[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe
that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore,"
he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can
study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we
do."[2]
An unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove:
Arby's Just Quietly Discontinued These 6 Menu Items See Dolly Parton Recreate Her Iconic
"Playboy" Cover 43 Years Later
WASHINGTON, July 21 (Reuters) - Germany has committed to take action on its own and back
action at the European Union level should Russia seek to use energy as a weapon or take
aggressive action against Ukraine, U.S. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland said on
Wednesday.
"Should Russia attempt to use energy as a weapon or commit further aggressive actions
against Ukraine, Germany will take actions at the national level and press for effective
measures at the European level, including sanctions, to limit Russian export capabilities in
the energy sector," Nuland told lawmakers, adding that Germany would support an extension of
the Russia-Ukraine transit agreement that expires in 2024. (Reporting By Arshad Mohammed and
Jonathan Landay)
"... Two world wars were fought to keep Germany down. The stated purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down. ..."
"... IMO US didn't cause NS2 friction because it thinks it benefits Russia, but exactly because it benefits Germany too much. ..."
"... You know, NATO, "Keep the Germans down..." and all that. US must not permit it's vassals to become too economically stronger than their master. They want to drag everyone they can down with them (and in shitter US goes) so they can still be king of the hill (or ad least shitter bottom). ..."
"... The most important point to know is that US hegemony in Europe is predicated on fear and hostility between Germany and Russia. ..."
"... There are many limitations to European strategic autonomy -- and the EU embodies those limits in many ways -- but the case of NS2 demonstrates an independent streak in German strategy. It amounts to a zero sum loss for Washington. ..."
"... Lebanon does illustrate the incredible reach of the Empire. A leverage so long that every door leads to self immolation. Your mention of the current spyware scandal is right on point. These are instruments of absolute power. ..."
"... While Trump is certainly no representative of humanity, it just as certainly doesn't look like his rise was in the playbook of the dominant faction of the oligarchy. Trump really seems to fit the mould of a Bonapartist, though recast in the context of contemporary America. This would indicate that the imperial oligarchy is in crisis, which itself could lead to fractures in the empire, and among the empire's vassals in particular. ..."
The sanctions war the U.S. waged against Germany and Russia over the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
has ended with a total U.S. defeat.
The U.S. attempts to block the pipeline were part of the massive anti-Russia campaign waged
over the last five years. But it was always based on a misunderstanding. The pipeline is not to
Russia's advantage but important for Germany. As I described Nord Stream 2 in a
previous piece :
It is not Russia which needs the pipeline. It can
sell its gas to China for just as much as it makes by selling gas to Europe.
...
It is Germany, the EU's economic powerhouse, that needs the pipeline and the gas flowing
through it. Thanks to Chancellor Merkel's misguided energy policy - she put an end to nuclear
power in German after a tsunami in Japan destroyed three badly placed reactors - Germany
urgently needs the gas to keep its already high electricity prices from rising further.
That the new pipeline will bypass old ones which run through the Ukraine is likewise to
the benefit of Germany, not Russia. The pipeline infrastructure in the Ukraine is old and
near to disrepair. The Ukraine has no money to renew it. Politically it is under U.S.
influence. It could use its control over the energy flow to the EU for blackmail. (It already
tried
once.) The new pipeline, laid at the bottom of the Baltic sea, requires no payment for
crossing Ukrainian land and is safe from potential malign influence.
Maybe Chancellor Merkel on her recent visit to Washington DC finally managed to explain that
to the Biden administration. More likely though she simply told the U.S. to f*** off. Whatever
- the result is in. As the Wall Street Journal
reports today:
The U.S. and Germany have reached an agreement allowing completion of the Nord Stream 2
natural gas pipeline, officials from both countries say.
Under the four-point agreement, Germany and the U.S. would invest $50 million in Ukrainian
green-tech infrastructure, encompassing renewable energy and related industries. Germany also
would support energy talks in the Three Seas Initiative, a Central European diplomatic
forum.
Berlin and Washington as well would try to ensure that Ukraine continues to receive
roughly $3 billion in annual transit fees that Russia pays under its current agreement with
Kyiv, which runs through 2024. Officials didn't explain how to ensure that Russia continues
to make the payments.
The U.S. also would retain the prerogative of levying future pipeline sanctions in the
case of actions deemed to represent Russian energy coercion, officials in Washington
said.
So Germany will spend some chump change to buy up, together with the U.S, a few Ukrainian
companies that are involved in solar or wind mill stuff. It will 'support' some irrelevant
talks by maybe paying for the coffee. It also promises to try something that it has no way to
succeed in.
That's all just a fig leave. The U.S. really gave up without receiving anything for itself
or for its client regime in the Ukraine.
The Ukraine lobby in Congress will be very unhappy with that deal. The Biden administration
hopes to avoid an uproar over it. Yesterday Politico reported that the Biden
administration preemptively had told the Ukraine
to stop talking about the issue :
In the midst of tense negotiations with Berlin over a controversial Russia-to-Germany
pipeline, the Biden administration is asking a friendly country to stay quiet about its
vociferous opposition. And Ukraine is not happy.
U.S. officials have signaled that they've given up on stopping the project, known as the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and are now scrambling to contain the damage by striking a grand
bargain with Germany.
At the same time, administration officials have quietly urged their Ukrainian counterparts
to withhold criticism of a forthcoming agreement with Germany involving the pipeline,
according to four people with knowledge of the conversations.
The U.S. officials have indicated that going public with opposition to the forthcoming
agreement could damage the Washington-Kyiv bilateral relationship , those sources said. The
officials have also urged the Ukrainians not to discuss the U.S. and Germany's potential
plans with Congress.
If Trump had done the above Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi would have called for another
impeachment.
The Ukrainian President Zelensky is furious over the deal and about being told to shut up.
But there is little he can do but to accept the booby price the Biden administration offered
him:
U.S. officials' pressure on Ukrainian officials to withhold criticism of whatever final deal
the Americans and the Germans reach will face significant resistance.
A source close to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said that Kyiv's position is that
U.S. sanctions could still stop completion of the project, if only the Biden administration
had the will to use them at the construction and certification stages. That person said Kyiv
remains staunchly opposed to the project.
Meanwhile, the Biden administration gave Zelensky a date for a meeting at the White House
with the president later this summer , according to a senior administration official.
Nord Stream 2 is to 96% ready. Its testing will start in August or September and by the
years end it will hopefully deliver gas to western Europe.
Talks about building Nord Stream 3 are likely to start soon.
Posted by b on July 21, 2021 at 17:13 UTC | Permalink
Did Merkel also get Biden to promise that neither he nor any of his clients (AQ, ISIS, etc.
etc. etc.) would perpetrate any "unfortunate incidents" or "disruptions" on NS 2?
And would any such promises be worth the breath that uttered them?
But it was always based on a misunderstanding. The pipeline is not to Russia's advantage
but important for Germany
I'm afraid it is you who doesn't understand. Two world wars were fought to keep Germany down. The stated purpose of NATO is to keep the
Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.
They weren't trying to block NS2 to keep Russia out but to keep Germany down,
I beg to differ. IMO US didn't cause NS2 friction because it thinks it benefits Russia, but
exactly because it benefits Germany too much.
You know, NATO, "Keep the Germans down..." and all that. US must not permit it's vassals
to become too economically stronger than their master. They want to drag everyone they can
down with them (and in shitter US goes) so they can still be king of the hill (or ad least
shitter bottom).
That is why there is also pressure for all western countries to adopt insane immigration,
LGBT, austerity policies and what not. What a better way to destroy all these countries, both
economically and culturally, or adleast make them far more worse than US, it is only way US
can again become "powerhouse", like after WW2.
Does this represent a fracturing of the EU? or maybe a change in direction?
What b is pointing out about how if it were Trump....only means that the bullying approach
by empire didn't work and now we are seeing face saving bullying and backpedaling like crazy
in some areas.
I roll my eyes at this ongoing belief that Trump represented humanity instead of all or
some faction of the elite....as a demigod it seems.
the "facts" as you state them are not quite right.
1. China is ruthless. They waited until the last possible second to sign a deal with Iran,
thus ensuring they are getting the best possible price for Iran's oil, basically robbing Iran
blind. The poor Iran didn't have a choice but to agree. Even today, Putin will NOT say how
much China is paying for gas on Siberia pipeline and a lot of people think China is robbing
Russia blind on the deal. A second Siberia line without a NS2 will put Russia is very bad
negotiation position and China in very good one, giving them the advantage to ask for any
price of Russia and get it.
2. Merkel is leaving anyway in September and thw Green party that will be taking over HATES
RUssia with passion. The NS2 is far from done deal, it needs to be insured. Plus it will fall
under the EU 3rd energy package making sure Germany doesn't use it 100% . The NS2 will never
be 100 usable, the Green party will see to that. AT best it will be only 50% usage.
And so on and so on.
Funny how in today's world, we all have different facts. My facts are different than YOUR
facts. My facts are just as relevant as your facts.
What is more, the most dangerous potential alliance, from the perspective of the United
States, was considered to be an alliance between Russia and Germany. This would be an
alliance of German technology and capital with Russian natural and human resources.
The article explains a lot, more than just Germany or Russia.
They weren't trying to block NS2 to keep Russia out but to keep Germany down...
Germany would be 'down' no matter how much financial power it accumulates - i.e regardless
of NS2. The imperial garrison at Rammstein AFB will make sure of that. What the Americans fear is the symbolic meaning of NS2 in terms of geopolitical influence
for Russia. The loss of maneuverability against Russia that results from a key vassal not
being able to move in complete obedience to Uncle Sam's wishes.
The pipeline construction battle has been won, not the energy flow war.
The Financial Empire is most likely resorting to some CHARADE to find an excuse to later
stop the gas flow through Nord Stream 2. Empire's bullying was clearly exposed through
sanctions and it LOST the battle of stopping the pipeline construction. So it moves to the
next battle to find an excuse to stop the gas flow. Empire's evil intent is visible in these
words, "the U.S. also would retain the prerogative of levying future pipeline sanctions in
the case of actions deemed to represent Russian energy coercion, officials in Washington
said."
The Financial Empire has worked hard over the last century to prevent Germany from allying
herself with Russia. It wants to control energy flowing in Eurasia and its pricing. The war
will be only won when the Financial Empire is defeated and its global pillars of power
DISMANTLED.
"The 'heartland' was an area centered in Eurasia, which would be so situated and catered
to by resources and manpower as to render it an unconquerable fortress and a fearsome power;
and the 'crescent' was a virtual semi-arc encompassing an array of islands – America,
Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Japan – which, as 'Sea Powers,' watched over the
Eurasian landmass to detect and eventually thwart any tendency towards a consolidation of
power on the heartland."
Has the Financial Empire stopped interfering in other regions?
"US, Germany Threaten Retaliatory Action Against Russia in Draft Nord Stream 2 Accord -
Report...."
"As the US and Germany have reportedly reached a deal on the Nord Stream 2 project,
Bloomberg reported on Tuesday, citing the obtained draft text of the agreement, that it
would threaten sanctions and other measures if Russia tried to use energy as a 'weapon'
against Ukraine , though it did not specify what actions could provoke the
countermeasures.
"According to the report, in such a case, Germany will take unspecified national
action , a decision that may represent a concession from Chancellor Angela Merkel, who
had previously refused to take independent action against Moscow over the gas pipeline that
will run from Russia to Germany." [My Emphasis]
The article continues:
"On Tuesday, Ned Price, a spokesman for the US State Department, told reporters that he
did not have final details of an agreement to announce, but that 'the Germans have put
forward useful proposals, and we have been able to make progress on steps to achieve that
shared goal, that shared goal being to ensure that Russia cannot weaponize energy
."
" The US was hoping for explicit language that would commit Germany to shut down gas
delivery through Nord Stream 2 if Russia attempted to exert undue influence on Ukraine .
Germany, on the other hand, has long rejected such a move, stating that such a threat would
only serve to politicize a project that Merkel stresses is solely commercial in nature." [My
Emphasis]
The overall motive appears to be this:
"The accord would also commit Germany to use its influence to prolong Ukraine's gas
transit arrangement with Russia beyond 2024, possibly for up to ten years . Those talks
would begin no later than September 1, according to the news outlet." [My Emphasis]
So, here we have the Outlaw US Empire meddling in the internal affairs of three
nations--Germany, Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine cannot afford Russian gas as it has no rubles
to pay for it. Thus if Ukraine has no money to buy, then why should Gazprom be obliged to
give it away freely? What about other European customers who rely on gas piped through
Ukraine; are they going to see what they pay for get stolen by Ukraine? And what happens when
the pipelines breakdown from lack of maintenance since Ukraine's broke thanks to the Outlaw
Us Empire's coup that razed its economy? Shouldn't the Empire and its NATO vassals who
invaded Ukraine via their coup be forced to pay for such maintenance? And just who
"weaponized" this entire situation in the first place?
From my understanding, NS 2 was mutually beneficial for Germany and Russia.
As noted, Germany desperately needs energy and relying on the outrageously priced and
unreliable US LNG was not a viable option.
Russia benefits also.
1.No more high transit fees Russia pays Ukraine. I imagine some of that was finding its way
into US pockets after 2014.
2.Ukraine supposedly helped itself to plenty of stolen gas from the pipeline. That will
stop.
3.Ukraine was occasionally shutting down the pipeline for political reasons until Russia paid
the ransom. Not anymore.
So, Russia and Germany were both highly motivated to finish the pipeline ASAP.
Germany would be 'down' no matter how much financial power it accumulates - i.e regardless
of NS2.
The imperial garrison at Rammstein AFB will make sure of that.
Putin not too long ago (can't find the article now) said he was prepared to help Europe
gain its independence should they wish to do so, Rammstein or no Rammstein.
What the Americans fear is the symbolic meaning of NS2 in terms of geopolitical influence
for Russia. The loss of maneuverability against Russia that results from a key vassal not
being able to move in complete obedience to Uncle Sam's wishes.
What they fear should this deal go ahead is a Germany/Russia/China Axis that would control
the world island and thus the world.
I was convinced that the US of Assholery had lost its infantile anti-NS2 'battle' in
September 2020, after watching an episode of DW Conflict Zone in which Sarah Kelly
interviewed Niels Annen, Germany's Deputy FM. Annen came to the interview armed to the teeth
with embarrassing facts about US hypocrisy including, but not limited to, the fact that USA,
itself, buys vast quantities of petroleum products from Russia each year.
The interview is Google-able and, apart from pure entertainment value, Sarah is much
easier on the eye than Tim Sebastian...
1. China is ruthless. They waited until the last possible second to sign a deal with Iran, thus ensuring they are
getting the best possible price for Iran's oil, basically robbing Iran blind.
Hmmm... I seem to remember Iran shafting China on the south Pars gas field when it looked like the JCPOA was looking
likely...
If this memory of mine was correct (it may not be) then you really can't blame China for a little commercial payback.
In any case it was shown as soon as JCPOA Mk.1 was passed Iran RAN, not walked, to smooch up to the west for business, not
China, not Russia. So if its just business for Iran then its just business for China.
In our eagerness to expose the empire's shortcomings in a quick 'gotcha!' moment we
shouldn't rush head first into false premises. To suggest Dear Uncle Sam is concerned with
anything other than his own navel is naive. He's the man with the plan. He knows that down
the road, Oceania's eastern border won't run along the Dnieper but right off the shore of
Airstrip One.
As has been mentioned before, the NN2 pipeline gives Germany leverage over Russia ,
not the other way around.
US => Germany => Russia.
Which is now plan b for the US. If then they can use their leverage over Germany to
steer it in any direction it wants to vs. Russia.
This will probably be followed by "targeted" sanctions on specific Politicians, Bankers
and Heads of industry. They only need to propose such sanctions individually for them
to have an effect. Using Pegasus for inside information to Blackmail those it wants to.
*****
Example of a sanctions racket :
Similar to the potential sanctions on any Lebanese Politian or Group Leaders if they get Oil
from Iran, Russia or China. The Lebanese population be damned.
"Apparently US Treasury has informed the government of Lebanon, that if any Oil
products from Iran make it into Lebanon, in any way; the government of Lebanon and all its
members will be sanctioned. This includes the Central Bankers"
Just in case you didn't understand how the crisis in the country is manufactured.
Pegasus again:
"leaks on the targets of Israeli spy program Pegasus, show hundreds in
Lebanon including the elected leadership of every party, every media outlet, & every
security agency, have been targeted by clients in 10 countries; all belonging to the
Imperialist camp.
But it is very easy to guess by looking at who are the external imperialist forces
active in Lebanon. USA/UK/France/Turkey/Germany/Canada/Israel/Qatar; that's eight. Plus Saudi
Arabia." *******
PS. Lebanon; This comes as a response to Sayyed Nasrallah stating in his last speech
that if the State in Lebanon is not able to provide fuel, he will bring it at the expense of
Hizbullah from Iran, dock it in the port of Beirut, and dared anyone to stop it from reaching
the people.
*****
Germany will only be the latest victim as the Mafia-US "protection" racket is ramped
up.
Both b and the many commenters raise excellent points. Yes, the US wants to hurt both Russia
and Germany. And yes the US *definitely* fears close cooperation between Moscow and Berlin.
But the main take home lesson is that the US failed despite enormous efforts to block NS2.
Russo-German cooperation is inevitable and the world will be better for it.
>>a lot of people think China is robbing Russia blind on the deal
Why would be Russia building Power of Siberia 2 and 3 to China then? Or selling LNG too?
You don't have much knowledge on the topic, the way it looks. A giant gas plant was built
near the border with China, the second biggest gas plant in the world, because the gas for
China is rich in rare elements, thus turning Russia in of the the biggest producers of
strategic helium, not to mention extracting many other rare elements. China gets gas that has
been cleaned of anything valuable from it, with the exception of the gas itself.
>>merkel is leaving anyway in September and thw Green party that will be taking
over
The latest polls show clear lead for CDU/CSU. And it looks like its too late.
>>the NS2 will never be 100 usable, tthe Green party will see to that. AT best it
will be only 50% usage.
Do you even follow what has been going on? Germany is free not to buy russian gas, that
is, to be left without gas if this is what it wants.
Do you see how nat gas prices exploded in Europe recently? Do you know why is that?
Because Russia refuses to sell additional volumes via Ukraine's network. It is a message to
finish the issues with NS 2 pipeline faster and then everything will be fine, there will be
plenty of space for new gas volumes, and the gas price will drop.
It is the UNSC resolutions of 2006, 2007 and 2010 which have laid the backbone for the
incremental diplomatic, economic and material warfare against Iran. Without them, there would
be no narrative framing Iran as an outlaw nor justification for crippling sanctions. That
Iran should even be subjected to the JCPOA is in itself an objective injustice.
Each of these resolutions could easily have been blocked by the two permanent members of
the UNSC we go to much lengths on this forum to depict as selfless adversaries of the Empire.
All they had to do was raise a finger and say niet. In other words, by their actions, these
two members placed Iran in a very disadvantageous trading position.
So, did they profit from this position of strength?
"According to the draft deal, obtained by Bloomberg, Washington and Berlin would
threaten sanctions and other retaliation if Russia 'tries to use energy as a weapon against
Ukraine', with Germany being obligated to take unspecified actions in the event of Russian
'misbehaviour' . [My Emphasis]
The article then turns to the interview:
"Professor Glenn Diesen of the University of South-Eastern Norway has explained what is
behind the US-Germany row is." [That last "is" appears to be a typo]
I suggest barflies pay close attention to Dr. Diesen who's the author of an outstanding
book on the geoeconomics of Russia and China, Russia's Geoeconomic Strategy for a Greater
Eurasia . I judge the following Q&A to be most relevant:
"Sputnik: The Biden administration waived sanctions on the firm behind the gas project,
Nord Stream 2 AG, and its chief executive, Matthias Warnig. At the same time, Secretary of
State Antony Blinken stated in June that the pipeline project was a Russian tool for the
coercion of Europe and signaled that the US has leverage against it. What's behind
Washington's mixed signals with regard to the project? How could they throw sand in Nord
Stream 2's gears, in your opinion - or are Blinken's threats empty?
"Glenn Diesen: The mixed signals demonstrate that the completion of Nord Stream 2 was a
defeat for the US. Biden confirmed that he waived sanctions because the project was near
complete. Sanctions could not stop the project [link at original], rather they would merely
continue to worsen relations with Berlin and Moscow. The best approach for Washington at this
point is to recognise that Nord Stream 2 is a done deal, and instead Washington will direct
its focus towards limiting the geo-economics consequences of the pipeline by obtaining
commitments from Berlin such as preserving Ukraine's role as a transit state [Link at
original].
"The US therefore waives sanctions against Nord Stream 2, yet threatens new sanctions if
Berlin fails to accept US conditions and limitations on Nord Stream 2. Blinken's threats
are loaded with 'strategic ambiguity', which could be aimed to conceal that they are merely
empty threats . However, strategic ambiguity is also conducive to prevent Berlin from
calculating the "costs" and possible remedies to US threats. Furthermore, ambiguity can be
ideal in terms of how to respond as it is not a good look to continuously threaten allies."
[Emphasis original]
The professor's closing remarks are also very important regarding Merkel's successor.
Where I disagree is with the notion that the Outlaw US Empire has geoeconomic leverage over
the EU--military yes, but the Empire is just as uncompetitive versus the EU as it is versus
China.
So, did they profit from this position of strength?
Of course they did, let's be real. China and Russia are not going to be the all benevolent saviors of the world, they never
were, never will.
They will always serve their interests first and foremost. Sometimes, they do get suckered
into UNSC resolutions like those you spoke of. Sometimes, there're backroom horse trading
that we're not privy to and little countries are just chips on the table...
The best we can hope for is that they can behave with more integrity than currently shown
by the incumbent anglospheric bloc in their re-ascendancy.
Either we ditch the UNSC system or everybody get nukes, because i can't see the current
UNSC members willing ditch their own, ever.
Lysander is correct.
The most important point to know is that US hegemony in Europe is predicated on fear and
hostility between Germany and Russia.
Types of interdependence between Germany and Russia, eg. NRG security, are a direct threat
to US dominance over Europe as a whole.
There are many limitations to European strategic autonomy -- and the EU embodies those
limits in many ways -- but the case of NS2 demonstrates an independent streak in German
strategy. It amounts to a zero sum loss for Washington.
Way too much confusion over what Nord Stream 2 really means.
1) Russian gas transiting Ukraine had already fallen from 150 bcm to the high 90s/low 100s
before Nord Stream 2 goes online.
Even after NS2 goes online, a significant amount of Russian gas will still transit via
Ukraine.
2) Energy demand generally increases over time, not decreases. Russian gas exports aren't
increasing in a straight line, but keep in mind that there are significant new competitors
now and in the process coming online. These include Azerbaijan as well as the ongoing
pipeline struggle through the Black Sea/Turkey/Eastern Med.
I never believed there was any chance of NS2 not completing; the only question was
when.
Lebanon does illustrate the incredible reach of the Empire. A leverage so long that every
door leads to self immolation. Your mention of the current spyware scandal is right on point.
These are instruments of absolute power.
What we need now is a worldwide Me Too movement to denounce this leverage. Taking that
first step would require a lot of courage for any blackmailed individual, but the one little
breach could lead to a flood of world citizens just about fed up with the Empire's shit.
It pains me that I do not remember exactly who it was, but one of the more erudite posters
here mentioned some time ago that Trump seemed more like a Bonapartist figure than a fascist
or a typical and simple representative of a faction in the oligarchy. While Trump is
certainly no representative of humanity, it just as certainly doesn't look like his rise was
in the playbook of the dominant faction of the oligarchy. Trump really seems to fit the mould
of a Bonapartist, though recast in the context of contemporary America. This would indicate
that the imperial oligarchy is in crisis, which itself could lead to fractures in the empire,
and among the empire's vassals in particular.
