the middle of the desert and hope the "right"
people pick it up.
Of course when it comes to absurd outcomes in Syria, it's difficult to top the fact that
at some point - and you don't have to go full-conspiracy theory to believe this anymore - either
the West or else Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided some type of assistance to ISIS, which then proceeded
to metamorphose into white basketball shoe-wearing, black flag-waving, sword-wielding desert bandits
hell bent on establishing a medieval caliphate.
Having said all of that, things took an even more surreal turn late last month when, after Russia
stormed in via Latakia and started bombing anti-regime targets, Washington was forced to claim that
somehow, Moscow's efforts would be detrimental to the war on terror.
To be sure, there really wasn't much else the US could say. After all, you can't simply come out
and say "well, we need to keep ISIS around actually and we'd much rather them then Putin and
Assad, so no, we're not going to help the Russians fight terror." The only possible spin to
avoid blowing the whole charade up was to claim that somehow, The Kremlin is helping terrorists by
killing them (and not in the whole 72 virgins kind of way).
Now as we've said before, Putin is there (along with Iran) to shore up Assad. There's no question
about that and Moscow hasn't been shy about saying it. But at the end of the day, when you
are trying to wipe out your friend's enemies and some of those enemies are terrorists, well then,
you are fighting a war on terror by default and that's not good for terrorists by definition.
By denying this, the US is effectively arguing against a tautology which is never a good idea, and
we're running out of ways to describe the ridiculousness of it.
Fortunately, Vladimir Putin is not running out of colorful descriptors.
Some of Russia's international partners have "oatmeal in their heads" because they
don't understand clearly that its military campaign in Syria seeks to help the fight against terrorism,
President Vladimir Putin said.
Russia notified the U.S. and the European Union in advance "out of respect" that it intended
to begin airstrikes against Islamic State and other militants in Syria, Putin said at an annual
conference organized by VTB Capital in Moscow on Tuesday. This showed Russia's ready to cooperate
on Syria, while nobody ever warned the authorities in Moscow about their operations, he said.
Putin's colorful phrase, normally used to describe someone as confused, to characterize
relations with the U.S. and its allies on Syria comes amid deep tensions over the Russian bombing
campaign and cruise-missile strikes that began Sept. 30. The EU demanded on Monday that
Russia stop targeting moderate groups opposed to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. U.S. Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter warned that Russia's actions "will have consequences" and the bombing
"will only inflame" Syria's four-year civil war.
Russia "received no answer" when it asked its international partners to provide information
on terrorist targets in Syria, or to say at least where its planes shouldn't bomb, Putin said.
"It's not a joke, I'm not making any of this up," he said.
And while the US insists on says things like this (out just hours ago):
EARNEST: SOME RUSSIAN STRIKES IN SYRIA ARE HELPING ISLAMIC STATE
Put makes a more logical argument. Namely that when one drops 50 tons of ammo from the sky into
the most dangerous place on earth, there's absolutely no way to know for sure where it will ultimately
end up:
U.S. air drops of weapons and ammunition intended for the Syrian Free Army, which
is fighting Assad's regime, could end up in the hands of Islamic State instead, Putin
said.
Yes, they might "end up in the hands of Islamic State" which we're sure wasn't what Washington
had in mind. Oh ... wait...
Silky Johnson
That's kind of shit that happens when you lie to everyone and pretend to be all chivalrous
an shit, but you're really a cuntface that arms monsters.
CClarity
In Ruski it means "mush for brains?
NoDebt
Yeah, I'm guessing it makes more sense in Russian. Where's Boris when we need him for translation?
KungFuMaster
I am not Boris, but the second best thing. This is what Putin said:
So this an idiom which should be translated: They have mess/chaos in their head. Oatmeal is
typical Russian food, but in this case the main characteristic is that oatmeal looks all the same
and this implies that subject cannot differentiate and separate concepts, has a fuzzy filling
in his head when he does not know what he is talking about.
tc06rtw
… I think we must realize politics influenced Mr. Putin's statements; He must be forgiven for
his overly charitable description of the US and its allies.
BALANDAS
Here is my reliable information --- Putin fears that US arms terrorists in Syria.
10/13/2015 14:12:30
Moscow. October 13. Interfax-AVN - Moscow fear that the weapons and uniforms, which the United
States supplied "Free Syrian Army" could fall into the hands of terrorists, said Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
"Who said that the aircraft" Free Syrian Army "deliver ammunition and ammunition. Where is
the" Free Syrian Army "? Do not fall if it all again as it was in the training of personnel in
the hands LIH? Where is the guarantee?" - Putin said at an investment forum "Russia Calling".
"It is only that all this was done, only that it happened just in the United States recognized
that action failed, and now just somewhere to throw ammunition and ammunition. This? This is not
a rhetorical question," - concluded the president.
Paveway IV
The U.S. oatmeal head's psychopathic plan is, was, and always will be to overthrow Assad.
Failure #1: To convince enough Syrians to die for the replacement U.S.- and Israeli-puppet
Syria. Solution: outsource.
Failure #2: Rebrand unemployed al Qaeda head-choppers under the al Nusra banner from Iraq.
Qatar and Saudi Arabia provided the funding, and Turkey and Jordan the training and staging points.
Expect obedience.
Failure #3: Expecting said head-choppers to share your vision of a free, democratic U.S./Israeli
puppet Syria. The head-choppers didn't give a damn about the U.S. plans because they were just
going to keep Syria for themselves. But, hey - if the nut-jobs in the U.S. wanted to set them
up with training and weapons, why not? Uh... 'moderate' rebels? Yeeaaaahh... that's right. We're
'moderate'. Free, democratic Syria? ...yeah, whatever.
Failure #4: Give the FSA TOW-2As for their unwinnable war. Al Nusra reaction: how about some
TOW-2As for US? No? OK... I guess we'll just convince the FSA that have them that they really
need to be in our 'joint opeations room' with the rest of our alliance (or lose their fucking
heads). So, yeah... just keep giving TOWs to THEM.
Failure #5: Expecting the demoralized, crumbling, corrupt FSA left-overs (now effectively Shanghai'd
by al Nusra and various other takfiri head-choppers) to make military progress with their criminal
amphetamine-crazed, civilian-looting head-chopper buddies. At the same time, even more fanatical
head-choppers ISIS evolves and secures a lot of the previous al Nusra funding and arms, pissing
off THEM.
Failure #6: Coming up with the clownishly-stupid plan of USING ISIS to fight Assad since the
FSA and al Nusra plan fell to shit. You would simple bomb ISIS if they attacked a non-approved
target (al Nusra or the FSA) and steer them to desirec targets (Assad and Syrian infrastructure
and oil wells) with ammo, equipment drops and intel. It actually worked for a few months, but
ISIS knew what was going on all along. They've grown tired of the game and have plenty of weapons
and ammo now (between U.S. airdrops and all the shit they seized whenever they roll over another
Syrian army position).
Failure #7: Keeping ISIS financially strong enough to serve as your third army against Assad:
Bomb the shit out of Assad's forces guarding oil and gas installations, then airdrop arms, ammo
and equipment to ISIS so they can take them over and sustain their operations through black-market
means. At least not as blatant as Iraq, where you transfer several hundred tons of gold to your
new central bank in Mosul - days before ISIS simply walks in and takes it without a shot (almost
like it was a planned gold transfer to ISIS).
Failure #8: Failing to anticipate that Putin would do the same thing for now: steer ISIS towards
your FSA/head-chopper forces to kill them FOR you. He's done this north of Aleppo and decimated
Jabha Shamiya, who is now scurrying back to more al Nusra-safe turf. Putin and Solemani have no
plans to enable ISIS long term - just use them for a little short-term al Nusra meat-grinding
until they, themselves are annihilated by Syria and allies.
Failure #9: Failing to understand how quickly the supply lines to Aleppo could be interdicted
by a Russian air campaign. It turns out the resolve of both the Aleppo FSA (for a U.S. democratized
and freedomized Syria) and the Aleppo head-choppers (for their caliphate) are directly dependent
on a continuous supply of amphetamines, USD, weapons and ammo. Interferene with that opposition
Wal*Mart drug and explosives logistics network has created quite a bit of consternation in Aleppo.
The second in command of the opposition coalition there just quit, head-choppers are leaving for
paying jobs and the few FSA left there are heading for Turkey. Aleppo might fall in a matter of
weeks, maybe days - without much opposition at all.
More to come. Waaayyy more to come.
ZerOhead
That's a lot of failures even for a completely inept Obama Administration. Too many failures perhaps?
Paveway IV
Not NEARLY enough. The next step of the Oded-Yinon (or whatever the clownfuckery is called)
plan calls for a civil war in Turkey (Turks vs. Kurds), partitioning it and splitting off of a
corrupt and psychopathic U.S./Israeli-puppet-led unified Kurdish nation. ZATO has hijacked Kurdish
nationalism to force an artificial Kurdistan well before it's time.
The purpose isn't to unify Kurds, it's to create a weak and corrupt Kurdish corridor from the
Mediterranean to Iran. Guess why? Hint: Israel's U.S.-staffed war with Iran, discount stolen Iraqi
oil from Kurdish Iraq for Israel, and the alternative northern route for Qatari gas lines (avoiding
Syria altogether).
See how that all works out? Russian soldiers die in Syria to clean up the U.S./Israeli mess
they created there. At the same time, the Kurds will lose their long sought-after Kurdish nation
to a Ukraine-like Jewish oligarch controlled, chaotic and eternally-squabbling hell-hole of a
country (probably eternally at war with the Turkish partition next to them) kept barely alive
by stolen Iraqi oil (who will also be trying to kill them).
Psychopathy 101: Manufactured death and destruction is like a welcome mat to come in and fuck
over the victims even more.
Poundsand
The hypocrisy is staggering and the entire world knows it. Assad has to go because of what?
They say bombing his own people. Yet across the border Erdogan is actually bombing his own people
and no one says boo. But I guess duly elected minority representation in a democratic country
doesn't really count if you're Kurdish.
The US is losing it's standing in the world and has become a corrupt sheriff in town and don't
think that everyone except those here in America don't know it. As our military and moral authority
wane, it will be picked up by someone else. It always is because there is nothing new under the
sun.
Son of Loki
Neither the Law nor Morality stand in the way of The POTUS!
SofaPapa
Increasingly, even those here in America know it. The US government has minimal popular support
for their actions of the past 15 years in the international stage. They are playing with fire
both at home and abroad.
McMolotov
The establishment wants Hitlery but is quickly realizing she is likely unelectable. Bernie
is a wildcard and uncontrollable, so they need to swing the electorate over to the GOP. Piling
on Obama will accomplish just that. After they find a way to torpedo Trump, look for someone like
Rubio to become the front-runner.
Elections are nothing more than selections by the power elite at this point, but there
still has to be a thin veneer of plausibility to the whole charade.
Squid-puppets a-go-go
lol very good mcmolotov - i think now it is a fulsome measure of the decay and corruption of
the american republic that they need such monumental lengths to provide that thin veneer of plausibility
to any of the available candidates.
Raging Debate
Obama is a disposable puppet. He reminds me of Ensign Benson, that black extra in Star Trek
they send down to that scary, uknown planet. Kirk and Spock go down there afterward.
WillyGroper
PCR's take is O has come to his senses on neoCON fail from that interview.
REALLY? Eye don't think so.
bunnyswanson
USA/Israel having been bombing Syria for years. Why continue now when Russia is on it? Especially
since ISIS is Israel stealing land again, gas more specfically. Like O said, why bankrupt your
nation for one ally.
Yttrium Gold Nitrogen
By "oatmeal" he (Putin) probably meant Russian "kasha", which when used figuratively means
something like "unordered mess", when things are so intermixed as to be indistinguishable from
each other. It also can be used to describe a messy, unclear, volatile situation. I believe that
correct translation would be "muddleheaded", someone who is unable to think with clarity or act
intelligently.
gregga777
For more than two decades the politicians and bureaucrats, holding elected and appointed offices,
in Washington have uniformly despised military service and wouldn't be caught dead wearing a real
uniform in the U. S. Armed Forces. [They had "better" things to do for their lives than serving
in the military, to quote one former V. P.]. They uniformly lack the personal military experience,
to create the necessary context needed for understanding, to judge the desirability of diplomacy
where the use of military force is the last resort, not the first resort.
For those that doubt Qatari gas is not a component (if not the primary reason) for removing
Assad we have this from Erdogan...
"Assad, refusing the transit of Qatari gas and becoming a potential competitor in the European
market, would have to be be eliminated."
That doesn't dismiss Isreal's goals of weakening a regional enemy and grabbing more land as
a catalyst as well.
The Indelicate -> spyware-free
Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit.
You don't build a pipeline through a war zone. You certainly don't spend billions in lieu of
working around [look at a map]. And the US and Israel are not helping fucking Qatar send gas to Europe. That's Israel's job.
Each regional player has their own motivations behind attacking Assad. Turkey & KSA could care
less about Isreal's intentions but the removal of Assad serves all their needs.
The Indelicate ...
"The great danger of faking your ability to do something in the public square is that someone
with an actual desire to the job you are pretending to do might come along and show you up." This is what has just happened to the US in Syria with the entrance of Russia into the fight
against ISIL. And as is generally the case with posers caught with their pants down, the US policy elites
are not happy about it.
You see, the US strategic goal in Syria is not as your faithful mainstream media servants (led
by that redoubtable channeler of Neo-Con smokescreens at the NYT Michael Gordon) might have you
believe to save the Syrian people from the ravages of the long-standing Assad dictatorship, but
rather to heighten the level of internecine conflict in that country to the point where it will
not be able to serve as a regional bulwark against Israeli regional hegemony for at least another
generation.
How do we know? Because important protagonists in the Israelo-American policy planning elite
have advertised the fact with a surprising degree of clarity in documents and public statements
issued over the last several decades.
The key here is learning to listen to what our cultural training has not prepared us to hear.
In 1982, as the Likud Party (which is to say, the institutional incarnation of the Revisionist
Zionist belief, first articulated by Jabotinsky in the "Iron Wall" that the only way to deal with
"the Arabs" in and around Israel was through unrelenting force and the inducement of cultural
fragmentation) was consolidating its hold on the foreign policy establishment of Israel, a journalist
named Oded Yinon, who had formerly worked at the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published an article
in which he outlined the strategic approach his country needed to take in the coming years.
What follows are some excerpts from Israel Shahak's English translation of that text:
"Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab
world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula and is already following that track.
The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as
in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution
of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall
apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present
day Lebanon…."
Indelicate, look at his youtube , no need for sarc you,re on the same page
jtg
"Oatmeal in their heads", an apt description of the 'indispensable and exceptional' lunatics
in the West. Why is it that to find a clear thinking leader I have to listen to Putin? Why is it that the West is now the axis of evil?
he didn't literally say oatmeal - he basically said 'mush for brains'. Of course, he's calling them stupid, but he knows they are deliberately evil. But it is easier to fool people about America the white knight than it is to convince them
they've been fooled. No matter how much evidence there is that this war was planned long ago.
Actually you often find that evil people are also stupid. Psychopaths are not generally noted
for their intelligence. They're often charming, manipulative and great liars with enormous egos,
but intelligent is not a requirement. Which is a problem where you have an electoral and corporate
governance systems which consistently puts people who are narcissists and socialized psychopaths
into positions of power. They don't have the real intellectual horsepower to do the job, though
of course they think they do, and often their sycophants do also.
"... Investigators estimated it took the center and rear parts of the airplane 60 to 90 seconds to
reach the ground after the blast. Other, lighter parts would have taken longer, the report
said. ..."
The warhead - launched 33,000 feet below in the Ukrainian countryside - exploded less than one
yard from the aircraft's cockpit, the Dutch report said.
A split-second later, hundreds of "high-energy" fragments pierced the fuselage and the shrapnel
instantly killed the two pilots and one crew member inside.
There was no mayday call or attempt to maneuver, the report noted. The cockpit voice recorder
stopped abruptly at the point of impact.
Image: Dutch Safety Board Issue Their Findings On The MH17 Air Disaster
The explosion also caused the cockpit to instantly separate from the rest of the aircraft.
After that "instantaneous separation," the rest of the plane continued to fly for more than five
miles before breaking into further pieces, according to the report.
The center part of the airliner traveled beyond the rear section and came to rest upside down
after hitting the ground. "Parts of the wreckage caught fire," the report added.
Investigators estimated it took the center and rear parts of the airplane 60 to 90 seconds to
reach the ground after the blast. "Other, lighter parts would have taken longer," the report
said.
The debris field was more than 20 square miles.
... ... ...
Investigators used paint to trace the missile
Ukraine and its Western allies have long alleged that pro-Russian rebels fighting in eastern
Ukraine brought down MH17 using a Russian-made missile system - a claim Moscow staunchly denies.
While Tuesday's report apportioned no blame, it was the first confirmation that the airliner was
shot down using the BUK missile launcher - a Russian-made system.
Investigators came to this conclusion by analyzing a number of minute details.
A 2.3-millisecond noise was recorded on the cockpit's voice recorders before the system stopped
working. By triangulating the signal, experts were able to show that it originated outside the
aircraft.
Their conclusion was also based on "bow-tie"-shaped fragments found inside the bodies of the
flight's crew members that were consistent with a 9N314M missile launched as part of the BUK
system.
The Dutch team that compiled the report also based this conclusion on "explosive residues and
paint" that were found on some of the fragments
The Dutch board's Tuesday announcement followed a report by Buk's Russian manufacturer,
Almaz-Antey, that contradicted the findings. The company said the damage patterns on MH17 did not
match those it found in its own blast tests, Reuters reported.
Quite the hand wringing. Russia must do this and that and is urged but it is also hoped that
Russia will join… Sanctions on Russia if it does not do what the do nothings say?? It would be
nice if the EU intel agencies openly published which terrorist organizations in Syria sufficiently
'moderate' not to be bombed by Russia.
1. The conflict in Syria and the suffering of the Syrian people is showing no sign of abating.
The scale of the tragedy, having killed 250,000 men, women and children, displaced 7.6 million
inside the country and sent over 4 million fleeing into neighbouring and other countries, is now
the world's largest humanitarian disaster, with no parallel in recent history. The EU, as the
largest donor, has demonstrated its willingness and commitment to do what it can to alleviate
the humanitarian consequences. As the crisis intensifies there is an increasingly urgent need
to find a lasting solution that will end this conflict. Only a Syrian-led political process leading
to a peaceful and inclusive transition, based on the principles of the Geneva communiqué of 30
June 2012, will bring back stability to Syria, enable peace and reconciliation and create the
necessary environment for efficient counter terrorism efforts and maintain the sovereignty, independence,
unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian State. There cannot be a lasting peace in Syria
under the present leadership and until the legitimate grievances and aspirations of all components
of the Syrian society are addressed.
2. The EU's objective is to bring an end to the conflict and enable the Syrian people to live
in peace in their own country. The international community has to unite around two complementary
and interlinked tracks – a political one that aims to bring an end to the civil war by addressing
all the root causes of the conflict and establish an inclusive political transition process that
will restore peace to the country – and a security one to focus on the fight against the regional
and global threat of Da'esh.
3. The EU reiterates its full support to the UN-led efforts and the work of UN Special Envoy
Staffan de Mistura to build this political track. The EU emphasizes the need to accelerate the
work of the entire international community on the political track in the framework of the UN-led
process. The EU is already actively contributing to the UN initiatives and will increase its diplomatic
work in support of the UN-led efforts, including the UN Special Envoy's proposal for intra-Syrian
working groups.
4. We call on all Syrian parties to show a clear and concrete commitment to the UN-led process
and to participate actively in the working groups. The EU underlines the urgency for the moderate
political opposition and associated armed groups to unite behind a common approach in order to
present an alternative to the Syrian people. These efforts must be inclusive involving women and
civil society. The EU will sustain its support to the moderate opposition, including the SOC,
and recalls that it is a vital element in fighting extremism and has a key role to play in the
political transition.
5. The EU will continue to put all of its political weight, actively and effectively, behind
UN-led international efforts to find a political solution to the conflict, and calls on regional
and international partners to do likewise. We urge all those with influence on the parties, including
on the Syrian regime, to use this influence to encourage a constructive role in the process leading
to a political transition and to end the cycle of violence. The EU will pro-actively engage with
key regional actors such as , Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and international partners within
the UN framework to build the conditions for a, peaceful and inclusive transition. In this context,
the Council recalls its decision to task the HRVP to explore ways in which the EU could actively
promote more constructive regional cooperation.
6. The protection of civilians in Syria must be a priority for the international community.
The EU condemns the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks that the Syrian regime
continues to commit against its own people. The Assad regime bears the greatest responsibility
for the 250.000 deaths of the conflict and the millions of displaced people. The EU recalls that
international humanitarian law applies to all parties, and human rights need to be fully respected.
We call on all parties to stop all forms of indiscriminate shelling and bombardment against civilian
areas and structures such as hospitals and schools and, in particular, on the Syrian regime to
cease all aerial bombardments, including the use of barrel bombs in line with UNSC Resolution
2139 and the use of chemical weapons in line with UNSCR 2209. The systematic targeting of civilians
by the regime has led to mass displacements and encouraged recruitment to and the flourishing
of terrorist groups in Syria. This calls for urgent attention and action.
The EU will reinforce its efforts to scale up the implementation of the UNSC Resolutions 2139,
2165 and 2191 to deliver cross-border and cross line assistance in order to help those Syrians
most desperately in need.
7. The EU strongly condemns the indiscriminate attacks, atrocities, killings, conflict-related
sexual violence, abuses of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law
which are perpetrated by Da'esh and other terrorist groups, against all civilians, including against
Christians and other religious and ethnic groups. The EU supports international efforts and initiatives
to address these issues. The EU condemns Da'esh's deliberate destruction of cultural heritage
in Syria and Iraq, which amount to a war crime under international law.
8. Those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria must be held accountable.
The EU expresses its deepest concern about the findings of the Independent International Commission
of Inquiry on Syria. The allegations of torture and executions based on the evidence presented
by the Caesar report are also of great concern. The EU reiterates its call to the UN Security
Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.
9. The EU supports the efforts of the Global Coalition to counter Da'esh in Syria and Iraq.
As a consequence of its policies and actions, the Assad regime cannot be a partner in the fight
against Dae'sh. Action against Da'esh needs to be closely coordinated among all partners, and
needs clearly to target Da'esh, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the other UN-designated terrorist groups.
10. The recent Russian military attacks that go beyond Dae'sh and other UN-designated terrorist
groups, as well as on the moderate opposition, are of deep concern, and must cease immediately.
So too must the Russian violations of the sovereign airspace of neighbouring countries.
This military escalation risks prolonging the conflict, undermining a political process, aggravating
the humanitarian situation and increasing radicalization. Our aim should be to de-escalate the
conflict. The EU calls on Russia to focus its efforts on the common objective of achieving a political
solution to the conflict. In this context it urges Russia to push for a reduction of violence
and implementation of confidence-building measures by the Syrian Regime along the provisions of
UNSC Resolution 2139.
11. The EU will intensify humanitarian diplomacy and seek ways to improve access and protection
as well as to promote humanitarian principles and local consensus on guidelines for the delivery
of aid.
12. The EU has substantially increased its financial efforts to support those who have fled
the conflict, within and outside Syria, with new commitments to humanitarian aid and to longer-term
work supporting the resilience of refugees in the neighbourhood. The EU and its Member states
have already provided €4 billion for relief and recovery assistance to those affected by the conflict
inside Syria and refugees and host communities in neighbouring countries. The EU and its Member
States will continue to provide humanitarian assistance through the UN, ICRC and international
NGOs. At the same time, the EU will increase its longer-term development and stabilization assistance,
to these and other partners, including through the EU Regional Trust Fund recently established
in response to the Syrian Crisis (the "Madad Fund") which has now been equipped with over €500
million in EU funding to be matched by efforts from EU Member States and other countries. The
EU calls on other countries to sustain and increase their own contributions in response to the
Syria crisis. The Council agreed specifically on the need to increase the level of cooperation
and partnership with Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to ensure equal access to shelter, education,
health and livelihoods for refugees and their host communities with the support of additional
EU assistance.
####
It must be better to stick to EU & US failure. What could possibly go wrong by having your
Gulf allies send large quantities of weapons to jihadists?
EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini took a cautious position on Russian intervention
in Syria, compared to the critical tone of a communiqué of the Union's foreign ministers adopted
today (12 October).
…For her part, Mogherini refrained from qualifying the Russian intervention as bad or good.
Speaking about the hot issue ahead of the ministerial meeting, she said:
"I guess it is much more complicated than just saying "positive" or "negative". It is for sure
a game changer."
But she added that "interventions against Daesh have to be clearly against Daesh and other
terrorist groups, as defined by the UN"…
####
Good crock of s/t vs. bad crock of s/t? Don't take the communique too seriously Russia? They
make noise because they are doing nothing and can't even agree to do anything apart from put some
words together on the page.
All of it is a malodorous crock of shit. The EU evidenced no particular interest in the plight
of civilians in Syria up to this point, began to get interested and then almost wholly in a not-particularly-sympathetic
way when floods of refugees were released from Turkey to stream into Europe recently, and have
been in crisis mode only for the last two weeks since Russia has taken a hand at the request of
the Syrian government. There was lackluster interest in a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors
until then, because the west judged it was just a matter of a few more weeks and Assad would fall,
without the west doing much of anything at all. Then it would remain only to swoop in, divest
the rebel militias of their prize and pick a new western-friendly government of diaspora exiles.
The western press is playing its usual game of simply alluding to facts until they become facts
without any actual substantiation ever having been offered. Russia is deliberately bombing civilians
and civilian-only infrastructure such as hospitals and schools because the western press says
so. Almost a fifth of Russian cruise missiles fell irresponsibly on the territory of another country
they passed over, because the western press says so based on information they were given by unnamed
western officials, although Russia claims to have positive battle-damage assessments for every
missile fired and Iran says the western allegation is untrue. But the west always gets the benefit
of the doubt, just as if it had never been caught in a lie before.
Per a commentator on a Yahoo story on Syrian gains against the rebels:
"They [KSA, UAE states]
fund and supplies ISIS and Al Qaeda even drop supplies from the air to terrorists through their
clandestine ops which our government [USA] knows well and does nothing."
Made me wonder if the reason for SU-30s is to shoot these planes down – a no-fly zone aimed
at shutting down these supply drops. The Saker pounds away at the point that Russian air assets
in Syria are insufficient to enforce a no-fly zone against NATO. However, as just alluded, the
purpose of the SU-30s may simply be to stop use of air drops to supply the terrorists.
Given the missile and radars on the SU-30s, a hand full should be enough to clear the skies
of transport planes over Syria. Russian naval ships can provide the radar coverage to identify
such aircraft and vector the Su-30s as required and the rest should be history.
RAF given green light to shoot down hostile Russian jets in Syria
As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots
have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria
and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and
Russia are now "one step closer" to being at war.
"The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air
attack is likely to occur - you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source
from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired
on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where
a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."
The headline is a bit over the top, don't you think?
The same rule applies to all combat pilots of any nation, as indeed the (as usual) unidentified
source is quoted as saying.
That's why the US navy shot down an Iranian airliner, isn't it: the warship thought it was
being threatened by the passenger aircraft.
Trigger happy, poorly trained, panic-stricken, glory-seeking and incompetent – what else can
describe the US Navy's shoot-down? How would they perform in a real war with an adversary able
to hit back hard?
Yes to the first, and no to the second. The U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian airliner they claim
they mistook for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, although it (1) took off from a known civil airport following
a commercial air route and within the air safety corridor, (2) was displaying the IFF interrogator
trace for civil aviation, (3) was correlated to a civil aviation radar emitter rather than the
AN/AWG-9 radar associated with the F-14, and which is quite distinctive on ESM gear and (4) was
not descending or following an attack profile. The USS VINCENNES stationed itself directly underneath
an air traffic corridor within Iranian airspace, so that normal air traffic passed directly over
it; obviously, for one half of its transit, an aircraft would close the VINCENNES, and for the
remainder it would be opening after it passed overhead. I'd have to look up again if any warnings
were passed, but if there were the pilot likely did not think the surface unit was talking to
him, since he was flying the same route he did every day or week or with whatever degree of regularity.
So if he was told to turn away he likely did not think it applied to him, as few commercial pilots
would be able to conceive of the arrogance of a ship's captain who would park his ship in Iranian
territorial waters and then demand that all the country's civil aviation reroute themselves around
his position.
It was BUK -- Video contains important finding that fragment of missile paint and elements from the
missile warhead in pilot bodies. It is mainly non technical
watch-v=KDiLEyT9spI and does not
cover conflicting evidence. So at last we know that there was a BUK missile the downs the airliner. I
doubt that Dutch investigators make a mistake on this aspect of cause of the tragedy (that does not
explains accurate round holes is the part of cockpit wreckage though). Still the set of old
questions remains. But it we
assume this was BUK, why nobody saw the dense smoke trail of the rocket in daylight and perfect
weather. The dense smoke trail that should still be visible at the moment when the plane was hit and
when several thousand eyes were watching the area in notably absent.
A Buk surface-to-air missile downed flight MH17, Dutch investigators have said as they unveiled a
reconstruction of the plane that showed huge shrapnel damage to the cockpit and front section.
Tjibbe Joustra, the chairman of the Dutch safety board, said the Malaysia Airlines plane was hit
by a 9N314M warhead on 17 July 2014, as it flew at 33,000ft (10,000 metres) above eastern
Ukraine. The warhead was fitted to a "9M28 missile" fired from a Russian-built Buk missile system,
he confirmed.
Speaking in front of the reconstructed plane – pieced together from parts of recovered debris,
fitted around a metal skeleton – Joustra said all other scenarios to explain the disaster, which
killed all 298 people on board, had been ruled out.
An animated video was shown to journalists at the Gilze-Rijen airbase in the
Netherlands, where the plane was part reassembled over three months. It showed the Buk missile
exploding on the left-hand side of the cockpit. Thousands of metal objects were ejected, with hundreds
then penetrating the plane with tremendous force, Joustra said.
The impact and ensuing pressure drop killed the three pilots instantly, he said. On-board microphones
captured the moment of impact – "a sound ping". This allowed investigators to determine the devastating
blast occurred on the upper-left hand side of the cockpit.
The damage was starkly visible. The front section of the Boeing 777 below the pilot's port window
was perforated with large shrapnel holes. Other parts were relatively unscathed. Five windows in
the business class section were visible, together with a door where the passengers entered. The pilot's
seats had been remounted in the cockpit – a haunting sight.
The plane's nose was missing, together with much of its upper front half. The colours of Malaysia
Airlines – a red, blue stripe – were still visible. Exit holes left by shrapnel could be seen on
the other right side; exploding fragments had ripped through the fuselage.
According to Joustra, the passenger plane broke up mid-air. The cockpit and the floor of the business
class tore away almost instantly from the main body and crashed. The rest of the plane continued
flying for about five miles in an easterly direction, hitting the ground about a minute to a minuter
and a half later. Debris was scattered over 50 sq km.
In a briefing on Tuesday morning to relatives of the victims, which took place in The Hague, Joustra
said the passengers on board – two-thirds of whom were Dutch nationals – would have been unconscious
within seconds.
The board had previously made clear its findings would not deal with blame and liability; a criminal
investigation by the Dutch prosecutor's office is scheduled to conclude in early 2016.
Joustra said the Buk had been fired from a 320 sq km area of eastern Ukraine, the
scene of a conflict between pro-Russia separatists backed by Moscow and Ukrainian
government forces. He said "further forensic investigation" would be needed to determine
the exact launch site.
The Netherlands, Ukraine and Russia had all carried out their own simulations into the missile's
probable trajectory.
Russia was the only one of seven countries involved in the report's preparation that dissented
from its central conclusions, Joustra said, adding that Moscow believed "it was impossible to determine
the type of missile or warhead with any certainty".
It is widely assumed that Russia-backed separatists were responsible for bringing down MH17, but
the US has stopped short of blaming Moscow directly. The Kremlin has blamed Kiev – variously suggesting
that a Ukrainian military jet shot down the Boeing 777, or that a missile was launched from a government-held
area.
The Russian simulation includes areas under Ukrainian government control. The other simulations
suggest the Buk was fired from separatist areas. An
open source investigation by the website Bellingcat, published last week, tracks the Buk from
a Russian military base in Kursk. It was then smuggled across the Ukrainian border.
In Moscow, the makers of
Buk missile systems, Almaz-Antey, gave a press conference on Tuesday morning, apparently to distract
attention from the Dutch report.
The manufacturer said it had performed two experiments it says prove one of its missiles could
not have been launched from areas under pro-Russia separatist control.
The Dutch safety board report, published in English and Dutch, concedes that family members had
to wait "an unnecessarily long period of time" for formal confirmation that their loved ones were
dead. The Dutch authorities "lacked management and coordination", he said.
The victims came from nine countries, including Malaysia and Australia, and with 10 victims from
the UK.
Joustra also said there was a simple, "dispiriting" answer to the question: why was MH17 allowed
to fly above eastern Ukraine? It had not occurred to anybody that the airspace was unsafe for civilian
jets at cruising altitude, he said. This was despite 60 Ukrainian aircraft and helicopters had been
downed since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in spring 2014.
About 160 civilian planes flew over the area on the day of the disaster. Three were in "close
proximity" when the Buk was fired, he said. Ukraine should have closed its airspace to civilian traffic,
he added.
"Flight MH17 crashed as a result of the detonation of a warhead outside the airplane above the
left-hand side of the cockpit," said Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, using a
common reference to the flight number. The explosion
tore off the forward part of the plane, which
broke up in the air. The crash killed all 298 people aboard; the investigation found that many
died instantly, while others quickly lost consciousness. "It is likely that the occupants were barely
able to comprehend their situation," the board found.
... ... ...
The report is unlikely to produce consensus. Based on the impact pattern, the impact angle
and other data, the Dutch board concluded that the missile originated in an area of about 320 square
kilometers (about 123 square miles) in eastern Ukraine. But Russian experts say the area must
be smaller, and Ukrainian experts say it was smaller still.
The team of investigators was led by the Netherlands but included members from four other countries
heavily affected by the crash: Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine.
... ... ...
From the outset, the Russian government has tried to offer alternative versions of what caused
the plane to break up over eastern Ukraine.
Initially, the Defense Ministry presented what generals said was radar data indicating that
a Ukrainian fighter jet had flown nearby, possibly shooting down the Malaysia Airlines flight. This
year, officials with Almaz-Antey, the state corporation that manufactures the Buk antiaircraft missiles,
held a news conference in Moscow to say that they believed one of their missiles had shot down the
plane, but that an analysis of the angle of impact showed it must have been fired from territory
controlled by the Ukrainian Army.
Then, this month, after a Ukrainian security official had suggested in an interview with the Dutch
news media that shrapnel removed from the bodies of the victims proved a Buk was to blame,
Tass, the Russian state news agency, quoted an independent expert objecting that it was too
early to conclude such a missile brought down the plane.
Tass quoted the expert, Ivan P. Konovalov, the director of a Moscow research center, the Center
for Strategic Trends, as saying that if the Dutch Safety Board indeed "reaches a firm conclusion
that the Boeing was struck by a Buk antiaircraft rocket, then it should be taken into consideration
that at that time only the armed services of Ukraine had these complexes and the People's Republics
of Donbas had no such complex systems then or now." He was referring to pro-Russian separatist governments
set up in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.
In Moscow, officials at Almaz-Antey staged a dueling presentation on Tuesday with a dazzling element:
the company blew up a civilian airline fuselage with one of its missiles, and showed the blast on
video.
The experiment that shredded the cockpit section of a decommissioned Il-86 airliner, company officials
said, indicated the Ukrainian military fired the missile that brought down the Boeing, without elaborating
on why.
In the sky over Ukraine, the Russian officials said, the shrapnel struck the plane from an angle
indicating the missile was launched from Ukrainian-held territory. Also, they said, Buk missiles
in the Russian arsenal explode in a cloud of shrapnel that has jagged edges, described as having
a "double-T" form. These, they said, leave a characteristic "butterfly"-shaped hole in airplane fuselages.
The Russians insisted that no such holes were found in the wreckage; the Dutch report suggests otherwise.
In any case, Yan V. Novikov, the director of Almaz-Antey, said the Ukrainian government bore
responsibility for allowing the flight over a war zone. "I cannot say they are guilty, or not guilty,
but the obligations of the country where a military conflict is underway is to inform aviation companies,
or close its airspace," he said.
"... At the same time Russias Defense Ministry made public satellite images of the area, taken
several days prior to the crash. The satellite pictures showed Ukrainian army positions on three
days before the crash, and a BUK missile launcher could be spotted there. But on the day of the
crash, it had moved somewhere else. The question is why – and where it had gone? ..."
"... In June 2015, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented the results of its own probe
into the causes of the MH17 crash. Looking into the option of a surface-to-air missile downing
the Boing-777, experts stressed that it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from
an older modification of the BUK missile system, namely the Buk-M1 - the type of the weapon the
Ukrainian army is equipped with. The Russian army uses modern and later BUK missile systems. ..."
"... "the Sukhoi jet brought down the civilian
plane and ours brought down the fighter jet." ..."
"... "They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down
the plane." ..."
"... a documentary crew making a film about the MH17 catastrophe has
actually proven them wrong, staging an experiment and taking an Su-25 to a height of 11,880 meters
– with a pilot wearing an oxygen mask. ..."
The Dutch Safety Board delivered a preliminary report
about a year ago, concluding that flight MH17 broke up in mid-air and came down after being hit
by a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the plane from the outside and ruptured
the fuselage. The report did not mention where those high-energy objects came from.
The first theory maintains that the MH17 flight was downed by a surface-to-air anti-aircraft
missile. It is considered by many as the most likely theory and one that's been widely cited in
the media. The only question is who did it.
The West and Ukraine claim the rebels shot the plane with a Russian BUK missile. In the framework
of this theory, a YouTube video of a BUK weapons system with one rocket missing being transported
somewhere in Ukraine just hours after the crash was presented as a smoking gun, claiming that
the missile system was sneakily cleared out of Ukraine into Russia.
But some local bloggers identified the location as the Ukrainian town of Krasnoarmeysk, which
was under control of the Kiev forces at the time.
The fact that the video emerged online suspiciously quickly, was followed by lots of so-called
social media evidence, and is almost impossible to authenticate, only fueled suspicions.
Theory #2: 'Ukrainian BUK missile'
At the same time Russia's Defense Ministry made public satellite images of the area, taken
several days prior to the crash. The satellite pictures showed Ukrainian army positions on three
days before the crash, and a BUK missile launcher could be spotted there. But on the day of the
crash, it had moved somewhere else. The question is why – and where it had gone?
In June 2015, Russian arms manufacturer Almaz-Antey presented the results of its own probe
into the causes of the MH17 crash. Looking into the option of a surface-to-air missile downing
the Boing-777, experts stressed that it could only have been caused by one of the missiles from
an older modification of the BUK missile system, namely the Buk-M1 - the type of the weapon the
Ukrainian army is equipped with. The Russian army uses modern and later BUK missile systems.
Theory #3: 'Air-to-Air Missile'
Another theory is that Flight MH17 may have been shot down from the air.
Russia's Investigative Committee (IC) has been conducting its own investigation into the crash.
On June 3, the Committee identified the key witness to the MH17 crash as Evgeny Agapov, an aviation
armaments mechanic in the Ukrainian Air Force. Agapov testified that on July 17, 2014 a Ukrainian
Sukhoi SU-25 jet aircraft piloted by Captain Voloshin "set out for a military task" and
returned without ammunition. Agapov implied that an air-to-air missile was missing and claimed
he overheard Voloshin say to his colleagues that some plane was "in the wrong place at the
wrong time."
Also, in a video shot by Ukraine's anti-government militia when they arrived at the crash site
immediately after the catastrophe and released by an Australian broadcaster almost a year after
the tragedy, one important part was largely ignored.
The video, shown by News Corp Australia, is a short, 5-minute clip made from an original video
17 minutes long, but the channel published online a full transcript of the original version.
The transcript cited the rebel commander as saying "the Sukhoi jet brought down the civilian
plane and ours brought down the fighter jet."
Later, the same person says once again that there were two planes shot down, and another voice
in the background says, "They decided to do it this way, to look like we have brought down
the plane."
Those who oppose the theory say the Sukhoi Su-25 close support fighter jet spotted in the skies
at the time of the incident cannot reach a height of 10,000 meters, where the Malaysian airliner
was at cruising altitude. But a documentary crew making a film about the MH17 catastrophe has
actually proven them wrong, staging an experiment and taking an Su-25 to a height of 11,880 meters
– with a pilot wearing an oxygen mask.
The report coming out Tuesday will be technical in nature. Its goal is to specify how the plane
was brought down, not to place blame on any side. This is the responsibility of the criminal probe,
which is still ongoing.
Few meetings ever started with dimmer prospects for success than the recent meeting between Presidents
Obama and Putin.
The real call for the meeting stemmed from the EU refugee crisis. With a human catastrophe brewing
in Europe and the Middle East, EU leaders are urgently demanding that the U.S. and Russia set aside
their differences and begin to work together in an effort to resolve the Syrian conflict, the major
cause of the massive movement of people seeking sanctuary.
Now, U.S./EU leaders are no longer insisting on the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
from office as a pre-condition to negotiations over a new government, although the U.S. continues
to insist that al-Assad's removal
become part of any final settlement.
But how can such fundamental differences be set aside when the two sides can't even agree on the
enemy they're fighting? The U.S. and its allies have defined the Syrian conflict as a civil war against
a despotic regime. The Russians define the conflict as an invasion by foreign Islamic radicals, paid
and supported by U.S.' Middle Eastern allies.
The EU has made its demands clear: solve the problem, we don't particularly care how, but it has
to be done quickly. From that point of view, the U.S. and Russian leaders have little choice but
to answer the call.
Russia is attempting to form and lead a
UN authorized coalition against ISIL, the radical jihadists' adversaries that conquered large
parts of Syria and Iraq, while threatening to engulf the entire region.
Obama has stated publicly that he
welcomes help
from Russia and Iran in the fight against radical jihadists, ISIL, in Syria, while still insisting
that al-Assad must go. On their side, the Russians have made no secret of their strong objections
to NATO-led regime change, citing the results of failed states in Iraq, Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt.
In a recent New York Times article, an Administration insider stated that the President believes
Syria is a lost cause, one that U.S. military presence could only worsen.
Obama has also shown little reluctance to lead from behind, when supporting NATO partners, particularly
with a U.S. public largely opposed to America's military engagement in any further Mideast wars.
But Russia is not NATO, and it's clear that the U.S. has no intention of following the Kremlin's
lead in Syria, as its veto of the Russian coalition proposal at the UN Security Council clearly shows.
Adding to that was the
United States'strong condemnation of the Russian air attack on its first day of operations in
Syria.
The urgency of the moment favors cooperation, while geography gives Russia major advantages in
leading the fight. Russia's relationship with Iran, already fighting on the ground in Iraq, with
its ally Hezbollah fighting in Syria, provides Russia with a readymade army to complement its air
attacks.
With the Russians initiating air strikes against ISIL in Syria, the great fear of world leaders
is that an accidental collision between opposing U.S. and Russian forces raises the risks of war
between the two nuclear powers.
While both sides deny any intent at military collaboration or sharing of military intelligence
in Syria, the two Presidents have agreed to meetings of their military leaders, ostensibly aimed
at reducing the risk of accidental conflicts between them. How that can be done without shared military
intelligence about troop movements, and planned air attacks remains a mystery.
Adding to the confusion is the increasingly cordial meetings between Russian and Saudi leaders.
Many believe that the Saudis, and their Gulf Kingdom partners, hold the key to resolving the conflict,
as the major backers of the 'moderate Islamic' rebels fighting the Syrian Government forces.
The Saudis have largely refrained from criticizing the Russian military buildup in Syria, even
though it bolsters the Assad regime, and the Kingdom continues to hold its cards close to its vest
regarding their position on the new Russian military initiative in Syria.
At the same time, there were conflicting signals in regards to the relationship between Iran and
Russia. Reports
surfaced in late September that the two countries, along with Syria and Iraq, were coordinating
military efforts against the ISIL. But at the UN meeting, Iran's President Rouhani made the surprising
statement
that Iran saw no need to coordinate military efforts in Syria, with the Russian goal to support its
embattled ally in Syria, while Iran's goal is eradicate ISIL.
It's widely recognized that since the Iran nuclear deal, Iran and the U.S. have sought to move
closer in other important areas. Still, Rouhani's UN statement seemed to belie the recent agreements
between Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria to build an information center in Baghdad to share battlefield
reconnaissance against ISIL.
That also falls in line with the new agreement with Iran, Iraq, and Syria to provide an air corridor
for Russian military flyovers to Syria for Russian fighter planes and transport aircraft.
To observers, these agreements certainly smack of military coordination with Russia. Iran's need
to distance itself from Russia seems to be made with an eye on the U.S., where hardline Presidential
candidates threaten to tear up the nuclear agreement.
The highly charged political atmosphere in the U.S., in the midst of a Presidential election,
only adds to the fog of war in Syria, forcing public denials and secret agreements where there needs
to be utmost clarity, making military cooperation in Syria almost impossible, while raising the risks
of accidental conflicts between so-called partners.
What then of western sanctions against Russia? In the eyes of the west, the Syrian conflict is
beginning to eclipse Ukraine in importance. The U.S. seems satisfied to leave the Ukraine issue to
Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine for settlement.
The EU is most likely to be the first mover to ease sanctions, realizing, as a
number of EU leaders have stated, that it is fundamentally incompatible to rely on Russia's military
might while starving the Russian economy.
In January, the EU sanctions are set to expire, requiring a unanimous vote of all member states
for extension. The odds are rising that the EU will allow sanctions to expire.
If so, major global business will once again flock to Russia. That would include the return of
major western energy companies that have played a critical part in Russian energy development. Once
that starts, it will become far more difficult to reverse the momentum or re-impose sanctions.
Given the political atmosphere in Washington, it's clear the U.S. will leave its sanctions in
place.
Sam Kanu, October 7, 2015 at 5:31 am
Given the political atmosphere in Washington, it's clear the U.S. will leave its sanctions
in place.
Here you mean "Given the political instructions to Washington from Tel Aviv". I don't see any
general feeling in the American people that demands ongoing conflict with Iran. This is not politics
at all – just pure old tail wagging the dog.
JeffC -> Sam Kanu, October 7, 2015 at 11:18 am
Sanctions against Russia, not Iran.
Older & Wiser, October 7, 2015 at 6:48 am
The un-named 1800 lb Mr. and Mrs. Gorilla couple in the room are oil & gas.
Pipelines anyone ?
Massinissa, October 7, 2015 at 2:56 pm
Are there really pipelines in Syria? I thought it was through Iraq and Turkey.
ambrit, October 7, 2015 at 7:13 am
Given Russias' long term relationship with Syria, I'm bemused that any Neo of any stripe could
with a straight face suggest that the Russians would abandon the Syrian Government to a bunch
of Western backed wreckers.
Maintaining a foothold in the Middle East is basic Grand Strategy. America does it with Israel,
so Russia does it with Syria.
In the long run, the Middle East is beginning a shake up. The post WW1 borders were incompatible
with the ethnic groupings of the region. Now those old 'drawn on a map' borders are being broken
apart and the pieces reassembled. This process can take years or decades to work out. The time
frame depends on how 'responsible' the Great Powers are in dealing with the realignment process.
Do notice the framing of the issue in the MSM. "Irresponsible Russia" and "Assad Must Go" are
everywhere proclaimed. Like the magicians they are, the MSMs rely on misdirection to try to pull
off the 'trick.' While the West tries to browbeat the Russians, the Russians are persistently
acting in their, and in the Syrian Governments, perceived best interests.
On the air front, the Russian "incursions" look to be standard battlefield intelligence work.
Send a plane or two 'over the border' and see what sorts of anti air radars 'lock on' to your
aircraft. This is something any competent air commander would want to discover. This is also a
thinly veiled threat to the West; "Look! Anyone can play this game!" The basic point being; there
is no such thing as a 'no fly zone,' if you are willing to fight.
The Russian message is basic; "Put up, or shut up."
NotTimothyGeithner, October 7, 2015 at 9:05 am
The post WWI borders are fairly similar to Ottoman administrative districts. The Kuwait
city-state answered to the governor of Baghdad within their framework. The issue has been foreign
powers using sectarian ties to divide the little people from cooperation which was achievable
under the Sultan for 500 years. Even Hussein found the Shiites to be exceptionally loyal during
the Iran-Iraq War.
The rise of the Saudis, allowing the Israelis to knock over Lebanon and run an apartheid state,
and supporting oppressive regimes which would have fallen or reformed (pretty much all the Gulf
states which also have ancient borders) are major issues. There have always been states centered
around the modern cities (Ur and Babylon were replaced by Baghdad) or provinces. I believe
the creative borders argument was always a "White Man's Burden" excuse to justify control. "Professor
Scott, why do they fight in the Middle East?" Excuses about unfortunate cartography sound better
than "I needed to build a railroad and did the want to pay the locals, so I cooked up a rape story
in one village, handed out guns, and slaughtered the adult males in the other village."
On the other hand, Africa was carved up bizarrely based on rail and ship movements.
todde, October 7, 2015 at 8:11 am
KSA claims Assad must go and I doubt they will support Russia.
Who is supporting IS? I find it hard to believe they can maintain armed conflict on several
fronts without a state backer.
Where are the 10s of billions of dollars in turkeys central bank in accounts called unknown
foreign sources and errors and adjustments?
Iran will support Assad regardless of American actions.
blert, October 7, 2015 at 5:54 pm
Two factors.
Iran was using Turkey as a front, Ankara collected its 'cut.' Turkey was laundering monies
from the Gulf, too, probably Golden Chain funding for the fanatics in Syria. Erdogan has more
side action than Rick's Cafe American.
Eureka Springs, October 7, 2015 at 9:02 am
Madness R U.S. US, Saudi, Turks and Israeli's must be held at bay at the very least. It's
(Russia, Iran, Syria) who are the only entities resembling a possible humanitarian, rule of law
base of action now or possibly working towards that kind of end game.
That's how low we are, R or D, … the creators and perpetrators of al Q and all of their newly
named lackeys doing our dirty work continuously since the 1980's. It's not impossible to know
who we are and what we have long done… Reading Obama's words and Putin's it is clear Putin
is being far more honest and consistent in both action and words.
Maybe we should stop blowing up hospitals and imprison leaders who order or even allow it to
happen. Nah, there are too many unarmed citizens in wheelchairs who must be shot.
blert, October 7, 2015 at 6:02 pm
Bin Laden has gone on record - time and time, again - denouncing your thesis. He never needed
American funding - ever. He would never, ever, grovel to the kafir.
It's only recently that 0bama started funding AQ's front organs, al Nusrah inparticular. BOTH
ISIS and al Nusrah are joined at the hip and are al Qaeda fronts. They only had a falling out,
circa 2011.
The FSA is a total fiction. It's a Western media construct. Syria is a fight between brutal
Assad and two feral al Qaeda fronts… that can't be controlled. The UK, US and Jordan trained most
of ISIS' cadres in the Jordanian desert back in 2011-12. They then went rogue. That (mostly Jordanian)
force is still the dominant core of ISIS. Our crass media is complicit in covering up a reality
that the rest of the planet is hip to.
Eureka Springs , October 7, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Agree with you after your first three lines. I guess those shoulder fired missiles which al
Q used to take out Russian helicopters in Afghanistan during the '80's were Costa Rican made and
supplied.
Massinissa, October 7, 2015 at 8:29 pm
So Bin Laden was actually giving money and guns to Zbigniew Brzezinski instead of the other
way around?
You have seen that famous photo of Bin Laden and Zbigniew Brzezinski right? Just google it.
A retired Army Colonel who served under Colin Powell actually says he's afraid of a future Israeli
false-flag operation that will start a US war with Iran
– move the cursor to 15 mins...
Steven, October 7, 2015 at 11:10 am
Somewhere I remember reading an analysis of the Syrian conflict along the following lines:
It does indeed involve geopolitics – with the aim being to replace Europe's dependence
on Russian oil and gas with that from U.S. Middle-eastern 'allies'. To do that it is necessary
to build a pipeline across Syria – and insure the Syrian government is firmly in the pocket
of the U.S. and its allies.
Without wishing to denigrate the influence of AIPAC, this conflict has far more to
do with preserving and possibly extending US global hegemony (with a continuing full-employment
program for the country's Congressional military-industrial complex) than it does Israel's
inordinate control over US foreign policy. All the blather about democracy vs. dictatorship
and/or Sunni vs. Shia vs. Sunni is just offal fed to the cannon fodder used by powers great
and small to get it to sacrifice itself for their ambitions.
Like ambrit said, this is just "basic Grand Strategy". It is way past time for US 'leaders'
to recognize the full spectrum dominance they enjoyed in the aftermath of WWII was (charitably)
an accident of history and come to terms with a multi-polar world and the concept of collective
security to which they gave so much word of mouth to a population disgusted with the carnage
and destruction of the second "war to end all wars".
Hespeler1, October 7, 2015 at 4:19 pm
Steven, Pepe Escobar has written extensively about the "pipeline wars" ("pipelinestan"),
the Empire is trying to starve Russia's finances in part by bypassing Russia's pipelines. Greece
was pressured into refusing to be the Turkish Stream's terminus and distribution hub for Southern
Europe. We all know how much they needed the revenue from that, but TPTB said no. Grand Strategy=break
up Russia, steal her resources, put pressure on China. I fear that the Empire won't stop until
they accomplish this, or are buried.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL, October 7, 2015 at 12:11 pm
Sometimes things are just so obvious. US "veto of the Russian coalition proposal at the
UN Security Council". Could be because the US wants to lead a bigger, better coalition, maybe
ours will include Samoa or something. Or, um, duh, could be because US doesn't really want to
fight ISIS since that's our dog in this fight. Funny how a few days bombing by Russia has had
a real impact on actual ISIS fighters…whereas US bombing tends to be on stuff like bridges and
power plants and hospitals that hurt Assad more than they hurt ISIS.
I mean how bleeding obvious when we get John McCain high fiving ISIS…and our grand plan
was to find "moderate" maniacs that would do our bidding. "OK everybody, form a line, if you're
an extremist take the T-shirt on the left, if you're a moderate take a T-shirt on the right".
That strategy has worked out so well for us in the past, we spent $500M and trained precisely
"4 or 5" guys.
Is it not most edifying that Iraq is now apparently allowing Russian cruise missiles to fly
over its territory, or at least not objecting? (Not that Iraq could do much about it…)
Harry, October 7, 2015 at 5:20 pm
Iraq is part of the Russian coalition as well as China and you probably do know that Iraqi
prime-minister already made a statement that he would not object against Russians decimating ISIS
on the Iraqi territory. And look, oil prices are already going up – that's what Putin really needed
and this is one of the eight reasons why he started a war in the Middle East.
NotTimothyGeithner, October 7, 2015 at 8:52 pm
Started a war? You do realize training a day arming rebels is an act of war even if Congress
hides the funding in the classified budget or if it's done by the CIA instead of corporate approved
soldiers. The U.S. government has started numerous wars without Congressional approval, mostly
because Congress is still afraid of elections. Russia is allied with Syria. If anything Putin
has shown remarkable constraint.
Synoia, October 7, 2015 at 1:06 pm
There are three sides to Syria:
1. New Caliphate – Includes Turkey & Saudi Arabia – Look at a map and think contiguous empire
-ISIS is their tool.
2. US dislike of Assad, and allied with Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but dislikes New Caliphate
and ISIS.
3. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah etc, dislike New Calipahe, becue of potential threat to Russia
from Muslim arc from Iran through to China (the Stans).
Which leaves the US's allies in direct opposition to the US' goals, and leads to lies, deceit
and deception from parties (1) and (2).
The role of ISIS is to destabilize Syria and Iran, to create an opportunity for Turkish Troops
(500,000 man army), and Saudi money to enter, the region "to keep the peace," thus furthering
their imperial ambitions.
The US is trying to eliminate Assad, but not enable a new Caliphate, and undermine Russia's
and Iran's influence in the area, because Oil and exceptionalism (for exceptionalism see collective
ego, or stunning arragance).
Russia and Iran see the solution to a New Caliphate as Assad in power, and a weakening of US
influence.
aka: Quagmire
NotTimothyGeithner -> Synoia, October 7, 2015 at 8:56 pm
The U.S. government's side* is childish at best. The only real plan was Sunni elements
of the army would assume power when Assad was removed from power with a little Saber rattling
much like Libya with the GNC. Obama's ego prevents him from recognizing what a stupid idea this
was and how radically different types Assad a day Gaddafi's power bases were.
*They are hiding behind the war powers act and approval from post 9/11 legislation. Congress
an otherwise President are too cowardly to call our actions acts of war which is what they are.
washunate, October 7, 2015 at 1:40 pm
No.
But seriously, it is interesting seeing what the Oilprice guys think their audience wants
to hear. They are clearly inside the MSM echo chamber. You have everything from dichotomous balance
(because truth has two sides) to the charged political atmosphere (which sadly forces otherwise
honest and transparent leaders to engage in secrecy and deception against their will).
I particularly love how casual the author is with the notion that the President of the
United States has an explicit policy goal of deposing the leader of a sovereign nation. Ho hum,
just another head of state that must go.
susan the other, October 7, 2015 at 2:15 pm
This summary by Berke also reflects my puzzled observations. It wasn't that long ago that we
worried about a fundamentalist insurrection in SA and so we politely made ourselves scarce to
help the Saudis out.
There's probably now a pre-arranged trade off for the Saudis and Iran: SA gets to take over
Yemen; Iran gets to create a corridor through Syria. Who knows. I thought the meeting at the UN
between Obama and Putin was such thinly disguised cooperation that surely some MSM would comment
– but none did.
And the EU has stated (above) that sanctions against Russia are incompatible because the EU
is "relying on Russia's military might" and shouldn't therefore starve the Russian economy. Wow,
let's hear the story on that please.
So did Holland send in the French bombers to help out Russia? Maybe SA and RU are chummy because
Russia is going to get the contract to build the new pipeline from the Gulf to Europe.
blert, October 7, 2015 at 6:08 pm
Actually all of the load growth, for OPEC, is towards India and points east. American fracking
has released a glut of oil into the Atlantic Ocean market space.
Nigeria essentially lost North America as a customer - all together. If Libya and Venezuela get
their act together, the glut becomes even more pronounced. Then toss in Brazil's new out put.
Brian M, October 7, 2015 at 8:10 pm
many of the fracked wells will fail amazingly quickly. So, this may not be true for long...
skippy, October 7, 2015 at 8:14 pm
A giddy operator with the rights to a gas-rich parcel of land can't just drill willy-nilly.
Well design considerations are very complex and attention to detail must span the construction,
testing phase, and decommissioning of the well post-production. Moreover, drilling wells are often
constructed uniquely with regard to the geology and geography of the specific location. For instance,
because much of the shale formation in Pennsylvania lies beneath a shallower gas formation, it
is easier for the shallower gas to escape during the initial drilling process. This in turn has
made it difficult for drillers to design failproof wells that can be sealed off from the younger
deposits completely.
At this point in the Syrian crisis it appears that the national security network (several hundred
high-level military, intelligence, diplomatic and law enforcement agencies) are still debating
among themselves what the U.S. response will be to Russian military initiatives in Syria and potentially
Iraq.
For all Bernie Sanders supporters, it will be interesting to see what his stance on Syria will
be. Will he break( at least rhetorically) with these national security elites( who since WWII
have basically dictated Presidential moves in the national security arena) or will he cave to
this present structure of networked power despite his "democratic socialist" credentials.
Will Sanders maintain this continuity of American foreign policy that so shocked Obama supporters?
Will the United State continue on its path of greater centralization, less accountability and
emergent autocracy despite whoever wins the increasingly powerless Presidencyj?
RUKidding, October 7, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Here's my bet for the answer to your last 2 Q:
1. Yes
2. Yes
James Levy, October 7, 2015 at 3:00 pm
Unfortunately, I concur.
The amazing thing is watching the utter horror and confusion of the MSM and the Talking Heads
as the Russians do things (bombing ISIS! Firing cruise missiles!!!) that the US does just about
every other Tuesday, as if these things are some kind of massive breach of the peace on the order
of Hitler invading Poland. The lack of any self-awareness is stunning.
Oregoncharles, October 7, 2015 at 2:55 pm
"Russia is attempting to form and lead a UN authorized coalition against ISIL"
The obvious solution, especially if it does not include the US. I'm anti-interventionist in
general, but ISIL poses us the problem the Nazis did: this cannot be allowed to stand. They're
actually taking us back to the 7th Century, morally, and for that matter doing things Mohammed
probably wouldn't have stood for. Except in degree, most of their actions are not unprecedented,
even in modern times; what's unprecedented is their extreme openness about it. Hypocrisy is an
acknowledgment of morality; these people are trying to CHANGE morality, reversing hundreds of
years of hard-won progress. They're a kind of monster we thought we were rid of. And they've been
successful enough militarily, at least in that deeply destabilized region, to present a real threat.
Ultimately, they will have to be suppressed; it won't be easy or bloodless. The Russians'
proposal may be self-interested, but it's the only approach likely to work. American bombing certainly
won't.
ISIL's PR skills bother me on another level: they're extremely convenient for the interventionists.
They've even got me going. And there are real connections between it and the US authorities, especially
in Iraq, to say nothing of the Saudis. I can't help but wonder whether it's a CIA operation, either
run amok or conceivably still under control. (If you aren't paranoid, you aren't paying attention.)
Steven, October 7, 2015 at 4:17 pm
I keep wondering how much of what goes on here in the commentariat of Naked Capitalism
is just preaching to the choir and how much represents (well deserved) contempt for the official
government / MSM (but I repeat myself) line among the population at large. That contempt – if
it exists – is in my humble opinion – a national security issue / crisis.
JTMcPhee, October 7, 2015 at 7:46 pm
Quoting the captain of the Titanic, "More steam! Full speed ahead! We gotta show the world
what this baby will do!"
One week ago, when summarizing the current state of play in Syria,
we said that for Obama, "this is shaping up to be the most spectacular US foreign policy
debacle since Vietnam." Yesterday, in tacit confirmation of this assessment, the Obama administration
threw in the towel on one of the most contentious programs it has implemented in "fighting ISIS",
when the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian force.
But this, so far, partial admission of failure only takes care of one part of Obama's problem: there
is the question of the "other" rebels supported by the US, those who are not part of the officially-disclosed
public program with the fake goal of fighting ISIS; we are talking, of course, about the nearly 10,000
CIA-supported "other rebels", or technically mercenaries, whose only task is to take down Assad.
The same "rebels" whose fate the
AP profiles today when it writes that the CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm,
fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated
10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear.
The effort was separate from the one run by the military, which trained militants willing
to promise to take on IS exclusively. That program was widely considered a failure, and
on Friday, the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian
force, instead opting to equip established groups to fight IS.
It is this effort, too, that in the span of just one month Vladimir Putin has managed to render
utterly useless, as it is officially "off the books" and thus the US can't formally support these
thousands of "rebel-fighters" whose only real task was to repeat the "success" of Ukraine and overthrow
Syria's legitimate president: something which runs counter to the US image of a dignified democracy
not still resorting to 1960s tactics of government overthrow. That, and coupled with Russia and Iran
set to take strategic control of Syria in the coming months, the US simply has no toehold any more
in the critical mid-eastern nation.
And so another sad chapter in the CIA's book of failed government overthrows comes to a close,
leaving the "rebels" that the CIA had supported for years, to fend for themselves.
CIA-backed rebels in Syria, who had begun to put serious pressure on President Bashar Assad's
forces, are now under Russian bombardment with little prospect of rescue by their American
patrons, U.S. officials say.
Over the past week, Russia has directed parts of its air campaign against U.S.-funded groups
and other moderate opposition in a concerted effort to weaken them, the officials say.
The Obama administration has few options to defend those it had secretly armed and trained.
The Russians "know their targets, and they have a sophisticated capacity to understand the
battlefield situation," said Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who serves on the House Intelligence Committee
and was careful not to confirm a classified program. "They are bombing in locations that are not
connected to the Islamic State" group.
... ... ..
Incidentally, this is just the beginning. Now that the U.S. has begun its pivot out
of the middle-east, handing it over to Putin as Russia's latest sphere of influence
on a silver platter, there will be staggering consequences for middle-east geopolitics. In out preview
of things to come last week, we concluded by laying these out; we will do the same again:
The US, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, attempted to train and support Sunni extremists
to overthrow the Assad regime. Some of those Sunni extremists ended up going crazy and declaring
a Medeival caliphate putting the Pentagon and Langley in the hilarious position of being forced
to classify al-Qaeda as "moderate." The situation spun out of control leading to hundreds
of thousands of civilian deaths and when Washington finally decided to try and find real "moderates"
to help contain the Frankenstein monster the CIA had created in ISIS (there were of course numerous
other CIA efforts to arm and train anti-Assad fighters, see below for the fate of the most "successful"
of those groups), the effort ended up being a complete embarrassment that culminated with the
admission that only "four or five" remained and just days after that admission, those "four or
five" were car jacked by al-Qaeda in what was perhaps the most under-reported piece of foreign
policy comedy in history.
Meanwhile, Iran sensed an epic opportunity to capitalize on Washington's incompetence. Tehran
then sent its most powerful general to Russia where a pitch was made to upend the Mid-East balance
of power. The Kremlin loved the idea because after all, Moscow is stinging from Western economic
sanctions and Vladimir Putin is keen on showing the West that, in the wake of the controversy
surrounding the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Russia isn't set to
back down. Thanks to the fact that the US chose extremists as its weapon of choice in Syria,
Russia gets to frame its involvement as a "war on terror" and thanks to Russia's involvement,
Iran gets to safely broadcast its military support for Assad just weeks after the nuclear deal
was struck. Now, Russian airstrikes have debilitated the only group of CIA-backed fighters that
had actually proven to be somewhat effective and Iran and Hezbollah are preparing a massive ground
invasion under cover of Russian air support. Worse still, the entire on-the-ground effort is being
coordinated by the Iranian general who is public enemy number one in Western intelligence circles
and he's effectively operating at the behest of Putin, the man that Western media paints as the
most dangerous person on the planet.
As incompetent as the US has proven to be throughout the entire debacle, it's still
difficult to imagine that Washington, Riyadh, London, Doha, and Jerusalem are going to take this
laying down and on that note, we close with our assessment from Thursday: "If Russia
ends up bolstering Iran's position in Syria (by expanding Hezbollah's influence and capabilities)
and if the Russian air force effectively takes control of Iraq thus allowing Iran to exert a greater
influence over the government in Baghdad, the fragile balance of power that has existed in the
region will be turned on its head and in the event this plays out, one should not expect
Washington, Riyadh, Jerusalem, and London to simply go gentle into that good night."
Which is not to say that the latest US failure to overthrow a mid-east government was a total
failure. As Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma says "probably 60 to
80 percent of the arms that America shoveled in have gone to al-Qaida and its affiliates."
Which is at least great news for the military-industrial complex. It means more "terrorist
attacks" on U.S. "friends and allies", and perhaps even on U.S. soil - all courtesy of the US government
supplying the weapons - are imminent.
BlueViolet
It's not a fiasco. It's a success. AlQaeda/ISIS created by Israel and financed by US.
Stackers
Never forget the first chapter of this story happened in 2011 Benghazi Libya when the Turkey
brokered arms deal went bad, Obama admin abandoned them and one CIA op posing as an ambasador
and his security detail were killed.
This thing has been a shit show from day one and involves scandal after scandal
The Indelicate ...
Video: Israeli forces open fire on Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza killing seven
There is no such thing as 10,000 CIA 'rebels' - that's only their on-line name.
There is a 10,000-man CIA assassination team or better still - mafia hit squad - in Syria.
They're not rebels, they're not terrorists, they're not even mercs. They are paid criminal assassins,
nothing more. My country hired them, so my country is guilty of racketeering and assassination.
There are no degrees of separation here - the U.S. is directly responsible. Since the acts were
perpetrated by people who are also violating the Constitution of the U.S., they are criminals
and traitors.
We should do something about them... right after this season of Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
WTFRLY
White House still ignores murder of American reporter Serena Shim who filmed western aid to
ISIS February 27, 2015
1 year almost since her death. Today would have been her 30th birthday.
SWRichmond
You and I (and perhaps others) wonder how 10,000 "moderate rebels" were vetted before being
trained and equipped. I am guessing an interview with some commander-wannabee, who said "yes I
am a moderate" and then CIA said "awesome, here's $500,000,000.00 and a boatload of sophisticated
weapons. Go hire and train some more moderates." Or maybe CIA just asked McCain and took his word
for it.
...but few believe the U.S. can protect its secret rebel allies
Some secret...
This kind of shit is what you get when the deep state breathes its own fumes.
Lore
Exactly. American hands are drenched in blood. It's not enough just to withdraw from Syria
and leave a bunch of mercs and "assets" to burn, and it's not enough to go after the individuals
behind specific atrocities like 911, the bombing of the hospital, or the weddings, or Abu Ghraib,
or Benghazi, or, or... Nothing will be fixed or resolved until those responsible for drafting,
approving and implementing the pathological policy behind all the loss of life over the past decade
are prosecuted and brought to justice. Unless and until that happens, America has abandoned its
moral foundation and is doomed as a nation. It's just a practical observation.
geno-econ
Neocons went a step too far with their marauder agenda in Ukraine and Syria. Now they
have been silenced by Putin with a show of force exposing US weakness. Both Bush and Obama
showed weakness in not controllling Neocon influence in Wash. and is now reflectrd in political
party turmoil. EU should rejoice because US policy in Syria caused refugee problem which
will subside with end of civil war in Syria. Kiev government now also realizes US will not support
real confrontation with Russia and Russia will not give up Crimea. Neocon experiment in achieving
growth through regime change has been a total failure and huge drain on US economy.
greenskeeper carl
I agree 100%. What I'm dreading is listening to all the republitards in the next debate trying
to one up each other on the war mongering. The problem with 'let Russia have it' is that it will
be talked about by the right as though that's a bad thing. It will be spun as an Obama fuck uo(which
it is) not because of the simple fact that it was never any of our business in the first place.
To them, EVERYTHING is our business, and they will be spending the next few weeks talking tough
about how they will stand up to Putin.
RockyRacoon
You got it right, Carl. If they want to see Russia get its butt kicked, give them Syria, and
Afghanistan, and Iraq and all the other crappy countries that the U. S. has managed to destabilize.
Wish the Russians luck in putting that all back together. Better yet, encourage them to annex
the whole shootin' match into the Russian alliance!
Hey, wait.... could this have been the long term plan all along? Hmmm.... Maybe them thar neocons
are smarter than they look. Nah, never mind.
sp0rkovite
The article implies the CIA "lost" Syria. When did it ever "win" it? Total political propaganda.
datura
There are some risks, yes, dead Iranian general, perhaps soon some dead Russian soldiers.
But unlike the USA, Iran is fighting for its existence here. They know if Syria falls, they could
be next. As for Russia, it is very similar. As one expert said: "When the USA looks at Syria,
they see pipelines, profit from weapons, money and power." But the first thing Putin sees, when
looking at Syria, is Chechnya. Syria is very close to Russia, but very far from the USA. And that
is a huge difference.
For example, yesterday, some ISIS fighters were arrested in Chechnya. Luckily, FSB discovered
them before they could do some harm. Not even talking about those ISIS fighters, who came to Ukraine,
to fight against the pro-Russian rebels!!! You can see, how close and how important is this to
Russia and why Russia cannot give up here and has to go to all the extremes. Including the parked
nuclear submarine near Syria.
I could say to the US lunatics: you shouldn't have kept poking the bear. You shouldn't
have supported terrorists in Chechnya. You should have left Ukraine to Russia. As Putin said very
clearly in Valdai: "Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still
attempting to construct their New World Order-until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's
key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as
their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard
for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain."
House of Saud better be careful, because once Syria is taken care of, they will pay dearly
for arming ISIS. If Russia wins in the ME Qatar and SA are up for regime change and the US cannot
stop it.
Neil Patrick Harris
no no no. It's a about Israel seizing legal authority to drill for oil and nat gas in the Golan
Heights/Southern Syria. The plan was to arm ISIS, help ISIS defeat Assad, let ISIS be terrible
ISIS who will then threaten Israel, giving the Israelis a perfect excuse to invade Syria, defeat
ISIS and look like a hero, then build a pipeline through Turkey, right in to Europe.
But thankfully Putin cockblocked those racist Zionists, and he is going to get all the oil
and gas for himself. Poor ol' Bibi gets nothing. Checkmate.
Freddie
http://www.moonofalabama.org/
Moon of Alabama web site is saying the See Eye Aye and Pentagram are not giving up. If
anything, they plan on ramping it up. How many more civilians do they want to kill? Sickening.
Given our military spending I think we actually could win an all-out war. We have enough nukes
to glass the planet a dozen times after all.
However, bullies don't want to fight with someone who could actually fight back, and who could
change the wars from this abstract thing that "creates jobs" and only hurts a few Americans (10k
Americans = 0.003% of the population), to something that people actually might not want.
viahj
if this is framed as an Obama failure in foreign policy (it will) in the upcoming US political
Presidential selection, the candidates will all be falling over themselves to come to the aide
of our "ME Allies" to restore order. there will be a push to re-escalate US involvement in the
ME especially with the pressure of Israel over their owned US politicians. a US retreat in the
short term while fortunate for the American people, will not stand. the warmongers will be posturing
themselves as to which will be the loudest in calling for re-engagement.
Insufficient evidence
for prosecution to declare shooting of MH17 a terrorist act..
Notable quotes:
"... The refusal of the Australian officials to make the statutory declaration that they have the
evidence under Australian law to declare a terrorist act suggests they don't have the evidence at
all. Until now, none has noticed the convergence of the Australian autopsy evidence in the
Coroners Court in Melbourne, and the revelation in the Brisbane court that the government is
refusing to declare a terrorist act. ..."
"... Dutch media report Australian lawyers for kin of victims have filed a complaint with
the ICC in the Hague seeking to indict several Dutch government ministers as well as
Eurocontrol and others for 'gross negligence'. ..."
"... If I'm right, the Russians have the evidence that proves whodunnit. They're just waiting until
the Dutch put out their report. Shot from the sky by military (whose is a guess) planes, not
BUK missiles. If they had one atom from a BUK, we'd know about it. ..."
"... It now appears that the likelihood 'on balance' is that it was the Ukrainian government
that shot down the plane. Establishing the case on a balance of probabilities would be good
enough in a civil jurisdiction. ..."
"... Obviously we westerners cannot tolerate that result otherwise everything we have said
about the accident will be thought to be intentionally misleading. It would be far far better
to obfuscate the investigative results and say it was inconclusive. Then our newspapers can
say those crafty Russians got away with it. ..."
"... Fingers crossed. Its not impossible that the truth will out. ..."
Fifteen weeks later, by the time Abbott spoke in November, he had been briefed on the evidence
gathered by Australian pathologists and the Victorian State Coroner from the bodies of MH17
victims. No evidence of shrapnel from a Buk missile warhead had been found. For that story,
read on.
... ... ...
The refusal of the Australian officials to make the statutory declaration that they have the
evidence under Australian law to declare a terrorist act suggests they don't have the evidence at
all. Until now, none has noticed the convergence of the Australian autopsy evidence in the
Coroners Court in Melbourne, and the revelation in the Brisbane court that the government is
refusing to declare a terrorist act.
... ... ...
For the Dutch Government's compilation of its official statements on the MH17 crash, open
this file. According to van der Goen, none of the investigating countries has legitimate
authority to prosecute, "if only because the Netherlands and the other countries mentioned are
possible suspects themselves - and they refuse to see this. So the case will be endlessly
shelved. Eventually, it will be adopted at a parliamentary inquiry that mistakes were made, but
then noone will still be awake. Excellent solution."
Ilargi, October 8, 2015 at 1:53 am
Dutch media report Australian lawyers for kin of victims have filed a complaint with
the ICC in the Hague seeking to indict several Dutch government ministers as well as
Eurocontrol and others for 'gross negligence'.
Chris Williams, October 8, 2015 at 2:35 am
I don't know how our clever governments (US, Australia, Netherlands, UK etc) are going to
get out of this one. Perhaps, as JH suggests, they will continue to defer and prevaricate,
keeping their 'evidence'… until know one cares.
If I'm right, the Russians have the evidence that proves whodunnit. They're just waiting until
the Dutch put out their report. Shot from the sky by military (whose is a guess) planes, not
BUK missiles. If they had one atom from a BUK, we'd know about it.
JTMcPhee, October 8, 2015 at 9:09 pm
For a different and more complete view, one might read here:
Not some "itchy radar operator," it would seem. But the Narrative must be protected…
low_integer, October 9, 2015 at 6:22 am
So the damage to the body would come from the exploding engine. It's so big, spinning
so fast, that the energy released is far, far, greater than the warheads. !!!
So, you can't tell either way based on the plane's body. You'd have to have
microscopic analysis of the engine components - which would be very challenging and take
just about forever.
Obfuscation. The parts in a passenger aircraft's jet engine that are moving, the turbine
blades, are made of nickel-based superalloys and I believe they are single 'grain' components,
which means they have consistent strength throughout and would be very unlikely to fracture.
Also, damage to the fuselage of a passenger jet from turbine blades would be easily
identifiable due to their shape and position as the energy of the turbine blades would be
dispersed at right angles to the direction of thrust. Lastly, the casing around these blades
would, at the very least, absorb a significant amount of this energy.
Are you the guy who replied to one of my posts that Cthulu caused 9/11?
RBHoughton, October 8, 2015 at 9:17 pm
It now appears that the likelihood 'on balance' is that it was the Ukrainian government
that shot down the plane. Establishing the case on a balance of probabilities would be good
enough in a civil jurisdiction.
Obviously we westerners cannot tolerate that result otherwise everything we have said
about the accident will be thought to be intentionally misleading. It would be far far better
to obfuscate the investigative results and say it was inconclusive. Then our newspapers can
say those crafty Russians got away with it.
If not, eastern Ukraine and Russia will score a huge win and we will have even more egg on our
faces than usual. Its bad enough that fewer people believe us but its far worse that they
begin to prefer Putin's version.
The hopeful thing here is the lawyers. Older readers will recall people used to study law
because they respected the concept of a law-based society. It was not just about the money.
Some of these vocational lawyers can still be found and it is my hope that they get fully
involved in this case. Fingers crossed. Its not impossible that the truth will out.
Thanks again Naked Capitalism for reporting important news that is neglected by others.
In 2014, Gazprom delivered
27.3 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to Turkey via its Blue Stream and Trans-Balkan pipelines.
Gas exports from Russia are up some 34 percent since
2010, and Turkey
– now Russia's second largest market after Germany – is only getting hungrier. By 2030, gas demand
in Turkey is
expected to expand 30 percent, reaching 70 bcm per year.
... ... ...
With European demand projected to
grow by just over 1 bcm per year in the same period, Russia's South Stream pipeline proposal
was as misguided as it was non-compliant with the EU's Third Energy Package. Routed through Turkey
however, Russia's newest pipeline, TurkStream, promised to add greater utility. Turkey gets its gas
and partly fulfills its transit aspirations; Russia bypasses Ukraine while opening windows to Europe
and the Middle East; and Europe, if it wants it, will have gas
on demand.
It sounds good – okay, at least – but as so often happens in Russia, the tale has taken a turn
for the worse. TurkStream has stumbled out of the gates and larger happenings in Syria look to significantly
damage Russia-Turkey relations.
Originally intended as a four-pipe 63-bcm project, TurkStream will now
top out at 32 bcm,
if it gets off the ground at all. As it stands, the parties have
agreed to draft the text of
an intergovernmental agreement, with a targeted signing date of early next year, following Turkey's
general election. And that's it.
ARTEMIVSK, Ukraine - How do you prove you didn't blow up a plane? In Russia, you blow up
a plane.
A Russian missile manufacturer said Friday that it had exploded a missile beneath a
decommissioned Boeing airliner similar to that of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, shot out of the
sky over eastern Ukraine last year, proving the passenger jet was not downed by one of its
missiles.
"The company will present the results of a real-time simulation of a Buk missile hitting a
passenger jet which we hope will help us understand what exactly caused the July 17, 2014 crash
of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 in Ukraine's Donetsk region," Almaz-Antey said in a
statement.
The company did not say when the experiment took place or how it was conducted, and it did not
immediately reply to Mashable's request for comment. Its report will be released on Tuesday, Oct.
13, the same day a joint international investigation led by the Dutch Safety Board will release
its full report into the causes of the downing.
At a press conference in Moscow in June, Almaz-Antey said it was prepared to carry out
such an experiment to prove MH17 was downed by an older version of their missile that isn't in
service with the Russian military, but is in Ukraine's arsenal.
Company officials at the time did not say whether the aircraft would be in flight during the
experiment.
MH17 was downed over the village of Hrabovo, eastern Ukraine while en route from Amsterdam to
Kuala Lumpa on July 17, 2014. All 298 passengers and crew on board the jetliner were killed and
their remains scattered over the battlefields in war-torn Donetsk region.
Western governments and Kiev have accused Russian-backed separatists of shooting down the
passenger jet, mistaking it for a Ukrainian military aircraft, with a Buk SA-11 missile provided
by Moscow. Their accusations are supported by preliminary evidence gathered by open source
sleuths Bellingcat, as well as investigators and Mashable's own investigation.
On Wednesday, Vasyl Vovk, a senior officer of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) who has been
involved in the investigation into the downing, told Dutch news site NOS that the fragments found
in the aircraft wreckage and in victims' bodies matched pieces from two Buk missiles that
investigators examined for comparison.
The Kremlin and separatist leaders have blamed Kiev for the disaster, insisting it was downed
either by a Ukrainian Buk missile or a government jet fighter.
While the Dutch report due next week will shine a light on what caused the plane to crash and
burn, it will not lay blame.
A separate criminal investigation headed by Dutch detectives and involving investigators from
Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine is still pending.
Attempts by the United Nations Security Council to create a tribunal to prosecute those
responsible for the crime was vetoed by Russia, a permanent member of the council, in July.
Moscow has called the move "premature" and decried the Dutch-led investigation as biased.
Please compare Luke Harding
and Shaun Walker article
with Who
Shot down Malaysian flight MH17? Guardian presstitutes failed to ask any of key questions and just
play the case on emotional level. And for them, of course Russians are guilty by definition, despite
absence of reliable evidence and the court verdict. Doubt is something that never visits those rascals
of pen.
Technical report on 2014 air disaster in Ukraine will avoid 'blame and culpability' – though its
evidence may further bolster argument Russia was involved
Almaz-Antey, the Russian defence conglomerate that manufactures Buk missile systems, says it will
hold its own press conference on Tuesday. The company said it had performed an experiment in which
it blew up a decommissioned Boeing, in an attempt to prove that a Russian Buk could not have been
involved. Earlier, the company claimed its investigations showed the plane had been shot down by
an old version of a system which the Ukrainian army has in its arsenal but which the Russian army
does not
"... Russia
bombed some of the CIAS trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell
it who not to bomb but didnt receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the
Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists
they are a legitimate targets. But
not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful: ..."
"... Erdogans AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda
in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician
said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure
or a Turkish intelligence operation. ..."
"... Today the Russian President Putin will
meet
the Saudi young leader deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act
and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so. ..."
But instead of building on that agreement and of further working with the Russians, the U.S. is now
slipping into a full war by proxy against the Russian Federation and especially with its contingent
in Syria. Obama
had claimed that he would not get drawn into a proxy war with Russia in Syria but his administration,
the Pentagon and the CIA, is now doing all it can to create one. The Russian support for Syria is
not limited. With the U.S. administration now moving into a position where war on Russia in Syria
becomes the priority the fighting in and around Syria will continue for a long time.
The official
Pentagon program to train Syrian insurgents will cease to vet, train, arm and support those mercenaries.
But the program will not end. The Pentagon will simply shorten the process. It skips the vetting
and training part and will
arm and support anyone who proclaims to want to "fight ISIS":
The move marks an expansion of U.S. involvement in Syria's protracted ground
war and could expose the Obama administration to greater risks if weapons provided to a wider
array of rebel units go astray, or if U.S.-backed fighters come under attack from forces loyal
to Assad and his allies.
...
Under the new plan, leaders of groups already battling the Islamic State undergo vetting and receive
a crash course in human rights and combat communications. Many of them have already received that
training outside Syria, officials said.
Eventually the Pentagon plans to provide ammunition and basic weapons to those leaders' fighters
and would carry out airstrikes on targets identified by those units.
We know how well things go when some rogue proxies identify targets they want the U.S. air force
to hit. The destroyed MSF hospital in Kunduz and the 50 something killed in the U.S. attack on it,
on request of Afghan special forces, tell the story.
Significant military aid to those fighters, in an area where Islamist extremist groups are mixed
with and often fighting beside moderate opposition rebels, would mark a departure from previous
U.S. policy. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss
the matter, declined to give specifics on any new aid that might arrive in northwest Syria. But
the official said that "these supplies will be delivered to anti-ISIL forces whose leaders were
appropriately vetted," and described them as "groups with diverse membership."
That would be
these diverse groups which all include al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, Ahrar al Shams and other Jihadis. Even
if not directly given to them the fact that al-Qaeda
demands a "toll"
of 1/3 of all weapons going through its controls, and sometimes takes all, shows that this program
is effectively a direct, though unacknowledged, armament program for al-Qaeda.
The new program is separate from a CIA-led effort to aid rebel factions in Syria. It was not immediately
clear how Friday's announcement might affect the CIA program.
The CIA runs a similar but much bigger program since 2012. Weapons are handed out to everyone
who wants to take down the Syrian government. Most of those weapons have landed in the hands of the
Islamic State or al-Qaeda.
Indeed it is the CIA, under its torture justifying chief Brennan, which has pushed the Obama administration
away from Kerry's conceding statement and into a full blown proxy war with Russia.
Russia
bombed some of the CIA'S trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell
it who not to bomb but didn't receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the
Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists
they are a legitimate targets. But
not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful:
Reports indicate that CIA-trained groups have sustained a small number of casualties and have
been urged to avoid moves that would expose them to Russian aircraft. One U.S. official who is
familiar with the CIA program - and who like other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity
to discuss intelligence matters - said the attacks have galvanized some of the agency-equipped
units. "Now they get to fight the Russians," the official said. "This improves morale."
...
Brennan departed for the Middle East last week as the Russian strikes intensified.
U.S. officials said that the trip was previously planned and not related to the bombings but acknowledged
that his discussions centered on Syria.
...
The decision to dismantle the Pentagon's training program - whose small teams of fighters were
often quickly captured or surrendered their weapons to rival rebel groups in Syria - may force
Obama to weigh ramping up support to the CIA-backed groups.
U.S. officials said those involved in the agency program are already exploring options
that include sending in rocket systems and other weapons that could enable rebels to strike Russian
bases without sending in surface-to-air missiles that terrorist groups could use to target
civilian aircraft.
The person who told the Saudis to
deliver 500
TOW missiles to Syria ASAP was likely CIA chief Brennan. He also ordered to plan for attacks
on the Russian base.
So instead of a calming down and cooperation with Russia to fight the Islamic State the Pentagon
was told to shorten its program and to hand out weapons to everyone who asks. The CIA is feeding
more weapons to its mercenaries via its Gulf proxies and is planning for direct attacks on Russians.
The war on Syria, and now also on Russia, is unlikely to end in the near future. With the U.S.
throwing more oil into the fire the war will burn not only in Syria but in every other country around
it.
Two suicide bombers blew themselves up today at a rally of the Kurd friendly HDP party in Ankara.
Some 90 people were killed and some 200 wounded. This is the biggest terrorist attack modern Turkey
has ever seen. The Turkish government disconnected the country from Twitter and forbid any reporting
about the terror attack. The HDP party is leftist and supports a peaceful struggle for Kurdish autonomy.
The militant Kurdish PKK in Turkey is currently fighting skirmishes with Turkish security forces
in the east of the country. It has now announced that it will stop all attacks unless when it is
attacked first. The sister organization of the PKK in Syria, the YPK, is currently fighting against
the Islamic State. Erdogan's AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda
in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician
said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure
or a Turkish intelligence operation.
Whatever else it was, the bombing, very likely by Islamic State suicide bombers, is a sign of
an ongoing destabilization of Turkey. The instability will increase further until there is a major
policy change and a complete crackdown on any support for the Jihadis in Syria as well as a complete
closure of the Turkish-Syrian border.
Today the Russian President Putin will
meet
the Saudi "young leader" deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act
and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so.
"... The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom. ..."
"... One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. ..."
"... Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, theyre running free. ..."
"... It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar. ..."
"... Its a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the rebels . The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. Moderate rebels morphed into relatively moderate insurgents and all kinds of other permutations. ..."
"... McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other unstable personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the responsible players like Obama and Kerry. The responsibles can always point to the lunatics and extract concessions from frightened opposite side. ..."
"... On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup detat, hes made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkeys EU aspirations. ..."
"... Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the a , b and c of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War. ..."
"... The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe. ..."
"... Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but were brainwashed idiots. ..."
"... We have become a Propaganda Wonderland. ..."
"... Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth. ..."
"... The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russias surprise intervention in Syria and its a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months. ..."
"... Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program thats so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat. ..."
"... The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world. ..."
"... excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan ..."
The first, and probably most important reason for which NATO is not attacking Russia for the moment,
is the upgraded Russian nuclear arsenal. As in the Cold War 1.0 era, the nuclear strength of both
superpowers, capable to destroy the planet many times, was a key preventing factor against a direct
conflict between the USA and the former Soviet Union.
Moreover, the US indirect aggression against China lately, a stupid strategy coming from the neocon
agenda, brought China closer to Russia, building an even stronger alliance between them. They are
both now in a race of developing further their nuclear arsenals and this is a key deterrent which
prevents NATO to confront them openly.
The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility
has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right
now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United
Kingdom.
The relations between the United States and other major countries inside the alliance appear to
be in a quite bad shape, especially those with Germany and Turkey. The recent Volkswagen emission
scandal confirmed that, indeed, there is an underground fierce economic war between the United States
and Germany. Besides that, the relations between the two countries started to worse rapidly after
the known revelations of the NSA interceptions.
Concerning Turkey, it is known that the US promote the creation of a Kurdish state because it
serves better their interests. This is totally unacceptable for Erdoğan,who is occupied by the illusion
of the Turkish expansionism. Washington is not very happy seeing ISIS being used by Turkey to fight
Kurds, instead of operating in full force against Assad regime.
Other key allies like France, are not very happy with the sanctions, imposed by the US, against
Russia. The economic damage is not insignificant. The most characteristic example concerning France,
is the cancellation of the deal concerning the Mistral warships, by Russia.
The third reason, is that the US need Russia and even Iran to clean up the mess in Middle East.
A mess which was created by the US and their allies in Middle East when they started to arm anti-Assad
forces to confront the Assad regime. Now, ISIS is out of control.
However, the Americans had enough troubles with the attrition wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They
wouldn't risk further mess by bringing 'boots on the ground' to confront ISIS. The recent deal with
Iran, concerning its nuclear program, is not accidental. Besides, Pentagon announced that will stop
training new militant forces in Syria, which is actually an admission of failure of its so far strategy.
Exclusive: With Cold War II in full swing, the New York Times is dusting off what might be
called McCarthyism II, the suggestion that anyone who doesn't get in line with U.S. propaganda
must be working for Moscow, reports Robert Parry.
snip
Perhaps it's no surprise that the U.S. government's plunge into Cold War II would bring
back the one-sided propaganda themes that dominated Cold War I, but it's still unsettling to
see how quickly the major U.S. news media has returned to the old ways, especially the New
York Times, which has emerged as Official Washington's propaganda vehicle of choice.
What has been most striking in the behavior of the Times and most other U.S. mainstream
media outlets is their utter lack of self-awareness, for instance, accusing Russia of engaging
in propaganda and alliance-building that are a pale shadow of what the U.S. government routinely
does. Yet, the Times and the rest of the MSM act as if these actions are unique to Moscow.
BIG SNIP
USAID, working with billionaire
George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized
Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually
goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled
out for accusations of corruption.
The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat,
an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.
Soros is coming to get us. :) Look for uptick in trolls. Hope Operation Summer Rains trolls
have retired.
Lysander
| Oct 10, 2015 1:16:14 PM | 14
Best defense for Russia is the ability to retaliate in kind. Yemen against KSA and PKK against
Turkey. It doesn't mean they won't arm the terrorists, but it does mean it will be costly for
them. And the Russians can always play the "gee it looks like your manpads fell into the wrong
hands and they went and shot down an Aapache in Iraq."
james
| Oct 10, 2015 1:26:51 PM | 18
what is the disconnect between the us admin and the cia? is this some sort of good guy, bad
guy routine that they like to have going? are they supposed to make out like the right hand doesn't
know what the left hand is doing too? looks like the cia is calling the shots... so much for that
friggin' democracy joke under the nobel peace prizer's command..
actually i think skipping the vetting and training of those working for the usa administration
and the cia is a huge problem.. they can do that when they want to put weapons in isis's hands
to overthrow assad, but they need to stop doing it to their own country as it's doing to blow
up in their face..on 2nd thought maybe they are hoping for regime change in the usa! that's one
way to get an amerikkkan regime change in your own country - destroy it..
i am sorry to hear of the horrible event in ankara.. i can't imagine sultan erdogan being happy
about it either..who advises this dipstick? or, is that an example of how things will go better
with isis?
Virgile
| Oct 10, 2015 1:45:51 PM | 19
This is where Iran comes in...
It is clear that if the USA starts a proxy war in Syria against Russia, Iran will retaliate
by hitting the USA ally, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen.
In parallel to Saudi Arabia arming Syrian rebels, we will see Iran (and Russia) arming the
Houthis in Yemen. I expect heavy military escalation on the Saudi Yemeni border soon
MMARR
| Oct 10, 2015 1:51:14 PM | 21
@17 shadylady
Impotence is an unfamiliar feeling in DC, so they are all "pissed" right now. Generals, politicos,
arms merchants, lobbyists, think tankers, all of them. They are scrambling for a response, but
can't find a single one that wouldn't lead to a worsening of their position.
We are witnessing the last gasp of American hegemony, and the process is natural and irreversible.
nmb @2, Thanks for the link.
One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that
Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria.
I agree and evidently some faction in the US
with Obama as its point-man agrees. However this faction is so weak that it cannot even seem to
speak out forthrightly, but relies on undermining the neocon strategy, which remains the same.
The unipolarists are still determined upon absolute rule generally-- and destruction of Syria
and its govt specifically.
@ MMARR @ BOG @ James, I love reading Pepe Escorbar and M.K. Bhadrakumar
NATO all dressed up, nowhere to go in Syria
Neither Erdogan nor Russian President Vladimir Putin is spoiling for a fight. By the way,
what actually happened over the weekend on the Turkish-Syrian border too is shrouded in mystery
and increasingly it seems Ankara and Moscow are in some foreplay over new ground rules for
the non-existent Turkish-Syrian border.
From Erdogan's latest remarks, he seems to be tapping down tensions.
snip
The European Union's proposal to 'assist' Turkey in handling the refugee flow from Syria is
a case in point. The EU offers to subsidize Turkey financially provided Ankara kept custody
of the Syrian refugees. Ankara has an open mind – everything depends on how generous the EU
funding will be.
Clearly, $1.5 billion is 'peanuts'.
Turkey does not want foreign troops to come and defend it. Its preference is that the US
and Germany would change their mind and allowed the Patriot batteries to remain in Turkey.
(Alas, they are not agreeable.)
snip
A broad Turkish-Russian understanding over Syria may even emerge out of it. Erdogan will
most certainly expect Putin not to arm the Syrian Kurds.
Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, they're
running free.
It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the
neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions
are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder
version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar.
He weakened the Pentagon's program to send in fighters, but I don't think there's anything
he can do against the CIA I guess he still appoints the director, but making that change wd be
an awfully dangerous move.
Does anyone know if there are elements in the military who resist the military adventurism
for whom McCain and the neocons are the point-men?
gemini33
| Oct 10, 2015 2:35:41 PM | 30
@11 Penelope
It's a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject
of Syria and particularly the "rebels". The concoction of terms that have been used over the past
couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting
them. "Moderate rebels" morphed into "relatively moderate insurgents" and all kinds of other permutations.
It's also interesting to note the way they refer to their numerous anonymous sources. We have
become a Propaganda Wonderland.
MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 2:42:38 PM | 33
@25 Penelope
McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other "unstable" personalities decide grand total of
nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up
the foreign interlocutors for the "responsible" players like Obama and Kerry. The "responsibles"
can always point to the "lunatics" and extract concessions from frightened opposite side.
People who take their bluster seriously are making a mistake, because that's exactly their
goal. Yet it's simply a bluster, a theater, and nothing more.
Therefore, nobody in the US military "resists their adventurism", because they are all part of
the same team, only with different roles.
Proxy wars were how the Cold War 1.0 was fought, and after a brief hiatus, that's how the new
Cold War 2.0 will be fought, what has changed is the weaponry and the type of warfare, mainly
from guerrilla wars of liberation in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, to hybrid and asymmetrical
warfare. The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat
Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world.
On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a
military coup d'etat, he's made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined
with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur,
are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU,
Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has
more ammunition to throw at Turkey's EU aspirations.
Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their
diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out
action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the "a","b" and "c" of the craft, and maybe
even regressing since the end of the Cold War.
So, Moscow will definitely refrain from any preemptive action with regard to undermining Saudis
or Turks. They usually prefer to sit and watch, to talk and to calculate the odds, and only then
move a figure on a chessboard. Americans move first and think later, believing they can always
kill the opponent, if the game develops not to their liking.
As for Russia not supplying Syria or Iran with S-300, I think that was done mostly in order
not to alarm and antagonize the West prematurely, while Russia's military was moving swiftly on
the path of wholesale reorganization and modernization. In Putin's world, it seems, everything
has its own time and its own place.
The Russians must have had a very clear understanding that when they attacked those "al Nusra"
and other "moderate" targets in Northern Syria that they that these forces were being supplied
and encouraged by the CIA Russia knowingly attacked US backed forces. Perhaps Obama and Kerry
are too stupid to realize what that means. What it means is that there are very powerful forces
inside the US government and military that will see this as an attack on the United States of
America and that we must respond to that aggression. I hope that Obama is starting to understand
what he is up against. He should be trying to bring those agencies under control. Any tiny efforts
to neutralize those War Party forces with compromise will only make matters worse. It is time
exert executive control over these groups and execute top level purges if they resist. Somehow
this seems unlikely.
I hope Putin and Lavrov thought this through before they acted. The outcome
could be very dangerous indeed. I was terribly worried last week when the Russian attack began
that it would produce a strong reaction inside the US government among all of those war monger
plants inside State, the military and intelligence agencies that have been slowly gaining power
for the last decade. All of that cheering we have been hearing over the last week here at MOA
has been serious -- representatives of the US hegemon do not like to be ridiculed.
BOG @ 13, I don't think it's a divide between the executive & military. I think the majority
of each is committed to an aggressive foreign policy. Obama I think is resisting it and only giving
rhetorical agreement. I'm not sure who else is in the resistors' faction.
Thanks for posting about the withdrawal of the USS Theodore Roosevelt "just one day after Russian
missile strikes from the Caspian. Didn't make sense to me, cuz Russians aren't threatening ships.
In fact, departure was well telegraphed in advance: In April, June & July. Announcement was
that for first time since 2007 there wd be a two month gap in the Fall w/o an aircraft carrier
in the Gulf. Replacement in December. Reason: Only 10 active now, stead of 11 & ideal maintenace
schedule is 7 months deployment; as it is we're deploying for 8 months. Oct 5 announced imminent
departure, day before Rusian missiles.
The Russians surely anticipated such a move from the US so i assume Putin has a counter move
for the US. China's participation would certainly supply that but there are lots of things Putin
can do, many are mentioned above.
The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also
threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt,
etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe.
I doubt US allies will be able to endure this US push to implement Brzezinki's nefarious plot
and Israel's similar plan for the ME. I expect some major defections from the US camp.
Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia,
Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue.
The American people should do something as well but we're brainwashed idiots.
IMO the lack of western reaction is due to two things - 1) Russians have some toys that the
west can't neutralize and 2) Europe wants to survive and wants no war anyway
I think the arab statements are pure posturing, they'll basically trade Syria for Yemen in
the end.
Erdogan played both east and west and betrayed both. He has no future, this way or the other.
The current chaos there could come from both sides just as well.
Please don't hate me because I was right, once again.
Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the
first breath that came out of his mouth.
Like I said weeks ago when b and others here gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt, which was never
deserved. How could Kerry be a proven unreliable liar in regards to Ukraine, but he's capable
of telling the truth in Syria ?! it makes no sense. Desperate, wishful thinking.
The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russia's surprise intervention in Syria
and it's a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable
action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months.
And when Russia inevitably becomes Iraqs foreign helpful power, replacing the US there, then
expect far more US support for jihadi terrorists. If the US is left out of the loop in Iraq, they
will counter that with more jihadis and more weapons. It's why they are the evil empire and the
Great Satan.
Oh, and that time frame of the Russian involvement in Syria will be only four months, like
I said was bullshit yesterday, guess what, it's time to hate tom again, because I was spot on
there too.
Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program that's
so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility
eviserator.
The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat.
In geopolitics the words of intent almost always hide the real intent. They are
meaningless.
All of this verbal saber-rattling is nothing more than psy-ops, the lowest cost form of warfare.
People are simply trying no nudge the Russians to engage in talks, as well as enhance their own
position at the negotiating table. US government also has to calm down the viewers of FOX News.
Moscow understands that.
My prediction - neither the West nor the Gulf Arabs (who operate some of the world's biggest
and fines airlines) will supply high-tech anti-aircraft weapons to head choppers. Russians produce
the best such toys in the world, and the blowback for this "act of war" could be vicious.
"On Friday, Russian air power "destroyed two command centres of the militants, an ammunition depot
in the Hama Province, 29 field camps, 23 fortified stations and positions with ammunition and
equipment."
Radio intercepts revealed ISIS now faces a shortage of fuel, weapons, ammunition and increasingly
the will to fight in the face of an onslaught against which they're defenseless.
Thousands "are demoralized and are actively leaving the battle zone, moving in eastern and northeastern
directions," Konashenkov explained.
Areas targeted in the last 24 hours included Raqqa (the main ISIS stronghold), Hama, Idlib, the
Damascus countryside and Aleppo."
http://sjlendman.blogspot.co.uk/
Not bad for a start, won't do McCains health any good.
Satellite images located a hidden Idlib province command center. "After
analysis of pictures from space and after air reconnaissance by drones," Russian air strikes destroyed
it.
The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing. Reading this detailed
report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings
waiting for orders while the bombs fall.
The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla
force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was
evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.
The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture
new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.
LoneWolf @35 said:
" The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will
fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world."
Yep, and as long as the dollar reins, they'll create all they need to meet their goals.
nmb @ 38 said: "I'm afraid things can get worse with the 2016 US elections. Any GOP will certainly
promote the neocon agenda, but also Hillary will adopt such policies. I doubt that the US deep
state will let any chance for Sanders."
Agreed. It's the money people, til' that changes, nothing changes. Go BRICS, go!
The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing.
I don't think the takfiris you so much defend would have the same opinion. They are being blown
to bits, and that according to your buddy-buddy at the Syrian "Observatory for Human Rights" (sic!).
Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic
State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall. The IS is a nonconventional
force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a
command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school
yards were empty.
Wrong again. IS performs and behaves like a conventional army, with entire regions, cities
and territory under their control, some of them for years now, with a functioning economy, bureaucracy,
the entire infrastructure of a state. They are not a rag-tag guerrilla group, they have ties to
the infrastructure they have stolen, gas and oil fields to defend, training grounds, C&C centers,
etc. IS might use non-conventional, guerrilla tactics in their fighting, as many armies do, that
doesn't turn them into a non-conventional force. A guerrilla moves to fight another day, does
not engage in attrition tactics.
The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture
new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.
You pretend to be so well informed. How would you know those details? Your takfiri rats are
running all over because their time for reckoning is up, now they have to pay for their crimes,
and are being sent to hell in bits and pieces so their master can use them for fuel.
A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail,
YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC,
and the U.K.'s Channel 4.
…A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail,
YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC,
and the U.K.'s Channel 4…
###
And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably
keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.
I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled Russian
trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged data
from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources', i.e. the
usual bollox.
May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.)
just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up
service?!
…The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums…
…Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains,
because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are
required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each
search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen…
…When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that
the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."
The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight
greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for
data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about
Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance….
#####
It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain
privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way
to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the
Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so,
the US used British pilots and Canberras.
Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards and
make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not. What people can do to protect themselves is a)
don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag); b) just don't do or say
obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life; c) use encryption such
as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.; d) don't write about
what not to do on the Internet as I have just done!
;)
The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending
on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your
life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to
send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas
territories, but it is total control.
If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then
the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".
Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window in
an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!
This should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence
services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago.
Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the
make up of the committee has changed a bit.
What it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited
info from the security services.
And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor administration and continued
under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.
It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will
be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially,
We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed a great deal more than
just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting information on everyone.
As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered online so that government
spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined that citizens shall have
no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything you do and listening
to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in case, and slip embarrassing
revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into your telephone conversations.
Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that
is private, except maybe for
Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if
they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government
bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU)
from the
NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.
A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the
Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that
the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight
to the NSA. You can't believe anyone any more.
"... "It seems to me that
[such actions] are unworthy of an open, democratic society," ..."
"... "some countries and
international organizations," ..."
"... "some persons." ..."
"... "Given the social impact of the MH17 plane crash as well as many questions raised by the relatives
[of the victims of the catastrophe], it is vital that the government's actions and efforts in the
aftermath of this disaster should be transparent," ..."
"... For journalists, this openness is essential for monitoring the activities of the government, ..."
"... "It is not just about the families of the victims but also about
the actions of the Dutch government and the political situation in Europe." ..."
"... "Finding out the causes [of the MH17 crash] and bringing the perpetrators of the attack on
the plane to justice is a top priority," ..."
"... "However, it is also important that the actions of politicians and government officials in
the aftermath of the catastrophe could be accurately reconstructed," ..."
Three Dutch media companies have filed a joint lawsuit against the country's Security and Justice
Ministry, demanding that it disclose more documents relating to the MH17 catastrophe investigation
after the ministry's refusal to release the information.
The Netherlands Broadcasting Foundation (NOS); the Dutch subsidiary of the European TV, radio
and production company RTL Group; and the Dutch daily Volkskrant have joined forces to appeal the
Netherlands Security and Justice Ministry's refusal to make public "many documents" concerning the
Malaysian Airlines MH17 crash in Eastern Ukraine last year, NOS
said in a press release.
The three media companies had previously appealed to the ministry separately, asking it to disclose
MH17 investigation data based on the Freedom of Information Law (WOB). The aim of the companies was
to bring to light the details of the tragedy, as well as to reconstruct the actions of Dutch officials
after the catastrophe.
The three media companies asked for the reports of ministerial and other official committees that
were involved in the MH17 investigation to be released. In response to the media outlets' request,
the ministry reportedly released about 575 documents related to the MH17 case, including the correspondence
of the members of the national crisis group that was formed immediately after the tragedy.
... ... ...
Peter Klein, deputy senior editor of Dutch RTL News, said he was "frustrated" with the government's
attempts to blur over the truth with the "black marker policy."
"It seems to me that
[such actions] are unworthy of an open, democratic society," he
said in the RTL press release.
The Netherlands National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, Dick Schoof, who released
the documents after the request of the media companies, said that the disclosure of the documents
that had not been made public could lead to deterioration of relations with "some countries and
international organizations," as well as damage the reputation of "some persons."
Even the objection procedure launched by the media outlets has changed nothing in the ministry's
decision. NOS, RTL and Volkskrant have now undertaken joint legal action, asking the Utrecht District
Court to launch an appeal for all of them within a single lawsuit, according to NOS press release.
The three companies have launched the joint appeal procedure as they claim they want to emphasize
that transparency is of crucial importance in the MH17 case.
"Given the social impact of the MH17 plane crash as well as many questions raised by the relatives
[of the victims of the catastrophe], it is vital that the government's actions and efforts in the
aftermath of this disaster should be transparent," Philippe Remarque, editor-in-chief of De
Volkskrant,
said in the company's press release.
"For journalists, this openness is essential for monitoring the activities of the government,"
he said.
Marcel Gelauff, editor-in-chief at NOS, said the wider public interest would be served by the
publication of the documents: "It is not just about the families of the victims but also about
the actions of the Dutch government and the political situation in Europe."
"Finding out the causes [of the MH17 crash] and bringing the perpetrators of the attack on
the plane to justice is a top priority," Peter Klein said in the RTL press release.
"However, it is also important that the actions of politicians and government officials in
the aftermath of the catastrophe could be accurately reconstructed," he added.
William Rollinson 10.10 11:01
OO Billy
USA hasnt released any of their satellite imagery or the AWACs radar tapes... I wonder why?
Maybe they only havemore...
No but they could get a nice clear image of Russian planes on the ground in Syria?
When it suits them they release information, when it suits them, they with-hold information.
William Rollinson 10.10 10:58
Yuri Ivanovich
The government is still waiting for the US to find a way to blame it on Russia. So far,more...
"Russia would've been blamed right after the downing."
It was, about 95 minutes after, if memory serves me well. The US couldn't wait to blame
Russia, just as they blamed her for 'civilian' deaths in Syria, before their planes had even
left the ground?
Then when Russia fire missiles from the Caspian Sea, the US say one fell short on Iran and
killed people, wouldn't we expect Iran to inform of this?
The fact that the US and their Oligarch media owners completely own western media, what the
people read or see is controlled!
Yorky 09.10 07:06
Unfortunately the outcome of this enquiry is a foregone conclusion. There is no way the US
will allow the investigating countries prove the US wrong. The pressure on the investigating
countries will be enormous. Kerry will never be forced to say he was wrong. All the sanctions
that were imposed by US and EU because of MH17 would have to be questioned. That will not be
allowed to happen
Derek Maher 09.10 06:40
Judgeing by the actions of Kiev and the shambles of the on the ground crash site
inspections,Plus the secretcy and long delay by the Dutch one would assume the findings will
produce some very shady results.The victims families have not been served well in this tragic
case.
Patricia Histed 09.10 03:57
The truth would make it impossible for EU national leaders to support Kiev. Wonder if they
have developed a scapegoat plan to dump all the blame on someone in Kiev? After all, it will
not do to show how multiple EU leaders were in on the lies and attempted resource grab. If the
Dutch media outlets can make this happen it could be a game changer and prevent escalation in
the Ukraine just when America plans to draft a bill that seeks to pour fuel on the weakening
fires in the Ukraine. Supplying neo-Nazis with millions in arms does the trick. The poor
US-Saudi petrol dollar...it needs war...it needs to destabilise the EU and Russia and wipe out
all non-OPEC oil nations as well as any that threaten Saudi control of the region. The EU
would be wise to side with Russia. America is not its friend. The sweet talking American
politicians can say all they want but the refugee crisis speaks volumes. Russia's decisive
actions could mean Syrians could return home and rebuild but what does America want to
do...send more arms into the area...create more refugees. Whether this is a side effect or a
desired effect is irrelevant. It is destabilising the EU's economy. Personally, I think it is
a desired side effect. If the US can take the EU dollar down the US-Saudi petrol dollar is the
last man standing and will be what people flee to propping it up as it gasps for breath.
One True Measure of Stagnation: Not in the Labor Force
This is a stark depiction of underlying stagnation: paid work is not being created as population
expands.
Heroic efforts are being made to cloak the stagnation of the U.S. economy. One
of these is to shift the unemployed work force from the negative-sounding jobless category
to the benign-sounding Not in the Labor Force (NILF) category.
But re-labeling stagnation does not magically transform a stagnant economy. To
get a sense of long-term stagnation, let's look at the data going back 38 years, to 1977.
I've selected data from three representative eras:
The 20-year period from 1977 to 1997, as this encompasses a variety of macro-economic conditions:
five years of stagflation and two back-to-back recessions (1977 - 1982), strong growth from 1983
to 1990, a mild recession in 1991, and growth from 1993 to 1997.
The period of broad-based expansion from 1982 to 2000
The period 2000 to 2015, an era characterized by bubbles, post-bubble crises and low-growth
"recovery"
In all cases, I list the Not in Labor Force (NILF) data and the population of the U.S.
1977-01-01: 61.491 million NILF population 220 million
1997-01-01 67.968 million NILF population 272 million
Population rose 52 million 23.6%
NILF rose 6.477 million 10.5%
1982-07-01 59.838 million NILF (start of boom) population 232 million
2000-07-01 68.880 million NILF (end of boom) population 282 million
Population rose 50 million 22.4%
NILF rose 9.042 million 15.1%
2000-07-01 68.880 million NILF population 282 million
2015-09-01 94.718 million NILF ("recovery") population 322 million
Population rose 40 million 14.2%
NILF rose 25.838 million 37.5%
Notice how population growth was 23.6% 1977-1997 while growth of NILF was a mere 10.5%
As the population grew, job growth kept NILF to a low rate of expansion. While the population soared
by 52 million, only 6.5 million people were added to NILF.
In the golden era of 1982 - 2000, population rose 22.4% while NILF expanded by 15%. Job growth
was still strong enough to limit NILF expansion. The population grew by 50 million while NILF expanded
by 9 million.
But by the present era, Not in the Labor Force expanded by 37.5% while population
grew by only 14.2%. This chart shows the difference between the two eras: those Not in the
Labor Force soared by an unprecedented 26 million people--a staggering 15.6% of the nation's work
force of 166 million. (Roughly 140 million people have some sort of employment or self-employment,
though millions of these earn less than $10,000 a year, so classifying them as "employed" is a bit
of a stretch).
This is a stark depiction of underlying stagnation: paid work is not being created
as population expands. Those lacking paid work are not just impoverished; they lose the skills and
will to work, a loss to the nation in more than economic vitality.
"... If the USA has not intervened covertly, Russia would not have intervened overtly. ..."
"... The basic rational always seems to be that US targets, including the bombing targets and civilian deaths, are legitimate, while Russia involvement is nefarious a priori. Russian reporting is usually termed ' Russian propaganda', while US reporting, which is as unified and unanimous in its judgement, just reversed, is seen as telling the truth. ..."
"... "......British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police. They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives........police and civilians have been targeted and killed by "terrorists" or "insurgents. .........But this is the first time that any of those responsible have been caught in the act, and it is now clear that at least some of them are working directly for the occupying forces ..."
"... USA is wining by sophisticate wide 'divide and rule' policy; so it remains very strong at influencing, manipulating and weakening its competitors. ..."
"... It was America and its proxies which turned Syria from a relatively secular, functioning State into the mess we have there today by supporting those opposed to the government. ..."
"... It's hard not to conclude that the US would rather have countries unstable and in ruins that under control of a leader that isn't one of their puppets. ..."
"... The petulant warmongers in USA and NATO are now coordinating a major disinformation campaign. According to the President of the Russian Federation the lies about civilian deaths were even reported BEFORE the Russian airstrikes were launched. ..."
"... Step down and - then what? What the hell's wrong with you people? How about the Russians are simply sickened to fuck by the spectacle of the psychos you propagandize for playing their little games? Dirty, dirty, weasly words. ..."
"... whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to prevent the final and complete descent of Syria into the pit of total bloody anarchy and slavery at the hands of a myriad lunatic death cults. ..."
"... the root cause of terrorism is the original arming of ISIS by your US bosses (to fight Assad) and of AlQaida and the Taliban ( to fight the Russians), in addition to the prolific funds provided by the gulf monarchist dictatorships allied to the USA. ..."
"... The US coalition is limited to preventing the Caliphate from spreading into forbidden territory but leaving it free to act in Syria. The columns of trucks and pick-up of Daesh which took Palmyra on May 21st circulated uncovered in the desert without being worried by the US Air Force. ..."
"... The US strategy, the long term strategic vision, was to bring down Assad under the blows of ISIS. And when the thugs will be in Damascus and attack the Russians in Tartus, the americans will support them until the Russians will withdraw, finally the US will bomb and destroy in half a day all the Califat's army which they contributed to create (the good guys). ..."
Russia had to step in and bring attention to the proxy groups operating in Syria under US support.
After years of lies the divide and conquer, regime change to puppet government plan has been exposed.
The US support of these groups against Assad coincides with Israeli security concerns which
deem a destabilized Middle East a boost to Israel's security. This unprecedented foreign state
influence starts in Washington with Congress, various advisers, think tanks, lobby groups, and
full media support.
It's interesting to see how Russia acts to pursue state interests without being hobbled by
the concerns and questionable influence of another country that does not have similar foreign
policy interests as the USA. Time for a change in US policy, it's long overdue.
mgeary 2 Oct 2015 12:56
Sadly, as always in war the truth is amongst the first victims.
This conflict is another product of the old "divide and conquer" tactic, adapted to the current
reality. When you do not like a nation`s leadership, you find a group of dissidents, train them,
arm them and let them loose.
The civilians, women and children killed, the lives ruined and the homes lost are just collateral
damage.
The situation in Syria is by the making of the powers involved, so complicated, with so many
factions involved, that we should be very careful when we pass judgement.
Several of the people commenting here and some reporters have already done so with bias, according
to their interests.
Thomas Hood -> eelolondon 2 Oct 2015 12:44
If the USA has not intervened covertly, Russia would not have intervened overtly.
Glauber Brito 2 Oct 2015 11:25
It is difficult to criticize Russian involvement in the Syria, when considering that it has
been the US invasion and occupation in Iraq, which incidentally claimed well over 100,000 civilian
lives, that sent the entire Middle East into turmoil.
The basic rational always seems to be that US targets, including the bombing targets and
civilian deaths, are legitimate, while Russia involvement is nefarious a priori. Russian reporting
is usually termed ' Russian propaganda', while US reporting, which is as unified and unanimous
in its judgement, just reversed, is seen as telling the truth.
Which is exactly what the Russians are telling their viewers and listeners. It would be utterly
refreshing, if the media would start demonstrating the same critical bias towards the government
and the use of language, as they do of the Russians.
Madranon LaterNow 2 Oct 2015 09:16
I suspect that this is all about the House of Saud's internal war manifesting in proxy wars
destabilising the region in some sick power struggle between the royal families.
Besides, the only real victims in this are the non Sunnis, the groups that Saudi Arabia has long
persecuted within its own borders for decades. The aim, i believe is a totally Sunni middle east
with all other sects and religions driven out or exterminated. With the help of western weapons,
Britain likes to make a few bob out of any civil war and regional horror.
WhetherbyPond -> diddoit 2 Oct 2015 03:13
"the term Ziocons is offensive."
I meant to give offence. Being violently nationalistic, expansionist, racist and corrupt is
offensive. If the apartheid state of Israel was any other country the west would be up in arms
and calling for sanctions and regime change; however, because of the vile actions of the Nazi's
and others, and the fact that the west did very little to help the poor souls who were being persecuted
and murdered, the Ziocons use the guilt that is rightly felt in the west as a shield to cover
their actions and silence their critics.
The figures about casualties comes from The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (OSDH) is an
agency close to the rebels financed by Arab monarchies and Western states and headquartered in
London. It publishes its toll of months of war Syria. These macabre figures reveal surprising
dishonesty of traditional media and contradict the pro-interventionist propaganda. Note that Reuters
was not allowed to check their figures.
The OSDH announced that there would have been 220,271 deaths.
Nearly half of the victims of war are soldiers and loyalist militiamen.
The number of "Bashar soldiers" killed is higher than the number of civilians killed. On the
other hand, the Syrian Arab army is essentially composed of conscripts, that is to say citizens
who defend their country, their institutions and their government, we can say that the army is
inseparable from the Syrian people.
Therefore, it is also dishonest to hold Assad responsible for the deaths of more than 220,000
Syrians as do the media and provocative militants since the first victim of the war in Syria is
the army, so the people in uniform, so the "people pro-Assad".
Let us turn now to the number of civilian casualties. The OSDH counted 104,629 killed.
This figure does not distinguish the Syrians that could be broadly described as "pro-government"
or "pro-rebellion".
The number of civilians, including women and children, which can be in the pro-Assad camp of
anti-rebel or neutral is probably extremely high especially if one takes into account the mass
killings which occurred by terrorist groups in the Kurdish areas of the north of the country,
in neighborhoods and Shiite villages and Christian and among the Sunni patriots all over the country.
The anti-government armed groups have also claimed hundreds of executions of civilians including
children, suspected of sympathy with the Syrian regime.
As for victims of the armed opposition, the OSDH recorded 37,336 killed, twice less than killed
Syrian soldiers (90,000) and one fifth of the total number of victims of war (220,271).
These armed groups are themselves engaged in wars that cause the death of many pro-rebel fighters
and their families. Thus among the 104,629 civilian victims of the Syrian confit, it should take
into account hundreds of rebels killed by pro-rebel civilians.
On reading the tragic toll of the OSDH, the Syrian situation shows that this is not Bashar,
but the rebellion that is killing the Syrian people. Therefore, the Syrian state is right to fight
against terrorism to restore peace in the country like any other state in the world
I agree and disagree.
The protests began in Daraa. Where the protesters did an idiotic thing. The region was suffering
from a severe drought. Now instead of protesting for relief aid, they were protesting for the
downfall of the regime?????
There was nothing at all peaceful in the protests of Hama and Homs in 2011 where protestors
deliberately murdered policemen and women and the Muslim Botherhood was busy already chanting
'Alawites in Coffins and Christians to Beirut'. A very dangerous chant in the two cities where
minorities made up more than a third of the population.
I am sorry, if a bunch of Islammist nutjobs start talking of putting my people in coffins and
deporting my allies to Beirut, I would have leveled them to the Ground. Have you seen the Old
City of Homs? That would have been anyone's reaction.
Sparingpartner 1 Oct 2015 20:45
If you can't own the economy, fuck the place up! Great policy in the so called propagation
of democratic freedoms... and while you are at it, explain to me once gain why Australia needs
to not only be involved in this inglorious cluster-fuck but want to urge the Americans to step
it up - like they're not doing enough?
Sweet Jesus in heaven save me from the do-gooders in this world!
buildabridge -> Clark8934 1 Oct 2015 20:34
Or a deliberate cunning foreign policy to divide and create chaos?
Back in 2005 Bashra under occupation by British forces:
"......British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the
occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police.
They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives........police
and civilians have been targeted and killed by "terrorists" or "insurgents. .........But this
is the first time that any of those responsible have been caught in the act, and it is now
clear that at least some of them are working directly for the occupying forces"
Not so sure. USA is still the strongest military power with the furthest reach by miles. It
has the smartest and best funded Foreign Offices and Spy Networks, human and electronic. This
chaos in the Middle East, any slowly further North, is US foreign policy firing on all cylinders,
to create chaos in Eurasia to prevent Eurasia from settling down and trading peacefully with each
other, and so USA becoming sidelined. USA is succeeding and winning with minimal loss, far away
from Eurasia. USA remains strong and Eurasia becomes weaker fighting with itself, just like WW1
and WW2.
USA is wining by sophisticate wide 'divide and rule' policy; so it remains very strong
at influencing, manipulating and weakening its competitors.
mandzorp -> eelolondon 1 Oct 2015 18:06
Russia are bombing in support of the government of Syria. It was America and its proxies
which turned Syria from a relatively secular, functioning State into the mess we have there today
by supporting those opposed to the government.
cherryredguitar -> tubes99 1 Oct 2015 17:47
Just making the point that the US/UK are on the same side as Islamic nutters who eat dead people's
internal organs.
TheChillZone -> LoveisEternal 1 Oct 2015 17:26
Yeah, whereas the West's nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc has gone soon well.
Russia can't do any worse than us....and at least hey are doing something to fight isis and the
legions of terrorsst groups that are lining up to take control of Syria. It's hard not to
conclude that the US would rather have countries unstable and in ruins that under control of a
leader that isn't one of their puppets.
KriticalThinkingUK 1 Oct 2015 15:07
As a matter of fact the Russian intervention at Syria's invitation was necessary because of
the failure of the US to halt ISIS. Yes, the same ISIS that the USA originally armed ( to fight
Assad). Syrian Government forces currently control territory that holds 80% of the Syrian population
and you can be sure that ISIS are now doomed by the coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq and
others, with or without the support of the outmaneuvered (again) USA.
The petulant warmongers in USA and NATO are now coordinating a major disinformation campaign.
According to the President of the Russian Federation the lies about civilian deaths were even
reported BEFORE the Russian airstrikes were launched.
Politicians across Europe are welcoming Russia's intervention as the only long term solution
to the refugee crisis and literally hundreds of millions of Europeans are supporting Russia's
attack on ISIS, whatever lies you may read from the old cold warriors and their oligarch's press
in the US and UK.
retsdon 1 Oct 2015 17:20
whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force
fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to shore up his position and stave off demands that he step
down.
Step down and - then what? What the hell's wrong with you people? How about the Russians
are simply sickened to fuck by the spectacle of the psychos you propagandize for playing their
little games? Dirty, dirty, weasly words.
Here, try the truth.
whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force
fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to prevent the final and complete descent of Syria into the
pit of total bloody anarchy and slavery at the hands of a myriad lunatic death cults.
You just can't bring yourselves to admit that your neo-liberal masters have cocked their little
adventure up completely this time, can you? Eh?
Realworldview 1 Oct 2015 17:04
Wake-up call on Syrian army weakness prompted Russian intervention
Very true, the collapse of the Syrian army was looking increasingly likely. This interesting
article on the Saker website adds further clarity, by discussing what will not happen, what will
happen, what has already happened, and what might happen.
Finally some clarity about the Russian plans about Syria that ends with this paragraph, which
raises the prospect of some "interesting times" in Syria and the wider Middle East:
Of course, I am under no illusions about any real change of heart in the imperial "deep
state". What we see now is just a tactical adaptation to a situation which the US could not
control, not a deep strategic shift. The rabid Russophobes in the West are still out there
(albeit some have left in disgust ) and they will now have the chance to blame Russia for anything
and everything in Syria, especially if something goes really wrong. Yes, Putin has just won
another major victory against the Empire (where are those who claimed that Russia had "sold
out" Syria?!), but now Russia will have to manage this potentially "dangerous victory".
If nothing else, it explains the wall to wall media propaganda blitz that started with the
first Russian air strikes.
KriticalThinkingUK -> psygone 1 Oct 2015 16:45
Wake up psygoon...
the root cause of terrorism is the original arming of ISIS by your US bosses (to fight
Assad) and of AlQaida and the Taliban ( to fight the Russians), in addition to the prolific funds
provided by the gulf monarchist dictatorships allied to the USA. Its a fact whether you like
it or not...the US propaganda offensive to try and cover up their stupidity will go nowhere. The
truth will out and the terrorists will be destroyed by the coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran and
Iraq etc, with or without the support of the USA. The Russian intervention against ISIS has massive
support in Europe, who can take no more refugees. Europe, the whole of the middle east, Russia
and above all the Syrian people (especially the Kurd and Christian minority communities) all need
a stable government in Syria, not another failed state like Libya and Iraq.
Abiesalba -> Jack Seaton 1 Oct 2015 16:02
As for ISIS being a threat to Russia, does anyone seriously believe that ISIS are going
to get anywhere near those maps you linked to?
Yes. The media in the European countries which are on the ISIS map reported about this map
with concern already when it was published a year ago. (One of the links to ISIS maps in my previous
post goes to Slovenia's national broadcaster, the other to an Austrian newspaper - both Slovenia
and Austria are on the ISIS map).
Because unlike you, we understand that ISIS does not have to physically occupy all these countries.
Its strategy is to first have groups pledging allegiance to ISIS in these countries. And in this
respect, ISIS is VERY successful and has in only one year spread its influence into rather many
countries. Besides, it has also claimed incredibly much territory in Syria and Iraq, while the
US-led coalition (comprising very mighty armies) claim they are fighting against them!
Russian security forces have foiled a terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to ISIS
in Ingushetia, in the Northern Caucasus, according to the National Anti-Terror Committee (NAC).
Security forces seized explosives, weapons and over 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
-
- How Russian Militants Declared A New ISIS 'State' In Russia's North
Caucasus
(26 June 2015)
The Islamic State group announced the creation of its northernmost province this week, after
accepting a formal pledge of allegiance from former al Qaeda militants in the North Caucasus region
of Russia.
Clark8934 1 Oct 2015 16:01
The west is physiologically defunct. Fact. Their fragile idealistic bits-and-pieces approach
to having a belief system, full of irrational claptrap is being so painfully allowing the Syrian
conflict to run and run.
However terrifying the reality becomes the west withdraws into a sort of elitist denial and
always seem to have international law on their side however many times they break it!
It seems a long time ago now that anyone in the West thought and articulated with such clarity,
realism, and sense as the Russians. The political correct bigots in the West created this situation
, one where no-one dare talk sense for fear of ridicule. Long live Putin.
AgeingAlbion 1 Oct 2015 15:30
Putin at least has been consistent throughout. He has backed Assad from day one.
The west first thought it was going to be another wonderful Arab Spring, then thought they
could manage to back the "right" rebels as opposed to Isis, then said chemical weapons were a
"red line" them failed to do anything when the red line was crossed then said Assad must go before
negotiations and now meekly accept he might have to be part of the solution.
How much has that dithering achieved and how many lives has it cost? If Russia moves in directly
and uses the Red Army to destroy Isis will it really be worse than our messing around?
SHappens 1 Oct 2015 15:26
Good summary. As an add on from Dr Bachar al-Jaafari, permanent syrian UN delegate 16/09/2015
- In the North, there are outlawed groups of called armed terrorists " Armed with the conquest
" [Jaïch al-Fath], financed by Qatar and Turkey, that sends every day thousands of shells on Aleppo,
killing hundreds and mutilating thousands of our citizens, preventing them from meeting their
elementary needs on a daily basis.
In the South, rages another terrorist army financed by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, member state
of this organization, country brother and neighbor of Syria. An army which proceeds in the same
way by despicable terrorist acts against our citizens in this region.
In the suburbs of Damascus(damask), rages another army from the city of the Duma, a group of
terrorists financed by Saudi Arabia, called up " Armed with the Islam " [Aich al Islam].
There are three terrorists groups who are armed, the first under the command of Turkey, the
second in command of the Jordan, the third under the command of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Backed
up by the US, UK and France.
The US coalition is limited to preventing the Caliphate from spreading into forbidden territory
but leaving it free to act in Syria. The columns of trucks and pick-up of Daesh which took Palmyra
on May 21st circulated uncovered in the desert without being worried by the US Air Force.
The US coalition's airstrikes look like at best a gesture, at worst a smokescreen for future
bombing campaign against Syria. The war prevented on September 2013 would be triggered under a
new guise. But Russia took the ground. The priority is the fight against jihadism, associated
with integrating the power of the political opposition, elections and a regional peace conference.
The US strategy, the long term strategic vision, was to bring down Assad under the blows
of ISIS. And when the thugs will be in Damascus and attack the Russians in Tartus, the americans
will support them until the Russians will withdraw, finally the US will bomb and destroy in half
a day all the Califat's army which they contributed to create (the good guys).
Russia is about to put an end to this circus, hopefully with little collateral damage (thus
beware of western propaganda on civilians toll) having high weapons tech to select targets accurately
as mentioned in this article.
Abiesalba -> KriticalThinkingUK 1 Oct 2015 15:22
Politicians across Europe are welcoming Russia's intervention as the only long term solution
to the refugee crisis and literally hundreds of millions of Europeans are supporting Russia's
attack on ISIS, whatever lies you may read from the old cold warriors and their oligarch's
press in the US and UK.
Very true. Here is Slovenia, the public opinion seems to be very strongly siding with Russia
and against the insane US (judging from comments on forums).
And the US/UK media are truly an amazing brainwashing propaganda machine, straight from Orwell's
1984.
Jan Burton 1 Oct 2015 14:47
Russia isn't dumb or dishonest enough to make the meaningless distinctions between ISIS and
other Islamist groups that the west insists on making. They're all out for the same thing and
only differ on the details.
Putin in merely doing what needs to be done.
cherryredguitar 1 Oct 2015 14:48
Given that the so-called moderate rebels have a leader who videoed himself cutting a dead person's
body open and eating one of the guys internal organs, the Russians are right not to differentiate
between them and Isis.
Destroy all the extremists, even the ones that the Americans and Saudis like.
Abiesalba -> RobertNeville 1 Oct 2015 14:46
the Russians are allowed to fly the skies of Syria and the US is not.
Yes. Because the Syrian government asked Russia for a military intervention, whereas the US
apparently have some superior right to illegally breach international borders as they wish and
bomb whomever they like (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan).
By the way, the very fact that Iraqi government asked for a military intervention is used by
the US-led coalition to justify their strikes in Iraq.
jvillain -> Mr Russian 1 Oct 2015 14:44
The US, France and finally to a slightly lesser degree the UK want Assad gone more than they
want ISIS, Al Quaida or the Army of God gone. If Assad falls all his weapons will belong to ISIS
and crew as well as having total control of a state. The so called rebels are only 5% or so of
the people fighting. All the other opposition groups have either merged with ISIS or been eliminated.
If Assad falls there will no longer be a choice but to put western boots on the ground in Syria
in a big way.
WhetherbyPond 1 Oct 2015 14:43
The Ziocons in the US are very upset that their geopolitical game is being thwarted by Russia.
Abiesalba -> Mr Russian 1 Oct 2015 14:41
It surely is interesting how the Anglo-American media today went all hysterical about the alleged
civilian casualties in Russian air strikes.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, June 2015
-
SOHR documented the death of 2896 people at least since the beginning of the U.S led coalition
air strikes on Syria in 23/Sep until this morning, while hundreds others were wounded, vast majority
IS extremists.
The number of civilians who were killed in the coalition airstrikes on oil areas, where there
are oil refineries, oil wells, building and vehicles, in the provinces of al- Hasakah, Deir Ezzor,
al- Raqqa, Aleppo and Idlib has risen to 162, including 51 children and 35 women.
Among the deaths, there are a family of a man, his wife and their 5 children killed due in
US- led coalition airstrikes on the village of Dali Hasan in east of the town of Serrin in northeast
of Aleppo and 64 civilians killed by a massacre committed by the U.S led coalition warplanes on
Friday's night in 04/30/2015 when they targeted Bir Mahli village near the town of Serrin in Aleppo
with several air strikes, and the death toll of this massacre includes:
– 31 children under the age of 16 including ( 16 females and 15 males ).
– 19 women above the age of 18.
– 13 men above the age of 18.
– A 18 years old boy.
-
-
For more about civilian casualties due to the US-led coalition strikes in Syria and Iraq, see
the Airwars website:
To date, the international coalition has only conceded two "likely" deaths, from an event in
early November 2014. It is also presently investigating seven further incidents of concern; is
carrying out credibility assessments on a further 13; and has concluded three more investigations
– having found no 'preponderance of evidence' to support civilian casualty claims.
"... Yes it is more about water rights than oil. ..."
"... Overthrowing Assad cuts Hezbollahs supply lines, which is THE point of the excercise. ..."
"... Now WATER and Israel. You are barking up the right tree. Much of all of this is about Greater Israel. If you were old like me, you would remember back when secular Arab states actually possed a real threat to Israel. All those state are now torn to pieces by US policy. So, see the connection? ..."
"... I maintain most of this is Israeli based. With the US doing Israeli bidding. ..."
"... You know most Americans are clueless as all they get is overwhelming propaganda from cradle to grave. It is the US policy makers that know they can use the American people's labor to continue with their nefarious plans. ..."
"... The neocons love death and killing, and it will come home. Ask Imperial Rome. The hubris is absolutely breathtaking." ..."
"... And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Putin really made a brilliant play on this one. Most Americans are cheering for him as he destroys the CIA created boggie man ISIS, and the CIA controlled US media doesn't know what the fuck to say about it because they've already convinced the public that ISIS is the real reason we're screwing around in Syria. Check mate unless the US decides to go full retard and start bombing the Russians based upon some false flag like the Russians bombing a hospital or something -- oops, can't really do that now either. ..."
"... The US has launched 6700 airstrikes on ISIS while the Russians have apparently degraded ISIS in just 60 airstrikes. ..."
"... The US and its allies have carried out 6700 airstrikes at an expense of nearly $4 billion in the year since President Barack Obama ordered a campaign against Islamic State. Yet the terror group shows no sign of defeat and has even expanded its reach. ..."
"... Sure a lot of ISIS fighters are probably true believers but those are the ones who will stand, fight, and be killed (blind pawns). However, seeing this is as much a covert operation as an overt operation then one has to think that the brains of the operation is made up of state operatives or mercenaries. These will not stand, fight, and die but run, re-arm, and redeploy elsewhere (Afghanistan->Stans->Russia or Afghanistan->China?). ..."
"... McCain is implicitly-and sections of the media are explicitly-pointing to a change in the Pentagon's rules of engagement in Syria announced by the Obama administration last spring that allows US forces to combat Syrian government forces or any other group or country that attacks US-backed "rebels." This is meant to put pressure on the White House to initiate attacks not only against Damascus, but also against Moscow. ..."
"... America's elites are as Trump says : a nation of neo-con elites whose mantra breeds --as incarnated by the NRA lobby --psychopathic mad shooters who have the genius of the devil. ..."
"... For some reason, nobody in the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli nexus thought Russia would actually intervene. I don't know why. Russia went to the mat over Syria a few years back when Obama, fresh off the triumph of turning Libya into a dumpster fire, shipped the same mercenaries who did the Gadhafi hit-job to Syria, freshly re-armed. Remember, those guys' presence was the real reason for the Benghazi fiasco; a fact HRC and the Obama Administration can't speak out loud and the GOP knows full well, making Benghazi the perfect political football. ..."
"... The US strategy of sparking and fueling a Sunni vs. Shi'a world sectarian war has taken a brutal hit. The Shi'a are in the extreme minority of Islam, but not in the Middle East, between Iran and the Mediterranean. ..."
"... But I'm keeping an eye on the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang Province, and the various -Stan nations. It will take a little while, but I'm guessing there will be "Mysterious", "Spontaneous" uprisings of extremist Sunni violence there. And "Mysterious" newcomers with beards and Saudi accents. ..."
"... Brilliantly, the Russians have stolen the "War on Terror" narrative. The US psychotics, psychopaths and megalomaniacs have proven incredibly stupid. Russia asks the US to join them in fighting the war on terror. Hilarious. ..."
Lemme get it straight… Saudi Arabia and Qatar can't handle the Houtis in Yemen, but they think
they can take on Russia? Oh, boy! I need a bigger popcorn bucket! ;-)
strannick
Like the US, these vile medieval "regional allies" try to frame their propaganda to show
that this is about removing the dictator Assad, who actually is one of the most benign in that
demented region. Its not.
They want him out because he opposed their pipeline, favoring instead the Iraqi Iran Shiite
pipeline, which all three nations agreed to create. So much for national self determination.
Otherwise they wouldnt give a shit what deranged lunatic ran Syria, or if Syria was ruled by
some king as demented and tyranical and genocidal as they, -the Saudis and Qataris- are themselves.
Winston Churchill
Its not about an indefencible gas pipline at all.
By deception we wage war.
Its about potable water in south Lebanon.
Without that Israel is a failed desert state within ten years.
Go do the research yourself, all the data has been out there for nearly fifty years.
Hidden in plain sight.
swmnguy
Israel has to have the Litani river from source to outlet.
The pipeline from Qatar is a real project too, though.
Captain Debtcrash
Saudis' won't mess with Russia because they know the US probably wouldn't intervene on their
behalf, we don't want to mess with Russia either and vice versa. It was already agreed we would
let them do what they want and talk a good game in opposition.
That said, if I'm wrong, I don't think we will have to worry about low oil prices any more.
Oracle of Kypseli
Desal water is much more expensive than oil.
And... Yes it is more about water rights than oil. The Jordan river is now a small
slow moving creek.
Winston Churchill
The Litani is part of the headwaters of the river Jordan.
The Golan overlooks the Jordan.Whick looks like a stream in comparison to what is was fifty
ago, and a dried up mud hole relative to 150yrs ago. I wish I could post a photo from the 1860's
I have of the Jordan, its a glass plate negative taken by my great grandfather.
Overthrowing Assad cuts Hezbollahs supply lines, which is THE point of the excercise.
If, as reported yesterday, Putin is going to supply Hezbollah direct with armaments, Putin
will have a Israels balls in a vice, no wonder Nutjob is going apeshit..
Jack Burton
Good point Winston. I have always been dubious about the Pipeline argument. As you say, even
if built, this pipeline would run through very hostile places, sure to be hit over and over again.
Now WATER and Israel. You are barking up the right tree. Much of all of this is about Greater
Israel. If you were old like me, you would remember back when secular Arab states actually possed
a real threat to Israel. All those state are now torn to pieces by US policy. So, see the connection?
Israel must, with in a decade take and hold souther Lebanon of perish. The only water left
is there, Israel must have it. So they will take it, to hold it, they need Syria dead and Lebanon
a failed stated.
I maintain most of this is Israeli based. With the US doing Israeli bidding.
the Qatar pipeline argument never made any sense because:
1] you don't build a pipeline through chaos which will last years, which is precisely what
Israel, most of all wants - a bloodletting that destroys another regional economic, and to an
extent military rival.
2] Cost/benefit wise it doesn't make sense to spend this sort of money and time to go through
Syria - look at a map.
3] Israel's Leviathan find, it's plans to ethnically cleanse the remainder of Palestine, and
find/create pretexts to attack and invade more of Lebanon, Syria, and Sinai. It's plans to steal
the gas that, if international law applied to the Jewish State, Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon.
This is a load of crap. I lived in the Caribbean and our source of water was desalinization
plant. It wasn't as expansive as you say, even the poorest locals could easily afford it. The
problem with desalinization plants was that intake valves would clog up with seaweed during storms!
There is no evidence whatsoever that Israel is planning any aggression towards its neighbors.
It's also no secret that ALL of Israel air strikes into Syria involved intercepts of weapons shipments
from Iran; that's clearly stated in mainstream media reporting!
You must be a deluded old twig, if you even attempt to compare Nazi Germany Lebensraum policies
of total liquidation of local populations to modern Israeli politics of settler land grab in the
West Bank.
Winston Churchill
I'm old like you Jack, but travelled extensively throughout the MENA, a family tradition you
could say, my great grandfather and grandfather were involved in opening up tourism/biz to a lot
of the area.Long before oil was discovered. Have some 'wrong side of the blanket' relatives who
I keep in contact with as well.
SWRichmond
Lemme get it straight… Saudi Arabia and Qatar can't handle the Houtis in Yemen, but they think
they can take on Russia? Oh, boy! I need a bigger popcorn bucket! ;-)
Putin is confident in his backing at home. Russian people are, for lack of a better way to
put it, accustomed to "doing without" while supporting the motherland. Saudi, on the other hand,
has completely spoilt their home population with their temporary wealth (now in doubt), paying
them just to live, making them soft and expectant, petulant, self indulgent (sound familiar?).
Putin is quite obviously "going for it", pressing his position, because he believes he will prevail.
The gloves are off. USA is broke, and Putin knows it. Petrodollar is on its death bed, and he
knows it, and he is willing to overtly hasten its death.
Final question, for bonus points: how do nations traditionally finance wars?
Answer: BY DEBASING THEIR CURRENCIES.
PacOps
Didn't someone pull some kind of shit like that on the Soviet Union a few decades back? ;-)
Sun, 10/04/2015 - 11:48 | 6628206 swmnguy
The Russian people can feed themselves. Not lavishly; cabbage and "cole" vegetables; potatoes;
a little meat, fish and poultry; cold-weather grains; but they can feed themselves. Not so much
for the Saudis and Qataris etc. Also, the Russians make their own stuff. They don't have to import
slaves who outnumber them.
Yes, if the luxury is suddenly removed from their lives, the Russian people wouldn't notice,
never having had much in the first place. But the Saudis and Qataris can't survive in their current
arrangements.
kananga
"So, millions of Saudi refugees invading Europe?"
More like, 100 Saudi Royals invading Monaco.
lincolnsteffens
You know most Americans are clueless as all they get is overwhelming propaganda from cradle
to grave. It is the US policy makers that know they can use the American people's labor to continue
with their nefarious plans.
Sir Edge
Yes...
Plus One Kabillion SWR... Perfectly Said...
"USA is preparing to rip itself apart. For some reason Americans believe they can foist death,
destruction, mayhem and hopelessness upon the entire rest of the planet, while somehow remaining
immune from it themselves. The neocons love death and killing, and it will come home. Ask
Imperial Rome. The hubris is absolutely breathtaking."
strannick
Exactly.
How dare Russia and Iran tinker with America and Suadis bombed out, fucked up Shangrala that
is their legacy in the Middle East.
researchfix
They know what´s coming. Iran and Russia will chase ISIS to the Saudi border. And then they
stop the chase. And then the next chapter enfolds.
cosmyccowboy
Stick with the small bucket, I do not believe that the Saudi little boy lovers and women beaters
sill last long against the Russians, Syrians and Iranians. Their mercenaries will flee from a
real fighting force!
HowdyDoody
Saudi are being setup as Zion's stooges. If they win - ZIon gets lebensraum to the north of
Israel, if they lose - lebensraum to the south. The inevitable public reason for the land grab
- poor defenseless little Israel needs a buffer zone between it and the Muslims.
LetThemEatRand
And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our
good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Putin really made a brilliant play on this one.
Most Americans are cheering for him as he destroys the CIA created boggie man ISIS, and the CIA
controlled US media doesn't know what the fuck to say about it because they've already convinced
the public that ISIS is the real reason we're screwing around in Syria. Check mate unless the
US decides to go full retard and start bombing the Russians based upon some false flag like the
Russians bombing a hospital or something -- oops, can't really do that now either.
Bendromeda Strain
And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our
good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia.
Do not fail to miss the "go to" interview with the demon worshipper at The European Council
of Foreign Relations. Saudi Arabia's interest just happens to *currently* align with the globalists.
Convenient for them - for now.
TheReplacement
I disagree. I think the drivers are unnamed and the royals of KSA are both a faction and a
pawn. They would look at themselves and see a faction. When looked down upon by TPTB they are
pawns (like 99.999999% of humanity).
I also do not see most Americans cheering for Putin. I see most Americans are absolutely ignorant
and clueless as per usual. Some think they are informed and think evil Putin grasping at empire.
I cannot speak to Putin's motives and I do hold suspicion of anybody who has maintained power
like his as long as that man. Still, I have to ask them what exactly Putin has done.
"Invaded Ukraine."
Really? Show me pictures and video that isn't years old and taken from a completely different
country while I show you pictures and video of the US State Department funding and fomenting a
violent uprising by neo nazis against a constitutionally elected government (this is not to say
that I disagree in any way with Ukrainians taking action of their own volition but that isn't
what happened).
"Well, he shot down that jetliner."
Proof? The west has all the evidence and we have no proof. You do realize the official report
only confirmed that the jet was in fact shotdown. They have presented no evidence that either
confirms nor denies any particular faction did in fact shoot it down.
"He's invading Syria."
Putin was invited by the Syrian government because ISIS and their allies were starting to win
the war despite our forces supposedly bombing them all year. If we were bombing and droning them,
in addition to the fighting by the Iraqis, Syrians, and Kurds, then why were they still winning?
If Russia, Syria, and Iran all want to defeat ISIS then who is it that wants ISIS to win - who
is supporting the bad guys in black if all the other bad guys are trying to kill them?
"I don't know. You wanna watch the Redsox?"
JustObserving
The corrupt, criminal, cruel cabal that rules Saudi Arabia should have collapsed years ago.
So let them start another war and collapse now. Karma is a bitch. Hope ISIS are pushed into Saudi
Arabia and Turkey.
The US has launched 6700 airstrikes on ISIS while the Russians have apparently degraded
ISIS in just 60 airstrikes. Was the US dropping care packages and videos made in Langley?
The US and its allies have carried out 6700 airstrikes at an expense of nearly $4 billion
in the year since President Barack Obama ordered a campaign against Islamic State. Yet the terror
group shows no sign of defeat and has even expanded its reach.
I question that narrative. Sure a lot of ISIS fighters are probably true believers but
those are the ones who will stand, fight, and be killed (blind pawns). However, seeing this is
as much a covert operation as an overt operation then one has to think that the brains of the
operation is made up of state operatives or mercenaries. These will not stand, fight, and die
but run, re-arm, and redeploy elsewhere (Afghanistan->Stans->Russia or Afghanistan->China?).
JustObserving
Does the Doomsday clock have a seconds hand ?
Does it have a nanosecond hand?
Threat of wider war mounts as Russia continues airstrikes in Syria
More prominent are voices calling for an even more reckless US policy of escalation against
both Assad and Putin. They speak for powerful sections of the foreign policy and military-intelligence
establishment that are implacably hostile to the nuclear deal with Iran and bent on war with Russia
and China.
John McCain, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke for this
faction Wednesday. He declared from the Senate floor, "Into the wreckage of this administration's
Middle East policy has now stepped Putin. As in Ukraine and elsewhere, he perceives the administration's
inaction and caution as weakness, and he is taking advantage."
On Thursday, McCain told CNN that he could "absolutely confirm" that the initial Russian strikes
were "against our Free Syrian Army or groups that have been armed and trained by the CIA…"
McCain is implicitly-and sections of the media are explicitly-pointing to a change in the
Pentagon's rules of engagement in Syria announced by the Obama administration last spring that
allows US forces to combat Syrian government forces or any other group or country that attacks
US-backed "rebels." This is meant to put pressure on the White House to initiate attacks not only
against Damascus, but also against Moscow.
That the Sunni clans find the Russian Iran entente a threat to their creationist minded ideology
is understandable--to the extent that Turkey has reverted to obscurantist logic and effaced Ataturk's
legacy from its current political inclination-- and that Saud and Qatar, as inheritors of the
Pax Americana Oil protected legacy, have reverted to the same ideological stance in a regressional
spiral that shocks the word-- is one thing ; that the West adheres to this same logic is another.
The history of the wahhabist arabs monarchies is diametrically opposed to that of the West in
terms of political priorities.
The latter trend, of regression to neo-feudal ideology, is a betrayal of western values that
are the bedrocks of our society.
There is no excuse for this regression, now brought out to the open by a Shia theocracy aligned
with a autocratic Russia, which make the so called democratic West look like the new Evil Empire.
We are now in a spiral in West that will bring down democracy and replace it by a neo-feudal
autocracy that will have nothing to envy the most evil traits of the Spanish Inquisition.
America's elites are as Trump says : a nation of neo-con elites whose mantra breeds --as
incarnated by the NRA lobby --psychopathic mad shooters who have the genius of the devil.
Even Putin and Khameini look like moderates!
ThroxxOfVron
Russia is not allied with Iran.
That both Russia and Iran perceive that it is in their individual interestes to intervene in
Syria does not make them allies.
The only reason that Russia and Iran welcome the others intervention is that it temporarily
relieves each of them of the full weight of the financing costs of their respective interventions
which would be higher if undertaken alone, and relieves both of some amount of the international
political pressures being manifest by the US/Zio powers opposed to their interventions.
Russia and Iran do not share the same goals and will not employ the same methods.
Any appearance of mutual support is tangenital and temporary. It will dissipate rapidly when
their true divergent interests become apparent in due course and as their opportunities in the
Trans-Syrian theater evolves.
Likely the two will immediately become opponents in Syria as other forces are ejected from
the theater in much the same manner as Russia and the British/US did in Germany when Berlin fell
at the end of the WW2.
What I do not think is being spoken of publicly is the fact that Iraq is effectively being
carved up while the focus is on Syria.
I do not think Iraq will exist, or certainly will not exist with the same territorial boundaries,
when the Trans-Syrian ( Great Sunni/Shia ) War is concluded.
swmnguy
I would guess Kurdish leaders are doing everything they can to get an audience in the Kremlin
about now. This is their best chance ever at an independent Kurdistan, protected by Iran and Russia.
There won't ever be a better moment for them. The US has been using them as we used the Hmong
in Laos in the Vietnam War. Time for the Kurds to get out of the firing line and into an arrangement
with local regional powers who will actually pay them in the coin of their choosing in return
for their services.
swmnguy
I don't think Saudi Arabia can do anything more than transfer some ancient handheld anti-arcraft
missiles to their Syrian proxies, through third-parties. I can't imagine the Saudis openly attacking
the Russians. I doubt they'd ship anything directly traceable back to them.
For some reason, nobody in the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli nexus thought Russia would actually
intervene. I don't know why. Russia went to the mat over Syria a few years back when Obama, fresh
off the triumph of turning Libya into a dumpster fire, shipped the same mercenaries who did the
Gadhafi hit-job to Syria, freshly re-armed. Remember, those guys' presence was the real reason
for the Benghazi fiasco; a fact HRC and the Obama Administration can't speak out loud and the
GOP knows full well, making Benghazi the perfect political football.
But if you look at the atlas, and at Russian behavior since the 1970s, it's pretty obvious
why they aren't going to tolerate radical insane Sunni mercenary armies running around in their
backyard. In Syria, different from Ukraine, the local recognized government can invite them in.
Now it looks like the local recognized government in Iraq has invited them in, too.
The US strategy of sparking and fueling a Sunni vs. Shi'a world sectarian war has taken
a brutal hit. The Shi'a are in the extreme minority of Islam, but not in the Middle East, between
Iran and the Mediterranean.
The Saudis will whine and cry, but not do much. Israel is going to get real quiet. I'd guess
the US will cut bait on their proxies. But I'm keeping an eye on the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang
Province, and the various -Stan nations. It will take a little while, but I'm guessing there will
be "Mysterious", "Spontaneous" uprisings of extremist Sunni violence there. And "Mysterious" newcomers
with beards and Saudi accents.
45North1
All this crap really ramped up about the time Libya was destroyed by NATO. Civilian deaths
certainly have soared from 2011 to now.
Not saying there is a coincidence with respect to Libya being destroyed , but I can't help
but think there is some link between liberated Libyan weapon staches and the accelerated actions
of the various iterations of Syrian Rebels and re-labeled Terrorists in Syria. Syrian People have
subsequently suffered. Infrastructure has been destroyed, Syria risks a future as a failed state
(ala Libya) if overrun. I am sure Syria can take some comfort in knowiing that Libya got a new
Central Bank as NATO munitions were still landing.)
Hopefully Policies of other players in the Syrian mess don't adopt the in for a penny , in
for a pound approach to this debacle.... but I have my doubts.
Islam needs to get itself together if there is ever to be peace in the Middle East.
Pigs will probably fly first.
Atticus Finch
Brilliantly, the Russians have stolen the "War on Terror" narrative. The US psychotics,
psychopaths and megalomaniacs have proven incredibly stupid. Russia asks the US to join them in
fighting the war on terror. Hilarious.
Paracelsus
Correct. Gaddafi would have had tons of munitions.These were transported with US help thru
Turkey into Syria.With the Iraq war destabilizing the entire region,
The Kurds were able to establish there own mini-state with the bonus of oil in the ground.
Turkey has always been the weak man in the area politically, and has always opposed an
independent Kurdish nation.
I am waiting for the first Russian warplane to be brought down and the pilot roasted in a cage
(on video). I can't see where the Russkies would be very happy with the CIA/Mercs who provided
the ManPads for this event. The Russkies are very good at the airpower thing. The Iranians are
tough on the ground. The Russkies seem to want to get this over in months or less.
Funny how they don't seem to worry about any UN Security Council condemnation. Chinese Veto?
Well, death of the PetroDollar system. History in front of our eyes.. The only wildcard is
the Israelis threat to use nukes if they don't get their way. Aside from the PetroDollar collapse,
there exists a strong threat of China and others dumping Treasuries on the finance markets (if
they are unhappy with US foreign policy).
SA worried that the "coalition of the good and honest" Russia/Syria/Iran and Iraq will corner
ISIS and force them south thru western Iraq/eastern Jordan into Saudi Arabia itself. The Royal
Family, beheaders in chief, will receive the goes around.
Here some social media statements by members of the "moderate islamic opposition" that Barack
Obama and his two piece of shit (Cameron and Hollande) are supporting.
From wikipedia
In response to reports of Russian intervention, the
Army of Conquest's
Liwa al-Haqq
commander Abu Abdullah Taftanaz posted a tweet addressing the "infidel Russians", inviting them
to send troops to Syria and saying that "we have thousands like
Khattab" who would
"slaughter your pigs".[76][77]
Abu Abdullah Taftanaz also tweeted Russian military terms for Syrian rebels to familiarize themselves
with if they intercepted Russian radio chatter.[78][79][80][81][82]
Reportedly Chechen and Caucasian foreign fighters have begun flocking to the coastal regions of
Syria where the Russians are based in order to seek them out.[83]
Ahmad Eissa al-Sheikh, a commander in Turkish/Saudi-backed
Ahrar ash-Sham,[84]
threatened to bring upon "Russian hell in a Levantine flavor" if they encountered the Russians.[85][86]Harakat
Fajr ash-Sham al-Islamiya leader Abu Abdullah ash-Shami tweeted about the "globalization"
of the "Levantine Jihad".[87][88]
He also tweeted that on the Russians and said that "The Levant will become their graveyard, with
the permission of Allah".[89]
The Al-Qaeda-linked
Al-Nusra Front[90]
has set a reward for the seizure of Russian soldiers of 2,500,000
Syrian pounds (approximately
US$13,000).[91][92]
The Syria based, Al-Qaeda linked Saudi cleric Abdallah Muhammad Al-Muhaysini threatened that
Syria would be a "tomb for its invaders" or "graveyard for invaders" in response to the Russian
intervention and brought up the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[93][94][95]
Syria Update# Air Duel
between the Sukhoi Su - 30 Russian SM and Israeli F-15 Tags:
Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole Sukhoi SU - 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell
Douglas F-15's fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast.The Israeli F 15 warplanes
have been flying over Syrian airspace for months and in particular the coast of Latakia, which
is now the bridgehead of the Russian forces in Syria.
The Israeli jets would generally follow
a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea
On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the
Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the
four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.
Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of
the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back South at high
speed over the Lebanon.
The mighty Israeli military doesn't do so well against opponents who can actually fight back!
They'll probably bomb Gaza again so they can feel butch about themselves!
"on November 2, 1917, British imperialism in Palestine began when Lord Balfour, the then British
foreign secretary and former prime minister, sent a letter to Baron Rothschild, one of the leaders
of the Zionist movement. This letter became known as the "Balfour Declaration".
In that letter, Balfour promised British support for the Zionist programme of establishing
a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This pledge of support was made without
consulting the indigenous Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinian people.
And it was made before British troops had even conquered the land.
Balfour, on behalf of Britain, promised Palestine – over which Britain had no legal right –
to a people who did not even live there (of the very small community of Palestinian Jews in Palestine
in 1917, very few were Zionists). And he did so with the worst of intentions: to discourage Jewish
immigration to Britain. No wonder Lord Montagu, the only Jewish member of the Cabinet, opposed
the declaration.
And yet, just two years earlier, Britain had committed herself to assisting the Arab nations
in achieving their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Arab fighters all over the region, including
thousands of Palestinians, fought for their freedom, allowing Britain to establish her mandate
in Palestine. "
With respect to the total mess in Syria, to my knowledge there has been only one recent poll
conducted across Syria (see below). The pollsters say that the poll is representative of the people
of Syria. A similar poll was also conducted in Iraq. Both polls were conducted in June-July 2015:
-
82% of Syrians agree that ISIS was foreign-created by the US (17% disagree).
85% of Iraqis agree that ISIS was foreign-created by the US (10% disagree).
-
-
Among the warring sides in Syria, Assad has the highest (!) support – 47% of Syrians think he
has a POSITIVE influence (50% negative) .
Compare to the groups which the US 'coalition' and the Anglo-Americans media claim we should
all support:
Free Syrian Army – 35% positive, 63% negative
Syrian Opposition Coalition – 26% positive, 72% negative
-
Considering the polling results, anyone claiming that Assad should be removed is working AGAINST
half of the Syrians. Putin is right – Assad has to be included in any solution to the war. Else,
there will immediately a rebellion of half of Syrians against FOREIGN powers toppling Assad.
Assad will not come to the negotiating table without Putin.
Besides, it is clear that for Syrians (and Iraqis), the truly BAD guys are the Americans.
-
-
PUBLIC OPINION IN SYRIA
-
Fieldwork: June 10 to July 2
Respondents: 1,365 Syrians from all 14 governorates of the country
-
-
Thinking about the persons and the groups which are working now in Syria, Generally, do you think
that their influence is negative or positive on the matters in Syria
-
Positive … Negative
-
47% … 50% … Bashar al-Asad
43% … 55% … Iran
37% … 55% … Arab Gulf Countries
35% … 63% … Nusra Front
35% … 63% … Free Syrian Army
26% … 72% … Syrian Opposition Coalition
21% … 76% … Islamic State
-
-
There are many reasons around to explain the presence of ISIL in Iraq/Syria, please tell me if
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or a strongly disagree for the reason that
explains the presence of ISIL?
-
Agree … Disagree
-
82% … 17% … ISIL is foreign made by the US
59% … 40% … As a result of widespread sectarian politics in the Arab countries and in Turkey
55% … 44% …ISIL is made by some Arab regimes
50% … 48% … ISIL is created by foreign countries to find a balance with Iran
44% … 55% … Wrong policies pursued by the Syrian government
42% … 56% … Syrian regime made ISIL for marking the opposition to terrorism
39% … 57% … Iran is supporting this organization to weaken Iraq and take it under its control
22% … 76% … Sectarian congestion that has arisen in Syria
-
-
Do you support or oppose the international coalition airstrikes in Syria?
-
Support … Oppose
47% … 50%
-
-
According to your view, which of the following represent the best solution for the crisis which
Syria is in today?
-
51% … Political solution
37% … Military solution
-
-
Note: The poll has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.
Sources:
Polls Show Syrians Overwhelmingly Blame U.S. for ISIS (16 September 2015)
Full polling reports by the British ORB International (affiliate of WIN/Gallup International):
"... The Russian intervention is a massive setback for those states backing the opposition, particularly
within the region – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – and is likely to elicit a strong response in terms
of a counter-escalation ..."
"... Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already embroiled in an expensive and bloody war in Yemen that may
limit both their military and financial resources. ..."
Regional powers have quietly, but effectively, channelled funds, weapons and other support to
rebel groups making the biggest inroads against the forces from Damascus. In doing so, they are investing
heavily in a conflict which they see as part of a wider regional struggle for influence with bitter
rival Iran.
In a week when Russia made dozens of bombing raids, those countries have made it clear that they
remain at least as committed to removing Assad as Moscow is to preserving him.
"There is no future for Assad in Syria," Saudi foreign minister Adel Al-Jubeir warned, a few hours
before the first Russian bombing sorties began. If that was not blunt enough, he spelled out that
if the president did not step down as part of a political transition, his country would embrace a
military option, "which also would end with the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power".
... ... ...
"The Russian intervention is a massive setback for those states backing the opposition, particularly
within the region – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – and is likely to elicit a strong response in
terms of a counter-escalation," said Julien Barnes-Dacey, senior policy fellow at the European
Council on Foreign Relations.
... ... ...
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already embroiled in an expensive and bloody war in Yemen that
may limit both their military and financial resources.
"... I was surprised how well the BBC political correspondent and ex-Tory
Party student Nick Robinson came out in his economic reporting compared to the woeful stuff that
those BBC correspondents claiming some sort of economic expertise faired. ..."
"... they are all of the neo-liberal religion; group-thinkers ..."
When I reread my collection of BBC articles for the period 2008-15, some of which I have reposted
on this blog in the past, I was surprised how well the BBC political correspondent and ex-Tory
Party student Nick Robinson came out in his economic reporting compared to the woeful stuff that
those BBC correspondents claiming some sort of economic expertise faired.
Since 2008, Robert Peston, Stephanie Flanders, Hugh Pym, and Andrew Neil have had terrible economic
crises, and it must be more than just governmental pressure that has produced such concentrated
ineptitude.
Alas, they are all of the neo-liberal religion; group-thinkers. Peston has never understood the
difference between a currency issuing government and a currency using non-government sector. Hence,
government financial accounts are totally different to a households financial accounts.
They all think that the government has to tax and/or borrow "money", before it has any to spend.
Never stopping to think where the people it taxed or borrowed from, got such "money" in the first
place.
Politicians and the IFS peddle the same myth. Liars and fakers the lot of them. Stick with the
accountants.
A dozen years after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, ISIS occupies its second city, Mosul,
controls its largest province, Anbar, and holds Anbar's capital, Ramadi, as Baghdad turns away
from us-to Tehran. The cost to Iraqis of their "liberation"? A hundred thousand dead, half a
million widows and fatherless children, millions gone from the country and, still, unending war.
How has Libya fared since we "liberated" that land? A failed state, it is torn apart by a civil
war between an Islamist "Libya Dawn" in Tripoli and a Tobruk regime backed by Egypt's dictator.
Then there is Yemen. Since March, when Houthi rebels chased a Saudi sock puppet from power,
Riyadh, backed by U.S. ordinance and intel, has been bombing that poorest of nations in the Arab
world. Five thousand are dead and 25,000 wounded since March. And as the 25 million Yemeni depend
on imports for food, which have been largely cut off, what is happening is described by one U.N.
official as a "humanitarian catastrophe."
... ... ...
What Putin seems to be saying to us is this:
If America's elites continue to assert their right to intervene in the internal affairs of
nations, to make them conform to a U.S. ideal of what is a good society and legitimate
government, then we are headed for endless conflict. And, one day, this will inevitably result in
war, as more and more nations resist America's moral imperialism.
Nations have a right to be themselves, Putin is saying. They have the right to reflect in their
institutions their own histories, beliefs, values and traditions, even if that results in what
Americans regard as illiberal democracies or authoritarian capitalism or even Muslim theocracies.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans
accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the
very cornerstone of American foreign policy.
"... The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. ..."
"... But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular (not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately be described as quasi-facist, ..."
"... I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree? ..."
"... Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit of either the West or Russia. ..."
Dear, you refer to "one blonde said!". On some vague feelings, assumptions... Enough speculation about Crimea, please! Let's
stick to facts! Crimea 80% of the population - Russian. Not only Pro-Russian, and ethnic Russians. Russia does not need were the
little green men of Crimea! But for drunk and scared of the Ukrainian military in the Crimea, for the Wahhabis, who through the
streets went to the cars with black flags for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, importing explosives and suitable for shooting on the streets,
probably Yes. Crimea was similar to the Autonomous Republic, until authonomy has destroyed by abandoning the Constitution. It
was abolished by the President! Crimea held a referendum for secession from Ukraine long before the coup in Ukrainein 2014 .
Note that the Americans tried to seize Crimea under the guise of NATO exercises! Was absolutely illegal attempt to build an
American military base in Crimea for the U.S. Navy landed the Marines on may 26, 2006, of which the citizens of Crimea dishonorably
discharged. And during the state coup in Ukraine in the Black Sea suddenly a us warship.
In Debaltsevo the Ukrainian neo-Nazis fought with men that were deprived of the government, the President, sovereignty, language,
external management is introduced, destroyed the economy. Take away the right to life. Whose wives, parents and children every
day are killed by shells from anti-aircraft weapons in schools, hospitals, shops, bus stops, fill up with planes of white phosphorus,
the water is shut off and the light stopped issuing wages and pensions, imposed humanitarian blockade.
To fight with desperate men, defending their home, or engage in rape and looting among the civilian population, where the majority
of the elderly, women, children - different things.
Sarah7 -> Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:58
One more thing:
Actually, the first photograph accompanying this piece by Shaun Walker shows Poroshenko looking particularly angry and miserable
-- if looks could kill, Merkel would be in big trouble!
That said, in the same photo, Putin appears calm, sanguine, and in a very 'positive mood' compared to his counterparts. Go
figure.
Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:49
Moscow and Kiev in 'positive mood' over talks to end east Ukraine conflict
If you look at the photographs that accompany the following piece, Poroshenko does not appear to be in a 'positive mood'
over the recent meeting of the Normandy Four, and Merkel looks like she is going to spit nails. Perhaps this explains their
dour faces:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the first time publically accepted the fact that Crimea doesn't belong to Ukraine and
that the peninsula will stay as part of Russia, Alexei Pushkov, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma,
said on his Twitter account, according to Gazeta.ru. (Emphasis added)
"Important: After a meeting in Paris, Merkel for the first time admitted that Crimea won't return to Ukraine. That means
the crisis is only about the east of the country," Pushkov wrote. (Emphasis added)
The Normandy Four talks on Ukraine reconciliation concluded in Paris on Friday.
The leaders of the Normandy Quartet countries managed to agree on the procedure of the withdrawal of heavy weapons in eastern
Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday.
"We were able to agree on the withdrawal of heavy weapons," Merkel said following the Normandy Four talks in Paris. "There
is hope for progress. We are moving toward each other."
On the whole, the results of Friday's Normandy Four talks in Paris set a positive tone, Angela Merkel said, adding that
she was satisfied with what the participants achieved during the meeting.
The Normandy Four are planning to meet for a followup in November, presumably to keep Poroshenko in compliance and moving head
with the implementation of Minsk II.
PS -- It was the evil Putin wot done it!
HollyOldDog -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 18:55
The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. This mess is for
Ukraine alone to sort out and Mikheil Saakashvilli is not the man for the job - his corruption runs far to deep for any action
that is more than cosmetic.
BMWAlbert -> Елена Соловьева 3 Oct 2015 18:38
IDK the number of Russian nationals in the Donbas forces, something between 1-10K as a rough guess, these are not formal formations
(some are organized at the battalion level as all-Russian units, just an observation from the Russian language news coverage of
the closing of Debaltsevo earlier this year, e.g. so called "Khan" battalion, this is just televised news, but there must be more
than one such unit, hence the estimate-there are enough weapons captures from UAF in the earlier battles also to arm a small army
in Donbas, but this does not rule-out direct supplies (I would imagine something low-key and NOT the big white convoys), this
would be the natural minimal level of support I would infer/expect in this case and seems a fair inference. I am not replicating
mindless statements from ATO leaders, and remember that Rada twice tried
Crimea was an autonomous region in UA and with rights to hold a referendum under the early 2014 UA Constitution and an earlier
legal attempt in 1993 was surprised, also that RU had large forces already legally stationed in Crimea/Krim according to the Kharkov
treaty and that in some cases, civic authority, Sebastopol by the RU naval command being a case in point-a continuation of old
practices. My sense from personal friends is that among the young, and old generally, the pro-RU sentiment in Krim is strong (incl.
one girl with whom I have lost contact, who works there in what is now RU, due to current conditions).
But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular
(not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately
be described as quasi-facist, this includes well-educated people, ibcl. in one case (a blonde) the desire to 'exterminate'
the Russians-but I would not count the opinions in Donbas as only those enduring the bombardments, there are also many refugees,
many in RU itself of course, whose opinions vary from those expressed sometimes here with all due respect, so yes it is complicated.
HollyOldDog -> William Snowden 3 Oct 2015 18:13
Putin wants Ukraine to succeed but the only way it can do this is for the Ukrainian citizens to take over its government and
boot out the Self-serving Oligarchs. The Oligarchs have their place in Ukraine but that is to stay out from forming Government
decisions and confine their endeavors to modernizing and improving the infrastructure of Ukraine Industrial base which would improve
the finance and conditions for all of Ukrainian citizens. It's going to be a difficult road but Russia and the EU can help, though
clinging on to the influences of the USA would surely be a retrograde step.
Елена Соловьева -> BMWAlbert 3 Oct 2015 18:07
What's so complicated? The war is real or not! Evidence of finding the 200 000 Russian soldiers in Lugansk and Donbass, or
have or not! Crimea after the collapse of the USSR was a disputed territory, which Ukraine annexed unilaterally, without considering
the opinion of the Russian Federation and, more IMPORTANTLY, against the wishes of the citizens of the Crimean Republic, which,
actually, was constitutional and presidential, while Ukraine did not destroy this status! It is Ukraine annexed the Crimean Republic,
and the Russian city Sevastopol, which is in the Republic even geographically not part of, Mr. specialist on Ukraine! Demarcation
implies the absence of territorial disputes. And, by the way! Another monstrous stupidity of your media! Poor Ukraine after the
coup d'état, followed by the external management of the country by the EU and the US are terrorized by the evil Russian, because
it is weak and has no nuclear weapons because of the Treaty of non-aggression from the Russian Federation? Really? Ukraine did
not pay its portion of external debt of the USSR and the Russian Empire, therefore, is not the successor,and cannot claim to nuclear
power status! Ukraine is a priori not have a right to this weapon, because it was not the owner initially, as the successor! The
coup in Kiev was held under the slogan "Cut all Russians!", which in Ukraine 2 years ago, it was a few million, and that is what
they are doing throughout the Ukraine, especially in Eastern Ukraine and was planning to do in Crimea. The burning of people in
Odessa - a vivid example.
Beckow -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 17:11
You cannot survey people in the middle of a civil conflict on how much they like or dislike what is described as the "enemy".
It simply cannot be done, the numbers are meaningless.
Look at Ukraine's economy and you will see the future of this conflict. The living standards are down so low that all else
will become meaningless - people actually care about their incomes and living standard.
Your slogans about "illegal", "privileged sphere" are not what any of this is about, they are not what people in Ukraine think
about or what matters to them. But if you insist on slogans, there is one simple answer: Kosovo. West bombed Serbia, killing about
a thousand civilians, to force Albanian separation in Kosovo. All talk about "international law" is kind of meaningless after
that.
Informed17 -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 15:53
I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a
year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square
kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we
should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree?
Manolo Torres -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 15:49
I have condemned the actions of the Russian government in chechnya many times, if you are going to speak about anyones hypocrisy,
you should at least know with whom are you talking.
Manolo Torres
9 Sep 2014 09:42
0 Recommend
Look, I already replied, I wasn´t careful with my question. Of course the Russians have committed many abuses, namely the war
in Chechnya. I also explained the differences between that war and the wars by US/NATO that have simply no justification on
grounds of self defense.
My concern with human life was shown by my condemnation of every violent act: the massacre in Odessa, the airstrikes and shelling
that killed thousands in Ukraine, the war in Iraq and Syria, the war in Chechnya or the neo-nazi movement inside Russia (as
we were discussing yesterday before you started shouting and got overwhelmed by the numbers I showed you).
As for the Ukrainians I don´t you are as stupid as to blame Putin for the Ukrainian governments shelling of residential areas.
And perhaps you know that there is an investigation for MH17.
i am not like you Rob, I am not a fanatic and I only make judgements when I think I know the facts. You are just shouting and
looking every time more ridiculous.
A good start for you would be to say that you stand corrected for the Amnesty report. Do it, I have done it, feels good.
Can I do anything else for you?
Laurence Johnson -> gimmeshoes 3 Oct 2015 14:15
Poroshenko is in a bit of a legal quagmire as his government has not at any stage controlled the entire nation and its borders
at any time. His current claim on Eastern Ukraine in legal terms is more a wish list than a legal document of fact.
His only path is partition to legalise his government to govern what they have today, or to negotiate the handing over of East
Ukraine to his governments control in order that he can legitimately govern the entire nation and its borders. An invasion of
East Ukraine is probably not going to work legally, or on a more practical basis.
Informed17 -> Worried9876 3 Oct 2015 14:10
This is too categorical. Chocolate man wants anything that allows him to keep cashing in on his "president" title. The only
thing that's unacceptable to him is if his masters try to prevent his thievery. Then he is likely to become angry and unpredictable.
Might even remember about Ukraine, although that's highly unlikely.
elias_ 3 Oct 2015 14:04
Looks to me like Putin wins. Crimea in the bag, the eastern regions stay in Ukraine with enough clout to prevent nato membership
and keep the nazis at bay. And stupid EU and US get to pay the bill for reconstruction. The sanctions hurt all sides but are forcing
much needed reforms in his country, he may even become a net exporter of food products instead of importing from the eu. He gets
a refund for the Mistrals and makes the poodle French look untrustworthy. Oh well, serves the sneaky bastards right (you know
who i mean "fuxx the eu").
Laurence Johnson -> Alexzero 3 Oct 2015 14:03
Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if
Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit
of either the West or Russia.
Looks like Bloomberg is becoming Fox of economic and financial news...
"Other countries, such as Russia, are pumping at full tilt" looks like a lie. Russia production
might be cur if additional tax on oil producers is restored by government.
I also like ""The U.S. producers are the only ones doing their part to reduce the global glut,"
-- another lie. shale producers are uncompetitive at this level f prices and some can't even serve
their debt. the same is true for oil sands. They are cutting all corners, endangering
the environment.
There is no return to "cheap oil" regime despite period of overinvestment that was bright by
prices above $80 per barrel.
The fact that "Retail investors which pulled $393 million in September" just confirm that they
are a food for Wall Street sharks... Moreover investment in oil ETFs with their complex
"futures based" algorithms of matching oil price is in itself probably a sign of not being too
intelligent. The game on this table of Wall Street casino is a for professionals and HFT
robots, not for lemmings (aka retail investors).
"... U.S. crude output is down 514,000 barrels a day from a four-decade high reached in June,
Energy Information Administration data show. The number of rigs targeting oil in the U.S. dropped
to a five year low, Baker Hughes Inc. said Oct. 2. ..."
Hedge funds trimmed bullish oil bets for the first time in six weeks, losing faith in a swift
recovery as Russia boosted output to the highest since the Soviet Union collapsed.
Speculators reduced their net-long position in West Texas Intermediate crude by 9.1 percent in
the week ended Sept. 29, according to data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Longs
dropped from a 12-week high while shorts increased.
U.S. crude output is down 514,000 barrels a day from a four-decade high reached in June,
Energy Information Administration data show. The number of rigs targeting oil in the U.S. dropped
to a five year low, Baker Hughes Inc. said Oct. 2. WTI traded in the tightest range since
June last month as China's slowing economy and the highest Russian output in two decades signaled
the global glut will linger.
"The U.S. producers are the only ones doing their part to reduce the global glut," John
Kilduff, a partner at Again Capital LLC, a New York-based hedge fund, said by phone. "Other
countries, such as Russia, are pumping at full tilt. The cutbacks by shale producers here aren't
going to have much impact, especially given the slowing global economy."
... ... ...
Russian oil output rose to a post-Soviet record last month as producers took advantage of the
weak ruble to push ahead with drilling. The nation's production of crude and condensate climbed
to 10.74 million barrels a day, 1 percent more than a year earlier and topping a record set in
June, according to data from the Energy Ministry's CDU-TEK unit.
... ... ...
Investors pulled $393 million in September from United States Oil Fund, the largest U.S.
exchange-traded product that tracks crude futures, the biggest withdrawal since April.
This is a must-watch video. Wilkerson describes the path of empires in decline and shows how
the US is following the classic trajectory. He contends that the US needs to make a transition to
being one of many powers and focus more on strategies of international cooperation.
The video is full of rich historical detail and terrific, if sobering, nuggets, such as:
History tells us we're probably finished.
The rest of of the world is awakening to the fact that the United States is 1) strategically
inept and 2) not the power it used to be. And that the trend is to increase that.
Wilkerson includes in his talk not just the way that the US projects power abroad, but internal
symptoms of decline, such as concentration of wealth and power, corruption and the
disproportionate role of financial interests.
Wilkerson also says the odds of rapid collapse of the US as an empire is much greater is
generally recognized. He also includes the issues of climate change and resource constraints, and
points out how perverse it is that the Department of Defense is the agency that is taking climate
change most seriously. He says that the worst cases scenario projected by scientists is that the
world will have enough arable land to support 400 million people (no typo).
The speech covered National Security, Climate Change, Interminable War, Debt, Immigration,
Inequality, racism, and much more. The speech is striking in its honesty. It is likely
poignant to Republicans who have bought into rationalization of the intransigence of the
Republican Party.
Foy, October 3, 2015 at 7:26 am
Thanks for the link Yves, that's a first class speech. Great to hear one that is 'off the
cuff' with no notes etc. Hits it out of the park on each point he makes. So many great lines
in it.
"Empires at the end concentrate on military force as the be all and end all of power… at
the end they use more mercenary based forces than citizen based forces"
"Empires at the end…go ethically and morally bankrupt… they end up with bankers and
financiers running the empire, sound familiar?"
"So they [empires] will go out for example, when an attack occurs on them by barbarians
that kills 3000 of their citizens, mostly because of their negligence, they will go out and
kill 300,000 people and spend 3 trillion dollars in order to counter that threat to the
status quo. They will then proceed throughout the world to exacerbate that threat by their
own actions, sound familiar?…This is what they [empires] do particularly when they are
getting ready to collapse"
"This is what empires in decline do, they can't even in govern themselves"
Quoting a Chinese man who was a democrat, then a communist (under Mao) then, when he became
disenchanted, a poet and writer…
"You can sit around a table and talk about politics, about social issues, about anything
and you can have a reasonable discussion with a reasonable person. But start talking about
the mal-distribution of wealth and you better get your gun" …."that's where we are, in
Europe and the United States".
And all from a retired republican colonel…
Norb, October 3, 2015 at 8:17 am
How many chances can "Rich and Powerful Men" be given to determine the direction of
civilization? It seems that those in power believe that if they are part of the 400 million
class that survives the current crisis, all is well in the world. The powerless will die in
their millions, and the wealthy move along to the next phase in the human drama.
We are facing a crisis of accountability. We as citizens of this country have to find ways of
holding those in power accountable for their actions. Wilkerson seems to have a conscience,
but it is troubling to hear some of his "solutions" to the crisis we face. He is part of the
military industrial complex we were warned about and still people seek out his advice. He
spends his time advising how to relocate military bases due to sea level rise- WTF.
If our energy, resources, and political thought don't center around ending poverty, bringing
social justice to all of humanity, and limiting war- the future for humanity will be bleak.
Llewelyn Moss, October 3, 2015 at 8:31 am
Who could have known that Perpetual Carpet Bombing Of The World… would SOLVE NOTHING and
destroy the US financially and morally. Who could have known… except anyone with half a brain.
If Wilkerson is a true MIC Lacky, I'm much less interested in hearing his solution.
Radu Andrei
Here's what i do not understand: if "your party" is so extremist that it no longer
represents any of your beliefs and political/social/fiscal positions, why the hell is it still
"your party" ? I do hope it's just the attachment to the word "republican" and when it comes
to voting you do it with your head.
On a side note, i like this person. A true republican, NOT the ultra-religious, warmongering,
xenophobic, bigoted, anti science, anti environment, oblivious to facts, obtuse, disingenuous,
backstabbing, hypocritical and hateful breed that's surfacing lately.
Sabine Ziya
I agree with you Radu. It's scary to watch the Republican party right now. They are so full
of hate. They claim to walk the way of their Jesus Christ, but I wonder if Jesus would call
them Pharisees, blasphemous, and hypocritical.
In a note seeking to "explain" why the US labor participation rate just crashed to a nearly 40
year low earlier today as another half a million Americans decided to exit the labor force bringing
the total to 94.6 million people...
... ... ...
...
this is
what the Atlanta Fed has to say about the most dramatic aberration to the US labor force in history:
"Generally speaking, people in the 25–54 age group are the most likely to participate in the labor
market. These so-called prime-age individuals are less likely to be making retirement decisions
than older individuals and less likely to be enrolled in schooling or training than younger individuals."
This is actually spot on; it is also the only thing the Atlanta Fed does get right in its entire
taxpayer-funded "analysis."
However, as the chart below shows, when it comes to participation rates within the age
cohort, while the 25-54 group should be stable and/or rising to indicate economic strength
while the 55-69 participation rate dropping due to so-called accelerated retirement of baby booners,
we see precisely the opposite. The Fed, to its credit, admits this: "participation among the prime-age
group declined considerably between 2008 and 2013."
Yeah see what happens! Great idea! Remove the only thing keeping this country in one piece!
Let's not close corporate tax loopholes and handouts, egregious MIC spending or in any
significant way stop financial crime. Before we address those trifling concerns which amount
to many trillions, let's cut TANF and SNAP benefits to recipients who statistically are mostly
CHILDREN. I for one hate having cities that aren't on fire and have been pining for LA Riots
times one hundred thousand. Yes let's not address elites crimes first let's crack down on
single moms and children. We wouldn't want to do anything to address Jamie Dimon, Lloyd
Blankfein and Hank Paulson's crimes. Let's go after the real power brokers who got us here,
children in poverty. And by doing so let's unleash days of rage and an American Spring.
Absolute genius!!!!
cynicalskeptic
Sadly that is exactly what will happen when the merde hits the fan. The poor and starving
WILL riot in the streets - as they have throughout history when they lose all hope. Clearly
TPTB know this - and know time is running out. They are preparing - militarized police and an
obsession with monitoring the population, repressing ANY discontent (like Occupy Wall Street).