It is unwise to downplay the significance of Trump coming to power in 2016, regardless of
what feelings one may have about the individual himself. The conditions that led to the rise
of Trump not only persist, but have intensified. Those conditions cannot be resolved by mass
media gaslighting and social media censorship, which actually seems to be having an effect
more like holding the emergency relief valve on a boiler closed; it quiets an annoying sound,
but causes the underlying issue to grow more severe.
Basically, further splits in the EU are inevitable. It is the timing of those splits that
is difficult to predict, but the accuracy of that prediction hinges upon the accuracy of our
assessment of events occurring now. Interestingly, Trump is still part of these unfolding
events.
Fracturing NATO and the West hmmm ... If Germany gains any independence from U.S.
coercion they are 'fracturing Europe'. Bad Germany.
Germany must forever remain a vassal state of the U.S. by allowing the U.S. to use another
vassal state to control their energy supply. And who says we don't believe in freedom. Neocons are such vile creatures. Always twisting words but remember, whenever they say
something, the exact opposite is true.
One issue underlying this fiasco is I believe that the neocons / Atlantic Council were 100%
certain that Russia did not have the expertise to lay pipelines at the required depths, and
once Allseas was facing sanctions, the project would never be completed.
I believe that the exact pricing formula for Power of Siberia is confidential, but this
much is known:
"The price of Russian gas supplies to China increased in the second quarter of 2021 for
the first time since deliveries started via the Power of Siberia pipeline in 2019, but daily
delivery volumes fell in April, Interfax reported on Sunday.
Russian gas giant Gazprom GAZP.MM has said it supplied China with 3.84 billion cubic
metres of gas via the Power of Siberia pipeline in its first year of operation.
Citing Chinese customs data, Interfax said the price of gas increased to $148 per thousand
cubic metres, rising from $121 in the first quarter, and reversing a downward trend."
Also, Victoria Nuland informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today about Biden's
cave to Russia. That must have been brutal for her. Regardless, nice to see a rare display of
sanity from s US administration.
The primary and only objective of the US Foreign policy vis-a-vis Europe since WW2 has
been to prevent Russia and Germany (now read the German run EU project) coupling up, that's
it, nothing else matters on Europe.
The completion of N-2 presents a serious blow tho this aim, the new pipeline is a must for
Germany, it must get finished, without it Germany's supply of energy would have been almost
fully controlled by the Americans who have either direct or indirect authority over every
major source of hydrocarbons except for Venezuela and Russia, the latter only partly, the
Ukrainian pipeline is fully in their sphere of influence.
Energy fuels everything from private dwellings to major corporations, it's together with
labour and technology the most important ingredient in every economy. To lose control of it
would have been a catastrophe for Germany, in particular if one takes into account the secret
treaty between Germany and the Allies (read the US) from 1949.
"On 23 May 1949, the Western Allies ratified a new German constitution, known as the
"Basic Law" or Grundgesetz.
However, two days prior, a secret state treaty - Geheimer Staatsvertrag - was also signed to
grant complete Allied
control over education and all licensed media, press, radio, television and publishing houses
until the year 2099.
This was confirmed by Major-General Gerd-Helmut Komossa, former head of German Military
Intelligence in his
book, "Die Deutsche Karte" or The German Card".
What's interesting about Power of Siberia-1 is that the gas is being stripped -- refined at
the newly completed Amur Gas Plant -- of its components prior to being piped into China. I
don't know if Germany's petrochemical industry will be deprived in similar manner with
NS2.
CD Waller @36--
Nothing in the energy production realm is carbon neutral. ROSATOM has mastered the fuel
cycle which means most if not all toxic waste will now be burned for energy. New reactors do
NOT use water as coolant. Clearly you need to update what you know about nuclear power.
The Russian 'victory' is very narrow and mostly consists of the patience and determination to
follow-thru while consistently being derided/attacked by Western media, pundits, and
politicians:
Since Russia/Gasprom owns NS2 100% (paying for half the construction cost outright and
financing the rest), there was never much need to stop construction, only to stop/limit
consumption. The 'trick' was to find a way to accomplish US/NATO goals that would not make
German leaders look like puppets.
Biden's approach looks good compared to Trump's heavy-handed approach. As they are BOTH
spokesman of the Empire's Deep State, we can surmise that this is merely good cop / bad cop
theatrics.
This USA-GERMAN agreement makes Germany appear to voluntarily support EU/NATO -
a good thing(tm) that most Germans will accept without question. But behind the scenes,
it's unlikely that there was ever any real choice, just a mutual desire to fashion a
'smart' policy that didn't undermine German political leaders.
Germany can now be pressured to support USA-Ukraine belligerence - if they don't they
will be portrayed as not living up to their obligations to US/NATO/EU/Ukraine as enshrined
in this agreement.
If Russia retaliates against German purchase reductions in any way they will be labeled
as a politically-driven, unreliable supplier. That will 'invite' sanctions and spark
efforts to force EU/Germany to eliminate all Russia goods from their markets.
Russia and China are likely to be increasingly linked in Western media/propaganda.
Deficiencies of one or the other will apply to BOTH.
The next few winters in EU will be very interesting.
Jackrabbit @41 incorrectly says Russia owns NS2 100% It's owned by Nord Stream 2 AG, and
here's its
website listing its financial investors, while its shareholders/owners are global. The
company is located in Zug, Switzerland. Here we are told who the financial companies
are :
"In April 2017, Nord Stream 2 AG signed the financing agreements for the Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline project with ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper, and Wintershall. These five
European energy companies will provide long-term financing for 50 per cent of the total cost
of the project."
As with the first string, Russia doesn't own it 100% nor did it finance it completely;
rather, its stake was @50% It appears both Nord Streams will be managed from the same
location in Zug. I hope the company produces a similar sort of book to record its
accomplishment as it did for the first string pair, which can be found and downloaded here
.
Who is paying for it: Russia's energy giant Gazprom is the sole shareholder of the
Nord Stream 2 AG , the company in charge of implementing the €9.5 billion ($11.1
billion) project. Gazprom is also covering half of the cost. The rest, however, is being
financed by five western companies: ENGIE, OMV, Royal Dutch Shell, Uniper and
Wintershall.
Emphasis is mine.
<> <> <> <> <>
Nord Stream 2 AG is a German company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Russia's
Gazprom. The German subsidiary has borrowed half of the construction cost but is 100% owner
of the NS2 project.
From karlof1's link to Nord Stream 2 AG's Shareholder and Financial Investors page makes it
clear that NordStream 2 AG is a subsidiary of Gazprom international projects LLC, which is,
in turn, a subsidiary of Gazprom. Under "Shareholder" there is only one company listed:
Gasprom.
PS I was mistaken: Nord Stream 2 AG is a Swiss company, not a German one.
"4. Germany can now be pressured to support USA-Ukraine belligerence - if they don't they
will be portrayed as not living up to their obligations to US/NATO/EU/Ukraine as enshrined in
this agreement.
If Russia retaliates against German purchase reductions in any way they will be labeled as
a politically-driven, unreliable supplier. That will 'invite' sanctions and spark efforts to
force EU/Germany to eliminate all Russia goods from their markets."
Germany has been portrayed as not living up to its NATO obligations one way or another
since about 1985, and with respect to NS 2, since 2018. They do not seem fazed - maybe a
Green win would change that. If the USA-Ukraine get (more) belligerent, Germany might be less
likely to insist on Ukraine gas transit after 2024.
The Russian government owns a majority of Gazprom. As majority owner they can be said to
control the company and with that control comes an inescapable political dimension.
For the purposes of this discussion: the Russian government has biggest stake in the
financial success of Nord Stream 2. That "success" depends on gas sold, not simply the
completion of NS2 construction.
Robin, "the Imperial Pottery Barn rule" is an extremely good analogy. I'm going to have a
hard time citing you if I ever use that. I've also seen US foreign policy described as
"rubblization," with regard to Syria especially.
"For some reason, China provides almost no humanitarian support for Syria...China should at
the very least donate $1 billion a year in humanitarian assistance to Syria. It's hard to
understand China's indifference considering the extent it affects their security. Sometimes
I wonder who wastes more money on the military in relation to otehr spending on foreign
affairs. China's $250 billion military budget in 2020 or America's $800 billion military
spending last year?"<\blockquote>
posternnn | Jun 21 2021 19:32 utc | 7:
From what I gather China sees Syria as a national interests of Israel, Iran, Russia and
Turkey. The last thing they want is to step on their toes especially when some of them are
their allies and or in the process of being lobbied to switch sides.
@26 I don't put Syria and Afghanistan in the same bag. The US is in Syria to protect
Israel from Iran and Hezbullah. Going into Afghanistan was a reaction to the Twin Towers
bombing.....Bin Laden, Bush, we must do something etc.. I could be wrong but I see the
Taliban as quite pragmatic. Of course the MSM wants us to think they are just a bunch of
bloodthirsty muslim fanatics.
It almost seems like China is under some kind of pressure not to help Syria even with
humanitarian help.
China has given political cover to Syria at the UN. It is also probable that its been
agreed between putin and xi that Syria is to be a Russian show. For China to fly in vaccines
now would not make Russia look good.
Additionally there aren't much military nor political ties between Syria and Chinese in
the past like there were between Syria and Russia. To do much more uninvited would breach
Chinese's own policy of non-interference of others internal affairs. Remember this whole
Syria saga is dressed up and still designated as a civil war by the UN...
In any case there's much we don't know, what's not to say China isn't bankrolling
something behind the scenes with Russia as the frontman?
Assad have said those who have helped Syria in its hour of need will be rewarded in its
reconstruction. When that time comes and the contracts doled out we'll know for certain.
What is the fastest way to create lots of DEBT (money)? Wars, civil war, technological
waves, credit bubbles (speculative, housing,...), infrastructures...
What is the real purpose of war? To capture & control more areas for EXPLOITATION? War
is the fastest way to create lots of debt for all parties.
"the real value of a conflict, the true value, is in the debt it creates. You control the
debt, you control everything."
Money Power = Land x Lives x Loans
Putting Afghanistan in further debt, enables it to be exploited... What are its revenue
sources? Who pays for its security and infrastructure? Will NATO leave by September?
Who wants to make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt?
Those Uyghur jihadists stuck in Idlib province in Syria and in refugee camps in Turkey are
bound to get a warm welcome from the Taliban when Ankara finally ships them off to Kabul as
part of this proposed "security force" to protect the airport so the CIA can continue to ship
out its heroin.
The US MSM is ablaze with "Taliban against Afghan forces" headlines, conveniently forgetting
that the Taliban are Afghan forces too, in fact they preceded the current "Afghan forces" in
government until the US intervention.
So why do their guys always beat our guys? Because their guys fight for their country and our
guys fight for us.
@ ToivoS, why did the U$A withdraw from Vietnam? There was conscription in the U$A, thereby
the rich were at risk. Also, the U$A was being constrained by money creation due to the gold
standard. Both of these issues have been addressed.
Name a nation that the U$A has WITHDRAWN its military after occupying it, other than
Vietnam. Aren't we still in Germany, Japan, South Korea, ...?
It ain't over 'til it's over.
How much DEBT has the Afghanistan conflict created so far? In trillions? Who got that
money?
@ CJC #10
re: . . . Turkey to retain control of airport after NATO withdraws
It's more than NATO.
The US-Taliban agreement:
The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United
States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel,
private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel within
fourteen (14) months following announcement of this agreement. . .
here
@ Max
re: . . . why did the U$A withdraw from Vietnam?
The US had no choice because the conscription-based US Army was broken, with troops refusing
to obey orders and fragging their superiors etc. . .So Washington pulled out the troops and
ended the draft.
The US "experts" who are crying about a possible, or inevitable, return to Talban
government haven't read the agreement.
The US-Taliban Agreement of Feb 29, 2020 called for all foreign forces to leave Afghanistan
by May 2021, and recognized that the outcome would be a return to a Taliban government. For
example one agreement condition, II-5:: "The Taliban will not provide visas, passports,
travel permits, or other legal documents to those who pose a threat to the security of the
United States and its allies to enter Afghanistan." . .
here
re: Why is the US in Afghanistan?
Decades ago Washington had its own "Silk Road" strategy, to move into the -Stans in Central
Asia after the uSSR breakup. There was a large interest in Kazakhstan up north, as well as
the other -Stands including Afghanistan. It was of course a road to nowhere but as we know
the creeps in Washington ain't too bright. There were no seaports to accommodate this road,
for one thing. There were some other considerations, like an energy pipeline, but it was all
just going nowhere until 9-11 came along, giving the US to do what it does worst, employ its
military.
@ Abe 32
re: This simplistic "views" are as inaccurate as insulting.
You need to get out more.
. . .from Fragging: Why U.S. Soldiers Assaulted Their Officers in Vietnam
During its long withdrawal from South Vietnam, the U.S. military experienced a serious
crisis in morale. Chronic indiscipline, illegal drug use, and racial militancy all
contributed to trouble within the ranks. But most chilling of all was the advent of a new
phenomenon: large numbers of young enlisted men turning their weapons on their superiors.
The practice was known as "fragging," a reference to the fragmentation hand grenades often
used in these assaults. . . here
Glad to hear that Pakistan's Prime Minister Imran Khan is not letting the US use Pakistan
as a base for its continued machinations, in spite of heavy US pressure, and that Pakistan as
a whole was saying #AbsolutelyNot. Kudos Pakistan.
According to M. K. Bhadrakumar:
"Washington is now considering the hiring of Pentagon contractors (mercenaries) to secure
Kabul airport. But that will be a hugely controversial step with grave consequences, as
apparent from Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan's brusque rejection of the very idea of
American military presence on Pakistani soil in relation to the Afghan situation."
MKB also places all this into the context of "the US' grand project to create rings of
instability in [Russia and China's] adjacent regions -- Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Hong
Kong, Myanmar, Afghanistan."
You forget the ISIS group that magically appeared in Afghanistan a few years ago. The same
group that immediately attacked the Taliban, forcing the Taliban to dedicate its best forces
to countering the threat instead of fighting the puppet child sex slaver Quisling warlord
regime. What's more likely than continuing the occupation in the name of "fighting ISIS"?
Just like Iraq was reinvaded and reoccupied in the name of "fighting ISIS" and continues to
be occupied to this day?
Sanctions are the "gentlemanly" neo-imperial language of gunboat diplomacy, never better
expressed than the attempts of the British government in the early 1950s to discipline a newly
democratic Iran. First the British Labour Government, then a Conservative government under a
splenetic Churchill, tried to put a halt to the runaway popularity of Mohammed Mossadegh, prime
minister of Iran, and his policy to shut down the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and nationalize
Iran's own oil. The British sabotaged their own company, refused to distribute the oil, and did
everything else they could to impoverish Iran. This was only after the AIOC had refused to
budge from its insistence on taking practically all of the profits and to refrain from treating
Iranian oil workers as subhuman. Ironically, the British needed AIOC money to finance their own
program of industrial nationalization and the welfare state. As is so often the case, the
"sanctions" merely hardened anti-imperial sentiment, and were succeeded by a joint US-UK
directed regime-change coup d'etat
None of this need suggest a diminution in the importance of national sovereignty. Sovereign
nations should be free to trade with whomsoever they choose, to protect which domestic
industries they consider worthy of protection. That is their right. They also have the right to
enter into trade agreements with others for the purpose of regulating the conditions of trade
between them, provided that they enter into such agreements without duress, bribery or
punishment.
Questions of Definition
The Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) explains that sanctions have become one of the most
favored tools for governments to respond to foreign policy challenges. The term sanctions
can refer to travel bans, asset freezes, arms embargoes, capital restraints, foreign aid
reductions, and trade restrictions, and represent efforts to coerce, deter, punish, or shame
entities that are considered by those who wield them to endanger their interests. They are
generally viewed as a lower-cost, lower-risk course of action in calculations that balance
diplomacy against war. Yet sanctions can be just as devasting in terms of loss of human life.
They may be particularly attractive in the case of policy responses to foreign crises in which
national interest is considered less than vital, or where military action is not feasible.
Sanctions that blanket entire populations generally do most damage to poorer and more
vulnerable social strata, who lack the means to avoid or compensate for their consequences. The
USA has more than two dozen sanctions regimes. Some target specific countries such as Cuba and
Iran, others target specific categories of person or institution or even specific named
individuals. Sanctions have been used in efforts of counterterrorism, counter-narcotics,
nonproliferation, democracy and human rights promotion, conflict resolution, and cybersecurity.
They are frequently applied as a form of punishment or reprisal for behavior in which it is
alleged that the target has engaged and of which the applying entity disapproves.
In the case of the UN Security Council sanctions resolutions must pass the fifteen-member
council by a majority vote and without a veto from any of the five permanent members: the
United States, China, France, Russia, and the United Kingdom. The most common types of UN
sanctions, binding for all member states, are asset freezes, travel bans, and arms embargoes.
The UN relies on member states for enforcement, with all the idiosyncrasies and abuses that
this entails. The council-imposed sanctions against Southern Rhodesia in 1966 were intended to
undermine Ian Smith's white supremacist regime and were followed in 1977 by another set of
comprehensive UN sanctions against apartheid South Africa. They have been applied more than
twenty times since 1990 against targeting parties to an intrastate conflict, as in Somalia,
Liberia, and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
The European Union imposes sanctions as part of its Common Foreign and Security Policy. They
must receive unanimous consent from member states in the Council of the European Union, the
body that represents EU leaders. The EU has levied its sanctions more than thirty times.
Individual EU states may also impose harsher sanctions independently within their national
jurisdiction.
The USA resorts to economic and financial sanctions more than any other country. Presidents
may issue an executive order that declares a national emergency and invokes special powers to
regulate commerce for a period of one year, unless extended by the president or terminated by a
joint resolution of Congress. Most of the more than fifty states of emergency declared by
Congress remain in effect today. Congress may pass legislation imposing new sanctions or
modifying existing ones.
In 2019, the United States had comprehensive sanctions regimes on Cuba, North Korea, Iran,
Sudan, and Syria, as well as more than a dozen other programs targeting individuals and
entities (currently some 6,000). Existing U.S. sanctions programs are administered by the
Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), while other departments,
including State, Commerce, Homeland Security, and Justice, may also play an integral role. The
secretary of state can designate a group a foreign terrorist organization or label a country a
state sponsor of terrorism, both of which have sanctions implications. State and local
authorities may also contribute to enforcement efforts.
The practice of sanctions received a significant boost with the formation of the World Trade
Organization, which recognizes the legitimacy of sanctions as a response to the failure of
parties in a trade dispute to reach agreement on satisfactory compensation. A complainant may
ask the Dispute
Settlement Body for permission to impose trade sanctions against the respondent that has
failed to implement. The complainant's retaliatory response may not go beyond the level of the
harm caused by the respondent. The complainant should first seek to suspend obligations in the
same sector as that in which the violation or other nullification or impairment was found,
unless the complainant considers it impracticable or ineffective to remain within the same
sector The complainant is allowed countermeasures that are in effect and would in other
circumstances be inconsistent with the WTO Agreement. In other words, the result is that a
complainant responds to one trade barrier with another trade barrier, contrary to the
liberalization philosophy underlying the WTO. Such measures are nearly always harmful for both
the complainant and the target. Although such retaliation requires prior approval by the DSB 1,
the countermeasures are applied selectively by one Member against another. The suspension of
obligations is temporary and the DSB is obligated to maintain a review of the situation for as
long as there is no implementation. The suspension must be revoked once the Member concerned
has fully complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.
In a 2019 decision
the WTO allowed China to impose trade sanctions on $3.6 billion of American goods on the
grounds that the USA had not followed WTO rules in the way it imposed duties on what it
regarded as unfairly cheap Chinese goods. The ruling concluded a case that China brought
against the USA in 2013 that stemmed from levies placed on more than 40 Chinese goods. At issue
were subsidies that the USA accused China of providing to its companies so that they can sell
goods more cheaply overseas.
The case touched on some of the deep politics of neoliberalism for which the WTO is supreme
icon, and which make the very notion of sanctions problematic as evidenced in frequent
criticisms of the WTO . These are that free trade benefits developed countries more than
developing countries; that countries should trade without discrimination means a local firm is
not allowed to favor local contractors, giving an unfair advantage to multinational companies
and imposing costs for local firms; ; it is important that nations be allowed to assist in the
diversification of their economies and not be penalized for favoring emerging industries; free
trade is not equally sought across different industries "" notably, both the US and EU retain
high tariffs on agriculture, which hurts farmers in developing economies; principles of free
trade often ignore environmental considerations, considerations of labor equity and cultural
diversity.
After 9/11 "" still one of the least understood events in modern history "" and amidst the
subsequent US invasions of the sovereign countries of Afghanistan and Iraq, and
de-stabilization of many others (including Libya, Syria, Ukraine), the USA set about disrupting
what it deemed the financial infrastructure supporting terrorists and international criminals,
(but not including the USA itself). The Patriot Act awarded Treasury Department officials
far-reaching authority to freeze the assets and financial transactions of individuals and other
entities suspected of supporting terrorism, and broad powers to designate foreign jurisdictions
and financial institutions as "primary money laundering concerns." Treasury needs only a
reasonable suspicion""not necessarily any evidence""to target entities under these laws. The
centrality of New York and the dollar to the global financial system means these U.S. policies
are felt globally. Penalties for sanctions violations can be huge in terms of fines, loss of
business, and reputational damage. Sanctions regimes today increasingly impact not merely the
primary targeted countries or entities but also those who would do business with such countries
or entities.
Questions of Effectiveness
Sanctions have a poor track record, registering a modest 20-30 percent success rate at best,
according to one source, Emily Cashen, writing for World Finance in 2017. According to leading
empirical analyses, between 1915 and 2006, comprehensive sanctions were successful, at best,
just 30 percent of the time. The longer sanctions are in place, the less likely they are to be
effective, as the targeted state tends to adapt to its new economic circumstances instead of
changing its behavior.
Examples of "successful" applications of sanctions (always judged from the very partial
viewpoint of those who impose them) are said to include their role in persuading the Iranian
leadership to comply with limits to its uranium enrichment program. But if this was "success,"
why then did the USA break its agreement with Iran in 2018? And why was there an agreement in
the first place if Iran had never had nuclear weapons nor was likely to produce them on its own
account without serious provocation. Sanctions are also said to have pressured Gadaffi in
handing over the Lockerbie suspects for trial, renouncing the nation's weapons of mass
destruction and ending its support for terrorist activities. But then, if that was "success,"
why did NATO bomb Libya back to the stone age in 2011?
Sanctions that are effective in one setting may fail in another . Context is everything.
Sanctions programs with relatively limited objectives are generally more likely to succeed than
those with major political ambitions. Furthermore, sanctions may achieve their desired economic
effect but fail to change behavior. Only correlations, not causal relationships, can be
determined. The central question is one of comparative utility: Is the imposition of sanctions
better or worse than not imposing sanctions, from whose viewpoint, and why? Best practices are
said to combine punitive measures with positive inducements; set attainable goals; build
multilateral support; be credible and flexible: and give the target reason to believe that
sanctions will be increased or reduced based on its behavior.
In cases where the targeted country has other trading options unilateral measures have no
real impact or may be counterproductive. Sanctions against Russia over Ukraine may have simply
helped to push Russia closer to its eastern neighbors, notably China.
To bypass sanctions Russia has shifted its trade focus towards Asia. Asian non-cooperation with
the sanctions helps explain why Russia was expecting to grow its trade with China to $200bn by
2020. For several countries in western Europe, the sanctions had a double-edged sword.
Russia is the European Union's third largest commercial partner, and the EU, reciprocally, is
Russia's chief trade partner, accounting for almost 41 percent of the nation's trade prior to
the sanctions. In 2012, before the Ukrainian crisis began, the EU exported a record
€267.5bn ($285bn) of goods to Russia. Further, US sanctions against Russia
increasingly and patently had nothing to do with Ukraine and everything to do with US interest
in exploiting its imperial relationship with West European vassal states to grow its LNG
(liquefied natural gas) market in competition with Russia, and by doing everything possible to
obstruct "" and to coerce European nations into helping it obstruct "" Russia's Nord Stream 2
oil and gas pipeline that will bring cheap Russian oil to Europe without passing through
Ukraine. The very opposite of principles of globalization and free trade.
The USA can afford to be aggressive in sanctions policies largely because (for the time
being, and that time is getting shorter by the day) there is no alternative to the dollar and
because there is no single country export market quite as attractive (for now and even then,
one must wonder about China) as the USA. Sanctions that are effective in one setting may fail
in another. Context is everything. Sanctions programs with relatively limited objectives are
generally more likely to succeed than those with major political ambitions. Furthermore,
sanctions may achieve their desired economic effect but fail to change behavior. Only
correlations, not causal relationships, can be determined. The central question is one of
comparative utility: Is the imposition of sanctions better or worse than not imposing
sanctions, from whose viewpoint, and why? Best practices are said to combine punitive measures
with positive inducements; set attainable goals; build multilateral support; be credible and
flexible: and give the target reason to believe that sanctions will be increased or reduced
based on its behavior.
Sanctions and Human Misery
Since the early 1990s, the US, Europe and other developed economies have employed sanctions on
other nations more than 500 times , seeking to assert their influence on the global stage
without resorting to military interventions. Yet military interventions tend to happen in any
case suggesting that in some cases the sanctions are intended to "soften up" the target prior
to armed conflict).
The economic stranglehold of stringent sanctions on Iraq after the successful allied
invasion of 1991 caused widescale malnutrition and prolonged suffering, and a lack of medical
supplies and a shortage of clean water led to one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern
history. Sanctions all but completely cut off the oil trade. Iraq lost up to $130 billion in
oil revenues during the 1990s, causing intense poverty to many Iraqi civilians. Prior to the
embargo, Iraq had relied on imports for two thirds of its food supply. With this source
suddenly cut off, the price of basic commodities rose 1,000 percent between 1990 and 1995.
Infant mortality increased 150 percent, according to a report by Save the
Children, with researchers estimating that between 670,000 and 880,000 children under five
died because of the impoverished conditions caused by the sanctions. Then US Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright notoriously excused this horrendous slaughter as "worth the
price ." During the Gulf War, almost all of Iraq's essential infrastructure was bombed by a
US-led coalition, leaving the country without water treatment plants or sewage treatment
facilities, prompting extended outbreaks of cholera and typhoid.
Targeted sanctions can be equally devastating. The de facto
boycott on Congolese minerals, for example, has led to the loss of more than 750,000 jobs in
the nation's mining sector. The loss of income resulting from this mass redundancy has had
a severe impact on child health in the nation, with conservative estimates recording a 143
percent increase in infant mortality. Despite an international shift away from comprehensive
sanctions, this Congolese suffering indicates targeted measures are still not free from ethical
quandaries.
Application of sanctions became more popular at the end of the first cold war because
previously targeted nations could negotiate for relief with the oppositional superpower. In the
succeeding era of greater enthusiasm for sanctions it became clear that they could have dire
consequences for civilian populations, and this helps account for increased popularity of
targeted sanctions.
Sanctions of Spite: Syria and the Caesar Act
There are many current examples of the murderous horror of the impact of sanctions by
"civilized," usually western powers, especially when their targets are poorer countries such as
Venezuela and Syria. Not untypically, some of the behaviors that the imperialists seek to
change are themselves the consequence of past imperial aggression.
The secular regime of Bashar Assad in Syria has faced a ten-year existential threat from the
Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda affiliates, ISIS and other jihadist entities supported by an array
of global and regional actors including the USA, UK, and other NATO members, Israel, Jordan,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE. Whatever the regime's defects they are at the very
least comparable and in some cases dwarfed by those of many of Syria's opponents in the Arab
world.
The significance of genuine popular support for Assad , demonstrated in numerous polls, has
been marginalized by western mainstream media. The regime's survival, with air support from
Russia and ground support from Hezbollah and Iran, is extraordinary by any measure. Yet the USA
has continued to interfere in the affairs of Syria with a view to its continuing impoverishment
and destabilization by allowing Turkey to occupy large areas of the north west and populate
these with jihadist emigrees; funding Kurdish forces to secure Syria's oil resources on behalf
of the USA, and for maintaining prisons and camps for ISIS supporters, by maintaining its own
military bases; and permitting a constant succession of Israeli bombing attacks on what Israel
claims are Iranian-backed militia or Syrian Arab Army militia working in collaboration with
Iran; and approving further Israeli incursions into the Golan Heights.
Defeat of ISIS and recovery of non-Kurdish areas outside of Idlib by the Syrian Arab Army
(SAA) took place in conditions of considerable economic challenge, exacerbated by US-imposed
sanctions against both Syria and its neighbor Lebanon. This had a corrosive impact on relations
among top regime figures. Bashar al-Assad's billionaire first cousin and richest man in Syria,
Rami Makhlouf, complained in early 2020 of regime harassment and arrests of employees. Until
then, the Makhlouf family enjoyed exclusive access to business opportunities and monopolies on
hotels, tobacco, and communications, partly
camouflaged by a philanthropic empire that assisted many Syrians through the conflict .
Some $30 billion of the country's wealth, representing 20% of all deposits in Lebanese banks,
was trapped by Beirut's financial implosion, exacerbated by the unprecedented explosion ""
possibly accidental, possibly sabotage "" in the city's harbor area on August 4. Syrian
businessmen needed Beirut's banks to conduct business abroad, and to evade sanctions. A regime
crackdown on money transfer companies made matters worse by creating
a dollar shortage , depriving thousands of families who were dependent on foreign
remittances. Before the explosion, purchasing power of the Syrian pound was already worth 27
times less than before the start of the conflict.
Deteriorating economic conditions ravaged Syria's surviving pretensions to socialist
principle. In the first decade of Bashar's rule, there had been big gains in healthcare in
terms of available beds, hospitals, and nursing staff. But by now there were 50% fewer doctors,
30% fewer hospitals. Before the conflict, 90% of pharmaceutical needs were filled by Syrian
factories. By 2018 those factories which remained had trouble getting raw materials and
replacement parts for equipment because of sanctions. Before the conflict there was improved
land irrigation and food security. In 2011, abject poverty stood at less than one percent,
rising to 35 percent by 2015. The percentage of those facing food insecurity had fallen from
2.2% in 1999 to 1.1% in 2010. Now, 33% lacked food security. One third of homes were
damaged or destroyed, 380,000 killed and 11 million displaced since 2011.
Economic conditions were worsened by ever tightening economic sanctions and US enforcement
of the so-called Caesar Act from June 2020 (named after a faked human rights scandal in 2015).
The Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act sanctioned the Syrian government, including President
Bashar al-Assad, for alleged war crimes. The purposes were to cripple Syria for the purposes of
regime change, while luring Russia further into the Syrian quagmire. The Act targeted 39
individuals and entities, including the president's wife, Asma. Anyone doing business with the
regime, no matter where, was potentially vulnerable to travel restrictions and financial
sanctions. The Caesar Act smeared the Syria Central Bank as a "˜money laundering'
institution and sought to render it impossible for Syrian companies to export and import from
Lebanon. It made it difficult or impossible for Syrians abroad to transfer money to family
members. The Act contributed to devaluation of the Syrian pound which tumbled from 650 Syrian
pounds to one US dollar in October 2019 to 2600 to the US dollar in summer 2020.
The Caesar Act (alongside legal initiatives in Europe designed to charge senior
administration officials with war crimes) were designed to stymie reconstruction, hit the
construction, electricity, and oil sectors, and cripple the Lebanese private companies that
would otherwise lead reconstruction efforts. Sanctions prevented non-U.S. aid organizations
from assisting reconstruction. An opposition leader predicted it would result in "
even greater levels of destitution, famine, and worsening criminality and predatory
behavior " and would precipitate regime change, migratory flight, excess deaths, and youth
deprivation. In a climate of regulatory confusion, sanctions often encourage over-compliance.
Prospects of reconstruction investment funds from Russian companies were
negatively impacted . Blumenthal ascribed responsibility for the Caesar sanctions
initiative to a "years-long lobbying campaign carried out by a network of regime-change
operatives working under cover of shadowy international NGOs and Syrian-American diaspora
groups." The country had already suffered severe US and EU economic sanctions. A 2016 UNESCO
report found that sanctions had brought an end to humanitarian aid because sanctions
regulations, licenses, and penalties made it so difficult and risky (Sterling 2020). In 2018,
United Nations Special Rapporteur, Idriss Jazairy, observed that sanctions impacted negatively
on
After 500,000 civilians returned to Aleppo following its liberation in 2016, US sanctions
and UN rules prohibited reconstruction. Returnees were allowed "shelter kits" with plastic but
rebuilding with glass and cement walls was not allowed because "˜reconstruction' was
prohibited.
In brazen acknowledgment of US support for the HTS terrorists of Idlib, the Caesar Act
exempted Idlib province, as well as the northeast areas controlled by US troops and the SDF. It
designated $50 million for "˜humanitarian aid' to these areas. Other US allies pumped in
hundreds of millions of dollars more in aid, further exacerbating pressure on the Syrian pound
and substantially increasing prices for all commodities in regime-controlled areas.
"best-designed sanctions can be self-defeating, strengthening the regimes they were designed
to hurt and punishing the societies they were supposed to protect."
They recalled the destruction of Iraq's middle class in the 1990s, when US sanctions killed
hundreds of thousands of Iraqis:
"Their effect was gendered, disproportionately punishing women and children. The notion that
sanctions work is a pitiless illusion." .
Several European nations (Italy, Poland, Austria, Greece, Hungary) indicating unease with
the continuing stagnation of US and EU sanctions policy, restored tacit contacts with Damascus.
While the EU was an important source of humanitarian aid for internally displaced people in
Syria and for displaced Syrians abroad, it continued to refrain from dealing directly with
Damascus
or from support for reconstruction efforts, on the grounds of continuing instability.
Conclusion
Under indubitably wise international leadership, acting within a framework of equitable
political power among nation states whose sovereignty is sacrosanct, then perhaps sanctions
policies might sometimes be strategically appropriate. These conditions clearly do not apply.
The increasing weaponization of sanctions is a powerful contribution to a crumbling world
order, one that invokes the grave danger of over-reaction by an aggrieved victim, in a context
of intense economic and military competition between rival nuclear powers.
Oliver Boyd-Barrett is Professor Emeritus at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, and at
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He is an expert on international media, news,
and propaganda. His writings can be accessed by subscription at Substack at https://oliverboydbarrett.substack.com.
A comprehensive roundup of the sanctions-based aggression being imposed on the world by
the bankster dominated west. I really don't think the majority of citizens have a clue what
is being done by their rulers, nor any idea of the sheer hatred being fostered by those
actions. The time for waking up is well overdue, the west has been sucked dry by those same
policies (especially the US) and the fall is imminent.
"The increasing weaponization of sanctions is a powerful contribution to a crumbling world
order, one that invokes the grave danger of over-reaction by an aggrieved victim, in a
context of intense economic and military competition between rival nuclear powers."
Fact: "War is the health of the state" [Randolph Bourne]- meaning, the "business" of
governments is always war- war on its citizens, war on other nations, it never ends.
Invade the world, invite the world. Economic cold war vs. 1/3 of the world's landmass and
population. Seemingly purposeful hollowing out of it's middle class, the abolition of
educational/societal standards to placate the demands of wokeness and the replacement of it's
historical population with an eclectic mix of third world strivers, corrupt east asians and
south american day laborers. Oh, and an increasingly debt centric economy.
The USA is obviously a very prudent country which focuses on it's own long term survival
first and foremost. I expect it to do quite well in the coming years.
My good friend in Canada says that it seems to be a "BioSecurity Fascist State" forming
also. And it's not against Cuba , it's against the populace of Canada. Worse than anything in
the US.
Sanctions strike hard at the very essence of positive international relationship ""
trade.
U.S. economic sanctions are insulting, provocative, corrosive and largely ineffective.
However, trade is hardly the essence of positive international relationship.
Britain traded massively with Germany right up until Britain attacked Germany in 1914.
Germany traded even more massively with the Soviet Union right up until Germany attacked the
Soviet Union in 1941. Were it not for Japanese trade with China, the Mukden Incident that, in
1931, opened the conflict that developed into World War II in Asia""well, it probably would
not have occurred. In short, the trade premise that underlies your article needs to be
revisited.
Sanctions is war. US wars are always cloaked behind our alleged love for democracy and
freedom, but alleged friends beginning with Saudi Arabia and impacting every country South of
our border, prove we are liars, interested only in preserving the best interests of our
wealthiest citizens.
The purpose of US foreign policy is to enhance the profits of global US Corporations
regardless what the consequences are to local targeted populations. The US has extraordinary
power over the EU, but the Russian pipeline is evidence that EU support is cracking.
Shame on the USA for failing to respect the national sovereignty of other nations big and
small. Our constitutional form of government is not a model example of the fruits of
democracy and freedom, as both are crippled by original design, for profit prisons and
schools, toll roads, and the moral hazards imposed by misguided religious fanatics who impose
their will on a disinterested public.
Winston Churchill was a great one for blockades. Churchill, the MoFker is responsible for
5 million deaths. During the 2nd World War he shipped grain from India to Britain and left
the Indians to starve. Five million Bengalis and east Indians died of starvation. Let's hope
when the tide turns all this is forgotten and forgiven.
The war against Japan was instigated by blocades.
The war against Iran is the next.
Syria policy has nothing to do with oil or Assad being a dictator. It is a continuation of
Israel's policies. The whole purpose of these wars is to establish an independent Kurdish
state so that the pressure on Israel could be reduced and states in the region could be
destabilized. While the US was busy trying to fight Israel's wars in ME, China has become a
strategic threat with no signs of slowing down the process of overtaking the US as the
dominant superpower of the world. Despite all the damage these policies have caused, even the
so-called conservatives in the US keep repeating nonsensical ideas like "Kurds deserve a
state." Not realizing that there is no such thing as "deserving a state" or that this just a
zionist project that offers nothing to the US.
Regarding China, sanctions should be used more not less, unless the US wants to be the
secondary power. However, they are not needed with other countries. In ME, the US should wash
its hands off Israel and let the most moral army of the world protect their own country. That
country is a huge liability and problem for the US, it offered the US nothing other than
selling American military secrets and earning 1.5 billion Muslims' disdain. To counter Russia
and Iran, the US should double down on cooperating with Turkey, increase investments and
military support so that Turks can be more active in Central Asia and Afghanistan as well.
This is the smartest and the most efficient way for the US to achieve its goals in Asia and
ME. Which would be slowing China's growth, Russia's creeping in the South, and Iranian
activity in Arab ME.
However, the US basically does the opposite of everything it should. Turning
neutral/unfriendly with Turkey is one of the dumbest things the US foreign service could do,
considering the fact that Turks are the historical enemies of all three of China, Russia, and
Iran, and they did exactly that? Why? For Israel whose feelings were hurt by Erdogan of
course. Currently, the US government is a hostage to vocal minorities and interest groups.
Therefore, its relative decline will not stop unless actual Americans with no double
allegiances step up and take back their government.
Canada is a pathetic American colony, selling their resources cheap in return for being
allowed to have a few crappy hockey teams and access to degenerate American entertainment.
The Brits tell them to murder white Germans, they do it. The Americans tell them to murder
Afghans, they do it...
The US government is a menace to all, including the US population. All US presidents are
war criminals, and sanctions are only one aspect of their endless criminality.
Sanctions are the modern day adaptation of siege warfare. It's essentially a
"˜starve them out' approach to foreign policy. Theoretically, one presumes, the goal is
to cause enough instability to harm the targeted regime. But I can't think of a single time
they have succeeded at anything but causing mass suffering to those at the bottom of the
power pyramid.
In the case of sanctions on Iraq and the subsequent corrupt Oil-For-Food Program, the
sanctions became a vehicle to transfer billions of dollars to oligarchs and their pet
politicians" as usual.
US Troops Die for World Domination, Not Freedom May 31, 2021 Save
On Memorial Day, Caitlin Johnstone says it's important to block the propaganda that helps
feed a steady supply of teenagers into the imperial war machine.
Airman placing U.S. flags at military graves, May 27. (Arlington National Cemetery,
Flickr)
V ice President Kamala Harris spent
the weekend under fire from Republicans, which of course means that Kamala Harris spent the
weekend being criticized for the most silly, vapid reason you could possibly criticize Kamala
Harris for.
Apparently the likely future president tweeted "Enjoy the long weekend,"
a reference to the Memorial Day holiday on Monday, instead of gushing about fallen troops and
sacrifice.
That's it, that's the whole entire story. That silly, irrelevant offense by one of the
sleaziest
people in the single most corrupt and murderous government on earth is the whole entire
basis for histrionic headlines from conservative media outlets like this :
Harris, the born politician, was quick to course correct.
"Throughout our history our service men and women have risked everything to defend our
freedoms and our country," the veep tweeted . "As we prepare to honor
them on Memorial Day, we remember their service and their sacrifice."
Which is of course complete bullshit. It has been generations since any member of the U.S.
military could be said to have served or sacrificed defending America or its freedoms, and that
has been the case throughout almost the entirety of its history. If you are reading this it is
statistically unlikely that you are of an age where any U.S. military personnel died for any
other reason than corporate profit and global domination, and if you are it's almost certain
you weren't old enough to have had mature thoughts about it at the time.
Whenever you criticize the U.S. war machine online within earshot of anyone who's
sufficiently propagandized, you will invariably be lectured about the second World War and how
we'd all be speaking German or Japanese without the brave men who died for our freedom. This
makes my point for me: the fact that apologists for U.S. imperialism always need to reach all
the way back through history to the cusp of living memory to find even one single example of
the American military being used for purposes that weren't evil proves that it most certainly
is evil.
But this is one of the main reasons there are so very many movies and history documentaries
made about World War II: it's an opportunity to portray U.S. servicemen bravely fighting and
dying for a noble cause without having to bend the truth beyond recognition. The other major
reason is that focusing on the second World War allows members of the U.S. empire to escape
into a time when the Big Bad Guy on the world stage was someone else.
From the end of World War II to the fall of the U.S.S.R., the U.S. military was used to
smash the spread of communism and secure geostrategic interests toward the ultimate end of
engineering the collapse of the Soviet Union. After this was accomplished in 1991, U.S. foreign
policy officially shifted to preserving a unipolar world order by preventing the rise of any
other superpower which could rival its might.
"In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting stage, the Defense
Department asserts that America's political and military mission in the post-cold-war era
will be to insure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or
the territory of the former Soviet Union.
A 46-page document that has been circulating at the highest levels of the Pentagon for
weeks, and which Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expects to release later this month, states
that part of the American mission will be 'convincing potential competitors that they need
not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate
interests.'
The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose
position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter
any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy."
This is all U.S. troops have been fighting and dying for since the Berlin Wall came down.
Not "freedom", not "democracy" and certainly not the American people. Just continual
uncontested domination of this planet at all cost: domination of its resources, its trade
routes, its seas, its air, and its humans, no matter how many lives need to risked and snuffed
out in order to achieve it. The U.S. has
killed millions and
displaced tens of millions just since the turn of this century in the reckless pursuit of
that goal.
And, as Smedley Butler spelled out 86 years ago in his still-relevant book War is a Racket , U.S.
military personnel have been dying for profit.
Nothing gets the gears of industry turning like war, and nothing better creates chaotic Wild
West environments of shock and confusion during which more wealth
and power can be grabbed. War profiteers pour immense resources into lobbying ,
think tanks and campaign donations to manipulate and bribe policy makers into making decisions
which promote war and military expansionism,
with astounding success . This is all entirely legal.
It's important to spread awareness that this is all U.S. troops have been dying for, because
the fairy tale that they fight for freedom and for their countrymen is a major propaganda
narrative used in military recruitment. While poverty plays a
significant role in driving up enlistments as predatory recruiters target poor and middle
class youth promising them a future in the nation with the worst income
inequality in the industrialized world, the fact that the aggressively propagandized
glorification of military "service" makes it a more esteemed career path than working at a
restaurant or a grocery store means people are more likely to enlist.
Without all that propaganda deceiving people into believing that military work is something
virtuous, military service would be the most shameful job anyone could possibly have; other
stigmatized jobs like sex work would be regarded as far more noble. You'd be less reluctant to
tell your extended family over Christmas that you're a janitor at a seedy massage parlor than
that you've enlisted in the U.S. military, because instead of congratulating and praising you,
your Uncle Murray would look at you and say, "So you're gonna be killing kids for crude
oil?"
And that's exactly how it should be. Continuing to uphold the lie that U.S. troops fight and
die for a good cause is helping to ensure a steady supply of teenagers to feed into the gears
of the imperial war machine. Stop feeding into the lie that the war machine is worth killing
and being killed for. Not out of disrespect for the dead, but out of reverence for the
living.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those
of Consortium News .
Em , June 1, 2021 at 09:52
Instead of annually memorializing those dead youth, who were, in one way or the other,
coerced to go off to foreign lands to kill or be killed, by other youth, in the name of a
piece of dead symbolic cloth, wouldn't it be a better idea to honor them, while alive in the
prime of living (the world over) by affording them the means to learn, leading by example, to
discover for themselves – how to think critically as to what the real options are,
collectively as well as individually, for survival and thriving.
CNfan , June 1, 2021 at 04:06
"Global domination" for the benefit of a predatory financial oligarchy.
Peter Loeb , June 1, 2021 at 09:11
Read William Hartung's "Prophets of War " to understand the dynamics.
Thank you all for speaking your truth in this dystopian human universe so apparently
lacking human reason and understanding. As is so wisely introduced and recognized herein, the
murderous depravity of the "Wolfwitz Doctrine" being and remaining the public policy
formulation of our national governance, both foreign and domestic, is a fact that every U.S.
citizen should consider and understand on this Memorial Day.
As Usual,
EA
Realist , May 31, 2021 at 17:27
Well stated, perfectly logical again on this subject as always, Caitlin. You out the
warmongers for their game to fleece the public and rape the world all so a handful of already
fat, lazyass but enormously wealthy and influential people can acquire, without the slightest
bit of shame, yet more, more and more of everything there is to be had. You and General
Butler.
Will this message get through, this time? Maybe the billionth time is the charm, eh? Can
the scales suddenly fall from the eyes of the 330 million Americans who will then demand an
immediate end to the madness? On the merits, it's the only conclusion that might realise any
actual justice for our country and the rest of the world upon whose throat it keeps a knee
firmly planted.
Sorry, nothing of the sort shall ever happen, not as long as the entire mercenary mass
media obeys its corporate ownership and speaks nothing but false narratives every minute of
every day. Not as long as the educational system is really nothing more than a propaganda
indoctrination experience for every child born in the glorious USA! Not as long as every
politician occupying any given office is just a bought and paid for tool of the Matrix with
great talents for convincing the masses that 2 + 2 = 3, or 5, or whatever is convenient at
the time to benefit the ledgers of their plutocrat masters.