Things are as bad as they were in 1932 - government money is the only thing preventing 'Hoovervilles'
and obvious signs of what has happened - minimal payments to keep people from taking to the
streets. Yes, some people do abuse these programs and the abuse of things like disability is
increasing as people run out of options, but the root cause of all this is the LACK OF JOBS.
Our political leaders - following the wishes of corporate leaders - have embraced 'free trade'
- sending American jobs overseas - and bringing in cheap labor (illegal at the low skill end
and H1B's at the high skill end), all in a never ending effort to find the cheapest possible
labor costs. Some goods may be cheaper but that means little if people are unemployed and
cannot afford to buy anything. A toaster from China may cost less but who cares when you can't
afford the bread to put in it?
Perimetr
Fed to the unemployed:
"Let them eat cake"
And remember what happened to the French aristocrats . . .
ZerOhead
DEA might be hiring... they are looking into possibly replacing their workers who are
failing drug tests.
At fist I thought that Twaddleradar, member since
Aug 9, 2015A is a new NATObot. It it looks like he is a regular Russophob... Still amazingly prolific spamming the whole discussion.
It's definitly not enough for him to state his point of view and voice objection. Such commenting incontinence is very disruptive in
Web forums.
Notable quotes:
"... WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow your daily dose of bullshit. ..."
"... The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. ..."
"... Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much. ..."
Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This old chestnut again... Evidence please of this sweeping claim?
No mention of Putin drafting the Minsk agreement, this is what happened. Then presenting it as a road map for a resolution
to the Ukrainian Civil war? As I recall it was Merkell and Holland who rushed to Moscow in February to meet with Putin and thrash
out a solution which was then presented to Poroshenko.
As the USA is now in an election cycle and with the Syrian War on Isis takes centre stage with Russian involvement, it looks
like the their sock puppet, Petro Poroshenko has been hung out to dry. Finally being told to get back in his box... for now, probably
as no more funds via the IMF will be directed into this proxi-conflict if it continues (well they were breaking their own rules
giving Ukraine money when it's at war with itself).
Finally, this made me smile...
It has been a busy diplomatic week for Putin, who has not been a frequent guest in western capitals over the past year
Actually Putin has had a very busy diplomatic year building international partnerships across Asia and the BRIC's, Trade agreements
with China and Saudi Arabian investment into Russia. The Silk Route project and much more. It seems to me some of the Graun's
journalists should get out more, like Putin has been doing!
PrinceEdward -> Twaddleradar 2 Oct 2015 21:12
Meanwhile every Ukrainian male is so full of patriotism, there is no need for a 5 draft rounds in Ukraine because they're flooding
with so many volunteers, they turn them away. Stories of parents paying $1000 to get their kids out of the draft, or countless
thousands of 20-something Ukrainians running away to Russia and Poland to get student visas, is just propaganda.
MrJohnsonJr 2 Oct 2015 21:07
Ukraine has a fucking nerve to require a diplomatic effort to have it explained to them what a murderous losers the turned
out to be and that another of their "revolutions" brought nothing but a major waste of human life and EU and Russian taxpayer
money.
KriticalThinkingUK 2 Oct 2015 20:39
Its great isnt it what can be achieved when Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine get together for serious negotiations. Just
like in Minsk 1 and 2 when the same group first established peace in Ukraine, behind the backs of the USA and UK who were pointedly
not invited to those talks either.
What is the key to this progress? Simple. Dont invite the rightwing cold war loonies to attend. Keep them out at all costs.
That is to say exclude from all talks USA, UK, NATO, Poland and the rest of the crazy warmongers who have worked so hard to encourage
conflict.
If these negotiations are successful expect further progress over the next decade in other spheres between Germany and Russia.
In fact objectively by all measures it is in the long term interests, both economic and political, for these two major European
powers to co-operate as natural trading partners....the US warmongers worst nightmare!
Interesting times................
Mazuka 2 Oct 2015 20:35
" Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after
a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow
your daily dose of bullshit.
NotYetGivenUp -> HHeLiBe 2 Oct 2015 19:18
You confuse Crimea, which voted for secession after Russian forces ensured Kiev military didn't engae in anti-secessionist
reprisals (as stated by Putin), with East Ukraine, in which Kiev generals admitted they were fighting Donbass forces, not Russian
forces.
The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. But any honest appraisal of the facts on
the ground, through observation of events as they happened, show that the rejection of the Kievan coup was by the people of Donbass,
and is a popular rejection, not the nonsense Russian invasion peddled by the media in the west.
Mr Russian 2 Oct 2015 19:13
The compromise plan would involve the Ukrainian parliament passing a law stating these elections were indeed legal, but
they would be organised by the rebels.
Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much.
If there was any doubt that Washington has learned absolutely nothing since George W. Bush's invasion
of Iraq, then President Obama's
address to the United Nations has confirmed the world's worst fears. It was an oration that combined
the most egregious lies with the wooly-minded "idealism" that has been such a destructive force in
world affairs since the days of Woodrow Wilson. First, the lies:
"The evidence is overwhelming
that the Assad regime used such weapons on August 21st. U.N. inspectors gave a clear accounting that
advanced rockets fired large quantities of sarin gas at civilians. These rockets were fired from
a regime-controlled neighborhood and landed in opposition neighborhoods. It's an insult to human
reason and to the legitimacy of this institution to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried
out this attack."
The evidence is far from "overwhelming," and the only insult to human reason is the dogmatic repetition
of this American talking point. As Seymour Hersh
pointed out
in the London Review of Books:
"Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that
Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some
instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most
significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the
Syrian army is not the only party in the country's civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent
that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack.
In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified
reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion
– citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered
the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack
occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to
justify a strike against Assad."
And this isn't the only time this President hasn't told the whole story when it comes to the
findings of US intelligence agencies: that's why fifty intelligence analysts are
in open revolt at his cherry-picking of intelligence in order to show we're making progress in
the fight against the Islamic State. And now we have former CIA chief David Petraeus, who was forced
to resign, openly coming out with a proposal that we
ally with the al-Nusra Front in order to overthrow Assad and edge out the Islamic State.
Shouldn't that arouse suspicion that Washington has been covertly cooperating with al-Nusra – the
Syrian affiliate of al-Qaeda – all along, and that Petraeus merely wants to formalize his deal with
the Islamist Devil?
Here's another lie:
"[I]n Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined
a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved and a tyrant
could not kill his way back to power.
"I know that some now criticize the action in Libya as an object lesson, that point to the
problem that the country now confronts, a democratically elected government struggling to provide
security, armed groups in some places, extremists ruling parts of the fractured land. And so these
critics argue that any intervention to protect civilians is doomed to fail. Look at Libya.
"And no one's more mindful of these problems than I am, for they resulted in the death of four
outstanding U.S. citizens who were committed to the Libyan people, including Ambassador Chris Stevens,
a man whose courageous efforts helped save the city of Benghazi.
"But does anyone truly believe that the situation in Libya would be better, if Gadhafi had
been allowed to kill, imprison or brutalize his people into submission? It's far more likely that
without international action, Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed."
It is beyond embarrassing that the President of the United States is going before the world assembly
of nations proclaiming that he and his allies prevented Libya from being "engulfed in civil
war and bloodshed." What does he think is
happening there at this
very
moment?
The reality is that the intelligence did not show a "genocide" was in the making. Officials at
the Defense Intelligence Agency – the same agency now being accused by its analysts of "cooking"
intelligence to suit the administration's political agenda – could provide
no empirical evidence for the assertions made by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that
Col. Moammar Gaddafi was planning on slaughtering civilians en masse.
The claims made by the Obama administration that intervention was the only alternative to "genocide"
were contested, at the time, by Alan J. Kuperman,
writing in the Boston Globe:
"The best evidence that Khadafy did not plan genocide in Benghazi is that he did not perpetrate
it in the other cities he had recaptured either fully or partially – including Zawiya, Misurata,
and Ajdabiya, which together have a population greater than Benghazi."
"It is hard to know," Kuperman continues, "whether the White House was duped by the rebels or
conspired with them to pursue regime-change on bogus humanitarian grounds." With the
truth-challenged Hillary Clinton
at the helm of this misbegotten misadventure, it isn't at all hard to draw the conclusion that
the "genocide" claim was an outright lie perpetrated by the administration and its Libyan Islamist
allies.
That these brazen falsehoods are coupled with phrases oozing with liberal "idealism," calls for
"international cooperation," and proclamations that all Washington desires is "peace" throughout
the Middle East and the world makes for a toxic and particularly nauseating cocktail. Bashar al-Assad
is a "tyrant," but the regime of Gen. Abdel al-Sisi, which overthrew the democratically elected government,
is merely guilty of making "decisions inconsistent with inclusive democracy."
Speaking of Assad, Obama's focus wasn't on the spread of the Islamic State but on the Syrian strongman,
who is barely holding on to power by his fingernails. He cited Washington's support for the so-called
"moderate" rebels, but complained that – for some unspecified reason – "extremist groups have still
taken root to exploit the crisis." What he didn't mention – although Putin did – is that these
alleged "moderates" have gone over to the extremists in droves, raising the question: were these
US-funded Good Guys always Bad Guys in an ill-fitting disguise?
[Editorial note: This is the first part of a two-part column contrasting President Obama's
UN speech to the address delivered by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The second part, dealing
with Putin's remarks, will be published on Friday.]
"... Not only were far fewer jobs added
than we expected, the jobs added were low wage, part-time jobs … such as bartenders and restaurant waitstaff. ..."
Bartenders And Wait Staff Dominate Jobs Added, Manufacturing Jobs Decline (Fed's Fischer
See No Bubbles)
The September jobs report was nothing short of disastrous. Not only were far fewer jobs added
than we expected, the jobs added were low wage, part-time jobs … such as bartenders and restaurant waitstaff.
Even worse, higher paying manufacturing jobs declined.
"... Exactly what was engineered, the oligarchs of the US Neoliberal Empire will now be able to
pick up "emerging market" assets for pennies on the dollar increase their already vast holdings and
secure Neoliberalism - or more correctly Neo-feudalism in fancy dress. ..."
"... We have seen the Neoliberals do this kind of empire building for the last 30 years first the
Savings and Loan "crisis" in the 1990s which transferred over 300 billion in middle class assets into
the hands of the Bass brothers and a few other oligarchs including the Cargill family at the time the
largest transfer of wealth in peace time. ..."
"... The Great Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals has a big big appetite which will not be satisfied
until the own the entire planet and rather than 4 billion people living on $2 a day it will be 7.3 billion.
The Neoliberal world view [is one] of a few thousand oligarchs and Bangladesh as the rest of the world.
..."
"The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has issued a double warning over higher US interest
rates, which it said could trigger a wave of emerging
market corporate defaults"
Exactly what was engineered, the oligarchs of the US Neoliberal Empire will now be able
to pick up "emerging market" assets for pennies on the dollar increase their already vast holdings
and secure Neoliberalism - or more correctly Neo-feudalism in fancy dress.
We have seen the Neoliberals do this kind of empire building for the last 30 years first
the Savings and Loan "crisis" in the 1990s which transferred over 300 billion in middle class
assets into the hands of the Bass brothers and a few other oligarchs including the Cargill family
at the time the largest transfer of wealth in peace time. Then a few more small transfers
and the the big "crisis" of 2007-8 which is ongoing and where close to a trillion in assets were
consolidated in the hands of oligarchs.
First load on the debt with money created out of thin air by banks, then foreclose after the
phony "bubble" bursts. Then walk away Scott free with the assets.
The Great Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals has a big big appetite which will not be
satisfied until the own the entire planet and rather than 4 billion people living on $2 a day
it will be 7.3 billion. The Neoliberal world view [is one] of a few thousand oligarchs and Bangladesh
as the rest of the world.
As part of his UN speech seeking to restore a crumbling Pax Americana, president Obama, eager to
cover up US involvement in the Ukraine presidential coup of early 2014 (who can forget Victoria Nuland
"strategy" interception in which she laid out the post-coup lay of the land, while saying to "fuck
the EU"), just said that "America has few economic interest in Ukraine."
Herdee
Where and what did they do with Ukraine's gold bullion reserves and who is in possession of
them right now and why is it such a big secret to everyone that overthrew the Government there?
directaction
Who cares? The Ukraine gold and all the rest of their resources are legitimate wartime plunder,
booty, if you will. If the Ukrainians are stupid enough to happily allow the USA to barge in and
take everything of value from them why should we weep?
viator
"George Soros has long called for the West to pump billions into Ukraine. Now he says he's
ready to walk the talk.
The veteran hedge fund investor told an Austrian newspaper he was prepared to invest $1 billion
in the collapsing war-ravaged economy under certain circumstances.
"There are concrete investment ideas, for example in agriculture and infrastructure projects.
I would put in $1 billion," he told Der Standard. "This must generate a profit. My foundation
would benefit from this, not me personally."
The Hungarian-born billionaire said Europe and the U.S. must show strong political leadership
over Ukraine -- that would make it more attractive to private investors. The West could provide
finance at European interest rates close to zero, for example.
A spokesman for Soros said his investment would depend on the West doing "whatever it takes"
to rescue Ukraine."
Notwithstanding the heavy presence of dual citizens yadda yadda, I kinda think the "secret
report" was tongue-in-cheek and that this is basically bullshit. But in this messed up crazy world...
stranger things....
Since the discussion is now academic (Crimea is not leaving Russia unless Russia itself is
destroyed), I will be brief.
Kolomoysky is the president of a European Jewish Group, and active in Chabad. He was promoting
Crimea as an alternate Jewish homeland until Crimea rejoined Russia. Kolomoysky then lost his
real estate holdings, and Chabad the ability to dominate the Crimea.
If you are interested in further background, check out the following link:
What appears to have happened here is this: Vladimir Putin has
exploited both the fight against ISIS and Iran's need to preserve the
regional balance of power on the way to enhancing Russia's influence over
Mid-East affairs which in turn helps to ensure that Gazprom's interests
are protected going forward.
Thanks to the
awkward position the US has gotten itself in by covertly allying itself
with various Sunni extremist groups, Washington is for all intents and
purposes powerless to stop Putin lest the public should suddenly get wise
to the fact that combating Russia's resurgence and preventing Iran from
expanding its interests are more important than fighting terror.
In short, Washington gambled on a dangerous game of geopolitical chess, lost, and now faces
two rather terrifyingly disastrous outcomes: 1) China establishing a presence in the Mid-East in
concert with Russia and Iran, and 2) seeing Iraq effectively ceded to the Quds Force and
ultimately, to the Russian army.
"... I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled
Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged
data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources',
i.e. the usual bollox. ..."
"... …The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums… ..."
"... Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards
and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not. ..."
"... The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. ..."
"... Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window
in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei! ..."
A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube,
Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the
U.K.'s Channel 4.
…A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail,
YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC,
and the U.K.'s Channel 4…
###
And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably
keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.
I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled
Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged
data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources',
i.e. the usual bollox.
May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.)
just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up
service?!
…The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums…
…Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains,
because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are
required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each
search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen…
…When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that
the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."
The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight
greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for
data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about
Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance….
#####
It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain
privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way
to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the
Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so,
the US used British pilots and Canberras.
Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards
and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not.
What people can do to protect themselves is
don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag);
just don't do or say obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life;
use encryption such as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.;
don't write about what not to do on the Internet as I have just done!
;)
The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending
on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your
life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to
send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas
territories, but it is total control.
If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then
the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".
Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window
in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!
This should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence
services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago. Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes
man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the make up of the committee has changed a bit.
What it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited
info from the security services. And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor
administration and continued under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.
It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will
be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially. The cat is, again, out of the bag!
We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed
a great deal more than just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting
information on everyone. As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered
online so that government spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined
that citizens shall have no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything
you do and listening to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in
case, and slip embarrassing revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into
your telephone conversations.
Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that
is private, except maybe for
Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if
they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government
bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU)
from the
NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.
A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the
Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that
the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight
to the NSA.
The book tries to do two things. One is to cover the history of American foreign policy, from around
1900 to the present, tracing the gradual construction of a global empire. This first really came
into view as a prospect during the Second World War and is today a reality across all five continents,
as a glance at the skein of its military bases makes clear. The Cold War was a central episode within
this trajectory, but the book doesn't treat just the U.S. record vis-á-vis the USSR or China. It
tries to deal equally with American relations with the Europe and Japan, and also with the
Third World, treated not as a homogenous entity but as four or five zones that required different
policy combinations.
The second part of the book is a survey of American grand strategy-that is,
the different ways leading counselors of state interpret the current position of the United States
on the world stage and their recommendations for what Washington should do about it.
The "big think" set, in other words-Kissinger, of course, Brzezinski, Walter Russell Mead,
Robert Kagan. And then people such as Francis Fukuyama, whom I consider a ridiculous figure but whose
thinking you judged worth some scrutiny. How did you choose these?
From the range of in-and-outers-thinkers moving between government and the academy or think-tanks-who
have sought to guide U.S. foreign policy since 2000, with some intellectual originality. Kissinger
isn't among these. His ideas belong to a previous epoch, his later offerings are boilerplate. Fukuyama,
who sensed what the effects of office on thought could be, and got out of state service quite early,
is a mind of a different order. The figures selected cover the span of options within what has always
been a bipartisan establishment.
You make a distinction between American exceptionalism, which is much in the air, and
American universalism, which few of us understand as a separate matter. The first holds America to
be singular (exceptional), and the second that the world is destined to follow us, that the trails
we've blazed are the future of humanity. You call this a "potentially unstable compound." Could you
elaborate on this distinction, and explain why you think it's unstable?
It's unstable because the first can exist without the second. There is, of course, a famous ideological
linkage between the two in the religious idea, specific to the United States, of Providence-that
is, divine Providence. In your own book "Time No Longer" you cite an astounding expression of this
notion: "However one comes to the debate, there can be little question that the hand of Providence
has been on a nation which finds a Washington, a Lincoln, or a Roosevelt when it needs him." That
pronouncement was delivered in the mid-1990s-not by some television preacher, but by Seymour Martin
Lipset: chairs at Harvard and Stanford, president of both the American Sociological and the American
Political Science Associations, a one-time social democrat.
What is the force of this idea? A belief that God has singled out America as a chosen nation for
exceptional blessings, a notion which then easily becomes a conviction of its mission to bring the
benefits of the Lord to the world. President after president, from Truman through to Kennedy, the
younger Bush to Obama, reiterate the same tropes: "God has given us this, God has given us that,"
and with the unique freedom and prosperity he has conferred on us comes a universal calling to spread
these benefits to the rest of the world. What is the title of the most ambitious contemporary account
of the underlying structures of American foreign policy? "Special Providence," by Walter Russell
Mead. Year of publication: 2001.
But while a messianic universalism follows easily from providential exceptionalism, it is not
an ineluctable consequence of it. You mount a powerful attack on the idea of exceptionalism in "Time
No Longer," but-we may differ on this-if we ask what is the more dangerous element in the unstable
compound of the nation's image of itself, I would say exceptionalism is the less dangerous. That
may seem paradoxical. But historically the idea of exceptionalism allowed for an alternative, more
modest deduction: that the country was different from all others, and so should not be meddling with
them-the argument of Washington's Farewell Address [in 1796].
A century later, this position became known as isolationism, and as the American empire took shape,
it was all but invariably castigated as narrow-minded, short-sighted and selfish. But it could often
be connected with a sense that the republic was in danger at home, with domestic ills that needed
to be addressed, which vast ambitions abroad would only compound. Mead terms this strand in American
sensibility Jeffersonian, which isn't an accurate description of Jefferson's own empire-building
outlook, but he otherwise captures it quite well.
We don't ordinarily apply the term "exceptionalist" in the same breath to America and
to Japan, though if there is any nation that claims to be completely unique, it is Japan. But the
claim produced a drastic isolationism as a national impulse, both in the Tokugawa period [1603-1868,
a period of severely enforced seclusion] and after the war. Does that support the point you're making?
Exactly. Historically, exceptionalism could generate a self-limiting, self-enclosing logic as
well as the gigantic expansionist vanities of the Co-Prosperity Sphere and the "Free World" [narrative].
In the American case, the two strands of exceptionalism and universalism remained distinct, respectively
as isolationist and interventionist impulses, sometimes converging but often diverging, down to the
Second World War. Then they fused. The thinker who wrote best about this was Franz Schurmann, whose
" Logic of World Power" came out during the Vietnam War. He argued that each had a distinct political-regional
base: the social constituency for isolationism was small business and farming communities in the
Midwest, for interventionism it was the banking and manufacturing elites of the East Coast, with
often sharp conflicts between the two up through the end of thirties. But in the course of the Second
World War they came together in a synthesis he attributed-somewhat prematurely-to FDR, and they have
remained essentially interwoven ever since. The emblematic figure of this change was [Arthur H.]
Vandenberg, the Republican Senator from Michigan [1928-51], who remained an isolationist critic of
interventionism even for a time after Pearl Harbor, but by the end of the war had become a pillar
of the new imperial consensus.
Mainstream debate today seems to have constructed two very stark alternatives: There is
either engagement or isolation. In this construction, engagement means military engagement; if we
are not going to be militarily engaged we are isolationists. I find that absolutely wrong. There
are multiple ways of being engaged with the world that have nothing to do with military assertion.
True, but engagement in that usage doesn't mean just military engagement,
but power projection more generally. One of the thinkers I discuss toward the end of my book is Robert
Art, a lucid theorist of military power and its political importance to America, who argues for what
he calls selective-expressly, not universal-engagement. What is unusual about him is that in seeking
to discriminate among engagements the U.S. should and should not select, he starts considering in
a serious, non-dismissive way what would typically be construed as isolationist alternatives, even
if ending with a fairly conventional position.
How far do you view the contemporary American crisis-if you accept that we are living
through one-as, at least in part, one of consciousness? As an American, I tend to think that no significant
departure from where find ourselves today can be achieved until we alter our deepest notions of ourselves
and our place among others. I pose this question with some trepidation, since a change in consciousness
is a generational project, if not more. Our leadership is not remotely close even to thinking about
this. I'm suggesting a psychological dimension to our predicament, and you may think I put too much
weight on that.
You ask at the outset whether I accept that Americans are living through a crisis. My reply would
be: not anything like the order of crisis that would bring about the sort of change in consciousness
for which you might hope. You describe that as a generational project, and there, yes, one can say
that among the youngest cohorts of the U.S. population, the ideologies of the status quo are less
deeply embedded, and in certain layers even greatly weakened. That is an important change, but it's
generational, rather than society-wide, and it's not irreversible.
At the level of the great majority, including, naturally, the upper middle class, the image you
use to describe the purpose of your last book applies: you write that it aims "to sound the tense
strings wound between the pegs of myth and history during the hundred years and a few that I take
to be the American century. It is this high, piercing tone that Americans now have a chance to render,
hear, and recognize all at once. We have neither sounded nor heard it yet." That's all too true,
unfortunately. The most one can say is that, among a newer generation, the strings are fraying a
bit.
I tend to distinguish between strong nations and the merely powerful, the former being
supple and responsive to events, the later being brittle and unstable. Is this a useful way to judge
America in the early 21st century-monumentally powerful but of dubious strength? If so, doesn't it
imply some change in the American cast of mind, as the difference between the two sinks in?
That depends on the degree of instability you sense in the country. In general, a major change
in consciousness occurs when there is a major alteration in material conditions of life. For example,
if a deep economic depression or dire ecological disaster strikes a society, all bets are off. Then,
suddenly, thoughts and actions that were previously inconceivable become possible and natural. That
isn't the situation so far in America.
Can you discuss the new accord with Iran in this context? I don't see any question it's
other than a breakthrough, a new direction. What do you think were the forces propelling the Obama
administration to pursue this pact? And let's set aside the desire for a "legacy" every president
cultivates late in his time.
The agreement with Iran is an American victory but not a departure in U.S. foreign policy. Economic
pressure on Iran dates back to Carter's time, when the U.S. froze the country's overseas assets after
the ousting of the Shah, and the full range of ongoing U.S. sanctions was imposed by the Clinton
administration in 1996. The Bush administration escalated the pressure by securing U.N. generalization
of sanctions in 2006, and the Obama administration has harvested the effect.
Over the past decade, the objective has always been the same: to protect Israel's nuclear monopoly
in the region without risking an Israeli blitz on Iran to preserve it-that might set off too great
a wave of popular anger in the Middle East. It was always likely, as I point out in "American Policy
and its Thinkers," that the clerical regime in Tehran would buckle under a sustained blockade, if
that was the price of its survival. The agreement includes a time-out clause to save its face, but
the reality is an Iranian surrender.
You can see how little it means any alteration in imperial operations in the region by looking
at what the Obama administration is doing in Yemen, assisting Saudi Arabia's wholesale destruction
of civilian life there in the interest of thwarting imaginary Iranian schemes.
This next question vexes many people, me included. On the one hand, the drives underlying
the American imperium are material: the expansion of capital and the projection of power by its political
representatives. The American mythologies are shrouds around these. On the other hand, the issue
of security has a long history among Americans. It is authentically an obsession independent of capital-American
paranoia dates back at least to the 18th century. I don't take these two accountings to be mutually
exclusive, but I'd be interested to know how you reconcile these different threads in American foreign
policy.
Yes, there has been a longstanding-you could say aboriginal-obsession with security in the United
States. This can be traced as an independent strand running through the history of American dealings
with the outside world. What happened, of course, from the Cold War through to the "war on terror"
was a ruthless instrumentalization of this anxiety for purposes of expansion rather than defense.
At the start of the Cold War you had the National Security Act and the creation of the National Security
Council, and today we have the National Security Agency. Security became a euphemistic cloak for
aggrandizement.
The United States occupies the better part of a continent separated by two immense oceans, which
nobody in modern history has had any serious chance of invading, unlike any other major state in
the world, all of which have contiguous land-borders with rival powers, or are separated from them
only by narrow seas. The U.S. is protected by a unique geographical privilege. But if its expansion
overseas cannot be attributed to imperatives of security, what has driven it?
A gifted and important group of historians, the Wisconsin school [which included the late William
Appleman Williams, among others], has argued that the secret of American expansion has from the beginning
lain in the quest by native capital for continuously larger markets, which first produced pressure
on the internal frontier and the march across the continent to the Pacific, and when the West Coast
was reached, a drive beyond into Asia and Latin America, and ultimately the rest of the world, under
the ideology of the Open Door.
A couple of good scholars, Melvyn Leffler and Wilson Miscamble, one a liberal and the other a
conservative, have identified my position with this tradition, taxing me with a belief that American
foreign policy is essentially just an outgrowth of American business. This is a mistake. My argument
is rather that because of the enormous size and self-sufficiency of the American economy, the material
power at the disposal of the American state exceeded anything that American capital could directly
make use of or require.
If you look at the First World War, you can see this very clearly. East Coast bankers and munitions
manufacturers did well out of supplying the Entente powers, but there was no meaningful economic
rationale for American entry into the war itself. The U.S. could tip the scales in favor of the British
and French variants of imperialism against the German and Austrian variants without much cost to
itself, but also much to gain.
The same gap between the reach of American business and the power of the American state explains
the later hegemony of the United States within the advanced capitalist world after the Second World
War. Standard histories wax lyrical in admiration of the disinterested U.S. generosity that revived
Germany and Japan with the Marshall and Dodge Plans [reconstruction programs after 1945], and it
is indeed the case that policies crafted at the State and Defense Departments did not coincide with
the desiderata of the Commerce Department. The key requirement was to rebuild these former enemies
as stable capitalist bulwarks against communism, even if this meant there could be no simple Open
Door into them for U.S. capital.
For strategic political reasons, the Japanese were allowed to re-create a highly protected economy,
and American capital was by and large barred entry. The priority was to defend the general integrity
of capitalism as a global system against the threat of socialism, not particular returns to U.S.
business. The importance of those were never, of course, ignored. But they had to bide their time.
Today's Trans-Pacific Partnership will finally pry open Japanese financial, retail and other markets
that have remained closed for so long.
I'd like to turn to the origins of the Cold War, since I believe we
are never going to get anywhere until these are honestly confronted. You give a forceful account
of Stalin's reasons for avoiding confrontation after 1945 and Washington's reasons for not doing
so. But should we attribute the outbreak of the Cold War to the U.S. without too much in the way
of qualification?
We can look at the onset of the Cold War on two levels. One is that of punctual events. There,
you are certainly right to pick out the ideological starting gun as Truman's speech on Greece
in 1947, designed the "scare hell" out of voters to win acceptance for military aid to the Greek
monarchy. In policy terms, however, the critical act that set the stage for confrontation with
Moscow was the flat American refusal to allow any serious reparations for the staggering level
of destruction Russia suffered from the German attack on it. The most developed third of the country
was laid waste, its industry and its cities wrecked, while Americans suffered not a fly on the
wrist at home-basking, on the contrary, in a massive economic boom. There was no issue Stalin
spoke more insistently about than reparations in negotiations among the Allies. But once the fighting
was over, the U.S. reneged on wartime promises and vetoed reparations from the larger part of
Germany-far the richest and most developed, and occupied by the West - because it did not want
to strengthen the Soviet Union and did want to rebuild the Ruhr as an industrial base under Western
control, with a view to creating what would subsequently become the Federal Republic.
Agreed. I also think he helpfully callobrates the loss of European independence…
[Speaking of
the era of De Gaulle, Adenauer and Eden] "Since then, there has been nobody like this. If we ask
why, I think the answer is that all these people were formed before the First and Second World
Wars broke out, in a period in which major European states had as much weight as the United States
on the international checkerboard, if not more. They were not brought up in a world where American
hegemony was taken for granted. All of them were involved in the two World Wars, and in the Second
De Gaulle had good reason to be distrustful of the U.S., since Roosevelt was long pro-Vichy and
wanted to oust him as leader of the Free French.
We could add, incidentally, a couple of later politicians, who fought in the second conflict.
One was the English Tory prime minister, Edward Heath, the only postwar ruler of Britain who never
made the trip to simper on the White House lawn, receiving an audience and paying tribute, that
would become a virtual ceremony of investiture for any new ruler around the world. The other was
Helmut Schmidt, a veteran of Operation Barbarossa [the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in June
1941] who scarcely concealed his disdain for Carter. These were latecomers from the past. Their
successors have grown up under U.S. paramountcy and take it for granted. This is America's world.
It is second nature for them to defer to it."
He also exposes that the crop that followed made a show of independence but toed the line:
"During the countdown to the war in Iraq, there were large street demonstrations in not a few
countries, which Dominique Strauss-Kahn - no less - described as a European Declaration of Independence.
Schröder [Gerhard, the German chancellor from 1998-2005] announced that Germany could not accept
the war, and Chirac [Jacques, the French president, 1995-2007] blocked a U.N. resolution endorsing
it. Were these bold acts of independence? Far from it. The French envoy in Washington told Bush
in advance: You already have one U.N. resolution saying Saddam must comply with inspections, which
is suitably vague. Don't embarrass us by trying to get another resolution that is more specific,
which we'll have to oppose. Just use that one and go in. No sooner, indeed, was the attack launched
than Chirac opened French skies to U.S. operations against Iraq. Can you imagine De Gaulle meekly
helping a war he had said he opposed? As for Schröder, it was soon revealed that German intelligence
agents in Baghdad had signaled ground targets for "Shock and Awe." These were politicians who
knew the war was very unpopular in domestic opinion, and so made a show of opposing it while actually
collaborating. Their independence was a comedy."
"... the inept idiots in Kiev borrowed from whomever they wanted, including a
group that helped push Argentina into near bankruptcy. ..."
"... "If Aurelius also refuses to take part, the bonds it holds will remain in default, potentially
allowing the hedge fund to chase Ukraine in courts in London and elsewhere. "That bond will remain
out there like some of the Argentine debt. Ukraine will remain in default," Nomura strategist Tim
Ash said, although he noted that Ukraine had fewer assets than Argentina for hedge funds to seize."
..."
"... the judges in the US ruled in favor of the hedge fund over Argentina, so there's clear
precedent ..."
Time for Financial News. As a result of the Gas/Oil Wars, Russia pulled ahead, because Putin used
the money intended for recapitalization of the gas/oil industry, to recapitalize the gas/oil industry.
Some in the West are shocked at that, firmly believing that he was supposed to steal the money. Ah
yes, the power of believing in your own propaganda.
"If Aurelius also refuses to take part, the bonds it holds will remain in default, potentially
allowing the hedge fund to chase Ukraine in courts in London and elsewhere. "That bond will remain
out there like some of the Argentine debt. Ukraine will remain in default," Nomura strategist Tim
Ash said, although he noted that Ukraine had fewer assets than Argentina for hedge funds to seize."
Oh yeah, the judges in the US ruled in favor of the hedge fund over Argentina, so there's clear
precedent. Whoopsie. The reason this looks really bad, is that there are no good solutions out of
this. If Ukraine defaults, it'll be stuck permanently on the teat of the US/EU, as I predicted in
June: https://ucgsblog.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/the-box-not-seen/
If the judges flip flop, Argentina will have a clear cut case against the hedge funds, pushing
Obama into a battle with the hedge funds, when they have the Republicans on their side. If Obama
pays this hedge fund, Franklin-Templeton will demand the same exact treatment, adding to Obama's
sentiment as the Debt King of the United States. Not to mention that Congress wouldn't authorize
that big a sum. There are no good options of out this, for either Poroshenko or Obama. To quote Gordon:
"da, cheburashke ne vezet"
"... The
Argentine government managed to restructure about 93% of that debt through heavily discounted
bond exchanges in 2005 and 2010. But a small group of investors refused to tender their defaulted
bonds for new securities, and they have hounded Argentina in courts across the globe for close
to a decade seeking full repayment. ..."
The
Argentine government managed to restructure about 93% of that debt through heavily discounted
bond exchanges in 2005 and 2010. But a small group of investors refused to tender their defaulted
bonds for new securities, and they have hounded Argentina in courts across the globe for close
to a decade seeking full repayment.
As part of the restructuring process, Argentina drafted agreements in which repayments would
be handled through a New York corporation and governed by United States law. The holdout bondholders
found themselves unable to seize Argentine sovereign assets in settlement, but realized that
Argentina had omitted to provide for holdout situations and had instead deemed all bonds repayable
on pari passu (equal) terms that prevented preferential treatment among bondholders. The holdout
bondholders therefore sought, and won, an injunction in 2014 that prohibited Argentina from
repaying the 93% of bonds that had been renegotiated, unless they simultaneously paid the 7%
holdouts their full amount due as well. Together with the agreement's Rights Upon Future Offers
("RUFO") clause, this created a deadlock in which the 93% of renegotiated bondholders could
not be paid without paying the 7% holdouts, but any payment to the holdouts would potentially
(according to Argentina) trigger the 93% being due repayment at full value too; a sum of around
$100 billion which Argentina could not afford.[6] The courts ruled that as Argentina had itself
drafted the agreement, and chosen the terms it wished to propose, it could not now claim the
terms were unreasonable or unfair, and that this could not be worked around by asserting sovereign
status since the injunction did not affect sovereign assets, but simply ruled that Argentina
must not give preferential treatment of any group of bondholders over any other group when
making repayments.
…NML Capital Limited, a Cayman Islands-based offshore unit of Paul Singer's Elliott Management
Corporation, purchased many holdings in 2008, paying an estimated USD49 million for one series
of bonds whose face value was over USD220 million;[22] with the subsequent boom in Argentine
bond values, this face value grew to USD832 million by 2014.[26] They in turn established the
American Task Force Argentina lobbying group against Argentine bond restructuring efforts,[19]
and sued to enjoin Argentina's ongoing payments to the bondholders who had participated in
the earlier restructurings.[2]
####
Nothing can stop red blooded capitalists! I suspect that death is but a minor inconvenience.
And this is what awaits Ukraine. Welcome to Capitalism Kiev, please read the small font.
Oh, you don't read? Wonderful! We shall have a good time doing business together! How much for
Dnepropetrovsk?
Warren, September 26, 2015 at 2:24 pm
These hold-out creditors aren't called fondo buitre for nothing!!!!!
"... A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. ..."
"... All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. ..."
"... We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. ..."
"... If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. ..."
"... At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family ..."
Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your
own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity,
to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend
and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common
good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as
a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those
in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care
for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.
... ... ...
All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation
of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities,
committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms
of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive
to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required
to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while
also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another
temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good
or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds
which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization
which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy
without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants
and murderers is the best way to take their place. That is something which you, as a people, reject.
...We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical
and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are
all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments
and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as
one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.
The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished
so much good throughout the history of the United States. The complexity, the gravity and the urgency
of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another,
with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.
In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening
society. It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for
it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each
society. Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery,
born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social
consensus.
...If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot
be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling
need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which
sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests,
its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in
this effort.
... ... ...
The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts, especially
in its causes. I know that many Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem.
It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth.
The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the
spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and
sustainable. "Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world.
It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees
the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good" (Laudato Si', 129).
This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote
in order to "enter into dialogue with all people about our common home" (ibid., 3). "We need a conversation
which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots,
concern and affect us all" (ibid., 14).
In Laudato Si', I call for a courageous and responsible effort to "redirect our steps" (ibid.,
61), and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.
I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States – and this
Congress – have an important role to play. Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies,
aimed at implementing a "culture of care" (ibid., 231) and "an integrated approach to combating poverty,
restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature" (ibid., 139). "We have
the freedom needed to limit and direct technology" (ibid., 112); "to devise intelligent ways of .
. . developing and limiting our power" (ibid., 78); and to put technology "at the service of another
type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral" (ibid., 112). In
this regard, I am confident that America's outstanding academic and research institutions can make
a vital contribution in the years ahead.
... ... ...
...At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures
young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same
culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family.
"... A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. ..."
"... All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion. ..."
"... We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. ..."
"... If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance. ..."
"... At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family ..."
Each son or daughter of a given country has a mission, a personal and social responsibility. Your
own responsibility as members of Congress is to enable this country, by your legislative activity,
to grow as a nation. You are the face of its people, their representatives. You are called to defend
and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common
good, for this is the chief aim of all politics. A political society endures when it seeks, as
a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those
in situations of greater vulnerability or risk. Legislative activity is always based on care
for the people. To this you have been invited, called and convened by those who elected you.
... ... ...
All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation
of the world today. Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities,
committed even in the name of God and of religion. We know that no religion is immune from forms
of individual delusion or ideological extremism. This means that we must be especially attentive
to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind. A delicate balance is required
to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while
also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another
temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good
or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds
which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization
which would divide it into these two camps. We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy
without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within. To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants
and murderers is the best way to take their place. That is something which you, as a people, reject.
...We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical
and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are
all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments
and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as
one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, cooperating generously for the common good.
The challenges facing us today call for a renewal of that spirit of cooperation, which has accomplished
so much good throughout the history of the United States. The complexity, the gravity and the urgency
of these challenges demand that we pool our resources and talents, and resolve to support one another,
with respect for our differences and our convictions of conscience.
In this land, the various religious denominations have greatly contributed to building and strengthening
society. It is important that today, as in the past, the voice of faith continue to be heard, for
it is a voice of fraternity and love, which tries to bring out the best in each person and in each
society. Such cooperation is a powerful resource in the battle to eliminate new global forms of slavery,
born of grave injustices which can be overcome only through new policies and new forms of social
consensus.
...If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot
be a slave to the economy and finance. Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling
need to live as one, in order to build as one the greatest common good: that of a community which
sacrifices particular interests in order to share, in justice and peace, its goods, its interests,
its social life. I do not underestimate the difficulty that this involves, but I encourage you in
this effort.
... ... ...
The fight against poverty and hunger must be fought constantly and on many fronts, especially
in its causes. I know that many Americans today, as in the past, are working to deal with this problem.
It goes without saying that part of this great effort is the creation and distribution of wealth.
The right use of natural resources, the proper application of technology and the harnessing of the
spirit of enterprise are essential elements of an economy which seeks to be modern, inclusive and
sustainable. "Business is a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving the world.
It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the area in which it operates, especially if it sees
the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good" (Laudato Si', 129).
This common good also includes the earth, a central theme of the encyclical which I recently wrote
in order to "enter into dialogue with all people about our common home" (ibid., 3). "We need a conversation
which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots,
concern and affect us all" (ibid., 14).
In Laudato Si', I call for a courageous and responsible effort to "redirect our steps" (ibid.,
61), and to avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.
I am convinced that we can make a difference and I have no doubt that the United States – and this
Congress – have an important role to play. Now is the time for courageous actions and strategies,
aimed at implementing a "culture of care" (ibid., 231) and "an integrated approach to combating poverty,
restoring dignity to the excluded, and at the same time protecting nature" (ibid., 139). "We have
the freedom needed to limit and direct technology" (ibid., 112); "to devise intelligent ways of .
. . developing and limiting our power" (ibid., 78); and to put technology "at the service of another
type of progress, one which is healthier, more human, more social, more integral" (ibid., 112). In
this regard, I am confident that America's outstanding academic and research institutions can make
a vital contribution in the years ahead.
... ... ...
...At the risk of oversimplifying, we might say that we live in a culture which pressures
young people not to start a family, because they lack possibilities for the future. Yet this same
culture presents others with so many options that they too are dissuaded from starting a family.
Ars Technica reports that a Federal court in Pennsylvania ruled Wednesday that the Fifth Amendment
protects from compelled disclosure the
passwords that two insider-trading suspects used on their mobile phones. In this case,
the SEC is investigating two former Capital One data analysts who allegedly used insider information
associated with their jobs to trade stocks-in this case, a $150,000 investment allegedly turned
into $2.8 million. Regulators suspect the mobile devices are holding evidence of insider trading
and demanded that the two turn over their passcodes.However, ruled the court , "Since the
passcodes to Defendants' work-issued smartphones are not corporate records, the act of producing
their personal passcodes is testimonial in nature and Defendants properly invoke their fifth Amendment
privilege. A"
"... Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations
should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators. ..."
Drop the random number generator method that is already venerable now.
Go for an encryption key of length > data length instead so each data bit is uniquely encrypted
by a unique key bit.
Break one bit has no bearing on breaking any other bit.
For the NSA comes the headache under such an encryption method a 10 letter statement can be
any other 10 letter statement from different keys.
Now it gets interesting "I love you" is from one encryption key whilst another key says "I
hate you".
Now each message generated if asked for the key you provide one of an infinite number of keys
where the the key you give is for the message you wish them to see provided it makes sense any
evidence used through a prosecution on this is only ever circumstantial evidence
and quite easily refuted questioning only the key being used.
Bullshit. Encryption works. Even if the NSA had some back-door in a particular encryption algorithm,
or weakened a random number generator (Microsoft, cough), the NSA does not have the processing
power to decrypt everything.
Snowden has stated as much, I've seen the same thing in .mil circles during my time there.
Using decent encryption works. It's far easier to attack the people directly with social engineering
than crack decent encryption.
What type of encryption is being discussed? I've notice very few actually understand
how encryption works. When public/private key encyption is used only the public key is ever
available to the counterparty and can be freely published. The secret key is kept on your
machine only and never shared. Both parties/computers use the others public key to encrypt
the plaintext and only the person with the unique secret key on both ends can read it. Authentication
is also facile: You simply sign using the secret key. Only your public key can decrypt
the signature so anyone intercepting and attempting to change your message cannot do so (spoofing
impossible). Unbreakable and requires no secure key exchange like like two way keys such
as AES, for example. This is what happens on https sites where key pairs are generated by
both parties and the secret keys are never exchanged or shared-new key pairs are generated each
visit. Intercepting the encrypted message is useless since the secret key remains physically
in your possesion. That's why the NSA and any government hates this algorithm. Make
the key at least 2048 bits long and you'll need more time than the age of universe to crack it
by brute force with the entire computing power of every machine on earth. Even 256 bits
is sufficient to protect against anyone before they die.
information is power and access to information is big business. the taxpayer pays the bills
for the gathering, hell, the individual "user" of the technology pays for the surveillance and
data collection themselves. we are paying to have our privacy sold to corporations. get that,
it is freakin' brilliant! and the "officials" sell the access for personal gain. the corporations
love to eat it all up and reward the loyal local success story dupes, pimps and prestitutes. everyone
is on stage 24/7 and no one is the wiser in the field of cultural normalcy bias, mind control
and entertaining with the Jones's. soft control moving into hard up confiscation, then incarceration.
wonderfully yokel deterioration impersonating culture and civilization, what many call government,
but i take exception to every term and wonder wtf.
The NSA works for corporations and they need to break into peoples stuff to steal from them
as well as to steal from other corporations. There is a war going on but it is much larger than
a war on nations or citizens of bankster occupied nations.
E.R.N.I.E. - the electronic random number indicator equipment was used with British Premium
Bonds in the 1950s. A chip based on digital counting of thermal noise must be easy to make. Getting
the keys to thye other party just involves handing over a chip. 16Gigabytes or so miniSD should
be good for enough emails to wear out a thousand or more keyboards.
It just needs to be made into a product and sold for cash.
Open source encryption software may or may not be trivial, but it sure isn't easy to use for
folks who aren't experts in encryption.
Write your own encryption. Use AES - freely available. Exchange keys verbally, face to face,
or use One Time Pads (once only!!). If you didn't write, don't trust it.
Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations
should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators.
If you don't know what you're doing and are very very careful and exacting in running a OTP system
(One time pad) you will be fucked. That's why they aren't typically used except in very small use
cases. They're hard to run properly.
Anyone claiming to have an encryption product for a computer based on a one time pad is full of
shit. Cough, Unseen.is, cough. It's a glorified Cesar cypher and the NSA will have your shit in 2.5
seconds or less.
Good encryption works. Snowden stated that fact. Don't use shitty encryption, unless you want
everyone to know what you're doing.
There's plenty of open source projects out there based on good encryption, twofish, serpent, AES,
or ideally a combination of multiple algorithms. Truecrypt is still alive and has been forked with
a project based in Switzerland. I think that's still a good option.
I wouldn't use MS bitlocker or PGP unless you trust symantec or microsoft with your life. Personally
I wouldn't trust those companies with a pack of cigarettes, and I don't even smoke.
Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations
should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators.
I read the original note to mean you use a peer reviewed algorithm, but write the code yourself.
Or, at least review it well. Some open source code tends to be a bit tangled. Checkout
Sendmail and its support for X.400 and other old mail protocols, as well as a convoluted configuration
setup. At some point, with code with that much historical baggage and convoluted setup
becomes impossible to really check all possible configurations for sanity or safety.
If you believe that the simpler the code the safer it is, code it yourself.
Power grab by the NSA (deep state) basically saying that they don't trust the hand that feeds
it. So why should we? What level of classification would this entail? Are we then supposed to trust
the NSA? Civil War 2.0.???
It really starts with asymmetry of power. If some agency or person has a asymmetric level of power
against you and lack of accountability, you should be concerned about them.
That's a much easier test case vs enemy/friend and far more reliable.
"... The $3.5 trillion of QE, six years of 0% interest rates for Wall Street (why are credit card
interest rates still 13%?), and $8 trillion of deficit spending by the Federal government have provided
the outward appearance of economic recovery, as the standard of living for most Americans has declined
significantly. ..."
The housing market peaked in 2005 and proceeded to crash over the next five years, with existing
home sales falling 50%, new home sales falling 75%, and national home prices falling 30%. A funny
thing happened after the peak. Wall Street banks accelerated the issuance of subprime mortgages to
hyper-speed. The executives of these banks knew housing had peaked, but insatiable greed consumed
them as they purposely doled out billions in no-doc liar loans as a necessary ingredient in their
CDOs of mass destruction.
The millions in upfront fees, along with their lack of conscience in
bribing Moody's and S&P to get AAA ratings on toxic waste, while selling the derivatives to clients
and shorting them at the same time, in order to enrich executives with multi-million dollar compensation
packages, overrode any thoughts of risk management, consequences, or the impact on homeowners,
investors, or taxpayers. The housing boom began as a natural reaction to the Federal Reserve suppressing
interest rates to, at the time, ridiculously low levels from 2001 through 2004 (child's play compared
to the last six years).
... ... ...
Greenspan created the atmosphere for the greatest mal-investment in world history. As he
raised rates from 2004 through 2006, the titans of finance on Wall Street should have scaled back
their risk taking and prepared for the inevitable bursting of the bubble. Instead, they were blinded
by unadulterated greed, as the legitimate home buyer pool dried up, and they purposely peddled "exotic"
mortgages to dupes who weren't capable of making the first payment. This is what happens at the end
of Fed induced bubbles. Irrationality, insanity, recklessness, delusion, and willful disregard for
reason, common sense, historical data and truth lead to tremendous pain, suffering, and financial
losses.
Once the Wall Street machine runs out of people with the financial means to purchase a home
or buy a new vehicle, they turn their sights on peddling their debt products to financially illiterate
dupes. There is a good reason people with credit scores below 620 are classified as sub-prime.
Scores this low result from missing multiple payments on credit cards and loans, having multiple
collection items or judgments and potentially having a very recent bankruptcy or foreclosure. They
have low paying jobs or no job at all. They do not have the financial means to repay a large loan.
Giving them a loan to purchase a $250,000 home or a $30,000 automobile will not improve their lives.
They are being set up for a fall by the crooked bankers making these loans. Heads they win, tails
the dupe gets kicked out of that nice house onto the street and has those nice wheels repossessed
in the middle of the night.
The subprime debacle that blew up the world in 2008 was created by the Federal Reserve, working
on behalf of their Wall Street owners. When interest rates are set by central planners well below
levels which would be set by the free market, based on risk and return, it creates bubbles, mal-investment,
and ultimately financial system disaster. Did the Fed, Wall Street, politicians, and people learn
their lesson? No. Because we bailed them out with our tax dollars and have silently stood by
while they have issued $10 trillion of additional debt to solve a debt problem. The deformation of
our financial system accelerates by the day.
The $3.5 trillion of QE, six years of 0% interest rates for Wall Street (why are credit card
interest rates still 13%?), and $8 trillion of deficit spending by the Federal government have provided
the outward appearance of economic recovery, as the standard of living for most Americans has declined
significantly.With real median household income still 6.5% BELOW 2007 levels, 7.3% BELOW
2000 levels, and about equal to 1989 levels, the only way the ruling class could manufacture a fake
recovery is by ramping up the printing presses and reigniting a housing bubble and an auto bubble.
They even threw in a student loan bubble for good measure.
... ... ...
The entire engineered "housing recovery" has had a suspicious smell to it all along. The true
bottom occurred in 2009 with an annual rate of 4 million existing home sales. An artificial bottom
of 3.5 million occurred in 2010 after the expiration of the Keynesian first time home buyer credit
that lured more dupes into the market. The current rate of 5.31 million is at 2007 crash levels and
on par with 2001 recession levels. With mortgage rates at record low levels for five years, this
is all we got?
What really smells is the number of actual mortgage originations that have supposedly driven this
35% increase in existing home sales. If existing home sales are at 2007 levels, how could mortgage
purchase applications be 55% below 2007 levels? If existing home sales are up 35% from the 2009/2010
lows, how could mortgage purchase applications be flat since 2010?
New home sales are up 80% from the 2010 lows, but before you get as excited as a CNBC bimbo over
the "surging" new home sales, understand that new home sales are still 60% BELOW the 2005 high and
25% below the 1990 through 2000 average. So, in total, there are 1.5 million more annual home sales
today than at the bottom in 2010. But mortgage originations haven't budged. That's quite a conundrum.
As you can also see, the median price for a new home far exceeds the bubble highs of 2005. A critical
thinking individual might wonder how new home sales could be down 60% from 2005, while home prices
are 15% higher than they were in 2005. Don't the laws of supply and demand work anymore? The identical
trend can be seen in the existing homes sales market. The median price for existing home sales of
$228,700 is an all-time high, exceeding the 2005 bubble levels. Again, sales are down 30% since 2005.
I wonder who is responsible for this warped chain of events?
AlaricBalth
This FRED chart I have posted, which corresponds with the effective Fed Funds Rate chart in
the article, will show exactly what a daunting problem the the US and the Federal Reserve is being
forced to deal with. I have overlaid the Labor Force Participation Rate with M2 Velocity of Money,
each beginning in 1960. M2 velocity refers to how fast money passes from one holder to the next.
The labor force participation rate is a measure of the share of Americans at least 16 years old
who are either employed or actively looking for work. If money demand is high, it could be a sign
of a robust economy, with the usual corresponding inflationary pressure.
As you can see, each peaked around 1997-98 and have been in slow decline ever since. Unless
the Fed has a plan to increase the LFPR, people are not going to be spending money they just do
not have.
Demographically, this is not going to happen. Baby boomers will still be retiring at a rate
of 10,000 per day and manufacturing is never coming back to the US until we are a third world
country with a cheap labor force.
This is not an issue that can be fixed by political promises. So no matter which political
party is in control, this will not be repaired with platitudes. This is a structural macro-economic
phenomenon which is caused by demographics and poor long term fiscal planning.
Elizabeth Warren Video, Late Night with Steven Colbert, 23 Sept 2015.
Defends Dodd-Frank and gave stats to prove the value of CFPB formed, like 650,000 complaints
handled, and many changes forced on corporations.
Edit: Looks like CBS didn't release the segment of Elizabeth Warren only, so you have to go
through whole show or just the 2:00 minute segment that only shows her saying she is not running
for President.
Apparently I don't have the computer configured to play it anyway.
FreedomGuy
I do not think Wall Street and your local bankers or mortgage brokers are the bad guys here.
Frankly, they look at the rules and try to make a living in the mortgage business. They are not
angels but neither are they demons and I do not think they purposely write bad business.
I think the Wizard of Evil behind the curtain is first and last the government including a
GSE like the Fed. They set this stuff up. You know you can load up Freddie and Fannie with smelly
stuff and off-load risk. They hold rates near historic lows so people can buy more.
This drives prices and all the flipping crap and related stuff I hate.
I am in the middle of this. Being an avid reader of ZH I have become a proper pessimist. I
did a cash-out refi and am paying off virtually all other loans...or more properly moving them
to the tax deductible home loan. I was going to rent and move north because of work but after
lots of research, breathtaking price increases and a few other cautions I decided to sit it out.
I am going to see what the economic terrain looks like in 6 months or more.
The thing is you have to play the game as it is, today, not as you think it should be.
marts321
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
TeethVillage88s
Check out the growth of Holding companies.
Financial Business; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level 2015:Q1: 14,104.57 Billions of Dollars (+ see more) Quarterly, End of Period, Not Seasonally Adjusted, TCMDODFS,
Holding Companies; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level 2015:Q1: 1,380.52 Billions of Dollars (+ see more) Quarterly, End of Period, Not Seasonally Adjusted, CBBHCTCMDODFS, https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CBBHCTCMDODFS
U.S.-Chartered Depository Institutions; Credit Market Instruments; Liability, Level 2015:Q1: 669.90 Billions of Dollars (+ see more) Quarterly, End of Period, Not Seasonally Adjusted, CBTCMDODFS,
Now, we know that in 2007 the Biggest Wall Street banks wanted access to Deposits in the USA.
So maybe I don't have the date, could have been planned from Lehman Request date to become a Deposit
Bank while an Investment Bank.
So today we have Holding Companies that are allowed to have Deposits while doing commercial
and investment work and proprietary trading... and now are 30% Bigger after all the Bailouts and
transfer of Taxpayer and Retirement Funds to them.
Holding Companies have Doubled Liability since 3QTR 2007
Wow
TeethVillage88s
Too Bad we don't have Honest Brokers in DOJ, FBI, SEC, FINRA, FTC, GAO, CBO, FED, Treasury,
OCC, FSOC, BCFP, CFTC, FDIC, FHFA, SIPC
I'm not sure how you can isolate or focus your condemnation or fault.
- Private & Public Pensions, Retirement Funds, Deposit Insurance, The Fact that our Wall Street
Banks are Borg connecting to AI Technology,... and Complexity is increasing at an Exponential
Rate meaning Risk is Exponential as well
- Big Concern -- pay outs for Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (federal Trust Fund), 1999
= $1.23 Billion, 2000 = $1.35 Billion, 2001 =$1.37 Billion. Okay, but today 2010 = $5.59 B, 2011
= $5.89 B, 2012 = $5.86 B, 2013 = $5.89 B. There is a continual need to supplement Pensions. 2010
PBGC's deficit increased 4.5 percent to $23 billion (Liabilities beyond assets)
- Federal direct student loan program 1999 = $52 Billion, INCREASED to 2013 = $675 Billion.
(Risky)
- 2013 Total FDIC Trust Fund in Treasuries = $36.9 Billion + $18 billion in the DIF (Risky)
- 2013 Total National Credit Union Trust in Treasuries = $11.2 Billion
Edit: This applies, $8.16 Trillion in US Deposits
Total Savings Deposits at all Depository Institutions 2015-09-07: 8,164.3 Billions of Dollars (+ see more) Weekly, Ending Monday, Not Seasonally Adjusted, WSAVNS, https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WSAVNS
To all hysterical critics of the FED, what do you suggest they do instead? The rich can do
nothing, sit it out, the poor meanwhile will starve and die (and probably riot before they die).
The poor need jobs. Now almost at any cost, because those jobs are few and far in between as
we are competing with China. So they do ZIRP, NIRP whatever, something, anything to at least marginally
force the rich to spend. For, if people do not spend there will be even less jobs…and less tax
revenue collected for the government to run and distribute around… and it all starts going downhill.
The FED is just trying to keep the system at the higher spending point. It does not seem to
work very well, but the next option is a direct confiscation and redistribution of assets (to
keep those poor jobless souls content). Nobody gives a f* about inequality until it becomes a
riot-provoking problem itself. Ugly as it is there is actually logic in what the FED is doing.
Batman11
The globalists rush to take the profits in the good times but run and hide in the bad.
Where is the profit in sorting out the bad times? In the bad times national institutions, Governments and Central Banks, get left to sort out
the mess loading the costs onto national tax payers.
When things go wrong nationalism rises as each nation is left to fend for itself. We should know how it works by now, this isn't the first time.
1920s/2000s - high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy,
robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 - Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s - Global recession, currency wars, rising nationalism and extremism
1940s/? - Global war
We are nearly there with the Middle East on fire and the two nuclear super-powers at each other's
throats.
Maybe next time we will know better, third time lucky.
mianne
Cherry picker, I agree with you : " All our government up here has to do is get out of
NATO, disband our version of the CIA, divorce Homeland Security, duty and tax all imports to
the hilt, keep our water, electricity and natural resources to ourselves and manufacture our
own products... Then you can have all the wars you want in the middle east and we will watch
it on television without worrying about whether to be part of the murder brigade or not."
But as for ourselves, as governed by the totalitarian EU whose representatives are non elected
by people, but were chosen by the international finance tycoons ( our elected presidents
deprived of any power by the supranational non elected entity, US- OTAN driven European
Union), we are just powerless slaves .
However we won the referendum ( 52 % ) against the content of the Maastricht-Lisbon
European Constitution, but they do not take it into account, submitting us to the ignominious
treaty . Democracy ?
"... How can the U.S. say cyber hacking must stop when we know very well that they have been
cyber spying and hacking for years, Snowden spilt the beans on that issue, big brother raising
his head again. ..."
"...
..."
"... I see a contradiction here that you critcize for not warring with Xi/China and then
bemoaning the obviously damaging costs of what looks like perpetual wars. ..."
"... In the main, Obama has not slipped out of his arrogant school master's tone and role, but
we keep hearing he does it to please the American electorate. If the NSA in Germany (Bad
Aibling) is allowed to sniff out commercial secrets on German computers (an issue for over 10
years, it's only the spinlessness of the elites that keep allowing that) then surely it's all
'open platform'. I only read German and English well enough to ascertain what's what in the
spying game, so I can only refer to Germany. Maybe we get some Spanish, Italian, French etc
reading people to tell us if sniffing out Germany's company secrets is unique, probably not.
..."
"... Nice little bit of spin here. It gives the impression that the US is telling the PRC
what to do when the reality is this is part of the previous and current five year plan. ..."
"... This looks a bit odd to me. Is he saying that Snowden forged the ten thousand records
detailing US cyber spying on fifty countries or is he asking for Chinas assurance that the CCP
are not sponsoring the attacks. In any case...I Obamas full of shit. ..."
"... the US has offered no proof that China hacked American
records, while the world knows that the worse hacker on the planet is the US as shown via the
Snowden documents - we even hack our allies. You know, there is a saying about glass houses
and throwing stones. ..."
"... Its a fallacy that you can separate business spying and state secrets spying. If there
is going to be war, it will be all out, no sacred cows. Don't expect an agreement to leave
space satellites out for example. People are still living in this utopia that a war can happen
somewhere else and life will go on as normal. For China, the war will be for its own existence
and there will be no holds barred. Look at the Vietnam war for example and you will see how
much the Vietnamese sacrificed for that ultimate victory. So I believe that a more
comprehensive framework is required for the assured future for both nations. ..."
"... Every year the same blame the Chinese happens. US agencies will always fabricate
foreign threat so annual budgets can be increased $$$. The fiscal year ends in Sept. "My dept.
needs more taxpayer funding, the Chinese and Russians are attacking!" ..."
"... In the name of "National Security" anything goes (except sabotage in peace time), so long
as it is not used for "competitive advantage". Nice to have a mutually approved set of labels
to continue doing what both sides have always been doing. ..."
They call it 'American directness'. In fact it's gross bad manners but thats how the Empire
of the Exceptionals sees itself.
A John Wayne mindset and a Lex Luthor worldview. Being dismantled with astonishing ease by the
PRC.
Eugenios -> SuperBBird 25 Sep 2015 23:58
The Chinese Communists are humanists itself compared to the brutality of the US.
Just compare prison populations, for examine. The US has more people in prison both
proportionately and absolutely than all of China.
HollyOldDog -> TheEqlaowaizer 25 Sep 2015 21:30
Looks like the wise words of the Pope has not penetrated the 'brains' American State
Department or its President, if all that Obama can say is to threaten sanctions against
another country. Is the BRICS alternative bank such a worry to the Americans as their first
thoughts are bullying tactics.
ID240947 25 Sep 2015 21:22
How can the U.S. say cyber hacking must stop when we know very well that they have been
cyber spying and hacking for years, Snowden spilt the beans on that issue, big brother raising
his head again.
JoeCorr -> goatrider 25 Sep 2015 21:08
Take all that cheap junk
Cheap junk? Its 2015 can you even just try to keep up. We're buying Chinese flat screens
the size of billboards and China leads the world in home appliances. BYD and Shanghai Auto
sales are expanding at warp speed. I could go on but thats enough.
The US and Europe made the same stupid jibes at Japan before they decimated our electrics,
shipbuilding, auto manufacturing and every single electronics company outside military
patronage.
Its not China whos at fault here. It's people like you with your head so deeply wedged in the
sand your shitting pebbles.
JoeCorr 25 Sep 2015 21:01
My daughter drew speech balloons on this photo and mages it to the fridge.
Obama is saying. " Sanctions are still on the table". Xi is saying. " Poor thing. Allah
will look after you"
Which I thought kinda perceptive for a 13 year old.
HauptmannGurski -> Sam3456 25 Sep 2015 20:46
I see a contradiction here that you critcize for not warring with Xi/China and then
bemoaning the obviously damaging costs of what looks like perpetual wars. Never mind, we
all get emotional in these troubled times and find ourselves in contraction with ourselves.
In the main, Obama has not slipped out of his arrogant school master's tone and role, but
we keep hearing he does it to please the American electorate. If the NSA in Germany (Bad
Aibling) is allowed to sniff out commercial secrets on German computers (an issue for over 10
years, it's only the spinlessness of the elites that keep allowing that) then surely it's all
'open platform'. I only read German and English well enough to ascertain what's what in the
spying game, so I can only refer to Germany. Maybe we get some Spanish, Italian, French etc
reading people to tell us if sniffing out Germany's company secrets is unique, probably not.
(PS: if we think that the perpetual wars are too costly, in the sense that the populations
miss out more and more, then we ought to keep an eye on the US job figures. There's a view out
there that it's been US arms sales under Obama which underpin the 'recovery'. The Nobel Peace
prize committee would take the prize back now, I gues, but that's not in the rules.)
goatrider 25 Sep 2015 20:37
How is America going to sanction a country that produces a majority of the items sold in
America? Take all that cheap junk off the shelves of box stores and the American people will
revolt----they are addicted consumers of cheap junk and fast food.
JoeCorr -> vr13vr 25 Sep 2015 20:15
Whom exactly did we fire, prosecute or whatever else after all those NSA revelations?
Bradley Manning. Aaron Swartz driven to Suicide having never broken a single law. Snowden
driven to exile. There are many others.
JoeCorr 25 Sep 2015 20:00
News of this deal, first revealed on Thursday, was followed up before...
Nice little bit of spin here. It gives the impression that the US is telling the PRC
what to do when the reality is this is part of the previous and current five year plan.
The 'sanctions' are another interesting bit of spin. How would you enforce sanctions against
almost a quarter of the worlds population when they are your most reliable customer and
literally thousands of American companies have invested and relocated there.
what I am hoping that President Xi will show me is that we are not sponsoring these
activities and that … we take it seriously and will cooperate to enforce the law."
This looks a bit odd to me. Is he saying that Snowden forged the ten thousand records
detailing US cyber spying on fifty countries or is he asking for Chinas assurance that the CCP
are not sponsoring the attacks. In any case...I Obamas full of shit.
Erazmo 25 Sep 2015 19:12
The US has no class and is a paper tiger. First, no one in the administration met President
Xi when arrived on American soil. This is an insult to the Chinese and shows no class on the
part of the Obama administration. Sure, the Pope was here at the same time but I don't
understand why some schedules couldn't have been changed a little to accommodate the visit the
leader of the world's most populous country. Second, the US continues to accuse and scold
China as if they were a kid. Yet, the US has offered no proof that China hacked American
records, while the world knows that the worse hacker on the planet is the US as shown via the
Snowden documents - we even hack our allies. You know, there is a saying about glass houses
and throwing stones.
Chin Koon Siang 25 Sep 2015 19:05
Its a fallacy that you can separate business spying and state secrets spying. If there
is going to be war, it will be all out, no sacred cows. Don't expect an agreement to leave
space satellites out for example. People are still living in this utopia that a war can happen
somewhere else and life will go on as normal. For China, the war will be for its own existence
and there will be no holds barred. Look at the Vietnam war for example and you will see how
much the Vietnamese sacrificed for that ultimate victory. So I believe that a more
comprehensive framework is required for the assured future for both nations.
vr13vr -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:42
Whom exactly did we fire, prosecute or whatever else after all those NSA revelations?
vr13vr 25 Sep 2015 18:40
Obama never stops surprising with his manners. Or actually a lack of such. He just made an
agreement with a leader of another country, a large and powerful country mind you. And right
away he publicly expresses a doubt whether the other party intends to carry the agreements.
Basically calling his counterpart a liar for no good reason. And as a cheap bully, inserts
more threats of more sanctions. Sure, the president of the other country had more class, he
stayed there and smiled friendly, but with such arrogant display of disrespect and bullying,
nobody would ever take Obama serious. And nobody should.
shawshank -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:24
Grasping at straws? Xi is not Hitler. Also, Snowden already exposed that the US was spying
on China.
Book_of_Life -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:10
"Acts of war"
USA are worlds biggest warmongers instigators including false flags and regime changes covert
activity black ops
you better check yourself before you wreck yourself
cause i'm bad for your health, i come real stealth
droppin bombs on ya moms
So chikity-check yo self before you wreck yo self
Come on and check yo self before you wrikity-wreck yourself
Lrgjohnson -> canbeanybody 25 Sep 2015 18:00
Every year the same blame the Chinese happens. US agencies will always fabricate
foreign threat so annual budgets can be increased $$$. The fiscal year ends in Sept. "My dept.
needs more taxpayer funding, the Chinese and Russians are attacking!"
It is plain silly and ridiculous to pin blame of the so-called theft of finger prints of
American 5.6 millions employees.
Those rubbish finger prints have zero value to anyone other than those who are at position to
manipulate, modify or even fabricate them.
In any case why should a technological so advanced American system need to keep the finger
prints of their own employees? Is it impossible for American government to keep the finger
prints of own employees safe?
peternh 25 Sep 2015 15:57
"President Xi indicated to me that with 1.3 billion people he can't guarantee the
behaviour of every single person on Chinese soil."
Although that is, in fact, what his government is entirely dedicated to attempting to do,
by controlling all education, all media, what may and may not be said publicly, and
controlling everything that happens on the Internet inside the Great Firewall.
Utter hypocrisy.
bujinin 25 Sep 2015 15:24
Analysis:
In the name of "National Security" anything goes (except sabotage in peace time), so long
as it is not used for "competitive advantage". Nice to have a mutually approved set of labels
to continue doing what both sides have always been doing.
Sam3456 25 Sep 2015 15:24
Another useless summit with a lame duck President who achieved the Nobel Peace Prize for
being an ineffectual player on the world stage and propagating constant war for the profit of
his corporate puppet masters.
"... That is brilliant - so Turing Pharmaceuticals is a classical - wait for it - parasitic infection! ..."
"... The point is we should be trying
to make our regulation more intelligent (making it encourage not discourage innovation - cheaper
and easier to police - less subject to regulatory capture etc.). ..."
Item: The former president of a peanut company has been
sentenced to 28 years in prison for knowingly shipping tainted products that later killed
nine people and sickened 700.
Item: Rights to a drug used to treat parasitic infections were acquired by
Turing Pharmaceuticals, which specializes not in developing new drugs but in buying existing
drugs and jacking up their prices. In this case, the price went from $13.50 a tablet to $750.
...
There are, it turns out, people in the corporate world who will do whatever it takes, including
fraud that kills people, in order to make a buck. And we need effective regulation to police that
kind of bad behavior... But we knew that, right?
Well, we used to know it... But ... an important part of America's political class has declared
war on even the most obviously necessary regulations. ...
A case in point: This week Jeb Bush, who has an uncanny talent for bad timing, chose to publish
an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal denouncing the Obama administration for issuing
"a flood of creativity-crushing and job-killing rules." Never mind his
misuse of cherry-picked statistics, or the fact that private-sector employment
has grown much faster under President Obama's "job killing" policies than it did under Mr.
Bush's brother's administration. ...
The thing is, Mr. Bush isn't wrong to suggest that there has been a move back toward more regulation
under Mr. Obama, a move that will probably continue if a Democrat wins next year. After all, Hillary
Clinton released a plan to limit drug prices at the same time Mr. Bush was unleashing his anti-regulation
diatribe.
But the regulatory rebound is taking place for a reason. Maybe we had too much regulation in
the 1970s, but we've now spent 35 years trusting business to do the right thing with minimal oversight
- and it hasn't worked.
So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk
opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe
that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year's election
will tell.
reason
"Item: Rights to a drug used to treat parasitic infections were acquired by Turing Pharmaceuticals,
which specializes not in developing new drugs but in buying existing drugs and jacking up their
prices. In this case, the price went from $13.50 a tablet to $750. ..."
That is brilliant - so Turing Pharmaceuticals is a classical - wait for it - parasitic infection!
reason
"So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk
opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe
that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year's election
will tell."
Personally, I don't think this is really addressing the key point. You can't actually avoid regulation
(the alternative to public regulation - as pushed by say Milton Friedman - ends up being private
regulation - which is just as subject to regulatory capture). The point is we should be trying
to make our regulation more intelligent (making it encourage not discourage innovation - cheaper
and easier to police - less subject to regulatory capture etc.). The policy discussions about
this a difficult enough with good faith - but bad faith politics makes this impossible. We need
to throw the Gingrich revolution in the dustbin as soon as possible.
The point is we should be trying to make our regulation more intelligent (making it encourage
not discourage innovation - cheaper and easier to police - less subject to regulatory capture etc.
"... So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk
opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe
that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year's election
will tell. ..."
"... That is brilliant - so Turing Pharmaceuticals is a classical - wait for it - parasitic infection! ..."
"... The point is we should be trying
to make our regulation more intelligent (making it encourage not discourage innovation - cheaper
and easier to police - less subject to regulatory capture etc.). ..."
"... The reality is that, in the absence of
effective regulation with substantial penalties, all of the incentives are to lie, cheat, and
steal. In consequence, it really is the norm, if only in more minor ways than the ones that
make the headlines. Wage theft, fraud, knowingly selling defective merchandise, and many other
abuses are clearly rampant. This is exactly why markets cannot exist in the absence of
effective government regulation to provide trust. ..."
"... Economic idealists have popularized the notion that the world can work without much
regulations because their models tell them so. Unless they are behavioral economists, they
often fail to include fraud, scams & information asymmetry into their models. This produces
garbage like efficient markets that only exist in an idealistic dream world. The real world
markets are filled with fraud, scams and disreputable agents. Failure to account for bad
behavior is the bane of many a model. ..."
"... But I love Obama because he has created a wonderland of money for lawyers and consultants,
a river of chocolate and honey to make Willy Wonka jealous. Go Barry go! ..."
Item: The former president of a peanut company has been
sentenced to 28 years in prison for knowingly shipping tainted products that later killed
nine people and sickened 700.
Item: Rights to a drug used to treat parasitic infections were acquired by
Turing Pharmaceuticals, which specializes not in developing new drugs but in buying existing
drugs and jacking up their prices. In this case, the price went from $13.50 a tablet to $750.
...
There are, it turns out, people in the corporate world who will do whatever it takes, including
fraud that kills people, in order to make a buck. And we need effective regulation to police that
kind of bad behavior... But we knew that, right?
Well, we used to know it... But ... an important part of America's political class has declared
war on even the most obviously necessary regulations. ...
A case in point: This week Jeb Bush, who has an uncanny talent for bad timing, chose to publish
an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal denouncing the Obama administration for issuing
"a flood of creativity-crushing and job-killing rules." Never mind his
misuse of cherry-picked statistics, or the fact that private-sector employment
has grown much faster under President Obama's "job killing" policies than it did under Mr.
Bush's brother's administration. ...
The thing is, Mr. Bush isn't wrong to suggest that there has been a move back toward more regulation
under Mr. Obama, a move that will probably continue if a Democrat wins next year. After all, Hillary
Clinton released a plan to limit drug prices at the same time Mr. Bush was unleashing his anti-regulation
diatribe.
But the regulatory rebound is taking place for a reason. Maybe we had too much regulation in
the 1970s, but we've now spent 35 years trusting business to do the right thing with minimal oversight
- and it hasn't worked.
So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk
opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe
that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year's election
will tell.
reason
"Item: Rights to a drug used to treat parasitic infections were acquired by Turing Pharmaceuticals,
which specializes not in developing new drugs but in buying existing drugs and jacking up their
prices. In this case, the price went from $13.50 a tablet to $750. ..."
That is brilliant - so Turing Pharmaceuticals is a classical - wait for it - parasitic infection!
reason
"So what has been happening lately is an attempt to redress that imbalance, to replace knee-jerk
opposition to regulation with the judicious use of regulation where there is good reason to believe
that businesses might act in destructive ways. Will we see this effort continue? Next year's election
will tell."
Personally, I don't think this is really addressing the key point. You can't actually avoid regulation
(the alternative to public regulation - as pushed by say Milton Friedman - ends up being private
regulation - which is just as subject to regulatory capture). The point is we should be trying
to make our regulation more intelligent (making it encourage not discourage innovation - cheaper
and easier to police - less subject to regulatory capture etc.). The policy discussions about
this a difficult enough with good faith - but bad faith politics makes this impossible. We need
to throw the Gingrich revolution in the dustbin as soon as possible.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to reason...
YEP!
What politicians can get away with is an artifact of the limited toolset that the electorate
has to express its informed will. We need a well educated democracy and the democratic part of
that requires Constitutional electoral reforms (e.g., gerrymandering, campaign finance). A bit
of the educational aspect of a voting actually democratic republic would naturally work itself
out with a more engaged and empowered electorate participating ACTIVELY.
With the system as it is then it takes a shock wave through the electorate for them to throw
the bums out, but there is no follow through. There is a failsafe reaction function, but no
more than that except on specific social issues that get overwhelming support where
politicians can move with the electoral majority at zero cost while reactionary politicians
can triangulate and pander some votes from the minority opinion of those too old or set in
their ways to participate in the social sea change.
ilsm said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
The threat is "faith voters", dogma developed by billionaires' propaganda to plunder the
world.
DrDick said in reply to reason...
Krugman is far too kind to the businessmen. The reality is that, in the absence of
effective regulation with substantial penalties, all of the incentives are to lie, cheat, and
steal. In consequence, it really is the norm, if only in more minor ways than the ones that
make the headlines. Wage theft, fraud, knowingly selling defective merchandise, and many other
abuses are clearly rampant. This is exactly why markets cannot exist in the absence of
effective government regulation to provide trust.
DeDude said in reply to reason...
Exactly; what we need is a detailed debate on each specific regulation. What it intends to
accomplish, whether that could be accomplished in a less burdensome way, and whether the
accomplishment is sufficient to justify the burden. However, that is not something that can
happen in the 15 second soundbite that appears to be the attention span of the average voter.
Lee A. Arnold said in reply to Second Best...
Second Best: "Markets work if allowed to self regulate."
No. Never happened, except in local instances. For self-regulation you need proper prices,
and for proper prices you need proper supply and demand.
For proper supply you need perfect competition, so there must be numerous competitors entering
the same market, and this requires, among other things, almost no intellectual protection.
For proper demand, you need perfectly informed consumers, and this is not only impossible, but
it is getting far far worse, because the complexity of the world is increasing.
The problem with state regulation is that it also falls prey to the same objections, although
at a slower rate. We use votes not prices, but the same imperfection of information and lack
of flexibility causes problems with the voting system.
When you combine this problem with the increase in inequality (which was masked temporarily by
World War II and the subsequent spurt of blue-collar jobs productivity), we are headed into an
accelerated amelioration of the market system by greater public ownership.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Lee A. Arnold...
"Peanut butter does not kill people, people kill people."
[If you can read a opening sentence like that and not recognize it as satirical parody, then
you might want to look around to find the sense of humor that you lost. When the will of the
people is no more than a euphemism for dollar democracy then parody, satire, sarcasm, and a
healthy dose of cynicism are called for.]
JF said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron..
Lee A Arnold - Think Jonathan Swift and his piece about the way to reduce subsidies for the
orphaned poor infants, it is to reduce their number so we feel good about the fact that we
help the few poor infants left alive.
I reacted a few times to Second Best's comments before I recognized the satire.
But I also have used his comments as a way to bring out the more logical, real-world of facts
and rationality - so commentary helps either way. I suppose that serves 2nd Best's interests
too.
JF said in reply to JF...
I believe the Jonathan Swift recommendations are the preferred republican-party approach to
Social Security too. Really need fewer claimants, that will solve the accounting problems.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Second Best...
"Peanut butter does not kill people, people kill people. Car emissions do not kill people
... high drug prices do not kill people ... people do."
[This is an economics blog. You cannot be that "subtle (???)" and expect people to recognize
your satire. Maybe there is a humorous math equation that economists can understand. I guess
economics graduate school is so boring that most people lose all sense of humor. I am glad
that Krugman has kept his.]
Richard H. Serlin said...
"Then there's for-profit education, an industry wracked by fraud - because it's very hard
for students to assess what they're getting - that leaves all too many young Americans with
heavy debt burdens and no real prospect of better jobs. But Mr. Bush denounces attempts at a
cleanup."
And worse, wasting their incredibly valuable and rare young years, quite possibly their only
chance before age and children make it extremely hard, not getting an education. Such a big
thing. You don't do it when you're young, with the power and freedom and lack of dependents of
youth, the opportunity may easily be gone forever. Such a brutal cost these predators and
their Republican allies extract.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Richard H. Serlin...
One cause of increased tuition is the reduction of state and federal appropriations to state
colleges, causing the institutions to shift the cost over to students in the form of higher
tuition. State support for public colleges and universities has fallen by about 26 percent per
full-time student since the early 1990s.[10] In 2011, for the first time, American public
universities took in more revenue from tuition than state funding.[9][11] Critics say the
shift from state support to tuition represents an effective privatization of public higher
education.[11][12] About 80 percent of American college students attend public institutions...
bakho said...
Economics Professors of the "free market" bent for years have indoctrinated youth with the
misguided notion that "regulations are bad" and market methods, no matter how RubeGoldberg,
are always better. " You don't need to regulate pollution, just put a tax on it," as an
example. Even cap and trade would not work without stiff emissions regulations.
Economic idealists have popularized the notion that the world can work without much
regulations because their models tell them so. Unless they are behavioral economists, they
often fail to include fraud, scams & information asymmetry into their models. This produces
garbage like efficient markets that only exist in an idealistic dream world. The real world
markets are filled with fraud, scams and disreputable agents. Failure to account for bad
behavior is the bane of many a model.
ilsm said in reply to bakho...
Sanctity of the "market"......
I got a jar of this snake oil here too!
The market they sell is the one that runs in Honduras
Tom aka Rusty said...
A couple of random observations:
Last time I looked about 150 Dodd-Frank regs had not been written yet, some of the key ACA
regs are three years late.
Obama-ites have written some of the most complex, convoluted regs of the past 40 years, the
health EMR regs have practically guaranteed a windfall for IT companies and a failure for EMR/EHR.
No mention of the Obama-Holder "too big to prosecute doctrine."
The new overtime regs will likely be in the "driving thumb tacks with a sledge hammer" mode.
But I love Obama because he has created a wonderland of money for lawyers and consultants,
a river of chocolate and honey to make Willy Wonka jealous. Go Barry go!
pgl said in reply to kthomas...
Rusty wants us to believe he is the only one who understands health care so he is a
persistent critic of ObamaCare. But now he wants to pretend he's the expert on financial
markets too? Seriously? Dodd-Frank is complicated only because the Jamie Dimons of the world
milk every opportunity to game financial markets. If Rusty thinks letting Jamie Dimon evade
any financial market regulation is a good idea - he is the most clue person ever.
DrDick said in reply to pgl...
He was just trying to do us a favor and demonstrate exactly what is meant by "knee-jerk
opposition to regulation ."
JF said in reply to Tom aka Rusty...
Have you ever looked at the multi-party derived hedging instruments in play now - they can
hardly get more complex, and indeed most didn't understand them when they were made, and these
are still complex now.
So I have to say, that the 'marketplace' makes Krugman's point about complexity. It comes from
humans cunningly doing stuff that serves their interests at the time as they see it. Not
always wisdom at work here.
But it is complex, and so regulation of such complexity, if the generally applicable rules
seek some fairness (classes of people are usually affected differently) and stands a test of
due process too - the regulations will also need to be complex. The complexity came first, the
regulations come afterwards (after society learns of the stupidity the hard way).
Railing about this is a form of misleading sophistry, a rhetorical device to reverse the
causality.
We can think with more foresight and regulate before the stupid complexity arises, but it does
take a rational policy making environment for this exploration, discussion and policy-making
to occur with good foresight - I am waiting for the new Congress in 2017.
If the Warren-Sanders people have any influence then, we may see a whole lot less complex
financial system (it's a riot when you think how the Efficient Market Hypothesis, a
theoretical justification for the marketplace's range of instruments in fact led to more
complexity, less real efficiency and effectiveness, and ossification of the system when it
needed to be resilient but stable as a well-behaved system can be).
We will probably be better off after the 2017 debates. After all, this community of actors are
only intermediaries on behalf of real productive outcomes truly needed by society - right,
they are just intermediaries? How much inter-mediation does the economy need?
david s said...
The Obama Administration has been friendlier to corporate America than W's was.
While it was Ronald Reagan and his Republican Party that called for deregulation not much
was done until Alan Greenspan, then Chairman of the Federal Reserve, gave federal deregulation
his blessing in speeches from NY to Aspen to California in which he said "the market" will
reign in excesses and regulate itself b/c of competition acting egregiously would create.
Oopsie, Old Alan got it ALL WRONG again!
I thought a little history would help in this thread.
likbez said...
My impression is that regulation always reflects the needs of who is in power today. One
the key ingredients of political power is the ability to push the laws that benefit particular
constituent. And to block laws that don't.
If we assume that financial oligarchy is in power today, then it is clear that there can be no
effective regulation of financial services and by extension regulation of derivatives. And if
on the wave of public indignation such regulation is adopted, it will be gradually watered
down and then eliminated down the road.
And you can always hire people who will justify your point of view.
In this sense neither Milton Friedman nor Greenspan were independent players. They sold
themselves for money and were promoted into positions they have for specific purpose. I am not
sure the either of them believed the crap they speak or wrote.
It is under state capitalism that TBTF can't exists. Under neoliberalism they rule the country,
so the question about cutting their political power of dismantling them is simply naive. Nobody give
political power without a fight.
"... Today, with governments which are nothing but literally the junior partners (of Big Business)
in government-by-crime-syndicate, these laws might as well no longer exist, as they are practically
never enforced. Indeed, an entity must be a political/economic pariah, or simply lacking "connections"
if it is unable to sneak some merger or take-over past our totally compliant governments, and their
fast-asleep "regulators". ..."
"... There could never be an economic system, or economic argument where "too big to fail" could
ever be a rational/legitimate policy. Put another way, no level of short-term economic harm or
shock could possibly equal the long-term harm (and insanity) of institutionalized blackmail
– which is all that "too big to fail" ever was/is. You must protect us, no matter what we do,
no matter what the cost. Utter insanity. Utter criminality. ..."
"... An oligopoly is where a small group of companies dominate/control an entire market or sector.
Here it is important to understand that oligopolies are every bit as "evil" as monopolies (in
every way), but the oligopoly puts a happy-face on this evil. Oligopolies represent pretend
competition. ..."
"... But such corporate extortion via oligopolies/monopolies is certainly not confined to the banking
sector. The Oligarchs engage in such extortion (against corrupt governments which require absolutely
no arm-twisting) in virtually every sector of our economies, but generally in not quite as extreme
a form as what is perpetrated by the Big Banks. ..."
"... Read Schumpeter beginning to end. He recognized the evolution of increasingly
larger-scale, boom-and-bust "capitalism" from free-enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism to
industrial capitalism and eventually to various forms of state-capitalism, corporate-statism,
or quasi-fascism we have today, or what I refer to as militarist-imperialist, rentier-socialist,
or Anglo-American corporate-state. ..."
Today, with governments which are nothing but literally the junior partners (of Big Business)
in government-by-crime-syndicate, these laws might as well no longer exist, as they are practically
never enforced. Indeed, an entity must be a political/economic pariah, or simply lacking "connections"
if it is unable to sneak some merger or take-over past our totally compliant governments, and their
fast-asleep "regulators".
Today we have corporate monoliths which are literally orders of magnitude larger than any
remotely "optimal" size, with the ultimate and most-obvious examples being those hideously bloated
financial behemoths which we now know as "the Big Banks". How ridiculously too-big have the Big Banks
gotten?
Even the most-ardent admirer of the Big Banks in the entire media world, Bloomberg, couldn't stop
itself from openly salivating about how much "profit" could be had, just by beginning to chop-down
the financial fraud-factory which we know as JPMorgan Chase & Co.:
JPMorgan Chase & Co, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, would be worth 30 percent more if broken
into its four business segments, an unlikely scenario, an analyst at Stifel Financial Corp.'s KBW
unit said.
Note that there is not one word in the article indicating that there couldn't be a lot more
profit to be made, by then smashing those pieces into much smaller pieces still. This article
simply pointed to the instant profit of 30% which would be available just by beginning to
chop-down this obscenely large behemoth, and in the simplest manner possible.
Why would "smaller" be much more valuable, in our forward-looking markets, in the case of smashing
JPMorgan down-to-size (or at least beginning that process)? Obviously a major portion of that profit
quotient would have to be derived from greater efficiency. Smaller is better.
However, pointing out that even the greatest admirer/biggest cheerleader of the Big Banks has
observed how we would all be better off if the Big Banks were smaller is only a start. We
then come to the heinous propaganda which the cheerleaders (including Bloomberg) have dubbed "too
big to fail".
This is a very simple subject. "Too big to fail" is a pseudo-concept which is entirely antithetical
to any economic system which even pretends to adhere to the principles of "free markets".
Free markets demand that insolvent entities fail, it is the only way for such free markets to heal,
when weakened by the misallocation of assets (such as in the case of insolvent enterprises). No business,
or group of businesses could ever be "too big to fail".
There could never be an economic system, or economic argument where "too big to fail" could
ever be a rational/legitimate policy. Put another way, no level of short-term economic harm or
shock could possibly equal the long-term harm (and insanity) of institutionalized blackmail
– which is all that "too big to fail" ever was/is. You must protect us, no matter what we do,
no matter what the cost. Utter insanity. Utter criminality.
Understand that our own, corrupt governments embarked upon this criminal insanity long after the
equally criminalized government of Japan already proved that too-big-to-fail was a failed policy.
Not only could there never be an argument in favor of this criminality, our governments knew it
would fail before they ever rubber-stamped this systemic corruption.
But all of these arguments against the insanity of perverting and skewing our economies in favor
of Big Business, and against Small Business pale into insignificance compared to the principal condemnation
of too-Big Business: the economic "cannibals" known as monopolies and oligopolies.
For readers unfamiliar with these terms because the Corporate media and charlatan economists try
to pretend that these words don't exist, a brief refresher is in order. As most readers know, a monopoly
is where a single enterprise effectively controls an entire market or sector. While a "monopoly"
may be desirable when playing a board-game, in the real world these parasitic entities do nothing
but blood-suck, from any/every economy they are able to "corner".
However, the majority of people, even today, are at least partially familiar with the evils of
monopolies, thus the ultra-wealthy Oligarchs rarely attempt to perpetrate their systemic theft via
these corporate fronts. Instead, they perpetrate most of their organized crime via oligopolies.
An oligopoly is where a small group of companies dominate/control an entire market or sector.
Here it is important to understand that oligopolies are every bit as "evil" as monopolies (in
every way), but the oligopoly puts a happy-face on this evil. Oligopolies represent pretend
competition.
These corporate fronts cooperate as closely as possible in systemically plundering economies.
How do monopolies/oligopolies rob from us? The "old-fashioned" way for these blood-suckers to do
so was via simple price-gouging. When you have complete control over a sector/market, you can
charge any price you want.
However, not surprisingly, the Little People tend to notice when the Oligarchs use their corporate
fronts to engage in simple price-gouging. They actually begin to notice the general evil which oligopolies/monopolies
represent, and that is "bad for business" (i.e. crime).
Instead, the Oligarch Thieves of the 21st century engage in their robbery-by-corporation in a
different, more sophisticated/less-visible manner: via corporate welfare. What other crime can monopolies
and oligopolies perpetrate, with overwhelming success? Naked extortion.
As previously explained; "too-big-to-fail" (and now even "too big to jail") is nothing but the
most-obvious and most-despicable form of corporate extortion (or simply economic terrorism): give
us all the money we want, or we'll blow up the financial sector. Small banks could never perpetrate
such a crime (terrorism).
But such corporate extortion via oligopolies/monopolies is certainly not confined to the banking
sector. The Oligarchs engage in such extortion (against corrupt governments which require absolutely
no arm-twisting) in virtually every sector of our economies, but generally in not quite as extreme
a form as what is perpetrated by the Big Banks.
Typically, the extortion which precedes even more Corporate welfare, occurs in this form: give
us everything we want, or we will close our factory/business, and you will (temporarily)
lose those jobs. Here we don't need to imagine this in the hypothetical, as we have a particularly
blatant example of such Corporate extortion/welfare, courtesy of U.S. Steel:
U.S. Steel Canada Inc. is threatening to cease operations in Canada by the end of the year
if an Ontario Superior Court judge rejects its request to stop paying municipal taxes, halt payments into pension funds, and
cut off health care and other benefits to 20,000 retirees
and their dependents. [emphasis mine]
... ... ...
kanoli
Like most of Jeff Nielson's rants, this one is nonsensical. If small business hires more
people to produce the same product or service as a big business, they cannot do so at the same
or lower price unless they are paying a lower wage.
The problem with big business isn't that it is big - it is their tendency to lobby government
for regulations that stifle small business competitors.
If politicians were not for sale, it wouldn't matter whether a business is big or small.
Neither would have undue influence on the law.
The problem is regulatory democracy where all laws are constantly subject to fiddling by an
elected legislature.
Element
In practice a balanced mix of all sized businesses are necessary in a planetary
civilization that trades products globally. Getting the mix 'right' and not having big
business get away with preventing competition, or of govt throttling to skim and micro-control
is most of the deleterious effect on business, and on human beings in general.
Unfortunately humans have been trained to like Logos, and to buy 'wants' accordingly.
iDroned on a bit,
2c
newnormaleconomics
Read Schumpeter beginning to end. He recognized the evolution of increasingly
larger-scale, boom-and-bust "capitalism" from free-enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism to
industrial capitalism and eventually to various forms of state-capitalism, corporate-statism,
or quasi-fascism we have today, or what I refer to as militarist-imperialist, rentier-socialist,
or Anglo-American corporate-state.
The current state of the evolution of "capitalism" is its advanced, late-stage,
financialized, globalized phase.
With Peak Oil, population overshoot, unprecedented debt to wages and GDP, Limits to Growth,
climate change, a record low for labor share, decelerating productivity, OBSCENE wealth and
income inequality, and increasing geopolitical tensions, growth of real GDP per capita is
done, which means that growth of profits, investment, and capital formation/accumulation is
done, which in turn means "capitalism" is done.
"... 1.TiSA would "lock in" the privatization of services – even in cases where private service delivery has failed – meaning governments can never return water, energy, health, education or other services to public hands. ..."
"... 2.TiSA would restrict signatory governments' right to regulate stronger standards in the public's interest. For example, it will affect environmental regulations, licensing of health facilities and laboratories, waste disposal centres, power plants, school and university accreditation and broadcast licenses. ..."
"... 3.TiSA would limit the ability of governments to regulate the financial services industry, at a time when the global economy is still struggling to recover from a crisis caused primarily by financial deregulation. More specifically, if signed the trade agreement would: ..."
"... 4. TiSA would ban any restrictions on cross-border information flows and localization requirements for ICT service providers. A provision proposed by US negotiators would rule out any conditions for the transfer of personal data to third countries that are currently in place in EU data protection law. In other words, multinational corporations will have carte blanche to pry into just about every facet of the working and personal lives of the inhabitants of roughly a quarter of the world's 200-or-so nations. ..."
"... 5. Finally, TiSA, together with its sister treaties TPP and TTIP, would establish a new global enclosure system, one that seeks to impose on all 52 signatory governments a rigid framework of international corporate law designed to exclusively protect the interests of corporations, relieving them of financial risk and social and environmental responsibility. In short, it would hammer the final nail in the already bedraggled coffin of national sovereignty. ..."
"... So, not to be snarky or anything but when does the invasion of Uruguay begin. ..."
"... In the US, corporations largely have replaced government since WWII or so, or at least pretend to offer the services that a government might provide. ..."
"... Neoliberalism that we have now as a dominant social system is a flavor of corporatism. If so, it is corporations which now represent the most politically powerful actors. They literally rule the country. And it is they who select the president, most congressmen and Senators. Try to ask yourself a question: to what political force Barak "change we can believe in" Obama serves. ..."
"... "And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place" ..."
"... This is such a huge, huge, vital issue. Privatisation of public assets has to rank as one of the highest crimes at the government level. It is treason, perhaps the only crime for which i wouldn't object capital punishment. ..."
"... What's more, we now have some 40 years of data showing that privatisation doesn't work. surely, we can organise and successfully argue that privatisation has never worked for any country any time. There needs to be an intellectual assault on privatisation discrediting it forever. ..."
Often referred to as the Switzerland of South America, Uruguay is long accustomed to doing things
its own way. It was the first nation in Latin America to establish a welfare state. It also has an
unusually large middle class for the region and unlike its giant neighbors to the north and west,
Brazil and Argentina, is largely free of serious income inequality.
Two years ago, during José Mujica's presidency, Uruguay became the first nation to legalize marijuana
in Latin America, a continent that is being ripped apart by drug trafficking and its associated violence
and corruption of state institutions.
Now Uruguay has done something that no other semi-aligned nation on this planet has dared to do:
it has rejected the advances of the global corporatocracy.
The Treaty That Must Not Be Named
Earlier this month Uruguay's government decided to end its participation in the secret negotiations
of the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA). After months of intense pressure led by unions and other
grassroots movements that culminated in a national general strike on the issue – the first of its
kind around the globe – the Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez bowed to public opinion and left the
US-led trade agreement.
Despite – or more likely because of – its symbolic importance, Uruguay's historic decision has
been met by a wall of silence. Beyond the country's borders, mainstream media has refused to cover
the story.
This is hardly a surprise given that the global public is not supposed to even know about TiSA's
existence, despite – or again because of – the fact that it's arguably the most important of the
new generation of global trade agreements. According to WikiLeaks, it "is the largest component of
the United States' strategic 'trade' treaty triumvirate," which also includes the Trans Pacific Partnership
(TPP) and the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP).
TiSA involves more countries than TTIP and TPP combined: The United States and all 28 members
of the European Union, Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel,
Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea,
Switzerland, Taiwan and Turkey.
Together, these 52 nations form the charmingly named "Really Good Friends of Services" group,
which represents almost 70% of all trade in services worldwide. Until its government's recent u-turn
Uruguay was supposed to be the 53rd Good Friend of Services.
TiSA Trailer
TiSA has spent the last two years taking shape behind the hermetically sealed doors of highly
secure locations around the world. According to the agreement's provisional text, the document is
supposed to remain confidential and concealed from public view for at least five years after being
signed. Even the World Trade Organization has been sidelined from negotiations.
But thanks to whistle blowing sites like WikiLeaks, the Associated Whistleblowing Press and Filtrala,
crucial details have seeped to the surface. Here's a brief outline of what is known to date (for
more specifics click
here,
here and
here):
1.TiSA would "lock in" the privatization of services – even in cases where private service
delivery has failed – meaning governments can never return water, energy, health, education or other
services to public hands.
2.TiSA would restrict signatory governments' right to regulate stronger standards in the public's
interest. For example, it will affect environmental regulations, licensing of health facilities and
laboratories, waste disposal centres, power plants, school and university accreditation and broadcast
licenses.
3.TiSA would limit the ability of governments to regulate the financial services industry,
at a time when the global economy is still struggling to recover from a crisis caused primarily by
financial deregulation. More specifically, if signed the trade agreement would:
Restrict the ability of governments to place limits on the trading of derivative contracts
- the largely unregulated weapons of mass financial destruction that helped trigger the 2007-08
Global Financial Crisis.
Bar new financial regulations that do not conform to deregulatory rules. Signatory governments
will essentially agree not to apply new financial policy measures which in any way contradict
the agreement's emphasis on deregulatory measures.
Prohibit national governments from using capital controls to prevent or mitigate financial
crises. The leaked texts prohibit restrictions on financial inflows – used to prevent rapid currency
appreciation, asset bubbles and other macroeconomic problems – and financial outflows, used to
prevent sudden capital flight in times of crisis.
Require acceptance of financial products not yet invented. Despite the pivotal role that new,
complex financial products played in the Financial Crisis, TISA would require governments to allow
all new financial products and services, including ones not yet invented, to be sold within their
territories.
4. TiSA would ban any restrictions on cross-border information flows and localization requirements
for ICT service providers. A provision proposed by US negotiators would rule out any conditions for
the transfer of personal data to third countries that are currently in place in EU data protection
law. In other words, multinational corporations will have carte blanche to pry into just about every
facet of the working and personal lives of the inhabitants of roughly a quarter of the world's 200-or-so
nations.
As I wrote in
LEAKED: Secret Negotiations to Let Big Brother Go Global, if TiSA is signed in its current form
– and we will not know exactly what that form is until at least five years down the line – our personal
data will be freely bought and sold on the open market place without our knowledge; companies and
governments will be able to store it for as long as they desire and use it for just about any purpose.
5. Finally, TiSA, together with its sister treaties TPP and TTIP, would establish a new global
enclosure system, one that seeks to impose on all 52 signatory governments a rigid framework of international
corporate law designed to exclusively protect the interests of corporations, relieving them of financial
risk and social and environmental responsibility. In short, it would hammer the final nail in the
already bedraggled coffin of national sovereignty.
A Dangerous Precedent
Given its small size (population: 3.4 million) and limited geopolitical or geo-economic clout,
Uruguay's withdrawal from TiSA is unlikely to upset the treaty's advancement. The governments of
the major trading nations will continue their talks behind closed doors and away from the prying
eyes of the people they are supposed to represent. The U.S. Congress has already agreed to grant
the Obama administration fast-track approval on trade agreements like TiSA while the European Commission
can be expected to do whatever the corporatocracy demands.
However, as the technology writer Glyn Moody
notes, Uruguay's defection – like the people of Iceland's refusal to assume all the debts of
its rogue banks – possesses a tremendous symbolic importance:
It says that, yes, it is possible to withdraw from global negotiations, and that the apparently
irreversible trade deal ratchet can actually be turned back. It sets an important precedent that
other nations with growing doubts about TISA – or perhaps TPP – can look to and maybe even follow.
Naturally, the representatives of Uruguay's largest corporations would agree to disagree. The
government's move was one of its biggest mistakes of recent years,
according to Gabriel Oddone, an analyst with the financial consultancy firm CPA Ferrere. It was
based on a "superficial discussion of the treaty's implications."
What Oddone conveniently fails to mention is that Uruguay is the only nation on the planet that
has had any kind of public discussion, superficial or not, about TiSA and its potentially game-changing
implications. Perhaps it's time that changed.
So, not to be snarky or anything but when does the invasion of Uruguay begin. Wondering:
don't they want to pay $750.00 per pill for what cost $13.85 the day before? Aren't they interested
in predatory capitalism? What is going on down there?
Jim Haygood, September 23, 2015 at 12:17 pm
Most symbolic is that the eighth round of multilateral trade negotiations under GATT (now WTO)
kicked off in Punta del Este, Uruguay in Sep. 1986.
It went into effect in 1995, and is still known as the Uruguay Round.
susan the other, September 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm
And will international corporations issue their own fiat; pass their own laws; and prosecute
their own genocide? Contrary to their group hallucinations, corporations cannot replace government.
And clearly, somebody forgot to tell them that capitalism, corporatism, cannot survive without
growth. The only growth they will achieve is raiding other corporations. They are more powerless
and vulnerable than they ever want to admit.
hunkerdown, September 23, 2015 at 8:13 pm
And will international corporations issue their own fiat; pass their own laws; and
prosecute their own genocide?
Sure. There's prior art. Company scrip, substance "abuse" policies, and Bhopal (for a bit
different definition of "prosecute").
In the US, corporations largely have replaced government since WWII or so, or at least
pretend to offer the services that a government might provide.
likbez, September 24, 2015 at 10:54 pm
They are more powerless and vulnerable than they ever want to admit.
You are dreaming. Neoliberalism that we have now as a dominant social system is a flavor
of corporatism. If so, it is corporations which now represent the most politically powerful
actors. They literally rule the country. And it is they who select the president, most congressmen
and Senators. Try to ask yourself a question: to what political force Barak "change we can
believe in" Obama serves.
As Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) aptly noted:
"And the banks - hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that
many of the banks created - are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they
frankly own the place"
gordon, September 23, 2015 at 9:03 pm
The TISA has a history. It's really just a continuation of the MAI treaty which the OECD failed
to conclude back in the 1990s.
What I don't get is why all those countries want to sign up to these agreements. I can see
what is in it for the US elites, but how does it help these smaller countries?
likbez, September 24, 2015 at 10:43 pm
Elites of those small countries are now transnational. So in a way they represent the fifth
column of globalization. That explains their position: own profit stands before interests of
the country.
vidimi, September 24, 2015 at 4:19 am
This is such a huge, huge, vital issue. Privatisation of public assets has to rank as one
of the highest crimes at the government level. It is treason, perhaps the only crime for which
i wouldn't object capital punishment.
What's more, we now have some 40 years of data showing that privatisation doesn't work.
surely, we can organise and successfully argue that privatisation has never worked for any country
any time. There needs to be an intellectual assault on privatisation discrediting it forever.
Paul Marshall, chairman of London-based hedge fund Marshall Wace, in the FT:
Central banks have made the rich richer: Labour's new shadow chancellor has got at least one
thing right. ... Quantitative easing ... has bailed out bonus-happy banks and made the rich richer.
...
It is no surprise that the left is angry about this, nor that they are looking for other
versions of QE that do not so directly benefit bankers and the rich. Instead of increasing the
money supply by buying sovereign bonds from banks, central banks could spread the love evenly
by depositing extra money in every person's bank account..., it might have been fairer.
Mr McDonnell and Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, advocate a second approach: targeting
QE at infrastructure projects. The central bank would buy bonds direct from the Treasury on the
understanding that the funds would be used to improve housing and transport infrastructure. ...
QE had clear wealth effects, which could have been offset by fiscal measures. All political
parties should acknowledge this. So should those of us who want free markets to retain their legitimacy.
The ongoing oligarch theft labeled an "economic recovery" by pundits, politicians and mainstream
media alike, is one of the largest frauds I've witnessed in my life. The reality of the situation
is finally starting to hit home, and the proof is now undeniable.
Families' savings not where they should be: That's one part of the problem. But Mills sees
something else in the recovery that's more disturbing. The number of households tapping alternative
financial services are on the rise, meaning that Americans are turning to non-bank lenders for
credit: payday loans, refund-anticipation loans, pawnshops, and rent-to-own services.
According to the Urban Institute report, the number of households that used alternative
credit products increased 7 percent between 2011 and 2013. And the kind of household seeking alternative
financing is changing, too.
It's not the case that every one of these middle- and upper-class households turned to pawnshops
and payday lenders because they got whomped by an unexpected bill from a mechanic or a dentist.
"People who are in these [non-bank] situations are not using these forms of credit to simply overcome
an emergency, but are using them for basic living experiences," Mills says.
Of course, it's not just "alternative financial services." Increasingly desperate American citizens
are also tapping whatever retirement savings they may have, including taking the 10% tax penalty
for the privilege of doing so. In fact, 30 million Americans have done just that in the past year
alone, in the midst of what is supposed to be a "recovery."
With the effects of the financial crisis still lingering, 30 million Americans in the last
12 months tapped retirement savings to pay for an unexpected expense, new research shows.
This undercuts financial security and underscores the need for every household to maintain an
emergency fund.
Boomers were most likely to take a premature withdrawal as well as incur a
tax
penalty, according to a
survey from Bankrate.com. Some 26% of those ages 50-64 say their financial situation has
deteriorated, and 17% used their 401(k) plan and other retirement savings to pay for an emergency
expense.
Two-thirds of Americans agree that the effects of the financial crisis are still being felt
in the way they live, work, save and spend, according to a
report from Allianz Life Insurance Co. One in five can be called a post-crash skeptic-a person
that experienced at least six different kinds of financial setback during the recession, like
a job loss or loss of home value, and feel their financial future is in peril.
So now we know what has kept meager spending afloat during this pitiful "recovery." A combination
of "alternative loans" and a bleeding of retirement accounts. The transformation of the public
into a horde of broke debt serfs is almost complete.
Don't forget to send your thank you card to you know who:
This week, Eric has an in depth conversation with economist Michael Hudson, author of the new
book
Killing
the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. Eric and Prof.
Hudson discuss the evolution of finance capital from its humble parasitical beginnings to the comprehensive
global network of economic tapeworms and barnacles that it is today. They examine neoliberal terrorism,
how debt is used as a weapon, and the disastrous effects of the financialization of the real economy.
Hudson outlines the relationship between the parasites and their bloodsucking policies of austerity,
providing insight using the example of Latvia, where he witnessed first hand the smash-and-grab nature
of such prescriptions. Plus, Eric and Michael touch on Obama as Wall Street errand boy, the importance
of left economic organizing, and much much more.
Musical interlude from the exciting new band
GospelbeacH, and intro
and outtro from David Vest.
I was fascinated that Bear Stearns was the first to go
as Bear was the only large company that failed to respond
to the Fed's calls when LTCM almost brough down the house
in 1998.
the greatest control fraud in history, the 2008 seizure of the u.s. government's financial/regulatory
apparatus by wall street's banks and trading houses to recapitalize themselves and avoid prosecution
for their enormous crimes, is tremendously evil. it will never be prosecuted or its errors
corrected until the psychopaths at the head of our society are neutralized.
only 9-11 can do this. it is the crime that is clear-cut, unambiguously wrong, provable,
without a statute of limitations (treason/murder/kidnapping), sufficiently inflammatory (very
important) and really comprehensive in its list of perps, especially after the fact (the editors
of the new york times don't actually have to go to jail; just most people have to think they should).
"If a counterparty liquidates, net exposure becomes gross [emphasis added
by me], and suddenly everyone starts wondering where all those "physical" commodities are."
For those who may not quite grasp this, it means all your "hedging" against falling prices
is null and void and you are left with full-in-the-face long exposure PLUS entities dealing in
the physical commodity can suddenly be looking down a long tunnel of "failure to timely deliver"
on contracts they've signed.
But, then again, 2016 is the last year for a lame duck president... traditionally a very good
year to "clean house" and get the government to bail you out.
"... A complex web of revolving doors between the
military-industrial-complex, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley consolidates the interests of
defense contracts, banksters, military actions, and both foreign and domestic surveillance intelligence. ..."
"... While most citizens are at least passively aware of the surveillance state and collusion between
the government and the corporate heads of Wall Street, few people are aware of how much the intelligence
functions of the government have been outsourced to privatized groups that are not subject to oversight
or accountability. According to Lofgren,
70%
of our intelligence budget goes to contractors. ..."
"... the deep
state has, since 9/11, built the equivalent of three Pentagons, a bloated state apparatus that keeps
defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and privatized non-accountable citizens marching in
stride. ..."
"... Groupthink - an unconscious assimilation of the views of your superiors and peers - also works
to keep Silicon Valley funneling technology and information into the federal surveillance state.
Lofgren believes the NSA and CIA could not do what they do without Silicon Valley. It has developed
a de facto partnership with NSA surveillance activities, as facilitated by a
FISA court order. ..."
For decades, extreme ideologies on both the left and the right have clashed over the conspiratorial
concept of a shadowy secret government pulling the strings on the world's heads of state and captains
of industry.
The phrase New World Order is largely derided as a sophomoric conspiracy theory entertained by
minds that lack the sophistication necessary to understand the nuances of geopolitics. But it
turns out the core idea - one of deep and overarching collusion between Wall Street and government
with a globalist agenda - is operational in what a number of insiders call the "Deep State."
In the past couple of years, the term has gained traction across a wide swath of ideologies. Former
Republican congressional aide Mike Lofgren says it is the nexus of Wall Street and the national security
state - a relationship where elected and unelected figures join forces to consolidate power and serve
vested interests. Calling it "the big story of our time," Lofgren says the deep state represents
the failure of our visible constitutional government and the cross-fertilization of corporatism with
the globalist war on terror.
"It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense,
the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and
the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction
over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall
Street," he explained.
Even parts of the judiciary, namely the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, belong to the
deep state.
How does the deep state operate?
A complex web of revolving doors between the
military-industrial-complex, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley consolidates the interests of
defense contracts, banksters, military actions, and both foreign and domestic surveillance intelligence.
According to Mike Lofgren and many other insiders, this is not a conspiracy theory. The deep state
hides in plain sight and goes far beyond the military-industrial complex
President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about in his farewell speech over fifty years ago.
While most citizens are at least passively aware of the surveillance state and collusion between
the government and the corporate heads of Wall Street, few people are aware of how much the intelligence
functions of the government have been outsourced to privatized groups that are not subject to oversight
or accountability. According to Lofgren,
70%
of our intelligence budget goes to contractors.
Moreover, while Wall Street and the federal government suck money out of the economy, relegating
tens of millions of people to food stamps and incarcerating
more people than China - a totalitarian state with four times more people than us - the deep
state has, since 9/11, built the equivalent of three Pentagons, a bloated state apparatus that keeps
defense contractors, intelligence contractors, and privatized non-accountable citizens marching in
stride.
After years of serving in Congress, Lofgren's moment of truth regarding this matter came in
2001. He observed the government appropriating an enormous amount of money that was ostensibly
meant to go to Afghanistan but instead went to the Persian Gulf region. This, he says, "disenchanted"
him from the
groupthink,
which, he says, keeps all of Washington's minions in lockstep.
Groupthink - an unconscious assimilation of the views of your superiors and peers - also works
to keep Silicon Valley funneling technology and information into the federal surveillance state.
Lofgren believes the NSA and CIA could not do what they do without Silicon Valley. It has developed
a de facto partnership with NSA surveillance activities, as facilitated by a
FISA court order.
Now, Lofgren notes, these CEOs want to complain about foreign market share and the damage this
collusion has wrought on both the domestic and international reputation of their brands. Under the
pretense of pseudo-libertarianism, they helmed a commercial tech sector that is every bit as intrusive
as the NSA. Meanwhile, rigging of the DMCA intellectual property laws - so that the government can
imprison and fine citizens who jailbreak devices - behooves Wall Street. It's no surprise that the
government has upheld the draconian legislation for the 15 years.
It is also unsurprising that the growth of the corporatocracy aids the deep state. The
revolving door between government and Wall Street money allows top firms to offer premium jobs to
senior government officials and military yes-men. This, says Philip Giraldi, a former counter-terrorism
specialist and military intelligence officer for the CIA, explains how the Clintons left the White
House nearly broke but soon amassed $100 million. It also explains how
former
general and CIA Director David Petraeus, who has no experience in finance, became a partner at
the KKR private equity firm, and how former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell became Senior Counselor
at Beacon Global Strategies.
Wall Street is the ultimate foundation for the deep state because the incredible amount of
money it generates can provide these cushy jobs to those in the government after they retire.
Nepotism reigns supreme as the
revolving
door between Wall Street and government facilitates a great deal of our domestic strife:
"Bank bailouts, tax breaks, and resistance to legislation that would regulate Wall Street,
political donors, and lobbyists. The senior government officials, ex-generals, and high level
intelligence operatives who participate find themselves with multi-million dollar homes in which
to spend their retirement years, cushioned by a tidy pile of investments," said Giraldi.
How did the deep state come to be?
Some say it is the evolutionary hybrid offspring of the
military-industrial complex while others say it came into being with the
Federal
Reserve Act, even before the First World War. At this time, Woodrow Wilson remarked,
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated
governments in the civilized world, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority,
but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
This quasi-secret cabal pulling the strings in Washington and much of America's foreign policy
is maintained by a corporatist ideology that thrives on deregulation, outsourcing, deindustrialization,
and financialization. American exceptionalism, or the great "Washington
Consensus," yields perpetual war and economic imperialism abroad while consolidating the interests
of the oligarchy here at home.
Mike Lofgren says this government within a government operates off tax dollars but is not constrained
by the constitution, nor are its machinations derailed by political shifts in the White House. In
this world - where the deep state functions with impunity - it doesn't matter who is president so
long as he or she perpetuates the war on terror, which serves this interconnected web of corporate
special interests and disingenuous geopolitical objectives.
"As long as appropriations bills get passed on time, promotion lists get confirmed, black (i.e.,
secret) budgets get rubber stamped, special tax subsidies for certain corporations are approved
without controversy, as long as too many awkward questions are not asked, the gears of the hybrid
state will mesh noiselessly,"
according to Mike Lofgren in an interview with Bill Moyers.
Interestingly, according to Philip Giraldi, the ever-militaristic Turkey has its own deep state,
which uses overt criminality to keep the money flowing. By comparison, the U.S. deep state relies
on a symbiotic relationship between banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors, a mutant hybrid
that also owns the Fourth Estate and Washington think tanks.
Is there hope for the future?
Perhaps. At present, discord and unrest continues to build. Various groups, establishments, organizations,
and portions of the populace from all corners of the political spectrum, including Silicon Valley,
Occupy, the Tea Party, Anonymous, WikiLeaks, anarchists and libertarians from both the left and right,
the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and others are beginning
to vigorously question and reject the labyrinth of power wielded by the deep state.
Can these groups - can we, the people - overcome the divide and conquer tactics used to quell
dissent? The future of freedom may depend on it.
The witch-burning craze would be best suited as yet another unwritten chapter in Mackay's "Extraordinary
Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".
If both men and women were charged and tried for this imaginary crime driven by baseless superstition,
a narrative proposing it was really an ancient war on women is logically absurd - and therefore also
a baseless superstition.
We could lump it all together and I do agree that the context is important, but it is much easier
to see why members of new religions were targeted than peasants being accused of being witches.
I
find the theory fascinating because it does provide a possible explanation for something that does
not really fit the usual "threat to power/otherness" explanations. I don't know if the theory is
correct but I find it intriguing, especially after reading the Sonia Mitralias article yesterday.
Not having read the book, is there any mention of c (ergot) in relation to witch hunts?
I first heard of this thesis in my college botany class. The theory seems controversial even though
there's archaeological evidence of rye cultivation as far north as Scandinavia by 500 AD.
If memory serves, the Salem witch saga was defined by topographical elevation e.g. poor down the
hill, the soggy bottom, elites up the hill, w/ poor consuming the lesser status rye whilst the elites
consumed wheat.
Its not hard to imagine the elites with their religious "self awarded" superiority complex, that
any, straying from the narrative would just reinforce the aforementioned mental attitude. As such
any remediation would be authoritatively administered by the elites as they owned the code [arbiters
of religious interpretation].
Skippy…. the old NC post on that provincial French town would make a great book end to this post,
by Lambert imo….
Two other noteworthy aspects of he witch hunts: one, they were an attempt by the Catholic Church
to destroy non-Church authorities; and two, they were an attempt by physicians (nobles) to destroy
alternate sources of medical care.
Thus, the targets were frequently midwives and herbalists.
(It's also worth noting that the court physicians had no scientific basis for their treatments
- that was shoehorned in later. So the traditional healers were, and remained for centuries, to the
extent they and their methods survived, the better choice for health care, particularly for childbirth.)
"Primitive accumulation is the term that Marx uses in Capital vol.1, to characterize the historical
process upon which the development of capitalist relations was premised. It is a useful term, for
it provides a common denominator through which we can conceptualize the changes that the advent of
capitalism produced in economic and social relations. But its importance lies, above all in the fact
that primitive accumulation is treated by Marx as a foundational process, revealing the structural
conditions for the existence of capitalist society."
Marx seemed to seek the determinants of capitalism's genetic process in the logic of the preceding
mode of production–in the economic structure of feudal society. But is such a description an explanation
for the transition from feudal to capitalistic society?
Doesn't Marx's explanation of the origins of capitalism seems to presuppose capitalism itself?
Doesn't Marx's use of only economic variables lead into a blind alley in terms of understanding
the origins of capitalism?
Shouldn't the collapsing Left finally take a serious look at cultural and political explanations
for the origins of capitalism?
What about a cultural explanation in which the creation and role of nationalism in 16th century
England provided a key competitive individual motivating factor among its citizens– as a possible
cause of capitalism? What about the emergence of the autonomous city as a primary political cause
of capitalism? Was capitalism born in Catholic, urban Italy at the end of the Middle Ages?
Why has the search for explanations of the origins of capitalism, only in the economic sphere,
come to occupy such a central place in our thinking?
I think this analysis is off the mark and probably a convolution of an array of underlying variable
and functions.
It's as if the author says z = g(x); when in fact x = f(z,t,u and v).
To conclude that z relies on x is a distortion of the underlying phenomenological structure and
also distorts the agency by which z, t, u and v correspond to z.
one item that is quite significant to note, and perhaps is one of the underlying variables, is
the urgency by which authorities demanded "confessions' by witches, which in and of itself was sometimes
enough to ameliorate punishment.
The other underlying variable is the reality of paranormal phenomenon. We think witchcraft is
a doddering myth invented by overly imaginative minds, but the reality is quite other than that.
Relating "capitalism" to persecution of witches on the basis of their femaleness lacks all precision.
The Roman empire was capitalist but accepted paganism. Our current culture would view persecution
on the basis of witchcraft as daftminded lunacy. yet pagan cultures in Africa do so even today.
The book author throws up an interesting cloud of ideas but doesn't seem capable of credible navigation,
based simply on the summary offered here. I suspect it has to do less with capitalism and femaleness
in particular and more, in general, in terms of threats posed by alternative consciousness structures
to the dominant structure of social organization (inclusive of economics, theology, eshatology, etc.)
These would be the z, t, u and v of the underlying f-function. It's seen the world over in varying
guises, but the underlying variables manifest in different costumes, in varying degrees of malision.
The problem of witches depends on the history of individual countries and also on religious orthodoxies,
Catholic as well as Calvinist and Lutheran.
As is often the case, Italy is contradictory and somewhat of an exception. Yet the exceptions
are regional. The peasants on the Peninsula ruled by Naples were treated differently from northern
Italians. Venice was an exception.
The process of liberation seems to have begun earlier in Italy than the Black Death. While doing
research about Bologna, I ran across this:
"Liber Paradisus The Liber Paradisus (Heaven Book) is a law text promulgated in 1256 by the Comune of Bologna which
proclaimed the abolition of slavery and the release of serfs (servi della gleba)."
So you have emancipation and the development of an idea of human rights a hundred years before
the Black Death. But the source was a social war and a desire for higher wages.
Throughout Italy, too, the Inquisition and its treatment of witches was highly uneven. I happen
to have studied the benandanti, who didn't consider themselves witches, but had visions and myterious
rituals. Some were healers. The Franciscans who investigated them were considered lousy Inquisitors
(not tough enough) and the results are highly ambiguous. See Carlo Ginzburg's works, and see the
work of Italian scholars who found even more ambiguities. Many of the benandanti in trouble were
men–and the women and men reported the same mystical experiences, many of which are astounding and
rather beautiful. Reports of benandanti extend into the early 1800s.
Piero Camporesi also wrote about the economic status of Italian peasants, the rituals of their
year (which didn't always coincide with Catholic orthodoxy), and the strength of ancient pagan customs.
I realize that your point is witchcraft as a kind of collision with the growth of the state and
"modern" markets. Yet I'd encourage you to consider Italy as a counterexample. On the other hand,
fragmented Italy was the most highly developed economy in Europe during most of the middle ages and
up to roughly 1550, so the markets may have developed (capitalistically as well as by state intervention,
especially in Venice) more slowly, more peculiarly, and less disruptively. There are peasant revolts
in Italian history, but not regions in flames and years and years of scorched-earth actions against
rebellious peasants.
Enlightening observations regarding the premeditated, planned and organized use of witch-hunts
by the elite of that period as a vehicle of social control. I was surprised at the level of elite
information and coordination in what I had previously viewed as a very primitive era of considerable
physical isolation. The events discussed here suggest there was a fairly high level of communication
and organization among and by the elite.
However, I would question to what extent the extreme 14th century depopulation of Europe and Britain
caused by the great plague pandemics, the Great Famine, wars and weather would have led to similar
elite initiatives, regardless of the transition to capitalism.
Appears to share some common threads with events and behaviors which have occurred in our own
time – from those mentioned in the article to the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, the Powell memorandum
of 1971 and related subsequent behavior, including the forms of "primitive accumulation" cited that
led to the 2008 financial collapse.
Thank you for the review of Silvia Federici's book, Lambert, and your related observations. Seems
worthwhile reading.
There was at least one man in the Salem witch trials who did save his wife. At the preliminary
hearing he cursed the judges for allowing her to be imprisoned, saying God would surely punish them.
When she was bound over for trial anyway, he broke her out of jail and fled with her to New York.
Would that all of us men had that kind of courage and resourcefulness. Sadly most of us don't.
"...Draitser examines some of the volatile conflicts on the continent, attempting to trace
how they relate to the US-NATO regional and global hegemonic agenda. From there, he provides his
analysis of Syria and the US role in the rise of ISIS/ISIL, as well as Washington's militarization
of Latin America in order to stifle its independence and growing alliances with the non-western
world."
He describes in detail what the US and its neocolonial NATO allies are doing in Africa,
with close attention to the grand strategy of militarily checking the economic influence of
China. Draitser examines some of the volatile conflicts on the continent, attempting to trace
how they relate to the US-NATO regional and global hegemonic agenda. From there, he provides his
analysis of Syria and the US role in the rise of ISIS/ISIL, as well as Washington's
militarization of Latin America in order to stifle its independence and growing alliances with
the non-western world. Finally, Draitser touches on the current situation in Haiti and the
grand strategy of containing China through the Asia Pivot and the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All
this and much much more in this wide-ranging interview.
"...Of course I know that the United States of America is not Turkey. But there are lessons to
be learned from its example of how a democracy can be subverted by particular interests hiding behind
the mask of patriotism."
It has frequently been alleged that the modern Turkish Republic operates on two levels. It has a
parliamentary democracy complete with a constitution and regular elections, but there also
exists a secret government that has been referred to as the
"deep state," in Turkish "Derin Devlet."
The concept of "deep state" has recently
become fashionable to a certain
extent, particularly to explain the persistence of traditional political alignments when confronted
by the recent revolutions in parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe. For those who
believe in the existence of the deep state, there are a number of institutional as well as extralegal
relationships that might suggest its presence.
Some believe that this deep state arose out of a secret NATO operation called "Gladio,"
which created an infrastructure for so-called "stay behind operations" if Western Europe were to
be overrun by the Soviet Union and its allies. There is a certain logic to that assumption,
as a deep state has to be organized around a center of official and publicly accepted power, which
means it normally includes senior officials of the police and intelligence services as well as the
military. For the police and intelligence agencies, the propensity to operate in secret is a sine
qua non for the deep state, as it provides cover for the maintenance of relationships that under
other circumstances would be considered suspect or even illegal.
In Turkey, the notion that there has to be an outside force restraining dissent from political
norms was, until recently, even given a legal fig leaf through the
Constitution of
1982, which granted to the military's National Security Council authority to intervene in developing
political situations to "protect" the state. There have, in fact, been four military coups
in Turkey. But deep state goes far beyond those overt interventions. It has been claimed that deep
state activities in Turkey are frequently conducted through connivance with politicians who provide
cover for the activity, with corporate interests and with criminal groups who can operate across
borders and help in the mundane tasks of political corruption, including drug trafficking and money
laundering.
A number of senior Turkish politicians have spoken openly of the existence of the deep
state. Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit tried to learn more about the organization and, for
his pains, endured an assassination attempt in 1977. Tansu Ciller
eulogized "those who died for the state and
those who killed for the state," referring to the assassinations of communists and Kurds. There have
been several significant exposures of Turkish deep state activities, most notably an automobile accident
in 1996 in Susurluk that killed the Deputy Chief of the Istanbul Police and the leader of the
Grey Wolves extreme right
wing nationalist group. A member of parliament was also in the car and a fake passport was discovered,
tying together a criminal group that had operated death squads with a senior security official and
an elected member of the legislature. A subsequent investigation determined that the police had been
using the criminals to support their operations against leftist groups and other dissidents. Deep
state operatives have also been linked to assassinations of a judge, Kurds, leftists, potential state
witnesses, and an Armenian journalist. They have also bombed a Kurdish bookstore and the offices
of a leading newspaper.
As all governments-sometimes for good reasons-engage in concealment of their more questionable
activities, or even resort to out and out deception, one must ask how the deep state differs.
While an elected government might sometimes engage in activity that is legally questionable,
there is normally some plausible pretext employed to cover up or explain the act.
But for players in the deep state, there is no accountability and no legal limit. Everything
is based on self-interest, justified through an assertion of patriotism and the national interest.
In Turkey, there is a belief amongst senior officials who consider themselves to be parts of the
status in statu that they are guardians of the constitution and the true interests of the nation.
In their own minds, they are thereby not bound by the normal rules. Engagement in criminal activity
is fine as long as it is done to protect the Turkish people and to covertly address errors made by
the citizenry, which can easily be led astray by political fads and charismatic leaders. When things
go too far in a certain direction, the deep state steps in to correct course.
And deep state players are to be rewarded for their patriotism. They
benefit materially from the criminal activity that they engage in, including protecting
Turkey's role as a conduit for drugs heading to Europe from Central Asia, but more recently involving
the movement of weapons and people to and from Syria. This has meant collaborating with groups
like ISIS, enabling
militants to ignore borders and sell their stolen archeological artifacts while also negotiating
deals for the oil from the fields in the areas that they occupy. All the transactions include a large
cut for the deep state.
If all this sounds familiar to an American reader, it should, and given some local idiosyncrasies,
it invites the question whether the United States of America has its own deep state.
First of all, one should note that for the deep state to be effective, it must be intimately
associated with the development or pre-existence of a national security state. There must
also be a perception that the nation is in peril, justifying extraordinary measures undertaken by
brave patriots to preserve life and property of the citizenry. Those measures are generically conservative
in nature, intended to protect the status quo with the implication that change is dangerous.
Those requirements certainly prevail in post 9/11 America, and also feed the other essential component
of the deep state: that the intervening should work secretly or at least under the radar. Consider
for a moment how Washington operates. There is gridlock in Congress and the legislature opposes
nearly everything that the White House supports. Nevertheless, certain things happen seemingly without
any discussion: Banks are bailed out and corporate interests are protected by law. Huge
multi-year defense contracts are approved. Citizens are assassinated by drones, the public is routinely
surveilled, people are imprisoned without be charged, military action against "rogue" regimes is
authorized, and whistleblowers are punished with prison. The war crimes committed by U.S. troops
and contractors on far-flung battlefields, as well as torture and rendition, are rarely investigated
and punishment of any kind is rare. America, the warlike predatory capitalist, might be considered
a virtual definition of deep state.
One critic describes
deep state as driven by the "Washington Consensus," a subset of the "American exceptionalism" meme.
It is plausible to consider it a post-World War II creation, the end result of the "military industrial
complex" that Dwight Eisenhower warned about, but some believe its infrastructure was actually put
in place through the passage of the Federal Reserve Act prior to the First World War. Several years
after signing the bill, Woodrow Wilson reportedly
lamented,
"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments
in the civilized world, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a
government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
In truth America's deep state is, not unlike Turkey's, a hybrid creature that operates
along a New York to Washington axis. Where the Turks engage in criminal activity to fund
themselves, the Washington elite instead turns to banksters, lobbyists, and defense contractors,
operating much more in the open and, ostensibly, legally. U.S.-style deep state includes all the
obvious parties, both public and private, who benefit from the status quo: including key players
in the police and intelligence agencies, the military, the treasury and justice departments, and
the judiciary. It is structured to materially reward those who play along with the charade, and the
glue to accomplish that ultimately comes from Wall Street. "Financial services" might well be considered
the epicenter of the entire process. Even though government is needed to implement desired policies,
the banksters comprise the truly essential element, capable of providing genuine rewards for compliance.
As corporate interests increasingly own the media, little dissent comes from the Fourth Estate as
the process plays out, while many of the proliferating Washington think tanks that provide deep state
"intellectual" credibility are similarly funded by defense contractors.
The cross fertilization that is essential to making the system work takes place through
the famous revolving door whereby senior government officials enter the private sector at a high
level. In some cases the door revolves a number of times, with officials leaving government
before returning to an even more elevated position. Along the way, those select individuals are protected,
promoted, and groomed for bigger things. And bigger things do occur that justify the considerable
costs, to include bank bailouts, tax breaks, and resistance to legislation that would regulate Wall
Street, political donors, and lobbyists. The senior government officials, ex-generals, and high level
intelligence operatives who participate find themselves with multi-million dollar homes in which
to spend their retirement years, cushioned by a tidy pile of investments.
America's deep state is completely corrupt: it exists to sell out the public interest,
and includes both major political parties as well as government officials. Politicians like
the Clintons who leave the White House "broke" and accumulate $100 million in a few years exemplify
how it rewards. A bloated Pentagon churns out hundreds of unneeded flag officers who receive munificent
pensions and benefits for the rest of their lives. And no one is punished, ever. Disgraced former
general and CIA Director David Petraeus is now a partner at the KKR private equity firm, even though
he knows nothing about financial services. More recently, former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell
has become a Senior Counselor at Beacon Global Strategies. Both are being rewarded for their loyalty
to the system and for providing current access to their replacements in government.
What makes the deep state so successful? It wins no matter who is in power, by
creating bipartisan-supported money pits within the system. Monetizing the completely unnecessary
and hideously expensive global war on terror benefits the senior government officials, beltway industries,
and financial services that feed off it. Because it is essential to keep the money flowing, the deep
state persists in promoting policies that make no sense, to include the unwinnable wars currently
enjoying marquee status in Iraq/Syria and Afghanistan. The deep state knows that a fearful public
will buy its product and does not even have to make much of an effort to sell it.
Of course I know that the United States of America is not Turkey. But there are
lessons to be learned from its example of how a democracy can be subverted by particular interests
hiding behind the mask of patriotism. Ordinary Americans frequently ask why politicians and
government officials appear to be so obtuse, rarely recognizing what is actually occurring in the
country. That is partly due to the fact that the political class lives in a bubble of its own creation,
but it might also be because many of America's leaders actually accept that there is an unelected,
unappointed, and unaccountable presence within the system that actually manages what is taking place
behind the scenes. That would be the American deep state.
rehypothecator
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding
it." - Upton Sinclair
Martian Moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA
Latest on 911 by James Corbett
Educate yourself
All Risk No Reward
This is all you need to know to prove, beyond all doubt, that the official pile driving narrative
is false.
The reality is that anyone can OBSERVE that the top of the building DID NOT DO WHAT A CUE BALL
DOES EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HITS ANOTHER BILLIARD BALL - the top of the building did not decelerate.
It did not decelerate because IT DID NOT HIT THE LOWER SECTION OF THE BUILDING. For if it had
hit the lower section of the building, IT WOULD HAVE DECELERATED.
The official story never addressed this point. They wisely stopped their investigation at the
initiation of collapse. That was no accident.
AitT - Sir Isaac Newton Weighs in on the World Trade Center North Tower Collapse Official Narrative
Now, some people will attack either me or this factual, observable, and repeatable information
based on their programmed "crimestop" response...
crimestop - Orwell's definition: "The faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the
threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing
to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to
Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in
a heretical direction. In short....protective stupidity."
But what nobody will do - because they can't do it - is to explain a physics based scenario
where the top of the building hit a structurally solid lower section of the building WITHOUT DECELERATING.
There are NO CONTRADICTIONS in reality. One leading blogger claimed he had done lots of research
that showed the official story was correct.
But what he didn't do before he stopped the conversation (smart subconsciousness!) was to explain
how the top of the building could have hit a structurally sound lower section of the building
without experiencing marginal deceleration.
This is the video that needs to replace all the complex theories that are too easily dismissed
by the masses.
No, make the masses exclaim the physics equivalent of 2+2=5 in order to continue believing in
the Debt-Money Monopolist false narratives engineered to damage ordinary people across the globe.
NeoLuddite
Elections are just advance auctions of stolen goods.
junction
"Deep State" operatives killed Michael Hastings and Philip Marshall. Whether Paul Walker was
also killed by the "Murder, Inc." - type agents of the "Deep State," to make flaming car crashes
look normal, is an open question. When Tennessee Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)employee Katherine
Smith died in a flaming car crash in 2002, her death was called a murder (still unsolved) because
a Tennessee state trooper driving behind her saw her car explode into flames before going off
the road.
Smith was the DMV employee who sold driver's licenses to Arabs, licenses they used to identify
themselves when they did work on the sprinkler systems at the World Trade Center before 9/11.
Sprinkler systems which all did not work on 9/11, even though they were ruggedized after the
1993 WTC truck bombing.
And who can forget the California policeman, on a 100% disability pension, who turned up in
Orlando, Florida as the FBI agent who murdered a martial arts associate of Boston Bomber Tamerlan
Tsarnaev. The guy murdered had just undergone knee surgery and could only walk with a cane, yet
he supposedly lunged at this crooked FBI agent, illegally collecting a disabilty pension tax free
of some $60,000 a year.
The initial report from the agent said this guy had a sword cane but that report was false.
doctor10
Politics is merely the entertainment wing of the MIC/Anglo-American Central Banking junta.
Has been since November 23rd 1963. Reagan required a 22 cal message to that effect after he thought
he'd been elected President.
kliguy38
Of course I know that the United States of America is not Turkey. But there are lessons
to be learned from its example of how a democracy can be subverted by particular interests
hiding behind the mask of patriotism.
no of course its not Turkey......its a hundred times worse
Ms No
Turkey's deep state is our deep state with some local players. This is going global, I thought
everybody knew that. Turkey has been a vassal for the Ziocons as long as anyone can remember and
they are one of many. Most of our presidents seem to prefer the term The New World Order. It's
funny how people snicker about that term but I didn't catch a grin off of any of our presidents
going back to Bush I snickering about it when they mention it in their State of the Union addresses
and this current clown is not an exception.
It's quite real and not at all funny. People need to take a look around they have even spelled
it out for you. What do these guys have to do send us our own eulogies? Lets just hope that while
everybody else is trying to figure this out that we don't end up getting too familiar with our
torture state.
Majestic12
"America is in deep shit as are all governments run by central banks neo-Keynesian fascist
economic policy."
I got you on the "deep shit" and "run by central banks", but lost you on "Keynesian Fascist economic
policy".
ZH is full of half truths and obfuscation.
I do not agree with much of Keynes, but most here support Von Mises (the Rockefeller Foundation
product) and the London School of Economics.
These "institutions" are profoundly contradictory, corrupt and were born of the 00001%.
At least Keynes decried relying soley on monetary policy and "supply side" economics.
Most here have only known "supply side" (Reagan and after), so they have nothing to compare it
to.
Listen to boomers talk of the 60s and 70s...there were always jobs, it didn't take 2 earners,
it didn't take a degree, everyone took vacation, and the "information" deluge ended at 11:00pm
until the next morning.
And, you really didn't have to lock your doors, unless you lived in urban Chicago, NY, LA any
other huge metropolis.
So, it was all "Keynes"'s fault?
Keynes, who promoted "demand-side" and "fiscal policy"...really? Fascist?
Remember, there are 94 Million people out of the work force...but the poulation is 100 million
more than in 1977, and the dollar was worth 70% more.
Why the Clintons & Obama are both CIA No-doubt-about-it.
2nd Big Question: why was the CIA rushed into existence (bill signed in an airplane at end of
National Airport by Truman) 45 days after the crash at Roswell?
Freddie
David Rockefeller as a young man was an OSS officer in WW2. Mi6 is the Red Shield.
They are just instruments of terror used by the elites,
Majestic12
"2nd Big Question: why was the CIA rushed into existence 45 days after the crash at Roswell?"
I am glad you asked.....the CIA's involvement was temporary.
The NSA (who now administers the black space program) began as the Armed Forces Security Agency,
just 2 years later in 1949.
... ... ...
unitwar
Bill Moyers? I wonder why he doesn't report on those Bilderberg meetings he attends? He reports
what he is told to report. Everything he does is a limited hangout.
Usurious
the french called the guillotine the national razor.........just sayin...
The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised
to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA
shattered his brains into a thousand pieces.
The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you.
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon
recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the
US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch
(including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives
and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to,
the Supreme Court)."
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary
American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself.
One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there
is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable
to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics:
the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable
via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates
according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon
and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the
military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these
state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the
confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country.
The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
Go to Rulers of Evil, pg. 170. Start reading from Adam
Weishaupt. Now you know the purpose of the creation of the
United States of America ..
Ms No
I think Hitler was right about one thing, most people cannot see the big lie, it just seems
to complex to them and thus ludicrous. Just look at a small portion of a military you have
cores, divisions, brigades, betallions, generals, colonals, companies, Air Force, Navy,
Special Forces, intelligence, espionage, propaganda depts, indoctrination depts, etc, all
under one umbrella of centralized control.
Is it really that hard to believe that a organized self serving entity who has had plenty of
time and very little opposition can grow to a gargantuan empire that nearly global in scale?
Two good reads among at least a hunderd that prove otherwise Sibel Edmonds and Tales of an
Economic Hit Man.
tumblemore
"most people cannot see the big lie, it just seems to complex to them"
I think it's more to do with not being sociopaths.
People tend to think other people are like them so say the average person can only tell
level 6/10 lies before they feel ashamed then they have a hard time believing other people can
tell level 10/10 lies. They couldn't do it themselves so it's hard for them to imagine other
people being that shameless - hence the bigger and more shameless the lie the more likely it
is to be believed.
Only part-sociopaths can see it.
Ms No
There maybe an element of that occuring because a psychopath can identify another path
immediately which would lead one to believe they may be able to identify their activities as
well but over all there is something else going on.
There most certainly is something different about people who can go against the grain and
challenge common propaganda but it isn't a lack of empathy. Some people are more resistant to
indoctrination and we really don't know why. We do know that there has been a large amount of
research on and use of subliminal technology and trauma disassociation. I would hazard a guess
that there has been a ton of research on this subject that we will probably never see.
tumblemore
The thing about the deep state idea is generally they exist to keep the members in power
*and* keep the state in question strong in the long-term so that power is worth something.
What's odd about the US deep state is it doesn't seem to care about the long term at all
and seems only really interested in selling America piece by piece.
For example from their behavior it's pretty blatant now that lobbyists have bought the
GOP's foreign policy position but the dark side of that is it probably means every other
aspect of policy is for sale also.
It's like the US deep state is living off the capital rather than the interest.
"On 9/11/2001, America received its new
Pearl Harbor"…to strike fear into the hearts of Americans and
pave the way for the perpetrators' profitable and
soul-destroying global "war on terror"... Enough is enough!
"There are at least 8.5 trillion reasons to investigate the
money trail of 9/11" and to end the perversion of law that has
bolstered the power of those who hold the reins in Washington,
DC, and use the law, perverted, as a weapon for every kind of
global control and personal greed!
"Forget for one moment everything you've been told
about September 11, 2001. 9/11 was a crime. And as with
any crime, there is one overriding imperative that detectives
must follow to identify the perpetrators: follow the money. This
is an investigation of the 9/11 money trail."
Engagement in criminal activity is fine as long as it is done to protect the Turkish
people...
I call bullshit on this one. More like engagement in criminal activity is fine as long as
it is done to preserve/enhance the Turkish government's power.
ddsoffice
Ja, diese ist eine gutte fragge. Aber, es ist wie die 'Jetzt Neue Deutschland' uber alles
vielleicht seit WWI! (Yes, this is a good topic. But, it is like the 'New Germany Now' perhaps
since WWI!)
(laughing now that I still remember some of my high school German lessons over 25 years ago.)
Eine Gutte Fragge. (A good topic)
Sehr Gut. (Very good)
Jetz Deuschtland ober alles. (Now Germany over all)
krage_man
There are various terms for this - deep state, elite, etc.
But ultimately, current political system so-called democracy is far from original definition
of democracy. And I dont mean that original "greek" democracy is the better one.
This is a feature of modern democracy to pretend to be old-fashioned peoples democracy. This
is to make sure people do feel their power to elect (ans they have it to a degree)
This is a feature of modern democracy to have 2-3 alternative parties. Each is more attractive
to a certain human personality category. This way each can find something to associate with
and be associated against. This means satisfaction of citizens with having a choice even
though the choice is created for them based on 2-3 major types of their personalities.
All 2-3 parties are really backed by this deep state or elite institution which manages all
things behand the curtain. For instance, foreign policy basixally ghe same no matter which
party has power.
Political elected officcials do not really manage the affairs, they commmunicate but the final
decisions are not theirs but come deep from the state departments which are receiving
instructions from deep state.
Elected president is supervised by a vise president with direct access to deep state. He would
take state affairs in his hands if the president is not cooperaring or incapacited ( could be
related)
Deep state controls 95% of mass media via proxy corporations. A special mass-media department
of the deep state issues directives to the editors of mainstream TV/news media. This
department coordinates with other depaetments like one managing foreign affairs linked or even
located in official state department. One may notice a delay when a certain major events take
place and mass media delays reporting by 24-48 hours while waiting for the right spin of the
reporting to the nation.
Latitude25
Interesting that Turkey is mentioned. When I was in college my room mate was a Turkish guy
who was definitely from the .001%, second richest family in Turkey. He said that turkey has
100s of years of experience keeping the masses occupied with one war or another and that the
economy could not run without it. He also liked chasing the most beautiful blondes he could
find and with his money he sure found them.
Burticus
"The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so
dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the
other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous
advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and
perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests." - Rothschild
Brothers of London
withglee
Ordinary Americans frequently ask why politicians and government officials appear to be so
obtuse, rarely recognizing what is actually occurring in the country.
Ordinary Americans are clueless ... witness less than 8% know anything about WTC7.
That notwithstanding, government officials "appear" to be obtuse to what is going on in the
country because they "are" obtuse. At the Federal level, at best, a representative speaks for
500,000 people. He can't know those people and they can't know him.
Our system is a "fake" representative democracy. What we get is what we should expect from
such a charade.
ISEEIT
"Deep State America"?
FRAUD is the singular truth. Deception, corruption.
"Rational actor" absent philosophically (and with increasing clarity, empirically via what
little remains of classical scientific method)..a once socially respected 'norm' of ethics.
Morality has become hostage to maniacal narcissism. World "leaders" are simply apparatchiks of
the now fully globalized machinations of failing souls.
History is repeating itself.
All indications are that death is just fine. Inevitable...
It's just the dying part that causes pain.
NuYawkFrankie
re In truth America's deep state (...) operates along a New York to Washington axis.
In an even bigger truth America's deep state (...) operates along a New York to Washington
to TEL AVIV axis
- FIXED
Atomizer
Time to go to bed Zero Hedge family. Mrs. Atomizer is getting cranky for me to shut off the
computer. I wanted to leave you with a Friday night boost of laughter. turn up the volume. See
you bitchez in the morning!
I am not sure that what EU wants is recovery. I think that idea is a fire sell of key Greek assets
to Germany for pennies of a dollar. Distressed sales, you know. Welcome to modern debt slavery. . "..."Dutch economist Maarten Verwey has unprecedented powers as his taskforce oversees the implementation
of Greece's cash-for-reforms rescue package...Whoever ends up moving into Maximos Mansion, the official
Athens residence of Greece's prime ministers, after Sunday's election, they will not, in any meaningful
sense, be running the country. . That honour might be said to go instead to a besuited Dutch economist in Brussels with the imposing
title of director-general in the secretariat-general of the European commission in charge of the Structural
Reform Support Service. . Maarten Verwey, a senior civil servant at the Dutch finance ministry who joined the commission in
2011 and led its Cyprus assistance programme, heads what amounts to an EU taskforce for Greece,
Greek media have said. "
They sucked up to their politicians, whilst they ignored the obligations of their society.
Any collective responsibility was surrendered for personal gain.
As usual... The Politicos grabbed the loot, and did a quick exit.
What remains, is your problem!
====
Do you see it?... That debt necklace that continues to engulf you?
The moral catastrophe this EU promoted...
We have to respond - but do reflect when you vote when Cameron decides.
rberger -> Sehome 19 Sep 2015 21:47
While there might be some economic sense to your idea, the politics make it unlikely to happen.
The Southern Europe countries wanted the stable currency and low interest rates associated with
the Bundesbank. If you asked Spain whether they wanted to go into a union with people like Greece,
it wouldn't make any sense to them - they would prefer to stick to their own currency.
Xenkar -> Mackname 19 Sep 2015 21:42
We have to keep pretences about Democracy in Europe is all. As for the renaissance I can't
see Greece waiting 3 centuries as a debt colony, unless you are referring to the word literally,
or to the sociological results of the renaissance after its end which was the return of Democracy
in a revolutionary fashion.
rberger -> Pannie321 19 Sep 2015 21:40
Of all the privatizations that have been done since the crisis started, not a single one has
gone to a German company. (The airport operations one may go to a joint venture with Fraport but
it hasn't been finalized yet.) The winners of the privatizations have been from countries like
China, Hungary, Azerbaijan, etc (i.e., usually not EZ countries). I don't think there are any
German companies involved in any of the upcoming privatizations either.
Mackname 19 Sep 2015 21:27
I don't understand the logical that keeps those people voting for something that they have
no power to do a damned thing about it.
Those people need a renaissance.
slipangle -> Shizam13 19 Sep 2015 21:25
"German jackboot" that really is disgraceful, Germany would be far happier if Greece had run
proper balanced budgets. The Greeks were the architects of their own disaster,Germans should be
thanked for bailing the fools out rather then insulted.
randomguydeaustralie -> Sehome 19 Sep 2015 21:19
What, like an Austro-Hungarian Empire you mean?? That ended pretty badly as I recall
Pannie321 -> rberger 19 Sep 2015 21:14
Merkel has never been supportive of Greece, she along with Schauble are entirely responsible
for impoverishing Greece for the benefit of German Banks. Just check out which Country's businesses
are buying up Greek assets cheaply, check out the Nationality of the Business that hasn't paid
any V.A.T. revenues or social security(N.I.) contributions for the past 20 years. That business
has now conveniently sold their interests.
Why have elections when thanks to Tsipras treacherous deal it makes absolutely no difference
who's elected. Greece your new PM is Maarten Vervwey:
"Dutch economist Maarten Verwey has unprecedented powers as his taskforce oversees the implementation
of Greece's cash-for-reforms rescue package...Whoever ends up moving into Maximos Mansion, the
official Athens residence of Greece's prime ministers, after Sunday's election, they will not,
in any meaningful sense, be running the country.
That honour might be said to go instead to a besuited Dutch economist in Brussels with the
imposing title of director-general in the secretariat-general of the European commission in charge
of the Structural Reform Support Service.
I have watched economic problems from Portugal to Greece for a few years now, seemingly insoluble
without German/Brussells dictates, and I have a Propossal:
All Southern Europe, with its own level of economic strength, languages and cuisine and weather,
should withdraw from EU and be its own Union, with its own currency. All of wealthy, arrogant
Northern Europe including Scandinavia would be Europe North, but with no power to order anything
at all in Europe South.
This would leave Czech Rep, Slovakia, Poland, the Balts and the poor small countries of Yugoslavia,
either to form a Middle Europe, or break to join the North or South.
Three Europes, I think, makes more sense when one considers language, culture, values, and economics.
OXIOXI20 -> TheRuthlessTruth 19 Sep 2015 20:22
You ever hear of bank bailouts, 2008, 2010, 2012 ??
Scrotalyser 19 Sep 2015 19:46
I hate to have to tell them, but the Greeks sold their country for Euros. So they can't do
anything, because they gave their power away to a cabal of faceless fraudsters.
Captain_Tibbets 19 Sep 2015 19:41
Tell the EU to shove their debts.
Iceland is doing fine now. You don't need the Euro. It's a curse not a blessing. We did tell
you that.
This German mercantilist farce needs to stop. Do it now whilst they're in a blind panic about
their disasterous asylum plans which are on the brink of causing war between Hungary and Slovenia.
Kick the Germans when they are down - it's the best way, they're not so good fighting on two fronts
historically...
Mmm hmmmm, large amount of cash found in vehicle, check. Weapon and ammunition found in vehicle,
check. What…no air tickets to Moscow? Where's the flippin' air tickets, you incompetent cretins??
There always have to be air tickets, Christ, do I have to run a fucking seminar or something?
I'd be willing to bet his real crime was getting in someone's way in the Porky/Yatsie machine,
simply because it has happened over and over since they took power – as predictable as darkness
at the end of daylight. Official commissioned to root out corruption, official finds wrong kind
of corruption, official announces the finding of corruption, official accused of corruption, found
with large amount of cash, sometimes weapons although that's not of much consequence in a country
full of them, and who uses a rifle downtown to extort money?…and air tickets, signifying an intent
to flee. Always remember the air tickets, it's important.
I wouldn't go so far as to say he has done nothing wrong, but he is likely no more corrupt
than the rest of the organization, including a president who is still raking in the dough from
private enterprise and owns his own media channel. Perhaps that's what endears him so to the west,
who see him taking his first tottering steps toward a society utterly dominated by corporatism
and business to the exclusion of all other concerns, beyond paying them pious lip service at election
time. American policymakers probably envy him his open graft and lawbreaking, and wish they, too
were allowed to merely promise to sell their corporate interests if elected and then forget about
it, whereupon everyone else would just ignore it and figure there is nothing untoward about a
political figure making a little brass. After all, that pathetic Ukrainian in the man-on-the-street
interview in the run-up to elections said he was voting for Poroshenko because he was already
rich, so hopefully he would not steal as much.
Mosiychuk is
stripped of his Parliamentary immunity and arrested. A video allegedly shows him soliciting
and accepting bribes. Lyashko is stunned. This is apparently unprecedented. His own party is said
to have voted for it, believing Mosiychuk would then be given the floor and would refute the allegations.
But, in what is beginning to typify the last-of-the-wild-frontier politics in Kiev, they went
straight to arrest. The masked police are a nice touch, and in my humble opinion, a great way
to display European values. Keep it up, Ukraine – you're almost NATO material!!
"..."Equally, Lavrov lifted the veil a little bit to let the Americans know
that the Russian military intelligence has not only been monitoring the operations of the American military
aircraft in Iraq but have scientifically analyzed the US aircraft's flight plans and so on. In sum,
Russians seem to have intelligence dope to substantiate something that the Iranians have been all along
maintaining, namely, that the American aircraft are regularly airdropping supplies for the IS." "
The presidents of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan met in narrow format
and then continued their talks with their delegations present.
The summit's main focus was on effective
response to the biggest current military and political challenges, including an upsurge in activity
by terrorist and extremist groups and destabilisation of the situation on the CSTO countries' borders.
The meeting ended with a package of documents being signed, including a statement by the CSTO
Collective Security Council's member states. In particular, documents were signed concerning cooperation
in the transit of military formations and military products; readiness inspections for carrying out
the Collective Rapid Reaction Forces' objectives, their composition and deployment, as well as the
CSTO's budget.
* * *
Speech at CSTO Collective Security Council session
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Thank you, Mr Rahmon!
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for the opportunity to work in Tajikistan today.
I would like to note that Tajikistan is our strategic partner and ally. We see that here in Tajikistan,
you also face problems with certain forays and attempts to destabilise the situation. I would like
to say straight away that we are assessing these threats adequately and you can always count on our
help and support, although we see that your law enforcement agencies and armed forces are handling
the problems that come up effectively.
Just now, in the restricted format, we had a detailed discussion on the CSTO's zone of responsibility,
as well as urgent regional and international problems, and outlined steps to further strengthen our
organisation. We noted the increase in threats faced by CSTO member states in various areas.
We are concerned by the state of affairs in Afghanistan. International security forces have been
in that nation a long time, carrying out certain work, including positive work; however, it still
has not brought qualitative, definitive and decisive improvements to the situation. Unfortunately,
the situation in that country is deteriorating following the withdrawal of most foreign military
forces.
There is an increase in the real danger of terrorist and extremist groups entering nations that
neighbour Afghanistan, and the threat is made worse by the fact that in addition to the well-known
organisations, the influence of the so-called Islamic State has also spread to Afghanistan. The scope
of the organisation's work has reached far beyond the borders of Iraq and Syria. Terrorists are carrying
out mass executions, plunging entire nations into chaos and poverty and destroying cultural monuments
and religious shrines.
The outcomes of the fight by international security forces against the production of narcotics
is no less dispiriting. We know how this threat is growing from year to year; unfortunately, it is
not decreasing.
I mentioned the situation in Syria and Iraq; they are the same as the situation in Afghanistan,
in that they worry all of us. Please allow me to say a few words on the situation in this region,
the situation around Syria.
The state of affairs there is very serious. The so-called Islamic State controls significant stretches
of territory in Iraq and Syria. Terrorists are already publicly stating that they have targets set
on Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. Their plans include expanding activities to Europe, Russia, Central
and Southeast Asia.
We are concerned by this, especially since militants undergoing ideological indoctrinations and
military training by ISIS come from many nations around the world – including, unfortunately, European
nations, the Russian Federation, and many former Soviet republics. And, of course, we are concerned
by their possible return to our territories.
Basic common sense and a sense of responsibility for global and regional security require the
international community to join forces against this threat. We need to set aside geopolitical ambitions,
leave behind so-called double standards and the policy of direct or indirect use of individual terrorist
groups to achieve one's own opportunistic goals, including changes in undesirable governments and
regimes.
As you know, Russia has proposed rapidly forming a broad coalition to counteract the extremists.
It must unite everyone who is prepared to make, or is already making, an input into fighting terrorism,
just as Iraq and Syria's armed forces are doing today. We support the Syrian government – I want
to say this – in countering terrorist aggression. We provide and will continue to provide the necessary
military technology assistance and urge other nations to join in.
Clearly, without active participation by the Syrian authorities and military, without participation
by the Syrian army, as the soldiers fighting with the Islamic State say, you cannot expel terrorists
from this nation, as well as the region overall, it is impossible to protect the multi-ethnic and
multi-faith people of Syria from elimination, enslavement and barbarism.
Of course, it is imperative to think about the political changes in Syria. And we know that President
Assad is ready to involve the moderate segment of the opposition, the healthy opposition forces in
these processes, in managing the state. But the need to join forces in the fight against terrorism
is certainly at the forefront today. Without this, it is impossible to resolve the other urgent and
growing problems, including the problem of refugees we are seeing now.
Incidentally, we are seeing something else: we are currently seeing attempts to practically put
the blame on Russia for this problem, for its occurrence. As if the refugee problem grew because
Russia supports the legitimate government in Syria.
First of all, I would like to note that the people of Syria are, first and foremost, fleeing the
fighting, which is mostly due to external factors as a result of supplies of arms and other specialized
equipment. People are feeling the atrocities of the terrorists. We know that they are committing
atrocities there, that they are sacrificing people, destroying cultural monuments as I already mentioned,
and so on. They are fleeing the radicals, first and foremost. And if Russia had not supported Syria,
the situation in that nation would have been even worse than in Libya, and the flow of refugees would
be even greater.
Second, the support of the legitimate government in Syria is not in any way related to the flow
of refugees from nations like Libya, which I already mentioned, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, and many
others. We were not the ones that destabilised the situation in those nations, in whole regions of
the world. We did not destroy government institutions there, creating power vacuums that were immediately
filled by terrorists. So nobody can say that we were the cause of this problem.
But right now, as I said, we need to focus on joining forces between the Syrian government, the
Kurdish militia, the so-called moderate opposition, and nations in the region to fight the threat
against Syria's very statehood and the fight against terrorism – so that together, with our efforts
combined, we can solve this problem.
I already spoke about the other issues that currently concern us, which we discussed today. In
this respect, I would like to note that we plan to continue strengthening cooperation between our
armed forces. We plan a whole set of activities in this area. I would like to also stress that our
cooperation within the CSTO framework is certainly not directed against anybody. We are open to constructive
cooperation, and that is precisely the approach that is reinforced in the final statement that will
be signed today.
I am certain that we must resume concrete discussions on creating Euro-Atlantic systems for equitable
and indivisible security; we need to carry out a full inventory of existing problems and disagreements.
This analysis can be used to achieve a discussion of the principles of sustainable political development.
The OSCE and other international organisations can be used to agree on legally binding guarantees
concerning the indivisibility of security for all nations, achieve observance of important fundamental
principles of international law (respecting the sovereignty of states, not meddling in their domestic
affairs), and strengthen regulations on the inadmissibility of appeasing anti-state, anti-constitutional
coups and the promotion of radical and extremist forces.
I would like to thank Mr Rahmon for his work as chairman of the CSTO, as well as my other colleagues,
and to wish our Armenian partners and friends success in chairing the organisation. Thank you very
much for your attention.
Martin from S.E.B. on September 16, 2015 · at 12:51 am UTC
Putin speaks out all the related Truth now, finally!
Also rightfully he points out, that US-ISIS could spread to Europe and Russia like a wildfire
during storm, if it cannot be extinguished very soon.
"""""But right now, as I said, we need to focus on joining forces between the Syrian government,
the Kurdish militia, the so-called moderate opposition, and nations in the region to fight the
threat against Syria's very statehood and the fight against terrorism – so that together, with
our efforts combined, we can solve this problem."""""
I don't need a religion for this: I PRAY and wish all the Best!!!
Anonymous on September 16, 2015 · at 1:09 am UTC
re: Syria and the latest BBC article. At least they did not do a blatant hack job ( maybe the
sarcastic article in RI today about how to write mindless attacks on Russia hit a nerve) And ,
my, my they have a defense analyzer who actually makes sense:
Analysis: Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence correspondent
"Russia's backing for Mr Assad should be seen not as a vote of confidence in Syria's embattled
president but as an investment in a country where Russia believes it can play out its foreign-policy
role.
Indeed Mr Putin's military deployments signal that he will not let the Assad regime fall. This
does not mean Mr Assad will be there forever.
Russian diplomacy is working in tandem with its military policy, exploring all avenues for reaching
some sort of interim deal in which Mr Assad might stay on, at least for the time being.
But Russia's horizons in Syria probably extend well beyond Mr Assad's active presence – a reflection
of Russia's concerns about militant Islam and wider trends in the region, and also its belief
that Western remedies in the Middle East have been an unmitigated disaster. "
Meanwhile the US administration of criminals and liars pretends to be puzzled by Russia's support
for Syria, what a load of tripe in the New York Times. The Americans are not worth talking to,
they don't know how to tell the truth or hear it, it is something that sticks in their craw, there
has to be some propaganda angle in play in everything they say, and behind that is a party line
that is right out of the propaganda the west used to spout about Stalin. Beware, whoever dares
to question the world according the New York Times: the truth is too important to be left out
in the open and must be hidden behind a curtain of lies.
It would be good someday to have access to a network of reporters committed to giving accurate
information from every country, for example in the current crisis area from the capitals of Turkey,
Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Qatar, Israel, Jordan, the western capitals, etc. so that each viewpoint
can be assessed and a judgment formed.
Reading between lines and deciphering cryptic word bites really sucks, and I am sick of it.
I don't know about anybody else but I have just about had it even with the internet. I get a better
picture of the world from just daydreaming about it. Earth people can be so stupid!
Red Ryder on September 16, 2015 · at 3:15 am UTC
When you find a story on one source, spend a few minutes using a browser like DuckDuckGo or
Yandex or Baidu and look for the essence, like the same headline facts.
If you don't find anything, it's generally not much more than wishful thinking.
If the topic is really compelling, try searching for the next day or two. If you find only the
original source repeated or not at all addressed, it was fantasy.
Voltaire is cotton candy. Makes your feel good as the sugar rushes through your brain and bloodstream.
David George on September 16, 2015 · at 6:10 am UTC
I'm beginning to think you are right about Voltaire-net, but they have been good for some information
I think.
The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan in late December, 1979. This is what happened in the first
part of 1979, as told in "From the Shadows" by former CIA director and Secretary of Defense Robert
Gates and reprinted at stormcloudsgathering.com.
"The Carter administration began looking at the possibility of covert assistance to the insurgents
opposing the pro-Soviet, Marxist government of President Taraki at the beginning of 1979. . .
"On March 30, 1979, Aaron chaired a historic "mini-SCC" … Walt Slocombe, representing Defense,
asked if there was value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, "sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese
quagmire?". . .
Peter on September 16, 2015 · at 5:39 am UTC
USSR's Afghanistan. US's Vietnam.
Putin/Russia is not the USSR.
US is still the US.
Erebus on September 16, 2015 · at 4:15 am UTC
I'm looking for an even more pointed statement when Putin addresses the UN at the end of this
month. The gloves are coming off. The Kremlin has been on a diplomatic blitzkrieg for a few months
now, and they must think they have enough support to take the USA's strategy head-on.
By inviting the USA to join their coalition, Moscow has put Washington into Zugzwang.
The choice is: publicly support regime change in Syria over the destruction of ISIS, or join the
Russian initiative to destroy the terror networks. Either way, American Exceptionalism, to say
nothing of Indispensability, gets knocked cross-eyed.
Talk about getting out-maneuvered. Ouch.
Ann on September 16, 2015 · at 5:00 am UTC
sadly, when he said that Russia stands behind and will support any problems arising in Tajikistan
I immediately … knee jerk … thought of when he said about the same thing in Donbass…that was very
difficult to understand…I think the 5th column prevented Putin from entering Donbass right at
the beginning of the war. Putin is not like a person that makes empty promises, and during that
time, the beginning of the Donbass fiasco when he was making that promise, he was sitting on the
edge of his seat I remember…as though it had already been talked about in the government and he
thought he could make a tentative promise…but I guess he was overruled.
Grieved on September 16, 2015 · at 5:08 am UTC
I consistently admire the way in which Russia speaks only the truth required for the concerns
of the day, but even so never hesitates to speak the necessary truth, and never speaks anything
other than the truth when she does speak. Russia is formally a friend of Israel, and yet will
speak of "joining forces between the Syrian government, the Kurdish militia, the so-called moderate
opposition, and nations in the region to fight the threat against Syria's very statehood and the
fight against terrorism…"
No mention of Israel or Turkey as belligerents acting against such a coalition. And perhaps as
it comes together, these nations will reverse their positions and bow to the inevitable. Russia
is quite elegant, I think, in allowing all parties in situations the maximum room to change and
adapt, leaving it until the vital last moment for any potential opposition to gather its energy
into a strike – at which time Russia will engage with that very energy to throw down the opponent.
I know it's irresistible to use these judo analogies with everything that Russia and Putin do
– but how can we see it otherwise? The entire military doctrine and diplomatic activities of Russia
display this every day. There's a rigorous adherence to the factual truth, combined with a severe
reluctance to spend words or effort until the moment is right – combined yet again with zero hesitation
to expend massive energy for actions deemed necessary, such as military drills.
It's clear I'm a fan of Russia, but only because of what i see.
Demeter on September 17, 2015 · at 5:26 pm UTC
"Russia is quite elegant, I think, in allowing all parties in situations the maximum room to
change and adapt, leaving it until the vital last moment for any potential opposition to gather
its energy into a strike – at which time Russia will engage with that very energy to throw down
the opponent."
Thank you for saying that Grieved. I think this is quite true. I felt frustrated when I read that
again Putin would not mention with one word the true culprits. But then again, as you said, he
is giving them one more and another and yet another chance to change their mind and come to their
senses. Lie one warning after another but wrapped as an invitation to join forces.
Should they (US, Israel, Turkey, Saudi etc) decide to continue to follow on the path of destruction
of a sovereign nation Russia will hit back with full might.
Mulga Mumblebrain on September 17, 2015 · at 10:56 pm UTC
Israel will not change its position vis-a-vis the destruction of Syria. That's not how they
operate. They demand 100% gratification of their desires, being above dealing with mere goyim
as if they were their equals.
The Israeli elite want Syria broken up into four or so mutually antagonistic fragments, the
better for Israel to dominate them, prior to the eventual annexation of those lands that they
covet as Eretz Yisrael.
And, of course, Zionazi intransigence and ambition, while growing more explicit over the years
as the hard Right took over in Israel, and the Jewish Fifth Columns took over Western polities,
the USA in particular, has been there awaiting realisation, since the days of Herzl and Ben-Gurion.
Israel does not, and I believe can not, do compromise because the essence of their cult is the
ineradicable belief in their superiority over the goyim, and the pre-eminence of Judaic Law over
International Law, which they believe, must not be applied to those acting directly according
to Divine Will.
Jabotinsky's 'Iron Wall' of total intransigence and absolute refusal to compromise, negotiate
in good faith or keep agreements with others, unless they definitively favour the Jews, is 'non-negotiable'.
It is, of course, a psychology that has gotten them into strife, over and over again, throughout
history, with hideous consequences, for the Jews and their victims as well, but today, with an
increasingly deranged elite, inside Israel and in the Diaspora, armed with hundreds of nukes,
it's positively apocalyptic.
Unfortunately there are lots of lunatics actively looking forward to such an outcome, particularly
the loathsome Christian Zionists.
Stan K on September 18, 2015 · at 5:31 am UTC
This article explains what you are referring to. "The Promised Land",
David George on September 16, 2015 · at 6:12 am UTC
I hope and pray that such a force will be created that it will destroy the psycho takfiris,
their enablers and handlers, their psycho mullahs and preachers, ideologues, strategists, tacticians,
lying political apologists, western criminal bankrollers, the whole evil society, and that a plague
like this will never again be allowed to exist on the face of the Earth; and that the US and its
minions will be presented with the whole bill for repairing the destruction they have caused and
making the victims whole again.
Erebus on September 16, 2015 · at 9:39 am UTC
David,
Be careful what you wish for. If the forces unleashed were truly enough to destroy all your target
parties, I doubt there'd be enough of the USA left to present any sort of bill to, or anyone left
inclined to present it.
Though Mr. Whitney hyperventilates a bit, the scenario he paints is both believable and ominous.
I think one should hope that the clash consists of a short, sharp lesson. Say, the first few NATO/USAF
planes entering Syrian airspace falling out of the sky would be absolutely devastating to Western
pre-eminence. In a word, it would be over.
CSTO's bandwagon would break an axle under the crush of new partners, and the "psycho takfiris"
could then be systematically destroyed.
David George on September 16, 2015 · at 1:12 pm UTC
I grew tired of Mike Whitney a long time ago, he is one of a long list of glib analysts who
never manage to put their finger on the essential evil of the people they analyze, or who somehow
manage to make it sound "everyday". There is nothing "everyday" about the criminals in Washington
and Jerusalem, Ankara, Riyadh, and the other cesspools of global power like Las Vegas, Los Angeles,
New York, and the various lily pads where they seek peace from their own consciences. They need
to be destroyed. I remember when Turkey's foreign policy was "zero problems", then over one weekend
it switched. Who promised what? Not only a few downed jets, but a few radiating airbases and a
generation's worth of repentance might be the answer to today's slick sickness. If it were not
for zombies like Brzezhinski and Kissinger and their banker sponsors, a young girl in Afghanistan
or elsewhere might have a prospect of a reasonable future instead of the prospect of being married
to a bearded psycho four times her age. Enough is enough.
Erebus on September 17, 2015 · at 12:00 am UTC
Your rage is not misplaced, but it is futile. The "evil" you speak of is just a point on the
spectrum of human behaviors. Eradicating it? Maybe, over generations. In one cathartic event?
Sure, but the collateral damage will be the rest of the spectrum, and even the planet.
I think the strategy being pursued by Russia & China is the only viable one. Box that "evil" in
so it can't continue to destroy nations and lives on an international scale. Expose it, challenge
it, drive it into its domestic corner(s) where, disconnected from its international wealth pumps
it can be constrained by the local population.
Mulga Mumblebrain on September 17, 2015 · at 11:17 pm UTC
Erebus, that would be like trying to cage a cancer. If you do not then excise the cancer, you
will suffer metabolic injury so great that you will perish, as the cancer pumps out various toxins,
like 'Free Market Fundamentalism', 'Western moral values' or 'Exceptionalism'. Cut the tumour
out, plus the chemotherapy of somehow rescuing the non-malignant members of the cancer societies
from the inhuman habits inculcated in them from birth (ie gross materialism, unbridled greed,
cultural and racial superiority, addiction to crass 'tittietainment' etc) and even a few escaping
cancer cells can cause metastasis elsewhere. What is really needed is a miracle, a 'spontaneous
remission' where the individual cells in the Western cancer suddenly transform themselves into
non-malignant, human, organisms again. There might be some good signs, such as the rise of Corbyn
in the UK, the eclipse of Harper, the character of Pope Francis, but there is a Hell of a way
to go, and not much hope of success.
Outlaw Historian on September 16, 2015 · at 11:11 pm UTC
Russian intel watch very very closely the movements of Outlaw Empire airplanes over Syria &
Iraq, not just the supposed airstrikes but air drops of supplies too. Excerpted from Lavrov's
latest speech:
"Equally, Lavrov lifted the veil a little bit to let the Americans know that the Russian military
intelligence has not only been monitoring the operations of the American military aircraft in
Iraq but have scientifically analyzed the US aircraft's flight plans and so on. In sum, Russians
seem to have intelligence dope to substantiate something that the Iranians have been all along
maintaining, namely, that the American aircraft are regularly airdropping supplies for the IS."
The conventional unemployment rate (U3) is now close to assessments of its longer-run normal level,
but other dimensions of labour market slack remain elevated:
U3 does not reflect the incidence of hidden unemployment, namely, about 2½ million
Americans who are not actively searching for work but are likely to rejoin the labour force as
the economy strengthens; and
U3 does not incorporate the extent of underemployment (individuals working part-time
who are unable to find a full-time job), which remains significantly higher than its pre-recession
level.
Thus, the 'true' unemployment rate – including hidden unemployment and underemployment –currently
stands at around 7¼%, and the total magnitude of the US employment gap is equivalent to around 3½
million full-time jobs.
Non-farm payrolls have been expanding at a solid pace, but that pace will need to be maintained
for about two more years in order to close the employment gap.
In particular, recent analysis indicates that the potential labour force is expanding by about
50,000 individuals per month due to demographic factors. Thus, if non-farm payrolls continue rising
steadily by about 200,000 jobs per month (the average pace over the past six months), then the employment
gap will diminish next year and be eliminated in mid-2017. By contrast, a tightening of monetary
conditions would cause the economic recovery to decelerate and the pace of payroll growth might well
drop below 100,000 jobs per month, in which case the employment gap would barely shrink at all.
The contours of the inflation outlook
The FOMC has established an inflation goal of 2%, as measured by the personal consumption expenditures
(PCE) price index. Its recent communications have stated that the tightening process will commence
once the FOMC is "reasonably confident" that inflation will move back to the 2% objective
over the medium term.
It seems unwise for such a crucial policy decision to place so much weight on the FOMC's inflation
outlook and little or no weight on the observed path of wages and prices.
FOMC participants' inflation forecasts over the past few years have proven to be persistently
overoptimistic (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. The recent evolution of core PCE inflation
Note: In this figure, the core PCE inflation rate is given by the four-quarter
average change in the PCE price index excluding food and energy, and the FOMC's outlook is given
by the midpoint of the central tendency of core PCE inflation projections, as published in the FOMC
Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) at each specified date.
For example, in early 2013, when core PCE inflation was running at about 1½%, FOMC participants
generally anticipated that it would rise to nearly 2% over the course of 2014 and 2015, whereas in
fact it has declined to around 1.2%. Indeed, its underlying trend has been drifting steadily downward
since the onset of the last recession.
Despite some recent suggestions to the contrary, there is a strong empirical linkage between
the growth of nominal wages and the level of the employment gap.
Moreover, as shown in my recent joint work with Danny Blanchflower, the wage curve exhibits some
flattening at high levels of labour market slack, which explains why nominal wage growth has remained
subdued over the past few years even as the employment gap has declined from its post-recession peak
(see Figure 2). This empirical pattern also implies that the pace of nominal wage growth is likely
to pick up somewhat over coming quarters as the employment gap declines further.
Figure 2. The wage curve
Note: In this figure, each dot denotes the pace of nominal wage growth (as
measured by the 12-month change in the average hourly earnings of production and non-supervisory
workers) and the average level of the employment gap (including hidden unemployment and underemployment)
for each calendar year from 1985 to 2014 and for August 2015 (the latest BLS employment report).
Gauging the stance of monetary policy
Fed officials have recently characterised the current stance of monetary policy as "extremely
accommodative." Such characterisations may be helpful in motivating the onset of "policy
normalisation" but seem inconsistent with professional forecasters' assessments of the equilibrium
real interest rate and with the implications of simple benchmark rules.
The distance between the current federal funds rate and its longer-run normal level depends crucially
on the magnitude of the equilibrium real interest rate.
Most FOMC participants have projected the longer-run normal rate to be about 3¾%, consistent
with an equilibrium real rate only slightly lower than its historical average of about 2%.
Over the past few years professional forecasters have made substantial downward revisions to their
assessments of the 'new normal' level of interest rates.
Surveys conducted by the Philadelphia Fed indicate that professional forecasters expect short-term
nominal interest rates to be around 2¾% in 2018 and to remain at that level on average over the
next ten years, corresponding to an equilibrium real interest rate of only ¾%.
Such revisions presumably reflect the downgrading of the outlook for potential output growth as
well as prospects for headwinds to aggregate demand persisting well into the future.
If professional forecasters' assessments are roughly correct, then the current funds rate
is by no means extremely accommodative.
In June 2012, then-Vice Chair Yellen noted that "simple rules provide a useful starting point
for determining appropriate policy" while emphasising that such rules cannot be followed mechanically.
That speech considered the Taylor (1993) rule along with an alternative rule analysed by Taylor (1999)
that Yellen described as "more consistent with the FOMC's commitment to follow a balanced approach."
Thus, it is instructive to evaluate each of these simple rules using the current core PCE inflation
rate (which is 1.2%), the CBO's current assessment of the output gap (3.1%), and professional forecasters'
consensus estimate of the equilibrium real interest rate (r* = 0.75).
Using these values, the Taylor rule prescribes a funds rate of 0.1%, exactly in line with
the FOMC's current target range of 0 to 0.25%; and
The Taylor (1999) rule prescribes a funds rate well below zero (-1.4%).
Neither of these two benchmarks calls for a tighter stance of policy. Indeed, the 'balanced approach'
rule preferred by Yellen (2012) indicates that macroeconomic conditions will not warrant the initiation
of monetary policy tightening until sometime next year.
Assessing the balance of risks
Over the past 18 months, FOMC statements have regularly characterised the balance of risks to
the economic outlook as "nearly balanced." Of course, that assessment has recently
come into question due to a bout of financial market volatility in conjunction with shifting prospects
for major foreign economies (most notably China).
Regardless of how financial markets may evolve in the near term, however, it seems clear that
the balance of risks remains far from symmetric. If the US economy were to encounter a severe adverse
shock within the next few years (whether economic, financial, or geopolitical in nature), would the
FOMC have sufficient capacity to mitigate the negative consequences for economic activity and stem
a downward drift of inflation?
For example, if safe-haven flows caused a steep drop in Treasury yields along with a sharp widening
of risk spreads, would a new round of QE still be feasible or effective? Alternatively, would the
Federal Reserve implement measures to push short-term nominal rates below zero, as some other central
banks have done recently?
In the absence of satisfactory answers to such questions, it is essential for the FOMC to maintain
a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy as long as needed to ensure that labour market slack
is fully eliminated and that inflation moves back upward to its 2% goal. Such a strategy will help
strengthen the resilience of the US economy in facing any adverse shocks that may lie ahead.
Concluding remarks
The FOMC's near-term strategy has become so opaque that even the most seasoned analysts can only
guess what policy decisions may be forthcoming at its upcoming meetings. Moreover, the FOMC has provided
no information at all (apart from the phrase "likely to be gradual") about how its policy
stance will be adjusted over time in response to evolving macroeconomic conditions.
Unfortunately, such opacity is likely to exacerbate economic and financial uncertainty and hinder
the effectiveness of monetary policy in fostering the goals of maximum employment and price stability.
Therefore, it is imperative for the FOMC to formulate a systematic monetary policy strategy and to
explain that strategy clearly in its public communications.
References
Blanchflower, D G and A T Levin (2015), "Labor Market Slack and Monetary Policy," NBER Working
Paper No. 21094.
Taylor, J B (1993), "Discretion Versus Policy Rules in Practice", Carnegie-Rochester Series on
Public Policy 39, pp. 195-214 (also released as SIEPR Publication No. 327, November 1992).
Taylor, J B (1999), "An Historical Analysis of Monetary Policy Rules", in J. B. Taylor (ed.),
Monetary Policy Rules, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
Yellen, J L (2012), "Perspectives on Monetary Policy", speech at the Boston Economic Club Dinner,
Boston, MA, 6 June.
Since the Vietnam War, the belief that the media and other critics of government policies act
as fifth columnists has become commonplace in military-oriented journals and with the American authoritarian-oriented
political class, expressed in articles such as William Bradford's attack on "treasonous professors."
To the question "how a scholar pushing these ideas" did not raise a red flag, that might best
be asked of the National Security Law Journal's previous editorial board. It is worth noting
however that the editors who chose to publish Bradford's article are not neophytes in national security
issues or strangers to the military or government.
As described on the NSLJ website, the Editor-in-Chief from 2014-2015 has broad experience in homeland
and national security programs from work at both the Department of Justice and the Department of
Homeland Security and currently serves (at the time of publication of Bradford's article) as the
Deputy Director for the Office of Preparedness Integration and Coordination at FEMA. A U.S. government
official in other words.
The "Articles Selection Editor" is described as "a family physician with thirty years of experience
in the foreign affairs and intelligence communities." Websites online suggest his experience may
have been acquired as a CIA employee. The executive editor appears to be a serving Marine Corps officer
who attended law school as a military-funded student.
Significantly; Bradford was articulating precepts of the "U.S. common law of war" promoted by
Chief Prosecutor Mark Martins because nothing Bradford advocated was inconsistent with William Whiting's
guidance to Union Generals. Except Whiting went even further and advised that judges in the Union
states who "impeded" the military in any way by challenging their detentions were even greater "public
enemies" than Confederate soldiers were.
This "U.S. common law of war" is a prosecution fabrication created by legal expediency in the
absence of legitimate legal precedent for what the United States was doing with prisoners captured
globally after 9/11. This legal invention came about when military commission prosecutors failed
to prove that the offense of Material Support for Terrorism was an international law of war crime.
So prosecutors dreamed up a "domestic common law of war." This in fact is simply following the pattern
of totalitarian states of the Twentieth Century.
Government-Media-Academic-Complex
The logic of Bradford's argument is the same as that of the Defense Department in declaring that
journalists may be deemed "unprivileged belligerents." As quoted above, George H. Aldrich had observed
that in Vietnam, both sides had as their goal "the destruction of the will to continue the struggle."
Bradford argued that Islamists must overcome Americans' support for the current war to prevail,
and "it is the 'informational dimension' which is their main combat effort because it is U.S. political
will which must be destroyed for them to win." But he says Islamists lack skill "to navigate the
information battlespace, employ PSYOPs, and beguile Americans into hostile judgments regarding the
legitimacy of their cause."
Therefore, according to Bradford, Islamists have identified "force multipliers with cultural knowledge
of, social proximity to, and institutional capacity to attrit American political will. These critical
nodes form an interconnected 'government-media-academic complex' ('GMAC') of public officials, media,
and academics who mould mass opinion on legal and security issues . . . ."
Consequently, Bradford argues, within this triumvirate, "it is the wielders of combat power within
these nodes - journalists, officials, and law professors - who possess the ideological power to defend
or destroy American political will."
While Bradford reserves special vituperation for his one-time fellow law professors, he states
the "most transparent example of this power to shape popular opinion as to the legitimacy of U.S.
participation in wars is the media."
As proof, Bradford explained how this "disloyalty" of the media worked during the Vietnam War.
He wrote: "During the Vietnam War, despite an unbroken series of U.S. battlefield victories, the
media first surrendered itself over to a foreign enemy for use as a psychological weapon against
Americans, not only expressing criticism of U.S. purpose and conduct but adopting an 'antagonistic
attitude toward everything America was and represented' and 'spinning' U.S. military success to convince
Americans that they were losing, and should quit, the war. Journalistic alchemists converted victory
into defeat simply by pronouncing it."
Space does not permit showing in how many ways this "stab in the back" myth is false. But this
belief in the disloyalty of the media in Bradford's view remains today. He wrote: "Defeatism, instinctive
antipathy to war, and empathy for American adversaries persist within media."
Targeting Journalists
The right-wing militarist Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), with mostly
retired U.S. military officers serving as advisers, has advocated targeting journalists with military
attacks. Writing in The Journal of International Security Affairs in 2009, retired U.S. Army Lt.
Col. Ralph Peters wrote:
"Today, the United States and its allies will never face a lone enemy on the battlefield. There
will always be a hostile third party in the fight, but one which we not only refrain from attacking
but are hesitant to annoy: the media . . . . Future wars may require censorship, news blackouts and,
ultimately, military attacks on the partisan media." (Emphasis in original.)
The rationale for that deranged thinking was first propounded by Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp
and other authoritarian-minded officers after the Vietnam War. Sharp explained, our "will" was eroded
because "we were subjected to a skillfully waged subversive propaganda campaign, aided and abetted
by the media's bombardment of sensationalism, rumors and half-truths about the Vietnam affair - a
campaign that destroyed our national unity." William C. Bradford apparently adopted and internalized
this belief, as have many other military officers.
That "stab in the back" myth was propagated by a number of U.S. military officers as well as President
Richard Nixon (as explained
here).
It was more comfortable to believe that than that the military architects of the war did not understand
what they were doing. So they shifted blame onto members of the media who were astute enough to recognize
and report on the military's failure and war crimes, such as My Lai.
But those "critical" journalists, along with critics at home, were only recognizing what smarter
Generals such as General Frederick Weyand recognized from the beginning. That is, the war was unwinnable
by the U.S. because it was maintaining in power its despotic corrupt ally, the South Vietnamese government,
against its own people. Whether or not what came later was worse for the Vietnamese people was unforeseeable
by the majority of the people. What was in front of their eyes was the military oppression of American
and South Vietnamese forces and secret police.
Information Warfare Today
In 1999, the Rand Corporation published a collection of articles in Strategic Appraisal:
The Changing Role of Information in Warfare. The volume was edited by Zalmay Khalilzad,
the alleged author of the Defense Department's 1992
Defense Planning Guidance, which was drafted when Dick Cheney was Defense Secretary and
Paul Wolfowitz was Under Secretary of Defense – and promulgated a theory of permanent U.S. global
dominance.
One chapter of Rand's Strategic Appraisal was written by Jeremy Shapiro, now a
special adviser at the U.S. State Department, according to Wikipedia. Shapiro wrote that the inability
to control information flows was widely cited as playing an essential role in the downfall of the
communist regimes of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
He stated that perception management was "the vogue term for psychological operations or propaganda
directed at the public." As he expressed it, many observers worried that potential foes could use
techniques of perception management with asymmetric strategies with their effect on public opinion
to "destroy the will of the United States to wage war."
Consequently, "Warfare in this new political environment consists largely of the battle to shape
the political context of the war and the meaning of victory."
Another chapter on Ethics and Information Warfare by John Arquilla makes clear
that information warfare must be understood as "a true form of war." The range of information warfare
operations, according to Arquilla, extends "from the battlefield to the enemy home front." Information
warfare is designed "to strike directly at the will and logistical support of an opponent."
This notion of information warfare, that it can be pursued without a need to defeat an adversary's
armed forces, is an area of particular interest, according to Arquilla. What he means is that it
necessitates counter measures when it is seen as directed at the U.S. as now provided for in the
new LOW Manual.
Important to note, according to Arquilla, is that there is an inherent blurriness with defining
"combatants" and "acts of war." Equating information warfare to guerrilla warfare in which civilians
often engage in the fighting, Arquilla states "in information warfare, almost anyone can engage in
the fighting."
Consequently, the ability to engage in this form of conflict is now in the hands of small groups
and individuals, offering up "the prospect of potentially quite large numbers of information warfare-capable
combatants emerging, often pursuing their own, as opposed to some state's policies," Arquilla wrote.
Therefore, a "concern" for information warfare at the time of the Rand study in 1999 was the problem
of maintaining "noncombatant immunity." That's because the "civilian-oriented target set is huge
and likely to be more vulnerable than the related set of military infrastructures . . . . Since a
significant aspect of information warfare is aimed at civilian and civilian-oriented targets, despite
its negligible lethality, it nonetheless violates the principle of noncombatant immunity, given that
civilian economic or other assets are deliberately targeted."
What Arquillo is saying is that civilians who are alleged to engage in information warfare, such
as professors and journalists, lose their "noncombatant immunity" and can be attacked. The "blurriness"
of defining "combatants" and "acts of war" was removed after 9/11 with the invention of the "unlawful
combatant" designation, later renamed "unprivileged belligerent" to mimic language in the Geneva
Conventions.
Then it was just a matter of adding the similarly invented "U.S. domestic common law of war" with
its martial law precedents and a framework has been built for seeing critical journalists and law
professors as "unprivileged belligerents," as Bradford indiscreetly wrote.
Arquilla claims that information warfare operations extend to the "home front" and are designed
"to strike directly at the will and logistical support of an opponent." That is to equate what is
deemed information warfare to sabotage of the population's psychological will to fight a war, and
dissidents to saboteurs.
Perpetual War
But this is a perpetual war driven by U.S. operations, according to a chapter written by Stephen
T. Hosmer on psychological effects of information warfare. Here, it is stated that "the expanding
options for reaching audiences in countries and groups that could become future U.S. adversaries
make it important that the United States begin its psychological conditioning in peacetime." Thus,
it is necessary "to begin to soften the fighting will of the potential adversary's armed forces in
the event conflict does occur."
As information warfare is held to be "true war," this means that the U.S. is perpetually committing
acts of war against those deemed "potential" adversaries. Little wonder that Vladimir Putin sees
Russia as under assault by the United States and attempts to counter U.S. information warfare.
This same logic is applied to counter-insurgency. The 2014 COIN Manual, FM 3-24, defines "Information
Operations" as information-related capabilities "to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decisionmaking
of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own."
Those we "protect ourselves from" can logically be seen as the internal enemy, as William Bradford
saw it, such as critical law professors and journalists, just as Augusto Pinochet did in Chile with
dissidents.
With the totalitarian logic of information-warfare theorists, internalized now throughout much
of the U.S. government counter-terrorism community, it should be apparent to all but the most obtuse
why the DOD deems a journalist who writes critically of U.S. government war policy an "unprivileged
belligerent," an enemy, as in the Law of War manual. William C. Bradford obviously absorbed this
doctrine but was indiscreet enough to articulate it fully.
It Has Happened Here!
That's the only conclusion one can draw from reading the transcript of the Hedges v. Obama
lawsuit. In that lawsuit, plaintiffs, including journalists and political activists, challenged the
authority provided under Sec. 1021 of the 2012 National Defense Authorization for removal out from
under the protection of the Constitution of those deemed unprivileged belligerents. That is, civilians
suspected of lending any "support" to anyone whom the U.S. government might deem as having something
to do with terrorism.
"Support" can be as William Whiting described it in 1862 and as what is seen as "information warfare"
by the U.S. military today: a sentiment of hostility to the government "to undermine confidence in
its capacity or its integrity, to diminish, demoralize . . . its armies, to break down confidence
in those who are intrusted with its military operations in the field."
Reminiscent of the Sinclair Lewis novel It Can't Happen Here where those accused
of crimes against the government are tried by military judges as in the U.S. Military Commissions,
a Justice Department attorney arguing on behalf of the United States epitomized the legal reasoning
that one would see in a totalitarian state in arguing why the draconian "Law of War" is a substitute
for the Constitution.
The Court asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Benjamin Torrance if he would agree, "as a principled
matter, that the President can't, in the name of the national security of the United States, just
decide to detain whomever he believes it is important to detain or necessary to detain to prevent
a terrorist act within the United States?"
Rather than giving a straight affirmative answer to a fundamental principle of the U.S. Constitution,
Torrance dissembled, only agreeing that that description would seem "quite broad," especially if
citizens. But he added disingenuously that it was the practice of the government "not to keep people
apprehended in the U.S."
Which is true, it is known that people detained by the U.S. military and CIA have been placed
everywhere but in the U.S. so that Constitutional rights could not attach. Under Section 1021, that
"inconvenience" to the government would not be necessary.
When asked by the Court if he, the Justice Department attorney, would agree that a different administration
could change its mind with respect to whether or not Sec. 1021 would be applied in any way to American
citizens, he dissembled again, answering: "Is that possible? Yes, but it is speculative and conjecture
and that cannot be the basis for an injury in fact."
So U.S. citizens or anyone else are left to understand that they have no rights remaining under
the Constitution. If a supposed "right" is contingent upon who is President, it is not a right and
the U.S. is no longer under the rule of law.
In discussing whether activist and journalist Birgitta Jónsdóttir, a citizen of Iceland, could
be subject to U.S. military detention or trial by military commission, Assistant U.S. Attorney Torrance
would only disingenuously answer that "her activities as she alleges them, do not implicate this."
Disingenuous because he knew based upon the answer he previously gave that the law of war is arbitrary
and its interpretation contingent upon a military commander, whoever that may be, at present or in
the future.
What could happen to Ms. Jónsdóttir would be completely out of her control should the U.S. government
decide to deem her an "unprivileged belligerent," regardless of whether her expressive activities
changed positively or negatively, or remained the same. Her risk of detention per the Justice Department
is entirely at the sufferance of whatever administration may be in place at any given moment.
Any doubt that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, along with Section 1021 of the
National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, is believed by the U.S. Executive Branch to give it the
untrammeled power that Article 48 of the Weimar Germany constitution gave to the German President
in 1933 was settled by the arguments made by the Justice Department attorney in Hedges v.
Obama.
Setting First Amendment Aside
One does not need to speculate that the U.S. government no longer sees First Amendment activities
as protected. Government arguments, which were made in the Hedges v. Obama lawsuit,
revealed that the Justice Department, speaking for the Executive Branch, considers protection of
the Bill of Rights subordinate to the claim of "war powers" by the Executive. One can only be willfully
blind to fail to see this.
By the Justice Department's court arguments and filings, the protections afforded by the U.S.
Bill of Rights are no more secure today than they were to Japanese-Americans when Western District
military commander General DeWitt decided to remove them from their homes on the West Coast and intern
them in what were initially called, "concentration camps."
The American Bar Association Journal reported in 2014 that Justice Antonin Scalia told students
in Hawaii that "the Supreme Court's Korematsu decision upholding the internment of
Japanese Americans was wrong, but it could happen again in war time." But contrary to Scalia stating
that Korematsu had been repudiated, Korematsu has never been overruled.
The court could get a chance to do so, the ABA article stated, in the Hedges v. Obama
case "involving the military detention without trial of people accused of aiding terrorism." But
that opportunity has passed.
A U.S. District Court issued a permanent injunction blocking the law's indefinite detention powers
but that ruling was overturned by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. A petition to the U.S. Supreme
Court asked the justices to overturn Sec. 1021, the federal law authorizing such detentions and stated
the justices should consider overruling Korematsu. But the Supreme Court declined
to hear the case in 2014, leaving the Appeals Court's ruling intact.
The Supreme Court's decision to not overturn Korematsu allows General DeWitt's
World War II decision to intern Japanese-Americans in concentration camps to stand as a shining example
of what Brig. General Marks Martins proudly holds up to the world as the "U.S. domestic common law
of war."
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the
U.S. Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense
counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, Office of Military Commissions. In the course of
that assignment, he researched and reviewed the complete records of military commissions held during
the Civil War and stored at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
At first sight the research reported
here is something that
only political science researchers should worry about. In trying to explain election results, it
is better to use 'real time' data rather than 'revised, final or vintage' data. But as the authors
point out, it has wider implications. Voters do not seem to respond to how the economy actually is
(which is best measured by the final revised data), but how it is reported to be. (This does not
just matter for elections:
here is a discussion of some other research which suggests how the way recessions are
reported can influence economic decisions.)
Just one more indication that the media really matters. I would not bother to report such things,
if this point was generally accepted as an obvious truth. That it is not, in the UK at least, reflects
various different tendencies. Those on the right know that the print media is heavily biased their
way, and that this has a big impact on television, so they have an interest in denying that this
matters (while funding think tanks whose job is in part to
harass the BBC about its alleged left wing bias). Those on the centre left often react negatively
to a few of those further left who discount all awkward facts by blaming the media. And the media
itself is very reluctant to concede its own power.
As an example,
here is Rafael Behr in the Guardian talking disapprovingly about Labour supporters:
"I heard constant complaints about failure to "challenge myths" about the economy, benefits, immigration
and other areas where Labour is deemed unfit to govern by the people who choose governments. The
voters are wrong, and what is required is a louder exposition of their wrongness."
What is really revealing about this paragraph is what is not there. We go straight from myths
to voters, as if no one else is involved. I doubt very much that many who voice the 'constant complaints'
Behr is talking about think that voters created and sustained these myths all by themselves.
The discussion of issues involving the economy, the welfare system and immigration among most
of the 'political class' is often so removed from reality that it deserves the label myth. In the
case of the economy, I provided
chapter and verse in my 'mediamacro myth' series before the election. It was not just the
myth that Labour profligacy was responsible for austerity, but also the
myth about the 'strong recovery' when the recovery was the weakest for at least a century, and
that this recovery had 'vindicated' austerity. Given the importance that voters attach to economic
credibility, I do not believe I was exaggerating in
suggesting that the mediamacro myth was in good part responsible for the Conservatives
winning the election.
The media is vital in allowing myths to be sustained or dispelled. That does not mean that
the media itself creates myths out of thin air. These myths on the economy were created by the Conservative
party and their supporters, and sustained by the media's reliance on City economists. They get support
from half truths: pre-crisis deficits were a little too large, GDP growth rates for the UK did sometimes
exceed all other major economies.
Myths on welfare do come from real concerns: there is benefit fraud, and it is deeply resented
by most voters. But who can deny that much of the media (including the makers of certain television
programmes) have stoked that resentment? When the
public think that £24 out of every £100 spent on benefits is claimed fraudulently, compared
with official estimates of £0.70 per £100, that means that the public is wrong, and we have a myth.
(An excellent source for an objective view of the UK's welfare system is John Hills'
book,
which has myth in its subtitle) As I noted in that
post, when people are asked questions where they have much more direct experience, they
tend to give (on average of course) much more accurate answers. Its when they source the media that
things can go wrong. It is well known that fears about immigration tend to be greatest where there
is least immigration.
Of course reluctance to acknowledge myths may not be denial but fatalism. Fatalism in believing
that voters will always believe that migrants want to come to the UK because of our generous benefit
system because it suits their prejudices. Encouraging those beliefs will be in the interests of what
will always be a right wing dominated press. Some argue that myths can only be changed from a position
of power. But myths are not the preserve of governments to initiate. According to
this, over 60% of Trump supporters think their president is a Muslim who was born overseas.
[1]
Myths need to be confronted, not tolerated. The initial UK media coverage of the European migrant
crisis played to a mythical narrative that migrants were a threat to our standard of living and social
infrastructure (to
quote the UK's Foreign Secretary!). This reporting was not grounded in facts, as Patrick
Kingsley
shows. That changed when reporters saw who migrants really were and why they had made
the perilous journey north. It changed when Germany started welcoming them rather than trying to
build bigger fences. These facts did not fit the mythical narrative.
The UK government was clearly rattled when it realised that many people were not happy with
their narrative and policies. Myths can be challenged, but it is not easy. Policy has been changed
somewhat, but attempts are also being made to repair the narrative: to take some of those who have
made it to the EU will only encourage more (a variant of the previous European policy of reducing
the number of rescue boats), and a long term solution is to drop more bombs. Such idiotic claims
need to be treated with contempt, before they become a new myth that the opposition feels it is too
dangerous to challenge. Challenging these myths does not imply pretending real voter anxieties about
migration do not exist, but grounding
discussion and policy around the causes of those anxieties rather than the myths they
have spawned.
Yes, the non-partisan media needs to recognise the responsibility they have, and use objective
measures and academic analysis to judge whether they are meeting that responsibility. But more generally
myths are real and have to be confronted. The biggest myth of all is that there are no myths.
Judging by the amount of comments on articles about
Russia I see on the Guardian website , it seems to me that it holds more importance over
others in being targeted. Is this true ? If so why ?
Which western news outlets do you believe the Kremlin is most interested in targeting with
its campaign ?
Yes, of course the Guardian is a prominent target. Mostly because others British papers are
not so popular in Russia. Stories from the Guardian are translated on daily basis, and foreign
correspondents are well known, especially among Moscow's liberal intelligentsia.
Can we learn anything about Russian foreign policy?
This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate
Alderbaran, 08 September 2015 7:07am
A question: Do you think that by watching trends in coordinated comments, you can gain
insights into what is sometimes a very hard to judge Russian foreign policy?
You might understand what is trending right now, but you can't predict the next one.
Russian foreign policy is notorious for sudden turns, and trolls would be told afterwards, not
in advance.
They are not spin-doctors, close to the Kremlin, Putin or his advisers. They are given very
simple directives by people who have no real access to the Kremlin decision-makers.
"...We all know that neoliberal economics is the driver of grotesque mal-distribution of wealth
as a privileged nomenclature gorges on resources it has commandeered through insider dealing. The predations
of this ideology over recent years mimic the violent reaction of Europe's other great Union – the Soviet
Union – to any challenge to the privileges of the nomenclature."
.
"...As this story demonstrates yet again, the Troika never meant to negotiate in good faith with
the Greek government, but simply imposed its own destructive austerity and privatization program on
it. It's also clear that the EU per se has very little independent existence, being mainly administrative
scaffolding for the German government to pursue its own essentially predatory policies directed at the
subjugation of the rest of Europe."
.
"...Mr. Varoufakis also ignores the role that clientelism has played in making a bad situation even
worse. He also ignores Greece's excessive debt and runaway fiscal spending. This has been going on since
1980. "
.
"...The divergence between Germany, on the one hand, and France and Italy, on the other, has been
hinted at in various analyses. The existing Euro system does represent the rule of bankers, enforced
by central bank control of the currency and pliable elected officials. As I observed over a long career
representing debtors and creditors in big cases, it is useless to expect a realistic evaluation of the
debtor's ability to repay, and a rational restructuring of debt, until the personnel responsible for
making the ill-advised loans are no longer the decision-makers (i.e. fired, retired or escaped to greener
pastures). The European banks, knowing that the Greeks could not repay, pressured their governments
to bail them out in stages starting in 2010, and they have succeeded in getting out. The politicians
who effected this bailout don't want to now tell the voters that they sold them out for the benefit
of the banks; rather they excoriate the Greeks as deadbeats, and refuse to deal with anyone who speaks
reality. So Greece, a small country, which can't repay the amount of debt outstanding, must wait for
a new cast of European politicians before sound economic arrangements can be implemented. The current
deal just kicks the can down the road pending such political change; it has no chance of success. Comme
ca change, comme c'est la meme chose."
.
"...You are wrong. The bankers knew well that Greece's loans were unsustainable and yet, they kept
lending, knowing that Merkel would cover the losses. However, what happened has happened. many were
at fault. Countries cause wars and ethic cleansing and are not punished. Germany is a prime example.
Why is Greece being held to a different standard? What happened to solidarity. Merkel is showing more
solidarity to the migrants, inviting all of the Middle East to come to Europe. She should fly them directly
to Germany. Why let them go through Greece first. Germany has a black eye, after her treatment of Greece
and now wants to show her "softer side" Let her suffer the consequences then"
.
"...His arguments about how irrational the eurozone has been in not transforming its economic framework
to a form more convenient to Greece, which represents only about 2% of the eurozone's GDP, is not compelling.
It's like the argument of millions of illegal aliens from failed societies given citizenship who then
turn around and agitate for changing the host society so that it better resembles the failed societies.
The eurozone's economic framework is hardly "undemocratic" if its most vocal critics number so few among
the whole."
.
"...Greece's rich and powerful, like the elites everywhere, "crushed Greece", because as countless
man/woman in the street quotes in this paper indicate Greek business owners and professionals not on
salary cheat and do not pay owed taxes. This criminal elite role modeling then infects the rest of the
society as well. Obviously when not enough money goes into government treasuries this also causes deficits!
But the rich and powerful, and their bought and paid for media, skillfully distract us from this reality
by arranging the public discussion to just be about cuts to sympathetic government programs, cuts that
are most often offered by the same criminal elites as the only solution to reducing deficits. Which
means the same dysfunctional status quo is continued and so yet more and more loans and bailouts and
debt forgiveness and screaming and yelling about being "victims" of it all go on - probably forever.
"
Since the beginning of Greece's financial crisis in 2010, two prime ministers have been swept
from office after they were forced to adopt an unfeasible package of austerity measures in exchange
for a bailout from the troika, as the eurozone authorities - the European Commission, the European
Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund - are known. It pains me to watch the same fate
befall a third prime minister, my friend and comrade Alexis Tsipras.
In July, when Mr. Tspiras was forced to capitulate to the troika's latest "program," it spelled
the end of our government. It also caused a split in our party, Syriza, between those who reluctantly
agreed to implement the program and the rest of us (approximately 40 Syriza members of Parliament,
out of a total of 149) who did not. The general election set for Sept. 20 is a result of this crisis.
For my part, having resigned as finance minister over the troika's ruthless, humiliating imposition,
I plan to sit this one out. I will not contest my parliamentary seat in a sad election that will
not produce a Parliament capable of endorsing a realistic reform agenda for Greece.
Nor can I support the adoption of a troika program that everyone knows is destined to fail. There
was a clear consensus, shared not only by myself and Mr. Tsipras, but also by Germany's finance minister,
Wolfgang Schäuble, and officials at the International Monetary Fund, that the new bailout deal was
not viable.
I will not, however, join those who think that exiting the eurozone, to bring about a major devaluation
with a reintroduced drachma, is in itself a program for Greece's recovery.
The cause of this continuing trouble for Greece lies in the eurozone's existential crisis. The
pioneers of the single currency, of whom Mr. Schäuble is the last active member, were undecided whether
the euro should be modeled on the international gold standard of the interwar period or on a sovereign
currency, like the dollar.
The gold standard relied on strict rules that were unenforceable during a crisis. In a severe
downturn, these imposed the greatest burden on the worst-hit economies and thus made exit the only
alternative to a humanitarian crisis. This is the reason that President Franklin D. Roosevelt took
the United States off the gold standard in 1933, expanded the money supply and helped pull America
out of the Depression.
A sovereign currency, or state money, demands a different, more flexible set of responses based
on political union, as the French government and others have recently proposed. The great questions
that Europe must answer are: What kind of political union do we want? And are we prepared to act
quickly enough to prevent the fragmentation of the eurozone?
Europe's indecision is a result of a deep rift between Berlin and Paris. Berlin has traditionally
backed a rules-based eurozone in which every member state is responsible for its own finances, including
bank bailouts, with political union limited to a fiscal overlord's possessing veto power over national
budgets that violate the rules. Paris and Rome, cognizant that their deficit position would condemn
them to a slow-burning recession under such a rules-based political union, see things differently.
It was in the context of this standoff that Mr. Schäuble felt that accepting an alternative plan
for Greece's recovery, in place of the troika's program, would weaken Germany's hand vis-à-vis the
French. Thus little Greece was crushed while the elephants tussled.
We had such a plan. In March, I undertook the task of compiling an alternative program for Greece's
recovery, with advice from the economist Jeffrey Sachs and input from a host of experts, including
the former American Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and the former British chancellor of the Exchequer
Norman Lamont.
Our proposals began with a strategy for debt swaps to reduce the public debt's burden on state
finances. This measure would allow for sustainable budget surpluses (net of debt and interest repayments)
from 2018 onward. We set a target for those surpluses of no more than 2 percent of national income
(the troika program's target is 3.5 percent). With less pressure on the government to depress demand
in the economy by cutting public spending, the Greek economy would attract investors of productive
capital.
As well as making this possible, the debt swaps would also render Greek sovereign debt eligible
for the European Central Bank's quantitative easing program. This in turn would speed up Greece's
return to the money markets, reducing its reliance on loans from European institutions.
To generate homegrown investment, we proposed a development bank to take over public assets from
the state, collateralize them and so create an income stream for reinvestment. We also planned to
set up a "bad bank" that would use financial engineering techniques to clear the Greek commercial
banks' mountain of nonperforming loans. A series of other reforms, including a new, independent I.R.S.-like
tax authority, rounded out our proposals.
The document was ready on May 11. Although I presented it to key European finance ministers, including
Mr. Schäuble, as the Greek Finance Ministry's official plan, it never received the endorsement of
our own prime minister. The reason? Because the troika made it abundantly clear to Mr. Tsipras that
any such document would be seen as a hostile attempt to backtrack from the conditions of the troika's
existing program. That program, of course, had made no provision for debt restructuring and therefore
demanded cripplingly high budget surpluses.
The fact that few people ever got to hear about the Greek plan is a testament to the eurozone's
deep failures of governance. If the "Athens Spring" - when the Greek people courageously rejected
the catastrophic austerity conditions of the previous bailouts - has one lesson to teach, it is that
Greece will recover only when the European Union makes the transition from "We the states" to "We
the European people."
Across the Continent, people are fed up with a monetary union that is inefficient because it is
so profoundly undemocratic. This is why the battle for rescuing Greece has now turned into a battle
for Europe's integrity, soul, rationality and democracy. I plan to concentrate on helping set up
a Pan-European political movement, inspired by the Athens Spring, that will work toward Europe's
democratization.
Naturally, this will take years to bear fruit - years that Greece cannot afford. In the meantime,
I shall continue to promote our plan for Greece's recovery as a true, viable alternative to the troika's
impossible program.
Yanis Varoufakis, a former finance minister of Greece, is an outgoing member of Parliament
for Syriza and a professor of economics at the University of Athens.
DaveG, Manhattan
Greece lied about its financial situation when it joined the Euro zone (with Goldman-Sachs'
help.)
Beyond that, with no true political union in Europe, the Euro was a bad idea from the start.
(Good for Germany, because it gets to sell its goods abroad more cheaply than if it still used
the Mark, but bad for monetary and fiscal policy in less developed countries.)
Now with Greek insolvency, the EU has presented an aid plan, which Greece can never pay back.
Austerity with a 25% unemployment rate is no solution. (In 1933, the US had a 25% unemployment
rate because of Republican laissez-faire austerity policies. "New Deal" spending would reduce
the rate to 15% by at least 1940; unfortunately, WWII did the rest.)
Though the Germans got a "haircut" in 1953 on their accumulated debt (as they had in the 20's/30's),
they were not interested in any similar haircut for Greece. (Marshall Plan money the Germans got
after the war, and the lack of reparations they were required to pay to countries like Greece
under the terms of the 1953 haircut are additional benefits they received then.)
The Greeks and the Germans are no angels in any of this. Europe has just made an economic mess
of itself.
Grouch, Toronto
As this story demonstrates yet again, the Troika never meant to negotiate in good faith
with the Greek government, but simply imposed its own destructive austerity and privatization
program on it.
It's also clear that the EU per se has very little independent existence, being mainly administrative
scaffolding for the German government to pursue its own essentially predatory policies directed
at the subjugation of the rest of Europe.
Yoda, DC
Dr. Varoufakis makes the same argument in his book "THe Global Minotaur". And he is correct
about the very important role that capital flows and crushing debt have played on peripheral nations
of which Greece is a member. However, there are other very important factors he ignores (in both
this article and the book). He ignores the role and importance of institutions for example. Greece
is the only nation in Europe not to have a land registry. Greece's institutions reek of corruption,
cronyism and "roufeti" (Greek for you scratch my back, I scratch yours - a subtle form of corruption).
This very important fact goes unsaid.
Mr. Varoufakis also ignores the role that clientelism has played in making a bad situation
even worse. He also ignores Greece's excessive debt and runaway fiscal spending. This has been
going on since 1980.
Robert Jennings, Lithuania/Ireland
A remarkable article.
I am one of the Old believers in the European ideal of Economic and Social cohesion; I have
worked in support of the Accession process for over twenty years and watched in dismay as an alien
ideology of neoliberalism (Corporatist Capitalism) has reduced the European Ideal to "fumbling
in a greasy till", W. B. Yeats on Ireland.
I have also watched in dismay as the same ideology pre-empted Political decision-making in
Ireland to force the Irish people to pay the private debts of headstrong and bankrupt Banks.
We all know that neoliberal economics is the driver of grotesque mal-distribution of wealth
as a privileged nomenclature gorges on resources it has commandeered through insider dealing.
The predations of this ideology over recent years mimic the violent reaction of Europe's other
great Union – the Soviet Union – to any challenge to the privileges of the nomenclature.
The Greek people can be proud of their rejection (by referendum) of the European Union nomenclature
–their action resonates with the Prague Spring rejection of the Soviet Union nomenclature way
back in 1968. The Prague Spring was crushed by Soviet Tanks, the Greek Spring is being throttled
by a combination of self-serving International Institutions designed to protect the Neoliberal
ideology and the Corporate Capitalist nomenclature it serves.
I hope that people like Yanis Varoufakis can remain a dominant influence in the resistance
to the takeover of the European Union.
serban, is a trusted commenter Miller Place
Varoufakis proposals were perfectly reasonably, never mind all the spleen toward Greece displayed
by many commenters. None are seem to realize that much of the bloated Greek bureaucracy has in
fact been reduced, from where do they think the 25% unemployment comes from? His problem was political
weakness, not lack of economic wisdom. Greece did and does not have the muscle to stand up to
whatever conditions Germany wanted to impose. Mr. Schauble may honestly believe that Greece needs
hard medicine but his approach was to impose a plan that will keep Greece down for many more years.
Eventually much of the debt will have to be written of, the longer this goes on the bigger the
amount that will not be repaid.
Bill, Boston 8 hours ago
The divergence between Germany, on the one hand, and France and Italy, on the other, has
been hinted at in various analyses. The existing Euro system does represent the rule of bankers,
enforced by central bank control of the currency and pliable elected officials. As I observed
over a long career representing debtors and creditors in big cases, it is useless to expect a
realistic evaluation of the debtor's ability to repay, and a rational restructuring of debt, until
the personnel responsible for making the ill-advised loans are no longer the decision-makers (i.e.
fired, retired or escaped to greener pastures). The European banks, knowing that the Greeks could
not repay, pressured their governments to bail them out in stages starting in 2010, and they have
succeeded in getting out. The politicians who effected this bailout don't want to now tell the
voters that they sold them out for the benefit of the banks; rather they excoriate the Greeks
as deadbeats, and refuse to deal with anyone who speaks reality. So Greece, a small country, which
can't repay the amount of debt outstanding, must wait for a new cast of European politicians before
sound economic arrangements can be implemented. The current deal just kicks the can down the road
pending such political change; it has no chance of success. Comme ca change, comme c'est la meme
chose.
Uzi Nogueira, Florianopolis, SC 5 hours ago
Mr. Varoufakis: How Europe Crushed Greece. Really?
Greece's eurozone membership was the high point achieved by the political leadership. A tourism-based
economy was sharing a common currency along with advanced-wealthy Germany, France, Italy and Netherlands.
Everything was fine except for one small detail, the state of a backward economy.
The ruling political elite continued to run the country as business as usual. Namely, an over
generous welfare system, a corrupt public patronage system and a backward third world-like economy.
The end result, an unsustainable public debt brought about by the 2009 financial crisis.
Mr. Varoufakis -- and fellow politicians -- may still think (erroneously) eurozone membership
is an inherited right fore being an European country. He misses, however, a fundamental point
about economic integration.
Membership of a rich man's club does not entitle Greece to benefit from other country's wealth
and prosperity for free. Greeks have to earn it. This is the ultimate lesson from the current
debt crisis.
Richard Luettgen, New Jersey
Mr. Varoufakis needs to re-examine his history. FDR didn't end the Great Depression in the
U.S. by abandoning the gold standard. The Great Depression persisted despite all his efforts until
the demands of WWII put everyone to work either producing or fighting.
His arguments about how irrational the eurozone has been in not transforming its economic
framework to a form more convenient to Greece, which represents only about 2% of the eurozone's
GDP, is not compelling. It's like the argument of millions of illegal aliens from failed societies
given citizenship who then turn around and agitate for changing the host society so that it better
resembles the failed societies. The eurozone's economic framework is hardly "undemocratic" if
its most vocal critics number so few among the whole.
Some of the plans Mr. Varoufakis extols have merit, such as his "development bank". But it's
Syriza that's been least open to reforming excessively protective labor practices, reforming tax
collection and a still-overwhelming public sector. The truth is that they don't really want to
change and want the debt to simply go away. The only way it can is by exit, repudiation for a
period of debt service and a starting over on a basis that is strategically sustainable.
And Mr. Varoufakis's desire for European "democratization" is merely self-interested rationalization
for leveling ALL of Europe to avoid the consequences to peoples of excessive debt voluntarily
and knowingly amassed.
Winthrop Staples, is a trusted commenter Newbury Park, CA 6 hours ago
Greece's rich and powerful, like the elites everywhere, "crushed Greece", because as countless
man/woman in the street quotes in this paper indicate Greek business owners and professionals
not on salary cheat and do not pay owed taxes. This criminal elite role modeling then infects
the rest of the society as well. Obviously when not enough money goes into government treasuries
this also causes deficits! But the rich and powerful, and their bought and paid for media, skillfully
distract us from this reality by arranging the public discussion to just be about cuts to sympathetic
government programs, cuts that are most often offered by the same criminal elites as the only
solution to reducing deficits. Which means the same dysfunctional status quo is continued and
so yet more and more loans and bailouts and debt forgiveness and screaming and yelling about being
"victims" of it all go on - probably forever.
bob karp, new Jersey 5 hours ago
You are wrong. The bankers knew well that Greece's loans were unsustainable and yet, they
kept lending, knowing that Merkel would cover the losses. However, what happened has happened.
many were at fault. Countries cause wars and ethic cleansing and are not punished. Germany is
a prime example. Why is Greece being held to a different standard? What happened to solidarity.
Merkel is showing more solidarity to the migrants, inviting all of the Middle East to come to
Europe. She should fly them directly to Germany. Why let them go through Greece first. Germany
has a black eye, after her treatment of Greece and now wants to show her "softer side" Let her
suffer the consequences then
Prof.Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India.
For now the Greek bailout deal with all its stringent austerity conditions attached to it might
be okay as a one shot emergency move reluctantly accepted by the Greeks, but the lasting solution
to the recurring crises in the Eurozone could only be an establishment of pan-European political
union to sustain the existing monetary union with a broad common framework of fiscal policies
applicable to the entire Union area, as rightly argued by the author.
Michael Boyajian, Fishkill
Thank you for your profound insight into the ham fisted idiocy of the so called troika.
Dr. MB, Irvine, CA
This gentleman seems to be oblivious of fundamental issue -- the duties one has when one talks
of his/her rights! Where were the follow-ups on Greece's duties when she took all these debts?
Were they (the Greeks) expecting these debts to be forgiven when the income from these "loans/debts"
were crucial for the livelihoods of people in member countries of the EU? Simply stated, Greece,
like any other party too often only talking of "rights" must realize that rights and duties are
two sides of the same coin -- one does --or cannot exist without the other. Sooner Greece begins
walking the walk, the better it is!
mr. mxyzptlk, Woolwich South Jersey 8 hours ago
Debt swaps? Selling off the commons to the "private sector" seems to me like a bad idea. Default
on the debts to the private banksters, tell them you're writing down your debt at ten cents on
the dollar and restart your own currency. Let the people of Greece run their own country and take
it back from the banksters.
LG Phillips, California 5 hours ago
Not all of Greece's problems originate from EU membership, but the treatments imposed by the
EU to remedy these ills are bizarre, irrational, and dangerous. For ex. while EU administrators
insist Greece institute reforms to eliminate corruption and tax avoidance, they imposed govt spending
constraints hindering Greek government's ability to implement the government programs/structures
necessary to accomplish these reforms. While EU administrators insist Greece "deregulates" its
mom and pop bakeries and other such markets, the truly labyrinthine thicket of boards, councils,
ministries and agencies dictating Greece's nat'l government and economy is dizzying! There's the
EU, the European Commission, the European Council, the European Central Bank, the European Stability
Mechanism, & the IMF, which taken together lock-in and maximize inflexibility plus damagingly
procyclical response when dealing with economic crises.
And the euro itself is a ridiculously designed and constrained currency. To paraphrase a metaphor
given by Warren Mosler, the self-imposed constraints the EU's instituted on its own currency are
as nonsensical as putting a big bag over your head to race in the 100m. What US conservatives
who think Greece's problems are a harbinger for the US don't get is that Greece status in the
EU has reduced to a status akin to PA or OH but WORSE, with no sovereignty of its currency plus
(unlike PA or OH) Greece is compelled to fund guarantees of its own private banking system!
"Employers added 173,000 jobs in Aug., jobless rates falls to 5.1%" by Paul Davidson, USA TODAY...9:33 a.m. EDT...September 4, 2015
"Payroll growth slowed in August as employers added 173,000 jobs in a key report that could help
the Federal Reserve decide whether to raise interest rates later this month.
The unemployment rate fell from 5.3% to 5.1%, lowest since March 2008.
Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expected employment gains of 218,000, according to their median
forecast.
Businesses added 140,000 jobs last month, fueled by strong advances in health care, professional
and business services, and leisure and hospitality. Federal, state and local governments added 33,000.
Partly offsetting the disappointing report is that job gains for June and July were revised up
by a total 44,000.
Wage growth picked up moderately as average hourly earnings rose 8 cents to $25.09 after dipping
in June, and are up 2.2% the past year, slightly faster than the tepid 2% pace so far in the recovery.
The Fed is seeking signs of faster wage that would indicate stronger inflation as it considers increasing
its benchmark interest rate.
The report is the most significant the Fed will review before its September 16-17 meeting. Until
recent financial market turmoil..."
We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment
by government spending. But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure
of the masses -- the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes which would
give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders. Indeed, under a regime of permanent full
employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The social position
of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class
would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political
tension. It is true that profits would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on
the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage rates resulting from the stronger bargaining
power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects
only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more appreciated
RGC said...
Krugman explains why he is a Keynesian and proceeds to prove that he is not a Keynesian:
Krugman:
So, am I a Keynesian because I want bigger government? If I were, shouldn't I be advocating
permanent expansion rather than temporary measures? Shouldn't I be for stimulus all the time,
not only when we're at the zero lower bound? When I do call for bigger government - universal
health care, higher Social Security benefits - shouldn't I be pushing these things as job-creation
measures? (I don't think I ever have). I think if you look at the record, I've always argued for
temporary fiscal expansion, and only when monetary policy is constrained. Meanwhile, my advocacy
of an expanded welfare state has always been made on its own grounds, not in terms of alleged
business cycle benefits.
In other words, I've been making policy arguments the way one would if one sincerely believed
that fiscal policy helps fight unemployment under certain conditions, and not at all in the way
one would if trying to use the slump as an excuse for permanently bigger government.
In some other respects the foregoing theory is moderately conservative in its implications.
For whilst it indicates the vital importance of establishing certain central controls in matters
which are now left in the main to individual initiative, there are wide fields of activity
which are unaffected. The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity
to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and
partly, perhaps, in other ways. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking
policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of
investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment
will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need
not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate
with private initiative. But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State
Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community. It is not the ownership
of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State
is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments
and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary.
Moreover, the necessary measures of socialisation can be introduced gradually and without a
break in the general traditions of society.
Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task
of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, would seem
to a nineteenth-century publicist or to a contemporary American financier to be a terrific
encroachment on individualism. I defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means
of avoiding the destruction of existing economic forms in their entirety and as the condition
of the successful functioning of individual initiative.
We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment
by government spending. But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under
the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political
changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders. Indeed, under
a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary
measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness
of the working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions
of work would create political tension. It is true that profits would be higher under a regime
of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage
rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce
profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But
'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more appreciated
Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can
protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start
to disappear one by one.
They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show."
.
"...Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't
want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred."
. Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome. But those
who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even half of what he has
achieved.
.
Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told. He waged war in
the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told him to. He is a non-entity."
.
"...Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government: (1). He destroyed Ukraine's
military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the way) with Russian military, as any
obedient CIA stooge will do. (2). He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should
have benefit from it's position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting
Europe from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come up
with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again."
.
"...Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring
under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention."
.
"...When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties share
a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with your political
overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how to which is through
violence. I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's
constitutional proposals."
.
"...I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising
the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up
the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves!"
.
"...I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia has
been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow of yanukovic.
The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan protests
which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who tarrgetted ethnic
Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition to granting extra powers
to eastern territories is hardly surprising."
Notable quotes:
"... I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie, troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror attacks but were killed democratically. ..."
"... - Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17 policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror attacks... ..."
"... "Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their 'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power. The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war." ..."
"... It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better. ..."
"... Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little evils? ..."
"... A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft. ..."
"... In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe" and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest to believe the opposite of everything they tell us. ..."
"... It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling to Russia/Belarus. ..."
"... Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!). ..."
"... Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white. It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face. ..."
"... February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda) implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings. ..."
"... These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise the war in the East could not continue. ..."
"... History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered, rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin or ISIS. ..."
"... Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money at will, in which Russia has no involvement. ..."
"... The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government. ..."
"... Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one. ..."
"... Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred. ..."
"... The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy". ..."
"... Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention. ..."
"... Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella. ..."
"... I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves! ..."
"... idan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed them in the first place. The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke. ..."
Another version has it that the explosion outside parliament was orchestrated by the president's
administration or the Ukrainian special services in order to discredit Svoboda and other radical
nationalists and to "tighten the screws" on the political life of the country thus justifying control
over opposition forces.
This version hardly stands up to criticism. The demonstration was led by MPs who are members of
Svoboda but got into parliament as independent candidates. In the 2014 elections Svoboda did not
win the 5% of the vote necessary to enter parliament. Four months earlier, in the presidential election,
the party's leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, won only a little over 1% of the vote. This week he was photographed,
together with other Svoboda activists, trying to drag a soldier out of the human chain formed around
parliament into the crowd of protesters. It was a moment very reminiscent of the Maidan days, only
that then Svoboda members and their leader were inside parliament. Since then the party has found
itself increasingly marginalised.
However, there were other groups represented in the demonstration , among them two that deserve
special attention: Oleg Lyashko's radical party and Igor Kolomoisky's Ukrop party. T-shirts with
the latter party's emblem were given out free at the demonstration, and those willing to take part
were paid to protest. Kolomoisky is considered to be an enemy of President Poroshenko since he was
sacked from his position as governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region. Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor
Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by the former president of Georgia, Mikheil
Saakashvili.
Immediately after the blast, Lyashko, who is a radical populist with little in common with the
radical nationalists, announced the establishment of a campaign to save the nation. Only three or
four hours after the explosion, his party had already registered a bill that would block changes
to the constitution at times when the country is under military attack. Lyashko came second in the
presidential elections, and over the last year his Radical party has gone up in the ratings. It is
interesting that articles in the press regularly claim to have evidence that both the Svoboda party
and the Radical party have been financed by the same oligarchs, the above mentioned Kolomoisky, Sergey
Levochkin – who was head of the presidential administration under Yanukovich and who fled to Moscow
after the Maidan – and Dmitry Firtash, who is now being investigated on corruption charges in Austria.
Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation. To begin with, volunteers who went
off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant
groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during the Maidan. There were also volunteers who
had no affiliation to any party who went to fight. When the Ukrainian army took over the main role
in the fighting, many of the volunteers returned home, taking weapons with them.
nnedjo 3 Sep 2015 16:18
Well, the purpose of the constitutional changes in Ukraine should be that rebels in the southeast
stop fighting and accept Ukraine as his country, and not Ukrainian nationalists to stop throwing
grenades at the police in Kiev. However, these laws passed by the Ukrainian parliament, can contribute
very little that the main objective. Their main goal is just to create the illusion that Ukraine
really is trying to comply with the requirement of Minsk 2 agreement, and thus to meet the expectations
of their Western friends, which means to prevent lifting of sanctions against Russia. And, on
the other hand, these laws need to be completely contrary to the expectations of the rebel peoples
in Donbas, or in other words to achieve the same thing that the Ukrainian government unsuccessfully
tried to achieve with weapons.
It is particularly interesting that the President of Ukraine Poroshenko himself makes no secret
at all that it is true what I've previously written, as can be understood, among other things,
also from those of his statements:
According to the president, "the threat of break-up of the international pro-Ukrainian coalition"
would have increased if the Verkhovna Rada had not voted in favor of decentralization amendments
to the constitution on Monday.
It could also lead to the lifting of sanctions, which "are very painfully hitting the aggressor,"
he said, apparently, referring to Russia, which Kiev blames for sending troops to war-torn eastern
Ukraine....
...But what they [Donetsk and Lugansk Regions] have got instead is a lean line about the features
of local self-governance," Poroskenko stressed.
So, even though the law that caused the protests in front of parliament has the name of "decentralization",
in fact it needs to further strengthen the competence of the central government. Based on this
law, the Presidency received the right to appoint a prefect, who with his hand has the discretionary
right to dismiss officials elected at the local elections in certain regions. And if they do not
like it, they can appeal to the constitutional court in Kiev, where were apparently is known in
advance what may be the decision of the constitutional court.
On the other hand, the law on the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk, which was passed earlier,
is practically suspended at this point by the recent decision of the President Poroshenko.
In this respect, it is necessary to emphasize two things.
Although according to the Minsk 2 arrangement, the special status of the Donbas region should
have been incorporated as an integral and permanent part of the Ukrainian Constitution, the law,
which is now suspended, does not meet any of these two demands.
This law therefore is attached only as an annex to the Ukrainian constitution, and its validity
is limited to just three years. And, according to the idea of Ukrainian legislators, the law can
come into force only after the local elections in Donbass which would be held under the previous
Ukrainian legislation, and when Ukrainian forces take control over the whole territory of Ukraine,
including its entire border with Russia.
Until then, they will be consider that Donbas region is temporarily occupied part of Ukrainian
territory, and officials of the People's Republic of Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republic will
be considered as terrorists. And since with the terrorists must not be negotiations, leaders of
the LNR and DNR were completely excluded so far from discussions about the law on the special
status, which is also contrary to the Minsk 2 agreement, given that it explicitly requires just
that.
All in all, they are asking the pro-Russian rebels that lay down their arms voluntarily, without
getting anything in return. Or more accurately, to get just a little bit of what they are looking
for and only for a period of three years. So, congratulations on wishful thinking, but the question
is whether it is achievable at all.
LimaCPapa -> ridibundus 3 Sep 2015 15:48
I first learned about this when a new Ukrainian student introduced himself, and we asked why
the name he gave was not the name on his papers. He explained (with clear annoyance) that he had
to use a Ukrainian name. He had to keep it while he was here as well, because it was the name
in his passport. Now he's free of all that and uses his Russian name. Needless to say, he did
not return to Ukraine. Another Ukrainian has since confirmed that the same thing was true for
her passport. In both cases, issued in the early 2000s. So who's lying then?
beakybloom -> gablody 3 Sep 2015 13:34
What's inherited??.. The bankrupt economy, loss of Crimea, loss of Donbass, 6000 dead, civil
war, downing of Malaysian airliner with 300 souls on board, Odessa massacre, murders of political
opponents, the nazi parliament, stupid laws glorifying Ukraine's nazi past, no visa-free access
to EU, Nazis throwing grenades at the police???..
Nothing here is inherited except the absence of visa-free access to EU
a "show on the road" ? On IMF funny money? For how long? It's a shitshow, and unsustainable
to boot.
nnedjo -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 13:28
The putinposters are still reeling with the news that the Ukrainian government is fighting
"Nazis" in Kiev,...
It will be possible to say just when the news arrives that the organizers of these demonstrations
were sentenced to a few tens of years in prison, and that guy who threw this grenade from which
the Guardsmen killed, was sentenced to life imprisonment.
What is quite unbelievable judging by the past behavior of government from Kiev.
The piece of shit she CHOSE to work with.
Jewish neo-con skunk and neo-Nazi thug seems like a match made in heaven.
jezzam -> Chillskier 3 Sep 2015 10:19
Go ahead then. I can't wait. Neither can Poroshenko. His best option is passive resistance
when Putin launches his next land grab. Russia will be forced to give it back eventually when
they are totally bankrupt
Bosula -> RVictor 3 Sep 2015 08:55
The congregation is mostly made up of ethnic Ukrainians, members of a community that numbers
hundreds of thousands and has been growing rapidly since the start of the conflict in eastern
Ukraine.
This is what the Guardian reported on 13 May 2015 - this was JUST for Poland:
"Last year Poland issued 331,000 permits for short-term work to Ukrainians, up 50% on 2013,
says Marta Jaroszewicz, a migration expert at the Centre For Eastern Studies (OSW), an independent
Warsaw thinktank funded by the Polish government.
She estimates that there are now 300,000-400,000 Ukrainians in Poland, as many as twice the
officially recognised number. In January and February, the number of residence applications by
Ukrainians in the Mazovian voivodeship – the province which includes Warsaw – was up 180% on the
same months of 2014."
There are other articles for other neighbouring countries bordering Ukraine, but the Guardian
is a pretty authoritative source.
Since this story the number crossing the border to leave Ukraine has increased significantly.
FlappyCat 3 Sep 2015 08:20
Poroshenko to Transnistria..
Yats to Macedonia and
Saakishwilly to Tajikistan.
oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:12
I read the Gorby's interview where he said 'Yes' about the NATO promises.But he's a fool nevertherless
to beleive the promises,written or verbal from his enemy.
elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:07
>>He's trying to provoke Putin.
Hmm in that case you have proved Poroshenko is a fu##ing idiot. Only an idiot would set out
to provoke the leader of a neighbouring country into invading. Is that what you lot voted him
in for? No, it isn't. He should be making peace and securing the future for his people. Face it,
your leader is taking orders from Pyatt and you know it.
BigBanana 3 Sep 2015 07:50
"Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by
the former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili"
Jeez, Saakashvili is a stupid appointment for a very long list of reasons. He's the idiot who
got Georgia dismembered after misjudging the situation terribly.
It's as if Poroshenko is deliberately trying to fuck things up.
HuffingHume -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 07:41
All of the ex-Soviet Union, with the exception of the Baltic states, are horribly corrupt dysfunctional
kleptocracies run by Soviet era bigwigs who carved up their state's assets up for themelves, leaving
most of their fellow countrymen in poverty. This is the reason why many Ukrianians want to be
more 'European'; because they want to be more like Poland and the Baltic States, rather than in
the Russian orbit, in which every state has barely made it out of the 80's.
Dimmus -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:15
"It was the right wing Svoboda Party that started the trouble, definitely not a 'peaceful protest'
as you make out. "
I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie,
troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror
attacks but were killed democratically.
RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:14
Putin has a record of false flag operations, starting with the Moscow apartment block bombing
performed by the FSB when he was head and which brought him to power.
And the proof is ... o, yes, - something written by oligarch in exile! Btw., here is a short
list of admitted FF operations be US and it's vassals. Remember "Iraq WMD"?
oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:10
Why being invaded by Putin, Ukraine is trading a discount for gas, [and asks for ] deferral
of loan?
irishinrussia -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:03
It's irony. He is implying that when protesters the west likes kill policemen then they at
peaceful demonstrators, perhaps defending themselves against brutal security forces, at worst
any violence is the action of a few hotheads or extremists among overwhelmingly peaceful, democratic
victims of the state. However, when the very same protesters attack our guys (Poroshenko), they
are radicals, extremists and terrorists, perhaps abetted by shadowy enemies of freedom and democracy
(FSB).
PanoptikonicallyKool -> Briar 3 Sep 2015 06:15
Shhh!!!! You are not supposed to say things like that! 'US backed coup'? That is not part of
the story. And it's ancient history history, no connection to current events. In fact it didn't
even happen, according to repectable news sites. Or they don't mention it, so it must not have
happended . The US, as the article states, or rather doesn't state, or rather doesn't even mention,
has nothing to do with political events inside Ukraine, that's why we never read anything about
it. Did Russia do it or not do it? That's the only serious question for anything that happens
in Ukraine.
US involvement in Urkaine? Harrruuumph! Conspiracy theory! And don't bring it up again!
Dimmus 3 Sep 2015 06:15
"But the media has been busy throwing up theories about who has most to benefit from
this terrorist attack. "
- Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad
and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17
policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting
bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror
attacks...
ositonegro -> BastaYa72 3 Sep 2015 06:11
"Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held
it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their
'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power.
The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the
state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war."
It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global
corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a
name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better.
How can anyone not take the US state department's line. It is the truth. Ergo, everyone else
is paid by the Russians.
Калинин Юрий -> elias_ 3 Sep 2015 04:59
He does not answer the questions, he blames Putin in all the world's sins and universe disasters.
Global warming - Putin, extreme heat in the EU - Putin, police conflicts in the USA - Putin. Ask
him, wh has scratched a car by a shopping mall last month - Putin!
RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:53
The West has not broken international law since the Iraq invasion.
Support and organization of governments overthrow all around the world? War in Libya? Killing
with drones on foreigns territories? Bombing of Syria territory?
Theo Humbug -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 04:52
Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully
somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little
evils?
RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49
Why does Georgia not get Interpol to issue an arrest warrant for Saakashvili? Ukraine
would have to comply. The answer is obvious. They would not get one because the charges against
Saakashvili are politically motivated, like most of the corruption charges in Russia.
Right - like any West institution Interpol is so-o-o independent, exactly like International
Court!
Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49
I have come to realise that Jizzem is just a Turing Bot.
Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:48
HAHAHAHAHA... Are you serious? Which planet are you on? Do you think people forget that quickly?
A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned
regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft.
jonsid -> Mark Elliott 3 Sep 2015 04:46
In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast
of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe"
and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest
to believe the opposite of everything they tell us.
Theo Humbug -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 04:41
You clearly have a very bad memory. The Russian offer of cancelling debt and very reasonable
prices for fuel was very attractive to the ELECTED government of Victor Yanukovych and far far
better than the EU offer, which was why they were all for accepting the Russian offer and aligning
more with Moscow..
But the USA can't have any country deciding it's own fate if it is not in accord with the Lords
of this Universe.
The neocon organised and paid for putsch, Maidan Shootings, Odessa burnings, put a stop to
any agreement beneficial to the Ukrainians and opened the way for the IMF to come in and steal
the wealth of yet another country.
There is no excuse for anybody not to know these recorded and verifiable FACTS.
elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:36
You are fixated on Putin - you must be a not so secret admirer. Why don't you answer Tomov's
question. What has Poroshenko achieved since becoming President?
RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 04:34
It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application
were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money
you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling
to Russia/Belarus.
So I show you official numbers of registered refugees in EU - and amount of unregistered cannot
be high due to immigration laws and functioning police system.
On over side, number of 400000 is taken from nowhere - go on and proof it.
Salut_Salut -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:32
If you are such a hard-core proponent of sanctions policy, then may be you can name the beneficiaries
of it in EU? Farmers? Businesses? Common people? Methinks - only politicians following in the
wake of Uncle Sam's guidelines. The President of Russia is no way a role model or a paragon country
leader, but seeing him behind every corner is nothing but a bout of anti-Russian paranoia. People
of that long-suffering country aren't actually represented by him only.
Theo Humbug 3 Sep 2015 04:29
How far back does history go?
Lat week, last month, Maidan Square, the fall of the Soviet Union?
If taken that far back, then people will surely remember Ronnie Raygun's promises to Gorbachev
that no NATO forces would encroach on former Soviet territory. Ehh?? What??
Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction
that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just
prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or
the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!).
So called separatists voted to stay with Russia, with whom they identified, despite the lies
and propaganda from the US/West/Nato including premature accusations of responsibility fro the
shooting down of MH17 .. funny how 1) the US never released it's data (another Pentagon "plane"?)
2) that has all gone very quiet... Wonder what they found?
Perhaps the putschist regime and/or their neo-neocon pay/puppet-meisters have woken up to the
very real danger of putting nazties withing 'Cooee' of nuclear weapons?
Of course, one does not need to be a nazti to call for nuclear mass murder. The blond plaited
heroine of the right, the ex jailbird, ex Prime Minister (for ganesh sake!!) Tymoshenko called
for the nuking of Donbass, if I remember correctly.
Russian now has the major Western forces and neonazis on their border. President Putin has
to deal with these murderers and the great unwashed, living in their encapsulating bubbles of
Newspeak and reality cooking shows, are told by the Mudorc press and other propagandists that
it is Russia that is pure evil.
I wish there were a god.
Tony Cocks -> danhudders 3 Sep 2015 03:59
" The airliner was almost certainly downed by a Russian crew "
But of course you have not one shred of evidence to support your statement in which case would
you agree it is valueless and was a waste of your time posting it in the first place.
RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 03:49
I think he said refugees crossed the border ........i am not sure that all refugees fill out
the application form?
400000 ? Look on the current 100000's refugees wave from the Asia/Africa to get an expression
how it looks like. Or on the last year summer wave of Ukrainian refugees in Russia - with large
refugee camps for temporary placements etc. You cannot get 400000 refugees to go "unseen" - especially
in case of relatively good-maintained land border.
martinusher 3 Sep 2015 03:09
Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by
the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that
prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think
in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where
Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white.
It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately
at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face.
(If you need any indication that something's not quite right in Ukraine then you only have
to look to the appointment of Saakashvili as the governor of Odessa last summer. He's best known
for his role as a Georgian politician, someone who, among other things, provoked a disastrous
confrontation with Russia.)
SHappens 3 Sep 2015 03:07
To begin with, volunteers who went off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining
Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during
the Maidan.
February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda)
implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities
against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures
we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the
police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.
These forces were subsequently beaten in the elections, thus rejected by the Ukrainian people.
However the first act of Poroshenko was to legitimate these irregular and illegal militias which,
absent in Parliament, have received the far more important power of arms, courtesy of the new
mixed Ukrainian-American government. Basically the only difference between the parliamentary majority
and the far-right groups is that the first take orders from the West, the latter don't.
These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much
of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise
the war in the East could not continue.
History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power
by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered,
rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and
exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin
or ISIS.
Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced
those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while
their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can
wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of
these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet
that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money
at will, in which Russia has no involvement.
Still, Poroshenko and Yatsenuk want more war and call for lethal arms supply. All this while
the rating of Ukrainian is now CC with negative outlook.
RVictor -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 03:02
400,000 refugees crossed the borders from Ukraine into the EU over the past year.
You are lying (surprise, surprise!):
"There were 4,603 applications for international protection in Germany, 3,600 in Poland,
2,956 in Italy, 1,962 in Sweden, 1,763 in France, 200 in Moldova, 60 in Romania, 60 in Hungary
and 20 in Slovakia," the UNHCR findings highlighted.
vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:16
"Russian TV focused on the events outside the Ukrainian parliament to prove to viewers
that chaos reigns in Ukraine. "
And doesn't chaos indeed reign in Ukraine? I thought that was beyond obvious and doesn't need
any additional proof.
vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:13
How about the more obvious explanation that Maidan, so much encouraged and celebrated by the
West, had taught Ukrainians that it is Ok to attack the police, try to pull away their shields
(see the photo above), through molotov cocktail at them (there was a picture on Monday) and grenades
in order to pass certain laws in their Rada.
vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:11
How exactly Russia is "profiting" from this? is this author just throwing the sentences around
or is he required to fulfill some anti-Russia quota in his article?
ArtofLies -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 02:09
There are undoubtedly going to be further problems with these nationalists, oh come on, we
can call the neo-nazi's or neo-fascists here, just because the journalists above the line cant
be seen to be propagandising for fascists does not mean that we have to play those semantic games.
the fact is this is the second time these fascists have attacked the police, this time with
grenades, the last time it was molotov cocktails, but the media wont criticise them because there
is money to be made in the ukraine, not everything is privatised yet and i hear there are still
dreams of fracking ukraine to prosperity.
nishville -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 01:43
The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline
and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist
veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government.
Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e.
they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive,
they will start to disappear one by one.
They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show.
drrust 3 Sep 2015 01:38
Again you are instigating that the Minsk agreements were reached by western or international
powers in general, implying that angloamerica was part of this. The agreement was a sole and very
sucsessful initiative of Mrs Merkel, who took a reluctant Holland with her who solely sensed a
chance to be viewed as a statesman. The UK had already transports of war material underway.
elias_ -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 01:14
There's million in Russia although many of them may be hiding to avoid military service. Look
on the bright side, there's another 40 million of them and I bet most will want to move into the
land of milk and honey which is Europe.
MaoChengJi 2 Sep 2015 23:31
"But despite profiting from it, Russia is very unlikely to have perpetrated it"
Oh no, say it ain't so! How can any trouble in this world be caused by something that is not
The Dark Lord Putin?
And how is Russia 'profiting' from this, I'd like to know? Isn's this rather a case of the
western Russophobe industry suffering a loss?
Well, for sure the Russophobe industry suffering a loss is an undeniable victory for all humanity,
but putting it as 'Russia profiting'?.. Oh well, russophobes are weird creatures, I've noticed
it a long time ago.
retarius 2 Sep 2015 22:47
Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they
don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred.
eric lund 2 Sep 2015 20:43
How the USA rule sway the destinies of Ukraine flooding it with blood
One can get an impression that authorities of Ukraine, totally dependent on State Department
of USA, are doing anything – searching for spies, begging for money, getting weapons from USA
and Europe, suppressing dissidence, self-advertising and desperate propaganda, but not taking
the steps to peaceful regulation of conflict in South-East of the country and its economic rise.
According to the last research of Kiev international institute of sociology the rating of president
Petr Poroshenko has fallen three times, down to 13,6%, other candidates don't even get 5%. When
authorities are so unpopular, it is only left for them to turn the screws and continue witch hunting
at full throttle.
The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly
understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy".
In order to strengthen his worthless power Poroshenko fired seemingly over powerful chief of
Service of Safety Valentin Nalivaychenko, who had been transmitting information which often put
Poroshenko himself in not very bright light, to representatives of USA. And new chief of Service
of Safety Vasiliy Gritsak, who is very close to Poroshenko and was the head of his own service
of safety, at one dash arrested 40 colonels and generals allegedly for dissidence in his department.
Danger is getting closer for Home Affairs Minister Arsen Avakov. The chief military prosecutor
Of Ukraine Anatoliy Matios claimed that members of criminal organization 'Tornado', made on the
base of militia and appointed by Avakov from former criminals, had organized secret place in basement
floor of school to torture illegally captured people. The Ukrainian patriarch Filareth presented
a medal for sacrificing and love for Ukraine, so to say for perverted sadism while torments, which
are unofficially legalized by Ukrainian authorities.
At the same time the level of aggression of Ukrainian militaries is only picking up speed.
Thus, the Ambassador of Ukraine in USA Valeriy Chalykh without any scruples stated: We are getting
weapons, including lethal, and nobody can prohibit it to independent Ukraine. The other thing
is that it is not common to disclose these countries, but they are more than 10, only from Europe.
We have different level of technical and military cooperation, and at this stage it is only going
further.
Chillskier -> Paul Moore 2 Sep 2015 20:42
Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government:
He destroyed Ukraine's military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the
way) with Russian military, as any obedient CIA stooge will do.
He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should have benefit from it's
position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting Europe
from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come
up with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again.
So it is what Ukraine g-ment does, not what putin tells.
EugeneGur -> Chirographer 2 Sep 2015 20:35
everything would have been wonderful if Ukraine had not decided to finally reject the
brotherly embrace of Putin's Russia
Not everything, because by that time Ukrainian authorities have already ruined a lot. However,
there is little doubt that Ukraine would've been a hell of a lot better off if it hadn't followed
the path of the coup and indulged in anti-Russian hysteria. Has your mother ever told you that
quarreling with your neighbors is never a good idea?
Looking at the situation objectively, it is a good thing that the Kiev government is
trying to follow the Minsk plan.
Objectively? You? It would be a good thing if it were but it doesn't. These constitutional
changes have nothing to do with the requirements for the regional autonomy set out in Minsk II.
Nor have they been agreed to by the Donbass representatives, which makes the whole thing pointless.
But even these miserable changes had to be pushed through by Nuland, because Rada initially refused
to approved them. There are 13 points in Minsk II and so far Kiev fulfilled none of them.
Jeff1000 2 Sep 2015 20:30
Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome.
But those who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even
half of what he has achieved.
Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told.
He waged war in the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told
him to. He is a non-entity.
Julian1972 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:54
I know! I know!
Still, when the US funds its various Intelligence Agencies and Covert Overseas Operations Organizations
to levels beyond that which most of the rest of the world combined spend on their actual militaries,
it's hard not see why they end up being suspected of having sticky fingers in various pies.
Poor, innocent US...after all, all that money's just being spent on ergonomic seating and biodegradable
paperclips, right? Hahahaha!
nnedjo 2 Sep 2015 19:51
There is one more possible theory, which seems that the author has failed to notice.
Thus, due to the fact that the proposed legislation is far from what was envisaged by Minsk 2
agreement, and in particular is far from what would satisfy the pro-Russian rebels, the following
question arises:
Does this event may have been aimed to strengthen the claim that this bill is the most that Ukraine
can offer to the pro-Russian rebels, because, "for God's sake, even for this Ukrainians began
to kill each other in the middle of Kiev"?
TomFullery -> Chillskier 2 Sep 2015 19:47
You are right about Ukraine's economy. I visit fairly often and each time I get more Hryvnia
for my Euros. Plus the restaurants are empty so you are guaranteed good service from serving staff
desperate for a tip to supplement their meagre wages (so much for joining the US "democratic"
system!).
Strange that the Nazi putsch in Kiev has benefited me (who wouldn't piss on them if they were
burning) rather more than 99% of Ukrainians.
Although I do notice that the Kiev Nazis seem to have taken one step in the direction of moderation
- the shrine to the Nazi Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera which was there erected about the
time of the putsch has now disappeared (most likely moved to a less conspicuous location).
Julian1972 -> desnol 2 Sep 2015 19:44
Dead right.
In penning the written equivalent of 'The Picture That Fooled the World':
maybe, at least, his 'confusion' is a symptom of his conscience trying to find it's voice.
Hehehe, maybe there's hope for him yet?
Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring
under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention.
NorthOfTheM25 2 Sep 2015 19:42
The Ukrainian regime in as much as they try so hard to have a resemblance of 'western values'
(whatever that means) & to avoid behaving like the powers that be at the Kremlin. At the end of
the day have the same approach in how they apportion blame & deflect attention from their obvious
failings.
When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties
share a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with
your political overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how
to which is through violence.
I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's
constitutional proposals.
TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:35
His Ukraine policy has two main prongs.
1. Make Putin realise that military aggression against his neighbours carries too high an
economic penalty to be worthwhile.
Nothing got military until the US-instigated Nazi putsch in Kiev. Strategic imperatives trump
short term economic considerations and Russia has reacted skilfully to the attack by the US using
Ukraine as a proxy (much to Ukraine's detriment)
2. Support Ukraine economically until it becomes a prosperous liberal democracy, like
the rest of Europe (Russia excepted of course).
Ukraine will be asset-stripped by US corporations. Ukraine will not be a prosperous, liberal
democracy in your lifetime and neither will the US.
Oligarchs in Ukraine are doing extremely well, obviously not a concern for a coup sponsors.
normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:33
Want an example of a twist?
Kerry warning Poroshenko against resuming hostilities, retaking territory in breach of the
Minsk agreement, then less than a week later Nuland rushing to Kiev to egg Poroshenko on, thoroughly
endorsing his plans
Hanwell123 -> Knapping 2 Sep 2015 19:28
He was the idiot who jumped the gun in the CIA plan to create a war in 2008. He went before
the whistle shelling an unprotected and unwarned city hours before he was supposed to. One of
Asias prize fools. So Poroshenko's made him - a non Ukrainian - Governor of Odessa. Great stuff
Poro!
TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:27
Despite Yanukovich's corruption he did a decent job of steering Ukraine down the middle path
between Russia and the US/EU and he was nobody's proxy. As for his corruption he was a mere pickpocket
compared to the like of Timoshenko who is not on any Ukrainian, EU or US corruption list!
This wasn't good enough for the neocons in Washington who wanted the whole country - hence
their instigation of the Nazi putsch in Kiev. It's gone downhill all the way for the Ukrainian
people since then considering they have lost a sizeable chunk of territory and now likely having
to move to some sort of federal system.
On top of those miseries they now have Finance and Economics ministers from Lithuania and Poland
parachuted in by the US and given Ukrainian citizenship on the day of their inauguration to their
respective posts. They also have US stooge and ex-Georgian president Sakaashvili and fugitive
from Georgian justice parachuted in as governor of Odessa. Let's not forget Joe Biden's son who
was appointed to the board of directors of one of Ukraine's biggest energy companies very shortly
after the Nazi putsch.
At least the east of the country is out of the hands of US corporate predators but it's a certainty
that agreements will be signed (if not already) to turn massive tracts of Ukrainian farmland in
the west of that country to US GM giants. I wonder how those US-loving west Ukrainians are going
to react when the horrible reality of US-style "democracy" hits home.
NorthOfTheM25 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:24
Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself & sound like a bitter divorcee who has lost a legal
battle. Nothing you have said has little bearing with the article.
But I guess each time the key trigger words Russia, Ukraine, Kremlin, Stalin & Moscow are mentioned
then just like Putin bots, you are also activated from your dwelling under the bridge to reel
out the tired & repetitive anti Putin bellicose rants.
normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:22
except it is the oligarchs who are prospering. Kolomoisky is under investigation for diverting
1.8 billion of IMF money to his own Cyprus bank account. Poroshenkos profits have increased astronomically
while all Ukrainians are taking pay cuts.
luckyjohn -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 19:03
Yanukovych contributed a lot to radicalise Ukrainian society. He planned his survival in office
by manipulation - stressing Tyannybok's importance to voters so that in the end there would be
a choice - Tyaynybok or himself Yanukovych for president. Of course - Yanukovych then wins because
the radical Tyahnybok is too "dangerous" to vote in. So much for your democratically elected president
Yanukovych! So the presence of radical elements in Ukrainian society is in fact Yanukovych's doing.
He was a very divisive president who played on divisions in Ukraine rather than trying to heal
them as well as being thoroughly corrupt.
virgenskamikazes 2 Sep 2015 18:37
I would believe the Western version if, after ousting Yanukovich, they would do a 21st century,
EU version of a Marshall Plan. If the EU had said to Yanukovich "we want to flood Ukraine with
Euro with very low interest and in long term, for investment in infrastructure and industrialization
projects - given that you cut ties completely with Russia" and Yanukovich had said "no" to that,
than I think it would be fair for the Ukranian people to oust him.
But the EU offered a humiliating, absurd shock therapy style reform, that's why Yanukovich
"no". Even imediate full EU, EZ membership was not on the table.
The thing is, the Ukrainian people bought on the fantasy that they could mass emigrate to central
Europe overnight had Yanukovich said "yes", that only them had economic problems, that the West
is the promised land, that we are still in the Cold War, etc.
Had Yanukovich hold on tight on power until two months ago, after the Greek tragedy, I doubt
there would be political strength for the USA and the Ukrainian far-right to oust him.
Beckow -> ArthurJenkinson 2 Sep 2015 18:32
He wrote a long article with bizarre conspiracy theories in order to confuse a very simple
attack by a Ukrainian nationalist mob on the police, killing 3 policemen.
The "theories" are there to obfuscate and confuse. We are close to the end game in Kiev and
it will not be pretty. And the angry hysteria among Washington, London and Berlin sponsors of
this madness will also get uglier. They don't like to lose so they would prefer just about anything
to admitting to being defeated in Ukraine.
Julian1972 2 Sep 2015 17:43
Poroshenko's assertion that Russia is to blame for this week's murder of policemen is of the
same Frankenstein DNA as his assertion that Russia was behind the downing of Flight MH17 and that
the Eastern part of The Ukraine's population are not democrats rising up against an illegal putsch
which brought him to power but are simply 'Kremlin puppets'...and therefore justifiably crushed
by the same type of gunfire that otherwise had Maidan martyrs held up as 'heroes'. (Even though
it was members of their own side doing the shooting, hahaha).
Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the
US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government
see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil
Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella.
BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:43
You can't even tell the difference between 'neo-fascist' and 'Nazi'.
If either term comes into your tiny mind it obviously defaults to imagining scenes from the
last days in the Führerbunbker - whatever turns you on.
Also, the IMF has always favoured right wing corporatist regimes, preferably with as little
democracy as possible.
desnol 2 Sep 2015 17:41
The author's puzzlement and confusion are directly proportional to how little he understands
the situation in Ukraine. He keeps wondering about various scenario's, each more absurd than the
previous.
I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are
organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in
order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves
up all by themselves!
And then, almost at the very end of the article, after all his fanciful, surreal speculation,
Andrey Kurkov hits the nail on the head with
"Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation."
But even then he gets it all skewed up, blaming the fact that Ukranian army went to fight the
separatists for the fact that the far right thugs are now armed and throwing bombs in Kiev. Doesn't
he realise they were armed and throwing bombs in Maidan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed
them in the first place.
The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke.
domeus -> thenewstranger 2 Sep 2015 17:30
At least he is an improvement on all the other Guardian journalists who report on Russia and
Ukraine. He connects the right wing group of people behind the killing of the of the policeman
in Kiev with those those who volunteered to kill their fellow countrymen in Odessa and throughout
the eastern and southern regions. Autonomy for the regions would have solved the problem then
and prevented the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering. But Nuland had other plans and the western
media acted accordingly.
Jessica Roth -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:14
The Maidan "protestors" were the ones who broke the cease-fire, shooting at both the Berkut
and their own people. The forensic evidence proved it. Did you not listen to the Urmas Paet-Baroness
Ashton phone call?
The "impeachment" of Yanukovich was illegal under the Ukraine constitution, which required
a 75% vote. Even with the US-trained thugs forcing MPs to the floor at gunpoint, only 72% of the
Ukraine parliament was present for the vote. Poroshenko has no more business being President than
the burnt and raped corpses of the people his Azov Nazis butchered in Odessa and Mariupol do.
(Although the corpses would probably do a better job.)
bonhiver 2 Sep 2015 16:49
I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia
has been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow
of yanukovic.
The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan
protests which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who
tarrgetted ethnic Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition
to granting extra powers to eastern territories is hardly surprising.
ositonegro 2 Sep 2015 16:44
The Azov battalion also declared they would bring the war to Kiev if not sated in Dombass.
You make a fascist revolution and the next move is to institutionalize it. Hitler did this very
well, destroying the populist SA movement and assassinating their leaders and incorporating the
remainder into the regular army. Then fascism could move forward with the whole state support.
But in Ukraine the EU-US used fascism to make the coup then tried to reign it in. The fascists
however cannot be institutionalized. They are still a powerful street movement with the added
benefit of having been trained and armed and given military space to grow. Now they are pushing
for policy dominance over the regular bourgeois political forces and using bombs to do it. The
Azov Battalion always said they would take the war back to Kiev if they felt betrayed.
It has to be understood that Poroshenko is not a fascist, despite coming to power on the back
of their efforts. The EU-US do not want the fascists in power. How could Ukraine enter the EU
with an outright fascist government? But they are playing with fire, using these street forces
and then renouncing them. It will come a time when they do not have either the legitimacy of the
power to stop another coup against themselves, and this time with no restraints. Then what will
the EU do?
While Greece founders under unsustainable debt and Eurogroup dictatorship, Ukraine is given
sweeteners, relieving 20% of their debt - something unimaginable with Greece. But you can't stop
a tsunami with Canderel.
"...Uber's "disruption" derives
mostly from skirting around labor laws and getting a lot of VC money amid promises to gouge their
workers and customers once they put the taxi industry out of business. So having to pay back wages
and payroll taxes and reimbursements would kind of blow up the whole thing." .
"...In other words, if you are driving around carrying passengers (or pizza) for money, you have
NO COVERAGE under your auto policy."
The best thing I've seen about Uber recently comes from about a month ago. The Wall Street Journal
wrote up a perfunctory story about the company's $50 billion valuation, and it included a very truthful
passage. So truthful, in fact, that presumably some PR flak got on the horn and made them change
it for the online edition. @NeilAnAlien
captured it
on Twitter.
Online edition: "The company hopes to attract enough drivers and passengers that its business
model becomes profitable."
Print: "The company hopes to build enough loyalty that it can charge customers more and pay drivers
less."
At this point I should mention that attempted monopolization is a criminal action under the Sherman
Antitrust Act.
But Uber has far bigger problems than that. A California judge is
threatening their
fiendish "Let's arbitrage state and federal law and replace a monopoly with a different monopoly"
plan:
Northern District Court Judge Edward Chen determined that 160,000 current and former Uber drivers
in the state could be treated as a class, which will allow a lawsuit against the company to go
forward. At stake are questions about the future of jobs in America and potentially billions of
dollars for one of the world's fastest-growing companies.
The lawsuit alleges that those drivers were misclassified as independent contractors rather
than employees, and that Uber has thus cheated them out of things that employees get under California
law, like reimbursements for gas, worker's compensation and other benefits. The lawsuit also claims
that the company failed to pass on tips to the workers.
Whether they'll get gas reimbursed is up in the air, it'll get decided later.
Class action lawsuits have become VERY difficult to certify at the federal level. I
wrote about this
a couple years ago in conjunction with the Bank of America HAMP modification case, where employees
for their servicing arm charged in testimony that they were told to lie and given bonuses for putting
people into foreclosure. That was tossed, because of minor differences in the individual homeowner
cases. The Supreme Court set the precedent for this in
Walmart
v. Dukes, creating a more stringent class certification test, forcing the complainants to prove
up-front whether the commonality of their claims was the most important factor in the case. Indeed
this is what Uber's lawyers argued – that Uber drivers are so diverse in their dealings with the company that they
can't possibly make up a single class. The goal is to divide and conquer, to force individuals to
pursue litigation alone (and be outgunned by Uber's legal team).
So if a federal judge is certifying the Uber class, in many ways they've cleared the biggest hurdle.
Uber has already lost a misclassification case like this at the California Labor Commission, but
because it was an individual driver suing and not a class, they only
had to pay $4,000. But Judge Chen saw right through Uber's gambit, writing: "Uber argues that
individual issues with respect to each driver's 'unique' relationship with Uber so predominate that
this Court (unlike, apparently, Uber itself) cannot make a class wide determination." In other words,
Uber insists that all their drivers are independent contractors, but when challenged on it, claim
they're all little snowflakes, no two alike.
Judge Chen did exclude drivers from the class who didn't opt out of a forced arbitration clause
in their driver contracts starting in May 2014. That's also fallout from a 2011 Supreme Court ruling,
AT&T Mobility
v. Concepcion, which effectively legalized putting mandatory arbitration in the fine print. Still,
since Uber was late to that scheme, the class could be substantial – Uber
says 15,000 but they're
almost certainly lowballing.
That's why you can expect Uber to appeal, and the same Supreme Court that backed up big business
and closed the courthouse door to workers in the Walmart case might get a shot to do that for Uber.
However, the rank stupidity of their argument – that everyone's a contractor but nobody's the same
– might be too much even for the Roberts Court.
If Uber ultimately loses this fight, forcing them to classify their drivers as employees, they
become just another car service. Anyone can build an app to hail and pay for a ride – the New York
City taxi system
just unveiled one this week, and e-hailing apps do very well globally. Uber's "disruption" derives
mostly from skirting around labor laws and getting a lot of VC money amid promises to gouge their
workers and customers once they put the taxi industry out of business. So having to pay back wages
and payroll taxes and reimbursements would kind of blow up the whole thing.
Uber is quietly gaining enormous power, almost feudal power, over its drivers. Remember, Uber
wanted to 'reward' drivers with a great paycheck. This works both ways. Are you an Uber driver
who is complaining too much about Uber
stealing your tips? Well, gosh, it seems like the magic algorithm keeps giving you bad customers.
Or no customers. Or think a few years down the road, when there is nothing but Uber in certain
localities. Then Uber can raise prices on consumers, who may have other options and can squeal.
But it can also lower prices paid to drivers, and these drivers are dependent on Uber for their
livelihood. In fact, Uber is even starting a
financing program for its drivers, so they can get loans for cars.
Remember, the customer doesn't even pay a driver, the payment goes through Uber. What are these
drivers going to do when Uber totally controls the market? Sue? Ha, not if they want the algorithm,
I mean the market pricing, to 'reward' them. And let's be clear, when a company offers low cost
financing for capital investment for independent contractors and controls all aspects of the transaction
and customer relationship, these are no longer independent contractors. They are employees. Only
in this case, they are employees who have taken on debt to work for Uber. Uber has figured out
that it is cheaper to trick people into thinking they are independent contractors and get them
to risk their capital. Then Uber can happily take the profits.
These are just the troubles Uber is having locally. In Mumbai the still-robust taxi union
has been on strike for two days, protesting Uber's expansion after getting a ban overturned in
June. In China there's a
local rival that has 80 percent of the car-hailing market and has been buying up competitors.
Korea's version, Kakao Taxi, is
emerging as a strong
competitor as well.
There's no special sauce to what Uber does. And if they are prevented from breaking the law in
the U.S., they'll just be another face among many, struggling for profitability.
NotTimothyGeithner, September 3, 2015 at 9:35 am
The insurers are in issue. Uber will inevitably be in lawsuits left and right as accidents
pile up. Judges go ballistic on pizza deliverers anyone working for tips, they will always
favor a non-uber claimant/plantiff/whatever with mind blowing evidence. A pizza delivery guy
and my older sister had a quirky run in, and the judge asked where they were driving. When he
heard pizza delivery, he ruled in favor of my sister. Taxis deal with regulatory
structures which at least requires a certain level of competence. A taxi driver would not have
hit my sister.
When insurers have to start dealing with lawsuits because Uber drivers weren't taking care
of their brakes, they are done. Uber and similar services will go the way of 30 minute pizza
delivery promises.
My guess is auto insurers want to get rid of Uber because they won't be able to determine
who is running a unregulated taxi service.
weinerdog43, September 3, 2015 at 10:04 am
Virtually every single personal auto policy in the US contains the following language under
the Exclusions section: "We do not provide Liability Coverage for any Insured; for that
Insured's liability arising out of the ownership or operation of a vehicle while it is being
used to carry persons or property for compensation or a fee." Go ahead and check your policy;
it's there.
In other words, if you are driving around carrying passengers (or pizza) for money, you
have NO COVERAGE under your auto policy. You are 'going bare'. This is why Domino's has
to buy commercial auto coverage for their drivers. The insurers don't care about Uber because
it is not their problem. (I'm an insurance coverage lawyer.)
washunate, September 3, 2015 at 7:45 pm
I'm mildly optimistic actually on that front. The independent contractor loophole to
employment law has become so egregious that I think there is serious interest in reigning in
the more extreme excesses a tad, releasing some pressure if you will, and Uber works great for
that. High public profile, low interconnectedness with the established power structure,
specific industry that heavily regulates workers.
Or to say it differently, I think Uber has violated the fundamental law of looting: don't be
so blatant about it that the legal system can't justify it without completely destroying their
own credibility. Face saving is key. If Uber drivers aren't employees, then even hugerer
numbers of workers are not employees than already aren't employees today, and I don't think
TPTB are in tight enough control to weather the fallout from that kind of logic. Especially
with how much political capital went into entrenching employment-based health insurance with
PPACA. Something the Roberts court found Constitutional, by the way.
The dangerous separation of the American upper middle class: The American upper middle class
is separating, slowly but surely, from the rest of society. This separation is most obvious in
terms of income-where the top fifth have been prospering while the majority lags behind. But the
separation is not just economic. Gaps are growing on a whole range of dimensions, including family
structure, education, lifestyle, and geography. Indeed, these dimensions of advantage appear to
be clustering more tightly together, each thereby amplifying the effect of the other.
In a new series of Social Mobility Memos, we will examine the state of the American upper middle
class: its composition, degree of separation from the majority, and perpetuation over time and
across generations. Some may wonder about the moral purpose of such an exercise. After all, what
does it matter if those at the top are flourishing? To be sure, there is a danger here of indulging
in the economics of envy. Whether the separation is a problem is a question on which sensible
people can disagree. The first task, however, is to get a sense of what's going on.
Skipping the extensive analysis covering:
"We are the 80 percent!" Not quite the same ring as "We are the 99 percent!" ...
Defining the upper middle class...
Upper middle class incomes: on the up...
"Where did you get your second degree?" The upper middle class and education...
Families, marriage and social class...
Voting and Attitudes...
The conclusion is:
Conclusion The writer and scholar Reihan Salam has developed some downbeat views about the
upper middle class. Writing in Slate, he despairs that "though many of the upper-middle-class
individuals I've come to know are good, decent people, I've come to the conclusion that upper-middle-class
Americans threaten to destroy everything that is best in our country."
Hyperbole, of course. But there is certainly cause for concern. Salam points to the successful
rebellion against President Obama's plans to curb 529 college savings plans, which essentially
amount to a tax giveaway to the upper middle class. While the politics of the reform were badly
bungled, it was indeed a reminder that the American upper middle class knows how to take care
of itself. Efforts to increase redistribution, or loosen licensing laws, or free up housing markets,
or reform school admissions can all run into the solid wall of rational, self-interested upper
middle class resistance. This is when the separation of the upper middle class shifts from being
a sociological curiosity to an economic and political problem.
In the long run, an even bigger threat might be posed by the perpetuation of upper middle class
status over the generations. There is intergenerational 'stickiness' at the bottom of the income
distribution; but there is at least as much at the other end, and some evidence that the U.S.
shows particularly low rates of downward mobility from the top. When status becomes more strongly
inherited, inequality hardens into stratification, open societies start to close up, and class
distinctions sharpen.
Mike Sparrow
The upper middle class will also be the ones who will be thrown to the wolves if everything falls
apart. Hubris is a bitch.
Sandwichman said in reply to Mike Sparrow
Lucky them if they're thrown to the wolves.
DrDick said in reply to Mike Sparrow
There is also this possibility (given the large number in the tech industry):
"I really don't know what you do about the "taxes are theft" crowd, except possibly enter a
gambling pool regarding just how long after their no-tax utopia comes true that their generally
white, generally entitled, generally soft and pudgy asses are turned into thin strips of Objectivist
Jerky by the sort of pitiless sociopath who is actually prepped and ready to live in the world
that logically follows these people's fondest desires. Sorry, guys. I know you all thought you
were going to be one of those paying a nickel for your cigarettes in Galt Gulch. That'll be a
fine last thought for you as the starving remnants of the society of takers closes in with their
flensing tools." (John Scalzi, http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/09/26/tax-frenzies-and-how-to-hose-them-down/)
Sandwichman
Factitious values and cost-shifting. It's all that's left, really. Everything else is just resource
depletion and overpopulation. Malthus was wrong! Then.
Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman
But not to worry. Nothing a little QE can't fix. Every time I get a bump or scrape I just rub
some QE on it and... all better!
Larry
My litmus test about the liberalness of (homeowning) liberals is whether they favor replacing
the mortgage interest deduction with a tax credit of fixed size. Those deductions are a huge UMC
subsidy.
Then you could talk about the massive federal aid to universities, again helping the 30% who
go but not the 70% who don't.
Sandwichman said in reply to Larry
Yep. The "Upper Middle Class" is nothing but cost-shifting and factitious values. Smoke and mirrors.
Punch one some time. It's like they are made out of twinkies.
anne said in reply to Sandwichman
Rubbish, not even sarcasm.
Dan Kervick
Maybe this is why economics has gotten so boring lately. For the upper 20%, which includes most
academic economists, there is a 100% recovery. So they have stopped talking about what is wrong
with American society, and gone back to talking about methodological issues, and about that time
someone called them a mean name in graduate school.
JF
President Obama might direct that all economic data become reported first on the data associated
with population who fit within the 90% strata and announce that this is being done to remind people
every day that the public's govt is supposed to govern with the bulk of society in mind.
The President's budget submission to Congress will discuss matters in this way too; that is,
how are the 90% affected. And as you know, I'd prefer that this grouping is done mostly on a Net
Worth basis, not income, so we have a constant reminder to consider economics looking at both
wealth and income - not just income for the coming year.
Of course the data that includes the 1% and the other 9% will be available too.
JF said in reply to JF
And I'd like academia to mirror this too. All studies will focus on the 90% and discuss from this
perspective.
Let the Koch-backed researchers do the other studies.
It really would be interesting to have all professors tell their students to only use data
for the 90% in their discussion papers.
Seven decades ago, the US dropped one atomic bomb on Hiroshima and one on Nagasaki, Japan. The journalistic
hook of that nice, big 7-0 means that mainstream outlets had an excuse to look back and consider
the decision to use the nukes. The conclusion remains mixed. There's some (vital) uncomfortableness
with the idea that the grand old US remains the only nation to use such a weapon on human beings.
But it never feels like a true black mark on the US, because, well, we won't
let it be one.
It is true
some
people – and some
polls suggest – that the anti-nuke side of things wins out more and more when we look at the
passage of time. Yet, it doesn't feel that way when the subject is discussed. Perhaps if you directly
ask whether nuking was justified (a surprisingly low 56 percent say yes in a 2015 Pew Research Center
poll), you may get one type of answer. But even ostensibly neutral history books that most children
use in most schools reaffirm this constant narrative of justification. The bombing ended World War
II, and America did it, and Hitler lost, and so it must have been good and right. It's easy to believe
this, and easier still if you don't spend too much time thinking about it. I read a great deal of
history before I realized that some very war-friendly, establishment people like Gen. Dwight Eisenhower
disputed the necessity of the bombing.
Another, narrower aspect of the question of justification lies with the second bombing. "Hiroshima"
is historical shorthand for the use of atomic bombs on human beings, the way Waco is shorthand for
the tragedy with the Branch Davidians, and Columbine means (what was once) the most horrifying school
shooting. That's how humans talk about things. But when we say Hiroshima, what do we mean? Do we
mean the fact of both bombs? Or just the first one? The afterthought that is the bombing of Nagasaki
rather brilliantly sums up the lack of care on the part of the defenders of the act. Let us say –
though we are wrong – that the first bomb on August 6 is morally acceptable because because we
have a crystal ball that proves a land invasion is otherwise necessary and it will kill one million
people. (Presumably, our crystal ball also tell us unequivocally that horrifically punishing citizens
for the crimes of their government is all right if you really feel like it. )
Given all of that, what makes the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9 acceptable? Nagasaki was the
last minute replacement for Kokura, which had blessed smoke and haze cover preventing the dropping
of the bomb. Kyoto had previously been suggested as a target, but was too beautiful. A dozen and
a half other cities were on the list earlier that spring, and Nagasaki was taken off, and then later
hand written on the draft strike order in late July. A decision this momentous and horrifying was
borderline spur of the moment.
Now, the parody news site The Onion actually sums up the Nagasaki situation brilliantly
(except for a predictable French joke). Their headline reads "Nagasaki Bombed 'Just for the Hell
of it.'" The sub: "second A-bomb would have just sat around anyway, say generals." The entire faux
article is worth a read.
It's painfully damning.
Three days is the patience that the US had for killing 40,000 or not. Three days for the Japanese
government to surrender. Three days is how much the people of Nagasaki were worth. That speaks volumes
about priorities. You cannot argue that this was some cold math problem that cannot be regretted
or coo that the US was doing it to save everyone's lives when you read about the bumbling,
last minute journey to drop Fat Man on Nagasaki. This is brilliantly
relayed in a recent New Yorker piece written by nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein. The
whole piece is essential reading, but two details that stuck out to me were the following. The warning
leaflets that hawks point to even in casual debate about the issue as proof the US meant to preserve
some life? Those warnings of a terrible weapon to come? They came on August 10.
Also illuminating is a list of some of the closest targets to ground zero. Yes, Fat Man took out
a torpedo factory and a Mitsubishi plant. Nearby were also: "Nagasaki Prison, Mitsubishi Hospital,
Nagasaki Medical College, Chinzei High School, Shiroyama School, Urakami Cathedral, Blind and Dumb
School, Yamazato School, Nagasaki University Hospital, Mitsubishi Boys' School, Nagasaki Tuberculosis
Clinic, Keiho Boys' High School."
Wellerstein also has a blog post from two years ago which asks
"Why Nagasaki?"
In it he goes over theories not as to why the city was picked, but why another nuke was dropped at
all. "No really, we mean it" is the official version. But as Wellerstein wisely notes, this is silly.
Did the US expect the Japanese to think this impossible new weapon had been a fluke? Some kind
of magic incantation? That's a terrifyingly weak excuse for killing so many people – making sure
they EXTRA got the point. So indeed is one theory that both plutonium and uranium bombs needed to
have proven they were worth the Manhattan project's enormous cost. Wellerstein doubts that one, but
it certainly has a ringing confirmation bias for those against the military industrial complex.
Wellerstein suggests that though Nagasaki almost escaped unscathed:
"To stop the atomic bombing would have been the unusual position. Go back to that original
target order: the only distinction is between the "first special bomb" and the "additional
bombs," not a singular second special bomb." And in his New Yorker Piece, he
also notes that Truman appears to have been uncomfortable destroying another city full of "all those
kids."
So there you go. There were only two nukes dropped, and none since. It could have been worse.
But this was not a country weighing competing interests like stopping Imperial Japan and not slaughtering
people. This was "hit 'em again to make sure they're down." A week would be too long to wait? Ten
days? A month? It seems that even people willing to do something as horrific as nuke a city could
wait a little bit to see if they must do it again. But, no. Because if it is on the table – if you
have just done it – then you will do it again. The Onion wasn't kidding.
And so they say two nukes ended the war, but what if the US had stopped at one? How do we know
that wouldn't have worked? Or they had needed five, or ten, or twenty nukes, all of Japan in a rubble?
Would that have been just as necessary as two? That's the margin of error war works with: scores
of thousands of lives lost. Maybe we needed to do it once, maybe twice. One or two bombs. Three if
we can finish that last one. The lack of specificity which doomed Nagasaki is haunting, and it proves
that the hawks are guessing just as much as anyone else.
Lucy Steigerwald is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and a columnist for VICE.com. She
previously worked as an Associate Editor for Reason magazine. She is most angry about police, prisons,
and wars. Steigerwald blogs at www.thestagblog.com.
"... The West tried to crash Russian economy ahead of the inevitable Ukrainian collapse, and it failed. So now the death-watch for the Ukraine's economy has started: default on loans, catastrophic drop in living standards and incomes, millions trying to emigrate, and energy dependency on Russia that might turn out to be fatal if there is a cold winter in Europe. ..."
"... Yeah, I can imagine Russians being jealous of Ukrainians. The economy is collapsing, the inflation is 40%, the far is going on, the armed Right Sector people are walking in the center of the city, the opposition leaders are suppressed and the actions are taking against the media that disagrees with Kiev. And while all of this, the corruption remains exactly where it used to be. Darn, the entire world is jealous of those lucky Ukrainians. ..."
"... Only US nutcases don't care about economy or living standards and prefer to play geo-political games with Ukrainians... ..."
"... And as for West "helping Ukraine" by cutting down the debt by 20%, this is the freshest interpretation of the event I've ever heard. It wasn't done to "help" Ukraine. The West agreed to do so to avoid even messier and costlier option of default and loosing even more money in Ukraine. Other than talking about giving some more loans to Ukraine in the future, the help to Ukraine from the West is now minimum. ..."
"... Land that has long since been signed over to Monsanto and DuPont as part payment for earlier loans. Ukraine's economy is in such a state that's it's obvious that it will form the next major refugee crisis, while Svoboda and Privvy Sector will almost certainly launch a coup to over-throw the Kiev government. ..."
"... Ukraine is bankrupt - negotiating to not pay back the full principal is the definition of a default. You can call it a "haircut" all you want, Ukraine has just defaulted - as in: they will not pay their full debts back. Who is going to invest there now? Other than EU taxpayers and IMF funny money men? ..."
The rest of Ukraine was descending into chaos, what with police and demonstrators being shot
and killed by unknown assalients from rooftops. Odessa , where 45 plus Ukrainian citizens were
trapped in a building which was set fire to by outside football supporters, then shot at and clubbed
when the citizens climbed out of the burning building seeking help. Would you risk yourself and
your family in such a situation or would you seek the protection of a friendly power?
Chillskier -> jezzam 30 Aug 2015 20:00
Ensure that Ukraine does not go under economically and eventually becomes a fully functioning
and prosperous liberal democracy.
It seems to be working pretty well..
NO it is not.
You need to talk to people who actually live there, it is a catastrophe
HollyOldDog -> truk10 30 Aug 2015 19:46
Ukraine should be wary of false friends who may lead then down a blind alley. Only today I
watched a very interesting TV program that puts the continueing existance of Monsanto into serious
doubt. The program was about wheat in terms of the future of Global Warming where presentment
her patterns within seasons would vary widely. Is it the right course of action to choose types
of GM wheat where seasonal rains would pop up at inconvenient times ( which a farmer would pay
'through the nose for') or to allow your wheats to choose the correct wheat for the growing conditions
it encounters. Some of the Wheats on test where from the times of the ancient Egyptians while
the oldest variety was around 9000 years old. Instead of gene splicing and growing micro cultures
in a lab followed by years of field testing , perhaps we should just look what our ancestors did.
I know this is not exactly on topic but I am trying to suggest Not to believe the latest SPIN,
just because it is new. NEW SPIN does not equal TRUTH. IF something looks to be too good to be
true then it is too good to be true - Forbes, verify your stories before you publish.
Beckow -> impartial12 30 Aug 2015 18:41
"Ukraine is important to the West because of its encroachment strategy against Russia"
The strategy is to somehow take over Russia by either having Yeltsin-like puppets in power
again, or maybe by physically taking it apart (separatism). The "encroachment" is just the means
to that end.
Russians had two choices when the coup happened in Kiev on the last day of the Sochi Olympics:
- do nothing and hope for the best; maybe Ukraine would run into economic troubles, maybe
it would collapse into infighting like after the Orange revolution
- quickly save what could be saved - Crimea, bases, Donbass Russians - and squeeze Ukraine
economically until it collapses
The West was surprised that Russia went for the second option and decided to fight. I think
Russia decided that this was their best chance to resist, and that facts on the ground in Ukraine
were in their favor. So far it has worked for Russia, thus the almost hysterical anger in the
West.
Beckow -> Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:55
Stay sober. Russia's economy is down 4%, that's not "go down in flames". E.g. EU economy dropped
6-9% after '09, and people are ok, kind of.
The real issue is with the Ukrainian economy and living standards. Russia's per capita income
this year is 10 times higher than Ukraine's. That's very substantial, that's why about 3 million
Ukrainians work in Russia and more are coming each month.
The West tried to crash Russian economy ahead of the inevitable Ukrainian collapse, and
it failed. So now the death-watch for the Ukraine's economy has started: default on loans, catastrophic
drop in living standards and incomes, millions trying to emigrate, and energy dependency on Russia
that might turn out to be fatal if there is a cold winter in Europe.
vr13vr -> CedricH 30 Aug 2015 17:55
Yeah, I can imagine Russians being jealous of Ukrainians. The economy is collapsing, the
inflation is 40%, the far is going on, the armed Right Sector people are walking in the center
of the city, the opposition leaders are suppressed and the actions are taking against the media
that disagrees with Kiev. And while all of this, the corruption remains exactly where it used
to be. Darn, the entire world is jealous of those lucky Ukrainians.
Beckow -> Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 17:47
"it denies the Ukrainian people any sort of agency what so ever and at the same time ignores
that the elections within the Ukraine have not been called free or fair for a generation"
I wrote 'assisted in an overthrow' - do you get the meaning of the verb "to assist"? Assisting
in an overthrow of an elected president is by any definition illegal and unconstitutional - all
else that followed has to be examined in that light.
Elections in Ukraine have been free and fair and declared so by EU itself many times. Yanukovitch
won fair and square. Russian speakers (or supporters) used to get roughly 50% of the vote, sometimes
more, sometimes little bit less. Their party - Party of Regions - was outlawed. So maybe they
are listened to, but in a very constrained way - they are certainly not equal to the Western Ukrainians.
That's why some of them started a civil war.
You don't address any of the disastrous economic consequences of Maidan and the war: Ukraine
is suffering and is much worse off than two years ago. There is no economic prosperity possible
in Ukraine without Russian cooperation (energy, imports, food, investments). That is a reality
that cannot be wished away. Unless Ukraine adjusts to being a poor, agrarian country, that exports
millions of workers, with living standards maybe like in Albania or Tunis (at best), they will
have to make peace with Russia and its own Russian leaning population. There is no other way,
even Germany and France have officially told Kiev that much.
Only US nutcases don't care about economy or living standards and prefer to play geo-political
games with Ukrainians...
SHappens -> Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 17:42
Ukraine can prosper perfectly well on its own, just like any other county under the right
leadership.
which they dont have. On the other hand when a big part of the country doesn't want to align
with the "West" they should be heard. That's what is called democracy
vr13vr 30 Aug 2015 16:09
Clueless. The "low intensity" fight continues, but it's evident that the chances of Kiev to
establish full control of the area are non-existent, and it is Kiev who is looking for a grace
saving exit at this point.
And as for West "helping Ukraine" by cutting down the debt by 20%, this is the freshest
interpretation of the event I've ever heard. It wasn't done to "help" Ukraine. The West agreed
to do so to avoid even messier and costlier option of default and loosing even more money in Ukraine.
Other than talking about giving some more loans to Ukraine in the future, the help to Ukraine
from the West is now minimum.
BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 30 Aug 2015 16:33
Moreover, a country with the agricultural resources of Ukraine
Land that has long since been signed over to Monsanto and DuPont as part payment for earlier
loans. Ukraine's economy is in such a state that's it's obvious that it will form the next major
refugee crisis, while Svoboda and Privvy Sector will almost certainly launch a coup to over-throw
the Kiev government.
Iraq, Libya, Ukraine - you can pretty much guarantee that wherever the West intervenes or interferes,
chaos and destruction is pretty much 'nailed-on'.
Laurence Johnson -> Beckow 30 Aug 2015 16:05
You make some very sober points. Ukraine is indeed destined to be a wasteland similar to Libya
and Syria. The scorch and burn policy of "if I cant have it, nobody can have it" is very clear.
I suspect that in twenty years time East Ukraine will be an economic miracle that engages with
Asia via Russia. As for Kiev I suspect they will still be arguing about which Oligarch has the
biggest pair of balls.
normankirk 30 Aug 2015 15:56
under the Minsk agreement, the border comes back under Ukrainian control, only when Ukraine
has done the necessary constitutional reform that grants autonomy to the Donbas. So far, Kiev
has dragged the chain , and to this day has refused dialogue with the leaders of the DPR and LPR.Poroshenko
has openly boasted of using the ceasefire to build up another military assault on the eastern
Ukrainians , and has vowed to reclaim all the terrItory by force.All this is in breach of the
Minsk agreement Articles like this, with their bias and misinformation destroys the credibility
of the guardian
This time the ceasefire may work because Merkel and Hollande have pressured Poroshenko, but
I'm not holding my breath.
Parangaricurimicuaro 30 Aug 2015 15:45
I think that Europe is having to much on its plate. Terrorism problems, energy insecurity,
bailing out Greece, refugees escaping wars south of the Mediterranean, aging population etc. so
maybe it is most than they could possible chew. Reality is sobering everyone.
SHappens Agrajag3k 30 Aug 2015 15:36
Russia has no interest in seeing the war end or seeing Ukraine prosper.
Ukraine cannot prosper without Russia's market, that's an economic truth. Ukraine can even
less prosper without the Donbass. The West must accept to share Ukraine with Russia. Federalization
can make this possible and fulfill every country's ambitions and will, except for one country
overseas, taking part to the events, we dont know why or do we?
Beckow 30 Aug 2015 15:26
Half-truths are by definition not truths. To say:
"deadline for the internationally recognised border to come back under Ukrainian government
control"
Minsk also requires that Donbass has autonomy before border is turned over. How does one leave
out the other side of the story? It is like reporting on Soviet Union conquest of Berlin in 1945
without mentioning that Germany invaded Russia in 1941. Maybe that's next in the endless search
for just the right narrative where friends are friends, and enemies are, well the enemy is Russia,
end of story. No need to actually be accurate. About Minsk or anything else.
Ukraine is bankrupt - negotiating to not pay back the full principal is the definition
of a default. You can call it a "haircut" all you want, Ukraine has just defaulted - as in: they
will not pay their full debts back. Who is going to invest there now? Other than EU taxpayers
and IMF funny money men?
Time is definitely not on Ukraine's side: economy is down by 15-17%, inflation is 40-50%, incomes
are dramatically down to roughly Senegal-Nepal level, the exports to Russia that Ukraine used
to live off are down by more than 50% and dropping - and nothing is replacing the Russian market.
With living standards are on sub-African level and with no visa-free access to EU, no investments
(see the default above), and energy dependence on Russia, how can time be on Kiev's side? How
are they going to grow out of it? What and to whom are they going to export? How is the per capita
income going to grow? Today Ukraine income is 1/10 of Russia's per capita income (that's right
10%). How is time on Kiev's side?
West triggered an unnecessary catastrophe in Ukraine by assisting in an overthrow of an elected
government. Ukraine is divided, look at all elections, look at language usage, etc... half is
pro-West, half is pro-Russian. It is impossible to have a prosperous Ukraine without both having
a say in running the country. So sooner or later, Ukraine will either go back to its traditional
role as a buffer state, or it will break-up. There is no way one group can permanently dominate
the other. And that takes us back to the Minsk treaty that specifies that Donbass gets autonomy.
Maybe we should ask Kiev what happened to that part of the treaty. Why isn't it even mentioned?
impartial12 Tintenfische 30 Aug 2015 15:19
That is funny considering the amount of armaments building up among the former nations of the
Soviet Union neighboring Russia. The escalation in Ukraine had started with an illegal coup of
an elected government. And don't even get me started on the neo-Nazi tendencies of the new regime.
It takes two to tango, and the West clearly wants to play this game no matter what negative consequences
it may bring.
SHappens 30 Aug 2015 15:14
Kiev, backed by Washington who is using Ukrainian army foot soldiers, paramilitaries, foreign
mercenaries, Nazi-infested death squads and others hasn't stopped since initiated back in April
2014. Kiev flagrantly violated the Geneva and two Minsk ceasefire agreements straightaway. Moreover
Kiev has repeatedly refused to sit and talk with the people in the East and grant them autonomy
as per Minsk.
Surely Russia supports the eastern ukrainians, rightly, in a way or another, preventing in
this way a full war offensive by Kiev, however Russian's army is not present in Ukraine. President
Putin wants peace and has been calling for it since the very start of the event, that is the ATO
launched by Kiev back in 2014.
This is the Donbass who fights against Kiev. It is the US citizens who are forced to devote
scarce resources to the dying puppet regime in Kiev (who will not avoid the country's default
anyway + they have been downgraded), while Russia can stay away making peace proposals. If the
US wants to put the fire, they will put it so it is necessary to be able to quickly turn it off
to preserve what is most precious. That's why Putin considers peace of vital importance.
We can only guess who will be most effective - the US with their fuel container or the Russians
with their fire extinguisher?
This establishment stooge can't care less about employment. All he cares is 0.1%. . "..."and the labor market is approaching our maximum employment objective..." I stopped
reading there." . "...The wealthy special interests really want a rate hike. There must be a large amount of
profit riding on a rate hike." . "..."The Fed is being clear. They are not going to be responsible for full employment. Full
employment is up to Congress, fiscal policy and the administration. Of course, the GOP Congress will
block fiscal stimulus." We are ruled by idiots. " . "...Idiots [pandering to those who will get a larger piece of the pie, and] who don't care that
the "pie" shrinks. When the fed goes insane on rates the shorters (wall st gamblers/hedgers) and the
cash hoarders will celebrate. It is not idiocy it is [class treachery] selling out the masses for
the rentier class. A skirmish in the class wars, maybe Bernie would comment." . "...Industrial Deflation is what causes inflation to look "low". This was a problem in the
00's when consumer price inflation was being covered up by deflation in industrial prices. The way
prices are computed and trimmed don't always reflect reality. The deflation caused by the tech
revolution for industrial production needs to be outright stripped out of indices.
The mythical "full employment" or a overheated economy doesn't imply inflation is coming either.
This is where I reject most of the analysis on this board. Inflation didn't see it in 97 or
especially in 05. It failed. All you have left is to guess. " . "...What Fisher and the other governors can't and won't say is that they are very worried about
another major global downturn, and they are worried about the fact that if interest rates are not
higher when that recession hits, they will have no room to lower them sharply when they need to."
Let me start by asking if you feel like it gives the Fed a bad image to have a conference
in an elite place like Jackson Hole. Why not have the conference in, say, a disadvantaged area to
send the signal that you care about these problems, to provide some stimulus to the area, etc.?
I am delighted to be here in Jackson Hole in the company of such distinguished panelists and such
a distinguished group of participants.
Okay then. Let me start be asking about your view of the economy. How close are we to a full recovery?:
Although the economy has continued to recover and the labor market is approaching our maximum
employment objective, inflation has been persistently below 2 percent. That has been especially
true recently, as the drop in oil prices over the past year, on the order of about 60 percent,
has led directly to lower inflation as it feeds through to lower prices of gasoline and other
energy items. As a result, 12-month changes in the overall personal consumption expenditure (PCE)
price index have recently been only a little above zero (chart
1).
Why are you telling us about headline inflation? What about core inflation? Isn't that what the
Fed watches?
...measures of core inflation, which are intended to help us look through such transitory price
movements, have also been relatively low (return to chart 1). The PCE index excluding food and
energy is up 1.2 percent over the past year. The Dallas Fed's trimmed mean measure of the PCE
price index is higher, at 1.6 percent, but still somewhat below our 2 percent objective. Moreover,
these measures of core inflation have been persistently below 2 percent throughout the economic
recovery. That said, as with total inflation, core inflation can be somewhat variable, especially
at frequencies higher than 12-month changes. Moreover, note that core inflation does not entirely
"exclude" food and energy, because changes in energy prices affect firms' costs and so can pass
into prices of non-energy items.
So are you saying you don't believe the numbers? Why bring up that core inflation is highly variable
unless you are trying to de-emphasize this evidence? In any case, isn't there reason to believe these
numbers are true, i.e. doesn't the slack in the labor market imply low inflation?
Of course, ongoing economic slack is one reason core inflation has been low. Although the economy
has made great progress, we started seven years ago from an unemployment rate of 10 percent, which
guaranteed a lengthy period of high unemployment. Even so, with inflation expectations apparently
stable, we would have expected the gradual reduction of slack to be associated with less downward
price pressure. All else equal, we might therefore have expected both headline and core inflation
to be moving up more noticeably toward our 2 percent objective. Yet, we have seen no clear evidence
of core inflation moving higher over the past few years. This fact helps drive home an important
point: While much evidence points to at least some ongoing role for slack in helping to explain
movements in inflation, this influence is typically estimated to be modest in magnitude, and can
easily be masked by other factors.
If that's true, if the decline in the slack in the labor market does not translate into a notable
change in inflation, why is the Fed so anxious to raise rates based upon the notion that the labor
market has almost normalized? Is there more to it than just the labor market?
...core inflation can to some extent be influenced by oil prices. However, a larger effect comes
from changes in the exchange value of the dollar, and the rise in the dollar over the past year
is an important reason inflation has remained low (chart
4). A higher value of the dollar passes through to lower import prices, which hold down U.S.
inflation both because imports make up part of final consumption, and because lower prices for
imported components hold down business costs more generally. In addition, a rise in the dollar
restrains the growth of aggregate demand and overall economic activity, and so has some effect
on inflation through that more indirect channel.
That argues against a rate increase, not for it. Anyway, I interrupted, please continue.
Commodity prices other than oil are also of relevance for inflation in the United States. Prices
of metals and other industrial commodities, and agricultural products, are affected to a considerable
extent by developments outside the United States, and the softness we've seen in these commodity
prices, has in part reflected a slowing of demand from China and elsewhere. These prices likely
have also been a factor in holding down inflation in the United States.
So you must believe that all of these forces holding down inflation (many of which are stripped
out by core inflation measures, which are also low) that these factors are easing, and hence a spike
in inflation is ahead?
The dynamics with which all these factors affect inflation depend crucially on the behavior of
inflation expectations. One striking feature of the economic environment is that longer-term inflation
expectations in the United States appear to have remained generally stable since the late 1990s
(chart
6). ... Expectations that are not stable, but instead follow actual inflation up or down,
would allow inflation to drift persistently. In the recent period, movements in inflation have
tended to be transitory.
Let's see, lots of factors holding down inflation, longer-term inflation expectations have been
stable throughout the recession and recovery, remarkably so, yet the Fed still thinks a rate raise
ought to come fairly soon?
We should however be cautious in our assessment that inflation expectations are remaining stable.
One reason is that measures of inflation compensation in the market for Treasury securities have
moved down somewhat since last summer (chart
7). But these movements can be hard to interpret, as at times they may reflect factors other
than inflation expectations, such as changes in demand for the unparalleled liquidity of nominal
Treasury securities.
I have to be honest. That sounds like the Fed is really reaching to find a reason to justify worries
about inflation and a rate increase. Let me ask this a different way. In the Press Release for the
July meeting of the FOMC, the committee said it can be " reasonably confident that inflation will
move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term." Can you explain this please? Why are
you "reasonably confident" in light of recent history?
Can the Committee be "reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective
over the medium term"? As I have discussed, given the apparent stability of inflation expectations,
there is good reason to believe that inflation will move higher as the forces holding down inflation
dissipate further. While some effects of the rise in the dollar may be spread over time, some
of the effects on inflation are likely already starting to fade. The same is true for last year's
sharp fall in oil prices, though the further declines we have seen this summer have yet to fully
show through to the consumer level. And slack in the labor market has continued to diminish, so
the downward pressure on inflation from that channel should be diminishing as well.
Yet when these forces were absent -- they weren't there throughout the crisis -- inflation was
still stable. But this time will be different? I guess falling slack in the labor market will make
all the difference? More on labor markets in a moment, but let me ask if you have more to say about
inflation expectations first.
...with regard to expectations of inflation, it is possible to consult the results of the SEP,
the Survey of Economic Projections, which FOMC participants complete shortly before the March,
June, September, and December meetings. In the June SEP, the central tendency of FOMC participants'
projections for core PCE inflation was 1.3 percent to 1.4 percent this year, 1.6 percent to 1.9
percent next year, and 1.9 percent to 2.0 percent in 2017. There will be a new SEP for the forthcoming
September meeting of the FOMC.
Reflecting all these factors, the Committee has indicated in its post-meeting statements that
it expects inflation to return to 2 percent. With regard to our degree of confidence in this expectation,
we will need to consider all the available information and assess its implications for the economic
outlook before coming to a judgment.
You will need to consider all the available information, I agree wholeheartedly with that. I just
hope that information includes how poor forecasts like those just cited have been in the past, and
the Fed's own eagerness to see "green shoots" again and again, far before it was time for such declarations.
What might deter the Fed from it's intention to raise rates sooner rather than later?
Of course, the FOMC's monetary policy decision is not a mechanical one, based purely on the set
of numbers reported in the payroll survey and in our judgment on the degree of confidence members
of the committee have about future inflation. We are interested also in aspects of the labor market
beyond the simple U-3 measure of unemployment, including for example the rates of unemployment
of older workers and of those working part-time for economic reasons; we are interested also in
the participation rate. And in the case of the inflation rate we look beyond the rate of increase
of PCE prices and define the concept of the core rate of inflation.
I find these kinds of statement difficult to square with the statement that labor markets are
almost back to normal. Anyway, what, in particular, will you look at?
While thinking of different aspects of unemployment, we are concerned mainly with trying to find
the right measure of the difficulties caused to current and potential participants in the labor
force by their unemployment. In the case of the core rate of inflation, we are mainly looking
for a good indicator of future inflation, and for better indicators than we have at present.
How do recent events in China change the outlook for policy?
In making our monetary policy decisions, we are interested more in where the U.S. economy is heading
than in knowing whence it has come. That is why we need to consider the overall state of the U.S.
economy as well as the influence of foreign economies on the U.S. economy as we reach our judgment
on whether and how to change monetary policy. That is why we follow economic developments in the
rest of the world as well as the United States in reaching our interest rate decisions. At this
moment, we are following developments in the Chinese economy and their actual and potential effects
on other economies even more closely than usual.
I know you won't answer this directly, but let me try anyway. When will rates go up?
The Fed has, appropriately, responded to the weak economy and low inflation in recent years by
taking a highly accommodative policy stance. By committing to foster the movement of inflation
toward our 2 percent objective, we are enhancing the credibility of monetary policy and supporting
the continued stability of inflation expectations. To do what monetary policy can do towards meeting
our goals of maximum employment and price stability, and to ensure that these goals will continue
to be met as we move ahead, we will most likely need to proceed cautiously in normalizing the
stance of monetary policy. For the purpose of meeting our goals, the entire path of interest rates
matters more than the particular timing of the first increase.
As expected, that was pretty boilerplate. When rates do go up, how fast will they rise?
With inflation low, we can probably remove accommodation at a gradual pace. Yet, because monetary
policy influences real activity with a substantial lag, we should not wait until inflation is
back to 2 percent to begin tightening. Should we judge at some point in time that the economy
is threatening to overheat, we will have to move appropriately rapidly to deal with that threat.
The same is true should the economy unexpectedly weaken.
The Fed has said again and again that it's 2 percent inflation target is symmetric with respect
to errors, i.e. it will get no more worried or upset about, say, a .5 percent overshoot of the target
than it will an undershoot of the same magnitude (2.5 percent versus 1.5 percent). However, many
of us suspect that the 2 percent target is actually a ceiling, not a central tendency, or that at
the very least the errors are not treated symmetrically, and statements such as this do nothing to
change that view.
I have quite a few more questions, and I wish we had time to hear your response to the charge
that the 2 percent target is functionally a ceiling, but I know you are out of time and need to go,
so let me just thank you for talking with us today. Thank you.
bakho said...
The wealthy special interests really want a rate hike. There must be a large amount of
profit riding on a rate hike.
The Fed is being clear. They are not going to be responsible for full employment. Full
employment is up to Congress, fiscal policy and the administration. Of course, the GOP
Congress will block fiscal stimulus. Wealthy special interests would like the economy to be
less good by this time next year to tilt the presidential election their way.
ilsm -> pgl...
The fed (Cossacks) works for the .1% (Tsar).
Sandwichman
"and the labor market is approaching our maximum employment objective..."
I stopped reading there.
Peter K. -> Sandwichman...
Yeah. Nice appointment, thanks Obama....
ilsm -> Sandwichman...
Mc Donald's may have to start paying $7.75!!
pgl -> ilsm...
Actually some are paying $9. Oh my - a Big Mac might actually cost something.
ilsm -> pgl...
The big mac is helping out your embalmer.
Joke is most of us cannot afford anything more than a cremator.
Cardiologists follow Mickey D sales!
anne -> Sandwichman...
"and the labor market is approaching our maximum employment objective..." I stopped
reading there.
[ Really, really awful comment but limiting employment is what Stanley Fischer is all about
so the only surprise is in the saying so. ]
pgl -> Sandwichman...
But later he admitted there was ongoing economic slack. He sounded very confused.
Peter K. -> pgl...
On the one hand he's trying to inspire confidence in the economy, cheerlead, and clap his
hands to conjure the confidence fairy.
On the other he's being more realistic which hopefully is their frame of mind when making
interest rate decisions.
One is public relations, one is where the rubber hits the road.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Peter K....
A rubber chicken in every pot :<0
Peter K. said...
"Although the economy has made great progress, we started seven years ago from an
unemployment rate of 10 percent, which guaranteed a lengthy period of high unemployment."
It didn't guarantee it. An insufficient monetary-fiscal mix guaranteed a lengthy period of
high unemployment, wage stagnation and increasing inequality.
But at least inflation remained low and the deficit came down!
ilsm -> Peter K....
If UE rate counted people out longer than 26 weeks......
Italy ( 57.6)
Japan ( 71.8)
Korea ( 62.7)
Luxembourg ( 76.8)
Netherlands ( 76.5)
New Zealand ( 74.9)
Norway ( 81.4)
Portugal ( 74.3)
Spain ( 62.3)
Sweden ( 82.8)
Switzerland ( 81.8)
United Kingdom ( 76.1)
* Employment age 25-54
anne -> anne...
As in the child's game, one of these things is not like the other, the United States
employment-population ratio for men and women, and for women, from 25 to 54 was remarkably
lower than 19 of 24 developed countries in 2014. The exceptions were the austerity beset
countries Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece as well as Korea in which women are just entering
the workforce in significant numbers.
pgl -> bakho...
"The Fed is being clear. They are not going to be responsible for full employment. Full
employment is up to Congress, fiscal policy and the administration. Of course, the GOP
Congress will block fiscal stimulus."
We are ruled by idiots.
ilsm -> pgl...
Idiots [pandering to those who will get a larger piece of the pie, and] who don't care that
the "pie" shrinks. When the fed goes insane on rates the shorters (wall st gamblers/hedgers)
and the cash hoarders will celebrate. It is not idiocy it is [class treachery] selling out the
masses for the rentier class.
A skirmish in the class wars, maybe Bernie would comment.
Mike Sparrow said...
Industrial Deflation is what causes inflation to look "low". This was a problem in the
00's when consumer price inflation was being covered up by deflation in industrial prices. The
way prices are computed and trimmed don't always reflect reality. The deflation caused by the
tech revolution for industrial production needs to be outright stripped out of indices.
The mythical "full employment" or a overheated economy doesn't imply inflation is coming
either. This is where I reject most of the analysis on this board. Inflation didn't see it in
97 or especially in 05. It failed. All you have left is to guess.
Peter K. said...
Scroll, scroll, scroll:
Thoma:
"I just hope that information includes how poor forecasts like those just cited have been in
the past, and the Fed's own eagerness to see "green shoots" again and again, far before it was
time for such declarations."
Well put. This is probably why markets don't fear an uptick in inflation anytime soon. Quite
the contrary. It's probably partly why longterm inflation expectations are "stable."
A Cautionary History of US Monetary Tightening
By J. Bradford DeLong
BERKELEY – The US Federal Reserve has embarked on an effort to tighten monetary policy four
times in the past four decades. On every one of these occasions, the effort triggered
processes that reduced employment and output far more than the Fed's staff had anticipated. As
the Fed prepares to tighten monetary policy once again, an examination of this history – and
of the current state of the economy – suggests that the United States is about to enter
dangerous territory.
Between 1979 and 1982, then-Fed Chair Paul Volcker changed the authorities' approach to
monetary policy. His expectation was that by controlling the amount of money in circulation,
the Fed could bring about larger reductions in inflation with smaller increases in idle
capacity and unemployment than what traditional Keynesian models predicted.
Unfortunately for the Fed – and for the American economy – the Keynesian models turned out to
be accurate; their forecasts of the costs of disinflation were dead on. Furthermore, this
period of monetary tightening had unexpected consequences; financial institutions like
Citicorp found that only regulatory forbearance saved them from having to declare bankruptcy,
and much of Latin America was plunged into a depression that lasted more than five years.
Then, between 1988 and 1990, another round of monetary tightening under Alan Greenspan ravaged
the balance sheets of the country's savings and loan associations, which were overleveraged,
undercapitalized, and already struggling to survive. To prevent the subsequent recession from
worsening, the federal government was forced to bail out insolvent institutions. State
governments were on the hook, too: Texas spent the equivalent of three months of total state
income to rescue its S&Ls and their depositors.
Between 1993 and 1994, Greenspan once again reined in monetary policy, only to be surprised by
the impact that small amounts of tightening could have on the prices of long-term assets and
companies' borrowing costs. Fortunately, he was willing to reverse his decision and cut the
tightening cycle short (over the protests of many on the policy-setting Federal Open Markets
Committee) – a move that prevented the US economy from slipping back into recession.
The most recent episode – between 2004 and 2007 – was the most devastating of the four.
Neither Greenspan nor his successor, Ben Bernanke, understood how fragile the housing market
and the financial system had become after a long period of under-regulation. These twin
mistakes – deregulation, followed by misguided monetary-policy tightening – continue to gnaw
at the US economy today.
The tightening cycle upon which the Fed now seems set to embark comes at a delicate time for
the economy. The US unemployment rate may seem to hint at the risk of rising inflation, but
the employment-to-population ratio continues to signal an economy in deep distress. Indeed,
wage patterns suggest that this ratio, not the unemployment rate, is the better indicator of
slack in the economy – and nobody ten years ago would have interpreted today's
employment-to-population ratio as a justification for monetary tightening.
Indeed, not even the Fed seems convinced that the economy faces imminent danger of
overheating. Inflation in the US is not just lower than the Fed's long-term target; it is
expected to stay that way for at least the next three years. And the Fed's change in policy
comes at a time when its own economists believe that US fiscal policy is inappropriately
restrictive.
Meanwhile, given the fragility – and interconnectedness – of the global economy, tightening
monetary policy in the US could have negative impacts abroad (with consequent blowback at
home), especially given the instability in China and economic malaise in Europe....
Dan Kervick said...
"At this moment, we are following developments in the Chinese economy and their
actual and potential effects on other economies even more closely than usual."
I think this is probably the most important sentence in the entire speech.
What Fisher and the other governors can't and won't say is that they are very worried about
another major global downturn, and they are worried about the fact that if interest rates are
not higher when that recession hits, they will have no room to lower them sharply when they
need to.
Richard H. Serlin said...
But what about asymmetric loss Dr. Fischer?!
You have to know what that is.
Why don't you think the loss and overall risk is much bigger from pulling the trigger too
early than from pulling the trigger too late?
How is inflation that gets up to 3%, 4%, even higher single digits more of a danger than a
lost decade, severe unemployment (low labor force participation) and underemployment?
Especially when overly high inflation is far easier to remedy?
I really really wonder what you're really thinking.
Richard H. Serlin -> Richard H. Serlin...
And I also seriously wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that no one ever
making these decisions ever has any risk of ever being unemployed without means and with a
family to support.
"... the government conceded that it must pay a higher interest rate on the remaining debts. ..."
"... includes a four-year extension on repayments ..."
"... In Moscow, the Russian finance minister, Anton Siluanov, said Russia would not participate in the agreement. Ukraine owes Russia a $3bn eurobond due for full repayment in December. The need to repay Russia represents a dilemma for the IMF as it considers whether to pump further funds into Ukraine, possibly in conjunction with Brussels. It is not officially allowed to continue lending to a country that is in default to another sovereign. ..."
"... The Washington-based lender of last resort has already come up against criticism for its lending policy, which critics believe forces the government to pursue draconian austerity measures that will depress growth and increase its debts. Exotix credit strategist Jokob Christensen said the bondholders were the clear winners. "I have a hard time seeing how this deal will help reduce [Ukraine's] debt to 71% of GDP in 2020, which is one of the crucial targets in the operation," he said. ..."
Ukraine has secured a 20% writedown on $18bn (£11.6bn) of its foreign debts in a deal its finance
minister described as win-win...
... ... ...
The hedge funds holding Ukrainian debt will write off around $4bn in return for securities that
will pay holders a percentage of Ukraine's economic growth from 2021. But in a move that is likely
to dismay many MPs in the Kiev parliament, the government conceded that it must pay a higher
interest rate on the remaining debts.
The deal, which still needs to be approved by creditors outside the group, includes a four-year
extension on repayments to give Ukraine breathing space. But the interest rate on the bonds
will rise 0.5 percentage points to 7.75%. It ended months of tense negotiations aimed at helping
to keep the country on track with its International Monetary Fund-led bailout programme, plugging
a funding gap and preventing a unilateral debt default.
Ukraine's finance minister, Natalia Yaresko, who had sought a 40% debt haircut, said the deal
meets all targets set by the IMF bailout programme and would allow the country to move ahead. "Everyone's
done well out of this deal. That's why it's collaborative. It's not one side winning, it's a win-win
situation. We're all now moving forward without putting the value of the bonds at any further risk,"
she said.
Ukraine's sovereign dollar bond prices surged after the news, indicating that traders viewed the
remaining debt to be on a more secure footing. Its 2017 issue rose 8.7 cents to trade at 64.5 cents
in the dollar, according to Tradeweb data, while the 2022 bond rose 10 cents.
In Moscow, the Russian finance minister, Anton Siluanov, said Russia would not participate
in the agreement. Ukraine owes Russia a $3bn eurobond due for full repayment in December. The need
to repay Russia represents a dilemma for the IMF as it considers whether to pump further funds into
Ukraine, possibly in conjunction with Brussels. It is not officially allowed to continue lending
to a country that is in default to another sovereign.
The debt deal should help keep Ukraine's national currency, the hryvnia, stable and allow increased
spending on defence in the east,...
... ... ...
The Washington-based lender of last resort has already come up against criticism for its lending
policy, which critics believe forces the government to pursue draconian austerity measures that will
depress growth and increase its debts. Exotix credit strategist Jokob Christensen said the bondholders
were the clear winners. "I have a hard time seeing how this deal will help reduce [Ukraine's] debt
to 71% of GDP in 2020, which is one of the crucial targets in the operation," he said.
Gabriel Sterne, head of global macro at Oxford Economics, also cast doubt on whether the deal
would make Ukraine's debt levels sustainable and added: "There is a strong likelihood that they will
be back at the negotiating table before too many IMF reviews have passed."
Talks had been held up over a disagreement with creditors on whether to provide Kiev with a writedown
on the face value of the bonds. Kiev had initially sought a 40% cut. "We started in different places,
because the creditor committee didn't believe we had a solvency problem but my goal was not a particular
number, it was meeting those IMF targets," Yaresko said. She added that she hoped it was highly unlikely
that remaining creditors would reject the agreement and forecast that the process would be wrapped
up by the end of October.
The debt deal Ukraine has painstakingly negotiated with its creditors is welcome and preferable
to the alternative: a default that would have put additional pressure on the country's shaky banks
and led to both capital flight and a protracted battle in the courts. But amid all the backslapping
a bit of perspective is needed.
Greece has severe problems but Ukraine is the most troubled country in Europe. It has inflation
at 55%, its economy is expected to contract by 10% this year, and the government is fighting a war
with separatists in the east backed by Russia that is costly in both human and financial terms.
The deal involves a 20% writedown to the face value of $18bn of eurobonds and pushes back the
date on which the bonds will be redeemed by four years. Ukraine has some breathing space and the
accord means it will continue to be eligible for financial help from the International Monetary Fund.
That's the good news.
But the finance minister, Natalia Yaresko, had to scale back her ambitions once it became clear
creditors thought Kiev's threat to default was a bluff. She has had to offer higher interest rates
when debt payments resume and has had to accept a 20% writedown rather than the 40% she wanted.
Ukraine's debts remain high and its economy is in freefall. This agreement is a stop gap not a
game changer.
"...He added that he doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast
numbers of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it."
The first UN privacy chief has said the world needs a Geneva convention style law for the
internet to safeguard data and combat the threat of massive clandestine digital surveillance.
Speaking to the Guardian weeks after his appointment as the UN special rapporteur on privacy,
Joseph Cannataci described British surveillance oversight as being "a joke", and said the
situation is worse than anything George Orwell could have foreseen.
He added that he doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast numbers
of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it.
"Some people were complaining because they couldn't find me on Facebook. They couldn't find me
on Twitter. But since I believe in privacy, I've never felt the need for it," Cannataci, a
professor of technology law at University of Groningen in the Netherlands and head of the
department of Information Policy & Governance at the University of Malta, said.
... ... ...
But for Cannataci – well-known for having a mind of his own – it is not America but Britain
that he singles out as having the weakest oversight in the western world: "That is precisely one
of the problems we have to tackle. That if your oversight mechanism's a joke, and a rather bad
joke at its citizens' expense, for how long can you laugh it off as a joke?"
He said proper oversight is the only way of progressing, and hopes more people will think about
and vote for privacy in the UK. "And that is where the political process comes in," he said,
"because can you laugh off the economy and the National Health Service? Not in the UK election,
if you want to survive."
The appointment of a UN special rapporteur on privacy is seen as hugely important because it
elevates the right to privacy in the digital age to that of other human rights. As the first
person in the job, the investigator will be able to set the standard for the digital right to
privacy, deciding how far to push governments that want to conduct surveillance for security
reasons, and corporations who mine us for our personal data.
Mario_Marceau 26 Aug 2015 07:27
At the time of writing this comment, there are only 155 other comments. This is a very
important article. A crucial one. Nobody's reading. It is as though nobody gives a damn
anymore*. (Taylor Swift just opens her mouth and thousands of comments fill the pages.)
People have very clearly become numb to the idea of privacy mining. By this I mean everyone
knows that their privacy is being eradicated, we all despise the idea, but somehow, very few
get involved and are taking steps to prevent it from going further or, dare I hope, roll it
back!
After the revelations by Edward Snowden (a very important apex for TheGuardian), one would
expect the entire western world to be up in arms about unlawful government surveillance and
big corporation scooping our privacy away. Yet big brother and major corporations have been
able to perform 'damage control' with surgical precision, going as fas as manipulating or
intimidating the press, therefore keeping their precious status quo on the issue and keeping
people across entire nations hostage and on a very tight leash.
I hope Mr Cannataci is taking or will take into account the fact that the *people have
seemingly given up while in fact they are worried but don't know what to do anymore and feel
utterly helpless. I strongly believe this aspect of the whole fiasco on privacy constitute
perhaps the most important cog in the gear of online positive changes when it comes to taking
back our rights.
guardianfan2000 26 Aug 2015 00:55
British oversight of GCHQ surveillance is non-existent. If you live or work in Britain your
privacy is wholly violated on everything you do. Pervasive snooping.
luella zarf syenka 25 Aug 2015 23:54
Ultimately it may be necessary for anyone desiring real privacy to learn to code and build
his or her own encryption.
Also if anyone desires protection from abusive police officers it might be necessary to set up
a private army.
If you desire to avoid being poisoned by Monsanto it might be necessary to purchase giant
farms and grow your own food: corn, wheat, rice, avocados, melons, carrots, pigs, cattle,
tilapia, hazelnuts... and make cheese and butter!
And ultimately, for those of us desiring to avoid being cooked up by the fossil industry and
its minions, it might be necessary to acquire another planet, which we could call Absurdistan.
newschats4 Barbacana 25 Aug 2015 18:00
The Toshiba laptop - the least expensive model I could find as a replacement - came with
windows 8. I am trying to use the internet without getting hooked on all the expensive
come-ons, the confusing and even contradictory offers, amenities, protection programs (some of
which are scams) and other services, that unless you are in the business, most people don't
seem to know much about how they all work or what is really reliable or necessary. I don't
know how many times sites have tried to change my home page or provide a new tool bar to
control what I'm doing, just because I responded to a "free offer" like solitaire games. Ads
are enough pay off for those offers aren't they? Being electronically shanghaied is a step too
far. I even unchecked the box to opt out of the tool bar but got it anyway. Now I have to try
to figure out how to remove it again.
The personal computer business is the capital city of artificial obsolescence and quackery. it
is also highly addictive even for people who don't really need it for business. But having an
email address is almost as necessary now as having a phone number or even a home address. The
situation offered by most suppliers of equipment and even the providers is "take it or leave
it". But the internet is driving out the older print media (a subscription to a physical
newspaper is so much more expensive) and is becoming a requirement of classrooms at all
levels, so "take it or leave it" isn't good enough. For an industry intent on dominating all
aspects of life, "take it or leave it" can't be tolerated forever. I have tried at times to
read the policies I have to accept or not use the product and all the protection is one-sided:
the industries aren't liable for one damned thing: they could destroy your computer and you
couldn't do anything about it. But it isn't an honest choice if the user, having purchased the
product, has only the option to accept with no other provisions allowed, except refusal. You
can shop for all sorts of alternatives for access and protection but the sheep still have to
buy from the wolves to use any of them.
Statutes governing "mail fraud", as it is called in the US, should apply to dubious scams that
occur on the internet. The internet is very nearly a world wide public utility and as such
should be very heavily regulated as one. It is barely regulated at all and the industry seems
to be the only effective voice with regulators like the FCC.
You can't be spied on legally on the telephone system, or with the public mails, but
apparently anyone can do it with the internet as long as they know how to do it and know how
to go undetected.
BTW - I followed that link and saw no price mentioned.
FreedomAboveSecurity -> newschats4 25 Aug 2015 15:02
Not to mention that you had to agree to access to your computer by Microsoft before
activating Windows 8. The agreement states that they can shut down your laptop anytime they
find malicious files...indefinitely. You don't really own your computer under this agreement
or any of the programs you paid for in purchase. There is a clause about third party access,
too. One questions if the agreement provides backdoor authority. I returned both laptops with
8 on them. Oh...and you promised to connect to the net, preventing air-gapping as a privacy
tactic.
newschats4 25 Aug 2015 14:32
It is obvious that the consumer has little or no protection on the internet or even with
the manufacturers and providers. And even antivirus protection can, itself, be a form of
protection racket.
The internet is supported by industries that can make the problems they can then make even
more money on by claiming to solve them.
BTW - I have had a new laptop that I reluctantly purchased in January 2014 because I was
notified (and confirmed) that I had to get an updated program because windows XP was no longer
"supported". I wasn't getting updates anymore. But updates never said what they were doing or
why they were doing it. It is also very obvious that the personal computer works both ways. If
you can look "out", other can just as easily look in.
When I got the new laptop with windows 8, my first impression was it was glitzier but also
dumbed down. It was stuffed with apps for sale that I didn't want and I quickly removed. But
what really angers me about the come-ons is, updates have removed apps I did want and found
free online that someone doesn't want me to have. I had a free version of Google earth that I
downloaded easily but has since disappeared.
But now when I try to download the free version, the google earth site says that windows 7,
windows XP and one other are required but not windows 8. ?? I get an error message and am told
I have to download a site that will allow Google earth to keep a log of my hard drive so they
can determine why I get an error message.
I am sure that the execs at the top of the ladder know that the vast majority of internet
users are sheep to be shorn. But those corporate decision makers are also the only people in
key positions to know they can make the sheep pay for the razors that they will be shorn with.
And now the school systems are raising a new generation of sheep that won't be able to live
without the internet. They will feel helpless without it.
syenka -> Robert987 25 Aug 2015 12:44
Good point about the NSA and the GCHQ. However, neither of these outfits has magical powers
and really solid encryption can pretty effectively stymie their efforts to pry. The question
remains whether software purveyors can resist the government's insistence that there be a
backdoor built in to each program. Ultimately it may be necessary for anyone desiring real
privacy to learn to code and build his or her own encryption.
AdMelliorandum 25 Aug 2015 08:08
Better late than never…
Let's wish the United Nations first UN privacy chief, Mr. Cannataci, success in
"challenging the business model of companies that are "very often taking the data that you
never even knew they were taking"."
Likewise consider the ongoing investigation in Switzerland against Microsoft, as pertains
the alleged Windows 10 theft of client information and privacy violations.
See the corresponding article titled:
"Berne a lancé une procédure concernant Windows 10", (roughly translated as: "Berne has
launched a procedure concerning Windows 10"),
published on 24.08.15 on the "Le Tribune de Geneve" newspaper:
Excerpts from said article follow, translated using Google Translate:
"The federal policeman launched a clarification process on Windows 10 de Microsoft."
". . . infringement of privacy committed by Microsoft. He demanded the examination of several
issues related to the operating system of Windows 10."
"The computer program automatically captures and shares information from its users with
software vendors. They transmit them further, including for advertising."
"In Valais, the cantonal officer Sébastien Fanti had expressed his indignation at the
beginning."
"If Microsoft does not review its privacy policy, Windows 10 could be the subject of a
recommendation prohibiting the purchase" in the canton. . ."
wichdoctor 25 Aug 2015 02:32
I have been pointing these dangers out for over 20 years ever since the local authority
stuck CCTV around the town without any consultation. If these systems were only there to act
as spectators then the authorities should have no objection to slaving every camera to a
publicly viewable screen or even the web. Since they do object we have to suppose they are
using these things to spy on us.
Then there are the ANPR systems that allegedly log every vehicle journey between every town on
mainland UK. There is no trustworthy independent oversight on how the data is stored or used
just the usual "trust us we are the police".
Then there is the private stasi style database of the credit reference companies. No real
control over their compilation or use. Use extended from credit checking to being used in
employment references. Can even be used to track movements of a spouse by a vindictive ex.
DVLA? A long history of letting any gangster with a business card access to anyone's data.
Same with the electoral roll. Anyone wanting to avoid being tracked by someone bent on
violence such as an ex spouse or gangster can not safely exercise their right to vote.
I don't use social networking sites and until recently used an assumed name for voting. After
a career spent in IT specialising in data acquisition I'm well aware just how easy it is to
suck data a database using very basic tools. I hide my data as much as possible even though at
my stage in life I probably have little to fear from the state or even the bankers
WalterBMorgan 25 Aug 2015 01:11
In many respects we are the problem. As pointed out we give away our privacy too easily and
too cheaply. We accept massive CCTV intrusions because we fear crime unduly but don't wish to
pay for more police officers instead. We want free email, news, and entertainment if we can
get it so we end up with the KGB of the digital age following us about. We are bombarded with
advertising yet most of us don't fight back with ad blockers or protest the over intrusion of
billboard advertising. Government will spy on us and business will exploit us if we let them.
Both business and government can be good and necessary but we connive with their downsides
because it's cheaper.
JaitcH BritCol 24 Aug 2015 23:40
I live in an 'authoritarian' [state] and yet we enjoy more personal freedom that do people
in Australia, Canada, the UK and USA!
xxxsss MrPotto51 24 Aug 2015 17:16
Encryption is all well and good, but engaging in an encryption arms race with business and
governmental bodies is not going to end well; there is no point encrypting your emails if the
spies have backdoors in your OS or whatever.
We need to debate and then come to a truce, as well as clearly setting out what is
acceptable, and unacceptable, behaviour.
BritCol 24 Aug 2015 15:14
I agree entirely with this assessment, and especially how ominous surveillance has become
in the UK. When I grew up outside London it seemed to be the freest nation on Earth. We would
visit North America and found the city police to be gun-toting thugs (they still are) but
England has become the world's worst police state in surveillance techniques.
Not even Russia or China spies on its citizens as much.
Lafcadio1944 24 Aug 2015 14:06
Way too little way too late. Just think about the vast amount of personal data that is
already out there and the vast amount that is entered every minute. The dependence society and
business on the internet and the fact that the data on the internet is INDELIBLE!! Everything
having been collected by the NSA/GCHQ/BND etc could be accessed by hackers in the future who
could trust them to actually protect it. Even the super high tech super security company
Hacking Team which sells hacking and spying tools to governments and government agencies all
over the world (with no concern about who they are) was itself hacked. Given that and the fact
that the spyware and hacking techniques are becoming known by more and more people each day
how is an ordinary internet used to protect himself? - he can't. Look at the Ashly Madison
hack which was apparently done for purely personal petty grievances and adolescent morality.
This can only increase with all sorts of people hacking and releasing our data can only get
worse and the INDELIBLE data is always there to take.
We all thought the internet would be liberating and we have all enjoyed the movies, porn
social networking and the ability to make money on the internet but what has been created is a
huge monster which has become not our friend but our enemy.
well_jackson rationalistx 24 Aug 2015 13:59
"I doubt if George Orwell had the imagination to conceive of airliners being hijacked and
being flown into buildings, killing thousands."
I seem to recall George Bush saying a similar thing about his own government on countless
occasions following 9/11. The fact NORAD were carrying out mock exercises that same morning,
including this very scenario, seems lost on people.
As for the train shooting, it sounds like utter nonsense to me. This man well known to the
intelligence agencies but allowed to roam free gets stopped by Americans and Brits just as
hell is to be unleashed (I bet they were military or ex military weren't they? UK/US public
love a good hero army story).... smells like BS.
Besides, if these events tell us anything it's that surveillance never seems to work when
needed most (there are very limited videos of 7/7 bombers, the pentagon attack lacked video
evidence, virtually every nearby camera to the pont d'alma tunnel was not working as Diana
hurtled through to an untimely end, etc, etc)....
"...What we're seeing is that short-term thinking really hasn't taken into account the long run. And
that's why this is very much like the long-term capital market crash in 1997, when the two Nobel
prize winners who said the whole economy lives in the short term found out that all of a sudden the
short term has to come back to the long term." .
"...Well, companies themselves have been causing this crisis as much as speculators, because companies
like Amazon, like Google, or Apple, especially, have been borrowing money to buy their own stock.
And corporate activists, stockholder activists, have told these companies, we want you to put us
on the board because we want you to borrow at 1 percent to buy your stock yielding 5 percent. You'll
get rich in no time. So all of these stock buybacks by Apple and by other companies at high prices,
all of a sudden yes, they can make that money in the short term. But their net worth is all of a
sudden plunging. And so we're in a classic debt deflation." .
"...HUDSON: Well, what they cause is the runup–companies are under pressure. The managers are paid
according to how well they can make a stock price go up. And they think, why should we invest in
long-term research and development or long-term developments when we can use the earnings we have
just to buy our own stock, and that'll push them up even without investing, without hiring, without
producing more. We can make the stock go up by financial engineering. By using our earnings to buy
[their own] stock. . So what you have is empty earnings. You've had stock prices going up without really corporate
earnings going up. Although if you buy back your stock and you retire the shares, then earning the
shares go up. And all of a sudden the whole world realizes that this is all financial engineering,
doing it with mirrors, and it's not real. There's been no real gain in industrial profitability.
There's just been a diversion of corporate income into the financial markets instead of tangible
new investment in hiring." .
"...What people don't realize usually,
and especially what Lawrence Summers doesn't realize, is that there are two economies. When he means
a bad situation, that means for his constituency. The 1 percent. The 1 percent, for them they think
oh, we're going to be losing in the asset markets. But the 1 percent has been making money by getting
the 99 percent into debt. By squeezing more work out of them. By keeping wages low and by starving
the market so that there's nobody to buy the goods that they produce."
Michael Hudson, the author of Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy
Global Economy, says the stock market crash on Monday has very little to do with China and all to
do with shortermism and buybacks of corporations inflating their own stocks - August 25, 2015
... ... ...
And this is what most of the commentators don't get, that all this market runoff we've seen in
the last year or two has been by the Federal Reserve making credit available to banks at about one-tenth
of 1 percent. The banks have lent out to brokers who have lent out to big institutional traders and
speculators thinking, well gee, if we can borrow at 1 percent and buy stocks that yield maybe 5 or
6 percent, then we can make the arbitrage. So they've made a 5 percent arbitrage by buying, but they've
also now lost 10 percent, maybe 20 percent on the capital.
What we're seeing is that short-term thinking really hasn't taken into account the long run. And
that's why this is very much like the long-term capital market crash in 1997, when the two Nobel
prize winners who said the whole economy lives in the short term found out that all of a sudden the
short term has to come back to the long term.
Now, it's amazing how today's press doesn't get it. For instance, in the New York Times Paul Krugman,
who you can almost always depend to be wrong, said the problem is there's a savings glut. People
have too many savings. Well, we know that they don't in America have too many savings. We're in a
debt deflation now. The 99 percent of the people are so busy paying off their debt that what is counted
as savings here is just paying down the debt. That's why they don't have enough money to buy goods
and services, and so sales are falling. That means that profits are falling. And people finally realize
that wait a minute, with companies not making more profits they're not going to be able to pay the
dividends.
Well, companies themselves have been causing this crisis as much as speculators, because companies
like Amazon, like Google, or Apple, especially, have been borrowing money to buy their own stock.
And corporate activists, stockholder activists, have told these companies, we want you to put us
on the board because we want you to borrow at 1 percent to buy your stock yielding 5 percent. You'll
get rich in no time. So all of these stock buybacks by Apple and by other companies at high prices,
all of a sudden yes, they can make that money in the short term. But their net worth is all of a
sudden plunging. And so we're in a classic debt deflation.
PERIES: Michael, explain how buybacks are actually causing this. I don't think ordinary people
quite understand that.
HUDSON: Well, what they cause is the runup–companies are under pressure. The managers are paid
according to how well they can make a stock price go up. And they think, why should we invest in
long-term research and development or long-term developments when we can use the earnings we have
just to buy our own stock, and that'll push them up even without investing, without hiring, without
producing more. We can make the stock go up by financial engineering. By using our earnings to buy
[their own] stock.
So what you have is empty earnings. You've had stock prices going up without really corporate
earnings going up. Although if you buy back your stock and you retire the shares, then earning the
shares go up. And all of a sudden the whole world realizes that this is all financial engineering,
doing it with mirrors, and it's not real. There's been no real gain in industrial profitability.
There's just been a diversion of corporate income into the financial markets instead of tangible
new investment in hiring.
PERIES: Michael, Lawrence Summers is tweeting, he writes, as in August 1997, 1998, 2007 and 2008,
we could be in the early stages of a very serious situation, which I think we can attribute some
of the blame to him. What do you make of that comment, and is that so? Is this the beginnings of
a bigger problem?
HUDSON: I wish he would have said what he means by 'situation'. What people don't realize usually,
and especially what Lawrence Summers doesn't realize, is that there are two economies. When he means
a bad situation, that means for his constituency. The 1 percent. The 1 percent, for them they think
oh, we're going to be losing in the asset markets. But the 1 percent has been making money by getting
the 99 percent into debt. By squeezing more work out of them. By keeping wages low and by starving
the market so that there's nobody to buy the goods that they produce.
So the real situation is in the real economy, not the financial economy. But Lawrence Summers
and the Federal Reserve all of a sudden say look, we're not really trying–we don't care about the
real economy. We care about the stock market. And what you've seen in the last few years, two years
I'd say, of the stock runup, is something unique. For the first time the stock, the central banks
of America, even Switzerland and Europe, are talking about the role of the central bank is to inflate
asset prices. Well, the traditional reason for central banks that they gave is to stop inflation.
And yet now they don't want, they're trying to inflate the stock market. And the Federal Reserve
has been trying to push up the stock market purely by financial reasons, by making this low interest
rate and quantitative easing.
Now, the Wall Street Journal gets it wrong, too, on its editorial page. You have an op-ed by Gerald
[incompr.], who used to be on the board of the Dallas Federal Reserve, saying gee, the problem with
low interest rates is it encourages long-term investment because people can take their time. Well,
that's crazy Austrian theory. The real problem is that low interest rates provide money to short-term
speculators. And all of this credit has been used not for the long term, not for investment at all,
but just speculation. And when you have speculation, a little bit of a drop in the market can wipe
out all of the capital that's invested.
So what you had this morning in the stock market was a huge wipeout of borrowed money on which
people thought the market would go up, and the Federal Reserve would be able to inflate prices. The
job of the Federal Reserve is to increase the price of wealth and stocks and real estate relative
to labor. The Federal Reserve is sort of waging class war. It wants to increase the assets of the
1 percent relative to the earnings of the 99 percent, and we're seeing the fact that this, the effect
of this class war is so successful it's plunged the economy into debt, slowed the economy, and led
to the crisis we have today.
PERIES: Michael, just one last question. Most ordinary people are sitting back saying well, it's
a stock market crash. I don't have anything in the market. And so I don't have to really worry about
it. What do you say to them, and how are they going to feel the impact of this?
HUDSON: It's not going to affect them all that much. The fact is that so much of the money in
the market was speculative capital that it really isn't going to affect them much. And it certainly
isn't going to affect China all that much. China is trying to develop an internal market. It has
other problems, and the market is not going to affect either China's economy or this. But when the
1 percent lose money, they scream like anything, and they say it's the job of the 99 percent to bail
them out.
PERIES: What about your retirement savings, and so on?
HUDSON: Well, if the savings are invested in the stock market in speculative hedge funds they'd
lose, but very few savings are. The savings have already gone way, way up from the market. And the
market is only down to what it was earlier this year. So the people have not really suffered very
much at all. They've only not made as big of gains as they would have hoped for, but they're not
affected. ... ... ...
Michael Hudson is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. He is the author of
The Bubble and Beyond and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents. His most recent book is titled
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy.
"Mass surveillance is not about protecting people; it is about social control.
The
shadow government is its own enterprise, and it rewards those who pay obesiance quite richly"
Here is the second segment of a fascinating five part interview about the deep state and the mechanics
of what some might call corporatism.
You may watch all five segments of this interview at The Real News
here. Note that they are listed in descending order on the site, so start from the bottom
up to see them in order.
"... The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British High Commissioner in Percy Cox's Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started begging with humiliation: "Your grace are my father and you are my mother. I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand, you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my kingdom, if your grace commands me! ..."
Never let it be said that Britain's leaders miss an opportunity to inflame
fear and loathing towards migrants and refugees. First David Cameron warned
of the threat posed by "a swarm of people" who were "coming across the Mediterranean
… wanting to come to Britain". Then his foreign secretary Philip Hammond upped
the ante.
The chaos at the Channel tunnel in Calais, he declared, was caused by "marauding"
migrants who posed an existential threat. Cheer-led by the conservative press,
he warned that Europe would not be able to "protect itself and preserve its
standard of living" if it had to "absorb millions of migrants from Africa".
With nightly television coverage of refugees from the world's worst conflicts
risking their lives to break into lorries and trains heading for Britain, this
was rhetoric designed to stoke visceral fears of the wretched of the Earth emerging
from its depths.
Barely a hint of humanity towards those who have died in Calais this summer
has escaped ministers' lips. But in reality the French port is a sideshow, home
to a few thousand migrants unable to pay traffickers for more promising routes
around Britain's border controls.
Europe's real refugee crisis is in the Mediterranean. More than 180,000 have
reached Italy and Greece by sea alone this year, and more than 2,000 have died
making the crossing, mostly from war-ravaged Libya. The impact on Greece, already
wracked with crisis, is at tipping point.
On the Greek island of Kos, 2,000 mostly Syrian and Afghan refugees were
rounded up on Tuesday and locked in a sports stadium after clashes with riot
police, who used stun grenades to maintain order. Numbers reaching the Greek
islands have quadrupled since last year.
But nothing in Europe matches the millions who have been driven to seek refuge
in Turkey, Lebanon, Pakistan or Jordan. Set against such a global drama, Calais
is little more than deathly theatre. Britain is not one of the main destinations
for either refugees or illegal migrants – the vast majority of whom overstay
their visas, rather than stow away in the Channel tunnel.
Last year 25,870 sought asylum in the UK and only 10,050 were accepted. By
contrast, Sweden accepted three times as many and Germany had more than 200,000
asylum and new asylum applicants. Nor is Britain's asylum seeker's benefit rate,
at £36.95 a week, remotely the magnet it is portrayed. France pays £41.42; in
Norway it's £88.65.
What does suck overwhelmingly legal migrant workers into Britain is a highly
deregulated labour market, where workplace protection is often not enforced
and which both gangmasters and large private companies are able ruthlessly to
exploit.
The case, reported in the Guardian, of the entirely legal Lithuanian farm
workers – who are suing a Kent-based gangmaster supplying high street supermarkets
over inhuman working conditions, debt bondage and violent intimidation – is
only the extreme end of a growing underbelly of harsh and insecure employment.
If ministers were remotely concerned about "rogue employers driving down
wages" by using illegal migrants, as they claim, they would be strengthening
trade unions and rights at work. But they're doing the opposite. And they're
using the language of dehumanisation to justify slashing support for asylum
seekers' children, locking up refused applicants indefinitely and targeting
illegal workers far more enthusiastically than the employers who exploit them.
But what risks dividing communities can also turn them against such anti-migrant
crackdowns. In recent months, flash protests have erupted in London and other
cities against UK Border Agency attempts to arrest failed asylum seekers or
undocumented migrant workers. In areas such as Elephant and Castle, riot police
have been called in after UKBA vans were surrounded and pelted with eggs by
angry locals and activists trying to prevent the detention of people seen as
part of the community.
The chaos at Calais and the far larger-scale upheaval and suffering across
Europe could be brought under control by the kind of managed processing that
northern European governments, such as Britain's, are so keen to avoid.
'If the current US and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues,
expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come.'
'If the current US and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen continues,
expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months to come.' Photograph:
Yahya Arhab/EPA
But that would only be a temporary fix for a refugee crisis driven by war
and state disintegration – and Britain, France and their allies have played
a central role in most of the wars that are fuelling it. The refugees arriving
in Europe come from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, Somalia
and Eritrea.
With the recent exception of the dictatorial Eritrean regime, those are a
roll-call of more than a decade of disastrous western-led wars and interventions.
In the case of Libya, the British and French-led bombing campaign in 2011 led
directly to the civil war and social breakdown that has made the country the
main conduit for refugee trafficking from Africa. And in Syria, the western
funding, arming and training of opposition groups – while fuelling the rise
of Isis – has played a crucial role in the country's destruction.
If the current American and British-backed Saudi bombing campaign in Yemen
continues, expect Yemeni refugees to join the region's exodus in the months
to come. So the first longer term contribution Britain and its allies could
make to staunching the flow of refugees would be to stop waging open and covert
wars in the Middle East and north Africa. That is actual marauding.
The second would be a major shift in policy towards African development.
Africa may not be leading the current refugee crisis, and African migrants certainly
don't threaten European living standards. But as a group of global poverty NGOs
argued this week, Africa is being drained of resources through western corporate
profit extraction, extortionate debt repayments and one-sided trade "partnership"
deals. If that plunder continues and absolute numbers in poverty go on rising
as climate change bites deeper, migration pressures to the wealthy north can
only grow.
There is a genuine migration crisis driven by war and neoliberal globalisation.
Despite the scaremongering, it hasn't yet reached Britain. But it's a fantasy
to imagine that fences, deportations and better security can protect fortress
Europe. An end to the real plunder and marauding would be more effective.
ID0049691 nadel 13 Aug 2015 10:55
Why don't you start with yourself? How many of your ancestors like millions
of other Europeans, went to Africa, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand
and elsewhere to "settle" there over the past centuries? Now that the tide
is turning you and your likes do nothing but whine and accuse others of
being "left wingers". The left wingers seem to be the only people left with
human feelings.
Beastcheeks 13 Aug 2015 10:55
Thank you Seamus - a beacon of light amongst the marauding dirge of mass
media ignorance and hatred that characterises the current mainstream British
position. When I read many of responses to your reasoned arguments - I hang
my head in shame. Mass delusion and hatred not dissimilar to Nazi Germany
I'm afraid. The very fact you have to spell out the obvious truth - that
you can't bomb the hell out of people and then cry foul when they come to
us for safe refuge - beggars belief. I am well and truly disgusted and am
in the process of relinquishing my British nationality. No longer am I willing
to tolerate such ignorant intolerance in my name.
rentierDEATHcult 13 Aug 2015 10:51
Shias are not joining ISIS ... but the vast majority of Sunnis are not
joining it, either !?
Kurds are Sunnis - they're fighting ISIS.
Sunni tribes in Iraq are collaborating with Shia (often Iranian) militias
to fight ISIS.
Even fellow Sunni Jihadists in the al-Nusra Front (& affiliated brigades)
regard ISIS as ignorant nihilists and want to have nothing to do with them.
Your thesis about a Shia + Sunni conflict driving the wave of migration
into Europe is, simply, flawed.
Its utter nonsence, in fact.
Moreover, Shia and Sunni have lived amongst each other, largely, in peace
during that 1400 years. Prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, most
suburbs of Baghdad were mixed and a significant proportion of families shared
a dual Shia + Sunni tradition.
Rj H 13 Aug 2015 10:42
There are some good and bad points to all this as demonstrated on this
comments thread. There seems to be no real consensus and blame is shifted
from one side to the other (whether political, social, class or economic).
The only thing we (indigenous population) might all agree upon is; upon
stepping back and looking at the current state of the UK (formally Great
Britain) most of us will come to the conclusion that something has gone
wrong and the country and the UK is not enjoying good health. That fact
alone should demonstrate that those in charge are not doing their jobs properly.
Poor leadership across 40 years has damaged this country. A country that
once governed FOR its people now governs contrary to the majority of its
people's wishes. Those at the top are not capable (or indeed willing) to
look out for those at the bottom. We as a population are being hit and abused
by a government that cares only for the wealth and power of a select few.
Never have so many been owed so much by so few. The government has reduced
the people's voice to a hoarse whisper. We need to regain our voice and
SHOUT back that we won't stand for this situation any longer.
blueanchor rentierDEATHcult 13 Aug 2015 10:36
"How is Islam responsible ...?".
Aren't the battlelines across swathes of Islam's heartland in the Middle-East
drawn up broadly on Sunni v Shia lines? For instance I don't think you'll
find any Shia joining Isis. What you have now is an eruption of the Islamic
sectarian dispute which has been running on and off for 1,400 years, and
people are fleeing to escape it.
musolen David Hicks 13 Aug 2015 10:35
No, you're right, of course we don't, that's the point.
One sided trade deals are negotiated with massive distortion favouring
the big multinational corporations but listen to the IMF and all you hear
is we have to 'open up our markets to enable free trade'.
The US has more trade embargoes in place than any other nation and EU
is close behind and the irony doesn't even register on the faces at IMF
and World Bank trampling the world spreading their Neo-Liberal rubbish.
My point was that to have capitalism, if you are an advocate of capitalism
you have to accept those free movements of goods, money and people.
Paul Torgerson Rob99 13 Aug 2015 10:35
Well at least there is one person on here who has not swallowed the right
wing xenophobic crap. But the right wing press is doing a great job of brain
washing the populace. Examining the facts indicates a humanitarian problem
that will not in any way disadvantage Europe even if they allow ALL these
people to settle in Europe
wasson Bicbiro 13 Aug 2015 10:34
So you think if the UK minimum wage was lower than Poland they'd still
come? I'm afraid I'm going to have to to disagree with you there bic. They
come because they can earn in a week what they earn in 3 months in Poland.
Simple as.
rentierDEATHcult sludge 13 Aug 2015 10:32
If you know anything about Lawrence of Arabia (since you brought him
up), you would know that the British were collaborating against the Ottomans
by inciting Arab tribes to revolt against them.
The Ottoman state was seen as an Islamist bulwark against European colonialism,
especially, British imperialism.
So i'm not sure why you think the British would have undermined the Saudis
and handed territories they had seized back to the Ottoman Turks - against
whom the British were collaborating - (using the Saudis) !?
You need to understand and embrace this part of recent British history.
Because anyone that doesn't understand (or acknowledge) their history is
not to be trusted with the present.
bugiolacchi dragonpiwo 13 Aug 2015 10:28
UK is not part of Shengen. Non-EU migrants who work, live, travel freely,
and prosper in the rest of Europe need a visa to cross the few miles of
water between us and the continent.
As per the ID cards, every time they interview an 'illegal' immigrant,
one of the reasons given for coming here is that it is the only country
(in the world?) where one does no need to identify themselves when asked
(a 'utility bill' my socks...) and can drive without a driving licence or
car documentations with them, but to 'present' them later. A Christmas invitation
if one wants to 'blend' in the background'. Again, a 'utility bill' as an
idea.. hilarious!
rentierDEATHcult sludge 13 Aug 2015 10:19
The 'Gazzeteer of the Persian Gulf, Oman & Central Arabia' authored by
John Gordon Lorimer has now been declassified by the British government
and provides significant insight into the relationship between Abdulaziz
al Saud and the British colonial authorities.
The memoirs of HRP Dickson in his 1951 book "Kuwait and Her Neighbours"
provides further details on how Britain supported the rise of the Saudi
monarchy as de facto colonial agents of Pax Britannica.
Dickson was British envoy to the Gulf emirates and an aide to British
High Commissioner for Iraq - Sir Percy Cox
Dickson recounts this exchange between Sir Percy and Abdelaziz al Saud
during the conference in al-Aqeer in November 1922:
The sultan of Najd, Abdelaziz al-Saud bowed his head before the British
High Commissioner in Percy Cox's Iraq. His voice quavered, and then he started
begging with humiliation: "Your grace are my father and you are my mother.
I can never forget the debt I owe you. You made me and you held my hand,
you elevated me and lifted me. I am prepared, at your beckoning, to give
up for you now half of my kingdom…no, by Allah, I will give up all of my
kingdom, if your grace commands me!"
Moody's Investors' Service rates seven countries Caa1 or worse, several tiers lower than Ba1,
which still carries a significant credit risk. These countries are approaching or have narrowly escaped
bankruptcy. Ukraine is rated Ca, which is currently the lowest credit rating of any country reviewed
by Moody's.
... ... ...
Ukraine
> Moody's credit rating: Ca
> Moody's outlook: Negative
> 2015 Gov't debt (pct. of GDP): 94.1%
> 2015 GDP per capita (PPP): $8,278
Ukraine's conflict with Russia over its annexation of Crimea continues to fuel the country's financial
problems. While the IMF approved Ukraine's debt restructuring plan in March, Ukraine has the worst
credit rating of any country reviewed, downgraded this year from Caa3 to Ca, the second lowest possible
level. Creditors can expect a 35% to 65% recovery rate on loans issued by the country. According
to Moody's, "The likelihood of a distressed exchange, and hence a default on government debt taking
place, is virtually 100%."
The same day that Moody's issued the downgrade, the National Bank of Ukraine announced the establishment
of the Financial Stability Council. According to Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriia
Gonatreva, the Council's function will be to "take a comprehensive and systemic approach to identify
and mitigate the risks threatening the stability of the banking and financial systems of the country."
According to Markov, Kiev was only interested in the first part of the Minsk Accords, namely
in a panic to stop counter-offensive of Novorossiya army, after their debacle at Debaltsevo.
But they have zero interest in carrying out the rest of the accords.
Plus, according to Markov, Kiev is under instructions from their American masters, to continue
the war at all costs.
According to Markov, Kiev is actually carrying out a plan called the "Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan",
and I googled Gorbulin, but couldn't get any more information, so I don't know who this person
is.
But the main points of this Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan are said to be:
1. Kiev does not take on any (Minsk) obligations which involve peace-making moves.
2. Full blockade (of Donbass).
3. Continue artillery shelling of residential areas of Donbass, kill as many civilians as possible.
4. This in order to make life unbearable in Donbass.
5. The goal is to turn the residents against their leaders, in DPR and LPR.
6. Weaken Russia with sanctions.
7. Planning a military blitzkrieg against Donbass, on the model of the attack of Croatian army
against Serbian Krajina.
8. NATO will station troops in Kharkov, Zaporozhie and Dnipropetrovsk.
9. NATO will beef up Ukrainian army and prepare for fatal strike against Donbass.
10. The police state/dictatorship in Ukraine will be strengthened.
marknesop, August 7, 2015 at 5:45 pm
Volodymyr (Ukraine has to spell it differently so they can all high-five each other, the way
the British deliberately misspell "tire") Gorbulin is the former National Defense and Security
Council (NDSC) Secretary, now a personal adviser to Poroshenko. Looks a right Himmler type.
"... By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally published at DeSmogBlog . ..."
"... Originally stored on a private server , with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex 's (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create. ..."
"... The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio. ..."
"... David Goldwyn , who was the first International Energy Coordinator named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, sits at the center of the story. As revealed by DeSmog, the State Department redacted the entire job description document for the Coordinator role. ..."
"... The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also used his private " dgoldwyn@goldwyn.org " (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business. ..."
"... It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances, as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account. ..."
By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative
journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally
published at
DeSmogBlog.
Emails released on July 31 by the U.S. State Department reveal more
about the origins of
energy reform efforts in Mexico. The State Department released them as part of the once-a-month
rolling release schedule for emails generated by former U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton,
now a Democratic presidential candidate.
Originally
stored on a private server, with Clinton and her
closest advisors
using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to
break state-owned company
Pemex's (Petroleos
Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and
gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton,
now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped
create.
The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led
State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business
in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio.
The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also
used his private "dgoldwyn@goldwyn.org
" (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business.
It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances,
as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at
the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account.
"... 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)
"... 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.
ATHENS - A dynamic entrepreneur, Lavrentis Lavrentiadis seemed to represent a promising new era
for Greece. He dazzled the country's traditionally insular business world by spinning together a
multibillion-dollar empire just a few years after inheriting a small family firm at 18. Seeking acceptance
in elite circles, he gave lavishly to charities and cultivated ties to the leading political parties.
But as Greece's economy soured in recent years, his fortunes sagged and he began embezzling money
from a bank he controlled, prosecutors say. With charges looming, it looked as if his rapid rise
would be followed by an equally precipitous fall. Thanks to a law passed quietly by the Greek Parliament,
however, he avoided prosecution, at least for a time, simply by paying the money back.
Now 40, Mr. Lavrentiadis is back in the spotlight as one of the names on the so-called Lagarde
list of more than 2,000 Greeks said to have accounts in a Geneva branch of the bank HSBC and who
are suspected of tax evasion. Given to Greek officials two years ago by Christine Lagarde, then the
French finance minister and now head of the International Monetary Fund, the list was expected to
cast a damning light on the shady practices of the rich.
Lavrentis Lavrentiadis embezzled money from a bank he controlled, prosecutors say
Instead, it was swept under the rug, and now two former finance ministers and Greece's top tax
officials are under investigation for having failed to act.
Greece's economic troubles are often attributed to a public sector packed full of redundant workers,
a lavish pension system and uncompetitive industries hampered by overpaid workers with lifetime employment
guarantees. Often overlooked, however, is the role played by a handful of wealthy families, politicians
and the news media - often owned by the magnates - that make up the Greek power structure.
In a country crushed by years of austerity and 25 percent unemployment, average Greeks are growing
increasingly resentful of an oligarchy that, critics say, presides over an opaque, closed economy
that is at the root of many of the country's problems and operates with virtual impunity. Several
dozen powerful families control critical sectors, including banking, shipping and construction, and
can usually count on the political class to look out for their interests, sometimes by passing legislation
tailored to their specific needs.
The result, analysts say, is a lack of competition that undermines the economy by allowing the
magnates to run cartels and enrich themselves through crony capitalism. "That makes it rational for
them to form a close, incestuous relationship with politicians and the media, which is then highly
vulnerable to corruption," said Kevin Featherstone, a professor of European Politics at the London
School of Economics.
This week the anticorruption watchdog Transparency International ranked Greece as the most corrupt
nation in Europe, behind former Eastern Bloc states like Bulgaria, Romania and Slovakia. Under the
pressure of the financial crisis, Greece is being pressed by Germany and its international lenders
to make fundamental changes to its economic system in exchange for the money it needs to avoid bankruptcy.
But it remains an open question whether Greece's leaders will be able to engineer such a transformation.
In the past year, despite numerous promises to increase transparency, the country actually dropped
14 places from the previous corruption survey.
Mr. Lavrentiadis is still facing a host of accusations stemming from hundreds of millions of dollars
in loans made by his Proton bank to dormant companies - sometimes, investigators say, ordering
an employee to withdraw the money in bags of cash. But with Greece scrambling to complete a
critical bank recapitalization and restructuring, his case is emblematic of a larger battle between
Greece's famously weak institutions and fledgling regulatory structures against these entrenched
interests.
Many say that the system has to change in order for Greece to emerge from the crisis. "Keeping
the status quo will simply prolong the disaster in Greece," Mr. Featherstone said. While the case
of Mr. Lavrentiadis suggests that the status quo is at least under scrutiny, he added, "It's not
under sufficient attack."
In a nearly two-hour interview, Mr. Lavrentiadis denied accusations of wrongdoing and said that
he held "a few accounts" at HSBC in Geneva that totaled only about $65,000, all of it legitimate,
taxed income. He also sidestepped questions about his political ties and declined to comment on any
details of the continuing investigation into Proton Bank.
Sitting in the office of his criminal lawyer last month, relaxed, smiling and dressed in a crisp
blue suit and red-and-blue tie, Mr. Lavrentiadis said he found it puzzling that he had been singled
out in reports about the Lagarde list when other powerful figures appeared to evade scrutiny.
"My question is, 'Why me?' " he said. "I'm the scapegoat for everything."
In the interview, Mr. Lavrentiadis depicted himself as an outsider and upstart, an entrepreneur
in a small country dominated by old families who frown on newcomers. "I am not from a third-generation
aristocratic family," he said repeatedly.
Indeed, by some lights, Mr. Lavrentiadis fell in part because he rose too quickly and then failed
to secure enough of the right friends to protect him, a perception he did not dispute.
It's not Jeb Bush. It's Jeb Romney . "...Having grown up in an era when Americans had hope for the future, I was the one who walked away
angry, for her sake. People want to work – they just need real jobs." . "...this country has been abused by people who have no concept of working for a living, for way
too long Jeb has no concept of actually "working" for a living therefore it's not surprising that when
he opens his mouth stupidity falls out…."
The economic world is obsessed with growth - bigger revenues, more profits, broader markets (and
just not regulation). The bias came across today via Jeb Bush who, in answer to a question from the
Manchester, New Hampshire Union Leader, said the following:
My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as
the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has
to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through
their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get
out of this rut that we're in.
I remember once getting into a discussion with a number of corporate executives from public
companies. I was giving a talk on some plain-English filing requirements. The executives were
complaining roundly about more regulations. "It's killing us - KILLING US!" one literally said.
I turned to him and asked, "Did you have higher revenues this year than last?" He said, "Yes."
I asked, "Did you have higher profits?" "Yes," he answered. "Then you're not getting killed,"
I said. Yes, there are costs of regulations and there are times legislators can overdo things
because they're either justifying their own existence or trying to position themselves for reelection.
However, costs *have* been reduced. Companies are generally far more profitable now than in the
past. Regulations are necessary as companies have proven that without being compelled, they will
often do things that are bad for the environment, bad for communities, and bad for the economy.
That's why we have environmental legislation, anti-bribery laws, labor laws like overtime requirements,
and a host of other things. If companies are finding it too tough, they can raise their prices
(and they do that anyway on a regular basis) or make their operations more efficient. If they
can't, maybe they shouldn't be in business. If you want to take a market view, then take a full
one.
Elarie Rose
Amazing. I never thought to see a business oriented publication like Forbes tell the truth
about employers. A few weeks ago I had a casual conversation with a young women that I met casually
at a lecture. She was really lovely, well-spoken and intelligent. She works for minimum wage at
a supermarket, is trying to afford a few classes at a time at a community college, never expects
to own a house and assumes that she will never have children. The most chilling thing about the
whole conversation was her calm acceptance that this is just the way the world is, with no expectations
that life in America should be any different. She wasn't angry because everyone else in her age
group was in the same situation and thought it was normal.
Having grown up in an era when Americans had hope for the future, I was the one who walked
away angry, for her sake. People want to work – they just need real jobs.
wigglwagon
The only reason America ever had the MOST PROSPEROUS economy was because America had the BEST
PAID employees and consequently, American businesses had the customers with the most money to
spend. American business owners are SO GREEDY that they are using free trade agreements, immigration,
and deregulation to drive down wages and destroy benefits. In their quest for short term profits,
employers are destroying their own customer base.
Gregory A. Peterson
most of the hourly laborers that I know are more than happy to work a "few" hours of overtime
for a few extra bucks….here's the problem….a fair number of employers absolutely refuse to pay
overtime and IF an employee happens to get some overtime they are promptly reprimanded or written
up (I have actually worked for a couple of those companies)…..
companies want all their income to go into their pockets they seem to have forgotten the old
saying that one has to spend money to make money…..
this country has been abused by people who have no concept of working for a living, for
way too long Jeb has no concept of actually "working" for a living therefore it's not surprising
that when he opens his mouth stupidity falls out….
apparently it's a genetic issue within the Bush family…..
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?
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
When Naomi Klein published her ground-breaking book The Shock Doctrine (2007), which compellingly demonstrated how
neoliberal policy makers take advantage of overwhelming crisis times to privatize public property and carry out austerity programs,
most economists and media pundits scoffed at her arguments as overstating her case. Real world economic developments have since strongly
reinforced her views.
Using the unnerving 2008 financial crash, the ensuing long recession and the recurring specter of debt default, the financial
oligarchy and their proxies in the governments of core capitalist countries have embarked on an unprecedented economic coup d'état
against the people, the ravages of which include extensive privatization of the public sector, systematic application of neoliberal
austerity economics and radical redistribution of resources from the bottom to the top. Despite the truly historical and paradigm-shifting
importance of these ominous developments, their discussion remains altogether outside the discourse of mainstream economics.
The fact that neoliberal economists and politicians have been cheering these brutal assaults on social safety-net programs should
not be surprising. What is regrettable, however, is the liberal/Keynesian economists' and politicians' glaring misdiagnosis of the
plague of austerity economics: it is all the "right-wing" Republicans' or Tea Partiers' fault, we are told; the Obama administration
and the Democratic Party establishment, including the labor bureaucracy, have no part or responsibility in the relentless drive to
austerity economics and privatization of public property.
Keynesian and other liberal economists and politicians routinely blame the abandonment of the New Deal and/or Social-Democratic
economics exclusively on Ronald Reagan's supply-side economics, on neoliberal ideology or on economists at the University of Chicago.
Indeed, they characterize the 2008 financial collapse, the ensuing long recession and the recurring debt/budgetary turmoil on "bad"
policies of "neoliberal capitalism," not on class policies of capitalism per se. [1]
Evidence shows, however, that
the transition from Keynesian to neoliberal economics stems from much deeper roots or dynamics than pure ideology
[2];
that neoliberal austerity policies are class, not "bad," policies [3];
that the transition started long before Reagan arrived in the White House;
and that neoliberal austerity policies have been pursued as vigorously (though less openly and more stealthily) by the Democratic
administrations of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as their Republican counterparts. [4]
Indeed, it could be argued that, due to his uniquely misleading status or station in the socio-political structure of the
United States, and equally unique Orwellian characteristics or personality, Obama has served the interests of the powerful financial
oligarchy much better or more effectively than any Republican president could do, or has done - including Ronald Reagan. By
the same token, he has more skillfully hoodwinked the public and harmed their interests, both in terms of economics and individual/constitutional
rights, than any of his predecessors.
Ronald Reagan did not make any bones about the fact that he championed the cause of neoliberal supply-side economics. This meant
that opponents of his economic agenda knew where he stood, and could craft their own strategies accordingly.
By contrast, Obama publicly portrays himself as a liberal opponent of neoliberal austerity policies (as he frequently bemoans
the escalating economic inequality and occasionally sheds crocodile tears over the plight of the unemployed and economically hard-pressed),
while in practice he is a major team player in the debt "crisis" game of charade, designed as a shock therapy scheme in the escalation
of austerity economics. [5]
No president or major policy maker before Obama ever dared to touch the hitherto untouchable (and still self-financing) Social
Security and Medicare trust funds. He was the first to dare to make these bedrock social programs subject to austerity cuts, as reflected,
for example, in his proposed federal budget plan for fiscal year 2014, initially released in April 2013. Commenting on this unprecedented
inclusion of entitlements in the social programs to be cut, Christian Science Monitor wrote (on April 9, 2013): "President Obama's
new budget proposal ... is a sign that Washington's attitude toward entitlement reform is slowly shifting, with prospects for changes
to Social Security and Medicare becoming increasingly likely."
Obama has since turned that "likelihood" of undermining Social Security and Medicare into reality. He did so by taking the first
steps in turning the budget crisis that led to government shutdown in the first half of October into negotiations over entitlement
cuts. In an interview on the second day of the shutdown (October 3rd), he called for eliminating "unnecessary" social programs and
discussing cuts in "long-term entitlement spending". [6]
Five days later on October 5th, Obama repeated his support for cutting Social Security and Medicare in a press conference, reassuring
congressional Republicans of his willingness to agree to these cuts (as well as to cuts in corporate tax rates from 35% to 28%) if
the Republicans voted to increase the government's debt limit: "If anybody doubts my sincerity about that, I've put forward proposals
in my budget to reform entitlement programs for the long haul and reform our tax code in a way that would ... lower rates for corporations".
[7]
Only then, that is, only after Obama agreed to collaborate with the Republicans on ways to cut both the entitlements and corporate
tax rates, the Republican budget negotiators agreed to the higher budget ceiling and the reopening of the government. The consensus
bill that ended the government shutdown extends the automatic across-the-board "sequester" cuts that began last March into the current
year. This means that "the budget negotiations in the coming weeks will take as their starting point the $1 trillion in cuts over
the next eight years mandated by the sequestration process". [8]
And so, once again, the great compromiser gave in, and gave away - all at the expense of his (unquestioning) supporters.
To prepare the public for the long-awaited attack on Social Security, Medicare and other socially vital programs, the bipartisan
ruling establishment has in recent years invented a very useful hobgoblin to scare the people into submission: occasional budget/debt
crises and the specter or the actual pain of government shutdown. As Sheldon Richman recently pointed out:
"Wherever we look, there are hobgoblins. The latest is … DEFAULT. Oooooo.
Apparently the threats of international terror and China rising aren't enough to keep us alarmed and eager for the tether.
These things do tend to wear thin with time. But good old default can be taken off the shelf every now and then. It works like
a charm every time.
No, no, not default! Anything but default!". [9]
Economic policy makers in the White House and the Congress have invoked the debt/deficit hobgoblin at least three times in less than
two years: the 2011 debt-ceiling panic, the 2012 "fiscal cliff" and, more recently, the 2013 debt-ceiling/government shutdown crisis
- all designed to frighten the people into accepting the slashing of vital social programs. Interestingly, when Wall Street
speculators needed trillions of dollars to be bailed out, or as the Fed routinely showers these gamblers with nearly interest-free
money through the so-called quantitative easing, debt hobgoblins were/are nowhere to be seen!
The outcome of the latest (2013) "debt crisis management," which led to the 16-day government shutdown (October 1-16), confirmed
the view that the "crisis" was essentially bogus. Following the pattern of the 2010, 2011 and 2012 budget/debt negotiations, the
bipartisan policy makers kept the phony crisis alive by simply pushing its "resolution" several months back to early 2014. In other
words, they did not bury the hobgoblin; they simply shelved it for a while to be taken off when it is needed to, once again, frighten
the people into accepting additional austerity cuts - including Social Security and Medicare.
The outcome of the budget "crisis" also highlighted the fact that, behind the apparent bipartisan gridlock and mutual denunciations,
there is a "fundamental consensus between these parties for destroying all of the social gains won by the working class over
the course of the twentieth century". [10] To the extent there were disagreements, they were mainly over the tone, the temp,
the magnitude, the tactics, and the means, not the end. At the heart of all the (largely contrived) bipartisan bickering was how
best to escalate, justify or camouflage the brutal cuts in the vitally necessary social spending.
The left/liberal supporters of Obama, who bemoan his being "pressured" or "coerced" by the Tea Party Republicans into right-wing
compromises, should look past his liberal/populist posturing. Evidence shows that, contrary to Barack Obama's claims, his presidential
campaigns were heavily financed by the Wall Street financial titans and their influential lobbyists. Large Wall Street contributions
began pouring into his campaign only after he was thoroughly vetted by powerful Wall Street interests, through rigorous Q & A sessions
by the financial oligarchy, and was deemed to be their "ideal" candidate for presidency. [11]
Obama's unquestioning followers should also note that, to the extent that he is being "pressured" by his political opponents into
compromises/concessions, he has no one to blame but himself: while the Republican Party systematically mobilizes its social base
through offshoots like Tea Partiers, Obama tends to deceive, demobilize and disarm his base of supporters. Instead of mobilizing
and encouraging his much wider base of supporters (whose more numerous voices could easily drown the shrill voices of Tea Partiers)
to political action, he frequently pleads with them to "be patient," and "keep hope alive."
As Andre Damon and Barry Grey have keenly observed, "There was not a single mass organization that denounced the [government]
shutdown or opposed it. The trade unions are completely allied with the Obama administration and support its policies of austerity
and war". [12]
Obama's supporters also need to open their eyes to the fact that, as I have shown in an earlier essay, [13] Obama harbors ideological
affinities that are more in tune with Ronald Reagan than with FDR. This is clearly revealed in his book, The Audacity of Hope,
where he shows his disdain for
"...those who still champion the old time religion, defending every New Deal and Great Society program from Republican encroachment,
achieving ratings of 100% from the liberal interest groups. But these efforts seem exhausted…bereft of energy and new ideas needed
to address the changing circumstances of globalization". [14]
(Her own shortcomings aside, Hillary Clinton was right when, in her bid for the White House against Obama, she pointed out that
Obama's economic philosophy was inspired largely by Reagan' supply-side economics. However, because the Wall Street and/or the
ruling establishment had already decided that Obama was the preferred choice for the White House, the corporate media let Clinton's
comment pass without dwelling much on the reasons behind it; which could readily be examined by simply browsing through his own book.)
The repeated claim that the entitlements are the main drag on the federal budget is false - for at least three reasons. To begin
with, the assertion that the large number of retiring baby-boomers is a major culprit in budgetary shortfalls is bogus because while
it is true that baby-boomers are retiring in larger than usual numbers they do not come from another planet; before retiring, they
also worked and contributed to the entitlement trust fund in larger than usual numbers. This means that, over time, the outflow and
inflow of baby-boomers' funds into the entitlement trust fund must necessarily even each other out.
Second, even assuming that this claim is valid, the "problem" can easily be fixed (for many years to come) by simply raising the
ceiling of taxable income for Social Security from the current level of $113,700 to a slightly higher level, let's say, $140,000.
Third, the bipartisan policy makers' hue and cry about the alleged budget/debt crisis is also false because if it were true, they
would not shy away from facing the real culprits for the crisis: the uncontrollable and escalating health care cost, the equally
uncontrollable and escalating military/war/security cost, the massive transfer of private/Wall Street debt to public debt in response
to the 2008 financial crash, and the considerable drop since the early 1980s in the revenue side of the government budget, which
is the result of the drastic overhaul of the taxation system in favor of the wealthy.
A major scheme of the financial oligarchy and their bagmen in the government to substitute the New Deal with neoliberal economics
has (since the early 1980s) been to deliberately create budget deficits in order to justify cuts in social spending. This sinister
feat has often been accomplished through a combination of tax cuts for the wealthy and spending hikes for military/wars/security
programs.
David Stockman, President Reagan's budget director and one of the main architects of his supply-side tax cuts, confirmed the Reagan
administration's policy of simultaneously raising military spending and cutting taxes on the wealthy in order to force cuts in non-military
public spending: "My aim had always been to force down the size of the domestic welfare state to the point where it could be adequately
funded with the revenues after the tax cut". [15] That insidious policy of intentionally creating budget deficits in order to force
neoliberal austerity cuts on vital social needs has continued to this day - under both Republican and Democratic administrations.
Although the bipartisan tactics of austerity cuts are subtle and obfuscating, they can be illustrated with the help of a few simple
(hypothetical) numbers: first (and behind the scenes), the two sides agree on cutting non-military public spending by, let's say,
$100 billion. To reach this goal, Republicans would ask for a $200 billion cut, for example.
The Obama administration/Democratic Party, pretending to represent the poor and working families, would vehemently object that
this is too much ... and that all they can offer is $50 billion, again for example. Next, the Republican negotiators would come up
with their own counter-offer of, let's say, $150 billion. Then come months of fake haggling and passionate speeches in defense of
their positions ... until they meet eventually half way between $50 billion and $150 billion, which has been their hidden goal ($100
billion) from the beginning.
This is, of course, an overly simplified hypothetical example. But it captures, in broad outlines, the essence of the political
game that the Republican and Democratic parties - increasingly both representing big finance/big business - play on the American
people. All the while the duplicitous corporate media plays along with this political charade in order to confuse the public by creating
the impression that there are no alternatives to austerity cuts, and that all the bipartisan public bickering over debt/budgetary
issues vividly represents "democracy in action."
The atmosphere of panic and anxiety surrounding the debt/deficit negotiations is fabricated because the central claim behind the
feigned crisis that "there is no money" for jobs, education, health care, Social Security, Medicare, housing, pensions and the like
is a lie. Generous subsidies to major Wall Street players since the 2008 market crash has lifted financial markets to new highs,
as evinced by the Dow Jones Industrial Average's new bubble above the 15000 mark.