What better illustrates the reality of my last assertion than the occupancy of the White
House by Sleepy/Creepy Joe Biden who, through age alone, has been reduced to nothing more
than a sack of unresponsive meat firmly trussed up with ropes and pulleys that his handlers
pull this way or that to create an animatronic effect apparently perfectly convincing to the
majority of the American public? Or so they say, based upon some putative election
results.
Truly, thanks for the effort, Caitlin. I do appreciate that some have a grasp on the
truth. I look forward to its recapitulation by yourself and many others to no effect on every
Memorial Day in the USA. It would be unrealistic of me to say otherwise.
Rael Nidess, M.D. , May 31, 2021 at 12:54
Kudos for being one of a very few to mention the central driving ethic behind U.S. foreign
policy since the demise of the USSR: The Wolfowitz Doctrine. As central today as it was when
first published.
If all sanctions on Iran are lifted, very soon, they may reach 3.5 million barrels per day
by Q1 2022, but no way before then. I doubt they will ever reach 3.8 million again.
At any rate, to get to 29.54 million bpd by Q4 OPEC would need to increase production by 4.5
million bpd from April's production level. Dennis, we both know that is not going to
happen.
Believe it or not, the president says that human rights R us.
Hear that, BLM? Women? Asian Americans? Hispanics? homeless? heavily indebted students? .
. the list goes on.
Biden said so, May 30, 2021
"I had a long conversation -- for two hours -- recently with President Xi, making it clear
to him that we could do nothing but speak out for human rights around the world because
that's who we are. I'll be meeting with President Putin in a couple of weeks in Geneva,
making it clear that we will not -- we will not stand by and let him abuse those rights." . .
here
..reminds me of Aeschylus: "In war, truth is the first casualty."
Biden backed down on Nordstream 2 and, at The Davos Crowd's insistence, he will back down on
the JCPOA.
Davos needs cheap energy into Europe. That's ultimately what the JCPOA was all about. The
basic framework for the deal is still there. While the U.S. will kick and scream a bit about
sanctions relief, Iran will be back into the oil market and make it possible for Europe to once
again invest in oil/gas projects in Iran.
Now
that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of
breakthrough is much much higher than last week. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate just
lost their raison d'etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi's latest attempt to bludgeon Gaza
to retain power backfired completely.
U.S. policy towards Israel is shifting rapidly as the younger generations, Gen-X and
Millennials, simply don't have the same allegiance to Israel that the Baby Boomers and Silent
generations did. It is part of a geopolitical ethos which is outdated.
So, with some deal over Iran's nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then get
gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North South
Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China's Belt and Road Initiative.
Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they'll
welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle East.
What's lost is the Zionist program for Greater Israel and continued sowing dissent between
exhausted participants.
But the big geopolitical win for Davos, they think, is that by returning Iran to the oil
markets it will cut down on Russia's dominance there. That the only reason Russia is the price
setter in oil today, as the producer of the marginal barrel, is because of Trump taking Iranian
and Venezuelan oil off the market.
With these negotiations ongoing and likely to conclude soon I'm sure the thinking is that
this will help save Iranian moderates in the upcoming elections. But with Iran's Guardian
Council paving the way for Ebrahim Raeisi to win the election that is also very unlikely(
H/T to Pepe
Escobar's latest on this ) :
So Raeisi now seems to be nearly a done deal: a relatively faceless bureaucrat without the
profile of an IRGC hardliner, well known for his anti-corruption fight and care about the
poor and downtrodden. On foreign policy, the crucial fact is that he will arguably follow
crucial IRGC dictates.
Raeisi is already spinning that he "negotiated quietly" to secure the qualification of
more candidates, "to make the election scene more competitive and participatory". The problem
is no candidate has the power to sway the opaque decisions of the 12-member Guardian Council,
composed exclusively by clerics: only Ayatollah Khamenei.
I have no doubt that Iran is, as Escobar suggests, in post-JCPOA mode now and will walk away
from Geneva without a deal if need be, but Davos will cut the deal it needs to bring the oil
and gas into Europe while still blaming the U.S. for Iran's nuclear ambitions because they've
gotten what they actually wanted, Netanyahu out of power.
Seeing the tenor of these negotiations and the return of Obama to the White House, the
Saudis saw the writing on the wall immediately and began peace talks with Iran in Baghdad put
off for a year because of Trump's killing Soleimani.
The Saudis are fighting for their lives now as the Shia Crescent forms and China holds the
House of Saud's future in its hands.
Syria will be restored to the Arab League and all that 'peace' work by Trump will be undone
quickly. Because none of it was actually peaceful in its implementation. Netanyahu is gone,
Israel just got
defeated by Hamas and now the rest of the story can unfold, put on hold by four years of
Jared Kushner's idiocy and U.S. neoconservatives feeding Trump bad information about the
situation.
The Saker put together two lists in his latest article (linked above) which puts the entire
situation into perspective:
The Goals:
Bring down a strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces,
and security services.
Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone" by
Israel not only in the Golan but further north.
Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah.
Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each other to death, then create a "security zone,"
but this time in Lebanon.
Prevent the creation of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.
Break up Syria along ethnic and religious lines.
Create a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
Make it possible for Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East
and force the KSA, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas
or oil pipeline project.
Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert, and eventually attack Iran with a broad regional
coalition of forces.
Eliminate all centers of Shia power in the Middle-East.
The Outcomes:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more
capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war
initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all reports,
they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah were literally
"plugging holes" in the Syrian frontlines and "extinguishing fires" on local flashpoints.
Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their country,
including every single city in Syria).
Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the country now,
which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is backfiring.
(2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in charge)
Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced
refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no credibility
left.
The net result is everyone in the region who were aggressors are now suing for peace. This
is why I expect some kind of deal that returns Iran to the global economy. There's no way for
Germany's shiny new trade deal with China to work without this.
Trump's hard line against Iran was always a mistake, even if Iran's nuclear ambitions are
real. But with the Open Skies treaty now a dead letter the U.S. has real logistical problems in
the region and they only multiply if Erdogan in Turkey finally chooses a side and gives up his
Neo-Ottoman ambitions, now very likely.
But when it comes to economics, as always, Davos has this all backwards vis a vis oil. They
still think they can use the JCPOA to drive a wedge between Iran and Russia over oil. They
still think Putin only cares about oil and gas sales abroad. It's clear they don't listen to
him because the policy never seems to change.
So, to Davos, if they bring 2.5 to 3 million barrels per day from Iran back online and oil
prices drop, this forces Russia to back down militarily and diplomatically in Eastern Europe.
With a free-floated ruble the Russians don't care now that they are mostly self-sufficient in
food and raw material production.
None of that will come to pass. Putin is shifting the Russian economy away from oil and gas
with an announced ambitious domestic spending plan ahead of this fall's State Duma elections.
Lower or even stable prices will accelerate those plans as capital no longer finds its best
return in that sector.
This carrot to Iran and stick to Russia approach of Brussels/Davos is childish and it will
only get worse when the Greens come to power in Germany at the end of the year. Unless the
German elections end in a stalemate which is unforeseen, the CDU will grand coalition as the
junior partner to the Greens, just as Davos wants it.
Don't miss the significance of the policy bifurcation either when it comes to oil. The Biden
administration is trying to make energy as expensive as possible in the U.S. -- no Keystone
Pipeline, Whitmer trying to close down Enbridges's Line 5 from Canada into Michigan, etc. --
while Europe gets Nordstream 2 from Russia and new, cheap supplies from Iran.
This is what had Trump so hopping mad when he was President. This is part of why he hated
the JCPOA. Israel and the EastMed pipeline was what should have been the U.S. policy in his
mind.
Now, those dreams are dead and the sell out of the U.S. to Davos is in full swing.
Seriously, Biden/Obama are going to continue on this path of undermining U.S. energy production
until they are thrown out of office, either by the overwhelming shame of the election fraud
lawsuits which recall Senators from Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, the mid-term elections which
brings a more pro-Trump GOP to power or by military force. That last bit I put a very low
probability on.
Bottom line, for now global oil prices have likely peaked no matter what drivel comes out of
John Kerry's mouth.
The Brent/WTI spread will likely collapse and go negative for the first time in years as
Iran's full oil production comes online over the next two years while U.S. production falls.
We'll see rising oil prices in the U.S. while global supply rises, some of which China is
getting at a steep discount from who? Iran.
Meanwhile Russia continues to hold the EU to account on everything while unmasking the not
just the latest Bellingcat/MI6/State Dept. nonsense in Belarus surrounding the arrest of Roman
Petrosovich, but also filling the void diplomatically left by a confused and incompetent U.S.
policy in the Middle East.
If I'm the Bennett in Israel, the first phone call I make after taking office is to no one
other than Putin, who now holds the reins over Iran, Hezbollah and a very battle-hardened and
angry Syria who just re-elected Assad because he navigated the assault on the country with no
lack of geopolitical skill.
Because it is clear that Biden/Obama, on behalf of Davos , have left Israel out to twist in
the wind surrounded by those who wish it gone. We'll see if they get their wish. I think the
win here is clear and the days of U.S. adventurism in the Middle East are numbered.
The oil wars aren't over, by any stretch of the imagination, but the outcome of the main
battles have decisively shifted who determines what battles are fought next.
About time that fcking Project for the New American Century(aka Greater Israel from the
Nile to the Euphates) got derailed .
Fcking useless neocon sh its gutted and bankrupted the U.S. for their fcked up ziosh it
garbage.
Sheldon Adelson belongs in the Aus witz Mengele suite in hell. He was the biggest
cheerleader for the last 20 years of this hell on earth that was created in the middle
east.
Woodenman 2 hours ago remove link
Trump got it *** backwards , he should have defunded Israel and fast tracked Iran to be
a nuclear power, Iran is an oil producer, what does Israel do for us?
Would I care that Israel cannot sleep at night knowing Iran has the bomb, not at
all.
AGuy 37 minutes ago
" what does Israel do for us? "
Keeps the ME unstable so the US has the excuse to keep a lot of military resources in
the ME, in the name of being the worlds policemen. Plus the US needs to protect the Petro
dollar, but at this point I don't think that will matter soon considering the amount of
money printing & spending the US is doing at the momement.
wellwaddyaknow 2 hours ago (Edited)
Soleimani was very good at destroying ISIS trash.
And which countries backed ISIS?
JR Wirth 2 hours ago
NeoCon tears as the world attempts to move on from deranged foreign policy. Will the US
throw a fit and drag the world into war? Let's call Tel Aviv and find out.
Der Steppenwolf 2 hours ago remove link
Iran already sells huge amounts of oil to China and likely many others, there just isn't
going to be a significant increase in Iranian oil hitting the market as a result of any
deal. Moreover, this relatively small increase will occur over time. Even if Iran
eventually increases production the 2.5-3 million bpd the author cites, world consumption
in 2021 is forecast to increase about 6 million bpd over 2020. Considering these facts any
changes in Iranian oil production should do little to affect the overall
price.
lay_arrow
AGuy 42 minutes ago
" Iran has huge potential to increase production "
I doubt that very much. Iran has very old oil fields which have been producing since the
1920s. Global Oil production peaked in 2018 & is now in permanent decline. Iran could
increase NatGas production, but Oil production is in permanent decline.
Apollo 32 minutes ago
God, I hope half of the above comes true. Bibi needs to be court martialed and Israel
needs to go back into smaller and more peaceful version of itself (if that is even
possible) . USA can just bugger off home, and try to deal with transgendered army,
president's dementia and critical race theory nonsense first.
What the world needs is less wars, less central bankers screwing the game and less
stealing of other people's natural resources. Instead it just more plain old hard work,
honest trading and no bs diplomacy.
dead hobo 1 hour ago (Edited) remove link
Amazingly perfect analysis.
Israel will survive. I wish them well.
So many US wars are oil based. Lies abound to cover this up. Neocon Economics turns
every war opportunity into a profit center. No Profit = No War potential. Whenever you see
a Neocon pumping a war somewhere, you need to look for who will make scads of money from
it.
Trump isn't an angel. He's the guy who destroyed Establishment Republicanism. That begat
populism. I detested him working his book when he pumped QE and ZIRP. I considered it a
temporary price to pay to remove Establishment Republicans from the world. Yes, the US also
needed a good Front Door with a lock. He also did good there. Trump playing the Imperialism
Game clumsily worked in the favor of Peaceful Coexistence. Probably by mistake. Ok by me if
everyone else declares peace anyway.
The US economy can still outpower anyone even if it is forced to play fair.
This brings us to the Deep State. Who exactly are they?
Are they Neocons who want war profits by making it look like others are the war mongers?
Are they anti-peace as long as it doesn't start a full blown war - providing a profit can
be made from it by their oligarch bosses?
Or is the Deep State the Davos oriented oligarchs who wants the 99% to whistle while
they work to support uncountable billions of dollars flowing into the asset piles of the
1%?
Why did the Deep State allow the BLM / Antifa / Democrat cabal take over? Are they
stupid? Or did they think Covid-19 along with these freaks would work in their favor
somehow?
Is the Deep State only common ordinary Imperialism? Is it only oil, and natural gas and
who gets to control the markets? Ukraine has a lot of natural resources. Is that a
coincidence?
What is it about Peaceful Coexistence that makes them go crazy?
What does The Deep State really want?
AGuy 49 minutes ago
" The only difference will be the wars will be fought for lithium and other rare metals.
"
Unlikely Oil will remain the King for causing wars. electricification of transportation
is doomed to fail. First average Americans cannot afford EV. heck they are struggling with
cheaper ICE vehicles. Auto loan duration have ballooned & most Americans are rolling
over debt from their older vehicle when they buy a new one. Second the grid is struggling.
Most of the older power plants are getting replaced by NatGas fired plants & at some
point we are going to see NatGas prices shoot up. Much of the US grid was built in the
1930s & 1940s and will need trillions just to maintain it and replace equipment &
power lines operating beyond their expected operating lifetime.
The US economy is slowly collapsing: Mountains of debt, demographics, dumbed down
education, and worthless degrees for Millennials, failing infrastructure (ie I-40 bridge).
We are on borrowed time.
AJAX-2 1 hour ago remove link
The fly in the ointment is that the banksters desperately need higher oil prices to prop
up their derivative portfolios. As a result, they are at odds with the Davos Crowd and
their desire for cheap/plentiful oil for Europe. We shall see who prevails.
AGuy 1 hour ago
" The fly in the ointment is that the banksters desperately need higher oil prices to
prop up their derivative portfolios. "
Nope:
Higher oil prices leads to higher defaults, which is likely to trigger derivative
losses. Banker shady deals come under congressional\agency scrutiny usually ending with
billion dollar fines, and bad press. A lot of banks probably will get nationalized when the
next banking crisis happens & all those bankers will lose out on the financial scams
they play.
European Monarchist 46 minutes ago remove link
Currently:
The Syrian state has survived, and its armed and security forces are now far more
capable than they were before the war started (remember how they almost lost the war
initially? The Syrians bounced back while learning some very hard lessons. By all
reports, they improved tremendously, while at critical moments Iran and Hezbollah
were literally "plugging holes" in the Syrian frontlines and "extinguishing fires" on
local flashpoints. Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large
chunks of their country, including every single city in Syria).
Not only is Syria stronger, but the Iranians and Hezbollah are all over the
country now, which is driving the Israelis into a state of panic and rage.
Lebanon is rock solid; even the latest Saudi attempt to kidnap Hariri is
backfiring. (2021 update: in spite of the explosion in Beirut, Hezbollah is still in
charge)
Syria will remain unitary, and Kurdistan is not happening. Millions of displaced
refugees are returning home.
Israel and the US look like total idiots and, even worse, as losers with no
credibility left.
The net result is everyone in the region who were aggressors are now suing for peace.
This is why I expect some kind of deal that returns Iran to the global economy. There's
no way for Germany's shiny new trade deal with China to work without this.
ut218 2 hours ago remove link
Solarcycle 25 had a bad start. By 2028 people will realize we are in a period of global
cooling. oil prices will soar
Itinerant 18 minutes ago
There won't be major investments of European majors in Iran's oil industry.
For Iran, Western partners have proved too fickle
For Western corporations, the risk is too great for long term investment.
China will be reaping most of the investement opportunities.
2 play_arrow
Marrubio 1 hour ago
.... the NWO & Davos idiotards ,they have been trying since March for oil not to
exceed the $ 70 barrier and they are not succeeding. Week after week they try to lower the
price, frightening with the covid, the production of Iran or whatever, and the following
week the oil rises again. The only thing left for them is mass slaughter ... but now people
know that what is going to kill them is in the "vaccine". Of course they will be stupid
enough to do it; if they have shown anything it is that they are profoundly idiots. They
will not be successful in getting cheap oil, simply because PeakOil is running since 2018
and since then oil production decreases at 5% per year: -5% per year, I am telling to the
NWO deep idiotards.
European Monarchist 55 minutes ago (Edited)
Interesting, but it remains to be seen where this is going, short term and long.
Now
that Benjamin Netanyahu is no longer going to be leading Israel, the probability of
breakthrough is much much higher than last week. The Likudniks in Congress and the Senate
just lost their raison d'etre. The loss of face for Israel in Bibi's latest attempt to
bludgeon Gaza to retain power backfired completely.
U.S. policy towards Israel is shifting rapidly as the younger generations, Gen-X and
Millennials, simply don't have the same allegiance to Israel that the Baby Boomers and
Silent generations did. It is part of a geopolitical ethos which is outdated.
So, with some deal over Iran's nuclear capability in the near future, Europe will then
get gas pipelines from Iran through Turkey as well as gain better access to the North
South Transport Corridor which is now unofficially part of China's Belt and Road
Initiative.
Russia, now that Nordstream 2 is nearly done, will not balk at this. In fact, they'll
welcome it. It forms the basis for a broader, sustainable peace arrangement in the Middle
East. What's lost is the Zionist program for Greater Israel and continued sowing dissent
between exhausted participants.
play_arrow
Einstein101 55 minutes ago remove link
Now the Syrians are doing a very good job of liberating large chunks of their
country, including every single city in Syria).
Really? Hell no! The Syrians and the mighty Russians and the Hezbollah for many months
now are not able to overcome lowly terrorists militia in northern Syria's Idlib. Plus,
the Israelis has been launching hundreds of airstrikes over Syria while the Russian made
Syrian anti air defense can do nothing about it.
"... No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides. Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the right amount of detail and scope. ..."
"... Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is. ..."
"... This is exactly the kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better. ..."
I'm a professor at the University of California San Diego and I'm assigning
this for a graduate class.
No other book out there has the level of breadth on the history of US imperialism that this work provides.
Even though it packs 400 pages of text (which might seem like a turnoff for non-academic readers), "How to Hide an Empire" is
highly readable given Immerwhar's skills as a writer. Also, its length is part of what makes it awesome because it gives it the
right amount of detail and scope.
I could not disagree more with the person who gave this book one star. Take it from me: I've taught hundreds of college students
who graduate among the best in their high school classes and they know close to nothing about the history of US settler colonialism,
overseas imperialism, or US interventionism around the world. If you give University of California college students a quiz on
where the US' overseas territories are, most who take it will fail (trust me, I've done it). And this is not their fault. Instead,
it's a product of the US education system that fails to give students a nuanced and geographically comprehensive understanding
of the oversized effect that their country has around our planet.
Alleging that US imperialism in its long evolution (which this book deciphers with poignancy) has had no bearing on the destinies
of its once conquered populations is as fallacious as saying that the US is to blame for every single thing that happens in Native
American communities, or in the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc. Not everything that happens in these locations
and among these populations is directly connected to US expansionism, but a great deal is.
A case in point is Puerto Rico's current fiscal and economic crisis. The island's political class share part of the blame for
Puerto Rico's present rut. A lot of it is also due to unnatural (i.e. "natural" but human-exacerbated) disasters such as Hurricane
María. However, there is no denying that the evolution of Puerto Rico's territorial status has generated a host of adverse economic
conditions that US states (including an island state such as Hawaii) do not have to contend with. An association with the US has
undoubtedly raised the floor of material conditions in these places, but it has also imposed an unjust glass ceiling that most
people around the US either do not know about or continue to ignore.
To add to those unfair economic limitations, there are political injustices regarding the lack of representation in Congress,
and in the case of Am. Samoa, their lack of US citizenship. The fact that the populations in the overseas territories can't make
up their mind about what status they prefer is: a) understandable given the way they have been mistreated by the US government,
and b) irrelevant because what really matters is what Congress decides to do with the US' far-flung colonies, and there is no
indication that Congress wants to either fully annex them or let them go because neither would be convenient to the 50 states
and the political parties that run them. Instead, the status quo of modern colonial indeterminacy is what works best for the most
potent political and economic groups in the US mainland. Would
This book is about much more than that though. It's also a history of how and why the United States got to control so much
of what happens around the world without creating additional formal colonies like the "territories" that exist in this legal limbo.
Part of its goal is to show how precisely how US imperialism has been made to be more cost-effective and also more invisible.
Read Immerwhar's book, and don't listen to the apologists of US imperialism which is still an active force that contradicts
the US' professed values and that needs to be actively dismantled. Their attempts at discrediting this important reflect a denialism
of the US' imperial realities that has endured throughout the history that this book summarizes.
"How to Hide an Empire: A History of the Greater United States" is a great starting point for making the US public aware of
the US' contradictions as an "empire of liberty" (a phrase once used by Thomas Jefferson to describe the US as it expanded westward
beyond the original 13 colonies). It is also a necessary update to other books on this topic that are already out there, and it
is likely to hold the reader's attention more given its crafty narrative prose and structure
Read less 194 people found this helpful
Helpful
Comment
Report abuse
This is exactly the
kind of book that drives the "My country, right or wrong" crowd crazy. Yes, slavery and genocide and ghastly scientific experiments
existed before Europeans colonized the Americas, but it's also fair and accurate to say that Europeans made those forms of destruction
into a bloody artform. Nobody did mass slaughter better.
The author of this compelling book reveals a history unknown to many
readers, and does so with first-hand accounts and deep historical analyses. You might ask why we can't put such things behind
us. The simple answer: we've never fully grappled with these events before in an honest and open way. This book does the nation
a service by peering behind the curtain and facing the sobering truth of how we came to be what we are.
This is a stunning book, not to be missed. If you finished Sapiens with the feeling your world view had
greatly enlarged, you're likely to have the same experience of your view of the US from reading this engaging work. And like Sapiens,
it's an entirely enjoyable read, full of delightful surprises, future dinner party gems.
The further you get into the book the more interesting and unexpected it becomes. You'll look at the US in ways you likely
never considered before. This is not a 'political' book with an ax to grind or a single-party agenda. It's refreshingly insightful,
beautifully written, fun to read.
This is a gift I'll give to many a good friend, I've just started with my wife. I rarely write
reviews and have never met the author (now my only regret). 3 people found this helpful
This book is an absolutely powerhouse, a must-read, and should be a part of every student's curriculum in
this God forsaken country.
Strictly speaking, this brilliant read is focused on America's relationship with Empire. But like with nearly everything America,
one cannot discuss it without discussing race and injustice.
If you read this book, you will learn a lot of new things about subjects that you thought you knew everything about. You will
have your eyes opened. You will be exposed to the dark underbelly of racism, corruption, greed and exploitation that undergird
American ambition.
I don't know exactly what else to say other than to say you MUST READ THIS BOOK. This isn't a partisan statement -- it's not
like Democrats are any better than Republicans in this book.