The massive cuts in employment, wages and benefits, as well as in social spending, have resulted in an enormous transfer of economic
resources from the bottom up. The wealthiest 1% of Americans now own more than 40% of the entire country's wealth; while the bottom
80% own only 7%. Likewise, the richest 1% now takes home 24% of the country's total income, compared to only 9% four decades ago.
[16]
This means that there really is no need for the brutal austerity cuts as there really is no shortage of financial resources. The
purported lack of resources is due to the fact that they are concentrated largely in the deep coffers of the financial oligarchy.
Ismael Hossein-zadeh is Professor Emeritus of Economics, Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. He is the author of
The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007) and Soviet Non-capitalist Development: The Case of Nasser's
Egypt (Praeger Publishers 1989). His latest book, Beyond Mainstream Explanations of the Financial Crisis: Parasitic Finance
Capital, will be forthcoming from Routledge Books.
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.
Does anybody know what Russia's plans are to try to prevent runaway climate change? Or is Russia's
government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions? Their
aggressive plans for oil drilling in the Arctic indicate the latter.
"Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas
emissions?" Sounds like a typical cheap shot against Russia to me. The country most oblivious
to the catastrophic effects, and one of the two the biggest contributors (with China), is the
good ole USA. Russian is at 6%, USA at 20%! Your propaganda driven prejudice is showing!
With Russia's utter dependence upon oil and gas, plus lack of FDI, they have no alternative
but to drill baby drill. Eventual regime change may increase their long term prospects.
Careful now. This could encourage blow-back from Barry Fay.
Let me just say that Russia is not a static society (education is prized). They can, and likely
will, create a more diversified/un-stratified economy going forward. As for regime change, that's
an habitual fantasy of folks who read only MSM propaganda. Putin, despite the grandstanding of
American representatives (98% return rate) has the support of 80% of the Russian population. Russians
are not stupid (See USA for comparison.)
2. At a time when China and parts of Eastern Europe remain dependent on highly polluting coal-fired
power plants, Germany is returning to coal following its phase-out of nuclear power, cash-strapped
EU countries are phasing out renewable energy subsidies, and many Eastern European nuclear plants
are overdue for retirement, natural gas remains a necessary – and environmentally friendly – energy
alternative. The only question then is where the gas to come from. The UK's oil and gas industry
is in terminal decline, large-scale imports from North America and the Middle East are a decade
or more away, and efforts to promote fracking-related gas production in Europe has failed for
a variety of reasons. To borrow a favorite line of the neo-liberals, "there is no alternative"
(TINA) to Russian gas.
3. Since the end of the Cold War, the West has aggressively used the WTO, investor-state dispute
tribunals, sanctions, propaganda campaigns, and "regime change" to punish resource-exporting nations
who limit, or attempt to limit, exports for environmental reasons. To the WTO, for example, environmental
laws in countries outside of Western Europe, the US, and Canada are illegal "non-tariff trade
barriers." Russian attempts to protect its old growth forests against timber exporters and Chinese
attempts to limit the environmentally disastrous (and often illegal) mining of rare earth ores
were both struck down by the WTO at the request of the West. If Russia were to limit oil and gas
exports for environmental reasons, the resulting legal, political, and military confrontation
with the West would dwarf the Cuban missile crisis.
Burning any hydrocarbon produces carbon dioxide, so natural gas is not "environmentally friendly."
There is clear evidence, too, that natural gas exploration and production release huge quantities
of methane into the atmosphere. EPA has proposed rules on that for producers (late and weak, of
course). Methane in atmosphere is over 20X as damaging as CO.
Russian scientists contribute much to
Climate Mayhem knowledge, especially in the rapidly changing arctic and on the threat of methane
release.
Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Pacific Oceanological Institute, 43 Baltiiskaya
Street, Vladivostok 690041, Russia
Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov, Anatoly Salyuk, Denis Kosmach & Denis Chernykh
Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Institute of Chemistry, 159, 100-Let Vladivostok
Prospect, Vladivostok 690022, Russia
Valentin Sergienko
To name a few.
One wonders if Russian climate scientists are censored and hounded as much as are U.S. and
U.K. researchers, especially in the US government (USGS, NOAA, NASA, etc.). Persecution and censorship
of US scientists is above McCarthey-esque proportions today.
Just like the War on Drugs is most successful when it focuses on reducing demand (drug users)
rather than fighting/bombing the suppliers (Mexico, Colombia, etc), the War on greenhouse gases
is best fought by reducing demand. If the Europeans find a way to no longer need so much natgas,
then Russia wouldn't be selling it to them. Otherwise, someone else will sell it to them regardless.
That doesn't completely exonerate Russia, of course, and given their history with the Aral
Sea, I'm not sure that they would put environmental concerns very high on their list of priorities
(certainly not higher than their economic security). But right now, the problem with greenhouse
gases is on the other end of all these pipelines.
The abandonment of South Stream was not much of a surprise to anybody with even a passing interest
in the energy politics.
Brussels and Washington were both adamant that it would never pass through Bulgaria.
I suppose some people were surprised at how quickly negotiations progressed with Turkey. Possibly
there is some quid pro quo regarding Iranian and Kurdish hydrocarbons.
Serbia and Hungary are anxious for access. The Austrians are even talking money. Greece of
course needs gas and transit fees. Italia, Slovakia, Czech would welcome shares. The only problem
is some people have suddenly taken an interest in organizing a colour revolution in Makedonia.
I questioned the author's perspective as soon as I saw this (in the second sentence)
:
Six months ago Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised the energy world by dismissing
the long-prepared South Stream project in favour of Turkish Stream.
Russia re-routed South Stream to Turkey (now called "TurkStream") because Bulgaria rejected
South Stream under pressure from US/EU. OIFVet, a frequent commentator at NC, has written loads
of good and inciteful comments with respect to this farce (he is Bulgarian).
The author refers to a "Russian Waltz" which casts aspersions on Russian intentions. Their
intentions are clear. To by-pass a Ukraine that is hostile to Russia. Period. Their efforts to
do so are being blocked (first by pressuring Bulgaria, now with a color revolution in Macedonia).
Russia's 'waltz' partner is the EU which created the rule that pipeline ownership must be independent
of supplier. This rule has dubious value when applied to large suppliers like Russia/Gazprom.
The author artfully guides us to three possibilities but ignores the most logical and intuitive
one. Russia is likely to be taking this move now to hedge against the developing brinkmanship
whereby Russia is blamed for causing European suffering by refusing to transit gas through Ukraine
– despite the US/EU's irresponsible blocking of South Stream / Turk Stream as a delivery platform.
=
I believe that one must be very careful about sources when dealing with issues that are sensitive
to the US/EU establishment.
Brugel is nominally an independent think tank but it is governed by, led by, and staffed with
establishment figures and technocrats. From their annual report:
The idea to set up an independent European think tank devoted to international economics
stemmed from discussions involving economists, policymakers and private practitioners from
many European countries. The initiative subsequently found support from 12 EU governments and
17 leading European corporations, who committed to the project's initial funding base and participated
in the election of its first Board in December 2004. Operations started in 2005 and today Bruegel
counts 18 EU governments, 33 corporations and 10 institutions
among its members.
It is difficult to trust "experts" that have a vested interest in culling favor with the establishment.
This article proves that such skepticism is very much warranted.
Putin's plan, to maintain a chokehold of the distribution of gas, mimics John Rockefeller's
strategy for Standard Oil to control the distribution of oil in the late 19th century.
Syria has really taken a hit for Russia. Until the conflict there is resolved the the Saudis/Arab
natgas cannot build their pipeline. And by the time it is resolved Russia will have already established
its network. It looks like this leaves the Saudis and other MidEast natural gas suppliers at the
mercy of China and India. The BRICS.
You already know this, but Israel wants to send the gas production from the Levantine Basin
to the Europe market and Assad stands in the way for the time being. Once Assad is toppled and
a new puppet regime is put in place, I think we'll see the construction of the pipeline through
Syria. Qatar & Saudi Arabia will connect through the same artery to reach the Europe market…and
then Russia finds itself with competition. This is the key for the West to gain greater control
of the Russian economy, and eventually profit from Russia's resources. So, in the short term (~10
yrs), Russia may have its infrastructure in place (whether via Nord, Turkish or South stream),
but in the long term (~20+ yrs), we'll see Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar enter the Europe market
and Russia will no longer be the only game in town. We think we're seeing the squeeze put on Russia
now, but it will only get worse with time. The West looks at Russia's resources and sees dollar
signs.
In the current political situation, there should be a natural alliance between Russia and Greece,
but it can't be a declared alliance – that leads to retaliation that neither one wants to deal
with right now.
A covert alliance with Russia could put Greece in a position to obtain finance through China.
Without any overt declarations, the European countries might figure out "on their own" that continued
sanctions against Russia are counter-productive.
Even in default, if Greece can maintain any kind of economy, the wily Varoufakis gets to sit
back and smile while the EU ministers try to explain to southern Europe why their policies are
necessary and correct.
The US gets to continue with its unprofitable wars in the mid-East while trying to avoid major
embarrassment from the fascists in DonBass. The major problem for the Russians is watching as
Russians in Ukraine are ethnically cleansed.
If the Russians can avoid a military response all that is needed is someone to maintain the
body count. The overall death count would probably be a lot less than a military response.
An MOU with Greece has been signed, providing significant investment funds, a route around
Ukraine, and a potential clinker in the Russian sanction vote on Monday. Further complications
for debt negotiations? Greece is also reportedly "drawing up a default plan, which would see the
country institute capital controls and nationalize its banking industry" (ibtimes). It ain't over
till it's over…
"... But, listen, lets review the rules. Heres how it works: the president makes decisions. Hes the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! ..."
"... The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. ..."
"... She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya, intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea. ..."
"... Lets face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... You have to remember that to the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - middle class means anyone whos in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasnt made it into the top 1% because theyre too damned lazy. ..."
She can talk til her pantsuit turns blue.
I have already decided that my ballot will have Bernie Sanders on it one way or another.
I don't believe her. I don't like her, and I damn sure won't vote for her.
She is a blue corporate stooge and not much different than a red corporate stooge.
Bernie is honest and after all of those years in politics, he is not rich.
You can't say that about a single other candidate.
libbyliberal -> Timothy Everton 15 Jun 2015 23:47
Yo, Timothy, Paul Street recently reminded his readers of part of Colbert's speech at the Correspondents'
Dinner way back in 2006 (time flies while we're sinking into fascism):
"But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works: the president makes decisions.
He's the Decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press
type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go
home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking
around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage
to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction!"
Timothy Everton -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 22:36
Sorry Not-so-enlightenedgirl. WE don't elect government officials, and we don't pay them for
"not putting the screws to us". They get elected, paid, and influenced by lobbyists for the wealthy
one percent, and by the corporations, who both fund their campaigns for future favors rendered.
Those with the most funding for the prettiest and most abundant campaign ads are those elected.
And yes, they DO put the screws to us, the American public. This woman is more a puppet for those
interests than some Republicans.
Timothy Everton -> libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 22:11
"The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates."
Sorry libby, I don't see them crowding around Bernie Sanders, the only viable candidate FOR
the AVERAGE American. In fact, I believe he had more "press time" before he became a candidate.
That is the way it goes here though. Get an honest candidate who speaks her/his mind, and you
get no press coverage - way too dangerous for those who actually control our government through
lobbyists.
libbyliberal 15 Jun 2015 21:42
What is this business about Hillary NOT "taking the bait" of a reporter's questions? Hillary
needs to be challenged and not be the one in control with her gobsmackingly well-funded pr info-mercial
steamrolling her presidential challenge.
The media is still a bunch of stenographers for the WH and even now the WH candidates. This
is what THEY say their policy is and will be. Not critical thinking of the journalist, no connecting
of the dots, to be applied?
Their talk sure is cheap and seductive. Obama gave us major lessons in that in 2008 and again
in 2012. More nicey-nice sounding bull-sh*t that is vague or downright mendacious to the realpolitik
agenda.
Hillary wants to talk about what is convenient and safe for her. Identity politics. Generalized
populist feel-good rhetoric. Nothing substantial with the globalized and corporatized trade deals
OR the massive violent US-sponsored or direct militarism around the globe.
Hillary's NYC Four Freedoms Park speech: lack of mention of foreign policy except for some
threats on China, Russia, N. Korea and Iran. No mention of Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan.
No mention of drone warfare. No mention of NSA surveillance. No mention of police violence.
She was part of the Obama/Biden administration that expanded Afghanistan war, attacked Libya,
intervened in Syria and Yemen, relaunched the Iraq war, used Ukraine to provoke Russia and is
being provocative with China by interfering in South China Sea.
Hillary skipped addressing the inconvenient and the media and her fan base had no problem with
such gobsmacking omissions. Hillary decides that the US citizenry doesn't want to focus on foreign
policy and she ramps up vague populist rhetoric like Obama did back in 2008 to convince the citizenry
she is their champion even though she personally has amassed over $100 million from her financial
elite cronies over the decades and if you think that fortune has no influence on who she is championing
there's a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn you should look into buying.
Let's face it. Wall Street and the military industrial complex control BOTH parties, and
are especially bonded with and beholding to Hillary Clinton.
Vladimir Makarenko -> enlightenedgirl 15 Jun 2015 19:19
"diplomacy so badly needed after the disastrous term of Bush and Cheney and their destruction
of the Middle East." If anything she extended B & Ch policies by destroying Libya and turning
it in a murderous breeding ground for Islamic ultras. She was at helm of arming Syrian "opposition"
better known today as ISIS.
Her record as a Secretary is dismal - line by line no achievements, no solved problems but
disaster by disaster.
talenttruth 15 Jun 2015 18:34
If the Democratic party nominates the "inevitable" Hillary Clinton, rather than someone real
who ACTUALLY represents the middle class, tells the truth and is NOT part of the "corporately
bought-and-sold" insider group, then it will be heads-or-tails whether she wins or one of the
totally insane, whack-job Republi-saur candidates wins.
If she keeps on doing what she's been doing, she will LOOK just like those arrogant "insiders"
the Republicans claim her to be (despite the fact that they are FAR FAR FAR worse, but much better
at lying about that than any Democrat). Hillary is a VERY VERY WEAK candidate, because the huge
"middle" of decent Americans is looking for real change, and not -- as well -- a Republican change
WAY for the worse.
This Election is the Democratic Party's to LOSE. Hillary could make that happen (no matter
how much worse ANY Republican victor will likely be). What a choice.
sour_mash -> goatrider 15 Jun 2015 18:09
"...why doesn't the disgusting American media ask the Republicans who support it to explain
themselves too. Why are they so eager to join Obama in destroying the American middle class?"
After +6 years of the then Republican Party, now known as the Christian Jihad Party or CJP,
making Obama a one term president it smells to high heaven that they now agree on this single
issue.
Yes, where are the questions.
Whitt 15 Jun 2015 18:03
Because they're not "destroying the American middle class". You have to remember that to
the financial elites who are backing Republicans - and Obama - "middle class" means anyone who's
in the top 5% of the economic pyramid but hasn't made it into the top 1% because they're too damned
lazy.
"... sandra oconnor is actually on record saying that she would do anything to get bush elected. ..."
"... All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who dont want change. All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led to ISIS. All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant. ..."
"... Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful. And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions. There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that boasts about democracy and democratic values while its institutions are under assault by corrupt rich and powerful. ..."
"... The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee. ..."
"... Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that hes the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first priority is to the powerful elite. ..."
Neither a Bush nor a Clinton. They're both poisonous in different ways.
eileen1 -> WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 23:47
There is no difference between Bush and Obama, except Obama is smarter and more devious.
redbanana33 -> mabcalif 15 Jun 2015 23:27
"are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption
and connivance?"
No, I never said I believed there was corruption and connivance. Those are your words. Your personal
opinion. MY words were that if more voters had wanted Gore as their president, he would have won.
As it was, he couldn't even carry his home state. Sometimes the truth is hard to face and so we
make excuses for what we perceive as injustice, when, in reality, more people just didn't think
like you did in that election. But blame the court (bet you can't even clearly state what the
case points they were asked to consider, without googling it) and blame the Clintons and even
blame poor Ralph for your guy's lack of popularity. If it makes you feel better, go for it. It
won't change the past.
And, speaking of presidents winning by a hair's breadth, shall we talk about how Joe Kennedy bribed
his way to electing his son? Hmmmm? Except that even the crook Nixon had enough class to concede
rather than drag the country through months of misery like your hero did.
mabcalif -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:50
there have been more than one excellent president who's won that office only by a hair's
breadth.
are you really suggesting we forget this piece of history simply because bush won by corruption
and connivance? particularly when the outcome was so disastrous for the country and the world?
it wasn't a question of being more popular, it's a question of being overwhelmed by the clinton
scandal, a brother governor willing to throw the state's votes and by a supreme court that was
arrayed against him (sandra o'connor is actually on record saying that she would do anything
to get bush elected.) not to mention a quixotic exercise in third party politics with a manifestly
inadequate candidate that had no foreign policy experience
Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:43
Yes some people need to be reminded, especially about the falsification/lies completing the
2009 voter-registration form.
bishoppeter4 15 Jun 2015 22:39
Jeb and his father and brother ought to be in jail !
Otuocha11 -> redbanana33 15 Jun 2015 22:38
His point is that "No more president with the name BUSH" in the White House. He can change
his name to something like Moron or Terrone. Let him drop that name because Americans have NOT
and will NOT recover from the regime of the last Bush.
redbanana33 -> Con Mc Cusker 15 Jun 2015 22:30
Then (respectfully) the rest of the world needs to grow some balls, get up off their asses,
define their vision, and strike out on their own as controllers of their own destinies.
After that, you'll have the right to criticize my country. Right now you don't have that right.
Get off the wagon and help pull it.
ponderwell -> Peter Ciurczak 15 Jun 2015 22:25
Politics is about maneuvering to get your own way. In Jebya speak it means whatever will
lead to power. Hillary sounds trite and poorly staged.
Jeez, now Trump wants more attention...a big yawn.
WMDMIA 15 Jun 2015 22:24
His brother should be in prison for war crimes and crimes against Humanity. Jeb violated election
laws to put his brother in office so he is also responsible for turning this nation into a terrorist
country.
ExcaliburDefender -> Zenit2 15 Jun 2015 22:03
No $hit $herlock, he met his wife when they were both 17, in MEXICO. Jeb has a degree in Latin
Studies too.
Just vote, the Tea Party always does.
:<)
ExcaliburDefender 15 Jun 2015 22:01
Jeb may very well be the most qualified of the GOP, and he can speak intelligently on immigration,
if his campaign/RNC would allow it.
Too bad we don't have other GOPers like Huntsman and even Steve Forbes, yes I enjoyed Forbes being
part of the debates in 96, even voted for him in the primary. And not because I thought he would
win, but I wanted him to be heard.
Debates will be interesting, Trump is jumping in for the 4th time.
#allvotesmatter
fflambeau 15 Jun 2015 22:00
The USA presidential campaign looks very much like a world wrestling match (one of those fake
ones). Only the wrestlers are more intelligent.
MisterMeaner 15 Jun 2015 21:59
Jebya. Whoopty Goddam Doo.
ponderwell 15 Jun 2015 21:52
Jebby exclaimed: 'The country is going in the wrong direction'. Omitting the direction W Bush
sent the U.S. into with false info. and willful intention to bomb Iraq for the sake of
an egotistical purpose.
And, the insane numerous disasters W sponsored. The incorrigible Bush Clan !
benluk 15 Jun 2015 21:49
Jeb Bush, "In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," Jeb Bush
But not as improbable as letting another war mongering Bush in the White House.
gilbertratchet -> BehrHunter 15 Jun 2015 21:42
Indeed, and it seems that Bush III thinks it's a virtue not a problem:
"In this country of ours, most improbable things can happen," began Bush. "And that's from
the guy who met his first president on the day he was born and his second on the day he was
brought home from the hospital..."
No Jeb, that would be improbable for me. For you it was a normal childhood day. But it's strange
you're pushing the "born to rule" angle. I guess it's those highly paid consultants who tell you
that you have to own the issue before it defines you.
Guess what... No amount of spin will change your last name.
gorianin 15 Jun 2015 21:35
Jeb Bush already fixed one election. Now he's looking to "fix" the country.
seasonedsenior 15 Jun 2015 21:29
Stop calling him Jeb. Sounds folksy and everyman like. His name is John E. Bush. And he's from
a family of billionaires. Don't let him pull a what's-her-name in Spokane. He was a rich baby,
child, young man, Governor ...on and on and is completely out of touch with the common man.
He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and his sensibilities are built of money gained
off the backs of the workers of this country. He is big oil to his core.
Caesar Ol 15 Jun 2015 21:27
Jeb is the dumbest of all the Bushes. Therefore the most dangerous as someone will manipulate
him the way that Cheney did with Bush.
ChelsieGreen 15 Jun 2015 21:27
Interesting thing is that Bush is old school Republican, spend big, be the power to the world.
Since his brother/father left office the party moved on, Tea Party may have faded slightly
but they are not big spenders, they are small government. Jeb will have trouble making a mark
in the early states to be the nominee, he is considered center-right.
The right wing of the party thinks where they slipped up was not nominating someone right-wing
enough, they will portray him as weak on immigration and chew him up.
Brookstone1 15 Jun 2015 21:11
America has been wounded badly by the reckless and stupidity of the Republicans under the leadership
of G. W. Bush. And now it would be a DEADLY MISTAKE to even ponder about voting Republican again,
let alone voting for another Bush! The Bush family has nothing in common with ordinary Americans!
NO MORE BUSH!!!
nubwaxer 15 Jun 2015 21:03
i heard his punchlines about "fixing" america to get us back to free enterprise and freedom.
dear jeb, we know what you mean and free enterprise is code for corporatism run wild and repeal
of regulations. similarly when you say freedom you mean that for rich white males and right to
work laws, union busting, repeal of minimum wage laws, no paid vacation or maternity leave and
especially the freedom to go bankrupt, suffer, and die for lack of health care insurance. more
like freedumb.
Xoxarle -> sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:33
All candidates are promising change and yet are funded by those who don't want change.
All candidates are promising defeat of ISIS and yet voted for or presided over or agreed with
military aggression in the ME and tactics that helped create the instability in Iraq that led
to ISIS.
All candidates are promising to strengthen the middle classes and yet support tax cuts (benefiting
the rich), trade agreements (benefiting the rich), deregulation (benefiting the rich), and are
funded by industries that impoverish the working and middle classes and keep wages stagnant.
All candidates are promising bipartisanship and yet are part of the dysfunction in DC, pandering
to special interests or extreme factions that reject compromise.
ID6995146 15 Jun 2015 20:33
Another Saudi hand-holder and arse licker.
OlavVI -> catch18 15 Jun 2015 20:24
And he's already got Wolfowitz, one of the worst war mongers (ala Cheney) in US history as
an adviser. Probably dreaming up several wars for Halliburton, et al., to rake up billions of
$$$$ from the poor (the rich pretty much get off in the US).
concious 15 Jun 2015 20:20
USA chant is Nationalism, not Patriotism. Is this John Ellis Bush really going to get votes?
sitarlun 15 Jun 2015 20:02
Most Americans are addicted , with help from the media, to those who like to drag them
to wars and fuck their economy for the sake of the rich and powerful.
And the sad truth is that there is not much difference between Democrats such as Clinton and
the GOP bunch that have announced their presidential intentions.
There is no hope as long as big money is involved in choosing leadership for a country that
boasts about democracy and democratic values while it's institutions are under assault by corrupt
rich and powerful.
OurPlanet -> briteblonde1 15 Jun 2015 19:34
He's a great "fixer" Him and his tribe in Florida certainly fixed those chads for his brother's
election success in 2000. A truly rich family of oilmen . What could be better? Possibly facing
if inaugerated as the GOP nominee to face the possibly successful Democrat nominee Clinton. So
the choice of 2016 menu for American election year is 2 Fish that stink. Welcome to the American
Plutocracy.
Sam Ahmed 15 Jun 2015 19:23
I wonder if the state of Florida will try "Fix" the vote count for Jeb as they did for Georgie.
I wonder if the Republicans can "Fix" their own party. You know what, I don't want the Republican
party to think I'm bashing them, so I'll request a major tune up for Hillary Clinton too. Smiles
all around! =)
Cyan Eyed 15 Jun 2015 18:48
A family linked to weapons manufacturers through Harriman.
A family linked to weapons dealing through Carlyle.
A family linked to the formation of terrorist networks (including Al Qaeda).
A family linked to an attempted coup on America.
The right-wing is incredibly stupid if Bush is their nominee.
davshev 15 Jun 2015 18:43
Bush may speak Spanish and come across as Latino friendly, but the reality is that he's
the son of one of the most powerful families in the US. As a conservative Republican, his first
priority is to the powerful elite.
"... t's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is. ..."
Jeb Bush
made a familiar assertion during his visit to Poland:
Bush seemed to suggest he would endorse a more muscular foreign policy, saying the perception
of American retreat from the global stage in recent years had emboldened Russian President Vladimir
Putin to commit aggression in Ukraine.
"When there's doubt, when there's uncertainty, when we pull back, it creates less chance of
a more peaceful world," Bush told reporters. "You're seeing the impact of that in Ukraine right
now."
Bush's remarks are what we expect from hawks, but they are useful in showing how they indulge
in a sort of magical thinking when it comes to the U.S. role in the world. They take for granted
that an activist and meddlesome U.S. foreign policy is stabilizing and contributes to peace and security,
and so whenever there is conflict or upheaval somewhere it is attributed to insufficient U.S. meddling
or to so-called "retreat." According to this view, the conflict in Ukraine didn't happen because
the Ukrainian government was overthrown in an uprising and Russia then illegally seized territory
in response, but because the U.S. was perceived to be "retreating" and this "emboldened" Russia.
It's usually not clear what hawks think would have discouraged Russian interference and intervention
in Ukraine under the circumstances, but they seem to think that if only the U.S. had somehow been
more assertive and more meddlesome there or in some other part of the world that the conflict would
not have occurred or would not be as severe as it is.
This both greatly overrates the power and influence that the U.S. has over the events in other
parts of the world, and it tries to reduce every foreign crisis or conflict to how it relates to
others' perceptions of U.S. "leadership." Hawks always dismiss claims that other states are responding
to past and present U.S. actions, but they are absolutely certain that other states' actions are
invited by U.S. "inaction" or "retreat," even when the evidence for said "retreat" is completely
lacking. The possibility that assertive U.S. actions may have made a conflict more likely or worse
than it would otherwise be is simply never admitted. The idea that the U.S. role in the world had
little or nothing to do with a conflict seems to be almost inconceivable to them.
One of the many flaws with this way of looking at the world is that it holds the U.S. most responsible
for conflicts that it did not magically prevent while refusing to accept any responsibility for the
consequences of things that the U.S. has actually done. Viewing the world this way inevitably fails
to take local conditions into account, it ignores the agency of the local actors, and it imagines
that the U.S. possesses a degree of control over the rest of the world that it doesn't and can't
have. Unsurprisingly, this distorted view of the world reliably produces very poor policy choices.
Most Americans remember the Bush years as a period of expanding government, ruinous war, and economic
collapse. They voted for Obama the first time as a repudiation of those developments. Many did so
a second time because most Republicans continue to pretend that they never happened.
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists,"
Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed
by a judge just like the constitution says."
"... With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory. ..."
"... "I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government, unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it." ..."
"... Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized". ..."
"... By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in. ..."
"... politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens. ..."
"... Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands. ..."
"... "This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws." ..."
Rand Paul indicated his intention on Friday to filibuster a surveillance reform bill that he considers insufficient, as privacy
advocates felt momentum to tear the heart out of the Bush-era Patriot Act as its Snowden-era expiration date approaches.
With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and
Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory.
... ... ...
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists,"
Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed
by a judge just like the constitution says."
... ... ...
"Right now we're having a little bit of a war in Washington," Paul said at the rally on Friday. "It's me versus some of the rest
of them – or a lot of the rest of them."
... ... ...
In the middle is a bill that fell three votes shy of a 60-vote threshold. The USA Freedom Act, supported by Obama, junks the NSA's
bulk collection of US phone records in exchange for extending the lifespan of the Patriot Act's controversial FBI powers.
While McConnell, Obama and many Freedom Act supporters describe those powers as crucial, a recent Justice Department report said
the expiring "business records" provision has not led to "any major case developments". Another power set to expire, the "roving
wiretap" provision, has been linked to abuse in declassified documents; and the third, the "lone wolf" provision, has never been
used, the FBI confirmed to the Guardian.
... ... ...
The White House has long backed passage of the USA Freedom Act, calling it the only available mechanism to save the Patriot Act
powers ahead of expiration now that the House has recessed until Monday.
Obama on Friday chastised what he said were "a handful of Senators" standing in the way of passing the USA Freedom Act, who he
alleged risked creating an intelligence lapse.
James Clapper, the director of national intelligence whom Paul has criticized for lying to Congress about surveillance, issued
a rare plea to pass a bill he has reluctantly embraced in order to retain Patriot Act powers.
"At this late date, prompt passage of the USA Freedom Act by the Senate is the best way to minimize any possible disruption of
our ability to protect the American people," Clapper said on Friday.
At the Beacon Drive-in diner in Spartanburg, Paul chastised proponents of the Patriot Act for arguing the law would prevent another
9/11. "Bull!" a woman in the crowd exclaimed, as others groaned at the national security excuse cited by more hawkish lawmakers.
"I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government,
unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it."
Multiple polls released this month have found overwhelming public antipathy for government surveillance.
Still, it remains unclear if the USA Freedom Act has the votes to pass. Senate rules permit Paul to effectively block debate on
the bill until expiration. Few who are watching the debate closely felt on Friday that they knew how Sunday's dramatic session would
resolve.
But privacy groups, sensing the prospect of losing one of their most reviled post-9/11 laws, were not in a mood to compromise
on Friday.
"Better to let the Patriot Act sunset and reboot the conversation with a more fulsome debate," said Anthony Romero, the executive
director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
He opposes indefinite detention in the NDAA, he opposes TPP and the fast track. He opposes the militarization of local police.
He opposes the secrecy of the Federal Reserve. He opposes unwarranted civil asset forfeiture. He opposes no-knock home searches.
He opposes the failed drug war. He opposes war without congressional approval. What is it about him you don't like?
Trenton Pierce -> masscraft 30 May 2015 21:14
Then line up behind Rand. He polls the best against Hilary. The era of big government Republican is over. Realize that or get
ready for your Democrat rule.
Vintage59 -> Nedward Marbletoe 30 May 2015 16:20
The machine would chew him up and spit him out and he's smart enough to know that.
ripogenus 30 May 2015 07:47
Just listened to NPR's On the Media. They did a special podcast just on the patriot act and the consequences if it expires.
Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized".
seasonedsenior 29 May 2015 22:20
New technology is beginning to equal the playing field somewhat whether it be video of police misconduct or blocking out Congress
from 10,000 websites to stop NSA spying. This part of technology is a real positive. There are too many secrets in our democracy-light
that should be exposed for the greater good. There is too much concentrated power that needs to be opened up. I am happy to see
these changes happening. Keep up the good work.
AmyInNH cswanson420 29 May 2015 22:12
By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in.
Viet Nguyen -> cswanson420 29 May 2015 17:44
politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens.
Best examples? Retarded laws that discriminate against gay people in states like Indiana. When major corporations such as Wal-Mart
and Apple, who only cares about money, condemn such retarded laws with potential boycotts, their political lackeys quickly follow
in line.
I am waiting for another multinational corporation to declare the NSA process detrimental to businesses, and see how many former
government supporters of the NSA do a complete 180 degree stance flip.
EdChamp -> elaine layabout 29 May 2015 17:22
Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands.
Congratulations! You win the award of the day for that one gleaming guardian comment that truly made me smile.
Repent House 29 May 2015 16:13
"This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking
your access until you end mass surveillance laws."
This is so freekin awesome... mess with the bull you get the horns as I always say!
They seem to under estimate the strength, knowledge, tenacity, of the "AMERICAN PEOPLE" This is what we need to do on a wider scale for a number of things wrong!
Awesome!
[May 28, 2015] Ukraine financial catastrophe of 2014 2015
Notable quotes:
"... According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day. ..."
"... So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty". ..."
"... "What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services, and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education. If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute poverty," ..."
"... Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012, according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day. ..."
According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food
less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined
in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day.
So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend
an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty".
"What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services,
and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education.
If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute
poverty," stressed Shipko.
According to the Deputy, the minimum wage in Ukraine at the current exchange rate of the national
Bank should be approximately 3750 UAH - the only way the Ukrainians will be able at least get requred
$5 a day.
Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012,
according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day.
Ukrainian women do not want to bear children through insecurity and inability to pay for the hospital
and diaper.
The West scored major geopolitical victory against Russia: As Paul said (see below): "My limited
knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not?
That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake."
Poor Ukrainian citizen. Poor Ukrainian pensioners existing on a $1 a day or less (with exchange
rate around 26.5 hrivna per dollar, pension around 900 hrivna is around $1 per day. Some pensioners
get less then that ( miserable 1500 hrivna per month considered to be "decent" pension and monthly salary
4000 hrivna is a "good" salary by Ukrainian standards).
The last thing EU wants is an additional stream of refugees from Ukraine escaping miserable salaries
and lack of decently paying jobs and pressure of Ukrainian migrant workers on unqualified job market
positions.... So far the main hit for this was not in Western but in Russian job market, but that may
change. At the same time making the Ukraine enemy of Russia is a definitive geopolitical victory, achieved
with relatively modest financial infusions (USA estimate is 5 billions, the EU is probably a half of
that) and indirect support of Western Ukrainian nationalists.
One year ago there was a hope the Donetsk problem will be solved. Now in 2016 this civil war entered
the third year -- Kiev government can't squash unrecognized Donetsk Republic with military force and
it does not want to switch to federal state to accommodate their pretty modest demands: initially use
of Russian language and reverse of "creeping cultural colonization" of this region by Western Ukraine.
Initially the official language question was the one of the most important and Kiev Provisional government
rejected Canadian variant of using the same language as its powerful, dominant neighbor and unleashed
a civil war (with full blessing of the USA, which pursue "divide and conquer strategy in this region
from the moment of dissolution of the USSR). Now after so much bloodshed the positions are hardened...
Imagine that the Quebec nationalists came to power in Canada by French supported and financed coup,
and instantly outlawed the English language for official usage and in schools and universities.
Notable quotes:
"... If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved? ..."
"... That has surely been largely achieved. ..."
"... That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR. ..."
"... Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. ..."
"... They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. ..."
"... I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond. ..."
"... If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat. ..."
"... Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained. ..."
"... It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia. ..."
"... True, but again a very short term achievement. ..."
"... NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible ..."
"... The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either. ..."
"... [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term. ..."
"... Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. ..."
"... All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment. ..."
"... As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical. ..."
"... To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done. ..."
"... No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. ..."
"... As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it. ..."
"... If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. ..."
"... I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. ..."
"... As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does. ..."
"... Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially. ..."
"... The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar. ..."
"... And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage? ..."
"... Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies. ..."
"... NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage. ..."
"... I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. ..."
"... NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was. ..."
"... My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake. ..."
"... My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do. ..."
"... The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth. ..."
"... There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children ..."
"... Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg. ..."
"... To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. ..."
"... Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there. ..."
"... Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays. ..."
"... I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN. ..."
"... Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia ..."
"... The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles. ..."
"... This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'? ..."
The premise that the West must be losing is a bit simplistic. If you made a list of perhaps
ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been
achieved?
For example, one goal was to destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that
were oriented towards Russia. That has surely been largely achieved.
Another goal was to radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. That has largely
happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into
the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR.
Another goal was to stress the Russian military with having to respond to too many problems
in a short period of time, which may be relevant if and when the West hits on several fronts
at once.
Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western
corporations is about to begin. Doubt Russia can stop that.
Not denying that Putin and his circle have survived, and that the Russian economy is in better
shape than most expected, but we should try to think long and hard about the pros and cons of
the Kremlin's approaches.
They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. Approximately
zero soft power in a place that it should have been straightforward to create.
People have been writing novels and articles for a long time about how the West could gin up
a war in the Ukraine to start an attack on Russia or otherwise break the establishment in Moscow.
It was fairly obvious.
I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it
very hard for Russia to respond.
Kiev would start a major offensive against Donetsk and Lugansk.
Transdnistria is currently blockaded by Moldova and Ukraine with no food supplies allowed
to pass. Moldovan military operation might follow and Russia would be mostly unable to respond
by other means than missile strikes against Moldova – which Russia under extremely cautious
Putin would never do.
Azerbaijan would launch an offensive against Armenia in Nagarno-Karabakh. Russia lacks
common border with Armenia so Russia's options would again be limited.
Albanian proxies, supported and trained by the West, would start military and terrorist
attacks against Macedonian authorities.
NATO would start to bomb Syrian military and capital to oust and kill Assad.
Georgia might start another military operation against South Ossetia in parallel with others
if it thinks Russia is too preoccupied to respond.
NATO-funded and -trained Islamic militants would attack authorities in Central Asian countries
like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either
capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with
conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major
geopolitical defeat.
Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability
is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago,
and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained.
The Moldovan army is not capable of defeating Transdnistria by itself, so victory would
require NATO troops to join in the attack. And if it comes to the point where NATO is willing
to directly assault Russian forces, then there's no reason to hold back anyway.
The West plays the short game, so initially it may look
like they have achieved much, much like their foreign policy successes at first, which then turn
out to be disasters with the West reduced to firefighting.
1:..destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented
towards Russia.This has not succeeded. It has without doubt caused problems and will
affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some
products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production
of components to Russia.
2: ..radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia.True, but again
a very short term achievement. Food on plates and jobs don't grow on trees. What we do have
is the ones in the middle who gravitated to the traditional Russophobes, aka swing voters,
but things are only going to get worse in the Ukraine and the Nazi junta cannot deliver. Those
swing voter will swing the other way, not a Russia love in, but a pragmatic middle ground. That
is where they started.
3: Another goal was to stress the Russian military..What evidence is there of
this? Apart from quite a number of massive snap military exercises that Russia has pulled off
and impressed even the Russo-skeptic military crowd at RUSI and other MIX fronts, it is quite
efficient to fly 50 year old Tu-95 bombers around Europe wearing out expensive western military
equipment that will need to be replaced much sooner now than later. All those austerity plans
that call for holding off on major defense spending in Europe are messed up. Money going in to
weapons is money going away from jobs and the economy. Ukraine's rocket cooperation with Brazil
is dead (now switched to Russia) and also with other partners. So far the US has not actively
banned commercial satellites from being launched from Russian rockets, but the US cannot get its
billion dollar spy sats in to space without Russian rocket engines. No-one has yet pulled the
plug
NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible.
It's one thing to scream and shout, its another to drop their trousers. It is quite the paper
tiger. The USAF is set to rapidly shrink according to their own admission. The F-35 is designed
to replace 5 aircraft – hubris or what? The F-15, F16, AV-8B, A-10 & the F-18. It's a pig of an
aircraft that will perform those missions worse, in most cases, than those designed in the late
1960s early 1970s. The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to
make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either.
4:the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations
is about to begin. [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable,
but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than
just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium
to long term.
This is exactly what almost happened to Russia and then look how things turned out. Ukraine
is of course a different case and the West will certainly try and manage it to their advantage,
but it won't work if it is not for sustained profit. Either way it is the West to whom the
Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. This is long before we throw
any legal questions in to the mix. Whoever is in power now will pay the political price in future
sooner or later. All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right
moment.
As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit
harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as
much as possible, only intervening when critical.
Part of the problem with western politics and the Pork Pie News Networks of the last 25 years
is the we must do something now mentality. Let's put it this way, you go in to hospital
for a non-critical undiagnosed condition. Would you a) want to have the tests done and the best
course of action chosen with your consent, or b) panic & be rushed to the operating theater so
that they can just have a look around?
To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative.
If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must
be done.
In short, as it is written on the cover of the good book, DON'T PANIC!
No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has
played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. The
science of mind manipulation has made great progress over the last century. It is a big mistake
to just deal on an oligarchic level. Ukrainians have a legitimate gripe that their country is
insanely corrupt and they can easily blame Moscow. That being the case, measures needed to be
taken. And not creating any semblance of a pro-Russian political or intellectual class was similarly
stupid.
As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to
your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just
smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the
Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop
a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the
Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it.
If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems
on the periphery as possible. Could be Georgia; could be Central Asia; could be Transnistria.
What would be your advice to those in US think tanks who are trying to keep domination of the
world? What would be a good strategy? And, for what it is worth, I wouldn't take the problems
with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. That
is where all the money and technology have gone for the last 30 years. Do you really think the
US would struggle to get to the Moon now and did it in 1969? Be serious – all technology is tremendously
better today.
As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia
occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last
a lot longer than the Ukraine does.
Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's
where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the
US to over-extend itself politically & financially.
The US want to do more but it can't
do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to
give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move
of some oil trading out of the US dollar.
And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created?
For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will
bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the
West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem
on their plate they can't quite manage?
I have no doubt that the US has been trying to tie up Russia, but it is just more frenetic
than before, the main planks of NATO enlargement (and weakening) resolved, but the rest has gone
a bit wrong. The West is growing increasingly desperate and is trying all sorts of things to undermine
Russia, but it could be much, much worse from a sanctions point of view. Level heads in the West
understand that trying to pull the rug out completely from under Russia is a massive risk and
one they are very careful in making.
As for their wonder-weapons, the US cannot afford enough of them or make them cheap enough
for their allies to buy in sufficient numbers. It is much easier and cheaper to upgrade the sensors
and missiles on a SAM system than to design and bring to production standard a brand new wonder-weapon.
The old days of easily blinding air-defenses are almost over when you can have a lot of cheap
distributed sensors providing the information, passively & actively. The countermeasure is a lot
cheaper.
In al, Money Money Money – and every passing day the US has less to leverage and has to spread
it far and wide:
Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment,
and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away,
that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago,
that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies.
NATO has
not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit,
but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm
in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much
of anything but manage.
I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and
a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern
borders. The part that NATO is having trouble with is getting Russia to destroy it, so that
it will be in the minds of Ukrainians for generations who did this to them.
NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know
how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians
what a failure the promise of western largesse was.
That's all reasonable, though it is hard to believe that there isn't a lot more than just some
black earth to expropriate.
My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do
blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made
a mistake.
That's true enough, and it appears there has always been a certain amount of hostility to Russia
west of the Dneipr, so they perhaps did not need too much coaxing. My main point in rubbing
the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early
days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do.
The country it said it would confidently bat aside in its confident stroll to victory has not
only weathered western attempts to crush its economy and put in place safeguards which will hurt
western business opportunities in future, it has strengthened a powerful alliance with Asia and
garnered considerable international sympathy, which implies increased hostility toward the west.
Meanwhile, the country the west bragged it would snatch from Russia's orbit and make a model of
a prosperous western democracy is miserable, poor and angry.
The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally
this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond
lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with
plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs
in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth.
There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve
a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. Many such opportunities
rely on western interests taking over Ukrainian businesses and asset-stripping them like crazy;
however, the main buyer in many cases would be Russia, which has no interest in making western
businesses rich, or other western buyers who would have to take over and run a Ukrainian business
in a very uncertain environment in which its biggest market is Russia.
A copypaste from Auslander (formelry of MPnet), originally from Saker's blog:
"This is not the first time such atrocities [the mutilated rebel prisoner] have happened
in this conflict and it will not be the last.
The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains
of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building
on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right
sector called their own during the maidan debacle.
The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll
there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children.
I know the official death toll and I know the real death toll. We also lost a friend in that
atrocity, not in the building but at the far end of the square, beaten to death because he
was walking home from work at the wrong place and the wrong time. Why was he beaten to death?
He had a speech impediment and when he got nervous he literally could not talk. Since he could
not say 'salo yucrane' 5 right sector boys beat him to death in broad daylight.
Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned
to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed
in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were
too few to defend the berg.
The killings of innocents and not so innocents have been ongoing since the beginning and
well before the beginning of the conflict that let to what is now Novorossiya. One can not
morally justify killing all the UAF because of the acts of a relative few, but you can rest
assured that documentations are being kept for all who can be identified as committing either
individual or mass atrocities.
To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who
when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands
of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay
for their crimes. Do you think all those 'people' who commit atrocities and then post
photos of the atrocities and openly brag about them on social media will walk away unscathed?
Again, no hardly. Do you think we don't know who was and is abducting young women and even
girl children for their use and then killed and discarded them like less than animals? They
are known.
I can go on for reams but you get the idea. These are crimes being committed by a relative
few of UAF, and for the record anyone fighting for Ukraine against Novorossiya is a member
of UAF, their military unit does not matter. In the end justice will be done, by the law and
with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice,
like revenge, is a dish best served cold.
As for those few of you who are still aghast at the total and deafening silence from USEU
over these ongoing atrocities and crimes, I urge you to forget any chance of anything being
said about we untermenschen being slaughtered by those civilized denizens of USEU. It is not
going to happen so stop complaining about it. Never forget, never forgive, always remember,
but don't complain, it's useless."
Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment
because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine
and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there.
Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited
to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And
it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev
or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays.
He says "In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible.
Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold."
I do believe various people involved in Odessa have disappeared – or turned up. Dead. Some have
had to go to ground. Some have "died" under unbelievable circumstances, but their new name will
probably still have the same face. The biggest obstacle will be all this wearing of masks, but
with more recent atrocities, where they are garrisoned in the cities for months, they'd be known
anyway..
The spirit of Novorossiya will be expanding (not yet). Things may slowly go back towards normal.
But fully normal it can never be, while murderers and torturers walk free by the hundreds. It
is going to be a very long headache for Ukraine.
I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that
hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged,
but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought
the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather
than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register
on those who get all their news from CNN.
Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other
who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate
proof that Tupak is alive
in Serbia
The election of Poland's new president spells
big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just
recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who
forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200
thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles.
Of course J Hawk's take is probably on the money. J.Hawk's Comment:
Not so fast. I'm not so sure that Duda wants to do any of the things described above. One
of the major reasons Duda won is the defection of the rural voters, whose average income declined
by 14% in 2014 in large measure due to Russian food embargo. Since Duda knows on which side
his bread is buttered (no pun intended), deep down he also realizes the importance of that
embargo lifting. His UPA criticism may well be only an excuse, a pretext to allow himself to
maneuver out of his election campaign pro-Ukraine position while saving face. Because, ultimately,
what is the likelihood that the Rada will actually pass a law that "de-heroizes" UPA to a sufficient
degree? And even if it does, will Bandera monuments start disappearing from Lvov and other
parts of Western Ukraine?
This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk
the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective
in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the
preservation of ill-gotten capital!'?
"... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit
to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on
the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in
the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known
as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given
the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly
complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize
them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even
less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine
is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with
scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
... ... ...
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly
voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict
is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive
"within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.
... ... ...
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's)
preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely,
that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities
to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no
agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple,
undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick
in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous
military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass
- despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between
two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war
that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.
Igor
Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist
of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian
army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple
things...
Imba > Igor
Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West,
while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring
articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
Please respect him ;)
Dima Lauri > Imba
I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin
troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.
folktruther
a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event
of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq.
Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe,
especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese
bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.
"... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit
to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on
the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in
the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known
as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given
the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly
complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize
them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even
less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine
is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with
scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
... ... ...
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly
voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict
is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive
"within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.
... ... ...
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's)
preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely,
that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities
to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no
agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple,
undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick
in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous
military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass
- despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between
two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war
that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.
Igor
Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist
of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian
army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple
things...
Imba > Igor
Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West,
while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring
articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
Please respect him ;)
Dima Lauri > Imba
I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin
troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.
folktruther
a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event
of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq.
Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe,
especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese
bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.
Macedonia has just neutralised an armed group whose sponsors had been under surveillance for at
least eight months. By doing so, it has prevented a new attempt at a coup d'État, planned by Washington
for the 17th of May.
The aim was to spread the chaos already infecting Ukraine into Macedonia in order to stall the
passage of a Russian gas pipeline to the European Union.
Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 23 May 2015
The Kumanavo affair
On the 9th of May, 2015, the Macedonian police launched a dawn operation to arrest an armed group
which had infiltrated the country and which was suspected of preparing a number of attacks.
The police evacuated the civilian population before launching the assault.
The suspects opened fire, which led to a bitter firefight, leaving 14 terrorists and 8 members
of the police forces dead. 30 people were taken prisoner. There were a large number of wounded
Not a terrorist act, but an attempted coup d'État
The Macedonian police were clearly well-informed before they launched their operation. According
to the Minister for the Interior, Ivo Kotevski, the group was preparing a very important operation
for the 17th May (the date of the demonstration organised by the Albanophone opposition in Skopje).
The identification of the suspects has made it possible to determine that they were almost all
ex-members of the UÇK (Kosovo Liberation Army) [1].
The headquarters of the armed group in Kumanovo, after the assault.
Among them were :
• Sami Ukshini, known as " Commandant Sokoli ", whose family played a historic rôle in the UÇK.
• Rijai Bey, ex-bodyguard of Ramush Haradinaj (himself a drug trafficker, military head of the UÇK,
then Prime Minister of Kosovo. He was twice condemned for war crimes by the International Penal Tribunal
for ex-Yugoslavia, but was acquitted because 9 crucial witnesses were murdered during the trial).
• Dem Shehu, currently bodyguard for the Albanophone leader and founder of the BDI party, Ali Ahmeti.
• Mirsad Ndrecaj, known as the " NATO Commandant ", grandson of Malic Ndrecaj, who is commander of
the 132nd Brigade of the UÇK.
The principal leaders of this operation, including Fadil Fejzullahu (killed during the assault),
are close to the United States ambassador in Skopje, Paul Wohlers.
Fadil Fejzullahu, one of the leaders of the armed group, killed during the assault,
with his boss, the United States ambassador in Skopje, Paul Wohlers.
Paul Wohlers is the son of US diplomat Lester Wohlers, who played an important part in Atlantist
propaganda, and directed the cinematographic service of the U.S. Information Agency. Paul's brother,
Laurence Wohlers, is presently an ambassador in the Central African Republic. Paul Wohlers himself,
an ex-Navy pilot, is a specialist in counter-espionage. He was the assistant director of the United
States Department of State Operations Center (in other words, the service for the surveillance and
protection of diplomats).
Although Macedonia is not a member of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg was " following " the
police operation in Kumanovo.
To eliminate any doubt about the identity of the operation's sponsors, the General Secretary of
NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, intervened even before the assault was over - not to declare his condemnation
of terrorism and his support for the constitutional government of Macedonia, but to paint a picture
of the terrorist group as a legitimate ethnic opposition : " I am following the events in Kumanovo
with deep concern. I would like to express my sympathy to the families of those who were killed or
wounded. It is important that all political and community leaders work together to restore order
and begin a transparent investigation in order to find out what happened. I am calling for everyone
to show reserve and avoid any new escalation of violence, in the intersts of the nation and also
the whole region. "
You would have to be blind not to understand.
When he was the governor of the Stroumitsa region, Zoran Zaev was accused of having
favoured the construction of a commercial centre, and arrested for corruption. His party left
the Parliament as a show of support for him. Finally, he was pardoned by the President of the
Republic, Branko Crvenkovski, who then took leadership of his party. He was elected President
of the SDSM in June 2013.
In January 2015, Macedonia foiled an attempted coup d'état organised for the head of the opposition,
the social-democrat Zoran Zaev. Four peole were arrested, and Mr. Zaev had his passport confiscated,
while the Atlantist press began its denunciation of an " authoritarian drift by the régime " (sic).
Zoran Zaev is publicly supported by the embassies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany
and Holland. But the only trace left of this attempted coup d'état indicates the repsponsibility
of the US.
On the 17th May, Zoran Zaev's social-democrat party (SDSM) [2]
was supposed to organise a demonstration. It intended to distribute 2,000 masks in order to prevent
the police from identifying the terrorists taking part in the march. During the demonstration, the
armed group, concealed behind their masks, were supposed to attack several institutions and launch
a pseudo-" revolution " comparable to the events in Maidan Square, Kiev.
This coup d'État was coordinated by Mile Zechevich, an ex-employee of one of George Soros' foundations.
In order to understand Washington's urgency to overthrow the Macedonian government, we have to
go back and look at the gas pipeline war. Because international politics is a huge chess-board on
which every move by any piece causes consequences for all the others.
The gas war
The gas pipieline Turkish Stream was intended to pass through Turkey, Greece, Macedonia
and Serbia in order to supply the European Union with Russian gas. On the initiative of Hungarian
President Viktor Orbán, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of each of the countries concerned met
on the 7th April in Budapest to coordinate their position facing the United States and the European
Union.
The United States have been attempting to sever communications between Russia and the European
Union since 2007. They managed to sabotage the projet South Stream by obliging Bulgaria to cancel
its participation, but on the 1st December 2014, to everyone's surprise, Russian President Vladimir
Putin launched a new project when he succeeded in convincing his Turkish opposite number, Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan, to sign an agreement with him, despite the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO [3].
It was agreed that Moscow would deliver gas to Ankara, and that in return, Ankara would deliver gas
to the European Union, thus bypassing the anti-Russian embargo by Brussels. On the 18th of April
2015, the new Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsípras, gave his agreement that the pipeline could cross
his country [4] .
As for Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, he had already conluded discrete negotiations last
March [5]. Finally,
Serbia, which had been a partner in the South Stream project, indicated to the Russian Minister for
Energy Aleksandar Novak, during his reception in Belgrade in April, that Serbia was ready to switch
to the Turkish Stream project [6].
To halt the Russian project, Washington has multiplied its initiatives :
in Turkey, it is supporting the CHP against President Erdoğan, hoping this will cause him to lose
the elections;
in Greece, on the 8th May, it sent Amos Hochstein, Directeur of the Bureau of Energy Ressources,
to demand that the Tsípras government give up its agreement with Gazprom;
it plans – just in case – to block the route of the pipeline by placing one of its puppets in
power in Macedonia;
and in Serbia, it has restarted the project for the secession of the small piece of territory
- Voïvodine - which allows the junction with Hungary [7].
Last comment, but not the least: Turkish Stream will also supply Hungary and Austria, thus ending
the alternative project negotiated by the United States with President Hassan Rohani (against the
advice of the Revolutionary Guards) for supplying them with Iranian gas [8].
"He shows you how to become as gods. Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with
you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are
his."
J.H.Newman, The Times of Antichrist
People do not wake up one day and suddenly decide to become monsters, giving birth to unspeakable
horrors.
And yet throughout history, different peoples have done truly monstrous things. The Americans
were pioneers in forced sterilization and state propaganda. The British invented concentration camps,
and were masters of predatory colonization. They even turned a large portion of the capital of their
Empire into a festering ghetto through the Darwinian economics of neglect. None have clean hands.
No one is exceptional.
What do they have in common? They all take a walk down a long and twisted path, one cold-hearted
and 'expedient' decision at a time, shifting responsibility by deflecting the choice for their actions
on their leaders.
There is always some crackpot theory. some law of nature, from scientists or economists to support
it. What else could they do? It is always difficult, but necessary.
They cope with their actions by making their victims the other, objectified, different, marginalized.
And what they marginalize they cannot see. What they cannot see, by choice, is easily ignored.
And so they destroy and they kill, first by neglect and then by more efficient and decisive actions.
They walk slowly, but almost determinedly, into an abyss of their own creation.
But they all seem to have one thing in common. First they come for the old, the weak, the disabled,
and the different, in a widening circle of scapegoats for their plunder.
"There is one beautiful sight in the East End, and only one, and it is the children dancing in
the street when the organ-grinder goes his round. It is fascinating to watch them, the new-born,
the next generation, swaying and stepping, with pretty little mimicries and graceful inventions
all their own, with muscles that move swiftly and easily, and bodies that leap airily, weaving
rhythms never taught in dancing school.
I have talked with these children, here, there, and everywhere, and they struck me as being
bright as other children, and in many ways even brighter. They have most active little imaginations.
Their capacity for projecting themselves into the realm of romance and fantasy is remarkable.
A joyous life is romping in their blood. They delight in music, and motion, and colour, and very
often they betray a startling beauty of face and form under their filth and rags.
But there is a Pied Piper of London Town who steals them all away. They disappear. One never
sees them again, or anything that suggests them. You may look for them in vain amongst the generation
of grown-ups. Here you will find stunted forms, ugly faces, and blunt and stolid minds. Grace,
beauty, imagination, all the resiliency of mind and muscle, are gone. Sometimes, however, you
may see a woman, not necessarily old, but twisted and deformed out of all womanhood, bloated and
drunken, lift her draggled skirts and execute a few grotesque and lumbering steps upon the pavement.
It is a hint that she was once one of those children who danced to the organ-grinder. Those grotesque
and lumbering steps are all that is left of the promise of childhood. In the befogged recesses
of her brain has arisen a fleeting memory that she was once a girl. The crowd closes in. Little
girls are dancing beside her, about her, with all the pretty graces she dimly recollects, but
can no more than parody with her body. Then she pants for breath, exhausted, and stumbles out
through the circle. But the little girls dance on.
The children of the Ghetto possess all the qualities which make for noble manhood and womanhood;
but the Ghetto itself, like an infuriated tigress turning on its young, turns upon and destroys
all these qualities, blots out the light and laughter, and moulds those it does not kill into
sodden and forlorn creatures, uncouth, degraded, and wretched below the beasts of the field.
As to the manner in which this is done, I have in previous chapters described it at length;
here let Professor Huxley describe it in brief:-
"Any one who is acquainted with the state of the population of all great industrial centres,
whether in this or other countries, is aware that amidst a large and increasing body of that population
there reigns supreme . . . that condition which the French call la misere, a
word for which I do not think there is any exact English equivalent. It is a condition in which
the food, warmth, and clothing which are necessary for the mere maintenance of the functions of
the body in their normal state cannot be obtained; in which men, women, and children are forced
to crowd into dens wherein decency is abolished, and the most ordinary conditions of healthful
existence are impossible of attainment; in which the pleasures within reach are reduced to brutality
and drunkenness; in which the pains accumulate at compound interest in the shape of starvation,
disease, stunted development, and moral degradation; in which the prospect of even steady and
honest industry is a life of unsuccessful battling with hunger, rounded by a pauper's grave."
In such conditions, the outlook for children is hopeless. They die like flies, and those that
survive, survive because they possess excessive vitality and a capacity of adaptation to the degradation
with which they are surrounded. They have no home life. In the dens and lairs in which they live
they are exposed to all that is obscene and indecent. And as their minds are made rotten, so are
their bodies made rotten by bad sanitation, overcrowding, and underfeeding. When a father and
mother live with three or four children in a room where the children take turn about in sitting
up to drive the rats away from the sleepers, when those children never have enough to eat and
are preyed upon and made miserable and weak by swarming vermin, the sort of men and women the
survivors will make can readily be imagined."
Stephen Kinzer is a masterful storyteller, creating an historical record that is readily accessible
to all levels of readers. Besides writing history-or more importantly, rewriting history correctly-he
is able to draw out the personal characteristics of the people involved, creating lively anecdotal
stories that carry the reader through the overall narrative.
His book,
The Brothers: John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles, and Their Secret War, delves into the personal
beliefs and perspectives of the Dulles brothers and those associated with them. From that he creates
a picture of the nature of U.S. foreign policy as shaped by and being embodied by the brothers and
the various Presidents and other corporate and political wheeler and dealers they interacted with
over a span of fifty years:
"If they were shortsighted, open to violence, and blind to the subtle realities of the world,
it was because these qualities help define American foreign policy and the United States itself…..they
embodied the national ethos….They were pure products of the United States."
The historical narrative is clearly presented, the ties to corporations, their employment with
powerful law firms, the power they gained within the political system such that after the Second
World War they became the two most powerful figures in U.S. politics and foreign affairs. Apart from
the basic historical record, the most intriguing aspect is the different natures of the brothers,
and the basic similarity that few people gave very much credence to their abilities for deep thought.
Personalities…
They came from a relatively rigid Christian upbringing. John Foster retained the dourness of that
upbringing through his life, while his younger brother Allen proved to be a dilettante and womanizer.
Their concept of freedom
"was above all economic: a country whose leaders respected private enterprise and welcomed
multinational business was a free country."
The other component of freedom was religion,
"Countries that encouraged religious devotion, and that were led by men on good terms with
Christian clerics, were to them free countries….These two criteria…they conjured an explanation
of why they condemned some dictatorships but not others."
This doctrinaire system of thought did not allow for much in the way of critical thinking skills.
Sir Alexander Cadogan, Britain's undersecretary to the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, "wrote in
his diary, "J.F.D. the wooliest type of useless pontificating American….Heaven help us!"
Eden himself "considered Foster a narrow minded ideologue…always ready to go on a rampage….Churchill
agreed. After one of their meetings he remarked,
"Foster Dulles is the only case I know of a bull who carries his own china shop around
with him."
It was not just the British. American political scientist Ole Holsti found that Foster dealt with
"discrepant information" by "discrediting the source" and "reinterpreting the new information so
as to be consistent with his belief system; searching for other information. The advice of subordinates
was neither actively sought nor, when tendered, was it often of great weight." Arthur Schlesinger
Jr. said that Allen "was a frivolous man" who would "make these decisions which involved people's
lives, and never would really think them through."
…and history
From a privileged upbringing with many family contacts in both the political and corporate world,
the brothers had little trouble maneuvering through the intricacies of the global power structures
they encountered. They were steeped in the ethos of pioneers and missionaries," and
"spent decades promoting the business and strategic interests of the United States….they were
vessels of American history."
That history spans half a century. It starts with the Versailles peace talks and ends only with
the death of Foster in 1959 and the senescence and increasing senility of Allen during that same
time period. Its major impact occurred after World War II, with John Foster becoming Secretary of
State with President Eisenhower, while Allen worked himself into founding leader of the FBI.
From both these positions, one of great public power (wielded with much secrecy) and the other
with great covert power, they steered the course of U.S. history through the early days of the Cold
War. Their rabid anti-communism, combining their religious and corporate beliefs, shaped the world
as we know it today.
Kinzer leads the reader through the "Six Monsters", the foreign leaders who became the most public
targets of the Eisenhower/Dulles administration: Mossadegh (Iran), Jacabo Arbenz (Guatemala), Ho
Chi Minh (Vietnam), Sukarno (Indonesia ), Patrice Lumumba (Congo), and Castro (Cuba). The ongoing
repercussions and blowback from these actions continue to shape our world today.
The last three of these had other impacts. UN Secretary Dag Hammarskjold was involved with Sukarno
and Lumumba, and was killed by CIA backed covert action in the Congo. The assassination of John F.
Kennedy has several possible claimants, of which his interactions with Sukarno and Castro are the
most telling. Significantly, Allen Dulles was appointed to the Warren Commission by President Johnson
as it had "some foreign complications, CIA, and other things." Allen "systematically used his influence
to keep the commission safely within bounds, the importance of which only he could appreciate."[1]
Kinzer's
The Brothers is an excellent source of information concerning the development of U.S. foreign
policy during the Twentieth Century. A reader will develop a much stronger understanding of our current
geopolitical crisis with this as a background source. It provides not just the historical data behind
the events, but more importantly it examines the mindset of the U.S. administration and the people
who are both shaped by it and are shaping it:
"The story of the Dulles brothers is the story of America. It illuminates and helps explain the
modern history of the United States and the world."
Note
(1) See The Incubus of Intervention-Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen
Dulles. Greg Poulgrain. Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, Selangor, Malaysia.
(Click
here to read Jim Miles' review of Incubus of Intervention.)
"... "Suspension of debt payments not coordinated with creditors results in a technical default, and in the case of Ukraine, it threatens to undermine Kiev's ability to attract private investment through EU programs," ..."
"... "It is rather clear that the IMF is assuming that Russia's $3 billion bond is included in this year's $5.2 billion financing from a 'debt operation'," ..."
Russia will appeal to the International Court of Justice if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko
signs a moratorium on the payment of Ukraine's external debt into law and fails to pay its debt to
Russia, said Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov.
Siluanov said Ukraine was virtually defaulting
on its debt, adding that Russia doesn't yet have grounds to lodge any claims. If Kiev fails to pay
$75 million in June, Moscow will use its right to appeal to the court, the Minister said.
The Ukrainian parliament has adopted a law allowing the country not to pay foreign debt to private
lenders, saying it needs to protect the ailing economy and people from "unscrupulous" creditors.
The bill says the $3 billion in Ukrainian Eurobonds purchased by Russia at the end of 2013 are
on the list of liabilities subject to a possible payment moratorium.
Experts agree that Tuesday vote meant a technical default for the country and would impede Ukraine's
ability to raise private investment from the EU and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), a European source told TASS on Wednesday.
"Suspension of debt payments not coordinated with creditors results in a technical default,
and in the case of Ukraine, it threatens to undermine Kiev's ability to attract private investment
through EU programs," the source said.
As part of the underpinning of Kiev's bailout plan, the International Monetary Fund said in March
that Russia would not receive the $3 billion bond repayment from Ukraine this year.
IMF is looking for cooperation from creditors to accept a restructuring on Kiev's debt. That includes
Russia.
"It is rather clear that the IMF is assuming that Russia's $3 billion bond is included in
this year's $5.2 billion financing from a 'debt operation'," said Charles Blitzer of Blitzer
Consulting and a former IMF staff member.
Poor Ukrainian citizens got back to 90th instead of EU...
Notable quotes:
"... and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. ..."
The contraction in Ukraine's economy accelerated to 17.6% in the first quarter compared with a
year earlier, the State Statistics Service said Friday, hammered by a conflict with Russia-backed
separatists in its eastern industrial heartland that has slashed industrial output.
Gross domestic product for the period slid 6.5% from the final quarter of 2014, the agency said.
Ukraine reached a cease-fire deal with the separatists in February that has reduced--but not ended--fighting.
Talks over a longer-term political resolution to the conflict have stalled with each side blaming
the other.
The contraction was "a little bit worse than we estimated," according to Olena Bilan, chief economist
at Dragon Capital brokerage. She said the economy had also been damaged by shrinking domestic consumption
after the country's currency collapsed and inflation shot up. Retail spending was down 31% in March
compared with the same month last year, according to Dragon Capital.
Still, analysts said the contraction in the last quarter is likely to be the worst for the year,
as the economy's plunge began last summer as fighting picked up. Ukraine's government has forecast
a 5.5% contraction this year, but the World Bank said last month that Ukraine's economy would shrink
by 7.5%.
"In certain sectors are showing that the economy is testing the bottom," said Alexander Valchyshen,
head of research at ICU investment firm, citing transportation and agriculture as examples of industries
experiencing a turnaround. " Going forward I think the stronger decline we are having in the first
quarter, the stronger rebound in the second half of the year, because last year it was the second
half of the year when we started registering the collapse."
See also
Ukraine eyes strategic investors in sell-off of state-owned assets: Kiev
has drawn up a list of around 280 companies it hopes to privatise, earning up to 17 billion hryvnia
($821.26 million) in the process. The list includes three thermal power plants and 13 ports.
So Ukraine's GDP drop in 2015 is likely going to be over 20%. I recall Moody's, etc forecasting
a GDP drop of 2% for Ukraine and 6% for Russia. The 2% figure actually is looking more realistic
for Russia this year and is total BS if applied to Ukraine.
These numbers are full on depression ones. The USA's GDP went down 25% during the Great Depression.
I see Ukraine going down 30% and Ukraine was not doing so well before this disaster started.
First the observation – you suggest that the EU will come to blame America for the soured relationship
with Russia.
I think that's a little bit too simplified to properly describe what might occur in Europe
(I would imagine that only SOME EU members' populations will come to blame America, others will
blame Russia for the EU's soured relationship with Russia) and it is a bit too much like the
assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would
get the Russian people to blame Putin. Just as how that assumption was faulty, the assumption
that the EU will come to blame America could also probably be faulty and likely is given the deepset
Russophobia in many parts of Europe.
Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting
Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving
only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which
approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance
has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter.
In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to
40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
Notable quotes:
"... "Personally, I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap. ..."
"... Its economy cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine. ..."
"... Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits. ..."
"... About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the turbines that run its nuclear power stations. ..."
"... So for all the aid coming from the state-backed institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with open arms." ..."
Having survived an assassin's bullet, a revolution and a war, Gennady Kernes now faces a fight
over Ukraine's constitution
One afternoon in late February, Gennady Kernes, the mayor of Kharkov, Ukraine's second largest
city, pushed his wheelchair away from the podium at city hall and, with a wince of discomfort, allowed
his bodyguards to help him off the stage. The day's session of the city council had lasted several
hours, and the mayor's pain medication had begun to wear off. It was clear from the grimace on his
face how much he still hurt from the sniper's bullet that nearly killed him last spring. But he collected
himself, adjusted his tie and rolled down the aisle to the back of the hall, where the press was
waiting to grill him.
"Gennady Adolfovich," one of the local journalists began, politely addressing the mayor by his
name and patronymic. "Do you consider Russia to be an aggressor?" He had seen this loaded question
coming. The previous month, Ukraine's parliament had unanimously voted to declare Russia an "aggressor
state," moving the two nations closer to a formal state of war after nearly a year of armed conflict.
Kernes, long known as a shrewd political survivor, was among the only prominent officials in Ukraine
to oppose this decision, even though he knew he could be branded a traitor for it. "Personally,
I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap.
It was a sign of his allegiance in the new phase of Ukraine's war. Since February, when a fragile
ceasefire began to take hold, the question of the country's survival has turned to a debate over
its reconstitution. Under the conditions of the truce, Russia has demanded that Ukraine embrace "federalization,"
a sweeping set of constitutional reforms that would take power away from the capital and redistribute
it to the regions. Ukraine now has to decide how to meet this demand without letting its eastern
provinces fall deeper into Russia's grasp.
The state council charged with making this decision convened for the first time on April 6, and
President Petro Poroshenko gave it strict instructions. Some autonomy would have to be granted to
the regions, he said, but Russia's idea of federalization was a red line he wouldn't cross. "It is
like an infection, a biological weapon, which is being imposed on Ukraine from abroad," the President
said. "Its bacteria are trying to infect Ukraine and destroy our unity."
Kernes sees it differently. His city of 1.4 million people is a sprawling industrial powerhouse,
a traditional center of trade and culture whose suburbs touch the Russian border. Its economy
cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless
how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine.
"That's how the Soviet Union built things," Kernes explains in his office at the mayoralty, which
is decorated with an odd collection of gifts and trinkets, such as a stuffed lion, a robotic-looking
sculpture of a scorpion, and a statuette of Kernes in the guise of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of
the Soviet Union. "That's how our factories were set up back in the day," he continues. "It's a fact
of life. And what will we do if Russia, our main customer, stops buying?" To answer his own question,
he uses an old provincialism: "It'll be cat soup for all of us then," he said.
Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting
Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving
only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund,
which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that
assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since
last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation
shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
But that pain will be just the beginning, says Kernes, unless Ukraine allows its eastern regions
to develop economic ties with Russia. As proof he points to the fate of Turboatom, his city's biggest
factory, which produces turbines for both Russian and Ukrainian power stations. Its campus takes
up more than five square kilometers near the center of Kharkov, like a city within a city, complete
with dormitories and bathhouses for its 6,000 employees. On a recent evening, its deputy director,
Alexei Cherkassky, was looking over the factory's sales list as though it were a dire medical prognosis.
About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the
turbines that run its nuclear power stations.
"Unfortunately, all of our major industries are intertwined with Russia in this way," Cherkassky
says. "So we shouldn't fool ourselves in thinking we can be independent from Russia. We are totally
interdependent." Over the past year, Russia has started cutting back on orders from Turboatom as
part of its broader effort to starve Ukraine's economy, and the factory has been forced as a result
to cut shifts, scrap overtime and push hundreds of workers into retirement.
At least in the foreseeable future, it does not have the option of shifting sales to Europe. "Turbines
aren't iPhones," says Cherkassky. "You don't switch them out every few months." And the ones produced
at Turboatom, like nearly all of Ukraine's heavy industry, still use Soviet means of production that
don't meet the needs of most Western countries. So for all the aid coming from the state-backed
institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with
open arms."
Russia knows this. For decades it has used the Soviet legacy of interdependence as leverage in
eastern Ukraine. The idea of its "federalization" derives in part from this reality. For two decades,
one of the leading proponents of this vision has been the Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin,
who heads the Kremlin-connected institute in charge of integrating the former Soviet space. Since
at least 2004, he has been trying to turn southeastern Ukraine into a zone of Russian influence –
an effort that got him banned from entering the country between 2006 and 2010.
His political plan for controlling Ukraine was put on hold last year, as Russia began using military
means to achieve the same ends. But the current ceasefire has brought his vision back to the fore.
"If Ukraine accepts federalization, we would have no need to tear Ukraine apart," Zatulin says in
his office in Moscow, which is cluttered with antique weapons and other military bric-a-brac. Russia
could simply build ties with the regions of eastern Ukraine that "share the Russian point of view
on all the big issues," he says. "Russia would have its own soloists in the great Ukrainian choir,
and they would sing for us. This would be our compromise."
It is a compromise that Kernes seems prepared to accept, despite everything he has suffered in
the past year of political turmoil. Early on in the conflict with Russia, he admits that he flirted
with ideas of separatism himself, and he fiercely resisted the revolution that brought Poroshenko's
government to power last winter. In one of its first decisions, that government even
brought charges
against Kernes for allegedly abducting, threatening and torturing supporters of the revolution in
Kharkov. After that, recalls Zatulin, the mayor "simply chickened out." Facing a long term in prison,
Kernes accepted Ukraine's new leaders and turned his back on the separatist cause, refusing to allow
his city to hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine.
"And you know what I got for that," Kernes says. "I got a bullet." On April 28, while he was exercising
near a city park, an unidentified sniper shot Kernes in the back with a high-caliber rifle. The bullet
pierced his lung and shredded part of his liver, but it also seemed to shore up his bona fides as
a supporter of Ukrainian unity. The state dropped its charges against him soon after, and he was
able to return to his post.
It wasn't the first time he made such an incredible comeback. In 2007, while he was serving as
adviser to his friend and predecessor, Mikhail Dobkin, a
video of them trying to film
a campaign ad was leaked to the press. It contained such a hilarious mix of bumbling incompetence
and backalley obscenity that both of their careers seemed sure to be over. Kernes not only survived
that scandal but was elected mayor a few years later.
Now the fight over Ukraine's federalization is shaping up to be his last. In late March, as he
continued demanding more autonomy for Ukraine's eastern regions, the state re-opened its case against
him for alleged kidnapping and torture, which he has always denied. The charges, he says, are part
of a campaign against all politicians in Ukraine who support the restoration of civil ties with Russia.
"They don't want to listen to reason," he says.
But one way or another, the country will still have to let its eastern regions to do business
with the enemy next door, "because that's where the money is," Kernes says. No matter how much aid
Ukraine gets from the IMF and other Western backers, it will not be enough to keep the factories
of Kharkov alive. "They'll just be left to rot without our steady clients in Russia." Never mind
that those clients may have other plans for Ukraine in mind.
YAVORIV, Ukraine - The exercise, one of the most fundamental in the military handbook, came off
without a hitch. A soldier carrying a length of rope and a grappling hook ran to within 20 feet or
so of a coil of concertina wire and stopped.
For a moment, he twirled the rope in his hands like a lasso, then threw the hook over the wire,
and tugged hard, testing for explosives.
When nothing happened he signaled two comrades, who ran up and started snipping the wire with
cutters.
Although this was a typical training exercise for raw recruits in an elemental soldierly skill,
there was nothing typical about the scene. Far from enlistees, these soldiers were regulars in the
Ukrainian National Guard, presumably battle-hardened after months on the front lines in eastern
Ukraine. And the trainer was an American military instructor, drilling troops for battle with
the United States' former Cold War foe, Russia, and Russian-backed separatists.
... ... ...
The training included simulations of a suspect's detention. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The
New York Times
The course on cutting wire is one of 63 classes of remedial military instruction being provided
by 300
United States Army trainers in three consecutive two-month courses.
Here in western
Ukraine, they are far from the fighting, and their job is to instill some basic military know-how
in Ukrainian soldiers, who the trainers have discovered are woefully unprepared. The largely unschooled
troops are learning such basic skills as how to use an encrypted walkie-talkie; how to break open
a door with a sledgehammer and a crowbar; and how to drag a wounded colleague across a field while
holding a rifle at the ready.
... ... ...
The United States is also providing advanced courses for military professionals known as forward
observers - the ones who call in targets - to improve the accuracy of artillery fire, making it more
lethal for the enemy and less so for civilians.
Photo
The training also included simulations of a home raid. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York
Times
Oleksandr I. Leshchenko, the deputy director for training in the National Guard, was somewhat
skeptical about the value of the training, saying that "99 percent" of the men in the course had
already been in combat.
... ... ...
American officers described the course work as equivalent to the latter months of basic training
in the United States. The courses will train 705 Ukrainian soldiers at a cost of $19 million over
six months. The Ukrainian National Guard is rotating from the front what units it can spare for the
training. American instructors intend to recommend top performers to serve as trainers within other
Ukrainian units, and in this way spread the instruction more broadly.
"... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
"... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
"... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
"... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
"... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
"... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
"... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
"... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
"... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
"... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating
openly in Ukraine.
Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think
about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.
At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American
media not saying much about it. Two facts.
Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.
One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President
Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama
said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."
Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly
what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless
or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?
The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.
The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of
the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are
getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.
And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started
arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.
In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring,
if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot
of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.
Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil.
There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an
American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.
"According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three
Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication
reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."
This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in
each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when
referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.
Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting
military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this
paragraph. Speechless.
It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty
of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than
"National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly
put it at the time.
The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it
always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950.
(Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)
Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched
to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.
I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave
these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.
Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become
the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of
intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)
To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day
of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be
"modest" in every mention.
The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces
Near Ukraine, U.S. Says."
Read the thing here.
The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how
many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story.
This is what we mean by aggression these days.
In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that
300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it,
there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation,
a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.
At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint
in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever
number on the border in question.
The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the
Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.
In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.
Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not
in American media. Not a word in the Times.
The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who
can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture
in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving
idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.
These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these
extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official
ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla
and the colonels.
The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament
have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker
named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will
neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."
Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic,
rights-trampling regime that does what it says.
And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.
* * *
I end this week's column with a tribute.
A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the
Times' Marlise Simons is
here.
Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this
one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over
many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew
in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.
Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the
file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was
not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all
scholars are intellectuals.
Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last,
"The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.
Farewell from a friend, Bill.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from
1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and
has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter,
@thefloutist.More Patrick L. Smith.
Obama/Hillary/Dem apologists, like the corporate media, can't admit that anyone exists to the
real liberal left of these tools of the "empire of chaos" -- disaster capitalism is okay with
them, profits uber alles.
So so much of the citizenry -- the voting majority which really is a pathetic minority -- stay
penned up as the US sinks into quicksand, and the reins of the country keep getting passed back
and forth between the supposed good cop and bad cop parties, and the citizenry is CON-FUSED, which
according to Latin origin is "fused with". Obama is a Republican, a far right one in sensibility.
Yet crazy Repubs call him liberal. How confusing is that??? How stupid to believe they are right.
Obama apologists call those more liberal than Obama (so not hard) to be non-liberal and demonize
them since they are so ego-desperate to not admit just how betrayed we all have been not only
since the highly lying Obama campaign days but when Clinton and his cabal of Ruben and Summers
and Hillary and others destroyed consumer protections and handed over control to the corporate
class.
We are hypnotized to think we have only two voting options, and the media underlines this never
giving the microphone to those outside of the authoritarians of the two pens. We are hypnotized
to think we have to go with the media-beloved sure-winners, when the corruption is so over the
top the bewildered herd keeps contributing to the problem and never finding a solution.
So many non-hypnotized have stopped voting in disgust and despair.
Jill Stein of Green Party once said that with either Repubs or Dems we are on the Titanic.
It may sink a tad faster with the Repubs in charge but it is sinking with the craven Dems as well.
Bill Ehrhorn Ozymandia 9 May 2015 20:01
It gives the chickenhawks a chance to act manly. Sitting from away from the battlefield they
like to pretend that they're tough
tupacalypse7 babymamaboy 9 May 2015 20:00
Religious freedom means calling yourself Christian and practising Islam.
oh that's a good one!
sour_mash TheWholeNineYards 9 May 2015 19:55
A mantle that murdered 4,486 Americans with +30,000 wounded and an untold number of Iraqis
dead. $4-$6 trillion spent destabilizing Iraq which was no threat, never attacked America is the
GOP calling card.
(I agree with you, just fine tuned a bit.)
sour_mash babymamaboy 9 May 2015 19:50
"We will look for you, we will find you, and we will kill you."
Religious freedom means calling yourself Christian and practising hypocrisy.
Michael Q 9 May 2015 19:07
The republicans are irrelevant. Americans need to stop watching Fox News and not elect these
crazy lunatics who will create more wars, more inequality, more neoliberalism, more deregulation,
and completely screw the working and middle classes, just like they did under Bush snr and jnr,
and Reagan.
We live in a multi polar world. Latin America is more independent than it has ever been, and
IMO Obama has done a good job negotiating with Iran.
Treat people the way you would like to be treated and there will be peace in the world,
t bone Michael Q 9 May 2015 19:46
There's nothing worse than a secret war - the one that your Obama is committed to. He's set
the Mideast on fire because he's just as much as a war devil as anyone else.
He's messed up Egypt, Syria, Libya and Iraq, there's all kinds of heinous murdering and uprisings
going on there now. Now he's trying to start a race war here in the United States!
Congratulations - because you're the only one living in your utopian dream world. Obama (and
his minions) has destroyed our U.S. Constitution - irreparably! He's an sobmfr! GD him!
cromwell2015 9 May 2015 18:43
listen to the war talk once again. Their talk, their glory, your blood, your death, your dreams
.when will they lead like the kings of old and put the uniform on. In your dreams, when will "normal"
people wake up and send these people to where they belong. We including Iran all belong to a same
race ,its called the human race.
To add insult to any one with a brain knows your not so lily white when you have gone into
and interfered with so many other country's including bombing Iraq back into the stone age. I
would finish with you the USA's politicians, you are the people who are the real danger to the
world,
MiniApolis 9 May 2015 17:56
"Conservatives howled and hooted as Walker, who was criticized by Obama for his lack of foreign
policy expertise, went after the administration's nuclear deal with Iran, its handling of terrorism
and its relationship with Israel."
Well.
And Obama's expertise on foreign policy when he was elected was exactly what? Having a Kenyan
father?
The Republicans are a truly miserable bunch - worse this time around than even before, with
the stunning exception of Sarah Palin, who can out-worse anyone.
But they are absolutely right on Iran, and Obama is absolutely wrong.
A plague on all of them.
tupacalypse7 9 May 2015 17:53
ISIS will be the biggest campaigner for the rightwing in 2016. republicans will paint anyone
who doesn't support full-throttled blind aggression against IS as weak and unpatriotic. there
will be frothing talk of smashing IS to pieces and bringin 'MERICAN justice to Iraq once again.
and once again, no one will talk about what comes after IS because that would require vision,
foresight, finesse, community organizing, LISTENING to the native population, listening to women
and owning up to true motivations. there is no doubt the US and its allies are fully capable of
blowing that part of the earth off the map. congratulations, you are all badasses.
however, the vicious cycle of self-perpetuating war will continue until the focus is put on
the humanitarian endgame of any military aggression and not solely on military aggression. the
question that needs to be answered and addressed by any war committee is why did WWI set the perfect
stage for WWII? and why did Iraq 2 cause the potential Iraq 3 and IS? the answer to me is a complete
lack of finesse and vision centered around an all-male war party with a complete conflict of interest
because a world without war is a world without weapons sales.
ExcaliburDefender ACTANE 9 May 2015 17:50
Always good to bring up the Obama/Hitler, the nra have been milking that one for decades now
too. Who could forget 'ninja Nazi jack booted thugs Fourth Reich' of 1994/1995. After the bombing
of Oklahoma City federal building, which killed 168, Bush 41 publicly withdrew from the NRA and
trashed La Pierre specifically.
All your talk is just part of fear mongering, only believed by the bunker dwellers.
No one believes this any more. ISIS is not coming to the parking lot of Walmart, you don't
need an AR15 that hold 100 rounds of ammo.
The greatest threat to the Tea Party faithful is Type II Diabetes, and they really need to
keep their Medicare and ACA coverage. Too many super sized happy meals.
Profhambone ACTANE 9 May 2015 17:43
How little you know.....one aspect of Chamberlain signing is that it bought time for GB to
begin to re-arm and prepare the industrial base for war making. Germany had a large lead and GB
was not prepared to go to war then. Today, it is used as "appeasement" which has a negative connotation.
An example of appeasement for those who slept through history is the Republican hopefuls for
Emperor who pledge any and all things to Israel in order to keep Shelton Adelson happy here in
Las Vegas and giving millions and tens of millions of dollars to PAC's friendly to them. "Elect
me!!" is the name of the game. It is all about "me", the whole country, it seems these days....
illegitimato -> Tony Wise 9 May 2015 17:43
Disingenuous dick -- this isn't about Republican versus Democrat. It's about failed leadership
across the board.
Besides, count the casualties. Dubya killed more people.
How much does the GOP pay you for this drivel, 50 cents a post? Or do you carry their water
for free?
illegitimato -> Boredwiththeusa 9 May 2015 17:38
Great, another round of chicken-hawk "leaders" with no combat background, ready to send others'
sons and daughters into the carnage. How did that work out last time with Dubya, Cheney, Rummie,
et al?
The new outrage this latest clutch manifests tops even those "Iraqi Freedom" incompetents --
bowing on bended knee to the owner of a Macau casino which uses underage sex slaves, all for his
cash.
Those Predator drones have the wrong targets.
Robert Greene 9 May 2015 17:23
"Blackburn instead summed up the general argument candidates have been making at conservative
gatherings: if voters do not elect a Republican in 2016, America could very well cease to exist
as a global superpower."
So what we do not need to be a global superpower anymore. What has is got us just MORE FUCKIN'
WAR!!
Tony Dearwester -> saltyandtheman 9 May 2015 17:22
Oh, like when Hillary says "We have to stop the 1% from running things" as she begs them for
money, I mean... "What difference does it make"?
Steve Troxel -> seehowtheyrun 9 May 2015 17:07
What will they do when Obama is out of office? Apparently the only ideas they have is the opposite
of what Obama is doing. The GOP field this election is a vacuous collection clowns each trying
to out noObama the next.
Steve Troxel -> Pete Street 9 May 2015 17:02
Well said... I wonder if they guys or their constituency ever read the news. All you have to
do get a red meat roar from this crowd is to flap you jaws about bombing someone.
When asked for specifics they usually reply with something that is already being done... and
are evidently unaware of it.
sour_mash Tony Wise 9 May 2015 16:54
"your explanation is NOT the historical explanation"
Damn, I must have missed Bill Clinton calling for a Crusade against an Axis of Evil. And claiming
that Saddam Hussein was going to attack the US with WMD'S.
libbyliberal 9 May 2015 16:23
Obama is a disgusting warmonger, but not warmonger enuf for the crazy Republicans.
Here comes the fodder to build Dem "lesser evilism" which means both evil parties get to mass
murder.
A frightened and very low-information and/or conscience-possessing American citizenry has learned
from the authoritarians that the only tool in America's tool box for global co-existence is a
HAMMER. As well as colossal lies about reality. We live in a spiritually profoundly dark age.
The US (and cronies) are arming ISIS, using ISIS in some of its wars like in Syria. Israel
is covertly helping ISIS. The bullying nations are helping bomb the shit out of the poorest country
in the ME. US is providing anti-international law cluster bombs to SA as one of their big helps.
Why? Because the big sharks must devour the little fish. Proxy wars against nuclear allies or
potential allies of that country, or they pretend they are, all leading to the big nuclear WWIII
these insane monsters at the helms of our countries seem committed to.
The Republican hypocrit neocons who speak of God and war in the same sentences. The Dem hypocrit
neolibs who pretend war is humanitarian. Disaster capitalism requires lots of bloodbaths and lemming
Americans, especially bloodthirsty and stupid lemming Americans are willing to kill anyone that
isn't them.
The world is a big video wargame to America, and you pick Blue Team or Red Team and then kill,
kill, kill.
Tony Wise Pete Street 9 May 2015 16:06
"Evidently, these faces have neglected to keep current with the ongoing, successful U.S.
project using armed aerial drones and other weapons to find and snuff the Islamic terrorist
leadership from the top down the ladder."
except its not been sucessful, we are still fighting the same war, and are fighting increased
numbers, because we keep creating more terrorists then we kill. we are ctually bombing targets
without even knowing whos inside (signature strikes) then labeling anyone in the blast radius
a terrorist. pakistan, PAKISTAN for goodness sakes, is working with the UN human rights commission
to STOP the bombs with new laws governing drone warfare. this war has been going on for over a
decade, and is predicted to go on decades longer, with NO tangible results. how do you call it
"successful" when the main target of the war on terror wasnt even eliminated with it?
Pete Street 9 May 2015 16:01
Thanks for presenting the Chicken Little view of the Republican Party wannabes. Evidently,
these faces have neglected to keep current with the ongoing, successful U.S. project using armed
aerial drones and other weapons to find and snuff the Islamic terrorist leadership from the top
down the ladder.
Even a news media worker has a better grasp of the activity of this project:
"Strikes began against Isis fighters in Iraq on 8 August and in Syria on 23 September. Such
strikes have now run into the thousands; on Saturday the US military said 28 more had been carried
out since Friday."
The RP faces put themselves in a vulnerable position here when an ordinary voter can easily
do enough fact-checking to explode the false view of these faces.
Thereby, they make themselves easy picking by HRC who would eat their lunch anyhow.
Meanwhile, cheers and applause from a couple thousand RP right-wingers does not a viable candidacy
make.
If this numbskull approach to vote-seeking continues, then little doubt exists that the RP
will remain a rump party controlling state houses and gerrymandered voting districts for political
power, but excluded from the White House again for lacking a sensible, moderate platform to appeal
to more voters in the middle of the political spectrum.
From that position of course the RP will have a big target for its political asininity and
hostility in the form of HRC as president for 8 years beginning in 2017.
Tony Wise Ozymandia 9 May 2015 16:00
obamas more of a warmonger then republicans, and the economy is only better if you are rich.
Tony Wise Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:54
if the republicans need help,
"Tanden: '95 percent of the income gains in the last few years have gone to the top 1 percent'"
Neera Tanden, head of the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning group, argued that
the issue not only would work well among the party faithful but beyond.
"95 percent of the income gains in the last few years have gone to the top 1 percent, That's
a fact in the country," Tanden said. "I think this is going to be an issue on both the right and
the left."
source: politifact
Tony Wise LostintheUS 9 May 2015 15:48
"There are no worse sources for money than the Koch Bros."
sachs, jpmporgan, BP, citibank, need i go on?
Tony Wise -> Zepp 9 May 2015 15:47
oh, and pakistan, because those bombings are actually illegal in spirit. they are actually
working on making it illegal in the letter. the drones are new technology and pakistan is working
on legislation governing their use with the UN human rights commission, because we are slaughtering
too many innocents.
you wonder why I keep saying that? its not because im the one supporting the warmongering,
bro. end it all, today. imo.
Tony Wise -> Zepp 9 May 2015 15:44
so tell us, Tony: which of those countries do YOU think Obama should not have bombed?
libya: because the terrorists we left in charge are worse then kadaffy
syria, because it was a civil war we had no business getting involved in.
iraq, because it should have been over when it was over. obamas own incompetence required
us to return and go to war again. when we left, ISIS was a minor, defunct, disbarred, offshoot
of al-quida, then they started getting the weapons we were sending to so called "vetted moderates"
who turned out to be no such thing. with those, they were able to march back into iraq picking
up allies along the way, and take an entire city, and all the war toys left behind when obama
withdrew. why would you leave such weapons in the hands of an obviously incompetent, corrupt,
army? why would you keep sending them MORE after the pullout?
yemen, because we are not world police
and afghanstan, because we got bin laden already.
I didnt know rush limbaugh was antiwar? if hes for war, then your comparison of me to him is
just vastly...ridiculous and childish.
Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:43
Did you ever wonder why Republicans have decided NOT to challenge Obama on the state of the
US economy???
Because any references to the economy under Obama will automatically conjure up comparisons
between the current President and the last REPUBLICAN president.
Just 6 years ago, the US economy was in tatters.
As the last Republican president prepared to leave the White House...
6 years ago....As the Last REPUBLICAN was preparing to leave office in early 2009....
1. the DOW had fallen to 7,949 and
2. the NASDAQ had plunged to 1500.
3. The average American with a 401K lost about half of their retirement savings.
4. Banks and financial institutions many over 100 years old that had survived the Great Depression
went belly up: Bear Stearns, Countrywide, Merrill Lynch . AIG. Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual,
Wachovia, Indymac
5. Housing prices were falling like a rock as the bubble burst.
6.The unemployment rate was 7.8%...and heading up. In the same month that Bush left office
a staggering 818,000 workers lost their
jobs. . The number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits rose to a 26-year
high for the week ended Dec. 20.,2008
7. The US auto industry was on it's knees. A month before he turned over the The White House
to Obama, Bush announced a $17.4 billion taxpayer bailout for GM and Chrysler. "If we were to
allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy,"
Bush admitted.
8. The Bush administration had to borrow 700 billion dollars from the taxpayers to bail out
the banks. ""This is a big package because it was a big problem." Bush said ""People are beginning
to doubt our system, people were losing confidence ."
9. In the 4th quarter of 2008...3 weeks before the flickering torch was passed from Republican
to Democrat the US economy contracted a whopping 8.9%...the worst in postwar history.
10. Two months before Obama took office The Conference Board said that its Consumer Confidence
Index fell to 38 in October, 2008. The decline marked the index's lowest level since its inception
in 1967.
11. By the end of Republican Bush's stewardship his job approval ratings had plummeted to 25%
12. In the final month of Bush's term only 7% of Americans were happy with the direction the
country was headed, the lowest reading ever measured by Gallup
How different things are today.
Elizabeth Thorne 9 May 2015 15:42
"Iran: enemy. Israel: friend."
I can't imagine why people compare him to a Neanderthal.
I have to admit though that giving the loony right a free hand in foreign policy would bring
the date the world grows a pair and takes care of the US' anti-social antics much closer. They
would destroy the county and most our "allies". Not ENTIRELY bad if you compare that with "liberals"
having not one complaint about expanded illegal use of drones by their guy. Look at the choices.
The US will continue to maim destroy and kill in the name of short-range interests and goals with
disproportionate effect on developing nations until it destroys itself. Look how long it took
Rome to fall and look at what happened in the meanwhile. Like a useless structure. Better an implosion
than to slowly burn.
Tony Wise ExcaliburDefender 9 May 2015 15:34
why are democrats such hypocrites about the kochs? democrats had no problem taking money from
the kochs, when it was being offered.
they did take it, its documented history, as well as their offer to the kochs of special privileges
in return for more cash. the kochs said no, and the war was on. your party still takes money from
FAR worse sources, like Bp, that wrecked our shore, and banks like sachs and jpmorgan hat wrecked
our economy. the kochs, even if you disagree with their political philosophies, at least create
jobs here in America, manufacturing things we ALL use. how many jobs does warren buffets unregulated
derivatives create?
I suppose his rail lines, transporting that dirty tar sands oil, creates jobs. this koch stuff
just seems so ridiculous given your own parties donors. kochs are what, 56th in political giving?
something like that?
Tony Wise sour_mash 9 May 2015 15:27
we know why bush bombed iraq"
Yes, we do. He lied. Iraq and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Al Qaeda was not
in Iraq.
your explanation is NOT the historical explanation, see 1998 iraq liberation act. signed by
bill clinton.
Michael Miller 9 May 2015 15:20
The MIC needs to be fed.
Boredwiththeusa Tony Wise 9 May 2015 15:09
Bernie Sanders has always acted in accordance with his conscience. He is no sell out. That
he made one decision you dislike doesn't affect my admiration for the man in the least, but paints
you as a leftist purist who is never satisfied with anything.
Tony Wise -> Milo Bendech 9 May 2015 15:08
TARP Vote: Obama Wins, Senate Effectively Approves $350 Billion
Six Republicans joined with 45 Democrats and one Joe Lieberman to defeat a resolution that
would have blocked the release of $350 billion in financial-industry bailout funds Thursday. The
Senate action -- or lack of it -- paves the way for the dispersal of the money regardless of any
action taken by the House of Representatives.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) is structured so that the president has access to
the money unless Congress actively prevents its release. Only 42 senators -- seven Democrats,
34 Republicans and one Bernie Sanders -- voted to block the money.
Taku2 9 May 2015 14:58
""We need a commander in chief who will once and for all call it what it is, and that is radical
Islamic terrorism," Walker said. "We need a president who will affirm that Israel is our ally
and start acting like it."
These pathetic Republicans shameless has nothing to offer the American people, especially as
they do not give a damn about the American poor. So, what do these bourgeois parasites focus on;
'making America Great.'
And how do these parasites try to achieve this; making war on other nations. For them, America
'being great' means military might. It means spending more on the military, which makes more money
for these parasites. It does not mean spending more on maintaining and improving the nation's
infrastructure, because the Republicans are only interested in enterprises which makes them lots
of money.
If Walker and Santorum are intellectually deficient and talking shit, what does that make their
Republican colleagues who support them?
"... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
"... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
"... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
"... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
"... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
"... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
"... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary
of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent
anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.
Though designed to isolate Russia because it
had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir
Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening
ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.
Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing
a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated
– largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.
Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian
alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous
insult to the Russian people.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's
historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.
But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World
War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad
in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would
have been much more difficult if not impossible.
Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a
New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled
sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.
For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian
tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled
away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).
This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule.
From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to
demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.
That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all
the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make
the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."
Distorting the History
So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed,
about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed
coup in declaring there was no coup.
The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted
phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February
2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late
2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it
truly was the most blatant coup in history."
Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup – and the
threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding
conflict.
For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea."
Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin
said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.'
He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing
the region."
So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred
on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO
would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.
Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored
by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the
putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval
base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014,
they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn't care.
Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had
been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why
the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."
You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it.
Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.
The Sole Indispensable Country
Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's
dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant
concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked
by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.
That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept.
11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical
weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship
with President Obama is marked by growing trust."
Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous
to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich
and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when
we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing
a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before
it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."
The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence
will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt –
and breaking the back – of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need
anyone's help to win World War II.
President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s,
which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message,
a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
"... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
"... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
"... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
"... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
"... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
"... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
"... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
"... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
"... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
"... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating
openly in Ukraine.
Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think
about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.
At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American
media not saying much about it. Two facts.
Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.
One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President
Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama
said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."
Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly
what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless
or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?
The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.
The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of
the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are
getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.
And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started
arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.
In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring,
if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot
of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.
Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil.
There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an
American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.
"According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three
Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication
reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."
This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in
each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when
referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.
Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting
military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this
paragraph. Speechless.
It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty
of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than
"National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly
put it at the time.
The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it
always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950.
(Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)
Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched
to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.
I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave
these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.
Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become
the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of
intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)
To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day
of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be
"modest" in every mention.
The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces
Near Ukraine, U.S. Says."
Read the thing here.
The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how
many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story.
This is what we mean by aggression these days.
In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that
300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it,
there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation,
a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.
At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint
in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever
number on the border in question.
The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the
Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.
In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.
Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not
in American media. Not a word in the Times.
The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who
can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture
in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving
idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.
These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these
extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official
ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla
and the colonels.
The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament
have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker
named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will
neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."
Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic,
rights-trampling regime that does what it says.
And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.
* * *
I end this week's column with a tribute.
A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the
Times' Marlise Simons is
here.
Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this
one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over
many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew
in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.
Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the
file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was
not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all
scholars are intellectuals.
Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last,
"The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.
Farewell from a friend, Bill.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from
1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and
has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter,
@thefloutist.More Patrick L. Smith.
YAVORIV, Ukraine - The exercise, one of the most fundamental in the military handbook, came off
without a hitch. A soldier carrying a length of rope and a grappling hook ran to within 20 feet or
so of a coil of concertina wire and stopped.
For a moment, he twirled the rope in his hands like a lasso, then threw the hook over the wire,
and tugged hard, testing for explosives.
When nothing happened he signaled two comrades, who ran up and started snipping the wire with
cutters.
Although this was a typical training exercise for raw recruits in an elemental soldierly skill,
there was nothing typical about the scene. Far from enlistees, these soldiers were regulars in the
Ukrainian National Guard, presumably battle-hardened after months on the front lines in eastern
Ukraine. And the trainer was an American military instructor, drilling troops for battle with
the United States' former Cold War foe, Russia, and Russian-backed separatists.
... ... ...
The training included simulations of a suspect's detention. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The
New York Times
The course on cutting wire is one of 63 classes of remedial military instruction being provided
by 300
United States Army trainers in three consecutive two-month courses.
Here in western
Ukraine, they are far from the fighting, and their job is to instill some basic military know-how
in Ukrainian soldiers, who the trainers have discovered are woefully unprepared. The largely unschooled
troops are learning such basic skills as how to use an encrypted walkie-talkie; how to break open
a door with a sledgehammer and a crowbar; and how to drag a wounded colleague across a field while
holding a rifle at the ready.
... ... ...
The United States is also providing advanced courses for military professionals known as forward
observers - the ones who call in targets - to improve the accuracy of artillery fire, making it more
lethal for the enemy and less so for civilians.
Photo
The training also included simulations of a home raid. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York
Times
Oleksandr I. Leshchenko, the deputy director for training in the National Guard, was somewhat
skeptical about the value of the training, saying that "99 percent" of the men in the course had
already been in combat.
... ... ...
American officers described the course work as equivalent to the latter months of basic training
in the United States. The courses will train 705 Ukrainian soldiers at a cost of $19 million over
six months. The Ukrainian National Guard is rotating from the front what units it can spare for the
training. American instructors intend to recommend top performers to serve as trainers within other
Ukrainian units, and in this way spread the instruction more broadly.
I read in these comments about how this is a harbinger for the next American election - a
wave of conservatives all the way to the White House. Let's remember, the British Conservative
Party is left of the US Democratic Party in many instances, and could not even begin to run as
a conservative party in the US.
The British Conservative Party is:
Pro Choice
Pro gay marriage
A staunch defender of national health care.
Any one of these positions would immediately dismiss them for consideration in the US
Republican Party.
GabbyTalks
The strongest bastion of Canadian conservative politics - the province of Alberta- where
the Torys have been in power 44 years consecutively, have just thrown the bums out and voted
for the socialist, left wing, tree hugging, New Democratic Party! The candidates were yoga
teachers and college students, knitters guild, and so on. People voted for CHANGE more than
anything.
They just got sick of the 1%ers running the joint, and their entitlement attitude, and kow-towing
to the corporations and never raising business taxes, just piling it all on the backs of the
great unwashed, the middle class. Apparently Britain hasn't reached the breaking point yet.
But they will.\
Lynda, Gulfport, FL 22 hours ago
The BBC coverage of the election results provided a glimpse of the real contrasts between
the US stuck in the two party mold and the British parliamentary system with multiple parties
and very old traditions. The "always in campaign mode, overwhelmed by money, carefully handled
candidates" system in the US contrasts with the limited in time and money campaigning of the
British elections.
I loved the hand-counting of ballots, the "looney" parties whose candidates wore tall hats and
costumes and especially the public line-up of all candidates for the announcement of results
that the British system employs. No hiding in hotel rooms and behind spokespeople for British
candidates. They lined up with all their opponents and heard the voting results in public.
Most candidates then were vigorously questioned by journalists. Party leaders of the losing
parties had to overcome their shock and speak up about what they did wrong, why the voters
rejected their messages and what they would do to change. The leaders of the losing parties
faced the consequences and resigned from party leadership.
The current mode of US elections is producing dysfunctional government at local, state and
national levels. The detailed coverage of the British elections offers a primer on ways our
elections could be improved--starting with vigorous questioning of all candidates by actual
journalists, limits on campaign money and including the piercing of the PR images of the
candidates.
Ashley, Wayzata, MN 21 hours ago
It's funny how a lot of US Republicans view this as an overall victory for conservative
values. What these individuals fail to understand is that in the UK, the Conservative Party
actually consists of sane people with ideas on how to improve their country (whether you agree
with them or not is another issue entirely).
Across the pond, conservatives do not push policy based on personal religious beliefs. As
Alistair Campbell, adviser to Tony Blair once stated, "Brits don't do God."
Can you imagine a conservative not mentioning religion in the US? It would ruin his/her
entire campaign. The leader debate in the UK and the overall campaign structures focus on the
ISSUES facing the country, rather than frivolous items like a candidate's birth certificate
and college records. Each party releases manifesto's with ideas on how to improve living
standards, education policy, foreign affairs, etc.
To any American conservative who thinks that this is truly a victory for US conservative
values, I would encourage you to read the Tory Party manifesto; which pushes for 15 additional
hours of FREE childcare, an increase in state pension funding , and an additional 8 billion
pounds made available to the NHS (what Republicans would refer to as boogeyman socialized
medicine).
Each of these values are inconsistent with the basic tenets of today's US conservatism;
which raises the question as to how in the world did our conservatives get so crazy?
Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado Yesterday
A great day for the conservative movement, the wealthy, the well connected, business,
Ayn Rand and for making war. A bad day for the middle class, the poor, the elderly,
eco-friendly, labor unions, workers and those who toil to survive and not have it handed to
them.
At least we know, the Unites States is not the only country which votes against their own
interests. See Canada, Australia and New Zealand which all now have conservative governments.
With legislatures that are akin to the current US Congress; though not the same gridlock or
the extremes.
If the UK election was sending a message to this side of the pond, then it could be a clean
sweep for the GOP next year; unfortunately. The Democrats, if they want to win, better quickly
come up with new ideas and candidates that would put a wrench in the GOP works. Else, we will
see Paul Ryan's budget plans, and Tea Party plans, be put into full implementation; which will
complete this nation's advance to the Industrial Revolution years of the late 19th century.
Well, on the bright side, your income taxes will be a flat 15% to pay for US empire building.
Also, the wealthy won't have an estate tax or capital gains to pay; so wealthy will flood to
the masses (sarcasm). As for Medicare, Social Security, Veterans Benefits, Food Stamps, Child
Care Credits, mortgage deductions, etc.; you're on your own. Just the way Ayn Rand advocated.
I hope I can retire without adverse affects, but woe to those under 55.
Walter Rhett, is a trusted commenter Charleston, SC Yesterday
Britian's unemployment numbers, its job creation, its double-dipped GNP growth (increasing
only after austerity was relaxed) simply don't bear out the narrative, in which the details
are overweighed in order to overwhelm the basic principle of economics that Krugman asserts:
austerity, in times of depression, has no capacity to act as a stimulus.
Regarding "printing"
money, it's spending money -- increasing demand -- that works to reinvigorate depressed economies,
as Europe's individual and collective slow recoveries continuously affirm, as the facts are
ignored.
Putting less gas/petrol in your car will not increase its gas mileage, whether paid by cash or
credit.
Un, PRK Yesterday
Reading the New York Times explanation of the expected results should remind everyone why
nothing you read in this paper is reliable. They got it all wrong. Their analysis was wrong.
Their facts were wrong. Their polling was wrong. Their opinions were way off base. It was an
example of how opinion driven reporting is not reporting at all.
Listened on the way to work the record of the meeting of the Senate Committee on Ukraine and anti-Russia. First, the names of speakers
and respondents. Kornblum, Kantor, Nudelman and joined them boy Bobby Corker and others have wives from Ukraine, they said. Second,
Putin is such a chronic incarnation of Satan that he looks larger them even the whole country. Now there are even concepts in his
name, for example - "Putin's economy", what a beast it is unclear, but in the minds of American senators it's definitely evil. And
just a bad person who alone lives in seven rooms and actively that fact that the members of the Congress did not like one bit and
expressed strong desire to move him to something with less rooms. the third is that those gentlemen with the German-Yiddish surnames
discussed the entire countries and territories as if they were just deserts, forests and steppes. As if there no population on this
territories, who may have their own views on the subject, distinct from opinion by Committee members. Fourth, in some moments of
the meeting, reminded the congregation in the local synagogue, and sometimes the PTA meeting which analyzed the behavior of poor
students.
Main memes and beliefs expressed at the meeting:
Russia backward and unable to progress and development of the country.
In Russia there is no infrastructure.
Russia lives from the sale of oil and only.
Russia is financing all and with all the oil revenue.
Russia is very aggressive.
She attacked Ukraine. The existence of civil war not only not denied, this concept is just not even considered by Committee
members. That completely changes everything, not war within one nation, when brother rose up against brother, and external invasion
of a neighbor!
Russia is aggressive towards the Baltic States and the Baltic States should be armed.
Tomorrow Russia will attack Estonia.
America has vital interests in Ukraine.
To return the Crimea to Ukraine is America's vital interests.
Putin is enemy No. 1.
There were suggestions from the field. For example, start to give Ukraine the money for one billion dollars a year for three consecutive
years. This money, Ukraine will buy weapons from the USA and defend against Putin. We must begin to arm Estonia and to send battalions
because there is a lot of Russians and Putin's aggression will be the first thing sent to Estonia. This was repeated several times
and in different ways. I.e. looks like you have already decided to arrange provocations in Estonia. As this is done, he starts revealing
to cut Russian compactly living in Narva or Estonia will satisfy the invasion by type Saakashvilis, only where? In Narva? He then
tried to attack South Ossetia which was legally in Georgia, but not inhabited by the same nationality as the rest of the country
and there was revolt. In Estonia like no no revolt. But it is clear that the next for some expensive and stupid military supplies
is Estonia. Funny, Yes?
Such an elaborate dance around facts. From comments: "It is so depressing when there is far more
information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue
the traditions of her predecessor." This is one event about which there is quite a lot of information
to see how Guardian presstitutes try to bent the truth. See
Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014
Notable quotes:
"... In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain) that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys. However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership" the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with. ..."
"... Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war. ..."
"... There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad, but true. ..."
"... Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. ..."
"... Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city' liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass". ..."
"... I remember the British army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. ..."
The emergency calls became increasingly desperate. "When are you coming? It's already burning
and there are people inside," a woman told the fire brigade dispatcher. Minutes later, callers started
describing how people were jumping from the upper floors. "Have you lost your minds?" one man asked,
his voice breaking. "There are women and children in the building!" another man yelled.
In one of
the most deadly episodes in Ukraine's turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and
hundreds injured on 2 May last year in the Black Sea port of Odessa.
Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia
activists were barricaded in.
VengefulRevenant -> AlfredHerring 1 May 2015 17:24
The victims are the ones who were raped, shot or burned to death in the massacre.
The perpetrators are those protected by the NATO-backed regime which has failed to investigate
the massacre.
The apologists are the NATO-aligned media who blame the victims or assign blame equally to
the killers and the dead along the lines of, 'There was heroism and cruelty on both sides.'
normankirk -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 16:52
Well isn't it wonderful to hear a diversity of views expressed on Russian TV. When all we hear
is how all media is controlled by the Kremlin
Kaiama Danram 1 May 2015 16:48
So the dead Ukrainian children and women are Kremlin goons too?
How simple your life must be to allow you to make such simplistic conclusions.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 16:46
Some nice whitewashing. Now it's fault of the victims and the heroism of the perpetrators,
there hasn't been and there will be no investigation and the word massacre is no longer used.
For those of you who still argue it was not a massacre but some mysterious suicide by 48 people
who set themselves afire, here is footage again.
Take a look at some of the pretty revealing moments:
23 min mark - Ukrainians are entering the building, there was no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
While in the building, Ukrainians were slaughtering people. And it wasn't a fight. Half of
the victims were middle-aged. At least 10 of them - women.
31min - 33min - the victims who got out have their faces and hands disfigured while the rest
of their bodies don't have the same injuries. That's what happens if someone splashes fuel over
someone's face and light it up. There are pictures of victims with only their heads and hands
burned.
33min - 35min - there were women among those trying to find safety in the building. Some of
them are middle-aged. They were not fighters, as the article would imply.
36min- 37min - Ukrainians were inside the building, setting it on fire and killing those whom
they could find, a young woman in this specific frame.
46min - a person was bludgeoned to death. The room doesn't have marks of fire but the blood
is splattered all over the room.
48min-50min - the same story, Ukrainians were slaughtering their victims.
1h:00min - Ukrainians are entering the building again, this time from the make shift scaffolding.
Any attempt to pretend there was a fight rather than a massacre is crazy. Any suggestion that
somehow people inside were setting themselves on fire is ludicrous in light of evidence that the
Ukis were inside the building. And the fact that Kiev doesn't even see it as murder makes me just
angry.
AbsolutelyFapulous -> PlatonKuzin 1 May 2015 16:43
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil.
Donno why you are commenting here. You even don't seem to be able to read a map.
BorninUkraine -> RonBuckley 1 May 2015 16:25
In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain)
that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys.
However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership"
the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with.
Current Ukrainian "leaders" keep stealing everything they can, including financial and material
aid from the West. What else is new?
MaoChengJi -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 16:03
Yeah. I'm convinced that they should've sent paratroopers and take Kiev right the next day
after the coup d'etat; stop this whole unholy mess right then and there. That really would've
saved tens of thousands of lives - if not millions, seeing how this thing seems to escalate, leading
us to a nuclear war.
Putin is a pussy, Medvedev got it right in Georgia in 2008. Well, frankly Medvedev is a pussy
too. He should've taken Tbilisi, and put Saakashvili on trial.
To teach the bastards a lesson.
Instead, now we hear every day 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', 'Russia will not fight Ukraine',
and the murdering Nazi bastards get bolder and bolder. What's the point of having all that military
hardware if you're afraid to use it. They Yanks would've taken control of the place months ago,
look at Grenada.
RonBuckley -> BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 15:52
Well said, man. Yes, Ukrainian politics have always been divisive, stupid, thievery and corrupt.
That said they had neither brains nor money for a coup. So Ukraine should thank certain external
powers for the deep shit it is in now.
PlatonKuzin -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:31
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil. That's the point. And the state of Ukraine
is a temporary occupier of the Russian soil. So people living in Odessa don't have to go to Russian.
They are right at their home. This is the state of Ukraine that has stayed on our Russian land
for 23 years now. It's time for the quasi-state of Ukraine to leave.
BorninUkraine -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:16
I was born in Lvov in Western Ukraine, I grew up in Lugansk in the East, I have friends and
relatives all over, and I know exactly what is going on in Ukraine.
Ukraine in 1991 was extremely heterogenous. In the area West of Carpatian mountains people
speak Hungarian, Romanian, and Rusine (a form of old Russian, spoken in Kievan Rus).
Galichina and Volynia in the West speak several dialects of Ukrainian. Many in Central Ukraine
speak what is considered literary Ukrainian. In the South and East (historic Novorossia) and in
Kharkov region (historic Slobozhanschina) the majority speaks "surgik", a mix of pidgin-Ukrainian
and pidgin-Russian. Finally, in Crimea people speak Russian, Tatar, and very few speak Ukrainian.
Crimea voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum and got a chance to run away in 2014, when Ukraine
committed suicide.
If the leaders of Ukraine had any brains and loved their country, they would have followed
the example of Switzerland and Singapore, having many official languages. However, all Ukrainian
rulers from day one were thieves and idiots. They made Ukrainian the only official language and
pushed it everywhere, so that while you could get school education in several languages, all colleges
operated only in Ukrainian, putting people who spoke other languages at a disadvantage.
That idiotic policy started this whole mess, which with a bit of US money, prodding, and now
arms became a civil war. Not to mention that Galichina is the place that fought against Russia
in WWI (as part of Austro-Hungarian empire, siding with Kaiser) and WWII (siding with Hitler).
They supplied the troops that under Hitler's command murdered thousands of civilians in Ukraine,
Poland, Belarus, and Slovakia. Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina,
who are considered heroes by current puppets in Kiev, voluntarily served Hitler.
80% of Ukrainian population hates these Bandera worshippers, so when external forces push them
to power, it creates trouble. Personally I hate them for giving a bad name to everything Ukrainian.
BorninUkraine -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:10
Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians
there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.
Or is saying things explicitly beyond your pay grade?
RonBuckley -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:06
To Odessa Kiev sent a few hundred pro-Nazi thugs - 42 died.
To Donetsk and Luhansk Kiev sent a few thousand pro-Nazi thugs plus the entire Ukrainian army
- 6000 died.
Get it now?
Goodthanx -> Anette Mor 1 May 2015 15:04
For me it was the silence... You are right! Seeing what i was seeing, with no commentry to
convince me either way.. How could the worlds media be so silent?
Then with MH, it was the complete opposite!! Immediately and with no investigation, MSM could
not shut up about who they thought was responsible!!
Both fail the logic test miserably. But try explaining common sense to those that haven't any.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:48
Those protesters were Ukrainian Pro Federalists! Not one Russian amongst them!
Anette Mor -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 14:46
Good for you. It is impossible to hide truth with current state of technology. Only not showning.
Any life reporting give the footage adding facts one by one and crwating a true picture eventually.
Even this rather bias article contributes to true story because the lie in it sticks out of logic
for anybody we is able to think for themselves.
PlatonKuzin -> ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:42
Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting
the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war.
Anette Mor -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 14:41
It is poinless to try to install fear in these people. Need to look at the history of people's
wars in Russia. Since 17 century they were able to resist occupation and unwanted rulers by people
war. There wpuld not be a win against Napoleon and Hitler without people rising and forming resistance.
Same in Odessa now. Just a matter of time.
BunglyPete -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:35
The explanation is very simple. Right Sector had free reign to terrorise pro Russians, so he
took action. Kiev choose not to punish Right Sector both then and now. He said this in the same
interview you constantly reference.
Now can you explain why you think it is acceptable for Right Sector to terrorise the Donbass?
If Strelkov wasnt allowed to defend them, who was?
Anette Mor -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 14:34
Not sure why you call them pro-Russians. Odessa is multi-national city. These who were massacred
are simply local people who disagreed with the violent coup which put to power by the west. Does
it make them "pro-russian" and justify thier killing? Surely these who want own country to be
coverned by own elected officials could not be pro- another country. If they trust Russian government
care for them more then thier own coup, that only says how bad the coup rule is.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:24
Forget about the Russian government. The idea is justice for the victims and punishment for
the perpetrators. Is it the ambition of the UN to be percieved as bias as so called Russuan investigators
would be?
Kaiama -> truk10 1 May 2015 14:22
FFS there are enough links and analysis to demonstrate that pro-Kiev forces inflicted a massacre
of civilians here. I don't see any pro-Ukraine links to additional information but an overwhelming
deluge of links supporting the unvoiced version of events.
ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:18
Our western media have really become mirror images of the fascist governments they support.
By publishing such whitewashing attempts as this, they only enable more such behavior in the future,
behavior that leads to the deaths of more innocents, more civilians whose only desire is to live
in freedom and peace.
Kaiama 1 May 2015 14:13
It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the
article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:09
What kind of a teenage girl carries in their backpack petrol, empty bottles, rags and whatever
else is required to make Molotov cocktails? What a coincidence... there is a group of them!!
As for Right Sector? Chartered buses transported Right Sector militia which arrived early in the
day. These were the people communicating with police from the start.
MaoChengJi -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 13:51
Speaking of the media... I've been reading this Odessa news website: http://timer-odessa.net/
, and it has been relatively informative (as much as Ukro-sites can be, these days). And today
suddenly it's gone dark: "there is no Web site at this address".
Does anyone know if it's gone for good? I really hope those who were running it are safe...
Jean-François Guilbo -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:51
So you didn't watch the video link in my comment did you?
If you just take this article for granted to know on which side the Odessa police was, you won't
learn much on what happened...
Seems like the officier on the picture would have been recognised as a colonel from Odessa police,
watch this link:
And from these two links, these armed guys not afraid to shoot from the crowd, could have been
agents provocateur...
BorninUkraine -> IrishFred 1 May 2015 13:47
Are you saying that Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina never
existed? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above did not serve Hitler voluntarily? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above are not guilty of mass murder and other crimes against humanity?
If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying that people who are murdering their opponents, politicians and journalists,
are not Nazis? If so, please state it explicitly.
As to Crimea, if you knew any history, you'd know that it was illegally annexed by Ukraine
in 1991. Here is history 101, not necessarily for you, but for those who actually want to know
the truth.
Russia deployed its troops in Crimea, and nobody was killed there. Russia failed to send its
troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children,
elderly, and disabled veterans.
As many Ukrainians joke now, "Crimeans are traitors: they ran away without us".
Your next argument?
Jeff1000 -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 13:45
Don't display callous and willful ignorance and call it even-handedness. The Guardian's "credible"
account offers no sources, agrees with none of the available pictorial or video evidence and is
rampant apologism.
I posted videos - including raw CCTV footage of the starting of the fire, further up the page.
BunglyPete -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:40
I saw that guy's post it was fantastic, very well sourced and thorough. The comments on here
were a different kettle of fish entirely back then.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:39
The attempt to re-package this event as some awful conglomeration of circumstances spurred
on by the cruelty of fate is sickening. We reduce the death of at least 50 people down so that
calling it a "massacre" becomes needlessly emotive. We casually refer to the pro-Ukrainians as
"football fans" to make it seem innocent - when Ukrainian football fans known as "Ultras" are
famours for 2 things: Being neo-Nazis, and being violent thugs.
Look at this video especially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAEcceedzCU
It's really very simple - candid videos at the time made it clear.
1. Pro-Russian groups were attacked by Ukrainian "ultras". They sought shelter in the Trade
Union building.
2. The building was set on fire when the Ultras threw molotovs through the windows. The doors
were barred.
3. People attempting to climb out of the windows were shot at, if they jumped they were beaten
as they lay on the ground.
4. Ukrainian nationalists deliberately blockaded the streets to inhibit the progress of ambulances
and fire engines.
Only a week after The Odessa Massacre an american CiFer, ex-marine, has gathered links, sieved
through hours and hours of video - he, practically, has done what the journos were supposed to
do, - to prove the Guardian, BBC and the rest were trying hard to whitewash the atrocity. Check
his posts: Additional proof that the BBC and the mainstream Western press lied when they said
both sides threw the molotov's.
I looked for 5 hours searching for one video that showed anyone in the building throwing a
molotov cocktail as the BBC first reported and the rest of the MSM went along with. I could not
find a single one. They claimed a person named Sergei (what are the odds of that) told them a
person threw the molotov inside the building and didn't realize the window was closed. This is
absolutely ludicrous and an example of the pathetic reporting that passes for "news" these days.
I did find the video of the third floor fire starting. It is at the following link and runs
consecutively. You'll notice at exactly the 2 minute mark the camera zooms in on the window where
the fire begins. You'll also notice that at the 2:02 mark you see an additional molotov cocktail
just miss the window. This is strong evidence that the window was being targeted by individuals
on the ground. Prior to this fire starting there is no other fire on the third floor, therefore
this is most likely the cause of the third floor fire and lends credence to the fact that the
violent youth below burned those people alive.
And not just "Russian state-owned media" - also most of the Russian privately owned media,
and most of the world media (and even some of the western media).
I believe I saw a chinadaily calling it Kristallnacht.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:16
Russian state-owned media characterised the day's events as a "massacre" planned by "fascists"
in Kiev, a narrative that has gained widespread traction.
Mostly because it's a pretty fitting description of what happened.
Its not hard truk. Those red armbands that the so called pro Russian provocatores wore? Are
actually the same red armbands Right sector militia was wearing during the most violent Maidan
clashes. You can identify some of the same protagonists wearing the same armband in both Odesaa
and Maidan!
vr13vr -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:07
Idiot. Nobody is laughing. Especially when 50 people died. Look at this video and see how Ukrainians
entered the supposedly "heavily defended" building. You will see them operating inside, you will
see them existing the building after it started burning from inside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg
Look at 23 min mark - they are entering the building with no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
Yes, Ukrainians overrun the building, including the roof. The photographs suggest that people
in the building where set afire while still alive.
You must be an idiot to say someone is laughing at this.
castorsia -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:02
No. They burned them. Check the photographic evidence.
PlatonKuzin -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:58
Armored vehicles and special riot forces were brought today in Odessa to prevent possible unrest
there.
WHYNOPASSWORD12 -> Havingalavrov 1 May 2015 12:56
Plenty of witnesses point out that these were pro-ukraine provacateurs sent up to stir up trouble.
They are wearing the same red armbands worn by a group who started the skirmishes earlier in the
town centre. They were part of the group bussed-in under the guise of football supporters.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 12:55
Hi turk10,
I understand your confusion. Luckily, Mr. Christof Lehmann investigated it all for you. Seek and
ye shall find. Use google.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:50
Sure, Kiev views burning alive almost 50 people as a "victory." They even allowed to install
fear in the city. Since then the city is totally subdued, people would be afraid to even discuss
the events or think of any peaceful opposition as they are aware of the potential response from
Kiev's supporters.
Nice job Guardian trying to whitewash the events and justify the cold blooded murder by some
street fights elsewhere in the city, events that were taking place all over the country those
days.
Jeremn -> oleteo 1 May 2015 12:40
No greater cynics than western politicians, who certainly don't mourn this heavenly half-hundred,
or come to lay flowers at the scene of their death.
No greater cynic than the Czech envoy, Bartuska, who said:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men.
If they [independence supporters] are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were
simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side
of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
ID5868758 1 May 2015 12:18
Another despicable attempt to paint a false equivalency, to assign blame for this massacre,
for their own deaths, on those who perished. Take the Molotov cocktail throwing, for instance.
I watched the videos of those Molotov cocktails being made, pretty little pro-Ukrainian girls
sitting on the ground with their assembly line all set up, smiling as they made those instruments
of death and handed them out, now just where did those supplies come from, who thought to bring
bottles and rags and fuel to an event if it was innocent in nature?
And where would those innocent victims chased inside the building get Molotov cocktails to
throw from inside the building, when they were interested only in escaping the smoke and flames,
saving their own lives? The narrative doesn't match the evidence, but neither does it pass the
smell test, pretty SOP for western media reporting on Ukraine.
StillHaveLinkYouHate -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:56
The difference is that Nazis want to murder people for the accident of how they were born.
Extreme natinalists will want to murder anybody who does not behave in the perverted way they
feel a patriot should.
That is the difference. Praviy sektor are nazis, incidentally.
It makes the point already made below in this comment thread:
I invite people to imagine how the British media would have reported this massacre if roles
had been reversed and if it had been Maidan supporters who were burnt alive in the Trade Union
building with an anti Maidan crowd filmed throwing Molotov cocktails into the building whilst
baying for blood outside.
Indeed.
GreatCthulhu -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 11:45
Many of them not locals.
I thought the article was pretty clear that everyone on both sides were local. I speak, of
course s an Irish man who doesn't regard hating Russians/ people who identify with Russia who
aren't Russians but live nearby as a default position before beginning any debate.
There are a small minority of Irish people, living in the Republic (I am not referring to the
northern Unionist Community here), who identify with Britain often to the point that they express
regret that Ireland ever left the UK. I don't agree with them, but I would not set them on fire
in a building. For that matter, it is ARGUABLE (I am not saying whether that argument is right
or wrong- just that you could put forward the thesis) that the N.I state-let is something of an
Irish Donbass. No justification for Ireland shelling the crap out of it though... at all... that
sort of stuff is kind of regarded as savagery here these days.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:43
Hi turk10,
what's wrong with calling them 'nazis'? The guardian piece identifies them as "extreme nationalists",
and isn't it the same thing as 'neo-nazis' or 'nazis'?
Is there some nuance I'm missing here? What would you call them?
BorninUkraine -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:38
So you object to calling a spade a spade? Typical pro-US position in Ukrainian crisis. What
do you call the insignia of, for example, Azov battalion (see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion ). If that's not Nazi insignia, I don't know what
is.
I am simply saying that those who organized Odessa massacre, then Mariupol massacre, then fueled
the war in Donbass, including Poroshenko, Turchinov, Yats, etc, are Nazis.
The simple reason for that conclusion is, as the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, if
it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck". If you prefer Christian version
of the same thing, see Mathew 7:16 "you will know them by their fruits".
To sum it up, if someone behaves like a Nazi, s/he is a Nazi. Is this clear enough?
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 11:28
A pro-Russia activist aims a pistol at supporters of the Kiev government during clashes
in the streets of Odessa, 2 May 2014.
How do we know that the guy is pro-Russian? Does the picture show what he is aiming at? Does
he have a sign on his forehead burned in saying "I am pro-Russian and I am going to shoot that
pro-Ukrainian bastard"? No, he does not. We are expected to assume that because the caption says
so - but captions to pictures aren't evidence. Anybody can put any caption to any picture, and
it's been done many a time.
The head of the local pro-Ukraine Maidan self-defence group, Dmitry Gumenyuk, recalled the
effect of the homemade grenades. . . they threw a grenade and it exploded under his bullet-proof
vest and four nails entered his lungs," he said.
Such peaceful people - going for a nice in the park walk in bullet-proof vests. They were going
to destroy that camp and not on the agreement with the activists in that camp, as Guardian states
(complete BS) but violently, which they did. Even if they were attacked, what did women in the
camp have to do with it?
Come on, people, even in the face of such a tragedy, is it so absolutely necessary to hush up
the truth all the time?
BorninUkraine -> caliento 1 May 2015 11:24
There is a Ukrainian joke. Russians ask:
- If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
- We aren't that stupid, there are Russian troops there.
- But you say there are Russian troops in Donbass?
- That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
castorsia 1 May 2015 11:21
The Guardian continues to misrepresent the Odesa massacre by reporting claims by the official
Ukrainian investigation and the Odesa governor created May 2 group that the deadly fire started
when both sided were throwing Molotov cocktails. The videos and other evidence showing that the
fire started after the Molotov cocktails and tires were thrown by the attackers are deliberately
omitted.
Open question to you all: What would be in the headlines if scores of "Pro-Ukrainian activists
" were being burned, hacked, mauled, shot and raperd to death by Donetsk rebels or their supporters?
BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 11:20
There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad,
but true.
In this article Howard Amos pretends that he believes that both sides were to blame for the
mass murder of anti-fascists by pro-Maidan thugs in Odessa on May 2, 2014. That's like saying
that both the Nazis and the inmates of concentration camps were equally guilty.
This lie is so outrageous, and so far from reality, that it does not even deserve an argument.
The readers who want to know the truth can do Google search using "Odessa massacre 2014" and read
for themselves.
The lie that the Guardian repeats after Kyiv "government" looks even less plausible now, as
Odessa massacre was followed by the massacre of civilians by Nazi thugs in Mariupol a few days
later (change Odessa to Mariupol in your Google search), and the murder of thousands of civilians
in Donbass, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans, by the Ukrainian army and
Nazi battalions.
I grew up in the USSR, but I have never read a lie so obvious and outrageous in the Soviet
media. Congratulations on a new low!
coffeegirl aussiereader4 1 May 2015 11:11
Sounds like you know little about what happened in Odessa.
The best compilation of any available material was done on May 8, 2014 by our fellow CiFer
US ex-marine griffin alabama:
You like to cite Strelkov, don't you, when it suits your purpose? If he is such an authority
for you, why don't you cite everything he says? Among other things, he said that Maidan was not
a popular uprising but a pure decoration for the coup organized by the right wing groups and funded
by oligarchs together with the foreign agents? You can watch this here
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/must-watch-strelkov-vs-starikov-debate.html
greatwhitehunter caliento 1 May 2015 11:08
you would no if you followed events the idea of peace keepers was supported by Russia, the
separatists and a good many other countries right from the start of the conflict . It was not
however supported by the kiev government or the US. Peace keepers were offered to Ukraine right
up until 4 days before the Minsk agreement.
Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. There belated cries for
peace keepers only came after getting an a*& kicking.
kiev signed the minsk agreement which requires them to deal with the issues peace keepers would
be a way out for them. Usa by their actions does not support the Minsk agreement.
Poroshenko,s idea of peace keepers was a few kiev friendly states to send weapons and troups
to bolster their ranks.
An offer was made via the UN security council for a peace keeping force that included china
and new zealand and poroshenko stated that ukraine didn't needed china and new Zealand's help,
as it turned out they did.
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 10:54
Oh Guardian, Guardian. Both are to blame, heroism on both sides - in short, they burned themselves.
We've heard that before. But then the article goes on and tells you that the movement they for
some reason call "pro-Russian", although its not pro-Russia as much as it's anti-fascist, is essentially
eliminated, with all leaders in jail or in exile. In contrast,
None of the pro-Ukraine activists have been put on trial
Kind of tells you what actually happened, doesn't it?
Activists from both sides admit that the port city remains divided into two approximately
matched camps
No, they aren't matched. The Odessa residents are mostly anti-Maidan. The city is flooded with
newcomers from the western Ukraine, and they the main supporters of Kiev. Otherwise, why would
Kiev deploy half of the army to Odessa before the May holidays?
Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city'
liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass".
So much for "matched camps". Of course, if you put everybody of the opposing view in jail of
kill them, you can sort of achieve a "match".
Elena Hodgson 1 May 2015 10:50
This was a massacre. Period.
Hanwell123 1 May 2015 10:48
Ukraine is a gangster state where if activists aren't arrested then they are shot; 6 prominent
figures shot this year alone. No arrests. It's supported to the hilt by the EU who shell out enormous
sums to keep it from bankruptcy.
nnedjo 1 May 2015 08:42
This is the news from the Ukraine crisis Media Center:
Odesa, April 27, 2015 – Vitaly Kozhukhar, coordinator of the Self-Defense of Odesa, Varvara
Chernoivanenko, a spokesman for the Right Sector of Odesa held a briefing on the topic: "May
2 this year in Odesa. How a single headquarters of the patriotic forces preparing to hold a
day of mourning for those killed in the city"...
Varvara Chernoivanenko said that for all patriots of Ukraine is important that May 2 was peaceful
day. Patriotic forces create patrols that will keep order in the area of Cathedral Square,
which will host a memorial meeting for all those, who died on 2 May. They will make every effort
to ensure peace and order. Already, the city has operational headquarters of the patriotic
forces. Their representatives will stop all provocations. At the same time, according to Varvara
Chernoivanenko, on their part will not be any aggression.
Thus, the "patriotic forces", which I suppose are responsible for burning people alive in the
building of Trade Unions in Odessa, will now protect those who survived and who should hold the
memorial service for their relatives and friends, victims of Odessa massacre. The only question
is, from whom they should protect them?
I mean, this lady from the Right Sector boasts that they organized patrols of its members all
over the city. Well, you can bet that in these patrols will be at least some, if not all of those
who threw Molotov cocktails at the building of trade unions, and beaten with clubs or even shot
at those who tried to escape from the fire. Because, as this article shows, none of them has even
been charged, let alone be convicted of that crime.
So, can we then conclude that the executioners of the victims of the Odessa massacre will now
provide protection to those who mourn the victims, which is a paradox of its kind.
And how these patrols of "patriotic forces" operating in reality, you can watch in this video,
which was filmed during the visit of Poroshenko in Odessa, on the day of the celebration of liberation
of the city in WWII, 10 April. At the beginning of the film, the guys from "Patriotic patrol"
argue with a group of anti-fascists, demanding that they reject one of their flag. And then at
one point (0:31 of the video), one of these guys from patrol says:
"Didn't burn enough of you, eh?"
MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 07:45
Ah, of course: both sides are to blame, because before the massacre an extreme nationalist
militant died, under circumstanced unknown (shot in self-defense, perhaps? who knows).
Nice.
a pro-Ukraine member of the extreme nationalist organisation
Even nicer: 'pro-Ukraine extreme nationalist'. Pro-Ukraine? Which kind of Ukraine?
I find that one of the most misleading elements in these west-interpreted stories is "pro-Russian"
and "pro-Ukrainian" labels.
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav
Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men.
If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death,
or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything
will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to
be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.
6i9vern 1 May 2015 07:43
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav
Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed
men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to
death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road,
everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to
be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.
Vladimir Makarenko Celtiberico 1 May 2015 06:20
They took it from Odessa being a symbol of Black Sea and a while ago a Russian poet said: Chernoe
More - Vor na Vore.
Black Sea - a thief by thief.
normankirk 1 May 2015 06:14
This is a shameless attempt to whitewash a massacre.There is plenty of evidence on you tube
Every one has cell phones which can record events as they unfold. This is why the American police
can no longer get away with murder. The European parliament held a hearing in Brussels to hear
the Odessa survivors. there was a concerted effort from Maidan activists from Kiev to shut down
the survivors testimony. A Europarliament deputy from the Czech republic Miroslav said "This is
simply shocking. this is an evidence of fascism not being disappeared from European countries.He
blamed Parubiy, co founder of far right Svoboda party and Kolomoisky, paymaster of neo nazi militia
for the massacre at Odessa. All this is recorded. Ignorance can no longer be a defence
ID075732 1 May 2015 05:53
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following, famous text by Pastor Martin Niemoller
about the cowardice of intellectuals following the Nazis':
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
It's time for the MSM to realise that the same is happening Ukraine - for which the Odessa
massacre is a warning. It's time they stopped playing intellectual games to prop up what is a
fascist regime in Kiev.
BunglyPete 1 May 2015 05:48
Just in case those involved in the production of this article do read or hear of these comments..
Do you not realise we have Google and Youtube now? You can verify anything within a few keystrokes.
You do not need to rely on the evil Russian media, you can watch the eyewitness videos yourself.
I mean this seriously, if you are going to attempt to prove something then at least realise
that you will need to go to more lengths to do so. In the context of the greater 'propaganda war',
articles like this are nonsensical, as you merely serve to discredit yourself, and encourage people
to move to alternative media sources.
If you want to discredit the Russian narrative then discredit it, don't write things that discredit
your own narrative.
You don't need to bill me for this advice it comes for free.
SHappens 1 May 2015 04:30
Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to
cover up high-level complicity.
At the beginning of the unrest, the most virulent reaction came from supporters of Ukrainian
football clubs. But they were soon joined by a well-organized gang of self-defense that came in
a column of about 100 people dressed in military fatigues and relatively well equipped.
Members of the Ukrainian security forces withdrew from the scene allowing the rightwing radicals
to block the exits and firebomb the building forcing many to jump from open windows to the pavement
below where they died on impact. The few who survived the fall were savagely beaten with clubs
and chains by the nearly 300 extremist thugs who had gathered on the street.
Street fighting thugs don't typically waste their time barricading exits unless it is part
of a plan, a plan to create a big-enough incident to change the narrative of what is going on
in the country. None of the victims of the tragedy were armed.
This isn't the first time the US has tried to pull something like this off. In 2006, the Bush
administration used a similar tactic in Iraq. That's when Samarra's Golden Dome Mosque was blown
up in an effort to change the public's perception of the conflict from an armed struggle against
foreign occupation into a civil war.
So who authorized the attack on Odessa's Trade Unions House? Could it be that the Ukrainian
Security Services were supervised by some external mercenaries just like the Oluja blitzkrieg
in Croatia back in 1995 when the Croatian National Guard was then supervised and managed by MPRI,
an US SMP based in Virginia? Because in Kiev, dozens of specialists from the US CIA and FBI were
advising the Ukrainian government helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set
up a functioning security structure. (report, AFP).
Whatever and if ever an inquiry succeeds, fact is that the government in Kiev bears direct
responsibility, and is complicit in these criminal activities for they allowed extremists and
radicals to burn unarmed people alive.
warehouse_guy 1 May 2015 04:30
Tatyana Gerasimova also says the case is getting killed off in court, put that on your headline.
alpykog 1 May 2015 04:30
Nothing unusual about police, army and terrorists working together. I remember the British
army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through
Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. Try not to feel "holier than thou" when
you read this stuff.
ID075732 1 May 2015 04:23
Rumours swirl of a higher death toll, the use of poisonous gas and the body of a pregnant
woman garrotted by pro-Ukraine fanatics.
Clearly the author has not watched the footage filmed inside the building after the massacre
- this was no "swirling rumour". Clearly the footage wasn't faked either. It showed may murdered
victims with burns to their heads and arms with bodies and clothes unscorched, not caused by the
actual fire.
Also those that have studied the many videos available of the unfolding events saw a much more
an orchestrated attack on the Trade Union building with fires breaking out in rooms further away
from the seat of the original fire. Also two masked figures on the roof before the fire started
in the building.
Reports that the exits were blocked and a number of masked pro-Ukrainians were inside the building
not just on the roof, don't figure in this report.
ploughmanlunch 1 May 2015 03:41
'While many pro-Ukraine activists helped the rescue effort, others punched, kicked and beat
those who fled the burning building. "There was blood and water all over the courtyard," said
Elena, who escaped via a fireman's ladder. "They were shouting 'on your knees, on your knees'."
This sums up, in my opinion, the whole sordid mess that is present Ukraine.
The majority of ordinary Ukrainians living under the authority of Kiev will broadly agree with
their Government, but are civilised and are probably horrified by the violence perpetrated by
both sides in the war.
Unfortunately, however, there is a significant minority of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists
that readily resort to violence and intimidation and revile Russian speaking 'separatists' in
the Donbas ( and elsewhere ).
Even more unfortunately, the fanatical far right have a disproportionate influence in the Kiev
Parliament and even the Government; a fact conveniently overlooked by the incredibly indulgent
Western powers. The present Kiev regime is blatantly anti-democratic and lacks any humanitarian
concern for the desperate plight of citizens still living in Donbas, ( unpaid pensions, economic
and humanitarian blockade ).
This crisis still has a long way to go, and I believe has not yet reached it's nadir. A brighter
future for all the people of Ukraine will require unbiased and honest involvement of the great
powers, East and West.
Geo kosmopolitenko 1 May 2015 03:22
Some spin doctors in Washington would sarcastically smile if they ever read this sadly tragic
article.
Kiselev 1 May 2015 03:20
Symbol of separated Ukrainian society...
Whatever western Ukrainians told us.
Such an elaborate dance around facts. From comments: "It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section
than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor." This is one event about
which there is quite a lot of information to see how Guardian presstitutes try to bent the truth. See
Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014
The emergency calls became increasingly desperate. "When are you coming? It's already burning and there are people inside," a
woman told the fire brigade dispatcher. Minutes later, callers started describing how people were jumping from the upper floors.
"Have you lost your minds?" one man asked, his voice breaking. "There are women and children in the building!" another man yelled.
In one of the most deadly episodes in Ukraine's turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and hundreds injured on 2
May last year in the Black Sea port of Odessa.
Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia activists were barricaded in.
VengefulRevenant -> AlfredHerring 1 May 2015 17:24
The victims are the ones who were raped, shot or burned to death in the massacre.
The perpetrators are those protected by the NATO-backed regime which has failed to investigate the massacre.
The apologists are the NATO-aligned media who blame the victims or assign blame equally to the killers and the dead along the
lines of, 'There was heroism and cruelty on both sides.'
normankirk -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 16:52
Well isn't it wonderful to hear a diversity of views expressed on Russian TV. When all we hear is how all media is controlled
by the Kremlin
Kaiama Danram 1 May 2015 16:48
So the dead Ukrainian children and women are Kremlin goons too?
How simple your life must be to allow you to make such simplistic conclusions.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 16:46
Some nice whitewashing. Now it's fault of the victims and the heroism of the perpetrators, there hasn't been and there will
be no investigation and the word massacre is no longer used. For those of you who still argue it was not a massacre but some mysterious
suicide by 48 people who set themselves afire, here is footage again.
Take a look at some of the pretty revealing moments:
23 min mark - Ukrainians are entering the building, there was no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
While in the building, Ukrainians were slaughtering people. And it wasn't a fight. Half of the victims were middle-aged. At least
10 of them - women.
31min - 33min - the victims who got out have their faces and hands disfigured while the rest of their bodies don't have the same
injuries. That's what happens if someone splashes fuel over someone's face and light it up. There are pictures of victims with
only their heads and hands burned.
33min - 35min - there were women among those trying to find safety in the building. Some of them are middle-aged. They were not
fighters, as the article would imply.
36min- 37min - Ukrainians were inside the building, setting it on fire and killing those whom they could find, a young woman in
this specific frame.
46min - a person was bludgeoned to death. The room doesn't have marks of fire but the blood is splattered all over the room.
48min-50min - the same story, Ukrainians were slaughtering their victims.
1h:00min - Ukrainians are entering the building again, this time from the make shift scaffolding.
Any attempt to pretend there was a fight rather than a massacre is crazy. Any suggestion that somehow people inside were setting
themselves on fire is ludicrous in light of evidence that the Ukis were inside the building. And the fact that Kiev doesn't even
see it as murder makes me just angry.
AbsolutelyFapulous -> PlatonKuzin 1 May 2015 16:43
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil.
Donno why you are commenting here. You even don't seem to be able to read a map.
BorninUkraine -> RonBuckley 1 May 2015 16:25
In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f… the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain) that pushed Ukraine over the
cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys.
However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership" the country was on the edge of
that cliff to begin with.
Current Ukrainian "leaders" keep stealing everything they can, including financial and material aid from the West. What else
is new?
MaoChengJi -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 16:03
Yeah. I'm convinced that they should've sent paratroopers and take Kiev right the next day after the coup d'etat; stop this
whole unholy mess right then and there. That really would've saved tens of thousands of lives - if not millions, seeing how this
thing seems to escalate, leading us to a nuclear war.
Putin is a pussy, Medvedev got it right in Georgia in 2008. Well, frankly Medvedev is a pussy too. He should've taken Tbilisi,
and put Saakashvili on trial.
To teach the bastards a lesson.
Instead, now we hear every day 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', and the murdering Nazi bastards
get bolder and bolder. What's the point of having all that military hardware if you're afraid to use it. They Yanks would've taken
control of the place months ago, look at Grenada.
RonBuckley -> BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 15:52
Well said, man. Yes, Ukrainian politics have always been divisive, stupid, thievery and corrupt. That said they had neither
brains nor money for a coup. So Ukraine should thank certain external powers for the deep shit it is in now.
PlatonKuzin -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:31
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil. That's the point. And the state of Ukraine is a temporary occupier of
the Russian soil. So people living in Odessa don't have to go to Russian. They are right at their home. This is the state of Ukraine
that has stayed on our Russian land for 23 years now. It's time for the quasi-state of Ukraine to leave.
BorninUkraine -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:16
I was born in Lvov in Western Ukraine, I grew up in Lugansk in the East, I have friends and relatives all over, and I know
exactly what is going on in Ukraine.
Ukraine in 1991 was extremely heterogenous. In the area West of Carpatian mountains people speak Hungarian, Romanian, and Rusine
(a form of old Russian, spoken in Kievan Rus).
Galichina and Volynia in the West speak several dialects of Ukrainian. Many in Central Ukraine speak what is considered literary
Ukrainian. In the South and East (historic Novorossia) and in Kharkov region (historic Slobozhanschina) the majority speaks "surgik",
a mix of pidgin-Ukrainian and pidgin-Russian. Finally, in Crimea people speak Russian, Tatar, and very few speak Ukrainian. Crimea
voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum and got a chance to run away in 2014, when Ukraine committed suicide.
If the leaders of Ukraine had any brains and loved their country, they would have followed the example of Switzerland and Singapore,
having many official languages. However, all Ukrainian rulers from day one were thieves and idiots. They made Ukrainian the only
official language and pushed it everywhere, so that while you could get school education in several languages, all colleges operated
only in Ukrainian, putting people who spoke other languages at a disadvantage.
That idiotic policy started this whole mess, which with a bit of US money, prodding, and now arms became a civil war. Not to
mention that Galichina is the place that fought against Russia in WWI (as part of Austro-Hungarian empire, siding with Kaiser)
and WWII (siding with Hitler). They supplied the troops that under Hitler's command murdered thousands of civilians in Ukraine,
Poland, Belarus, and Slovakia. Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina, who are considered heroes by
current puppets in Kiev, voluntarily served Hitler.
80% of Ukrainian population hates these Bandera worshippers, so when external forces push them to power, it creates trouble.
Personally I hate them for giving a bad name to everything Ukrainian.
BorninUkraine -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:10
Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children,
elderly, and disabled veterans.
Or is saying things explicitly beyond your pay grade?
RonBuckley -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:06
To Odessa Kiev sent a few hundred pro-Nazi thugs - 42 died.
To Donetsk and Luhansk Kiev sent a few thousand pro-Nazi thugs plus the entire Ukrainian army - 6000 died.
Get it now?
Goodthanx -> Anette Mor 1 May 2015 15:04
For me it was the silence... You are right! Seeing what i was seeing, with no commentry to convince me either way.. How could
the worlds media be so silent?
Then with MH, it was the complete opposite!! Immediately and with no investigation, MSM could not shut up about who they thought
was responsible!!
Both fail the logic test miserably. But try explaining common sense to those that haven't any.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:48
Those protesters were Ukrainian Pro Federalists! Not one Russian amongst them!
Anette Mor -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 14:46
Good for you. It is impossible to hide truth with current state of technology. Only not showning. Any life reporting give the
footage adding facts one by one and crwating a true picture eventually. Even this rather bias article contributes to true story
because the lie in it sticks out of logic for anybody we is able to think for themselves.
PlatonKuzin -> ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:42
Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting the way they do, these media
prepare the public for a future war.
Anette Mor -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 14:41
It is poinless to try to install fear in these people. Need to look at the history of people's wars in Russia. Since 17 century
they were able to resist occupation and unwanted rulers by people war. There wpuld not be a win against Napoleon and Hitler without
people rising and forming resistance. Same in Odessa now. Just a matter of time.
BunglyPete -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:35
The explanation is very simple. Right Sector had free reign to terrorise pro Russians, so he took action. Kiev choose not to
punish Right Sector both then and now. He said this in the same interview you constantly reference.
Now can you explain why you think it is acceptable for Right Sector to terrorise the Donbass? If Strelkov wasnt allowed to defend
them, who was?
Anette Mor -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 14:34
Not sure why you call them pro-Russians. Odessa is multi-national city. These who were massacred are simply local people who
disagreed with the violent coup which put to power by the west. Does it make them "pro-russian" and justify thier killing? Surely
these who want own country to be coverned by own elected officials could not be pro- another country. If they trust Russian government
care for them more then thier own coup, that only says how bad the coup rule is.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:24
Forget about the Russian government. The idea is justice for the victims and punishment for the perpetrators. Is it the ambition
of the UN to be percieved as bias as so called Russuan investigators would be?
Kaiama -> truk10 1 May 2015 14:22
FFS there are enough links and analysis to demonstrate that pro-Kiev forces inflicted a massacre of civilians here. I don't
see any pro-Ukraine links to additional information but an overwhelming deluge of links supporting the unvoiced version of events.
ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:18
Our western media have really become mirror images of the fascist governments they support. By publishing such whitewashing
attempts as this, they only enable more such behavior in the future, behavior that leads to the deaths of more innocents, more
civilians whose only desire is to live in freedom and peace.
Kaiama 1 May 2015 14:13
It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new
editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:09
What kind of a teenage girl carries in their backpack petrol, empty bottles, rags and whatever else is required to make Molotov
cocktails? What a coincidence... there is a group of them!!
As for Right Sector? Chartered buses transported Right Sector militia which arrived early in the day. These were the people communicating
with police from the start.
MaoChengJi -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 13:51
Speaking of the media... I've been reading this Odessa news website: http://timer-odessa.net/ , and it has been relatively
informative (as much as Ukro-sites can be, these days). And today suddenly it's gone dark: "there is no Web site at this address".
Does anyone know if it's gone for good? I really hope those who were running it are safe...
Jean-François Guilbo -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:51
So you didn't watch the video link in my comment did you?
If you just take this article for granted to know on which side the Odessa police was, you won't learn much on what happened...
Seems like the officier on the picture would have been recognised as a colonel from Odessa police, watch this link:
And from these two links, these armed guys not afraid to shoot from the crowd, could have been agents provocateur...
BorninUkraine -> IrishFred 1 May 2015 13:47
Are you saying that Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina never existed? If so, please state it
explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above did not serve Hitler voluntarily? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above are not guilty of mass murder and other crimes against humanity? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying that people who are murdering their opponents, politicians and journalists, are not Nazis? If so, please state
it explicitly.
As to Crimea, if you knew any history, you'd know that it was illegally annexed by Ukraine in 1991. Here is history 101, not
necessarily for you, but for those who actually want to know the truth.
Russia deployed its troops in Crimea, and nobody was killed there. Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian
army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.
As many Ukrainians joke now, "Crimeans are traitors: they ran away without us".
Your next argument?
Jeff1000 -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 13:45
Don't display callous and willful ignorance and call it even-handedness. The Guardian's "credible" account offers no sources,
agrees with none of the available pictorial or video evidence and is rampant apologism.
I posted videos - including raw CCTV footage of the starting of the fire, further up the page.
BunglyPete -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:40
I saw that guy's post it was fantastic, very well sourced and thorough. The comments on here were a different kettle of fish
entirely back then.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:39
The attempt to re-package this event as some awful conglomeration of circumstances spurred on by the cruelty of fate is sickening.
We reduce the death of at least 50 people down so that calling it a "massacre" becomes needlessly emotive. We casually refer to
the pro-Ukrainians as "football fans" to make it seem innocent - when Ukrainian football fans known as "Ultras" are famours for
2 things: Being neo-Nazis, and being violent thugs.
Look at this video especially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAEcceedzCU
It's really very simple - candid videos at the time made it clear.
1. Pro-Russian groups were attacked by Ukrainian "ultras". They sought shelter in the Trade Union building.
2. The building was set on fire when the Ultras threw molotovs through the windows. The doors were barred.
3. People attempting to climb out of the windows were shot at, if they jumped they were beaten as they lay on the ground.
4. Ukrainian nationalists deliberately blockaded the streets to inhibit the progress of ambulances and fire engines.
Only a week after The Odessa Massacre an american CiFer, ex-marine, has gathered links, sieved through hours and hours of video
- he, practically, has done what the journos were supposed to do, - to prove the Guardian, BBC and the rest were trying hard to
whitewash the atrocity. Check his posts: Additional proof that the BBC and the mainstream Western press lied when they said both
sides threw the molotov's.
I looked for 5 hours searching for one video that showed anyone in the building throwing a molotov cocktail as the BBC first
reported and the rest of the MSM went along with. I could not find a single one. They claimed a person named Sergei (what are
the odds of that) told them a person threw the molotov inside the building and didn't realize the window was closed. This is absolutely
ludicrous and an example of the pathetic reporting that passes for "news" these days.
I did find the video of the third floor fire starting. It is at the following link and runs consecutively. You'll notice at
exactly the 2 minute mark the camera zooms in on the window where the fire begins. You'll also notice that at the 2:02 mark you
see an additional molotov cocktail just miss the window. This is strong evidence that the window was being targeted by individuals
on the ground. Prior to this fire starting there is no other fire on the third floor, therefore this is most likely the cause
of the third floor fire and lends credence to the fact that the violent youth below burned those people alive.
And not just "Russian state-owned media" - also most of the Russian privately owned media, and most of the world media (and
even some of the western media).
I believe I saw a chinadaily calling it Kristallnacht.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:16
Russian state-owned media characterised the day's events as a "massacre" planned by "fascists" in Kiev, a narrative that
has gained widespread traction.
Mostly because it's a pretty fitting description of what happened.
Its not hard truk. Those red armbands that the so called pro Russian provocatores wore? Are actually the same red armbands
Right sector militia was wearing during the most violent Maidan clashes. You can identify some of the same protagonists wearing
the same armband in both Odesaa and Maidan!
vr13vr -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:07
Idiot. Nobody is laughing. Especially when 50 people died. Look at this video and see how Ukrainians entered the supposedly
"heavily defended" building. You will see them operating inside, you will see them exiting the building after it started burning
from inside.
Look at 23 min mark - they are entering the building with no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
Yes, Ukrainians overrun the building, including the roof. The photographs suggest that people in the building where set afire
while still alive.
You must be an idiot to say someone is laughing at this.
castorsia -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:02
No. They burned them. Check the photographic evidence.
PlatonKuzin -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:58
Armored vehicles and special riot forces were brought today in Odessa to prevent possible unrest there.
WHYNOPASSWORD12 -> Havingalavrov 1 May 2015 12:56
Plenty of witnesses point out that these were pro-ukraine provacateurs sent up to stir up trouble. They are wearing the same
red armbands worn by a group who started the skirmishes earlier in the town centre. They were part of the group bussed-in under
the guise of football supporters.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 12:55
Hi turk10,
I understand your confusion. Luckily, Mr. Christof Lehmann investigated it all for you. Seek and ye shall find. Use google.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:50
Sure, Kiev views burning alive almost 50 people as a "victory." They even allowed to install fear in the city. Since then the
city is totally subdued, people would be afraid to even discuss the events or think of any peaceful opposition as they are aware
of the potential response from Kiev's supporters.
Nice job Guardian trying to whitewash the events and justify the cold blooded murder by some street fights elsewhere in the city,
events that were taking place all over the country those days.
Jeremn -> oleteo 1 May 2015 12:40
No greater cynics than western politicians, who certainly don't mourn this heavenly half-hundred, or come to lay flowers at
the scene of their death.
No greater cynic than the Czech envoy, Bartuska, who said:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and after
that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they [independence supporters] are quickly resisted, as it was
done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side
of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
ID5868758 1 May 2015 12:18
Another despicable attempt to paint a false equivalency, to assign blame for this massacre, for their own deaths, on those
who perished. Take the Molotov cocktail throwing, for instance. I watched the videos of those Molotov cocktails being made, pretty
little pro-Ukrainian girls sitting on the ground with their assembly line all set up, smiling as they made those instruments of
death and handed them out, now just where did those supplies come from, who thought to bring bottles and rags and fuel to an event
if it was innocent in nature?
And where would those innocent victims chased inside the building get Molotov cocktails to throw from inside the building,
when they were interested only in escaping the smoke and flames, saving their own lives? The narrative doesn't match the evidence,
but neither does it pass the smell test, pretty SOP for western media reporting on Ukraine.
StillHaveLinkYouHate -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:56
The difference is that Nazis want to murder people for the accident of how they were born. Extreme natinalists will want to
murder anybody who does not behave in the perverted way they feel a patriot should.
That is the difference. Praviy sektor are nazis, incidentally.
It makes the point already made below in this comment thread:
I invite people to imagine how the British media would have reported this massacre if roles had been reversed and if it
had been Maidan supporters who were burnt alive in the Trade Union building with an anti Maidan crowd filmed throwing Molotov
cocktails into the building whilst baying for blood outside.
Indeed.
GreatCthulhu -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 11:45
Many of them not locals.
I thought the article was pretty clear that everyone on both sides were local. I speak, of course s an Irish man who doesn't
regard hating Russians/ people who identify with Russia who aren't Russians but live nearby as a default position before beginning
any debate.
There are a small minority of Irish people, living in the Republic (I am not referring to the northern Unionist Community here),
who identify with Britain often to the point that they express regret that Ireland ever left the UK. I don't agree with them,
but I would not set them on fire in a building. For that matter, it is ARGUABLE (I am not saying whether that argument is right
or wrong- just that you could put forward the thesis) that the N.I state-let is something of an Irish Donbass. No justification
for Ireland shelling the crap out of it though... at all... that sort of stuff is kind of regarded as savagery here these days.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:43
Hi turk10,
what's wrong with calling them 'nazis'? The guardian piece identifies them as "extreme nationalists", and isn't it the same thing
as 'neo-nazis' or 'nazis'?
Is there some nuance I'm missing here? What would you call them?
BorninUkraine -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:38
So you object to calling a spade a spade? Typical pro-US position in Ukrainian crisis. What do you call the insignia of, for
example, Azov battalion (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
). If that's not Nazi insignia, I don't know what is.
I am simply saying that those who organized Odessa massacre, then Mariupol massacre, then fueled the war in Donbass, including
Poroshenko, Turchinov, Yats, etc, are Nazis.
The simple reason for that conclusion is, as the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks
like a duck, it is a duck". If you prefer Christian version of the same thing, see Mathew 7:16 "you will know them by their fruits".
To sum it up, if someone behaves like a Nazi, s/he is a Nazi. Is this clear enough?
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 11:28
A pro-Russia activist aims a pistol at supporters of the Kiev government during clashes in the streets of Odessa, 2 May
2014.
How do we know that the guy is pro-Russian? Does the picture show what he is aiming at? Does he have a sign on his forehead
burned in saying "I am pro-Russian and I am going to shoot that pro-Ukrainian bastard"? No, he does not. We are expected to assume
that because the caption says so - but captions to pictures aren't evidence. Anybody can put any caption to any picture, and it's
been done many a time.
The head of the local pro-Ukraine Maidan self-defence group, Dmitry Gumenyuk, recalled the effect of the homemade grenades.
. . they threw a grenade and it exploded under his bullet-proof vest and four nails entered his lungs," he said.
Such peaceful people - going for a nice in the park walk in bullet-proof vests. They were going to destroy that camp and not
on the agreement with the activists in that camp, as Guardian states (complete BS) but violently, which they did. Even if they
were attacked, what did women in the camp have to do with it?
Come on, people, even in the face of such a tragedy, is it so absolutely necessary to hush up the truth all the time?
BorninUkraine -> caliento 1 May 2015 11:24
There is a Ukrainian joke. Russians ask:
- If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
- We aren't that stupid, there are Russian troops there.
- But you say there are Russian troops in Donbass?
- That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
castorsia 1 May 2015 11:21
The Guardian continues to misrepresent the Odesa massacre by reporting claims by the official Ukrainian investigation and the
Odesa governor created May 2 group that the deadly fire started when both sided were throwing Molotov cocktails. The videos and
other evidence showing that the fire started after the Molotov cocktails and tires were thrown by the attackers are deliberately
omitted.
Open question to you all: What would be in the headlines if scores of "Pro-Ukrainian activists " were being burned, hacked, mauled,
shot and raperd to death by Donetsk rebels or their supporters?
BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 11:20
There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad, but true.
In this article Howard Amos pretends that he believes that both sides were to blame for the mass murder of anti-fascists by
pro-Maidan thugs in Odessa on May 2, 2014. That's like saying that both the Nazis and the inmates of concentration camps were
equally guilty.
This lie is so outrageous, and so far from reality, that it does not even deserve an argument. The readers who want to know the
truth can do Google search using "Odessa massacre 2014" and read for themselves.
The lie that the Guardian repeats after Kyiv "government" looks even less plausible now, as Odessa massacre was followed by
the massacre of civilians by Nazi thugs in Mariupol a few days later (change Odessa to Mariupol in your Google search), and the
murder of thousands of civilians in Donbass, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans, by the Ukrainian army
and Nazi battalions.
I grew up in the USSR, but I have never read a lie so obvious and outrageous in the Soviet media. Congratulations on a new
low!
coffeegirl -> aussiereader4 1 May 2015 11:11
Sounds like you know little about what happened in Odessa.
The best compilation of any available material was done on May 8, 2014 by our fellow CiFer US ex-marine griffin alabama:
You like to cite Strelkov, don't you, when it suits your purpose? If he is such an authority for you, why don't you cite everything
he says? Among other things, he said that Maidan was not a popular uprising but a pure decoration for the coup organized by the
right wing groups and funded by oligarchs together with the foreign agents? You can watch this here http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/must-watch-strelkov-vs-starikov-debate.html
greatwhitehunter caliento 1 May 2015 11:08
you would no if you followed events the idea of peace keepers was supported by Russia, the separatists and a good many other
countries right from the start of the conflict . It was not however supported by the kiev government or the US. Peace keepers
were offered to Ukraine right up until 4 days before the Minsk agreement.
Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. There belated cries for peace keepers only came after getting
an a*& kicking.
kiev signed the minsk agreement which requires them to deal with the issues peace keepers would be a way out for them. Usa by
their actions does not support the Minsk agreement.
Poroshenko,s idea of peace keepers was a few kiev friendly states to send weapons and troups to bolster their ranks.
An offer was made via the UN security council for a peace keeping force that included china and new zealand and poroshenko
stated that ukraine didn't needed china and new Zealand's help, as it turned out they did.
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 10:54
Oh Guardian, Guardian. Both are to blame, heroism on both sides - in short, they burned themselves. We've heard that before.
But then the article goes on and tells you that the movement they for some reason call "pro-Russian", although its not pro-Russia
as much as it's anti-fascist, is essentially eliminated, with all leaders in jail or in exile. In contrast,
None of the pro-Ukraine activists have been put on trial
Kind of tells you what actually happened, doesn't it?
Activists from both sides admit that the port city remains divided into two approximately matched camps
No, they aren't matched. The Odessa residents are mostly anti-Maidan. The city is flooded with newcomers from the western Ukraine,
and they the main supporters of Kiev. Otherwise, why would Kiev deploy half of the army to Odessa before the May holidays?
Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city' liberation from occupation was
met with shouts "Fascism will not pass".
So much for "matched camps". Of course, if you put everybody of the opposing view in jail of kill them, you can sort of achieve
a "match".
Elena Hodgson 1 May 2015 10:50
This was a massacre. Period.
Hanwell123 1 May 2015 10:48
Ukraine is a gangster state where if activists aren't arrested then they are shot; 6 prominent figures shot this year alone.
No arrests. It's supported to the hilt by the EU who shell out enormous sums to keep it from bankruptcy.
nnedjo 1 May 2015 08:42
This is the news from the Ukraine crisis Media Center:
Odesa, April 27, 2015 – Vitaly Kozhukhar, coordinator of the Self-Defense of Odesa, Varvara Chernoivanenko, a spokesman
for the Right Sector of Odesa held a briefing on the topic: "May 2 this year in Odesa. How a single headquarters of the patriotic
forces preparing to hold a day of mourning for those killed in the city"...
Varvara Chernoivanenko said that for all patriots of Ukraine is important that May 2 was peaceful day. Patriotic forces create
patrols that will keep order in the area of Cathedral Square, which will host a memorial meeting for all those, who died
on 2 May. They will make every effort to ensure peace and order. Already, the city has operational headquarters of the patriotic
forces. Their representatives will stop all provocations. At the same time, according to Varvara Chernoivanenko, on their part
will not be any aggression.
Thus, the "patriotic forces", which I suppose are responsible for burning people alive in the building of Trade Unions in Odessa,
will now protect those who survived and who should hold the memorial service for their relatives and friends, victims of Odessa
massacre. The only question is, from whom they should protect them?
I mean, this lady from the Right Sector boasts that they organized patrols of its members all over the city. Well, you can bet
that in these patrols will be at least some, if not all of those who threw Molotov cocktails at the building of trade unions,
and beaten with clubs or even shot at those who tried to escape from the fire. Because, as this article shows, none of them has
even been charged, let alone be convicted of that crime.
So, can we then conclude that the executioners of the victims of the Odessa massacre will now provide protection to those who
mourn the victims, which is a paradox of its kind.
And how these patrols of "patriotic forces" operating in reality, you can watch in this video, which was filmed during the visit
of Poroshenko in Odessa, on the day of the celebration of liberation of the city in WWII, 10 April. At the beginning of the film,
the guys from "Patriotic patrol" argue with a group of anti-fascists, demanding that they reject one of their flag. And then at
one point (0:31 of the video), one of these guys from patrol says:
"Didn't burn enough of you, eh?"
MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 07:45
Ah, of course: both sides are to blame, because before the massacre an extreme nationalist militant died, under circumstanced
unknown (shot in self-defense, perhaps? who knows).
Nice.
a pro-Ukraine member of the extreme nationalist organisation
Even nicer: 'pro-Ukraine extreme nationalist'. Pro-Ukraine? Which kind of Ukraine?
I find that one of the most misleading elements in these west-interpreted stories is "pro-Russian" and "pro-Ukrainian" labels.
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and after
that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they
were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything will
be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to be liberal and decent folk have better
sense than to state matters truthfully.
6i9vern 1 May 2015 07:43
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and
after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa
where they were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road,
everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to be liberal and decent folk have
better sense than to state matters truthfully.
Vladimir Makarenko Celtiberico 1 May 2015 06:20
They took it from Odessa being a symbol of Black Sea and a while ago a Russian poet said: Chernoe More - Vor na Vore.
Black Sea - a thief by thief.
normankirk 1 May 2015 06:14
This is a shameless attempt to whitewash a massacre.There is plenty of evidence on you tube Every one has cell phones which
can record events as they unfold. This is why the American police can no longer get away with murder. The European parliament
held a hearing in Brussels to hear the Odessa survivors. there was a concerted effort from Maidan activists from Kiev to shut
down the survivors testimony. A Europarliament deputy from the Czech republic Miroslav said "This is simply shocking. this is
an evidence of fascism not being disappeared from European countries.He blamed Parubiy, co founder of far right Svoboda party
and Kolomoisky, paymaster of neo nazi militia for the massacre at Odessa. All this is recorded. Ignorance can no longer be a defence
ID075732 1 May 2015 05:53
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following, famous text by Pastor Martin Niemoller about the cowardice of intellectuals
following the Nazis':
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
It's time for the MSM to realise that the same is happening Ukraine - for which the Odessa massacre is a warning. It's time they
stopped playing intellectual games to prop up what is a fascist regime in Kiev.
BunglyPete 1 May 2015 05:48
Just in case those involved in the production of this article do read or hear of these comments.. Do you not realise we have
Google and Youtube now? You can verify anything within a few keystrokes.
You do not need to rely on the evil Russian media, you can watch the eyewitness videos yourself.
I mean this seriously, if you are going to attempt to prove something then at least realise that you will need to go to more lengths
to do so. In the context of the greater 'propaganda war', articles like this are nonsensical, as you merely serve to discredit
yourself, and encourage people to move to alternative media sources.
If you want to discredit the Russian narrative then discredit it, don't write things that discredit your own narrative.
You don't need to bill me for this advice it comes for free.
SHappens 1 May 2015 04:30
Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to cover up high-level complicity.
At the beginning of the unrest, the most virulent reaction came from supporters of Ukrainian football clubs. But they were
soon joined by a well-organized gang of self-defense that came in a column of about 100 people dressed in military fatigues and
relatively well equipped.
Members of the Ukrainian security forces withdrew from the scene allowing the rightwing radicals to block the exits and firebomb
the building forcing many to jump from open windows to the pavement below where they died on impact. The few who survived the
fall were savagely beaten with clubs and chains by the nearly 300 extremist thugs who had gathered on the street.
Street fighting thugs don't typically waste their time barricading exits unless it is part of a plan, a plan to create a big-enough
incident to change the narrative of what is going on in the country. None of the victims of the tragedy were armed.
This isn't the first time the US has tried to pull something like this off. In 2006, the Bush administration used a similar tactic
in Iraq. That's when Samarra's Golden Dome Mosque was blown up in an effort to change the public's perception of the conflict
from an armed struggle against foreign occupation into a civil war.
So who authorized the attack on Odessa's Trade Unions House? Could it be that the Ukrainian Security Services were supervised
by some external mercenaries just like the Oluja blitzkrieg in Croatia back in 1995 when the Croatian National Guard was then
supervised and managed by MPRI, an US SMP based in Virginia? Because in Kiev, dozens of specialists from the US CIA and FBI were
advising the Ukrainian government helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set up a functioning security structure.
(report, AFP).
Whatever and if ever an inquiry succeeds, fact is that the government in Kiev bears direct responsibility, and is complicit in
these criminal activities for they allowed extremists and radicals to burn unarmed people alive.
warehouse_guy 1 May 2015 04:30
Tatyana Gerasimova also says the case is getting killed off in court, put that on your headline.
alpykog 1 May 2015 04:30
Nothing unusual about police, army and terrorists working together. I remember the British army in Belfast actually running
joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. Try
not to feel "holier than thou" when you read this stuff.
ID075732 1 May 2015 04:23
Rumours swirl of a higher death toll, the use of poisonous gas and the body of a pregnant woman garrotted by pro-Ukraine
fanatics.
Clearly the author has not watched the footage filmed inside the building after the massacre - this was no "swirling rumour".
Clearly the footage wasn't faked either. It showed may murdered victims with burns to their heads and arms with bodies and clothes
unscorched, not caused by the actual fire.
Also those that have studied the many videos available of the unfolding events saw a much more an orchestrated attack on the Trade
Union building with fires breaking out in rooms further away from the seat of the original fire. Also two masked figures on the
roof before the fire started in the building.
Reports that the exits were blocked and a number of masked pro-Ukrainians were inside the building not just on the roof, don't
figure in this report.
ploughmanlunch 1 May 2015 03:41
'While many pro-Ukraine activists helped the rescue effort, others punched, kicked and beat those who fled the burning building.
"There was blood and water all over the courtyard," said Elena, who escaped via a fireman's ladder. "They were shouting 'on
your knees, on your knees'."
This sums up, in my opinion, the whole sordid mess that is present Ukraine.
The majority of ordinary Ukrainians living under the authority of Kiev will broadly agree with their Government, but are civilised
and are probably horrified by the violence perpetrated by both sides in the war.
Unfortunately, however, there is a significant minority of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists that readily resort to violence
and intimidation and revile Russian speaking 'separatists' in the Donbas ( and elsewhere ).
Even more unfortunately, the fanatical far right have a disproportionate influence in the Kiev Parliament and even the Government;
a fact conveniently overlooked by the incredibly indulgent Western powers. The present Kiev regime is blatantly anti-democratic
and lacks any humanitarian concern for the desperate plight of citizens still living in Donbas, ( unpaid pensions, economic and
humanitarian blockade ).
This crisis still has a long way to go, and I believe has not yet reached it's nadir. A brighter future for all the people
of Ukraine will require unbiased and honest involvement of the great powers, East and West.
Geo kosmopolitenko 1 May 2015 03:22
Some spin doctors in Washington would sarcastically smile if they ever read this sadly tragic article.
Kiselev 1 May 2015 03:20
Symbol of separated Ukrainian society...
Whatever western Ukrainians told us.
Such an elaborate dance around facts. From comments: "It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section
than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor." This is one event about
which there is quite a lot of information to see how Guardian presstitutes try to bent the truth. See
Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014
The emergency calls became increasingly desperate. "When are you coming? It's already burning and there are people inside," a
woman told the fire brigade dispatcher. Minutes later, callers started describing how people were jumping from the upper floors.
"Have you lost your minds?" one man asked, his voice breaking. "There are women and children in the building!" another man yelled.
In one of the most deadly episodes in Ukraine's turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and hundreds injured on 2
May last year in the Black Sea port of Odessa.
Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia activists were barricaded in.
VengefulRevenant -> AlfredHerring 1 May 2015 17:24
The victims are the ones who were raped, shot or burned to death in the massacre.
The perpetrators are those protected by the NATO-backed regime which has failed to investigate the massacre.
The apologists are the NATO-aligned media who blame the victims or assign blame equally to the killers and the dead along the
lines of, 'There was heroism and cruelty on both sides.'
normankirk -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 16:52
Well isn't it wonderful to hear a diversity of views expressed on Russian TV. When all we hear is how all media is controlled
by the Kremlin
Kaiama Danram 1 May 2015 16:48
So the dead Ukrainian children and women are Kremlin goons too?
How simple your life must be to allow you to make such simplistic conclusions.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 16:46
Some nice whitewashing. Now it's fault of the victims and the heroism of the perpetrators, there hasn't been and there will
be no investigation and the word massacre is no longer used. For those of you who still argue it was not a massacre but some mysterious
suicide by 48 people who set themselves afire, here is footage again.
Take a look at some of the pretty revealing moments:
23 min mark - Ukrainians are entering the building, there was no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
While in the building, Ukrainians were slaughtering people. And it wasn't a fight. Half of the victims were middle-aged. At least
10 of them - women.
31min - 33min - the victims who got out have their faces and hands disfigured while the rest of their bodies don't have the same
injuries. That's what happens if someone splashes fuel over someone's face and light it up. There are pictures of victims with
only their heads and hands burned.
33min - 35min - there were women among those trying to find safety in the building. Some of them are middle-aged. They were not
fighters, as the article would imply.
36min- 37min - Ukrainians were inside the building, setting it on fire and killing those whom they could find, a young woman in
this specific frame.
46min - a person was bludgeoned to death. The room doesn't have marks of fire but the blood is splattered all over the room.
48min-50min - the same story, Ukrainians were slaughtering their victims.
1h:00min - Ukrainians are entering the building again, this time from the make shift scaffolding.
Any attempt to pretend there was a fight rather than a massacre is crazy. Any suggestion that somehow people inside were setting
themselves on fire is ludicrous in light of evidence that the Ukis were inside the building. And the fact that Kiev doesn't even
see it as murder makes me just angry.
AbsolutelyFapulous -> PlatonKuzin 1 May 2015 16:43
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil.
Donno why you are commenting here. You even don't seem to be able to read a map.
BorninUkraine -> RonBuckley 1 May 2015 16:25
In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f… the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain) that pushed Ukraine over the
cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys.
However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership" the country was on the edge of
that cliff to begin with.
Current Ukrainian "leaders" keep stealing everything they can, including financial and material aid from the West. What else
is new?
MaoChengJi -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 16:03
Yeah. I'm convinced that they should've sent paratroopers and take Kiev right the next day after the coup d'etat; stop this
whole unholy mess right then and there. That really would've saved tens of thousands of lives - if not millions, seeing how this
thing seems to escalate, leading us to a nuclear war.
Putin is a pussy, Medvedev got it right in Georgia in 2008. Well, frankly Medvedev is a pussy too. He should've taken Tbilisi,
and put Saakashvili on trial.
To teach the bastards a lesson.
Instead, now we hear every day 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', and the murdering Nazi bastards
get bolder and bolder. What's the point of having all that military hardware if you're afraid to use it. They Yanks would've taken
control of the place months ago, look at Grenada.
RonBuckley -> BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 15:52
Well said, man. Yes, Ukrainian politics have always been divisive, stupid, thievery and corrupt. That said they had neither
brains nor money for a coup. So Ukraine should thank certain external powers for the deep shit it is in now.
PlatonKuzin -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:31
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil. That's the point. And the state of Ukraine is a temporary occupier of
the Russian soil. So people living in Odessa don't have to go to Russian. They are right at their home. This is the state of Ukraine
that has stayed on our Russian land for 23 years now. It's time for the quasi-state of Ukraine to leave.
BorninUkraine -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:16
I was born in Lvov in Western Ukraine, I grew up in Lugansk in the East, I have friends and relatives all over, and I know
exactly what is going on in Ukraine.
Ukraine in 1991 was extremely heterogenous. In the area West of Carpatian mountains people speak Hungarian, Romanian, and Rusine
(a form of old Russian, spoken in Kievan Rus).
Galichina and Volynia in the West speak several dialects of Ukrainian. Many in Central Ukraine speak what is considered literary
Ukrainian. In the South and East (historic Novorossia) and in Kharkov region (historic Slobozhanschina) the majority speaks "surgik",
a mix of pidgin-Ukrainian and pidgin-Russian. Finally, in Crimea people speak Russian, Tatar, and very few speak Ukrainian. Crimea
voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum and got a chance to run away in 2014, when Ukraine committed suicide.
If the leaders of Ukraine had any brains and loved their country, they would have followed the example of Switzerland and Singapore,
having many official languages. However, all Ukrainian rulers from day one were thieves and idiots. They made Ukrainian the only
official language and pushed it everywhere, so that while you could get school education in several languages, all colleges operated
only in Ukrainian, putting people who spoke other languages at a disadvantage.
That idiotic policy started this whole mess, which with a bit of US money, prodding, and now arms became a civil war. Not to
mention that Galichina is the place that fought against Russia in WWI (as part of Austro-Hungarian empire, siding with Kaiser)
and WWII (siding with Hitler). They supplied the troops that under Hitler's command murdered thousands of civilians in Ukraine,
Poland, Belarus, and Slovakia. Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina, who are considered heroes by
current puppets in Kiev, voluntarily served Hitler.
80% of Ukrainian population hates these Bandera worshippers, so when external forces push them to power, it creates trouble.
Personally I hate them for giving a bad name to everything Ukrainian.
BorninUkraine -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:10
Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children,
elderly, and disabled veterans.
Or is saying things explicitly beyond your pay grade?
RonBuckley -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:06
To Odessa Kiev sent a few hundred pro-Nazi thugs - 42 died.
To Donetsk and Luhansk Kiev sent a few thousand pro-Nazi thugs plus the entire Ukrainian army - 6000 died.
Get it now?
Goodthanx -> Anette Mor 1 May 2015 15:04
For me it was the silence... You are right! Seeing what i was seeing, with no commentry to convince me either way.. How could
the worlds media be so silent?
Then with MH, it was the complete opposite!! Immediately and with no investigation, MSM could not shut up about who they thought
was responsible!!
Both fail the logic test miserably. But try explaining common sense to those that haven't any.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:48
Those protesters were Ukrainian Pro Federalists! Not one Russian amongst them!
Anette Mor -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 14:46
Good for you. It is impossible to hide truth with current state of technology. Only not showning. Any life reporting give the
footage adding facts one by one and crwating a true picture eventually. Even this rather bias article contributes to true story
because the lie in it sticks out of logic for anybody we is able to think for themselves.
PlatonKuzin -> ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:42
Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting the way they do, these media
prepare the public for a future war.
Anette Mor -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 14:41
It is poinless to try to install fear in these people. Need to look at the history of people's wars in Russia. Since 17 century
they were able to resist occupation and unwanted rulers by people war. There wpuld not be a win against Napoleon and Hitler without
people rising and forming resistance. Same in Odessa now. Just a matter of time.
BunglyPete -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:35
The explanation is very simple. Right Sector had free reign to terrorise pro Russians, so he took action. Kiev choose not to
punish Right Sector both then and now. He said this in the same interview you constantly reference.
Now can you explain why you think it is acceptable for Right Sector to terrorise the Donbass? If Strelkov wasnt allowed to defend
them, who was?
Anette Mor -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 14:34
Not sure why you call them pro-Russians. Odessa is multi-national city. These who were massacred are simply local people who
disagreed with the violent coup which put to power by the west. Does it make them "pro-russian" and justify thier killing? Surely
these who want own country to be coverned by own elected officials could not be pro- another country. If they trust Russian government
care for them more then thier own coup, that only says how bad the coup rule is.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:24
Forget about the Russian government. The idea is justice for the victims and punishment for the perpetrators. Is it the ambition
of the UN to be percieved as bias as so called Russuan investigators would be?
Kaiama -> truk10 1 May 2015 14:22
FFS there are enough links and analysis to demonstrate that pro-Kiev forces inflicted a massacre of civilians here. I don't
see any pro-Ukraine links to additional information but an overwhelming deluge of links supporting the unvoiced version of events.
ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:18
Our western media have really become mirror images of the fascist governments they support. By publishing such whitewashing
attempts as this, they only enable more such behavior in the future, behavior that leads to the deaths of more innocents, more
civilians whose only desire is to live in freedom and peace.
Kaiama 1 May 2015 14:13
It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new
editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:09
What kind of a teenage girl carries in their backpack petrol, empty bottles, rags and whatever else is required to make Molotov
cocktails? What a coincidence... there is a group of them!!
As for Right Sector? Chartered buses transported Right Sector militia which arrived early in the day. These were the people communicating
with police from the start.
MaoChengJi -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 13:51
Speaking of the media... I've been reading this Odessa news website: http://timer-odessa.net/ , and it has been relatively
informative (as much as Ukro-sites can be, these days). And today suddenly it's gone dark: "there is no Web site at this address".
Does anyone know if it's gone for good? I really hope those who were running it are safe...
Jean-François Guilbo -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:51
So you didn't watch the video link in my comment did you?
If you just take this article for granted to know on which side the Odessa police was, you won't learn much on what happened...
Seems like the officier on the picture would have been recognised as a colonel from Odessa police, watch this link:
And from these two links, these armed guys not afraid to shoot from the crowd, could have been agents provocateur...
BorninUkraine -> IrishFred 1 May 2015 13:47
Are you saying that Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina never existed? If so, please state it
explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above did not serve Hitler voluntarily? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above are not guilty of mass murder and other crimes against humanity? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying that people who are murdering their opponents, politicians and journalists, are not Nazis? If so, please state
it explicitly.
As to Crimea, if you knew any history, you'd know that it was illegally annexed by Ukraine in 1991. Here is history 101, not
necessarily for you, but for those who actually want to know the truth.
Russia deployed its troops in Crimea, and nobody was killed there. Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian
army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.
As many Ukrainians joke now, "Crimeans are traitors: they ran away without us".
Your next argument?
Jeff1000 -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 13:45
Don't display callous and willful ignorance and call it even-handedness. The Guardian's "credible" account offers no sources,
agrees with none of the available pictorial or video evidence and is rampant apologism.
I posted videos - including raw CCTV footage of the starting of the fire, further up the page.
BunglyPete -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:40
I saw that guy's post it was fantastic, very well sourced and thorough. The comments on here were a different kettle of fish
entirely back then.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:39
The attempt to re-package this event as some awful conglomeration of circumstances spurred on by the cruelty of fate is sickening.
We reduce the death of at least 50 people down so that calling it a "massacre" becomes needlessly emotive. We casually refer to
the pro-Ukrainians as "football fans" to make it seem innocent - when Ukrainian football fans known as "Ultras" are famours for
2 things: Being neo-Nazis, and being violent thugs.
Look at this video especially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAEcceedzCU
It's really very simple - candid videos at the time made it clear.
1. Pro-Russian groups were attacked by Ukrainian "ultras". They sought shelter in the Trade Union building.
2. The building was set on fire when the Ultras threw molotovs through the windows. The doors were barred.
3. People attempting to climb out of the windows were shot at, if they jumped they were beaten as they lay on the ground.
4. Ukrainian nationalists deliberately blockaded the streets to inhibit the progress of ambulances and fire engines.
Only a week after The Odessa Massacre an american CiFer, ex-marine, has gathered links, sieved through hours and hours of video
- he, practically, has done what the journos were supposed to do, - to prove the Guardian, BBC and the rest were trying hard to
whitewash the atrocity. Check his posts: Additional proof that the BBC and the mainstream Western press lied when they said both
sides threw the molotov's.
I looked for 5 hours searching for one video that showed anyone in the building throwing a molotov cocktail as the BBC first
reported and the rest of the MSM went along with. I could not find a single one. They claimed a person named Sergei (what are
the odds of that) told them a person threw the molotov inside the building and didn't realize the window was closed. This is absolutely
ludicrous and an example of the pathetic reporting that passes for "news" these days.
I did find the video of the third floor fire starting. It is at the following link and runs consecutively. You'll notice at
exactly the 2 minute mark the camera zooms in on the window where the fire begins. You'll also notice that at the 2:02 mark you
see an additional molotov cocktail just miss the window. This is strong evidence that the window was being targeted by individuals
on the ground. Prior to this fire starting there is no other fire on the third floor, therefore this is most likely the cause
of the third floor fire and lends credence to the fact that the violent youth below burned those people alive.
And not just "Russian state-owned media" - also most of the Russian privately owned media, and most of the world media (and
even some of the western media).
I believe I saw a chinadaily calling it Kristallnacht.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:16
Russian state-owned media characterised the day's events as a "massacre" planned by "fascists" in Kiev, a narrative that
has gained widespread traction.
Mostly because it's a pretty fitting description of what happened.
Its not hard truk. Those red armbands that the so called pro Russian provocatores wore? Are actually the same red armbands
Right sector militia was wearing during the most violent Maidan clashes. You can identify some of the same protagonists wearing
the same armband in both Odesaa and Maidan!
vr13vr -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:07
Idiot. Nobody is laughing. Especially when 50 people died. Look at this video and see how Ukrainians entered the supposedly
"heavily defended" building. You will see them operating inside, you will see them existing the building after it started burning
from inside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg
Look at 23 min mark - they are entering the building with no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
Yes, Ukrainians overrun the building, including the roof. The photographs suggest that people in the building where set afire
while still alive.
You must be an idiot to say someone is laughing at this.
castorsia -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:02
No. They burned them. Check the photographic evidence.
PlatonKuzin -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:58
Armored vehicles and special riot forces were brought today in Odessa to prevent possible unrest there.
WHYNOPASSWORD12 -> Havingalavrov 1 May 2015 12:56
Plenty of witnesses point out that these were pro-ukraine provacateurs sent up to stir up trouble. They are wearing the same
red armbands worn by a group who started the skirmishes earlier in the town centre. They were part of the group bussed-in under
the guise of football supporters.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 12:55
Hi turk10,
I understand your confusion. Luckily, Mr. Christof Lehmann investigated it all for you. Seek and ye shall find. Use google.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:50
Sure, Kiev views burning alive almost 50 people as a "victory." They even allowed to install fear in the city. Since then the
city is totally subdued, people would be afraid to even discuss the events or think of any peaceful opposition as they are aware
of the potential response from Kiev's supporters.
Nice job Guardian trying to whitewash the events and justify the cold blooded murder by some street fights elsewhere in the city,
events that were taking place all over the country those days.
Jeremn -> oleteo 1 May 2015 12:40
No greater cynics than western politicians, who certainly don't mourn this heavenly half-hundred, or come to lay flowers at
the scene of their death.
No greater cynic than the Czech envoy, Bartuska, who said:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and after
that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they [independence supporters] are quickly resisted, as it was
done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side
of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
ID5868758 1 May 2015 12:18
Another despicable attempt to paint a false equivalency, to assign blame for this massacre, for their own deaths, on those
who perished. Take the Molotov cocktail throwing, for instance. I watched the videos of those Molotov cocktails being made, pretty
little pro-Ukrainian girls sitting on the ground with their assembly line all set up, smiling as they made those instruments of
death and handed them out, now just where did those supplies come from, who thought to bring bottles and rags and fuel to an event
if it was innocent in nature?
And where would those innocent victims chased inside the building get Molotov cocktails to throw from inside the building,
when they were interested only in escaping the smoke and flames, saving their own lives? The narrative doesn't match the evidence,
but neither does it pass the smell test, pretty SOP for western media reporting on Ukraine.
StillHaveLinkYouHate -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:56
The difference is that Nazis want to murder people for the accident of how they were born. Extreme natinalists will want to
murder anybody who does not behave in the perverted way they feel a patriot should.
That is the difference. Praviy sektor are nazis, incidentally.
It makes the point already made below in this comment thread:
I invite people to imagine how the British media would have reported this massacre if roles had been reversed and if it
had been Maidan supporters who were burnt alive in the Trade Union building with an anti Maidan crowd filmed throwing Molotov
cocktails into the building whilst baying for blood outside.
Indeed.
GreatCthulhu -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 11:45
Many of them not locals.
I thought the article was pretty clear that everyone on both sides were local. I speak, of course s an Irish man who doesn't
regard hating Russians/ people who identify with Russia who aren't Russians but live nearby as a default position before beginning
any debate.
There are a small minority of Irish people, living in the Republic (I am not referring to the northern Unionist Community here),
who identify with Britain often to the point that they express regret that Ireland ever left the UK. I don't agree with them,
but I would not set them on fire in a building. For that matter, it is ARGUABLE (I am not saying whether that argument is right
or wrong- just that you could put forward the thesis) that the N.I state-let is something of an Irish Donbass. No justification
for Ireland shelling the crap out of it though... at all... that sort of stuff is kind of regarded as savagery here these days.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:43
Hi turk10,
what's wrong with calling them 'nazis'? The guardian piece identifies them as "extreme nationalists", and isn't it the same thing
as 'neo-nazis' or 'nazis'?
Is there some nuance I'm missing here? What would you call them?
BorninUkraine -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:38
So you object to calling a spade a spade? Typical pro-US position in Ukrainian crisis. What do you call the insignia of, for
example, Azov battalion (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion
). If that's not Nazi insignia, I don't know what is.
I am simply saying that those who organized Odessa massacre, then Mariupol massacre, then fueled the war in Donbass, including
Poroshenko, Turchinov, Yats, etc, are Nazis.
The simple reason for that conclusion is, as the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks
like a duck, it is a duck". If you prefer Christian version of the same thing, see Mathew 7:16 "you will know them by their fruits".
To sum it up, if someone behaves like a Nazi, s/he is a Nazi. Is this clear enough?
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 11:28
A pro-Russia activist aims a pistol at supporters of the Kiev government during clashes in the streets of Odessa, 2 May
2014.
How do we know that the guy is pro-Russian? Does the picture show what he is aiming at? Does he have a sign on his forehead
burned in saying "I am pro-Russian and I am going to shoot that pro-Ukrainian bastard"? No, he does not. We are expected to assume
that because the caption says so - but captions to pictures aren't evidence. Anybody can put any caption to any picture, and it's
been done many a time.
The head of the local pro-Ukraine Maidan self-defence group, Dmitry Gumenyuk, recalled the effect of the homemade grenades.
. . they threw a grenade and it exploded under his bullet-proof vest and four nails entered his lungs," he said.
Such peaceful people - going for a nice in the park walk in bullet-proof vests. They were going to destroy that camp and not
on the agreement with the activists in that camp, as Guardian states (complete BS) but violently, which they did. Even if they
were attacked, what did women in the camp have to do with it?
Come on, people, even in the face of such a tragedy, is it so absolutely necessary to hush up the truth all the time?
BorninUkraine -> caliento 1 May 2015 11:24
There is a Ukrainian joke. Russians ask:
- If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
- We aren't that stupid, there are Russian troops there.
- But you say there are Russian troops in Donbass?
- That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
castorsia 1 May 2015 11:21
The Guardian continues to misrepresent the Odesa massacre by reporting claims by the official Ukrainian investigation and the
Odesa governor created May 2 group that the deadly fire started when both sided were throwing Molotov cocktails. The videos and
other evidence showing that the fire started after the Molotov cocktails and tires were thrown by the attackers are deliberately
omitted.
Open question to you all: What would be in the headlines if scores of "Pro-Ukrainian activists " were being burned, hacked, mauled,
shot and raperd to death by Donetsk rebels or their supporters?
BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 11:20
There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad, but true.
In this article Howard Amos pretends that he believes that both sides were to blame for the mass murder of anti-fascists by
pro-Maidan thugs in Odessa on May 2, 2014. That's like saying that both the Nazis and the inmates of concentration camps were
equally guilty.
This lie is so outrageous, and so far from reality, that it does not even deserve an argument. The readers who want to know the
truth can do Google search using "Odessa massacre 2014" and read for themselves.
The lie that the Guardian repeats after Kyiv "government" looks even less plausible now, as Odessa massacre was followed by
the massacre of civilians by Nazi thugs in Mariupol a few days later (change Odessa to Mariupol in your Google search), and the
murder of thousands of civilians in Donbass, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans, by the Ukrainian army
and Nazi battalions.
I grew up in the USSR, but I have never read a lie so obvious and outrageous in the Soviet media. Congratulations on a new
low!
coffeegirl aussiereader4 1 May 2015 11:11
Sounds like you know little about what happened in Odessa.
The best compilation of any available material was done on May 8, 2014 by our fellow CiFer US ex-marine griffin alabama:
You like to cite Strelkov, don't you, when it suits your purpose? If he is such an authority for you, why don't you cite everything
he says? Among other things, he said that Maidan was not a popular uprising but a pure decoration for the coup organized by the
right wing groups and funded by oligarchs together with the foreign agents? You can watch this here http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/must-watch-strelkov-vs-starikov-debate.html
greatwhitehunter caliento 1 May 2015 11:08
you would no if you followed events the idea of peace keepers was supported by Russia, the separatists and a good many other
countries right from the start of the conflict . It was not however supported by the kiev government or the US. Peace keepers
were offered to Ukraine right up until 4 days before the Minsk agreement.
Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. There belated cries for peace keepers only came after getting
an a*& kicking.
kiev signed the minsk agreement which requires them to deal with the issues peace keepers would be a way out for them. Usa by
their actions does not support the Minsk agreement.
Poroshenko,s idea of peace keepers was a few kiev friendly states to send weapons and troups to bolster their ranks.
An offer was made via the UN security council for a peace keeping force that included china and new zealand and poroshenko
stated that ukraine didn't needed china and new Zealand's help, as it turned out they did.
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 10:54
Oh Guardian, Guardian. Both are to blame, heroism on both sides - in short, they burned themselves. We've heard that before.
But then the article goes on and tells you that the movement they for some reason call "pro-Russian", although its not pro-Russia
as much as it's anti-fascist, is essentially eliminated, with all leaders in jail or in exile. In contrast,
None of the pro-Ukraine activists have been put on trial
Kind of tells you what actually happened, doesn't it?
Activists from both sides admit that the port city remains divided into two approximately matched camps
No, they aren't matched. The Odessa residents are mostly anti-Maidan. The city is flooded with newcomers from the western Ukraine,
and they the main supporters of Kiev. Otherwise, why would Kiev deploy half of the army to Odessa before the May holidays?
Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city' liberation from occupation was
met with shouts "Fascism will not pass".
So much for "matched camps". Of course, if you put everybody of the opposing view in jail of kill them, you can sort of achieve
a "match".
Elena Hodgson 1 May 2015 10:50
This was a massacre. Period.
Hanwell123 1 May 2015 10:48
Ukraine is a gangster state where if activists aren't arrested then they are shot; 6 prominent figures shot this year alone.
No arrests. It's supported to the hilt by the EU who shell out enormous sums to keep it from bankruptcy.
nnedjo 1 May 2015 08:42
This is the news from the Ukraine crisis Media Center:
Odesa, April 27, 2015 – Vitaly Kozhukhar, coordinator of the Self-Defense of Odesa, Varvara Chernoivanenko, a spokesman
for the Right Sector of Odesa held a briefing on the topic: "May 2 this year in Odesa. How a single headquarters of the patriotic
forces preparing to hold a day of mourning for those killed in the city"...
Varvara Chernoivanenko said that for all patriots of Ukraine is important that May 2 was peaceful day. Patriotic forces create
patrols that will keep order in the area of Cathedral Square, which will host a memorial meeting for all those, who died
on 2 May. They will make every effort to ensure peace and order. Already, the city has operational headquarters of the patriotic
forces. Their representatives will stop all provocations. At the same time, according to Varvara Chernoivanenko, on their part
will not be any aggression.
Thus, the "patriotic forces", which I suppose are responsible for burning people alive in the building of Trade Unions in Odessa,
will now protect those who survived and who should hold the memorial service for their relatives and friends, victims of Odessa
massacre. The only question is, from whom they should protect them?
I mean, this lady from the Right Sector boasts that they organized patrols of its members all over the city. Well, you can bet
that in these patrols will be at least some, if not all of those who threw Molotov cocktails at the building of trade unions,
and beaten with clubs or even shot at those who tried to escape from the fire. Because, as this article shows, none of them has
even been charged, let alone be convicted of that crime.
So, can we then conclude that the executioners of the victims of the Odessa massacre will now provide protection to those who
mourn the victims, which is a paradox of its kind.
And how these patrols of "patriotic forces" operating in reality, you can watch in this video, which was filmed during the visit
of Poroshenko in Odessa, on the day of the celebration of liberation of the city in WWII, 10 April. At the beginning of the film,
the guys from "Patriotic patrol" argue with a group of anti-fascists, demanding that they reject one of their flag. And then at
one point (0:31 of the video), one of these guys from patrol says:
"Didn't burn enough of you, eh?"
MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 07:45
Ah, of course: both sides are to blame, because before the massacre an extreme nationalist militant died, under circumstanced
unknown (shot in self-defense, perhaps? who knows).
Nice.
a pro-Ukraine member of the extreme nationalist organisation
Even nicer: 'pro-Ukraine extreme nationalist'. Pro-Ukraine? Which kind of Ukraine?
I find that one of the most misleading elements in these west-interpreted stories is "pro-Russian" and "pro-Ukrainian" labels.
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and after
that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they
were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything will
be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to be liberal and decent folk have better
sense than to state matters truthfully.
6i9vern 1 May 2015 07:43
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within two days they get arms and
after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa
where they were simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road,
everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to be liberal and decent folk have
better sense than to state matters truthfully.
Vladimir Makarenko Celtiberico 1 May 2015 06:20
They took it from Odessa being a symbol of Black Sea and a while ago a Russian poet said: Chernoe More - Vor na Vore.
Black Sea - a thief by thief.
normankirk 1 May 2015 06:14
This is a shameless attempt to whitewash a massacre.There is plenty of evidence on you tube Every one has cell phones which
can record events as they unfold. This is why the American police can no longer get away with murder. The European parliament
held a hearing in Brussels to hear the Odessa survivors. there was a concerted effort from Maidan activists from Kiev to shut
down the survivors testimony. A Europarliament deputy from the Czech republic Miroslav said "This is simply shocking. this is
an evidence of fascism not being disappeared from European countries.He blamed Parubiy, co founder of far right Svoboda party
and Kolomoisky, paymaster of neo nazi militia for the massacre at Odessa. All this is recorded. Ignorance can no longer be a defence
ID075732 1 May 2015 05:53
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following, famous text by Pastor Martin Niemoller about the cowardice of intellectuals
following the Nazis':
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
It's time for the MSM to realise that the same is happening Ukraine - for which the Odessa massacre is a warning. It's time they
stopped playing intellectual games to prop up what is a fascist regime in Kiev.
BunglyPete 1 May 2015 05:48
Just in case those involved in the production of this article do read or hear of these comments.. Do you not realise we have
Google and Youtube now? You can verify anything within a few keystrokes.
You do not need to rely on the evil Russian media, you can watch the eyewitness videos yourself.
I mean this seriously, if you are going to attempt to prove something then at least realise that you will need to go to more lengths
to do so. In the context of the greater 'propaganda war', articles like this are nonsensical, as you merely serve to discredit
yourself, and encourage people to move to alternative media sources.
If you want to discredit the Russian narrative then discredit it, don't write things that discredit your own narrative.
You don't need to bill me for this advice it comes for free.
SHappens 1 May 2015 04:30
Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to cover up high-level complicity.
At the beginning of the unrest, the most virulent reaction came from supporters of Ukrainian football clubs. But they were
soon joined by a well-organized gang of self-defense that came in a column of about 100 people dressed in military fatigues and
relatively well equipped.
Members of the Ukrainian security forces withdrew from the scene allowing the rightwing radicals to block the exits and firebomb
the building forcing many to jump from open windows to the pavement below where they died on impact. The few who survived the
fall were savagely beaten with clubs and chains by the nearly 300 extremist thugs who had gathered on the street.
Street fighting thugs don't typically waste their time barricading exits unless it is part of a plan, a plan to create a big-enough
incident to change the narrative of what is going on in the country. None of the victims of the tragedy were armed.
This isn't the first time the US has tried to pull something like this off. In 2006, the Bush administration used a similar tactic
in Iraq. That's when Samarra's Golden Dome Mosque was blown up in an effort to change the public's perception of the conflict
from an armed struggle against foreign occupation into a civil war.
So who authorized the attack on Odessa's Trade Unions House? Could it be that the Ukrainian Security Services were supervised
by some external mercenaries just like the Oluja blitzkrieg in Croatia back in 1995 when the Croatian National Guard was then
supervised and managed by MPRI, an US SMP based in Virginia? Because in Kiev, dozens of specialists from the US CIA and FBI were
advising the Ukrainian government helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set up a functioning security structure.
(report, AFP).
Whatever and if ever an inquiry succeeds, fact is that the government in Kiev bears direct responsibility, and is complicit in
these criminal activities for they allowed extremists and radicals to burn unarmed people alive.
warehouse_guy 1 May 2015 04:30
Tatyana Gerasimova also says the case is getting killed off in court, put that on your headline.
alpykog 1 May 2015 04:30
Nothing unusual about police, army and terrorists working together. I remember the British army in Belfast actually running
joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. Try
not to feel "holier than thou" when you read this stuff.
ID075732 1 May 2015 04:23
Rumours swirl of a higher death toll, the use of poisonous gas and the body of a pregnant woman garrotted by pro-Ukraine
fanatics.
Clearly the author has not watched the footage filmed inside the building after the massacre - this was no "swirling rumour".
Clearly the footage wasn't faked either. It showed may murdered victims with burns to their heads and arms with bodies and clothes
unscorched, not caused by the actual fire.
Also those that have studied the many videos available of the unfolding events saw a much more an orchestrated attack on the Trade
Union building with fires breaking out in rooms further away from the seat of the original fire. Also two masked figures on the
roof before the fire started in the building.
Reports that the exits were blocked and a number of masked pro-Ukrainians were inside the building not just on the roof, don't
figure in this report.
ploughmanlunch 1 May 2015 03:41
'While many pro-Ukraine activists helped the rescue effort, others punched, kicked and beat those who fled the burning building.
"There was blood and water all over the courtyard," said Elena, who escaped via a fireman's ladder. "They were shouting 'on
your knees, on your knees'."
This sums up, in my opinion, the whole sordid mess that is present Ukraine.
The majority of ordinary Ukrainians living under the authority of Kiev will broadly agree with their Government, but are civilised
and are probably horrified by the violence perpetrated by both sides in the war.
Unfortunately, however, there is a significant minority of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists that readily resort to violence
and intimidation and revile Russian speaking 'separatists' in the Donbas ( and elsewhere ).
Even more unfortunately, the fanatical far right have a disproportionate influence in the Kiev Parliament and even the Government;
a fact conveniently overlooked by the incredibly indulgent Western powers. The present Kiev regime is blatantly anti-democratic
and lacks any humanitarian concern for the desperate plight of citizens still living in Donbas, ( unpaid pensions, economic and
humanitarian blockade ).
This crisis still has a long way to go, and I believe has not yet reached it's nadir. A brighter future for all the people
of Ukraine will require unbiased and honest involvement of the great powers, East and West.
Geo kosmopolitenko 1 May 2015 03:22
Some spin doctors in Washington would sarcastically smile if they ever read this sadly tragic article.
Kiselev 1 May 2015 03:20
Symbol of separated Ukrainian society...
Whatever western Ukrainians told us.
Elected officials are no longer in charge of our national security-and that is undermining our
democracy, says the Fletcher School's Michael Glennon
"We are clearly on the path to autocracy," says Michael Glennon. "There's no question that if we
continue on that path, [the] Congress, the courts and the presidency will ultimately end up . . .
as institutional museum pieces." Photo: Kelvin Ma
Michael Glennon knew of the book, and had cited it in his classes many times, but he had never
gotten around to reading the thing from cover to cover. Last year he did, jolted page after page
with its illuminating message for our time.
The book was The English Constitution, an analysis by 19th-century journalist Walter
Bagehot that laid bare the dual nature of British governance. It suggested that one part of
government was for popular consumption, and another more hidden part was for real, consumed with
getting things done in the world. As he read, Glennon, a professor of international law at the
Fletcher School, where he also teaches constitutional law, saw distinct parallels with the
current American political scene.
He decided to explore the similarities in a 30-page paper that he sent around to a number of
his friends, asking them to validate or refute his argument. As it happens, Glennon's friends
were an extraordinarily well-informed bunch, mostly seasoned operatives in the CIA, the U.S.
State Department and the military. "Look," he told them. "I'm thinking of writing a book. Tell me
if this is wrong." Every single one responded, "What you have here is exactly right."
Expanded from that original brief paper, Glennon's book National Security and Double
Government (Oxford University Press) takes our political system to task, arguing that the
people running our government are not our visible elected officials but high-level-and
unaccountable-bureaucrats nestled atop government agencies.
Glennon's informed critique of the American political system comes from a place of deep
regard. Glennon says he can remember driving into Washington, D.C., in the late spring of 1973,
at the time of the Senate Watergate hearings, straight from law school at the University of
Minnesota, to take his first job as assistant legislative counsel to the U.S. Senate. Throughout
his 20s, he worked in government, culminating in his position as legal counsel to the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee under Sen. Frank Church from 1977 to 1980. Since entering academic
life in the early 1980s, Glennon has been a frequent consultant to government agencies of all
stripes, as well as a regular commentator on media outlets such as NPR's All Things
Considered, the Today show and Nightline.
In his new book, an inescapable sadness underlies the narrative. "I feel a great sense of
loss," Glennon admits. "I devoted my life to these [democratic] institutions, and it's not easy
to see how to throw the current trends into reverse." Tufts Now spoke with Glennon
recently to learn more of his perspective.
Tufts Now: You've been both an insider and an outsider with regard to
government affairs. What led you to write this book?
Michael Glennon: I was struck by the strange continuity in national security
policy between the Bush administration and the Obama administration. Obama, as a candidate, had
been eloquent and forceful in criticizing many aspects of the Bush administration's national
security policies, from drone strikes to Guantanamo to surveillance by the National Security
Agency-the NSA-to covert operations. Yet as president, it turned out that he made very, very few
changes in these policies. So I thought it was useful to explain the reason for that.
Were you surprised by the continuity?
I
was surprised by the extent of it. I knew fundamentally from my own experience that changing
national policies is like trying to change the course of an aircraft carrier. These policies in
many ways were set long ago, and the national security bureaucracy tends to favor the status quo.
Still, I thought that a president like Obama would, with the political wind in his sails and with
so much public and congressional support for what he was criticizing, be more successful in
fulfilling his promises.
You use the phrase "double government," coined by Walter Bagehot in the 1860s. What
did he mean by that?
Walter Bagehot was one of the founders of the Economist magazine. He developed the
theory of "double government," which in a nutshell is this. He said Britain had developed two
sets of institutions. First came "dignified" institutions, the monarchy and the House of Lords,
which were for show and which the public believed ran the government. But in fact, he suggested,
this was an illusion.
These dignified institutions generate legitimacy, but it was a second set of institutions,
which he called Britain's "efficient" institutions, that actually ran the government behind the
scenes. These institutions were the House of Commons, the Cabinet and the prime minister. This
split allowed Britain to move quietly from a monarchy to what Bagehot called a "concealed
republic."
The thesis of my book is that the United States has also drifted into a form of double
government, and that we have our own set of "dignified" institutions-Congress, the presidency and
the courts. But when it comes to national security policy, these entities have become largely for
show. National security policy is now formulated primarily by a second group of officials, namely
the several hundred individuals who manage the agencies of the military, intelligence and law
enforcement bureaucracy responsible for protecting the nation's security.
What are some components of this arrangement?
The NSA, the FBI, the Pentagon and elements of the State Department, certainly; generally
speaking, law enforcement, intelligence and the military entities of the government. It's a
diverse group, an amorphous group, with no leader and no formal structure, that has come to
dominate the formation of American national security policy to the point that Congress, the
presidency and the courts all defer to it.
You call this group the "Trumanite network" in your book. What's the link to Harry
Truman?
It was in Truman's administration that the National Security Act of 1947 was enacted. This
established the CIA and the National Security Council and centralized the command of the U.S.
military. It was during the Truman administration as well that the National Security Agency [NSA]
was set up, in 1952, although that was a secret and didn't come to light for many years
thereafter.
In contrast to the Trumanites you set the "Madisonians." How would you describe them?
The Madisonian institutions are the three constitutionally established branches of the federal
government: Congress, the judiciary and the president. They are perceived by the public as the
entities responsible for the formulation of national security policy, but that belief is largely
mistaken.
The idea is driven by regular exceptions. You can always point to specific instances in which,
say, the president personally ordered the killing of Osama bin Laden or Congress enacted the War
Powers Resolution. But these are exceptions. The norm is that as a general matter, these three
branches defer to the Trumanite network, and that's truer all the time.
So the trend is toward increased power on the Trumanite side of the ledger.
Correct.
If that's true, why has there not been a greater outcry from the public, the media-all
the observers we have?
I think the principal reason is that even sophisticated students of government operate under a
very serious misunderstanding. They believe that the political system is self-correcting. They
believe the framers set up a system of government setting power against power, and ambition
against ambition, and that an equilibrium would be reached, and that any abuse of power would be
checked, and arbitrary power would be prevented.
That is correct as far as it goes, but the reality is that's only half the picture. The other
half is that Madison and his colleagues believed that for equilibrium to occur, we would have an
informed and engaged citizenry. Lacking that, the entire system corrupts, because individuals are
elected to office who do not resist encroachments on the power of their branches of government,
and the whole equilibrium breaks down.
What role, if any, have the media played?
The media have pretty much been enablers. Although there are a handful of investigative
journalists who have done a heroic job of uncovering many of the abuses, they are the exception,
for a number of reasons. Number one, the media are a business and have a bottom line. It takes a
huge amount of money to fund an investigative journalist who goes about finding sources over a
period of years. Very few newspapers or television concerns have those sorts of deep pockets.
Second, access for the press is everything. There is huge incentive to pull punches, and you
don't get interviews with top-ranking officials at the NSA or CIA if you're going to offer
hard-hitting questions. Look, for example, at the infamous 60 Minutes puff piece on the
NSA, a really tragic example of how an otherwise respectable institution can sell its soul and
act like an annex of the NSA in order to get some people it wants on the TV screen.
What is the role of terror in this environment?
The whole transfer of power from the Madisonian institutions to the Trumanite network has been
fueled by a sense of emergency deriving from crisis, deriving from fear. It's fear of terrorism
more than anything else that causes the American people to increasingly be willing to dispense
with constitutional safeguards to ensure their safety.
Madison believed that government has two great objects. One object of a constitution is to
enable the government to protect the people, specifically from external attacks. The other great
object of a constitution is to protect the people from the government. The better able the
government is to protect the people from external threats, the greater the threat posed by the
government to the people.
You've been involved with the U.S. government for 40 years. How has your view of
government changed?
Double government was certainly a factor in the 1970s, but it was challenged for the first
time thanks to the activism stemming from the civil rights movement, Vietnam and Watergate. As a
result, there were individuals in Congress-Democrats and Republicans like William Fulbright,
Frank Church, Jacob Javits, Charles Mathias and many others-who were willing to stand up and
insist upon adherence to constitutionally ordained principles. That led to a wave of activism and
to the enactment of a number of pieces of reform legislation.
But there is no final victory in Washington. Those reforms have gradually been eaten away and
turned aside. I think today we are in many ways right back where we were in the early 1970s. NSA
surveillance is an example of that. The Church Committee uncovered something called Operation
Shamrock, in which the NSA had assembled a watch list of antiwar and civil rights activists based
upon domestic surveillance. Church warned at the time that NSA capabilities were so awesome that
if they were ever turned inward on the American people, this nation would cross an abyss from
which there is no return. The question is whether we have recently crossed that abyss.
To what degree are we still a functioning democracy? I'm sure you know that President
Jimmy Carter told a German reporter last year that he thought we no longer qualified as a
democracy because of our domestic surveillance.
We are clearly on the path to autocracy, and you can argue about how far we are down that
path. But there's no question that if we continue on that path, America's constitutionally
established institutions-Congress, the courts and the presidency-will ultimately end up like
Britain's House of Lords and monarchy, namely as institutional museum pieces.
My favorite nonfiction book this year is
"National Security and Double Government" by Michael J. Glennon, which argues that the
president and Congress are largely figureheads in setting U.S. national security policy.
Glennon's book suggests that U.S. foreign and security policy is formed by "Trumanites," a
network of several hundred top bureaucrats. They're named after Harry S. Truman, whose
administration saw the passage of the National Security Act of 1947 and the creation of the
National Security Agency. The elected officials who are supposed to make the decisions are dubbed
"Madisonians," after President James Madison.
The Madisonians do have power, and they make important decisions. President Barack Obama made
the decision to carry out the raid that killed terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, Glennon notes.
No one will know whether Al Gore would have invaded Iraq. But Glennon argues that very little in
American foreign policy actually changed when Barack Obama replaced George W. Bush at the White
House.
As an example, Glennon's book is quite devastating in describing how prominent Madisonians
reacted when James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, was caught lying to Congress
about whether it collects data on "millions" of Americans. (Leaks from Edward Snowden revealed
that the National Security Agency in fact attempts to collect the phone records of all
Americans.) Sen. Dianne Feinstein knew the statement was false and said nothing, Glennon writes.
Obama knew or should have known the statement was false and also was silent, "allowing the
falsehood to stand for months until leaks publicly revealed the testimony to be false," he
writes. "Obama, finally caught by surprise, insisted that he 'welcomed' the debate that ensued,
and his administration commenced active efforts to arrest the NSA employee whose disclosures had
triggered it." Glennon's heavily-footnoted book then documents the misleading statements Obama
made about the matter.
Glennon is not a campus radical or a conspiracy theorist blogging in his parents' basement.
He's professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts
University. Before he entered academia, he had a legal career that included a stint as legal
counsel for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has written several books, and his opinion
pieces have appeared in "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post," among other newspapers.
He kindly agreed to take our questions about his new book:
Sandusky Register: Did the election of President Barack Obama, and the subsequent
disappointment of many who thought he would change U.S. national security policy, spur your book,
or had you already had it in mind for years?
Glennon: Both. I had noticed for years that U.S. national security changed
little from one administration to the next, but the continuity was so striking mid-way into the
Obama administration that I thought it was time to address the question directly. Hence the book.
Sandusky Register: Your book suggests that elections in the U.S. have little effect on
national security policy - most of the decisions are made by a network of several hundred
national security bureaucrats, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office or the seats in
Congress. Do politicians in Washington privately admit that this is true?
Glennon: I've spoken with many members of what I call the "Trumanite network"
who do acknowledge that reality - it's hard to deny, really, though few will say so publicly -
but members of Congress and federal judges have too much at stake to pull back the curtains. As I
describe in the book, public deference depends upon the illusion that the public institutions of
our government are actually in charge, and their legitimacy would suffer if they were brutally
honest about how much power they have transferred to the Trumanites.
Sandusky Register: Drawing upon "The English Constitution" by
Walter Bagehot, you
refer to the politicians who are supposed to be in charge as "the Madisonians" (after James
Madison) and the national security bureaucrats who actually govern as "the Trumanites" (after
Harry Truman's National Security Act of 1947). Is it a misnomer to refer to the Trumanites as a
"secret government," as some do?
Glennon: The Trumanites surely operate in secrecy; most of their work is highly
classified because the security threats have to be addressed out of the public eye, for the most
part. But the Trumanite network itself exists in plain view, and has been readily visible for
some time. So it's a mistake to think of it as a "deep state" or "shadow government" to the
extent that those terms imply some nefarious conspiracy. There has been no such thing.
Sandusky Register: The U.S. Senate just defeated an NSA reform bill, and even supporters
admitted it would not have brought major change. Does this fit your book's suggestion that reform
from the "Madisonians" is going to be a difficult enterprise?
Glennon: The bill was mostly cosmetic and would not have addressed the deeper
sources of double government. Its defeat can be attributed to a number of factors, one of which
surely is the power of the Trumanite network. But in the interest of complete accuracy, it's
useful to think of the phenomenon of double government as something like climate change: not
every bad storm or hot day is caused directly and exclusively by the dynamic of global warming.
The theory of double government merely predicts that, over time, national security policy as a
whole will be largely continuous. Individual elements of that policy could change.
Sandusky Register: I've noticed you haven't been invited to appear on national TV yet, or
on NPR's "Fresh Air," although your thesis would seem to be controversial and interesting. Are
there institutional reasons why your book isn't getting a huge amount of publicity, or is it just
hard to get an academic press book out there?
Glennon: Some good books never get reviewed and some bad books do. Lots of it
just seems to be luck and happenstance. I tried to write it for informed lay readers; time will
tell whether they pick it up.
Tom, thanks. That will go on my reading list - right now I'm into "Why We Lost (in Iraq and
Afghanistan)" by Gen. Dan Bolger.
And for influence on security policy, don't forget the Neo-cons and their Israeli partners.
We're spending trillions on the military and becoming ever less secure - they are bankrupting the
country.
Professor Michael Glennon on the Rise of the American System of Double Government
In his latest book, National Security and Double Government, Professor Michael Glennon challenges
common understandings of American government institutions and provides daunting insights into the
nature of the U.S. national security apparatus. Glennon claims that the "Trumanite network," consisting
of managers of the military, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies, guides and often makes key
decisions on U.S. national security policy. He highlights the lack of oversight, accountability,
and the mutually beneficial relationship between the public-facing "Madisonian" actors, such as the
President and Congress, and this classified "Trumanite" network. The Fletcher Forum Editorial team
sat down with Michael Glennon, Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School, to talk about
his book and discuss the future of American democracy.
FLETCHER FORUM: How did your experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and your
continued work with the government inform your book?
GLENNON: When I worked for the Committee I was struck by the large number of Ford administration
officials who continued on into the Carter administration. Many of these officials held significant
policy-making roles in the realm of national security. I was also struck by the many programs and
policies that also carried over from the earlier administration. Most of these related to classified
intelligence and law enforcement activities. As a result the public believed that in many areas,
things had changed much more than they actually had. What I was observing in closed meetings and
in classified documents was not the civics-book model that the public had internalized. The courts,
Congress, and even presidential appointees exercised much less influence over national security policy-making
than people commonly believed. And the 1976 presidential election had had much less impact than people
had expected. So it was pretty clear the data didn't fit the conventional tri-partite, separation-of-powers
paradigm, but I wasn't sure what a more accurate paradigm would look like, or even whether there
was one.
FLETCHER FORUM: When did you start thinking about this topic? How did you formulate this
thesis and how did we get to this point?
GLENNON: Two years ago, I was struck again by the strange inalterability of U.S. national
security policy. Before winning the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama had campaigned forcefully
and eloquently against many elements of the Bush administration's national security policy. Yet rendition,
military detention without trial or counsel, drone strikes, NSA surveillance, whistleblower prosecutions,
non-prosecution of water-boarders, reliance on the state secrets privilege, covert operations, Guantanamo-you
name it, virtually nothing changed. Obviously something more was going on than what the defenders
of those policies claimed-which was that all those policies somehow happened to be the most rational
response among all competing alternatives. The fact is that each of these policies presents questions
on which reasonable people can differ-as indeed Obama himself had, as a Senator and as a candidate
for the presidency. The epiphany occurred when I pulled a little book off the shelf and read it in
amazement one rainy Sunday afternoon-Walter Bagehot's The English Constitution.
FLETCHER FORUM: What are some components of this double government in the U.S. today? What
are the key institutions and players?
GLENNON: Bagehot's objective was to explain how the British government operated in the
1860s. He suggested that it had in effect split into two separate sets of institutions. The "dignified"
institutions consisted of the monarchy and House of Lords. The British people believed that the dignified
institutions ran the government. This belief was essential to foster the legitimacy needed for public
deference and obedience. But that belief was an illusion. In fact, the government was run by the
"efficient" institutions-the House of Commons, the prime minister, and the cabinet-which operated
behind-the-scenes, largely removed from public view. Gradually and quietly, these efficient institutions
had moved Britain away from a monarchy to become what Bagehot described as a "concealed republic."
My book's thesis is that in the realm of national security, the United States also has unwittingly
drifted into a system of double government-but that it is moving in the opposite direction, away
from democracy, toward autocracy. With occasional exceptions, the dignified institutions of the judiciary,
Congress, and the presidency are all on the road to becoming hollowed-out museum pieces, while the
managers of the military, law enforcement, and intelligence community more and more come to dominate
national security policy-making.
FLETCHER FORUM: You identify the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American
public as the root problem, and argue that reform must come from the people. How can this actually
work in practice? Is there any hope that change is possible?
GLENNON: It's a bit simplistic to focus exclusively upon the public's "pervasive civic
ignorance" (a term used by former Supreme Court Justice David Souter). As I point out in the book,
the American people are anything but stupid. And while it's true that they're not terribly engaged
or informed on national security policy, their ignorance is in many ways rational. Americans are
very busy people and it doesn't make much sense to expend a lot of effort learning about policies
you can't change. So we're in a dilemma: because the dignified institutions can't empower themselves
by drawing upon powers that they lack, energy must come from the outside, from the people-yet as
the electorate becomes increasingly uninformed and disengaged, the efficient institutions have all
the more incentive to go off on their own. It's telling and rather sad that the American public has
become so reliant upon the government to come up with solutions to its problems that the public is
utterly at loose ends to know where or how to begin to devise its own remedy. Learned Hand was right:
liberty "lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court
can save it."
FLETCHER FORUM: Does a lame duck President have a different relationship with the Trumanite
Network? If President Obama were to read your book and ask for advice on changing the system, what
would you tell him?
GLENNON: I'd suggest that he demonstrate to the American people that the book's thesis
is wrong. He could do that by changing the national security policies that he led the American people
to believe would be changed. Among other things: (1) fire officials who lie to Congress and the American
people, beginning with John Brennan and James Clapper, (2) appoint a special prosecutor to deal with
the CIA's spying on the Senate intelligence committee and Clapper's false statements to it, (3) stop
blocking publication of the Senate intelligence committee's torture report, (4) stop invoking the
state secrets privilege to obstruct judicial challenges to abusive counter-terrorism activities,
(5) halt the bombing of Syria until Congress authorizes it, and (6) stop prosecuting and humiliating
whistleblowers who spark public debates he claims to welcome.
FLETCHER FORUM: Are there any potential 2016 Presidential candidates that could challenge
the Trumanite Network?
GLENNON: No.
FLETCHER FORUM: Do you have any other recommended reading on this subject?
GLENNON: The English Constitution, by Walter Bagehot; President Eisenhower's farewell address;
The Power Elite, by C. Wright Mills; Why Leaders Lie, by John J. Mearsheimer; The Arrogance of Power,
by J. William Fulbright; Top Secret America, by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin; the final report
of the Church committee (S. Rep. No. 94-755, 1976); On Democracy, by Robert A. Dahl; The New American
Militarism, by Andrew Bacevich; Groupthink, by Irving Janus
"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit
from it."
George Orwell
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which
the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
There is certainly a long established difference between a just war, a defensive war, and a war of
adventure or aggression. No one understand this better than those who suffer loss in fighting them.
Like quite a few people I found myself asking, 'Why the Ukraine? Why the sudden push there, risking
conflict with Russia on their own doorstep?' Why are we suddenly risking all to support what was
clearly an extra-legal coup d'état?'
It is telling perhaps that one of the first things that happened after the coup d'état
is that all of the Ukraine's gold was on a flight to New York, for the safekeeping by those same
people who have managed to misplace a good portion of the German people's gold. It is the most transportable
and fungible store of wealth, where the transfer of less portable assets by computerized digits may
lag.
Follow the money...
GlobalResearch
Ukraine: The Corporate Annexation 'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits'
by JP Sottile
As the US and EU apply sanctions on Russia over its annexation' of Crimea, JP
Sottile reveals the corporate annexation of Ukraine. For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, there's a
gold mine of profits to be made from agri-business and energy exploitation.
The potential here for agriculture / agribusiness is amazing production here could double
Ukraine's agriculture could be a real gold mine.
On 12th January 2014, a reported 50,000 "pro-Western" Ukrainians descended upon Kiev's Independence
Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning
of the end of Yanukovych's four year-long government.
That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for US agribusiness titan Cargill.
Business confidence never faltered
Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal
with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future
to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine's UkrLandFarming...
"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit
from it."
George Orwell
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which
the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
There is certainly a long established difference between a just war, a defensive war, and a war of
adventure or aggression. No one understand this better than those who suffer loss in fighting them.
Like quite a few people I found myself asking, 'Why the Ukraine? Why the sudden push there, risking
conflict with Russia on their own doorstep?' Why are we suddenly risking all to support what was
clearly an extra-legal coup d'état?'
It is telling perhaps that one of the first things that happened after the coup d'état
is that all of the Ukraine's gold was on a flight to New York, for the safekeeping by those same
people who have managed to misplace a good portion of the German people's gold. It is the most transportable
and fungible store of wealth, where the transfer of less portable assets by computerized digits may
lag.
Follow the money...
GlobalResearch
Ukraine: The Corporate Annexation 'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits'
by JP Sottile
As the US and EU apply sanctions on Russia over its annexation' of Crimea, JP
Sottile reveals the corporate annexation of Ukraine. For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, there's a
gold mine of profits to be made from agri-business and energy exploitation.
The potential here for agriculture / agribusiness is amazing production here could double
Ukraine's agriculture could be a real gold mine.
On 12th January 2014, a reported 50,000 "pro-Western" Ukrainians descended upon Kiev's Independence
Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning
of the end of Yanukovych's four year-long government.
That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for US agribusiness titan Cargill.
Business confidence never faltered
Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal
with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future
to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine's UkrLandFarming...
Why does Barack Obama's performance on national security issues in the White House contrast so
strongly with his announced intentions as a candidate in 2008? After all, not only has Obama continued
most of the Bush policies he decried when he ran for the presidency, he has doubled down on government
surveillance, drone strikes, and other critical programs.
Michael J. Glennon set out to answer this question in his unsettling new book, National Security
and Double Government. And he clearly dislikes what he found.
The answer, Glennon discovered, is that the US government is divided between the three official
branches of the government, on the one hand - the "Madisonian" institutions incorporated into the
Constitution - and the several hundred unelected officials who do the real work of a constellation
of military and intelligence agencies, on the other hand. These officials, called "Trumanites" in
Glennon's parlance for having grown out of the national security infrastructure established under
Harry Truman, make the real decisions in the area of national security. (To wage the Cold War, Truman
created the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Department of Defense, the CIA, the NSA, and the National
Security Council.) "The United States has, in short," Glennon writes, "moved beyond a mere imperial
presidency to a bifurcated system - a structure of double government - in which even the President
now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy.
. . . The perception of threat, crisis, and emergency has been the seminal phenomenon that has created
and nurtures America's double government." If Al Qaeda hadn't existed, the Trumanite network would
have had to create it - and, Glennon seems to imply, might well have done so.
The Trumanites wield their power with practiced efficiency, using secrecy, exaggerated threats,
peer pressure to conform, and the ability to mask the identity of the key decision-maker as their
principal tools.
Michael J. Glennon comes to this task with unexcelled credentials. A professor of international
law at Tufts and former legal counsel for the Senate Armed Services Committee, he came face to face
on a daily basis with the "Trumanites" he writes about. National Security and Double Government is
exhaustively researched and documented: notes constitute two-thirds of this deeply disturbing little
book.
The more I learn about how politics and government actually work - and I've learned a fair amount
in my 73 years - the more pessimistic I become about the prospects for democracy in America. In some
ways, this book is the most worrisome I've read over the years, because it implies that there is
no reason whatsoever to think that things can ever get better. In other words, to borrow a phrase
from the Borg on Star Trek, "resistance is futile." That's a helluva takeaway, isn't it?
On reflection, what comes most vividly to mind is a comment from the late Chalmers Johnson on
a conference call in which I participated several years ago. Johnson, formerly a consultant to the
CIA and a professor at two campuses of the University of California (Berkeley and later San Diego),
was the author of many books, including three that awakened me to many of the issues Michael Glennon
examines: Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis. Johnson, who was then nearly 80 and in declining
health, was asked by a student what he would recommend for young Americans who want to combat the
menace of the military-industrial complex. "Move to Vancouver," he said.
The mounting evidence notwithstanding, I just hope it hasn't come to that.
This work is of huge importance. It explains the phenomenon that myself and many other informed
voters have seen--namely--how the policies of the United States government seem impervious to change
no matter the flavor of administration. I found myself baffled and chagrined that President Obama,
who I cheerfully voted for twice (and still would prefer over the alternatives) failed to end many
of the practices that I abhor, such as the free reign of the NSA, the continual increase in defense
budgets and the willingness to keep laws that are clearly against the wishes of the vast majority
of Americans, be they Progressives or otherwise.
This incredible book acts as a Rosetta Stone that explains why nothing ever changes. Highly recommended.
According to
a new study from Princeton University, American democracy no longer exists. Using data
from over 1,800 policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002,
researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page concluded that rich, well-connected individuals on
the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of – or even against – the
will of the majority of voters. America's political system has transformed from a democracy
into an oligarchy, where power is wielded by wealthy elites.
"Making the world safe for democracy" was President Woodrow Wilson's rationale for World
War I, and it has been used to justify American military intervention ever since. Can we
justify sending troops into other countries to spread a political system we cannot maintain at home?
The Magna Carta, considered the first Bill of Rights in the Western world, established the rights
of nobles as against the king. But the doctrine that "all men are created equal" – that
all people have "certain inalienable rights," including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"
– is an American original. And those rights, supposedly insured by the Bill of Rights, have the right
to vote at their core. We have the right to vote but the voters' collective will no longer prevails.
In Greece, the left-wing populist Syriza Party
came out of nowhere to take the presidential election by storm; and in Spain, the populist Podemos
Party appears poised to do the same. But for over a century, no third-party candidate has
had any chance of winning a US presidential election. We have a two-party winner-take-all system,
in which our choice is between two candidates, both of whom necessarily cater to big money. It takes
big money just to put on the mass media campaigns required to win an election involving 240 million
people of voting age.
In state and local elections, third party candidates have sometimes won. In a modest-sized city,
candidates can actually influence the vote by going door to door, passing out flyers and bumper stickers,
giving local presentations, and getting on local radio and TV. But in a national election, those
efforts are easily trumped by the mass media. And local governments too are beholden to big money.
When governments of any size need to borrow money, the megabanks in a position to supply
it can generally dictate the terms. Even in Greece, where the populist Syriza Party managed
to prevail in January, the anti-austerity platform of the new government is being throttled by the
moneylenders who have the government in a chokehold.
How did we lose our democracy? Were the Founding Fathers remiss in leaving something
out of the Constitution? Or have we simply gotten too big to be governed by majority vote?
Democracy's Rise and Fall
The stages of the capture of democracy by big money are traced in a paper called "The Collapse
of Democratic Nation States" by theologian and environmentalist Dr. John Cobb. Going back several
centuries, he points to the rise of private banking, which usurped the power to create money from
governments:
The influence of money was greatly enhanced by the emergence of private banking. The banks
are able to create money and so to lend amounts far in excess of their actual wealth. This control
of money-creation . . . has given banks overwhelming control over human affairs. In the United
States, Wall Street makes most of the truly important decisions that are directly attributed to
Washington.
Today the vast majority of the money supply in Western countries is created by private
bankers. That tradition goes back to the 17th century, when the privately-owned
Bank of England, the mother of all central banks, negotiated the right to print England's money after
Parliament stripped that power from the Crown. When King William needed money to fight a war, he
had to borrow. The government as borrower then became servant of the lender.
In America, however, the colonists defied the Bank of England and issued their own paper
scrip; and they thrived. When King George forbade that practice, the colonists rebelled.
They won the Revolution but lost the power to create their own money supply, when they opted for
gold rather than paper money as their official means of exchange. Gold was in limited supply and
was controlled by the bankers, who surreptitiously expanded the money supply by issuing multiple
banknotes against a limited supply of gold.
This was the system euphemistically called "fractional reserve" banking, meaning
only a fraction of the gold necessary to back the banks' privately-issued notes was actually held
in their vaults. These notes were lent at interest, putting citizens and the government in debt to
bankers who created the notes with a printing press. It was something the government could have done
itself debt-free, and the American colonies had done with great success until England went to war
to stop them.
President Abraham Lincoln revived the colonists' paper money system when he issued the Treasury
notes called "Greenbacks" that helped the Union win the Civil War. But Lincoln was assassinated,
and the Greenback issues were discontinued.
In every presidential election between 1872 and 1896, there was a third national party
running on a platform of financial reform. Typically organized under the auspices of labor
or farmer organizations, these were parties of the people rather than the banks. They included the
Populist Party, the Greenback and Greenback Labor Parties, the Labor Reform Party, the Antimonopolist
Party, and the Union Labor Party. They advocated expanding the national currency to meet the needs
of trade, reform of the banking system, and democratic control of the financial system.
The Populist movement of the 1890s represented the last serious challenge to the bankers' monopoly
over the right to create the nation's money.
According to monetary historian Murray Rothbard, politics after the turn of the century became
a struggle between two competing banking giants, the Morgans and the Rockefellers. The parties sometimes
changed hands, but the puppeteers pulling the strings were always one of these two big-money players.
In All the Presidents' Bankers, Nomi Prins names six banking giants and associated banking
families that have dominated politics for over a century. No popular third party candidates
have a real chance of prevailing, because they have to compete with two entrenched parties funded
by these massively powerful Wall Street banks.
Democracy Succumbs to Globalization
In an earlier era, notes Dr. Cobb, wealthy landowners were able to control democracies by restricting
government participation to the propertied class. When those restrictions were removed, big money
controlled elections by other means:
First, running for office became expensive, so that those who seek office require wealthy sponsors
to whom they are then beholden. Second, the great majority of voters have little independent knowledge
of those for whom they vote or of the issues to be dealt with. Their judgments are, accordingly,
dependent on what they learn from the mass media. These media, in turn, are controlled by moneyed
interests.
Control of the media and financial leverage over elected officials then enabled those
other curbs on democracy we know today, including high barriers to ballot placement for third parties
and their elimination from presidential debates, vote suppression, registration restrictions, identification
laws, voter roll purges, gerrymandering, computer voting, and secrecy in government.
The final blow to democracy, says Dr. Cobb, was "globalization" – an expanding global market that
overrides national interests:
[T]oday's global economy is fully transnational. The money power is not much interested in boundaries
between states and generally works to reduce their influence on markets and investments. . . .
Thus transnational corporations inherently work to undermine nation states, whether they are democratic
or not.
The most glaring example today is the secret twelve-country trade agreement called the
Trans-Pacific Partnership. If it goes through, the TPP will dramatically expand the power of
multinational corporations to use closed-door tribunals to challenge and supersede domestic laws,
including environmental, labor, health and other protections.
Looking at Alternatives
Some critics ask whether our system of making decisions by a mass popular vote easily manipulated
by the paid-for media is the most effective way of governing on behalf of the people. In an interesting
Ted Talk, political scientist
Eric Li makes a compelling case for the system of "meritocracy" that has been quite successful
in China.
In
America Beyond Capitalism, Prof. Gar Alperovitz argues that the US is simply
too big to operate as a democracy at the national level. Excluding Canada and Australia,
which have large empty landmasses, the United States is larger geographically than all the other
advanced industrial countries of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)
combined. He proposes what he calls "The
Pluralist Commonwealth": a system anchored in the reconstruction of communities and the democratization
of wealth. It involves plural forms of cooperative and common ownership beginning with decentralization
and moving to higher levels of regional and national coordination when necessary. He is co-chair
along with James Gustav Speth of an initiative called
The Next System Project, which seeks
to help open a far-ranging discussion of how to move beyond the failing traditional political-economic
systems of both left and Right..
Dr. Alperovitz quotes Prof. Donald Livingston, who asked in 2002:
What value is there in continuing to prop up a union of this monstrous size? . . . [T]here
are ample resources in the American federal tradition to justify states' and local communities'
recalling, out of their own sovereignty, powers they have allowed the central government to usurp.
Taking Back Our Power
If governments are recalling their sovereign powers, they might start with the power to create
money, which was usurped by private interests while the people were asleep at the wheel. State and
local governments are not allowed to print their own currencies; but they can own banks, and all
depository banks create money when they make loans, as
the Bank of England recently acknowledged.
The federal government could take back the power to create the national money supply by
issuing its own Treasury notes as Abraham Lincoln did. Alternatively, it
could issue some very
large denomination coins as authorized in the Constitution; or it could nationalize the central
bank and use quantitative easing to fund infrastructure, education, job creation, and social services,
responding to the needs of the people rather than the banks.
The freedom to vote carries little weight without economic freedom – the freedom to work and to
have food, shelter, education, medical care and a decent retirement. President Franklin Roosevelt
maintained that we need an Economic Bill of Rights. If our elected representatives were not
beholden to the moneylenders, they might be able both to pass such a bill and to come up with the
money to fund it.
"... The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment. ..."
"... I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan. ..."
Ukraine will be a consolidated fascist state without an economy. Right. It was mentioned elsewhere
that the only thing keeping the regime in power is the war. It sure isn't the economy. But eventually
the economic decline will break the bubble.
The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were
expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association
agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment.
So this ridiculous delusion is going to break down. But delusions are very resilient things.
I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan.
In a sense it already is with various oligarchs controlling bits of territory and sort of cooperating
in Kiev. Elections are not much more than a Afghan Jirga.
Still, it is interesting to see Russia
play the long game, the latest being a $285 three month gas contract with Kiev. When the Ukraine
finally implodes, Russia can clearly point out how it could have pulled the plug at any time it
wanted but it didn't because it has the best interests of its closest neighbor in mind. It also
sets a benchmark for all the promises from the EU and US to be compared to, the latter far more
likely to creatively reinterpret supposedly solid agreements than Russia especially if Kiev doesn't
sing from the same hymnbook 200%. It is also a warning to Berlin and the EU – we pull the plug
and it's all yours baby!
Yes, the people of Ukraine will never stand for this ridiculous substitution – a goose-stepping
Nazi police state in place of the cushy streets-paved-with-gold paradise they were led to expect
in exchange for their support for Maidan and the coup. They would probably put up with anything
if it meant widespread prosperity, but they are indisputably much worse off now than they were
prior to The Great Ukrainian Leap Forward and the trend is remorselessly downward for at least
another year – even the IMF
forecasts a considerably worse contraction of a further 10% rather than the 6% it forecast
earlier. And that's with the most lipstick The New Atlanticist – a relentlessly pro-western publication
whose current headlines include Wesley Clark's prediction of a Russian Spring offensive, the manifestly
ridiculous contention that "Putin's war against Ukraine" has had the effect of uniting Ukrainians,
and Russia's paranoid fantasies about the west representing a threat are all in its head – can
put on it. Moreover, there is likely to be zero growth in 2016 as well. That assessment probably
assumes certain realities that do not now exist, such as Kiev bringing the east back under its
thumb, rather than it slipping further from its control and perhaps even expanding its territory.
About two and a half thousand Ukrainians surrounded the US embassy in Kiev on the first of April. People who disagree with
the appointment of foreigners to the Ukrainian government, as well as the intervention of the Americans and Europeans in the public
administration of the country, holding banners saying "We are not cattle!" And they made sounds imitating animals.
Besides the protesters braying and bleating, they were eating cabbage, which was distributed by the organizers of the protest.
They also kept two-meter carrots with the symbols of the European Union. By the end of the demonstration of dissent Kiev residents
pelted the US embassy with manure.
It is noteworthy that the video from the protest was removed from all the Ukrainian sites and users were blocked. Local journalists
hardly covered the event.
It seems as though the Yanks have revived the notion behind "The School of the Americas" era,
where American Special Forces operatives would train up various battalions of "security forces",
National Guard, "Presidential Guards", whatever, expressly to support Latin American fascistic
dictatorships and to keep their respective countries on-side in the "war against Communism" in
the Western Hemisphere.
So, today we have boatloads of Special Forces contingencies in the Middle East, in Africa,
in South Asia, and now in Eastern Europe or in the former States of the Soviet Union (Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, et al), all with the specific task of supporting autocrats and dictators
against their own respective peoples.
And the gullible US public is being sold this as "advancing the democratic agenda"...so blatant
and so pathetic. This to promote US "leadership", and to create proxy military forces to advance
US "strategic goals". Blowback, blowback, we don't see no steenkin' blowback!
Germany was both Protestant and Catholic. The Catholic Centre Party opposed the
Nazis; I believe you'll find the Lutheran state churches of northern Germany the most accepting
of their regime. Lutheran Scandinavia produced generous nos. of collaborators and volunteers for
the Waffen-SS "Viking" Division. Bulgaria and Romania both had collaborationist governments drawn
from local fascists.
en1c at 1
I think they plan on using brute force to keep power. There are several reports at Fort
Russ about about a purge and revamping at the SBU.
Nalivaychenko, its leader, says it's going to be schooled in the Banderaist/OUN school of
political repression. And here is a comprehensive
guide to their methods.
There is nothing good in store for Ukraine. I think during this year it will sustain a military
defeat and the disintegration of its army, another coup and the collapse of what is left of
its government agencies, all-out chaos, the total destruction of the economy and the start
of subsistence farming for survival.... Survivors will be set back a century in terms of living
standards and civilization. This is why foreign intervention to restore law and order to Ukraine
after the collapse of Project Ukraine will be inevitable.
I hope he's exaggerating about that century thing.
Eduard Basurin, the Deputy Commander in Chief of Donetsk Republic Defense, read out to journalists
excerpts of an intelligence obtained plan of Ukrainian special operation, which, in particular
designated "special mobile groups to assault key infrastructure objects and crowded places".
Basurin said that this plan "of a special operation in sector B has been approved by the Ukrainian
side and is being implemented". Therefore, the end of March intelligence about sending approximately
thirty five Ukrainian subversion-reconnaissance group to areas of Shirokino and Donetsk to arrange
provocations under disguise of combatants is confirmed.
According to the presented documents, the subversives were also tasked with liquidation of
Donetsk Republic leaders, spreading panic among locals, opening random mortar and small arms fire
from Donetsk and the airport toward settlement Peski, where positions of the Ukrainian forces
are installed.
jfl | Apr 2, 2015 4:27:24 AM | 13
@9
The purge going on in Western Ukraine may be the sign that they have given up on war with the
East ... that would have been their instruction from the CIA, in that case ... and are preparing
to internalize the war. I'm probably quoting J Hawk or K Rus. Everything is so wrong in Ukraine
... and getting daily wronger ... that they desperately need some overarching threat to 'keep
everyone's mind off the pain'. The poor, poor Ukrainians.
I don't think the author at Russia Insider meant that the collapse of the Ukraine would last
100 years, 'just' that the 'lifestyle' of the Ukrainians would be more similar to their lifestyle
100 years ago than to their 21st century fantasies. The ground is the place to build up from.
And slowly and thoughtfully, with an appreciation for what is real and what is not, is the way
to go.
It is not only the Ukrainians who will be in this position in the near future. I agree with
Mike Maloney@7 ... "how can all this not end up becoming globalized total war?"
ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 2, 2015 9:19:48 AM | 16
"US training" in practice seems more an economic outcome than a military one. Much like sourcing
the F35 - US training of indigenous troops presents limitless opportunities for kickbacks, theft,
and other means of securing payment for local warlords. Trainers have to be fed, housed, and protected
- all activities which generate income. Trainees have to be furnished equipment - which can be
stolen and sold. Training itself consumes resources: ammunition, food, etc which also can be stolen
and sold.
Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord
support.
"Council of Europe
report finds that official Ukrainian investigations into crimes committed during the Maidan protests
are a total shambles and are going nowhere."
Obama fully intends to get a war or at least threat of war started in the Ukraine between Russia
and NATO in order to boost the military-industrial complex and the US military budget.
The alleged
intent of the Ukraine crisis was to make Ukraine into a NATO base on Russia's borders. But Russia
will never stand for that. And it's not certain that everyone in the Beltway was ignorant of that.
These people can read the articles that pointed out that Russia would not stand for that.
But Russia didn't take the bait and invade Ukraine. Instead they merely supported the anti-Kiev
forces in the east.
So Obama has to up the ante. The only way to do that is to support the far-right neo-Nazi forces
in the Ukraine and get them to take over the government. This is because Russia will never accept
a Nazi-led Ukraine, either.
The goal is to force Russia to deal militarily directly with Ukraine, thus justifying a NATO
threat response, which will boost the Cold war and boost the US and EU military-industrial complex.
Never forget that Obama is owned and operated by his masters in Chicago who are both Israel-Firsters
and stock holders in the military-industrial complex.
@31,32
Looks like the Ukrainians are finally beginning to understand just how badly they have been played.
Maybe they will no longer stand for a Nazi-led Ukraine, either?
I mean ... how have they benefited at all from NAZI rule?
It seems as though the Yanks have revived the notion behind "The School of the Americas" era,
where American Special Forces operatives would train up various battalions of "security forces",
National Guard, "Presidential Guards", whatever, expressly to support Latin American fascistic
dictatorships and to keep their respective countries on-side in the "war against Communism" in
the Western Hemisphere.
So, today we have boatloads of Special Forces contingencies in the Middle East, in Africa,
in South Asia, and now in Eastern Europe or in the former States of the Soviet Union (Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, et al), all with the specific task of supporting autocrats and dictators
against their own respective peoples.
And the gullible US public is being sold this as "advancing the democratic agenda"...so blatant
and so pathetic. This to promote US "leadership", and to create proxy military forces to advance
US "strategic goals". Blowback, blowback, we don't see no steenkin' blowback!
Germany was both Protestant and Catholic. The Catholic Centre Party opposed the
Nazis; I believe you'll find the Lutheran state churches of northern Germany the most accepting
of their regime. Lutheran Scandinavia produced generous nos. of collaborators and volunteers for
the Waffen-SS "Viking" Division. Bulgaria and Romania both had collaborationist governments drawn
from local fascists.
en1c at 1
I think they plan on using brute force to keep power. There are several reports at Fort
Russ about about a purge and revamping at the SBU.
Nalivaychenko, its leader, says it's going to be schooled in the Banderaist/OUN school of
political repression. And here is a comprehensive
guide to their methods.
There is nothing good in store for Ukraine. I think during this year it will sustain a military
defeat and the disintegration of its army, another coup and the collapse of what is left of
its government agencies, all-out chaos, the total destruction of the economy and the start
of subsistence farming for survival.... Survivors will be set back a century in terms of living
standards and civilization. This is why foreign intervention to restore law and order to Ukraine
after the collapse of Project Ukraine will be inevitable.
I hope he's exaggerating about that century thing.
Eduard Basurin, the Deputy Commander in Chief of Donetsk Republic Defense, read out to journalists
excerpts of an intelligence obtained plan of Ukrainian special operation, which, in particular
designated "special mobile groups to assault key infrastructure objects and crowded places".
Basurin said that this plan "of a special operation in sector B has been approved by the Ukrainian
side and is being implemented". Therefore, the end of March intelligence about sending approximately
thirty five Ukrainian subversion-reconnaissance group to areas of Shirokino and Donetsk to arrange
provocations under disguise of combatants is confirmed.
According to the presented documents, the subversives were also tasked with liquidation of
Donetsk Republic leaders, spreading panic among locals, opening random mortar and small arms fire
from Donetsk and the airport toward settlement Peski, where positions of the Ukrainian forces
are installed.
jfl | Apr 2, 2015 4:27:24 AM | 13
@9
The purge going on in Western Ukraine may be the sign that they have given up on war with the
East ... that would have been their instruction from the CIA, in that case ... and are preparing
to internalize the war. I'm probably quoting J Hawk or K Rus. Everything is so wrong in Ukraine
... and getting daily wronger ... that they desperately need some overarching threat to 'keep
everyone's mind off the pain'. The poor, poor Ukrainians.
I don't think the author at Russia Insider meant that the collapse of the Ukraine would last
100 years, 'just' that the 'lifestyle' of the Ukrainians would be more similar to their lifestyle
100 years ago than to their 21st century fantasies. The ground is the place to build up from.
And slowly and thoughtfully, with an appreciation for what is real and what is not, is the way
to go.
It is not only the Ukrainians who will be in this position in the near future. I agree with
Mike Maloney@7 ... "how can all this not end up becoming globalized total war?"
ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 2, 2015 9:19:48 AM | 16
"US training" in practice seems more an economic outcome than a military one. Much like sourcing
the F35 - US training of indigenous troops presents limitless opportunities for kickbacks, theft,
and other means of securing payment for local warlords. Trainers have to be fed, housed, and protected
- all activities which generate income. Trainees have to be furnished equipment - which can be
stolen and sold. Training itself consumes resources: ammunition, food, etc which also can be stolen
and sold.
Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord
support.
"Council of Europe
report finds that official Ukrainian investigations into crimes committed during the Maidan protests
are a total shambles and are going nowhere."
Obama fully intends to get a war or at least threat of war started in the Ukraine between Russia
and NATO in order to boost the military-industrial complex and the US military budget.
The alleged
intent of the Ukraine crisis was to make Ukraine into a NATO base on Russia's borders. But Russia
will never stand for that. And it's not certain that everyone in the Beltway was ignorant of that.
These people can read the articles that pointed out that Russia would not stand for that.
But Russia didn't take the bait and invade Ukraine. Instead they merely supported the anti-Kiev
forces in the east.
So Obama has to up the ante. The only way to do that is to support the far-right neo-Nazi forces
in the Ukraine and get them to take over the government. This is because Russia will never accept
a Nazi-led Ukraine, either.
The goal is to force Russia to deal militarily directly with Ukraine, thus justifying a NATO
threat response, which will boost the Cold war and boost the US and EU military-industrial complex.
Never forget that Obama is owned and operated by his masters in Chicago who are both Israel-Firsters
and stock holders in the military-industrial complex.
@31,32
Looks like the Ukrainians are finally beginning to understand just how badly they have been played.
Maybe they will no longer stand for a Nazi-led Ukraine, either?
I mean ... how have they benefited at all from NAZI rule?
This is extremely strong move by the US diplomacy (EU vassals were just token players, extras in
the play) which considerably weakens Russia political and economic position. It also shows
that drop of oil prices was a well though out strategic move with several possible surprises in the
sleeves.
How the lift sanctions against Iran will affect the position of Russia in the world
Lengthy negotiations the six world powers (Russia, USA, UK, France, Germany, China) in
Lausanne ended with agreement on the lifting of restrictions against Iran. Foreign Minister of
this country Mohammad Zarif called the historical results of the negotiations. Similar opinion is
shared by U.S. President Barack Obama, who compared the agreements with agreements between the
United States and the Soviet Union during the reign of Reagan and Nixon. The world market after
the statements of the leaders of the six responded to a decrease in oil prices. But the question
arise: will the
economy of Russia suffer as a result of this shrewd move, and will Russia be able to maintain a
trusting relationship with its ally in the Middle East or it will change camps.
The EU and the US sanctions against Iran seriously limited the foreign trade of Tehran. They
were introduced under the pretext of preventing Iran's development of its own nuclear weapons.
Iran argued that solely interested in building on their own territory of the nuclear power
plants and is not intended to have weapons of mass destruction. But the official representatives
of the West did not believe statements by Iran leadership, fearing that obtaining a nuclear
weapon by Iran will seriously alter the geopolitical balance in the middle East.
In recent years tensions between Iran and the West only grew. This played against attempts to
isolate
Moscow, which, after the reunification of the Crimea with Russia was forced to start organizing
the "anti-Western coalition." to counter Western sanctions. But Tehran clearly
did not enjoyed its permanent status of a "rogue state" assigned by the USA,
and the new President of Iran Hassan Rouhani began to hint that he might compromise and accept
the demands of the West.
Concluded at Lausanne agreements, Iran accepted an obligation for 15 years not to build new
facilities for uranium enrichment and not to enrich uranium to the level of over to 3.67%,
while also reducing the number of centrifuges from the current 19 thousand to six thousand. In
response to the Tehran gets the opportunity to export the energy to the West.
The appearance on the world market of oil and gas from a new player at the current moment of
low energy prices might trigger further collapse in the price of "black gold" which will
jeopardize the economy of Russia. At the same time, the removal of restrictions on the
development of the Iranian nuclear program will enhance the ability of Russian companies to
participate in construction of nuclear power plants. It also indirectly created a new prospects
for cooperation in military-technical sphere.
It is possible that the West went to the lifting of sanctions, based on geopolitical
considerations. Shiite Iran is supporting the rebels Houthis in Yemen and efforts of the
coalition led by Saudi Arabia may not lead to success. This can threatens oil supplies to Europe
and the USA. In addition, Iran has long expressed his desire to join the Shanghai cooperation
organization, collective security Treaty organization and BRICS. Here West was forced to give
Tehran a bone to block or slow down such moves.
The lifting of the sanctions on Iran may lead in the near future to the fall in oil prices.
But this probably will be a short-term phenomenon caused by excessive speculation. In itself, the
lifting of sanctions in the future for a few months will not affect the market, " said the
Director of the Center for the study of world energy markets energy research Institute of Russian
Academy of Sciences Vyacheslav Kulagin. No additional quantities of oil and gas on the
market will be added to market immediately. But if the current economic situation in the
world will stay then in the future the lifting of the sanctions on Iran will led to significant
changes. Iran will obtain access to Western investments and technology. But again, in a short
term the world energy market is not affected.
But if we talk about the future after 2020, Iran could become a leading exporter of oil and gas.
Oil and gas production will increase. It is worth noting the value of the field "South Pars".
Even before the sanctions, there were dozens of projects in this field, including some with the
participation of Russian companies. If those projects will be revived, then they will have a
serious impact. But this impact will be felt in 2020 or even 2030. In this timeframe Russia will
get a serious competitor in the commodities market.
It is worth considering the geopolitical factor, in particular, the current situation in
Yemen. Iran supports the Shiite population of this country, but does not yet have the financial
capacity to significantly affect the situation. But in the future if the investment is going in
Iran, such opportunities will appear. Accordingly, re-configuration of forces in the Middle
East will be a bigger question than it is today.
Yves here. Andrew Bacevich excoriates policy intellectuals as "blight on the republic". His case
study focuses on the military/surveillance complex but he notes in passing that the first policy
intellectuals were in the economic realm. And we are plagued with plenty of malpractice there too.
by Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations emeritus
at Boston University's Pardee School of Global Studies. He is writing a military history of
America's War for the Greater Middle East. His most recent book is
Breach
of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country. Originally published at
TomDispatch
Policy intellectuals - eggheads presuming to instruct the mere mortals who actually run for office
- are a blight on the republic. Like some invasive species, they infest present-day Washington, where
their presence strangles common sense and has brought to the verge of extinction the simple ability
to perceive reality. A benign appearance - well-dressed types testifying before Congress, pontificating
in print and on TV, or even filling key positions in the executive branch - belies a malign impact.
They are like Asian carp let loose in the Great Lakes.
It all began innocently enough. Back in 1933, with the country in the throes of the Great
Depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt first imported a handful of eager academics to join
the ranks of his New Deal. An unprecedented economic crisis required some fresh thinking, FDR
believed. Whether the contributions of this "Brains
Trust" made a positive impact or served to retard economic recovery (or ended up being a wash)
remains a subject for debate even today. At the very least, however, the arrival of Adolph
Berle, Raymond Moley, Rexford Tugwell, and others elevated Washington's bourbon-and-cigars social
scene. As bona fide members of the intelligentsia, they possessed a sort of cachet.
Then came World War II, followed in short order by the onset of the Cold War. These events brought
to Washington a second wave of deep thinkers, their agenda now focused on "national security."
This eminently elastic concept - more properly, "national insecurity" - encompassed just about anything
related to preparing for, fighting, or surviving wars, including economics, technology, weapons design,
decision-making, the structure of the armed forces, and other matters said to be of vital importance
to the nation's survival. National insecurity became, and remains today, the policy world's
equivalent of the gift that just keeps on giving.
People who specialized in thinking about national insecurity came to be known as "defense intellectuals."
Pioneers in this endeavor back in the 1950s were as likely to collect their paychecks from think
tanks like the prototypical RAND Corporation as from more traditional academic institutions.
Their ranks included creepy figures like Herman Kahn, who took pride in "thinking about the unthinkable,"
and Albert Wohlstetter, who tutored Washington in the complexities of maintaining "the delicate balance
of terror."
In this wonky world, the coin of the realm has been and remains "policy relevance." This
means devising products that convey a sense of novelty, while serving chiefly to perpetuate the ongoing
enterprise. The ultimate example of a policy-relevant insight is
Dr. Strangelove's
discovery of a "mineshaft gap" - successor to the "bomber gap" and the "missile gap" that, in the
1950s, had found America allegedly lagging behind the Soviets in weaponry and desperately needing
to catch up. Now, with a thermonuclear exchange about to destroy the planet, the United States
is once more falling behind, Strangelove claims, this time in digging underground shelters enabling
some small proportion of the population to survive.
In a single, brilliant stroke, Strangelove posits a new raison d'être for the entire
national insecurity apparatus, thereby ensuring that the game will continue more or less forever.
A sequel to Stanley Kubrick's movie would have shown General "Buck" Turgidson and the other brass
huddled in the War Room, developing plans to close the mineshaft gap as if nothing untoward had occurred.
The Rise of the National Insecurity State
Yet only in the 1960s, right around the time that Dr. Strangelove first appeared in movie
theaters, did policy intellectuals really come into their own. The press now referred to them
as "action intellectuals," suggesting energy and impatience. Action intellectuals were thinkers,
but also doers, members of a "large and growing body of men who choose to leave their quiet and secure
niches on the university campus and involve themselves instead in the perplexing problems that face
the nation," as LIFE Magazine put it in 1967. Among the most perplexing of those problems
was what to do about Vietnam, just the sort of challenge an action intellectual could sink his teeth
into.
Over the previous century-and-a-half, the United States had gone to war for many reasons, including
greed, fear, panic, righteous anger, and legitimate self-defense. On various occasions, each
of these, alone or in combination, had prompted Americans to fight. Vietnam marked the first
time that the United States went to war, at least in considerable part, in response to a bunch of
really dumb ideas floated by ostensibly smart people occupying positions of influence. More
surprising still, action intellectuals persisted in waging that war well past the point where it
had become self-evident, even to members of Congress, that the cause was a misbegotten one doomed
to end in failure.
As Exhibit A, Professor Appy presents McGeorge Bundy, national security adviser first for President
John F. Kennedy and then for Lyndon Johnson. Bundy was a product of Groton and Yale, who famously
became the youngest-ever dean of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, having gained tenure there
without even bothering to get a graduate degree.
For Exhibit B, there is Walt Whitman Rostow, Bundy's successor as national security adviser.
Rostow was another Yalie, earning his undergraduate degree there along with a PhD. While taking
a break of sorts, he spent two years at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. As a professor of economic
history at MIT, Rostow captured JFK's attention with his modestly subtitled 1960 book The Stages
of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, which offered a grand theory of development
with ostensibly universal applicability. Kennedy brought Rostow to Washington to test his theories
of "modernization" in places like Southeast Asia.
Finally, as Exhibit C, Appy briefly discusses Professor Samuel P. Huntington's contributions to
the Vietnam War. Huntington also attended Yale, before earning his PhD at Harvard and then
returning to teach there, becoming one of the most renowned political scientists of the post-World
War II era.
What the three shared in common, apart from a suspect education acquired in New Haven, was an
unwavering commitment to the reigning verities of the Cold War. Foremost among those verities
was this: that a monolith called Communism, controlled by a small group of fanatic ideologues hidden
behind the walls of the Kremlin, posed an existential threat not simply to America and its allies,
but to the very idea of freedom itself. The claim came with this essential corollary: the only
hope of avoiding such a cataclysmic outcome was for the United States to vigorously resist the Communist
threat wherever it reared its ugly head.
Buy those twin propositions and you accept the imperative of the U.S. preventing the Democratic
Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. North Vietnam, from absorbing the Republic of Vietnam, a.k.a. South Vietnam,
into a single unified country; in other words, that South Vietnam was a cause worth fighting and
dying for. Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington not only bought that argument hook, line, and sinker,
but then exerted themselves mightily to persuade others in Washington to buy it as well.
Yet even as he was urging the "Americanization" of the Vietnam War in 1965, Bundy already entertained
doubts about whether it was winnable. But not to worry: even if the effort ended in failure,
he counseled President Johnson, "the policy will be worth it."
How so? "At a minimum," Bundy wrote, "it will damp down the charge that we did not do all
that we could have done, and this charge will be important in many countries, including our own."
If the United States ultimately lost South Vietnam, at least Americans would have died trying to
prevent that result - and through some perverted logic this, in the estimation of Harvard's youngest-ever
dean, was a redeeming prospect. The essential point, Bundy believed, was to prevent others
from seeing the United States as a "paper tiger." To avoid a fight, even a losing one, was
to forfeit credibility. "Not to have it thought that when we commit ourselves we really mean
no major risk" - that was the problem to be avoided at all cost.
Rostow
outdid even Bundy in hawkishness. Apart from his relentless advocacy of coercive bombing to
influence North Vietnamese policymakers, Rostow was a chief architect of something called the Strategic
Hamlet Program. The idea was to jumpstart the Rostovian process of modernization by forcibly
relocating Vietnamese peasants from their ancestral villages into armed camps where the Saigon government
would provide security, education, medical care, and agricultural assistance. By winning hearts-and-minds
in this manner, the defeat of the communist insurgency was sure to follow, with the people of South
Vietnam vaulted into the "age of high mass consumption," where Rostow believed all humankind was
destined to end up.
That was the theory. Reality differed somewhat. Actual Strategic Hamlets were indistinguishable
from concentration camps. The government in Saigon proved too weak, too incompetent, and too
corrupt to hold up its end of the bargain. Rather than winning hearts-and-minds, the program
induced alienation, even as it essentially destabilized peasant society. One result: an increasingly
rootless rural population flooded into South Vietnam's cities where there was little work apart from
servicing the needs of the ever-growing U.S. military population - hardly the sort of activity conducive
to self-sustaining development.
Yet even when the Vietnam War ended in complete and utter defeat, Rostow still claimed vindication
for his theory. "We and the Southeast Asians," he wrote, had used the war years "so well that
there wasn't the panic [when Saigon fell] that there would have been if we had failed to intervene."
Indeed, regionally Rostow spied plenty of good news, all of it attributable to the American war.
"Since 1975 there has been a general expansion
of trade by the other countries of that region with Japan and the West. In Thailand we have
seen the rise of a new class of entrepreneurs. Malaysia and Singapore have become countries
of diverse manufactured exports. We can see the emergence of a much thicker layer of technocrats
in Indonesia."
So there you have it. If you want to know what 58,000 Americans (not to mention vastly larger
numbers of Vietnamese) died for, it was to encourage entrepreneurship, exports, and the emergence
of technocrats elsewhere in Southeast Asia.
Appy describes Professor Huntington as another action intellectual with an unfailing facility
for seeing the upside of catastrophe. In Huntington's view, the internal displacement of South
Vietnamese caused by the excessive use of American firepower, along with the failure of Rostow's
Strategic Hamlets, was actually good news. It promised, he insisted, to give the Americans
an edge over the insurgents.
The key to final victory, Huntington
wrote, was "forced-draft urbanization and modernization which rapidly brings the country in question
out of the phase in which a rural revolutionary movement can hope to generate sufficient strength
to come to power." By emptying out the countryside, the U.S. could win the war in the cities.
"The urban slum, which seems so horrible to middle-class Americans, often becomes for the poor peasant
a gateway to a new and better way of life." The language may be a tad antiseptic, but the point
is clear enough: the challenges of city life in a state of utter immiseration would miraculously
transform those same peasants into go-getters more interested in making a buck than in signing up
for social revolution.
Revisited decades later, claims once made with a straight face by the likes of Bundy, Rostow,
and Huntington - action intellectuals of the very first rank - seem beyond preposterous. They
insult our intelligence, leaving us to wonder how such judgments or the people who promoted them
were ever taken seriously.
How was it that during Vietnam bad ideas exerted such a perverse influence? Why were those
ideas so impervious to challenge? Why, in short, was it so difficult for Americans to recognize
bullshit for what it was?
Creating a Twenty-First-Century Slow-Motion Vietnam
These questions are by no means of mere historical interest. They are no less relevant when applied
to the handiwork of the twenty-first-century version of policy intellectuals, specializing in national
insecurity, whose bullshit underpins policies hardly more coherent than those used to justify and
prosecute the Vietnam War.
The present-day successors to Bundy, Rostow, and Huntington subscribe to their own reigning verities.
Chief among them is this: that a phenomenon called terrorism or Islamic radicalism, inspired by a
small group of fanatic ideologues hidden away in various quarters of the Greater Middle East, poses
an existential threat not simply to America and its allies, but - yes, it's still with us - to the
very idea of freedom itself. That assertion comes with an essential corollary dusted off and
imported from the Cold War: the only hope of avoiding this cataclysmic outcome is for the United
States to vigorously resist the terrorist/Islamist threat wherever it rears its ugly head.
At least since September 11, 2001, and arguably for at least two decades prior to that date, U.S.
policymakers have taken these propositions for granted. They have done so at least in part
because few of the policy intellectuals specializing in national insecurity have bothered to question
them.
Indeed, those specialists insulate the state from having to address such questions. Think
of them as intellectuals devoted to averting genuine intellectual activity. More or less like
Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter (or Dr. Strangelove), their function is to perpetuate the ongoing
enterprise.
The fact that the enterprise itself has become utterly amorphous may actually facilitate such
efforts. Once widely known as the Global War on Terror, or GWOT, it has been transformed into
the War with No Name. A little bit like the famous Supreme Court opinion on pornography: we
can't define it, we just know it when we see it, with ISIS the latest manifestation to capture Washington's
attention.
All that we can say for sure about this nameless undertaking is that it continues with no end
in sight. It has become a sort of slow-motion Vietnam, stimulating remarkably little honest
reflection regarding its course thus far or prospects for the future. If there is an actual
Brains Trust at work in Washington, it operates on autopilot. Today, the second- and third-generation
bastard offspring of RAND that clutter northwest Washington - the Center for this, the Institute
for that - spin their wheels debating latter day equivalents of Strategic Hamlets, with nary a thought
given to more fundamental concerns.
What prompts these observations is Ashton Carter's return to the Pentagon as President Obama's
fourth secretary of defense. Carter himself is an action intellectual in the Bundy, Rostow,
Huntington mold, having made a career of rotating between positions at Harvard and in "the Building."
He, too, is a Yalie and a Rhodes scholar, with a PhD. from Oxford. "Ash" - in Washington, a
first-name-only identifier ("Henry," "Zbig," "Hillary") signifies that you have truly arrived
- is the author of books and articles galore, including
one op-ed co-written with former Secretary of Defense William Perry back in 2006 calling for
preventive war against North Korea. Military action "undoubtedly carries risk," he bravely
acknowledged at the time. "But the risk of continuing inaction in the face of North Korea's race
to threaten this country would be greater" - just the sort of logic periodically trotted out by the
likes of Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter.
As Carter has taken the Pentagon's reins, he also has taken pains to convey the impression of
being a big thinker. As one Wall Street Journal
headline enthused, "Ash Carter Seeks Fresh Eyes on Global Threats." That multiple global
threats exist and that America's defense secretary has a mandate to address each of them are, of
course, givens. His predecessor Chuck Hagel (no Yale degree) was a bit of a plodder.
By way of contrast, Carter has made clear his intention to shake things up.
So on his second day in office, for example, he dinedwith Kenneth Pollack, Michael
O'Hanlon, and Robert Kagan, ranking national insecurity intellectuals and old Washington hands one
and all. Besides all being employees of the Brookings Institution, the three share the distinction
of having supported the
Iraq War back in 2003 and calling for redoubling efforts against ISIS today. For assurances
that the fundamental orientation of U.S. policy is sound - we just need to try harder - who better
to consult than
Pollack,
O'Hanlon, and
Kagan (any
Kagan)?
Was Carter hoping to gain some fresh insight from his dinner companions? Or was he letting
Washington's clubby network of fellows, senior fellows, and distinguished fellows know that, on his
watch, the prevailing verities of national insecurity would remain sacrosanct? You decide.
Soon thereafter, Carter's first trip overseas provided another opportunity to signal his intentions.
In Kuwait, he convened a war council of senior military and civilian officials to take stock of the
campaign against ISIS. In a daring departure from standard practice, the new defense secretary
prohibited PowerPoint briefings. One participant described the ensuing event as "a five-hour-long
college seminar" - candid and freewheeling. "This is reversing the paradigm," one awed senior
Pentagon official
remarked. Carter was said to be challenging his subordinates to "look at this problem differently."
Of course, Carter might have said, "Let's look at a different problem." That, however, was far
too radical to contemplate - the equivalent of suggesting back in the 1960s that assumptions landing
the United States in Vietnam should be reexamined.
In any event - and to no one's surprise - the different look did not produce a different conclusion.
Instead of reversing the paradigm, Carter affirmed it: the existing U.S. approach to dealing with
ISIS is sound, he announced. It only needs a bit of
tweaking - just the result to give the Pollacks, O'Hanlons, and Kagans something to write about
as they keep up the chatter that substitutes for serious debate.
Do we really need that chatter? Does it enhance the quality of U.S. policy? If policy/defense/action
intellectuals fell silent would America be less secure?
Let me propose an experiment. Put them on furlough. Not permanently - just until the last of the
winter snow finally melts in New England. Send them back to Yale for reeducation. Let's see if we
are able to make do without them even for a month or two.
In the meantime, invite Iraq and Afghanistan War vets to consider how best to deal with ISIS.
Turn the op-ed pages of major newspapers over to high school social studies teachers. Book English
majors from the Big Ten on the Sunday talk shows. Who knows what tidbits of wisdom might turn up?
It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference
in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where
the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk
ceasefire is rapidly
unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning
in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that
to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic
artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates
little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable.
Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping
the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way
back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding
Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved
would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the
Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting
with the regular units of the Russian army."
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with
lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects
Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long
haul.
The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which
he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander
said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its
fate,apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander
claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that
recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are
in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve
and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice
is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow
increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back
down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel
fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via
sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the
indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations
from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of
their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference
in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where
the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk
ceasefire is rapidly
unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning
in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that
to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic
artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates
little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable.
Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping
the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way
back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding
Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved
would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the
Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting
with the regular units of the Russian army."
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with
lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects
Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long
haul.
The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which
he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander
said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its
fate,apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander
claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that
recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are
in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve
and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice
is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow
increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back
down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel
fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via
sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the
indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations
from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of
their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
Jen Psaki: The ousting of Putin is not our goal: we want to change the direction that Russia
is taking
Extracts and précis:
-----------------------------------The official U.S. state Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki
is soon to go on maternity leave and will quit her post, which has become famous even in distant
Russia. But before doing that, on Wednesday night Jen gave an interview with Ksenia Sobchak in
a live "Dozhd" transmission.
Psaki: We cooperate with Russia on many issues, but we have serious disagreements about
the Ukraine. About a year ago, Russian separatists invaded the Ukraine, and we had serious differences
of opinion about this. We have drawn different conclusions as regards whether this action meets
international standards.
Psaki then said what would happen following the U.S. Congress request that Obama begin arms
shipments to the Ukraine:
Psaki: Congress gives authority for the president to act, but it is up to him to decide
whether to take any action. Of course, our goal is to make Russia and Pro-Russian separatists
in the Ukraine strictly comply with the Minsk agreement. We are not going to wage a proxy war
with Russia, but we are considering different options depending on what is happening. We are only
talking about defensive weaponry, but weighing all the facts, we are trying to understand what
decision will bring a resolution to the conflict in the Ukraine. There are many other levers:
the introduction of new sanctions, negotiations with our external partners. The USA has a lot
of options…
Russia and Pro-Russian separatists have encroached into Ukraine territory. There are Russian
troops there, so there are good reasons for what Congress has recommended.
Asked by Sobchak if she thought Putin was a dictator, Psaki answered:
It is a pity that he seems to have ignored the economic decline of the country, which is
having a direct impact on the Russian people, and is focusing on unlawful interference in Ukrainian
affairs. Political leaders in America would be prosecuted if they chose such a path.
Sobchak:Is the purpose of the US to oust Putin?
Psaki:No, that is not our goal. Our goal is to stop the illegal invasion by Russia and
pro-Russian separatists of Ukrainian territory. This is not about changing the leadership of the
country. This should be the choice of the Russian people. But Russia is taking action specifically
in Ukrainian matters, and Russia has the opportunity to change its course of action.
Psaki was very careful to avoid answering questions about what role the US played in the Ukrainian
coup, but sometimes her answers were extremely cynical as, for example, in the case of the expulsion
of Yanukovych.
Psaki:We tried to work with Yanukovych, but he left the country. There was chaos, and we
are reminded of this today- and with deep regret.
Sometimes Psaki clearly deviated from the general line of the US leadership. For example,
she
apparently forgot how Obama had recently boasted to Congress that because of US sanctions, the
Russian economy was in tatters. She said:
"We do not consider Russia as an opponent. We wish you success and prosperity."
Psaki did a lot of talking about cooperating with Russia – over both achievable and desirable
goals. However, the sincerity of her statements did not lend itself to be very much believed.
-----------------------------------
End of excerpts and précis.
kat kan, March 28, 2015 at 4:40 am
About a year ago, Russian separatists invaded the Ukraine, and we had serious differences
of opinion about this. We have drawn different conclusions as regards whether this action
meets international standards.
Hmmm…. good question., What ARE international standards about people living where they
live? When does living in your own house turn into an invasion?
The new authoritarianism,
by Sergei Guriev, Daniel Treisman, Vox EU: The changing dictatorships Dictatorships
are not what they used to be. The totalitarian tyrants of the past – such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao,
or Pol Pot – employed terror, indoctrination, and isolation to monopolize power. Although less
ideological, many 20th-century military regimes also relied on mass violence to intimidate dissidents.
Pinochet's agents, for instance, are thought to have tortured and killed tens of thousands of
Chileans (Roht-Arriaza 2005).
However, in recent decades new types of authoritarianism have emerged that seem better adapted
to a world of open borders, global media, and knowledge-based economies. From the Peru of Alberto
Fujimori to the Hungary of Viktor Orban, illiberal regimes have managed to consolidate power without
fencing off their countries or resorting to mass murder. Some bloody military regimes and totalitarian
states remain – such as Syria and North Korea – but the balance has shifted.
The new autocracies often simulate democracy, holding elections that the incumbents almost
always win, bribing and censoring the private press rather than abolishing it, and replacing comprehensive
political ideologies with an amorphous resentment of the West (Gandhi 2008, Levitsky and Way 2010).
Their leaders often enjoy genuine popularity – at least after eliminating any plausible rivals.
State propaganda aims not to 'engineer human souls' but to boost the dictator's ratings. Political
opponents are harassed and defamed, charged with fabricated crimes, and encouraged to emigrate,
rather than being murdered en masse.
Dictatorships and information
In a recent paper, we argue that the distinctive feature of such new dictatorships is a preoccupation
with information (Guriev and Treisman 2015). Although they do use violence at times, they maintain
power less by terrorizing victims than by manipulating beliefs. Of course, surveillance and propaganda
were important to the old-style dictatorships, too. But violence came first. "Words are fine things,
but muskets are even better," Mussolini quipped. Compare that to the confession of Fujimori's
security chief, Vladimir Montesinos: "The addiction to information is like an addiction to drugs".
Killing members of the elite struck Montesinos as foolish: "Remember why Pinochet had his problems.
We will not be so clumsy" (McMillan and Zoido 2004).
We study the logic of a dictatorship in which the leader survives by manipulating information.
Our key assumption is that citizens care about effective government and economic prosperity; first
and foremost, they want to select a competent rather than incompetent ruler. However, the general
public does not know the competence of the ruler; only the dictator himself and members of an
'informed elite' observe this directly. Ordinary citizens make what inferences they can, based
on their living standards – which depend in part on the leader's competence – and on messages
sent by the state and independent media. The latter carry reports on the leader's quality sent
by the informed elite. If a sufficient number of citizens come to believe their ruler is incompetent,
they revolt and overthrow him.
The challenge for an incompetent dictator is, then, to fool the public into thinking he is
competent. He chooses from among a repertoire of tools – propaganda, repression of protests, co-optation
of the elite, and censorship of their messages. All such tools cost money, which must come from
taxing the citizens, depressing their living standards, and indirectly lowering their estimate
of the dictator's competence. Hence the trade-off.
Certain findings emerge from the logic of this game.
First, we show how modern autocracies can survive while employing relatively little violence
against the public.
Repression is not necessary if mass beliefs can be manipulated sufficiently. Dictators win
a confidence game rather than an armed combat. Indeed, since in our model repression is only used
if equilibria based on non-violent methods no longer exist, violence can signal to opposition
forces that the regime is vulnerable.
Second, since members of the informed elite must coordinate among themselves on whether
to sell out to the regime, two alternative equilibria often exist under identical circumstances
– one based on a co-opted elite, the other based on a censored private media.
Since both bribing the elite and censoring the media are ways of preventing the sending of
embarrassing messages, they serve as substitutes. Propaganda, by contrast, complements all the
other tools.
Propaganda and a leader's competency
Why does anyone believe such propaganda? Given the dictator's obvious incentive to lie, this
is a perennial puzzle of authoritarian regimes. We offer an answer. We think of propaganda as
consisting of claims by the ruler that he is competent. Of course, genuinely competent rulers
also make such claims. However, backing them up with convincing evidence is costlier for the incompetent
dictators – who have to manufacture such evidence – than for their competent counterparts, who
can simply reveal their true characteristics. Since faking the evidence is costly, incompetent
dictators sometimes choose to spend their resources on other things. It follows that the public,
observing credible claims that the ruler is competent, rationally increases its estimate that
he really is.
Moreover, if incompetent dictators survive, they may over time acquire a reputation for competence,
as a result of Bayesian updating by the citizens. Such reputations can withstand temporary economic
downturns if these are not too large. This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian
leaders nevertheless hold on to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez).
While a major economic crisis results in their overthrow, more gradual deteriorations may fail
to tarnish their reputations significantly.
A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative
spending on these as the economy crashes. As Turkey's growth rate fell from 7.8% in 2010 to 0.8%
in 2012, the number of journalists in jail increased from four to 49. Declines in press freedom
were also witnessed after the Global Crisis in countries such as Hungary and Russia. Conversely,
although this may be changing now, in both Singapore and China during the recent decades of rapid
growth, the regime's information control strategy shifted from one of more overt intimidation
to one that often used economic incentives and legal penalties to encourage self-censorship (Esarey
2005, Rodan 1998).
The kind of information-based dictatorship we identify is more compatible with a modernized
setting than with the rural underpinnings of totalitarianism in Asia or the traditional societies
in which monarchs retain legitimacy. Yet, modernization ultimately undermines the informational
equilibria on which such dictators rely. As education and information spread to broader segments
of the population, it becomes harder to control how this informed elite communicates with the
masses. This may be a key mechanism explaining the long-noted tendency for richer countries to
open up politically.
References
Esarey, A (2005), "Cornering the market: state strategies for controlling China's commercial
media", Asian Perspective 29(4): 37-83.
Gandhi, J (2008), Political Institutions under Dictatorship, New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Levitsky, S, and L A Way (2010), Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after
the cold war, New York: Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, J, and P Zoido (2004), "How to subvert democracy: Montesinos in Peru",
Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(4): 69-92.
Rodan, G (1998), "The Internet and political control in Singapore", Political Science
Quarterly 113(1): 63-89.
Roht-Arriaza, N (2005), The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human
Rights, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Peter K.:
"A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative
spending on these as the economy crashes."
Instead of military Keynesianism, it's "police state" Keynesianism.
More social spending coupled with more social control.
ilsm:
The corporation runs the governors.....
"Investor State Dispute Settlement" is a new twist where the actions of government, like investor
"losses" from shuttering frackers would be compensated by a standing unelected nor appointed by
the locals "board" filled with corporate cronies to take sovereignty from governments when foreign
investors are denied pillaging "rights".
"Investor State Dispute Settlement" is why you should oppose TPP fast track.
The kleptocarcy is well advanced in the US!
GeorgeK:
..."This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian leaders nevertheless hold on
to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez"...
Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored. If you were
wealthy or upper middle class Chavez was a failure, if you were poor or indigenous he was a savior.
..."Chávez maintains that unlike other global financial organizations, the Bank of the South
will be managed and funded by the countries of the region with the intention of funding social
and economic development without any political conditions on that funding.[262] The project is
endorsed by Nobel Prize–winning, former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz, who said: "One of
the advantages of having a Bank of the South is that it would reflect the perspectives of those
in the south," and that "It is a good thing to have competition in most markets, including the
market for development lending."[263]"...
Guess nobody told Stiglitz about Chavez's authoritarian incompetence.
Julio -> anne...
Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly
interventionist, since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers;
and since the one-sidedness of information is no threat to the regime.
But in a government attempting left-wing reforms, and where the government is less stable, there
is less room for the government to accept the unanimity and hostility of the press; it may need
to intervene more strongly to defend itself. Take e.g. Ecuador where Correa has been accused of
suppressing press liberties along these very lines.
anne -> Julio...
Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly interventionist,
since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers; and since the one-sidedness
of information is no threat to the regime....
[ Thinking further, I realize that the United States is wildly aggressive with governments
of countries considered strategic and does not hesitate to use media in those countries when our
"needs" do not seem met. I am thinking even of the effort to keep allied governments, even the
UK, France and Germany, from agreeing to become members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank that China has begun. ]
Peter K. -> GeorgeK...
"Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored."
This is how I see it. There are no objective standards.
Lefties criticize Obama for going after whistle blowers. Snowden is treated as a hero. Then
guys like Paine and Kervack defend the behaviro of a Putin or Chavez because the U.S. doesn't
like them.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
I think a lot of the older left is stuck in a Cold War mind set.
Opposing America is good because you're opposing multinational capitalism. So they'll provide
rhetorical support to any nutjob who opposes the West no matter how badly he mistreats his people.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
It's the flipside to the Dick Cheney-Security State rationalizations of torture and police
state tactics like warrantless surveillence.
It's okay if we do it, because they're trying to destroy us.
The ends justify the means.
hyperpolarizer -> Peter K....
I am the older left (born right after WW II). I grew up with the cold war, but -- despite its
poisonous legacy (particularly the linking of the domestic labor movement to international communism)--
I have assuredly left it behind.
In light of the New American Police State, post 9-11, it is clear to me that the United
States has undergone a coup d'etat.
Roger Gathmann -> anne...
Defending Chavez doesn't seem like a bad thing to do. So, Peter K., do you defend, say, Uribe?
Let's see - amended constitution so he could run again - Chavez, check, Uribe check. Associated with
paramilitaries, Uribe, check, Chavez, demi-check. Loved by the US, Uribe, check, Chavez, non-check.
Funny how chavez figures in these things, and Uribe doesn't. https://www.citizen.org/documents/TalkingPointsApril08.pdf
Peter K. -> Roger Gathmann...
I never said a thing about Uribe. I said there should be single standards across the board
for Uribe, America, Chavez, Putin, China, etc...
Roger Gathmann -> Peter K....
Right. Double standard. That is what I am talking about. The double standard that allows US
tax dollars to go into supporting a right wing dictator like Uribe. I don't have to piss off.
You can piss off. I doubt you will. I certainly won't. It is adolescent gestures like that which
make me wonder about your age.
Are you going to slam the door next and saY I hate you I hate you I hate you?
You need to get a little pillow that you can mash. Maybe with a hello kitty sewed on it.
Nietil -> Roger Gathmann...
I don't see how any of these criteria has anything to do with being an autocrat.
Autocracy is an answer to the question of the source of legitimacy (democratic, autocratic,
or theocratic). It has nothing to do with either the definition of the sovereign space (feudal,
racial or national) or with the number of people running the said government (anarchy, monarchy,
oligarchy).
The UK for example was a national and democratic monarchy for a long, long time. Now it's more
of a national and democratic oligarchy. And it can still change in the future.
DrDick -> Peter K....
I really do not think that is at all accurate. While there are certainly some like that, it
is far from the majority. Most of us back Chavez, Morales, or Correa for the policies they
have followed in their own countries to the benefit of the great masses of the poor and their
refusal to put the interests of international capital ahead of their people.
Much of that support is also conditional and qualified, for reasons that have been mentioned
here. All evaluations of current leaders is conditioned by both past history in the country and
region, as well as the available alternatives. By those standards, all of the men I mentioned
look pretty good, if far from perfect.
How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression
By Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman
We develop an informational theory of dictatorship. Dictators survive not because of their
use of force or ideology but because they convince the public--rightly or wrongly--that they are
competent. Citizens do not observe the dictator's type but infer it from signals inherent in their
living standards, state propaganda, and messages sent by an informed elite via independent media.
If citizens conclude the dictator is incompetent, they overthrow him in a revolution. The dictator
can invest in making convincing state propaganda, censoring independent media, co-opting the elite,
or equipping police to repress attempted uprisings -- but he must finance such spending with taxes
that depress the public's living standards. We show that incompetent dictators can survive as
long as economic shocks are not too large. Moreover, their reputations for competence may grow
over time. Censorship and co-optation of the elite are substitutes, but both are complements of
propaganda. Repression of protests is a substitute for all the other techniques. In some equilibria
the ruler uses propaganda and co-opts the elite; in others, propaganda is combined with censorship.
The multiplicity of equilibria emerges due to coordination failure among members of the elite.
We show that repression is used against ordinary citizens only as a last resort when the opportunities
to survive through co-optation, censorship, and propaganda are exhausted. In the equilibrium with
censorship, difficult economic times prompt higher relative spending on censorship and propaganda.
The results illuminate tradeoffs faced by various recent dictatorships.
[ This is the discussion paper, which I find more coherent than the summary essay. ]
JayR:
Wow quite a few countries, maybe even the US with Obama's war on whistle blowers, could fit
this articles definition if the authors actually though more about it.
Roger Gathmann -> Peter K....
Yes, the people of Greece can vote to leave the Eurozone, just like the people of Crimea can
vote to leave the Ukraine, or the people of Kosovo could vote to leave Serbia. There are many
ways, though, of looking at soft dictatorship. I think the EU bureaucrats have been busy inventing
new ones, with new and ever more onerous chains. To say Greece can vote to leave the EU is like
saying the merchant can always defy the mafioso, or the moneylender. It isn't that easy.
A phony populism is denying Americans the joys of serious thought.
... ... ...
Universities, too, were at fault. They had colonized critics by holding careers hostage to
academic specialization, requiring them to master the arcane tongues of ever-narrower
disciplines, forcing them to forsake a larger public. Compared to the Arcadian past, the present,
in this view, was a wasteland.
It didn't have to be this way. In the postwar era, a vast project of cultural uplift sought to
bring the best that had been thought and said to the wider public. Robert M. Hutchins of the
University of Chicago and Mortimer J. Adler were among its more prominent avatars. This effort,
which tried to deepen literacy under the sign of the "middlebrow," and thus to strengthen the
idea that an informed citizenry was indispensable for a healthy democracy, was, for a time,
hugely successful. The general level of cultural sophistication rose as a growing middle class
shed its provincialism in exchange for a certain worldliness that was one legacy of American
triumphalism and ambition after World War II. College enrollment boomed, and the percentage of
Americans attending the performing arts rose dramatically. Regional stage and opera companies
blossomed, new concert halls were built, and interest in the arts was widespread. TV hosts Steve
Allen, Johnny Carson, and Dick Cavett frequently featured serious writers as guests. Paperback
publishers made classic works of history, literature, and criticism available to ordinary readers
whose appetite for such works seemed insatiable.
Mass circulation newspapers and magazines, too, expanded their coverage of books, movies, music,
dance, and theater. Criticism was no longer confined to such small but influential journals of
opinion as Partisan Review, The Nation, and The New Republic. Esquire embraced the irascible
Dwight Macdonald as its movie critic, despite his well-known contempt for "middlebrow" culture.
The New Yorker threw a lifeline to Pauline Kael, rescuing her from the ghetto of film quarterlies
and the art houses of Berkeley. Strong critics like David Riesman, Daniel Bell, and Leslie
Fiedler, among others, would write with insight and pugilistic zeal books that often found enough
readers to propel their works onto bestseller lists. Intellectuals such as Susan Sontag were
featured in the glossy pages of magazines like Vogue. Her controversial "Notes on Camp," first
published in 1964 in Partisan Review, exploded into public view when Time championed her work.
Eggheads were suddenly sexy, almost on a par with star athletes and Hollywood celebrities.
Gore Vidal was a regular on Johnny Carson. William F. Buckley Jr.'s "Firing Line" hosted vigorous
debates that often were models of how to think, how to argue, and, at their best, told us that
ideas mattered.
As Scott Timberg, a former arts reporter for the Los Angeles Times, puts it in his recent
book Culture Crash: The Killing of the Creative Class, the idea, embraced by increasing
numbers of Americans, was that
drama, poetry, music, and art were not just a way to pass the time, or advertise one's
might, but a path to truth and enlightenment. At its best, this was what the middlebrow
consensus promised. Middlebrow said that culture was accessible to a wide strat[um] of
society, that people needed some but not much training to appreciate it, that there was a
canon worth knowing, that art was not the same as entertainment, that the study of the liberal
arts deepens you, and that those who make, assess, and disseminate the arts were somehow
valuable for our society regardless of their impact on GDP.
So what if culture was increasingly just another product to be bought and sold, used and
discarded, like so many tubes of toothpaste? Even Los Angeles, long derided as a cultural desert,
would by the turn of the century boast a flourishing and internationally respected opera company,
a thriving archipelago of museums with world-class collections, and dozens of bookstores selling
in some years more books per capita than were sold in the greater New York area. The middlebrow's
triumph was all but assured.
The arrival of the Internet by century's end promised to make that victory complete. As the Wall
Street Journal reported in a front-page story in 1998, America was "increasingly wealthy,
worldly, and wired." Notions of elitism and snobbery seemed to be collapsing upon the palpable
catholicity of a public whose curiosities were ever more diverse and eclectic and whose ability
to satisfy them had suddenly and miraculously expanded. We stood, it appeared, on the verge of a
munificent new world-a world in which technology was rapidly democratizing the means of cultural
production while providing an easy way for millions of ordinary citizens, previously excluded
from the precincts of the higher conversation, to join the dialogue. The digital revolution was
predicted to empower those authors whose writings had been marginalized, shut out of mainstream
publishing, to overthrow the old monastic self-selecting order of cultural gatekeepers (meaning
professional critics). Thus would critical faculties be sharpened and democratized. Digital
platforms would crack open the cloistered and solipsistic world of academe, bypass the old
presses and performing-arts spaces, and unleash a new era of cultural commerce. With smart
machines there would be smarter people.
Harvard's Robert Darnton, a sober and learned historian of reading and the book, agreed. He
argued that the implications for writing and reading, for publishing and bookselling-indeed, for
cultural literacy and criticism itself-were profound. For, as he gushed in The Case for Books:
Past, Present, and Future, we now had the ability to make "all book learning available to all
people, or at least those privileged enough to have access to the World Wide Web. It promises to
be the ultimate stage in the democratization of knowledge set in motion by the invention of
writing, the codex, movable type, and the Internet." In this view, echoed by innumerable
worshippers of the New Information Age, we were living at one of history's hinge moments, a great
evolutionary leap in the human mind. And, in truth, it was hard not to believe that we had
arrived at the apotheosis of our culture. Never before in history had more good literature and
cultural works been available at such low cost to so many. The future was radiant.
Others, such as the critics Evgeny Morozov and Jaron Lanier, were more skeptical. They worried
that whatever advantages might accrue to consumers and the culture at large from the emergence of
such behemoths as Amazon, not only would proven methods of cultural production and distribution
be made obsolete, but we were in danger of being enrolled, whether we liked it or not, in an
overwhelmingly fast and visually furious culture that, as numerous studies have shown,
renders serious reading and cultural criticism increasingly irrelevant, hollowing out habits
of attention indispensable for absorbing long-form narrative and sustained argument. Indeed,
they feared that the digital tsunami now engulfing us may even signal an irrevocable
trivialization of the word. Or, at the least, a sense that the enterprise of making
distinctions between bad, good, and best was a mug's game that had no place in a democracy that
worships at the altar of mass appeal and counts its receipts at the almighty box office.
... ... ...
...Today, America's traditional organs of popular criticism-newspapers, magazines, journals of
opinion-have been all but overwhelmed by the digital onslaught: their circulations plummeting,
their confidence eroded, their survival in doubt. Newspaper review sections in particular have
suffered: jobs have been slashed, and cultural coverage vastly diminished. Both the Los Angeles
Times and the Washington Post have abandoned their stand-alone book sections, leaving the New
York Times as the only major American newspaper still publishing a significant separate section
devoted to reviewing books.
Such sections, of course, were always few. Only a handful of America's papers ever deemed book
coverage important enough to dedicate an entire Sunday section to it. Now even that handful is
threatened with extinction, and thus is a widespread cultural illiteracy abetted, for at their
best the editors of those sections tried to establish the idea that serious criticism was
possible in a mass culture. In the 19th century, Margaret Fuller, literary editor of the New York
Tribune and the country's first full-time book reviewer, understood this well. She saw books as
"a medium for viewing all humanity, a core around which all knowledge, all experience, all
science, all the ideal as well as all the practical in our nature could gather." She sought, she
said, to tell "the whole truth, as well as nothing but the truth."
The arrival of the Internet has proved no panacea. The vast canvas afforded by the Internet
has done little to encourage thoughtful and serious criticism. Mostly it has provided a vast
Democracy Wall on which any crackpot can post his or her manifesto. Bloggers bloviate and insults
abound. Discourse coarsens. Information is abundant, wisdom scarce. It is a striking
irony, as Leon Wieseltier has noted, that with the arrival of the Internet, "a medium of
communication with no limitations of physical space, everything on it has to be in six hundred
words." The Internet, he said, is the first means of communication invented by humankind that
privileges one's first thoughts as one's best thoughts. And he rightly observed that if "value is
a function of scarcity," then "what is most scarce in our culture is long, thoughtful, patient,
deliberate analysis of questions that do not have obvious or easy answers." Time is required to
think through difficult questions. Patience is a condition of genuine intellection. The thinking
mind, the creating mind, said Wieseltier, should not be rushed. "And where the mind is rushed and
made frenetic, neither thought nor creativity will ensue. What you will most likely get is
conformity and banality. Writing is not typed talking."
The fundamental idea at stake in the criticism of culture generally is the self-image of society:
how it reasons with itself, describes itself, imagines itself. Nothing in the excitements made
possible by the digital revolution banishes the need for the rigor such self-reckoning requires.
It is, as Wieseltier says, the obligation of cultural criticism to bear down on what matters.
♦♦♦
Where is such criticism to be found today? We inhabit a remarkably arid cultural landscape,
especially when compared with the ambitions of postwar America, ambitions which, to be sure, were
often mocked by some of the country's more prominent intellectuals. Yes, Dwight Macdonald
famously excoriated the enfeeblements of "mass cult and midcult," and Irving Howe regretted "This
Age of Conformity," but from today's perspective, when we look back at the offerings of the
Book-of-the-Month Club and projects such as the Great Books of the Western World, their scorn
looks misplaced. The fact that their complaints circulated widely in the very midcult worlds
Macdonald condemned was proof that trenchant criticism had found a place within the organs of
mass culture. One is almost tempted to say that the middlebrow culture of yesteryear was a
high-water mark.
The reality, of course, was never as rosy as much of it looks in retrospect. Cultural criticism
in most American newspapers, even at its best, was almost always confined to a ghetto. You were
lucky at most papers to get a column or a half-page devoted to arts and culture. Editors
encouraged reporters, reviewers, and critics to win readers and improve circulation by pandering
to the faux populism of the marketplace. Only the review that might immediately be understood by
the greatest number of readers would be permitted to see the light of day. Anything else smacked
of "elitism"-a sin to be avoided at almost any cost.
This was a coarse and pernicious notion, one that lay at the center of the country's longstanding
anti-intellectual tradition. From the start of the republic, Americans have had a profoundly
ambivalent relationship to class and culture, as Richard Hofstadter famously observed. He was
neither the first nor the last to notice this self-inflicted wound. As even the vastly popular
science-fiction writer Isaac Asimov understood, "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.'"
... ... ...
When did "difficulty" become suspect in American culture, widely derided as anti-democratic
and contemptuously dismissed as evidence of so-called elitism? If a work of art isn't somehow
immediately "understood" or "accessible" by and to large numbers of people, it is often ridiculed
as "esoteric," "obtuse," or even somehow un-American. We should mark such an argument's cognitive
consequences. A culture filled with smooth and familiar consumptions produces in people rigid
mental habits and stultified conceptions. They know what they know, and they expect to find it
reinforced when they turn a page or click on a screen. Difficulty annoys them, and, having become
accustomed to so much pabulum served up by a pandering and invertebrate media, they experience
difficulty not just as "difficult," but as insult. Struggling to understand, say, Faulkner's
stream-of-consciousness masterpiece The Sound and the Fury or Alain Resnais's Rubik's Cube of a
movie "Last Year at Marienbad" needn't be done. The mind may skip trying to solve such cognitive
puzzles, even though the truth is they strengthen it as a workout tones the muscles.
Sometimes it feels as if the world is divided into two classes: one very large class spurns
difficulty, while the other very much smaller delights in it. There are readers who, when
encountering an unfamiliar word, instead of reaching for a dictionary, choose to regard it as a
sign of the author's contempt or pretension, a deliberate refusal to speak in a language ordinary
people can understand. Others, encountering the same word, happily seize on it as a chance to
learn something new, to broaden their horizons. They eagerly seek a literature that upends
assumptions, challenges prejudices, turns them inside out and forces them to see the world
through new eyes.
The second group is an endangered species. One reason is that the ambitions of mainstream media
that, however fitfully, once sought to expose them to the life of the mind and to the contest of
ideas, have themselves shrunk. We have gone from the heyday of television intellection which
boasted shows hosted by, among others, David Susskind and David Frost, men that, whatever their
self-absorptions, were nonetheless possessed of an admirable highmindedness, to the pygmy
sound-bite rants of Sean Hannity and the inanities of clowns like Stephen Colbert. Once upon a
time, the ideal of seriousness may not have been a common one, but it was acknowledged as one
worth striving for. It didn't have to do what it has to today, that is, fight for respect,
legitimate itself before asserting itself. The class that is allergic to difficulty now feels
justified in condemning the other as "elitist" and anti-democratic. The exercise of cultural
authority and artistic or literary or aesthetic discrimination is seen as evidence of snobbery,
entitlement and privilege lording it over ordinary folks. A perverse populism increasingly
deforms our culture, consigning some works of art to a realm somehow more rarified and less
accessible to a broad public. Thus is choice constrained and the tyranny of mass appeal deepened
in the name of democracy.
... ... ...
Steve Wasserman, former literary editor of the Los Angeles Times, is editor-at-large for Yale
University Press.
This essay is adapted with permission from his chapter in the forthcoming The State of the
American Mind: Sixteen Critics on the New Anti-Intellectualism, edited by Adam Bellow and Mark
Bauerlein, to be published by Templeton Press in May 2015.
Controlling
the past: In his novel 1984 George Orwell
wrote: "Who controls
the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." We are not quite in
this Orwellian world yet, which means attempts to rewrite history can at least be contested. A
few days ago the UK Prime Minister in Brussels
said this:
"When I first came here as prime minister five years ago, Britain and Greece
were virtually in the same boat, we had similar sized budget deficits. The reason we are in a
different position is we took long-term difficult decisions and we had all of the hard work and
effort of the British people. I am determined we do not go backwards."
In other words if only those lazy Greeks had taken the difficult decisions that the UK took,
they too could be like the UK today.
This is such as travesty of the truth, as well as a huge insult to the Greek people, that it
is difficult to know where to begin. ...
The real travesty ... is in the implication that somehow Greece failed to take the 'difficult
decisions' that the UK took. 'Difficult decisions' is code for austerity. A good measure of austerity
is the underlying primary balance. According to the OECD, the UK underlying primary balance was
-7% in 2009, and it fell to -3.5% in 2014: a fiscal contraction worth 3.5% of GDP. In Greece it
was -12.1% in 2009, and was turned into a surplus of 7.6% by 2014: a fiscal contraction worth
19.7% of GDP! So Greece had far more austerity, which is
of course why Greek GDP has fallen by 25% over the same period. A far more accurate statement
would be that the UK started taking the same 'difficult decisions' as Greece took, albeit in a
much milder form, but realized the folly of this and stopped. Greece did not get that choice.
And I have not even mentioned the small matter of being in or out of a currency union. ...
pgl:
Cameron's fiscal austerity has been awful for the UK but he refuses to admit his incompetence.
So he finds an economy doing even worse than the UK - Greece. Why is it doing worse? Because it
was forced to have even more fiscal austerity than Cameron choose to impose. But did I not say
Cameron refuses to admit austerity was a mistake? So what does he do - accuse Greece of not doing
enough austerity. Hey - incompetent political leaders lie a lot.
Op said in reply to pgl...
Incompetence
You idiot
he's a bald face liar serving the interests of "the city"
He's a demagogue and a shit faced hog in a clean suit
Tory politicians should end with a cabinet full of em hanging from a gallows in trafalgar square
Spluttering about travesty
Hardly encompasses the grotesque inhumanity of these eight legged monstrosities
That said
I blame new labor for all this
They enabled such idery ghouls to regain power
pgl said in reply to Op ...
I see that you flunked pre-K reading comprehension. I said he lied. And he is incompetent too.
But do babble on.
Op said in reply to pgl...
He is profoundly not incompetent
He got the results he was after
He deflected blame wiliest cutting back on the recovery rate
You need to use words
as they are customarily used
Or explicitly define your use
To you incompetent is just a slur
Much like shit head
Peter K. said in reply to Op ...
I don't have any problem with what Wren-Lewis and pgl have written.
Cameron says austerity works. It doesn't. That's incompetence. He's also dishonest which makes
it worse.
It's also possible he's lying about wanting to be competent, but why speculate? Why bother?
What does it matter?
paine said in reply to Peter K....
The tory cabinet wanted a slow recovery
they have little concern about deficits per se
They use scare tactics
paine said in reply to Peter K....
The pm does not give a wit about austerity working
He wanted a stag
Cui bono
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to pgl...
Cameron's coalition partner, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Dems, has said Enough With The Austerity
already. Not so much that the coalition is threatened,
y'know, but, please...
I have read that in recent years, Greece has made much progress, increasing exports, etc.
Under austerity, they have also laid off a whole lot of guv'mint employees, resulting in 25%
unemployed, a LOT of whom would like their jobs back. Would that also be something the Brits dealt
with?
Government debt and trade balance as shares of Gross Domestic Product for United Kingdom, 2007-2012
(Percent)
anne said in reply to anne...
Where government debt as a share of GDP for the United Kingdom was 44.8% in 2007, debt as a
share of GDP in Greece in 2007 was 120.4%. The trade balance was -2.6% in the UK in 2007 and -6.5%
in Greece.
Where government debt as a share of GDP for the United Kingdom was 97.2% in 2012, debt as a
share of GDP in Greece in 2012 was 163.6%. The trade balance was -5.5% in the UK in 2012 and -9.4%
in Greece.
"And I have not even mentioned the small matter of being in or out of a currency union. ..."
Yeo, if Greece were to still be on the drachma, then Greece could simply print infinite drachma
to buy all the imports, especially oil, that it needs because in a free market, the buyer dictates
to the seller the price and terms in all cases.
This is a core principle of free lunch economics!
If housing subsidies and food stamps were eliminated, then the working poor would be able to
buy sirloin and prime rib for 10 cents per pound because that is as much as they can afford, but
the buyer sets the price and terms for all sellers. If rent subsidies were eliminated, the number
of 1200 sq-ft rentals at $200 per month would explode because the working poor renter can dictate
the size of the apartment and rent. That's why its called the free market. Market goods are freely
available and free in a free market!
The problem in Greece is that too many people believe in free lunch economics. They consider
taxes theft and paying taxes to be stupidity. But worse, international bankers believe in free
lunch economics where they can loan other people's money to people who can not afford to repay
the loans, but the high debt creates wealth and that will create more debt funded spending which
will pay for all the past debt.
I don't see any wing of economists willing to reject free lunch economics and return to the
principles of capitalism that were established by FDR and then promoted by government until the
70s when conservatives sold Americans on pillage and plunder, on free lunch economics.
And those free lunch economic principles have been sold all over the world, especially to Greece
when international bankers told Greece they can borrow and spend to infinite, trust them.
Some experts believe that the reason of economic crisis in Russia are not the Western
sanctions, but decrease in oil price. What do you think?
While I think it is an organized action by the
US and Saudi Arabia, it's success to date in dramatically lowering oil prices has been possible
because of the global recession and worldwide drop in demand for oil. The price of oil would have
pulled back in any case but the policy has made the downtrend worse and of a longer duration.
But understand this is a complicated situation not just aimed at Russia as this also dramatically
cuts revenue for Iran another nation in opposition to US hegemony. Also Sunni Saudi Arabia rightly
fears Shia Iran, as most of the Saudi oil resources are right across the Persian Gulf from Iran including
the world's largest, the Ghawer field and most of the 15% Saudi Shite minority population lives in
the area where the reserves are located. Remember the Shite/Sunni divide in Islam makes the Israel/Arab
conflict pale in comparison and the Saudi Shites are treated quite badly so they and the Saudi oil
reserves could become a fertile ground for Iranian actions.
Is it an organized act by the US and Saudi Arabia? If it is so, then Obama deliberately
endangered the shale miracle in the US, didn't he?
Yes, as I answered in the question above it is an organized act by the US and Saudi Arabia but
the leadership of Saudi Arabia jumped both at the chance to close the fracking and shale oil production
competition in the United States as well as to put pressure on their arch enemy Iran.
Also much of the oil production industry votes and supports Republican candidates rather than
the Democrats so Obama is not paying a huge political price. Finally although shale oil production
is not profitable unless oil is near $100 a barrel, the public had already loaded up on these junk
bonds and Wall Street had made their money so it was time to fleece the unsophisticated investors.
Regardless of US shale oil production or losses, the opportunity to bring financial pressure against
Iran and Russia was worth the cost to the Washington political leadership.
What is needed for the oil price starting to rise at last?
Tyler Durden believes that it is Putin who should surrender Bashar al-Assad, who does not give
permission for gas pipeline installation from Qatar to Europe. Do you agree?
It is too late to surrender Bashar al-Assad and allow the Qatar pipeline as Washington has bigger
fish to fry, ie. Russia and Iran the last major energy suppliers outside of US domination and control.
Two events have to happen before oil gets expensive again.
First, the price of oil will rise when the global recession has ended and the world economy picks
up again. I believe the recession in China and the rest of the world is just starting and it is related
to overhanging amount of government debt and bonds floating around the world. I really don't know
how governments and the central banks get us out of the looming debt crisis without wholesale debt
repudiation.
Second, Washington must decide that the disadvantages of artificially low oil prices hurt the
US economy more than the intended victims Iran and Russia.
As for Germany and the EU, Hitler's violent goal of lebensraum for living spaces to farm, trade
and grow food for the Reich at the expense of the Russian people has today been modernized to a longing
for Russian natural resources ranging from timber, mining to oil and gas in order to benefit Europe
and Washington. I believe their goal is economic rather than a military threat and this is just an
expansion of an ongoing natural resource grab outside the Middle East as the long-term challenge
for world supremacy between Washington & Wall Street VS China and the Asian tigers slowly develop.
The issuance of unredeemable government debt and bonds are the ultimate control mechanism by the
Western interests utilized in order to keep politicians, national leaders and nations in line and
march in lockstep to their economic programs.
Russia under Putin is not over indebted like almost all other western nations thus allowing Putin
to exercise leadership independent of European and Washington demands and this makes Russia in their
eyes a threat to the continuation of the fake debt democracy system across the West.
The ultimate goal is to destabilize Russia by destroying the economy and limiting government revenue
and growth by holding oil prices at historically low levels. To do this they must depose Putin, the
national leader with the highest poll approval rating in the world and replace him with a compliant
quisling type of leadership submissive to western interests as has been done in Ukraine. This goal
could be achieved due to Russia's extreme over dependence on energy resource revenue.
In my view it wasn't the arms race, total failure of
Russian communism to benefit the masses nor the inability to compete with the western market
economies that overthrew the communist party leadership in the former Soviet Union and the rest of
the
Warsaw
Pact countries. Rather it was the government debt burden of Moscow and it's other eastern European
client states that eventually destroyed the Eastern Bloc as political leaders increasingly tried
to improve their low standards of living and satisfy consumers through government borrowing from
western banks.
This policy worked for the West and the Soviet style communism is thankfully no more but this
is the same policy used today by Washington and in the European Union in order to control the destiny
and leadership of what should be independent national governments. As you see with Greece, even in
voting democracies where the citizens demand a change, there can be no change because all politicians
are subservient to powerful foreign banking interests.
I would suggest that Washington is indeed acting rationally if their goal is to preserve their
power base as well as the support of powerful banking and economic interests. The US Empire has indeed
reached it's zenith of power and authority in the world and as America heads downhill as have all
major empires in the past. Therefore it is crucial to buy time by attempting to conquer or control
energy resources around the world hence why the US is involved across the Middle East and increasingly
in the Ukraine and is surrounding Russia and Iran.
Their goal for Russia, now the ultimate ally of a resurgent China is economic vassalage, territorial
dismemberment and the development of "spheres of influence" just like Great Britain did to India
and the western countries including Russia did to a weakened China in the 19th century.
Will Putin go the length of it?
Well this is a tough question for a non-Russian to comment on. He is the best politician on the
planet evidenced by his poll numbers and there is no question he is a patriot and wants the best
for his country, the people and of course your powerful oligarchs.
I love the
Washington propaganda always lambasting the evil Russian oligarchs because every country including
the United States have their own powerful interests or oligarchs that seek to use government as a
tool for their best interests. This is nothing new or sinister as government and politicians everywhere
have always operated this way.
Yes, I believe Putin and Russia will survive this attack on Russian sovereignty and it's over
emphasis on energy resource revenue which is a mistake made by Russia not by western interests. This
economic war will end in stalemate because Russia cannot be subdued by invasion, history shows us
that and the increasing alliance with China and other BRICS will help with better economic growth.
But I don't consider a standoff as a victory for Putin or Russia. It is just maintaining the status
quo with Russia still at risk from western expansionism and the control of your natural resources.
Russia is now engaged in an asymmetrical war with the American and European Union primarily over
resources and the strategy and tactics really differ between the West and Russia. Washington failed
in goading Russia into a military invasion of Ukraine as this could have drawn in other European
nations thus further weakening the Russian economy but the economic, currency and financial warfare
will continue hopefully short of military action.
To date Russia only reacts to western sanctions and economic warfare against your energy industry
thus there is neither real pain for the west nor any reason for them not to ratchet up the sanctions
against individuals, banking and other interests. They are logically attacking your weakest link,
the energy and financial sectors and they certainly do not expect a major response from your side.
Still dumping Treasury debt by Russia or China would probably be counter productive and both nations
would be smart of liquidate US dollar debt in an organized regular fashion during this near term
period of tremendous dollar strength. This is probably your last chance to unload US Treasury debt
at a profit.
A defensive war strategy even in an economic war is not a recipe for victory but rather a guarantor
of future wars or ultimate defeat. Putin and Russia
can win this economic war quite easily if you think and act outside the box so to speak. The
West is legitimately attacking your economy at its weakest link, your over dependence on the energy
sector hence why low oil prices and the gas pipeline revolution in the Ukraine were smart moves by
your energy adversaries.
Utilize your strengths and western weaknesses in your peaceful economic and financial responses
to the challenges they have made to your country. I've spent my entire career in the financial industry
and this is not rocket science on how to successfully counter western political moves against you.
The weakness of the Western banking and economic interests are massive government debt, the end
of the dollar as the world reserve currency and nationalism within the EU. There is no way citizens
or companies can escape the high taxes, massive debt service costs and the inability of citizens
or companies within Europe to escape their high tax, regulatory environment that is killing the economy
of Europe in order to defend the primarily German banking interests. Financial privacy and all wealth
in Europe are at risk from future bail-ins where depositor's funds are used to pay for excessive
bank lending losses. We've already seen it in Cyprus and soon it will happen in Greece and the PIGGS
countries.
To win, you must have other powerful economic interests outside Russia who can benefit and profit
from a sovereign independent Russia. The US has destroyed financial privacy and confidentially around
the world and no nation can stand up to their powerful threats to other banking interests which means
the private wealth of the entire West will eventually be at risk of bank bail-ins, confiscation of
retirement funds and confiscatory tax rates when the bond crisis finally hit because there is no
secure alternative to protecting honest earned wealth
As I've written in earlier editorials, Russia can win the financial/energy/economic war only by
finding new sources of revenue outside the energy sector and playing on its unique strengths. A low
tax rate and friendly regulatory environment to attract European/American industry and money is a
start. It appears Russia is now moving to offer economic citizenships and tax advantages in order
to attract entrepreneurs as I wrote a couple of months ago and this will help.
For example, I'm a skier and where can you ski in the winter and enjoy a tropical climate the
other 6 months outside of a couple of very expensive locations in Switzerland, Italy and France?
You have skiing at
Krasnaya
Polyana less than an hour from Sochi on the Russian Riviera the site of the 2014 Olympics that
could become another Hong Kong with the climate advantages and low taxes and secure banking opportunities.
Plus you have a relatively empty Olympic village that could be remodeled into condos and flats for
foreign entrepreneurs and investors.
Finally Russia must get aggressive in the economic war. You can win this economic contest in 24
months, if certain special zones in Russia simply are allowed to copy Swiss banking rules and regulations,
as wealth will always flow to secure locations where taxes are low. You know what banking privacy
and security did for Switzerland, it made a poor country with few natural resources the wealthiest
nation in the world. You will have foreign banks and financial institutions lining up to open offices
in Russia if you can guarantee financial privacy to a degree and wealth protection in total.
This will break the monopoly of West in financial and banking as well as their power to threaten
you. The coming bond debacle guarantees this will work as I've written earlier every nation has wealthy
interests and their own oligarchs so why not build support for Russia from wealthy foreigners as
they transfer a portion of their wealth as taxable income at a very low rate to your nation. This
will end the economic war.
Will there be set peace in Ukraine in the near future? Which role will the US have in it?
No the Ukraine is caught between competing sides in the East VS West conflict. Sadly it will likely
end up like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan as a battleground and non functioning state at least economically
and maybe militarily caught between the US and EU verses Russia. Russia will protect the Russian
speakers and likely will open a land route to the Crimea and maybe as far west as Odessa thus cutting
off the Ukraine from the Black Sea. Still all Russia needs is a Ukraine non-aligned with the West
or a member of NATO. The US will continue to promote instability in the Ukraine for the foreseeable
future.
Ron Holland
Ronald Holland is the author of several books as well as numerous special reports and hundreds
of articles on finance, investments, history and politics. He speaks and moderates frequently at
financial and free-market conferences and has developed Swiss oriented financial products in the
US and Switzerland and his lived and worked in the US, Switzerland and Canada. He was head of a bank
trust department, president of an investment firm licensed in 47 states and involved in resort real
estate marketing and sales. He consults with a wide range of individuals, corporations and entities.
The Guardian is now hand-in-hand with "new east network." A somewhat disreputable amalgam of
George Soros, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Europe.
It's hard to imagine anything it promotes is reliable, unbiased or credible. Best to read it with a
sense of humour.
The ladies in the story use the word 'Nazi' about themselves. They paint the insignia on their
vans. And you think they are "amazing" and "brave".
musolen -> LesiaUkrainka 7 Mar 2015 09:17
That's utter rubbish.
If the West stopped playing global politics for financial gain and had the dignity to stick to
pre agreed treaties regarding the expansion of NATO to Russian borders then peace would still be
in Ukraine.
This conflict was started by agitation of Neo-cons like Jon McCain 15 months ago and was a
deliberate policy to destabilise the country. As has been successfully achieved. Just like it was
in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc. It's the same policy. It's a war for profit
.
This, like every other war is not about the people, democracy or the good of the people. It's
about power and money.
CalvinTucker -> mikiencolor 7 Mar 2015 07:59
They're not promoting them for goodness sake, they are simply recording their views for the
benefit of readers.
Following the storm of protest here, the Guardian has now folded and changed the caption from:
'Anaconda says she is well treated by the men in her battalion, but is hoping that the war will
end soon.'
To a caption that closely resembles my suggestion: 'Anaconda alongside a van displaying the
neo-Nazi symbol 1488. The volunteer brigade is known for its far-right links.'
Bosula -> Kapusta 7 Mar 2015 02:58
Yes. Don't you agree this symbolism on these Ukrainian uniforms is important?
As for Russians there troopers maybe in East Ukraine. Most would appear to be volunteers but I
don't know. No proof. if the Ukies could catch a Russian soldier posted to East Ukraine alive they
would be worth their weight in gold in terms of publicity.
The point is any army that wears fascist symbols is a worry - don't you think, seriously?
jonsid -> RudolphS 6 Mar 2015 12:20
The Guardian is now hand-in-hand with "new east network." A somewhat disreputable amalgam
of George Soros, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Europe.
It's hard to imagine anything it promotes is reliable, unbiased or credible. Best to read it with
a sense of humour.
Left unaddressed in the Minsk talks, of course, are U.S. proposals to begin training and
equipping Ukrainian
government forces. The United States did not take part in the Minsk process, and while the cease-fire
may be cautiously welcomed, it will not diminish the momentum, particularly on Capitol Hill, for shipping
arms to Ukraine. The separatists cannot be unmindful of the Croatian precedent, where a long-term program
to strengthen the Croatian military facilitated the operation that destroyed the Serbian separatist
entity in eastern Croatia. Already some separatists are grumbling that Ukraine is not committed to
a settlement, but will use the time to strengthen its forces and go back on the offensive later this
year. Those suspicions, in turn, may cause them to be less than thorough in their own observation of
the agreement's provisions. The Germans and the French hope that the accord will cause Washington to
put its plans on hold.
And what does Vladimir Putin hope to gain? All the reports suggest that Putin
put enormous pressure on the separatists to accept the deal. In turn, he may be expecting that once
the cease-fire takes hold, the Europeans will move on sanctions relief. But if that is not forthcoming,
what will be his continuing commitment to the agreement? Also left unaddressed are Russian demands
for the "neutralization" of Ukraine. The deal as currently structured would not give the eastern regions
veto power over Ukraine's foreign policy.
The Minsk deal appears to be the last hope for any sort of a political settlement. If this agreement
breaks down-and it has many vulnerabilities-there will not be a fourth attempt. We will see if all
sides have the political will to make it work.
Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security studies and a contributing editor at
The National Interest, is co-author of Russian Foreign Policy: Vectors, Sectors and Interests (CQ
Press, 2013). The views expressed here are his own.
The government of the Unites States (GDP US$ 16,768,100 million)
declares that the situation in Venezuela (GDP US$ 371,339 million):
... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of
the United States
This, the White House says, requires to:
... declare a national emergency to deal with that threat
"Why," ask the Venezuelans, including the U.S. sponsored opposition, "do you think we are an
unusual and extraordinary threat which requires you to declare a national emergency?
"We do not believe for a moment that you are an unusual and extraordinary threat which
requires us to declare a national emergency", is the
answer:
Officials in Washington said that declaring Venezuela a national security threat was largely a formality.
"A formality?" ask Venezuelans. "Why is it a formality to see us as an unusual and
extraordinary threat to your national security? That does not make sense. What's next?
Will it be a simply a formality to kill us?"
"It is formality needed to be able to sanction some of your government officials," an anonymous
U.S. senior official explains. "To do so the law requires that we declare you to be an unusual
and extraordinary threat to the national security which requires us to declare a national
emergency."
"But we ain't no such threat. You yourself says so. So why would you sanction our officials when
you yourself say that there is no real basis for this? On what legal grounds are you acting? Why these
sanctions?"
"Because the the situation in Venezuela ... constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat
to the national security and foreign policy of the United States which requires us to declare
a national emergency to deal with that threat."
"That is like declaring war on us. That does not make sense".
"Well, it's just a formality."
---
On might have hoped that the above would be the "most outlandish" nonsense the U.S. government could
produce. But that is not yet the case.
The Venezuelan President Maduro
responded in the National Assembly:
"The aggression and the threat of the government of the United States is the greatest threat that
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, our country, has ever received," he said to applause, [...]
"Let's close ranks like a single fist of men and women. We want peace."
He spoke of past American military interventions in Latin America and warned that the United States
was preparing an invasion and a naval blockade of Venezuela.
"For human rights, they are preparing to invade us," he said, ...
During the last 125 years the U.S.
intervened in South America
at least 56 times through military or intelligence operations. This ever intervening country is the
same country that just declared Venezuela to be an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
security and foreign policy of the United States that requires to declare a national emergency.
It is certainly not outlandish for Maduro to believe that such a declaration will be followed by
one of those continued interventions. Especially not when
disguised U.S. officials travel around Venezuela and distribute money to opposition parties. Maduro
is not alone in seeing the threat of another U.S. intervention. All South American nations have condemned
the U.S. declaration and even pro-American opposition politicians in Venezuela were outraged about
it.
But for the ever anonymous U.S. officials
it is the victim of their outlandish exaggerations that doth protest too much:
"It's remarkable that the [Venezuelan] government can say the most outlandish things
about the U.S. government - what is this, the 16th or 17th coup attempt that we're doing? And now
we're invading?" the official said. "The shelf life of all of these accusations is what, a day or
two? Even the dullest of media consumers is going to see that there is no invasion."
Noting the U.S. doublespeak in this whole affair it advise to be very careful in believing that
"there is no invasion" claim.
Posted by b on March 12, 2015 at 11:01 AM |
Permalink
I doubt the US is going to be invading or blockading Venezuela any time soon. This asinine proclamation
was necessary for the increased sanctions the US has imposed and it is definitely a ratcheting-up
of pressure and intimidation. It also appears to be designed to cause the Maduro government to
overreact and institute decisions that can be demonized as harsh and undemocratic.
I hope the people of Venezuela and the other progressive countries of SA are ready and willing
to really confront these aggressive US moves.
Dan | Mar 12, 2015 12:20:15 PM | 3
The current government of Venezuela is a clear threat to the financial interests of the oligarchs
who control the US government.
For me the most interesting part of the US proclamation was not the National Security threat but the
claim of a threat to US Foreign Policy. This illustrates the power of the Bolivarian Revolution to
sever much of SA from US dominance and the level of US Ruling Class fear because of their diminishing
power and influence worldwide.
Ah yes. The old tried and true "making the economy scream" in preparation for a coup ploy. Venezuela
has held out so far but I have confidence in The Empire®. Their psychopathic persistence should be
able to turn that country into what Guatemala, El Salvador and Colombia are--a chamber of fucking
horrors.
As a geography Nazi, I would insists that the list that was linked showed only four cases of interventions
in South America. Indeed, interventions in Central America and Caribbean are dime a dozen, and probably
the count was partial, South America is more distant and the countries are a bit too large for open
interventions. Diplomacy was almost always friendly to non-leftist military regimes or death squads,
but a direct engagement like coordination of the attempt to depose Chavez by military means were rare.
For some reason, it is almost 15 years that Jihad was declared in USA against Venezuela, and formal
fatwa proclaimed on TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DykgMyTjWU4
(this video was from 2009, when Rev. Robertson wonder why Chavez was not assassinated yet). Since
USA is a democracy, and the people are Christian, it is a duty of the government to follow the will
of the Christian folks and at least attempt to execute fatwas of Christian clerics. However, I do
not know enough about Robertson's Christianity to figure out how the fatwa came about.
According to a link from the website of TeleSUR, a Venezuelan television station, on Feb. 28, 2015
an employee of NED (ie American agent) travelled to Venezuela for a secret meeting with opposition
figures (ie bought and paid for greedy foreign stooges) to settle an argument about the distribution
of millions of dollars previously contributed by NED.
The agent used a forged or stolen passport in a false name, and disguised her appearance to match
with the photo in the passport; and travelled to the meeting in a vehicle with forged or stolen plates.
This agent, whose real name is Sarah Kornblith, a few months previously had written an article
in NED's "scholarly journal" denouncing the Chavez and Maduro regimes and also:
"lauding the political arrangement that existed in Venezuela before Chavez. Known as the Punto
Fijo Pact, under that system, two traditional parties would alternate in power, deliberately excluding
the voices of Venezuela's poor majority."
You mean like Democrats and Republicans? You can't make this stuff up!
I'm just now reading a book about Gen. Vernon Walters, Der Drahtzieher: Vernon Walters -- Ein Geheimdienstgeneral
des Kalten Krieges, by Klaus Eichner and Ernst Langrock, which details all the coups and secret chicanery
that general was involved in, both in Latin America and in Europe.
In 2002 I thought Chavez was toast. Given the last century of US intervention in South America it
seemed obvious that Chavez would be over thrown by the US. But then the war in Iraq went very badly.
The US was was distracted and had to focus its energy on the Iraq war. Chavez was spared the focus
of US imperialism. For some time I thought the silver lining in the failed US war in Iraq was that
it distracted our interests away from South America. This permitted a number of Latin American countries
to drift away from US influence, not just Venezuela but also Bolivia and Nicaragua and some of the
other countries elected left wing governments.
The US has spent the last century trying to prevent
governments arising that actually represent all of the people and not just the upper middle classes
that are eager to please US corporations. I think what we are seeing today is that the US is now refocusing
on South America and are willing to devote resources towards removing those governments that have
arisen that attempt to represent the poor and not just the bourgeois elements. This has been happening
over the last few years. In Obama's first few years he threw his support (behind the scenes as it
developed) behind the Honduran upper classes that removed the popularly elected government of Manunel
Zelaya.
In any case, I think the Manuela government in Venezuela is going to be deposed through US intervention
and next will be the government in Bolivia. And there is little that the rest of world can do to stop
it. After all, the Monroe Doctrine has given the US that right and there is no outside force that
can stop us unless they are willing to engage in nuclear war.
However, the more the US flexes its muscle in Latin America, the less effective it will be in pushing
its policies in Ukraine and towards the 'pivot to Asia' that was supposed to be one of Obama's signature
policies. And this is not to mention Obama's efforts for more war in Iraq and Syria. So to the extent
that Venezuela might suffer today other parts of the world will be provided some respite from US attention.
The US is thoroughly over committed.
German professor of history Michael Pesek wrote an open letter to Petro Poroshenko, in which
he advised the Ukrainian President not to expect a long-lasting friendship with the United States,
as the White House could change its attitude towards him in the blink of an eye when political trends
shift Washington.
German historian Michael Pesek wrote an open letter to Petro Poroshenko, in which he told the
Ukrainian president not to get too cozy with the White House, warning him that being a close ally of
the United States might not be the beginning of a long-lasting friendship.
"You should be warned that this might not be the beginning of a long-living love affair that inevitably
ends with an account full of dollars, an army equipped with the finest stuff ever produced to kill
your enemies," said Pesek, who teaches courses in history and political science at the University of
Hamburg and Free University of Berlin.
Pesek went on to compare Poroshenko with other dictators, who were puppets of the United States
in the past, but then became the enemies of the White House after the tides shifted in Washington.
In particular, the historian reminded Poroshenko of Saddam Hussein, who was Washington's close ally
in the Middle East during the 1980s. However, after Cold War ended and the Americans changed their
views on the Middle East, Hussein was useful as an enemy rather than as a friend. The rest is history:
the former dictator was captured sitting in a hole and soon hanged in the dark of the night.
Pesek also talked about Mobuto Sese Seko, the long-standing former ruler of the Congo, and Manuel
Noriega of Panama who were both initially supported by the United States when its interests were at
stake, but were quickly disposed of when US political trends changed their direction.
"Lesson learned? You can kill as much as enemies of the US as possible, you can sell your natural
resources, but it will not shield you, when the storm from Washington takes another direction," Pesek
said.
On a final note, the German historian told Poroshenko that at the end of the day he will always
be an outsider in the United States, "a useful idiot in your best days" and a "burden" when the White
House changes its priorities or loses its interest.
"As a former apparatchik you will never know if your conversion to a democrat and capitalist is
taken seriously by your American allies. You will be under suspicion as all the other converted ex-terrorists,
ex-Marxists, ex-dictators, who bow to the American flag." – concluded Pesek.
"I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I
mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute
the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage
mobs, for the executive ministers of justice...
At the close of that [revolutionary] struggle, nearly every adult male had been a participator
in some of its scenes. The consequence was, that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father,
a son or brother, a living history was to be found in every family-- a history bearing the indubitable
testimonies of its own authenticity, in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received, in the
midst of the very scenes related-- a history, too, that could be read and understood alike by all,
the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned.
But those histories are gone. They can be read no more forever. They were a fortress of strength;
but, what invading foeman could never do, the silent artillery of time has done; the leveling of its
walls. They are gone. They were a forest of giant oaks; but the all-resistless hurricane has swept
over them, and left only, here and there, a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage;
unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few gentle breezes, and to combat with its mutilated limbs,
a few more ruder storms, then to sink, and be no more.
They were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that
temple must fall, unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from
the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future
be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for
our future support and defence.
Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular,
a reverence for the constitution and laws: and, that we improved to the last; that we remained free
to the last; that we revered his name to the last; that, during his long sleep, we permitted no hostile
foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place; shall be that which to learn the last trump shall
awaken our Washington.
Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as
has been said of the only greater institution, 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'"
Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address, January 27, 1838
Gold and silver did very little today, despite the brisk sell off in equities. The denizens
of the bucket shops were busy picking pockets in other markets.
The global economy is in a very difficult circumstance, and the Fed is at the heart of it.
I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, because they have placed themselves there, repeatedly, by their
actions and omissions as manager of the world's reserve currency and key regulator of one of the world's
most influential financial markets.
Will the Fed raise rates as they have now led the world to expect, or will they do nothing,
and essentially cut them by once again kicking those who believe them in the expectations?
Most Americans do not understand what is going on in the rest of the world. It is not
pretty. Europe is hanging by a much thinner thread than I think the plutocrats in Frankfurt and
Brussels realize.
The emerging markets are absorbing a great deal of inflation being generated and exported by
the US. It would be extremely interesting to have access to a reliable estimate of Eurodollars.
I think we are experiencing yet another Eurodollar short squeeze as the debts contracted for by overseas
companies in dollars feel the stress of a disjointed global financial system.
It took a little over twenty years for the unease that Lincoln describes above to explode upon
the landscape in a bloody civil war. It might be worth reading
his entire Lyceum speech. It surely does not describe what we might think of as domestic
tranquility and pastoral bliss. The republic endured, but at a terrible cost.
In our age reason and morality and honour have fallen to the despicable cheapness of 'greed
is good' and the foul god of the market.
The EIA
is now reporting that U.S. field production of crude oil averaged almost 8.7 million barrels a day
in 2014. That's up 1.2 mb/d from 2013, and is only 0.9 mb/d below the all-time U.S. peak in 1970.
Production of oil by means of fracturing shale and other tight formations is the main reason. The
EIA drilling productivity
report estimates that production from the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara– the main tight
oil producing areas– was 1 mb/d higher in 2014 compared to the previous year. I used that estimate
to update my graph of U.S. production by source. The tight oil story is pretty dramatic.
U.S. field production of crude oil, by source, 1860-2014, in millions of barrels per day. Updated from
Hamilton (2014) based
on data reported in
[1],
[2].
And it seems to be continuing. The
February drilling report
estimates production from those 4 regions will be almost 0.3 mb/d higher this month than it was
in December. That's leading to record levels of U.S. inventories.
How much longer will production keep going up? Much of the new production can't be profitable at
current prices, and the number of drilling rigs operating in the tight oil areas has fallen 12% since
September.
Combined oil rig count for Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara, January 2007 to January 2015.
Data source: EIA.
That presumably means less than a 12% reduction in production from new wells, for two reasons. First,
it is the least promising new prospects that will be cut first. Second, there has been a learning curve
improving productivity of new wells.
Average oil production per rig (in barrels per day) across Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara,
January 2007 to January 2015. Data source:
EIA.
Working against these is the fact that production from existing wells continues to decline. But
at the moment, it seems further adjustments on the part of drillers will be necessary in order to bring
the supply of oil in balance with the demand.
Because of declining production, Mexico no longer has sufficient domestic light, sweet crude oil
production to meet the domestic demand from refineries designed to process light crude, so they are
going to have to start importing light crude, although they remain a net oil exporter.
In any case, the Pemex official quoted in the following article had an interesting comment about
condensate (which is basically natural gasoline that is not of much use as feedstock for producing
distillates like diesel fuel).
As I have previously noted, in my opinion it is very likely that actual global crude oil production
(45 and lower API gravity crude oil) probably peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production
and associated liquids–condensate and NGL's–have so far continued to increase.
And when the EIA refers to "Crude Oil," they define it as actual Crude Oil + Condensate (C+C).
Just as we don't know for sure what the Condensate to C+C ratio is for US production, we don't know
what the ratio is for US C+C inventories, but in both cases, I suspect that the Condensate to C+C
Ratio has increased substantially in recent years.
In any case, US imports of crude oil remain relatively high, at about 44% of the C+C inputs into
refineries. I suspect that refiners continue to import a lot of crude oil, because they have to, in
order to get the product output that they need.
Mexico's Pemex aims to start importing light crude this year (2014)
Aug 28 (Reuters) – Mexican state-owned oil company Pemex wants to launch light crude oil imports
later this year, potentially reaching up to 70,000 barrels per day (bpd) and aimed at boosting refinery
output, the head of its commercial arm said.
The imports would mark an abrupt shift from a decades-old devotion to crude oil self-sufficiency
in Mexico, long a major exporter to the United States. It also comes after a sweeping energy sector
overhaul which seeks to reverse many years of declining output and export volumes.
"Our objective is that (crude imports) will begin this year," said Jose Manuel Carrera, chief
executive officer of PMI Comercio Internacional, Pemex's oil trading arm. His comments are the strongest
signals to date on both the timing and potential volumes of light crude imports to Mexico. . . .
While U.S. companies Pioneer Natural Resources and Enterprise Products Partners have secured permission
to ship a type of ultralight oil known as condensate to foreign buyers, Carrera all but ruled out
the possibility.
"Condensate is not necessarily what Mexico needs. It needs crude," he said.
A product yield by gravity chart follows, which explains why Pemex, and other refiners, need crude
oil, not condensate. Note the substantial decline in distillate yield, just going from 39 API gravity
to 42 API gravity (labeled as "Condensate" on the chart):
Second, there has been a learning curve improving productivity of new wells.
The standard learning curve formulae and learning curve tables that I know and use typically show
a very sharp increase initially and then the curves go very flat very quickly.
so, i've got a question…if oil inventories are at a record high 444.4 million barrels, up 22.2%
from the same period a year ago, as your EIA graph shows, then why did we continue to import 7.4 million
barrels a day during the last week of February, 89,000 barrels a day more than we imported during
the previous week?
We are probably importing more oil because speculators are to bring home and selling stocks that
had been held in tankers offshore as a bet on higher prices.
Jeffrey J. Brown, Peak oil has been delayed by technology for extraction of tight oil. The future
is uncertain. The doomsters of 10 years ago were excessively pessimist. Care to own up to excessive
pessimism? I'm guilty.
The $100 trillion dollar question: can tight gas extraction be made to work outside USA?
To be clarify slightly, in my opinion tight/shale plays have delayed Peak Liquids, while the trillions
of dollars spent on global upstream capex since 2005 have just kept us on an undulating plateau of
actual crude oil production.
Note that when we ask for the price of oil, we get the price of actual crude oil (45 and
lower API gravity crude), but when we ask for the volume of oil, we get some combination of
crude + condensate + NGL + biofuels.
Following is a chart showing normalized values for global gas, global natural gas liquids (NGL)
and global Crude + Condensate (with 2005 values = 100%), through the year 2012 (similar trends for
2013):
The following chart, posted up the thread, really tells the tale. It shows the EIA's own projection
for the composition of US C+C. As noted up the thread, the distillate yield from 40 and higher API
gravity liquids drops tremendously, and what refineries need, in order to meet refined product demand,
is mostly 40 and lower API gravity crude (as expressed by the Pemex CEO), while the vast majority
of the increase in US liquids production is from 40 and higher API gravity liquids.
Condensate & NGL are byproducts of natural gas production, and in my opinion the only reasonable
interpretation of the available data is that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API
gravity crude oil) effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated
liquids, condensate and NGL, have so far continued to increase.
They go a long way in explaining why, in many parts of the US, gasoline now
sales for more than
low-sulfur diesel. Fifteen years ago that never happened.
I'm no refinery expert, but I believe many, if not most, of the myriad petroleum byproducts
we depend upon also come from the lower-gravity crude oils. See, for example,
A partial
list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items). "One 42-gallon barrel of oil
creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline," the heading reads. "The rest (over half) is used to make
things like:"
I would add a caveat to your discussion. The decision to send Mexico's low-gravity, high-sulfur
Mayan crude to the Gulf Coast for refining also has to do with the high-sulfur content of
the crude. It's not all about gravity. Like I said, I'm no refinery expert, but I remember
reading that Mexico's current refinery infrastructure lacks the capability to refine high-sulfur
crude oils. The Gulf Coast refineries, on the other hand, have a surfeit of this type of refining
capability. I do not know how much of the decision to send much of Mexico's low-gravity, high-sulfur
Mayan crude to the Gulf Coast has to do with gravity, how much has to do with sulfur content,
and how much has to do with other factors, such as US geopolitical exigencies (as is the charge
frequently leveled here in Mexico). However, these factors are worth looking into.
To clarify slightly, my analysis suggests that gasoline may be in surplus*, relative to distillates
like diesel, and the most recent data put the US average retail price for gasoline at $2.46 versus
$2.93 for diesel. *Or to be more accurate, refiners don't need any more condensate input.
I think that the following EIA chart, which shows that US 40+ API gravity C+C liquids increased
from 1.4 mbpd in 2011 to an estimated 4.2 mbpd in 2015 (an increase of 2.8 mbpd), versus a projected
increase of only about 0.7 mbpd in 40 and lower API gravity crude from 2011 to 2015, really tells
the tale, especially when combined with the refinery yield chart that shows that Cat Feed + Distillates
drops from about 52% at 39 API gravity to about 20% at 42 API gravity:
40 API and lower crude accounted for 75% of US C+C production in 2011, but the projection was that
it would only account for 54% of US C+C production in 2015.
And as noted elsewhere, it took about half the global rig fleet (targeting oil and gas reservoirs)
just to show a projected increase of about 0.5 mbpd in quality crude oil production (40 API gravity
and lower) from 2011 to 2014.
Re: The $100 trillion dollar question: can tight gas extraction be made to work outside USA?
In areas where tight/shale plays may be commercially feasible outside the US and Canada, the key
question is whether operators in a given play can drill and complete wells fast enough to offset
the declines from existing wells and add new production. Early last year, US rigs accounted
for about half of the total global rig count, which gives one an idea of the scale of the drilling
and completion effort that it would take to replace the output from giant declining global oil and
gas fields with the output from high decline rate tight/shale plays.
It's interesting to look at some regional declines in US oil and gas production, e.g., marketed
Louisiana natural gas production (the EIA doesn't have dry processed data by state).
According to the EIA, the observed simple percentage decline in Louisiana's annual natural gas production
from 2012 to 2013 was 20%. This would be the net change in production, after new wells were added.
The gross decline rate (from existing wells in 2012) would be even higher. This puts a recent Citi
Research estimate in perspective.
Citi estimates that the gross underlying decline rate for overall US natural gas production is
about 24%/year. This would be the estimated year over year decline in production if no new wells were
put on line.
Based on the Citi report, the US would have to replace 100% of current natural gas production in about
four years, just to maintain current gas production for four years*.
*Of course existing production would not decline by about 100% in four years at a 24%/year decline
rate, but I am stipulating a "What if" steady state production scenario.
This is an extremely bad example of reporting. Does it get any worse than this?
What it does is to take the official spin being evangelized by the EIA and other members of the
"drill baby drill" crowd - folks like ExxonMobil's chief executive Rex Tillerson - and faithfully
and uncritically parrots it.
It's the same old boilerplate, for example, that we got a couple of days ago from the Financial
Times. In its drive to perpetuate what Michael Klare calls the "Reign of Carbon," the Times sublimely
reported that:
Oil production in the Eagle Ford is not going to fall away any time soon: with the benchmark West
Texas Intermediate at about $50 a barrel on Friday, it is profitable to keep pumping from most established
wells. On Wednesday, Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil's chief executive, said US shale production would
be more resilient than many had expected.
If the crude price rebounded to $80 or $100, the good times could return.
Those not enamored of being part of Karl Rove's defactualized "create-your-own-reality" universe,
however, might want to go over to the Texas Railroad Commission's
Online Research Queries to see what is actually going on in the Eagle Ford shale play.
Those who do so will make a shocking discovery: Crude oil and condensate production from the Eagle
Ford peaked in August 2014 at 356 million barrels (total production for the entire month). By December
2014 it had fallen to 319 million barrels for the month. And this was well before the precipitous
decline in the number of drilling rigs operating in the Eagle Ford. In the first week of September
2014, Baker Hughes reports that 202 drilling rigs were actively drilling in the Eagle Ford. That number
by the first week of March 2015 had dropped to 149.
For those skeptical of the future carbon Utopia being touted from inside the Beltway, being spun
by the likes of the EIA and Rex Tillerson, IHS has done significant research, and offers a dissident
point of view:
Crude oil and condensate production from the Eagle Ford peaked in August 2014 at 356
35.6 million barrels (total production for the entire month). By December 2014 it had fallen to
319 31.9 million barrels for the month.
The End
Could you repeat your comments is a more succinct way (bullet points?) perhaps without sarcasm. If
readers are busy, it is difficult to determine your point without reading all the citations. I am
interested in what you have to say, but find it difficult to follow your thread without a lot of clicking.
Well I'm not sure that the complexity of the human condition or the universe can be reduced to
bullet points. However, I'll give it my best shot:
The need to slay the energy vampire (and Russia, Venezuela and Iran at the same time) for fun
and profit is great.
The US right-wingers have their preferred silver bullet to slay the energy vampire: the US's
fabled and highly touted shale gas and oil resource plays. (US left-wingers also have their preferred
silver bullet to slay the energy vampire - the envisioned future Green energy Utopia - but that is
a topic for a different discussion.)
Because the need to slay the energy vampire is so great, there's a lot of lying and wishful thinking
going on when it comes to shale gas and oil.
As it turns out, the right-winger's silver bullet is a blank. It is little more than a flash
in the pan.
The Barnett Shale play was the first major US shale play.
In 2013, the world was shocked when the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas
concluded that the average EUR from the 16,000 wells in the Barnett Shale would be only 1.44 billion
cubic feet.
This was a time when industry, and those advocating for US full-spectrum dominance, were still
touting average EURs from wells in the Barnett at between 2 and 3 bcf per well.
When the University of Texas released its study in February 2013, many felt that even it was
too optimistic. Jim Fuquay, for instance, asked in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "But what
about producers' estimates of 2 or even 3 bcf?"
Fuquay pointed out that at that time, even though many of the Barnett shale wells had already
been producing for years, "Only 512 wells in the Barnett Shale, or less than 3 percent, have produced
2 bcf in their lives." He added that "A mere 70 wells, less than 1 percent, have hit 3 bcf or more."
As it turns out, the University of Texas study was too optimistic. If one takes a pen
and traces actual production from the Barnett Shale for the past four years over the graph of the
study's production forecast, what we see is that production for a couple of years exceeded the forecast,
but then production went into a steep nosedive and has declined much more rapidly than the researchers
had predicted.
Average EUR from a Barnett Shale well now looks to be well below 1 bcf, or a half, a third or
even less of what producers had hyped.
There is a long history of distortions and exaggerations, which find fertile ground with true
believers in American exceptionalism and full-spectrum dominance, being perpetrated by shale oil
and gas producers.
There exists considerable evidence which suggests that these distortions and exaggerations have
not stopped, and that they continue unabated to this very day.
As I said, the need to believe in a silver bullet to slay the energy vampire, despite all factual
evidence to the contrary, is great.
Thanks for your comments. If I understand you correctly you agree with Jeffrey Brown and I think
Professor Hamilton that we are past peak oil and that world oil harvesting is in decline, since the
harvesting of tight oil is not going to rescue an energy hungry world. What now then for energy sources?
Well, personal transportation accounts for the majority of oil consumption.
Personal transportation is easily done with EVs – a Chevy Volt costs less to own and operate than
the average US passenger vehicle, and gets 200MPG. A Nissan Leaf is the lowest cost vehicle on the
road.
EVs can be ramped up pretty quickly – They're 3-4% of sales right now (including hybrids). Production
volume could be doubled essentially overnight, and doubled every two years thereafter. In 8 years
you could be at 80% of new vehicles, and in another 5 years they'd account for 50% of vehicle miles
driven. In another 6 years they'd account for 75% (vehicles less than 6 years old account for 50%
of VMT). Ethanol accounts for about 10% of passenger transportation fuel, so a fleet of Chevy Volts
could be powered with no oil at all.
There's a pretty straightforward path forward, if we needed a short term fix to get us through
a period of fast depletion, or another oil shock while we were transitioning to EVs. The US could
reduce passenger fuel consumption by 50% essentially overnight by raising the average passengers per
vehicle from 1.2 to 2.4. Look at Uber, look at smartphones for connectin with people. There are very,
very few destinations in the US that no one else is going to. On almost any road, look around: there
are other people on the road, going in the same direction.
With an ad hoc smartphone based system, you could find someone going in your direction almost anywhere.
And, even with old-fashioned employer-based systems, about 10% of Americans carpool to work right
now.
Dr. Hamilton-I was curious where you got the data points for offshore oil production statistics
during the early years (~1950 to 1980).
The EIA pages that are cited as the sources of the data appear to only have data separated into
on-shore and off-shore going back to 1981. Elsewhere, I've seen EIA data showing this split, going
back to 1970, but not any earlier than that.
I wonder if it is possible to do an econometric analysis of fuel prices and actual consumption
levels.
We've seen very modest appreciation in fuel efficiency and less driving in the passenger transportation
side considering the near tripling of real costs, i.e, how much households spend on gasoline as a
percentage of their income.
So, at what price point does elasticity of demand really kick in, and can we do any realistic quantitative
projection, controlling for such factors as employment levels and necessity costs (those households
who have no alternatives but to pay more – they can't don't have any substitutes in transit or can't
afford to buy more efficient vehicles) .
In an extract from his new book, historian Richard Sakwa argues that the current conflict has
its roots in the exclusion of Russia from genuine partnerships since the end of the cold war
In 2014, history returned to Europe with a vengeance. The crisis over Ukraine brought back not only
the spectre but the reality of war, on the 100th anniversary of a conflict that had been spoken of
as the war to end all war. The great powers lined up, amid a barrage of propaganda and informational
warfare, while many of the smaller powers made their contribution to the festival of irresponsibility.
This was also the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the second world war, which wreaked so much
harm on central and eastern Europe. The fall of the Berlin Wall 25 years earlier and the subsequent
end of the cold war had been attended by expectations of a Europe "whole and free".
These hopes were crushed in 2014, and Europe is now set for a new era of division and confrontation.
The Ukrainian crisis was the immediate cause, but this only reflected deeper contradictions in the
pattern of post-communist development since 1989. In other words, the European and Ukrainian crises
came together to devastating effect.
The "Ukrainian crisis" refers to profound tensions in the the country's nation and state-building
processes since it achieved independence in late 1991, which now threaten the unity of the state itself.
These are no longer described in classical ideological terms, but, in the Roman manner, through
the use of colours. The Orange tendency thinks in terms of a Ukraine that can finally fulfil its destiny
as a nation state, officially monolingual, culturally autonomous from other Slavic nations and aligned
with "Europe" and the Atlantic security community. This is a type of "monism", because of its emphasis
on the singularity of the Ukrainian experience.
By contrast, Blue has come to symbolise a rather more plural understanding of the challenges facing
Ukraine, recognising that the country's various regions have different historical and cultural experiences,
and that the modern state needs to acknowledge this diversity in a more capacious constitutional settlement.
For the Blues, Ukraine is more of a "state nation", an assemblage of different traditions, but above
all one where Russian is recognised as a second state language and economic, social and even security
links with Russia are maintained. Of course, the Blue I am talking about is an abstraction, not the
blue of former president Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions.
The Blues, no less than the Orangists, have been committed to the idea of a free and united Ukraine,
but favour a more comprehensive vision of what it means to be Ukrainian. We also have to include the
Gold tendency, the powerful oligarchs who have dominated the country since the 1990s, accompanied by
widespread corruption and the decay of public institutions.
Since independence, there has been no visionary leader to meld these colours to forge a Ukrainian
version of the rainbow nation.
The "Ukraine crisis" also refers to the way that internal tensions have become internationalised
to provoke the worst crisis in Europe since the end of the cold war. Some have even compared its gravity
with the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. The world at various points stood close to a new conflagration,
provoked by desperately overheated rhetoric on all sides.
The asymmetrical end of the cold war effectively shut Russia out from the European alliance system.
The failure to establish a genuinely inclusive and equal security system on the continent imbued European
international politics with powerful stress points, which in 2014 produced the international earthquake
that we now call the Ukraine crisis.
There had been plenty of warning signs, with Boris Yeltsin, the Russian Federation's first leader,
in December 1994 already talking in terms of a "cold peace". When he came to power in 2000, the Russian
president, Vladimir Putin devoted himself to overcoming the asymmetries.
In Greater Europe there would be no need to choose between Brussels, Washington or Moscow
The major non-state institution at the heart of the architecture of post-communist Europe, the European
Union (EU), exacerbated the tensions rather than resolving them. The EU represents the core of what
could be called "Wider Europe" – a Brussels-centric vision that extends into the heartlands of what
had once been an alternative great-power system centred on Moscow. The increasing merger of Wider Europe
with the Atlantic security system only made things worse.
Russia and some European leaders proposed not so much an alternative but a complementary vision
to the monism of Wider Europe, known as "Greater Europe": a way of bringing together all corners of
the continent to create what Mikhail Gorbachev in the final period of the Soviet Union had called the
"Common European Home". This is a multipolar and pluralistic concept of Europe, allied with but not
the same as the Atlantic community.
In Greater Europe there would be no need to choose between Brussels, Washington or Moscow. In the
absence of the tensions generated by the post-cold war "unsettlement", the peace promised at the end
of the cold war would finally arrive. Instead, the double "Ukrainian" and "Ukraine" crises combined
with catastrophic consequences.
For me, this is both personal and political. The cold war division of Europe is the reason I was
born and grew up in Britain and not in Poland, but, even before that, war and preparations for war
had scarred my family. In the inter-war years my father, an agronomist by profession but like so many
of his generation also a reservist in the Polish army, marched up and down between Grodno and Lwów
(as it was then called).
He told of the 25kg he had to carry in his backpack, with all sorts of equipment and survival tools.
The area at the time was part of the Second Polish Republic, and for generations had been settled by
Poles. These were the kresy, the borderlands of Europe grinding up against the ever-rising power of
the Russian empire. With the partition of Poland in the 18th century, Grodno and what is now the western
part of Belarus was ceded to Russia, while Lemberg (the German name for Lwów) and the surrounding province
of Galicia became part of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
On gaining independence in 1918, and with Russia and the nascent Ukrainian state in the throes of
revolution and civil war, the various armies repeatedly marched back and forth across the region. In
the end the Polish state occupied an enormous territory to the east of the Curzon Line.
These were the lands occupied by Joseph Stalin, following the division of the area according to
the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939. Poland was invaded on 1 September and against the overwhelming
might of Adolf Hitler's armies the Polish forces fell back, only for the Soviet Union to invade on
17 September.
My father's unit soon came up against the Soviet forces, and when greeted initially by the Poles
as coming to support them against the Germans, they were asked to disarm. My father escaped to Hungary,
but many of his reservist comrades were captured, and eventually murdered in Katyn and other killing
sites.
My father subsequently joined the Polish second corps under General Anders, and with the British
eighth army fought at El Alamein, Benghazi, Tobruk and then all the way up Italy, spending six months
at Monte Cassino. At the end of the war Poland was liberated, but it was not free. Unable to return
to their homeland, the family was granted refuge in Britain. In the meantime, the Soviet borders were
extended to the west, and Lwów became Lvov.
These were territories that had never been part of the Russian empire, and when Ukraine gained independence
in 1991 they became the source of the distinctive Orange vision of Ukrainian statehood. Today Lvov
has become Lviv, while its representation of what it means to be Ukrainian is contested by other regions
and communities, notably the Blues, each of which has endured an equally arduous path to become part
of the modern Ukrainian state.
As for the political, being a product of an ideologically and geographically divided Europe, I shared
the anticipation at the end of the cold war in 1989–91 that a new and united Europe could finally be
built. For a generation the EU helped transcend the logic of conflict in the western part of the continent
by binding the traditional antagonists, France and Germany, into a new political community, one that
expanded from the founding six that signed the Treaty of Rome in March 1957 to the 28 member states
of today.
The Council of Europe, established in 1949, broadened its activities into the post-communist region,
and now encompasses 47 nations and 820 million citizens, as its website proudly proclaims. The European
Convention of Human Rights and its additional protocols established a powerful normative framework
for the continent, policed by the European Court of Human Rights, based in Strasbourg. Russia in the
1990s actively engaged with the EU, signing a Partnership and Cooperation agreement in 1994, although
it only took effect on 30 October 1997 following the first Chechen war, and the next year Russia joined
the Council of Europe.
However, another dynamic was at work, namely the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
(Nato). Also established in 1949 to bring together the victorious western allies, now ranged against
the Soviet Union in what had become the cold war.
Nato was not disbanded when the Soviet Union disintegrated and the cold war came to an end. This
was the source of the unbalanced end to the cold war, with the eastern part dissolving its alliance
system while Nato in the 1990s began a march to the east.
An East German border guard looks through a hole in the Berlin Wall on 19 November 1989.
This raised increasing alarm in Russia, and, while notionally granting additional security to its
new members, it meant that security in the continent had become divisible. Worse, there was an increasing
perception that EU enlargement was almost the automatic precursor to Nato expansion.
The failure to create a genuinely inclusive and symmetrical post-communist order generated what
some call a new cold war
There was a compelling geopolitical logic embedded in EU enlargement. For example, although many
member states had reservations about the readiness of Bulgaria and Romania to join, there was a fear
that they could drift off and become western versions of Ukraine. The project of European economic
integration, and its associated peace project, effectively merged with the Euro-Atlantic security partnership,
a fateful elision that undermined the rationale of both and which in the end provoked the Ukraine crisis.
The failure to create a genuinely inclusive and symmetrical post-communist political and security
order generated what some took to calling a "new cold war", or, more precisely, a "cold peace", which
stimulated new resentments and the potential for new conflicts.
It became increasingly clear that the demons of war in Europe had not been slain. Instead, the Ukraine
crisis demonstrates just how fragile international order has become, and how much Europe has to do
to achieve the vision that was so loudly proclaimed, when the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989,
of a continent united from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
The Ukraine crisis forces us to rethink European international relations. If Europe is not once
again to be divided, there need to be new ideas about what an inclusive and equitable political and
security order encompassing the whole continent would look like. In other words, the idea of Greater
Europe needs to be endowed with substance and institutional form.
Unfortunately, it appears that the opposite will happen: old ideas will be revived, the practices
of the cold war will, zombie-like, come back to life, and once again there will be a fatal dividing
line across Europe that will mar the lives of the generation to come. This is far from inevitable,
but to avoid it will require a shift in the mode of political intercourse from exprobration to diplomacy,
and from denunciation to dialogue.
Thus the personal and the political combine, and this book is much an exploration of failed opportunities
as it is an account of how we created yet another crisis in European international politics on the
anniversaries of the start of two world wars and a moment of hope in 1989. My father's generation suffered
war, destruction and displacement, and yet the European civil war that dominated the 20th century still
inflames the political imagination of the 21st.
To order Frontline Ukraine for £15.19 (RRP £18.99), go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330
333 6846
Richard Sakwa is professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent
See also:
The demonisation of Russia risks paving the way for war | Seumas Milne
Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands by Richard Sakwa review – an unrivalled account
jakartamoscow Bud Peart 10 Mar 2015 10:44
When an objective article shows up, expect another 3500 anti-Russian article the following two
months. SOP.
DIPSET 10 Mar 2015 10:29
The asymmetrical end of the cold war effectively shut Russia out from the European alliance system,
Which only served to accelerate the Russian pivot to China.
With the Chinese publicly and explicitly in the past week saying that they agree and support Russia's
actions in Ukraine, battle lines are being drawn.
Today brings further confirmation of the rubicon being crossed........
China's long-awaited international payment system to process cross-border yuan transactions is
ready, and may be launched as early as September or October, three sources with direct knowledge
of the matter told Reuters.
"The CIPS is ready now and China has selected 20 banks to do the testing, among which 13 banks
are Chinese banks and the rest are subsidiaries of foreign banks," one of the sources told the agency.
For a while China has been exploring methods to cut dependence on the dollar and other hard currencies
in international trade, hoping to settle more deals in yuan.
Now that you are about to become a close ally of the US and a dictator at the same time, you should
be warned that this might not be the beginning of a long-living love affair that inevitably ends
with an account full of dollars, an army equipped with the finest stuff ever produced to kill your
enemies, with the warm feeling of security because your American advisers taught your people how
to get rid of your opponents, and with standing ovations at the UN Security Council for whatever
you will say against Russians and other foes.
This is a little history lesson to remind you that the weather in Washington is much more capricious
than the continental climate of Eurasia.
The US certainly won Cold War, but not necessarily their Allies. One of the first to experience
that fine difference was Saddam Hussein, Washington's close ally in the Middle East for much of the
1980s. Hussein was a CIA asset to overthrow the Qassim-Regime, which was for the Americans too close
to Soviet Union.
The first narrative on Ukraine and Russia that makes sense to me. Why don't the others get it?
Obama, Kerry, Nuland, Bildt, Merkel, Hollande? Because they are thick? Or because they don't want
to get it?
irishmand -> Oskar Jaeger 10 Mar 2015 10:17
Russia has been demonised during the last year, yes, but deservedly so.
The ruins of Ukraine are the reason.
Who decides about Russia deserves demonising? The people who can possibly profit from it, because
they want to supply more arms?
foolisholdman -> jasonbirder 10 Mar 2015 10:16
jasonbirder
Only after Stalingrad did the US President decide to circumvent the US Congress' specific ban
in getting involved in the European War and help the UK
I'm confused...didn't the US declare war on Germany in December 1941...whereas the German Forces
were defeated at Stalingrad in early 1943...over a year later!
Yes, you are confused. I think you have been deliberately confused. The USA did not declare war
on Germany. Germany declared war on the USA.
So it is not President Rooseveldt whom we have to thank for bringing the USA into the war on the
side of democracy and decency but Herr Hitler!
MoneyCircus Jonathan Stromberg 10 Mar 2015 09:46
An intelligent and detailed argument shot straight over your head, didn't it.
In his article Sakwa says that conflict was inevitable (if not over Ukraine, then over some other
point) because - primarily - of the failure of countries and blocs to adapt to changing realities.
It has been clear for 20 years that the EU has forgotten its origins as a way to prevent war and
has become a tool of commercial, mercantile and territorial expansion. The phrase "fortress Europe"
is a clue.
I'll add to Sakwa's point - that the centenary of the outbreak of WW1 was not marked by the sort
of reflection and self-analysis that many of us expected. And this was for good reason.
The build up of arms, the great game for resources and the alliances (launching wars of proxy terror
against each other) recall the run up to WW1, far more than they do WW2.
The rest is lies and half-truths as can be found in the so-called pluralistic western media. There
may have been a time in the past, but this has gone a long, long time ago.
Please also compare Cuba crisis and Kosovo with Nato east expansion and Crimea.
vr13vr jezzam 10 Mar 2015 12:10
"This crisis was triggered by Ukraine moving towards EU membership rather than Putins's Eurasian
Union. Since EU rules require such things as recognition of the rights of minorities, it is hard to
see how this could be any threat towards ethnic Russians in Ukraine."
From having the EU requirements to the mood on the street, the difference was huge. Whatever the
requirements could have been, the mood on the street at the moment wasn't meeting those requirements.
That "rather than Putin's Union" further instigated the anti-Russian mood.
That piled up on top of the fact that those areas never wanted to be part of Ukraine anyway. So
you have the areas that were reluctant to be in Ukraine to begin with, coupled with the nationalistically
energized mood on the streets elsewhere that would result in West Ukrainian desire to finally make
those areas loyal. Even if it is against the EU rules.
And of course the fact that the government voted for by the East and the South voters was overthrown
in violent uprising (for the second time in a decade) didn't give much confidence in the stability
either.
TOR2000 jezzam 10 Mar 2015 11:50
"The Kremlin then proposed to Brussels that negotiations be conducted between the EU and the Eurasion
Union -- directly between the two blocs of power. But European Commission President José Manuel Barroso
refused to meet with the leaders of the Eurasion Union, a bloc he considered to be an EU competitor.
As for Libya, it was not a US business as you like to portray it. A large number of states were
willingly involved to stop Khadaffi (like Assad) from killing his own people.
HaHa nice fairy tale )
Maybe they killed him because he wanted to sell oil in other currencies, and also wanted 160 bn$ from
Goldman Sachs and more from other financial institutions back.
Libya under Gaddafi:
GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention
* Part of pharmacies - free
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - none.
* Fees for electricity for households -none!
* Sales and use of alcohol is prohibited - prohibition.
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services were prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $
-If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of
the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
- A portion of Libyan oil sale is, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens
-Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project,
to make water readily available throughout the desert country
TOR2000 psygone 10 Mar 2015 11:41
Weren't Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, the main rebel leaders in Chechnya, trained in CIA-sponsored
camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
DIPSET irishmand 10 Mar 2015 11:30
@irishmand
You nationality will, justifiably, make you wary but there is no evidence of them "stabbing" your
lot in the back. China fully understand that after the Yanks try and crush you, they are next.
Call it a marriage of conveniance of you must.
A common enemy (hello America "exceptionalism" lol) has sharpened minds. As the little incident
with Hong Kong last year showed, "freedom and democracy" is what they are itching to bring to the
Chinese mainland.
Incidentally, the way they banned the UK officials from entering Hong Kong was hilarious as our
MP's were reduced to moaning and whining on twitter that China was not playing fair lol.
In Lavrov you have a master diplomat who has ridden this redeo before and knows how to deal with
the European puppets.
In Putin you have a man that will never allow Russia to be subjugated. Ever.
The rest is just semantics as they say......
2015 is that year, either way
BorninUkraine -> DIPSET 10 Mar 2015 11:24
Unipolar world is dead, RIP. Right now, China, India, much of the rest of Asia, and most of Latin
America and Africa are happy to let Russia take the flak for standing up to the bully.
But they know that soon they will have to defend their own interests. That's why they side with
Russia not so much because they support its policies, but because it is giving a black eye to the
US.
geedeesee 10 Mar 2015 11:19
Professor Richard Sakwa can point to history, as if Obama was handed a difficult legacy, but it
doesn't justify or mitigate the crisis which erupted in 2014. Obama had the opportunity to shed any
past mistakes. Indeed, he recognised this with the "Re-Set' of US-Russian relations soon after taking
office.
The current crisis has its beginnings well within the Obama administration. When, in November 2013,
the Yanukovich government and civil-servant advisers decided the Russian offer was better than the
EU offer, someone in the Obama administration decided they were going to overturn it. Victoria Nuland's
speech the following month at the US/Ukraine Foundation in Washington, in which she revealed US had
spent $5 billion, demonstrated their resolve to overrule the government of Ukraine:
...it would be a huge shame to see five years' worth of work and preparation go to waste if the
AA [EU deal] is not signed in the near future. So it is time to finish the job.
Time to finish the job! A statement like that has the backing of senior level policy decision.
Obama has to have authorised that policy given the impact on Russia. And so it played out. Victoria
Nuland, again, caught out choosing the personalities in a new government in January. And then in February
there was a coup!
This crisis begins in the Obama administration and, more specifically, in Obama's second term.
RudolphS ID075732 10 Mar 2015 11:15
'Why was Russia excluded from true partnership with Europe after 1989? By the same reasoning
why was NATO not disbanded after the fall of the Berlin wall? The reason probably lies in the continued
need for the US to maintain control and influence in Europe.'
Well, the reason is quite simple. As the victor of a 60 year-old cold war (communism vs. capitalism)
you're of course temped to capitalize on it. But honest, the West should've known better. They should've
gone the way how Germany was treated after WWII: Helping to re-build and intergrate the country within
the international community, with as a result that the germans rapidly became the most loyal and valuable
ally the West could hope for.
John Smith Havingalavrov 10 Mar 2015 11:14
(Reuters) - Western powers should take into consideration Russia's legitimate security concerns
over Ukraine, a top Chinese diplomat has said in an unusually frank and open display of support for
Moscow's position in the crisis.
Qu Xing, China's ambassador to Belgium, was quoted by state news agency Xinhua late on Thursday
as blaming competition between Russia and the West for the Ukraine crisis, urging Western powers to
"abandon the zero-sum mentality" with Russia.
He said the "nature and root cause" of the crisis was the "game" between Russia and Western powers,
including the United States and the European Union.
He said external intervention by different powers accelerated the crisis and warned that Moscow
would feel it was being treated unfairly if the West did not change its approach.
"The West should abandon the zero-sum mentality, and take the real security concerns of Russia
into consideration," Qu was quoted as saying.
His comments were an unusually public show of understanding from China for the Russian position.
China and Russia see eye-to-eye on many international diplomatic issues but Beijing has generally
not been so willing to back Russia over Ukraine.
After the collapse of communism, where was Russia's attempt to truly diversify its economy away
from the power oligarchs, commodities and oil/gas?
After the collapse of communism the oligarchs like Khodorkovsky were too busy helping US/EU corporations
to plunder Russia. It was the moment Russians lost their trust in US/EU democracy.
"... Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power. ..."
"... The U.S. will now disguise its arms-to-Kiev program by laundering it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships: ..."
"... The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons. It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who do they think will believe them? ..."
"... Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about Ukraine are purely tactical. ..."
"... Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato. ..."
The U.S. is circumventing its own proclaimed policy of not delivering weapons to Ukraine and is
thereby, despite urgent misgivings from its European allies, increasing the chance of a wider catastrophic
war in Europe.
The Ukrainian coup president Poroshenko
went to an international arms exhibition in Dubai. There he met the U.S. chief military weapon
salesman.
ABU DHABI – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is expected to meet with U.S. defense companies
Tuesday during a major arms exhibition here even though the American government has not cleared
the firms to sell Kiev lethal weapons.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition executive is scheduled to meet with a Ukrainian delegation
Monday evening, however Poroshenko is not expected to be there. Kendall, in an interview, said
he will be bringing a message of support from the United States.
"I expect the conversation will be about their needs," Kendall told Defense One a few hours
before the meeting. "We're limited at this point in time in terms of what we're able to provide
them, but where we can be supportive, we want to be."