This is one of the best books I've ever read, and I am a voracious reader. The content is A+. It never gets boring. It never
gets tedious. It never lingers on narratives. It's extremely well written. It is, in short, perfect. And as such, 10/10.
I heard an interview of Daniel Immerwahr on NPR news / WDET radio regarding this book.
I'm am quite conservative
and only listen to NPR news when it doesn't lean too far to the left.
However, the interview piqued my interest. I am so glad I
purchased this ebook. What a phenomenal and informative read!!! WOW!! It's a "I never knew that" kind of read. Certainly not anything
I was taught in school. This is thoughtful, well written and an easy read. Highly recommend!!
One can't blame everything on Israel. Yes, it is part of five eyes, more like SIX
eyes.
Biden (JB) is building a coalition to challenge China. JB's administration wants to
neutralize Russia. Nord Stream 2 is an element of contention and by making a concession JB is
making Germany and Russia happy. Agree, that its completion will be a "huge geopolitical win
for Putin". Let's see when Nord Stream 2 becomes fully operational. Time will tell.
Russia's main focus is De-Dollarization, stability in Russia and in its neighborhood.
China's announcement about Bitcoin led to it dropping by 30%. What will China, Russia,
Turkey and Iran announcement about the U$A dollar do to its value and the market? When will
China become the #1 ECONOMY?
The US is now the largest provider of LNG, so there is relatively little more financial
advantage to be gained from a direct confrontation with Germany or Russia. Political maybe,
but the dedollarisation is starting to take hold. (Aside; even Israel depends on the strength
of the dollar to continue, like musical chairs, when the music stops there will be
precious few chairs left ). The Gas/Oil lobbies in the US who are behind the sanctions
may have some other trick up their sleeve, but the deflation of Zelensky in Ukraine, and the
opening up of a steal-fest of Ukrainian assets might compensate.
***
Note that the West has closed Syrian Embassies so as to stop Syrians voting for Assad. They
steal it's oil, and Syria is still next to Israel and doing relatively well in spite of
tanker bombings, and missiles. It is also possible that, as you say, there is a price for
non-interference in Israel itself.
What wokeness does mandate for my son (who is studying biology) to be told in his class
that he is the carrier of "white guilt" even though his ancestors never interacted with
blacks, let alone blacks in the USA.
Obama's follow-up to "Dreams from My Father" will be "Sins of My Mother"
" [C]orporate "America" which is now flooding all its advertisements with the "correct"
races in total disregard to that race's real percentage of the population "
Yes, for corporate America, the U.S. demographic is composed mainly of young, beautiful,
smart looking "black folks" with a few flabby, pasty white dullards to heighten the
contrast.
It is unlikely that you will see this news on CNN or BBC.
A book on the crimes of the international coalition in Syria
was presented in Moscow. The book is called 'Crimes of the US-led international coalition
in Syria'. The study is based on interviews with over 200 Syrian citizens who witnessed the
crimes of the international coalition. They reportedly allowed the authors to use their
testimony in legal proceedings, including in international courts. The conference dedicated
to the presentation of the book was attended by the Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Russian Federation, Riad Haddad.
The presented facts prove that the US-led coalition systematically destroyed Syrian
hospitals, schools, markets, mosques, houses of civilians, which, according to international
humanitarian law, qualifies as war crimes. Each of the facts is personalized with an accurate
indication of the identity of the victim and the circumstances of the crime, and is also
accompanied by their requests to use this evidence to appeal to national and international
courts.
The book is available for reading online (so
far only in Russian).
Btw, earlier, in February, an
exhibition of the same name was held, which was visited by Sergey Naryshkin, Director of
the Foreign Intelligence Service of the Russian Federation.
Clearly there is no coherence or logic to US foreign policy even from its own warped
viewpoint. If they really regard China as the number one adversary then they should be
courting Russia, that is, doing what the Nixon administration did with China to help contain
the USSR.
One can only surmise that it's the Zionist faction that is pushing for hostility towards
Russia because of Russia interfering with Israel's Mid-East plans, so the Zionist faction
with its regional interests is undermining the efforts of the deep state elements more
interested in world hegemony.
"Then, we basically gave permission for Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait as a ploy to send
in our advanced army to knock him out and demonstrate our superiority to the world in
weaponry, which very much demoralized the Russians and put the fear of God into Islamic oil.
Then we created the Star Wars fiction. Russia to our surprise lost their nerve and
collapsed."
Can't really buy this silly Deep State propaganda from Mr S. The Berlin Wall collapsed in
November 1989. After this the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Cold War was surely
inevitable. USMIC needed a new theatre of war in a hurry to keep itself in the style to which
it is accustomed. Gulf War I, beginning with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in August 1990,
was clearly planned in advance in order to install US bases in the Middle East as the
"˜pivot' to use the currently popular term to this new theatre. This long term planning
all bore juicy malevolent fruit not long after with 911, Gulf War 2 and the War on Terror.
It's only now, with the Middle East petering out as the preferred theatre of operations that
the new pivot is under way with the beatup for a new cold war with China.
"our values" is continually repeated by US politicians and the MSM like a mantra.
when the US has no values left but anarchy, looting, and burning down hundreds of
cities.
And also war, bombing, killing, assassination of the indocent leaders, impoverishment of
the others, overthrow of the insubordinate governments ("Color revolutions").
Every picture tells a story = USA & China (lol)
Could have added Old Masked Joe and the Camel for further effect "¦
Anyway"
I had trouble believing this account by the mysterious Mr S, though it does make good
copy, perhaps more as entertainment. So skimmed after the first few mentions of the Deep
State, Mr S's professed Christianity and his concern for Afghans.
The "Deep State" is a more or less meaningless buzzword on a par with Alex "Medicine Man"
Jones and his "Illuminati" and it's getting as dated as that imho.
WHO are these people, Mr S ? Names, please.
We are to believe that a long-serving high echelon member in USG professes Christianity in
a Gangster Cartel, which is what USG is and the source of the gross immorality, murder,
looting, permanent war, occupations which is poisoning the world and has been such for a long
time, well over a century "¦
Russia, by contrast, is a Christian country.
And you are fighting it, Mr S, as well as continuing to serve gangsters "¦
Basically this article is just bullshit, sorry to be blunt.
Worse, it doesn't say anything new except that the zio's have sacrificed their old man
Kissinger as this USG "christian" indicates.
Kissinger sprinkles his talk with preemptive catch words such as "free markets",
"democracy", and as noted here "principles"...
His greatest coup was was the petrodollar which reigned for decades; free markets huh? His
petrodollar scheme is crumbling and the age of missiles is neutering the US's imperial
ambitions. He is wallowing about in outdated imperial nostalgia.
Conspiracy theory drivel. So called "Deep State" are American elites, who are not
unanimous about most points; it was R.M. Nixon- not Kissinger, not some imaginary Deep State
segment which even does not exist- who decided to completely change policy towards Communist
China. And there, Nixon showed that he was, despite his failings, a remarkable statesman.
@alwayswrite ion. Just in the last few months the SpaceX Crew Dragon has finally come
online and that is an excellent achievement""although Nasa is still buying seats on Soyuz,
just in case.
The Boeing Starliner spacecraft is flying with the Russian engines, although not yet with
live crew. Good thing there's a Russian "˜superstore' for space tech where you can do
one-stop shopping, eh?
I'm not going to get into the Chinese program, which also bought its entire manned space
program lock, stock and barrel from Russia. They also bought advanced Russian engines, but
unlike the US, they have been able to knock off their own versions [YF100], which now power
their big Long March 5 rocket.
Oh, and the Russians landed their first rover on Mars back in 1971, the first spacecraft
to land successfully on another planet.
There's an inherent contradiction I've never been able to understand.
On the one hand the Deep State wants the United States to be and continue to be the world
hegemon. Ergo the playing off of China against Russia, as well as other ploys undercutting
potential challengers.
On the other hand the Deep State was all in on the deindustrialization of America, the
great offshoring of whole industries and the jobs they provided. Offshoring has clearly
weakened America's position as world hegemon.
@GMC xt generation gets better yet and so on. It is not an instant process, but China is
very systematic and determined and they will get there sooner than people may think.
And finally a word about why it is important to have numbers in terms of hard science
intellectuals. It is like society in general""the bottom slice is going to be barely
competent; the majority in the middle are going to be average"¦and the top ten percent
are going to be the ones that actually do all of the work, in terms of advancing of the state
of the art. And from that top group, only a few INDIVIDUALS are really going to be
visionaries that have a chance at transforming the technology and solving the really big
problems.
Obviously if you have a larger pool to start with, you will have more of those key
achievers at the top.
It may have been in the self-interest of people in the MIC to continue Cold War
conditions, but a patriot would put the good of the Republic over his own self-interest. The
late Lt. Gen. William Odom, former Director of the National Security Agency, was such a man.
He was as close to the center of the American Deep State as anyone could be.
I know from Odom's writings that he shared at least many of the views of Mr. S. Odom
himself may be gone, but his opinions may survive in his aides, friends, and associates.
The tragedy of the ZUS deep state department is , that is controlled and populated with
zionists, as is the entire ZUS government and the deep state chain dogs aka the CIA, the FBI,
the NSA, all of the 17 chain dog departments are under zionist control,
@alwayswrite tinued to circle Mars and transmit images back to Earth for another eight
months.
Mars 3 Spacecraft
The cause of the failure may have been related to the extremely powerful martian dust
storm taking place at the time which may have induced a coronal discharge, damaging the
communications system. The dust storm would also explain the poor image lighting.
@SafeNow
eing expressed now about the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. Although it has churned out
hundreds of papers, nothing groundbreaking has ever come of it.
Quantum computing is also turning out to be a nothingburger, as some of us had predicted
long ago. But if the point is to sell the sizzle and not the steak, then all of these
"˜great' projects have been a wonderful "˜marketing' success, with untold millions
of trees having given their life for the glossy magazines that breathlessly trumpeted all of
this hullabaloo. Only to end up in the landfill.
So to get back to your question about US pharma "˜scientists', I would place them just
slightly above the municipal sanitation worker that will be emptying my bin tomorrow, in the
overall scheme of things. Maybe a better person to ask would be Bill Gates?
"... The Global Financial Syndicate will use all kind of distractions to mask the MONETARY power and divide the populace to continue its control & dominance through monetary imperialism. The world is a playground for "evil spirits." ..."
One need to understand the STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT correctly, clearly, and comprehensively
to live & light our world. What is your strategic construct of the national and
international control system?
The Global Financial Syndicate will use all kind of distractions to mask the MONETARY
power and divide the populace to continue its control & dominance through monetary
imperialism. The world is a playground for "evil spirits."
How does the Financial Empire increase its control & POWER over a region? It likes
turning each region into its suzerainty and an Animal Farm (Top-Down Control Structure -
Democracy/Republic/...) internally by controlling its money supply through the
central-private banking system.
Global Financial Empire's strategy:
– Capture LANDS
– Constitutionalize to control the suzerainty & LIVES
– Create LOANS through private creation of money by the private banking system
(Credit/Debt) & give preferential access-terms to kleptocrats (Kleptocrats/Finance --
> Business/Media -- > Politicians/Bureaucrats -- > people)
– Conserve control & power through Consumerism - lifestyles (Labor &
Leisure)
Monetary Power = Lands x Lives x Loans. The key CONTROL elements of the Financial Empire
within a suzerainty are:
– credit/debt - LOANS
– consumerism/desires - LIFESTYLE
– circuses/distractions. - LOST & trivial
When it comes to the international realm it seeks following freedoms:
– freedom of capital movement,
– freedom of trade,
– freedom to provide services, particularly financial
– freedom for warfare
The Global Financial Syndicate controls, finances and corrupts policies such as those in
the U$A administration by its financing the substitution of national leaders with employees
of the Financial Syndicate, such as Biden, Draghi, Yellen, Juncker, Macron,... Globalization
is meant to establish the global financial syndicate's rule everywhere, hierarchically from
top to bottom, in contrast to the democratic right of citizens to self-determination and the
responsibility of governments towards their citizens.
Who wants to make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt?
. . . which has caused some GOP leaders to fear alienating female Republican voters, particularly educated suburbanites
who will be key votes in the 2022 elections.
When I first met my wife, she told me women shouldn't have the right to vote. It was instant love.
A Girl In Flyover Country 59 minutes ago
[in case of Cheney] The war monger doesn't fall far from the tree.
Rise21 42 minutes ago remove link
Amazing how the liberal news outlets are now supporting a Cheney. But they know more war equals more rating
yochananmichael 51 seconds ago
its time for the republicans to rid itself of chicken hawk warmongers like Cheney.
He father disbanded there Iraqi Army which was supposed to provide security, causing an insurgency and 5000 dead American boys
and countless maimed.
vic and blood PREMIUM 4 minutes ago
Cheney's benefactors have erected massive billboards all over the state, 'thanking her for defending the Constitution.'
She has an incredible war chest, and sadly, money and advertising decides a lot of elections.
Strange news of the fatherland... knowing what is going on in Germany right now is helpful
to understanding the strange goings on in the USAi and its dreams of eternal empire. It ain't
clear sailing yet for NS2!
If your country is part of an international empire, the domestic politics of the country
that rules yours are your domestic politics too. Whoever speaks of the Europe of the EU
must therefore also speak of Germany. Currently it is widely believed that after the German
federal elections of 24 September this year, Europe will enter a post-Merkel era. The truth
is not so simple.
In October 2018, following two devastating defeats in state elections in Hesse and
Bavaria, Angela Merkel resigned as president of her party, the CDU, and announced that she
would not seek re-election as Chancellor in 2021. She would, however, serve out her fourth
term, to which she had been officially appointed only seven months earlier.
Putting together a coalition government had taken no less than six months following the
September 2017 federal election, in which the CDU and its Bavarian sidekick, the CSU, had
scored the worst result in their history, at 32.9 percent (2013: 41.5 percent). (Merkel's
record as party leader is nothing short of dismal, having lost votes each time she ran. How
she could nevertheless remain Chancellor for 16 years will have to be explained elsewhere.)
In the subsequent contest for the CDU presidency, the party's general secretary, Annegret
Kramp-Karrenbauer, appointed by Merkel only in February 2018, narrowly prevailed over two
competitors.
After little more than a year, however, when Merkel publicly dressed her down for a lack
of leadership, Kramp-Karrenbauer resigned and declared that she would not run for
Chancellor in 2021 either. A few months later, when von der Leyen went to Brussels,
Kramp-Karrenbauer got Merkel to appoint her minister of defense. The next contest for the
party presidency, the second in Merkel's fourth term, had to take place under Corona
restrictions; it took a long time and was won in January 2021 by Armin Laschet, Prime
Minister of the largest federal state, North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW). To prevent the
comeback of an old foe of hers, Friedrich Merz, Merkel allegedly supported Laschet behind
the scenes.
While Laschet – a less-than-charismatic Christian-Democratic middle-of-the-roader
and lifelong Merkel loyalist – considered the party presidency to be a ticket to the
CDU/CSU candidacy for Chancellor, it took three months for this to be settled. As CDU/CSU
politics go, the joint candidate is picked by the two party presidents when they feel the
time has come, under four eyes; no formal procedure provided.
Thus Laschet needed the agreement of Markus Söder, Prime Minister of Bavaria, who
didn't keep it a secret that he believed himself the far better choice. In the background,
again, there was Merkel, in the unprecedented position of a sitting Chancellor watching the
presidents of her two parties pick her would-be successor in something like a semi-public
cock-fight. After some dramatic toing-and-froing, Laschet prevailed, once more supported by
Merkel, apparently in exchange for his state's backing for the federal government imposing
a 'hard' Covid-19 lockdown on the entire country...
...There will also be differences on the Eastern flank of the EU, where Baerbock,
following the United States, will support Ukrainian accession to NATO and the EU, and
finance EU extension in the West Balkans. That she will also cancel North Stream 2 will
be a point of contention in a Baerbock/Scholz government.
Laschet will be more inclined towards France and seek some accommodation with Russia, on
trade as well as security; he will also hesitate to be too strongly identified with the US
on Eastern Europe and Ukraine. But then, he will be reminded by his Foreign Minister,
Baerbock, as well as his own party that Germany's national security depends on the American
nuclear umbrella, which the French cannot and in any case will not replace. (my
emphasis)
France is was denying any discomfort with Zionism for 52 years. but since yesterday
effect of
Plate tectonics are perceptible.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian warned on Sunday of the risk of
"long-lasting apartheid" in Israel. The veteran politician [and high rank French official
for 40 years with solid connection to French weapons trade] made the remarks in an interview
with LCI TV NewsChannel, RTL radio and Le Figaro newspaper [ three major MSM]
French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian warned on Sunday of the risk of "long-lasting
apartheid" in Israel in the event the Palestinians fail to obtain their own state. Le Drian is one of the first senior French officials to use the term "apartheid" in
reference to Israel , which has angrily denied any policy of racial discrimination.
The veteran politician made the remarks in an interview with RTL radio and Le Figaro
newspaper in reference to the clashes between Jews and Arabs that erupted in several
Israeli cities during the latest conflict.
The violence, which revealed simmering anger among Israeli Arabs over the crackdown on
Palestinians in Jerusalem, shattered years of peaceful coexistence within Israel. "It's the first time and it clearly shows that if in the future we had a solution other
than the two-state solution, we would have the ingredients of long-lasting apartheid,"
Le Drian said, using the word for the white supremacist oppression of blacks in South
Africa from 1948 to 1991.
Le Drian said the "risk of apartheid is high" if Israel continued to act "according to a
single-state logic" but also if it maintained the status quo.
"Even the status quo produces that," he said.
He added that the 11-day conflict between Hamas and Israel had shown the need to revive the
moribund Middle East peace process. https://guardian.ng/news/france-sees-risk-of-apartheid-in-israel-paris-france/
"We have take one step at a time," he said, expressing satisfaction that US President Joe
Biden had reiterated support for creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
Israel's latest offensive against Hamas killed 248 people in the Gaza Strip, including 66
children, and wounded over 1,900, the Hamas-run health ministry said.
Meanwhile, rockets fired by Palestinian armed groups into Israel killed 12 and wounded
around 357 others, Israeli police said.
@120 m - "Iron Dome system according to Israeli sources..."
The point is not the numbers taken from the sales brochure of the system. The point is,
what does the penetration of the fantasy shield do to the Israeli psyche?
Israel initiated the ceasefire, without conditions. After 11 days, it could take no
more.
Israel has failed to protect itself from the indigenous population that it was oppressing.
Palestine has won a victory that changes the game and changes the world.
The entire regional Resistance now knows that Palestine alone can hold the enemy in check.
And all the Palestinians everywhere are completely united with only the Resistance as their
leader.
Over at the Saker just now, a speech from Hezbollah acknowledges proudly that Palestine
itself is now the leading edge of the struggle to remove Israel from the Middle East, and
that Hezbollah yearns for the day when it joins side by side with the Palestinians to drive
the oppressor from the land.
Palestine as it says could keep up this barrage against Israel for six months - just
Palestine alone. And the damage from such a thing would not be measured in how few or how
many individual persons were killed by those rockets. The damage would be measured by the
scream of madness and defeat from the Zionist oppressor, thrown down by the indigenous
populace and cast out of the land in abject fear.
As barflies can see, There may be an undefined 'ceasefire' but the 100 year old ethnic
cleansing project in the rest of Palestine continues:
Israel's Daily Toll on Palestinian Life, Limb, Liberty and Land
(Compiled by Leslie Bravery, Palestine Human Rights Campaign, Auckland, New Zealand)
18 May 2021 {Main source of statistics: Palestinian Monitoring Group (PMG): http://www.nad.ps/ NB:The period covered by this
newsletter is taken from the PMG's 24-hour sitrep ending 8am the day after the above
date.}
We shall always do our best to verify the accuracy of all items in these IOP
newsletters/reports wherever possible [e.g. we often suspect that names of people and places
that we see in the PMG sitreps could be typos; also frequently the translation into English
seems rather odd ~ but as we do not speak Arabic, we have no alternative but to copy and
paste these names from the PMG sitreps!] – please forgive us for any errors or
omissions – Leslie and Marian.
206 projectiles
launched from Gaza
82 air strikes (157)
Very many
Israeli attacks
158 Israeli
ceasefire violations
21 raids including
home invasions
11 killed – 261 injured
Economic sabotage
43 taken prisoner
Night peace disruption
and/or home invasions
in 6 towns and villages
Home invasions: 09:20, Nazlet al-Sheikh Zaid - 09:20, al-Arqa - 04:00, Anabta - 03:30, Madama
- 03:30, Tel.
Peace disruption raids: 14:40, Beitunya - 16:05, Um Safa village - 03:20, Bir Zeit - dawn,
Bil'in - 17:40, Tura village - 18:55, Ya'bad - 19:45, Zububa - 06:30, Tubas - 18:05, Quffin -
04:00, Tulkarem - 20:00, Aqraba - 13:45, al-Azza UN refugee camp - 13:45, Aida UN refugee
camp - 18:10, al-Khadr - 18:10, Janata - 20:15, Tuqu - 03:00, al-Ubeidiya - dawn, Husan -
dawn, al-Ubeidiya.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Gaza enclave: From 07:00 until
07:00 the following day 206 projectiles were launched towards the Green Line from Northern
Gaza, Gaza City, Central Gaza and Khan Yunis.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Gaza enclave: From 07:00 until
07:00 the following day, 206 projectiles were launched towards the Green Line from Northern
Gaza, Gaza City, Central Gaza and Khan Yunis.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Northern Gaza – 53
projectiles launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Gaza – 81 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Central Gaza – 17 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Khan Yunis – 38 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – Palestinian missile attacks: Khan Yunis – 17 projectiles
launched towards the Green Line.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Gaza enclave – from 07:00 until 07:00 the
following day, Israeli warplanes carried out 82 air strikes, launching 157 missiles onto
Gaza. There were 7 killed, 50 injured, 35 homes destroyed and much damage caused.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Northern Gaza – Israeli warplanes launched 21
air strikes – 35 missiles: 16 injured and 10 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Gaza – Israeli warplanes launched 17 air
strikes – 27 missiles: 6 killed (including a child), 15 injured (including women and
children) and 7 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Central Gaza – Israeli warplanes launched 14
air strikes – 20 missiles: 11injured and 6 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Khan Yunis – Israeli warplanes launched 13
air strikes – 46 missiles: 1 killed, 14 injured and 10 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – air strikes: Rafah – Israeli warplanes launched 17 air
strikes – 29 missiles. 3 injured and 2 homes destroyed.
Ceasefire violations – Israeli attacks: Gaza enclave: From 07:00 until 07:00 the
following day, the Israeli Army and Navy pounded Central Gaza, Khan Yunis and Rafah.
Israeli Army attacks – 18 wounded: Jerusalem – Israeli Occupation forces opened
fire, with live ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters on
protesters in Shuafat, al-Zaim, al-Jib, Beit Ijza, Qalandiya, near the villages of Qatanna
and al-Issawiya, as well as in Abu Dis, al-Eizariya and at the entrances to Hizma,
al-Sawahrah al-Sharqiya, Anata, the al-Ram road junction, Bab al-Amoud area and al-Wad Street
in Jerusalem Old City. 18 protesters were wounded.
Israeli Army attack: Jerusalem – 18:00, Israeli Occupation forces opened fire on
Palestinian motor vehicles in the Sheikh Radwan neighbourhood.