Poroshenko, urged on by his neocon U.S. sponsors, wants total war with Russia. Porosheko's deputy
foreign minister, currently on a visit in Canada,
relayed the message:
Ukraine's deputy foreign minister says he is preparing for "full-scale war" against Russia and
wants Canada to help by supplying lethal weapons and the training to use them.
Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world
must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power.
In the mind of these folks waging a "full-scale war" against a nuclear superpower like Russia
is nothing to be afraid of. These are truly lunatics.
Russia says that U.S. weapons delivered to Ukraine would create real trouble. They mean it. To
hint how Russia would counter such a move it just
offered a spiced up S-300 missile defense system to Iran:
Sergei Chemezov, chief executive of the Russian defense corporation Rostec, said Tehran is considering
its offer to sell an Antey-2500 anti-ballistic air defense system,
The Antey-2500 is a mobile surface-to-air missile system that offers enhanced combat capabilities,
including the destruction of aircraft and ballistic missiles at a range of about 1,500 miles,
according to its manufacturer, Almaz-Antey.
The system was developed from a less advanced version -- the 1980s-generation S-300V system
-- which has a 125-mile range. A 2007 contract to supply the S-300 system to Iran was canceled
in 2010, after the U.S. and Israel lobbied against it, ...
Such a system in Iran would, in case of a conflict, endanger every U.S. airplane in the Middle
East.
But that threat did not deter the U.S. As the U.S. arms dealer in Abu Dhabi said: "where we can
be supportive, we want to be". The U.S.
will now disguise
its arms-to-Kiev program by
laundering
it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships:
Christopher Miller @ChristopherJM
Poroshenko, UAE agree on "delivery of certain types of armaments and military hardware to #Ukraine."
The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons.
It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who
do they think will believe them?
This is again a dangerous escalation of the conflict in Ukraine by U.S. machinations. It comes
at the same moment that Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine meet in Paris to
push for faster
implementation of the Minsk 2 accord for a ceasefire and for a political solution of the civil war
in Ukraine:
On Monday spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Yevhen Perebyinis said that during their
Paris meeting, the foursome of foreign ministers will focus on the implementation of the Minsk
agreements and withdrawal of heavy artillery in Donbas.
The Ukrainian government has said that it will
not withdraw its artillery as long as there are still skirmishes around a few flashpoints along
the ceasefire line. In Shirokyne east of Mariupol the government aligned neo-nazi battalion Azov
continues to attack the federalists. The Ukrainian propaganda claims that the federalists plan an
immediate attack on Mariupol. That is nonsense and the federalist have denied any plans for further
fighting. Unlike the Ukrainian government the federalist started to
pull back their
artillery and will
continue to do so.
The Ukrainian government is breaking the Minsk 2 agreement by not pulling back its heavy artillery
from the ceasefire line. The U.S. is arming the Ukrainian army and will soon
train its volunteer neo-nazi "national guard" forces.
The major European powers, Germany, France and Russia, try to tame the conflict down. The U.S.
and its poodles in Kiev continue to poor oil into the fire. If the Europeans do not succeed in pushing
back against Washington the Ukraine with burn and Europe with it.
In Further Escalation U.S. Delivery Of Weapons To Kiev Will Be Laundered Through Abu Dhabi
Thanks for a very good summary of the whole guacamole.
Another reason not to withdraw the artillery, being also used by Kerry to crank up the "let's-give-weapons-to-Ukraine"
line, is the mopping of the Debaltsevo pocket, which Ukraine & Co. decided to ignore from the
beginning, to use it now as a justification not to fulfill Minsk 2.0. The false-flag attack in
Kharkov was a prelude of the up and coming internal repression, which will drown in torture, suffering
and blood the little resistance there is to the continuation of the war and the IV Mobilization.
Whoever said that foreign policy is only an extension of domestic policy?
I commented about a week ago that the ceasefire might hold if both sides in Ukraine pulled
back their artillery - unless Obama acted to sabotage it. Now he has done so - not withstanding
the withdrawal of federalist ordinance - by offering to rearm the gun-crazy fascists of the Ukrainian
gov't, with not even a fig leaf of "plausible deniability" to cover his assets.
Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about
Ukraine are purely tactical.
As for Poroshenko, he doubtless has a helicopter gassed and ready, and a nice little hidey
hole in Switzerland all prepared, and conveniently close to his billions. That's why he sent his
family out of the country, because when he has to get out - he has to get out fast.
shargash | Feb 24, 2015 12:29:18 PM | 4
Re: (2) IhaveLittleToAdd
Like most criminal organizations, the US tries to take very good care of its agents that do
what they're told and to be very brutal to those who don't. For examples of the former, check
out all the South American criminals living in Miami as well as the perhaps more relevant example
of Mikheil Saakashvili, who is strutting around Ukraine rather than being on trial in Georgia.
For examples of the latter, check out Noriega, Saddam, or Bin Ladin.
While I suspect Porky is wondering how he got himself into this mess, I don't think he has
much choice but to stick it out to the end. At least his family will be well taken care of.
sleepy | Feb 24, 2015 2:08:47 PM | 10
Re: IHaveLittleToAdd no. 2
Re: shargash no. 4
I have read recently in an article on another blog that in 2012 Poroshenko was being politically
groomed for his future role by Germany's Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung institute, a think-tank wing
of Merkel's Christian Democrats, as was Vitali Klitschko the present mayor of Kiev in 2011.
Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was
to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato.
"Ukraine will go to war in late March"--Zakharchenko
..."We are beginning the withdrawal of heavy equipment, while Ukraine is bringing it up from Kharkov
and Dnepropetrovsk. Seems to be there will be a provocation. Ukraine will go to war in late March
or Early April. Ukraine needs war," Zakharchenko said during a Monday briefing.
J.Hawk's Comment: ...Because, to my mind, there seems to be a pattern of Ukrainian conflict activity:
it is most likely to escalate when it just received foreign financial aid, and is the most likely
to seek peace just as it needs another tranche...
sid_finster | Feb 24, 2015 8:42:45 PM | 22
$350m is not going to buy you many US weapons, especially as Parashka's contract is for $2.4
billion, less delivery, middlemen, financing, etc..
The IMF is another source, but that money hasn't arrived yet, and there are a lot of conditions
attached. That's why the Fund is the lender of last resort.
Since arms are invariably sold subject to strict limits on resales, I suspect that either:
1. The sale is for domestic Ukrainian consumption, i.e Parashka's attempt to look like he is doing
something;
Or
2.The US is secretly financing the sale, directly or indirectly. Such financing may be in the
form of "we promise to aid your ISIS friends, or look the other way, if you 'sell' Ukraine these
weapons and take a lenient attitude regarding repayment."
Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 9:20:09 PM | 23
@Alberto@11
This is not because they disagree with his politics, but because Saakashvili is wanted on a
multitude of criminal charges.
"Criminal charges?" Bingo! He fits the credentials for the job as Porky's "adviser." In reality,
Saakashvili, a CIA crooked rat, is the CIA man in Ukraine, overseeing the entire anti-Russian
effort, weapons needs, false-flag operations, internal repression, Ukinazi death squads, intel
gathering and coordination, etc. Georgia's complaint to Ukraine was more of a wink to Saakashvili's
newly found job, a show for domestic consumption, otherwise, Interpol would be looking for him,
wouldn't it?
ProsperousPeace | Feb 24, 2015 9:37:53 PM | 24
Re: Isaakashvili sudden involvement with the "Ukrainian government": Kiev Snipers: Mystery
Solved
It was reported several weeks ago in Interpress News that four of the snipers in Kiev were
in fact Georgian nationals. The source for this story was Georgian General Tristan Tsitelashvili
(Titelashvili), who later confirmed this in an interview with Rossiya TV.
Tsitelashvili claimed that at least four of the snipers shooting at people in Maidan Square
were under the command of former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, who is doing his best
to destabilize his own country, and others if necessary, to find a way back into power.
Piotr Berman | Feb 24, 2015 11:28:51 PM | 25
How long did Saakashvili's war with Russia last? 48 hours? 72 hours? Good advisor to have.
Posted by: Crest | Feb 24, 2015 8:34:15 PM | 20
According to Wikipedia, the war started on Aug 8, minutes after midnight, and it definitely
lasted at least 4 days. On fifth day, Georgians left a key city, Gori, and Russians entered on
sixth day. On the other hand, the war was lost within 24 hours. The only chance of victory for
heavily outnumbered Georgia was to surprise the Russians and Ossetians and take control of the
only tunnel between South Ossetia and the Russian Federation (North Ossetia), which they did not.
Thus Russian could retake all territory gained by Georgia on day one within two days, rather than
a week. Georgia concentrated almost all forces against Ossetian, leaving the second border with
good roads, with Abkhasia, practically undefended. Thus the only way to score a victory lasting
more than one day was to risk loosing big majority of Georgian military in a cauldron -- Georgian
forces in Ossetian mountain valleys would have Russian forces behind them, as only police checkpoints
were delaying Russian advance from Abkhasia, (posting detours, issuing tickets for parking violations,
violation of weight limits on bridges for tanks etc.???).
As a history buff, I have hard time finding a strategic plan of equal stupidity. To give the
creator of that plan a key advising position seems suicidal. An anti-Russian Georgian owns a large
(??? impressive web site) newspaper in Kiev.
Demian | Feb 25, 2015 3:02:07 AM | 28
Foreign Affairs poll of experts about whether the US should arm Ukraine:
4 strongly agree
5 agree
0 are neutral [they're experts, after all]
8 disagree
10 strongly disagree
brian | Feb 26, 2015 4:59:48 AM | 52
You can read the whole article for free if you register. You get two free articles per month.
FA should be of interest to MoA readers.
@52 Thanks for the Galloway show. His al Mayadeen show has always been difficult for me to
find - and it is considerably better, I feel, than both Sputnik and Comment (which are fine shows
themselves).
British neocons start realizing the size of the damage Ukrainian coup d'état inflicted of GB & EU...
But they still follow the US like an obedient poodle... And it is funny that the color revolution staged by the West
in Ukraine they call "plans for closer relations with Ukraine"
The UK and the EU have been accused of a "catastrophic misreading" of the mood in the Kremlin in
the run-up to the crisis in Ukraine. The House of Lords EU committee claimed Europe "sleepwalked" into the crisis.
The EU had not realized the depth of Russian hostility to its plans for closer relations with Ukraine,
it said.
... ... ...
Sir Andrew Wood, former British ambassador to Russia, agreed with the report's assessment, calling
the situation a "dangerous moment" because Russia's frustrations could overspill into other areas,
with increasing pressure on Baltic states.
Neocon cause is lost cause. No amount of propaganda can change this fact. This pressitute sings Anglo-American official tune with a little bit too much zeal...
Even for Guardian pressitute... From
comments: "A military empire (US + EU + NATO) with an hegemonic agenda which conquers territories
either peacefully (the 28 EU countries) or violently when there is resistance by destabilization leading
to war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Mali, Central Africa, Palestine and now Ukraine) or overthrow elected
governments (Ukraine, Latin America), or both in total disregard of international law. "
It's easy to understand why the proponents of an EU energy union would use slightly grandiose language
to sell their ideas. They have cast this plan as the "most ambitious European energy project since
the Coal and Steel Community"
of the 1950s. After all, energy solidarity is what Europe was all about at the start. Having France
and Germany share their coal and steel was seen, in the words of Robert Schuman, one of the founders
of the European project, as the best way to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible".
Peace and prosperity were to flow from regional integration.
Last year, war broke out in the country (Ukraine) through which
most of Russia's
energy exports transit on their way to many of our homes. A key feature of Putin's Ukraine strategy
has been to make sure this country of transit would never quite escape Moscow's domination – and that
Gazprom would never lose the possibility of directly controlling Ukraine's gas pipelines to Europe.
The Brussels commission is right to push for a new union.
Energy should be, along
with freedom of movement for people, goods and services, a key dimension of the EU. It would help in
dealing with Russia's behaviour as well as in tackling climate change. It is of huge strategic importance.
Yet it has not happened – so far – because it is so difficult to build politically, and it will be
expensive.
Energy is run nationally – not at EU level – at present. Key countries, especially the UK, France
and Germany, have their own views on how energy policy should be run, and they are all different. The
UK has a deregulated market, many private players, and no dependency on Gazprom. France is highly centralised,
with a handful of , state-controlled big players and 75% of electricity generated by nuclear power
(which is anathema to the Germans). Germany dislikes nuclear energy and wants to get rid of it, preferring
to burn coal if they run out of gas or renewables. And they have had historically good relations with
Gazprom. Poland burns a lot
of coal (it prefers that to Russian gas), but Poles also want to look for shale gas. They don't worry
that much about greenhouse gases. The list goes on.
There is a disorderly patchwork of energy policies across Europe. But questions that have been important
for years need to be re-addressed. It is too late to settle scores over who wrecked Europe's previous
chances of setting up a common energy policy. But Germany does have a special responsibility here.
Its large and powerful energy companies, E.ON and RWE, were the first in the early 2000s to carve out
long-term contracts with Gazprom without much consultation with European partners. Later, Germany unilaterally
signed up to Russia's North Stream pipeline which the Baltic states and Poland could only perceive
as an attempt to pressure them geopolitically.
The new EU plan doesn't aim to dismantle such realities but is pragmatic enough to try to deal with
some of Europe's obvious weaknesses. Because energy has been mostly a domestic issue there are very
few, interconnecting pipelines and grids. The plan is to build more. This would allow compensation
for energy cut offs – such as the ones that
Russia created in 2006 and 2009,
causing thousands of eastern European homes to be left without heating for weeks.
Another idea is to diversify energy supplies by working on a southern gas corridor linking Europe
to Turkey and Central Asia, or by setting up liquified natural gas hubs in northern Europe that could
act as back-up in case of another gas crisis with Russia.
The complexities are numerous. Some energy business insiders point out that negotiating with a Central
Asian country such as Turkmenistan is like landing on another planet. One told me about a meeting with
30 Turkmen government officials sitting immobile behind long tables in the Hall of the Peoples of Turkmenistan's
capital, who didn't say a word but just stared. Turkmenistan is a big gas producer whose operatives
have been known to sell the same quantity of gas several times over to various buyers (Russians, Chinese,
etc).
How am I an obvious Putinbot because I'm critical of neo cons and journalists who trot out one
article after another on the same themes? Follow what this smiley faced right winger writes and you'll
see.
These journalists should be criticised and that is the purpose of free speech and posting on this
site.
Just because you disagree with my posts doesn't make me a Putin bot.
My family connections are with Ukraine - not Russia.
"I can't blame you for demanding Putin that pays you in a hard currency! Thanks to him, a rouble
isn't worth using as toilet-paper, now.
A user name 'Irishmand' who only comments on Russian issues and always with a pro-Kremlin view - you
know that Astroturf always looks fake, right?"
1. I am in Canada. Hence, Canadian Dollars.
2. Read my profile. It explains a lot.
3. Yes, I love Russia and I like Putin. What is wrong with it? I see the western media lies. Your
media became a shame of this "free democratic" society.
I also think the US is desperately trying to 'take out' sources of energy not under their control:
for instance Russia and Venezuela.
We don't have sanctions on Russia because of trouble with Russia, we have trouble with Russia in
order to have sanctions. Who do the sanctions hurt? Russia and the EU. Who do sanctions help and not
hurt? The US. Cui Bono.
I see Joem, talking to yourself, is that because no-one else will listen.
Britain should pay for Ukraine's gas by imposing VAT on newspapers. It seems unfair that Naftogaz
should have to pay for gas when it is a natural resource. Britain gets gas free from Qatar shipped
in charity tankers so people in Britain do not have energy costs, it is only fair that the EU guarantee
free gas EU-wide and that energy be a free good in Greece as well as Britain.
I've attending many Holodomor commemorations, but why I stopped going was that many other Ukrainians
did not like hearing that millions of other Soviet citizens from across the Union were also starved
and sent to Siberia. At this time a few million Russians also starved. With a Ukrainian family I agree
the Ukrainians were affected the most, but you should recognise the millions of other Soviets including
Russian people who also starved. The problem is that acknowledging Stalin's plans were not just against
Ukraine weakens some of the propaganda that has kept into Holodomor.
Another point - not sure how this is relevant to greed and corruption in Ukraine by the Oligarchs,
stealing Russian gas and not paying bills?
What do YOU know about Chechnya, my little far right ultra-nationalist buddy?
Also, why do you pretend to be Irish?
I was born in Russia lived there until 2004. I lived in Moscow when Chechens were blowing up residential
buildings, buses and subway stations there. I lived in Moscow when Nordost happened. My farther was
a high rank police officer, I also worked in the force myself. I worked in the office in Moscow and
when Chechens didn't like something in the contract two Mercedeses full of Chechens with AK's came
to the office. Chechen criminal group is one of the strongest in Moscow.
I know people who went to that war. It was a war, yes. It was horrible, yes. This war was going on
for 300 years, with more or less intensity.
Why does this neo con reporter not raise any questions about our Saudi oil friends and their
support for Islamic extremism not to mention involvement in 9/11?
It is a pity is that the US State Department will give her another briefing this week and then
we will receive another of her anti Russian sermons.
Any bets on her next topic?
Perhaps a critique of the EU for its diplomatic focus on East Ukraine rather than taking a hardline
arming Kiev to the hilt, even sending in NATO troops.
Maybe her briefing by the State Department is still to blacken, demonise and soften up the public
about everything Russia being awful and a threat.
Also, classy display of chauvinistic nationalism just to prove how "not a fascist" you are.
Heads up, your lot have shot Nemtsov, in a typically cowardly dick move.
1. I don't anything chauvinistic nationalism in what I said
2. There is a principal in Russia: when you speak about a dead person you either say goods things
or nothing. I don't think Putin decided to eliminate Nemtsov, he was not a threat to him. It might
have been a business issue.
It is a geographic fact that Russia EU/Europe a neighbours but you are totally deluded if you believe
EU wants to be partners with a Russia that throws its military power about, bullies and threatens,
annexes parts of a neighbouring country. Can't you see what damage Russia has done to itself bringing
war and distruction to Ukraine? EU wants to co-operate as equal partners, not being bossed about,
lied and dictated to.
You put too much blame on Russia. Turn around and look at US/EU who installed a fascist regime
in Kiev.
Russia also wants to deal with the partners it can trust. But after what happened in Kiev, who
will trust US/EU, only a madman. US/EU clearly demonstrated that the only way they deal with anybody
is everybody has to accept US/EU's point of view, otherwise he is hitler, fascist and dictator. US/EU
is also ready to lie through thier teeth to get what they want. Is it a democracy?
And he doesn't appear to have any links with Ukraine so my guess is he is working in some paid
capacity for one of the US agencies that undertake this soft propaganda role ( there are many so it
is not obvious which one it might be).
Putin can't afford to cut the gas off. Russia is completely reliant on gas exports. LNG shipping
cannot replace pipelines efficiently. Any Russian moves to decrease reliance on supplying Europe dovetail
roughly with how long Europe would take to be weaned off Russian gas.
1. Russia can't afford not to supply gas.
2. Europe cannot afford not to buy gas.
3. US wants to sell shale gas in Europe.
4. Hence, Maidan... US problem solved
It would take Europe 3-5 years to find an alternative for Russian gas. It will allow Russia to
build pipes and LNG terminals to re-direct gas flow to Asia. Everybody is happy.
I'm in the same boat as you Maureen. I voted for Obama twice but this past year I had my eyes opened.
I never thought I would see what I have seen on video in regards to Ukraine.....and I never thought
I'd see the US back murderous neo-Nazi fascists. It is has been a truly horrifying, eye opening year.
This operation has been underway for decades. It's probably been in the planning stage ever since
Western Europe made the gas deal with Russia in the beginning. Carter and Reagan both didn't like
it back then.
Russia has lost the West as a market at a time when there is a glut of oil. It is now set to
become China's cut-price gas station. I understand the deal with China was at such a low price that
Russia will actually lose money on the deal. Another triumph for Putin's foreign policy. China will
be a much worse master for Russia than the West would have been.
1. Have you seen the contract between Russia and China.
2. Europe partially lost Russian market. Few people in sane mind will trade with you and trust you
after what US/EU did.
New Ukraine, deserves the criticism. They are a failed fascist state (that is economically
imploding due to mismangement and corruption) that has spent the last year bombing it's own citizens
and killing over 10,000 of those citizens. Don't embarrass yourself.
all the pipes have the option to flow from other directions.
1. What direction?
2. How much the gas flown from another direction costs?
3. If Russia is so bad, you should stop dealing with Russia completely. Close your borders to Russians
and break all the existing ties.
And the US Congress votes to give Obama another $500 million tax payer dollars to arm and train
those "moderate rebels" he's been arming and raining since the beginning of the phony "civil war"
in Syria.
"You miss the point. The EU is not unwilling to buy oil from Russia because it is a fascist dictatorship,
but because it is an unreliable supplier. Other suppliers do not threaten to cut off supplies to further
foreign policy aims."
1. Please provide the examples of Russia being "fascist dictatorship"
2. Please provide examples of Russia being "an unreliable supplier".
No they didn't. They had and have corruption, civil wars and genocide, but it is irrelevant, because
their governments are loyal to US/EU. So, they are goods guys.
He will not be in power next year. there is a general feeling that he will not win elections. THus
he is not a dictator.
You are rrght, he is not, he is a brainless puppet. The puppeteers are not visible. In one year
they will install another puppet. It is what's called "illusion of democracy". You an elect a president,
but he or she is of no importance and in reality don't make any decisions.
"What, you fascists? I'm not surprised."
Another snappy answer.
We Russians, who standing united with other nations of USSR stopped german fascists and their ukrainian
friends Bandera and Shukhevich. The Germans have learnt their lesson, but ukranians have not. Now
ukranians fascists are back for another lesson, which is being taught to them as we speak.
1. Exactly, this is what I was talking about: "Kievan Rus' begins with the rule (882–912) of Prince
Oleg, who extended his control from Novgorod south along the Dnieper river valley..."
2. I would be stupid to argue that there is full blown democracy in Russia. However, Inet is not
filtered, there are some opposition newspapers, TV channels and radio stations. You can also install
a satellite dish and watch whatever you want. The only thing they will come on you very hard and quickly
for is if you start calling for the change of government by force. But nobody in Russia will support
this topic seeing what happened to Ukraine after Maidan. Nobody wants Maidan in Russia.
Also the meaning of the gay regulation law was twisted in the western media. The only thing it
prohibits is promotion of gay values in public, which, I am sorry, I support.
Wow, snappy answer. You have no idea about manners, do you? Well, it is typical. It is how I see
people of your kind.
1) You first, twinkle.
If it is my choice, then I say there is no funding and arming.
2) Russian fascists. In Ukraine. Lots of them. Hard to miss. One was Prime Minsister of the
DPR before Zakharchenko, who's attitude towards Jews suggests he is also a fascist, despite not being
Russian.
Again, no proof, empty words. No value.
3) You're right, Russia is clearly not financing the FN and other fascist parties. They must just
all support Putin because they see in him a man after their own heart.
We love Putin. He finally slapped on the face people like you. You are pissed off, of course, but
if you keep messing around, he will slap you more.
Gil Matos-Sequí -> psygone 27 Feb 2015 09:21
It is too early to say what the results of the suit will be. I think the suit has as much if not
more to influence the power of the EU over it's constituent members in negotiating gas prices and
contracts. Russia does not stand to loose much in negotiating one price for a huge block as opposed
to smaller contracts. This will affect the price of course but it will most likely mean that smaller
countries end up paying significantly more than they are paying. As far as the accusations about over
pricing by Gazprom, it is ridiculous. The price of Gas is tied to the price of oil and each contract
devises a formula relative to the specifics of the deal. Gazprom already envisages itself selling
gas to Europe from gas hub via Turkey and Turkey already envisages itself a the major gas hub and
transit point for Europe, wether it be gas from Russia, or Azerbaijan, or Turkmenistan, or wherever.
This lawsuit will have very limited bearing on geopolitics or real-politik over which the EU frankly
has little influence.
RVictor -> caliento 27 Feb 2015 09:18
former Chancellor Schroeder
It is due to Schroeder Germany has now uninterpretable gas supply through the Nord Stream.
RVictor -> elti97 27 Feb 2015 09:16
Solar energy, for example, already accounts for 6% of German electricity
Wow! 6%! Amazing! Especially in winter time on north parts of Germany - solar energy will for sure
cover heating needs!
AtMyAge 27 Feb 2015 09:11
A key feature of Putin's Ukraine strategy has been to make sure this country of transit would never
quite escape Moscow's domination – and that Gazprom would never lose the possibility of directly controlling
Ukraine's gas pipelines to Europe.
OH come on! This is a key feature of the EU's policy - to force Russia to transit gas across Ukraine
in order to force Russia to supply Ukraine at below market rates or face losing the EU market.
Russia has been doing EVERYTHING possible to bypass Ukraine and supply Europe by other routes -
but the EU keeps blocking it. Russia fires up the south stream pipeline project and Brussels bullies
Bulgaria to stop work on, so Russia announces an alternative route via Turkey, but again the EU refuses
to commit to making the connections.
In short, the EU is using energy policy to attempt to bully Russia - not the other way around.
Asking to be paid for supplying gas is NOT bullying nor using energy as a weapon. Its called business.
When you go to work, you expect to be paid at the end of the week/month the salary that you were promised
not insulted and accused of bullying when the money you are owed is not paid and you are reluctant
to continue to work for nothing...
Simon311 -> psygone 27 Feb 2015 08:58
"It's strategically important to see Gazprom lose its market share in the world's richest and
largest trading bloc."
Is it? Does it make strategic sense to mix economics for a recovering economy with power politics?
Does it make strategic sense to provoke a nuclear power?
Tikibarwarrior -> Jeremn 27 Feb 2015 08:55
The EU is in the process of falling apart due to the misguided policies implemented in Ukraine.
This article is past tense. It may have made sense previously but the Greeks are on the edge of leaving
due to the huge austerity/ECB rip offs. What people need to understand is that Russia isn't the enemy
of the European people. The real problem in Europe is the increasing poverty and growth of right wing
extremism/neo-nazism due to crippling austerity policies conducted by the ECB/IMF/EU vassal leaders.
The goal for the 1% has been to keep the publics eye on the left hand while it moves the money into
their right hands.
Like the US bailout of 2007, the take a massive chunk of change from 'we the people', they then
distribute that money to the banks and the 1%ers who run those banks. They loan it out and put countries
into debt slavery. I recommend watching the film "The International" (with Clive Barker) to fully
understand how this is done. It is a form of money laundering. The money doesn't trickle down after
they create a bailout like the recent EU 500 billion euro self award. The debt is passed on to the
public who pay it back ten fold over time. The countries, like Greece, are then trapped and held in
debt slavery to the banker 1%. The EU vassals continue the cycle and send in their resource/utility
extractors to buy up the assets of the countries, such as what is now going on in Ukraine.
The US destabilized it, then the EU/IMF give it massive loans it can't pay back, then the big
corps/hedge funds come in and buy up all the assets/utilities/farming and fracking land. After the
rape is complete the people are stuck in poverty, such as Greece is.
Look at Spain. Look at the UK these days. Germany has 12% of the population in poverty, but you
will never hear this from the compliant, vassal media whose job it is to keep the people in the dark
and never address the real root cause of the problem, the greedy 1% who rule us all.
For the EU, Russia is the least of your worries. Energy independence isn't the problem, sovereign
nations and human independence is. The EU needs to break apart so people can be free again.
Simon311 -> psygone 27 Feb 2015 08:55
What a ridiculous remark. The last thing the EU needs is a trade war and a hostile stand off with
Russia,
SHappens -> Havingalavrov 27 Feb 2015 08:40
There is a quiz about Russia on this site you should take.
I suppose we could say pretty much the same about the EU:
A single party (bipartisanship hides identical policies) that monopolizes power and denies opponents
access to the power.
Leadership either unelected or elected in "rigged" elections, all deeply discredited in the eyes
of people who no longer have any confidence in them as they are almost all at worst crooks or puppets,
and, at best, incompetent and uneducated technocrats who have lost touch with reality.
Elected leaders (parliamentarians), co-opted (EU Commission) appointed (senior) and selected (CAC
40) all from the same "aristocracy" which repeats itself and that has nothing to envy to the one that
had generated the Party in the USSR.
So unpopular leaders that they can not meet the true population. All press conferences and all
"errands" of the rulers out of their bunkered palaces are all staged with "extras and accessories"
mounted with the complicity of subsidized state media.
Paralysis of 'governance', incapable of reforming itself as it is mired in its heaviness, its
incompetence, corruption, immorality and privileges apparently attempting to binge themselves as much
as possible before everything collapses.
More separation of powers, but almost complete collusion between the executive, legislative, judicial,
media, financial and thus criminalization and corruption powers, all accompanied by impunity.
A military empire (US + EU + NATO) with an hegemonic agenda which conquers territories either
peacefully (the 28 EU countries) or violently when there is resistance by destabilization leading
to war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Mali, Central Africa, Palestine and now Ukraine) or overthrow elected
governments (Ukraine, Latin America), or both in total disregard of international law.
Media propaganda lying as they breathe and producing "evidence" sometimes even gross, to deceive
and manipulate the public. With less and less success, which promises the collapse of the system.
The demonization of past victims (Serbs, Libyans, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.), present (Syrians, Ukrainians
Autonomist, Palestinians, etc.) and desired (Russians).
Laws that dictate the story (Law memorial) with imprisonment to those who question the "official
version." Liberal laws and laws drafts to prohibit meetings or shows that displease the "device" as
well as control the Internet.
The witch hunt of dissidents, even the most peaceful, who are sometimes forced to flee Russia for
having told the truth; this country has in fact become a heaven for dissidents of our system as we
welcome former dissidents of the USSR.
Hatred of religion: slander and defamation attacks of all kinds against two religions in particular,
Catholic and Muslim, seen as hotbeds of resistance to the proposed overhaul of liberal-libertarian
society pursued by the regime.
The militarization of riot police used to repress peaceful demonstrations and dissenting, discredit
the protesters by provocation under false flags.
The attack by the army of its own people (Ukraine for example).
Laxity towards real criminals protected by a corrupt "elite" and towards troublemakers.
Introduction of a "police of thought" (the equivalent of Soviet political commissioners) to give
the power and the means to various groups and pro-system associations to denounce, discredit, sue
and even physically attack dissidents.
Mass spying (NSA-Stasi) and encouraging denunciation.
And unlike the USSR this time, many things were completely free (health, culture, education, etc.)
and where there was no unemployment, destruction of social rights and workers' rights in Europe.
"Ukraine has not made prepayment for gas on time," Mr. Miller said at a news conference in Russia, local news agencies reported.
He added that the time needed for Kiev to make a payment "will result in a total end to supplies of Russian gas to Ukraine in just
two days, which poses serious risks for gas transit to Europe."
However, Ukraine says it has already paid for all the gas it requested for this year, and for an additional 287 million cubic
meters not yet ordered. Kiev is now accusing Russia of violating an
agreement reached in October, under which Ukraine paid $3.1 billion in past gas bills and Gazprom resumed supplies on a prepaid
basis. That agreement was expected to keep Ukraine fully supplied with gas through the winter.
The dispute seems to hinge at least in part on the gas that Russia has delivered to the breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine,
which it says counts toward the total Kiev bought in advance. Earlier this month, Gazprom said it would supply
natural gas directly to the regions, which are largely controlled by separatists, because it said the Ukrainian government had
shut off supplies. Gazprom said that it would charge Ukraine for that gas, and that the amount of gas supplied to the east would
be deducted from Ukraine's prepaid allotment.
Kommersant, the Russian business newspaper, reported that Gazprom had slowed deliveries over pipelines crossing Ukrainian-controlled
parts of the border, while opening the spigots to two pipelines leading directly to rebel-held territory.
The gas diversion highlights a broader Russian strategy in eastern Ukraine of assuring its political and military control over
the breakaway enclave while avoiding the economic burden of caring for the population, estimated at about three million people. In
the truce talks, President Vladimir V. Putin held out for measures to ensure that the Ukrainian authorities would pay public-sector
wages and pensions and reopen banks.
Gazprom, Kommersant reported, rejected the Ukrainian government's argument that gas delivered to rebel territory could not be
counted against its prepaid volumes, at least because Naftogaz, the state energy company, could not send meter readers to the two
border crossing points, Prokhorov and Platovo, to confirm deliveries.
As the gas Ukraine had already paid for flowed into their territories, separatist leaders went on local television to thank Russia
and Mr. Putin. "We thank the Russian Federation and Vladimir Vladimirovich, as Russia is again extending its hand to help, giving
warmth," said the leader of the Luhansk People's Republic, Igor Plotnitsky. "Thank you, Russia."
Mindful of how Russia has used gas as a political weapon, Ukraine has taken strong steps in recent months to reduce its dependence
on it. Ukraine and Slovakia reached a deal for reverse piping of gas already purchased in Europe, and a separate deal to buy gas
from Norway.
And despite Mr. Miller's comments, there was no reason to believe that Europe would find itself short of gas as a result of the
dispute. Europe, too, has reduced its dependence on Russian gas by engaging other suppliers, and in recent months has built up reserves
in anticipation of potential difficulties with Russia.
Russia, while controlling the supply, is in turn dependent on Ukraine to allow gas through its pipelines to other customers in
Europe. Painfully aware of that reliance, Russia has sought to cut Ukraine out by building a new pipeline under the Black Sea and
through Turkey.
The continuing gas dispute demonstrated the extent to which Ukraine would still be at Russia's mercy even without the war against
Russian-backed separatists. Fighting, however, has continued despite the cease-fire brokered this month in Minsk, Belarus, and on
Tuesday, the foreign ministers of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany met in Paris in a bid to get it back on track. It did not appear
that they had much success.
In a statement after the meeting, the French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, said the four nations remained committed to the
Minsk accord and were demanding that all sides observe the truce without exception.
Furthermore, according to RIA, on Tuesday, Ukrainian television channel Ukraina announced that with the new exchange rate,
the minimum wage in Ukraine stands at around $42.90 per month, which according to the channel, is lower than in Ghana or
Zambia.
There are currently no plans to raise the minimum wage until December.
Behold hyperinflation:
"Food prices among producers rose 57.1 percent, with the price for grains and vegetables rising 91 percent from January
2014 to January 2015, while the official inflation rate over the period totaled 28.5 percent.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian consumers responded to economic difficulties by cutting their spending in hryvnias by 22.6 percent, which
amounts to an almost 40 percent decrease in real consumption."
Nothing to fear though: we are sure all that hard-earned US taxpayer-lent money will be safe and sound.
Latina Lover
Exactly 1 year after the USSA sponsored Kiev Coup:
-tens of thousands killed in a civil war
-currency destroyed
-unemployment more than doubled
-millions of Ukie refugees in Russia
-central bank is bankrupt
-fascist oligarchs get even richer while the poorest earn less than most africans
-fracking and rampant GMO production, ruining the best farmland in europe.
Mission Accomplished!
Never One Roach
"The Ukraine is not Zimbabwe!"
My guess is the politburo in Kiev never miss a 7-course dinner ....
We Weimar'd some folks via color revolution instead of WWI. Mission Accomplished... "Russia will
cut off gas supplies to Ukraine if Kiev fails to pay in "three or four days," President Vladimir
Putin said, adding that this "will create a problem" for gas transit to Europe."
The Hryvnia weakened over the weekend to UAH 30 vs. the USD, prompting the Ukrainian
authorities to tighten FX controls and to intervene by a reported US$80mn today, and
causing a further weakening of the currency to UAH 40 on the black market as of this
morning. While pressures have subsided somewhat (with black-market, mid-market spot now
around UAH 33), in our view, the current FX controls are only likely to provide temporary
relief to the currency and, thus, introduce risks that the authorities could tighten FX
controls further
... ... ...
There are several causes for the weakening of the Hryvnia:
Net private capital outflows (excluding net IMF/official sector flows), which
stood at an estimated US$10bn in 2014. This number excludes US$3.7bn in repayments to the
IMF and about US$4.5bn in debt service on external sovereign bonds.
Current account and trade deficits, due to the collapse in exports and despite the
fact that domestic demand has weakened sharply.
Monetary financing of Ukraine's fiscal deficits.
While Ukraine's current account and trade balances should close as domestic demand
continues to contract and as the Hryvnia has weakened further, capital flight continues,
with bank FX deposit outflows of US$600-700mn/month in November-January. Moreover,
monetization of the deficit has accelerated as local banks are no longer able to absorb
domestic bond issuance. The share of domestic government bonds owned by the NBU has risen
to 71% in January, from 59% one year prior, with the share held by domestic banks falling
by the same amount (to 20%). Meanwhile, narrow money continues to grow at around 15-20%yoy,
at a time when domestic credit is now contracting by 10%yoy. While money supply growth in
the mid-single digits in a context of weak credit growth may have been offset for most of
2014 by large-scale FX interventions by the NBU, withdrawing liquidity, FX interventions
have slowed in H2-2014 and the NBU reportedly stopped intervening in February (although it
intervened once again by US$80mn today). This has caused assets on the NBU's balance sheet
to grow by about 60%yoy in recent months and by 8%mom in January (seasonally-adjusted).
In our view, with the economy and cash
demand weakening, domestic credit shrinking and an absence of liquidity withdrawal via
interventions, money supply growth at the current pace will ultimately prove inflationary
and will cause the Hryvnia to weaken further.
While monetary financing of the deficit may debase the value of the Hryvnia in
the medium term, it is the shortage of FX in the system that has caused the proximate
pressure on the currency, as NBU reserves declined to US$6.4bn in January (4 weeks of
imports) and are likely to decline to US$5-5.5bn in February (3 weeks of import cover).
These international reserves include about US$1bn in monetary gold, so the liquid
amount of reserves is likely to fall to US$4-4.5bn in February (2.5
weeks of imports).
… raising short-term risks, until IMF funds arrive …
In our view, while the current FX controls may provide some temporary relief, pressure
is likely to continue to build on the Hryvnia until expectations stabilize, confidence is
restored, and the country's FX reserves are replenished. Given the poor liquidity and
destabilization of expectations in the FX market, the ongoing conflict in Donbass that
undermines confidence, and the continued need to import natural gas and other essential
goods and make external debt payments, these factors are likely to continue to
exert pressure on the Hryvnia, at least until the IMF Board approves the
newly-agreed program and makes its first disbursement. However, this will likely
take at a minimum 2-3 weeks and there are risks of delays. First, the authorities
must fulfil their prior actions for the program, and notably the Rada must approve a new
budget law. This is scheduled to take place in a session on March 3, although PM
Yatseniuk is attempting to accelerate this process by holding an extraordinary Rada session
to approve the legislation. Even if the session is moved forward, in our view,
there is no guarantee that the law will be approved immediately and delays are possible.
Once prior actions are fulfilled, the IMF Board can meet, approve the new program, then
disburse funds shortly thereafter. Our base case is that this will take place in
mid-March (the current board review date is reportedly scheduled for March 11), although it
is possible that this could be delayed. With the current pace of reserve depletion
and pressure build-up on the Hryvnia, it is possible that the IMF funds may not arrive
quickly enough. This raises the short-term risk of a significant further increase
in pressure on the Hryvnia.
… and implying potential need for emergency policy action
Given the balance of payments and monetary pressures on the currency, the authorities
and international donors, in our view, have several policy options. First, the Ukrainian
authorities could tighten FX controls further. In the extreme, this could potentially
involve a bank deposit freeze, a ban on retail FX purchases and/or moratorium on external
payments and complete closure of the capital account. Second, international donors
(bilateral lenders and IFIs) could recognize the fragility of the current situation and the
fact that the IMF timeframe may prove to be too slow to stabilize the currency.
Thus, in our view, the international community could make available emergency funds in the
coming days or weeks, effectively bridging financing for Ukraine until the IMF disbursement
arrives. However, bureaucratic, legal and political hurdles may exist to any
large-scale emergency disbursement to Ukraine, either bilaterally or multilaterally. Thus,
there is no guarantee that such emergency funds could or would be made available.
This introduces further short-term policy uncertainties.
Finally, the recent and sharp weakening of the Hryvnia, as well as significant recent
shifts in money demand and supply, could
necessitate an overhaul of some of the IMF's program assumptions and targets. In our view,
this could require further technical work on the part of the IMF and could cause additional
delays to disbursement of IMF funds. As the monetary and financial dynamics
evolve rapidly, so may the IMF's working program assumptions and the parameters of the
program.
actionjacksonbrownie
The truly crazy part of all this, is that the average ukrop "patriot" STILL thinks the
u.s. is only there to help them, and russia is the root of all evil.
The farce is strong
in this one.
Icelandicsaga.....
Mexico wont fade away .. we will harmonize . integrate . and become a bad case of
Brazil disease .. top crust and the millions below.WE will blend into NORTH AMERIC the
meme . .keep saying that NORTH AMERICA . . we are no longer USA . we are NORTH AMERICA ..
say it over and over again .... we already got the cartels and corruption and 20 million
illegals.. why not the entire enchilada. so to speak. Canada wont be too happy about it ..
we already tried to scam their water resources to fix water shortages in the southeast ..
they refused. but hey . there is always tomorrow... .
ThroxxOfVron
"Moreover, monetization of the deficit has accelerated as local banks are no longer
able to absorb domestic bond issuance. The share of domestic government bonds owned by the
NBU has risen to 71% in January, from 59% one year prior, with the share held by domestic
banks falling by the same amount (to 20%). Meanwhile, narrow money continues to grow at
around 15-20%yoy, at a time when domestic credit is now contracting by 10%yoy. While money
supply growth in the mid-single digits in a context of weak credit growth may have been
offset for most of 2014 by large-scale FX interventions by the NBU, withdrawing liquidity,
FX interventions have slowed in H2-2014 and the NBU reportedly stopped intervening in
February (although it intervened once again by US$80mn today). This has caused assets on
the NBU's balance sheet to grow by about 60%yoy in recent months and by 8%mom in January
(seasonally-adjusted). "
They are printing with complete wreckless criminal abandon:
bonds and currency!
The level of monetization is way more than triple what The US Treasury and The FED have
admitted to colluding together to float the system with as a gross percentage of bonds and
currency en todo. ..& The FED had a huge stock of MBS to soak as well as the global
payments system to disburse the emission to
This is a massive torrent of raw unsterilized counterfeiting of preposterous proportion to
the existing stock.
Christine LaGarde presonally sent the Ukrainians letters telling them to flat out stop it
or the IMF wouldn't give 'em any more emergency loans.
"We Weimar'd some folks."
This is gonna be one for the history books easily rivaling the German and Hungarian
tsunamis of the last century.
There is no way in hell this can be reversed or mitigated at this point. Ukraine is doomed
to suffer the full destructive force of a currency collapse. The damage is by no means
completed...
IMHO, regretably, the Ukrainian citizenry would have been far better off being quietly
wholly subsumed by Russia than face this tragedy. Everyone is trying to 'save' Ukraine (
for their own greedy purposes ) and they are burning it to the ground 'saving' it.
Disgusted and anguished do not fully convey the feelings I am experiencing...
IF you do such things as pray, you should pray for these people; -they are going to go
straight through Hell.
Majestic12
"IMHO, regretably, the Ukrainian citizenry would have been far better off being quietly
wholly subsumed by Russia than face this tragedy. "
Russia does not want their Nazi, lazy asses. Who would. The East is the center of industry
and called "restive". Oh, and they all speak Russian?
Who knew. Hard-working, productive, hard playing people, and they're Russian?
ThroxxOfVron
Partition would have been a better answer than what is unfolding.
Who would actually want the 'Nazi, lazy'? Average Ukrainians, the EU, the British, the
Israelis, the USA?
Unless I am mistaken the general consensus is that true Nazi types are not really welcome
in most 'polite' company.
They would be a dangerous fringe element no matter the constitution of the nation unless
they were to seize power and use it to disenfranchise the remainder, and any
fringe/minority ideological element that seizes power and disemfranchises the remainder
majority is unpopular no matter the ideology. See: Neocon, Neolib, Zionism, Feudalism,
1%er, Junta, Annanuki, etc...
The fact is that Ukraine only has a tiny minority that espouse such ideological concepts,
and I suspect many of these only use the imagery as a front for more classic mobsterism
and warlordism. Espoused Nazis may be a dominant militant organization in some parts of
Ukraine; but, I am doubtful that Ukraine is generally predominantly dominated by Nazi
ideology...
Motasaurus
That's what the support of the neo-Nazis is all about. They are just replaying WWII,
only slight further to the West. After all the original German Nazis were funded,
finances, politically supported and built by the Western powers terrified of being
voraciously murdered in bolshevic revolutions.
Of course those "powers" were played for fools by those who fund them. I am fairly
convinced that the entire 20th Century was simply a socio-psychological experiment to
determine whether National Socialism or Communism was a better method for controlling the
masses.
Jack Burton
The end game will have winners. Expect the usual suspects to walk away with some nice
profits. And the Ukrainian farm lands, fracking potential and what little of industry
remains, will all be sold to western baks for pennies on the dollar. Again, you can be
certain the usual suspects, whose name can not be mentioned, will own Ukraine.
The people went to Maidan on the promise of a German lifestyle and EU passports which
entail freedom of movement within the EU. Thus the mass exodus of youth for Paris, London,
Berlin, Rome, Stockholm, Madrid. In the flush of freedom, at least 2 million youth will
move within weeks. More will follow as they arrange transport. Anywhere in Germany or west
of Germany will be their target sites.
czarangelus
I am incredulous watching the human citizens of this world take careful, precise aim at
their own feet. After thousands of years of written history of the same things not
working!
NoDebt
We're not repeating the mistakes of the past because we're unmindful of history. We're
being LED through this circle of rise and fall by the elites. That have it all mapped out.
Not to the day, but they know damned well the waypoints to make the turns.
Let me ask you something. When was the last time you heard a politician or banker talk
about avoiding the mistakes of the past? Never. They only talk about what "needs" to be
done next. And they walk the world around in a big circle like at the pony rides.
Supernova Born
"Russia will cut off gas supplies to Ukraine if Kiev fails to pay in "three or four
days," President Vladimir Putin said, adding that this "will create a problem" for gas
transit to Europe."
-RT
DutchBoy2015
Putin should have done that LONG ago. Fuck the NeoNazis of Kiev
Buckaroo Banzai
The "NeoNazis of Kiev" will do just fine no matter what. It's the average Ukrainian
that's going to get fucked.
suteibu
Our US democratically elected government, making friends...er...slaves all over the
world.
It's like the War on Poverty gone international.
At some point in near future, Americans traveling abroad will be considered suspected
terrorists requiring a local to vouch for an entry visa.
Motasaurus
Every "war on" in post WW2 history seems to have only created more of the thing. War on
drugs? More drugs. War on poverty? More poverty. War on terror? More terror.
What we need is a good old fashioned, openly declared war, but this time put it on
something useful like, manufacturing and the middle class.
We've got to stop this bullsh*t coming out of the ministry of truth where everything that
is "being supported" gets destroyed and everything that has been declared war on thrives.
krage_man
The chance of getting the money is gettin slim with each second. The parlament is
refusing to vote for the strings attached to it so far. It has a reason. Like after it,
payments for basic services - heat, gas, electicity will exceed average monthly salary!
Another condition is restructuring of the debt ( that is where 15bn come from) , which
Putin refuses.
IMF may give the money under pressure from US/EU to preserve the gas flow but this will
never be paid back. I question if donors would agree to lose money this way at all...
Ukraine need about 150 billions to recover..
Now, Ukraine has a couple of billions left and this is it, huge debt on salary to
goverment workers, no tax collection 30% fall of industrial output, etc. .... the state is
failing.. we should expect emergency UN food shipment in a few months...
markar
The US/EU/IMF will be pouring billions down this rathole they call a country to the
tune of trillions to keep this turd on life support-- until the asset stripping is
completed. China, Russia & the BRICs better start demanding something besides worthless $s
for their goods soon.
vincenze
Every Ukrainian will tell you that it's Putin's fault.
DutchBoy2015
I am sure Yats the Rat already has a couple of billion squirreled away and a place to
bail out to...
DutchBoy2015
This is a pretty good video ''Crimea for Dummies''
From my extensive travels around eastern Europe i find it incomprehensible that the
false lure of western riches by association still holds any sway.
In fact i struggle to find ANY evidence that any one of these countries has developed its
infrastructure or raised its standard of living in the last 20/25 years.
Mini-cab drivers, hotel work and strip clubs remain the top 3 occupations for those who
happen to escape.
"... It also requires an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power to the regions. ..."
"... the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all. ..."
"... "fateful geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence". ..."
"... Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign policy. ..."
"... Last year's "Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this. ..."
"... Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic alliance. ..."
"... Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts: the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters) or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows. ..."
"... A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against the true facts as they are available. ..."
"... I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the monists to impose their model by force on the south and east. ..."
"... There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army. ..."
"... As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge the MSM script. ..."
"... I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine. Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise Russian influence. ..."
When Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's prime minister, told a German TV station recently that the Soviet
Union invaded Germany, was this just blind ignorance? Or a kind of perverted wishful thinking? If
the USSR really was the aggressor in 1941, it would suit Yatsenyuk's narrative of current geopolitics
in which Russia is once again the only side that merits blame.
When Grzegorz Schetyna, Poland's deputy foreign minister, said Ukrainians liberated Auschwitz,
did he not know that the Red Army was a multinational force in which Ukrainians certainly played
a role but the bulk of the troops were Russian? Or was he looking for a new way to provoke the Kremlin?
Faced with these irresponsible distortions, and they are replicated in a hundred other prejudiced
comments about Russian behaviour from western politicians as well as their eastern European colleagues,
it is a relief to find a book on the Ukrainian conflict that is cool, balanced, and well sourced.
Richard Sakwa makes repeated criticisms of Russian tactics and strategy, but he avoids lazy Putin-bashing
and locates the origins of the Ukrainian conflict in a quarter-century of mistakes since the cold
war ended. In his view, three long-simmering crises have boiled over to produce the violence that
is engulfing eastern Ukraine.
The first is the tension between two different models of Ukrainian statehood.
One is what he calls the "monist" view, which asserts that the country is an autochthonous
cultural and political unity and that the challenge of independence since 1991 has been to strengthen
the Ukrainian language, repudiate the tsarist and Soviet imperial legacies, reduce the political
weight of Russian-speakers and move the country away from Russia towards "Europe".
The alternative "pluralist" view emphasises the different historical and cultural experiences
of Ukraine's various regions and argues that building a modern democratic post-Soviet Ukrainian
state is not just a matter of good governance and rule of law at the centre. It also requires
an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power
to the regions.
More than any other change of government in Kiev since 1991, the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych
last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders
were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all.
The second crisis arises from the internationalisation of the struggle inside Ukraine which turned
it into a geopolitical tug of war. Sakwa argues that this stems from the asymmetrical end of the
cold war which shut Russia out of the European alliance system. While Mikhail Gorbachev and millions
of other Russians saw the end of the cold war as a shared victory which might lead to the building
of a "common European home", most western leaders saw Russia as a defeated nation whose interests
could be brushed aside, and which must accept US hegemony in the new single-superpower world order
or face isolation. Instead of dismantling Nato, the cold-war alliance was strengthened and expanded
in spite of repeated warnings from western experts on Russia that this would create new tensions.
Long before Putin came to power, Yeltsin had urged the west not to move Nato eastwards.
Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation
and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine.
The hawks in the Clinton administration ignored all this, Bush abandoned the anti-ballistic missile
treaty and put rockets close to Russia's borders, and now a decade later, after Russia's angry reaction
to provocations in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine today, we have what Sakwa rightly calls a "fateful
geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".
The third crisis, also linked to the Nato issue, is the European Union's failure to stay true
to the conflict resolution imperative that had been its original impetus. After 1989 there was much
talk of the arrival of the "hour of Europe". Just as the need for Franco-German reconciliation inspired
the EU's foundation, many hoped the cold war's end would lead to a broader east-west reconciliation
across the old Iron Curtain. But the prospect of greater European independence worried key decision-makers
in Washington, and Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign
policy. From Bosnia in 1992 to Ukraine today, the last two decades have seen repeated occasions
where US officials pleaded, half-sincerely, for a greater European role in handling geopolitical
crises in Europe while simultaneously denigrating and sidelining Europe's efforts. Last year's
"Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this.
Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision
embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic
alliance.
Within the framework of these three crises, Sakwa gives the best analysis yet in book form of
events on the ground in eastern Ukraine as well as in Kiev, Washington, Brussels and Moscow. He covers
the disputes between the "resolvers" (who want a negotiated solution) and the "war party" in each
capital.
He describes the rows over sanctions that have split European leaders, and points out how Ukraine's
president, Petro Poroshenko, is under constant pressure from Nuland's favourite Ukrainian, the more
militant Yatsenyuk, to rely on military force.
As for Putin, Sakwa sees him not so much as the driver of the crisis but as a regulator of factional
interests and a temporiser who has to balance pressure from more rightwing Russian nationalists as
well as from the insurgents in Ukraine, who get weapons and help from Russia but are not the Kremlin's
puppets.
Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts:
the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults
on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last
February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters)
or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building
set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows.
The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders are
routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the west was
far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and Andropov
were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians.
Equally alarming, though not new, is the one-sided nature of western political, media and thinktank
coverage. The spectre of senator Joseph McCarthy stalks the stage, marginalising those who offer
a balanced analysis of why we have got to where we are and what compromises could save us. I hope
Sakwa's book does not itself become a victim, condemned as insufficiently anti-Russian to be reviewed.
• Jonathan Steele is a former Guardian Moscow correspondent, and author of Eternal Russia:
Yeltsin, Gorbachev and the Mirage of Democracy. To order Frontline Ukraine for £15.19 (RRP £18.99),
go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846
Susan O'neill -> Steve Ennever 25 Feb 2015 07:11
It must have because I remember that Moscow requested a special meeting of the UN security council
in accordance with a treaty in Geneva. This was an attempt to negate the need for intervention
in a foreign state by Russia (which would have delighted the US). Furthermore, both sides of the
horror were armed to the teeth. Some perspective would be nice.
Susan O'neill -> willpodmore 25 Feb 2015 06:47
A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against
the true facts as they are available.
Until Britain decides to distance itself from the US anti Russian thinking (that means criticism
of the McCarthy era) we will still be looking to root out "Reds under the beds" and routing anything(or
anyone) who might seem to be pro-Russian. Thanks for the contribution.
AenimaUK -> jezzam 25 Feb 2015 05:12
I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before this crisis started.
Yes, before the undemocratic, right-wing, NATO-backed coup, it was.
It is true that NATO is totally dominated by the US - but this is because they spend considerably
more on defence than the rest of NATO put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is
dominated by the US - this is entirely Europe's own choice and fault though.
So your alternative is that the EU up its defence spending to match the absurd permanent war-economy
levels of the US? And will the resources for that come from tax increases or public service cuts
to match the US? Wasn't the point about the end of the Cold War that it was supposed to be the
'end' of the 'war'? Of course, those in charge of the US military-industrial complex and their
chums in the DoD failed to get that memo (or rather, read it, decided it would threaten their
economic and geo-political imperialism, and shredded it).
willpodmore -> MiaPia2015 25 Feb 2015 04:24
Not true MiaPia - Leading scholars of Russian history have refuted the claim that the famine
was an act of genocide.
Terry Martin concluded, "The famine was not an intentional act of genocide specifically targeting
the Ukrainian nation." David Shearer noted, "Although the famine hit Ukraine hard, it was not,
as some historians argue, a purposefully genocidal policy against Ukrainians. no evidence has
surfaced to suggest that the famine was planned, and it affected broad segments of the Russian
and other non-Ukrainian populations both in Ukraine and in Russia." Diane Koenker and Ronald Bachman
agreed, "the documents included here or published elsewhere do not yet support the claim that
the famine was deliberately produced by confiscating the harvest, or that it was directed especially
against the peasants of Ukraine." Barbara Green also agreed, "Unlike the Holocaust, the Great
Famine was not an intentional act of genocide." Steven Katz commented, "What makes the Ukrainian
case non-genocidal, and what makes it different from the Holocaust, is the fact that the majority
of Ukrainian children survived and, still more, that they were permitted to survive." Adam Ulam
agreed too, writing, "Stalin and his closest collaborators had not willed the famine."
Tauger explained, "The evidence that I have published and other evidence, including recent Ukrainian
document collections, show that the famine developed out of a shortage and pervaded the Soviet
Union, and that the regime organized a massive program of rationing and relief in towns and in
villages, including in Ukraine, but simply did not have enough food. This is why the Soviet famine,
an immense crisis and tragedy of the Soviet economy, was not in the same category as the Nazis'
mass murders, which had no agricultural or other economic basis." He summed up, "Ukraine received
more in food supplies during the famine crisis than it exported to other republics. Soviet authorities
made substantial concessions to Ukraine in response to an undeniable natural disaster and transferred
resources from Russia to Ukraine for food relief and agricultural recovery."
Hans Blumenfeld pointed out that famine also struck the Russian regions of Lower Volga and
North Caucasus: "This disproves the 'fact' of anti-Ukrainian genocide parallel to Hitler's anti-semitic
holocaust. To anyone familiar with the Soviet Union's desperate manpower shortage in those years,
the notion that its rulers would deliberately reduce that scarce resource is absurd Up to the
1950s the most frequently quoted figure was two million [famine victims]. Only after it had been
established that Hitler's holocaust had claimed six million victims, did anti-Soviet propaganda
feel it necessary to top that figure by substituting the fantastic figure of seven to ten million
"
Ellman concluded, "What recent research has found in the archives is not a conscious policy
of genocide against Ukraine."
Vaska Tumir -> Vladimir Boronenko 24 Feb 2015 21:23
I beg to differ: there was nothing the matter with the Budapest Memorandum of Agreement of
1994 which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Unfortunately, in November 2013, the
EU decided to violate the terms of the Budapest Memo by presenting the then government of Ukraine
with an economic ultimatum (something expressly forbidden by Article 3 of that international document
several EU countries were signatories to).
Had the EU honoured the terms of the Budapest Memo and had it agreed to the trilateral economic
deliberations both Ukraine and Russia were asking for, nothing of the subsequent mess and the
slaughter Kiev's brought to Donbass would have happened.
The situation can still be rectified by recognizing the new Donetsk and Lugansk Republics as
parts of a federal state, along the lines of Switzerland, say, thus preserving Ukraine as a country.
Such a solution to the chaos NATO and the EU have brought about would be part of what Jonathan
Steele suggests by saying that "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant
de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine".
HollyOldDog Ecolophant 24 Feb 2015 17:44
America does not have a language of its own, it is more correctly called a Dialect of English.
HollyOldDog Dreikaiserbund 24 Feb 2015 17:33
Russian invasion? What invasion? It's just a myth created by the incompetent.
Colin Robinson 24 Feb 2015 17:04
I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian
statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the
monists to impose their model by force on the south and east.
If the terms "monist" and "pluralist" come to be used more widely in discussion about the conflict,
the world may begin to get more of a handle on what has been happening.
Kalkriese -> senya 24 Feb 2015 14:38
And you mean no-one on the US/Ukrainian side is not lying ?
There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo
Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army.
Putin is merely playing back by their rules and the fact he is successful in reclaiming Crimea
is the cause of all the sour grapes emanating from Kiev.
Kalkriese -> jezzam 24 Feb 2015 14:30
"His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow
scuppered by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow."
Are you really so naive ? Or just disingenuous ?
Kalkriese -> prostak 24 Feb 2015 14:26
"Russian troops have been proven many times"
Really? By whom ? Where?
Let's have some proof...
StopPretending -> MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 14:08
there was no 'Ukraine' state until Stalin created it. Perhaps that was the problem?
MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 13:31
Steele's analysis, and Sakwas book have one fatal flaw. The origins of this crisis did not
start in 1991 with the end of the cold war, but rather its end allowed tensions that had been
simmering since the Holodomor of the 1930s when millions of ethnic Ukrainians were starved to
death by Stalin in an orchestrated genocide that then allowed ethnic Russians to move into Ukrainian
territory. The desire to have an independent, Ukraine-speaking nation have always been there and
are no different from the desire of any other country. What we have now is almost an exact repeat
of what happened then.
Steve -> Ennever 22 Feb 2015 19:57
An interesting article indeed.
The Odessa massacre if nothing else was evidence of the MSM's bias on this subject.
50+ people being burnt alive for expressing their opinions seems a choice topic for our "je
suis charlie" fanatic press. And yet we heard.... crickets - because it didn't suit their "we
support Kiev" agenda.
But Odessa wasn't the only atrocity in May 2014. The victory parade in Mariupol, May 9th. The
National Guard arrive, possibly expecting a town full of Russian terrorists, but find civilians
celebrating, understandably irate at the intrusion of military hardware and troops, who then open
fire on them anyway.
Did this get reported in the west?
jezzam 22 Feb 2015 14:49
A serious commentator like Steele putting Russia's case is much needed. His comments about
Yatsenyuk do not add much that is new though. Yatsenyuk is very anti-Russian - this was already
known. His popularity has in fact been much boosted by anti- Russian feelings in Ukraine induced
by Putin's military agression. His party is now the largest in the Ukraine parliament.
Steele's discussion of the Monist and pluralist views is all very well, but he does not discuss
the kleptocratic view favoured by Putin and Yanukovych. The main cause of the revolution in Kiev
was not the conflict between Monist and pluralist views, but the massive corruption and subversion
of democracy in Ukraine, modelled on that of Russia. In Russia the ruling elite cream more than
30% of state income into their own pockets by corrupt practices. Yanukovych had established the
same system in Ukraine. He was also well on the way to corrupting the judiciary. He had already
locked up his main political opponent on a trumped up charge - again following the Putin model
of government.
Steeles's solution of "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status" sounds good. Is this
to be imposed on Ukraine though? What does it mean? I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before
this crisis started. They already had guarantees of their territorial integrity from Russia, the
US and UK as well. Fat lot of good that has done them.
His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow scuppered
by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow. It is true that NATO is totally dominated
by the US - but this is because they spend considerably more on defence than the rest of NATO
put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is dominated by the US - this is entirely
Europe's own choice and fault though.
As to Steele's claim that Putin is being demonised, insults between countries are not productive
and leaders should be treated with respect by other countries. However it is difficult to treat
with respect someone who does not keep his word and lies to your face, particularly when these
lies are so transparent. Brezhnev and Andropov never did this - at least not so blatantly.
tiojo 22 Feb 2015 12:50
"......that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".
Now if only the Guardian's current journalists would read this book we might get some decent
coverage of events in Ukraine and Russia.
Marilyn -> Justice 21 Feb 2015 22:37
My only argument would be the assessment of blame re the snipers - 3 studies have shown them
to be from 'the new coalition' and not old gov't, which is in line with the telephone call of
Catherine Ashton and Urmas Paet,
Standupwoman 21 Feb 2015 21:02
Excellent, balanced article, and I really have to buy this book. I only wonder why the Guardian
hasn't included this on its 'Ukraine' page for 19th February...
GuyCybershy -> sbmfc 21 Feb 2015 17:06
Especially in the US the public needs every issue distilled to good vs. evil. Anything more
complex and they will reject it. This is the result of decades of "divide and conquer" politics.
Vladimir Boronenko 21 Feb 2015 08:21
"Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant
de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine." No it wouldn't. It is
nothing but wishful thinking and delusion all over again. Ukraine had had that status already,
and only scrapped it in December by a constitutional Parliament vote exactly because it showed
its complete uselessness and impotence at the face of real-life threats. Just like the Budapest
Memorandum of 1994 guaranteeing security of Ukraine, with one of the guarantors attacking and
the other two looking on, although, if one was to stick to the letter of the Memo, of course,
they are not bound to be involved unless its a nuclear threat.
Johnlockett 20 Feb 2015 19:21
Excellent article. Very balance and very near to the truth. Thank you
John Lockett
Statingobvious 20 Feb 2015 14:28
An exceptionally unbiased piece where otherwise Russia and Putin bashing (& twisting of facts
& outright lying) is the rule.
mike42 20 Feb 2015 10:04
"The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders
are routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the
west was far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and
Andropov were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians."
Need more be said?
Dreikaiserbund Les Mills 20 Feb 2015 09:14
Challenging the 'MSM script' does not make you a Putinbot. Deriding anyone who supports Ukrainian
sovereignty, who is opposed to the Russian invasion and trumpeting Vladimir as a great and wise
leader - that is what makes you a Putinbot.
EnriqueFerro -> theshonny 19 Feb 2015 19:57
Thank you for the info on 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King. I'll look for it, because even
if it is pro-Putin, it is nonetheless interesting in order to check the rabid and massive anti-Putin
and Russia-hating disease spreading out there.
EnriqueFerro -> Mari5064 19 Feb 2015 19:53
Mari, I'm afraid you read too many tabloids.
EnriqueFerro 19 Feb 2015 19:51
This is an excellent book, of which I'm finishing its reading now; it can be read avidly, because
it says the truth, in a dispassionate and academic narrative, far from the typically stupid accounts
in the Western media and in the mouths of our gullible and ignorant politicians. Read it and learn
a lot about Ukraine, Russia, the EU, and the US/NATO.
Usually interesting books which don't follow the official record are not displayed in the mass
bookshops such as Floyds or Waterstones (to name two of the more serious in the UK). It is a way
of censorship, to make it difficult for the public to find critical stuff. I found a lone copy
well hidden in the history section at WS. A miracle! I took it quickly, and wonder if it was replaced!!!
Les Mills -> leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 19:34
As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge
the MSM script. Incidentally, I'm surprised that this article has only a handful of comments.
I came here via a link on Google news so I can only assume that the Guardian have it hidden away
on their site, which definitely fits the anti-Russian agenda.
leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 17:37
By far THE best analysis of what sounds like a most insightful book. The reviewer has done
us all a great service, since without it we would have never heard about the book from any other
"NATO-Western" source. Even worse, the author of the book would be accused of not being "real"
as is often the accusation when a comment appears that does not swallow Western propaganda line-hook-and-sinker.
John Hansen 19 Feb 2015 14:31
Jonathan Steele:
Superb analysis of a significant book.
:-)
theshonny 19 Feb 2015 13:15
Bought 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King a short while ago, and found it going so much pro-Putin
that it lost its impact. So now I hope for a more balanced account.
I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to
draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this
book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine.
Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise
Russian influence.
sbmfc 19 Feb 2015 07:31
I think the demonisation of Putin stems from the influence of Hollywood narratives in our societal
perception.
The idea of the villain is so commonplace that is widely assumed that anyone with a different
agenda to ones own is perceived to be attempting to working directly against our own personal
interests rather than in aid of their own different and completely independent interests.
Essentially everything has been so dumbed down that only a good/evil narrative can be comprehended
and the labels are only fit one way. The facts themselves are irrelevant.
AnyFictionalName 19 Feb 2015 05:50
When PM Yatsenyuk said:
I don't want Ukrainian youths (i.e. those who consider their native language to be Ukrainian
or Russian) to learn the Russian language, I want them to learn the English language.
Is that kind of racism, inferiority complex or just sheer stupidity?
"... Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered credentialed journalists in good
standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap.
..."
"An editorial
operation that is clearly influenced by advertising is classic appeasement. Once a very powerful body
know they can exert influence they know they can come back and threaten you. It totally changes the
relationship you have with them. You know that even if you are robust you won't be supported and will
be undermined...
The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Daily Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers
allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself
is in peril."
A 'principled resignation' is a phenomenon somewhat unfamiliar to US readers. Rarely does
a public figure or a politician resign because they is something they won't do to get along.
They resign because they get caught doing something that is so repugnant to public sentiment that they
are finished, at least for a while. We have a marvelous way of excusing and ignoring behavior
in the selected elite that would shame a garbageman into changing their name and moving.
And so a decline in journalistic standards is not as great of an issue in the States, because the
major media was captured by a handful of corporations in the 1990's, in part thanks to Bill Clinton's
change in ownership rules.
So one might ask, what standards? What were the standards that allowed the lies that have
led to war, that covered up mass spying and torture, and that allowed one of the greatest thefts of
the public trust in history to occur in the 'bank bailouts,' with a coordinated suppression of any
meaningful protest?
Their standards have long been so low that journalist may be more of a hollow title on a
business card than a calling to a profession with time-honored standards.
In the States, journalistic independence and integrity were some years ago led down a blind alley,
and quietly strangled.
The capture of key institutions of democracy are already well underway or in place. Where
this leads, one cannot say. But it does not bode well.
Even television spokesmodels and serial liars are considered 'credentialed journalists' in good
standing as long as they remain within the well defined bounds of the corporatist credibility trap.
...With the collapse in standards has come a most sinister development. It has long been axiomatic
in quality British journalism that the advertising department and editorial should be kept rigorously
apart. There is a great deal of evidence that, at the Telegraph, this distinction has collapsed...
This brings me to a second and even more important point that bears not just on the fate of one
newspaper but on public life as a whole. A free press is essential to a healthy democracy. There
is a purpose to journalism, and it is not just to entertain. It is not to pander to political power,
big corporations and rich men. Newspapers have what amounts in the end to a constitutional duty to
tell their readers the truth.
It is not only the Telegraph that is at fault here. The past few years have seen the rise of shadowy
executives who determine what truths can and what truths can't be conveyed across the mainstream
media. The criminality of News International newspapers during the phone hacking years was a particularly
grotesque example of this wholly malign phenomenon. All the newspaper groups, bar the magnificent
exception of the Guardian, maintained a culture of omerta around phone-hacking, even if (like the
Telegraph) they had not themselves been involved. One of the consequences of this conspiracy of silence
was the appointment of Andy Coulson, who has since been jailed and now faces further charges of perjury,
as director of communications in 10 Downing Street...
This was the pivotal moment. From the start of 2013 onwards stories critical of HSBC were discouraged.
HSBC suspended its advertising with the Telegraph. Its account, I have been told by an extremely
well informed insider, was extremely valuable. HSBC, as one former Telegraph executive told me, is
"the advertiser you literally cannot afford to offend". HSBC today refused to comment when I asked
whether the bank's decision to stop advertising with the Telegraph was connected in any way with
the paper's investigation into the Jersey accounts.
Here are some selections from financial television. I do not mean to pick on CNBC.
Bloomberg and Fox are certainly no better, and in many ways probably worse.
And the mainstream media now pretty much follows the same patterns on its high gloss coverage whether
it be on television or in print.
But if you watch the shows on Sunday morning where very serious people come to discuss important
public and foreign policy issues of war and peace, basic freedoms, the economy, what you find is a
pre-sorted selection of talking heads hurling the latest ying and yang of corporatist spin
at each other, with the occasional honest individual, never to be invited again, who is harangued by
the network 'journalist.'
'Color revolutions' were becoming popular, as one country after another was falling into chaos,
the kind that produces fire sales in productive assets and the elimination of inconvenient local rivals
to power.
I have noticed lately that the spinmeisters are now latching on to the term 'currency war,' but
are trying to deflect it merely to an intensification of the beggar thy neighbor strategy of devaluing
your currency to subsidize exports and penalize imports.
This has been going on for a long time, most notably by the Asian Tigers, led by Japan and then
perfected by China. But make no mistake, the real heart of this process is in an Anglo-American banking/industrial
cartel that intends to beggar everybody.
The multinational corporations went along with it. They were its great lobbyists, and their wealthy
scions the founders of think tanks to provide it a rationale and respectability.
Walmart wrote a chapter in the new gospel of greed as a means of undermining wages and the American
working class by insisting, as far back as the 1990's and the Clinton era, that suppliers start offshoring
to China. And servile politicians opened the doors wide, and turned a blind eye to abuses that are
still coming home to roost.
Part of the arrangement was a quid pro quo. The multinationals, who successfully staged a financial
coup d'état in the States and Western Europe, were to extend the reach of their strong dollar policy
and europression via foreign direct investments in resources rich overseas nations and foreign markets
in order to consolidate their power into the non-democratic world.
But China and Russia balked at their end of the presumed bargain. They realized that opening their
own doors to dollar exploitation, and allowing the economic hitmen to come in and pick up assets on
the cheap, would lead to eventual political unrest, encirclement, and their own loss of power.
'Color revolutions' were becoming popular, as one country after another was falling into chaos,
the kind that produces fire sales in productive assets and the elimination of inconvenient local rivals
to power. And in Europe, the powers that be created a Eurozone structure that any decent economist
would know was unsustainable, and destined to create an unstable situation of few winners and many
big losers.
And so a consortium of nations began to resist. Some called them the BRICS. They became alarmed,
and then convinced, that allowing a single nation or group of multinationals to control the world's
reserve currency was like a Ponzi scheme that could only continue on until its acquired the whip hand
of power everywhere.
They started to speak up in international monetary organizations, long dominated by the Anglo-American
banking and industrial cartels. They demanded the establishment of a new monetary standard for international
trade that was broadly based, to replace the failed Bretton Woods Agreement that had continuing on
as the ad hoc dollar hegemony known as Bretton Woods II after Nixon arbitrarily broke the formal agreement
with the closing of the gold window in 1971.
And so we see a new phenomenon today, in which the long term selling of gold to control its price,
resulting in the post-Bretton Woods bear market that lasted over twenty years, has given way to net
gold buying by the world's central banks, and in increasing size. And the creation of a paper gold
market in parallel, through which the West seeks to control the price and supply of gold, to maintain
their financial operation while they more aggressively pursue nation recycling and repurposing, draconian
trade deals that supplant domestic governance, and when that fails, through internal insurgencies and
at times, overt military action.
Simultaneously, there are a proliferation of bilateral trade deals in which currency arrangements
are being made between countries, and even among small regional groups of nations, to conduct their
business outside of the US Dollar system. They are even building up their own financial networks and
infrastructure in response to increasingly aggressive use of sanctions and other forms of economic
pressure.
The US and UK, like China and Russia, are not immune to concerns about domestic unrest. A strong
dollar policy and the support for a policy of offshoring to increase corporate profits are wreaking
havoc on one of the world's greatest popular economic achievements: the US middle class.
Increasingly concerned, the governments are cracking down on any sparks of domestic dissent, targeting
leaders, vilifying and suppressing minorities, and increasing the surveillance of its own people. They
are weaponizing the domestic police forces, and establishing the 'legal means' by which control can
be maintained in the face of increasing misery and discontent at home.
It is not a pretty picture. It is an old story of greed and deceit, of empire and world conquest, of
the desolating sacrilege of betraying those who have fought for freedom and civil rights to cash in
for their own selfish gains.
Will this end in a new gold standard, as this article A New Gold Standard in the Making, which is
the source of these graphs suggests? I surely do not know, and still do not think so.
If you have been following the thought process here, going back before even the establishment of
this blog to 2000, I have felt that the most likely course will be the establishment of a new unit
of international currency, similar to but not the same as the SDR, with a far broader composition of
currencies and commodities included, so that no single group would be able to control it for their
own purposes.
Stagflation is no natural phenomenon. It is the act of man in a policy intervention or policy error
par excellence. Until OPEC was able to trigger a stagflation through their use of an oil embargo and
price cartel in the 1970's in the favorable conditions created by economic rot introduced by years
of discretionary, aggressive war in Southeast Asia and the ensuing debts, most economists thought it
to be impossible, and certainly not a 'natural' outcome.
I think that domestic reform will be coming, and this is necessary because no new monetary standard
is going to repair a system that has failed from within due to corruption and systemic injustice.
Old systems, even when they finally turn to visible abuse as they decline, can fail for a very long
time, seemingly unbeatable, until they finally collapse from within. This is how it was for the fall
of the old Soviet Union, and this is how it may be for the Anglo-American cartel and their attendant
nations like Germany and Japan.
It is still possible that Russia and China could make a deal with the Anglo-Americans and establish
a tri-partite world government, with their own spheres of control and interest. As you may recall this
was the way George Orwell saw it in 1984. I have been watching for that possible development based
on my own research on the growth of international capital markets and flows since 1990 at least. People
bring this up and so I wish to address it now, once and for all. I am aware of the possible deeper
significance of these developments from an eschatological perspective. But recall that even the great
apostle, who was 'lifted up to the third heaven,' was mistaken in his estimation of it, thinking it
a phenomenon of his own time. It is a mistake of vanity to go too far in such arcane and difficult
subjects, in pursuit of sick thrills that only serve to distract us from our call to the work of the
day, and the practical task of finding sanctity and salvation in the world.
How we will react to this individually is critical for our own long term survival as spiritual beings
regardless, since we all face our own ends individually. Of this we can be sure. We are told that most
will give in, despairing at the increase in wickedness, and seek for power and riches of their own
beyond all reason and grace. And it requires no end time to see this happening through all ages.
Change is coming. It may be a new arrangement that brings with it the blessing of reform, transparency
and justice through peaceful evolution. It may be delayed and more difficult. What cannot be sustained
will not continue.
This will end. But perhaps not very well. To a great extent that is up to us, unless we stand by
and do nothing. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." But
what shall I to do? Begin with yourself, despising only the fear and the evil in you. Do as you have
been instructed by the two great commandments, which have been implanted as a seed in your heart.
Quote: " This is nonsense, because there is no economic, political or military point in Russia
trying to invade the Baltic States or any other country on its borders. There has been no indication
of any such move - other than in bizarre statements by such as Mr Herbst and twisted reports in Western
news media. It is absurd and intellectually demeaning and deceitful to suggest otherwise, and it is
regrettable that someone of the superior intelligence of Mr Herbst could lower himself to say such a
thing. But it makes good propaganda.
Since the Soviet collapse - as Moscow had feared - [the NATO] alliance has spread eastward, expanding
along a line from Estonia in the north to Romania and Bulgaria in the south. The Kremlin claims it
had Western assurances that would not happen. Now, Moscow's only buffers to a complete NATO encirclement
on its western border are Finland, Belarus and Ukraine. The Kremlin would not have to be paranoid to
look at that map with concern. -
Stars and Stripes (US Armed Forces newspaper), February 13, 2015.
The Minsk Agreement of February 12,
2015, was arranged by the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine and contained important
provisions concerning future treatment of citizens in the Russian-speaking, Russia-cultured eastern
districts of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in Ukraine where there has been vicious fighting between separatist
forces and government troops supported by militias.
Most Western media did not report that the accord was signed by the leaders of the provinces
(oblasts) of Donetsk and Luhansk as well as representatives of Russia and Ukraine, but the former two
matter greatly in implementation of its provisions.
To the disappointment of much of the West, and especially the United States, it appears that the
great majority of the inhabitants of these regions are to be granted much of what they have been seeking
(with robust support by Russia), which includes the right to speak and receive education in their birth-language;
restitution of pension payments and other central revenue moneys that were stopped by the Kiev government;
constitutional reform of Ukraine including "approval of permanent legislation on the special status
of particular districts of Donetsk and Luhansk"; and free local elections in the oblasts.
The way to peace will not be easy but the substance of the accord will go far to convincing
the people of the eastern oblasts that they will not in future be treated as second-class citizens.
They will be permitted an appropriate degree of decision-making in their regions, and if there is goodwill
on the part of the Kiev government there is reason to believe that fair governance could apply. A major
problem, however, is the attitude of the United States and Britain concerning Russia and Ukraine.
Neither the US nor the UK was privy to discussions between participants in the Minsk talks
except through technical intercept by their intelligence agencies and more intimate but necessarily
partial description by Kiev's President Petro Poroshenko, whose subordinates reported through US and
British conduits.
London and Washington were excluded from negotiations because neither wishes a solution that could
be agreeable to Russia and the Russian-cultured regions of east Ukraine.
Both are uncompromisingly intent on humiliating Moscow, and although Britain is verging on irrelevance
in world affairs except as a decayed and limited associate of the US in whatever martial venture may
be embarked upon by Washington, the US Congress and White House are for once in agreement and are
determined to destroy Russia's economy and topple its president and are being provocatively challenging
in pursuit of that aim.
There hasn't been such deliberate squaring-up politically and militarily since the height of the
last Cold War. President Barack Obama's speeches about Russia and President Vladimir Putin have
been bellicose, abusive and personally insolent to the point of immature mindlessness. He does
not realize that his contempt and threats will not be forgiven by the Russian people who, it is only
too often overlooked, are proud of being Russian and understandably resent being insulted.
Obama claimed last year that the US "is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world",
which was regarded with mild derision by many nations; but now Russians are realizing what he meant
by his chest-pounding, because America has fostered the Ukraine mess in attempting to justify its stance
of uncompromising aggression against them.
But Ukraine has nothing to do with the United States. It is on the border of Russia, not the US.
It is not a member of NATO. It is not a member of the European Union. It has no defense or political
treaty of any sort with the US. It is 5,000 miles - 8,000 kilometers - from Washington to Kiev and
it is doubtful if more than a handful of members of Congress could find Ukraine on a map.
In March 2014, the province of Crimea declared itself to be separate from Ukraine. There was a referendum
on sovereignty by its 2.4 million inhabitants. The Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe
was asked to
monitor and report on the referendum, but
refused to do so. Both referendum and declaration were strongly
condemned by the United States.
Some 60% of the inhabitants of Crimea are Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and Russian-educated,
and they voted to rejoin Russia from which they had been separated by the
diktat of Soviet chairman Nikita Khrushchev - a Ukrainian. It would be strange if they did not
wish to accede to a country that welcomes their kinship and is economically benevolent concerning their
future.
Russia's support for the people of eastern Ukraine - and there is indubitably a great deal of assistance,
both political and military, similar to that of the US-NATO alliance for the people of the breakaway
Kosovo region of Serbia in 2008 - is based on the fact that the great majority of people there are
Russian-speaking, Russian-cultured and discriminated against by the Ukrainian government, just
as Kosovans were persecuted by Serbs.
So it is not surprising that the majority of inhabitants of the eastern areas of the Donetsk and
Luhansk oblasts want to "dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another" and be granted a large degree of autonomy
- or even join Russia. The US refuses to admit that they might have even the slightest justification
for their case.
There has been a US-led media campaign attempting to persuade the public, in the words of John Herbst,
former US ambassador to Ukraine, that President Putin's "provocations against the Baltic states, against
Kazakhstan, indicate his goals are greater than Ukraine.
If we don't stop Mr Putin in Ukraine we may be dealing with him in Estonia."
This is nonsense, because there is no economic, political or military point in Russia trying
to invade the Baltic States or any other country on its borders. There has been no indication
of any such move - other than in bizarre statements by such as Mr Herbst and twisted reports in Western
news media. It is absurd and intellectually demeaning and deceitful to suggest otherwise, and it is
regrettable that someone of the superior intelligence of Mr Herbst could lower himself to say such
a thing.
But it makes good propaganda.
In similar vein, President Putin's statement to Ukraine's President Poroshenko that "If I wanted,
in two days I could have Russian troops not only in Kiev, but also in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw
and Bucharest" was reported by Britain's
Daily Telegraph as "President Vladimir Putin privately threatened to invade Poland, Romania and
the Baltic states" - which was malicious misrepresentation of what he said.
Putin was making the point that Russia's armed forces could easily have taken successful military
action against neighboring countries had they been ordered to do so - but he has no intention of doing
anything so rash and stupid. What he and the Russian people want is justice and political choice
for the ethnically Russian people in eastern Ukraine, as well as increasing bilaterally lucrative trade
arrangements with adjoining countries. It would be insane for Moscow to hazard commercial links with
any of its neighbors. Washington, on the other hand, is trying to break them.
Following the Minsk agreement, Canada, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States, (together
with France and Germany, the Group of Seven) mildly welcomed it - for of course they had no public
alternative - but took the opportunity, according to the
White
House, to "again condemn Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea which is in violation of international
law".
It appears that the US-stimulated nations of the G-7 demand that Crimea, with its 60% ethnic Russian
population, should be in some fashion taken over by the Kiev government against the will of the majority
of the people of that longtime Russian region.
This would satisfy the aim of the US-NATO alliance, which wished and still wishes Ukraine to become
a member of that organization, joining those already positioned on Russia's border. For US-NATO, the
problem, now, is that the massive seaport at Sevastopol is independent of Kiev and will therefore be
denied to US-NATO as a base from which to dominate the Black Sea.
The US-led anti-Russia alliance continues to extend its influence along Russia's borders, and
it is obvious that no matter what happens in Ukraine's eastern oblasts there will be continuing confrontation
with Russia, led by Washington.
Mikhail Gorbachev - the man whose empathy with president Ronald Reagan so helped to end the
first Cold War - observed about the stance of US-NATO that "I cannot be sure that the [new] Cold War
will not bring about a 'hot' one. I'm afraid they might take the risk."
Given the intemperate and increasingly confrontational posture of the US and some of its NATO
alliance supporters, the risk seems high. They are hazarding the lives of us all.
Brian Cloughley is a former soldier who writes on military and political affairs, mainly
concerning the sub-continent. The fourth edition of his book
A History of the Pakistan Armywas published last year.
Attempt to grab Ukrainian resources was so blatant that it reminds behaviour of Germany and the USA before WWI.
Today is the first anniversary of the deal made between Yanukovich and the "opposition" and guaranteed by foreign ministers Radosław
Sikorski of Poland, Laurent Fabius of France and Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany. As we all know, the deal resulted in a withdrawal
of the security forces from the Kiev city center immediately followed by an armed insurrection which overthrew the government. Predictably,
Poland, France and Germany did not object. I won't recount all of the events which happened since this infamous day, but I think
that it is important to look at what has changed in a year. I think that it also makes sense to compare what I had predicted might
happen with what actually happened simply to see if a person if a person with no access to any classified data and who is using only
"open sources" for his analysis could have predicted what happened or if this was all a huge and totally unpredictable surprise.
They have no vision, no ideology, no identifiable future goal. All they can offer is a message which,
in essence, says "we have no other choice than sell out to the rich Russians rather than to the poor European" or "all we can
get from the EU is words, the Russians are offering money". True. But still extremely uninspiring, to say the least.
The future of Yanukovich
I am beginning to fear that this will all explode into a real and very dangerous crisis for Russia. First, I am assuming that
the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists will eventually prevail, and that Yanukovich will either fully complete
his apparent "zag" and reverse his decision, or lose power. One way or another the the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian nationalists
will, I think, prevail. There will be more joyful demonstrations, fireworks and celebrations in Kiev, along with lots of self-righteous
back-slapping and high-fiving in Brussels, and then the gates of Hell will truly open for the Ukraine. The real risks for Russia
Being drawn into the inevitable chaos and violence with will flare up all over the Ukraine (including the Crimean Peninsula),
stopping or, at least, safely managing a likely flow of refugees seeking physical and economic safety in Russia and protecting
the Russian economy from the consequences of the collapse of Ukrainian economy. Russia will have to do all that while keeping
its hands off the developing crisis inside the Ukraine as it is absolutely certain that the Eurobureaucrats and the Ukrainian
nationalists will blame Russia for it all. The best thing Russia could do in such a situation would be to leave the Ukrainians
to their private slugfest and wait for one side or the other to prevail before trying to very carefully send out a few low-key
political "feelers" to see if there is somebody across the border who has finally come to his/her senses and is capable and ready
to seriously begin to rebuilt the Ukraine and its inevitable partnership with Russia and the rest of the Eurasian Union. As long
as that does not happen Russia should stay out, as much as is possible. Sarajevo on the Dniepr
Right now, all the signs are that the Ukraine is going down the "Bosnian road" and that things are going to get really ugly.
It is hard to tell, but my sense is that when the local authorities in the southeastern Ukraine threaten not to accept any
regime change in Kiev they probably do really mean it. This very much reminds me of the repeated warnings of the Bosnian-Serbs
that they would not accept to live in an Islamic state run by an rabid fanatic like Itzebegovich. At the time, and just like today,
nobody took these warnings seriously and we all know how that ended. The big difference between Bosnia and the Ukraine is first
and foremost one of dimensions: Bosnia has an area of 19,741 square miles and a population of 3,791,622 while the
Ukraine has an area of 233,090 square miles and a population of 44,854,065. That is a huge difference which make
a direct foreign intervention a much more complicated endeavor.
And Russia in all that?
I can only repeat that Russia should stay out of whatever happens in the Ukraine. The Russian
government should prepare for an influx of refugees and the Russian military should be placed on high alert to avoid any provocations
or cross-border violence. A special goal for Russia should be to use all the means possible to avoid any violence on the Crimean
Peninsula because of the presence of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol which can find itself in the position of the 14th Army
in Transdniestria when it simply had not other choice than to get involved due to the high number of officers with relatives living
in the republic. If, God forbid, the nationalist try to militarily take over the Crimean Peninsula or Sevastopol I don't see how
the Black Sea Fleet could stay uninvolved - that is simply impossible and this is why that situation needs to be avoided at all
costs.
This has, of course, not been reported in the western Ziomedia, but the eastern Ukraine is now also bubbling with political
actions. To make a long story short, the folks in the southeastern Ukraine have no desire whatsoever to let folks like Iatseniuk,
Klichko or Tiagnibok rule over them. In fact, several local assembles - including the Parliament of Crimea - have adopted resolution
calling on the President to restore law and order and warning that they would never accept a "regime change" in Kiev.
Something absolutely huge has just happened in Russia: the Russian Council of the Federation, the equivalent of the US Senate,
has just UNANIMOUSLY passed a resolution allowing Putin to use Russian armed forces in the Ukraine, something the Duma
had requested earlier. Before the vote took place, Russian senators said that Obama had threatened Russia, insulted the Russian
people and that they demanded that Putin recall the Russian ambassador to the USA. I have never seen such a level of outrage and
even rage in Russia as right now.I hope and pray that Obama, and his advisers, stop and think carefully about their
next step because make no mistake about thatRUSSIA IS READY FOR WAR.
April 23rd, 2014: The US plan for the Ukraine - a hypothesis
The US will try to force Russia to intervene in the Donbass
The eastern Ukraine is lost no matter what. So the junta in Kiev have to pick on of the following options:
a) Let the eastern
Ukraine leave by means of referendum and do nothing about it.
b) Let the eastern Ukraine leave but only after some violence.
c) Let the eastern Ukraine leave following a Russian military intervention.
Clearly, option 'a' is by far the worst. Option 'b' is so-so, but option 'c' is very nice. Think of it: this option will make
it look like Russia invaded the Eastern Ukraine and that the people there had no say about it. It will also make the rest of the
Ukraine rally around the flag. The economic disaster will be blamed on Russia and the Presidential election of May 25th can be
canceled due to the Russian "threat". Not only that, but a war - no matter how silly - is the *perfect* pretext to introduce martial
law which can be used to crack down on the Right Sector or anybody expressing views the junta does not like. That is an old trick
- trigger a war and people will rally around the regime in power. Create a panic, and people will forget the real issues.
As for the USA - it also knows that the Eastern Ukraine is gone. With Crimea and Eastern Ukraine gone - the Ukraine has exactly
*zero* value to the Empire, to why not simply use it as a way to create a new Cold War, something which would be much more sexy
that the Global War on Terror or the really old War on Drugs. After all, if Russia is forced to intervene militarily NATO will
have to send reinforcements to "protect" countries like Poland or Latvia just in case Putin decides to invade all of the EU.
Bottom line - the freaks in power in Kiev and the USA *know* that the eastern Ukraine is lost for them, and the purpose of
the imminent attack is not to "win" against the Russian-speaking rebels or, even less so, to "win" against the Russian military,
it is to trigger enough violence to force Russia to intervene. In other words, since the East is lost anyways, it is much better
to lose it to the "invading Russian hordes" than to lose it to the local civilian population.
So the purpose of the next attack will not be to win, but to lose. That the Ukrainian military can still do.
Two things can happen to foil this plan:
1) The Ukrainian military might refuse to obey such clearly criminal orders (and becoming a target of the Russian military
might help some officers make the correct "purely moral" choice).
2) The local resistance might be strong enough to draw out such an operation and have to come to a grinding halt.
Ideally, a combination of both.
So let's summarize the above:
Yanukovich will be overthrown. Check
The Donbass will rise up. Check
The Ukraine will be partitioned. Check
A civil war will break out. Check
The US will try to pull Russia in. Check
Russia will protect Crimea. Check
Russia will say out of the Donbass. Check
Russia will have to deal with refugees. Check
The US/NATO will not intervene like in Bosnia. Check
The Ukrainian economy will collapse. Check
There is one point which I did really get wrong: the people of Novorussia. I saw them as very passive, interested only in getting
paid (in Hrivnas or Rubles - doesn't matter) and with very little Russian national identity. Here I got it very wrong, but in my
defense I would say that the Russian identity of people of the Donbass was awaken by the huge military assault of Ukrainian military
and by the clearly russophobic and neo-Nazi rethoric and policies of the junta. But setting aside the motivations of the Novorussians,
I did predict that the Donbass would rise up, and it did. In fact, it looks to me like my predictions resulted in a score of 10 out
of 10.
My point is not to congratulate myself (I sincerely wish my pessimistic predictions would have turned out wrong), but to
demonstrate that anybody armed with a) basic knowledge of Russia and the Ukraine b) access to open sources information c) basic
common sense could have made all of these predictions.
The worst which can happen is that a lot of Novorussian defenders get killed, that the towns of Slaviansk, Kramatorsk, Krasnyi
Liman and others will get basically flattened and most of their inhabitants killed, that the road between Donetsk and Lugansk
gets cut-off by the Ukies and that Ukie forces enter deep inside these two cities.
I have to be honest here, there is a pretty good chance that all of the above will happen in the next 24 hours.
If that happens, I would like to remind you all that entering into a city is one thing, taking control of it is quite another.
Think Beirut, think Grozny, think Baghdad, think Fallujah, think Gaza, think Bint Jbeil. Even if Poroshenko announces that Donetsk
and Lugansk have "fallen", this will be only a empty statement on par with Dubya's "mission accomplished". What will *really*
happen is that the type of warfare taking place will change. Not only will it change, but the new (urban) type of warfare will
almost completely negate the current huge advantage in aviation, artillery and armor of the Ukie side. So if these cities
"fall" - please do not despair.
I hope that Novorussians will be able to resist the Ukie attack, but I also know that by all accounts the kind of firepower the
junta is using now is truly huge - we are dealing with a merciless and massive attack with everything the junta could muster and
we have to accept that the Novorussian Defense Forces might have to retreat deeper into the cities or even go underground. While
heroic for sure, it is not smart to stay in the open when your enemy is using Smerch and Uragan MRLS against you or even the building
you are in. During the first Chechen war the Chechen retreated deeply inside Grozny and did not even bother defending the outskirts,
in part because the city center buildings were far stronger than the flimsy houses in the suburbs. I never studied the layout
of the cities of Lugansk and Donetsk, but if they are typical of the way the Soviets liked to build, then retreating into the
city center and giving up the suburbs would probably make sense.
The first defensive option is to let the Ukies enter the suburbs and then cut them off, envelop (surround) them, and then attack
them. If that works, great! But if the Ukies clear the way with massive sustained strikes and flatten their way in, then it will
become necessarily to switch to "plan B" and retreat deeper into the cities. If the Ukie advance is multi-pronged and too fast,
or if the city center defenses were not adequately prepared (for whatever reason), then plan "C" is to go more or less underground
and switch to an active mobile defense centered on short but intense ambushes followed by immediate retreats.
What really happened took my by complete surprise: initially the Ukrainian forces did move in, but soon they were bogged down and
then gradually surrounded by the Novorussians. In fact, both during the junta's summer offensive and during it's winter offensive
the Novorussians succeeded in crushing the Ukrainian forces even in open terrain: steppes, hills, fields and forests. The
other amazing thing which happened is that for the first time in the past 200 years there were more combatants killed on the Ukrainian
side than civilians. The German
intelligences sources estimate the number of victims of this war at about 50'000. That figure sure makes sense to me. That kind
of outcome and these kinds of figures can only be explained by a huge, truly immense, difference in combat capabilities between the
junta forces and the Novorussians. Unimpressed as I was by the Novorussian behavior in February-March I failed to imagine that this
rather passive and peaceful folk would turn into formidable combatants who would so radically defeat a vastly superior force (at
least on paper), not once, but twice. Even as late as October 24th, in a post entitled "What
could the next Junta offensive against Novorussia look like?" I again failed to predict the almost immediate defeat of the junta's
winter offensive. I wrote:
What the Ukies are preparing is rather obvious. They will pick several key axes of attack along which they will unleash a massive
artillery attack. This fire preparation will serve to prepare for a push by Ukrainian armored units (this time around we can expect
the Ukrainian infantry to properly defend their tanks and not the other way around). The Ukrainians will not push deep into Donetsk
or Lugansk, but rather they will try to, again, cut-off and surround Donetsk in a pincer attack and then negotiate some kind of
quasi-surrender by the Novorussians. At most, they will try to enter a few important suburbs. I don't expect much action around
Luganks - Donetsk is far more exposed. Now, if I am correct and this is what happens, then please understand and remember this:
the correct Novorussian response to this plan is to begin by retreating. It makes no sense whatsoever for the Novorussians to
sit and fight from positions which are densely covered by Ukrainian artillery strikes. During the first Ukrainian attack I was
dismayed to see how many people clearly did not understand the importance retreats in warfare. The "hurray-patriots" in particular
were adamant that the initial Novorussian retreat was a clear sign that, as always, "Putin had betrayed Novorussia" (when the
NAF went on a long and brilliant counter-offensive, these "hurray-patriots" fell silent for a while until the moment when Moscow
stopped the NAF from seizing Mariupol, at which point they resumed chanting their mantra). The fact is that retreating against
a superior forces is the logical thing to do, especially if you have had the time to prepare for a two, possibly, three echelon
defense. While I do not know that for a fact, this is what I expect the Novorussians have been doing during all the length of
the ceasefire: preparing a well-concealed and layered defense. My hope and expectation is that once the JRF attacks the NAF will,
again, carefully retreat, pull the JFR in, and then being to gradually degrade the attacking force. I particular hope that the
Russians have finally send some much needed guided anti-tank weapons through the voentorg.
I was completely wrong. Not only did the Novorussians stop the junta offensive more or less along the line of contact, but they went
on the counter-offensive where they seized the heavily fortified Donetsk airport and then the entire Debaltsevo cauldron. To say
that I am extremely impressed is an understatement.
Military analyst always tend to be very cautious and assume the worst-case,
and this is how it should be when lives are at stake, but I cannot explain away my complete failure to predict the Novorussian successes
by some professional inclination. What happened is that I got the Novorussian mentality completely wrong by assuming that their initial
passivity was a predictor of their ability to fight. A fundamentally flawed and mistaken assumption.
Still, I mostly got it right and so could have done all the advisors, analysts, area specialists, etc. working for the governments
involved in that crisis and I bet you they did. But either the politicians did not want to listen, or they wanted precisely that
outcome.
The shameful and utterly disgusting fact is that everything that took place was completely predictable. In fact, Putin, Lavrov
and many more Russians officials *did* try to tell everybody that the Ukrainian people were cheerfully waltzing straight into a precipice,
but nobody was willing to listen. Instead, western politicians blamed the Russians for everything, which is just about the most intellectually
dishonest and hypocritical thing they could have done.
The next Ukie president?
In one year an entire country was destroyed, tens of thousands of people were murdered and millions are now left with nothing not
even hope: the Ukraine is a failed state, having now gone through Dmitri Orlov's "five
stages of collapse". Kiev is in the hands of a regime of incompetent Nazi freaks and the only alternative to them looks even
worse.
Make no mistake, if the Donbass is now probably safe from any future junta attacks, the risks for the rest of the rump-Ukraine
are still huge and an even bigger bloodbath could happen next.
What is evident is that Poroshenko is a "goner": this sad buffoon promised peace to the Ukrainian people and instead he gave them
a year long bloodbath culminating in a strategic defeat which cost the Ukrainians about half of their more or less combat capable
forces. The only thing which keeps Poroshenko in power now is the political support of the USA and the political recognition by the
EU and Russia. But the rest of the freaks in power don't care one bit about the EU or Russia and I predict that they will try to
eject him at the first possibility. When I look at list of freaks likely to succeed Poroshenko I get a knot in my stomach: if Poroshenko
was a political prostitute and a spineless, incompetent imbecile, he was at least not clinically insane. Most of his likely successors
are. As for Iats or Turchinov, I personally think that they are demoniacally possessed which is arguably even worse than being clinically
insane.
In conclusion I will just say that if I believe that all the horrors of the past year were fully avoidable, I also believe that
the horrors of the next, upcoming, year are not: the Ukraine has plunged over the cliff and is now heading for the very same future
as Libya (another western "success story"). I hope that I am wrong and that I am missing something crucial, but I personally do not
see any way to stop the implosion of the rump-Ukraine and my advise to anybody still living there would be to get out while you can.
In them meantime in Moscow there was a "anti-Maidan" demonstration planned for 10'000 people. 35'000-50'000 showed up to say "we
will not forget, we will not forgive" and "no Maidan in Russia". This anti-Maidan movement which was just formed very recently has
a very bright political future because after watching the horrors right across their border and accepting close to a million refugees
from the Ukraine, the vast majority of Russians want nothing to do with a Maidan-like event in Russia. Combine that with the still
80%+ popularity of Putin in spite of western sanctions, and you will see that Russia is safe from the kind of events which happened
in Kiev a year ago.
The virus which killed the Ukraine will act as a vaccine for Russia.
Having a Russian wife and family in Russia indeed allows me see this crisis from two positions. I know first hand what's happening
there, my government is a shameful lapdog of US hegemony. What you have posted is 99% fact, I'll let the 1% go because nothing is
100%.
Paul Meyer
MOST USEFUL INFORMATION, so the deal brokered by Germany, France and Poland did NOT MEET the U.S. requirements! THAT"S
Why it had to be done via coup de' etat!
obyvatel
Stop blaming the "Western World". The countries of the West have long ceased fuctioning as democracies. Western politics is
run by media mind-control, plutocratic government, and money monopoly.
Medicine, science, education, agriculture, and trade have all been turned into the servants of plutocracy. Truth is, we live
under dictatorship. The spirit and much of the personnel of the dictatorship has been provided by the Jewish cult.
BigSmartArmed
That is absolutely true, with one small clarification - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA, all have laws that allow ownership
of weapons. Even though anti-gun legislation is repeatedly pushed through legal systems, and people just surrender their rights,
tens of million of people are still armed and have a choice of NOT to accepting totalitarianism, to reject consumerism and plutocracy.
All people have to do is say no, and stand firm. That's all it is. When the jackboots come, then it'll be a choice of submission
to slavery, or fighting for freedom.
That's the choice East Ukrainians have made, and they didn't have weapons to begin with, they just stood firm against literal
Nazis, that were trained, armed and paid for by the same bastards that are busy disarming the Western population to completely
push it into total compliance.
Ukraine is a perfect example for what is planned for the West; surrender to the NWO and complete compliance with dictatorship,
or fight against it.
Well done Martin, thanks for posting this. This is another nail in the HELL coffins of the US Government, poroSHITko, yats, and
the others. This video should be remembered with the US PNAC: Project for the New American Century; the original wolfowitz doctrine;
Nuland [wife of Robert Kagan - co-founder of PNAC] and Republican Senator John McCain participated in antigovernment demonstrations,
and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Ukraine, proclaimed after Yanukovych's toppling that it was "a day for the history books."
As a leaked telephone recording revealed, Nuland had advocated regime change and wanted the Ukrainian politician Arseniy Yatsenyuk
to become prime minister in the new government, which he did.'
Serbia later became another victim of "color revolution"... This was period of triumphal march of neoliberalism over the worlds,
which left a lot of devastation behind... The only countervailing force for the US imperialism, USSR disintegrated in 1991 and victory
of neoliberalism was complete at this point.
24.03.2014 |
2,000 civilians died during 78 days of devastating NATO airstrikes on Yugoslavia in 1999, when citizens of a European country
became accustomed to war-heads flying over their heads, hiding in bomb shelters and praying for their loved ones to stay alive.
US President Bill Clinton calls the bombing "humanitarian intervention" adding "It is also important to America's
national interest".
Color revolution is a military operation in which protesters are just a tip of the iceberg. the key players are Embassy staff, three
letter agencies, NGOs, bought and foreign owned neoliberal press, some orligrached (who might be pressed into submission with the threat
of confiscating their assets), compradors and bought players within the government. It was by bought players within the government initial
crashes with police were organized. One of the key instruments are huge cash flows in diplomatic mail that feed the protest ("bombing
country with dollars"). In a sense in any neoliberal republic color revolution is designed to be a sucess, the fact which EuroMaidan
proved quite convincingly. Ukraine actually was a very easy target. Yanukovich was essentially neutralized and paralyzed by threats
from Biden. Security services were infiltrated and partially work for Americans. Several bought members of the government (Lyovochkon?)
did their dirty job in organizing the necessity clashes with policy to feed the protest.
Former Prime Minister Azarov explained his version of events on the Maidan. The script writers of the Maidan, in his opinion,
were Americans.
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Mykola Azarov told the NTV about how coup d'état of February of the last year was organized. According
to him, the script of the coup d'état was written at the U.S. Embassy.
"The main puppeteers were not on the Maidan," Azarov said. The protests started because of the decision of Ukrainian authorities
to suspend the signing of the Association agreement with the EU.
"There was, of course, the enormous pressure from the leaders of the European Union, from several European countries. The meaning
of this pressure was the fact that we must put aside all doubts and to sign this agreement," said the former Prime Minister. "They
just needed an excuse, a reason to overthrow our government. Because we were frankly told: "If you do not you sign this agreement,
it will sign another government, another President,"
In this regard, according to Azarov, they needed a provocation to start protest and such a provocation became the use of force
on Independence square in Kiev, where supporters of European integration were staying for several nights. "The action was slow. The
organizers understood that without the sacred victims they will be unable to ignite the crowd. Suddenly around 3 am several TV crews
arrive, set lights, camera. What to shoot? This ordinary situation, when people spend the night at the square?" - said Azarov.
Me and the whole Ukrainian people were cynically played. According to Azarov at this moment "prepared by gunmen in masks" arrived
to the square. They started beating on duty policemen with metal sticks. When police called reinforcements instigators quickly disappeared.
And when riot police began detention, "they detain generally innocent people who spend night at the square as a part of peaceful
protest."
Speaking about the negotiations Yanukovich with the opposition, Azarov noted that the current Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
"every day spend most of his time in the American Embassy and following their instructions to the letter."
In the end, an agreement was signed between the President and opposition leaders on the peaceful resolution of the conflict, the
guarantor which were several European countries, but no one except the Yanukovich, fulfilled their obligations. "I still do not understand,
how foreign Ministers of Poland, Germany, France, which signed an agreement on February 21 feel themselves. In the history of diplomacy
this agreement will be included as an example of the utmost degree of cynicism and deceit," said Azarov.
Tarik Cyril Amar is an assistant professor of history at Columbia University, specializing in the contemporary history of
Ukraine and Russia, also associate of Columbia University's Harriman Institute. He recieved his BA from Oxford University, MSc from
London School of Economics, PhD from Princeton University. Tarik is the former Academic Director of the Center for Urban History
of East Central Europe in Lviv. He lived in Ukraine for five years and is currently preparing his book on the twentieth-century history
of the city of Lviv for publication.
SHARMINI PERIES, EXEC. PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome back to The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries, coming to you from Baltimore.
I'm in conversation with Tarik Cyril Amar. He is an assistant professor of history at Columbia University and an associate professor
of Columbia University's Harriman Institute. Tarik's coming book is Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv: A Borderland City between Stalinists,
Nazis, and Nationalists.
Thank you so much for joining us today, Tarik.
TARIK CYRIL AMAR, ASSIST. PROF. HISTORY, COLUMBIA UNIV.: Thank you.
PERIES: So, Tarik, in our earlier segment we discussed whether the peace agreement negotiated in Minsk is going to take hold and
the difficulties that it may be having at the moment. And in this segment I'd like to take up the humanitarian situation, the humanitarian
crisis that this conflict has generated. Now, one thing that I want to begin with is that just before Angela Merkel arrived in Washington
last week--this was prior to the Minsk agreement--to discuss the situation in Ukraine, the German intelligence services leaked some
information in relation to the death tolls. Now, there's a discrepancy between the official statistics being released by the United
Nations being at somewhere around 5,500 and what the German intelligence leaked last week, saying that it might be up to 50,000.
So what are the real numbers here and the number of people that have died from this conflict so far?
AMAR: I would not be in a position to guess, but I have to say that it seems very plausible to me, and it also seems plausible to
a number of experts I sometimes talk to and whom I've asked about this. What seems plausible to me is that the United Nations figure
is an underestimate, and probably a severe underestimate. Whether the German intelligence figure is close to the truth I couldn't
tell, but it is simply not very believable that this conflict has been going on for quite a long time by now, and it has gone through
several rounds of escalation. And at the same time we still have a very low number of casualties, and also a very low, a very slow
increase of casualties. Of course, one could only be happy if the casualty numbers were as low. I mean, one person is actually already
too many. But I think, unfortunately, it is safer to assume that the casualty number is significantly higher than what we get from
the UN, and also what we get from the government in Kiev.
PERIES: Tarik, what's the interest of underestimating the number of people killed?
AMAR: Well, I mean, here I could only speculate. I mean, one reason that Kiev might have to be coy about this is not to let the population
know how incredibly costly and devastating this war already is. You have to keep in mind that Kiev is officially not calling this
a war, and it's also not calling this a civil war. Kiev is officially calling this a type of police operation, something they call
antiterrorist operation, or the commonly used acronym in Ukrainian, /ate.ˈoa/, also ATO. So Kiev has an interest, as has happens
in war, of pretending that this is less horrible than it actually is. That's one part of the story. The other one is Kiev has also
been using fairly indiscriminate fighting methods, especially around cities in the East, around Donetsk and Luhansk, when the troops
were still close to it. They're not now. And Kiev may very well also have an interest in not stressing the fact that more civilians
may have died from its own shelling than it would like to admit.
PERIES: Now, speaking of civilians, their conditions are getting dire and the numbers are growing bigger in terms of the number of
people displaced from this war. It said 1.5 million or so. What are the conditions for them that you're hearing? And last reports
I saw, there was no water, there was no basic food supplies, and to--also clothing to survive in this wintry conditions there. Do
you have any information about that?
AMAR: Yes, there are reports. And there also humanitarian organizations that are working in the war zone and beyond the war zone.
And they deal with those civilians who remain in place and suffer where they are, and they also deal with the many civilians who
now have been displaced. I have seen different figures for the number of displaced people, around a million at least everybody seems
to agree on at this point, around a million. I have seen 920,000. I've seen it a little higher. But this is by any means already
a very severe humanitarian crisis. The fate of those who remain in place, as you have described, is very much shaped by the breakdown
of infrastructure, and it's also shaped by the fact that Kiev has quite deliberately cut these regions off from certain types of
supply, from pensions, payments, from certain types of wages, of course. It has partly cut off the use of banks and so on and so
on. So there is actually a siege practice that Kiev is applying to these territories, arguing that if they are under rebel control,
the central government has no further business actually maintaining them. Now, this may to an extent be understandable, but what
it is of course doing--and we hear this more and more--it is severely alienating the local population in the East. So Kiev is applying
policies, I think, that are now polarizing people who were actually at the beginning of this conflict probably quite neutral. And
they are getting reports that being shelled by Kiev, being put into very severe humanitarian distress by the Kiev government, plus,
of course, the influence of Russian TV, which is being watched there, is leading to the fact that the population is actually getting
even more antagonistic towards the central government. So that's quite a counterproductive outcome. The other thing talking about
the displaced persons, they will get very different reports, you have to see that displacement operates in different directions and
different distances. Some people are displaced, but they don't go very far. They just go to the place that is close but no longer,
for instance, under rebel control, but under central government control. Some people go quite far, for instance, to Western Ukraine.
They entirely leave the East or to Central Ukraine. And, of course, there are those who get displaced into Russia, too. And we know
that the efforts to address the needs of these displaced people--they of course lose their livelihood, they lose their jobs. They
are often traumatized psychologically. But we also know that these efforts are--they are certainly not insignificant, but as you
might imagine under the circumstances, they're also very incomplete and imperfect, and there are even tensions, unfortunately, among
displaced or refugees who end up in different parts of Ukraine and the local populations there. So the whole issue of the displaced
populations, the displaced persons, is another major stress on the Ukrainian government.
PERIES: And also on the Russian side,
some of these displaced people have actually fled to camps in Russia as well?
AMAR: We know that some people have fled to Russia, but the issue is not playing a large role. You have to consider that in Russia
the media are very much controlled by the state, and in a very heavy-handed way. So you would not see that the Russian government
would be put under public scrutiny or pressure because of the fate of displaced persons. That's not happening.
PERIES: Right. Tarik, I want to thank you so much for joining us and describing to us what's happening in Ukraine. And I hope to
come back to you very soon for another update.
AMAR: Thank you very much.
PERIES: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
I think Gary (see comments below) forget about one interesting side effect "reaction of Ukrainian to the attempt to depose Kiev
junta by military force". Now after Odessa Massacre of
May 2, 2014, crimes committed by Right Sector, and territorial battalions of neo-Nazis (such as Azov) indiscriminate shelling of
Donbass by Ukrainian army, killing woman and children this reaction on South East will be completely different. People saw the real
danger with their own eyes. Russia now have at least 2.5 million people who are ready to die fighting with her. And neutrality of approval
of majority of the rest of South East. That's a big, big difference with the situation in February 2014, when Russia occupying Ukraine
would look ore like aggressor then liberator.
Also the fact that the US weapons and foreign fighters were captured in Debaltsevo put the USA in vulnerable position now, as blood
of woman and children of Donbass cry for revenge.
Quote: In the Russian view, US overt recognition and support for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, its support of an unconstitutional coup in
Kiev, and its defense of it later, is not only an insult but also a betrayal. It was seen not only as an act of breaking all norms and
laws and in posing a direct danger for Russia and ethnic Russians in Ukraine, but also as a betrayal of the worse kind in which the
other side has shown clearly that it holds nothing sacred.
When I first heard of Poroshenko's latest idea about sending peacekeepers to the Ukraine, I had figured that he was talking about
UN peacekeepers, the only ones with any possible legality for such an operation. Turns out I had "misunderestimated" Poroshenko.
His idea is even crazier: he wants *EU* "peacekeepers"! This is what the official website of the President of the Ukraine says:
Ukraine considers the EU mission in the framework of the Common Security and Defense Policy the best option of peacekeeping
operation in Donbas, as stated by President Petro Poroshenko at the meeting with Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy
and Enlargement Negotiations Johannes Hahn in Kyiv.
The Head of State has outlined clear position: "Russia, as country-aggressor, cannot and will not take part in the peacekeeping
operation". "Ukraine will not agree to a peacekeeping format, which threatens to legalize thousands of Russian militaries – we
already have enough such "peacekeepers"," Petro Poroshenko noted.
The President has informed on the decision of the National Security and Defense Council to appeal to the UN Security Council
with a request for an international peacekeeping mission to ensure the preservation of peace in Donbas and control the Ukrainian-Russian
border in Donetsk and Luhansk regions. "The format of the European Union Police Mission is preferable," the President added.
Am I the only one who is detecting a distinctly American "handwriting" behind this latest idea? Look again: the idea is this -
first go to the UN and when the Russians and Chinese veto it, then turn to the EU and use EU states to make a "coalition of the willing".
Why? Let me spell out the rationale here:
The prime goal of the USA was to get Russia to militarily intervene in the Donbass to trigger a continental war. Now that this
has clearly failed, they want the Europeans to enter the Donbass with exactly the same goal. Once the EU peacekeepers are deployed,
all it would take is a bloody false flag (an artillery strike, or a bomb) killing enough EU peacekeepers to raise the immediate need
to protect them. Except that the EU does not have any "EU armed forces" so can you guess who would be sent it? Exactly - NATO.
Will the Europeans fall for that? I doubt it. Even the Eurocretins seemed to have lost their taste for crazy US Neocon schemes.
Besides, Russia is not Serbia and there is no way the EU will bypass the UNSC for a military operation, not without triggering
a huge political crisis inside Europe. To me this latest plans smacks of something McCain and Saakashvili could have cooked up and
not something coming out of this White House. God knows I have no sympathy for the Obama Administration or for the Eurocretins in
Brussels, but this latest stunt is dumb even by their standards.
Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen! SA marschiert mit ruhig festem Schritt. (The flag on high! The ranks tightly closed!
The SA march with quiet, steady step. Horst Wessel Lied - Nazi anthem)
Looks like the Nazi death squads are on the march again, this time they are looking at Kiev. Thirteen death-squad (aka "volunteer
battalion") leaders have now declared that they are forming their own military command under the command of the notorious Semen Semenchenko.
Officially, they are not in any way opposed to the current regime, so said Semenchenko, but in reality their rank and file members
are pretty clear about what they want to do: organize a third Maidan and toss out Poroshenko. What makes these 21st century version
of the SA so dangerous for Poroshenko it that he, unlike Hitler, does not have a 21st century version of the SS to eliminate them
all overnight.
In fact, according to many reports the entire southern part of the rump-Ukraine is now "Kolomoiski-land" fully under the control
of the oligarch who finances these death-squads. Add to this the fact that most of the Rada is composed of the very same battalion
commanders and assorted Nazi freaks, and you will why Poroshenko is now very much in danger.
The next leaders of Banderastan?
Poroshenko can try to present the Debaltsevo disaster as a huge victory, but apparently everybody in the Ukraine knows the truth
and that, in turn, designates Poroshenko as the ideal scape-goat and culprit for what happened. The sad reality is that there is
simply nobody in the Ukraine capable of disarming these so-called "volunteer battalions". There are now thousands of uniformed Nazi
freaks roaming around with guns who can now impose their law of the jungle on everybody. It sure looks like the future of Banderastan
will be something like a mix of Somalia and Mad Max - a failed state, a comprehensively destroyed economy, a collapsed social order
and the law of armed gangs of thugs.
In a couple of days it will be one year since the US-backed Nazis took power in Kiev and when I think of what they have "achieved"
in such a short period of time I wonder if the idiots who were jumping on the Maidan and screaming "he who does not jump is a Moskal"
and "glory to the Ukraine! to the heroes glory!" had any idea that their actions would completely destroy the country which they
wanted to bring into the EU.
pug
Interesting and extensive interview with Ukrainian Azov Battalion POW, with English subtitles.
NAF is treating its prisoners humanely. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BOv_KSWRRc
Kat Kan
"[none]...had any idea that their actions would completely destroy the country which they wanted to bring into the EU..,".
And now never will.
Yanukovich should have laid it out in detail what the real costs would be.
Any decent government should be straight with its people about what they're doing. Every minister should be able to do a one
hour Q&Am dont expect them to go 4 hours like Putin. In "democracy" they talk, debate, avoid or answer questions, to sell themselves
as the best candidate. Then their press secretaries do everything to keep them from giving a straight answer. What they should
do is give account of themselves afterwards, twice a year.
There may be a small number of potentially acceptable people in the Rada. Everyone else would have to be from the people who
know things, not those who just want stuff.
Russia, old or new, would have to have a hand in a change, it won't happen just by itself.
andrei put:
EU peacekeepers are not a new idea.
EU have been present in ukraine since 2005 as the EUBAM european bored Assistance Mission and have bee in Palestine as
"EUPOL COPPS - POLICE AND RULE OF LAW MISSION FOR THE PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES"
This is a document you can get from European union External Action site and is part of Common Security and Defence Policy
nothing new here.
Penelope:
What a Machiavelian mind you have, Saker! Sucker the EU in for peacekeeping in order to attack them w a falseflag. You're probably
right.
What's more, Porky wants the EU to monitor the Rus-Donbas border to prevent supplies reaching Donbas, while US supplies to
Kiev wd be completely unmonitored since they don't occur at the ceasefire line.
The Kiev kleptocrats recently sold off the last of the grain reserves. Agricultural inputs for Spring planting are not available
yet-- fuel, lubricants. I suppose Monsanto will be supplying GMO seed & will be allowed to buy up the land of all the bankrupt
farmers.
Usual Ukrainian crops are wheat, barley, vegetables, sugar beets, sunflower seeds. Monsanto makes GMO seed for sugar beets
and for wheat and a few vegetables.
One hates to see the chaos of fullscale rebellion, especially because CIA, Mossad, etc might use it to destroy the infrastructure.
But the only other possibility for escape from Ukraine's dismal future wd be a benevolent countercoup.
Anonymous
Let's hope they get at each others throats BEFORE they send in the UN or EU peacekeepers. And I do believe that the US is stupid
enough to play this game after all they pulled the coup didn't they. American's act with impunity because the their is no price
for failure born by those who promote the failed polices in fact many of them get promotions just to cover up the failure. Something
like Pornoshenko is trying to do now only thing is he is not John MCCain sitting in the US Senate he is in Kiev....and puppets
don't matter to anyone.
RR
Penelope
Martijn, interesting about Eurocorps. I understood that the Maastricht Treaty that created EU provided for an independent military
force, but tha the US had such a prolonged hissy-fit that EU gave up & put it under NATO command.
It is not obvious from the Wikipedia entry that Eurocorp is under NATO command but it does say "From 1 July 2006, to 10 January
2007, the headquarters of the corps was the land component stand by element of the NATO Response Force 7." It then has its "headquarters"
at other NATO Response Forces. So I doubt that it is independent of NATO.
Saker said, "The prime goal of the USA was to get Russia to militarily intervene in the Donbass to trigger a continental war."
This assertion keeps being made with no logical argument to back it up. Saker is always challenging us to back up our assertions.
I return the favor.
This assumes NATO would enter Ukraine to fight against Russian troops, therefore fulfilling US plans to engage Europeans against
Russia in Europe. Right? Who else would be engaged in a continental war against Russia?
Let me grant the Saker, Starikov, Putin the benefit of the doubt. They have far more inside info, experience, and insight than
any of us mere mortals. Seriously, I mean it.
Russia succeeded in its mission to help defend Donbass without sending its own military. Mission accomplished, for now. I'll
grant them that.
Novorossia can have national pride that it defended itself without big brother stepping in. That is probably worth a lot.
So this is a moot point for now, until next time NATO/Kiev attack Novorossia. So the question must be asked. What should they
do next time?
Consider the cost of all the dead civilians. Was it necessary to allow this?
Strelkov says no. I agree with him.
Here is why.
Every bit of Western media and every public figure in every Western country says Russia invaded. So what difference would it
have made if Russia actually did? None.
If Russia invaded why is there even debate about sending weapons, and/or NATO troops to Ukraine? According to argument above,
Russian invasion would immediately trigger "continental war". It didn't, therefore proving the above statement is wrong. The
public believes Russia invaded. Every single person I have talked to says they did. So as far as the west is concerned Russia
did invade.
The statement above is premised that NATO or someone would have invaded Ukraine to defend against Russian "aggression", therefore
triggering a continental war. There is NO WAY US/NATO would engage with Russia. The US is a bully, and bullies only attack the
weak. Russia is not weak.
Would Europe go along with an invasion of Ukraine even if US wanted to? I doubt it. Ukraine is far more important to Russia
than to Europe, and you can see Europe backtracking now that the blitzkrieg wasn't a cakewalk.
Estimates were that Russia could have rolled back the Kiev attack on Donbass in anywhere from 48hrs to one week. What would US/NATO
do in that time? I doubt they could make a decision that fast.
In the psychological warfare game, I think the US scored one point, maybe losing others. Using its standard reverse projection
(McMurtry-blame others for what you are doing), the US put Russia on the defensive and influenced it NOT to invade, so as not
to be thought an "aggressor". So they fell for this psy-op to prevent them from invading as a defensive anti-genocide force.
Starikov claims that the advocates of Russian invasion in Russia were pointed to by US as evidence of "Russian Aggression". This
assertion is totally wrong. US doesn't need any evidence. STarikov needs to read McMurtry.
Russia could have gone to the security council and called for UN troops to protect Donbass from ethnic cleansing. This would have
been vetoed by US. Russia could then claim R2P and sent troops to protect civilians in Donbass, and clear out the NAZIs.
I will concede to opponents of this position that Russia succeeded without invading Ukraine. But was it necessary to allow ethnic
cleansing to take place? I don't think so.
If anyone can refute what I'm saying, please do. I could be wrong.
Luca K said...
Banderastan?
More like Neoconistan, no?
This whole thing in the Ukraine has the the neocons's fingerprints all over it.
Does Mr.Saker know that Neoconservatism is a Jewish political and intectual movement?
Main themes; Israel and whats good for the jews..
The "nazis" in the Ukraine are paid by a Jewish/israeli oligarch... right. And the nationalists want to actually join the
most anti-nationalist organization in the world, the freakish EU.
American Kulak said...
@ Alien Tech 20 February, 2015 04:31
On the whole NATO troops thing and the NAF saying they overheard English, Polish and Flemish (? Belgian language) on the UAF
radio sets: I think after 'outta my face' guy got caught on camera in Mariupol OPSEC was tightened up. I also do not believe the
Poles are present in the numbers they were used in the late spring and summer phases of the 'ATO' when we know they were deployed
around Slavyansk and some may have died on board the IL-76 full of elite paratroopers that was to land in Donetsk but got shot
down due to the UAF's poor intel about NAF MANPAD capabilities.
Jim Willie told the Ontario resident Paul Sandhu on his Wake Up and Live radio show this week that the NATO mercs were evacuated
as part of the quid pro quo between Merkel, Hollande and Putin. Although VVP is a good poker player the unconcealed glee on Putin's
face to me suggests a man who had Poroshenko and his sponsors by the gonads and knew it. Foreign mercs after all the howling about
'#RussiaInvadedUkraine' getting exposed in a big way would not be a game changer but it would make US/UK media take the bleating
about #RussiaInvadedUkraine slightly less seriously.
I am still waiting for the Polish version of Glenn Greenwald to publish about the 'vacationers' especially from the country's
elite GROM special forces sniper unit and among Poland's Su-25 pilots who didn't come back. But that's far off. I doubt the Lithuanians
would've provided enough numbers to make much of a difference except for the very early, limited number battles around Slavyansk
and Kramatorsk where Strelkov's group was outnumbered 20 to 1. It is far safer for the foreigners to have units with which they
can blend in but we also know from UAF defectors/deserters to the NAF that the American mercs were kept segregated from the Ukrainians
at their base and did as little speaking as possible, probably to train the men against a sudden native English speaker outburst
like 'outta my face' guy who 90% was from the northeastern U.S. Regrettably some even on the pro-NAF side on Twitter seem confused
or to conflate outta my face guy with the Brit Azov Battalion Nazi volunteer Chris "Swampy" Garrett but Swampy has a beard in
the footage where he's looking for munitions in Mariupol whereas outta my face guy was clean shaven. That's an American merc and
I would place his place of being raised as between Philadelphia and Buffalo, NY.
Alien Tech said...
Gary said...
"The prime goal of the USA was to get Russia to militarily intervene in the Donbass to trigger a continental war."
Well that is the first goal. Get Russia to accept the tar baby after which Europe will split. Russia being the biggest European
market means a lot more American goods. No more Russian gas means a lot bigger market for US gas. US would also be able to point
out what Russia did to other countries and get them to turn against Russia.
Until now there is no evidence that Russia invaded. They all come down to Russia invaded Crimea.. Which is why people believe
Russia invaded Ukraine. Earlier it was mentioned that thousands of Russians were in the NAF forces, I am thinking the actual number
of people who took time off from the RF forces are very few. Remember, anyone with soviet passport can get a Russian passport,
does not mean they are Russian, Only in technicality they are Russian so we can say everyone fighting in Ukraine are Russian,
either they hold a Russian passport or speak Russian or have relatives in Russia. But it wont hold up in court that they acted
on behalf of the Russian government which is a huge stumbling block, Propaganda does not affect court proceedings. Just like the
mayor of London cant be considered an American even though he was born in the US and hold a US passport.
Many of the things you mentioned works because like 911 where the US forced everyone to accept their version of things, without
showing any proof. They mostly force the justice department to reject anyone questioning the governments version but that only
works in the US for now. The EU is neck deep in this fiasco considering it was merkels plan for a greater German empire. The world
has their own legal system, but they need proof.. US has no proof so only thing they can do is use force against those with them
to go along. The world is not just the US/EU.. I am sure even the Chinese would be careful since they also have a restless population
that ants their own country, siding with another country that foments such things would make them nervous. India another such
country, When Russians tell Indian leaders they are not doing it, its taken as money in the gold vault. There has to be honesty
and trust.. If Russia is doing a Pakistan, no one will trust them.
Also remember, in time the truth will come out. We know not to take anything the US says at face value. Now we dont even take
what the EU says at face value, in fact we believe they are lying about everything and without proof nothing they say matter.
More and more people will now not take it for granted when Europeans come bearing gifts.. Most will wonder what poison is
in the cookies..
In less than 10 years, an entire race of people have turned in lying deceitful cretins and the people living there let it happen
without a fight. Even their allies are very nervous because they don't know where they stand. Nice reassuring words are meaningless.
When Iran says, invading Syria is an act that would be the same as invading Iran. Anyone doubt that? I highly doubt the convictions
of EU/nato....
Alien Tech said...
Gary said... and here is a far better answer... The underlying tactics of each side.. And why one side does something and the
other does things differently. Even if both wants the same outcome.
While US support for the coup in Kiev could be analyzed from the perspective of traditional imperialism with the US seeking
to impose its will and ensure that its will overrides others, even that of regional powers, the way it has managed to convince
many in the West of the righteousness of its cause and in its support of the Kiev post-coup government, was due to an appeal to
the Western sense of justice and law with Russia being presented as an aggressor and violator. Furthermore, Russia was presented
as practicing the "laws of the jungle" as Angela Merkel put it, and therefore as a barbarian.
If one wishes to understand the crisis and its nature, it is necessary to analyze the respective mentalities of each side.
The rule of law is held sacred as it is the mechanism by which the market operates, even when the law serves to strengthen
the control of corporations over the lives of ordinary people. Within this framework, the creation of an independent, rational
actor, who must live for his or her own sake and seek to express his worth via his external accomplishments, is the hallmark of
the Western civilization. and yet does not have the support of a larger community to a degree more common in the Middle East,
Latin America, Africa and Asia.
The individual in the West is judged solely on his accomplishments and not on his internal value as a human being. For this
reason, he is constantly insecure and seeks to prove himself. The easiest way one can feel secure about himself, therefore, is
by seeing how he is better than others, and ways in which he is superior. Therefore, by pointing at how he is better than others,
more moral than them, more professional and so on, he feels better about himself and is secure.
Western history, especially of the UK, US, Germany, it is replete with aggressive expansion, imperialism, bloodshed, colonialism,
exploitation and slavery. wars conducted by the US and UK have continued and intensified in recent decades. The Western mentality,
still holds that the West is better than all other 'oppressive' countries, despite the fact that the latter did not engage in
bombing campaigns of 'backward' countries.
Therefore, it is all too convenient for it to point a finger at Russia for violating international law By blaming Russia, the
West feels better about itself.
Although strong ties in the community have weakened in Russia in the past two decades, the individual is still not viewed wholly
as an atom who lives for his own fulfillment, but as one who belongs to a community and a nation, and must live for a moral purpose.
Russians tend to be very critical of themselves in how well they live up to certain standards and are not too comfortable with
themselves in the way Westerners tend to be.
In Russia, despite the image of immense corruption that is common in how Westerners view it, friendship usually comes before
career. People will go out of their way to help a friend in most cases, even at their expense of their professional development,
in the Russian mentality, basic decency is to be generally respected and people are not to be humiliated or mocked without mercy
unless in exceptional cases as a response to an aggressive action.
What is true for the individual is also true for the society at large.
Alien Tech said...
Gary said... and here is a far better answer... The underlying tactics of each side.. And why one side does something and the
other does things differently. Even if both wants the same outcome.
While US support for the coup in Kiev could be analyzed from the perspective of traditional imperialism with the US seeking
to impose its will and ensure that its will overrides others, even that of regional powers, the way it has managed to convince
many in the West of the righteousness of its cause and in its support of the Kiev post-coup government, was due to an appeal to
the Western sense of justice and law with Russia being presented as an aggressor and violator. Furthermore, Russia was presented
as practicing the "laws of the jungle" as Angela Merkel put it, and therefore as a barbarian.
If one wishes to understand the crisis and its nature, it is necessary to analyze the respective mentalities of each side.
The rule of law is held sacred as it is the mechanism by which the market operates, even when the law serves to strengthen
the control of corporations over the lives of ordinary people. Within this framework, the creation of an independent, rational
actor, who must live for his or her own sake and seek to express his worth via his external accomplishments, is the hallmark of
the Western civilization. and yet does not have the support of a larger community to a degree more common in the Middle East,
Latin America, Africa and Asia.
The individual in the West is judged solely on his accomplishments and not on his internal value as a human being. For this
reason, he is constantly insecure and seeks to prove himself. The easiest way one can feel secure about himself, therefore, is
by seeing how he is better than others, and ways in which he is superior. Therefore, by pointing at how he is better than others,
more moral than them, more professional and so on, he feels better about himself and is secure.
Wstern history, especially of the UK, US, Germany, it is replete with aggressive expansion, imperialism, bloodshed, colonialism,
exploitation and slavery. wars conducted by the US and UK have continued and intensified in recent decades. The Western mentality,
still holds that the West is better than all other 'oppressive' countries, despite the fact that the latter did not engage in
bombing campaigns of 'backward' countries.
Therefore, it is all too convenient for it to point a finger at Russia for violating international law By blaming Russia, the
West feels better about itself.
Although strong ties in the community have weakened in Russia in the past two decades, the individual is still not viewed
wholly as an atom who lives for his own fulfillment, but as one who belongs to a community and a nation, and must live for a moral
purpose.
Russians tend to be very critical of themselves in how well they live up to certain standards and are not too comfortable with
themselves in the way Westerners tend to be.
In Russia, despite the image of immense corruption that is common in how Westerners view it, friendship usually comes before
career. People will go out of their way to help a friend in most cases, even at their expense of their professional development,
in the Russian mentality, basic decency is to be generally respected and people are not to be humiliated or mocked without mercy
unless in exceptional cases as a response to an aggressive action.
What is true for the individual is also true for the society at large.
In the Russian view, US overt recognition and support for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, its support of an unconstitutional coup
in Kiev, and its defense of it later, is not only an insult but also a betrayal. It was seen not only as an act of breaking all
norms and laws and in posing a direct danger for Russia and ethnic Russians in Ukraine, but also as a betrayal of the worse kind
in which the other side has shown clearly that it holds nothing sacred.
Perhaps Russia feared another Afghanistan quagmire, where US/NATO could launch a guerrilla war against them and keep attacking
them and costing them. That would be a logical fear to keep out.
But if they moved in-moved out, turned over border defense to Donbass, that wouldn't happen.
McMurtry calls Ukraine, "the biggest ethnic cleansing operation of the millennium."
And that doesn't justify military intervention? If not what does? I keep going back to the talk I heard from Romeo Dallaire,
head of UN in Rwanda.
Put the shoe on the other foot. If Americans or US business interests in, I don't know, say Panama, Grenada, or Cuba were threatened,
would the US hesitate to invade to protect them? Oh yeah I forgot, they DID invade those countries.
eimar clark
Very well said. I wonder if the obsession with 'proving oneself' as a superior individual (the ubermensch who must make untermensch
of others, since this valuation must be relative) has it's roots in aristocratic primogeniture?
Once the heir was produced, the 'spare' - or more - had no entitlement. Many of then went abroad to colonize other lands as
a result. That insecurity led to am obsession with control - and the political pathologies of, lets say, the apartheid state of
South Africa. The absence of roots or sense of belonging and the lack me connection to family may very well have generated a 'race'
of the 'rootless' - and so became ruthless.
The loss of Debaltsevo is an enormous and well-deserved embarrassment for Kiev. But my feeling is that it's not quite the disaster
the rebels are claiming. Here's my analysis, which I admit is just a layman's read of the situation. I'm guesstimating 30% KIA/WIA/captured,
with most of the discrepancy being due to desertion, and a loss of 50-70% of their mechanized equipment and heavy weaponry.
Meanwhile, it's the rebels and their families whose homes have been destroyed and who are surviving on crumbs. It doesn't look
like a great victory to me. Though it might be enough to force Kiev to grant limited autonomy to the Donbas, as prescribed in
Minsk 2.
Anyway, I am outsourcing further analysis to Moon. This is a very difficult story to follow, especially for this non-Russian
speaker.
Edifying video in which one first sees Ukrainian soldiers
alive, and then one sees them dead. Ukrainian soldiers make football hooligans come across as opera goers.
Here's a Polish map of what Europe
will look like. According to this conception, a rump Banderastan centered around Kiev will remain. But it remains to be seen whether
any trace of Banderastan will remain. By allowing themselves to be tricked by Obama and Victoria Nuland, thus showing their true
fascist nature, Ukrainians lost their right to having any kind of country, no matter how tiny.
If I were Russia, and WW3 does indeed come (which it seems it will), I'd target Germany first.
Yes, but you're not Russia. The Russians are inveterate Germanophiles. Even though I have said that Merkel's conduct in
this crisis has been more disgusting than Obama's, I still can't hold anything against Germany.
Germany and Russia have deep cultural affinities, whereas the Anglosphere is alien to both of them. This has been obscured
by Germany's nature being temporarily effaced by its current American occupation.
S-true | Feb 20, 2015 6:35:11 PM | 18
Here's a Polish map of what Europe will look like. According to this conception, a rump Banderastan centered around Kiev
will remain. But it remains to be seen whether any trace of Banderastan will remain. By allowing themselves to be tricked
by Obama and Victoria Nuland, thus showing their true fascist nature, Ukrainians lost their right to having any kind of
country, no matter how tiny.
Screw that!
Kiev is "the mother of all Russian cities", and ending up in "Banderistan" ain't feasible. Many mighty empires throughout history
have fallen, and the Bandera/ISIS/Israel backers are no different...they'll fall too.
Besides, anything that's coming from Poland or has an "Euro" prefix isn't something that should be taken seriously. It's Monty
Python stuff.
This whole Ukraine/Syria/Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan/Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia mess was a true eye-opener for me!
Demian | Feb 20, 2015 7:11:41 PM | 23
@Lochearn #16:
I see some young guys laughing and joking
Yes, that is a large part of the problem. Ukrainians see exterminating Russians as fun and a laughing matter. There are countless
posts on social media in which Ukrainians laugh and express glee about Ukrainians massacring innocent Russian civilians. That
began with the Odessa Union Building massacre, in which Ukrainians joked on social media about the Colorados getting barbecued.
This is what makes Ukrainians more ineffably evil than the original Nazis.
@chuckvw #20:
Look like the guys I served with many moons ago, trying to laugh off an effed up situation. Pawns in a game over which they
have no control.
This is not like US grunts killing Vietnamese. It is like boys from New Jersey thinking that killing Bostonians is a fun joke.
Would you have any sympathy with such people? Their being branewashed by their educational system and mass media does not exculpate
them. If they had any grain of basic human decency, they would not think that killing their own people is a joke.
After months of denying having a hand in the Ukrainian coupe, US President Barack Obama admitted playing power broker for the
"transition." This probably falls short of America's actual involvement.
READ MORE: Obama openly admits 'brokering power transition' in Ukraine
Washington was investing heavily in Ukraine long before the Maidan protests started in Kiev in 2013. According to Victoria Nuland,
the State Department's top diplomat for Europe, since 1991 America has poured $5 billion of taxpayers' money into what she called
assisting Ukrainians in building "democratic skills and institutions."
Some of the money went into sponsoring various NGOs, political parties and media outlets. For instance, Hromadske.tv, an internet-based
television channel created in summer 2013, received a grant of some $50,000 from the US embassy. The channel provided full-time
coverage of the Maidan protests and gave a platform to various opposition figures.
Such funding is a well-known tool of the American government. Washington describes it as promoting a positive change and denies
accusations that it gives money to get leverage to pursue its own goals in targeted countries. But in Ukraine US officials played
a far more prominent role than simply funding local players.
Some like film director Oliver Stone even call it a US-staged coup, while former US Congressman Ron Paul called for the US to
stop meddling in Ukraine.
Nuland's cookies
A parade of Western officials descended on Kiev to support the protesters and discourage President Viktor Yanukovich from taking
tougher measures against them. One vocal star of the US political stage, Senator John McCain, enjoyed an evening with opposition
leaders and tweeted photos of the crowds in the square. He went on to address the protesters the next day.
Nuland herself is probably most remembered now for handing out cookies to riot police officers and demonstrators, while on a November
2013 Maidan tour accompanied by Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt.
Read more: 'F**k the EU': Snr US State Dept. official caught in alleged phone chat on Ukraine
Behind the scene, the duo were engaged in power brokering. In January, it was Pyatt who made radical protesters withdraw from
the Ministry of Justice building, which they had previously seized by force. Ukraine's Interior Ministry, then still loyal to Yanukovich,
officially thanked the ambassador.
Later in February, a leaked phone conversation, notable for Nuland's unprintable expletive at her frustration with the EU, revealed
the pair discussing who should lead the new Ukrainian government (Arseny Yatsenyuk, incidentally, the current PM) and who should
not be in it (Vitaly Klitchko, currently mayor of Kiev).
Rule by foreigners?
The US government's support for the post-coup government in Kiev never dwindled even as it went on to encroach on media freedom
and the free speech and launched a military crackdown on its dissenting eastern regions. At times, critics say, it was difficult
to distinguish the new Ukraine from an entity directly ruled from Washington.
One ironic episode occurred in December, when the Ukrainian Security Service building flew a US flag alongside a Ukrainian one
over its entrance. Photos of the flags were quickly dismissed as a propaganda fake by Ukrainian bloggers, but the SBU later confirmed
that it ran up the stars and stripes to honor visiting US Under Secretary Rose Gottemoeller, who is in charge of arms deals with
the State Department.
The debate over the flag was partially fuelled by rumors in Ukraine that the SBU allocated an entire level in its HQ to US consultants,
including active CIA agents.
The rumors may be insulting to Kiev's sovereignty, but there could be some substance behind it. Ukraine didn't hesitate to appoint
several foreigners as ministers, hastily giving them Ukrainian citizenship necessary for the jobs. Among them is Finance Minister
Natalie Jaresko, a former section chief at the US embassy and chair of an investment fund, which distributed US Congress money provided
thorough the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Biden's chairmanship
A similar episode transpired in April, when US Vice-President Joe Biden arrived in Kiev on a state visit. The top American official
came just after then-acting President Aleksandr Turchinov had declared the military campaign against the rebel forces in Donetsk
and Lugansk regions was active. This later escalated into a full-fledged civil war.
A humorous moment came in Biden's trip when he chaired a session with Ukrainian officials, taking the seat normally reserved for
the president of Ukraine. Ironically, Dozhd TV, a leading Russian opposition TV channel, erroneously called Biden the acting president
of Ukraine and misquoted him as demanding that Russia "stopped meddling into US internal affairs."
Read more: White House: No ethical issues with Veep's son joining Ukraine gas giant
For Biden, Ukraine's economic future is a matter of concern not only due to his office but also due to his family's ties with
the Ukrainian energy sector. In May, Ukraine's largest private gas company, Burisma Holdings, announced the appointment of VP Biden's
son, Hunter, to its board of directors. The White House insisted the appointment posed no conflict of interest for America's second-ranking
public official.
These and other examples of US "power brokering" raise some doubt about Washington's claimed distance from the regime change in
Ukraine. After all, the US has a long record of meddling in other countries' affairs, ousting governments Washington didn't like
and imposing those it did. Why would Ukraine be any different, skeptics ask?
That should have been above: "was reported last week to have increased ninefold in 2014″.
Clearly the Ukropy are so overjoyed
with their success in their struggle for "freedom and democracy" and for their right to chose their own destiny without any interference
whatsoever from the evil Moskali, which success has resulted in their being allowed to become an "associate member of the EU"
and therefore, they believe, eventually full members of that wondrous organization, that they have been on a chocolate eating
binge since last spring, the collapse of the Ukrainian economy, the soaring of inflation, the slump in the value of their real
earnings, the military reversals in the East and the loss of the Crimea notwithstanding.
I should not be surprised to learn that a lot of it is also being purchased, as a sign of patriotism, by the Ukrainian diaspora
in Canada and the USA.
Nearly every time we visit our Ukrainian friends, Roshen chocolates are handed 'round. They're quite good, too.
Probably a lot of it is brought in – in that particular instance – by their parents, who alternate six-month visits; now her
parents, then his parents.
cartman, February 18, 2015 at 11:18 pm
You should remind them that it was founded by Russians, who were dispossessed by the Bolsheviks. It was later bought by Porko
with money he made by selling teenage prostitutes.
"If Kiev violates the agreement, Russia may refuse to recognize Ukraine's territorial integrity"-Vyacheslav Nikonov
If
Kiev violates Minsk-2, Russia will consider itself freed from the obligation to recognize Ukraine's territorial integrity. During
a plenary meeting of the State Duma on February 17, the United Russia Party deputy Vyacheslav Nikonov noted that the Minsk-2 agreement
is a chance for peace in Ukraine, and a chance for Ukraine to exist as a state.
"If they don't want to take advantage of it, it will be only their fault. If the agreement is violated, Russia can also consider
itself free from its provisions, which include the recognition of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, so I would
not advise Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, Turchinov, and company to take this matter lightly."
In the course of life today, we've grown accustomed to using terms whose meaning we might not fully understand. We throw them
around casually, not realizing that they lose their meaning and sometimes even come around to stand for their exact opposite.
This is precisely why the sense has arisen today in society that there is a need to determine in a clear and understandable manner
exactly what is happening on the global chessboard in front of all of our eyes – the Big Story, written online.
I like how Starikov refers to the ISIS terrorists as US assets. I assume the Russian leadership has long known that "al qaida"
never stopped being a ZPC/NWO owned and run tool. One sees more and more exposure of this in Russian media and by Russian government
associated people.
While I agree with much of what Starikov has written, I noticed several inconsistencies in the piece. the main one being this.
Starikov describes the western economic system's parasitism and its constant need for victims. He portrays the "Great Game"
as being driven by this extra-national alliance of a predatory, monopolistic capitalist quest to control the world, essentially.
But then proceeds to reduce this to country vs country, forgetting what he just wrote about the extra-national aspect of the forces
aligned against Russia.
The western oligarchy aligned against Russia (Eurasia, really) are not national, but extra-national. They use nations the same
way they use their subsidiaries. This is why I use terms like ZPC/NWO (zionist power configuration/new world order). They operate
out of European countries and the USA without regard to national interests for the most part. This is why leaders of these countries
(essentially ZPC/NWO hirelings) most often act against the real interests of their own countries.
There is one exception, that of Israel. The ZPC part of the oligarchy. While these oligarchs feel no loyalty to the countries
they live in (those outside Israel), like the majority of the NWO oligarchs, they are loyal to the zionist ideology and Israel
does garner their loyalty. This is what made them so powerful inside the oligarch structure of the west. Their solidarity with
each other and their ideals is stronger than that of the rest due to that extra level of fanaticism.
That brings me to the second aspect of Starikov's analysis that I think is off. He doesn't mention the ZPC side of the oligarchy
at all, but reduces the aggressor to just the USA. But if one looks at the people who betray Russia for the west (5th element),
they are mostly equally or more connected to Israel as they are the USA. When they are busted, they as often flee to Israel as
to the USA or Europe. The ZPC oligarchy is as strong in Europe and the Anglo ex-colonies as it is in the USA. That is they have
complete veto power in the policy decision making process.
The same is true in the Ukraine, where the leadership is practically a who's who of the local assets of the Jewish mafia.
This was also true of the Georgian regime of tie eater, which had as strong direct ties to Israel, as it had to the USA.
Is Poroshenko allowed to ask for EU peacekeepers or an EU-led peacekeeping mission from the UN? The EU is hardly an impartial
third party. The rebels would have to accept a UN peacekeeping mission as well. Plus Poroshenko can't expect to use UN peacekeepers
as a replacement army which I think is why he wants a UN peacekeeping mission led by the EU (hint: Poland, Lithuania).
"… UN
Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles:
1/ Consent of the parties;
2/ Impartiality;
3/ Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate …"
Conflict in Ukraine Increasing US Resolve to Arm Kiev- Former US Ambassador
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The fighting that continues to take place in Ukraine's eastern provinces is increasing US Congress'
resolve to provide lethal defensive military aid to Ukraine, former US ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst told Sputnik on Thursday.
"There's no question that the ongoing offensive in the east [of Ukraine] by the Russians is increasing support in Congress
to make this happen and happen quickly," Herbst said.
Herbst coauthored a report in early February calling for the US to authorize $3 billion for training, equipment, and lethal
defensive military aid to Ukraine over the course of three years.
The funding request was introduced as legislation by the US House of Representatives on February 10.
"We've briefed many people about our report, including on Capitol Hill," Herbst said.
Asked whether members of Congress were concerned about the consequences of US arms provisions, Herbst said the arguments against
arming Ukraine are not that strong, and "the Congress, I would say, agrees with that."
The report, coauthored with former NATO commanders and US President Barack Obama administration officials, calls on the United
States to provide Ukraine with anti-armor missiles, counterbattery radars, unmanned aerial vehicles, armored personnel carriers,
and any necessary training. The report's authors also call on other NATO allies to provide Ukraine with military equipment.
If Greece gives in, Germany will have won, but its bully status will come
to bite it in the face. European nations don't accept bullying, and certainly not from Germany. It'll be a Pyrrhic victory: the
beginning of the end. If Greece however stands firm in its demands, it's also curtains for the EU. If Greece leaves, it won't
leave alone. Only the third option, Germany caving to Greek demands, can save the EU. But Merkel and Schäuble have prepped their
people to such an extent with the wasteful lazy Greeks narrative that they would have a hard time explaining why they want to
give in. The EU may thus fall victim to its own propaganda
It's Official: Global Economy Back In Contraction For First Time Since 2012 According To Goldman
After spending the past year deteriorating with each passing month, as global acceleration dipped decidedly in the negative
camp, the only thing that kept the Goldman Global Leading Indicator "swirlogram" somewhat buoyant was that "Growth" measured in
absolute terms had remained slightly positive. Not any more: according to Goldman's latest global economic read, the world is
now officially in contraction, following a sharp plunge in both acceleration and growth in February.
Stunning Images Of The "Siberian Express" FreezeNado
More than 100 million Americans are set to be impacted by the arctic blast known as the "Siberian Express" as record
(low) temperatures are being broken across the eastern third of the nation. NBC News reports, Chicago is experiencing its coldest
February since 1875 with roads in an "ice skating rink-like condition." From ice geysers to snow-golf and frozen falls, we
can only imagine the breath-taking impact this 'polar-vortex'-esque weather will have on US GDP…
Ukraine Fighting Shifts To Mariupol Whose Capture Would Grant Russian Land Corridor To Crimea
Yesterday, when we reported that the last Ukraine outpost in the rebel-controlled eastern territory, the town of Debaltseve,
has fallen into separatist hands, we concluded that "perhaps the only question is whether fighting continues around Mariupol which
would enable Russia to have a land corridor all the way to Crimea." Moments ago we got the answer when Reuters reported that "pro-Russian
separatists have launched mortar attacks on government-held positions near the coastal town of Mariupol in southeast Ukraine and
are building up their forces there, local military reached by telephone said on Thursday."
-
Btw, Gorlovka and Donetsk are being bombarded as we speak. Not a peep from the usual suspects. Like the last ceasefire, Ukraine
can do whatever it wants and the US and the EU will not blame it for violating the ceasefire. The US and the EU expect Russia
and the rebels to surrender to their power grab in Ukraine. Failure to surrender brings sanctions and threats to Russia.
It's easy to determine where this is heading. Just look where the blame is placed and who is spared from any culpability. Lack
of impartiality means there's no compromise from the other side.
Just read the statements coming from US officials. They never talk about what Ukraine does, only about what "Russian-backed"
separatists do.
Amid heavy fighting, Ukrainian soldiers were ordered to retreat from the strategic town of Debaltseve, where they had been surrounded
by Russian-backed rebels.
Publish Date February 18, 2015.
By midday on Wednesday, limping and exhausted soldiers were showing up on the Ukrainian side of the front lines in the conflict,
describing a harrowing ordeal that began with a surprise 1 a.m. order to retreat.
"Many trucks left, and only a few arrived," said one soldier, who offered only his rank (sergeant) and his given name (Volodomyr)
as he knelt on the sidewalk smoking. "A third of us made it, at most," the soldier said.
Others said that a majority, at least, of the soldiers who set off from the town in a column of about 100 trucks had managed to
escape the encirclement, many of them straggling out on foot after their vehicles were blown up.
The order to retreat was kept secret until the last minute, and soldiers were told to prepare in 10 minutes and pile into the
beds of troop transport trucks, according to Albert Sardaryen, a 22-year-old medic who made the journey.
The trucks lined up on the edge of town, Mr. Sardaryen said, while tanks and tracked vehicles formed lines on either side of the
truck convoy to try to shield the soldiers. The column drove through farm fields rather than use a main road that had been mined,
and the trucks kept their headlights off to make them harder to spot.
The column came under attack almost immediately, he said, and trucks started breaking down and colliding in the dark. By dawn,
the column was strung out on the plain and taking fire from all sides.
"They were shooting with tanks, rocket propelled grenades and sniper rifles," and firing at the disintegrating column with rockets,
he said. Dead and wounded soldiers were left on the snowy fields because there were too many of them to carry once the trucks were
hit.
"We stabilized them, applied tourniquets, gave them pain killers and tried to put them in a place with better cover," Mr. Sardaryen
said of the wounded. Later, a Ukrainian unit from outside the encirclement drove in to try to retrieve the wounded, he said.
Mr. Sardaryen said he ran on foot for the final four miles or so. Many of the soldiers who made it out also did so on foot, though
some trucks made it all the way through, he said.
Oleksandr I. Bogunov, an army private, said the order came to carry only what would be useful for the fight on the way out, and
leave all other ammunition and weaponry behind.
Porco Rosso
1 hour ago Average Ukrainians are now far more scared of the Kiev junta fascists that are now in power and who are nowadays literally
masters of life...
Mr. Poroshenko's order came after the separatists boasted of controlling the town on Tuesday, and after President Vladimir V.
Putin of Russia suggested at a news conference in Hungary that Ukraine should accept its defeat at Debaltseve by the separatist forces,
whom he described as "underdogs." Russia is widely believed to be actively supporting the separatists.
Andriy Lysenko, a spokesman for the Ukrainian national security and defense council, confirmed the retreat from Debaltseve on
at a briefing Wednesday afternoon in Kiev, the capital. He said the pullout was nearly completed.
Porco Rosso, Chicago 1 hour ago
Average Ukrainians are now far more scared of the Kiev junta fascists that are now in power and who are nowadays literally
masters of life and death in the rest of the Ukraine than of the separatists in the east. Next thing to expect, will be upraise
of the Ukrainians against the Right Sector fascists that currently control army and police and the rest of Kiev Junta oligarchs
that have been hoping to rip off EU or US budgets by perpetuating this war that except DC neocons nobody wants.
Maiklas, Lithuania 1 hour ago
How could the Minsk agreement have neglected to specify in detail what to do about the pocket of Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve?
Merkel, Hollande, Poroshenko, and Putin need to meet again, but this time with representatives also from the DPR and the Right
Sector.
In any case, never forget that this started as an illegal coup of a democratic government, facilitated by neocons McCain, Nuland,
and Obama.
Wendell Murray, Kennett Square PA USA 1 hour ago
No surprise. The Ukrainian army conscripts have no desire on average to be killed or to kill their fellow Ukrainians. The locals
are fighting for their lives. Forget the nonsensical "Russian-backed separatists" moniker applied to the locals in USA and western
European mainstream media outlets.
They are local citizens fighting the fascist government in Kiev that overthrew - with prior USA governmental connivance
and immediate post-coup support - the elected government a year ago. The propaganda on all this from the NYTimes and other
theoretically neutral media outlets, not to mention the onslaught of disgusting nonsense from the USA government and its factota
in so-called "think tanks is reprehensible.
Tony Borrelli, Suburban Philly 2 hours ago
It's rapidly becoming time for the USA (and the supportive US Media) to acknowledge that the USA/UK/EU agenda was behind the
overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine, that the new government is a right wing tainted oligarchy, and
that the resolve of the Russians is to NOT allow this faction to continue to surround them. In many ways the USA behaves like
a doctor who refuses to acknowledge that his treatment failed and the patient is dying. We have had many adventures in Latin America,
Europe and the Middle East where our tactics to create a sphere of influence have succeeded. This, like Cuba, is not going to
be one of them. The Soviet Union is dead. The resolve of the Russian people who lost 20 million people defending the Motherland
is not. This is where the European populace is going to tell their governments "enough of tweaking Russia's nose on behalf of
the USA & UK".
mervyn, nyc 1 hour ago
You got be kidding me. This is the exact attitude to get us into the bind. The State Department was using thugs from Kiev to
overthrow the government, and pushed Rebels to the boarder until last fall. The rebels then regrouped and came back with Russian
armors. Live to fight another day? There will be no other days. If Putin uses full force of Russian Army like in Georgia, he can
take Kiev in 2 weeks.
NYReader, NY 2 hours ago
How come every single place US and the allies get involved in becomes a terrible mess? You name it: Iraq, Libya, Syria,
Ukraine, Egypt, Yemen, etc. One failure and one miscalculation after another. And please don't pass this off as George Bush, as
Obama is now a war president also.
The United States has refused to recognize Russia's traditional interests in Ukraine. Apparently there is the Monroe Doctrine
to protect our interests in the Western Hampshire, but Russia gets the same old cold war policy of a "ring of steel". We have
recruited Nato membership among the former Eastern Block, tried to surround Russia with missiles, and shamelessly interfered with
Ukrainian domestic politics - all of them failures.
The mess that the neocons have created in Ukraine is splitting that country apart and may lead to a global confrontation. President
Obama should resist the call for arming the coup leaders in Kiev and should join Germany and France for a negotiated settlement
in Ukraine that will bring peace to the country and to Europe. The warmongers should be told to calm down or volunteer to go and
fight as partisans. They should leave the rest of America alone.
Varenik, Boston 2 hours ago
Maybe it would not end up like this if Poroshenko had not thrown the neo-nazi brigades against the mostly, ethnically, Russians
protesting the coup in Kiev which in itself was an insult to those who grew up with memories of what was done to them during WWII.
The real memories, not the hazy western interpretations where US had saved the day. The US media kept almost complete silence
about the bombardment of Donetsk with scores of civilians dying in process, same way nobody is reminding Americans how this was
US orchestrated and financed coup, and the same way everybody is keeping mum on the huge neo-nazi undercurrent in Ukraine. One
is left to wonder as to where Kerry's idealism has gone...
Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 10 hours ago
There are enough sour grapes on this page to go around.
Maidan understood, before taking over, that the people of SE Ukraine were not on board. The US, not understanding that some
people do not necessarily view our "free enterprise/market system" as the greatest thing since sliced bread, was convinced that
the southeast would "reluctantly go along"..
(That's just one more example how our 'experts' don't have the faintest clue.)
How Porochenko thought he could resolve things by simply bombing a sizable minority, to come around, was ham-fisted, if
not, outright criminal.
David, Chicago 11 hours ago
The Minsk agreement had the fatal flaw that its negotiation excluded one of the two sides in Ukraine's civil war. By excluding
the separatist rebels, the negotiators were able to gloss over the key point of whether Debaltseve was located in rebel-controlled
territory or government-controlled territory. This may seem like a trivial point, but the accord called for both sides to
withdraw behind their front lines. How is this possible if one of the sides has forces implanted in a besieged pocket deep within
territory controlled by the other side? The separatist rebels reasonably asserted that the Ukrainian troops garrisoned in
Debaltseve should withdrawn to behind the front line of territory controlled by the Ukrainian army.
The Ukrainian army, urged on by its Western allies, insisted on not giving up this strategically important salient in the enemy's
territory. Russia's much maligned president insisted on this rather obvious sticking point, this anomaly that the accord didn't
address, but in the end he capitulated to the rest and allowed the point to remain unresolved.
Minsk was a textbook example of how not to negotiate a truce. It made no logical sense and practically guaranteed continued
fighting for control of Debaltseve. On the positive side, now that Ukrainian troops have been defeated there, the other front
lines between the two sides appear to be recognized by both sides and therefore are relatively quiet.
So not all hope is lost for the truce.
Dan Elson, London 9 hours ago
I grew up in Europe during the coldest period of the "cold war" living in fear of Russian (or Soviet) aggression which was
very real at the time.
Reading the papers today though I am not entirely convinced that Putin is the new "Hitler" and can only "be put in his place"
through military force at any cost as many suggest. Russia is a dwarf compared to America in terms of military power and presence
abroad. Putin has also previously showed his good will to collaborate not in the least by finally paying back to the West Russia's
entire war loans 2006.
In this conflict I can understand that Russia wants to keep Ukraine out of NATO in the same way as America would not have wanted
Canada to join the Warsaw Pact in the 80's but naturally I don't sympathise with their methods for achieving this goal. It would
be ill advised though to believe that there is a military solution to the problem.
Thanks to Stalin's madness with famine and deportations Ukraine today is one of the most complex places to be found. Politics
span from extreme Fascism to old Communism with nearly 20% of the population being Russian. Instead of trying to govern something
like that they should just divide the country peacefully like Czechoslovakia did without bringing NATO into the equation.
jdd, New York, NY 11 hours ago
There was no rebel offensive, they simply held their ground. At Minsk, Putin tried to warn Poroshenko that his forces were
surrounded and should surrender, but he wanted none of that. He should have listened to that advice as now the survivors and the
Nazi battalions ("Right Sector") are talking coup.
S.D. Keith, Birmingham, AL 9 hours ago
And so Putin incrementally again decreases the footprint of Western hegemony. Make no mistake. Ukraine is a proxy for the ages-old
power struggle between Eastern and Western Europe. The West seemed ascendant, until recently. Now Putin appears to have poked
and prodded until he discovered the West's latent weakness--after sixty years of relative peace, it can't stomach the idea of
another Continental bloodbath. Those that won't fight always lose to those that will.
The West, including of course Western Europe's overseer and protector, the US, has very few options short of deploying ground
forces to help Ukraine, and Putin knows it won't deploy ground forces to help Ukraine. So the Russian Empire will reconstitute
that portion of the Soviet Union lost in the Cold War.
The only question is who's next?
Olga, Brooklyn 10 hours ago
There was indeed a violation of Minsk agreements in Debaltsevo: however it was from Ukranian side, who for several days delayed
the cease-fire and removal of the troops/heavy weaponry. Debaltsevo is part of rebel-controlled zone according to Minsk agreement,
and there is no way the 'rebels' can cease fire while being under attach and while agreements are violated. The twisted interpretation
of the of the situation by Ukraine and the west is to be expected.
It is unfortunate that the real leader emerging in the ukraine is Zakharchenko, while Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, etc continue to
play games and discredit themselves. Understandable, right now Urkaine has a weaker hand, and bidding for time (and money) is
useful for it -- but the continues propaganda and falsification of events are becoming a constant there.
Nowhere in NYtimes does one read about misrepresentation of history, that is recently very popular in the Ukraine; about severe
restrictions on freedom of speech and information (as russian news sources are banned, as russian journalists are not allowed
in the Ukraine) -- if this were happening in other 'good' european countries or, g. forbid, Russia, it would an outrage.
George, Germany 9 hours ago
Gotta love the Americans. Their answer to everything is more war, more weapons. You people will not be satisfied until there
are rivers of blood in Ukraine.
Putin will never back down. If he does he will be no longer Russian president. Get this in your heads.
dogsecrets, GA 10 hours ago
Good just give the Russian what they want a land bridge to Crimea
This war did not have to happen the Stupid European and American thinking that Russian would stand by while Ukraine join the
EU, just look at how we acted when Cuba was getting close to Russia and we still treat Cuba like crap 50 years later, Wake up
Ukraine and Ukrainian people are not worth fighting for.
R36, New York 6 hours ago
I do blame Obama because he has allowed the situation to get out of hand. He could have said,
"Just as we Americans were fighting for our freedom from the British, the rebels in east Ukraine are fighting for their freedom
from Poroshenko and his regime in Kiev. Just as France helped us against the British, Russia is helping the rebels against Kiev.
"It is foolish to risk world war to prevent the people from the Donblass to have their freedom."
He could have said that and pressured Poroshenko to allow autonomy or federalization. Then we could have had peace and the
8000 Ukrainian troops in Debaltseve would still be alive.
Before he went to Minsk, Poroshenko said explicitly that he was not interested in compromise and he rejected federalization.
He has reaped what he sowed. And Ukraine has reaped what America sowed.
Phil, Brentwood 7 hours ago
Have ANY revolutions since the "Arab Spring" turned out well? Egypt is no better off, Syria is a killing field and Libya is
a catastrophe. Sadly, Ukraine is following this pattern. The overthrow of their elected president has led to bloodshed and loss
of control of the eastern portion of their country. Lesson: before you jump in a dark hole, figure out what's at the bottom.
Under the circumstances, the escape of the Ukrainian troops from Debaltseve is the best outcome possible. It is considerably
better than having them surrender.
Yves here. Ukraine is going into an IMF program in even worse condition that Greece with its various loans from the Troika in
2010, and we can see how well borrowing more when you were already overindebted worked out for Greece. In addition, this interview
with Michael Hudson makes clear that the loan to Ukraine is wildly out of line with IMF rules, making it painfully obvious that this
"rescue" is all about propping up the government so it can continue to wage war rather than economic development.
SHARMINI PERIES, EXEC. PRODUCER, TRNN: Welcome to the Michael Hudson report on The Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries, coming
to you from Baltimore.
A ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine has been agreed to, following a marathon all-night, 17-hour negotiation between Russian President
Vladimir Putin and Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko. They were flanked by other European leaders keeping vigil. Russia and Ukraine
may have many differences, but what they have in common is a looming economic crisis, with oil prices taking a dive on the Russian
side and a very expensive war they were not counting on on the Ukrainian side.
Joining us now to talk about all of this is Michael Hudson. He is a distinguished research professor of economics at the University
of Missouri-Kansas City. His upcoming book is titled Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroyed the Global
Economy.
Michael, thank you, as always, for joining us.
MICHAEL HUDSON, ECONOMICS PROF., UNIV. OF MISSOURI, KANSAS CITY: Good to be here.
PERIES: So, Michael, in a recent interview published in The National Interest magazine, you said that most media covers Russia
as if it is the greatest threat to Ukraine. History suggests the IMF may be far moredangerous. What did you mean by that?
HUDSON: First of all, the terms on which the IMF make loans require more austerity and a withdrawal of all the public subsidies.
The Ukrainian population already is economically devastated. The conditions that the IMF's program is laying down for making loans
to Ukraine is that it must repay the debts. But it doesn't have the ability to pay. So there's only one way to do it, and that's
the way that the IMF has told Greece and other countries to do: It has to begin selling off whatever the nation has left of its public
domain; or, to have your leading oligarchs take on partnerships with American or European investors, so that they can buy out into
the monopolies in the Ukraine and indulge in rent-extraction.
This is the IMF's one-two punch. Punch number one is: here's the loan -- to pay your bondholders, so that you now owe us, the
IMF, to whom you can't write down debts. The terms of this loan is to believe our Guiding Fiction: that you can pay foreign debt
by running a domestic budgetary surplus, by cutting back public spending and causing an even deeper depression.
This idea that foreign debts can be paid by squeezing out domestic tax revenues was controverted by Keynes in the 1920s in his
discussion of German reparations. (I devote a chapter to reviewing the controversy in my Trade, Development and Foreign Debt.) There
is no excuse for making this error -- except that the error is deliberate, and is intended to lead to failure, so that the IMF can
then say that to everyone's surprise and nobody's blame, their "stabilization program" destabilized rather than stabilized the economy.
The penalty for following this junk economics must be paid by the victim, not by the victimizer. This is part of the IMF's "blame
the victim" strategy.
The IMF then throws its Number Two punch. It says, "Oh, you can't pay us? I'm sorry that our projections were so wrong. But you've
got to find some way to pay -- by forfeiting whatever assets your economy may still have in domestic hands.
The IMF has been wrong on Ukraine year after year, almost as much as it's been wrong on Ireland and on Greece. Its prescriptions
are the same as those that devastated Third World economies from the 1970s onward.
So now the problem becomes one of just what Ukraine is going to have to sell off to pay the foreign debts -- run up increasingly
for waging the war that's devastated its economy.
One asset that foreign investors want is Ukrainian farmland. Monsanto has been buying into Ukraine -- or rather, leasing its land,
because Ukraine has a law against alienating its farmland and agricultural land to foreigners. And a matter of fact, its law is very
much the same as what the Financial Times reports Australia is wanting to do to block Chinese and American purchase of farmland.[1]
The IMF also insists that debtor countries dismantle public regulations againstforeign investment, as well as consumer protection
and environmental protection regulations. This means that what is in store for Ukraine is a neoliberal policy that's guaranteed to
actually make the situation even worse.
In that sense, finance is war. Finance is the new kind of warfare, using finance and forced sell-offs in a new kind of battlefield.
This will not help Ukraine. It promises to lead to yet another crisis down the road very, very quickly.
PERIES: Michael, let's unpack the debt in this crisis. The war has led Ukraine into a deeper crisis. Talk about the devastation
that has caused and what they have to manage in addition to what the IMF is trying to impose on it.
HUDSON: When Kiev went to war against Eastern Ukraine, it fought primarily the coal mining region and theexport region. Thirty-eight
percent of Ukraine's exports are to Russia. Yet much of this export capacity has been bombed out of existence. Also, the electric
companies that fuel the electricity to the coal mines been bombed out. So Ukraine can't even supply itself with coal.
What is so striking about all this is that just a few weeks ago, on January 28, Christine Lagarde, the head of the IMF, said that
the IMF does not make loans to countries that are engaged in war. That would befunding one side or another. Yet Ukraine is involved
in a civil war. The great question is thus when the IMF will even begin to release the loan it has been discussing.
Also, the IMF articles of agreement say that it cannot make loans to an insolvent country. So how on earth can it be part of a
loan bailout for the Ukraine if, number one, it's at war (which has to stop totally), and number two, it's insolvent?
The only solution is that Ukraine will scale back its debts to private investors. And that means a lot of contrarian hedge funds
investors. The Financial Times today has an article showing that one American investor alone, Michael Hasenstab, has $7 billion of
Ukraine debts and wants to speculate in it, along with Templeton Global Bond Fund.[2] How is Ukraine going to treat the speculators?
And then, finally, how is the IMF going to treat the fact that Russia's sovereign fund lent 3 billion euros to the Ukraine on harsh
terms through the London agreement terms that can't be written down? Is the IMF going to insist that Russia take the same haircut
that it's imposing on the hedge funds? All of this is going to be the kind of conflict that's going to take much more effort than
even the solutions that we've seen over the last few days have taken on the military battlefront.
PERIES: And so how could Ukraine imagine getting out of this crisis?
HUDSON: It probably imagines a dream world in which it'll get out of the crisis by the West giving it $50 billion and saying,
here's all the money you need, spend it as you want. That's the extent of its imagination. It is fantasy, of course. It's living
in a dream world -- except that a few weeks ago, George Soros came out in The New York Review of Books and urged Congress and "the
West" to give Ukraine $50 billion and look at it as a down payment on military or with Russia. Well, immediately Kiev said, yes,
we will only spend them on defensive arms. We will defend Ukraine all the way up toSiberia as we wipe out the Russians.
Bit today a Financial Times editorial said, yes, give Ukraine the $50 billion that George Soros asked for.[3] We've got to enable
it to have enough money to fight America's New Cold War against Russia. But the continental Europeans are saying, "Wait a minute.
At the end of this, there'll be no more Ukrainians to fight. The war might even spread into Poland and into elsewhere, because if
the money that's given to Ukraine is really for what the Obama administration and Hillary and Soros are all pressing for -- to go
to war with Russia -- then Russia's going to say, 'Okay, if we're being attacked by foreign troops, we're going to have to not only
bomb the troops, but the airports they are coming in through, and the railway stations they're coming in through. We're going to
extend our own defense towards Europe.'"
Apparently there are reports that Putin told Europe, look, you have two choices before you. Choice one: Europe, Germany and Russia
can be a very prosperous area. With Russia's raw materials and European technology, we can be one of the most prosperous areas in
the world. Or, Choice two: You can go to war with us and you can be wiped out. Take your choice.
PERIES: Michael, complex and interesting times in Ukraine, as well as at the IMF. Thank you so much for joining us.
HUDSON: It's good to be here, Sharmini.
PERIES: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Of course, it's hard to argue with his perspective: the war state impoverishes everyone except the war profiteers, which now
includes the western financial system in full flower.
Maybe my 401K has an emerging market fund so I can profit from Slavic misery?
That's about the extent of our democratic participation in this fiasco.
Disgusting.
participant-observer-observed, February 15, 2015 at 3:39 pm
Hudson's voice needs echoing, since the reality here is much worse than 401k investments gone evil
As FL Rep A Grayson pointed out in January (Fake Trade
TPP), with 14 yeas of half-trillion trade deficits, USA has nothing left to export than death and destruction, and since no
one wants to buy it, it can only be peddled through force or swindling.
That's one reason Hudson did not fail to mention Monsanto, which has found no one is interested in their sterile seeds. This
is like dumping nuclear wastes in developing countries.
James Levy, February 15, 2015 at 6:41 am
Every army needs motivated and competent trigger-pullers. What this and other policies of Washington, Berlin, and Kiev are
doing is making almost all potential Ukrainian trigger-pullers (except for the fanatical right-wing nationalist kind) disgruntled,
demoralized, or already in flight from service. The more desperate measures the West and Kiev take to "win" this war the worse
things get and the less likely they are to come out with even a respectable draw. The Donbas rebels and their Russian backers
would be wise to just apply moderate pressure over time and let the Kiev government implode.
Procopius., February 15, 2015 at 7:39 am
This is why I've thought there was a Great Divide within the IMF.
After reading Prof. Hudson's comments here I'm thinking there isn't really a divide - the so-called research part of the
IMF is actually a public relations exercise.
They come out and say, "Oh, our new research shows that we actually greatly underestimated the multiplier effect of austerity.
So sorry, we won't make that mistake again."
Then the knuckledraggers* who actually implement IMF policy go out and demand exactly the same terms the next time. From what
I've read the IMF research people are actually pretty good, and lots of stenographers and right-leaning economists praise them
to the skies as creating good policy, but they don't actually affect policy at all.
*knuckledraggers - originally the operations division in the CIA, the guys who were actually out there conducting coups and
killing people, so called in contrast to the analysts. I don't know what the operations people called the analysts, but I'll bet
it's not fit for a family oriented publication.
Pearl, February 15, 2015 at 8:39 am
I hate that I'm always the one here at N.C. who has to have things "dumbed down" for me.
But I have learned that when Michael Hudson speaks -- I want to be in the front row and listening intently to what he has to
say -- because, where Professor Hudson leads, I ultimately always seem to follow. So, may I stop and regurgitate what I think
Professor Hudson is saying -- and then let you smart people correct me and, hopefully (and helpfully) enable me to make sure that
I have, at least, a rudimentary grasp on that which he has said? (And to correct me and to further elaborate, if anyone has the
time or patience for it.)
Okay. So, if my pea-sized brain were asked to explain (in housewife-ese) what Professor Hudson is saying, would I be on the
right track in asking the following questions and making the following assumptions?
1) Is Professor Hudson suggesting that Putin is suggesting one of two options -- that Russia, Germany, and Europe will either
be allowed to play nice together (in the sandbox that we call the European Continent), making up a happy, well-balanced, partnership/playgroup,
OR…… the U.S. will help fund the defense of Ukraine so that Ukraine will go to war defending itself against Russia (which Ukraine
would, obviously and ultimately lose without U.S. boots on the ground)?
2) And is Professor Hudson suggesting that Putin is saying that if the latter scenario is chosen, and that once a military
operation involving the U.S. is underway, Russia would just go ahead and undertake a more hostility-induced "insertion of itself"
into said German/European sandbox?
3) Although not addressed directly in Professor's Hudson's commentary above, does Professor Hudson think that this is Putin's
Russia trying to re-assert Russia's domination over the European continent or is this just Russia wanting to be taken as a serious
and trustworthy playmate in the EU sandbox? (Is Russia having a little temper tantrum that is worth giving in to, or is this Russia
being, ya know -- just a re-branded USSR?)
*******
Because the latter seems like a pretty significant threat, doesn't it?
And if (we think) that Putin's end-goal is "total bully-driven European sandbox domination," that sort of seems like not a
very good situation for Europe or for the U.S. (I would think?)
And, furthermore, if "total bully-driven European sandbox domination," is what Putin has in mind, I think I could see my way
clear to allowing a few of our militaristic capabilities a bit closer-in and a bit more "visible" to Putin at this point in time.
(I mean -- we gotta park our fleet of battleships somewhere, anyway.)
I don't want a war with Putin's Russia, but I think that I so much don't want a war that I would tend to want for Putin to
get the message that he'll be given very little latitude in his behavior -- until we're absolutely certain that his intention
is only to be allowed to make new friends and to flourish in the EU sandbox; not total sandbox domination.
(And, btw, he can start by leaving his shirt on and leaving his tiger at home. I mean -- we need to see that he is capable
of confining himself to a few very basic social norms, right?) :-)
Nevertheless, I'm still not sure that I have understood the true underlying issues as Professor Hudson has tried to convey
them -- and I have always looked to Professor Hudson as always being an authoritative commentator on "underlying issues."
So -- I would greatly appreciate any feedback, insight or clarification that anyone has to offer me. Thanks.
sleepy, February 15, 2015 at 9:01 am
Really? No need to dress up your Putin hate in rhetorical cuteness.
Pearl, February 15, 2015 at 12:22 pm
@ Sleepy.
May I call you "Grumpy," instead? :-)
I'm sorry if I prompted you to distill down my words into some organic form of "Putin-hatred."
On the other hand, thank you for referring to my rhetoric as "cute." (I must admit -- I'm quite flattered. Ya know -- I'm at
that awkward age of 51 -- anything about me that may once have been considered "cute" is now sagging or drooping or expanding
or wrinkling. And any promise of being "cute," as in the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sense of the word, the "lovable Bubbe" sort
of "cute" -- is still quite a few years off.) So I sorta feel like Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer in the 1960s Rankin Bass classic
of the same name when Clarice refers to Rudolf as "cute." Indeed -- all day long there's gonna be an extra little bounce in my
step as I think to myself, "Sleepy" at Naked Capitalism thinks my rhetoric is CUTE!!!
I did not mean for my questions and/or comments to come off as sounding as though I hated Mr. Putin. Indeed, I have never met
the man, and I do not know if I would like him or not. But my bar for hatred is a very high bar -- like Adolf Hitler high. So
I doubt very much that I would hate Mr. Putin.
Perhaps, if I were a better writer, my view of Mr. Putin would have struck you as nothing more than a healthy respect for a
well-armed and powerful leader of a large country that is largely run by a handful of powerful business oligarchs in whom I have
no trust.
I made reference to the shirtless thing and the tiger thing (which, in retrospect, I probably shouldn't have done) only because
my brain often frames world issues in terms of how I, a former preschool teacher, would deal with a playground of preschoolers.
Putin's behavior in seemingly insignificant forums (i.e. shirtless, tiger-hugging photo-ops) is something that I refuse to
disregard as "quirkiness." Indeed, I personally regard such behavior as a "red flag" that this is a person who operates outside
of social norms, and is, therefore less predictable, and is therefore, more worthy of keeping a closer eye on.
That's all.
Furthermore, as a preschool teacher -- I would be keeping my eyes on my whole class. Putin? I would probably recommend a one-on-one
aide for his initial mainstreaming. (It would benefit him in that it might help him to not fail, and it would benefit the other
children who might be harmed by any of the many ways in which he might fail.)
And, if Putin had been one of my preschoolers -- I most-certainly wouldn't have hated him; I've never hated a preschooler.
I've never even disliked a preschooler.
The IMF? I view them as administrators of the preschool who have never had any hands-on preschool teaching experience, and
therefore, usually walk a precarious tightrope of being either useless or harmful. (Some of whom are UNintentionally clueless,
some of whom are idiots, and some of whom are decent -- yet exist in a bubble without realizing it. Which makes most of them ill-suited
for their jobs.)
I don't exactly parade around N.C. as some sort of policy wonk. I am authentically what I claim to be. I'm literally just a
housewife. And it just so happens that I used to teach preschool. And I am the first to admit that my "C.V." does not measure
up to the C.V. of practically any of the other folks who occasionally comment here.
I cannot convey to you the extent to which I wish that I could bring to this forum the background and experience of one who
was expert in international diplomacy or geo-politics or even basic economics and finance. But I realized a long time ago that
Yves allows me to come to this forum with the only experience and background that I have -- which is, admittedly, no more than
and no less than that of an average housewife. (And, truth be told -- I'm really not even any good at being a housewife.)
So, I'm grateful to have a forum such as Naked Capitalism to read and to sometimes even feel welcome enough to chime in, despite
my lowly status. Indeed, I always look forward to having my questions answered and I look forward to gleaning insightful feedback
to my occasional comments.
But now I know I can come here for compliments on my rhetorical style, too!
Now. How about you go pour yourself a cup of coffee, "Sleepy," and we'll call you "Happy," instead of "Sleepy" or "Grumpy?"
(Did I mention that I used to teach preschool?)
Left in Wisconsin, February 15, 2015 at 1:29 pm
Complements on your sense of humor and good-natured-ness also.
Ned Ludd, February 15, 2015 at 2:59 pm
Examples of Pearl's sense of humor and good-natured-ness:
"Is Russia having a little temper tantrum that is worth giving in to, or is this Russia being, ya know -- just a re-branded
USSR?… Because the latter seems like a pretty significant threat, doesn't it?"
"And, furthermore, if 'total bully-driven European sandbox domination,' is what Putin has in mind, I think I could see
my way clear to allowing a few of our militaristic capabilities a bit closer-in and a bit more 'visible' to Putin at this point
in time. (I mean -- we gotta park our fleet of battleships somewhere, anyway.)"
A "fleet of battleships" is an instrument of war and death. Rhetorical cuteness should not mask the implied threat of violence,
when moving "a few of our militaristic capabilities a bit closer-in and a bit more 'visible' to Putin".
From Raúl Ilargi Meijer:
[O]ur media told us Putin is the bogeyman. And 'we' never asked for any proof. […]
But here we are: no proof and layer upon layer of sanctions. And nary a voice is raised in the west. If one is, it's to
denounce the Russians as bloodthirsty barbarians. Even though there is no proof they did anything other than protecting what
they see as their own people. Something we all would do too, no questions asked.
Ukraine defines 2014 as the year western propaganda came into its own. Not just fictional stories about an economic recovery
anymore, no, we had our politico-media establishment ram an entire new cold war down our throats. And we swallowed it whole.
I guess it's not surprising the Obots will be out in support of the New Cold War -- if they even plan on keeping it only a
Cold War.
No Drama Obama???? Puleeze.
Besides -- I like seeing Putin having to pander to Russian voters. (all the macho leader stuff). Makes him seem like less of
a "Mad Dictator".
Pearl, February 15, 2015 at 6:16 pm
@Ned Ludd
Perhaps I wasn't clear, or perhaps my original comment was not put in the context of Michael Hudson's interview.
Or perhaps most everyone on this thread had a really crappy Valentine's Day yesterday and they're taking out their frustrations
on me today. I don't know.
But I know this.
I am the daughter of a Nazi Holocaust Camp Liberator. Here is a video clip of the day my father, an 18 year old Private from
Sioux City Iowa, along with allied forces, liberated the Nazi camp at Ludwigslust.
I was born into, raised in, and am a product of a family that is as about as "war-avoidant" as one could imagine. Nevertheless,
I also understand and appreciate that there are times when it's nice to have a military force so that you can do stuff like helping
to stop the extermination of entire race of humans.
I also appreciate that Russians were our allies in that effort, and I grieve for the (literally) millions of Russians who died
as a result of that war.
So please do not misunderstand or mis-characterize any of my statements as being that of some sort of war monger.
Here is the part of Michael Hudson's interview to which I was referring and then asking for clarification about:
"[Bit] today a Financial Times editorial said, yes, give Ukraine the $50 billion that George Soros asked for.[3] We've
got to enable it to have enough money to fight America's New Cold War against Russia. But the continental Europeans are saying,
"Wait a minute. At the end of this, there'll be no more Ukrainians to fight. The war might even spread into Poland and into
elsewhere, because if the money that's given to Ukraine is really for what the Obama administration and Hillary and Soros are
all pressing for -- to go to war with Russia -- then Russia's going to say, 'Okay, if we're being attacked by foreign troops,
we're going to have to not only bomb the troops, but the airports they are coming in through, and the railway stations they're
coming in through. We're going to extend our own defense towards Europe.'"
Apparently there are reports that Putin told Europe, look, you have two choices before you. Choice one: Europe, Germany
and Russia can be a very prosperous area. With Russia's raw materials and European technology, we can be one of the most prosperous
areas in the world. Or, Choice two: You can go to war with us and you can be wiped out. Take your choice."
So, my question/observation was just (if the question is should we arm Ukraine against the Russians) is that, no we shouldn't
-- because there would (in all likelihood) be a greater loss of life if we did that. And, in alternate, I was asking -- couldn't
we, instead, just park a few of our ships over there and hope that everyone will play nice (as nice as possible under the circumstances.)
I'm not saying that the parking of a few battleships over there is a good idea -- In fact, I'll gladly concede that it's quite
possibly an entirely sucky idea. I was simply trying to come up with an alternative option to arming Ukraine with $50 billion
of weaponry.
We have a bloated military industrial complex; I hate that we do, and I wish that it weren't the case.
I was just wondering if -- being that we already have this bloated military industrial complex -- couldn't we at least try
to use it for something more innocuous -- like just some plumage-showing as opposed to arming a country that would lead ultimately
to lot of death and destruction -- when, in the alternate, maybe just plumage-showing would do the trick.
So I know this thread has out-lived its time -- but I just couldn't leave it inferred and dangling out there an insinuation
that I am some sort of war-monger.
OIFVet, February 15, 2015 at 6:50 pm
"Plumage-showing" should be reserved for mating rituals. In matters of war and peace, it leads to escalations.
Perhaps you missed this past year's attempts by the US to goad Russia into a war, and the Euro poodles willingness
to submit to the US "leadership" even though that's ultimately not in their own best interests. That's what Putin would have been
referring to when it came to the Euro's choices. This past week also saw the Euro's realization that the US is not interested
in de-escalaton, and that any further escalation is only going to hurt Europe more. That's why Merkel and Hollande went to Moscow.
They know that cornering Russia can only lead to Russia lashing out, Russia will never back out as it is not their way, and besides
they have no place left to back out to, what with NATO's eastward march. . So please explain, if you can, how will "plumage showing"
lead to de-escalation and enhanced Euro poodle security?
Pearl, February 15, 2015 at 7:07 pm
@Left in Wisconsin.
I like you.
You're my favorite.
:-)
juliania, February 15, 2015 at 1:50 pm
I believe sleepy's comment was justified. No need to pile on. You gave two alternative negative assessments of Putin's motives.
How about this one? A ceasefire in Ukraine, commencing now on an important Russian feast day and the 70th anniversary of the
dreadful allied firebombing of Dresden, has components to it that are hugely humanitarian and devoutly to be wished for. You seem
to be ignoring that fact in your rush to judgment.
I will leave it at that.
Pearl, February 15, 2015 at 6:40 pm
@Juliania
Who gave two alternative negative assessments of Putin's motives?
I did?
(I can't tell for sure if your comment was directed at me or not.)
Just in case it was aimed at me, please let me draw attention to the fact that I was quoting Michael Hudson when he said:
Apparently there are reports that Putin told Europe, look, you have two choices before you. Choice one: Europe, Germany
and Russia can be a very prosperous area. With Russia's raw materials and European technology, we can be one of the most prosperous
areas in the world. Or, Choice two: You can go to war with us and you can be wiped out. Take your choice.
So those were NOT my assessments, and I don't even know that those were Michael Hudson's assessments. In fact I was trying
to gain clarity on that point.
And of course I want a ceasefire. I'm always in the "let's stop shooting at each other" camp.
Hope that clears it up.
Geesh. Rough crowd today.
(You have a pretty name, btw. I was gonna name my son Juliana -- had he not been, you know -- a son. I like Juliania even
more.) :-)
OIFVet, February 15, 2015 at 2:29 pm
Whose "mainstream" are you referring to? American? If so, that's rather blatant exceptionalism and "indispensable nation"-mongering.
Which is the US political way of going shirtless on a horse while pledging to spread "freedum and democracy" everywhere there's
oil and/or other strategic interests.
craazyboy, February 15, 2015 at 9:08 am
The Pentagon has already revealed the Weird and Shocking Truth -- Putin is one of the Lizard People!
He has plans to subvert the IMF using alien mind control techniques and have the IMF loan Mexico 50 billion dollars so that
Mexico may purchase arms (the defensive kind -- like the US DEFENSE DEPT has!) and defend itself from US and NATO Adventurism.
But Inquiring minds ask, "Will It Stop There?! Will Mexico roll across our borders?". Of course they will. Central America basically
sucks, so no reason to go that direction.
Clearly, the West must act preemptively towards this real threat and defend whatever allies we install -- anywhere in our free
world!
NotTimothyGeithner, February 15, 2015 at 9:13 am
From Putin's perspective, NATO has been rapidly growing, the U.S. is a drunk child on the world stage, Russian peace keepers
have already been attacked by an adviser to Poroshenko*, has faced economic sanctions (an act of war by most standards), sees
old time Bandarists running Kiev, is compared in public to ISIS and Ebola by the U.S. President, was accused of downing a civilian
airliner**, and even has American officials publishing fake evidence of Russian troops in the Ukraine.
War has been declared, and if the 500 million people in the EU can't handle a population of 150 million recovering from the
Yeltsin years and predatory Western finance (Putin kicked them out; his real sin), it would probably be for the best if Russian
troops returned to Berlin.
*Georgia hasn't come up in the propaganda for a reason.
**Obama and crew haven't brought it up, and the official dutch report mentions a plane crash.
Also, Putin likely means Western Europe can stop being a U.S. vassal or be frozen out of the Shangai Cooperative which includes
Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, and non-EU members of the USSR. The U.S. isn't going to fuel Europe any time soon, and most
of Europe's governments are weak with major employment problems.
As for Crimea, the old Ukraine ceased to exist after the coup, and every sane person in the world recognized that Russian defense
depends on Crimea. They will never risk losing it.
Santi, February 15, 2015 at 9:48 am
The next blog entry (Itargi's) is about being
trapped in narrative.
After reading it you might feel less so…
Regarding narratives, I am very much remembered of
Cuban missile crisis and subsequent naval blockade
by the USA.
I guess US people should not feel strange if Putin warns aggressively when they get too close to Russia. Negotiations between
the IMF and Russia should ensue, I think Poroshenko, Merkel and Hollande are not really useful in the talks. (Tongue in cheek)
OIFVet, February 15, 2015 at 2:16 pm
" I think I could see my way clear to allowing a few of our militaristic capabilities a bit closer-in and a bit more "visible"
to Putin at this point in time." So you would? I just want to ask, who will pick up the tab and the responsibility for the consequences
of your cock-swinging contest with Putin? These policies do not do anything to undermine Putin but they do a lot to destabilize
US colonies, or as we colloquially refer to them, "allies". I wrote about the latest such case
a few days ago.
Chaos only benefits American imperial elites, thus chaos is our main export these days. So why in the world would you want
to support such non-sense? I doubt that's where Michael Hudson will ever take you but you can bet your bottom dollar that's where
the warmongers in DC want to take us.
participant-observer-observed, February 15, 2015 at 3:56 pm
Did you watch the video or just read the transcript? Because my viewing didn't lead me to hear Michael's thesis to be about
Putin and Russia at all.
Rather, Hudson is pointing out that once past military interventions, rape, pillage etc. of the brutish, arm-to-arm combat
sort, we will still have the spectacle to observe of the economic rape & pillage to contend with. I.e., that the "solutions" on
offer (Oligarchic tunnel vision as usual), from all directions, are just more of the same problem-creating dynamic.
He is essentially elaborating on German Chancellor's point of there being no military solution, and following it to the natural
conclusion, which consequence remaining is absurdity showing economic solutions on offer are just a slower and more painful death
and suffering than the brutish variety. (It is a logical argument form going back millennia "reduction to the absurd")
You point out an important issue: Hudson's message is quite subtle, and therefore may be hard for many people to grasp (let
alone try like yourself), which is actually quite sad, because somewhere in Ukraine right now some babies are being born to parents
who want their kid to live a life not dictated by death and destruction, of the slower or coarser varieties!
Doug Terpstra, February 15, 2015 at 3:56 pm
False humility and self-deprecation hardly mask your russophobia. And to your purported honest inquiry with a clever twist
of Hudson's arguments: yep, you've got it exactly bass-ackwards (but points scored for creativity in regurgitating all the standard
agit-prop behind a mask of feigned curiosity).
One more time, the Ukrainian coup was US sponsored; the evidence, including recordings, is beyond dispute; all of the evidence
of Russian aggression (including the now disappeared flight MH17) that you blithely presume has been demonstrably, repeatedly
discredited; there is no evidence of Russian aggression, not in Crimea (peacefully re-admitted) nor anywhere else in Europe. And
Hudson's representation of Putin's choice was not an ultimatum for one of two forms of domination as you disingenuisly paraphrased
it, but one of mutually beneficial peace or war at only at their unilateral insistence.
If your inqiry is genuinely honest, start your preschool education at another of today's posts by Ilargi, and if you want to
get to the beginning, visit his site.
Vatch. February 15, 2015 at 4:39 pm
One more time, the Ukrainian uprising was not U.S. sponsored. The Ukrainian people were sick and tired of a succession of corrupt
governments, and they wanted a change. Coups d'état are not characterized by massive crowds numbering in tens or hundreds of thousands.
Coups d'état are carried out by small groups, often with the assistance of a country's military. What the U.S. sponsored were
some of (or many of) the members of the post-uprising temporary government. This is what was recorded by eavesdropping.
The seizure of Crimea was mostly peaceful, but it was a military event, nonetheless. In February, 2014, Russian soldiers stationed
in Crimean bases illegally left those bases and seized Ukrainian government installations. Of course, the Russians have plausible
deniability, because the Russian soldiers were not wearing any insignia that might identify them as Russians; hence their nickname
"the Little Green Men". The referendum in March, 2014, was a farce worthy of North Korea: more than 96% in favor of unification
with Russia. An honest election would probably still have approved the referendum, but 96%? Give me a break!
Is Russia still paying for the use of the naval base in Crimea? They're obligated to do so under an
international treaty with Ukraine, but of course Russia
unilaterally abrogated that treaty:
The Agreement between Ukraine and Russia on the Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine, widely referred to as the Kharkiv Pact (Ukrainian:
Харківський пакт)[1][2] or Kharkiv Accords (Russian: Харьковские соглашения),[3][4][5] was a treaty between Ukraine and Russia
whereby the Russian lease on naval facilities in Crimea was extended beyond 2017 until 2042, with an additional five year renewal
option in exchange for a multiyear discounted contract to provide Ukraine with Russian natural gas.[6] The agreement, signed
on 21 April 2010 in Kharkiv, Ukraine, by Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Russian President Dimitry Medvedev and ratified
by the parliaments of the two countries on 27 April 2010, aroused much controversy in Ukraine. The treaty was a continuation
of a treaty signed in 1997 between the two nations. Shortly after the (disputed) March 2014 accession of Crimea to the Russian
Federation,[7] Russia unilateral [sic] terminated the treaty on 31 March 2014.
OIFVet. February 15, 2015 at 4:59 pm
"Coups d'état are not characterized by massive crowds numbering in tens or hundreds of thousands." They were used as a cover.
It's called "legitimizing the junta", giving it the appearance of "popular" support. Yes, the people were sick and tired of corruption.
What they got was another set of corrupt flunkies, this time loyal to the US, who hijacked the Maidan. Your recurring desperate
attempts to legitimize the junta by invoking the Maidan only delegitimizes the latter.
"What the U.S. sponsored were some of (or many of) the members of the post-uprising temporary government." LOL, funny how the
US sponsorees and US citizens ended up taking the reigns, and not temporarily either. They must be exceedingly honest and democratic
lovers of freedum.
"Is Russia still paying for the use of the naval base in Crimea?" Inanity, thy name is Vatch. I will play though, so tell me
how much is the US paying Cuba for Guantanamo?
Vatch. February 15, 2015 at 5:08 pm
Crowds in coups d'état might be used as cover while the overthrow is occurring, or after it has already happened. They do not
occur months before the overthrow, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine starting in November, 2013.
I have no argument with you about the people who have joined the government since the uprising. Obviously the U.S. retains
a huge influence.
I think the U.S. does pay a trivial amount to Cuba for the Guantanamo naval Base under the terms of the treaty. This amount
should be renegotiated. Even better, the U.S. should shut it down.
OIFVet. February 15, 2015 at 5:21 pm
"They do not occur months before the overthrow…" I know your reading comprehension couldn't possibly be this bad, even if you
are a Chicago public school product. The US saw a great opportunity to throw a little coup d'etat and claim that it was the will
of the crowds. Hence, my use of the term 'cover'. It really is not that hard to comprehend for anyone with an ounce of objectivity.
And since you brought up the Nuland recording, is she some clairvoyant latter day Nostradamus that she foresaw that Yats will
be the PM several weeks prior to the coup?
"I think the U.S. does pay a trivial amount to Cuba for the Guantanamo naval Base under the terms of the treaty." No, it doesn't.
Cuba, unlike Ukraine, has a modicum of self-respect and refuses to accept the generous lease payment of $4,000. Also, since when
is Russia supposed to pay a lease for anything located on its sovereign territory?
Ned Ludd. February 15, 2015 at 6:10 pm
They do not occur months before the overthrow, which is exactly what happened in Ukraine starting in November, 2013.
Earlier this year, we broke the story about USAID co-investing with Omidyar Network in Ukraine NGOs that organized and led
the Maidan revolution in Kiev, resulting in the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych. […]
The truth is, USAID's role in a covert ops and subversion should be common knowledge-it's not like the record is that hard
to find. Either USAID has developed those Men In Black memory-zappers, or else-maybe we don't want to remember. […]
After populist left-wing candidate Jean-Bertrand Aristide won the first democratic elections in Haiti in 1990, USAID and
the National Endowment for Democracy began pouring funds into opposition groups opposed to Aristide. Noam Chomsky writes:
"Aid for 'democracy promotion' sharply increased, directed to antigovernment, probusiness groups, mainly through the US
Agency for International Development (USAID), also the National Endowment for Democracy and AIFLD (the AFL-CIO affiliate with
a notorious antilabor record throughout the Third World). One of the closest observers of Haiti, Amy Wilentz, wrote that USAID's
huge 'Democracy Enhancement' project was 'specifically designed to fund those sectors of the Haitian political spectrum where
opposition to the Aristide government could be encouraged.'"
A few months later, in 1991, Aristide was overthrown in a coup.
Doug Terpstra. February 15, 2015 at 8:07 pm
Not one but TWO Gallup polls tend to support the legitimacy of the election results in Crimea and there is little evidence
of fraud or coercion… at the level suggested by your cogent "gimme a break" innuendo that Crimea is equivalent to North Korea..
This is further corroborated by the manifest peacefulness of the process itself and the year since - little or no unnrest or discontent.
This was the overwhelming will of a people in the aftermath of an illegitimate coup, who had for generations prior always been
Russian.
And yes, one more time, what don't you get about "f**k the EU" and "our man Yats", and. "five billion dollars" and the neo-Nazis
militantscCain and Pyatt pal around with.
Steve H.. February 15, 2015 at 9:17 am
Russia has far too much investment in corrupt European politicians to want a war with Europe (see Gerhard Schröder). The taking
of Crimea at U.S. expense (see Nuland) was a strategic opportunity that would have been foolish to disregard. Russia is placing
itself in the middleman position for the transport of commodities, the link between Asia and Europe, and has made the point in
the past (during the Georgia uprising) that the infrastructure for European needs is tremendously vulnerable.
Russia without Putin would likely still pursue these goals. The steppes are like the huge big brother at their back, such that
there is no existential threat to the existence of Russia. He is making the point that Europe has far more to lose, if necessary
Russia can cut them off and turn to Asia.
I am only a few paragraphs into your link, but it is providing the background and texture for which I wanted and needed to
overlay the information in the Michael Hudson interview.
(I didn't want you to have wait an hour or two for me to thank you -- so I'm going to get back to reading that which you sent.
Thanks again, so much.)
Pearl. February 15, 2015 at 1:57 pm
Wow. That website to which you linked is amazingly thought-provoking. (Dare I say….addictive!) :-0 I'm hooked. The comments
are really interesting, as well.
It's fascinating to me that we have these two great powers, Russia and the United States; one currently being led by a President
who has been been nicknamed "No Drama Obama," and the other country being led by a seemingly 180-degree opposite personality --
an "all drama," or if you will, a "Tooten' Putin."
Indeed, this in itself would tend to set the stage for some very interesting and very complex geo-politics.
Have you read much about the (subset?) of Nash Equilibrium/Game Theory that is referred to as "Drama Theory?" I wonder how
"Drama Theory" would fit into this conflict. It's older work, but interesting:
http://www.gametheory.net/News/Items/092.html ("Don't
Get Even, Get Mad: When it looks like you just can't win, what's the most rational thing to do? Try going completely crazy," suggests
Robert Matthews.)
Anyway, thanks again for the link.
OIFVet. February 15, 2015 at 2:06 pm
"Russia has far too much investment in corrupt European politicians…" Not nearly as much as the US. See all "liberul" Euro
politicians both in the East and in the West, eagerly selling their countries' interests for a few silver dollars.
lolcar. February 15, 2015 at 9:18 am
Russia's military budget is exceeded by France and the UK alone, let alone the EU as a whole, let alone the entire NATO alliance.
Not sure how you get to Russia being in any position to "bully" Europe. Parking a fleet of battleships in Russia's backyard or,
more useful in this day and age, a fleet of ballistic missiles on Russia's border would of course in no way be "bullying" because
we in the West are such special snowflakes who only engage in violence reluctantly and for the highest of moral purposes.
NotTimothyGeithner. February 15, 2015 at 10:07 am
How much goes to the military and how much goes to hookers and blow is a huge deal. The U.S. has captive markets and can force
F-35 contracts. The Russian planes need to work to be sold, and they don't have oceans protecting them.
NATO trained and equipped soldiers haven't been fairing too well without overwhelming air power. See Iraq and Georgia.
In the case of Georgia, the ex-President currently hiding out from trial in the now NATO ally here in the U.S. started the hostilities.
lolcar. February 15, 2015 at 11:17 am
Actually meant as a reply to Pearl's interpretation of
"Putin told Europe, look, you have two choices before you. Choice one: Europe, Germany and Russia can be a very prosperous
area. With Russia's raw materials and European technology, we can be one of the most prosperous areas in the world. Or, Choice
two: You can go to war with us and you can be wiped out"
as some kind of Russian threat of complete domination of Europe. But of course, you're right -- the actual fighting power per
dollar spent may well be a lot lower in the NATO alliance.
bob. February 15, 2015 at 2:23 pm
"Georgia, the ex-President currently hiding out from trial in the now NATO ally here in the U.S. started the hostilities."
"Not sure how you get to Russia being in any position to "bully" Europe."
I'm not sure that they are -- I guess I just assumed it was possible because of Russia's nuclear capability and because of
Russia's sheer size? I dunno.
But I really was just trying to have clarified if that is how the two choices given by Putin (per Michael Hudson) were intended
to be taken. I really wasn't sure -- and that's why I was asking.
Btw, and thank you for bringing to my attention, the following information -- which I did not know:
"Russia's military budget is exceeded by France and the UK alone, let alone the EU as a whole, let alone the entire NATO
alliance."
I really didn't realize that.
And, btw, I agree that the U.S. is not a special snowflake that does not ever provoke war. Ironically (predictably) the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld
misguided invasion of Iraq just made the United States more "hated," less respected, and less trusted. So in a way, it just seems
like we have to be more "on guard" now because we're more hated/disrespected/distrusted (understandably) than we were before we
(ever-so-thoughtfully) invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and helped to further destabilize an entire region of
the world. It was the gift that keeps on giving, no?
Anyway, I appreciate your insight. It's difficult to keep up with geo-politics, and I was actually caught fairly off guard
as to the Ukraine situation when it all exploded, and I'm trying to catch up in getting a grasp on it.
(Although, now I'm thinking of giving up on ever being able to grasp it, as my brain seems ready to explode just in scratching
the surface here!) :-)
The EU is waging war on Russia for parts of eastern Europe that historically were Russian and have Russians living in them.
And who cares about bits of the Ukraine, when the EU will starve to death the Ukrainians with the help of the IMF just as they
did in Greece.
At least with Russia, Ukraine people would eat.
As Gandhi observed, People's Politics Are Their Daily Bread.
The UK has no EU debt, but starves its poor to such an extent that after the general election in May that the poor will not
bother to come out and vote and leave a hung parliament of twiddledee and twiddledum parties, the UN will return to continue its
investigation into early deaths and suicides caused by UK's welfare reform.
There is a way to get rid of the big neo-liberal parties altogether in this UK general election.
I belong to no political member. I am a voter suffering our political class stuck 1000 years into the past, educated in an
ancient feudal mindset of past aristocracy in public schools (elite private schools) and Oxford and Cambridge universities.
MartyH. February 15, 2015 at 11:00 am
Michael Hudson graced us at the last NY NC Meet-Up. He's as blunt and brilliant in person. While I am sure his analysis on
this is as accurate as is usual for him, I just wonder how the IMF expects to plunder what has already been strip-mined by the
oligarchs and the other vultures for the past decade or more. I guess their specialty is extracting blood from stones.
susan the other. February 15, 2015 at 11:42 am
I think the objective is political control. It has worked quite well for decades. An impoverished country that is forced to
privatize its most valuable resources is being reduced to a political non-entity. It's the sovereignty question all over again.
cassandra. February 15, 2015 at 1:13 pm
Au contraire, in some ways, a broken country is ideal for extraction. Privatised assets can be had on the cheap, and with declining
living standards, labor costs plunge as well. True, birth rates fall and suicides rise, but managed correctly, the resulting social
malaise ensures political docility, and drives those with the intelligence and energy to resist, to emigrate instead. What's not
to like? And in Ukraine, there's even more to like. We have farmland (coveted by Cargill et al.), well-known iron ore
and coal deposits, and less-frequently discussed strategic metals (guess who's been the worldwide exporter of titanium sponge?).
One report on such connections can be found at
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/03/16/corporate-interests-behind-ukraine-putsch/,
but a targeted internet search uncovers a lot more roaches hiding under these stones. Imposing such an austerity package is, after
all, what the IMF is for.
cassandra. February 15, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Au contraire, in some ways, a broken country is ideal for extraction. Privatised assets can be had on the cheap, and with declining
living standards, labor costs plunge as well. True, birth rates fall and suicides rise, but managed correctly, the resulting social
malaise ensures political docility, and drives those with the intelligence and energy to resist, to emigrate instead. What's not
to like? And, in Ukraine specifically, there's even more to like: farmland (coveted by Cargill et al.), well-known iron
ore and coal deposits, and less-frequently discussed strategic metals (guess who's been the worldwide exporter of titanium sponge?).
Previously-resisted fracking becomes possible; check out Burisma Holdings, where Joe Biden's son Hunter plays footsie with Igor
Kolomoisky. An excellent report can be found at
Corporate Interests
Behind Ukraine Putsch . IMF job creation in action.
bob. February 15, 2015 at 5:24 pm
That's also probably what pissed Putin off the most, re cargill. They were probably buying food from Ukraine with Roubles,
not anymore? I haven't been able to find any numbers that I trust on either russian imports of food, or Ukrainian exports. Even
less on the denomination of the trades.
It's been some time since I looked. Maybe worth another look now.
Food can really screw with the balance of payments. In this case, russia may now have to cough up dollars for food it might
have been buying with roubles. Effectively, a double hit.
Big deal.
susan the other. February 15, 2015 at 11:31 am
Back when Rummy was dismissing the EU as "Old Europe" and pushing all of eastern Europe to join NATO -- that was 2001 -- we
were overwhelmed with news from Afghanistan and Iraq. Now that Middle East oil has been secured everything is fine. Oh wait. I
must have missed something. As Bremmer cryptically informed us, Ukraine is part of the larger plan. Rummy wanted to call it a
crusade -- since those guys fought each other for centuries. But it was tactless so he settled on "Odyssey Dawn." How poetic.
Good thing he didn't call it the Siege of Troy. Because the Achilles heel of NATO is -- ta da! -- oil. It is all about oil and
NATO doesn't have any. We shouldn't be distracted with idiotic news reports about ISIL. That is until ISIL decides to take the
Caspian. Then we will start to see what is really going on. In the meantime we will worm and weasel our way into a position in
Ukraine to attack from the north. Maybe.
NotTimothyGeithner. February 15, 2015 at 12:00 pm
The goal was never to attack Ukraine or Russia. The goal was to isolate Russia from both China and the EU and the International
arms/tech market.
The U.S. shale and natural gas industry wants to export to Europe, but they aren't close to ready. If Russia develops, they
will export, and between Russia and green energy, there goes that plan.
As far as arms, would a country rather have a pos F-22/35 or a much cheaper S-400. F-35s aren't needed to put down local thugs.
They are a tool of shock and awe. Countries not interested in invasion don't need them when cheaper alternatives to air defense
exist. The U.S. controls it's hemisphere. We don't invest in air defense, just supremacy. It's a market we just don't compete
in.
Jack. February 15, 2015 at 7:02 pm
The F-22 isn't a POS. It does exactly what it was designed to do. The problem is that what it was designed to do is largely
superfluous, and it's too expensive. We aren't exporting it anyway, and since its chief selling point, the stealth, is almost
certainly utterly worthless, potential buyers would be better off buying any of a number of other planes even if we were exporting
it. Of course the constant slashing of military budgets as part of austerity means that most of Europe can't even afford their
own natively developed alternative, the Eurofighter Typhoon. You're correct though that cheap and effective AA systems mean any
air war isn't likely to last long. And Russia would be playing defensive in any conflict. They'd just sit back and snipe the skies
clear.
skippy. February 15, 2015 at 7:54 pm
Starwars all over again…
susan the other. February 15, 2015 at 11:52 am
Hudson's new book sounds great. "Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroyed the Global Economy."
Excerpts please, lots of them.
susan the other. February 15, 2015 at 11:57 am
I hope there is a long chapter in it about the mind-boggling expenses of today's modern military.
Chief Bromden. February 15, 2015 at 12:55 pm
"Shock Doctrine" is alive and well… and I thought for sure Ukraine was another U.S. humanitarian exercise.
"By encouraging reforms such as the deregulation of seed and fertiliser markets, the country's agricultural sector is being
forced open to foreign corporations such as Dupont and Monsanto.
The Bank's activities and its loan and reform programmes in Ukraine seem to be working toward the expansion of large industrial
holdings in Ukrainian agriculture owned by foreign entities."
Time limitations may have precluded Michael Hudson from mentioning Ukraine's devaluation of the hyrvnia. WSJ, Aug. 2014:
'[In late April] the IMF said Ukraine might need to inject the equivalent of 5% of the country's gross domestic product,
roughly $6 billion, into its banks to stabilize the financial sector if the exchange rate rose above 12.5 hryvnia to the dollar.'
'Ukraine's foreign-debt costs ballooned after the central bank let the hryvnia depreciate by 31 percent on Feb. 5 to
bring the exchange rate closer to black-market levels [of around 24 hryvnia per dollar], a move backed by the IMF.'
Classically, IMF programs urged devaluation to boost export competitiveness. Last April the IMF said a hryvnia exchange rate
below 12.5 would weaken the banks; now it's about 26.3 hryvnia per dollar.
Ukraine FinMin Natalie Jaresko seems to be 'letting the hryvnia slide' to get in the IMF's good graces for the next tranche,
even as the prospects for defaulting on foreign currency debt rise. This suggests a modified version of Michael Hudson's IMF
modus operandi:
'Don't pay your bondholders, so that you're now in selective default to them and owing us, the IMF, to whom you can't
write down debts. '
gordon. February 15, 2015 at 7:53 pm
There is a very simple solution to the problems of the Ukraine, one that should be familiar to any European statesperson: partition.
I'm thinking a 3-way division between Russia, Germany and the US (which would act as the representative of Monsanto, Cargill
and the other agribusiness giants). I'm sure the OSCE could form the basis for a Partition Commission which could meet (maybe
in Vienna, for historical reasons) to supervise the negotiations over boundaries and set up an agreed framework for investment
in the ex-Ukrainian territories and the marketing of their products. A continuing Commission of the Partitioning Powers might
be required to oversee and if necessary adjust the operation of such arrangements. Obviously, no Ukrainian representatives would
be required for this work. I think the partition should be complete, ie. there should be no remaining independent "Ukrainian"
territory, because this would only be a platform for tiresome and destabilising Ukrainian irredentism.
Such a solution along good old 18th Century lines would leave only the problem of outstanding Ukrainian debts. Perhaps the
best solution here would be the formation of an international Sinking Fund to which workers in ex-Ukrainian territories would
be required to contribute a proportion of their earnings. Setting up such a Fund could be another part of the work of the continuing
Commission.
I'm sure there's much more to be said about partition arrangements once people get their heads around the basic idea and realise
that moving Back To The Future in this way offers the best hope for a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian problem. After all, the
problem is not new; it is a problem that has confronted European powers many times in the past and has often been solved in this
way. Ask any Pole.
Ron Paul: "The Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU... The best thing we can do for Ukraine is get the foreigners out."
Quote from comments: "That is where anyone who does not believe that USA, EU and NATO are totally responsible for the violent
mess Ukraine has become."
As
Ron Paul recently exclaimed, the war propagandists are very active and are winning over the support of many unsuspecting American
citizens. So we thought the followingg 90 seconds of 'pure Paul' would provide a refreshingly different perspective as he
explains, "I'm not pro-Russia, I'm not pro-Putin, I'm pro-facts."
"The Ukraine coup was planned by NATO and EU... The best thing we can do for Ukraine is get the foreigners out."
Our government has no more credibility in telling us the truth about the facts that require us to expand our military
presence in this region than Brian Williams.
Constant war propaganda has proven too often to be our nemesis in supporting constant war promoted by the neoconservatives
and the military industrial complex.
...
The only way that Congress can be persuaded to back off with our dangerous interventionism, whether it's in the Middle
East or Ukraine, is for the American people to speak out clearly in opposition.
ekm1
Where are the facts Mr Ron Paul?
Ron Paul is making up stuff in order to sell products to disciples.
Coup in Ukraine was staged by Putin via Yanukovych. Yanuk did not camapaign on joing eurasian union.
Joining eurasian union was a coup d'etat by Putin and Yanukovych.
What happened was the counter coup, which yes, was urged by USA and nato
cigarEngineer
EKM1, how is the air conditioning at US Misinformation Warfare Headquarters? Do you get paid weekly or bi-weekly? Then again,
at $15/hr, who cares, right...
Ignatius
Lying for a living. Don't he know that politics pays better? Maybe he's just packin' his resume.
Winston Churchill
EKM just graduated to my do not bother to read comment list.
Maybe PPT really stands for Piss Poor Trolls.
Calmyourself
British Battalion 77 peter puffers have arrived.. EKM, which barracks you out of? I am sure you will tell us next multiculturism
is strengthing Britain..
Jack Burton
Winston, I don't know if you have noticed, but over the last few months the State Department Internet posters have moved away
from ZH. Perhaps they consider us a lost cause. But some months back they were still very active here, posting sometimes dozens
of State Department talking points, but winning no converts. As of late, they have withdrawn to troll more mainstream blogs and
News Paper comments sections.
The one benefit of the Ukraine Coup and civil war has been the western media exposing it'self like never before as one
channel propaganda. Never before has media told so many demonstrable lies in so short a time. The transparent lies have begun
to catch many people's attention. The script they read from is not at all clever or well thought out. The script is terribly transparent,
and so easily proved to be lies.
So, will this new war propaganda win? So far I say it's 75 yes, 25% no. So many Americans just lap up the lies without trying
to get the real story. Fools have been
TungstenBars
"The one benefit of the Ukraine Coup and civil war has been the western media exposing it'self like never before as one
channel propaganda."
I agree 100% with this; more and more people are seeing the US state sponsored propaganda for what it is.
In regards to "So, will this new war propaganda win?":
I stated here before that the secondary objective of modern state sponsored propaganda in the west is to gain popular support,
but the main objective is to send out the "offical accepted version of world events", meaning that it does not matter if 99% of
Americans do not believe it. So long as America does not erupt in a civil war, what the state sponsored media says stands
and nothing else matters and will be ignored. Anyone asking questions or causing trouble will be pointed to or judged based on
that propaganda as if it was truth. Pretty much 1984.
angel_of_joy
He's from Toronto... the navel of the Universe (in their own opinion). Their view of the world is somewhat distorted, and "potted"...
TungstenBars
The state-sponsored anti-russian propaganda in Canada is in overdrive. Harper has gone full retard and traitor to appease to
certain foreign interests.
Most people don't believe the nonsense whatsoever. EKM, I don't get why he is so special as to actually believe it. He speaks
for no-one.
Jack Burton
Canada just happened to be where the allies shipped the Ukrainian Nazis and SS veterans after World War II. The allies knew
their strong anti communist and anti Russia bent, so figured to save as many as possible to form the useful agents they and their
families now are. Harper is feeding those Western Ukrainian trolls and they in turn help ramp up public opinion into fever pitch.
I am sick of this shit. My response to every person who repeats the lies, I will tell them that it is "their duty to go to
this war in person, I will not accpet bullshit lies and then people asking others to due the fighting!" Put up or shut up assholes!
Why does the west feed this war fever, and why the coup in the first place? War allows the public to be stripped of tax revenues,
it allows national security to trump privacy and freedom, and it allows politicians to claim a patriotic mandate to rule us. Plus
corporate profits and stocks are off the charts money makers.
Spitzer
This is true. They are scattered all over alberta and Sk. I met one recently that was bragging about cross burnings in Provost.
Provost is a nazi ukranian KKK town
Latina Lover
Quoting Jack Burton:
"I am sick of this shit. My response to every person who repeats the lies, I will tell them that it is "their duty to
go to this war in person, I will not accpet bullshit lies and then people asking others to due the fighting!" Put up or shut
up assholes!"
I couldn't have said better myself. As a former grunt who saw some action when I was young and very stupid, any idiot advocating
violence against others should put their money where their mouth is and lead by example.
Instead we have this hypocrite drone army, spewing endless BS to induce others to die for their shabby causes, cowards hiding
behind keyboards. To hell with all of them!
This is from Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung a NOG from Germany. So this mght be propaganda or not. In fact there never were real
elections Ukraine ever. Lawful was not one government there.
giovanni_f
Konrad-Adenauer-Siftung is anything but an unbiased organisation. Actually it is a transatlantic networking group in the business
to spread neocon messages in Germany. The page you refer to does not contain ANY actual, proven issue but just the general out-of-the-air
claim that the elections didn't meet demoratic standards.
Try harder, Neocon troll.
El Vaquero
Are you claiming that Ron Paul was wrong when he said that we had a recording of the assistant US secretary of state and the
US ambassador to Ukraine discussing who is going to take power in Ukraine BEFORE the coup in Ukraine?
Nuland did the right thing. It prepared the counter coup against Putin's coup
El Vaquero
Yes, Nuland took part in starting a civil war that has killed innocent people. That is obviously the right thing. Civil
war is good for the people, or didn't people realize that?
JESUS! FUCK!
EU-Ukraine-Russia trade deals are NONE OF OUR FUCKING BUSINESS!
BlindMonkey
so the Nazi Ukies could have gone about their protests by peaceful means but Nazis gonna Nazi and tortured, burned, raped and
stole their merry way across the countryside. Even the Ukies have had enough of their shit and have tried to pull them back at
various times just to see the Nazis flex and storm the buildings of their own gov.
As I write this I am wondering what ahit are you trying to pull? You don't seem to be a satire artist like MDB. Paid troll?
Maybe. I don't see how anyone can objectively read the news and come to the same conclusions as you.
El Vaquero
That is some seriously fucked up reasoning. The US did the right thing by kicking off something that was inevetable and accomplished
nothing except putting the US and Russia closer to war, which, BTW would go nuclear. You call that the right thing?
You're fucking nuts. This should be none of the US's fucking business. I'm sick of sending our soldiers over to die for somebody
else's cause. Why don't you Eastern Europeans solve your own fucking problems?
ekm1
USA is now the business of world police. Becoming a soldier is the safest way of employment.
World security is USA's export now. There is no other way, for now.
Soldiers know very well they will end up in interventions, but they like the money and the thrill of it.
Nobody forces young people to enroll. The money and the thrill entice them to
El Vaquero
So you want the USA to solve your problems? Being globo-cop is proving to be an unethical gig for the US, and should stop.
And have you ever heard a US soldier talk about how they were defending the US in our interventionist wars? I have. They actually
believe it. Young people don't know what they are signing up for, and often they fail to realize what they have done after they
are finished.
So, again, why can't you Eastern Euroopeans solve your own fucking problems? You know that the US is not going to be able to
backstop you forever. What then?
ekm1
Yes. I've spoken with many. Most love it being in the military, absolutely love it
El Vaquero
Gee, that must explain the excessively high suicide rate amongst US vets.
ThroxxOfVron
"Most love it being in the military, absolutely love it "
I believe it. Oh, the gory glory. Oh, the rush of being tough and exerting power.
...& dumb women love a douche with a paycheck in a tidy uniform.
angel_of_joy
That love generally stops suddenly when they come to suffer the consequences of their choice (i.e. the possibility
of getting maimed or dying in combat).
The military is a wonderful (state supported and encouraged) vehicle for crass freeloading, until a war happens. Then,
a soldier's personal ROI becomes dramatically (even terminally, for many) NEGATIVE !
The_Prisoner
Course they do. They're sociopaths like you to whom only personal gain, even at the cost of murdering others whom just
want to live their lives is justified.
g speed
A lot of these kids just do what their parents want them to do---very sad---kids come home with no legs and look at dad and
ask why?
green888
Dispute resolution ? Kill someone is your only way- look at your films, entertainment; there is a bad guy and then the "good
guy" kills him. It has all become part of your psyche, as ultimately any of your disputes has to be resolved in this way; but
the resentment you leave behind has a price.
If you complain about others, you should go home and conduct a self examination.
RichardParker
EKM1:
You want to know what your masters think of the military?
POS Kissinger actually told the truth for once when he explained how ""Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be
used as pawns in foreign policy."
JustUsChickensHere
Somebody seems to have hacked the ekm1 account. He was always sort of necon, but never this blatantly wacko before.
El Vaquero
He's Eastern European. I suspect that some deep cultural hatred of the Russians going back a century or 5 has something to
do with it. I want nothing to do with that tribal mentality bullshit when it comes to a potential US-Russia confrontation because
I don't want to see mushroom clouds over Kirtland AFB with my own eyes. Call me crazy for that.
TheFourthStooge-ing
He's Albanian, which makes him half Latvian, half Polack, and half Bulgoslovenakian.
OpenThePodBayDoorHAL
WTF you fascist, the world does not want or need American storm troopers telling them how to run their lives for the benefit
of America. History is a story of lesser powers uniting to oppose tyranny and eventually winning, this will be no different. Get
the fuck back in your cave deep in exceptionalist Anglo-American fantasy land and leave the rest of the world the fuck alone.
reload
@EKM
'world security'
Right: let's have a little stock take shall we of those recent lucky nations receiving the security export.
Iraq
Libya
Egypt
Yemen
Ukraine
Somalia
Notice the trend? All places of great insecurity due to US led attempts to insert or maintain puppet client governments whose
purpose is to loot their host countries.
You used to make sense on some issues, even when you were needlessly cryptic you were thought provoking. Hell, you even called
for oil to trade with a $40 handle even though your reasoning was off, it Has happened.
You have lost the plot tonight.
Libertarian777
because... Putin wants to rule a basket case? that's why he started a civil war?
I haven't heard any logical arguments for why Putin would want to take over the Ukraine. Next I'll hear he wants to take over
Greece. For what purpose? Cos he wants their monuments? Or does he like their national debt and 30 hour workweek?
The Russians are saying they are intervening to protect Russian people. The West claims Russia is trying to rebuild the Soviet
Union.
On the other hand the west is trying to expand NATO up to Russia's border (think of it as a 'western union').
So even if Putin wants to recreate the USSR, why is it 'bad' when he wants to do it, but 'OK' when the west wants to do it?
What is the distinction? Let me guess... human rights? Well the USA with a population of 330 million has MORE people incarcerated
than CHINA with 1.2 BILLION people. (4x). Where's the 'human rights'?
How many countries has Russia invaded. I'll even give you Crimea, so Crimea and Georgia.. that's 2.
How many countries has the USA invaded... Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia.
I can't follow the logic.
LocalBoy
NATO / IMF controlling Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, is instant suicide for Russia.
Their choice was give in or fight. War became inevitable when NATO expanded toward Russia -
It is well known that Russia will not give up Sevastopol, will not give up Ukraine to a foreign military alliance.
lasvegaspersona
'Nuland did the right thing'...sure...unless you believe in that whole 'democracy' thingy.
An elected government was overthrown in violent protests that it appears the US organized and aided.
This was done because NATO was displeased that the Ukes were not willing to move closer to the EU.
NATO has shamelessly disregarded the agreements made way back when Gorby was in charge. They have place missiles in Poland
fer-cryin-out loud.
I think if I were Putin (and Russia) I'd be worried.
ah, nuland, mccrazy, kristol, et al , are "just soft" war criminals.
ebworthen
Oh ekm 1, puhleease! Yanukovych was elected by the people of Ukraine.
How is an elected leader ousted by pro a EU Maidan which is supported by: the EU, NATO, our State Department, and meddling
U.S. Senators - a coup by Putin?
What is it you are smoking to make you believe such a thing?
El Vaquero
Observable facts do not matter to the narrative. Most will not look at them anyway. Putin could be the most evil sonofabitch
the world has ever seen, and that still would not justify our destabilizing Ukraine.
Element
You realize Ukraine was totally broke well before any of this? Deeply in debt, big bills to pay, pooched economy? That sound
stable to you?
The reason Yanukovych was trying to obtain an association with the EU at all was because Ukraine was so broke and desperate
for a new sugar daddy.
And Yanukovych definitely would have gone that way too, if the IMF had not tried to fuck Ukraine so badly that Yanukovych
was forced to walk away as it was national financial suicide to accept the terms Legarde wanted to inflict.
The real source of the instability was Ukraine's own mess.
What came next was just the rush to get the best bits of the carcass.
So who was doing, or rather had already done, the destabilizing of the country?
El Vaquero
Yes, Ukraine was a corrupt broke mess. Why the fuck were our politicians over there? Why were they acting as though they knew
that "Yats" was going to be the new PM? Why the fuck was John Brennan over there? What fucking business is it of ours?
Miffed Microbio...
The time will end for us as Global Cop as it always has in history. This is assured. However, only after millions have
died during the posturing. And those who have played this role have never risen to that status again.
This country will pay, including the innocents who were against the whole thing in the first place. We just get to watch while
others distract themselves with amusements and trinkets.
It is not our business now nor ever was. Why Ron Paul wasnt elected just blows my mind. That was our last hope for redemption.
Miffed
chinoslims
It's not global cop. It's global robbery.
El Vaquero
Haven't you been paying attention to policing in the US lately? Civil asset forefitures plus shooting people because they dared
to turn their back on the police while holding a plastic spoon means that cops and robbers are often one in the same.
TheFourthStooge-ing
The term you're looking for is protection racket.
Element
Nicely said, I see you have no trouble coming to terms with it, must be trauma ward experience kicking in.
Miffed Microbiologist
I accept the reality of it but this is no means a personal relief of my own responcibilities as a participant nor is it an
escape into futility of action. Yes, if omnipotent, I would end this fast but since I am woefully lacking in such power I must
content myself to personal and local rebellion. I hope others will join me at some point but it is always unwise to count on others.
Americans have become slothful and content in their status in the world. It is ending now but few truly perceive it being subtle
at this stage. When one is unconcerned about the atrocities this country is perpetuating on its own citizens or those in other
nations, be it overt attacks or political maneuvering, then ones humanity is lost. I am not sure if it can be truly recovered.
We brand our leaders as psychopathic but we should examine our own hearts as well.
Yes, the inward trauma ward is not very pleasant. ;-)
Miffed
Element
You don't really need a lesson on how geopolitics is played do you? I'll give you credit and presume you don't. But you better
start to get real about this ElV, it isn't going to go away via wishes and idealism.
It is real, and it is ugly, and it is about survival, or else not, and you do have to accept that it's happening and face it
as it is, not how you would wish it to be.
And that's all the slack I'm ever cut you on this topic.
El Vaquero
Serious question: Do you support a war with Russia? Because that is a very real danger with the kind of geopolitics
being played today.
Element
Of course not.
That said, it appears one key Russian does support war with NATO, given actions speak louder than words. It won't take long
to find out if Putin is effectively suicidal. I think he's certainly become erratic over the past year, and made unexpectedly
bad choices and extraordinary mistakes. I've been amazed by how badly he's done. So if this goes pear-shaped his recent judgement
and decision-making under pressure doesn't inspire confidence.
There's a moderate to reasonably good chance we're stuffed.
The_Prisoner
That's very magnanimous of you.
You must have patience with us peons. Not all of us went to Duntroon and had the honor of serving the Empire.
Thanks again, milord.
Calmyourself
Yanukovych pivoted to Russia for a saving loan and then what happened when he did not take money from EU bankers to prolong
their party, that's right Nuland showed up to kick his ass out.. Get with the everlasting gobstopper of debt program or get "destabilized"
Volkodav
Yanuk was only thief, not open murderer... He also Ukrainian, not outsider alien passport gang
Hefar lesser heavy handed than the "Red" mafia now in Kiev..who prove themselves killers.
schadenfreude
With all the propaganda dished out to the people it's difficult to know who staged what. But at least there are some facts,
where eyerybody can draw conclusions.
French, German and Polish foreign ministers negotiated a deal with Yanukovich to have elections in September 2014. In the
evening after this deal people on Maidan Sq. got shot. This caused the putsch against the government.
So the trigger was the shooting on Maidan Sq. which was never really investigated.
All actions afterwards was reaction and counter-reaction by the involved parties.
Nulands phone call is fact as well. This is an evidence of US involvement. Whether they initiated the shootings or Yanukovichs
people for me is not proven, but likely. Why should Yanukovich do this, a couple of hours after he signed a deal with EU?
Chupacabra-322
Let's also not forget Criminal Psychopath / Sociopath Nuland's 5 Billion Dollar Fascist investment
Victoria Nuland - Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs
US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe, Nuland said: "Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United
States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good
form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine's European. We have invested more than 5 billion
dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals. " Nuland said the United States will continue to "promote Ukraine to
the future it deserves."
HowdyDoody
Not to mention the repeated strange coincidence that the Nazi violence ramps up after visits from major US/CIA gov actors.
geno-econ
Nuland has admitted publicaly that State Dept has spent $ 5 Billion influencing Kiev regime change over last several years.
Granted much of this was in form of encouraging ex-patriots here in States, propaganda directed towards Ukrainian citizens and
aide money. Only people in government know how much was allocated for actual arms but everyone knows the activities of Neocons
in Washington.
The point is the US encourages regime change and recently has had a dismal record of failure and huge wasteful spending.
Just look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Georgia, Yeman and now Ukraine. Ron Paul is correct.
nailgunnin4you
Joining eurasian union was a coup d'etat by Putin and Yanukovych.
I think coup d'état is a little strong here, which American talking head has you recycling this verbal diarrhoea? Only
a war-mongering murrican would say establishing a better trade deal for your country is a coup d'état.
Yanuk did not camapaign on joing eurasian union.
So, in your bubble, a country's leader can only establish trade deals/policies/legislature et cetera that he campaigned on,
and anything else he did not take to a previous election is a coup d'état even if it is a simple trade deal benefitting the people?
If the NWO is successful in killing Ukranian's it won't be long before they start killing Americans. Globalists are traitors
against all nations.
Element
Great sentiments and rhetoric, not much else, as what he's calling for is the end of US involvement in NATO. OK, what then?
US forces have to leave Europe ... completely, the lot. But Europe is most definitely not going to butt-out of the changing
of borders in Ukraine using Russian force and support.
He seems to want to ignore that Russia is in fact attacking Ukraine, has stolen its navy, has taken Crimea, and has tried to
carve off more and more of Eastern Ukraine, even in the past couple of days.
"I'm pro-facts."
OK, but are you also prepared to accept the implications and imperatives that those facts, Ron?
SMC
OK, what then?
PEACE
Element
Peace since WWII involved the "balance of terror" of MAD. It is a BALANCE of forces and strategy and position.
Change the balance radically and the strategic game changes radically, i.e. not-peace. And it happens in multiple locations.
rejected
Fact: Crimea was 'gifted' to Ukraine in the 1950's by crazy Khrushchev without a plebiscite.
Fact: Crimea voted for reunification when given the chance.
Fact: Ukraine only owned the Sevastopol Navel base by the graciousness of Russia.Russia even paid for a lease.
Fact: The Ukrainian Navy was allowed to exit Sevastopol after the reunification vote. Why would Russia want their junk?
Fact: Sevastopol would never have been given up by Russia regardless of the reunification vote just as the USSA refuses
to leave Guantanamo.
Fact: Russia has given Ukraine control of all the borders including the break away provinces with the new Minsk agreement.
Fact: You are full of shit.
Element
Fact: Crimea is the UN recognized Sovereign territory of Ukraine in law.
Fact: Crimea being Ukrainian territory is recognized by the overwhelming majority of countries on Earth.
Deal with it.
angel_of_joy
UN does not recognize the Kosovo entity, but it still exists. UN din't sanction the entire war against Serbia, but
it still took place.
Reality is different than UN's view of the world, and the realities on the ground in Ukraine are changing as we speak. Deal
with it !
rejected
Fact: The UN is not a sovereign state.
Fact: The UN is funded mainly by the U.S
Fact: The UN has no authority to recognize any state.
Fact: The UN 'supposedly' supports self determination by it's very charter.
Chancellor Merkel: (a few days ago)
"One particular priority was given to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia this morning. We stand up for the same
principles of inviolability of territorial integrity. For somebody who comes from Europe, I can only say if
we give up this principle of territorial integrity of countries, then we will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of
Europe that we've been able to achieve. This is not just any old point, it's an essential, a crucial point,
and we have to stand by it. And Russia has violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine in two respects: in Crimea,
and also in Donetsk and Luhansk.
So we are called upon now to come up with solutions, but not in the sense of a mediator, but we also stand up for the interests
of the European peaceful order. And this is what the French President and I have been trying to do over the past few days.
We're going to continue those efforts.
And I'm very grateful that throughout the Ukraine crisis, we have been in very, very close contact with the United
States of America and Europe on sanctions, on diplomatic initiatives. And this is going to be continued. And I think
that's, indeed, one of the most important messages we can send to Russia, and need to send
to Russia.
We continue to pursue a diplomatic solution, although we have suffered a lot of setbacks. These days we will see whether all
sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement. I've always said I don't see a military solution to this conflict,
but we have to put all our efforts in bringing about a diplomatic solution. ..."
i.e. Europe doesn't want the US to leave, and Washington does not want the US to leave either.
SO THE USA IS NOT LEAVING EUROPE
Get it?
Both consider this to be in their vital interests.
So these also are the facts of the situation, and you can try to ignore these facts, because you do not like them, you do not
like the ugliness of geopolitics, but that changes nothing about geopolitics.
All I'm doing here is pointing that out.
So cry a river of tears if you think it changes anything, or that if merely I changed my mind, it would make
you less pissy and aggrieved.
But those facts of this situation, will remain.
That's where Ron Paul, and people like you, have your heads rammed firmly up your butts, screaming to mother to make it all
go away.
And I understand (perfectly) why you would want the world to be different than it is, but it simply isn't going to be.
Now seriously, grow up and try to cope with that, rhetorical fantasies don't help.
"Both consider this to be in their vital interests."
Good sir, who's interests? Certainly you do not refer to the average American.
From this heart, how does the extreme waste of manpower and money and MIC profit pumping for moar bankster profits become
a "vital interest" to we, the average Americans? How is that "in their vital interest" to the rest of the world? All the warmongering
for profits, world domination, and population elimination is NOT interesting, or in the better "interests" of America and the
world's people at all.
How can you justify the out right blatant murder of innocents, women, and children for the moneygod? Whose really vitally interested
in that? Constant never ending warmongering in foreign lands is NOT the choice of real truth following Americans at all, nor in
their best interests. It is ONLY for evil zionist/luciferian/sataninc interests and NO covering up that FACT will change this
truth.
Darn, never thought about disagree with you before, for your truth really lit the Way for many here once ago.
From this perspective, if they were to go after the evil bankster empire of chaotic dust in Europe, THAT would be of "vital
interest" to the freedom loving American people. In fact, the world would rejoice if ALL these evil things were rounded up and
placed on an island in the middle of the ocean to do what they will. Good riddance say we all! War is of NO vital interest to
anyone. It just does not work.
Yes, but in Ukraine, things are going Putin's way, not yours. He will play his long game and he will prevail.
It could mean the end of your beloved NATO, which will have no viable purpose if it cannot dragoon Ukraine into its ranks so
as to encircle and ultimately destroy Russia.
It could also mean the end of the the EU, but that appears to be coming apart at the seams anyway.
You say Europe is dead keen on having the US remain in Europe. That's true of the elite -- largely because Paris and Berlin
are terrified of the vacuum that would be created by US withdrawal. Paris knows Germany would have the whip hand; Germany is afraid
of being alone at the top.
Nevertheless, our murderous and immoral Ukraine policy is earning us lots of new enemies among European populations. We
are playing with fire. Not sure if we don't know that, or just don't care.
Element
Yes, but in Ukraine, things are going Putin's way, not yours.
I am not taking a side.
I am totally non-partisan.
I am pointing out what is going to happen.
Not what people want to happen.
I am pointing it out to >>95% partisans. You are one of them.
Partisans usually do not like how things will develop to be stated plainly, as it often goes against the way they want things
to develop.
So partisans then shoot the messenger, rather than take the warning, on its face value.
Miffed Microbiologist
Element, I happen to agree with you though it does bother me personally. Sometimes hard facts are unpleasant to truly face
and hopes of alternative choices are seductive though not likely relevant in these games of power.
My only grief is this is being played with a participant that is rotting from within. Given up its manufacturing base.
Economically in the crapper and showering many with money just to live day to day. An aging sick population. We see this farce
play out everyday. We are being drained dry internally and will soon be unable to fill this role losing our strong foundation.
And when it ends, another will assume the role as it always has been throughout history. Can you blame us for wanting an end to
this?
As a small player in this, one who will be likely swept away when the power shifts, I can only watch it unfold. And this gives
me no pleasure to admit such a thing.
Miffed
YHC-FTSE
Mrs.M, if you examine his post it's quite easy to see that he is suffering from a condition called, "Fatalism".
"Fatalism is a philosophical doctrine stressing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate. Fatalism generally refers
to any of the following ideas: The view that we are powerless to do anything other than what we actually do."
His argument that the convolutions of geopolitics are a natural result of survival and therefore beyond the scope of our
control or wishful thinking is both wrong and indifferent to the real crimes being committed in our name.
We know who is involved in supporting the neo-nazis and zionists in Ukraine: Victoria Nuland of the US State Dept.
We know thousands of innocent people have died as a result. We know wholesale looting is taking place by the Israeli oligarchs.
We know, from their own words, from the mouth of the current Ukrainian Prime Minister that those who oppose the coup are
being threatened with being burnt alive - in fact many Russian language speaking Ukrainians in Odessa and Mariupol have actually
been murdered in this way.
What else could they do but fight against the nutjobs in Kiev and ask for help from Russia? Be burnt alive or become refugees?
Yet to brush all this aside with glib remarks about geopolitics and national survival with quite insane philosophies on death
lacking in any depth of analysis or empathy for the victims of these horrendous crimes is, I think, quite revolting. Yes, control
of our fate is an illusion, but we are also the cumulative sum of all of our decisions.
So, Mrs.M, you keep your compassion alive. Your empathy and reason do you credit in a world full of cold sociopaths.
Without such sweet and bitter experiences to guide our moral values in life, life would be very dull and useless indeed.
YHC-FTSE
"I am not taking a side.
I am totally non-partisan."
For a guy who believes he is non-partisan you sure do have a LOT to say about it for one side.
"I am pointing out what is going to happen."
For a guy who thinks he is a realist or pragmatist, you sure are delusional about being able to tell what is going to happen.
Newsflash: NOBODY knows the future. Not even you.
What's wrong with you? There's nothing coherent in your "message" at all - perhaps that's why you're getting junked.
angel_of_joy
Americans shouldn't leave, but stay there and keep paying for (and subsidizing with manpower and equipment) the European "security".
That would be a sure way toward self-destruction of contemporary US, which is already practically bankrupt (and not only from
a moral point of view...).
LocalBoy
Ukraine's government was functioning under a Constitution. Within the Constitution was allowances for Crimea to remain
autonomous. The Ukrainian Constitution was trashed when the overthrow occurred allowing Crimea to vote for independence.
How can you argue rule of law when the existing government is outside the rule of law while Crimea is within the law ?
Good point about stealing your Navy - and the fact is there is very little that CAN be done about it. Russia took it and nothing
will change that. Destroying Russia to give Crimea back to an illegitimate government will not fly - its all about price discovery.
What price CAN be forced on Russia........so far very little.
What price has the US already paid
Red Lenin
Fact: Crimea is the UN recognized Sovereign territory of Ukraine in law.
Fact: Yugoslavia was recognized by the UN as a sovereign country. It no longer exists.
Volkodav
UN is worthless except for fill pockets with US taxpayer $.
same as your opinion:
Crimea seceded
Crimea is peaceful
Crimea is free
The_Prisoner
Now you're fronting. Next thing you'll say Israel is legitimate
Urban Roman
"... and has tried to carve off more and more .."
Really? The Russian Army has been fighting a random bunch of warmed-over nazi skinheads for almost a whole year, and can't
manage to take a couple of oblasts west of the Don?
Whatchoo smokin' over dere? Login or register to post comments
angel_of_joy
There was no Ukraine prior to 1991. Contemporary Ukraine is an artificially induced state, created in a moment of maximum weakness
of the Russian state. As a result, it has no future, and no amount of US propping will change the facts on the ground. Crimea
is populated by Russians in vast majority, who decided they don't want to be rulled by Kiev after the US led coup. More so, the
Ukrainian "fleet" was built during USSR so it represents a Russian asset too. Your narrative is as dumb as this entire war...
which will end badly for US.
Volkodav
Ukraine has never been a sovereign nation.
Victory_Garden
Darn Element, what happened to you?
In the past, you were so spot on about all the fuckyoushima tragedy and offered much light for many who listened intently to
your truth. We are grateful for all that light.
Now, it seems as if you have been co-opted, or banned and someone else is using your handle to put out the same trash the
organized criminal lame stream media propagandists are putting out for public consumption. It's ONLY regurgitation of the filthiest
yukkity-muck ever.
We all miss the truth bearing Element and wonder, are you really another dis-informationist? It would be a shame and big loss
to find this out, as your great intelligence is needed to combat the evil that has run rampant over the planet for centuries.
Is it money or love you quest after, dear One?
Ask, would you rather have a Ron Paul for president, or the evil illegal usurping alien bushonian bankster puppet we have now?
Truly, the puppet soterobama is absolutely the most vile evil and destructive worst president America has ever had.. History will
reflect this fact. We may not see another righteous president ever again in America's coming to an end history. Sad to ponder
that, eh!
WE WANT GOD BACK IN AMERICA NOW!
(Side-swiping truth, God is Love. Period!)
new game
hmmm, then silence...
schadenfreude
You are correct. All germans I spoke to said, that they should leave Russia with Crimea and the Donbass region.
You are incorrect, that Ukraine is Russia. It is not. After WWII Stalin made the deal that he could enlarge Russia to the West.
So he deported the polish to what was once Germany. This artificial enlargement divides Ukraine and is a rated break point that
runs through the country. So both sides have a legitimate claim.
Victory_Garden
The latest rant on the GW story.
Ron Paul WAS America's last chance to remain free from the horridness of the banksteronian evil that runs rampant over the
land like diarrhea running out of a goose's arse.
HowdyDoody
NATO was created to force the USSR to target two widely separated entities (Europe and continental US) before the time of intercontinental
ballistic missiles. This was to keep the USSR focused on Europe. In any envisioned war, Europe and USSR would be destroyed or
severely weakened, strengthening the US position.
steelhead23
There is but one thing in all of this that is perfectly clear to me. The situation is quite confusing, lying is rampant, and
unnecessarily provoking the Russian Bear is about the most dangerous thing anyone could do.
My preference for U.S. policy is neither isolationism nor militarism. It's diplomacy. Further, the U.S. should abandon
its use of economic sanctions against the Bear for his annexation of Crimea because Putin would never leave Crimea, meaning this
economic cattle prod will continue to annoy the Bear.
Instead, the U.S. and NATO should be willing to trade some form of recognition of Russian presence in Crimea for ending the
war in eastern Ukraine. I would also hope that Kiev and Washington would be willing to see an autonomous region, perhaps more
aligned with Moscow than Kiev and agreement not to place NATO troops or materiel in Ukraine.
But of course, none of this is likely - everyone is lying and the trust needed for real diplomacy is nil.
Herdee
I guess that the CIA Director,Stephen Harper, Victoria Wench Nuland were only in Ukraine for a nice vacation?
It shows anyone with a grade 2 education how the world still works.
Bunga Bunga
We couped some folks.
655321
RP gives me the impression he a form of controlled opposition, almost like a pressure release valve, giving people false hope
and at same giving people false conclusions on key issues such as 9/11.
Savyindallas
You can't take on too many issues. Paul knows 911 was an inside job. His supporters know. Someday he will go public. I don't
agree with the way he handles this, just as I don't like the politics of rand paul on many issues. TPTB would have loved RP to
come out as a Truther - they would have detroyed him and his credibility as the sheeple just have no idea what is really going
on.
Watched it. The nazi's are taking over west ukraine. Porkoshenko better watch his back.
HowdyDoody
Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of the far right Pravy Sektor group (financed by Kolomoisky) has brought together the remnants of
the Nazi volunteer battalions as one entity, under his control. He has also stated that they (again) will not comply with the
ceasefire. These will be the shock troops in the next stage of this saga.
If the US were isolationist, a lot of Dead Ukrainians would likely be alive right now.
With that said, there are plenty of intrigues to go around even the US were somehow frozen.
There are many powerful entities who have their fingers in the Ukraine. Not the least of them are the Ukrainians themselves,
both Eastern and Western variety.
Neither the West's position, that everyone should account all Ukrainians both East and West to be homogenous, nor the East's
position, that the East Ukraine is Russia, and the West Ukraine is an illegitimate province of Poland or LIthuania and therefore
unworthy of self rule, is workable.
Both of those positions lead to dead ends. The Ukrainians are Ukrainians because they are the descendants of those who followed
the Kiev 'Rus' (Russians). The Russians are those who followed the Prince of Moscow. All of Russia and part of Ukraine was conquered
by the Mongols. The part not conquered are the West Ukrainians. The part conquered are the East Ukrainians...plus many soviet
era Russian imports.
Russia's stake is control of the Black Sea Basin...which will cement Russia as mandatory near monopoly energy supplier to Europe.
Europe's stake is to have access to non-Russian energy. The US's and NATO's stake is to prevent the re-arming of Europe by ensuring
they have no REASON to re-arm.
Pick your outcome:
If Russia gets both Crimea and East Ukrainian land routes to Ukraine, then they decisively control energy to Europe. Europe's
choices are then to EITHER a) Trust the US to ensure their economies and access to energy b) Ensure European access to energy
themselves - militarily c) Become Russian colonies.
Russia's choices are: a) Commit Russia to militarily conquering Ukraine and then use the economic benefit of that position
to arm themselves for the inevitable world war that will result b) Resign itself to open competition for energy by surrendering
either East Ukraine or Crimea.
The US's choices are: a) Incrementally increase pressure on Russia via economic and/or military means until they allow Europe
to have access to non-Russian energy b) Ignore Ukraine with the cost of later involvement in a world war in europe c) Ignore Ukraine
and then withdraw from the transatlantic alliance.
The fact is that the US is over-extended and should not have given Putin a reason for overt involvement. The fact is that Europe
is un-prepared to militarily deter Russia from turning them into energy-plantation slaves. The fact is that EUrope is too proud
and powerful for Russia as currently composed to force into energy submission simultaneously detering Europe from contesting the
matter militarily.
In the next 20 years there will be a major war in Europe, on the scale of WWII. Russia will be facing all of Western Europe.
Russia propaganda seems confused about the organization of Power in the West, presenting it as a US-led top-down organization.
In fact it is led by powerful European interests who act through governments. This is all highly observable. What did you think
the eminence of the CFR was all about? What did you think Bilderberg was for??? When the European governments were decimated after
WWII those interests acted through the US government.
Europe is no longer decimated, and the shift of power from US to European entities has been historic and EASILY observable.
What do you think the Eurozone and EU are all about??
There's a lot of high-time preference going on - on every side of this, as each side too heavily weights the desirability of
the fruit they see before them, and overly discounts the later costs of that fruit - both Europe and Russia wanting the Ukrainian
fruit for the energy power it gives them, and the US in underestimating the costs of their chosen course to placate Europe via
meddling in Ukraine.
This is not going to end well for anyone in Europe no matter how it plays out. The stakes are too big for too many big powers.
The US would be better off isolationist, and preparing to re-open ellis island. A lot of war refugees will need a home soon.
China need only wait to inherit Eurasia from those who plan to foolishly decimate themselves.
Rusputin
So that would be a US/NATO/EU coup on a US/NATO/EU coup?
Isn't one coup normally enough for a few years? The first one lasted 12 months and obviously the backstops weren't placed
carefully enough, me thinks the bribery money is running out (has run out)!
Catullus
Here's Ron Paul in 2002 asking why the US was meddling with Ukrainian elections...
It is never a good sign when differences in interpretation as to what an agreement means arise before the ink is even dry. The
cease-fire accord reached in Minsk between the Ukrainian government, the eastern separatists and Russia, under the aegis of the good
offices of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Francois Hollande of France, could stop the fighting and lay the basis
for a political settlement-but it requires that all parties be prepared to implement its provisions. With two previous cease-fires
failing amidst mutual recriminations about violations, the newest agreement contains similar problems that could torpedo its implementation.
First and foremost, the cease-fire calls for an exclusion zone where heavy weapons are to be withdrawn. As we've seen in the past,
it can be quite easy to cheat-to hide weaponry and not to give up optimal firing positions. The first challenge will be what happens
to the cease-fire when we see that not all heavy weapons have been removed; will one violation cause the collapse of the cease-fire,
or will the emphasis be on a "ninety percent" solution-that is, if most weapons are pulled back, will that be considered sufficient?
The fate of the Ukrainian government pocket at the key railway junction of Debaltseve is also unclear. Will the town remain in
Ukrainian hands, even if forces and equipment are withdrawn-as the government prefers? Or will the government surrender control,
as the separatists prefer? Given that the cease-fire will not begin until Sunday, the race is on to see who can determine the status
of Debaltseve.
Beyond the immediate cease-fire, there are contentious political questions. The agreement commits Ukraine to pass legislation
that effectively gives the two separatist regions special status, including the ability to organize their own police forces and to
be able to trade directly with Russia. Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko will face a tremendous challenge getting the Rada to
pass the necessary laws-and the risk here is that Ukrainian lawmakers, in an effort to save face, will insert provisions in the draft
legislation that will be unacceptable to the separatists. Poroshenko has already stressed that the deal does not commit Ukraine to
accept federalization or decentralization. But separatist leaders have argued that the agreement is the last chance for Ukraine to
consider major constitutional changes.
In turn, the separatists are committed, under the terms of the agreement, to rehold elections according to Ukrainian law so that
the Donetsk and Lugansk authorities can be properly constituted. What is not clear is how people displaced from the region will be
able to vote. Kyiv will insist that internally displaced refugees living in other parts of Ukraine should be able to cast ballots.
The separatists, in turn, are not going to want any sort of process that challenges their position. If elections are held that the
Poroshenko administration declines to certify as valid, what then?
Finally, the agreement sets up a process by which the central government would regain control over the border with Russia. However,
this will not occur if the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk has not been set up. Again, we have a challenge. If the Ukrainian
legislation falls short of what the separatists-and Moscow-have envisioned, then the border question will be stalemated.
Left unaddressed in the Minsk talks, of course, are U.S. proposals to begin training and equipping Ukrainian government forces.
The United States did not take part in the Minsk process, and while the cease-fire may be cautiously welcomed, it will not diminish
the momentum, particularly on Capitol Hill, for shipping arms to Ukraine. The separatists cannot be unmindful of the Croatian
precedent, where a long-term program to strengthen the Croatian military facilitated the operation that destroyed the Serbian separatist
entity in eastern Croatia. Already some separatists are grumbling that Ukraine is not committed to a settlement, but will use
the time to strengthen its forces and go back on the offensive later this year. Those suspicions, in turn, may cause them to be less
than thorough in their own observation of the agreement's provisions. The Germans and the French hope that the accord will cause
Washington to put its plans on hold.
And what does Vladimir Putin hope to gain? All the reports suggest that Putin put enormous pressure on the separatists to accept
the deal. In turn, he may be expecting that once the cease-fire takes hold, the Europeans will move on sanctions relief. But if that
is not forthcoming, what will be his continuing commitment to the agreement? Also left unaddressed are Russian demands for the
"neutralization" of Ukraine. The deal as currently structured would not give the eastern regions veto power over Ukraine's foreign
policy.
The Minsk deal appears to be the last hope for any sort of a political settlement. If this agreement breaks down-and it has many
vulnerabilities-there will not be a fourth attempt. We will see if all sides have the political will to make it work.
Nikolas Gvosdev, a professor of national security studies and a contributing editor at The National Interest, is co-author
of Russian Foreign Policy: Vectors, Sectors and Interests (CQ Press, 2013). The views expressed here are his own.
...Going down that road would be a huge mistake for the United
States, NATO and Ukraine itself. Sending weapons to Ukraine will not rescue its army and will instead lead to an escalation in the
fighting. Such a step is especially dangerous because Russia has thousands of
nuclear
weapons and is seeking to defend a vital strategic interest.
...the conflict will not end there. Russia would counter-escalate, taking away any temporary benefit Kiev
might get from American arms. The authors of the think tank study concede this, noting that "even with enormous support from the
West, the Ukrainian Army will not be able to defeat a determined attack by the Russian military." In short, the United States cannot
win an arms race with Russia over Ukraine and thereby ensure Russia's defeat on the battlefield.
... ... ...
This coercive strategy is also unlikely to work, no matter
how much punishment the West inflicts. What advocates of arming Ukraine fail to understand is that Russian leaders believe their
country's core strategic interests are at stake in Ukraine; they are unlikely to give ground, even if it means absorbing huge costs.
Great powers react harshly when distant rivals project
military power into their neighborhood, much less attempt to make a country on their border an ally. This is why the United
States has the Monroe Doctrine, and today no American leader would ever tolerate Canada or Mexico joining a military alliance
headed by another great power.
... ... ...
Upping the ante in Ukraine also risks
unwanted escalation. Not only would the fighting in eastern Ukraine be sure to intensify, but it could also spread to other areas.
The consequences for Ukraine, which already faces profound economic and social problems, would be disastrous.
... ... ...
Our understanding of the mechanisms of escalation in
crises and war is limited at best, although we know the risks are considerable. Pushing a nuclear-armed Russia into a corner would
be playing with fire.
Advocates of arming Ukraine recognize
the escalation problem, which is why they stress giving Kiev "defensive," not "offensive," weapons. Unfortunately, there is no useful
distinction between these categories: All weapons can be used for attacking and defending. The West can be sure, though, that Moscow
will not see those American weapons as "defensive," given that Washington is determined to reverse the status quo in eastern Ukraine.
...Germany's chancellor, Angela Merkel, seems to recognize
that fact, as she has said Germany will not ship arms to Kiev. Her problem, however, is that she does not know how to bring the crisis
to an end.
She and other European leaders still labor under the
delusion that Ukraine can be pulled out of Russia's orbit and incorporated into the West, and that Russian leaders must accept
that outcome. They will not.
To save Ukraine and eventually restore a working relationship
with Moscow, the West should seek to make Ukraine a neutral buffer state between Russia and NATO. It should look like Austria
during the Cold War. Toward that end, the West should explicitly take European Union and NATO expansion off the table, and emphasize
that its goal is a nonaligned Ukraine that does not threaten Russia. The United States and its allies should also work with Mr. Putin
to rescue Ukraine's economy, a goal that is clearly in everyone's interest.
It is essential that Russia help end the fighting in
eastern Ukraine and that Kiev regain control over that region. Still, the provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk should be given substantial
autonomy, and protection for Russian language rights should be a top priority.
Crimea, a casualty of the West's attempt to march NATO and
the European Union up to Russia's doorstep, is surely lost for good. It is time to end that imprudent policy before more damage is
done - to Ukraine and to relations between Russia and the West.
John J. Mearsheimer, a professor of political science
at the University of Chicago, is the author of "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics."
People don't realize but since its independence, RUssia has really supported Ukraine. Cheap gas, buying the products of their
heavy industry, contracts with such industry, allowing Ukrainian to freely cross the border and work in Russia, and taking their
pay home to Ukraine. The oligarchs made tons of money buying up the various industries when Ukraine got its independence. All
Ukrainian presidents ended up as millionaires while in office. Well the bubble burst - courtesy of the US.
Now we find a broken-down country that cannot afford to pay pensions or salaries, tax oligarchs, in short it can't even run
its own government. Two Rada members just the other day had a fist fight in the hall over some bill.
Does any country really want to invest in Ukraine - it is more of a banana republic than a European country. Money to Ukraine
will just go into pockets of ministers and other civil servants has it has done for decades.
Instead of trying to end a war which is costing it several million dollars which it doesn't have, the country keeps on fighting
and postponing needed reforms.
Poroshenko will hire Mikheil Saakashvili as an advisor. http://www.neweasterneurope.eu/interviews/1467-i-will-be-back
Ukraine will have to lay off miners, close obsolete factories, cut pensions and benefits - What IMF always requires when it
steps in to help. How will people react then?
koyaanisqatsi, Upstate NY 48 minutes ago
So most of Ukraine's economic problem arise from their coup. I'm not surprised. Ukraine should have accepted Russia's pre-coup
offer of assistance. Oh, wait...they did accept it. Then came the US-sponsored coup. Have the people of western Ukraine never
heard "be careful of what you ask for....?" Now, the IMF and EU will demand "austerity" measures from the people of Ukraine, just
as they have from Greece who: has 25% unemployment, a 22% fall in GDP since 2009, and a 35% increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio.
I'm sure it'll turn out OK.
Wolff, Arizona
The $30B debt Ukraine owed to Russia for oil sold to Europe has now climbed to $40B. The Ukraine oil moguls did the same thing
Wall Street has done in America - take the profits (average $10B apiece for baksheesh for Russian oil flowing through Ukraine)
and leave the debts to the Ukrainian People.
Even the IMF cannot collect funds from US, Germany, England and France to pay off these Ukrainian debts. Could it be that the
Western Banking Establishment is finally at its limits to motivate the US military to support Capitalist thugs in those nations
that are its "Allies" by waging war against those trying to collect debts from them?
Is America becoming a Criminal Nation?
FS, NY
It is not just Ukraine but many other countries which joined NATO are basket case and will require continuous help. The Cold
War ended but our paranoia did not. We have these basket case countries join NATO or military alliances to encircle Russia and
China. Such alliances and policies may embolden our "allies" to create unwanted conflicts that may become burden for us. Counting
on American help, Mr. Modi and Mr. Abe are already issuing bellicose statements. During Cold War Soviet Union built alliances
with many basket countries that require continuous support and it bankrupted Soviet Union. Are we not making the same mistake
by continuing our unilateral Cold War policy? May be Ukraine crisis is awakening call to reevaluate our unilateral cold war policy!
The alternative media is saying that the US is the provocateur here. Don't know who to believe, but I sure DO NOT trust the
US government to tell the plain truth anymore because we don't really know who the US government is working for anymore, but we
do know that more and more, they are not working for the average citizens of the US, instead favoring the plutocrats. The basic
policy of the US government seems to be: We're lying to protect you from the horrible truth.
CAF, Seattle 1 hour ago
In a shocking miscalculation, American political elites realy did thing Russia would stand by and do nothing as the US backed
a coup on Russia's border, attempting to take core trade, geographic, military, and economic interests from Russia, and setting
up an existential military threat to Russia 300 miles from Moscow. This involved overthrowing a duly elected government, but the
US never shies from that.
Unsurprisingly, the competent and intelligent, if autocratic Russian political elites responded forcefully, defending the lands
and peoples closest to the Russian border, along with Russian security and all those interests.
Appallingly, the American temper tantrum included accusing Russia of "aggression", laughably, in defending its people, security,
and near interests, from American imperialists on the other side of the planet.
Attempting to take Ukraine through soft force was a stupid idea, and revealing in that American arrogance and overconfidence
were exposed.
ReaderNYC, NYC 1 hour ago
The mess that the neocons have created in Ukraine is splitting that country apart and may lead to a global confrontation. President
Obama should resist the call for arming the coup leaders in Kiev and should join Germany and France for a negotiated settlement
in Ukraine that will bring peace to the country and to Europe.
The warmongers should be told to calm down or volunteer to go and fight as partisans. They should leave the rest of America
alone.
The International Monetary Fund has announced a massive bailout totalling $40 billion for Ukraine. Kyiv will get the money over
a period of four years in exchange for carrying out broad economic reforms. The funds are urgently needed to stave off a financial
collapse. The IMF will provide $17.5 billion.
"We have to twist arms when countries don't do what we need them to"
and if arm twisting does not work we will murder your families, embargo food and medicine,
destroy your economy, lay waste to a generation of your children, and blacken your name for
all history.
He is truly a stinky turd in the cesspool that is Washington DC. But fear not, Hillary Clinton
will be a worthy successor and will out-stink, out-murder and out-destroy Obama.
Who in America can stop this madness? (rhetorical/trick question, no one can).
Warren, February 11, 2015 at 6:53 am
Ukraine President Poroshenko Threatens Martial Law: http://t.co/YiPgu0yPEY His main target:
rising dissent in western Ukraine.
- Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) February 11, 2015
The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the
operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military
incursion. Part of the reason for this is the fact that Kiev would have trouble securing a much-needed
support package from the International Monetary Fund if it was officially at war.
A series of gruesome videos, sometimes shown on Russian television, has increased the psychological
pressure on Ukrainians. One, released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the
faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them.
Shit! I must have missed that one!
"A friend of mine told me his friend was down there in the east and they ran into Chechens,
who sliced off all their testicles. There were about 100 of them, and the Chechens castrated the
lot of them. If I get called up, I think I'll go into hiding. I want a family and kids."
'Kin' hell!!!!!!!
karl1haushofer , February 10, 2015 at 11:21 pm
"It may have escaped your notice, but Putin and Moscow have been calling for a ceasefire
all along"
I have grown to hate the whole word of "ceasefire" during this war. A real ceasefire would
be great. But it is not going to happen until Kiev military is fully defeated!
Another bogus "ceasefire" in Minsk means the following:
1. Kiev gets to withdraw its men AND WEAPONS out of the Debaltsevo cauldron and the rebels
will not be allowed to stop it..
2. The rebels will not be able to give a big blow to the Kiev military by either annihilating
or at least capturing the most competent part of their military in Debaltsevo and their weapons.
3. The thousands of Kiev troops in Debaltsevo cauldron AND THEIR WEAPONS will be used in the future
against Novorossiya.
4. The shelling of civilians will continue as it was before. The "ceasefire" will not be applied
to Kiev side, only to rebels.
5. NATO will start the training and arming of Kiev troops. Next offensive will start next spring.
6. The morale of the rebels will take a bit hit. They will realize that their military efforts
and success is meaningless as they are not allowed win this war.
Moscow must not allow Kiev to withdraw its troops and weapons out of that cauldron in any circumstances.
That would be a treason against the troops that fought to create that cauldron. And that would
be a treason against the whole Novorossiya.
This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya.
Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military
defeat for Kiev.
marknesop, February 11, 2015 at 8:00 am
"This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya.
Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military
defeat for Kiev."
On the contrary, the war could continue for many years yet without either side firing a shot,
in much the same way the Georgian government never accepted the independence of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia and even designated a ministerial position for winning them back into the fold. Disagreement
over the borders within Ukraine will keep them out of NATO for the foreseeable future, while their
ruined economy will keep them out of the EU. A future government may mend its ties with Russia,
but if it does not, Ukraine is doomed to decades of poverty and a steady drain of its population
for better prospects. It can thank the west for that, and its own population's extremist element.
Once again, there is no reason for Putin to become "the most hated man in Novorossiya" if it
shakes out as you describe. The rebels must accept the deal on their own behalf, and it is not
for Putin to agree to anything; Russia is simply acting as a sort of guarantor, by being part
of the agreement but kind of like an honest broker, to ensure the western countries keep their
word.
I agree the Ukrainian forces should not be permitted to withdraw from Debalseve with their
weapons, after getting cauldroned for the second time due to their own stupidity, lack of tactical
knowledge and poor leadership. but i doubt that will happen, unless the rebels are idiot negotiators,
because Semenchenko's battalion had to leave their weapons behind when they were allowed out of
the southern cauldron, and it plainly did not teach the Ukies anything. Why would they be allowed
to keep their weapons this time? But even if they do not, weapons are not going to be a problem
to replace, and you know it.
Quote: Ironically (and rather disingenuously), US talking heads, media parrots and politicians in Washington – are still recycling
their worn-out sound bites: "Russia is invading the Ukraine", "Moscow is responsible for the destabilization of the Ukraine", and it
goes on.
Military industrial lobbyists like US State Dept. Euro Secretary Victoria Nuland, and US Senator John McCain have played a key role
in the Kiev's Nazi renaissance from the beginning – a new low point in international racketeering…
War by media and the triumph of propaganda by John Pilger
Why has so much journalism succumbed to propaganda? Why are
censorship and distortion standard practice? Why is the BBC so often a mouthpiece of rapacious power? Why do the New York Times
and the Washington Post deceive their readers?
Why are young journalists not taught to understand media agendas and to challenge the high claims and low purpose of fake objectivity?
And why are they not taught that the essence of so much of what's called the mainstream media is not information, but power?
These are urgent questions. The world is facing the prospect of major war, perhaps nuclear war - with the United States clearly
determined to isolate and provoke Russia and eventually China. This truth is being turned upside down and inside out by journalists,
including those who promoted the lies that led to the bloodbath in Iraq in 2003.
The times we live in are so dangerous and so distorted in public perception that propaganda is no longer, as Edward Bernays
called it, an "invisible government". It is the government. It rules directly without fear of contradiction and its principal
aim is the conquest of us: our sense of the world, our ability to separate truth from lies.
The information age is actually a media age. We have war by media; censorship by media; demonology by media; retribution by
media; diversion by media - a surreal assembly line of obedient clichés and false assumptions.
This power to create a new "reality" has building for a long time. Forty-five years ago, a book entitled The Greening of America
caused a sensation. On the cover were these words: "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past.
It will originate with the individual."
I was a correspondent in the United States at the time and recall the overnight elevation to guru status of the author, a young
Yale academic, Charles Reich. His message was that truth-telling and political action had failed and only "culture" and introspection
could change the world.
Within a few years, driven by the forces of profit, the cult of "me-ism" had all but overwhelmed our sense of acting together,
our sense of social justice and internationalism. Class, gender and race were separated. The personal was the political, and the
media was the message.
The Minsk talks are about to enter their tenth hour, with the delegations of Germany, France, Russia, and Ukraine still trying
to reach a final compromise and come up with a joint resolution. Journalists have been covering the event for almost 12 hours
now.
They rely on the arduous task of watching FOX (and it is incredibly arduous) or repeating whatever dribble comes out of the
BBC
Ian56789
Nato's action plan in Ukraine is right out of Dr Strangelove by John Pilger
(Extract)
The genius of Stanley Kubrick's film is that it accurately represents the cold war's lunacy and dangers. Most of the characters
are based on real people and real maniacs. There is no equivalent to Strangelove today because popular culture is directed almost
entirely at our interior lives, as if identity is the moral zeitgeist and true satire is redundant, yet the dangers are the same.
The nuclear clock has remained at five minutes to midnight; the same false flags are hoisted above the same targets by the same
"invisible government", as Edward Bernays, the inventor of public relations, described modern propaganda.
In 1964, the year Dr Strangelove was made, "the missile gap" was the false flag. To build more and bigger nuclear weapons and
pursue an undeclared policy of domination, President John F Kennedy approved the CIA's propaganda that the Soviet Union was well
ahead of the US in the production of intercontinental ballistic missiles. This filled front pages as the "Russian threat". In
fact, the Americans were so far ahead in production of the missiles, the Russians never approached them. The cold war was based
largely on this lie.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear warplanes and missiles as part
of its Nato enlargement project. Reneging on a US promise to the Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would not
expand "one inch to the east", Nato has all but taken over eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucasus, Nato's military build-up
is the most extensive since the second world war.
In February, the US mounted one of its proxy "colour" coups against the elected government of Ukraine; the shock troops were
fascists. For the first time since 1945, a pro-Nazi, openly antisemitic party controls key areas of state power in a European
capital. No western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism on the border of Russia. Some 30 million Russians died
in the invasion of their country by Hitler's Nazis, who were supported by the infamous Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the UPA) which
was responsible for numerous Jewish and Polish massacres. The Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists, of which the UPA was the
military wing, inspires today's Svoboda party.
Since Washington's putsch in Kiev – and Moscow's inevitable response in Russian Crimea to protect its Black Sea fleet – the
provocation and isolation of Russia have been inverted in the news to the "Russian threat". This is fossilised propaganda. The
US air force general who runs Nato forces in Europe – General Philip Breedlove, no less – claimed more than two weeks ago to have
pictures showing 40,000 Russian troops "massing" on the border with Ukraine. So did Colin Powell claim to have pictures proving
there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. What is certain is that Barack Obama's rapacious, reckless coup in Ukraine has
ignited a civil war and Vladimir Putin is being lured into a trap.
Following a 13-year rampage that began in stricken Afghanistan well after Osama bin Laden had fled, then destroyed Iraq beneath
a false flag, invented a "nuclear rogue" in Iran, dispatched Libya to a Hobbesian anarchy and backed jihadists in Syria, the US
finally has a new cold war to supplement its worldwide campaign of murder and terror by drone.
Lets be clear. Kiev must answer for their crimes when this is settled:
On June 2nd 2014 a Ukraine jet fighter attacked the central administrative building in Lugansk city killing seven civilians.
It was a gross act of state terrorism It was not a military target.
Immediately the US and the Ukraine UN Representative lied, saying it was a misfiring rebel anti-aircraft manpad device that
struck the buildings air con.
Yet, when the osce investigation pronounced it had been a jet fighter attack, Kiev and Washington still denied it.
They have still not answered to this war crime - the first terrorist act of this crisis incidentally.
Lets not forget WHO is responsible for the appalling, criminal deaths in the cities of Donetsk and Lugansk and who started
the "terror".
Hermius
GreatMountainEagle
'The one constant here is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the leader of the free and thinking world who has not changed from
the beginning and is to the people of Earth as the North star has been to sailors on the oceans for centuries.'
This has to be the funniest thing ever posted on here (and saddest for those trapped in the PutinSSR)
Ian56789 -> GreatMountainEagle
Why do you get off on being a Goldman Sachs / Neocon troll?
Ian56789 -> GreatMountainEagle
Putin currently has an 86% approval rating in Russia. Primarily this is because they were ruled by Goldman Sachs and the US
under Yeltsin in the 1990's. Yeltsin caused the collapse of the Russian economy and a 40% drop in people's living standards. Russia
was a total mess by the late 1990's.
Putin enjoys a very high approval rating because they do NOT want to be ruled by Goldman Sachs again and they see Putin
as the only guy that can stop it from happening.
Americans and Europeans haven't done so well living under Goldman Sachs rule for the last circa 15 years either. People's real
standards of living in the developed countries has declined significantly.
richiep40
Forgetting all the name calling, who started it etc. what I don't get is how anyone can think this will work.
The only premise where this will be possible is if the West will reign in Kiev's wish to obliterate the East of Ukraine
and Russia can persuade the rebels that this is true.
Without at least some assurances from the West about the safety of the East, the rebels will fight on, even if Putin removed
his support (which he won't do if he thinks there will be a bloodbath, it would be political suicide for him).
You can't ask Russia to get out of the situation if they think the Lunatics in charge of Kiev will do what they want to do.
NormVan
The US always attacking Putin. Russia has a functioning, united government of which Putin is one part. When the US decides
to attack, the first thing they create is an evil dictator. They can bring freedom to the masses. US freedom is just another word
for nothing left to loose.
Obama having a hissy fit with Putin is childish. Obama got a start working for Henry Kissinger and rumored to work for the
CIA.
If he wants to do something useful he could send Mrs Nuland back to Kiev with some of her delicious cookies
Goodthanx -> NormVan
To gain a nomination of Presidency, you are prescreened by the Cia. Meaning, are you willing to be a lacky for the Cia, and
the Military industrialists?
No president has a long future without the support of both. JFK case in point.
Nickel07
Once the peace agreement is signed...what are you lot on the dark side going to do just come here and try to push back the
tide of the investigations that will surely follow? What are you going to do try to scream Putin is a Nazi like kindergarten kids?
I think you are about to lose big time and not just in Ukraine, but also by losing the little credibility you still have with
some countries as demonstrated by the approach taken by Hollande and Merkel.
And, to compound it all:
"the reality of "American leadership" at times entails "twisting the arms" of states which "don't do what we need them to do,"
and that the US relied on its military strength and other leverage to achieve its goals."
Translation : We coerce some folk.
Mulefish
Why tell us what Poro thinks, Guardian; he always lies, wasting our time and Guardian outdated reporters ink.
Why tell us what Obama thinks, mass murderer. evil, inadequate, coward, fool, and the cause of all this. He is out of his depth;
this is not any of his business; he should butt out He will have to.
Merkel is just finding her voice and her brains and cutting loose the Yankee Nazi twits.
The one constant here is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, the leader of the free and thinking world who has not changed from the
beginning and is to the people of Earth as the North star has been to sailors on the oceans for centuries.
Ian56789
NATO's Nazis: Ethnic Cleansing Their Opposition in East Ukraine
November 17, 2014
Nearly one year on from the US-backed faux 'colour revolution' in Maidan Square, the Ukraine has been violently ripped into
pieces by the new CIA-backed government in Kiev.
What began with pro-EU colour mobs and far right-wing neo-Nazi gangs in Kiev, has escalated to ethnic cleansing in the eastern
half of the country. The horrors are unspeakable, as detailed in the report below (with video). NATO, led by the US and Britain,
are actively backing Kiev's military brutal campaign of collective punishment and ethnic cleansing against Russian-speaking people
in the east of that country.
Ironically (and rather disingenuously), US talking heads, media parrots and politicians in Washington – are still recycling
their worn-out sound bites: "Russia is invading the Ukraine", "Moscow is responsible for the destabilization of the Ukraine",
and it goes on.
Military industrial lobbyists like US State Dept. Euro Secretary Victoria Nuland, and US Senator John McCain have played a
key role in the Kiev's Nazi renaissance from the beginning – a new low point in international racketeering…
The sniper fire came from the upper floors and roofs of buildings controlled by the protestors
(Other pictures show the Berkut Police firing - but they are firing downwards in front of the protestors to try and stop their
advance NOT firing at them.)
'No evidence of Berkut police behind mass killing in Kiev' – probe head
There is no forensic evidence linking the victims of mass killings in Kiev on February 20 with officers from the Berkut police
unit, the head of the parliamentary commission investigating the murders told journalists.
"This will be yet another case, like the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy, which is still being investigated today,"
Gennady Moskal reported.
The MP made the statements at a media conference on Tuesday gathered to announce preliminary results of his commission's probe.
He assured that despite the Ukrainian General Prosecutor's office having arrested 12 Berkut officers on allegations of committing
the mass killings, forensic evidence suggests their innocence.
He said the bullets that killed people in Kiev on the bloodies day of confrontation between protesters seeking to oust President
Viktor Yanukovich and riot police didn't match any of the firearms issued to Berkut's special unit, which, unlike the majority
of riot police, was allowed to carry lethal weapons.
The man in charge of those controlling the buildings from which the snipers fired was Andrey Parubiy who after the Coup was
appointed head of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine.
They had reporters on the ground when this was happening. They showed us the remarkable restraint shown by the Berkut in the
face of being in the face of being viciously assailed by infused, probably drug fuelled, certainly Yankee pie and five billion
fuelled, Nazi thugs, and the illogical directions from which the sniper bullets came. (~This type of third party sniping is typical
Yank false flag trickery. They probably provided the snipers too.)
They also broadcast the transcript of the Ashton phone call and her goofy, coward, reaction, not taken up, indeed studiously
ignored, by the Western so-called press.
In like vein, Putin offered up his radar records for the downing of MH17, including records of the presence of Ukrainian fighter
planes present at the time, an offer not matched by the Kiev Junta or the mouthy U.S. deep in the throes of lying about the incident
, all the same, with typical foul mouthedness.
So easy to fool the common denizens of the West, especially the "exceptional" Yankees and their British government ass lickers.
richiep40 -> Ian56789
Thanks for all the info, I wouldn't say I knew all about all the research, but I definitely got the drift.
I was really just commenting that the BBC Newsnight report was the first time that any of the British Media have come even
slightly off message.
For instance there were some reports from Donetsk on the horrible conditions there and the civilian casualties on BBC Radio
this morning, but not once did they mention these were all in the City Centre held by the rebels and the only conceivable people
launching the attacks were the Ukrainian forces.
Now to anyone who takes an interest it is obvious, but for the casual listener who doesn't have an interest, I doubt it.
coober
Every government can use the full employment equation:
Full Employment (FE) = Pension (P) X 1.2 X Money Velocity (MV) X 0.001
That equation is for all Nations and States.
A Ukraine Government can immediately tax Murdoch-type tax evaders, etc at 0.001% of money velocity and pay a new 20% State
Pension.
There is absolutely no valid excuse for unemployment in Ukraine. The State Pension can be adjusted lower and the tax rate can
be adjusted higher. The pension is to spread the money around to create more small businesses and more jobs. The tiny rate of
tax is for High Frequency Traders, Gamblers, Murdoch-types etc. Everyday people will not notice it.
When Governments and people learn how good this modern tax is, we will be able to use it to replace Income Tax etc. War is
obsolete.
centerline coober
One small hitch. It is the Murdoch type that make the taxes. They put people in power who will tax the poor so the government
can subside the Murdochs.
Murdoch moved his Australian accounting office offshore a few years ago so the Australian tax office paid Murdoch three quarters
of a billion dollars.
Bud Peart
"Obama rounded unusually personally on Putin. "He has a foot very much in the Soviet past. That's how he came of age. He
ran the KGB,"
He ran the FSB, is he stupid or was this a planned lie to ratchet up cold war hysteria?
"... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
"... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
"... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
"... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
"... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the
trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and
many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the
Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the
chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state
in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with
Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.
caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52
Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a
leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U.,
NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display
along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements?
More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another
threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground &
leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history
books on how not to be a "world leader".
Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12
And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the
guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the
population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have
only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.
Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and
fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by
negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the
fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.
Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama
about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support
fascist government Poroshenko.
EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin
Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one
side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it
should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be
easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known
before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a
much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that
you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.
What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who
have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they
tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't
happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith
negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.
Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the
Ukraine crisis
Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is.
People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving
whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.
Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53
As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!
This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at
Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the
trapped army may be NATO. !
Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the
Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked
civilian targets.
If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military
equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.
Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has
illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!
This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken
captive, what then?
Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland,
Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.
Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29
Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should
it Invade the Region
And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it
better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and
now here in Ukraine."
Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10
All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with
BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.
Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his
disarmed Berkut could not protect him.
As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're
deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much
today?
That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on
Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.
Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43
Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by
murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for
the junta.
From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed
optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in
'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.
Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable
inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while
their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.
National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and
frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless
abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.
But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their
likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against
Russia!
If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as
insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?
Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently
failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!
Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02
And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin
is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,
Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling
and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to
the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to
annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically
challenged folks still try and drag up)
Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57
"But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political
destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western
sponsored coup.....
EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45
amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in
deterring its continued military support for separatists.
I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I
am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far
enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous
American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is
modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question
is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?
You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the
sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second,
Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements
single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West
and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful
offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as
well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did
he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which,
I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.
Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an
agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications
that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will
happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an
unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.
Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30
Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is
lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether
European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the
streets en masse if they value their lives.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57
US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he
will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global
order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."
So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively
after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.
PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22
Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the
consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas...
It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.
The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the
accident.
"This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.
"Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well,
it's chaos, and they are barbarians."
Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.
The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to
shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial
Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on
his Facebook page.
According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because
they were shooting based on coordinates."
Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is
involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook
page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.
PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a
generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to
build up Ukraine.
One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in
this video).
Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort
peacefully containing and isolating Russia".
"... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
"... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
"... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
"... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
"... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the
trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and
many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the
Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the
chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state
in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with
Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.
caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52
Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a
leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U.,
NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display
along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements?
More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another
threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground &
leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history
books on how not to be a "world leader".
Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12
And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the
guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the
population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have
only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.
Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and
fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by
negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the
fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.
Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama
about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support
fascist government Poroshenko.
EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin
Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one
side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it
should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be
easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known
before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a
much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that
you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.
What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who
have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they
tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't
happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith
negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.
Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the
Ukraine crisis
Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is.
People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving
whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.
Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53
As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!
This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at
Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the
trapped army may be NATO. !
Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the
Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked
civilian targets.
If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military
equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.
Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has
illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!
This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken
captive, what then?
Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland,
Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.
Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29
Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should
it Invade the Region
And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it
better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and
now here in Ukraine."
Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10
All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with
BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.
Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his
disarmed Berkut could not protect him.
As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're
deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much
today?
That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on
Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.
Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43
Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by
murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for
the junta.
From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed
optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in
'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.
Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable
inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while
their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.
National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and
frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless
abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.
But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their
likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against
Russia!
If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as
insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?
Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently
failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!
Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02
And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin
is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,
Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling
and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to
the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to
annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically
challenged folks still try and drag up)
Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57
"But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political
destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western
sponsored coup.....
EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45
amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in
deterring its continued military support for separatists.
I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I
am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far
enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous
American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is
modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question
is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?
You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the
sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second,
Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements
single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West
and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful
offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as
well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did
he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which,
I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.
Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an
agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications
that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will
happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an
unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.
Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30
Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is
lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether
European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the
streets en masse if they value their lives.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57
US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he
will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global
order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."
So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively
after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.
PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22
Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the
consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas...
It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.
The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the
accident.
"This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.
"Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well,
it's chaos, and they are barbarians."
Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.
The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to
shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial
Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on
his Facebook page.
According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because
they were shooting based on coordinates."
Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is
involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook
page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.
PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a
generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to
build up Ukraine.
One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in
this video).
Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort
peacefully containing and isolating Russia".
I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for
Vladimir Putin,
but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly
to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated
Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western
Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to
power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi
ideology.
For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of
Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection
should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured
for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn
one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.
As David Owen has pointed out (26
August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato,
threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a
diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report,
8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.
Tim Dyce, London
The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of
continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine.
Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use
an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy
within a unified
Ukraine. This is
something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to
let us do it.
Stephen Mennell, Dublin
David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report,
theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a
foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by
orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in
mediation.
I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for
Vladimir Putin,
but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly
to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated
Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western
Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to
power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi
ideology.
For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of
Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection
should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured
for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn
one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.
As David Owen has pointed out (26
August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato,
threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a
diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report,
8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.
Tim Dyce, London
The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of
continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine.
Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use
an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy
within a unified
Ukraine. This is
something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to
let us do it.
Stephen Mennell, Dublin
David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report,
theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a
foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by
orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in
mediation.
"... Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed. ..."
"... Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded. ..."
"... The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50 thousand rather than 5 thousand. ..."
CIA and Americans caught in the cauldron, or whatever they're calling it? That's what some
on a German comment thread were saying today.
EugeneGur -> centerline 8 Feb 2015 23:44
Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled
in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate
to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed.
TuleCarbonari -> EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:31
What is special about the East? It is richer in natural resources than the West. Joe
Biden's son and other businessmen won't be able to operate in a politically volatile area. It
must be pacified somehow.
Bullybyte -> WiseOldManNo476 8 Feb 2015 23:43
There will be no war.
Earth to WiseOldManNo476. You obviously haven't noticed. There already IS a war; it is
about to escalate; and the UK will be involved in it right up to its neck.
The problem being a bully (the US) is that it becomes arrogant and expects its own way
all of the time, when someone pushes back, they fold. This isn't Iraq you know.
And who is pushing back? You?
Looks like the EU will be choosing the lesser of two evils.
Yes. Listen to the tough talk by Cameron. Look how the EU ratcheted up their sanctions on
Russia only a few days ago. The EU have already chosen the lesser of two reasons.
BTW, enjoy your collapsing petro dollar and associated hyper inflation coming your way
very soon.
And this will be happening when? After your kids have been killed?
KrasnoArmejac Roodan 8 Feb 2015 23:20
no roodan, we should not go to war. it is ukraines fight, not ours. but we should not treat
putin like he is a normal politician (or person for that matter). we should not have our
newspapers asking questions that have been answered a million times before, just so we could
be proud of our political corectness. you know those questions, right? questions like: are
those really russians that are fighting the ukranians? it's like answering the question: is
the sky blue? over and over and over again. we should not keep satellite images proving
russian tanks crossing the border classified, just so mister putin could have a face-saving
exit once this is all over with. because my dear roodan, contrary to what your mother (and all
mothers for that matter) told you: ignoring the bully will not make him stop punching you. it
will just make you a loser-for-life. if you don't trust me ask mister neville chamberlain and
his piece of paper
EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:13
the latest Franco-German peace initiative . . . was driven by the urgent desire to avoid
a new bloodbath in the besieged Ukrainian-held town of Debaltseve
Really? What is so special about Debaltsevo that makes the European leaders so concerned
about its fate? What sets it apart so decisively from Donetsk, Gorlovka, Krasnoarmeisk,
Shakhtursk, and a dozen of other Donbass towns that have been pounded by artillery fire for
months. Hundreds of civilians died, and the only response from our European friends was
deafening silence about the killings and loud accusations against Russia of everything and
anything.
I'll tell you what's special about Debaltsevo. A large number of Ukrainian troops
are trapped there, and unless something is done, there are likely end up dead. This means
another devastating defeat for the Ukrs, from which they are unlikely to recover. So, Merkel
and Hollande rushed (or were dispatched?) to the rescue of their little nazi Ukrainian
protegees. One cannot help but feel contempt for such European "leaders" and generally for
what Europe turned into under American patronage.
sbmfc 8 Feb 2015 10:22
Given the still unfolding disasters in Syria and Libya surely the policy of the west
attempting to pick a winner in a local conflict is completely discredited.
It may be the case that war in Europe suits the American agenda but the EU should only be
focused on a peaceful solution. Borders in Europe have always been fluid and it is impossible
to see the rebel areas now ever peacefully existing within Ukraine.
snowdogchampion -> Strummered 8 Feb 2015 10:17
there ARE English speaking troops that sound AMERICAN
Foreign fighters filmed on ground with Kiev army
not to mention the CIA agents ;-)
Kal El -> Eric Hoffmann 8 Feb 2015 10:13
And where is Kiev getting all its weapons etc from ? Their stuff was 20 year old USSR
stuff. Mothballed and rusting.
Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their
stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as
Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded.
NoBodiesFool 8 Feb 2015 10:12
If peace breaks out what will the poor weapons dealers and their bankster backers do?
Someone please think of the poor children of the weapons dealers and the banksters. Also,
think of the poor children of the fossil fuel cartels that all of this is really about. They
really don't have enough money and they so would like another Bugatti for New Year's. Please,
give war a chance - for the children.
Rialbynot 8 Feb 2015 10:12
When the German-speaking population in South Tyrol rebelled against Italian rule in the
late 1960s, the Italian government initially attempted to put down the rebellion using force.
However, a campaign of sabotage and bombings by German-speaking separatists led by the
SouthTyrolean Liberation Committee continued.
Finally, the issue was resolved in 1971, when a new treaty was signed and ratified by the
Austrian and Italian governments. It stipulated that disputes in South Tyrol would be
submitted for settlement to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and that the
province would receive greater autonomy within Italy. The new agreement proved broadly
satisfactory to the parties involved and the separatist tensions soon eased.
Europe has a blueprint for resolving the (far more deadly) East Ukraine crisis.
Asimpleguest -> CaptainBlunder 8 Feb 2015 10:09
strange - I read otherwise
''MOSCOW, December 10. /TASS/. Russian military led by Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the
Ground Forces Alexander Lentsov are providing assistance to the Ukrainian south-east conflict
sides in reaching compromise for deescalation of tension and troops' pullout, Chief of the
Russian General Staff General Valery Gerasimov said on Wednesday.
The mission was sent at the request of the Chief of the Ukrainian General Staff, Viktor
Muzhenko, said Gerasimov.''
snowdogchampion 8 Feb 2015 10:09
thanks god! mind that the US warmongers will not be part of the PEACE talks cause they want
WAR at our doorstep.. McCain & Co. must be p!ssed off.. hope Merkel's security has been
increased, you never know, there might be a CIA agent around
SHappens 8 Feb 2015 10:08
Merkel is due to meet Barack Obama, the US president, in Washington on Monday, in a bid
to synchronise US and western European positions on Ukraine ahead of the Minsk summit.
Or how to make a peaceful initiative go jeopardized. All Putin has to do is sit and wait.
And let them EU and US paddle.
Merkel feels they owe the East Ukrainians to stop the war they promoted and encouraged for
months but McCain says that these poor Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves. I suppose he is referring to the East Ukrainians, as they did not attack anybody in Kiev
and are indeed defending themselves from undiscriminated shelling from Kiev. Let's hope the Nobel prize will honor it.
Koninklijk 8 Feb 2015 10:08
Even if there is no further escalation, these repercussions are going to be felt in Europe
for a long time. We'll just have to hope nobody really wants a war in Europe, in the short or
long term.
Kal El 8 Feb 2015 10:05
The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50
thousand rather than 5 thousand.
Which when you think about is more of a truer number given that Ukraine is currently on its
4TH, yes 4TH mobilisation/conscription wave.
If the number of dead/injured is what Kiev claims, quite clearly they would NOT need all of
these mobilisations in the last year. The current mobilisation even includes women.
Russia revolt against neoliberal empire with the capital is Washington...
Notable quotes:
"... There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader, thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order. ..."
"... Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However, we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made, including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe. They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state and the Government. ..."
Finally, about a war waged against this country. Fortunately, there is no war. Let us not pay
too much attention to this. There is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different
means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape in the past decades after the collapse
of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader,
thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only
if it is in this leader's interests. Russia would never agree to such a world order.
Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However,
we will not go to war with anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made,
including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone happy in the final count, I believe.
They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain
harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore,
I would like to call on you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state
and the Government.
... ... ...
Someone also said a 'spectre of recession' is roaming the world. As we all know, it used to be
the 'spectre of communism', and now it is a 'spectre of recession'. Representatives of our traditional
confessions say it is enough to turn to God and we would not fear any spectres. However, a popular
saying tells us that God helps him who helps himself. Therefore, if we work hard and retain a responsible
attitude to our job, we will succeed.
Finally, about a war waged against this country. Fortunately, there is no war. Let us not pay too much attention to this. There
is, however, an attempt to restrain our development by different means, an attempt to freeze the world order that has taken shape
in the past decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, with one single leader at its head, who wants to remain an absolute leader,
thinking he can do whatever he likes, while others can only do what they are allowed to do and only if it is in this leader's interests.
Russia would never agree to such a world order.
Maybe some like it, they want to live in a semi-occupied state, but we will not do it. However, we will not go to war with
anyone either, we intend to cooperate with everyone. The attempts made, including through the so-called sanctions, do not make anyone
happy in the final count, I believe. They cannot be effective when applied to such a country as ours, though they are doing us certain
harm. We have to understand this and enhance our sovereignty, including economic sovereignty. Therefore, I would like to call on
you to show understanding of what is going on and to cooperate with the state and the Government.
... ... ...
Someone also said a 'spectre of recession' is roaming the world. As we all know, it used to be the 'spectre of communism', and
now it is a 'spectre of recession'. Representatives of our traditional confessions say it is enough to turn to God and we would not
fear any spectres. However, a popular saying tells us that God helps him who helps himself. Therefore, if we work hard and retain
a responsible attitude to our job, we will succeed.
Another terrible and extremely brutal created by West civil war in the name of neo-colonial domination of the territory, resources
and markets is in full swing. And that's after Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afganistan, Libya... Already probably over 50K of dead and several
times more wounded. More then a million of refuges (mostly in Russia)...
Sending arms to Ukraine will not scare Vladimir Putin, warns Angela Merkel while
Francois Hollande warns it could lead to war
It was a day of bluster and speeches but also paralysis over how to bring the bloodshed in eastern Ukraine to an end.
On one side, hawks in Washington favour supplying "advanced weapons" to Ukraine's government in Kiev. On the other, cautious European
leaders warned it is easier to provoke Vladimir Putin than to scare him.
"I am firmly convinced this conflict cannot be solved with military means," said Angela Merkel, the German chancellor at the Munich
Security Conference.
Mrs Merkel, who is the only major Western leader to have a working relationship with Mr Putin, said a flow of American arms to Ukraine
would not intimidate the Russian leader.
"I cannot imagine any situation in which improved equipment for the Ukrainian army leads to President Putin being so impressed
that he believes he will lose militarily," she said. "I have to put it that bluntly."
She added that force had not proved to be the solution in the past when dealing with Russia. "I grew up in East Germany, I have
seen the Wall," she said. "The Americans did not intervene in the Wall, but in the end we won."
More than 5,300 people have died in the conflict so far, many in devastating artillery barrages, and Kiev warned yesterday that
rebel troops were massing for a fresh offensive.
An increasing number of US politicians and senior officials have suggested countering the rebel troops by supplying "defensive
weapons" such as Javelin anti-tank missiles, small arms and ammunition to allow Ukraine to strike back at the tanks, artillery and
troops that Russia appears to be sending to the east of the country.
General Philip Breedlove, Nato's top military commander, insisted on Saturday that the option should remain on the table. "I don't
think we should preclude out of hand the possibility of the military option," he said, adding: "There is no conversation about boots
on the ground."
President Barack Obama has remained silent so far, but Ashton Carter, his nominee for defence secretary, told a Senate committee
last week that he is "very much inclined" to provide arms to Petro Poroshenko's government.
A day after five hours of talks in Moscow between Mrs Merkel, François Hollande and Mr Putin yielded no public agreement beyond
a commitment to a further phone call, all the major players in the crisis met at the Munich Security Conference, electrifying what
is usually a dry affair.
There was no mistaking where the sympathies of the audience, made up of international leaders including 20 heads of state, lay.
When Mrs Merkel mentioned in her speech that she was glad to see Petro Poroshenko present, the Ukrainian President stood up and took
a bow, to rapturous applause. Brandishing the passports of several Russian soldiers allegedly seized on Ukrainian territory, he said
they were the "best evidence for the aggression and for the presence of Russian troops".
Mr Hollande has said he is against arming Ukraine and Philip Hammond, the foreign secretary, said the UK also supports a diplomatic
solution while he denounced Mr Putin's "bully-boy" tactics.
"At the moment we do not feel that the supply of arms would be a helpful contribution," said Mr Hammond. "And so long as there
is something approximating a military stalemate, the focus must be on finding a political solution to resolve it."
He also rejected accusations that the UK had become a "diplomatic irrelevance", saying: "We will decide, together, what is the
best way to go forward. The United States and the United Kingdom will be at that table with France and Germany."
But Malcolm Rifkind, the former Defence and Foreign Secretary, was one of several delegates who pressed Mrs Merkel on how Mr Putin
could be tackled without bolstering Ukraine's army. "Frederick the Great said that diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments,"
the Tory MP pointed out.
Joe Biden, the US vice president, appeared to leave a route open for weapons supplies to Kiev, saying: "We do not believe in a
military solution to the conflict, but we do not believe that Putin has the right to do whatever he wants." He added: "Too many times,
President Putin has promised peace and delivered tanks."
On Sunday, Mrs Merkel, Mr Hollande, Mr Putin and Mr Poroshenko will resume the debate and are expected to thrash out a blueprint
on a conference call. But it remains unclear what incentive, or threat, Moscow requires in order to scale back its support for the
thousands of heavily armed militiamen in east Ukraine.
On Saturday Mr Putin insisted that his country was innocent, saying during a visit to Sochi on the Black Sea: "We are not going
to wage war on anyone, we plan to cooperate with everybody."
"There clearly is an attempt to restrain our development with different means," he told trade union activists. "There is an attempt
to perturb the existing world order... with one incontestable leader who wants to remain as such thinking he is allowed everything
while others are only allowed what he allows and only in his interests. This world order will never suit Russia."
In Munich, Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, took the West to task for allegedly escalating the conflict but expressed
hope the renewed peace talks would bear fruit. "We believe there is every possibility that we will reach a result and agree the recommendations
that will allow the sides to really untie this knot of a conflict," he said.
Representatives of the rebels, Ukraine, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe signed a peace deal
in Minsk, Belarus, in September. That deal agreed a ceasefire, a withdrawal of artillery, prisoner exchanges and other concessions
but was never implemented in full. Despite some lulls, fighting and shelling continued and last month the rebels announced they were
abandoning talks over a ceasefire and going on the offensive.
French and German officials have said the current peace talks are seeking a way to implement the original Minsk agreement, possibly
conceding more land to the rebels to reflect their recent advances.
But Mr Poroshenko said any new deal should not expand the territory given over to rebel control, and its signatories could not
pick and choose which points to fulfil.
"The Minsk protocol is not a buffet in the Bayerischer Hof hotel," he said, referring to the location of the Munich conference.
You may as well bomb Moscow if you do that, because (as the article makes clear) to Putin
the two would be equivalent.
Why the F*** were Obama and Nato so keen to have more pieces on their pie... this really
bugs me. Ok, so Ukraine was not "neutral in the right way" and was under heavy Russian
influence. And so? It's on Russia's doorstep for f***'s sake! What do you expect!
If China masterminded a coup in Mexico with the aim of bringing the country into a defense
treaty with Beijing ... do you think that Washington would not do everything possible to stop
it?
jeeeeez
Amazon10 7 Feb 2015 11:43
What people seem to have forgotten is that Russia is NOT the Soviet Union but a free market
state that like all others and wants to protect it's own interests. It is confronted by
agressive NATO states that have encroached on territories that they agreed they would not.
In addition thay have a circle of nuclear based with missiles pointing at them. Ukraine,
which was a past soviet state but then became neutral after the fall of the Soviet Union.
However the US had other ideas as voiced by their representative to the EU Newland who
inadvertently had her plans for the Ukraine exposed. Their intended coup took place despite a
democratically elected being in place and a government was installed committed to Western
imperialism and expansion of NATO.
The population of the eastern region rejected this coup and it's nazi composition and found
that the only way they could resist the military forced brought upon them by Kiev and it's
western supporters was by fighting back. This is where we are at today. I am sure that Russia
have aided the east with military weapons and have accept over 1million refugees. There has
not been a single piece of evidence to show that Russian forces have involved on Ukraine soil.
The aggressive rhetoric from the West towards Russia make the likelihood of war real and could
have grave consequences for us all if we allow the real truth to be distorted in order to
bring this about. The leaders of Europe must be made aware that we will not let this happen
and that our constant aggression towards whoever we disagree with is not an excuse for war
dylan kerling -> Spockdem 7 Feb 2015 11:42
his post clearly implied it and if you've seen any of his other posts in other articles you
would realize he clearly does seem to look at this situation as a dichotomy of good vs evil,
west vs Russia.
When someone lists some atrocities while only referring to one side and completely ignoring
the fact that the other has done all of it only more frequently and with less of a reason I
would say he's excusing the west from it.
Lastly I'm not condoning Russia, I'm pointing out US hypocrisy and the fact that we still
hear all this talk of how Russia is doing all these terrible things from our political leaders
while completely white washing that we've done the very same time and time again.
If anyone is a shill is all of you that seem to think it's OK when the west does it but if
those evil Russians do anything oh boy are they in trouble.
LarsNil -> Ram2009 7 Feb 2015 11:41
"Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is identified in State Department documents as an
informant for the U.S. since 2006. The documents describe him as "[o]ur Ukraine (OU) insider
Petro Poroshenko." The State Department documents also report that Poroshenko is "tainted by
credible corruption allegations."
The most recent top official to join the Ukrainian government is Natalia A. Jaresko, a
long-time State Department official, who went to Ukraine after the U.S.-sponsored Orange
Revolution. Jaresko was made a Ukrainian citizen by the president on the same day he appointed
her finance minister. William Boardman reports further on Jaresko:
Natalie Jaresko, is an American citizen who managed a Ukrainian-based, U.S.-created hedge
fund that was charged with illegal insider trading. She also managed a CIA fund that supported
'pro-democracy' movements and laundered much of the $5 billion the U.S. spent supporting the
Maidan protests that led to the Kiev coup in February 2014. Jaresko is a big fan of austerity
for people in troubled economies."
September 9, 2014 The head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Gontareva during a
round table in Kiev, said: "200 FSB agents work on loosening the Ukrainian banking system and
the hryvnia" :)
February 5, 2015 "The reasons for the fall of the hryvnia - no," - said the Minister of
Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine Abramavičius.
February 4, 2015: $ 1/17 hryvnia, February 7, 2015 $ 1/26 hryvnia.
February 6, 2015 Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili on Ukrainian TV channel 24:
"spirit of the Ukrainian soldiers the best in the world. If you give them the necessary
knowledge, skills and weapons, they will be able to capture the whole of Russia "
Damn sclerosis. Apparently he forgot how as Russia routed the Georgian army for 4 days.
Let me remind you, this man was considered for the post of head of the Anti-Corruption
Committee of Ukraine. In Georgia, he declared a national search in. The Prosecutor's Office
indicted in absentia Saakashvili of abuse of power, embezzlement of budget funds, the attempt
to seize other people's property. The investigation is conducted from 25 October 2013, and
during this period were collected 80 volumes of evidence, questioned nearly 100 witnesses.
2013 Yatsenyuk in an interview with Ukrainian TV: "In the Ukrainian authorities are
amateurs!" Prime Ministers of Ukraine Azarov, Foreign exchange reserves of more than 22
billion dollars, the rate of $ 1 / 8.5 hryvnia.
Now Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, gold and currency reserves of $ 6 billion, the rate of $ 1/26
hryvnia.
Davos January 21, 2015 President of Ukraine Poroshenko: "In my country there are more than
9000 troops from the Russian Federation, 500 tanks, heavy artillery and armored vehicles."
Wow, it's strange that the separatists have not yet reached the border with Poland :)
February 7, 2015 security conference in Munich. Showing the passport of Russian citizens
and military tickets Poroshenko said: "What you still need more facts, evidence of the
presence of Russian troops in Ukraine?"
Ok, but the soldiers of the Russian Army during the service do not have passports, only
military ID. But of course when traveling to Ukraine they are given a complete set, in case of
capture. Ha ha ha :)
The Mayor Of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko. At a meeting with Ukrainian soldiers: "they Say that
there is no body armor, but it is physical protection. The main armor for each of you, is have
a mother, wife, children... Social standards - this is the armor. When everyone knows that if
something happens, his family will receive good compensation and will not have to beg" :)
Uh... good consolation for the soldiers...
You do not cast doubt on the adequacy of the new government of Ukraine? I think that these
clowns, already tired most of the Ukrainians.
cherryredguitar Yubin Underok 7 Feb 2015 11:16
Here is why: Russia has an army of online shills.
Of course, those nice trustworthy people at GCHQ and Langley wouldn't do stuff like that,
would they?
"... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
"... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
"... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
"... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is
in the interest of all affected:
The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and
foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.
"The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not
against it." Wise words.
Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00
NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled
when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its
geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not
Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in
the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy
is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security
Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure
of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter
and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," -
he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is
trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to"
throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the
recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."
According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain
its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last
quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its
dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21
Putin today:
"Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and
to preserve the unipolar world.
"War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our
development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order
led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he
can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best
interest, "- said the head of state.
"Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it,
wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the
same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"-
said Putin.
snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08
of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones
screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in
power...
centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14
international isolation
Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the
majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank)
A majority is over 50%.
centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10
Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund
raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07
The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a
buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up
Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.
Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American
money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.
Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04
I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on
blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them
with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty
man.
MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01
Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement.
According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent
line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer
zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This
is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article
being commented on.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56
I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying
anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who
simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have
endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join
the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.
If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one
man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the
idiot Obama.
centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56
Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is
dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)
"... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
"... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
"... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
"... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is
in the interest of all affected:
The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and
foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.
"The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not
against it." Wise words.
Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00
NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled
when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its
geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not
Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in
the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy
is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security
Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure
of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter
and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," -
he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is
trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to"
throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the
recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."
According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain
its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last
quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its
dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21
Putin today:
"Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and
to preserve the unipolar world.
"War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our
development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order
led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he
can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best
interest, "- said the head of state.
"Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it,
wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the
same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"-
said Putin.
snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08
of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones
screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in
power...
centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14
international isolation
Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the
majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank)
A majority is over 50%.
centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10
Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund
raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07
The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a
buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up
Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.
Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American
money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.
Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04
I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on
blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them
with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty
man.
MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01
Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement.
According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent
line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer
zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This
is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article
being commented on.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56
I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying
anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who
simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have
endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join
the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.
If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one
man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the
idiot Obama.
centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56
Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is
dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)
Those who are responsible for soaking Donbass in blood will not stop. They need to be stopped by
force. Ukrainian citizens have become either consumable or brainwashed. And for Western Ukrainians,
the core supported of Yatsenyuk & Poroshenko clan (forme junta that now is integrated into Porosheko
government) the war is far from their territory. People are dying there in Debaltsevo and Uglegorsk,
Donetsk and Luhansk, while the military and mercenaries are trying to prove their side of the story
through shelling of infrastructure and killing citizens. Donbass meetings and referendums were a
result EuroMaidan, and emergence of separatst are direct result of absurd actions of the new
Ukrainian government, which turn their county into a death factory for the sake of enforcing on the
country Western Ukranian brand of nationalism. Those who are living in peace and whose relatives are
protected from conscption are demanding the continuation of the war the most loudly. They nurture
and inspire her, feeding infernal demons. They created a diabolical request to victims. and they got
them: woman, children, eldery, like in any civil war. But they now infected with their bloodthirsty
bacillus and can't stop. So people like Yatsenyuk and Turchinov need to be stopped first, removed
from this current position and sent to the Hague court before we can talk about peace. And let's
don;t forget that the blood of victims of Odessa massacre in also on them. We are talking about
repetion of civil war in Spain here with their 200 thousand victims. Looks like Europeans learned
nothing from two world war and as soon the the generation the fought the war is in graved a new war
is immediately started.
Notable quotes:
"... Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them. ..."
Laurence Johnson -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 15:51
There are two proxies in the West. Poroshenko is clearly the EU"s man in Ukraine, and
Yatsenyuk is very clearly the US's man in Ukraine.
Whatever Merkel and Hollande come up with for a peace plan, you can guarantee that
Yatsenyuk will derail it as soon as possible.
For Yats, only the supply of weapons, and many more billions of handouts and debt
forgiveness will do. In the world for Yats, the war must go on.
hodgeey nino45 6 Feb 2015 15:27
I think most people who write here are compassionate; there are few people who have not
been touched by tragedy and they learn to be both sympathetic and empathetic, but hesitate to
show it.
Having worked with Russians in Russia I can tell you we are not very different.
nino45 ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 15:19
Thank you for your concern, maybe I said it in a wrong way.. my English is not that good. I
wanted to express the feeling our elders here have when watching the news. Many people have
friends and relatives there, so it is very hard on them. I just wanted to say that ordinary
Russian people show compassion in many ways, well not writing comments here in English, but
calling their relatives and sending them packages...
JCDavis -> ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 14:45
If the US has advisors and a CIA office in Kiev they are there by invitation
It's the other way around. The CIA invited the present government -- traitors all -- to
join in their coup.
JCDavis -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:58
You are badly misreading the situation. Ukraine is pawn in a geopolitical struggle for
world empire. It will be sacrificed in an instant if it suits the purposes of any of these
people. Except Yats, the CIA's pick for the coup, a traitor who will be sacrificed in any
case. Who could trust such a person?
Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:48
Let them negogiate peace. Merkel wants peace, Hollande needs peace, Putin desperately is
seeking peace. Poroshenko is reasonable and negogiable. But imbecile Yatzenuk is
non-negogiable. Let us pray that tkhe talks end with peaceful project.
JCDavis -> harryphilby 6 Feb 2015 13:23
The Yanks don't do peace.
This is true. Obama is Cheney's blackmailed puppet, and Cheney was the only neocon in
Bush's criminal administration who actually wanted to fight Russia. He is quite mad, and he is
the most powerful man in the world. Bad combination.
Euphobia1 6 Feb 2015 13:21
One problem is the history of the Ukraine which except for very short periods has always
been part of Russia. Only an accident of fate made Ukraine a country and many of its citizens
feel Russian and still want to be part of Russia.
Russia never invaded the Ukraine because it didn't have to as it was Russia. It would be
like say East Anglia becoming a separate state in UK just because a politician who lived there
thought it might be nice and then finding itself a sovereign state. Khrushchev did this for
the Ukraine when he was the boss. Khrushchev never thought the Soviet Union would break up and
Ukraine become a separate country for only the second time in it's history.
When the Soviet Union collapsed the USA treated it so badly. Instead of embracing it when
it asked to join the EU Russia was rejected and the West has been encroaching on to it's
borders ever since. No wonder Russia is fearful. The USA likes to fight wars in other people's
countries. Good for business.
Russia is big powerful and proud country. Ukraine used to be the major part of it and many
living there may still want to be part of it too. The West should wake up and start seeking
solutions fast. War is not an answer.
Justthefactsman 6 Feb 2015 13:20
Anybody seen pictures that confirm that Russian Federation troops are in the Eastern
Ukraine ?
With todays satellite technology it is almost possible to recognise a packet of cigarettes,
how come we haven't seen any satellite images of these massive troop movements ?
What has happened about the inquiry that is supposed to be investigating the shooting down
of the Malayan airliner? Why is the progress not being reported.?
Shit, it those crafty nasty Russians who are holding up the investigation. How? By asking
to see the whole truth about the situation, and we wouldn't want to embarrass the coup
inheritors in Kiev by revealing the truth, would we ?
TrueCopy -> Eric Hoffmann 6 Feb 2015 13:17
Dude there is no military solution to the mess. The most effective forces on the ground on
the Ukraine regime side are Ukrainian "volunteer" paramilitary forces, who are coming from the
western part of Ukraine, no one is talking giving them weapons, although Poland has been
supporting them for a while. The Ukrainian army isn't going to fight any better no matter what
they get. The best thing US can provide them is satellite intelligence, that is already doing.
Russia isn't directly involved, but even if the invade Ukraine, there is not much we can do,
it is better to just cut a deal and move on.
JCDavis 6 Feb 2015 13:14
So Hollande and Merkel and threatening Putin with early membership of Ukraine in NATO,
completing Obama's new iron curtain earlier rather than later. Thus this stupid ploy will fail
and Congress will throw gas on the fire (boneheads that they are) and Russia will move in with
real troops and take all of southern Ukraine. This seems inevitable. Ukraine's goose was
cooked when Ukrainian traitors conspired with the CIA Only the carving up is not complete.
zchabj6 6 Feb 2015 13:13
It is in the US strategic interest to have a war on Russia's border indefinitely as they
already had a part in in Chechnya and Georgia. Georgia is now part of NATO so it worked quite
well for the US despite the unnecessary loss of life, not that any nation cares anymore it
seems.
It is not in the interest of Russia, Eurozone, EU or any European state .
Hence the Russian organized Minsk peace process and some belated EU help to make it happen
while the US considers prolonging the war through weapons transfers as they have done and
continue in Syria, another Iran/Russia ally.
Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is
aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them.
It is pretty obvious that significant forces in Washington push for a big war in Europe, cold
at least
but hot if possible. European countries, aside from some small U.S. puppets, are well aware that they would be hit hard in such a
war, and do not want it.
The U.S. wants to deliver additional weapons to Ukraine and to thereby goad Russia into such a wider war. The
arguments made that such weapon delivers would somehow restrict Russia
arejuststupid
and only hide the real plans: Escalation until Europe is (again) up in flames.
There is
full steam lobbying by the U.S. to widen the conflict in Ukraine which it
instigated in the first place:
As President Barack Obama's pick to run the Pentagon said Wednesday he's inclined to support lethal weapons transfers, Ukraine's
president said he was confident the U.S. would do so. Meanwhile, outgoing Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Secretary of State
John Kerry were flying to discuss Ukraine and other issues with allies in Europe. Vice President Joe Biden is due to follow them
Thursday.
France, the U.K., Germany and other Europeans have
spoken out against any such weapon deliveries and the escalation they bring.
Kerry has flown to Kiev today to push for the Ukraine puppets into escalation. Merkel and Hollande will also
fly to Kiev and
will hopefully try to convince Poroshenko to deescalate and to make peace with the federalists in east-Ukraine. I have my doubts
about their independence though and it may be that their appearance is is just part of the show. Why else did they agree to NATO's
increase in capacities and infrastructure in east Europe?
The solution for the Ukraine is simple. Federalization, official acceptance of the Russian language which is spoken in the East
and democratic elections of local governors. These have been the demands in the east and these have been solutions even U.S. foreign
policy luminaries
urged to accept a year ago.
The Ukraine is bankrupt. This morning its currency
lost 30%
in just a few hours. Instead of further instigating a civil war and pushing for its escalation it is urgently time to discuss how
that problem can be solved. The solution can not be waging war and permanent subsidization of Europe's
most corrupt
country.
Federalization and constitutional reform (i.e. Point 3 Decentralization of power ...) are a major point agreed upon by both sides
in the Minsk protocol about a ceasefire in east-Ukraine.
But despite insisting on other points of the agreement himself Poroshenko still rejects those most important agreed upon conditions.
Should the U.S. win in its drive to escalate the situation by delivering more weapons to Kiev Russia will not cave in. History
suggest that a Ukraine under NATO at its border is a deadly danger. Russia must and will take countermeasures. The U.S. will then
cite those countermeasures as signs of "further aggression" and as justification for another round of escalation. A few more rounds
of such and Europe will be up in flames.
That would be good for the U.S. economy but terrible for the Ukraine and Europe.
Actually, I am not sure Kerry is in Kyiv to make a gift of weapons. Here is the
official statement
And obviously, we'll be talking about the dire security situation in the east of Ukraine and the grave acceleration of the
fighting over the Minsk lines by the separatists enabled by Russian weapons, Russian expertise, Russian command and control.
He will be endeavoring to support efforts by the Ukrainians to get to a ceasefire, to get back to serious negotiations in the
Trilateral Contact Group where the Minsk signatories – Russia, Ukraine, and the separatists – sit. And he will be offering
U.S. support to any diplomatic framework that can be successful in this context.
I guess, Ukraine and the West desperately need a ceasefire now. To throw weapons on it won't help. The IMF has linked further
loans to peace and territorial integrity.
Willy2 | Feb 5, 2015 8:47:15 AM | 5
Is more chaos not just what the US Empire wants ? "Divide & Conquer", right ? And that chaos would/is bound to spill over
into Russia.
"Mission Accomplished", right ?
somebody | Feb 5, 2015 9:16:27 AM | 7
Re: Petrodollar System | Feb 5, 2015 8:39:39 AM | 3
If Russia decides that is is attacked by NATO and not just threatened by a NATO proxy force within Ukraine and decides to counterattack,
then what? Where to end? So much for the feasibility of NATO weapons in Ukraine - some are supposed to be there already.
The vast majority of Ukrainians expect federalization as the end result. They are not stupid. They know this is all about
the Petrodollar.
Not really. It is about Russian influence in South East Europe via gas pipelines. A Russia friendly government in Kiew and
federalization would be not an issue apart from Western Ukraine that does have close connections with the EU.
Hopefully the brinksmanship going on now is really just a way of bettering the NATO negotiating position about who, with
federalization, will really control which province. I have a hope the negotiations are down to one particular province now; the
sticking point far from the current front. I can see that being worked out. Maybe UN forces can patrol the area of the sticking
point.
I doubt that very much as no one wants to
cede the pipeline routes. Nor is it really open to negotiation as Ukrainian infrastructure and flow of goods are hard to reverse.
From a quick posting troll - inaugural member of the 77th battalion? - said:
"the only country involved in a war in a Europe is RussiaAmerica. It's supplying arms, men, logistics. It lies about
it, because it can. It's not a democracy, it neveronce was and it {will} never will be {again}. It can do what it
likes, it controls the media, the industry (as crappy as it is). It silences any opposition, either through outright murder,
by imprisonment or by whatever means necessary. {through horizontal censorship and military/intelligence agency sponsored
social media trolling} "
It could not be any more obvious that Kerry is in Kiev to keep the bloody war going. His first words are to back up Ukrainian
propaganda and blame the entire conflict on Russia and then
set impossible conditions:
pulling back heavy weapons beyond the range of civilian populations, removing foreign troops and heavy equipment from Ukraine,
and closing the Russia-Ukraine border.
The only way the conflict gets solved is to deal respectfully with the legitimate grievances of Eastern Ukraine, and that is
exactly what Kerry didn't say a word about. The ridiculous appointment by corrupt Kiev of oligarchs as governors in the regions
is the biggest offense, and democratic federalization has always been the reasonable solution. Poroshenko is STILL not talking
to the East and still calling them terrorists. This is the guy Kerry is hugging and reassuring with these wonderful words: "LET'S
HAVE A WAR!"
Kerry can't be that stupid. He must know that even if Kiev gets more 'defensive' weapons one month later and they'll be asking
for planes and cruise missiles.
farflungstar | Feb 5, 2015 10:44:28 AM | 13
USSA plans to fight Russia down to the last Ukrainian, makes it seem like it's all Russia's fault. I hope Russia wastes no
expense in reminding the average Ukrainian who the real monstrous a$$hole is here, pulling conflicts out of thin air and playing
everyone like pawns.
I have a sneaking suspicion the Ukraine will ultimately look back with grim nostalgia at the peace they had before the
Maidan.
Alberto | Feb 5, 2015 10:52:27 AM | 14
The main objective of the Ukraine putsch appears to be the perpetuation of NATO by manufacturing a war with Russia? Do not
ever forget that the Czar of WHITE RUSSIA backed the colonists in the Revolutionary War against England. The same actors of 250
years ago are still the propelling force behind all present weapons manufacture/sales, genocide, violence and civil wars.
Btw the previous Ukr. currency failed in 1996. It was called the Kupon! (Inflation, mis-management.)
The PTB in the Kiev-coup Gvmt will not hear of federalization. I even doubt anybody could coerce them into agreeing with that.
No matter how dominant or powerful one considers the US, the EU, the CIA or whomever. The Donbass is now (and was previous) a
cancer to extirpate.
In fact besides cutting off all usual country ties (pensions, teachers salaries, state services, police, taxation..), Kiev
has cut off the banks and financial services.
Also, set up checkpoint so that nobody can leave. (A request with a pile of paper has to be made, then, zilch, turned back
at the border. Yes a border.) Kiev has also cancelled public bus/train transport, trains no longer run. into the Donbass.
Poroshenko when he stated "their children will starve in the cellars while ours go to school" was not kidding. So the Donbass,
for ex., can no longer import meds. Besides its hospitals being shelled to bits…
Palestine, anyone?
From the other side, Donesk + Lugansk Rs will not turn back, the killing has been too atrocious. Putin and the W may still
be mouthing about a 'unitary Ukraine', that ship has sailed. Federalization can take place in certain conditions, not these. I
reckon the parties who propose it know that very well.
NotTimothyGeithner | Feb 5, 2015 11:03:19 AM | 16
@6 This is why I don't think the Russians have been more active. A collapse in Kiev will leave an angry and bitter populace
behind which will have a hard time moving East.
I suspect a sense of national betrayal to develop in greater Kiev against the West. They will say, "the jews betrayed us,"
because that is traditional and create terrorist operations against nominally anti-Russian countries such as Poland who won't
be interested in helping Kiev when the going gets tough.
radiator | Feb 5, 2015 11:57:20 AM | 18
I actually believe that the tide is turning against nato. Open supply of arms would, imho, make the population in western ukraine
go and throw poroshenko from the rooftop - people are not so stupid that they wouldn't notice that the us uses them as cannon
fodder to fight its wars, like they do everywhere else on the globe. it's just my opinion but i believe that among what used to
be the soviet countries, there's still somewhat more sensitivity and insight for the evil ways of the us empire.
So to me, this merkel-hollande-kerry visits look more like a panicked effort to either gain time or push for a ceasefire and
maybe even federalization before the Ukrainian nazi militias are obsolete and the country takes a reconquista coup from their
own population.
Should there come an anti-maidan with support of the sensible parts of the ukrainian army, the whole country might be back
under russian influence for some time. The western politicians are trying to avoid that if possible.
The way the russians have played this game thus for I am firmly convinced that they'll know how to play this, now advantage,
for the best.
@Noirette#15 - You are right about Kiev's attitude to federalism. Is there a disconnect here?
Having watched Willy Wonka's press conference with Kerry, Porky was reminded that Donbass should have a special status. But
I noticed in his earlier
interview with Germany's Welt newspaper, the idea of federalism was rejected by Poroshenko as a solution to separatist demands.
Has he now been publicly put in his place by Kerry, or are the aims of Kiev disconnected from Washington? Does Porky fear being
turned into bacon if he caves in to the will of the East; to being dragged through the streets by the same fun loving criminals
used to bring down his predecessor?
Just who really can control the spirits unleashed?
The American Jewish Committee concluded a solidarity mission to Ukraine on
Thursday, expressing its support for the former Soviet republic in its conflict with Russia.
"First and foremost, we visited Kiev to express our ongoing solidarity with, and support for, the Ukrainian quest to chart
its own destiny," AJC Executive Director David Harris said in a statement.
"We applaud the current government's determination in the face of overwhelming adversity. With so much at stake for Ukraine
and regional and global security, it is critical that Western governments respond with appropriate support for the country.
This is nothing less than a defining era."
The delegation met with senior officials -including security officials and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk- as well as
Jewish leaders, the American organization said in a statement.
Among the topics discussed were "financial, military, and other forms of international support needed by Ukraine" and the
well-being of Ukrainian Jewry, the AJC stated.
Don't know about you, but I find this support for the Kiev government (which obviously has some radical right-wing elements) by
a Jewish Association truly remarkable, if not stunning. UNLESS they're doing it guided by "some higher interest"...
radiator | Feb 5, 2015 1:15:12 PM | 27
Re: #23
well imho having a nato controlled portion of ukraine nearby would be a danger and defeat for russia.
it's already bad enough to have poland and the baltics under nato control... i guess they'd make other concessions, have some
persona non grata in the ukrainian government or whatever, as long as they can make sure that ukraine stays militarily neutral.
the best outcome for russia would surely be a somewhat federalized but in any case unified ukraine that's not a member or associate
of nato. soon they'll have the means to accomplish exactly this (would be my guess).
Fernando | Feb 5, 2015 2:01:27 PM | 31
The plan is for war in Ukraine, Moldova and inside Russia if possible. The USA doesn't really want war in UK, Germany or France.
It's to be a limited war, a fast food war but in ebbs and flows that helps the economy grow stupid doncha know?
VietnamVet | Feb 5, 2015 2:40:02 PM | 32
The Clash of Civilizations never went away; it was tamped down for a while by realists who avoided a nuclear war between the
West and the East. This century ideologues and true believers seized power in the West. Today it is everybody for themselves.
Aggregating wealth, flushing sovereign government down the toilet, regime change and chaos are the goals of the Western Rulers.
It all has come together in the Ukraine. The realist position is a neutral federated Ukraine.
Instead a civil war was started and prodded along until mankind is just one mistake away from Armageddon.
Laguerre | Feb 5, 2015 3:29:50 PM | 37
I don't know much about Ukraine, in comparison to others here, but I would have thought it obvious that if Merkel, Hollande
and Kerry are in Kiev, it is because the Kiev regime is on the point of collapse, as already appreciated by b and others.
The collapse is military, not financial, even if Ukraine is also bankrupt. Otherwise immediate presence would not be necessary.
Many countries fight wars while being bankrupt.
The US talks of offering defensive arms. That seems inappropriate, a proposal more adapted to Syria. Ukraine has plenty of
arms, indeed manufactures them. The problem is human, not weapon-related. Conscript Ukrainians are fleeing in large numbers.
No-one wants to fight for Kiev.
I doubt that Russia is intervening actively, in the sense of a desire to integrate Novorussiya into Russia. I recall the discussions
last autumn, where the lack of interest for Putin was emphasised. Nevertheless Russia is obligated to help its relatives, and
equally, if they don't do it, it would be a shame. I don't see any way that Russia has passed beyond what is necessary to help
their relatives.
One could compare to the Kurds, where it was thought OK for the Peshmerga to depart from Erbil to help their relatives
far away in Kobani.
Ulster | Feb 5, 2015 3:37:03 PM | 38
@25 No doubt that Kulikov knows what he's saying about the war in "highly populated areas" as he was commanding Russian forces
in Chechnya. He chose tactics that was indeed much more effective compared to the one Ukrainians now use in Donbass - Russians
in Chechnya just bombed everything from artillery and air until it was burned to the ground (but a high number of civilian casualties
was never a significant problem for Russian army).
But I would be still skeptical as it comes to Ukrainian army "being close to defeat". Everyone in Russia - and on MoA - was
repeating this mantra over and over again since April last year. Ukraine was "close to defeat" in April, in August, in November
and so on. But since then the Russia backed separatist made literally no progress, neither military, nor political.
NotTimothyGeithner | Feb 5, 2015 3:41:24 PM | 39
@37 Kerry and the gang might not be offering new arms as much as trying to find an explanation for existing arms especially
if the current Ukrainian cauldron surrenders.
Anonymous | Feb 5, 2015 3:58:00 PM | 40
Just read that Ukraine nazis will start murdering soldiers that refuse to wage war in the east.
ruralito | Feb 5, 2015 4:27:40 PM | 41
@ Ulcers "But since then the Russia backed separatist made literally no progress, neither military, nor political."
So, Kiev doesn't need military supplies from the west?
Justin O | Feb 5, 2015 4:29:33 PM | 42
The crisis in Ukraine has nothing to do with "freedom and democracy" (or free-dumb and demo-crazy as I like to call it). The
root cause of the crisis is the overwhelming desire on the part of the US to prevent a Eurasian integration project dominated
by the Russian Federation in the post-Soviet space. It is the US/EU who have interfered in Ukraine's internal affairs and
are destabilising Ukraine not Russia.
The criminal nature of the Ukrainian government is well known and understood by US and EU policy makers but their crimes are
being downplayed or totally ignored.
Any decent human being with a conscience would understand that it is the US-led "democratic" project that is responsible for
the bloodshed in Ukraine.
You must be Ukrainian. I don't think even Poles or Latvians would harp on the Chechen wars while the UAF are intensively bombarding
populated areas of Donbass. In any case, there is absolutely no comparison between what the junta is doing and what Russia did
in Chechnya. Russia was brutal with Chechnya yes, but there was no other way of putting down the foreign jihadists. Those were
brutal wars, but every action Russia took had a military purpose. In contrast, Kiev's murder of civilians and destruction of infrastructure,
kindergartens, schools, and hospitals has absolutely no military purpose. It is genocide, plain and simple. The objective was
to eliminate Ukrainians who identify as Russian from Ukraine, because only Ukrainians who identify as Russian resist fascism and
hence the junta. But now Kiev knows that it has lost the Donbass. The bombing is now done out of nothing but spite: if Ukrainians
can't have Donbass, they will leave Novorossiyans with a wasteland.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo-a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor
on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly
after her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series
of candid shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her
lips a la Angelina Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone. …
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector
ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses
a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security personnel has no right to check
his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason to have a hand grenade on
his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process. He is not afraid,
of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them with him if
he dies.
The people now running the Ukraine are more psychotic than the original Nazis ever were. America's Great Generation who fought
against the Nazis must be turning in their graves.
I'll disagree about the Kiev government being crazier than the nazis.
German nationalism makes sense, because Germany is a great nation. Ukrainian nationalism makes no sense at all, because not only
is Ukraine not a great nation - it's not even a nation.
It is an artificial construct clumped together from parts of other countries. The reason that the Banderites are so dead
set against federalization is that they realize this, and they want to solve the problem by forcibly Ukrainizing all Ukrainian
citizens who are not ethnically and/or culturally Ukrainian.
I'm positive Hillary and Obama would be devastated if they met victims of their crimes.
I seriously doubt that. They know the consequences of their actions. They just place no value on human life. They are both psychopaths.
Hillary with her joke "We came, we saw, he died"; Obama with his pride about his personally going over the White House kill list.
@Scott #52:
This might be a pivotal weekend boys and girls.
Yes, that's what Russian bloggers are saying. A Russian general said on Russian TV that
NAF should advance
to the administrative borders of DPR and LPR.
Israel likes to talk about "facts on the ground". It doesn't seem to have sunk
into the Obama regime yet that the facts on the ground in Donbass are not in its favor. Obama and Kerry continue their bluster.
The Empire's fall back plan, in case it could not hold on to the Ukraine, is perpetual chaos in the area between NATO and Russia.
But I think that if Russia was able to pacify Chechnya, it will be able to eventually pacify Ukraine. Of course, that will largely
depend on the Ukrainians coming to their senses. That process will begin by their suffering a decisive military defeat won by
non-fascist Ukrainians. Hopefully that will teach them that being a fascist is a losing proposition.
Our current crop of fascists have a lot of catching up to do before any comparison can be made to their old allies. Nowhere
near as brutal, crazy, or thankfully as capable.
I obviously agree with you about the "capable" part.
But I really don't see how you can make your other two claims.
How can one be more brutal than burning people alive as the Ukrainian nationalists did with the Odessa
Khatyn? In Khatyn, Ukrainian nationalist Nazi collaborators
forced people into a building and then set it on fire.
That is exactly what Ukrainian nationalists did in May of last year
in Odeassa. Right
Sector is composed of exactly the same people as the Ukrainian nationalists who collaborated with the Nazis during World War II.
I hope you don't mean to suggest that Ukrainian Nazi collaborators were less brutal and crazy than the Nazis themselves. Thus,
your claim that today's Ukrainian nationalists are [nowhere near as brutal, crazy" as the Nazis is not only false: it is incoherent.
Kiev bloggers joke: "A shell hit the hospital Donetsk. Get well, shell." I think this goes completely beyond the limit.
It's hard to imagine that even Nazi newspapers joked this way during World War II. (they strongly denied these facts,
as they had some understanding that it (the shelling of hospitals) is "shameful" and "wrong" even for their audience).
…
The main thing is not the producer, the main thing – the audience. All they have so – under the laughter, jokes and "culture
of laughter carnival" overthrown the legitimate authority, and burned a hundred "Vatnikov" in Odessa, unleashed carnage in
the East. And so far it's funny.
So yes, Ukrainian nationalists are more depraved than the original Nazis were. It is hard for Westerners to accept that, because
it is a central dogma of the new Western religion that the Nazis were a unique, absolute evil, to which no other genocidal regimes
can be compared, no matter how brutal they are and how depraved and nihilistic their members are.
Ukraine SITREP: *Extremely* dangerous situation in Debaltsevo The Novorussian and the junta have agreed to a cease-fire to
allow the civilian population to leave Debaltsevo. In theory, each civilian will get to chose whether he/she wants to be evacuated
to Novorussia or to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine. The convoy of refugees will be escorted by senior OSCE officials. Both sides
to the conflict have pledged not to open fire during the time needed for this operation. Now consider this:
1) The only thing protecting the junta forces are, precisely, these civilians. If these civilians leave, then Debaltsevo
will turn into Saur Mogila. Until now, the Novorussians have advanced rather slowly precisely because they could not use the
full power of their artillery to soften up the well dug-in junta forces. But thanks to the Voentorg, the Novorussians now have
plenty of firepower now and if they decide to really open up upon the junta forces the latter will suffer the same devastating
consequences as their (now dead) colleagues in Saur Mogila. Everybody understands that.
2) Tonight the junta has used white phosphorus again, and in the recent days they have used both ballistic missiles and
cluster munitions. Why this sudden concern with the Debaltsevo civilians (whom the Nazis consider as "bugs" anyway)? Does anybody
really believe that the Nazi freaks in Kiev care for Novorussian civilians?!
3) Kerry, Hollande and Merkel were in Kiev today. The latter two will be in Moscow tomorrow. In Germany, the Munich Security
Conference is meeting. NATO is still claiming that "hundreds and hundreds" of Russian Federation soldiers are operating in
Novorussia. While some US officials speak of sending "lethal aid" to the junta, others seem to oppose it.
Yes, everyone expects the junta to pull a false flag soon (as the Saker says in the part you didn't quote), but the junta has
pulled at least three false flags already (MH17, the shelling of a bus, the shelling of a residential area in Mariopul), but none
of those did the junta much good. (The downing of MH17 did enable the US to get the EU to impose more sanctions on Russia, though.)
I think that a sufficient amount of Westerners have realized by now that the junta is brutally killing its own people, whereas
the NAF are just trying to defend their people. The illusion that this is not the case is maintained by politicians and
the corporate media never speaking the truth about this. But because many Westerners are coming to understand the true nature
of the Kiev regime (Europeans anyway, if not Anglos), I think that further false flags are going to have limited effectiveness.
No. They won't pull back and apologize. They'll do what cowards usually do...
-keep bullying their Kiev junta
-keep lying about Kiev's massacres
-keep smearing Putin and blaming him for Kiev's crimes
-keep reinforcing the meme that Putin is so evil that Russia should be Iraqified to save it from Putin
-keep blaming anyone and everyone but themselves for their angst
-gnash their gums while they dream up more veils and excuses for their depravity.
US arming Ukraine is very likely. When you see a policy discussion report in The New York Times, experience shows the policy
is already being conducted covertly and this is just a way to bringing into public view a program that's already been initiated
(NATO shell rounds are already detected in Gorlovka, Ukraine). Nobody in Washington imagines with the best of support Kiev
forces will be able to win this militarily.
Arming of Ukraine is primarily directed against Europeans. Since there is more and more dissension in European ranks from
the US' confrontational policy the only way to scare the EU wimps back into a more confrontational position is to turn up the
heat and the chaos. (Chief of US Army in the Europe is already awarding medals to crippled Ukrainian soldiers).
This is a clear parallel to the Balkan conflicts. There the United States also needed to demonstrate leadership by escalating
conflict and dragging reluctant Europeans with them (bombing Serbs in 1995 and 1999, facilitate an inflow of Islamists to bolster
the Bosnian Muslims in Bosnia and Albanian separatists in Serbia, and finally creating a NATO client state in Kosovo)
Perhaps there's more to Hollande/Merkel's presence in Kiev than the good cop bad cop routine. They're on to Moscow tomorrow.
Demain 67 and rufus 74. There is little doubt that the neoNazi thugs running amok in Ukraine are barely distinguishable from
the real thing in Germany 90-to 70 years ago. What does distinguish them is that the German Nazis had total control over the levers
of state after 1938; their descendants in Ukraine have not yet achieved total control. Neither the EU nations nor the US is quite
ready to support them in their desire to ethnic cleanse Donbas of its Russian population. That is the current political reality.
I seriously doubt that Poroshenko shares the Nazi dream of purging 'slavs' from Ukraine. Unfortunatley his ability to negotiate
with the Donbas people is seriously circumscribed by the neo-Nazi militias that now make up a big part of his armed forces.
Interesting times to be sure. The US is pushing war in Ukraine but it will come down, it seems to me, how far Obama is willing
to accept an alliance with the Nazis. At some point he will have to decide and that time will come when it is no longer possible
to hide the fact that war in Ukraine is being pushed by the Nazi forces.
No concentration camps, no death camps. No "Night of the Long Knives" yet, the regime is not far along of its trajectory of
decay and destruction. They have the capacity to get that crazy, granted. But if maybe in possession of means, not yet the
opportunity.
The junta would do all those things if they could. The reason they don't is (1) as you said at #59, they are not as capable as
the Nazis; (2) unlike the Nazis, the Ukraine is not a sovereign nation, but a colony of the US, and USG realizes that the junta
setting up concentration and death camps would be bad for PR; (3) the Nazis did not have to worry about the Internet. The bottom
line is that the worst thing the Nazis did was to commit genocide, and that is exactly what the Ukrainians are doing now, which
means that the Ukrainians are not the least bit better than the Nazis. The western Ukrainians are just picking up where their
Banderite grandfathers left off.
Trying to find ways in which the junta is not as bad as the Nazis is a pointless intellectual exercise which just serves to
obscure the true nature of Ukrainian nationalism and the junta, IMO.
As for the tempo of the advance: I think that Novorossiya and Russia should set the goal of the DPR and LPR comprising all
of the territory of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of the former Ukraine. How that goal is to be achieved (by a military advance;
if so, how quick should it be?; through negotiation; by waiting for the Ukrainian state to collapse) is a separate matter.
There are at least four players here: (1) Russia; (2) USG; (3) the people's republics; (4) the junta. I think it's safe to
say that Russia has a significantly better understanding of USG's strategy and overriding goals than USG has of Russia's strategy
and overriding goals.
The junta is USG's puppet, but the puppet is so crazy that USG's control over it is limited. Russia keeps Novorossiya
on a leash, but the leash is not very short. Also, no one knows what the Kremlin's strategy is, whereas everyone who reads this
blog knows what USG's strategy is.
Finally, USG has not the least bit of concern about Ukrainians, whereas Moscow is deeply concerned about the welfare of Novorossiyans,
although it places its geopolitical interests over humanitarian concerns.
As you may have noticed, I do not consider Germany or France to be players here. They could have been, but they left the game
when they did not resist pressure from USG for them to act against their own self interest.
"The solution for the Ukraine is simple. Federalization, official acceptance of the Russian language which is spoken
in the East and democratic elections of local governors."
Really? After all the atrocities and mass murders committed by the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian nazis, the solution
is ... so simple. The author is either extremely naive or extremely underinformed. Both the leaders of Novorussia and ordinary
people have repeatedly said that they don't ever want to be part of the illegal neo-nazi government in Kiev. Perhaps "federalization"
was still possible before the Odessa massacre. No more.
Representative of Defense Ministry of Donetsk Republic Eduard Basurin says: "The Ukrainian side accepted our offer that we
open a passage for the locals to leave Debal`tsevo tomorrow."
From his words, the locals will be provided busses: "Right now, Donetsk Republic prepares busses and autos to transportat Debal`tsevo
locals through a humanitarian corridor to Gorlovka (Donetsk Republic) or Artemovsk (Ukraine)."
Combatant Prokhorov informed about situation and clashes on February 5:
"Afternoon (February 4) the Ukrainians tried to seize hamlet Shirokovo (near Mariupol`). The attack was repelled. Battalion
"Azov" reported 2 "200th" (killed) and 1 "300th" (wounded) – understated five times.
(February 5) under Mariupol` (information is traditionally scarce from there) border troops were struck in Sartana(?) and positions
of the Ukrainian forces in Priovrazh`ye(?). And just one hour ago a Ukrainian patrol was liquidated near Shirokovo. So far, 2
fallen and 2 wounded were reported (understated by multiple times).
Under Debal`tsevo (Chernukhino) a company of 25th battalion "Kiyevskaya Rus`" was surrounded. From 80 men about 40 are alive.
The Ukrainian tried to slip in enforcement disguised under a mission of "Red Cross". Combatants were indignant, the Ukrainians
turned back. The Ukrainians attempted to pass on their own – 4 "KRAZs" (lorry trucks) and 2 tanks. Only 1 tank with wounded returned,
everything else was burned."
I agree with Demian that the Ukrainian Nazis are if anything more depraved than their erstwhile Hitlerian mentors; the only
thing holding them back from exceeding the horrors of the Third Reich is lack of capability, which as ToivoS points out would
change if they had more time to consolidate their power and were free from US control. Months ago I posted a link to
The Nazis Even Hitler Was Afraid Of, which I humbly resubmit toward this estimation.
The choreography at work in the Times report is remarkable even for a paper accustomed to doing what it is told. Michael
Gordon, a long-serving defense and security correspondent noted for his obedience, reported the deliberations in Washington
(without naming a single source) the same day the Brookings report appeared (and in the same story).
First, anyone who continues to mistake a clerk such as Gordon for a journalist must by now be judged irredeemably naive.
This is a case study of how the Times functions and the place it occupies in public space. Were Pravda to work similar angles
in the old Soviet days, the Times' Moscow bureau would be all over it for its servitude.
Second and more important, the careful coordination of the disclosures spoon-fed Gordon suggests very strongly that a) public
opinion is now being prepared for a new military intervention and b) planning for this intervention is in all likelihood already
in motion.
The former IHT foreign correspondent goes on to PLEAD with his fellow Americans to wake the f@ck up, like our brothers and
sisters in Greece and Spain are doing spectacularly. Don't see it, though. Instead, at an Iraq 2 moment like this, 'The Sniper'
is kicking ass and killing Ayrabs at the box office.
There is little doubt that the neoNazi thugs running amok in Ukraine are barely distinguishable from the real thing in
Germany 90- to 70 years ago. What does distinguish them is that the German Nazis had total control over the levers of state
after 1938; their descendants in Ukraine have not yet achieved total control.
Absolutely. Huge powerful country, huge State machine, and, I wanted to add, the support of the population (with exceptions
too small to matter.)
Ukraine's neo-Nazis are a loose network of interconnected people and organisations, some of them quite informal, with some
of course sitting in the Gvmt. And the population is not pro (for the largest part.)
They subsist and are effective precisely because of this structure, also because the landscape around them is so confused and
volatile, violence on a personal or quasi-personal level has a high premium. Which also has the effect of making them appear more
depraved.
I seriously doubt that Poroshenko shares the Nazi dream of purging 'slavs' from Ukraine.
I agree (although my post could be read as implying the opposite.) But Yats does adhere. Hah as I now see you said above at
94.
Russia Insider has published my latest piece on the course of the Ukrainian war. It is a more refined and thought through version
of the piece I previously wrote on this Page.
1. My key point is that it is not minor tactical movements that are determining the course of this war. It is the level of casualties
the Ukrainian military is suffering. They were hammered in the summer and they are being hammered again now.
In my pieces for Russia Insider I quoted the number of Ukrainian military deaths on the basis of official Ukrainian documents
obtained by a hacking group as 1,100 for a two week period that covered the battle for Donetsk airport. The NAF today puts the total
number of Ukrainian military deaths presumably since the resumption of the fighting at 1,500. Colonel Cassad yesterday was saying
that the number could be over 1,800.
The figures of 1,500 and 1,800 cover a longer period than the 1,100 in the hacked Ukrainian documents. The fact that they are
all of the same order of magnitude however suggests that all these figures are reliable. If so then that that shows that my guess
that the Ukrainian army is suffering deaths at a rate of several hundred a week is probably correct.
2. Of course the NAF is also currently suffering a high rate of losses. However it is clear that these are at a substantially
lesser level than the Ukrainian. As I said in the Russia Insider piece an NAF spokesman put the loss ratio at 4 to 1. Colonel Cassad
put the total number of NAF deaths at 600 for the same period as that of his 1,800 estimate for Ukrainian deaths. That is a 3 to
1 ratio.
I suspect that the number of NAF deaths over the last 3 weeks is higher than usual because the NAF has been on the attack for
most of this period. When that stage ends after the Debaltsevo pocket is fully encircled I would guess the number will fall. By contrast
as the pocket collapses the rate of deaths of Ukrainians will rise especially if the pattern of unsuccessful counterattacks the Ukrainians
have a habit of launching is followed.
3. As I said in the article for Russia Insider the Ukrainian military simply cannot go on taking losses at a rate of several hundred
a week. In the slugfest we are seeing it is only a matter of time before it breaks. This is especially so since I strongly suspect
that I have greatly overestimated the total number of Ukrainian troops in the Donbass in my Russia Insider piece. I put the number
in the same range of 60,000 or so thousand that was the case in the summer. I suspect the real total is substantially less, thus
the attempted mobilisations about which in the Russia Insider piece I have much to say.
4. On the political front, the DPR/LPR are taking a very hardline in the negotiations. Specifically:
(1) they are now formally challenging Kuchma's plenipotentiary rights i.e. his right to sign agreements that formally and legally
bind the junta. They are insisting that he formally be given such rights.
As I have argued before there was no doubt that Kuchma was acting on behalf of the junta when he signed the Minsk Protocol and
it is fatuous to deny the fact. However the junta has repeatedly resisted pressure to formalise Kuchma's position since if they formally
admit he is their representative then they formally admit they are negotiating with the NAF, which is something for political and
ideological reasons they emphatically do not want to do.
(2) the NAF has said that they would agree to a new ceasefire on the basis of the actual combat line and not the line agreed in
the Minsk Memorandum. This is a way of rejecting calls for a ceasefire because they know perfectly well that the junta will not agree
to this. Importantly the NAF rejected a call for a temporary 7 day ceasefire in Debaltsevo today. I think this is the first time
the NAF has rejected a ceasefire when it has been offered.
This is a fundamental shift from the position last spring and summer. At that time it was the NAF (and the Russians) who were
repeatedly calling for a ceasefire and the junta that was ignoring such calls even as it purported to agree to them. Now the situation
is reversed. There is no better indicator that the initiative has now passed to the NAF than that.
(3) The Russians are backing the NAF line. It has been completely overlooked but yesterday 2nd February 2015 Interfax carried
this brief but momentous report at 20:03 hours Moscow time:
"Kremlin source: East Ukraine militias' hardline 'absolutely justifiable'"
As I have said previously, the Russians have abandoned hope of Western pressure to force the junta to negotiate. This provides
further confirmation. The NAF has the green light from Moscow to see its offensive through.
(4) To understand why the Russians have given up hope of a negotiated solution consider Poroshenko's latest statement today. Even
as the situation collapses around him he is continuing to reject calls for federalisation and is continuing to say that the Ukraine
will remain a unitary state. As I have said previously, the ideological and political nature of the junta makes no other response
possible and anyone who thinks the junta will voluntary agree a compromise is fooling himself.
5. I am not going to say anything about what looks like a gathering political crisis in Kiev because there are others who understand
it better than me.
---------------- Saker commentary: here is what I wrote in the comments section of Russia Insider under Alexander's analysis.
Since Alexander has been so kind as to mention me I just want to say that I indeed *fully* agree with his analysis, especially
when he predicts further disaster for the Ukrainian military. He is also correct when he says that the number of killed Ukrainians
is a humanitarian catastrophe: we might well see something quite amazing happening - a war where there are more military casualties
then civilian ones. Furthermore, I also fully agree that the decision to stop the massacre depends not on Kiev, but on Washington.
This war will last as long as the US wants to keep this bleeding wound open and no amount of western "aid" (lethal or otherwise)
will turn the tide in this war. The only question is how many Ukrainians will have to die for this abomination to finally stop. Even
the "solution" to this war is obvious and understood by everybody: a nominally unitary Ukraine with full cultural, economic and political
autonomy for *all* its regions, not only the Donbass and a full recognition of the Novorussian authorities as a equal partner for
negotiations. All this nonsense about "9000 Russian troops" "invading" the Ukraine and Russia as the "aggressor country" (as the
Rada says) or the nonsense about the LNR and DNR being "terrorist organizations" (official Kiev position) only delays the inevitable
and will generate more useless deaths. Finally, I also agree that the US/NATO cannot and therefore will not send forces to crush
the Novorussians. What US/NATO can, and will, do is provide some financial and some military aid, and lots of hot air and big empty
statements and promises. That will not be enough. Alexander's analysis is flawless.
Cheers,
The Saker
American political and economic language has the notion of "player". It is beyond morality (as well as U.S. foreign policy in
General). The player in the financial market or political player in the middle East, etc. Well, if you play chess or a shoot-and-kill
videogame game of some kind, the murder of a pawn, knight, or military unit is not subject to moral evaluation. That's what game
requires.
Recognition made by Obama that the USA has prepared a coup in Ukraine, is the recognition of a smug "player". Which slightly opened
the card for psychological pressure signaling something to rebels or political opponents, or voters within the US.
Classic moral definitions have been substituted by the USA neoliberal elite with the concepts, which they call "legitimacy". On
this planet they now reserved for themselves that right to define what is "legitimate" and what is not.
The problem is that directly or indirectly Americans kill not pawns and not units in videogame. But human beings. After ww2 toll
of Americans victims is already on millions. Collapse of indigenous cultures, of the states, of established international contacts
and relations, etc.. And they propose nothing in return for destroyed lives, cultures and states other then neoliberal order. Which
is not a worthy replacement. Or offer of Washington consensus which was applied to several states-victims and destroyed all of them.
All those IMF reforms does not work, because they were designed not to work and benefit countries in question but the USA and international
corporations. Now those "gamers" face certain difficulties. Because the whole world is not the USA. Which remembers who caused suffering
to many millions of people.
But I digress. We are discussion Obama admission of the organization of year another coup d'état in another banana revolution
(in this case - European county called Ukraine) and he provided some interesting details. Now about details.
For example, I am sure that the group thugs in masks on the Maidan which brutally attacked f law-enforcement officers, which threw
burning petrol at police and hit police with chains were iether of non-Ukrainian origin or specially brainwashed and trained by West
units. Where they were trained? Who are these people? Who financed and built-up racist, anti-Russian hysteria in the media and on
the Internet, in social networks? Who on the American side was negotiating with Putin and Yanukovich, how they cheated and they had
expected? Give us names !
Well, since Obama opened the card, then I wonder - what's next? And it would be nice to know the details of this dirty operation
not after 50 years, but now. Were those methods, using which the USA essentially started civil war in Ukraine, legitimate? Are similar
dirty method of overthrowing legitimate government now OK to everybody?
"... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
"... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
"... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
"... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
"... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
"... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
"... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
"... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
"... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
"... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
"... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
"... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
"... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
"... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
"... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
"... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
"... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is
Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens,
has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest
income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce
resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and
imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.
You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.
thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15
I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly
horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing
the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,
AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13
The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the
petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.
The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few
years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to
find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.
Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to
expand.
Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong
and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.
Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11
General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding
from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those
billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.
NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09
I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem
incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle
Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the
Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to
that from the Cuban missile crisis.
nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07
The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of
NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still
struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy
was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US
policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the
security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world,
especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has
to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant
policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across
the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and
overall growth of the people of this planet.
desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04
I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also
of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.
Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03
Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is
Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and
Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to
form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or
remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into
their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population
of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.
Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01
laSaya said:
Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian
landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.
Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes,
livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their
places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because
their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?
Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way
forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko
not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.
angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!
Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace
talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to
pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that
cannot be won.
AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??
Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the
investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at
Russia, don't you think they would have used it?
glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50
courtesy of google translate:
Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a
battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a
crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving
the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of
combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without
causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal
actions.
In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their
application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar
actions, while not causing the death of soldier.
If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special
tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person
against whom he may apply such measures
suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38
suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America
He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!
cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36
While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see
them as idiots.
Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an
open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence
in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join
such an adventure.
AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40
CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they
report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.
Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.
Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any
sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement
can be made.
He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.
The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are
large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?
he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic
humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.
If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look
at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended
and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.
He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.
Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and
has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good
business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.
All this was simply because his ego was hurt.
It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash
by now.
If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.
KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57
Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on
Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What
possible benefit is that to you and me?
Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost
billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.
This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In
"Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and
everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the
"government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".
They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning
of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.
roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55
"We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's
territorial integrity."
That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a
similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the
situations analogous?
Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too
high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary
war.
I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked
flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift
their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the
bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on
Ukraine be strike no 3?
Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55
Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the
situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land
in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also
a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied
with Russia.
Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused
by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.
I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could
be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an
astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to
re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt
collector when he comes to your house.
I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a
virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious
problems to deal with.
Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54
Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually
spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their
conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency
reported here;
http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419
Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53
They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not
to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.
BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52
Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the
Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.
In regard to Georgia
The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely
orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.
Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in
Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home
almost overnight.
They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an
attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.
Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued
an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing
them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for
help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all
Georgians today".
During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black
soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and
Augusta.
In regard to the Crimea
The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy
made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in
the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the
Crimea.
Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the
Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine?
When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea
overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.
In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev
The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government,
under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department
Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"
However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as
she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the
existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian
Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against
the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev
using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.
Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.
ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45
"Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over
and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".
Another signal from 2015 about forthcoming clump down on RT. RT is Russian propaganda site, but that does not exclude them providing high quality critical
coverage of US and European events. In any case RT is preferable to BBC, although comparing two can get you at higher level of
understanding, than watching just one
Notable quotes:
"... simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system, ..."
"... at least as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news. ..."
"... Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter ..."
At first glance, Lee Camp, Thom Hartmann and Larry King don't seem to have a lot in common. Mr. Camp is a comedian who seeks to
fuse progressive politics with humor. He is perhaps best known for his
"Moment of Clarity" rants, where he colorfully, and occasionally
profanely, analyzes an issue from the news. Mr. Hartmann is a progressive radio host, author and pundit who has written numerous
books, articles and blogs. Larry King is legendary talk show host and
erstwhile Little League coach. He has interviewed presidents, actors, musicians and even Oprah.
All three of these media personalities, however, share a link to RT (formerly Russia Today), the English-language arm of the Russian
government's media operation. In less diplomatic terms, it is a Kremlin propaganda machine. RT's coverage of Russia, the conflict
in Ukraine and other issues having direct bearing on Moscow's role in the world,
include headlines that sound like they could have been written by Russian President Vladimir Putin himself. Mother Russia is
portrayed as a force for only good and peace in
the world. It's anchors and "reporters" have enthusiasm for euphemisms such as "stabilizing force" ("invading army") and "humanitarian
aid" ("military intervention"). RT's coverage of Russian politics
is heavy-handed, unsubtle and, in the U.S., not particularly effective. Despite RT's best efforts to gin up sympathy for Russia
in the current Ukraine conflict, most mainstream politicians and media outlets continue to compete with each other to see who can
demonize Putin most.
RT's coverage of the U.S., however, is different. While it certainly has an political agenda, one that is not of the left or the
right, but simply to portray an image of the US as a deeply flawed country with a corrupt and ineffective political system,
RT covers news, and offers perspectives that are not often seen American broadcast television. RT touts itself as offering a "second
opinion," through its American media campaign,
described by Ronn Torossian recently here at the Observer. RT is certainly neither objective or balanced, but it is at least
as legitimate a representation of the realities of the U.S. and of American politics than, for example, Fox News, and generally offers
considerably more depth than what is offered by how ABC, CBS or NBC present the news.
Recent RT headlines such as "Police Brutality Activists Angry Obama Glossed Over Ferguson 'Events' in SOTU" and "Majority of America's
Public School Children are Living in Poverty," span a reasonably broad ideological range, but seek to consistently to portray the
U.S. in a negative light. These are also stories that much of the media overlooks. This approach, and similar language can also be
found in
RT America's busy Twitter feed. If RT were funded through advertising or the largesse of a quirky American billionaire and only
covered domestic politics here in the U.S., it would be viewed by many as a useful component of a diverse media environment. For
these reasons, RT is now the most watched foreign news
outlet in the U.S., with an audience that is estimated to be 6.5 times as large as its closest rival, Al Jazeera America.
In addition to its news coverage, RT has also become a clearinghouse for the opinions of American dissidents, including those
on the far left like Noam Chomsky, the far,
if twisted, right like Pat Buchanan, and increasingly
fringe Libertarians like
Ron Paul. While opinions like these are provocative, unpopular and often a little wacky, RT gives American audiences access to
ideas and opinions that are considerably beyond the narrow bandwidth in which most debate in the media usually occurs. Clearly, these
opinions are more extreme than the more genial progressive politics of Mr. Camp or Mr. Hartmann or of the generally politically neutral
work of Mr. King, but taken as a whole, RT provides a very broad range of political outlooks.
Somebody who only watched RT would have an image of the U.S. as a place of radical economic inequality, widespread civil unrest,
corrupt politicians, racial animus and a collapsing economy, committed to expanding its global influence through military might.
Of course, somebody who watched only Fox News, would understand the U.S. to be a country that is in the throws of a socialist takeover
where an oppressed minority of white, heavily Christian citizens, are now losing the country that was given to them by the almighty,
to hordes of illegal immigrants, non-whites, homosexuals and atheists. Both Fox and RT are propaganda organs espousing very biased
views of American politics. The major difference may be that Fox represents one extreme of the domestic political spectrum while
RT is the propaganda arm of a foreign government. While RT draws more viewers than other foreign news networks like CCTV from China,
Al Jazeera America or even the BBC, its viewership is dwarfed by major American news stations like Fox; RT America has 194,000 Twitter
followers compared with Fox News has 4.83 million Twitter followers.
But dismissing RT's coverage as simply a Russian propaganda, however, is a mistake. The insights of people like Mr. Camp and Mr.
Hartmann, while not universally agreed upon, certainly resonate with many Americans. It is significant that it is only on a Moscow-funded
station that voices like those can be heard, reflecting how the major media outlets still only present a relatively narrow range
of views on most topics. Second, providing a critical and resonant portrayal of American politics to American viewers will eventually
make those viewers more open to RT's dubious presentation of foreign affairs and Russian politics. The Kremlin hopes that the same
people who watch RT's US programming and wonder why stories about, for example,
why the US is classifying information about aid
to Afghanistan, will soon begin to question why so few voices on American media are critical of the Ukrainian government.
Consider RT's coverage of American politics as a bait and switch, from critical insight about the US to dishonest propaganda regarding
Russia.
Lincoln Mitchell is national political correspondent at the Observer. Follow him on Twitter
Alfred Cossi Chodaton
RT does nothing different from what major media outlets do.
Ilya Nesterovich
Lie, lie and lie. That's all. RT show different opinion from official, and, of course, USA doesn't like it.
Mstislav Pavlov
In Russia there is no need for propaganda. Your media better than any propaganda. Kremlin even do not need anything :)
"... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
"... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
"... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
"... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
"... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
"... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
"... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
"... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
"... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
"... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
"... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
"... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
"... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
"... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
"... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
"... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
"... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is
Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens,
has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest
income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce
resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and
imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.
You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.
thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15
I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly
horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing
the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,
AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13
The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the
petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.
The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few
years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to
find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.
Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to
expand.
Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong
and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.
Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11
General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding
from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those
billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.
NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09
I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem
incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle
Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the
Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to
that from the Cuban missile crisis.
nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07
The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of
NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still
struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy
was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US
policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the
security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world,
especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has
to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant
policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across
the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and
overall growth of the people of this planet.
desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04
I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also
of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.
Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03
Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is
Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and
Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to
form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or
remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into
their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population
of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.
Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01
laSaya said:
Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian
landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.
Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes,
livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their
places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because
their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?
Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way
forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko
not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.
angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!
Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace
talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to
pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that
cannot be won.
AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??
Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the
investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at
Russia, don't you think they would have used it?
glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50
courtesy of google translate:
Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a
battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a
crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving
the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of
combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without
causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal
actions.
In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their
application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar
actions, while not causing the death of soldier.
If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special
tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person
against whom he may apply such measures
suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38
suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America
He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!
cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36
While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see
them as idiots.
Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an
open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence
in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join
such an adventure.
AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40
CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they
report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.
Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.
Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any
sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement
can be made.
He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.
The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are
large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?
he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic
humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.
If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look
at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended
and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.
He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.
Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and
has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good
business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.
All this was simply because his ego was hurt.
It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash
by now.
If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.
KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57
Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on
Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What
possible benefit is that to you and me?
Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost
billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.
This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In
"Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and
everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the
"government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".
They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning
of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.
roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55
"We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's
territorial integrity."
That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a
similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the
situations analogous?
Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too
high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary
war.
I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked
flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift
their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the
bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on
Ukraine be strike no 3?
Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55
Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the
situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land
in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also
a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied
with Russia.
Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused
by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.
I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could
be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an
astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to
re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt
collector when he comes to your house.
I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a
virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious
problems to deal with.
Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54
Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually
spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their
conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency
reported here;
http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419
Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53
They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not
to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.
BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52
Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the
Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.
In regard to Georgia
The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely
orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.
Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in
Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home
almost overnight.
They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an
attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.
Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued
an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing
them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for
help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all
Georgians today".
During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black
soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and
Augusta.
In regard to the Crimea
The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy
made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in
the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the
Crimea.
Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the
Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine?
When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea
overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.
In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev
The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government,
under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department
Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"
However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as
she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the
existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian
Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against
the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev
using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.
Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.
ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45
"Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over
and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".
One of the commenters, named "DarkPull", nailed his landing on this piece of crap:
I refrained from commenting under the first part, because I thought that we were only half eay through the story. I hoped that
the first part, clearly biased and one-sided, would be complemented by the other side of the story. Alas, it seems that the two
sides are the German narrative and the Ukrainian one. Disappointing, but not exactly surprising.
I am amazed that what purports to be a comprehensive coverage of the Ukraine story fails to as much as mention Putin's Valdai
speech, which was one of the kost important political manifestos of the last decade. Notably, the session during which Putin spoke
was titled "The World Order: New Rules or a Game without Rules?"
As to what found its way into the text: the notion that Poroshenko had leverage over Putin during Minsk negotiations because
of his alleged posession of Russian dog tags, the very idea is borderline crazy. Putin did not budge after sanctions, plumetting
oil, M17 media campaign, or nothing else really. But he did budge because of - boo hoo - dog tags? It just does not sound very
plausible. Especially since there was no public disclosure after the Minsk accord collapsed.
Also, the suggestion that the Russians are the only ones to blame for the Minsk failure, because they failed to protect the
Ukrainian border from themselves and continued supporting the rebels gives up any pretense of balanced reporting. There is no
mention of the Russian request that the OSCE deploy observers patrolling the border, and why that it has never really happened.
There is not a sentence about the regrouping and counter-offensive of the Ukrainian army.
The authors point out that "Dozens of civilians have been killed by heavy shelling since mid-January in east Ukraine." But
what about all the civilians killed or displaced before January, due to Ukrainian shelling of Donbas? Never happened?
The entire piece reads like a retelling of a phone conversation overheard by someone who stood beside one of the interlocutors
and now reports utterances of that person only, guessing what was going on and what was said on the other side. It is no wonder
that the FT is so confused about Russia's objectives and motives.
Snippet: "It was the first time in history that over 120 people, including 26 law enforcement officers were shot in cold blood on Maidan.
Yanukovych lost heart in these circumstances. And those who devised the coup had their hands untied. Groups were put together
to catch him and put the Libyan scenario into practice. He was supposed to die the way Gaddafi did. I had resigned, why was my
car fired at with an assault rifle? Whom did I threaten? I wasn't in the car, my wife was in it. It's a miracle that she survived
this. Who has been called to answer for this? Why not a single investigation has been conducted?" he said.
Looks like EuroMaidan color revolution turns in full scale Libyan style crisis with West holding the bad -- it now need to support
impoverished Poroshenko regime with dollars instead of getting those dollars from Ukraine as the winners of EuroMaidan coup. Russia
also overestimated their capabilities and now is paying a huge price for confronting world neoliberal order with the headquarters in
Washington.
The establishment of fire control of highway M-103 still does not mean that formed right encirclement of Ukrainian troupes in
Debaltsevo. But even what already happened, has caused a diplomatic consequences.
The capture of Uglegorsk put rebels at the distance of artillery fire to key supply lines of Ukrainian troops, which not only
caused a serious operational crisis of the Ukrainian army, which Ukrainian commanders try to solve by local counterattacks which
do not change for grave situation of semi-encircled troops.
In addition, the we see "spontaneous" of activity of the OSCE and the UN directed on halting advancement of the rebels and encirclement
of Debaltsevo which would happen with the capture of the only road that currently exists for evacuation of civilian and retreat of
the Ukrainian army for this this semi-encirclement.
In this regard, we see how the fights for the little-known towns and height are directly affecting Great states politics, when
dangerous narrowing of the neck Develasco encirclement, forced such officials as Kerry, Merkel and Hollande to leave their warm places
and fly to cold Kiev and Moscow in the depth of the winter.
In east Ukraine, renewed fighting has cost the lives of dozens of soldiers and civilians and killed a five-months old truce. The
United States is considering supplying arms to the Ukraine regular army in order to push back the separatist rebels which, according
to NATO, are supported by Russia.
Both the Russian economy and western firms are smarting from the fall out of economic sanctions imposed on Russia over the Ukraine
crisis, which started with the absorption of the Crimea region, and the Russian counter sanctions. In Russia some goods are getting
scarce while in Europe firms from European fruit and vegetable exporters, French ski resorts to automobile firms and ship yards are
suffering from the sanctions.
In Ukraine, the economy is in shatters and the central bank raise the interest rates and eased its management of the hryvnia currency
that is being hit by a "panic mood"
Quote: "There is a civil war in the east of the Ukraine and it is up to the international community to try and defuse the situation
instead of fanning the flames of hate and war."
In other countries and conflicts, the United Nations sent blue helmet soldiers into the disputed zones with a mission of restoring
and maintaining the peace.
The same should be applied to Ukraine – an international operation of peacekeeping troops should be deployed to silence the guns,
protect the civilians and create conditions for negotiations between the fighting parties.
... ... ...
There is a civil war in the east of the Ukraine and it is up to the international community to try and defuse the situation
instead of fanning the flames of hate and war.
Revolution in Kiev was led by Biden and the U.S. Embassy
The former Prime Minister of Ukraine Mykola Azarov in his book "Ukraine at the crossroads" said The USA was behind the coup d'état
in the country. They simultaneously controlled both President Viktor Yanukovich and his enemies in the winter of 2013-2014.
"Ten days with 1 on 10 December was the most severe in the first phase of the revolution. The conspirators thought that if they
put a little more effort they will be able to capture all government agencies. Yanukovich, paralyzed by numerous calls from Western
leaders, did not give any decisive orders about restoration of law and order. He went to China on a state visit. During this period,
the conspirators captured the building of the Kyiv city administration, the House of trade unions, building on the European square,
completely surrounded by buildings of the Government and the Verchonaya Rada", - he recollect the events in the book.
Azarov says that the Ukrainian authorities had information about the upcoming provocations against representatives of AntiMaidan:
"It was necessary to separate these two meetings, to put between them a police cordon. Ukrainian law enforcement did exactly that
during the night from 9 to 10 December. It should be noted that this was the first and last active operation by law enforcement officers,
" adds the author of the book. The chain of command : "American Embassy - Biden - President Yanukovich" work perfectly reliably
After threats by Biden Yanukovich gave the command to stop the operation. It became clear that the United States control the EuroMaidan
protest. Deputy Secretary Nuland flew in Kiev, while the militants started building barricades around the perimeter, and to arm themselves
without any look back on law enforcement".
Former Prime Minister of Ukraine writes that citizens of country were surprised by the inaction of the authorities. But during
this time he was unable event to contact President Viktor Yanukovich.
"He was fully immersed in the negotiation process with Western leaders, which, in my opinion, was a cover for the accumulation
of forces by militants, demoralization of the law enforcement and the implementation of a coup. When I analyze available to me facts
now, I can clearly see that the coordination of the actions of the opposition and the rebels was completely controlled by the group
of senior officials of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine.
It was to them opposition leaders drive each like as if this was their job place, and it is from them opposition leaders went
to talks with Yanukovich. After which they got full information about the content of these negotiations," said Mykola Azarov.
Anonimous:
What Azarov announced, was clear as a day to any sober person a year ago. Any police officer knew by heart how to act during
the riots on the square or in any other place. And if such an officer was given the command of the Ukrainian security forces and
acted according to the existing instruction, all the heroism of Maidan protesters would have been ended after 15 minutes.
What we now see is the fact the betrayal in the Ukrainian elite including some persons at the top of the government.
Ukrainians, as always, where thrown under the bus..
Just two weeks ago some idiot published
this on "War Is
Boring":
After six years of massive expenditures and lurid propaganda, on Jan. 9 Tehran shut down its troubled space program. The unceremonious
cancellation occurred without notice in the Iranian press.
Authorities are spreading the space agency's manpower and assets across four ministries including the telecoms ministry and
the ministry of defense.
That story was likely planted to instigate some riffs within Iranian politics. That did not work well.
Here is notice in the Iranian press:
Tehran, Feb 2, IRNA - Manager of Electronic Industries Space Projects Mehdi Sarvi on Monday declared that Fajr satellite has established
its contact with ground station, hours after it was launched and put into the orbit.
...
During the ceremony, Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan said the project was accomplished only thanks to
the sincere endeavors of the Iranian scientists.
Developed by indigenous technology and know-how, he noted, the satellite which is called 'Fajr' indicated the high capabilities
of Iran's satellite-carriers.
...
The minister referred to the chance to develop and design a new generation of satellite-carriers and also enter the world market
of space services, using domestic potential and planning complicated space missions as some of the achievements of the project.
Congrats to Iran for this successful launch.