Israeli Army attacks – 3 killed – 72 wounded: Ramallah – Israeli forces in
or near al-Bireh, Sinjil, Aboud, Ni'lin, al-Mughayer, Deir Jarir, Kafr Malik, Nabi Salih, Ein
Qiniya, Ras Karkar, Kharbatha Bani Harith, Beit Sira, al-Jalazoun refugee camp, fired live
ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters,
killing 3 people, Muhammad Mahmoud Hamid (24), Adham Fayez Al-Kashef (20) and Islam Wael
Fahmy Barnat, and wounding 72. There were many tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 4 wounded: Jenin – Israeli troops, manning the Jalamah and
Dotan checkpoints and at the southern entrance to Silat al-Dahr, fired live ammunition,
rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 4
people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 7 wounded: Tulkarem – Israeli forces, manning the Einav
checkpoint and troops in Tulkarem, Quffin, Zit and at the entrance to Beit Lid, fired live
ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters,
wounding 7 and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 8 wounded: Qalqiliya – Israeli Occupation forces, at the
entrances to Azun, Hajjah, and Kafr Qaddum as well as near Jayus, Hablat and at the Eyal
crossing, fired live ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters
towards protesters, wounding 8 people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 33 wounded: Nablus – Israeli Army positions, near the
Huwara checkpoint, the intersection of Osirin and Sarra villages and near the entrances to
Qusra, Beta, Jama'in, Naqoura, Deir Sharaf, Burin, Madama, Asirah al-Qibliya, Yutma,
al-Labban al-Sharqiya, Odla, al-Sawiyah and the village of Tal, fired live ammunition,
rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 33
people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks: Salfit – Israeli troops, near the entrances to Deir Istiya,
Qarawat Bani Hassan, al-Zawiya and the northern entrance to Salfit, fired live ammunition,
rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters. There were
several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 18 wounded: Bethlehem – Israeli forces, present at Bilal
Bin Rabah Mosque, the Aida refugee camp, northern entrance to Tuqu', western entrance to Beit
Fajar, Um Rakba area of al-Khadr and entrance to Husan, fired live ammunition, rubber-coated
bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 18 people and
causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army attacks – 1 killed: Hebron – morning, Israeli Occupation forces,
positioned in the Old City, opened fire on and killed a resident: Islam Fayyad Zahida
(32).
Israeli Army attacks – 30 wounded: Hebron – the Israeli Army, positioned in the
Bab al-Zawiya area of Hebron and in the Old City, as well as near the entrances to Beit
Ummar, Bani Naim, Tarqumiya, Khurasa village, the al-Aroub refugee camp and on Halhul Bridge,
fired live ammunition, rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards
protesters, wounding 30 people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Economic sabotage: Gaza -- the Israeli Navy continues to enforce an arbitrary fishing
limit.
Home invasion: Jenin – 09:20, Israeli Occupation forces raided the villages of Nazlet
al-Sheikh Zaid and al-Arqa, and invaded a house.
Home invasion – boy (aged 15) abducted : Tulkarem – 04:00, Israeli troops raided
Anabta and abducted 15-year-old Muhammad Salam Wajih Rasheed.
Home invasions: Nablus – 03:30, Israeli forces raided Madama and Tel villages and
invaded a number of homes.
Israeli police and settlers' mosque violation: 23:00, Israeli Occupation police invaded the
courtyards of Al-Aqsa Mosque, filming the Mosque and its facilities.
Israeli Army – 7 wounded – rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas
canisters: Tubas – Israeli Occupation forces, manning the Tayasir checkpoint and in the
village of Atouf, fired rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters towards
protesters, wounding 7 people and causing several tear gas casualties.
Israeli Army – 5 wounded – rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades and tear gas
canisters: Jericho – Israeli forces, at the northern and southern entrances to Jericho,
as well as outside the Aqbat Jaber refugee camp, fired rubber-coated bullets, stun grenades
and tear gas canisters towards protesters, wounding 5 people and causing several tear gas
casualties.
Occupation settler violence: Jerusalem – 18:00, Israeli settlers stoned a family home,
on the outskirts of the village of Beit Ijza.
Occupation road casualties: Bethlehem – 16:40, an Israeli settler drove his motor
vehicle over and hospitalised a 19-year-old Abdullah Saqr Saad, near Khalet Iskarya.
Raid: Ramallah – 14:40, Israeli Occupation forces raided and patrolled Beitunya.
Raid: Ramallah – 16:05, Israeli forces raided and patrolled Um Safa village.
Raid – 1 taken prisoner: Ramallah – 03:20, Israeli troops raided Bir Zeit, taking
prisoner one person.
Raid – 1 taken prisoner: Ramallah – dawn, the Israeli Army raided Bil'in village,
taking prisoner one person.
Raid: Jenin – 17:40, Israeli troops raided and patrolled Tura village.
Raid: Jenin – 18:55, Israeli soldiers raided and patrolled Ya'bad.
Raid: Jenin – 19:45, Israeli Occupation forces raided and patrolled Zububa village.
Raid: Tubas – 06:30, Israeli forces raided and patrolled Tubas.
Raid: Tulkarem – 18:05, the Israeli Army raided and patrolled Quffin.
Raid: Tulkarem – 04:0 Israeli troops raided Tulkarem.
Raid: Nablus – 20:00, Israeli soldiers raided and patrolled Aqraba.
Raid – UN refugee camps: Bethlehem – 13:45, Israeli Occupation forces raided and
patrolled the al-Azza and Aida UN refugee camps in Bethlehem.
Raid: Bethlehem – 18:10, Israeli forces raided and patrolled al-Khadr and Janata.
Raid – 2 abductions: Bethlehem – 20:15, Israeli troops raided Tuqu and abducted
two 16-year-old youths: Muhammad Khaled Nasrallah and Sind Talal Al-Amor.
Raid: Bethlehem – 03:00, Israeli soldiers raided and patrolled al-Ubeidiya.
Raid – 2 taken prisoner: Bethlehem – dawn, the Israeli Army raided Husan village,
taking prisoner two people.
Raid – 2 taken prisoner: Bethlehem – dawn, Israeli Occupation forces raided
al-Ubeidiya, taking prisoner twopeople.
Restrictions of movement (14): 11:30, entrance to Turmusaya- 11:20, tightened procedures at
Huwara - 12:00, tightened procedures at Kifl Haris - 12:50, entrance to al-Zawiya -
11:25-12:30, al-Nashash road junction - 14:10, entrance to al-Walaja village - midnight,
entrance to Marah Mualla - 09:15, entrance to the Fahs area, south of Hebron - 18:45,
entrance to Sa'ir - Beit Hanoun (Erez) crossing closed - al-Mantar-Karni crossing closed -
al-Shujaiyeh crossing (Nahal Oz) closed - Sufa crossing closed - al-Awda Port closed.
[NB: Times indicated in Bold Type contribute to the sleep deprivation suffered by Palestinian
children]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If any of our subscribers should like to reproduce complete, in full and unedited, these In
Occupied Palestine daily newsletters that would be very welcome!
If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please let us know and if you have friends or
family who would like to receive them ask them to contact us at [email protected]
...
@ Paul, "100 year old ethnic cleansing project in the rest of Palestine continues",
but Tectonic plates still moving, collapse of an edifice of complacency
David Horovitz is the founding editor of The Times of Israel. He previously edited The
Jerusalem Post (2004-2011) and The Jerusalem Report (1998-2004).
"It doesn't matter that Hamas is a repressive, misogynistic, homophobic, Islamist terrorist
organization that fires thousands of rockets indiscriminately at innocent civilians all
over the State of Israel...
[...]
It doesn't matter...
[...]
Again, it doesn't matter, because we are no longer avowedly seeking, even in principle, a
two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- the currently and foreseeably
insoluble Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And since we no longer avowedly aspire to be part
of the solution, we are increasingly perceived as part of the problem, as
rejectionists.
[...]
Israel still has plenty of friends, and plenty of support, including crucially in the US.
Three EU foreign ministers chose to make a solidarity visit to bombed Israeli homes at the
height of the conflict. But the ground is shifting dangerously.
Many of us, this writer emphatically included, regard a two-state solution as essential
if we are not to lose either our Jewish majority, or our democracy, or both, forever
entangled among millions of hostile Palestinians. Many of us, this writer emphatically
included, cannot currently see a safe route to such an accommodation.
For the last time, it doesn't matter. So long as Israel does not place itself firmly and
distinctly on the side of those seeking a viable framework for long-term peace and security
for ourselves and for the Palestinians, we will be regarded as blocking that framework. And
even when facing an enemy so patently cynical, amoral and intransigent as Hamas, militarily
strong Israel will be held responsible for the loss of life on both sides of the
conflict. We may keep on winning the battles, though they will get harder if fighting spreads to
and deepens on other fronts. But we will be gradually losing the war.
No doubt the US/UK deep state, now more than ever, are busy trying to sow conflict and
division in Eurasia, to divide-and-rule Mackinder's "World Island" and hence the world.
Several previous studies have examined the risks across generations of radiation exposure
from events such as this, but have yielded inconclusive results. In this study, the
investigators analyzed the genomes
of 130 children and parents from families where one or both parents were exposed to
radiation due to the Chernobyl accident, and where children were conceived afterward and born
between 1987 and 2002.
There was no increase in gene changes in reproductive cells of study participants, and
rates of new germline mutations were similar to those in the general population, according to a
team led by Meredith Yeager of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, in Rockville,
Md.
Hardly anything of that - besides the murder of Soleimani - is mentioned in the
Yahoo piece. There is not one word on Muhandis, his role in Iraq or the consequences
of his death. There is no mention of the Iraqi parliament vote or of the ongoing attacks on
U.S. units in Iraq.
Instead the piece
prominently emphasizes alleged Kurdish collaboration in the assassination:
In late December 2019, Delta Force operators and other special operations members began
filtering into Baghdad in small groups. Kurdish operatives, who played a key role in the
killing, had already started infiltrating Baghdad International Airport by that point,
going undercover as baggage handlers and other staff members.
...
The three sniper teams positioned themselves 600 to 900 yards away from the "kill zone,"
the access road from the airfield, setting up to triangulate their target as he left the
airport. [...] A member of the Counter Terrorism Group (CTG), an elite Kurdish unit in
northern Iraq with deep links to U.S. Special Operations, helped them make the wind call
from down range.
...
After the strike, according to two U.S. officials, a Kurdish operative disguised as an
Iraqi police officer walked up to the wreckage of Soleimani's vehicle, snapped photographs
and quickly obtained a tissue sample for DNA confirmation before walking away and vanishing
into the night.
Muhandis and Soleimani were revered by the Shia majority in Iraq. The revelation of
Kurdish involvement in Soleimani's death might have harsh consequences for Iraqi Kurds.
If the Kurds were really involved why was this released? Why does it come in a piece that
is more or less a recap of already known stuff? What are the motives of those who revealed
this?
I for one do not believe those claims.
Who is interested in (re-)launching an ethnic civil war in Iraq?
The Yahoo piece then comes to the consequences of the attack:
Iran reacted with predictable fury to Soleimani's killing, lobbing dozens of ballistic
missiles at two U.S. bases in Iraq. Though no one was killed, Pentagon officials later said
more than 100 service personnel were diagnosed with traumatic brain injury.
But the rocket attack was just a "slap in the face," said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's
supreme leader, and did not represent Iran's full retaliation for the killing. U.S.
officials and experts believe that Iran may eventually attempt a high-profile assassination
of a senior U.S. official or a terrorist attack aimed at a U.S. facility.
The 'U.S. officials and experts' believe that they are way more important than they really
are. Iran's Supreme Leader Ajatollah Khamenei, who was extremely
near to Soleimani , has let it known that there is no one of Soleimani's caliber in U.S.
ranks who could be taken out as revenge. There will be no Iranian assassination campaign of
U.S. politicians or military leader.
Fears of such only shows that the former Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, one of the
initiator of the assassination of Soleimani, is a
craven milquetoast :
Tucked into the appropriations bill signed by President Trump in the final days of 2020 was
$15 million set aside to provide protective services to "former or retired senior
Department of State officials" who "face a serious and credible threat from a foreign power
or the agent of a foreign power" because of the work they did while in office.
The real second part of the revenge that is still coming was announced by Hizbullah
leader Hassan Nasrallah:
What do we mean by just punishment? Some are saying this must be someone of the same level
as Qassem Soleimani - like Chairman of Joint Chiefs, head of @CENTCOM, but there is no one
on Soleimani or Muhandis' level. Soleimani's shoe is worth more than Trump's head, so
there's no one I can point to to say this is the person we can target.
Just punishment therefore means American military presence in the region, U.S. military
bases, U.S. military ships, every American officer and soldier in our countries and
regions. The U.S. military is the one who killed Soleimani and Muhandis, and they will pay
the price. This is the equation.
...
The response to the blood of Soleimani and Al-Muhandis must be expulsion of all U.S, forces
from the region.
General Esmail Qaani, Soleimani's replacement as commander of the Quds Brigade, confirmed
Nasrallah's statement:
Esmail Qaani, the new leader of Iran's IRGC Quds Force:
"Our promise is to continue the path of martyr Soleimani. Due to the martyrdom of
#Soleimani, our promise will be the expulsion of the US from the region in different
steps."
These are not empty threats but a military project that will play out over the next years.
I would not bet on the U.S. as the winner of that war.
Posted by b on May 8, 2021 at 15:50 UTC |
Permalink
The Kurds have long been associated with Israeli secret agencies, and Israeli
bribes-from-aid to US politicians are the determinant of US ME policy. So Israel via Yahoo
news was likely celebrating to provoke Iran or for similar purposes.
The Yahoo article sure is a real slap in the face to the Kurdish forces working with the
West in occupying northern Iraq and NE Syria. No doubt it was written to deflect Iraqi and
Iranian anger away from Western interference in the Middle East towards the Kurds to get a
sectarian war going to justify continued Western occupation and meddling.
Who are Jack Murphy and Zach Dorfman anyway? From what I could find of Dorfman on search
engines, he is a writer employed or associated with the Aspen Institute headquartered in
Washington DC writing on cyber-security topics. That might suggest he and the other writer
were fed this information or farrago about Kurdish involvement in Soleymani's assassination
from the usual anonymous sources.
Read that paragraph from the MoA article carefully and understand that such an undertaking
means ridding the entire Middle Eastern region of all US military interference. This surely
includes forcing the US to leave Saudi Arabia and other ME nations with their heads stuck in
the US backside.
Understand also that other Western nations also have forces, mercenaries and "advisors" in
the Middle East and their removal from the region is just as much important but less urgent.
If the chief bully can be thrown out first, its minions will follow like the craven cowards
they are. No doubt the British and the French will try to keep a toehold in the region
through proxy forces but whether those govts have the backbone to keep going is another
question.
*** Please Note: Russia is not weak considering that it has the ability to nuke America in
to ashes within 30 minutes, or any other bunch of idiots that chooses to step over her red
lines. Okay the US has 350 million people compared to 150 million Russians, but the US is
irrevocably divided and Russia is fully united even the Muslim minority is united with the
State in Russia. A divided house can not stand no man can serve two masters. On top of that
the US has no moral values whereas Russia is a Christian country where marriage is between a
man and a woman, by State law. Biden can fly all the queer flags he likes but he still leads
a divided nation with a corrupt State comprised of dual passport holders, amoral materialists
and deluded mentally challenged idiots like Waters and Pelosi.
These folks have had it with the constant stream of baseless propaganda U.S. intelligence is spilling over the world:
Dear Director of National Intelligence,
we, the the 4-star Generals leading U.S. regional commands all over the world, are increasingly concerned with about
the lack of evidence for claims you make about our opponents.
We, as true believers, do not doubt whatever judgment you make about the harmful activities of Russia, Iran and China.
However - our allies and partners do not yet subscribe to the bliss of ignorance. They keep asking us for facts that support
those judgments
Unfortunately, we have none that we could provide.
Media reports have appeared in which 'intelligence sources' claim that Russia, China and Iran are all paying bounties
to the Taliban for killing U.S. soldiers. Fortunately
no soldier got hurt
by those rumors.
Our allies and partners read those and other reports and ask us for evidence. They want to know how exactly Russia, Iran
and China are doing these things.
They, of course, hope to learn from our experience to protect their own countries.
Currently we are not able to provide them with such information. Your people keep telling our that all of it is SECRET.
We therefore ask you to declassify the facts that support your judgments. *
Sincerely
The Generals
---- PS: * Either that or shut the fuck up.
Look, The generals and the intelligence agencies haven't won a war for a long time. So now they will fight each other
. At least ONE of them will win this time ! Success.
"... Don't deny W his agency. As I followed the horrors, from Vietnam to Iraq to Syria to Central America and elsewhere, the full list that was visible anyway, of the W regime, it sure seemed clear to me that W played the bumbling yuk very well. ..."
"... the dumb cluck thing was mostly an act. he was deliberately talking that way not only to paint himself as stupid, but also because those in power assume we must be spoken to as children (they've studied president speeches since JFK have decreased from high school level to 6th grade in complexity, word usage etc). ..."
"... In our kayfabe duoparty system, it also gave the "opposing" side the "W is a Chimp" talking point to harp on (dress rehearsal for the same stuff against tRUMP). ..."
"... Abu Ghraib was not an anomaly, Con Son Island served the same purpose during the Vietnam War. When I was young I was proud to be an American Citizen, we had the Bill of Rights, the Military was controlled by Civilians and their oath was to defend the Constitution from "All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.". I have been horrified, ashamed and deeply saddened by what has happened in the US over the last half Century or so. ..."
"... I view the 2008 election as the major failing-to-turn-back-when-we-had-the-chance point. Obama could have undone Bush's worst policies, but instead he cemented them into place forever. ..."
"... Our elites are both stupid and evil, but Bush is more stupid and Obama is more evil ..."
"... you are 40 years off the mark-It was Reagan who's brand of avuncular fascism, celebrating stupidity as a virtue who paved the way. ..."
"... albrt: I agree with your take. Obama campaigned as an anti-war candidate (at least wrt Iraq). He then proceeded to "˜surge' into Afghanistan and added Libya, Syria, and Yemen, to the regime change mix. Never a thought given to prosecuting the war criminals: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Feith, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al; much less even consider a truth and reconciliation commission. ..."
"... Obama was equally complicit in this never ending horror show and, I am hopeful, history will hold him equally accountable. ..."
"... Is it not written that Margaret Thatcher's true legacy was Tony Blair? If that is true, then the true legacy of Dubya is Obama. ..."
"... As far as harm that George W. Bush did and launched (illegal/immoral wars, domestic surveillance, tax cuts for the wealthy"¦.) Bush should take the award. ..."
"... When Obama deliberately and with malice aforethought turned all the admitted (and in fact proudly self-avowed) war-criminals and criminals-against humanity loose, free and clear under "look forward not back", he routinised and permanentized the up-to-that-very-minute irregular and extra-constitutional novel methods of governance and practice which the Cheney-Bush Administration had pioneered. Obama deliberately made torture, aggressive war, etc. "legal" when America does it and "permanent" as long as America is strong enough to keep doing it. ..."
"... The Greatest Disappointment in History. No-one else comes close, in terms of the sheer numbers of people globally who he let down. The Bait and Switch King, The Great Betrayer. After the nightmare of Bush we got him and his "˜eloquence', pulling the wool over the dazzled sheeple's eyes while he entrenched the 1% and the neocon MI complex, his paymasters, and sponsors for his entry into the overclass. ..."
"... Lambert, you forgot this one" Biden presents Liberty Medal to George and Laura Bush Instead of a war crimes trial at the Hague, Biden gave him a (family bloging) medal! ..."
"... A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing the Realm ..."
"... It's really sickening to see George W being "rehabilitated" and made to look like some kind of a senior statesman, when he should be hauled off to the Hague to spend the rest of his life in prison for war crimes. For me, his election in 2000 was mostly the beginning of the end of the rule of law in this country. As a result, the U.S. has Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, in addition to all the other events mentioned, and don't forget he tried to privatize Social Security. ..."
"... and welfare "reform", the crime bill. Talk of privatizing SSI made commonplace acceptable. Repeal of Glass Steagall. They were going to do to healthcare what oBLAM succeeded at, 20 years before him but got sidelined by Lewinsky's blue dress stains. Clintoon is a criminal and so is his spouse, and he did his share of damage everywhere. people who think otherwise might be looking back with nostalgia on a simpler (pre 9.11) time. ..."
"... Jeff Wells wrote some interesting essays in the Bush years, though many of his connections were a bit too far out, even for me. He had some striking collateral evidence for his concept of High Weirdness in high places "" sex abuse, torture and magick figuring prominently, juxtaposed with political skulduggery, and financial crimes and misdemeanours. The Gannon/Guckert affair, the Franklin ring and Gary Caradori were the sort of thing that laced his quite penetrating analyses of events. Facts were jumping off points for speculations, but given our lack of facts his imaginings were a nourishment of sorts, though often very troubling indeed. ..."
"... People have been brain washed by the glossed over history of the US they are taught. It gives people a false belief of our past. The phrase American Exceptionalism comes to mind. It is a myth. The real history is out there but you have to search it out. From it's beginning continuing to today our government is responsible for bad behavior. ..."
"... We Americans have this thing called exceptionalism which among other things creates the idea that our government is more virtuous than others. ..."
"... We are not at Hitler/Stalin/Mao standards ""yet"" but who's to say that could never happen here? One of the bafflements of the 20th century was how a civilized people descended into the dark barbarism of Nazi Germany. ..."
"... Noam Chomsky observed some thirty years ago that if the Nuremberg standards were applied to all the post-war American Presidents, then all of them would hang. ..."
"... We have such a dismal record. Little George was the most audacious of all our criminal presidents, but he has plenty of company. My question is now, looking back, why was the USA incapable of organizing a peaceful world after WW2? I start there. 1945. ..."
Bush became President in the year 2000. That was "" let me break out my calculator "" 2021 "" 2000 = 21 years ago. It occurs to
me that our younger readers, born in 2000, or even 1990, may not know how genuinely horrid Bush was, as President.
I was blogging even back then, and I remember how horrid Bush was; certainly worse than Trump, at least for Trump's first three
years in office, until the Covid pandemic. To convey the full horror of the Bush years would not a series of posts, but a book. The
entire experience was wretched and shameful.
Of the many horrors of the Bush years, I will pick three. (I am omitting many, many others, including
Hurricane Katrina , the
Plame Affair
, Medicare Part D, the Cheney Energy Task Force
, that time
Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face ,
Bush's missing
Texas Air National Guard records , Bush gaslighting the 2004 Republican National Convention with terror alerts, and on and on
and on. And I didn't even get to 9/11, "
You've covered your ass ," WMDs, and
the AUMF. Sorry. It's exhausting.) I'm afraid my recounting of these incidents will be sketchy: I lived and blogged in them, and
the memories of the horror well up in such volume and detail that I lose control of the material. Not only that, there was an actual,
functioning blogosphere at that time, which did great work, but unfortunately most of that work has succumbed to link rot. And my
memory of events two decades ago is not as strong as it could be.
The White House Iraq Group
Here I will rely on excerpts from Colonel Sam Gardiner's (PDF) "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence,
Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II" (2003), whose introduction
has been saved from link rot by the
National Security Archive and
a full version
by the University of Leeds . I would bet, long forgotten even by many of those who blogged through those times. ("Gulf II" is
what we refer to as the "War in Iraq.") Quoting from the full version:
You will see in my analysis and comments that I do not accept the notion that the first casualty of war is truth. I think we
have to have a higher standard. In the most basic sense, Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies
to come to right decisions. Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty, democracy receives collateral damage.
Seems familiar. (Gardiner's report can be read as a brilliant media critique; it's really worth sitting down with a cup of coffee
and reading it all.)[2] More:
My research suggests there were over 50 stories manufactured or at least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf
II for the American and British people . I'll cover most in this report. At the end, I will also describe some stories that
seem as if they were part of the strategic influence campaign although the evidence is only circumstantial.