The above just demonstrates again that one can not trust any "news" on countries not liked by Washington. Consider this headline
by NBC:
Ex-Los Alamos Scientist Gets 5 Years in Venezuelan Nuclear Bomb Plot. A headline fitting the story would be something like "Crazy
old scientist falls for FBI sting". The story has nothing to do with Venezuela and the whole "nuclear bomb" stuff was just phantasies
an FBI agent used to entrap some poor old person. But Venezuela is on Washington's shit list and the CIA is
currently busy instigating another
coup against the elected Venezuelan government.
The CIA and the State Department are also involved in instigating the
current demonstrations in Hungary. Another attack on an elected government that does not walk the line the U.S. administration
orders it to walk. Next in line is likely the new government of Greece.
But instigating color revolutions, protests and coups is often not enough to destroy a government that the U.S. dislikes. In a
recent interview Alastair Crooke points to the newest weapon in Washington's regime change arsenal - financial warfare:
The International Order depends more on control by the US Treasury and Federal Reserve than on the UN as before.
It started principally with Iran and it has been developed subsequently. In a book, "Treasury's War," the tool of exclusion
from the dollar-denominated global financial system is described as a "neutron bomb." When a country is to be isolated, a "scarlet
letter" is issued by the US Treasury that asserts that such-and-such bank is somehow suspected of being linked to a terrorist
movement -- or of being involved in money laundering. The author of "Treasury's War" [Juan Zarate], who was the chief architect
of modern financial warfare and a former senior Treasury and White House official, says this scarlet letter constitutes a more
potent bomb than any military weapon.
This system of reliance on dollar hegemony no longer requires American dependency on the UN and hands control to the US Treasury
overseen by Steve Cohen -- a reflection of the fact that the military tools have become less available to the US administration,
for domestic political reasons.
Crooke believes that the drop in the Russian ruble a few weeks ago was engineered by the U.S. Treasury. He is not completely right
though about David S. Cohen, the U.S.Treasury man who has implemented the financial warfare instruments against Iran and Russia.
That man is no longer with the U.S. Treasury but is the
new number 2 in the CIA.
That tells you all you need to know about the intensity with which the U.S. plans to use these new weapons.
Any country that does not do do what Washington wants is now threatened with financial ruin. China and Russia are preparing defenses
against such a threat but smaller countries have little chances to escape such attacks.
The media though will not delve into that. Should some country's economy drown (see Venezuela) because of U.S. financial marked
manipulations all blame will be put on the foreign government and its "irresponsible economic policies" and the media will again
call for and support "regime change".
The CIA and the State Department are also involved in instigating the current demonstrations in Hungary. Another attack
on an elected government that does not walk the line the U.S. administration orders it to walk. Next in line is likely the
new government of Greece.'
Govts that dont want to be unceremoniously removed need to close the local US embassy. Bolivia did ad sleep better at night
now.
@b: "The CIA and the State Department are also involved in instigating the current demonstrations in Hungary."
The man behind it is Andre Goodfriend, who was a good friend to ISIS when he was US ambassador to Syria from 2009 to 2012 (key
dates those). He then was sent to Budapest to stir up some more shit (three Maidan style demos in three months) with cash allegedly
from the "Norwegian Fund." Of the November demonstration Vladislav Gulevich wrote:
Goodfriend managed to rile the Hungarian government to the extent that he was demoted to senior advisor and is now Chief of
Mission pending the arrival of the new ambassador, Colleen Bell, a soap opera producer. John McCain was furious:
"We're about to vote on a totally unqualified individual to be ambassador to a nation which is very important to our national
security interest," McCain said on the Senate floor. "Her qualifications are as a producer of the television soap opera 'The Bold
and The Beautiful,' contributed 800,000 [dollars] to Obama in the last election and bundled more than $2.1 million for President
Obama's re-election effort." McCain had in December called Hungary's PM Viktor Orban a "neo-fascist dictator."
somebody | Feb 2, 2015 4:59:13 PM | 13
That pretty much sums up Germany.
Merkel in Hungary talking democracy is crazy. It sure smells color revolution. She needs it now as Orban will hate her.
She has been harping on about Russia's influence in South East Europe for the last few weeks.
It sounds like refighting WW1 all over again.
Willy2 | Feb 2, 2015 5:20:59 PM | 15
Several related thoughts/facts:
- Venezuela has implemented a disastrous financial policy from the day Hugo Chavez took office. And now with oil at ~ $ 50 "the
chickens are coming home to roost". In that regard the "Evil Empire" doesn't have to do anything. Just wait & see how Venezuela
blows itself up.
- Remember the coup in april 2002 ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat_attempt
http://www.globalresearch.ca/venezuela-coup-and-countercoup-revolution/18618
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/21/usa.venezuela
- Chavez wanted to improve relations with the US in 2009 (after G.W.Bush was gone) but it seems that was rebuffed by the US.
For those who "dislike" the US Empire, I can say that the Empire is on the precipice of a financial collapse as well. From
1981 onwards the US federal debt has increased from ~ $ 1 trillion to over ~ $ 18 trillion now in 2014/2015. The interest payments
remained "manageable" because US interest rates went down from over 15% in 1981 to ~ 1.7% in very late 2014. But when I look at
the charts then I think US interest rates will/could rise/explode higher in the near future and that WILL kill the US housing
market & the US economy.
In that regard, I am surprised to see that the US Empire continues to "double down".
Matt | Feb 2, 2015 5:28:52 PM | 16
"In that regard, I am surprised to see that the US Empire continues to "double down""
The entire course of U.S. history has been one double-down piled upon another.
Gareth | Feb 2, 2015 6:12:13 PM | 18
The US should think twice about weaponizing the financial system when Wall Street is sitting on top of a smoldering volcano
of derivatives, just waiting for the next unexpected crisis to trigger an eruption. Who is to say that others can't play the financial
warfare game?
guest77 | Feb 2, 2015 8:41:40 PM | 22
@Willy2 - More and more you're just pushing out US government claptrap.
"Venezuela has implemented a disastrous financial policy from the day Hugo Chavez took office. And now with oil at ~ $ 50 "'the
chickens are coming home to roost'. In that regard the "Evil Empire" doesn't have to do anything. Just wait & see how Venezuela
blows itself up."
Sorry, but Venezuelan revolution has not survived two decades in the crosshairs of the United States by following "disastrous
policies".
Yes, the Venezuelan economy has ups and down - but it always has, and in this regard, the Chavista era is one of remarkably
(relative) low inflation and economic growth. Not to mention the major facts that will help the country survive and thrive in
the future - the massive reduction of poverty and the spreading of education to all sectors of the society. Not to mention the
$250 billion that China has committed to invest in Latin America will certainly help shore up the weak sectors.
Venezuela has not only avoided becoming a neo-liberal dumping ground through this "disastrous policy", it has lead the entirety
of South America and the Caribbean into a remarkable era of independence from the United States. Those like Willy here who want
to join in the constant put downs of Venezuela and lay out the next predictions of its downfall (we've heard them since day one)
ought to consider that that flock of chickens they keep waiting to scratch their way to Venezuela - might be bound for their country
instead.
guest77 | Feb 2, 2015 8:58:51 PM | 23
Thanks for that NBC piece b. I hadn't heard that. Reminds one, of course, of the case of Wen Ho Lee, another nuclear scientist
the US government tried to railroad using the basest racism (but eventually had to pay $1.6 million to him). Looks like this time
they "got their (80 year old) man". Similar to how they convince mentally defective teenagers (is there any other kind) to blow
up Christmas celebrations and then declare they've "saved America" from another Terror plot.
The FBI, it seems, picks on the very young and the very old and the slow - in this regard they are hardly better than people
running email scams out of Nigeria.
That NBC News picks up on this and puffs up its headlines with the only part of the story which is a fiction in its entirety:
that the Venezuelan government had anything at all to do with this - is a perfect of how manipulative the US media.
The US media, like the US economy and our pop culture and, well, like every other aspect of US society, has been converted
away from our benign national traditions, into dangerous weapons with one purpose - to be yielded by the US elite in their quest
for power.
No doubt that b is right, the US uses its tightly controlled economy in the same way it might use its military - as a weapon.
And that is one of the reasons that it prefers to maintain an economy which is by far the most imbalanced and unequal in the world
- for the control it gives them in wielding it as such.
Though they are struggling to come to grips with how to manage the effects
of such aggressive US actions, the rest of the world is not simply accepting this status quo. China's pumping $250 Billion into
Latin America, as well as China's pledges to shore up the Russian economy - should this be required - is evidence that they are
not resigned to the whims of the United States.
In Xinhua today, one can read The full text of joint communique of Russian, Indian, Chinese foreign ministers' meeting
that was held today, and it has some very telling passages. The main take away is this: the US is fooling itself if it believes
for a second - as you'll often hear in its media - that it can turn any of the BRICS against each other. The US is clearly the
isolated nation - its tactics are a danger to everyone across the globe.
The Ministers noted the significant and rapid changes underway in the world and underlined that the international community
should remain committed to democratization of international relations and multi-polarity. They expressed their support
to the idea of adopting a UN General Assembly resolution on the inadmissibility of intervention and interference in the internal
affairs of states. They opposed forced regime change in any country from the outside, or imposition of unilateral sanctions
based on domestic laws.
The Ministers recognized that the year 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the United
Nations and the victory in the Second World War, and paid tribute to all those who fought against Fascism and for freedom.
Acknowledging India's important role in driving global economic growth, and supporting the openness of APEC, China and Russia
would welcome India's participation in APEC...China and India shared the plans of Russia's Chairmanship in the SCO... China
and Russia welcomed India's application for full membership of SCO and supported India to join the SCO after completing all
necessary negotiations and legal processes.
The Ministers affirmed the need for all countries to join efforts in combating terrorism under the auspices of the United
Nations...They underlined the need to bring to justice perpetrators, organizers, financiers and sponsors of terrorist acts.
Highly alarmed by the new trends in international terrorist acts...
They expressed support for the efforts of the Syrian Government to combat terrorism....
The Ministers stressed that an independent, objective, fair and transparent international investigation should be carried
out for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17....
called for immediate reform of the international financial system ...[they] reject protectionism as well as all forms of
unilateral measures of economic pressure taken without relevant decisions of the UN Security Council...
Note the headline " Donetsk hit by shells as violence intensifies in Ukraine". No one is responsible for shelling. It was just hit.
Compare this with headlines about supposed "separatists" shellings.
At least three people were killed in a series of shellings in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on Wednesday that pro-Russian
separatists said were Uragan missiles fired by Ukrainian forces. Earlier, the Ukrainian military said two of its soldiers had been
killed and 18 wounded in fighting against pro-Russian separatists in the previous 24 hours
AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29
Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his
own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian
Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian
civil war is being waged.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are
fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been
participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups,"
meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual
citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says,
emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian
army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions
against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against
Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the
Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore
incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels,
restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news
reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public
officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.
If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire
career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false,
then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.
While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be
another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump
into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia
coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news
for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.
Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended
consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??
And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?
Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?
Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to
pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..
greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14
the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists
targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov
battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.
poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The
real civil war has yet to start.
PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13
i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a
spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further
bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians
I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and
miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.
EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12
I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is
intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and
do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a
decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.
AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29
Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his
own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian
Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian
civil war is being waged.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are
fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been
participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups,"
meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual
citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says,
emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian
army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions
against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against
Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the
Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore
incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels,
restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news
reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public
officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.
If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire
career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false,
then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.
While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be
another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump
into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia
coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news
for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.
Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended
consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??
And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?
Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?
Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to
pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..
greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14
the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists
targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov
battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.
poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The
real civil war has yet to start.
PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13
i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a
spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further
bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians
I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and
miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.
EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12
I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is
intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and
do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a
decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.
The EU "Drang nach Osten" was inevitable as Germany
needs new markets, new economic "liberstratum". Which the USA want to isolate, weaken, and, if possible, to dismember Russia. This is
a marriage of convenience brought to the life EuroMaidan. Ukrainian nationalists were on short leash and can't be counted as independent
force before they got to power. They did the EU and the USA bidding. So nothing new here. Ukraine is just a pawn in a complex geopolitical
game. And it was sacrificed in the strategic gambit of isolating Russia.
The EU has a remorseless urge to draw the cradle of Russian identity into its own empire, writes Christopher Booker.
Quite one of the oddest and most frightening stories of the year has been the ludicrous and persistent misrepresentation in the
West of the reason for the tragic shambles unfolding over Russia and Ukraine.
This has been presented as wholly the fault of the Russian "dictator" Vladimir Putin, compared by Hillary Clinton and the Prince
of Wales to Hitler, for his "annexing" of Crimea and for fomenting the armed uprising in eastern Ukraine. Almost entirely blotted
out has been the key part played in triggering this crisis by the remorseless urge of the EU to draw the cradle of Russian identity
into its own empire.
It was entirely predictable that Russia and the ethnic Russians of eastern Ukraine would respond as they have done. So, too, was
the wish of the vast majority of Crimeans, 82 per cent of them Russian speakers, to rejoin the country of which they were part for
most of two centuries – let alone Russia's reaction to the prospect of seeing their warm-water ports taken over by Nato.
The real significance of this unholy mess is that it marks the moment when the remorseless expansionism of the EU, founded
to eradicate nationalism, finally ran into that implacable sense of national identity personified, for all his failings, by President
Putin.
He and his people may now be paying a terrible price. But there was no way that poking the Russian bear like this, with such silly
boasts as David Cameron's declaration that he wished to see "Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals", would not
arouse just such a reaction. As I wrote last March, the EU's reckless bid to absorb Ukraine will eventually be seen as as much
an act of fateful self-delusion as its equally reckless launch of the euro.
Selected Skeptical Comments
Huaimek
Through ignorance and lack of research the west has made a terrible mistake in its misjudgement of Ukraine and its misjudgement
of Putin and Russian reaction to the EU trying to draw Ukraine to the west , with a view to joining the EU and NATO .
Peace is achievable , but Crimea will have to be left out of any negotiations . Joining the EU is not something Ukraine is
ready to do in the foreseeable future , so should be set aside for the time being . Plans to join NATO should be dropped . The
problem of the eastern region as I see it , is that it is the principal industrial region , that maybe earns the GDP for Ukraine
. As I have read , the industries of eastern Ukraine are closely intertwined with Russia , manufacturing expressly for a Russian
market and not so easily adaptable to European or world wide markets . I believe I'm correct , that the eastern region was part
of Russia till the fall of the USSR . The west's stance against Russia is not doing anybody any good , least of all Ukraine ,
that is effectively bankrupt and nobody want to put a hand in their pocket to help .
Poroshenko needs to be told to withdraw all troops to base , that will end the fighting .
All sanctions against Russia should be lifted in conjunction with Russian sanctions against the west . Ukraine needs to return
to being an independent country , it wasn't ruled by Russia , but its own government ruled along similar lines . A degree of autonomy
needs to be given to the East in return for being part of Ukraine and contributing to rebuilding the economy .
concernedyorkie
The real significance of this unholy mess is that it marks the moment when the remorseless expansionism of the EU, founded
to eradicate nationalism, finally ran into that implacable sense of national identity personified, for all his failings, by President
Putin. - One may not like the present regime governing Russia but for the EU, in the form of Ashton et al, to attempt annexing
the area without some form of reaction from the Kremlin indicates how naive the EU's foreign policy commissioner's assessment
at the time really were !!
Vivienne Perkins
How pleasant to read the truth for a change, or at least most of it. The other part is the fact that Washington's State Dept/CIA/Blackwater
operatives organized and carried out the Feb. 22 coup that deposed a legitimate government and put into power the US/EU puppets,
Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko (who promptly attacked the eastern provinces, who had already voted for independence). Another left out
piece is the role of neo-Nazis in the Y/P puppet government and the role of US corporations that are even now stripping western
Ukraine of its resources while the US Congress votes overwhelmingly for a new Cold War against Russia and is anxious to provoke
WWIII.
The US and its ally Saudi Arabia have also engineered the drop in oil prices as a way to ruin the Russian economy. All these
neo-Con moves are right out of Z. Brzezinski's "The Grand Chessboard" where he describes eliminating Russia on the US military's
drive through the Eurasian landmass to its ultimate goal, controlling the energy resources of the Caspian and "containing" China.
The mass media, which of course is corporately controlled, continues to spew lies, misinformation and propaganda.
Richard de Lacy
Well said, Mr Booker. Looking forward to reading all the semi-literate whining from the pro-EU, pro-Nato trolls. Merry Christmas
and New Year to you and all your readers, including the anti-Russian keyboard warriors (libtards are far too spoilt and miserable
for merriment, I know, but there's no harm in wishing the idiots would cheer up a bit).
RT: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said Obama's words are a clear confirmation of America's involvement in the
Ukrainian shift of power. Do you think Washington is responsible for the violence that followed?
William Engdahl: There is no question about it that they are responsible. I think president Obama sadly regrets his wording
on the interview last night because he de facto admitted as [Foreign] Minister Lavrov also indicated that the US created a de
facto coup d'état, brought neo-Nazis in the power, brought oligarchs in the power to replace oligarchs that were democratically elected
at least.
They have fed the violence with Blackwater mercenaries with other soldiers that they have been training in various NATO countries
and with hundreds of CIA on the ground, special forces on the ground. And this has been documented; people have been captured
in the East Ukraine in recent days with the thick London accent. I've seen YouTube videos myself.
... ... ...
Ironically the very economic financial warfare that Washington has launched through the US Treasury in recent months, the sanctions
so-called, is an active war, have produced the opposite effect. It's brought Russia closer to China, it's brought China closer to
Russia, it's brought an integration among the BRICS countries: Brazil, South Africa, Russia, China and India, it's brought India
and Russia closer together. [It is] so far from isolating Russia.
Stuart Cleary
The 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine (US Defense Planning) laid it out: "U.S. must show leadership necessary to establish & protect
a new order... convincing (countries) they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their
*legitimate interests*. -we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them
from challenging our leadership or overturn established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring
potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."!!!
Iraq was a threat to the Petro-Dollar & Israel. Gaddafi was a threat to the Financial domination of Africa by the US & EU; Syria
& Iran are a threat to the financial domination of the Mid East by the US, EU, Saudi & Israel...
Russia is considered a "Threat" to this "Order" on several fronts: Putin was Not a US Puppet like Yeltsin, he cleaned out the
corporate oligarchs who had ransacked & profited from the pillaging of Russia. Putin's Political Prowess increased with the creation
& success of BRICS; Russia/Putin used this political power in Syria, Iran, India, Pakistan, Latin America & throughout Central
Asia. The US considered (in 92) that Russia was the only country capable of destroying the US (Nuclear Arsenal). "BRICS has engineered
the first credible Threat to US/EU/UK Global Financial Domination" which is at the Heart of hostilities towards Russia.
Robert Undisclosed
This guy is an award winning journalist ? Never heard of him. However, he sounds more like Putin's mouthpiece. According to
this clown the Russian economy is doing great. Yeah. and how's the ruble doing ? LOL, LOL.
Timo Sjöberg
You don't know so much about economy? currency variations has nothing to do with the general economy. In a government you can
rise or lower your own currency in order to help import or export markets in the country. The reasons behind the rubles fall,
is down to that on the international market, it's considered to have a small investment and speculation value for brokers and
financial investors. But since Russia already have a plan to deal with that - spelled BRIC, it doesn't matter. China needs Russia
to continue to grow and to stablize their own economy.
Hence the exchange of chinese yuan and russian rubles. US is in way over their heads, with a large debt and now losing out
on big countries such as russia and china, who are selling their reservs of dollars and US state bonds. That will hurt the US
economy much more than any sanction against Russia. US is holding the wrong end of the stick here...
So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand
Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that
reminds me Spanish civil war.
Notable quotes:
"... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of
state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on
Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48
The situation is far more complex than that.
it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked
Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.
IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48
Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing
cities killing civilians and destroying property.
What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58
Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn
their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to
explain with all those drones they have?
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29
There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very
interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there
has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government
was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web,
like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and
like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What
has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the
Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other
reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens
(and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there,
inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the
Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters
who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to
foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the
"Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's
sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the
sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the
regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the
Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is
therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available
channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and
the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted,
as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
AlienLifeForce
Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to
get Russia involved in conflict but failed.
"democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"
What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.
Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19
The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders
in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the
regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the
third, forth ones.
So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across
Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others
countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until
Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the
command of the Big 6.
LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57
"
The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
How long will it take you?
GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46
I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on
the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk
and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence,
violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked
to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less
than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has
restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East
Ukraine will be forever thankful.
So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand
Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that
reminds me Spanish civil war.
Notable quotes:
"... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of
state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on
Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48
The situation is far more complex than that.
it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked
Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.
IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48
Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing
cities killing civilians and destroying property.
What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58
Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn
their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to
explain with all those drones they have?
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29
There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very
interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there
has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government
was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web,
like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and
like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What
has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the
Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other
reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens
(and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there,
inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the
Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters
who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to
foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the
"Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's
sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the
sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the
regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the
Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is
therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available
channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and
the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted,
as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
AlienLifeForce
Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to
get Russia involved in conflict but failed.
"democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"
What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.
Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19
The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders
in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the
regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the
third, forth ones.
So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across
Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others
countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until
Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the
command of the Big 6.
LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57
"
The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
How long will it take you?
GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46
I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on
the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk
and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence,
violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked
to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less
than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has
restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East
Ukraine will be forever thankful.
There is a possibility that US President Barack Obama wasn't informed about the plan to overthrow the Yanukovych government
in Ukraine, according to former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts.
WASHINGTON, February 2 (Sputnik) - US President Barack Obama might not have been informed by his foreign policy officials about
a plot to overthrow the Yanukovych government in Ukraine, but he is definitely behind the approval of the post-February 2014 coup
decisions, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Paul Craig Roberts told Sputnik.
"It is possible that Obama was told that Yanukovych was corrupt and a Russian stooge and that the Ukrainian people rose up against
him and drove him out of office," Roberts said, adding that such an explanation more or less coincides with the Western media reports.
"So, Obama could have been caught off guard by events, but the neoconservatives in control of Obama's government's foreign policy
were not caught off guard."
Roberts noted that neoconservatives occupying powerful positions in the executive branch of the US government can impose their
agenda regardless of the views of the president.
''While Russia was preoccupied with the Olympics, the neoconservatives launched their coup in Ukraine," he asserted. "I do not
know whether Obama knew about the coup. I do know that it was not necessary for him to know about it, because the neoconservatives
control the information flow."
In a recent interview with CNN, Obama claimed that Russian President Vladimir Putin made his decisions on Crimea after being caught
off-guard by mass anti-government protests on Kiev's Independence Square, as well as by then-President Viktor Yanukovich fleeing,
after the West "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine."
"What is the meaning of Obama's CNN interview? Obama cannot help but know of the US government's involvement once the coup
occurred," Roberts stressed, reminding the intercepted telephone call in which Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland
and the US ambassador in Kiev discussed who they intend to install as the new Ukrainian government. "Certainly Obama knows it,
because once the coup occurs, post-coup decisions have to be made that cannot be made without the president."
The former US official said that the information that reached Obama was that by overthrowing the Yanukovych regime, the Ukrainian
people created an unstable situation that the Russians are exploiting, and in order to stop an alleged Russian takeover of Ukraine,
his government had to take action.
"This kind of approach to Obama guarantees his approval. Otherwise, the neoconservative beat the drums against him,"
he explained.
Roberts thinks that the point of the neoconservatives' coup in Ukraine was "to take Russia down a peg or two."
"Under Putin's leadership, Russia had reappeared as a constraint on the unipower's power," Roberts said. Putin found diplomatic
solutions that blocked Washington's planned invasion of Syria and Washington's planned bombing of Iran. In the neoconservative ideology,
no country is permitted to rise to the capability of blocking Washington's will."
The former US official claimed that the neoconservatives' plan was to take control over Ukraine evicting Russia from its major
naval base in Crimea, thus cutting it from the Mediterranean and its naval base in Tartus, Syria.
Mass protests erupted in Ukraine after Yanukovych refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union. Weeks of violent
protests resulted in his ouster and the installation of a pro-Western government backed by Brussels and Washington.
US President Barack Obama revealed the United States' involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and admitted that
the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine."
MOSCOW, February 2 (Sputnik) - US President Barack Obama's recent interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria reveals the United States'
involvement in the Ukrainian crisis from its outset and that the country worked directly with Ukrainian right-wing fascist groups,
experts told Sputnik.
On Sunday, in his interview with CNN, Obama admitted that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine."
"Obama's statement is reiterating something that the world public opinion already knew - the US was involved in the coup of [ex-Ukrainian
President] Viktor Yanukovych from the start. History shows us that the US has overthrown numerous governments in Latin America, Asia
and Africa and replaced them with leaders that ruled with a fascist ideology that proved useful for Washington's geopolitical interests,"
independent researcher and writer Timothy Alexander Guzman told Sputnik.
Yanukovych's decision to not sign an association agreement with the European Union in late 2013 triggered a mass wave of protests
across Ukraine, culminating in the February 2014 coup. Following the transition of power, Kiev forces launched military operation
against those who refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new government.
Guzman claimed that during the Ukrainian conflict, Washington and its NATO allies worked directly with right-wing Ukrainian Fascist
groups, including the neo-Nazi inspired Right Sector militia.
International law professor at the University of Illinois College of Law Francis Boyle shares a similar opinion, also arguing
also that Obama's approach to Ukraine is no different to the neoconservative approach of former US national security adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski, or political scientist Samuel Huntington's "clash of civilizations" philosophy.
"I think he [Obama] has made it very clear that he is going to continue to take a Brzezinski hard-lined approach toward Ukraine
and Russia and that there are not going to be any compromises at all, and effectively he expects President Putin to throw in a towel,
capitulate, whatever, it does not appear to me there is any ground for negotiations in light of what President Obama at least said
publicly," he said in an email to Sputnik.
Boyle also stated that the United States may already be sending covert offensive military equipment to Ukraine, despite Washington's
claims that it provides Kiev only with non-lethal aid.
The expert also claimed that Obama's ignorance of the Minsk agreements and of Russian President Vladimir Putin's proposals to
negotiate the conflict peacefully, indicates that Washington is going to continue with its aggressive policy in Ukraine.
"How can Russia tolerate this gang of Nazis in Kyiv [Kiev] setting up shop right there on the borders of Russia, and being
armed, equipped and supplied by NATO? Of course, Russia cannot tolerate that,"
Boyle concluded, adding that the Unites States itself would not tolerate such threats close to its borders.
"The very fact that Obama feels he needs to comment on [the] US direct role in the regime change [in Ukraine] and on Putin's response
over Crimea in this manner, rather than calling Putin a Hitler with well thought out expansionist designs, as has become the norm
in the US, speaks for itself: perhaps, the White House is finally coming to the view that it needs to come to its senses and negotiate
with Moscow," Vlad Sobell, a professor at New York University's Prague campus stated.
On Sunday, US President Barack Obama, in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria, explained that the United States "brokered a
deal to transition power in Ukraine." The US President said that Russian President Vladimir Putin made his decision to legally annex
Crimea "not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan."
In late 2013 a decision by Ukraine then-President Viktor Yanukovych to avoid signing an association agreement with the European
Union triggered mass protests across Ukraine, dubbed Maidan, culminating in the February coup. Following the coup and a rise in aggressive
nationalism in the country, Crimea seceded by referendum from Ukraine and rejoined Russia in March 2014.
Pepe Escobar, a correspondent for Asia Times, Hong Kong, who has closely followed developments in Ukraine, told Sputnik of his
belief that every independent observer, including himself, "had known from the beginning those $5 billion, [US Assistant Secretary
of State] Victoria Nuland's number, over the years unleashed to boost 'freedom' in Ukraine one day would come to fruition."
"And Putin was not 'caught off-balance'," Escobar added. "Russian intelligence knew in a few hours that Maidan would be replicated
in Crimea, so the Kremlin acted swiftly," he stated.
Professor Sobell claims that "Mr President [Obama] should be aware that Yanukovych fled [Ukraine] because he had solid reasons
to fear for his life. The hallowed Maidan was not a peaceful democratic regime change, as it was presented in Western media, but
a violent putch complete with murderous acts by hired assassins."
Sobell states that unnamed EU officials affirm that on February 20 snipers shot both demonstrators and police dead, in order to
provoke chaos. These crimes, he continued, are not being investigated by Kiev's "democratic - Western values" regime or its Western
sponsors, as "today it is ok to install a Nazi-driven regime by these means and then demand that Western tax- payers support it."
According to Escobar, the way the Ukrainian coup will be perceived "all across the Global South is […] another US regime change
operation, using local patsies."
Commenting on the recent increase in hostilities between Kiev and independence supporters in the southeast of Ukraine, Sobell
said the situation has changed in favor of the Donbas militia.
"Washington knows it and knows that they must either compromise, start genuine negotiations with Moscow and separatists, or escalate
support for the Nazi regime by supplying it with arms. This would lead to major escalation of the conflict – at this point we cannot
rule out that Obama will opt of this," Sobell insisted.
Russia's relations with the West deteriorated sharply in 2014, following Crimea's reunification with Russia and the start of the
ongoing military conflict in Ukraine. The United States and its allies accused Moscow of interfering in Ukraine's internal affairs
and imposed several rounds of economic sanctions, targeting Russia's energy, banking and military sectors, as well as several high-ranking
individuals.
"Sunday Night with Vladimir Solovyev" on Russia 1
Translated by Kristina Rus
Kuchma is first of all the Godfather of the oligarchic model which brought Ukraine to this crisis. This is why he is sent to Minsk,
although he doesn't have any power.
There are two factors to this crisis. There is the intra-political factor. The power was seized by raiders just as they raided
their factories in the 90's, built their empires, like Kolomoisky with his Privat Group. Now they can apply these methods at the
framework of the entire country.
The task is to bankrupt the assets, so that people wouldn't even as for salaries. Same model worked with companies in Russia.
This is the intra-Ukrainian factor. The raiders are using those methods which they had perfected in the 90's.
And then there is the outside factor.
The ultimate goal is the free trade zone between the EU and the USA. Ukraine is the working material, is the motor oil, which
has to be utilized, then burned down and disposed of.
Therefore there is a congruence of two interests - of the American party which is playing for the free trade zone, and a break
up of the relationship between Russia and EU, and - the raiders who are on the inside and are given carte blanche for any actions.
And for peace talks you need the correct number of entities.
There are not just two quasi-state formations in Ukraine. Ukraine is not Ukraine anymore.
There is a separate "Euromaidan Republic" with the capital in Kiev. There is a "Union of Donbass Republics" - LPR and DPR.
And, as we coined the name - "Neo-Khazaria" with the capital in Dnepropetrovsk. Because Mr. Kolomoisky controls Dnepropetrovsk
region and Odessa region.
This is hypothetical, of course.
But de facto these are the three entitiess which act rather autonomously. Nuland comes for talks with Kolomoisky in Odessa, and
there are no representatives from Kiev. Accordingly he is not represented at the peace talks with DPR and LPR.
So the quantity of acting entities should be taken into account.
And the fourth entity (of interest) is Crimea.
Why is the Ukrainian elite so outraged by Crimea?
Because Ukrainian elites plundered Crimea for the last 20 years. Beginning with each deputy and ending with each minister, each
one of them has their own summer house, a boat and a factory in Crimea. And now they lost all of it. And this is why Crimea is a
subject of interest.
It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From
comments:
"The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting
from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from
the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when
reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government'
as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
and
"Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research
it helps with facts"
Notable quotes:
"... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
"... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
"... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
"... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or
historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening
in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian
(and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's
disinformation handouts" ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Selected Skeptical Comments
vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he
realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure
from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be
talking about truce.
This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.
edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?
What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to
do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?
What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate
a civil war in Europe!
scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28
I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like
they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is
committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any
large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate
another country's borders, officially.
Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's
affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely
interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot
more convincing ten years ago than they do today.
ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28
The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased
reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the
propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for
example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the
Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current
or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a
journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is
happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for
The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and
Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07
Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single
American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the
lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind
when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is
greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become
a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.
Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill
each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build
the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev
Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.
BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are
reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to
make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.
GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06
I'm English, but I think you are American.
And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced
weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's
merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02
Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of
Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused,
assaulted, and disappeared.
There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup
that toppled Yanukovych.
HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00
Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The
shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57
Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine,
there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in
Kiev, nor do they want to.
Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US
geopolitical machinations.
When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what
was the US response?
"Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.
MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56
Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of
research it helps with facts
Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54
This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51
German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan
for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary
Victoria Nuland.
Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!
MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45
Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and
Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too
powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!
MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42
Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right,
I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.
Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41
The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the
fascists. All you need to know, everyone.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40
Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan
of democratic transional government.
Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on
Ukraine.
Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.
Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.
Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34
Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st
World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for
sure!
Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44
Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you
HAVE.
HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32
How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the
Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?
Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free"
article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes
only guns can stop guns",
It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they
cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big
money.
During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen
royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of
Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish
independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.
He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.
By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting
us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The
Willing?
As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":
"The men who build the planes and make the tanks
Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."
Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30
Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war
indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)
GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs"
from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons
are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they
expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however,
was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and
East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by
Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection
of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No
matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in
Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets,
and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for
declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is
irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.
And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at
last. The warmongers have their war.
Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they
organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are
working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help
bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe
is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more
insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?
AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08
So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine
it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession
If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co
Persona non grata -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for
crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they
want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements
form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting
nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
Notable quotes:
"... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries
of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting
the buffers.
Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....
This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO
funds.
Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54
Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete
confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that
they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)
Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53
"We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information
and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than
the BBC."
I couldn't stop laughing!
Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine
tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better,
Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the
best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes,
the need to confront Russia at all cost.
Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi
batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very
beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they
said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What
is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?
The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very
easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative
media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their
readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the
truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind
of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments,
very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again
this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the
least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!
Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their
statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are
trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is
gaining the field? All three?
halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52
And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail,
cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and
agents of influence in EU capitals"?
Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is
down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.
micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52
Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the
Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of
the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like
Guernica.
whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48
Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering
power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but
that of the US president himself.
So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?
RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46
Putin must be stopped.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.
Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be
stopped!!?
'' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months
from their general election.
Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of,
Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo
Nazis; thugs.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things
across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts
every monning.
But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate
corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon,
bite the bastards on the arse.
These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down
in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.
Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the
Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.
If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had
not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now.
This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.
And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.
We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO.
So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country
without a mandate from our Parliament?
herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44
The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government
that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed
this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.
In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the
eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.
There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the
mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen
with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.
The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and
BMWs.
Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44
As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already
died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we
forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that
weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.
When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their
throats - especially American 'democracy'.
rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43
"Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to
Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is
effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in
the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in
tears.
NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41
"German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been
right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth
going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."
Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed
any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after
all.
The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got
reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was
torn to shreds with that.
If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co
Persona non grata -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for
crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they
want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements
form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting
nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
Notable quotes:
"... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries
of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting
the buffers.
Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....
This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO
funds.
Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54
Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete
confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that
they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)
Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53
"We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information
and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than
the BBC."
I couldn't stop laughing!
Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine
tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better,
Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the
best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes,
the need to confront Russia at all cost.
Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi
batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very
beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they
said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What
is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?
The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very
easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative
media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their
readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the
truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind
of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments,
very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again
this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the
least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!
Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their
statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are
trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is
gaining the field? All three?
halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52
And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail,
cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and
agents of influence in EU capitals"?
Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is
down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.
micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52
Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the
Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of
the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like
Guernica.
whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48
Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering
power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but
that of the US president himself.
So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?
RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46
Putin must be stopped.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.
Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be
stopped!!?
'' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months
from their general election.
Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of,
Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo
Nazis; thugs.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things
across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts
every monning.
But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate
corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon,
bite the bastards on the arse.
These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down
in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.
Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the
Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.
If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had
not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now.
This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.
And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.
We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO.
So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country
without a mandate from our Parliament?
herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44
The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government
that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed
this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.
In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the
eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.
There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the
mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen
with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.
The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and
BMWs.
Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44
As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already
died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we
forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that
weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.
When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their
throats - especially American 'democracy'.
rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43
"Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to
Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is
effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in
the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in
tears.
NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41
"German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been
right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth
going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."
Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed
any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after
all.
The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got
reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was
torn to shreds with that.
It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From
comments:
"The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting
from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from
the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when
reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government'
as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
and
"Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research
it helps with facts"
Notable quotes:
"... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
"... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
"... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
"... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or
historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening
in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian
(and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's
disinformation handouts" ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Selected Skeptical Comments
vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he
realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure
from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be
talking about truce.
This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.
edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?
What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to
do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?
What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate
a civil war in Europe!
scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28
I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like
they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is
committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any
large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate
another country's borders, officially.
Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's
affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely
interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot
more convincing ten years ago than they do today.
ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28
The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased
reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the
propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for
example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the
Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current
or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a
journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is
happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for
The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and
Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07
Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single
American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the
lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind
when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is
greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become
a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.
Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill
each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build
the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev
Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.
BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are
reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to
make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.
GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06
I'm English, but I think you are American.
And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced
weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's
merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02
Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of
Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused,
assaulted, and disappeared.
There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup
that toppled Yanukovych.
HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00
Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The
shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57
Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine,
there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in
Kiev, nor do they want to.
Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US
geopolitical machinations.
When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what
was the US response?
"Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.
MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56
Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of
research it helps with facts
Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54
This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51
German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan
for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary
Victoria Nuland.
Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!
MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45
Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and
Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too
powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!
MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42
Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right,
I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.
Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41
The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the
fascists. All you need to know, everyone.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40
Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan
of democratic transional government.
Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on
Ukraine.
Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.
Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.
Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34
Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st
World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for
sure!
Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44
Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you
HAVE.
HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32
How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the
Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?
Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free"
article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes
only guns can stop guns",
It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they
cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big
money.
During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen
royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of
Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish
independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.
He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.
By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting
us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The
Willing?
As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":
"The men who build the planes and make the tanks
Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."
Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30
Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war
indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)
GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs"
from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons
are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they
expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however,
was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and
East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by
Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection
of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No
matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in
Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets,
and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for
declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is
irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.
And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at
last. The warmongers have their war.
Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they
organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are
working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help
bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe
is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more
insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?
AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08
So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine
it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession
Kiev's political will to fight to reclaim or secure through a peace deal the industry-rich territories of Donetsk and Luhansk
from pro-Russian rebels may be strong. But it is limited by money, competence, and popular support.
... ... ...
Valentina Kuznetsova, 75, is one of those pensioners. A recent arrival from Luhansk, she lives in Kiev with her husband, daughter
and granddaughter - none of whom can find work. Like many others displaced by the conflict, she is ready to end the war and focus
on problems closer to home.
"Give the territory away," Kuznetsova said. "Why are we doing this? Why do we need to kill each other?"
But the troop buildup suggests that Kiev has no intention of backing down, which poses another problem: ensuring that the military
can train tens of thousands of fresh recruits to wage a guerilla-style war against an enemy thought to be backed by one of the largest
military complexes in the world.
... ... ...
If someone closes our mines, we will be dying of hunger," Yakubuk said. "But it is better to die from hunger than from an enemy."
"I'm not sure about that," interjected his mining colleague, Maryan Dubetskiy, 34, a electrical welder. "At war, men die. But
at home, it's women and children who suffer."
SirGalahad
""Give the territory away," Kuznetsova said. "Why are we doing this? Why do we need to kill each other?" "
Exactly. If the separatists want their own country, let them have it. If the Scots had voted YES, would Camoron have started
shelling Glasgow?
Doesn't the West believe in democracy any more?
Can anyone think of a single reason why these cities are being shelled?
Why are western governments supporting this war-crime?
Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes
sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since
the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic
independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.
Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby
Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue
(MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's
illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic
independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately
fired.
Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not
honor.
I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has
intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How
America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her
program a number of times.
My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character.
I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost
her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even
Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.
For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda
that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian
troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the
right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.
Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this
fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.
As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order
to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's
border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.
Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated
by Washington.
It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.
They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party
on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian
Troops into Crimea."
No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops
to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean
Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established
themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.
So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three
are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.
It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most
independent journalists can escape its influence.
What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia
for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column
dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?
The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production.
The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot
protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing
non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in
an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine
Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports:
"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych,
but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows
that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from
the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really
disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."
Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to
gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings
were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here:
http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/
What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate
government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in
southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians
have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's
help.
The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How
the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.
Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes
sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since
the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic
independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.
Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby
Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue
(MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's
illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic
independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately
fired.
Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not
honor.
I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has
intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How
America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her
program a number of times.
My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character.
I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost
her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even
Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.
For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda
that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian
troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the
right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.
Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this
fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.
As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order
to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's
border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.
Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated
by Washington.
It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.
They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party
on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian
Troops into Crimea."
No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops
to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean
Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established
themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.
So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three
are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.
It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most
independent journalists can escape its influence.
What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia
for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column
dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?
The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production.
The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot
protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing
non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in
an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine
Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports:
"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych,
but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows
that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from
the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really
disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."
Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to
gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings
were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here:
http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/
What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate
government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in
southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians
have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's
help.
The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How
the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.
Ukraine EuroMaidan was organized and financed by the West using standard "color revolution" script. So EuroMaidan and subsequent
civil war is definitely more about Western neocolonialism that Ukranian nationalism or Russian encirclement by NATO concerns. Quote:
"The current Ukrainian crisis turned into a problem heavily influenced if not dominantly masterminded from abroad.[1] Due to
this, an initially domestic problem has been gradually transformed into a fight about the dominance in Europe (and the world) and
into a conflict between the West and a more and more self-assured Russia. The Ukrainians have been trapped in a situation
where they are only instrumental and in many respects passive objects. Are they aware of it? At least its politicians and intellectual
elites? I am not sure about it.
When I was asked by David Ungar-Klein to speak here today on Ukraine, I hesitated. My knowledge of Ukraine is rather limited
and I don t pretend to be an expert on this sorely tried country. I am not someone who follows the day by day developments there.
I also know that my views on that topic are against the mainstream and that they would not be much welcome. I know as well that there
are real experts on Ukraine here in this audience (not only foreign observers but insiders), President Yushchenko being one of them.
In spite of all that, I accepted the invitation to address this gathering because with the passing of time I have become more
and more convinced that the so called Ukrainian crisis is only mistakenly considered to be an Ukrainian crisis or Ukrainian-Russian
conflict. It is not so. Ukraine is -- to my great regret -- only a place where the much more general crisis manifests itself
most visibly. I have in mind an evident crisis of the West, which we experience but are not ready to admit. We try to hide it.
One of its manifestations is an intensive and widespread dissemination of Western values all over the world which creates new seeds
of tension. Ukraine is one of them.
Let me develop this point. On the one hand, the current crisis in Ukraine is undoubtedly originally home-made. It is basically
the consequence of the evident failure of this country to make a successful transition from communism to the system of freedom,
pluralistic parliamentary democracy and market economy, from passive role in Soviet imperium to its own statehood and sovereignty.
Ukraine probably failed in this respect more than almost any other Central and East European country. It can't be denied. To be fair,
however, it would be worth seriously discussing whether this was -- considering the circumstances -- inevitable, or at least excusable,
or not. The indisputable fact is that the country was artificially created, was and is deeply divided, and used to have and had even
before November 2013 very weak internal coherence. This was an evident obstacle in the difficult transformation process.
On the other hand, the current Ukrainian crisis turned into a problem heavily influenced if not dominantly masterminded from
abroad.[1] Due to this, an initially domestic problem has been gradually transformed into a fight about the dominance in Europe
(and the world) and into a conflict between the West and a more and more self-assured Russia. The Ukrainians have been trapped
in a situation where they are only instrumental and in many respects passive objects. Are they aware of it? At least its politicians
and intellectual elites? I am not sure about it.
I was -- while attending various EU and NATO summits -- always nervous when the debate about Ukrainian EU or NATO membership started.
I had the unpleasant feeling that to force Ukraine into making a premature decision whether the country belongs to the West or to
the East is a certain and guaranteed way how to destroy it. I formulated it year ago, in February 2014, quite resolutely: "Giving
Ukraine a choice between the East and the West means destroying it" It leads the country into an insolvable conflict that cannot
have but a tragic ending."[2] This is exactly what we see developing in front of our eyes right now.
The current geopolitical game started with "colored" revolutions in the post-Soviet Union as well as some Arab countries,
with attempts to export democracy and Western concept of human rights into unprepared and geographically remote territories and different
cultural and civilizational areas. I must admit that I saw the birth of today s problem already in the -- for me unclear and
unpersuasive -- "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine ten years ago. As I see it, it was only partly a genuine domestic political uprising.
It was more importantly an externally organized export of democracy in an attempt to increase the geopolitical position of one country
or another or hide some daunting domestic problems, if not a gradual loss of its own identity.
Ukraine has been lowered to the role of an instrument in this much bigger game. The question is how to get out of it. The developments
in the last 15 months have proved that a continuation of this dangerous game only increases the costs of the crisis, deepens the
division of the country and leads to a further destabilization. If we look at the developments in Ukraine with open and not a priori
distorted eyes, we have to come to the conclusion that Ukraine was trapped in the historical shift of geopolitical positions, and
that Russia -- on the contrary -- due to it, found its new identity, or at least strengthened its old one. This changing geopolitical
setting is the product of the West's loss of identity, of its cultural and civilizational demise, and its economic stagnation.
To my great disappointment, the dominant political forces in Ukraine keep relying on some future external intervention and
are not searching for an internal political solution. They haven't come up with any compromise proposal they could offer to
the people of the Eastern part of their country to win their confidence. They rely on repression and on unrealistic expectations
of Western economic and military aid. It will not come.
There is no other way out of the current stalemate than negotiations and a compromise. It must be done soon. Preserving
the current state of affairs can be neither in the interest of Ukraine, nor in the interest of the West or Russia. In the long run,
all of us will be losing.
The recent developments in Ukraine also contribute to the destruction of the existing system of international relations which
means that we are losing some proven, however shabby procedures to tackle other threatening issues -- the Middle East problem or
terrorist s attacks in Europe.
Let me summarize my today s message. Instead of discussing Ukraine or Russia, we should discuss Europe and the West. Thank
you for your attention.
[2] "Václav Klaus Institute's public statement on the situation in the Ukraine", February 25, 2014,
www.klaus.cz/clanky/3528. More in the publication of the Václav Klaus
Institute (in Czech language) "ZámÄ?rnÄ? plochá diskuse o ukrajinske krizi", No. 12/2014. The English shorter version is V. Klaus,
J. Weigl: "Let's start a real Ukrainian debate", April 22, 2014, www.klaus.cz/clanky/3553.
Václav Klaus, Presentation at the panel "Europe, the Ukraine and Russia", Vienna Com.Sult Congress, House of Industry, Vienna,
January 20, 2015.
On a quick read I'd say that's a masterful mix of honesty and realism. He also skates over very real grievances that come with
the civil war in the pursuit of making constructive comments. I think he's spot on.
Yes, that is a very good piece. The author is aware his views are not mainstream, but he defends them well and they are lent the
persuasive weight of unfolding events.
Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has
intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk,
one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe
and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
Notable quotes:
"... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
"... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
"... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
"... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
"... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
"... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is
deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant
boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.
More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and
several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a
building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.
It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the
checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to
pass.
Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the
case for months. When Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on
supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a
conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.
After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact
on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic
diseases; everything is affected.
... ... ...
Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56
More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to
the west to kill. More like the other way around.
Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04
Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not
responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships
that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.
And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.
Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57
What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you
sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.
Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07
And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It
happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33
Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by
hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).
Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26
Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that
virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west
except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser"
peoples to serve as cannon fodder.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14
Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have
resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out,
he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They
should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have
challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of
teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and
refugees.
The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of
Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those
actions. If it walks like a duck...
buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51
Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and
conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of
people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable
as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out
that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the
Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to
argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?
Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43
They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn
(with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's
corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing.
They are hiding behind Yats.
Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25
Until recently, I also thought as you.
But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.
Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.
Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)
EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58
You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the
more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.
I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite
interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough
to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass
powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.
However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have
needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have
happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I
say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire
Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.
To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic
identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of
like fanatics.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52
There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is
backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an
enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By
contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.
So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown,
they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.
The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko,
Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most
likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.
You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the
EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.
BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51
Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper
strength, NOT the real strength).
Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to
leave.
Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus
chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).
It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost
at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered)
to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not
take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the
PL govt. (Turch.).
Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have
had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA
needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12
What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?
When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The
country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and
social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they
have failed the ultimate test.
These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true
for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the
so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany
after 1918 and 1945.
Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this
generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this
national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their
country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.
Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like
Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans
after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for
themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace
and political stability.
That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but
repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their
maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02
You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men
are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post
writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.
Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people
in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a
year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your
statement of 9000 people is meaningless.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11
What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity
of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.
For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians
immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the
time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian
defections.
The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian
people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat,
and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.
At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and
frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian
military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these
troops?
What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many
suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize
the things that might happen.
But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05
Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is
destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by
the rebels.
Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000
wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own
people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire
villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.
For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation
in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.
All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of
reasonable people.
Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains
are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now
may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
Notable quotes:
"... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is
a right wing nazi supporting rally.
Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47
Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.
Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42
Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far
away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.
yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30
...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically
elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted
him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world,
it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.
yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17
"Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they
see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.
BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26
If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.
US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually
killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.
If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.
centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23
The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.
Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.
Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic
spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is
wholly constrained.
It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.
From the Pew Research Center:
Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and
say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the
U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .
For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum
was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/
I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having
been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?
Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57
And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?
Ukraine freedom support act.
Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language
broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda
Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in
the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?
I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them
about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.
Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.
jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46
And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.
New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin
And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new
Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?
Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains
are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now
may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
Notable quotes:
"... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is
a right wing nazi supporting rally.
Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47
Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.
Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42
Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far
away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.
yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30
...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically
elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted
him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world,
it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.
yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17
"Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they
see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.
BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26
If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.
US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually
killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.
If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.
centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23
The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.
Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.
Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic
spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is
wholly constrained.
It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.
From the Pew Research Center:
Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and
say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the
U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .
For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum
was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/
I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having
been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?
Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57
And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?
Ukraine freedom support act.
Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language
broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda
Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in
the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?
I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them
about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.
Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.
jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46
And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.
New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin
And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new
Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?
Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has
intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk,
one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe
and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
Notable quotes:
"... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
"... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
"... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
"... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
"... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
"... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is
deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant
boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.
More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and
several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a
building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.
It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the
checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to
pass.
Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the
case for months. When Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on
supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a
conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.
After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact
on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic
diseases; everything is affected.
... ... ...
Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56
More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to
the west to kill. More like the other way around.
Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04
Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not
responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships
that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.
And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.
Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57
What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you
sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.
Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07
And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It
happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33
Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by
hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).
Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26
Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that
virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west
except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser"
peoples to serve as cannon fodder.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14
Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have
resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out,
he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They
should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have
challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of
teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and
refugees.
The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of
Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those
actions. If it walks like a duck...
buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51
Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and
conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of
people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable
as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out
that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the
Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to
argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?
Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43
They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn
(with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's
corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing.
They are hiding behind Yats.
Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25
Until recently, I also thought as you.
But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.
Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.
Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)
EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58
You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the
more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.
I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite
interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough
to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass
powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.
However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have
needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have
happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I
say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire
Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.
To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic
identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of
like fanatics.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52
There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is
backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an
enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By
contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.
So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown,
they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.
The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko,
Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most
likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.
You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the
EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.
BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51
Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper
strength, NOT the real strength).
Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to
leave.
Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus
chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).
It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost
at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered)
to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not
take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the
PL govt. (Turch.).
Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have
had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA
needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12
What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?
When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The
country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and
social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they
have failed the ultimate test.
These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true
for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the
so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany
after 1918 and 1945.
Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this
generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this
national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their
country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.
Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like
Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans
after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for
themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace
and political stability.
That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but
repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their
maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02
You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men
are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post
writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.
Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people
in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a
year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your
statement of 9000 people is meaningless.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11
What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity
of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.
For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians
immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the
time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian
defections.
The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian
people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat,
and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.
At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and
frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian
military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these
troops?
What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many
suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize
the things that might happen.
But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05
Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is
destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by
the rebels.
Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000
wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own
people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire
villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.
For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation
in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.
All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of
reasonable people.
Foreign governments are 100 times more likely to intervene in civil wars if the troubled state is home to hydrocarbon reserves,
according to a new report by academics from the universities of Warwick, Portsmouth and Essex.
Cutting-edge research from British universities has confirmed a belief long held by conspiracy theorists, realists and hawkish
neoconservatives alike: oil drives foreign intervention and war.
Foreign governments are 100 times more likely to intervene in civil wars if the troubled state is home to hydrocarbon reserves,
according to a new report by academics from the universities of Warwick, Portsmouth and Essex.
Following systemic analysis, the academics found that economic incentives are major drivers of foreign intervention.
One of the report's authors, Dr. Petros Sekeris of the University of Portsmouth, told the Independent he and his colleagues had
uncovered "clear evidence that countries with potential for oil production are more likely to be targeted by foreign intervention
if civil wars erupt."
"Military intervention is expensive and risky. No country joins another country's civil war without balancing the cost against
their own strategic interests," he added.
The report, published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, examined 69 civil wars between 1945 and 1999. It said civil wars
amount to 90 percent of all militarized conflicts since the close of World War II, and almost 67 percent of these have been characterized
by foreign intervention.
The research frames oil as a dominant motivating factor in conflicts, and argues hydrocarbons heavily influenced the West's military
intervention in Libya. It also suggests oil plays a noteworthy factor in the US-lead war against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
Dr. Vincenzo Bove, of the University of Warwick, said IS militants received little attention from Western media outlets until
they began to encroach upon the oil-rich Kurdish region of northern Iraq.
"But once ISIS got near oil fields, the siege of Kobani in Syria became a headline and the US sent drones to strike ISIS targets,"
Bove told the Independent.
After carefully modeling the decision-making processes of a series of third-party interventions throughout history, the researchers
reached a number of conclusions.
Factors which played a part in influencing a foreign government's decision to intervene included the military might and strength
of insurgents on the ground, and the extent to which they sought to control valuable resources such as oil.
The report found that foreign governments' decision to intervene was largely dominated by their desire to control oil supplies
in conflict-ridden states, while historical, geographic and cultural/ethnic ties were far less important.
The researchers noted that America maintains a military presence in Gulf states that produce oil, and has a long history of backing
despotic regimes despite the US administration's supposed agenda of democratization.
But they argued a recent rise in US oil production indicates the state will intervene less in the near future.
Additionally, they suggest the world can expect a cycle of low intervention in years to come because plunging oil prices make
it a less valuable resource to protect.
The report's authors also said China may assume a leading role in foreign intervention in future years.
Britain has a long history of foreign intervention. If viewed through a lens of economic incentives, a stark pattern begins to
emerge, according to the report's authors.
Britain intervened in Nigeria's civil war between 1967 and 1970. Because the British government was heavily dependent on oil located
in the eastern Nigeria, stability in the region was critical.
Likewise, Britain invaded oil-rich Iraq in 2003. Political analysts across the globe maintain the US-UK invasion was in part motivated
by a desire to control the region's oil reserves.
Finally, in 2011 Britain partook in a Western coalition that intervened in Muammar Gaddafi's Libya in 2011 – another state noted
for its plentiful hydrocarbon reserves.
By contrast, Britain failed to intervene in Sierra Leone's 11-year civil war (1991-2002), which ravaged the nation and left over
50,000 dead.
The British government also failed to intervene in war-torn Syria, after President Bashar Assad was alleged to have launched a
chemical attack against his people in 2013. Much like Sierra Leone, Syria is not a big oil producer.
Experts suggest the most significant motivations for wars are generally the least discussed, while peripheral or false motivations
are often circulated with gusto.
Traditionally, war and foreign intervention are thought to be driven by a complex cocktail of factors. Such factors are widely
accepted to be propelled by governments' pursuits of strategic interests, which generally benefit elite members of their societies.
The desire to control valuable resources, the desire to dominate key geographic territories, the strengthening of a lucrative
military industrial complex, the desire to intimidate enemy states and the extension of financial deregulation across the globe are
often cited as key factors.
EMMANUEL TODD GERMANY'S FASTHOLDON THE EUROPEAN An interview CONTINENT by Olivier Berruyer
OB: The integration of the Ukrainian population by the German system would represent a qualitative jump in this dynamic unbalance.
Granted, it is a numerous population, but it is poor and produces little…
ET: Yes, but annexing the geographically contiguous and politically controllable poor, in a globalized world craving low-cost
labor forces, can be an advantage. Our world is now post-democratic and un-egalitarian; it therefore fosters virtual expansion in
zones of very low salary rates.
And Ukraine's advantage for the new German empire is precisely that it doesn't exist. It is double, even triple. It is a disintegrating
system. In reality, Ukraine has never existed as a correctly functioning national entity. It's a false state, and it is bankrupt.
The fundamental proof of Ukrainian incapacity of statehood, and this has not been stressed, is the role played by the leaders of
the Western Ukrainians, at the periphery of the country. One sometimes gets indignant over this, and starts counting their deputies,
their ministers, but the Western Ukrainians, altogether, do not represent much. However, what is striking, is the inaction of the
central Ukrainians, that is, those who speak Ukrainian, who do not like the Russians that much, who belong originally to the Orthodox
religion but who are not tempted by the far-right. The rise in power of Western Ukraine shows at what point Central Ukraine,
which is the majority, is atomized, incapable of organizing itself, in a state of pre-statehood.
The confrontation playing itself out between the Ukrainian far-right and the pro-Russians in Eastern Ukraine makes evident the
historical inexistence of the country. The Western Ukrainians want to adhere to Europe. This is perfectly normal as far as they are
concerned: why would extreme-right movements which have a tradition of collaborating with Nazi Germany refuse to join a Europe under
German control?
All this said, this exceptional Ukrainian catch has not yet been bagged by Germany. The game, or rather the war, is only beginning.
As for the Central Ukrainians, I think that the question has been taken care of. The system will continue disintegrating: the
GDP will contract, the situation will get worse, and I think that this is the real reason why the Russians are so prudent, are so
little inclined to go to war and, contrarily to what is being asserted, do not want to annex bits and pieces of Ukraine. Russia is
not afraid of Western sanctions. But it does not want to become hated in Central Ukraine. In its central mass, Ukraine is mistrustful
of Russia at the present stage, but one must recognize to the Russians a great historical capacity to play with space and time. After
two years of being handled by German Europe, what will the people of Kiev think? Maybe they will want to return to Moscow. A disintegrating
system does not adhere, it continues disintegrating.
OB: Let's return to the global might of the American system, which is so far away from Ukraine, and therefore has very little
capacity to benefit from its integration-disintegration through the " Western system."
ET: The American system, according to Zbigniew Brzezinski, is the control by the United States of the two great industrial
regions of Eurasia, Japan and Germany. But this can function only under the condition of the hypothesis where America itself is clearly
superior in terms of industrial weight (see table on the right )
As early as 1928, the American industrial production represented 45% of the total world industrial output. After the war, in 1945,
America still represented 45%. Now America is down to 17.5 %: the Brzezinski system of a control of Eurasia cannot hold in regard
of the present numbers. As I observed in After the Empire, its economic exchanges with Ukraine are insignificant. In Eastern Europe,
NATO is in fact securing a German space. One should re-actualize, for the sake of Washington, the French expression "to wage war
for the King of Prussia".
OB: In such a context, what future can there be for German-American relations?
ET: If you live in the enchanted world of the presently dominant ideology of the newspaper Le Monde, of François Hollande,
which is also the ideology of naive anti-imperialists, the Western block, a union of America and Europe, with its ward Japan, must
and can contain Russia. In the hypothesis that presuppose a good strategic understanding and a strong collaboration between partners,
the West could defeat the Russian economy. Maybe… But then there is China, India, Brazil, the world is big…
But if we move into the world of strategic realism, which sees the reality of the relationships of power without a reference to
real or mythic values, we see that there exist presently two great developed industrial worlds, America on the one side and this
new German empire on the other. Russia is a secondary question. We must therefore foresee a completely different future for the twenty
years to come than the East-West conflict: the rise in power of the German system suggests that the United States and Germany are
moving in the direction of conflict. This is an intrinsic logic founded upon relations of force and domination. In my view it is
unrealistic to foresee a peaceful co-existence for the future.
Yet at this stage, we may reintroduce the notion of value. But precisely in order to stress that, for an anthropologist, in his
own way a realist, or for a historian of the long term, the United States and Germany do not share the same values. Confronted with
the economic stress of the Great Depression, America, the country of liberal democracy, produced Roosevelt, whereas Germany, a country
of an authoritarian and non-egalitarian culture, produced Hitler.
Granted that the belief of Americans in equality is very relative. The United States are the leading country in the rise of economic
inequalities – even when putting aside segregation towards the Blacks, a problem which is far from having been solved, as can be
seen from the riots in Ferguson. But it is also, at the present stage, a leading country
But it is also, at the present stage, a leading country in its attempt to create a unified world, with populations of very diverse
origins. In this sense, the election of Obama remains strongly symbolic, despite the evident wear and tear shown by the President
during his second term.
If one takes only into account the corpus of citizens of Germany, we can say that the rise of inequalities remains very reasonable,
much lower to what we can observe in the Anglo-American world. But if one observes the German system in its European globality, integrating
the low salaries of Eastern Europe and the compressions of salaries in the South, one can identify a system of a much stronger un-egalitarian
domination in a state of gestation. The equality in this case is left as a concern for only the dominant, German citizens.
At this stage, I will take up this concept of political science of the Belgian anthropologist Pierre van den Berghe : the
Herrenvolk democracy, that, is the democracy of the master people. Now don't jump to the ceiling! These words are not going
to bring down the world – I have recently expressed myself in these terms in an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit.
At the beginning, Pierre van den Berghe was applying this concept of an ethnic democracy to apartheid South Africa, where
there existed a corpus of equal citizens which was functioning perfectly well according to the liberal and democratic rules, but
whose liberty and democracy could only hold because there existed these dominated groups. It was the same for America at the
time of segregation: the internal equality of the white group was assured by its domination over the Indians, the Blacks… One could
in the same way characterize Israel as being a Herrenvolk democracy. What cohesion and liberty there is in the Israeli democracy
is bolstered by the existence of an enemy mass of Arabs.
If I had to describe present day Europe, if I had to comment the economic map at the political level, I would say that Europe,
or the German Empire, is beginning to take the general shape of a Herrenvolk democracy with, at its heart, a German democracy reserved
for the dominating people and, around it, a whole hierarchy of populations more or less dominated, whose votes no longer have
any importance. It is easier to understand, in such a model, why, when one elects a President in France, nothing happens. Because
he no longer has any power: particularly not on the monetary system.
So one finds oneself in a democracy in which the liberties of the press, of opinion, and others, are perfectly respected; where
there is no problem but where, fundamentally, the stability of the system rests on the subconscious solidarity inside the dominating
group. In the Europe taking shape, one can see the Germans as the Whites in segregation America.
Presently, political inequality is evidently stronger in the German system than in the American system. The Greeks and others
cannot vote in the elections to the Bundestag, whereas the Blacks and the Latinos can vote in presidential and congressional elections.
The European Parliament is baloney, the American Congress is not.
OB: After such an indictment, do you think that we should be more vigilant to-wards Germany?
ET: It's true that I am pessimistic. The probability that Germany will turn out right is getting lower every day. It is
quite small already. The authoritarian German culture generates a systemic mental instability of the leaders when they are in a situation
of domination – something that has not happened since the war. Their frequent historical incapacity – in a situation of dominance
– of imagining a peaceful and reasonable future for everybody re-emerges today in the form of an export mania.
To this is now added, for these leaders, the interaction with Polish absurdity and Ukrainian violence. Sadly, the fate of Germany
doesn't appear to me as a total unknown.
In what way will the Germans turn wrong? The median age or the absence of a military apparatus may put a brake to the process,
but one notices every week a radicalization in the German posture. Contempt for the English, for the Americans, shameless visit of
Merkel to Kiev. The relationship to the French, the voluntary servitude of whom is essential for the control of Europe, will be revelatory.
But we know already. With the affair of the sales of the Mistral to Russia: the German leaders are now asking the French to liquidate
whatever military industry they have left. The German culture is un-egalitarian: it makes difficult the acceptance of a world of
equals. When they are feeling that they are the strongest, the Germans will take very badly the refusal of the weaker to obey, a
refusal which they perceive as unnatural, unreasonable.
In France, it would rather be the contrary. Disobedience is a positive value. One lives with it, it's part of the French charm
because in France, too, there exists a mysterious potential for order and efficiency.
The relationship of America to discipline and inequality is complex in another way, and would deserve many pages of analysis.
Let's be brief and jump to the conclusion: a disciplined inferior-superior rapport of the German type will not pass easily. Anglo-Saxon
culture is not egalitarian but it is truly liberal. Equal, unequal, it's the same thing in the end. The reasonable difference made
within families between brothers leads to the notion of a reasonable difference among individuals, among peoples. This is actually
the reason for the success of the American model: the Anglo-American culture is capable of managing reasonably international differences.
In the end, we cannot but observe that both blocks – the American and the German – are antagonist by nature. They combine all
the elements which generate conflict: rupture in the brute economic balance, difference in values. The faster Russia will be out
of the game, either broken or marginalized, the faster these differences will come to express themselves.
For me, the real historical question at present, the one nobody is asking, is the following: will the Americans accept to see
this new reality of a Germany which is threatening them, and if yes, when?
OB: When you are prophesizing a conflict between the American nation and the new German empire, are you sure of yourself?
ET: Of course not. I am only broadening the prospective field. I am describing one possible future among other possible
futures. Another would be a solidifying of the group Russia-China-India in a continental block opposing the Western Euro-American
block. But this Eurasian block can only function with the addition of Japan, who alone is capable of bringing it up to the Western
technological level. But what will Japan do? For the time being, it is more loyal towards the United States than is Germany. But
it might get tired of the old Western conflicts.
The present shock is paralyzing its rapprochement with Russia, which should be completely logical for it from the energetic and
military point of view, an important element in the new political course engaged by the Japanese Prime Minister Abe. This is another
risk for the United States, deriving from the new aggressive German course.
OB: Several futures are possible, but not an infinity; 4 or 5, maybe…
ET: I have gone back to reading science fiction in order to deep-cleanse my brain and open my mind. I much recommend an
exercise of the same type to the people who are our leaders and who, without knowing where they are going, are pressing ahead with
such a firm step.
Like in any neo-colonial war the main casualties suffer civil population. this is not yet the scale of Iraq war were almost a million
perished, but it can became very similar. the only difference is that Iraq was war for oil, while Ukraine is fight for geopolitical
space for EWU and first of all Germany, as well as for implementation of encircling of Russia plan by the USA. Starting from the February
coup this is yet another color revolution initiated by West, which turn in civil war. Poor Ukraine. It has wrong space on the map with
Russia on one side and NATO on the other.
The shattered remains of a tank bearing a tattered Ukrainian flag sat beside the main highway to Mariupol on Monday afternoon,
a remnant of what pro-Russian rebel forces said was a failed attempt by Ukrainian forces to push into rebel-held territory a few
days after a shelling attack left 30 dead in that port city.
With a cease-fire in shreds, pro-Russian separatist forces mounting regular new attacks and the Ukrainian military struggling
to rebound from losses at the Donetsk airport last week, eastern Ukraine is seeing by far the heaviest fighting since August. Thunderous
artillery blasts could be heard from several directions Monday in the largely isolated city of Donetsk.
The Ukrainian government declared a state of emergency in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, the areas controlled by the rebels,
and put the entire country on high alert. In Brussels, at the request of the Ukrainian government, the ambassadors from 28 NATO nations
were set to meet on Monday to discuss the situation, the first such gathering since August.
Separatist leaders have said they had no choice last week but to end the shaky cease-fire, which had been in effect since
September, and begin offensives to push back Ukrainian forces attacking rebel-held cities.
Ukrainian military officials said the rebel attacks followed a prolonged buildup of heavy weaponry and troops from Russia, something
the Kremlin vociferously denies. However, Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, had some harsh words for the Ukrainian military,
which he derided as a tool of the West.
On a visit to St. Petersburg, Russia, he said that men were fleeing to Russia rather than become "cannon fodder" in Ukraine's
military. "In essence, this is not an army," he said. "This is a foreign legion - in this particular case NATO's foreign legion,
which of course does not pursue the objective of serving Ukraine's national interests."
Ukrainian officials said that seven of their soldiers had been killed and at least two dozen were wounded in Monday's fighting.
There were reports of some deaths and many casualties in rebel-held regions, but officials there offered no estimates. In all, United
Nations human rights officials have said, more than 5,000 people have been killed since fighting started in eastern Ukraine early
last year.
The key problem is that Ukraine became a satellite of EU, which does not want to pay any money and all it wants is a market for
EU goods and cheap work force. The USA are destroying the country while pursuing their imperial ambitions. Nobody is interested in real
independence or economic revival of Ukraine. In both cases the county is viewed as neo-colony, not as an independent state. And compradors
that are now running the country are completely subservient to the West.
Insurgents in Donbas have also their own truth. They are fighting against a fascist junta in Kyiv. They are repeating over and
over again to Ukrainians: do not send your sons to our territory. They will be killed. And they were killed, including in the surrealistic,
Armageddon-style futuristic decors of the Donetsk airport. When I watch videos of interviews of these Ukrainian soldiers captured by
Donbas insurgency, I feel such a deep sorrow. As Bezler, one of the leaders of the insurgency, said, these simple guys–kolkhozniki (peasants)
and workers–are taken from their ploughs and their machine tools and driven like cattle to fight against "Russian terrorists".
The Ukrainian President recently stated that he will restore the 'Ukrainianness' in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. What
'Ukrainianness' does he mean? A European one, to which western Ukraine believes to have belonged all throughout its history? Judging
by his speeches, this is what Poroshenko means.
Commentary By Halyna Mokrushyna, published on Counterpunch Jan. 23, 2015
What is truth? Can it be absolute? There is a saying in Ukrainian which says: "Everybody has her/his own truth".
Ukrainians have their own truth – they are fighting a war against imperialist Russia, against "Rascists"(a play on words – Russia
plus fascists). A patriotic drive sweeps across the country: people collect money to buy equipment and uniform for their sons, husbands,
brothers who are going to the east to fight in war. Ordinary Ukrainians, whose earnings have been cut in half by inflation and a
nearly fifty per cent depreciation of the national currency, are sending text messages to urge donations to support the Ukrainian
army.
The high command of the Ukrainian army sends the sons of the Ukrainian nation to the meat grinder in Donbas [the region of southeast
Ukraine where the war is raging] unprepared, underequipped and ignorant about the current situation on the battlefield. Those who
present themselves to the recruitment centers are told they must buy their own ammunition.
Agents of the Russian secret police, the FSB, are said to be blending into the crowds of relatives and friends of new recruits,
giving out free alcohol in the conscription lineups, trying to make the new recruits drunk and unfit for military service. Agents
of the FSB are everywhere, even in the National Bank of Ukraine. According to the head of the Security Service of Ukraine, Valentyn
Nalyvaichenko, around 200 FSB agents are working on destabilizing the foreign exchange market of Ukraine, sending the national Ukrainian
currency, the hryvnia, into a tailspin.
Insurgents in Donbas have also their own truth. They are fighting against a fascist junta in Kyiv. They are repeating over
and over again to Ukrainians: do not send your sons to our territory. They will be killed. And they were killed, including in the
surrealistic, Armageddon-style futuristic decors of the Donetsk airport. When I watch videos of interviews of these Ukrainian soldiers
captured by Donbas insurgency, I feel such a deep sorrow. As Bezler, one of the leaders of the insurgency, said, these simple guys–kolkhozniki
(peasants) and workers–are taken from their ploughs and their machine tools and driven like cattle to fight against "Russian terrorists".
In the spring of last year, Ukrainian soldiers and Donbas rebels were sitting at the same table–eating the same food, drinking
the same vodka and singing the same songs. These are the words of one of the officers of the Ukrainian army, who was born in Donetsk.
He pronounced them during Skype talks with a leader of the insurgency, Alexei Mozghovoi, that were broadcast on the Internet. These
local talks were initiated by the Ukrainian side in the hope of finding a peaceful solution to this absurd, fratricide war. There
are other signs of Ukrainians reaching out to rebellious Donbas.
This war is absurd. When one watches videos of the ruins in Donetsk and interviews with local people, they are all saying: "We
do not want this war. Stop it!"
The Ukrainian President recently stated that he will restore the 'Ukrainianness' in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine.
What 'Ukrainianness' does he mean? A European one, to which western Ukraine believes to have belonged all throughout its history?
Judging by his speeches, this is what Poroshenko means.
In the law on special status of certain districts of Donetsk and Luhansk regions, adopted by the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) on
September 16, are spelled out answers to the demands of Donbas. Self government: people elect officials on all levels of municipal
and regional administration, and local officials "participate in the appointment of prosecutor general and judges". Regional economic
autonomy and the right to conduct "a trans-border" cooperation with "certain" regions and cities in Russia. The right to use Russian
and other minority languages in public and private life. Ukrainian state support of socio-economic development of the region. Finally,
the law also stated somewhat vaguely that the state guarantees that persons who "participated in the event [rebellion] on the territory
of Donetsk and Luhansk regions" will not be prosecuted.
This law is imperfect, imprecise and far from complete. "Certain districts", temporary status for three years… But the principles
stated in this law is what Ukraine needs if it wants to survive.
I received a letter from my close friend in Kyiv. She says that now Ukrainians care much less about material aspects of life.
Fundamental values, such as human life, love, and support came to the forefront. They watch on TV burials of Ukrainian soldiers,
young and old, without tears. They have become used to the bad news and inured to it.
This civil war is tragic and absurd. The Euromaidan movement in western Ukraine and the "Russian spring" response to it in eastern
Ukraine, then the Donetsk rebellion, were said to be about the same thing: government free of corruption, a socially-oriented state
and a life with dignity. Insurgents in Donetsk have stated on many occasions that they do not want to fight against fellow Ukrainians.
They are defending their land from people who intervened from the west. They did not start this war. Kyiv started it, masquerading
it as an "anti-terrorist" operation. Kyiv must stop it before Donbas is lost to Ukraine forever. All the tools are there. The only
thing lacking is an independent political will of the Ukrainian leadership.
What we see, instead, is an increasing militarization of Ukrainian official political discourse and the government budget. Millions
more are needed to buy weaponry, while Ukraine is on the brink of economic default. The Ukrainian police now has the right to apply
without warning physical force and firearms to those who are deemed "terrorists" or "separatists" by the law. The Ukrainian government
is waging a real war under the disguise of an "anti-terrorist operation". The Ukrainian army is continuing its indiscriminate shellings
of cities and towns in Donbas. New deaths of civilians, new destroyed houses: Horlivla, Stakhanov, Slavianosebsk. If this is a war
with Russia, why not declare it officially?
A "bloody pastor", Turcnynov, the secretary of the Council of National Security and Defense of Ukraine, came to Donetsk to take
personal command of Ukrainian warrior "cyborgs" heroically defending a Donetsk airport reduced by Ukraine to rubble and in the hands
of insurgency. I doubt Mr. Turchynov will be at the front line, or will lead the charge taking Ukrainian soldiers to victory.
Donetsk insurgents have declared themselves to be grandsons of Soviet soldiers who fought and won the Second World War. That is,
they will fight to the finish to repel any presence of fascism from their homeland. The Ukrainian leadership should heed these words.
Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal
to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda
involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization,
or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for
mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
Notable quotes:
"... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was
supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when
it can be blamed on the rebels.
Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring
the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling
with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that
try to point of the media hypocrisy.
Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal
to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda
involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization,
or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for
mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
Notable quotes:
"... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was
supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when
it can be blamed on the rebels.
Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring
the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling
with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that
try to point of the media hypocrisy.
The reason of the active participation of France in the current events related to repartitioning of the Middle East is clear - with
the collapse of the world colonial system collapsed so-called "Sykes - Picot" framework, which in the beginning of XX century defined
spheres of influence of Western powers in the region. In recent years, Paris put tremendous efforts in restoring its presence on the
African continent: it was due the initiative of France that Libya was practically wiped off the face of the earth. As a result of direct
French military intervention occurred coups and began a bloody war in Côte D'ivoire and Mali. No less aggressive French government behaves
in the Syria and Lebanon, which its traditionally considered its own colonies. Volume were written about the role the United States
and other Western powers in creation and nurturing long-term growth of terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, but it is difficult not
to note the special role of France in those events, especially its role in the incitement of the current civil conflict in Syria. The
tragedy that spawned ISIL in the form in which we now know it.
France reports about the prevention of another terrorist attack, and it is possible that he also has Islamic footprint. Those
developments French authorities are trying to explain within the topic of freedom of speech and insult religious feelings, but we
must not forget that France has made a tremendous contribution to the strengthening of radical Islamists. Primarily by its participation
in the Syrian war.
An interesting coincidence: the day before the tragedy with the execution of cartoonists French President Francois Hollande, speaking
on radio France Inter, expressed regret that the French did not invaded Syria in 2013, when " the chemical weapons there were used,"
In the same program, answering the question whether France will cooperate with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the fight against
ISIL, Hollande said that it is better to avoid such relationships.
"The presidents Sarkozy and Hollande literally forced the French diplomatic corps and intelligence to falsify data,
which served as a justification for the overthrow of Assad"
However, not all will find such a coincidence revealing. Because of the abundance of people willing to take responsibility for
the terrorist act, the world community still has doubts about the chief culprit. The ownership of extremists now is loudly disputed
al-Qaeda and separated from it the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). We still do not know about the results of the investigation
yet, and any of them can be the perpetrator, but we should think about how the powerful organization which was able to capture half
of Iraq and a third of Syria emerged and why there is a French footprint in this whole story.
The reason of the active participation of France in the current events related to repartitioning of the Middle East is clear -
with the collapse of the world colonial system collapsed so-called "Sykes - Picot" framework, which in the beginning of XX century
defined spheres of influence of Western powers in the region. In recent years, Paris put tremendous efforts in restoring its presence
on the African continent: it was due the initiative of France that Libya was practically wiped off the face of the earth. As a result
of direct French military intervention occurred coups and began a bloody war in Côte D'ivoire and Mali. No less aggressive French
government behaves in the Syria and Lebanon, which its traditionally considered its own colonies. Volume were written about the role
the United States and other Western powers in creation and nurturing long-term growth of terrorist organizations like al-Qaida, but
it is difficult not to note the special role of France in those events, especially its role in the incitement of the current civil
conflict in Syria. The tragedy that spawned ISIL in the form in which we now know it.
With the coming to power of the younger Assad France tried to restore its influence in the country, proposing to the Syrian government
reform package. A key innovation was the re-equipment of the Syrian army, reducing its number, rejection of military-technical cooperation
with Russia and China and the shift towards France of all programs of the acquisition of military equipment. The French plan had
been developed with the involvement of closely associated with the Saudi elite and personally Jacques Chirac Lebanese Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri, It was rejected by Assad, A move that predetermined the further anti-Syrian strategy of the French authorities. Another
worry for French was the desire of Damascus toward the establishment of closer economic relations with Turkey, In general, the death
sentence to the government of Bashar al-Assad was signed much earlier than the beginning of the so-called "Arab spring".
Analyst STRATFOR Scott Stewart called France "the most consistent supporter of tough measures against Syria from all European
countries".
Over the centuries the methods, in fact, has not changed - still the same game on the contradictions of ethnic and religious minorities.
Hoping to regain lost positions in independent and secular Syrian Republic Paris creates simulacra - prototypes neo-colonial administration,
privacy for this runaway Syrian officials and saturating money and weapons dummy patterns émigré opposition. It is no coincidence
that in Paris found refuge the richest man in Syria, the oligarch and former Vice President Abdel Halim Khaddam, cherishing the dream
of return to spit on the grave of Bashar al-Assad" (back in 2006, he announced the creation of "the Syrian government in exile").
It was in Paris with the help of French secret service defected the son of a former defense Minister, commander of the elite 10th
brigade of the Republican guard General Manaf Tlass, publicly, through the media, thanking the government of France for the organization
of his escape. Paris is now the center of attraction Syrian losers - including the new political alignment of clowns calling themselves
the National coalition of Syrian revolutionary and opposition forces (NCSROF). It is not surprising that France became the first
state to officially recognize this "government in exile" and organized a public fundraising for the organization in the "liberated
from Assad" (read: occupied by insurgents) areas. And again, it was France at the beginning of the Syrian revolt initiated the creation
of the so-called "group of friends of Syria", and de facto anti-Syrian coalition consisting of 11 countries (UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Jordan, Italy, Germany, France, Egypt, USA and UK), which today plays first fiddle in the conflict. For any couple of years
by the efforts of this coalition was established mobilization structure which was capable to destabilize the situation in Syria and
ultimately maintain a full-fledged civil war.
France is also the initiator and the lobbyist of all anti-Syrian resolutions in the UN security Council. Several attempts to legitimize
intervention in Syria through the security Council faced a Russian veto, which, however, did not prevent the Western powers (especially
the US and the same France) to provide both overt and covert support to Syrian anti-government groups. After France took on the post
of the Chairman, the Paris several times brokered the sending of the UN observer mission in Syria. In addition, in June 2012, Hollande
said about the need for tougher sanctions against the Syrian authorities including the use of military force, and the head of the
French Foreign Affairs Minister Laurent Fabius called on to create over the Republic no-fly zone based on Libyan model, calling the
Syrian government "clique killers" and accusing Russia (followed by U.S. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton) in supplying Damascus
weapons.
The basis for military intervention by the French President tried to make a massacre in al-Houla, blaming the Syrian army, but
then that failed it has found a new, long-running fake pretext for intervention based on supposed use by Damascus of chemical weapons.
Swinging this agenda and using support of London, Paris began to push the subject of the abolition of the European embargo on arms
supplies to Syrian rebels. Under France pressure at the end of February 2013, the EU Council soften the embargo, allowing to put
in SAR "non-lethal goods", including armored vehicles, body armor, communications equipment and night vision devices. A little later,
without waiting for a harmonized EU decision to lift the restrictions, Paris announced the readiness of their own, regardless of
the position of other EU member States to arm Syrian insurgents by restoring the balance of forces in the conflict between the regime
of Bashar al-Assad and the opposition. "It is our duty to help the coalition and the Free Syrian army in all possible ways," said
Hollande.
Messages Syrian rebels on regular destruction of government aircraft testify about the possession of modern air defenses (formally,
they are not offensive but defensive weapons and are not covered by sanctions ), and military experts clarify: we are talking about
the French Mistral MANPADS. Delivery militants communications, protected from interception, the French authorities have acknowledged
before, from the very beginning of the crisis. Here it is worth remembering that in the case of Libya Paris have violated the UN
security Council resolution banning supply of weapons. And in the recently published book, the ideologist of the French neo-colonialism
Bernard Henri levy directly says that the first list of required weapons, the defector - General Abdul Fatah Younis handed personally
to President Sarkozy on the first day of their meeting at the Elysee Palace.
In may 2014 Laurent Fabius said in Washington on 14 cases of alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria since October 2013 (including
chemical attack in Eastern Guta and the village of Kafr Zeta in the province of Hama), attributing them all, without exception, the
Syrian army. But at the same time expressed regret that the United States is not launched in August 2013 rocket attacks on government
facilities, because it would change many things." In parallel, France tried to push through the UN security Council a draft resolution
transmitting the case about the situation with the civil war in Syria to the international criminal court "to deal with war crimes
and crimes against humanity". And as you can guess the accused party is only the government.
After a chemical attack near Damascus, which looked like a rough, but very timely provocation, France was the only European state,
which unconditionally supported of the USA and have expressed a willingness to undertake military intervention without a UN mandate,
even after a supposed ally, the UK said "no" to this initiative in the Parliament.
In an exclusive interview with the French newspaper Le Monde, August 20, 2014 French President for the first time recognized directly
in supplying terrorists with weapons:
"Who told you that we are not supplying weapons to the rebels, that is, the democratic opposition? The international community
bears a great responsibility for what is happening in Syria. If two years ago steps were taken to organize the transfer of power,
we wouldn't have gotten ISIL. If a year ago the world powers react to the use of Bashar al-Assad, chemical weapons, we would not
need to make a terrible choice between a dictator and a terrorist. The rebels deserve our active support."
According to available all of the same Le Monde, the supply of arms was carried out secretly and included machine guns of 12.7
mm caliber, grenade launchers, armor, night vision goggles and communications. Formally, the assistance was directed rebel detachments
which were members of the "free Syrian army", however, soon after the start of delivery, according to the French side, the fighters
of the Islamic front looted armories of FSA on the Syrian-Turkish border. However, this has not affected the readiness of Paris to
arm Syrian anti-government forces and forth. "We must not weaken the support that we had these rebels is the only one who shares
democratic sentiments," said the President in August 2014.
In published recently, but has already become a sensation book journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Secno "Road to Damascus:
the black dossier Franco-Syrian relations" describes how the presidents Sarkozy and Hollande literally forced the French diplomatic
corps and intelligence to falsify data, which served as a justification for the overthrow of Assad. In particular, information about
the use of government forces of Syria's chemical weapons was falsified. On the direct orders of Hollande's special adviser of the
Ministry of defense Jean-Yves Le Drian was "editing" database of the main intelligence Directorate and the General staff of France
about the chemical attack in the area of Guta. This sarin attack gave rise to large-scale propaganda campaign in the press that accompanied
the efforts of the French authorities to lobby through the UN authorization for use of military force.
One of the heroes of the book, former French Ambassador to Syria Eric Chevallier warned the Elysee Palace about what is the consequence
of the underestimation of the strength of positions of the Syrian government in their own country: "the Assad Regime will not fall,
its position is strong, people will not turn away from him." But then foreign Minister Alain Juppe directly said to the French Ambassador
in Damascus: "We don't care about your information it uninteresting. Bashar Assad must go, and he will go".
It is extremely significant that the efforts made by France to overthrow the legitimate government in Syria are far greater than
the measures taken by the West against the spread on the Middle East militants of the Islamic state, whose crimes against humanity,
unlike the mythical crimes of the Syrian President, today the world is watching live. Apparently, because the enemy of my enemy may
not be exactly friend, but certainly is a valuable ally.
While we share the grief with French society, I am reminded about the words of the Minister of internal Affairs of France Manuel
Valls that hundreds of Islamists with French passports today fighting in Mali, Yemen, Somalia and Syria. It is naive to assume that,
in gross violation of international law in favor of the right forces, initiating several coups at the same time, cherishing and nurturing
terrorist ulcers around the world, it is possible to insure its own citizens from tragic incidents like the recent terrorist attack
in the staff of the satirical magazine.
The trouble is not only that captured now by ISIL Syrian (and Iraq) territories have a highest concentration of animal cruelty
on Earth (which includes is the reported execution of 13 teenagers for watching football game). The trouble is that this hotbed of
Islamic extremism is spreading and has already reached other continents. ISIL very professional campaigning on the Internet and attracts
new movement supporters as well as promote radicalization peaceful followers of Islam.
ISIL now is a training camp for European Muslims, from which they are returning to the EU as "dogs of war". ISIL is a continuous
source of violence. ISIL is now a real force, the brand name. and it's by-and-large due to French efforts.
The movement would not be what it now is without weapons and logistical support from its allies, including France, and the Libyan
opposition. They allow it which became a real force, which the West (and especially France) carefully nurtured.
In other words ISIL is the Golem that has returned to hunt its Creator, who naively decided, that it can be controlled.
If one were to ask the remaining residents of Donetsk, even those who have been loyal to the Kiev government, whether they supported
this new rebel advance, they would say yes, Mr. Menendez said - and not necessarily for political reasons.
"They just want to push the front lines out of the city," he said, "to stop the shelling on them."
Lüders replies that he has reached the conclusion that the Europeans have finally realized that the US interests in the Ukraine
are not the same as theirs, and in particular the heightening of tensions with Russia that will result in serious economic consequences.
He talks of the reduction of trade between Germany and Russia by 50% over the past 6 months, which has caused financial losses of tens
of billions of Euros, whereas the USA has comparatively very little trade with Russia. So, he says, the EU is suffering far more than
the US and it is the EU that is providing financial help to the Ukraine, which is a bottomless pit and, furthermore, it is spending
money on waging war in the east.
German expert Michael Lüders speaks of 500 Blackwater US mercenaries active in E. Ukraine and that Kiev is determined to fulfill
a military solution to the separatist problem there:
Ukraine-Krise ARD erwähnen Blackwater-Söldner
[The Ukraine Csisis: ARD speaks of Blackwater mercenaries.]
He says that the Yukies haven't made this decision by themselves as they are essentially insolvent and have, therefore, no
money in order to engage in a lengthy war in the east. Because of this, and also because the EU does not want to see an escalation
of hostilities, the Kiev regime has turned to Washington, whence 500 Blackwater mercenaries have come to the Ukrainian regime's
aide. This is dangerous, he says, because this could lead to escalation that might get out of control if either side decides that
it has to pull out all the stops in order to win.
The presenter then says that this must indicate that there is no longer a dialogue between the EU and Washington.
Lüders replies that he has reached the conclusion that the Europeans have finally realized that the US interests in the
Ukraine are not the same as theirs, and in particular the heightening of tensions with Russia that will result in serious economic
consequences. He talks of the reduction of trade between Germany and Russia by 50% over the past 6 months, which has caused financial
losses of tens of billions of Euros, whereas the USA has comparatively very little trade with Russia. So, he says, the EU is suffering
far more than the US and it is the EU that is providing financial help to the Ukraine, which is a bottomless pit and, furthermore,
it is spending money on waging war in the east.
He just goes on to say that the Ukraine will not negotiate and accuses Russia of being the aggressor etc, etc. He then says
that it all boils down to the EU telling the US that it will not tolerate the unleashing of a war in Central Europe – a war distant
from the American homeland – and that a middle ground should be found – not that he's saying that Russia is beyond criticism –
and that a diplomatic solution be found. He talks about the dangers of such people as Yatsenyuk, who, as regards his recent speech
in Berlin is trying to rewrite history. He reckons that there should no more discussions with people such as "Yats" and corporation
with others in the Ukraine should be sought.
"... Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport? ..."
"... You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles, *explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you? ..."
Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical
stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport?
After the fiasco of the Graun/BBC trumpeting Ukrainian's supposed victory just before they
were crushed at Ilovaisk you should have learned your lesson.
But, once again you have made yourselves look like idiots, and once again Russian and
Novorossiyan news sources have been proved to be accurate
Vermithrax -> ShermanPotter 23 Jan 2015 07:38
In my youth the USSR stood at the West German border with a 13-1 tank superiority. Then
they were a threat. Now they are hundreds of miles further east with a fraction of the forces
at their disposal. They are being used as a convenient bogeyman for policies that do not
benefit Europe one jot. They have all the oil and gas Europe needs without the fundamentalist
religion. In many ways now they are a natural ally, especially as the alternative is that
China will benefit from it.
I suppose there will always be some Grima Wormtongue's who think being America's fawning
client state is a good idea.
unclesmurf ijustwant2say 22 Jan 2015 17:32
Putin, is being attacked by the same mechanism that has been attacking governments around
the globe for the last seventy years. The one described here:
And of course the do not care *at all* about Putin. What they care about, is that how they
may get their hands on the huge natural resources of the vast slab of the planet called
Russia. You see, Putin, the bad guy, is keeping everything PUBLIC, with the earnings of
everything, oil, gas, weapons, going to the Russian state and nor to the bank accounts of very
few, insanely rich individuals.
But I assume you are ok with the UK privatizing British Aerospace, and having now to pay a
huge surcharge to the shareholders of QinetiQ. Simply to buy the *same* weapons, designed by
the *same* engineers and built by the *same* technicians. But No: "We HAVE to privatize it".
I also assume you are ok with the trains here in the UK being a complete ripoff, because
they are of course private, even if it is the government who pays for the track and even if it
they private rail companies are subsidized (as if the huge ticket prices were not sufficient)
by the Government, to the tune of BILLIONS annually.
But No: "We have to privatize it".
You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles,
*explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you?
thingreen -> edwardrice 22 Jan 2015 17:28
Interesting, though that working 'class' people make up bulk of soldiers is not exactly a
startling revelation in any war - if you looked at the casualty lists for our anti-terrorist
operations against the freedom fighters of PIRA you'd see a similar make up of people who I
suspect many here would consider as dupes and economic conscripts.
Simon311 Damocles59 23 Jan 2015 07:31
How are they "so-called" rebels?
It is clear these areas are beyond Kiev' s control and it is time to acknowledge this.
And If Abkhazia and Ossetia are "basket cases" why are they not asking to join the
wonderful nation of Georgia?
Simon311 Robert Looren de Jong 23 Jan 2015 07:29
Whatever it is clear that the people in these regions are not going to be reconciled to the
Kiev Government.
Time to recognise this and end the fighting.
wombat123 -> Custodis 23 Jan 2015 07:26
The people labeled "rebels" started off by refusing to recognize the leaders of the coup as
a lawful government, which in fact, they were not under the Ukrainian constitution. These
people included most of the police officers in eastern Ukraine. The killing started when the
supporters of the coup came east and attacked those refusing to accept the coup so the
fighting did not start with a rebellion as the term is normally understood.
It is perverse to label those who oppose the violent overthrow of lawful authority as
"rebels". It was clear that most people in the east thought the coup was a criminal act and
its leaders were not the lawful government. It is quite clear that it was the supporters of
the coup who are the aggressors and they came east and attacked people who did not accept the
coup as lawful.
Some of the first combat started when supporters of the coup started attacking police in
the east. Were the police officers "rebels" for opposing the armed overthrow of their
country's constitutional order and elected government? "Rebel" does not seem like an honest
term for someone in that situation.
DCarter -> Gaz0007 23 Jan 2015 07:06
The USSR collapsed largely because it's people, particularly in the non-Russian
republics, desired the same rights and freedoms as people in Western Europe and North
America...all of whom managed to maintain those freedoms throughout the Cold War by forming
a military alliance called NATO.
In retrospect though those freedoms were illusory, or at best transient, and all we did was
to trade domination by a party apparatus for domination by a corporate oligarchy. And it is in
those corporate interests that NATO now acts, not in the interests of the people if Eastern
Europe or Western Europe or even North America.
Solongmariane -> Spiffey 23 Jan 2015 07:01
DNR is getting experienced with the ceasefires from KIEV. It's just asking a time-out to
recuoerate losses, to send re-inforcements, and to get new weapons. It was so at 6 sept, and
19 dec. Not again, such time out.
SHappens 23 Jan 2015 06:42
The main pro-Russian rebel leader in eastern Ukraine says his troops are on the offensive
and he does not want truce talks with Kiev anymore.
At lest this has he merit to be clear. No more hypocrisy as Kiev never intended to respect
any ceasefire but used this time to regroup.
On the other hands, when you read this below, the dice are loaded and the US goals is war
against Russia whatever on the ground. This is a dialogue of the deaf.
---
"This tactic of avoiding questions about what the Ukrainian government is doing by pointing to
Russia is becoming increasingly obvious," the journalist said.
Here is an excerpt from the briefing:
Gayane Chichakyan: Do the actions of the Ukrainian government comply with the Minsk
agreement?
Jen Psaki: In general Russia has illegally – and Russian-backed separatists have illegally
– come into Ukraine, including Donetsk. Ukraine has a responsibility and an absolute right to
defend itself. We certainly expect both sides to abide by the Minsk agreements. We have not
seen that happen, we've seen a lot of talk, not a lot of backup from the Russian side.
GC: I am specifically asking about the actions of the Ukrainian government. Can you give a
more definitive answer, whether or not they comply with the Minsk agreements?
JP: You are not talking about a specific incident, I think I'll leave it at what I said.
GC: With the Minsk agreement, do they comply? You pass a judgment that Russia is not
complying with the agreement, can you assess whether Ukraine is complying?
JP: I listed a range of specific ways Russia is not complying.
GC: Under the agreement sides must avoid deploying and using heavy artillery. Isn't it what
the Ukrainian government is doing right now?
JP: First of all, let's start again with the fact that Russia has illegally intervened in
Ukraine and come into a country that was a sovereign country. So I am not sure that you are
proposing that a sovereign country doesn't have the right to defend themselves.
GC:I am asking specifically about the actions of the Ukrainian government, you are veering
off.
The Ukrainian army can not win a war against the federalists backed by Russia. The Ukrainian government is broke and
will not get bailed out. Why is it still trying to wage war?
My impression is that the U.S. is still
pushing the Ukrainian government to continue its useless efforts to make any Europe-led ceasefire agreement with Russia null an
void and to thereby keep the sanctions against Russia in place. Cold War 2.0 with proxy fighting in Ukraine is the U.S. plan to keep
Russia from challenging its me-and-only-me-first global position.
Today the Ukrainian government finally admitted, three days after it happened, that it has lost its foothold at the Donetsk airport.
Its position at the airport covered the artillery position the Ukrainian army has to the north-west of Donetsk. Those artillery units
were
shelling the federalist held city and the federalists attacked the airport to push them further away.
According to statistics provided to VICE News by the morgue, 157 casualties have been recorded in Donetsk since the beginning
of January, with 119 of these occurring in the last two weeks.
It took quite a while but the federalist finally managed to capture the whole airport. Several counterattacks by the Ukrainian
army were repelled and the counterattacking forces were destroyed.
Parts of the airport had been held for months by the "volunteer" right sector radicals that are now the "National Guard" of Ukraine.
Their number three on the election list was captured by the federalists and their leader Dmytro Yarosh was wounded when he visited
their airport position.
There is also some indecisive fighting further south near Mariupol and fighting in the north east near Lukhansk with the federalist
making some slight advance. Still the
general
map has not changed much over the last months.
The Ukrainian army continues to mobilize and, with the help of some NATO members, is building up more forces. I doubt that whatever
they come up with will have the motivation,
training, equipment or leaders needed to be successful on the battlefield.
Grandma's won't do. The soldiers on the other side have proven to be better in all aspects. Despite repeated claims form the
Ukrainian government that 1,000, 2,000 or 9,000 Russian regular soldiers and hundreds of Russian tanks are fighting with the federalists
none have been documented.
The Ukrainian army can not win a war against the federalists backed by Russia. The Ukrainian government is broke and
will not get bailed out. Why is it still trying to wage
war? My impression is that the U.S. is still
pushing the Ukrainian government to continue its useless efforts to make any Europe-led ceasefire agreement with Russia null
an void and to thereby keep the sanctions against Russia in place. Cold War 2.0 with proxy fighting in Ukraine is the U.S. plan to
keep Russia from challenging its me-and-only-me-first global position.
The whole conflict seem to be based on more long-term
plans:
American soldiers will deploy to Ukraine this spring to begin training four companies of the Ukrainian National Guard, the head
of US Army Europe Lt. Gen Ben Hodges said during his first visit to Kiev on Wednesday.
The number of troops heading to the Yavoriv Training Area near the city of L'viv - which is about 40 miles from the Polish
border - is still being determined, however.
Hmm. The Ukrainian National Guard mainly consists of the fascist units responsible for the Maidan fighting that led to the coup
against the Ukrainian government. Lviv is the west Ukrainian capitol of the Ukrainian fascists. Why would the U.S. military train
those units near Lviv when the regular Ukrainian army is also obviously in urgent need of training? Why train them in spring when
the conflict, with some good will from both sides, could be over in a month or two?
Experience tells that whenever the U.S. announces official training will start then and there that unofficial training is already
ongoing. I have zero doubt that some U.S. special forces, probably under the guise of "contractors", are already training semi-irregular
Ukrainian units. As conventional warfare is unlike to help the Ukrainian government's cause those units may prepare for other means.
There are indeed signs that partisan warfare against the federalists is already happening. Today some mortars fired at civilian
areas in Donetsk hit a bus and killed at least 13 people. Unlike regular artillery mortars are rather short ranged weapons. Those
who fired them likely did so from inside the generally federalist held, but only lightly controlled areas. Also Alec Luhn, reporting
for the Guardian from Donetsk, tweeted today:
Partisan war? Dnipro-1 battalion says pro-Ukraine partisans in Luhansk region blew up a train carrying coal to Russia
http://nr2.com.ua/News/...
If what I suspect is happening, that Ukrainian government semi-regular units are waging a guerrilla campaign in federalist held
regions, then the obvious response by the federalists will be the dispatch of similar units to Ukrainian government held areas. That
means war in Kiev and beyond.
In the early 1990's I remember thinking that a new northern hemisphere of peace and prosperity was coming into being with the
collapse of the USSR. Was I mistaken. I didn't anticipate what I now can clearly see: that the US Deep State will not allow
peaceful development of the non-Western world unless it is in control and writes the rules in its favor.
The West is a leech on the rest of world. It creates chaos where it cannot exert its control. It has violated every decent
principal inherited from its ancestors and is not worthy of that inheritance. Its people live in a temple of cognitive dissonance
sustained by the evil within its Deep State.
Will the West will be able to change direction to avoid leading the world into a catastrophe? The time is coming when the coalescing
East will be able to draw a line that the West should not cross. That will be the moment of truth. Will the 'exceptional and indispensable'
US wake up and back off or plunge ahead like another people that thought they were 'uber alles'?
Oui | Jan 22, 2015 1:24:14 PM | 4
The Brzezinski doctine, Afghanistan or Georgia all over again. Unfortunately, NATO got Europe involved on the wrong side of
the economic war. In the short term, Obama and his Wall Street minions want the TTIP pushed through the EU before 2016. The US
corporate lobby already succeeded in gaining a GMO foothold in Europe.
Mike Maloney | Jan 22, 2015 1:53:09 PM | 7
It will be interesting to see if NATO eventually joins the U.S. training mission in Lviv, ground zero for Right Sector. Maybe
then German prosecutors can investigate Brussels as they are the hapless Pegida leader Lutz Bachmann for posting a picture of
himself on his Facebook page impersonating Hitler.
"German law forbids the display of Nazi symbols and punishes incitement and hate speech."
Ukraine is in default, as is Greece (defaulted 2x, saved by bailouts, coming up for a third round, maybe some of the foreign
banks were paid off so now a GREXIT can be contemplated.)
Neither the US or the EU want to pay for Ukr., the IMF actually shouldn't even consider it, against their rules. They all know
that what they give / lend vanishes down a black hole, stolen on reception, is not ever accounted for, and they can fire bankers
etc., such as Gontareva Head Bankster since a few months, to no avail, nothing will change.
The second problem is what is shunted if it goes anywhere, is to Russia, for energy debts, and continuing energy delivery.
Because if ppl freeze they will not only go out on the streets with shouted slogans and banners, but they will shoot to kill or
use whatever is to hand, and sacrifice the front lines.
This whole story has to be top in the annals of giant rip-offs, it is incredible.
I can relate. I remember having similar feelings - but now I realize I was wrong about everything else too. The Soviet Union
was an Important check against capitalist imperialist ambitions. Nothing stands in their way now except their tripping over their
own bottomless immorality and the gravity of sober real world conditions, which will pull downs their hot air and helium inflated
balloons, but will take everyone and everything else down with them
Martin Finnucane | Jan 22, 2015 2:43:40 PM | 12
Perhaps the (para)military training of Right Sector/National Guard "soldiers" is really an example of the usual US-style "democracy
building." RS is not only a movement but is actually a formal political party. As a political party it commands only a small percentage
of the popular vote, even with Russophones and other "undesirables" excluded from the polls.
Yet its energy, youth, international support, and proclivity to violence allows it to punch well above its weight. Perhaps
the Kiev junta's US/NATO sponsors want to keep it that way, in part by giving some RS cadres the skills necessary (in intelligence,
sabotage, assassination, etc.) to act as enforcers amongst the regime itself.
I sense that Poroshenko is frightened of some of his own people and is acutely aware of what after all really got him where
he is. I also sense that his US/NATO handlers are leery of him, since some form of rapprochement with Russia would be in his (and
the Ukraine's) best interests right now.
Thus the RS/NG has a useful role of holding Poroshenko's feet to the fire, the welfare of the nation be damned. I wouldn't
trade places with Poroshenko for anything.
Lone Wolf | Jan 22, 2015 3:37:40 PM | 14
@b
It took quite a while but the federalist finally managed to capture the whole airport. Several counterattacks by the Ukrainian
army were repelled and the counterattacking forces were destroyed.
FYI, the "cyborgs", as these neo-Nazi rag-tag "army" got to be known, are being "repaired" by doctors in Donetsk.
The "cyborgs" on repair got luckier than some of their captured partners in crime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6TbpeZkwtI
The US/Eurostan, ehem, "strategy" for Ukraine 2015 will be to train the useless Ukrainian army to NATO standards, with the
old purpose of making Ukraine NATO's front-line state to the east of Eurostan, keeping the fighting going against DPR and LPR,
justifying it all on the "Russian invasion/aggression."
In purely military terms, Ukraine has been defeated, the initiative is back with the federalists, and no NATO training can
offset the current balance. Ukraine's rag-tag army has been routed again and again, their "efficiency" good to kill civilians,
bomb hospital, kindergartens, public transportation, and so on.
The Kiev puppeteers, Yats et al, are only the face of the masquerade, while the CIA/MI5 et al run the show behind the curtains.
As long as the Russians stay away from full intervention, bankrupt Ukraine will have to, eventually, bargain for a political/diplomatic
settlement.
An ex-Senior MIT (Turkish intelligence) official, working on Syria during early stages of the armed uprising and handed over
Hussain Harmoush who was believed to be mastermind behind bloody massacre in Jisr ash-Shougur in 2011 to Syrian authorities breaks
the silence and exposes their role in the war.
* I didn't gave Harmoush to Syrian government for money, I did it for may conscience, we knew that he killed 138 people in
Jisr ash-Shougur but MIT attached importance to him, this was disturbing me.
• Thousands of people from different countries were coming to Turkey with no legal papers, and Turkish officials helped them to
cross the border.
• Turkish port of Iskenderun was used as an hub to arm the jihadists. Ships unload the weapons to Iskenderun port where they were
load to lorries and sent to border.
• Leading Syrian oppositions figures continued their anti-Alawite rhetoric in Hatay. They told Syrian refugees that be careful
about Alawite doctors and nurses etc.
• I am ready to expose the role of Turkish government in any international court. I am ready to give testimony as a witness. "
jfl | Jan 22, 2015 5:31:18 PM | 19
b:
'federalists' ... what a difference that word makes! Thanks. Might be too late though, or very, very hard to revive.
I wish the distinction between West Ukrainian conscripts and US/DE funded, trained, and armed NAZIs were more starkly delineated
by the federalists.
@2
Please repeat that statement in any and all forums you may visit. Americans must become conscious of how much 'ou' county is
hated and despised by ordinary people throughout the world ... but especially by those in its 'allied' countries in the West.
Ukraine is Yet Another Answer to the question, "Why do they hate us?"
@3
There's nothing 'hilarious' in any of this, that I can see. You ought to sign your name to your posts. It helps inhibit such
remarks.
@5
They're being trained in Lviv, Lvov because that's where the NAZIs are?
@10
You are so right. You'd think the Germans of all people would have discovered how much this costs and who ...
@11
I can't relate.
@17
And he or his homeboy 'reminded' us all that it was the Ukrainians (must have been an OUN unit?) that liberated Auschwitz
@10
... but I guess the cost is part of the equation. They're going for broke - with all of the riches of a devastated Russia as
the payoff, aren't they? The payback will still be orders of magnitude greater, in their overheated brains and stone cold hearts.
jfl | Jan 22, 2015 5:35:25 PM | 20
jfl | Jan 22, 2015 5:35:25 PM | 20
@10
... but I guess the cost is part of the equation. They're going for broke - with all of the riches of a devastated Russia as the
payoff, aren't they? The payback will still be orders of magnitude greater, in their overheated brains and stone cold hearts.
597 Ukrainian soldiers died at the airport so far - and those are just the bodies found so far near the airport and Peski,
44 POWs, 49 tanks destroyed, 49 BMP's and BTR's - just destroyed by DPR, wounded evacuated - over 1,500 (Ukrainians).
Large quantities of American weapons, a lot of religious literature in European languages. Found bodies in NATO uniform of
contractors from foreign private military companies.
Today there were 19 violations of ceasefire - 13 dead (on a Donetsk trolley). No dead among the militia.
Andoheb | Jan 22, 2015 5:44:41 PM | 22
Ukraine has apparently defaulted on several billions owed to China.
KMF | Jan 22, 2015 7:24:22 PM | 26
Hard Pounding in Donbass: https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/hard-pounding-in-donbass/
james | Jan 22, 2015 7:38:18 PM | 27
b - thanks. the ukees kept using the airport to lob bombs on the people of donetsk. now they have to use longer range equipment
and as you suggest near the end of your post, a guerilla. type campaign which leads you to believe this will go to kiev...you
might be right. the support from the west will continue as the prime objective of isolating russia requires no stop to the war.
the support for right sektor turned national gaurd from nato countries is interesting juxapositioned next to the commemerations
set for poland.. how do these people sleep properly at night? i guess lying to themselves is the main requirement.. more security
knowing others are lying the same bs way..
martin @12. thanks for your comments. porky if he had a brain, would quit.. i guess he feels he has a better chance at protecting
his money as leader.. hard to know what lies he tells himself to keep on going, or to keep up with appearances..
Lone Wolf | Jan 22, 2015 8:30:15 PM | 28
@lysias@25
Washington Post: Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a wily king who embraced limited reform, dies.
Good riddance, problem is he left his evil children with billions of $$ spreading the Wahhabi trash all over the world. So,
he "embraced limited reform" according to the WAPO? That mouthpiece of the Washington establishment has no shame. On another note,
Abdullah is leaving SA in a very fragile position vis-a-vis his US masters and protectors, who are now looking so strongly in
the direction of their arch-enemies, Iran, the Saudis are playing with the idea of Russia as a strategic ally.
A very special place in hell is waiting for Abdullah, a main financier of Wahhabi terror on the planet.
jfl at 19 --
That Lvov has a good ideological profile for recruiting helps. But perhaps an added consideration is, a base further to the
east might be threatened or even lost by an advance.
rufus magister | Jan 22, 2015 9:23:49 PM | 31
I think Anon. at 3 is indulging in a little gallows humor. I personally thought that the ChocoKing's statement, where he stated
9K Russian regulars were in the Ukr., but under cloaks of invisibility, added a certain air of levity to the proceedings.
Arius & 1968ES330, at 2 & 9, 11
I was quite active in the left in the 80-s & 90-s. There was a naive belief prior to the collapse of the Soviets that once
the demon of its existence was exorcised from the body politic of socialism, people would see the shiny happy sincerity and cleverness
of the Left and begin the march towards "true socialism" (variously defined).
So when the Union collapsed, I immediately braced myself for a rough ride. It was the counter-revolution that Trotsky predicted,
as the oligarchs used physical and economic violence to expropriate the collective property of the Soviet people.
The ideological and organizational weakness of the left is such that at present it is capable of little; the Great Recession
should have been a field day for any 3rd. rate socialist party. Instead, the far right has largely seized the field (hopeful exception
of Greece, ongoing success of Venezuala excepted)
You're right in noting that despite the manifest deficiencies of the Soviets, they were counterweight and could be counted
on to aid many progressive struggles (e.g., ANC and later via Cuba Angola & Mozambique vs. So. Afr.).
"What's different now is the US has descended essentially, into fascism and wages its dirty wars in the open. Also this is
the heartland of Europe. That Reagan and the war criminals of former years were never punished is what led us into this. " Well
said. What we used to quietly tolerate in our more disreputable clients (like in El Salvador) we now boast of as signs of our
"realism," "toughness," and "determination."
But not the first time in Europe, see our friends in Croatia.
And if I might say, Barflies, so far a very interesting and productive thread, (e.g., 14, 18 Mina & LW) I hope that I have
kept up.
"... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
"... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously
he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future
leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.
For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's
reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war.
After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of
Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.
Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57
That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war
party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow
"win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian
army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.
The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing
most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's
really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the
agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will
emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?
EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45
Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic
political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.
From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle --
to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.
EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38
Cargo 200 reports are all false?
They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same
statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000
Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that
not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively
identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that
could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything
I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers,
but that nobody denies.
Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34
Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC.
They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of
a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant
fascist gear, why worry?
Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The
National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching
behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people
wear is in the end less important that what they do.
The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the
riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the
shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this
should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS
insignia?
wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13
Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose
violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is
legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.
Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government
through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement
with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this
without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the
civil war but serious war crimes as well.
MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42
At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in
endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were
driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is
beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has
been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.
EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28
We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of
the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.
Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners
of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated
all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe
that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces
deployed.
At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more
than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts
that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and
associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing
some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.
A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will
not do.
Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12
I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view,
description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I
have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear
friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you
might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself
and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based
comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible
truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your
case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like
baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended
you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if
you provide some facts, I have not noticed
unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty
over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.
Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?
Here's one to try on
It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even
attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of
Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.
Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.
Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media
for Universities Project.
If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:
As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated
net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in
organized crime.
EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they
withdraw.
Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.
The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as
possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.
To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete
encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play
games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.
Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will
finally end this war.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48
The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took
blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th
brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost.
Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk
during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as
far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from
far range artillery.
Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015
Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and
maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!
EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns
stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a
happy ending!
That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about.
They'll lose their jobs if they do.
Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under
economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev
is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28
What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's
probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take
casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an
indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.
On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that
their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would
be a decisive victory for the rebels.
It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a
decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what
I really want to see).
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015
DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports
are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter
announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people
who are reasonably objective).
Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians
are being backed down at multiple points on the front.
ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19
What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the
innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you
seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time
for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is
pointless.
Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in
the political world towards actually caring about the people.
A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that
BOTH sides have played games.
Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it
power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong,
biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.
However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong
far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of
influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record
of backing the 'right' groups.
Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.
There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.
When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both
sides.
Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?
You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the
Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units -
under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?
Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any
chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe
Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting
through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when
it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle
eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even
though these cost far less to provide.
The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become,
for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all
citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural
sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).
This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev
changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes
corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is
not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we
can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic'
media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?
But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside
influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build
a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will
be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!
But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour,
nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this
potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.
Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not
changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price
is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a
humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop?
What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy
ending!
JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18
Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers ,
MH-17 , buss etc .
Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.
PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17
To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.
What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to
the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from
their airports, is not it?
Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The
artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up
operation, it is normal procedure in this war."
If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for
you.
Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17
No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...
But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other
positions.
Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk
I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that
Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever
been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that
wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse
to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup,
and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so?
Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their
freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is
that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and
the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.
graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in
Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside
Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in
Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based
on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.
For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?
"... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
"... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously
he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future
leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.
For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's
reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war.
After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of
Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.
Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57
That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war
party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow
"win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian
army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.
The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing
most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's
really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the
agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will
emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?
EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45
Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic
political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.
From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle --
to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.
EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38
Cargo 200 reports are all false?
They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same
statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000
Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that
not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively
identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that
could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything
I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers,
but that nobody denies.
Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34
Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC.
They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of
a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant
fascist gear, why worry?
Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The
National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching
behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people
wear is in the end less important that what they do.
The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the
riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the
shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this
should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS
insignia?
wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13
Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose
violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is
legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.
Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government
through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement
with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this
without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the
civil war but serious war crimes as well.
MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42
At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in
endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were
driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is
beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has
been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.
EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28
We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of
the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.
Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners
of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated
all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe
that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces
deployed.
At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more
than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts
that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and
associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing
some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.
A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will
not do.
Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12
I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view,
description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I
have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear
friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you
might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself
and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based
comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible
truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your
case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like
baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended
you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if
you provide some facts, I have not noticed
unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty
over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.
Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?
Here's one to try on
It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even
attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of
Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.
Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.
Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media
for Universities Project.
If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:
As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated
net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in
organized crime.
EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they
withdraw.
Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.
The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as
possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.
To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete
encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play
games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.
Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will
finally end this war.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48
The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took
blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th
brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost.
Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk
during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as
far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from
far range artillery.
Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015
Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and
maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!
EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns
stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a
happy ending!
That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about.
They'll lose their jobs if they do.
Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under
economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev
is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28
What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's
probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take
casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an
indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.
On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that
their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would
be a decisive victory for the rebels.
It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a
decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what
I really want to see).
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015
DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports
are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter
announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people
who are reasonably objective).
Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians
are being backed down at multiple points on the front.
ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19
What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the
innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you
seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time
for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is
pointless.
Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in
the political world towards actually caring about the people.
A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that
BOTH sides have played games.
Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it
power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong,
biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.
However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong
far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of
influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record
of backing the 'right' groups.
Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.
There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.
When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both
sides.
Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?
You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the
Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units -
under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?
Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any
chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe
Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting
through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when
it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle
eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even
though these cost far less to provide.
The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become,
for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all
citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural
sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).
This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev
changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes
corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is
not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we
can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic'
media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?
But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside
influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build
a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will
be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!
But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour,
nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this
potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.
Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not
changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price
is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a
humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop?
What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy
ending!
JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18
Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers ,
MH-17 , buss etc .
Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.
PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17
To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.
What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to
the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from
their airports, is not it?
Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The
artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up
operation, it is normal procedure in this war."
If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for
you.
Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17
No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...
But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other
positions.
Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk
I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that
Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever
been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that
wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse
to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup,
and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so?
Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their
freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is
that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and
the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.
graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in
Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside
Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in
Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based
on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.
For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?
"...Kiev residents came, students came, people from Western Ukraine were brought too, who understand nothing, but can frantically
yell that all they need is Europe. Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, Tyagnibok and Poroshenko started flaming Maidan up. They showered people with
promises that Ukraine would receive unprecedented benefits from the association with Europe, that Ukraine would be a civilized European
country, where all rights and freedoms would be ensured and guaranteed. That means a sharp rise in wages, pensions and social benefits
in accordance with all European standards. "
"...The people, of course, succumbed to that pressure. Imagine that they have been listening to all that propaganda for 2.5 years,
and then Maidan confirmed all that too. Therefore, most people in Ukraine believe that Ukraine must sign this agreement. They assumed
that Yanukovych would be their prime enemy, if he refused to sign the agreement."
"...Maidan was ideologized, it was a Russophobian, Nazi Maidan that was rigidly following the direction against Russia. For
Ukrainians, Russia is the enemy, "Glory to the nation, death to the enemy" - that was the directive. This hatred was infecting more
and more people."
Maidan in Ukraine started a year ago. Now it is time to look back and see how it started and what it led to. Pravda.Ru interviewed
the leader of the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, Doctor of Economic Sciences, Natalia Vitrenko, about the events which marked
the beginning of the civil war, the social and economic disaster and the collapse of Ukraine.
"One year after Maidan, what, in your opinion, were the aspirations of the Ukrainian people, who toppled Yanukovych? What are
the results of the Ukrainian revolution? Has anything been done?"
"The fact is that the people were called to come to Maidan. Large protests started on November 23, 2013, when people demanded
Yanukovych should sign the association agreement with the EU. Before November 2013, the Party of Regions together with Communists
and the Litvin Bloc had the majority in the parliament. For 2.5 years, those parties were maintaining public psychosis in the
country about the need to join the European integration. They were the prime initiators of the European integration. On 1 July
2010, they adopted the law about the foundations of domestic and foreign policy. Article 11 of the law said that Ukraine would
be integrated into European space, that the goal of Ukraine was to become a EU member.
"The administration of President Yanukovych, above all, the head of administration, Sergei Levochkin, was monitoring the situation
on television. They did not allow hosts on the country's most popular talk shows who would advocate for a different course for Ukraine
- the course for integration with Russia. The research on Ukraine's integration into the Customs Union showed excellent prospects
for Ukraine. I myself was making those calculations - two respectable economic institutions were working on that - the Russian and
the Ukrainian academies of sciences engaged. The calculations convincingly showed all benefits from the integration of Ukraine in
the East.
"As for calculations of benefits from Ukraine's integration into the European Union, no one has seen them. Without any arguments,
they would be broadcasting psychosis from morning till night on all radio and TV channels. And, of course, the orange associations
- the Tymoshenko bloc and Our Ukraine - would only nod to the majority of deputies. They had been doing this since 2010.
"Russia was watching all that favorably. United Russia had cross-party co-operation agreements with the Party of Regions, the
Communist Party. Russia was showing absolutely no impact outhouse political forces. We were fighting against the policy of European
integration, but all were pulling Ukraine into Europe. Our party and several others would be subjected to obstruction, because we
were defending and defend a completely different vector of integration.
Suddenly, on November 21, Azarov's government decided to suspend the signing of the association agreement. I knew that the
decision was taken after the government and the president were introduced to calculations of the economic disaster in Ukraine, about
the inevitability of default, in case Ukraine had signed the agreement on association. Ukraine has nothing to enter the free
trade zone with the EU. Ukrainian products are uncompetitive on the European market. When the government made that decision on November
21, it produced a shock in the camp. Two days later, opponents came to their senses and called people to gather on Maidan.
"Kiev residents came, students came, people from Western Ukraine were brought too, who understand nothing, but can frantically
yell that all they need is Europe. Yatsenyuk, Klitschko, Tyagnibok and Poroshenko started flaming Maidan up. They showered people
with promises that Ukraine would receive unprecedented benefits from the association with Europe, that Ukraine would be a civilized
European country, where all rights and freedoms would be ensured and guaranteed. That means a sharp rise in wages, pensions and social
benefits in accordance with all European standards.
"The people, of course, succumbed to that pressure. Imagine that they have been listening to all that propaganda for 2.5 years,
and then Maidan confirmed all that too. Therefore, most people in Ukraine believe that Ukraine must sign this agreement. They assumed
that Yanukovych would be their prime enemy, if he refused to sign the agreement.
On November 29, when it became clear that Yanukovych did not sign it, Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok and Klitschko were ready to dissolve
Maidan because they were confused. They thought think that their pressure would be decisive. Nevertheless, Yanukovych did not sign
the papers. After they returned from Brussels, they gathered on Maidan and announced that everyone should go home for the time being.
They started to remove the stage and the sound equipment, when the second scenario started working. Later it became known that
this scenario had been prepared in advance by the presidential administration. The scenario was about the use of Berkut fighters
to put up a New Year tree, but they use well-prepared militants to attack Berkut fighters. As a result, the protesters clashed with
Berkut. At night, all national TV channels of Ukraine were filming all that on the square. They were filming the episodes that would
be very good for the USA, as the entire scenario had been agreed with Washington and Brussels. At first, all instructions were
coming from the US Embassy in Ukraine.
"They were filming how Berkut fighters were beating students, children, but they did not show how the protesters were throwing
rocks at Berkut soldiers, how they would set soldiers ablaze. On the basis of this footage that produced a bombshell effect, people
started coming to Maidan. On December 1, a massacre occurred on Bankovaya Street. There were militants wielding chains, bats, Molotov
cocktails and boulders. Militants started taking administrative buildings in Kiev. Nineteen administrative buildings were seized,
the center of Kiev was seized too.
The capital was paralyzed. But Yanukovych was instructed not to touch the peaceful protesters, as they said. The West wanted to
see the resistance growing. It was growing in waves, because Maidan did not have the support of the majority of the people. On January
19, militants attacked the Berkut fighters, who were defending the government quarter. Car tires were burning in the street, on European
Square and Kreshchatik Street.
Maidan was ideologized, it was a Russophobian, Nazi Maidan that was rigidly following the direction against Russia. For Ukrainians,
Russia is the enemy, "Glory to the nation, death to the enemy" - that was the directive. This hatred was infecting more and more
people.
Anti-Maidan could not oppose anything. As a result, on February 18, the Verkhovna Rada was attacked. On February 20, they
were already armed. Maidan activists obtained weapons after they captured military and police arms caches.
"On February 21, Yanukovych signed an agreement with Maidan leaders. Three Foreign Ministers of European countries: Germany, France
and Poland acted as guarantors of the agreement. I listened to the press conference of the German Minister for Foreign Affairs
with his Russian counterpart Lavrov. He looked disgraceful. When he was asked why he did not observe the execution of that agreement,
he suddenly said that it was because Yanukovych had fled the country. What did Yanukovych have to do with it? To hell with him, I
am sorry about the country and the people.
"The agreement stipulated for the disarmament of all illegal armed groups and the creation of the government of national consent.
Nothing was done. As a result of the armed neo-Nazi putsch, the new government was formed. MPs were mocked and humiliated, and the
Parliament was eventually reformatted and start serving the neo-Nazi coup. In violation of the Ukrainian constitution, Yanukovych
was suspended from power, and the parliament speaker was given an opportunity to become acting president.
"That is, they started doing what they wanted, and the US and EU were condoning that. They wanted that in Ukraine, they did it
and got it. The only thing that they did not anticipate was the protest in the Crimea and in the Donbas. The Crimea saw the essence
of this revolution, heard those slogans - "Muscovites on knives!" and realized that Ukraine would be for Ukrainians. Of course, they
all went to the referendum and voted to pull out from that Ukraine. And then the Donbass rebelled against Kiev too. The people of
Donbass identify themselves as members of the Russian world. They also understood that as long as Ukraine was going to be for Ukrainians,
then they would be killed. They understood that Ukraine would be built into NATO.
If Ukraine was going to become Europe's servant, it would break economic and industrial ties with Russia, and the Donbass would
be left with nothing, because the Donbass was tied to Russia up whole.
Donbass realized that it was doomed either way. That is why the uprising began in the region. Ukraine faced a civil war. According
to experts' estimates, over 40 thousand people have been killed, including the rebels, the Ukrainian military and civilians. Two
million refugees. Hundreds of thousands of wounded, shell-shocked ... Many return from the zone of the so-called anti-terrorist operation
to Ukraine as mentally ill individuals. Children are deeply traumatized. The gene pool of the nation was generally undermined. This
is what Maidan has done to Ukraine.
"Where are their successes? They signed the association agreement, and it was ratified in September. Where is the money that Europe
promised? 30-40 billion euros. Ukraine begged to receive $6 billion from the IMF and the World Bank, another 900 million euros came
from Europe and that was it. Our people die. In hospitals, there are no medications, patients do not receive any food. Last week
in Kiev, they stopped giving bread to patients. That's what the United States and Europe have done. And, of course, they have put
Ukraine in a position when the authorities are only interested in war. We are all sitting on a powder keg; every day we wait what
provocation Ukraine would arrange to draw Russia into the war to start Third World War. The are the results of Maidan.
"According to President Poroshenko, the planned reforms, not less than 60, will embrace all areas of life, from public utilities
to courts. Are there any reforms being conducted now?"
"They launched lustration. I do not know in which way it can relate to European values, when they fire people from jobs - specialists,
professionals - they throw people in garbage cans. This is something barbarous, shameful, ape-like behaviour. They unfold reforms
and say that they will reduce the amount of taxes. How are they going to do that? Whose shoulders will carry the burden of these
taxes? We can not expect anything good from this government, no reforms whatsoever, because it is oligarchs that rule Euromaidan.
They fund volunteer battalions and the new parliament.
They do not worry about the fate of the people. They will enhance exploitation and amass their fortunes. This is the essence of
their reforms. They say that they will start an education reform, but at the same time they zombify children with ideas of neo-Nazism.
They plant seeds of hatred to other nations, civilizations, primarily Russia. They hammer into children's heads the idea that Ukrainians
originate from a super-ancient civilization. These reforms are a disaster for Ukraine.
"They allow to use the Russian language on the level of private, personal communication; they root it out from Ukraine. They will
undoubtedly continue to struggle with dissent. Already today, the parties and movements that protect other ideology can not hold
their own peaceful public actions. We could not take part in the elections, because we were openly threatened with violence, beatings
and death. Ukraine is taking the shape of a Nazi state with totalitarian dictatorship - an ardent enemy of Russia and a very comfortable
obedient puppet of the United States."
"Why is there no progress in investigating high-profile cases?"
"Because for the current authorities, the truthful results on the investigation of the Boeing tragedy, shootings on Maidan and
other cases would mean the end. After all, no matter how they try to hide it, all paths in those cases lead to him. Irrefutable facts
show that Porubiy was commanding the snipers on Maidan. More than 80 people were killed at once at his command. When the people saw
the dead bodies, it produced an immediate effect, and they went on a desperate attack on the government. That's why they needed the
snipers and deaths on Maidan. The downing of the Boeing was needed to shift the blame on Russia and the militia of the Donbass. But
they failed."
"A year ago, on Kiev Maidan, people were protesting and even dying for Europe. A few months after winning the "revolution of dignity,"
Ukraine has not gotten any closer to Europe. On the contrary, Ukraine has slipped down to the level of Africa," this is what TV presenter
of a Lviv channel, Ostap Drozdov said. The average pension in Ukraine after the "revolution of dignity" makes up 50 euros. This is
the level of Africa. Do you agree with this opinion?"
"I agree that after Maidan, Ukraine has gone decades and even centuries back. We now have the power of barbarians, who do not
recognize the rule of law, who trample on the Constitution, violate laws, refuse to fulfill international obligations. Poroshenko's
decree from 4 November is a bright example of that. One should introduce international sanctions against Poroshenko's Ukraine. Otherwise,
it is impossible to bring to reason the man, whose power destroys all norms of law. But Europe is silent, the international community
is silent under the thumb of the US - they are fine and satisfied with it. They are satisfied with the jungle in the middle of Europe,
on the territory of Ukraine."
"The basic truth about the crisis in Ukraine and why there is a war there – the one that many people especially in the West refuse
to acknowledge – is that the faction that seized power in Ukraine through the February 2014 coup is structurally incapable of negotiation
or compromise with those it considers its opponents.
"… the whole purpose of the February coup was so that the faction in Ukraine that holds power now could achieve the unrestricted
dominance of Ukrainian society which is its only way of making true its vision of a unitary, monolingual, monocultural Ukraine that
is forever distanced from Russia.
"Given the diversity of Ukrainian society, it cannot compromise with its opponents since were it to do so that would jeopardize
the entire project that is the reason for its existence and the justification for its hold on power. That is why it acted in February
to eliminate from Ukrainian political life the faction that had held power in Ukraine before and why it remains committed to eliminating
its opponents in the Donbass now.
"… Though the Maidan regime is deeply divided and factionalised, its drive to remake Ukraine and to eliminate all opponents
of its vision, is the common denominator of all its factions. As factional differences intensify as the economic situation deteriorates,
fulfillment of the drive through war increasingly becomes the way the regime retains coherence, making a renewal of the war inevitable.
"What this means in practice is that negotiations between the Ukrainian government and the Donbass as a route to peace in Ukraine
are all but impossible. … any attempt to achieve a compromise is bound in the end to fail since the Maidan movement which holds power
in Ukraine now is structurally unable to compromise."
Previously, back in September, I discussed the Minsk Protocol in detail here, where I said
"…..the Protocol is in my opinion a total red herring. The Protocol is not a contract or treaty. There is no court or tribunal
that will arbitrate on the meaning of its words. All the sides will construe it as they wish. The junta will not of course construe
it as I have done and nor will its western backers even though my interpretation is undoubtedly the correct one. The junta will continue
to call the NAF (the "Novorossian Armed Forces" - AM) "terrorists" and will continue to deny they are the representatives of the
Donbas whether they win the election or not. Certainly the junta will not recognise an election the NAF wins or any declaration of
independence the NAF makes. For what it's worth in my opinion there is little chance of the terms of such an election being agreed
upon or such an election taking place whilst the Donbas remains part of the Ukraine".
Every word in this paragraph has come true. The Ukrainian government still refuses to recognise the Donbass leaders Zakharchenko
and Plotnisky as the representatives of the people of the Donbass even though their signatures are on the Minsk Protocol, which the
Ukrainian government negotiated with them and itself signed. Elections in the Donbass did take place in November but as I predicted
the Ukrainian government did not agree their terms. The Ukrainian government still calls Zakharchenko and Plotnitsky and the other
Donbass leaders "terrorists".
The reason I was able to make that prediction in September with such confidence and why that prediction has in every respect come
true, is because the nature of the Ukrainian government allowed for no other.
The basic truth about the crisis in Ukraine and why there is a war there - the one that many people especially in the West refuse
to acknowledge - is that the faction that seized power in Ukraine through the February 2014 coup is structurally incapable of negotiation
or compromise with those it considers its opponents.
I discussed the nature of this faction when I discussed the results of the elections in Ukraine last November. Briefly, the whole
purpose of the February coup was so that the faction in Ukraine that holds power now could achieve the unrestricted dominance of
Ukrainian society which is its only way of making true its vision of a unitary, monolingual, monocultural Ukraine that is forever
distanced from Russia.
Given the diversity of Ukrainian society, it cannot compromise with its opponents since were it to do so that would jeopardise
the entire project that is the reason for its existence and the justification for its hold on power. That is why it acted in February
to eliminate from Ukrainian political life the faction that had held power in Ukraine before and why it remains committed to eliminating
its opponents in the Donbass now.
It is also incidentally the reason for the repeated attacks on the Lenin statues discussed by Paul Robinson here. Given the regime's
overriding, aggressive drive to reshape Ukraine in its own image, it cannot tolerate the existence of these statues precisely because
so many Ukrainians adhere to them and by doing so hold fast to a different vision of Ukraine from the one the regime has. The very
reason why Robinson says it is a mistake to attack these statues is therefore for the regime a compelling reason to destroy them.
The statues have to be eliminated from Ukraine just as opponents who think of Ukraine differently must be.
It is this drive - not Russia's actions - which is why Ukraine is in a state of perpetual war and crisis and why atrocities like
the 2nd May 2014 Odessa fire can happen without being properly investigated or the perpetrators brought to account.
Though the Maidan regime is deeply divided and factionalised, its drive to remake Ukraine and to eliminate all opponents of its
vision, is the common denominator of all its factions. As factional differences intensify as the economic situation deteriorates,
fulfilment of the drive through war increasingly becomes the way the regime retains coherence, making a renewal of the war inevitable.
What this means in practice is that negotiations between the Ukrainian government and the Donbass as a route to peace in Ukraine
are all but impossible. As Yanukovych repeatedly discovered during the Maidan crisis (see our discussion of his ouster here), any
attempt to achieve a compromise is bound in the end to fail since the Maidan movement which holds power in Ukraine now is structurally
unable to compromise.
Ukraine Goes to War – and Always Will as Long as Maidan Holds Power
as Alexander Mercouris writes for Russia Insider
Here some excerpts:
"The basic truth about the crisis in Ukraine and why there is a war there – the one that many people especially in the West
refuse to acknowledge – is that the faction that seized power in Ukraine through the February 2014 coup is structurally incapable
of negotiation or compromise with those it considers its opponents.
"… the whole purpose of the February coup was so that the faction in Ukraine that holds power now could achieve the unrestricted
dominance of Ukrainian society which is its only way of making true its vision of a unitary, monolingual, monocultural Ukraine
that is forever distanced from Russia.
"Given the diversity of Ukrainian society, it cannot compromise with its opponents since were it to do so that would jeopardize
the entire project that is the reason for its existence and the justification for its hold on power. That is why it acted in February
to eliminate from Ukrainian political life the faction that had held power in Ukraine before and why it remains committed to eliminating
its opponents in the Donbass now.
"… Though the Maidan regime is deeply divided and factionalised, its drive to remake Ukraine and to eliminate all opponents
of its vision, is the common denominator of all its factions. As factional differences intensify as the economic situation
deteriorates, fulfillment of the drive through war increasingly becomes the way the regime retains coherence, making a renewal
of the war inevitable.
"What this means in practice is that negotiations between the Ukrainian government and the Donbass as a route to peace
in Ukraine are all but impossible. … any attempt to achieve a compromise is bound in the end to fail since the Maidan movement
which holds power in Ukraine now is structurally unable to compromise."
What does a pipeline in Afghanistan have to do with the crisis in Ukraine?
Everything. It reveals the commercial interests that drive US policy. Just as the War in Afghanistan was largely fought to facilitate
the transfer of natural gas from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea, so too, Washington engineered the bloody coup in Kiev to cut off
energy supplies from Russia to Europe to facilitate the US pivot to Asia.
This is why policymakers in Washington are reasonably satisfied with the outcome of the war in Afghanistan despite the fact that
none of the stated goals were achieved. Afghanistan is not a functioning democracy with a strong central government, drug trafficking
has not been eradicated, women haven't been liberated, and the infrastructure and school systems are worse than they were before
the war. By every objective standard the war was a failure. But, of course, the stated goals were just public relations blather anyway.
They don't mean anything. What matters is gas, namely the vast untapped reserves in Turkmenistan that could be extracted by privately-owned
US corporations who would use their authority to control the growth of US competitors or would-be rivals like China. That's what
the war was all about. The gas is going to be transported via a pipeline from Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan, Pakistan and India
to the Arabian sea, eschewing Russian and Iranian territory. The completion of the so called TAPI pipeline will undermine the development
of an Iranian pipeline, thus sabotaging the efforts of a US adversary.
The TAPI pipeline illustrates how Washington is aggressively securing the assets it needs to maintain its dominance for the foreseeable
future. Now, check this out from The Express Tribune, July 5:
"Officials of Pakistan, India, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan are set to meet in Ashgabat next week to push ahead with a planned
transnational gas pipeline connecting the four countries and reach a settlement on the award of the multi-billion-dollar project
to US companies.
"The US is pushing the four countries to grant the lucrative pipeline contract to its energy giants. Two US firms – Chevron
and ExxonMobil – are in the race to become consortium leaders, win the project and finance the laying of the pipeline," a senior
government official said while talking to The Express Tribune.
Washington has been lobbying for the gas supply project, called Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India (Tapi) pipeline,
terming it an ideal scheme to tackle energy shortages in Pakistan. On the other side, it pressed Islamabad to shelve the Iran-Pakistan
gas pipeline because of a nuclear standoff with Tehran…
According to officials, Petroleum and Natural Resources Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi will lead a delegation at the meeting
of the TAPI pipeline steering committee on July 8 in Ashgabat.
…At present, bid documents are being prepared in consultation with the Asian Development Bank, which is playing the role of
transaction adviser. The documents will be given to the two companies only for taking part in the tender.
Chevron is lobbying in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to clinch a deal, backed by the US State Department. However, other
companies could also become part of the consortium that will be led either by Chevron or ExxonMobil." (TAPI
pipeline: Officials to finalise contract award in Ashgabat next week, The Express Tribune)
So the pipeline plan is finally moving forward and, as the article notes, "The documents will be given to the two companies only
for taking part in the tender."
Nice, eh? So the State Department applies a little muscle and "Voila", Chevron and Exxon clinch the deal. How's that for a free
market?
And who do you think is going to protect that 1,000 mile stretch of pipeline through hostile Taliban-controlled Afghanistan?
Why US troops, of course, which is why US military bases are conveniently located up an down the pipeline route. Coincidence?
Not on your life. Operation "Enduring Freedom" is a bigger hoax than the threadbare war on terror.
So let's not kid ourselves. The war had nothing to do with liberating women or bringing democracy to the unwashed masses. It was
all about power politics and geostrategic maneuvering; stealing resources, trouncing potential rivals, and beefing up profits for
the voracious oil giants. Who doesn't know that already? Here's more background from the Wall Street Journal:
"Earlier this month, President Obama sent a letter to (Turkmenistan) President Berdimuhamedow emphasizing a common interest
in helping develop Afghanistan and expressing Mr. Obama's support for TAPI and his desire for a major U.S. firm to construct it.
…Progress on TAPI will also jump-start many of the other trans-Afghan transport projects-including roads and railroads-that
are at the heart of America's "New Silk Road Strategy" for the Afghan economy.
The White House should understand that if TAPI isn't built, neither U.S. nor U.N. sanctions will prevent Pakistan from building
a pipeline from Iran." (The
Pipeline That Could Keep the Peace in Afghanistan, Wall Street Journal)
Can you see what's going on? Afghanistan, which is central to Washington's pivot strategy, is going to be used for military bases,
resource extraction and transportation. That's it. There's not going to be any reconstruction or nation building. The US doesn't
do that anymore. This is the stripped-down, no-frills, 21st century imperialism. "No nation for you, buddy. Just give us your gas
and off we'll go." That's how the system works now. It's alot like Iraq –the biggest hellhole on earth–where "oil production has
surged to its highest level in over 30 years". (according to the Wall Street Journal) And who's raking in the profits on that oil
windfall?
Why the oil giants, of course. (ExxonMobil, BP and Shell) Maybe that's why you never read about what a terrible mistake the war
was. Because for the people who count, it really wasn't a mistake at all. In fact, it all worked out pretty well.
Of course, the US will support the appearance of democracy in Kabul, but the government won't have any real power beyond the capital.
It never did anyway. (Locals jokingly called Karzai the "mayor of Kabul") As for the rest of the country; it will be ruled by warlords
as it has been since the invasion in 2001. (Remember the Northern Alliance? Hate to break the news, but they're all bloodthirsty,
misogynist warlords who were reinstated by Rumsfeld and Co.)
This is the new anarchic "Mad Max" template Washington is applying wherever it intervenes. The intention is to dissolve the nation-state
in order to remove any obstacle to resource extraction, which is why failed states are popping up wherever the US sticks its big
nose. It's all by design. Chaos is the objective. Simply put: It's easier to steal whatever one wants when there's no center of power
to resist.
This is why political leaders in Europe are so worried, because they don't like the idea of sharing a border with Somalia, which
is exactly what Ukraine is going to look like when the US is done with it.
In Ukraine, the US is using a divide and conquer strategy to pit the EU against trading partner Moscow. The State Department and
CIA helped to topple Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych and install a US stooge in Kiev who was ordered to cut off the
flow of Russian gas to the EU and lure Putin into a protracted guerilla war in Ukraine. The bigwigs in Washington figured that, with
some provocation, Putin would react the same way he did when Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2006. But, so far, Putin has resisted
the temptation to get involved which is why new puppet president Petro Poroshenko has gone all "Jackie Chan" and stepped up the provocations
by pummeling east Ukraine mercilessly. It's just a way of goading Putin into sending in the tanks.
But here's the odd part: Washington doesn't have a back-up plan. It's obvious by the way Poroshenko keeps doing the same thing
over and over again expecting a different result. That demonstrates that there's no Plan B. Either Poroshenko lures Putin across
the border and into the conflict, or the neocon plan falls apart, which it will if they can't demonize Putin as a "dangerous aggressor"
who can't be trusted as a business partner.
So all Putin has to do is sit-tight and he wins, mainly because the EU needs Moscow's gas. If energy supplies are terminated or
drastically reduced, prices will rise, the EU will slide back into recession, and Washington will take the blame. So Washington has
a very small window to draw Putin into the fray, which is why we should expect another false flag incident on a much larger scale
than the fire in Odessa. Washington is going to have to do something really big and make it look like it was Moscow's doing. Otherwise,
their pivot plan is going to hit a brick wall. Here's a tidbit readers might have missed in the Sofia News Agency's novinite site:
"Ukraine's Parliament adopted .. a bill under which up to 49% of the country's gas pipeline network could be sold to foreign
investors. This could pave the way for US or EU companies, which have eyed Ukrainian gas transportation system over the last months.
…Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk was earlier quoted as saying that the bill would allow Kiev to "attract European and American
partners to the exploitation and modernization of Ukraine's gas transportation," in a situation on Ukraine's energy market he
described as "super-critical". Critics of the bill have repeatedly pointed the West has long been interest in Ukraine's pipelines,
with some seeing in the Ukrainian revolution a means to get access to the system. (Ukraine
allowed to sell up to 49% of gas pipeline system, novinite.com)
Boy, you got to hand it to the Obama throng. They really know how to pick their coup-leaders, don't they? These puppets have only
been in office for a couple months and they're already giving away the farm.
And, such a deal! US corporations will be able to buy up nearly half of a pipeline that moves 60 percent of the gas that flows
from Russia to Europe. That's what you call a tollbooth, my friend; and US companies will be in just the right spot to gouge Moscow
for every drop of natural gas that transits those pipelines. And gouge they will too, you can bet on it.
Is that why the State Department cooked up this loony putsch, so their fatcat, freeloading friends could rake in more dough?
This also explains why the Obama crowd is trying to torpedo Russia's other big pipeline project called Southstream. Southstream
is a good deal for Europe and Russia. On the one hand, it would greatly enhance the EU's energy security, and on the other, it will
provide needed revenues for Russia so they can continue to modernize, upgrade their dilapidated infrastructure, and improve standards
of living. But "the proposed pipeline (which) would snake about 2,400 kilometers, or roughly 1,500 miles, from southern Russia via
the Black Sea to Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and ultimately Austria. (and) could handle about 60 billion cubic meters of natural gas
a year, enough to allow Russian exports to Europe to largely bypass Ukraine" (New York Times) The proposed pipeline further undermines
Washington's pivot strategy, so Obama, the State Department and powerful US senators (Ron Johnson, John McCain, and Chris Murphy)
are doing everything in their power to torpedo the project.
"What gives Vladimir Putin his power and control is his oil and gas reserves and West and Eastern Europe's dependence on them,"
Senator Johnson said in an interview. "We need to break up his stranglehold on energy supplies. We need to bust up that monopoly."
(New York Times)
What a bunch of baloney. Putin doesn't have a monopoly on gas. Russia only provides 30 percent of the gas the EU uses every year.
And Putin isn't blackmailing anyone either. Countries in the EU can either buy Russian gas or not buy it. It's up to them. No one
has a gun to their heads. And Gazprom's prices are competitive too, sometimes well-below market rates which has been the case for
Ukraine for years, until crackpot politicians started sticking their thumb in Putin's eye at every opportunity; until they decided
that that they didn't have to pay their bills anymore because, well, because Washington told them not to pay their bills. That's
why.
Ukraine is in the mess it's in today for one reason, because they decided to follow Washington's advice and shoot themselves in
both feet. Their leaders thought that was a good idea. So now the country is broken, penniless and riven by social unrest. Regrettably,
there's no cure for stupidity.
The neocon geniuses apparently believe that if they sabotage Southstream and nail down 49 percent ownership of Ukraine's pipeline
infrastructure, then the vast majority of Russian gas will have to flow through Ukrainian pipelines. They think that this will give
them greater control over Moscow. But there's a glitch to this plan which analyst Jeffrey Mankoff pointed out in an article titled
"Can Ukraine Use Its Gas Pipelines to Threaten Russia?". Here's what he said:
"The biggest problem with this approach is a cut in gas supplies creates real risks for the European economy… In fact, Kyiv's
efforts to siphon off Russian gas destined to Europe to offset the impact of a Russian cutoff in January 2009 provide a window
onto why manipulating gas supplies is a risky strategy for Ukraine. Moscow responded to the siphoning by halting all gas sales
through Ukraine for a couple of weeks, leaving much of eastern and southern Europe literally out in the cold. European leaders
reacted angrily, blaming both Moscow and Kyiv for the disruption and demanding that they sort out their problems. While the EU
response would likely be somewhat more sympathetic to Ukraine today, Kyiv's very vulnerability and need for outside financial
support makes incurring European anger by manipulating gas supplies very risky." (Can
Ukraine Use Its Gas Pipelines to Threaten Russia, two paragraphs)
The funny thing about gas is that, when you stop paying the bills, they turn the heat off. Is that hard to understand?
So, yes, the State Department crystal-gazers and their corporate-racketeer friends might think they have Putin by the shorthairs
by buying up Ukraine's pipelines, but the guy who owns the gas (Gazprom) is still in the drivers seat. And he's going to do what's
in the best interests of himself and his shareholders. Someone should explain to John Kerry that that's just how capitalism works.
Washington's policy in Ukraine is such a mess, it really makes one wonder about the competence of the people who come up with
these wacko ideas. Did the brainiacs who concocted this plan really think they'd be able to set up camp between two major trading
partners, turn off the gas, reduce a vital transit country into an Iraq-type basketcase, and start calling the shots for everyone
in the region?
It's crazy.
Europe and Russia are a perfect fit. Europe needs gas to heat its homes and run its machinery. Russia has gas to sell and needs
the money to strengthen its economy. It's a win-win situation. What Europe and Russia don't need is the United States. In fact, the
US is the problem. As long as US meddling persists, there's going to be social unrest, division, and war. It's that simple. So the
goal should be to undermine Washington's ability to conduct these destabilizing operations and force US policymakers to mind their
own freaking business. That means there should be a concerted effort to abandon the dollar, ditch US Treasuries, jettison the petrodollar
system, and force the US to become a responsible citizen that complies with International law.
It won't happen overnight, but it will happen, mainly because everyone is sick and tired of all the troublemaking.
From comments: "With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of
Russian soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and
extremely professional. "
I still don't see what Putin is getting out of his Novrossya rampage.
Bingo. He's getting nothing, and that's why he's so dovish and reluctant to commit. It's
just one of those instances where he can't ignore the fact that he's got a people to answer
to. We all want a free Novorossia and a Crimea that's reunited with the rest of us and forever
safe from Ukrainian petty imperialism.
We don't need Putin or the television to tell us that. On the contrary, it's because of the
Russian people that Putin, however hard he might try to be his usual neither-here-nor-there
self, can't afford to not have a bottom line in this.
Tom20000 Eye Spy 19 Jan 2015 19:45
I don't think you understand what free speech is. The guardian is a private organisation
with no obligation to show all comments.
Georgethedog 19 Jan 2015 19:52
"During a meeting with the president, Krivenko even handed Putin a list of about 100
soldiers killed in eastern Ukraine"
With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of Russian
soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and extremely
professional.
Good Luck Kiev Junta!
Vignola1964 -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:31
There is much I do not know about this and other conflicts taking place around the world at
the moment, but we can all feel the sinister hands behind the scenes, driving ordinary people
into hostilities. There are no innocents anywhere.
In my opinion, the 1% profit from the other 1% constantly at conflict at any one time. The
more the merrier as far as they are concerned. For me this is evil.
kowalli -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:16
It must be embarrassing for the general public.
??? general public just think why west can't give any real proof, but give us bunch of
lies. You really think that this 7 guys can do anything?
You didn't even tell us results of mh17 Boeing or why ukrainians are shelling civilians like
USA in Iraq.
West just copypasting what USA tell them and think that they are exceptional people.
RicardoFloresMagon -> vr13vr 19 Jan 2015 19:14
Whether the claims have any merit or not, just the existence of all those groups who
file petitions and challenge authorities suggests there is much more democracy in Russia
than it is in the US. I can't even imagine similar organizations in the US criticizing and
pressuring Obama's administration or questioning military commanders whether the death of
their sons in Iraq was justified.
InternationalANSWER
United for Peace and Justice
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Code Pink
Not in Our Name
GI Rights Network
and a few more...
... not to mention millions protested the war before it even started in every major city.
JanZamoyski -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:11
A nice leverage to control an escaped satellite state. Either by constant war which will
bleed Ukraine and damage it chances of joining EU / NATO or by planting an autonomous, hostile
region which MPs are going to paralyse the Ukrainian parliament. Like they need more fist
fights...
Christine Cannon -> Alexander Sokolov 19 Jan 2015 19:11
So why are these young boys killing their neighbors. what is in it for them. Death
psygone -> Vignola1964 19 Jan 2015 19:10
"UK observers" is a little bit different than "deployments of HM Special Forces"
Popeyes 19 Jan 2015 19:04
This is nothing more than a proxy war between the West and Russia, and as Russia supports
and arms Donbass, Washington has been supplying Kiev with weapons including stingers,
anti-tank missiles, anti-armor weapons and other heavy weapons, as are many NATO countries.
Poroschenko has just signed a decree that mobilizes up to 50,000 "healthy men and women"
aged 25 to 60 to the frontlines in Eastern Ukraine... just how does that sit with the E.U? The
U.S wanted a full scale war when this all started last year and it seems nothing has changed.
JanZamoyski -> cheburawka 19 Jan 2015 19:03
The same silly argument yet again. Kremlin isn't interested in occupying Ukraine. Putin is
too smart for that.
This isn't Chechnya with its 1 million population, but a much bigger country with 45
million population. Despite some sympathetic population, many Ukrainians would react with
hostilities to such occupation. This would mean long bloody and expensive conflict Putin
doesn't want to pay for.
Chechnya despite it size was hell for Russia and Putin who was PM during second Chechnyy
war realises Ukrainian occupation would be the end of him.
In the end in Chechnya Putin found some locals to fight his war for him and that's what
happened to some extent in Crimea and Donbass.
The overblown issue of ethnic Russian population being oppressed was a joke, but with some
external military help it doesn't matter now.
Thanks to 5000+ dead in this conflict is fuelling itself and all Putin has to do is feed the
flame with equipment, ammo and some "volunteers" if necessary.
FFS this "war" has been on for seven months now. Where do you think the rebels are getting
their money, ammo and vehicles from ? From babushkas donations and not existing pensions ?
This region needs regular humanitarian food conveys but somehow has never ending supply of
military vehicles and ammo. Stop trolling or open your eyes.
Anette Mor 19 Jan 2015 19:03
260 russian nationals secretly killed in east ukraine? Out of 5000? Totally looks like an
invasion to me. There are at least half a million with Russian passports permanently living or
visiting close family. Time to stop writing this useless none stories and start contributing
to finishing that war.
cherryredguitar -> False_Face 19 Jan 2015 19:42
You haven't got a bit of evidence that there is some sort of American conspiracy here.
I've got a documented American admission that they funded these Russian Soldiers Mothers
groups.
Now you may think that it's entirely a coincidence that the Russian Soldiers Mothers groups
are saying exactly what the Americans who fund them would want them to say, but some of us are
a tad more cynical, made that way by the lies of the warmongers.
tanyushka -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:39
Actually, Kiev was the first capital of Russia & the first royal dinasty, the Ruriks, lived
there & then moved to Moscow... once in Moscow came the time of Romanovs, but much later...
do you suggest Russia should also claim Kiev since it was its first capital?
Putin has only said he's going to seek re-election, which is perfectly legal... why
shouldn't he if he is a popular president? do you suggest Russia should change its
Constitution to please its enemies?
about economic ruin... well, that was Boris the drunkard, the favourite of the West, &
oligarchs like Khodorkovsky, Brezovsky, etc. Never Heard of the Wild, Wild East?
Putin brought order and control & the economy has been doing great so far... check your
info instead of repeating lies...
onu labu -> MacCosham 19 Jan 2015 19:39
Note that hundred of military personnel die every year in Russia from various causes.
noted.
Vignola1964 -> psygone 19 Jan 2015 19:38
It might not occur to you but special forces operatives tend to know potential adversaries
quite well. They know how they are trained, might even have worked alongside them. They are
professional. Hague was not. He should never alluded to any official or unofficial UK presence
in Maidan. The fact that he did was worse than poor form..it endangered those same observer's
lives. Were Hague to utter the words that would deny you your rejoinder to my point, even you
would question his sanity.
Eye Spy -> Robert Looren de Jong 19 Jan 2015 19:34
are you for real.
So the people of Crimea were all forced to go and vote at gunpoint and all these Russian
guns at the heads of the voters were airbrushed out of the images that were beamed into our
homes...well I never
that means that there were thousands of Crimeans who were shot and buried because they
decided to take the bullet....oh my gosh
that means when the Americans roll in to liberate the captive Crimean' they are going to be
met with flowers being thrown at their feet and they will discover mass graves....sounds like
Iraq.
You are fanciful but I can be just as inventive.
Scipio1 19 Jan 2015 19:34
I see the Guardian has published a photograph of the latest friend of freedom and democracy
- Yatsenuik - who was part of the corrupt Orange regime of Yuschenko and Tymoshenko,
2004-2010, and who also recently accused the USSR of invading Ukraine and Germany after 1941.
Does this mean something I wonder?
As for Russian troops being in eastern Ukraine, well this seems probable. However, this is
quite different from an invasion. An invasion would involve tens of thousands with air support
and taking of towns and large areas of land.
Clearly this has not and will not happen. Principally because no-one wants to take on a
basket case like Ukraine. Russian troops are probably present but this is to ensure that their
kith and kin in the Don Bas are not ethnically cleansed and murdered by Russophobic neo-Nazi
outfits like the Azov Battalion, the Aidar Battalion, Pravy Sector (whoops, I mean the
National Guard of course) whose multiple atrocities in the East have been blacked out by the
western media, even the trendy faux media like ....
It is difficult to work out exactly what the Kiev regime is trying to do in its anti-terror
operation. Obviously not trying to win hearts and minds in the east by systematic bombardment
and wiping out the infrastructure (very much in the style of the IDF - the hasbara doctrine).
One would have thought that the massive despoliation of the most productive region of the
Ukraine was against their national interests. It would have been a bit like the British during
their long war against the IRA shelling Cross Maglen or West Belfast.
But of course there is no genuine government in Ukraine, this insofar as Yatsenuik,
Poroshenko and Kolomoisky are simply carrying out the orders the US Ambassador in Kiev. The US
simply wants to keep the pot boiling and making maximum chaos of Russia's western borders.
Yes, the US will fight to every last Ukrainian.
Oh, and by the way there are plenty of foreign troops in West Ukraine, including Poles, US
advisers, international fascist and neo-Nazi groups like the above mentioned Azov Battalion.
And arms are also pouring in from NATO.
Did the EUSA-NATO juggernaut, in their relentless push eastwards, think they could prompt
yet another colour revolution in a country that had democratically voted in Yanukovich who
wanted to maintain a non-aligned status. Russian reaction was very predictable to what they
considered to be a massive provocation, and yet regime change was pursued a l'outrance by the
US and its vassal states in Europe. And of course the regime change in Ukraine was to be
followed by regime change in Russia.
So who exactly are the aggressors here? Who is the genuine threat to world peace? Well of
course it depends who you ask. But outside the Anglosphere the answer of the majority of the
world's population is resounding. The great rogue state is .....
kowalli 19 Jan 2015 19:33
Western guys are funny - they keep talking about anything, but when they are asked about
facts - they can give you anything except of more lies...
There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In
June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling
Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors
are even imaginable.
But that was then - a previous regime.
On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the
exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern,
attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other
countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason
given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister
Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his
government.
Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For
Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets.
They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary
and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.
In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners
do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save
a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.
The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact
bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared.
In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money
from the European Bank and the IMF.
The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor
on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after
her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid
shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina
Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.
Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.
By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some
there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.
As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after
the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible
organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.
Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former
warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.
These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January
interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security
personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason
to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process.
He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them
with him if he dies.
Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December
after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our
eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza.
This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw
all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.
Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists
that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against
Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed
2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have
sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny.
We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"
Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after
the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.
There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In
June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling
Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors
are even imaginable.
But that was then - a previous regime.
On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the
exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern,
attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other
countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason
given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister
Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his
government.
Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For
Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets.
They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary
and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.
In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners
do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save
a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.
The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact
bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared.
In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money
from the European Bank and the IMF.
The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor
on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after
her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid
shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina
Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.
Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.
By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some
there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.
As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after
the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible
organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.
Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former
warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.
These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January
interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security
personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason
to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process.
He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them
with him if he dies.
Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December
after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our
eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza.
This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw
all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.
Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists
that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against
Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed
2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have
sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny.
We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"
Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after
the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.
There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In
June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling
Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors
are even imaginable.
But that was then - a previous regime.
On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the
exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern,
attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other
countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason
given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister
Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his
government.
Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For
Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets.
They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary
and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.
In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners
do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save
a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.
The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact
bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared.
In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money
from the European Bank and the IMF.
The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor
on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after
her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid
shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina
Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.
Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.
By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some
there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.
As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after
the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible
organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.
Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former
warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.
These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January
interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security
personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason
to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process.
He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them
with him if he dies.
Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December
after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our
eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza.
This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw
all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.
Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists
that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against
Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed
2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have
sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny.
We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"
Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after
the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.
Rada deputy Anton Gerashchenko, who also serves as an advisor to Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, called US president Barack
Obama a 'political midget' or 'dwarf,' a 'shot-down pilot' and says that Obama is in 'ostrich position.'
While it may be tempting to dismiss these words as the ravings of former warlords who have been traumatized by war, worrisome
shifts of the political mindset have been appearing in the mainstream of the Ukrainian political establishment.
Anton Geraschenko is the poster boy of the next generation of Ukrainian politicians. He holds an important position as the advisor
to the minister for internal affairs, executing the role of the Ministry's spokesman. This 36-year-old, well-educated member of the
Parliament is a familiar face on TV, and a darling of the nation's political talk shows. He is well-spoken and gives elaborate interviews
on every political subject to all major Ukrainian newspapers.
Last Friday, while on his trip to the U.S., Mr. Gerashchenko published two controversial posts on his Facebook page, which could
be considered very revealing from the perspective of the changing mood in the Ukrainian political class toward the United States.
In the first, Mr. Gerashchenko praised a George Soros
article in which the
84-year-old financier is "flying high" like an eagle "over the pettiness of Obama and other political dwarfs." Mr. Gerashchenko blamed
Mr. Obama and other "political dwarfs" for not realizing that "Putin's actions towards Ukraine are the tectonic shifts in the world
history, much bigger in scale than those that were the results of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington."
According to Mr. Gerashchenko, George Soros lost all hope that "Barack Obama will give a chance to the people of the United States
to give large-scale economical assistance to the people of Ukraine, not the miserable hand-outs that have been ten times less than
the help that was given to Iraq or Afghanistan." Mr. Gerashchenko vented his frustration at Mr. Obama for not giving Ukraine money
on the scale of the Marshall Plan or the aid packages that were given to rebuild Japan after WWII or South Korea after the Korean
War.
Prominent Ukrainian lawmaker Anton Gerashchenko's Facebook posts have created a stir, downplaying Sept. 11 and lobbing insults
at President Obama.
According to his post, Mr. Gerashchenko believes that the United States has the obligation to give to the Ukraine enough money
so the people of "occupied Crimea and Donbass in a maximum of three or five years would dig tunnels and destroy walls and barbed-wire
fences, bursting into the territory of prosperous Free Ukraine … looking for jobs, social assistance, high quality of living – as
a counterweight to the Mordor which the Russian Federation will definitely have become" ('total catastrophe') under the leadership
of "Putler." ("Putler" being 'Putin' and 'Hitler' combined into one word-a popular new term among Ukraine's new political class.)
The Facebook post by the young Ukrainian politician created an uproar in both Ukraine and Russia-but Western media preferred to
look the other way.
Inspired by his sudden notoriety, Mr. Gerashchenko posted one more rant on the same subject later on the same day in which he
elaborated his ideas even farther.
"Yes, Obama is a political dwarf because it looks like he does not grasp the full scale the consequences of Putin's capture of
Crimea. Because last spring and in the beginning of last summer Obama took the 'ostrich's position' and preferred not to see the
Putin's aggression on the continental part of the Ukraine. In the U.S.A., Barack Obama for his indecisive actions and lost positions
in foreign politics is called 'lame duck' which is analogous to our expression 'shot-down pilot'. And this name is well deserved.
Barack Obama will never be put in the same row with such great U.S. Presidents as Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. And even with
Bill Clinton …"
In his second post Mr. Gerashchenko went on to say that he was expressing not only his own feelings but the attitude of a significant
part of the Ukrainian population, "which considers Obama's actions unworthy of the leader of the most powerful nation in the world,
the one that made Ukraine give up its nuclear status … Instead of decisive actions, from March on we have seen nothing but declarations
that the White House is 'very concerned,' expresses its concerns' and also 'deeply worried' by the situation in our country."
By Mr. Gerashchenko's light, President Putin's entire operation in Crimea and Donbass was possible only because Mr. Putin knew
that Mr. Obama would never risk any strong moves to stop him. According to this star of Ukrainian politics, America gave "only" $1
billion to Ukraine but Mr. Gerashchenko and the like view this as a pittance. Instead, they want a big slice of the hundreds of billions
that the U.S. has spent on war from 2001-2014 in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.
These revealing and troubling posts were deleted within hours on the same day they appeared. Deleted or not, Mr. Gerashchenko,
as well as some significant number of Ukrainian politicians, rant at Mr. Obama for not doing what George Soros wants him to do -
immediately spend $50 billion of U.S. and E.U. taxpayers' money on building an immediate paradise in Ukraine. George Soros' motives
could be pragmatic, of course. Some evil tongues have been saying that the financier's arguments for the bailout of a falling Ukrainian
economy by the U.S. and European taxpayers have roots not in his love for freedom around the world. They say that he has a lot of
the Ukrainian government's bonds in his portfolio and in the case of Ukraine's national default he will lose billions.
Ironically, the biggest winner of a significant and prompt infusion of Western money into Ukraine would be the hated "Putler."
Just last week, Russia, strapped for cash itself as the
ruble plummets, started to spread rumors
that it is considering demanding early repayment of its $3 billion 2014 loan to Ukraine because the conditions of the loan demand
such a step in the event that the national debt of Ukraine exceeds 60 percent of its GDP. By now the national debt of Ukraine
is around 70 percent of its GDP and the prognosis is that by the end of this year it will be around 90 percent of its GDP. If any
significant amount of money is given to Ukraine, Russia will immediately start sucking out a big part of it as Ukrainian gas and
other energy bills will finally be paid on time … to Russia.
Mr. Gerashchenko's scandalous FB posts are gone, but the questions raised by them still remain. Will the Ukrainian political class
turn away from the U.S. and the West if the generosity of the U.S. taxpayers does not match the nebulous expectations of the reformers
in the Ukrainian government? Are the Ukrainians ready to rely mostly on themselves on the long and painful journey of building their
own independent nation? Amid all the reform talk and the importing of attractive foreign "advisors," one cannot but wonder if it's
nothing more than camouflage for the same old Ukrainian game-to convince the world to give, as Mr. Gerashchenko's first Facebook
post put it, just one more "large-scale economical assistance."
"... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?
PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35
That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent
responsible for its success or failure.
What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100%
responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???
For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which
is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:
Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
DPR and LPR leaders
Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36
£2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended
up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled,
then £3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere
near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!
HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26
The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their
citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.
Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59
You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All
infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply
than main Ukraine.
The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help
people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.
"... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?
PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35
That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent
responsible for its success or failure.
What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100%
responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???
For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which
is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:
Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
DPR and LPR leaders
Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36
£2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended
up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled,
then £3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere
near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!
HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26
The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their
citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.
Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59
You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All
infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply
than main Ukraine.
The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help
people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.
Latvia, which took over the rotating Presidency of the Council of the EU on 1 January, intends to launch a Russian-language
TV channel to counter Kremlin propaganda, with EU support, a high ranking government official told journalists in Riga
Some 40% of Latvians are native Russian speakers and regularly watch several Russian TV channels, including RBK Ren TV,
RTR Planeta, NTV Mir .
Makarovs regretted that the majority of Russian channels broadcasting for Latvia were registered in the UK and in Sweden,
and that the regulators of those countries paid no attention to the content and put no pressure whatsoever on the broadcaster.
He also argued that the procedure should be that if a media is targeted toward a specific country, it should be registered
in that particular country .
###
Firstly, the Balt states announced at various times over the last year or so that they would ban or block Russian channels.
But they can't. They are EU member states, so this whole alternative programs is an actually an admission of defeat.
Secondly, if Russian propaganda is so absurd and unbelievable, then why would alternative programing be necessary? It is cognitive
dissonance par excellence!
What is fairly clear is that the Pork Pie News Networks of 'Europe' and the US are facing much more skepticism than ever before,
mostly through incompetence and simply repeating the same old tropes and propganda tactics they have been using for over twenty
years now. It doesn't fool anyone any more.
As for Latvia's presidency of the EU, it is little more than spokesstate since the rotating Presidency was gutted a few years
ago to make it much more efficient (i.e cheaper). With small countries, yes they choose certain aspects that they wish to promote
for their six months of fame, but the logistics and heavy lifting is usually done (sponsored) by a larger EU state like UK, Nl,
DE, Fr etc..). It's not that much different to Mogherini's job as spokeshole for the European External Action Service, aka the
EU's foreign minister (and Katherine 'Gosh!' Ashton before her). They don't make policy, just vocalized the lowest common denominator
position of 28 EU member states.
A widening rift between Moscow and Washington over cruise missiles and increasingly daring
patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines threatens to end an era of arms control and bring
back a dangerous rivalry between the world's two dominant nuclear arsenals.
Tensions have been
taken to a new level by US threats of retaliatory action for Russian development of a new cruise
missile. Washington alleges it violates one of the key arms control treaties of the cold war, and
has raised the prospect of redeploying its own cruise missiles in
Europe after a 23-year
absence.
On Boxing Day, in one of the more visible signs of the unease, the US military launched the
first of two experimental "blimps" over Washington. The system, known as JLENS, is designed to
detect incoming cruise missiles. The North American Aerospace Command (Norad) did not specify the
nature of the threat, but the deployment comes nine months after the Norad commander,
General Charles Jacoby, admitted the Pentagon faced "some significant challenges" in
countering cruise missiles, referring in particular to the threat of Russian attack submarines.
Those submarines, which have been making forays across the Atlantic, routinely carry
nuclear-capable cruise missiles. In the light of aggressive rhetoric from Moscow and the expiry
of treaty-based restrictions, there is uncertainty over whether those missiles are now carrying
nuclear warheads.
The rise in tension comes at a time when the arms control efforts of the post-cold-war era are
losing momentum. The number of strategic nuclear warheads deployed by the US and Russia actually
increased last year,
and both countries are spending many billions of dollars a year modernising their arsenals.
Against the backdrop of the war in Ukraine and a failing economy, Vladimir Putin is putting
increasing emphasis on nuclear weapons as guarantors and symbols of Russian influence. In a
speech primarily about the Ukrainian conflict last summer, Putin pointedly referred to his
country's nuclear arsenal and
declared other countries "should understand it's best not to mess with us".
The Russian press has taken up the gung-ho tone. Pravda, the former mouthpiece of the Soviet
regime, published an article in November titled "Russian prepares a nuclear surprise for Nato",
which boasted of Russian superiority over the west, particularly in tactical nuclear weapons.
"The Americans are well aware of this," the
commentary said. "They were convinced before that Russia would never rise again. Now it's too
late."
Some of the heightened rhetoric appears to be bluster. The new version of the Russian military
doctrine, published on 25 December, left
its policy on nuclear weapons unchanged from four years earlier. They are to be used only in
the event of an attack using weapons of mass destruction or a conventional weapon onslaught which
"would put in danger the very existence of the state". It did not envisage a pre-emptive strike,
as some in the military had proposed.
However, the new aggressive tone coincides with an extensive upgrading of Russia's nuclear
weapons, reflecting Moscow's renewed determination to keep pace with the US arsenal. It will
involve a substantial increase in the number of warheads loaded on submarines, as a result of the
development of the multi-warhead Bulava sea-launched ballistic missile.
The modernisation also involves new or revived delivery systems. Last month
Russia announced it would
re-introduce nuclear missile trains, allowing intercontinental ballistic missiles to be moved
about the country by rail so they would be harder to target.
There is also mounting western anxiety over Russian marketing abroad of a cruise missile
called the Club-K, which can be concealed, complete with launcher, inside an innocuous-looking
shipping container until the moment it is fired.
However, the development that has most alarmed Washington is Russian testing of a medium-range
cruise missile which the Obama administration claims is a clear violation of the 1987
intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty, the agreement that brought to an end the
dangerous standoff between US and Russian cruise missiles in Europe. By hugging the contours of
the Earth, cruise missiles can evade radar defences and hit strategic targets with little or no
notice, raising fears on both sides of surprise pre-emptive attacks.
At a
contentious congressional hearing on 10 December, Republicans criticised two of the
administration's leading arms control negotiators, Rose Gottemoeller of the State Department and
Brian McKeon of the Pentagon, for not responding earlier to the alleged Russian violation and for
continuing to observe the INF treaty.
Gottemoeller said she had raised US concerns over the new missile "about a dozen times" with
her counterparts in Moscow and Obama had written to Putin on the matter. She said the new Russian
cruise missile – which she did not identify but is reported to be the Iskander-K with a reach in
the banned 500-5,500km range – appeared to be ready for deployment.
The Russians have denied the existence of the missile and have responded with
counter-allegations about American infringements of the INF treaty that Washington rejects.
McKeon said the Pentagon was looking at a variety of military responses to the Russian
missile, including the deployment of an American equivalent weapon.
"We have a broad range of options, some of which would be compliant with the INF treaty, some
of which would not be, that we would be able to recommend to our leadership if it decided to go
down that path," McKeon said. He later added: "We don't have ground-launched cruise missiles in
Europe now, obviously, because they are prohibited by the treaty but that would obviously be one
option to explore."
Reintroducing cruise missiles into Europe would be politically fraught and divisive, but the
Republican majority in Congress is pushing for a much more robust American response to the
Russian missile.
The US military
has also been rattled by the resurgence of the Russian submarine fleet. Moscow is building new
generations of giant ballistic missile submarines, known as "boomers", and attack submarines that
are equal or superior to their US counterparts in performance and stealth. From a low point in
2002, when the Russian navy managed to send out no underwater patrols at all, it is steadily
rebounding and reasserting its global reach.
There have been sporadic reports in the US press about Russian submarines reaching the
American east coast, which have been denied by the US military. But last year Jacoby, the head of
Norad and the US northern command at the time, admitted concerns about being able to counter new
Russian investment in cruise missile technology and advanced submarines.
"They have just begun production of a new class of quiet nuclear submarines specifically
designed to deliver cruise missiles,"
Jacoby told Congress.
Peter Roberts, who retired from the Royal Navy a year ago after serving as a commanding
officer and senior UK liaison officer with the US navy and intelligence services, said the
transatlantic forays by Akula-class Russian attack submarines had become a routine event, at
least once or twice a year.
"The Russians usually put out a sortie with an Akula or an Akula II around Christmas It
normally stops off Scotland, and then through the Bay of Biscay and out over the Atlantic. It
will have nuclear-capable missiles on it," he said.
Roberts, who is now senior research fellow for sea power and maritime studies at the Royal
United Services Institute, said the appearance of a periscope off the western coast of Scotland,
which
triggered a Nato
submarine hunt last month, was a sign of the latest such Russian foray.
He said the Russian attack submarine was most likely heading for the US coast. "They go across
to eastern seaboard, usually to watch the carrier battle groups work up [go on exercises].
"It's something the Americans have been trying to brush off but there is increasing concern
about the American ability to track these subs. Their own anti-sub skills have declined, while
we have all been focused on landlocked operations, in Afghanistan and so on."
The Akula is being superseded by an even stealthier submarine, the Yasen. Both are
multipurpose: hunter-killers designed to track and destroy enemy submarine and carrier battle
groups. Both are also armed with land-attack cruise missiles, currently the Granat, capable of
carrying nuclear warheads.
On any given sortie, Roberts said, "it is completely unknown whether they are nuclear-tipped".
A
Russian media report described the Akula as carrying Granat missiles with 200-kilotonne
warheads, but the reliability of the report is hard to gauge.
The US and Russia removed cruise missiles from their submarines after the 1991 Strategic Arms
Reduction treaty (Start), but that expired at the end of 2009. Its successor, New Start, signed
by Obama and the then Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, in 2010 does not include any such
limitation, nor does it even allow for continued exchange of information about cruise missile
numbers.
Pavel Podvig, a senior research
fellow at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research and the leading independent analyst of
Russian nuclear forces, said: "The bottom line is that we don't know, but it's safe to say that
it's quite possible that Russian subs carry nuclear SLCMs [submarine-launched cruise missiles].
Jeffrey Lewis, an arms control expert at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and
founding publisher of ArmsControlWonk.com,
believes the JLENS blimps are primarily a response to a Russian move to start rearming attack
submarines with nuclear weapons.
"For a long time, the Russians have been saying they would do this and now it looks like they
have," Lewis said. He added that the fact that data exchange on cruise missiles was allowed to
expire under the New Start treaty is a major failing that has increased uncertainty.
The Russian emphasis on cruise missiles is in line with Putin's
strategy of "de-escalation", which involves countering Nato's overwhelming conventional
superiority with the threat of a limited nuclear strike that would inflict "tailored damage" on
an adversary.
Lewis argues that Putin's accentuation of Russia's nuclear capabilities is aimed at giving him
room for manoeuvre in Ukraine and possibly other neighbouring states.
"The real reason he talks about how great they are is he saying: 'I'm going to go ahead and
invade Ukraine and you're going to look the other way. As long as I don't call it an invasion,
you're going to look at my nuclear weapons and say I don't want to push this,'" he said.
With both the US and Russia modernising their arsenals and Russia investing increasing
importance its nuclear deterrent, Hans Kristensen, the director of the Nuclear Information
Project at the Federation of American Scientists, said we are facing a period of "deepening
military competition".
He added: "It will bring very little added security, but a lot more nervous people on both
sides."
InvisibleOISA -> Ethelunready 4 Jan 2015 23:53
Just how many warheads have the Iranians lofted towards Europe in the past quarter century?
Anyhow, the Yanqui ABM system is a pathetic blunderbuss. But extremely profitable for Boeing.
For instance:
US ABM test failure mars $1bn N. Korea defense plan
06.07.2013 10:03
A $214-million test launch of the only US defense against long-range ballistic missile
attacks failed to hit its target over the Pacific Ocean, according to the Missile Defense
Agency. There have been no successful interceptor tests since 2008.
InvisibleOISA 4 Jan 2015 23:41
Hey Julian. What a wussy propaganda piece. How about a few facts to put things in
perspective.
"All told, over the next decade, according to the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, the
United States plans to spend $355 billion on the maintenance and modernization of its nuclear
enterprise,[3] an increase of $142 billion from the $213 billion the Obama administration
projected in 2011.[4] According to available information, it appears that the nuclear
enterprise will cost at least $1 trillion over the next 30 years.[5]
Beyond these upgrades of existing weapons, work is under way to design new weapons to
replace the current ones. The Navy is designing a new class of 12 SSBNs, the Air Force is
examining whether to build a mobile ICBM or extend the service life of the existing Minuteman
III, and the Air Force has begun development of a new, stealthy long-range bomber and a new
nuclear-capable tactical fighter-bomber. Production of a new guided "standoff" nuclear bomb,
which would be able to glide toward a target over a distance, is under way, and the Air Force
is developing a new long-range nuclear cruise missile to replace the current one."
And what about NATO, the u$a poodle.
NATO
"The new B61-12 is scheduled for deployment in Europe around 2020. At first, the guided
bomb, which has a modest standoff capability, will be backfitted onto existing F-15E, F-16,
and Tornado NATO aircraft. From around 2024, nuclear-capable F-35A stealthy fighter-bombers
are to be deployed in Europe and gradually take over the nuclear strike role from the F-16 and
Tornado aircraft."
Source: Arms Control Association
VikingHiking -> Rudeboy1 4 Jan 2015 23:25
To sum up the results of the lend-lease program as a whole, the Soviet Union received, over
the war years, 21,795 planes, 12,056 tanks, 4,158 armored personnel carriers, 7,570 tractor
trucks, 8,000 antiaircraft and 5,000 antitank guns, 132,000 machine-guns, 472 million
artillery shells, 9,351 transceivers customized to Soviet-made fighter planes, 2.8 million
tons of petroleum products, 102 ocean-going dry cargo vessels, 29 tankers, 23 sea tugboats and
icebreakers, 433 combat ships and gunboats, as well as mobile bridges, railroad equipment,
aircraft radar equipment, and many other items."
"Imperialist Powers paid for the blood of Soviet soldiers with limited supplies of obsolete
weapons, canned food and other war materiel which amounted to about 4% of total Soviet
production during WarII".
During Cold War all traces of Lend Lease and after UNRRA help were meticulously sanitized
and removed; photos of soviet soldiers riding Shermans, Universal Carriers or manning AAA guns
were excluded from books and never appeared in magazines.
Five eights of the total German War effort was expended on the Russian front.
So it was a combination of allied arms and resources which kaputed the Nazi's, namely
1) The Russian Army
2) THE American Air Force
3) The British Navy and Merchant Marine
4) Hitler's Stupidity
Beckow -> StrategicVoice213 4 Jan 2015 23:03
Are you done with your boasting? By the way, you forgot Hollywood and GMO foods.
Leaving aside the one-side nature of your list (internet or web were also invented in CERN
by a European team), technology or business are not the same as intelligence.
Most Americans simply don't understand the world, its history, other cultures, don't see
others as having independent existence with other choices. They don't get it because they are
isolated and frankly quite lazy intellectually. Thus the infamous "we won WW2 in Normandy"
boast and similar bizarre claims.
Are other often similar? Yes, absolutely. But most of the others have no ability to provoke
a nuclear Armageddon, so their ignorance is annoying, but not fatal. The article was about the
worsening US-Russia confrontation and how it may end (or end everything). The fact that US has
actively started and provoked this confrontation in the last few years, mostly out of blissful
ignorance and endless selfishness. Thus we get "defensive missiles against Iran on Russia's
border", coups in Ukraine, endless demonizations...well, I think you get the picture. If you
don't, see the original post
irgun777 4 Jan 2015 22:59
" increasingly daring patrols by nuclear-capable Russian submarines "
What motivates the Cry Wolf tune of this article ?
Don't we also conduct nuclear and nuclear capable submarine patrols ? Even our allies
and friends operate routinely " nuclear capable submarines "
Our military budget alone is 10 times the Russian , we have over 600 military bases around
the world , some around Russia. We still continue to use heavy , nuclear capable bombers
for patrol , something Russia stopped doing after the Cold War. Russia did not
support and financed a coup in our neighbors . Something Ron Paul and Kissinger warned us
not to do.
Georgeaussie 4 Jan 2015 22:55
This is just US propaganda to get the increased military spending through congress.
I think its interesting that Americans believe their military personal are defending there
country when the United States is usually the aggressor. And that is my view,. And as for
people saying Russian bots and Korean bots(which i don't know if they exist) you are sounding
just as bad as them, every country has propaganda and everyone has a right to believe what
they want, wether its western media or eastern media. People on here don't need people like
you with you extreme biases, yes have an opinion, but don't put other peoples opinion down
because you think your right, collectively there is no right or wrong, do you know whats going
on around closed doors in your govt? Well sorry you probably know less then you think, i like
to read different media reports and its interesting, do you "obama bots" know that Russia is
helping look for the black box of the air asia flight? I just thought it was interesting not
reading that in my "western media" reports over the weeks. So comment and tell me if you
honestly think "western bot" are correct and "eastern bots" aren't b/c i would like too know
how there i a right and and wrong. In my OPINION there isn't if anything you are both wrong.
Veritas Vicnit 5 Jan 2015 00:05
p1. 'Russian General: We Are At War'
"Gen. Leonid Ivashov... issued a sharp warning about the nature of the strategic crisis
unfolding in Ukraine: "Apparently they [US and EU officials] have dedicated themselves, and
continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They
present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda
employed most successfully: . . . They accuse the party that is defending itself, of
aggression. What is happening in Ukraine and Syria is a project of the West, a new type of
war: ... wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . . under the
cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine.
They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . We see
that on the heels of the disinformation operation a land-sea, and possibly air operation is
being prepared." (Russian General: 'We Are At War', February 22, 2014)
"what David Petraeus has done for counter-insurgency warfare, Stuart Levey [later David
Cohen] has done for economic warfare" [Sen. Joe Lieberman]
Russian military sources have disclosed their recognition that offensive operations
(economic warfare, proxy warfare, regime change operations, etc.) are active as is the
mobilisation of military architecture.
MattTruth 5 Jan 2015 00:05
Russia is not a threat to USA. The elite of USA just need a war and need it soon.
afewpiecesofsilver -> Continent 5 Jan 2015 00:00
That's exactly why the US/NATO is trying to 'wedge' Ukraine into their EU. Then they can
develop military bases in traditionally, socially, culturally, verbally Russian Ukraine, right
on Russia's border....After the well known, publicized and continuous international bullying
and abuse of Russia and Putin over the last couple of years, and now the recent undermining of
it's oil economy by US and NATO, anyone who is condemning Putin and Russia obviously can't
read.
moosejaw12999 5 Jan 2015 00:00
Might give a few minute warning on cruise missiles but will do nothing against drones will
it Barry ?
When you start a game , you should think for a minute where it might end . Americas worst enemy is always her own disgruntled people . Drones will be the new weapon of choice in Americas upcoming civil war .
Ross Kramer 4 Jan 2015 23:58
"Russia is a regional power" - Obama said last year. Yeah, sure. Just by looking at the map
I can see it is twice bigger than the US in territory. Its tails touches Alaska and its head
lays on the border with Germany. How on Earth the biggest country in the world with the
nuclear arsenal equal to that of the US can be "just a regional power"?
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.
I
was surprised by the extent of it. I knew fundamentally from my own experience that changing
national policies is like trying to change the course of an aircraft carrier. These policies in
many ways were set long ago, and the national security bureaucracy tends to favor the status quo.
Still, I thought that a president like Obama would, with the political wind in his sails and with
so much public and congressional support for what he was criticizing, be more successful in
fulfilling his promises.
![U.S. field production of crude oil, by source, 1860-2014, in millions of barrels per day. Updated from Hamilton (2014) based on data reported in [1], [2].](Images/us_oil_prod_mar_15.png)