What becomes important is not each story taken individually. If that were the case, it would probably seem only more of the
same. If you were to look at them one at a time, you could conclude, "Okay we sort of knew that was happening." It is the pattern
that becomes important. It's the summary of everything. To use a phrase often heard during the war, it's the mosaic. Recognizing
I said I wouldn't exaggerate, it would not be an exaggeration to say the people of the United States and UK can find out more
about the contents of a can of soup they buy than the contents of the can of worms they bought with the 2003 war in the Gulf.
The White House was, naturally, at the center of the operation:
One way to view how the US Government was organized to do the strategic communications effort before, during and after the
war is to use the chart that was used by the Assistant Deputy Director for Information Operations. The center is the White House
Office of Global Communications, the organization originally created by Karen Hughes as the Coalition Information Office. The
White House is at the center of the strategic communications process"¦.
Handy chart:
And:
Inside the White House there was an Iraq Group that did policy direction and then the Office of Global Communications itself.
Membership of the White House Iraq Group:
So, in 2020 Bush's write-in vote for President was Condi Rice, the [x] Black [x] woman who helped run a domestic disinformation
campaign for him in 2003, to sell the Iraq War to the American people. Isn't that"¦. sweet?
Of course, I was very naive at that point. I had come up as a Democrat, and my first real political engagement was the Clinton
impeachment. Back in 2003, I was amazed to discover that there was a White House operation that was planting fake stories in the
press "" and that I had been playing whackamole on them. At a higher level, I was disturbed that "Washington and London did not trust
the peoples of their democracies to come to right decisions." Now it all seems perfectly normal, which is sad.
Torture at Abu Ghraib
There are a lot of images of our torture prison in Iraq, Abu Ghraib. This one (
via ) is not the
most famous , but to me it is the most shocking:
What kind of country sets dogs on a naked prisoner? Well, my kind of country, apparently. (Later, I remember discussing
politics with somebody who came from a country that might be considered less governed by the rule of law than my own, and they said:
"Abu Ghraib. You have nothing to say." And they were right.)
For those who came in late, here's a snapshot (the detail of the story is in fact overwhelming, and I also have pity for the poor
shlubs the brass tossed into that hellhole[3].) From the Los Angeles Times, "
Few have faced consequences
for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq " (2015):
[A] 44-year-old Al Jazeera reporter named Salah Ejaili, said in a phone interview from Qatar that he was arrested in 2003 while
covering an explosion in the Iraqi province of Diyala. He was held at Abu Ghraib for 48 days after six days in another facility,
he said.
"Most of the pictures that came out in 2004, I saw that firsthand "" the human pyramid where men were stacked up naked on top
of each other, people pulled around on leashes," he said in the interview, with one of his attorneys translating. "I used to hear
loud screams during the torture sessions."
Ejaili says he was beaten, left naked and exposed to the elements for long periods, and left in solitary confinement, among
other acts.
"When people look at others who are naked, they feel like they're animals in a zoo, in addition to being termed as criminals
and as terrorists," he said. "That had a very strong psychological impact."
The plaintiffs also say they suffered electric shocks; deprivation of food, water and oxygen; sexual abuse; threats from dogs;
beatings; and sensory deprivation.
Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid, a laborer, says he was sexually abused by a woman while he was cuffed and shackled, and also that
he was forced to watch a female prisoner's rape.
Ejaili said that his face was often covered during interrogations, making it difficult for him to identify those involved,
but that he was able to notice that many of the interrogators who entered the facility wore civilian clothing.
His attorneys, citing military investigations into abuses at Abu Ghraib and other evidence, say the contractors took control
of the prison and issued orders to uniformed military.
"Abu Ghraib was pretty chaotic," said Baher Azmy, legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought suits
against CACI and L-3 Services. "They were involved in a conspiracy with the military police to abuse our clients.""¦. Eleven U.S.
soldiers were convicted in military trials of crimes related to the humiliation and abuse of the prisoners.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers , and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If our legal system had the slightest shred of integrity, it would be obvious to the Courts, as it is to a six-old-child, that
what we laughingly call our "personal" computers and cellphones contain "paper," not in the tediously literal sense of a physical
material made from wood fibre, but in the sense of content . Bits and bytes are 20th Century paper, stored on silicon and
hard disk platters. Of course a warrant should be needed to read what's on my phone, ffs.
That Fourth Amendment common sense did not prevail is IMNSHO due in large part to Bush's program of warrantless surveillance,
put in place as part of the Global War on Terror. Here again, the complexity is overwhelming and took several years to unravel. I'm
afraid I have to quote Wikipedia on
this one :
A week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which
inaugurated the "War on Terror". It later featured heavily in arguments over the NSA program.
Soon after the 9/11 attacks President Bush established the President's Surveillance Program. As part of the program, the Terrorist
Surveillance Program was established pursuant to an executive order that authorized the NSA to surveil certain telephone calls
without obtaining a warrant (see 50 U.S.C. § 1802 50 U.S.C. § 1809). The complete details of the executive order are not public,
but according to administration statements, the authorization covers communication originating overseas from or to a person suspected
of having links to terrorist organizations or their affiliates even when the other party to the call is within the US.
In October 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the administration broad powers to fight terrorism. The Bush
administration used these powers to bypass the FISC and directed the NSA to spy directly on al-Qaeda via a new NSA electronic
surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an "apparently accidental" "glitch" resulted in the interception of communications
that were between two U.S. parties. This act was challenged by multiple groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.
The precise scope of the program remains secret, but the NSA was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic
communications between the nation's largest telecommunication companies' major interconnected locations, encompassing phone conversations,
email, Internet activity, text messages and corporate private network traffic .
Of course, all this is perfectly normal today. So much for the Fourth Amendment, good job. (You will note that the telcos had
to be in on it; amusingly, the CEO of Qwest, the only telco that refused to participate, was charged and convicted of insider trading,
good job again.) The legal aspects of all this are insanely complex, but as you see from my introduction, they should be simple.
Conclusion
Here's a video of the Iraqi (now in Parliament) who threw shoes at Bush (who got off lightly, all things considered):
We should all be throwing shoes at Bush, seriously if not literally. We should not be accepting candy from him. We should not
be treating him as an elder statesman. Or a "partner in crime." We should not be admiring his paintings. Bush ran a bad, bad, bad
administration and we are living with the consequences of his badness today. Bush is a bad man. We are ruled by bad people. Tomorrow,
Obama!
NOTES
[1] Indeed.
[2] For example, I vividly remember playing whack-a-mole as a blogger with the following WMD stories: Drones, weapons labs, WMD
cluster bombs, Scuds, nuclear materials from Niger, aluminum tubes, and dirty bombs. They one and all fell apart on close inspection.
And they were only a small part of the operation, as Gardiner shows in detail.
[3] My personal speculation is that Dick Cheney had a direct feed from the Abu Ghraib torture chambers to the White House, and
watched the proceedings live. Some of the soldiers burned images of torture onto CDs as trophies, and the prison also had a server,
whose connectivity was very conveniently not revealed by the judge in a lawsuit I dimly remember being brought in Germany. So it
goes.
Does anyone believe that W, son of H. W. Bush, H. W. son of Senator Prescott Bush, would have been been pres without that familial
lineage and its important govt connections? The pity is W wasn't smart enough to grasp world politics and the US's importance
as an accepted fulcrum in same beyond his momentary wants. imo. Brent Scowcroft and others warned him off his vain pursuits. The
word "squander" come to mind, though I wish it did not.
See for example Kevin Phillips' book American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush
. ( Kevin Phillips is a great
modernist American historian, imo, who saw the rise of Nixon before anyone else.)
Don't deny W his agency. As I followed the horrors, from Vietnam to Iraq to Syria to Central America and elsewhere, the
full list that was visible anyway, of the W regime, it sure seemed clear to me that W played the bumbling yuk very well.
He did what he set out to do, no doubt with careful guidance from that sh!t of a father (magically turned into a laid-in-state
"statesman") and mother-of-string-of-pearls, and of course Cheney and the rest of the corpo-gov policy gang.
The Consent Manufacturers are whitewashing an evil man and his slicker but equally evil successor and his glamorous spouse.
Helluva job, Georgie! Full marks for kicking the world a long way down a dark road.
the dumb cluck thing was mostly an act. he was deliberately talking that way not only to paint himself as stupid, but also
because those in power assume we must be spoken to as children (they've studied president speeches since JFK have decreased from
high school level to 6th grade in complexity, word usage etc).
see Pelosi's daughter's film of his campaign trail. He's no Angel Merkel, but sly enough for politics in this country
and most third world corruptocracies.
In our kayfabe duoparty system, it also gave the "opposing" side the "W is a Chimp" talking point to harp on (dress rehearsal
for the same stuff against tRUMP).
Abu Ghraib was not an anomaly, Con Son Island served the same purpose during the Vietnam War. When I was young I was proud
to be an American Citizen, we had the Bill of Rights, the Military was controlled by Civilians and their oath was to defend the
Constitution from "All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.". I have been horrified, ashamed and deeply saddened by what has happened
in the US over the last half Century or so.
And it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
You actually "˜blogged' back when we had to use punch cards to program our PCs? How oh how did you clamber on up out of "the
Well" so many times a week? I am somewhat convinced that the Hollerith Cards Protocol was the origin of the Twitter 140 character
limit.
I also "lived through" the "˜Reign of "W""˜ and see it as a Time of Prophecy. Most of the things we are now staring down the
barrel of were effectuated then.
I may be foilly, (may be? who am I kidding,) but I view the 2000 election as a major turning point of American history.
I view the 2008 election as the major failing-to-turn-back-when-we-had-the-chance point. Obama could have undone Bush's worst
policies, but instead he cemented them into place forever.
Our elites are both stupid and evil, but Bush is more stupid and Obama is more evil.
All the pomp and circumstance surrounding the personage of the President serves to conceal the people behind the scenes who
vetted and groomed said president, and actively advise him while in office. It's in this way that a Jimmy Carter may be viewed
as a gentle soul so far as presidents go, but he was actually vetted by Brzezinski on behalf of the CFR goons. Once in office
he was then advised by Brzezinski and Volcker, among other assorted lunatics. And he gladly took their advice the entire time.
That's how he came to be president in the first place. And so it goes.
albrt: I agree with your take. Obama campaigned as an anti-war candidate (at least wrt Iraq). He then proceeded to "˜surge'
into Afghanistan and added Libya, Syria, and Yemen, to the regime change mix. Never a thought given to prosecuting the war criminals:
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Feith, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al; much less even consider a truth and reconciliation commission.
Obama was equally complicit in this never ending horror show and, I am hopeful, history will hold him equally accountable.
Could you explain your view that Obama and Trump are "worse than that" (Bush-Cheney).?
As far as harm that George W. Bush did and launched (illegal/immoral wars, domestic surveillance, tax cuts for the wealthy"¦.)
Bush should take the award.
Obama did push for military action in Libya, but at least held back from Syria.
The administrations after Bush "kicked the can down the road" but he initiated the events they simply continued. And Trump
did attempt to pull troops back from Bush initiated wars. How is Trump worse than Bush? What are your metrics?
I am just a commenter here, but I would say that . . .
When Obama deliberately and with malice aforethought turned all the admitted (and in fact proudly self-avowed) war-criminals
and criminals-against humanity loose, free and clear under "look forward not back", he routinised and permanentized the up-to-that-very-minute
irregular and extra-constitutional novel methods of governance and practice which the Cheney-Bush Administration had pioneered.
Obama deliberately made torture, aggressive war, etc. "legal" when America does it and "permanent" as long as America is strong
enough to keep doing it.
He did some other things like that which I don't have time to mention right now. Maybe others will beat me to it.
Most of all, by slickly conning or permitting to self-con numbers of people about "hope and change" to come from an Obama Administration,
he destroyed all hope of hope. He destroyed hope itself. Hope is not a "thing" any more in this country, thanks to Obama.
He may also have destroyed black politicians' dreams of becoming America's " Second Black President" for several decades to
come. Been there, done that. Never Again. But since I am not Black, that is not my problem. That is something Black America can
thank Obama for, if they decide to wake up to the fact of that reality.
Of course , if the Evil Countess Draculamala becomes President after Biden, then I guess I will be proven wrong about that
particular observation.
The Greatest Disappointment in History. No-one else comes close, in terms of the sheer numbers of people globally who he let
down. The Bait and Switch King, The Great Betrayer. After the nightmare of Bush we got him and his "˜eloquence', pulling the wool over the dazzled sheeple's eyes while he entrenched
the 1% and the neocon MI complex, his paymasters, and sponsors for his entry into the overclass.
Last, does any single person with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton, bear so much responsibility for the election of
Trump?
Remember that Obama voted in favor of FISAA, the bill that immunized Bush and his flunkies from prosecution for their felony
FISA violations, as a senator, not long before the presidential election. It was impossible to make myself vote for him after
that.
Thanks Lambert. I'd add that the intelligence being sent to the "White House Iraq Group" was being manufactured by the Office
of Special Plans (OSP) which was set up and run by Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz. Following Feith's history and connections
alone is a fruitful endeavor for those so inclined.
Among other things, Feith co-authored, along with Richard Perle and David Wurmser, the A Clean Break: A New Strategy For
Securing the Realm paper prepared for the prime minister of a certain foreign country. This is back in 1996. Around the same
time the PNAC boys were formed by Kagan and Kristol and started selling the same policy prescriptions vis a vis Iraq to the pols
and public here.
Feith was also fired from the NSC back in the early 80's for passing classified information to some little country. Fast forward
to his OSP days and, lo and behold, his employee Larry Franklin is convicted of the same thing, along with Steve Rosen and Keith
Weissman of AIPAC.
This stuff has gone on forever. What amount of ventilation is needed to blow this kind of dung out of the Augean stables of
geopolitics? Not much chance of that anyway, given all the incentives and and interests"
Is it luck that Putin and Xi might be a little less monstrous?
It's really sickening to see George W being "rehabilitated" and made to look like some kind of a senior statesman, when he
should be hauled off to the Hague to spend the rest of his life in prison for war crimes. For me, his election in 2000 was mostly
the beginning of the end of the rule of law in this country. As a result, the U.S. has Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, in addition
to all the other events mentioned, and don't forget he tried to privatize Social Security.
His eight years as president, for me, was a horror show. What really bothers me is that he got away with all of it "" and now
he's hailed as an eminence gris. I can't help but think that his rehabilitation is to remind us all of how bad Orange Man was
"" Obama was just as bad because he cemented everything W did "" and more.
That is an assignment, which is a violation of our written site Policies. This applies to reader comments when you could easily
find the answer in less than 30 seconds on Google rather than being a jerk and challenging a reader (or even worse, me derivatively)
on bogus grounds.
> For me, [W's] election in 2000 was mostly the beginning of the end of the rule of law in this country.
At this moment I'm writing it is still early days for this thread: there are only 24 comments. In these comments are named
many bad people. However, one name that does not (yet) appear is "˜Clinton'. W was a monster as president (and likely remains
a monster as a human being) but surely Billy Jeff needn't yield to him in his contempt for the rule of law.
Quite right, of course. My comment was specifically in regard to his disdain for and abuse of the rule, and rôle, of law in
the American polity, e.g., his perjury > disbarment. Sort of like the famous photograph of Nelson Rockefeller who, while serving
as VP, was captured giving the finger to a group of protestors; Clinton also oozed that kind of hubristic impunity.
Regarding Clinton, the damage he caused to his own country and the world was substantial. The destruction of Yugoslavia caused
considerable mayhem "" in addition to bombing and breaking apart a sovereign nation, it enabled "liberals" to feel good about
war again, and paved the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.
And the damage done by NAFTA was enormous "" in terms of leading to deaths of despair in both the US and Mexico I suspect NAFTA
has a higher domestic "body count" than any of the subsequent forever wars.
and welfare "reform", the crime bill. Talk of privatizing SSI made commonplace acceptable. Repeal of Glass Steagall.
They were going to do to healthcare what oBLAM succeeded at, 20 years before him but got sidelined by Lewinsky's blue dress
stains. Clintoon is a criminal and so is his spouse, and he did his share of damage everywhere. people who think otherwise might be
looking back with nostalgia on a simpler (pre 9.11) time.
little known covered up crime from his ARK days is the selling of HIV tainted blood (taken from prisoners) to Canada, among
other things.
yet another who had credible rape allegations. which damages our image at home and abroad.
I read that for the very briefest time, somebody or other was selling Total Information Awareness memorabilia with the Total
Information Awareness symbol on it. I wish I had thought to buy a Total Information Awareness mug.
I imagine knockoffs and parodies exist, but I am not sure the real thing is findable any more.
After Dennis Rader, the Wichita serial killer, murdered someone, the cops always found his semen on the floor next to the mutilated
victim. He got sexual pleasure out of gruesome murder. This is how I always pictured Cheney's attitude toward torture. Well. I
tried not to actually picture it.
Talk about your target rich environment. Where do you even start? Where do you begin? A serial business failure, draft dodger,
military deserter, drunk driver "" and all that was before he became President. A man so incurious about the world "" just like
Trump "" that he never even owned a passport until he actually became President and who never knew that Islam (prior to the Iraq
invasion) , for example, was just not one religion but was divided into Sunni and Shia in the same way Christianity is divided
into "" mostly "" Protestant and Catholics. But to me he was always the "Frat Boy President". His family always protected him
from his many flaws and he never had to grow up like his father had to in WW2. Even as President he never grew into the job, again,
just like Trump.
Lambert gives a few good reminders but there were many others and these are just the top of my head. He cared little for the
US Constitution and called it nothing more than a goddamn scrap of paper. He officially made the US a torture nation, not only
by pretending that US laws did not apply in Guantanamo bay but also aboard US Navy ships for which laws definitely did apply.
As part of a movement to make America an oil-fueled hegemony for the 21st century, he invaded Iraq with the firm intention on
invading Iran next so that Washington would have a firm grip on the fuel pump of the world. As he said "" "America is addicted
to oil." He dropped the ball on 9/11 through over-obsessing on Iraq and in the immediate aftermath sent jets around the country
"" when all jets were grounded "" to fly Saudi royalty back to Saudi Arabia before the FBI could interrogate them about all their
knowledge of the attack. All this to hide his very deep connections with the Saudis.
I could go on for several more paragraphs but what would be the point? For the neocons he was a great fronts-man to be followed
by a even greater one. I sometimes think that if Biden was a "˜real' Republican, then he would have been a great vice-president
for Bush. And now the establishment and their trained seals in the media are trying to make him out as "America's Favourite Uncle"
or something so that when he dies, he will have the same sort of funeral as John McCain did. And I predict that tens of thousands
of veterans around the country will then raise their glasses to him "" and then pour the contents on the ground.
W's rehab continues in the UK MSM, not just the Independent. The worst offenders are probably the Grauniad and Channel 4, both
Blairite.
The rehab mirrored the rise of Trump. His lack of interest in war upset these preachy imperialists.
Using Michelle Obama to facilitate the rehab brought id pol into the equation and made it easier. It was remarkable how often
the above photo is used in the neo liberal and neo con media.
Thank you, Colonel. That foto is remarkable and I suspect that the origins for the idea for it may lay on the other side of
the pond as it seemed so familiar-
There is a blog called Rigorous Intuition 2.0. Many of its blogposts are about the Bush period and Bush related subjects and
events. ( Many others are not). The sections on 9/11, Iraq, and Katrina probably have the highest percent of Bush-related blogposts,
in case one is interested.
Jeff Wells wrote some interesting essays in the Bush years, though many of his connections were a bit too far out, even for
me. He had some striking collateral evidence for his concept of High Weirdness in high places "" sex abuse, torture and magick
figuring prominently, juxtaposed with political skulduggery, and financial crimes and misdemeanours. The Gannon/Guckert affair,
the Franklin ring and Gary Caradori were the sort of thing that laced his quite penetrating analyses of events. Facts were jumping
off points for speculations, but given our lack of facts his imaginings were a nourishment of sorts, though often very troubling
indeed.
Who needs to make shit up during those years?
The facts"¦the shit he actually did, was glossed over or simply forgotten.
If shit was made up about his sorry ass i didn't bother checking, Sir.
I just assumed it was true.
Bushies destroyed the country. If there's a country in 100 years they'll be paying for those years.
And then came obama and big Mike
People have been brain washed by the glossed over history of the US they are taught. It gives people a false belief of our
past. The phrase American Exceptionalism comes to mind. It is a myth. The real history is out there but you have to search it out. From
it's beginning continuing to today our government is responsible for bad behavior.
Some scholars like Noam Chomsky write about
our real history. Unfortunately most people don't read this material. They are content with our glossed over shining star version
of US history that unfortunately continues to be taught in our educational system , starting in elementary school continuing through
a 4 year college education. Our system of government is so corrupted , I don't believe it can be fixed.
Nixon was rehabbed so he could open China, Kissinger got to keep his mantle. W portrayed by Josh Brolin pretty good take. Nice
to see dunking on GW, but the cycle of rehabilitation is due. The question is can he do some good or is there too much mud on
his boots. Can't see W as a new Jimmy Carter. Glossing over history begins the moment it's made. Makes me miss LBJ
Between 1998 and 2000, under the rule of Saddam Hussein, about 1000 prisoners from Abu Ghraib prison were executed and buried
in mass graves.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison
How many Abu Ghraib prisoners did the US army execute?
Tell me again how many Iraqis were killed by the US Army because they were doing their own version of "Red Dawn"? And that
tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive if Saddam was simply left in place. Here is a video to watch
while you have a little think about it-
We Americans have this thing called exceptionalism which among other things creates the idea that our government is more virtuous
than others. It's a useful idea in that it calls us to be different and better than the average nation, and certainly different
and better than a cruel dictatorship. But it's also a dangerous idea because too many of us actually believe it to be true. Our
atrocities are different in kind, but the scale is the same.
We are not at Hitler/Stalin/Mao standards ""yet"" but who's to say
that could never happen here? One of the bafflements of the 20th century was how a civilized people descended into the dark barbarism
of Nazi Germany.
"(I am omitting many, many others, including Hurricane Katrina, the Plame Affair, Medicare Part D, the Cheney Energy Task Force,
that time Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face, Bush's missing Texas Air National Guard records, Bush gaslighting the 2004
Republican National Convention with terror alerts, and on and on and on. An I didn't even get to 9/11, "You've covered your ass,"
WMDs, and the AUMF. Sorry. It's exhausting.)"
Agree with all the criticism of Bush, Cheney, Obama. On a lighter note, my father-in-law is a high tech oil prospector in W
Texas, much of it in Midland, overlapping in time with W. Both members of the Petroleum Club (been there once, very stuffy) and
worked out at the same gym. Naturally, my wife asked if he had ever seen W naked. Her dad wouldn't answer, but did turn beet red.
We take this as confirmation.
Noam Chomsky observed some thirty years ago that if the Nuremberg standards were applied to all the post-war American Presidents,
then all of them would hang. Chomsky could not have imagined the future sequence of presidents from that point forward, but certainly
they did not break the chain of criminality. My point is that Bush is not unique in the type of crimes, just the enormity of them.
But I also believe he set new standards (lower) for shamelessness. Remember his smirk?
But also remember Obama joking about killing people.
Remember the comedy skit in which GWB "looked" for Iraq WMD's in the Oval office as part of the White House Correspondent's
dinner?
Anyone with any sense of decency would have refused to do this skit, but Bush apparently followed his handlers' advice to get
some laughs. That the USA was led by someone of such limited talent for 8 years speaks volumes. Years ago, a New York Times reader wrote that Hillary Clinton is a "well-connected mediocrity".
That comment may be true for ALL of the recent political candidates, from both parties, for a great many years.
LBJ was definitely not mediocre (civil rights/war on poverty), and would be viewed far more favorably, maybe as great, if he
had pulled out of Vietnam rather than escalating. Carter in his post presidency has much to recommend. Post presidency Bush is painting his portraits rather than having any retrospective regrets for the harm he did.
We have such a dismal record. Little George was the most audacious of all our criminal presidents, but he has plenty of company.
My question is now, looking back, why was the USA incapable of organizing a peaceful world after WW2? I start there. 1945. How
did our ideology become so inept? And everything I have read about our failures over the years is contrasted with what might have
been. We have operated under a system that could not function without extraction. There was always a sell-by date on the cover;
one that we tried to ignore. There's no doubt in my mind that it has finally failed completely. Ignominiously. But we have also
learned and come to admit certain realities. The most important one is that there can be no more war; civilization cannot survive
a modern war. So, ironically, our advanced warfare might well bring a peaceful world without world war. And our advances in science
(mostly militarily inspired) will help us now survive.
Lambert, thank you for this piece. I won't repeat what others have opined. I've had a real problem with Michelle Obama being
the rehabilitation cheerleader leader for Dubya. Imho, we lost all of our rights under the odious Patriot Act, which was pre-written.
Russ Feingold was the lone Senate holdout. And I recall Byrd's ire and rant at the tome they had no time to read, but he caved.
It went downhill from there. The links below, (apologies, I don't know how to fashion a hot link..) are about Bush's crimes and
Amnesty International's exhaustive investigation of them.
I don't have the citation anymore, and I've knocked myself out trying to find it. But there exists a UN human rights commission
memo suggesting (?) Obama to do a number of things: hold Bushco accountable for war crimes etc, as well as address what is termed
as "systematic racism" in incarceration (and more). I had printed it out a number of years ago and can't find it.)
I'm not buying that Bush fils is any elder statesman. He and his cronies used torture, extreme rendition, hired mercenaries and
completely destabilized the Middle East. We still don't have our rights back, and I'm betting the Patriot Act will never go away.
(Nor will data mining under the guise of "targeted advertising" and sold to..the military.) The NYT's link is how Obama elected
to rug sweep and just move ahead! I look forward to Lambert's take on the Obama administration..
Finally, someone has the courage to point out the obvious. An excellent article, well researched and nicely nuanced.
I'm disappointed with the remedy proposed, however. Throwing shoes is not enough; it's merely symbolic. The potential crimes
committed here, including lying us into war, the extent of torture committed, and practices that violate international military
norms and intelligence require a transparent and impartial investigation. One possible venue is the International Criminal Courts
in the Hague.
I've been told many times that sunlight can be an effective deterrent against disease.
"... I am omitting not prosecuting bankers for accounting control fraud, the HAMP debacle, the mortgage settlement debacle, destroying a generation of black wealth with his housing policies ..."
"... it was VP at BOH ..."
"... I could go on, like many of us, but what’s the point. ..."
"... ‘fresno dan April 27, 2021 at 6:46 am’ ..."
Even today you cannot get a single elected left-wing politician to say that Obama was a
bad president. Think about that. We cannot have an honest discussion of what it meant to use
power when Democrats were in charge, so the language of dissension is polluted with
incoherent nonsense. All the grand philosophical musing and Democratic Socialists of America
study groups do not matter when not a single elected official outside the Republican Party
can make the simple, obvious point that Obama’s policies straight up made
things worse.
This was not some capitalist plot. There was a lot of dissent within the Democratic Party
about whether it was a good idea to do what Obama did. I was part of a network of people who
tried to fight against the foreclosure nonsense and opposed Obama’s
handing Puerto Rico over to hedge funds [ here ]. We
lost. And the people who made public explanations about these fights lied to cover up for
Obama’s bad choices. They lied because some of them are frauds, but also
because it was painful not to; Democratic voters and many left-wing voters were and still are
deeply hostile to any criticism of Obama. He is beloved; according to Gallup polling, 95
percent of Democrats have a favorable view of him. To the extent there is skepticism, it is
framed in ways that avoid admitting that his actions systemically ruined millions of
lives.
You will remember
Bush’s program of warrantless surveillance from the post on Bush. The
battle against it was conducted under the confusing banner of “FISA
Reform†(that is, the battle framed not that Bush’s actions
destroyed the Fourth Amendment, but that the process of FISA authorization was not properly
followed). Nonetheless, the blogosphere of that time played a big role in that battle (I was
there, albeit peripherally) which Eric Boehlert describes well in his book Bloggers on the
Bus . Here is a long excerpt (the legislation in the first sentence is FISA Reform).
I’ve added the highlighting:
So, where was Obama on “FISA Reform� That depends. From
Politifact
:
In October 2007, Obama spokesman Bill Burton issued this unequivocal statement to the
liberal blog TPM Election Central: “To be clear: Barack will support
a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications
companies .â€
Key segments of the Democratic base â€" enjoying substantial influence in the
run-up to the Democratic presidential primaries â€" were pleased.
“This is the kind of leadership we need to see from the Democratic
candidates,†MoveOn spokesman Adam Green said at the time.
Obama clinched the Democrat
nomination on June 4, 2008. Nomination safely in hand, he changed his mind on
“FISA Reformâ€[1] in July:
In October, Obama had vowed to help filibuster an update of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) that gave telecommunication companies that had cooperated with
President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program immunity from
lawsuits.
The Senate voted Wednesday on the bill updating FISA â€" which had a
provision to shield telecommunications companies that had cooperated in the surveillance.
Obama joined the 68 other senators who voted to send the bill to the
president’s desk.
No filibuster! Putting Fourth Amendment issues aside, if you think that granting
corporations retroactive immunity for multiple felonies is a really bad idea from the
standpoint of the [genuflects] rule of law, then Obama’s flip-flop
â€" let’s just go ahead and call it a betrayal â€" is
a bad act by a bad President. (On the bright side, Obama’s pivot looks like
an inflection point: Where Democrats won the loyalty or at least the alliance of the
intelligence community, which worked so for them in 2016-2020.)
STEPHANOPOULOS: The most popular question on your own website is related to this. On
change.gov it comes from Bob Fertik of New York City and he asks, “Will
you appoint a special prosecutor ideally Patrick Fitzgerald to independently investigate the
greatest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless
wiretapping.â€
OBAMA: We’re still evaluating how we’re going to
approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth. And obviously
we’re going to be looking at past practices and I don’t
believe that anybody is above the law. On the other hand I also have a belief that we
need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards . And part of my job is to make
sure that for example at the CIA, you’ve got extraordinarily talented
people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don’t want them
to suddenly feel like they’ve got to spend all their time looking over
their shoulders and lawyering (ph).
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, no 9/11 commission with Independence subpoena power?
OBAMA: We have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how do
we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing . That
doesn’t mean that if somebody has blatantly [nice qualifier] broken the
law, that they are above the law. But my orientation’s going to be to
move forward .
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, let me just press that one more time. You’re not
ruling out prosecution, but will you tell your Justice Department to investigate these cases
and follow the evidence wherever it leads?
OBAMA: What I â€" I think my general view when it comes to my attorney general
is he is the people’s lawyer. Eric Holder’s been
nominated. His job is to uphold the Constitution and look after the interests of the American
people, not to be swayed by my day-to-day politics. So, ultimately, he’s
going to be making some calls, but my general belief is that when it comes to national
security, what we have to focus on is getting things right in the future, as opposed
looking at what we got wrong in the past .
Stephanopolous really should have said “I’ll take that
as a ‘no.'†And how is there an “other
hand†to “I don’t believe that anybody is
above the law� Fast forward to the administration Obama created the conditions
for, and we see the results. From the Atlantic, “
Obama’s Legacy of Impunity for Torture “, on the
nomination of “ Bloody Gina
“:
The 44th president, Barack Obama, bears a measure of responsibility for the recklessness
of his successor, in particular Trump’s decision to appoint Gina Haspel,
the Central Intelligence Agency’s deputy director, to run the agency
itself. Haspel
oversaw a black site during the Bush era where at least one detainee, Abd al-Rahim
al-Nashiri, was tortured*.
Haspel also then played a role in a decision to destroy recordings of CIA detainees being
tortured.
The Obama administration’s actions helped entrench a standard of
accountability that stretches from beat cops to CIA officials, one in which breaking the law
in the line of duty is unpunishable, but those suspected of a crimeâ€"particularly
if black, Muslim, or undocumentedâ€"can be subjected to unspeakable cruelty
whether or not they are ultimately guilty.
In a country where a CIA official like Haspel can destroy evidence in order to obstruct a
federal investigation, and not only escape prosecution but rise to become the head of the
agency, it is no wonder that the president and his allies behave as though the possibility of
the law catching up to them is not merely remote, but a kind of absurdity.
So, thanks to Obama, we’ve legitimized torture, and a torturer became the
head of the CIA. That was a bad act by a bad President.
So we have Cheney and Obama working together to create fracking. Obama is, in fact, proud of
this:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/YDfHH8zAIUU
“That was me, people.†Setting the Earth on fire for money.
Come to think of it, signing the Paris Accords while on the other hand making the US
the world’s number one oil producer is a lot like supporting the rule of law
while on the other hand “looking forward and not backâ€
when laws are broken, and a lot like promising to filibuster a bill granting retroactive
immunity to lawbreaking corporations while on the other hand not doing so.
Conclusion
We are ruled by bad people and have been for years. Madison, of course, expected this, but
his system seems to have broken down Federalist 51 :
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same
department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary
constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The
provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger
of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be
connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human
nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what
is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were
angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor
internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be
administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the
government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
No longer is ‘the interest of the man … connected
with the constitutional rights of the place†(that is, of the office). If that were
true, Bloody Gina would not have headed the CIA. It’s not even clear that
the government can “control itself,†or
“control the governed,†except by propaganda and violence, as
our continuing public health debacle shows. I don’t know what the answer to
this is, but I do think it begins with the recognition that we are ruled by bad people. Simply
replacing “bad people†with “good
people†does not have a record of success, since the
“good†quickly become “bad.â€[3]
How to rebuild our political economy so that we seem to be governed by angels even though we
are not is a question that I cannot answer. But it is a question increasingly before us.
The OP serves as a fantastic example of the Obomba apologists. The old
‘yeah but imagine if the other guy got elected’ BS. As
if that ‘worse’ potential outcome absolves all the
wrong doing committed by the actual president.
“No longer is ‘the interest of the man
… connected with the constitutional rights of the placeâ€
(that is, of the office). â€
It’s not about perfection. It’s about the complete
co-option of power granted by election to liars who basically say,
“Whaddya gonna do aboudit?â€
Might be so â€" so many of My Fellow ‘Muricans are all happy
that it seems to appear that possibly it might be the case that due consideration may be
given to exploring what should or could be done to put a frame around some conceptual
elements of what could eventually gel into the skeleton of an approach to making some
well-considered and gradual changes to the way bidness is conducted in the Empire.
If only we had: universal health care like every single other developed country; if only
we had a $15 or higher, living wage; if only we had a massive infrastructure project; if only
college grads weren’t drowning in student debt; if only we were ending all
of our Mideast wars; if only we had paid family and medical leave; if only we had tried to
stop climate change; if only we had strong unions and excellent labor policy, etc.
IF ONLY OBAMA had even tried to implement some of these policies! I agree with this author
and others of similar views. Obama had more charm than any president, probably ever, but he
was a bad president!
He might still have a second career (after knee-knocking with filthy-rich people) as a
televangelist. Some of them are equally slick, using the same rhetorical trickery and symbol
manipulation, and they sure drag in the (is it tax-free?) megabucks!
Obama was the first Democratic President with commanding majorities in the House and
Senate. He could have been great. He had a unique opportunity to take meaningful action on
Global Warming, something he was elected to do. Instead he increased production of fossil
fuels. History will NOT be kind to Obama.
Honestly, I’m not seeing much of a difference between GWBush and Obama,
in Lambert’s post. War, extra legal killings and black sites,
surveillance, bailing out finance, etc.
The loss of life (assuming there is some USA citizenry moral concern about the
deaths/injuries of non-US citizens from the USA initiated wars) and the large expenditure in
resources (by some estimates 6 trillion dollars in Afghanistan/Iraq) make the damage Bush did
far worse.
The 6 trillion dollars represents a lot of hydrocarbons dug/pumped up and converted into
CO2 and could have been diverted into USA infrastructure or world betterment..
“Population-based studies produce estimates of the number of Iraq War
casualties ranging from 151,000 violent deaths as of June 2006 (per the Iraq Family Health
Survey) to 1,033,000 excess deaths (per the 2007 Opinion Research Business (ORB)
survey).â€
A million Iraqi deaths is about 3% of their population corresponding to about 10 million
deaths in the USA’s larger population if a foreign power invaded the USA
and behaved similarly.
And the Iraq war was promoted by Bush and cohorts.
I continue to see a LOT of difference between Bush’s actively pursued
cumulative damage and Obama’s “kick the can down the
road†damage.
There is a LOT of difference in the “cumulative damage balance
sheets†of Bush vs Obama.
Neither is admirable, but the prime mover/instigator Bush was far worse.
Since you are comparing Obama to the Christian Messiah, could you offer evidence of his
near perfection or is this a you have to take it on faith kind of thing?
OK liberal. More perfect would be one who wasn’t so servile to
organized money. Also, Lambert left out Obama’s
“pivot†to the deficit while unemployment raged. I wanted to
tear my hair out. Obama’s biggest crime was his embrace of austerity in
the midst of a depression. That’s why Trump was elected.
One reason Obama has to be defended with such ludicrous arguments is the couple of times
he wasn’t praised but was actually criticized he did the less wrong thing.
Look at our current President, his supporters never bring up the one good thing he did which
was force Obama to take a still cowardly stand on gay marriage. They won’t
credit Biden with it because shows how accountability works. Biden put Obama on the spot, and
Obama was forced to react. Biden didnt offer excuses about secret negotiations.
Obama’s desire for celebrity could have been used to make him a reasonable
President, but his followers wanted to go to brunch.
It was David Geffen and other wealthy gay Democratic donors who forced
Obama’s hand on gay marriage. Not to discount what Biden did
â€" one of the few honorable things in a very long career â€" but it
was the money that spoke loudest.
Obama was not perfect but he sang ‘Amazing Grace’ at
a black church so I guess that makes everything OK but he was a convincing fraud and maybe a
better salesman than Trump.
No longer is ‘the interest of the man … connected
with the constitutional rights of the place†(that is, of the office). If that
were true, Bloody Gina would not have headed the CIA.
If the US govt were to conform to this Madisonian vision, would the CIA even exist?
SOMEbody has to be the “rough men who keep us safe in our ignorant beds
at night,†am I right? But there’s
“always†been “state securityâ€
people who are programmed, apparently in the womb, to come out wanting to emulate Beria and
Wild Bill Donovan and the Dulles brothers and Prescott Bush (who
“allegedly†orchestrated attempt to remove FDR by a military
coup, hoping a really respected Marine General, twice Medal of Honor recipient, would lead
the coup and the new “government.†https://allthatsinteresting.com/the-business-plot
I haven’t looked, but I wonder if the CIA archives have anything on the
subject…
And that General, Smedley Butler, turns out to be a Class Traitor and whistleblower, who
published and lectured on the subject of “War Is A
Racket:â€
War Is A Racket
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.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least
21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War.
That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war
millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench?
How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them
spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How
many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in
battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take
it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few â€" the
selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the
bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies.
Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its
attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not
until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war
clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side.
Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast
sheep’s eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique
occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor…. https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
The whole screed is worth reading and studying, including the prescription for how to
rein in the looters.
Keep in mind that after the War of 1812, the United States was never invaded, even though
for much of its history, it had almost no standing army to speak of and a weak navy.
Yet somehow, the United States survived the Age of Imperialism unscathed, and the fact
that we lacked a CIA, an NSA or a Pentagon to tell us that Freedom is Slavery and War is
Peace or that we have always been at war with Eastasia didn’t seem to
bother us much.
Not entirely accurate. Don’t forget that in March, 1916, General Pancho
Villa ran a quick incursion into Columbus, New Mexico, killing 18, including 8 US soldiers.
The Villa forces actually suffered worse casualties under submachine gun fire, but looted a
bit, including weapons.
The ultra-imperialst faux “progressive†Woodrow Wilson was
encouraged to retaliate and, of course, did so, sending a large force under Pershing into
Mexico. Obviously USA empire really expanded beyond “Manifest
Destiny†indigenous killing and displacement earlier, under McKinley, and
obviously the theft of half of Mexico leading to “New Mexicoâ€
did lead to blowback of this kind even a century ago.
The Wikipedia page is pretty solid on the events. In fact, I was previously unaware of a
later Mexican troop incursion into Texas in May of ’16. Sometimes the
aggrieved bite back. Wiki link at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa_Expedition
Don’t forget that Obama tried to cut Social Security with the
appointment of Erskin Bowles and Alan Cranston to the †cat food
commission,†two politicians who were opposed to social security. Then he bailed
out the banks with trillions and no conditions while not helping people stay in their homes
led to 9 million losing their homes and this hit blacks the hardest. Meanwhile his justice
department didn’t investigate let alone indict any banker for fraud so
Obama established the principle that the perpetrators of loan fraud leading to the mortgage
crisis are too big to jail. Yes, that’s right, he gave perpetrators of
felonies which led to the near collapse of the whole economic system legal immunity! Many of
the foreclosed homes were acquired by asset managers who now rent them out.
Yes, and his ACA did not include a public option in spite of campaign promises. The irony
here is while he refused to provide a public option to private insurance, there is now a
private option to public health insurance, Medicare. Under his watch, private insurance (
Medicare Advantage) has now attracted 40% of the 60 million who qualify for Medicare. So
while a majority of Americans want some kind of government health insurance or Medicare for
all, we’ll probably end up with the private scam, Medicare Advantage for
all. That’s real progress for for profit health insurers. At the same time
he promised the pharmaceutical companies that the government would not use its purchasing
power to negotiate the price of medicines.
And he promised to let workers gain union representation via a card check but
didn’t do it in 8 years.
The hope and change rhetoric amounted to nothing but another betrayal.
Like Barack and Michelle’s wonderful friend Li’l
Bushy the 2nd, who they tried (half successfully) to politically rehabilitate.
Some of TPTB will assure you that despite his clownish show as Prezinet, George the Lesser
is truly kind and even, despite all appearances,
“intelligentâ€. Evidently the Obamas feel the same way.
Lambert, thank you for this. I shall not argue with you! At all! Criticism of Obama is not
acceptable, I have found. My description of him has always been “Bush
Lite.†Does anyone recall those little whispers between W and Obama during the
transition? I’ve always been skeptical about just
“going forward.†Bygone crimes will be bygone crimes. Big
crimes. Crimes against humanity. As for the banks, I believe that had a couple of bankers
gone to jail for fraud, we may not have ended up with a Trump, because he may not have felt
as untouchable.
Finally, as Telee notes, I’m sure what we’ll get as
Medicare For All will indeed be the odious Medicare Advantage. No one else has mentioned that
or cares to discuss it. I’ve raised the issue on Tarbell. (Crickets.) I
doubt we’ll ever rid ourselves of the blood sucking, fraudulent corporate
medical complex.
agree with you i became disabled again 2002 , medicare advantage was and is a fraud .never
signed up FOR IT. last week or 2 weeks ago . people leaving the ( advantage plan ) going back
to the real MEDICARE .
Dropping mine next go around. You basically gain nothing as hospital administrators have
gone during Covid-19 to where the money is, killer intubated mechanical ventilators and
ditched the highly effective Hyperbaric oxygen therapy. If this were China they would have
been shot already and their organs harvested.
And to think that I was once taken to task for describing our “Saintly
Diverse Chief Executive†of years gone bye as a glorified Lawn Ornament of
disreputable Antebellum Southern extraction.
I bring this up as a reminder of how the “times†can
change.
It is also a reminder of just how much “soft power†Obama had
available to him in the beginning of his term. That he threw that all away is the real
crime.
To cut the man some slack, averse as I am to do so, I will observe that he was enmeshed from
the beginning in the Clinton Triangulated Democrat Party.
Lambert S: I am omitting not prosecuting bankers for accounting control fraud, the
HAMP debacle, the mortgage settlement debacle, destroying a generation of black wealth with
his housing policies
You’re wrong to omit those things and you’re too
kind to Obama. What happened in 2008 was nothing less than a coup by Wall Street and the
financial predator class.
If one goes into the archives as far back as 2005-6, one can find the smarter minds on
Wall Street figuring out how they weren’t going to have a replay of FDR
and the New Deal when the financial collapse came this time around.
That’s why Bernanke was installed at the Fed in February 2006, and
that’s why Obama got more money for his presidential campaign from Wall
Street than any previous presidential candidate in history. Wall Street knew what was coming
and wanted a front man.
The fact that Obama simultaneously came from their own class â€" his
grandmother, who essentially raised him, was president of the Bank of Hawaii â€"
and was half-black, so that the masses of American mopes could buy into that and any critics
of the coup that he fronted for could be deflected and vilified with cries of
“racist, racist,†made Obama ideal.
It was a coup by the financial criminal class, in which they not only evaded punishment
but also continued their pillaging and immiseration of the vast mass of Americans. Obama
fronted for it.
I agree this was one of the greatest failures of any president ever.
He “unwittingly†destroyed rising black wealth by failing to
act. More black misleadership.
By turning a blind eye, he ushered in the institutionalization, from top to bottom, of
residential real estate fraud as a legitimate business. The magnitude of
today’s unpaid rents fall directly on the man’s
shoulders.
I could go on, like many of us, but what’s the point.
Obama was the consummate courtier. He’s hard-wired to court the favor
of the king. Part of his problem as president was the role reversal. He
didn’t know what to do with the idea that now people
we’re supposed to kiss his butt, not the other way around. He sure did try
though with people like Jamie Dimon and Mitch McConnell.
Obama did a great job in exacerbating inequality in the US. The rich have more than
recovered from the 2008 debacle while the bulk of the people have still not caught up to pre
2008 levels of income.
Lambert, for all the reasons mentioned in your post, and more too numerous to be mentioned
here as a terrible president, his “Terror Tuesdays†was what
shook me. His meeting with John Brennan on each Tuesday to decide which
“terror†suspect to have droned next was something
I’m not likely to ever forget. This went beyond how any civilized, decent
human being would act. His statement that, “I’m really
good at killing people†was probably the only truth he told.
I never voted for Obama because I thought he was a fraud from the beginning. This country
has had horrible presidents since Clinton,(I’m sure there were some before
him) but I think Bush/Obama were two of the worst this country has had and have done
everlasting damage to â€" in my lifetime. Another thing that struck me about Obama
from the beginning was that he had “dead eyes†â€"
flat, emotionless eyes..
I also felt he was a fraud from day one. The signs were there, and the alternative media
did report on the boatload of donor money he received from Wall St, the health insurance
lobby, et al. (I guess we could think of it as a down payment on the
Martha’s Vineyard estate), but good liberals voted for him anyway.
Regarding “Terror Tuesdaysâ€, I wonder how many drone
strikes Obama approved by phone from the ninth hole of the golf course.
Acacia, thanks for pointing to the alternative media’s reporting on
Obama’s taking a boatload of donor money from Wall Street. It was in
CounterPunch â€" which, if I remember correctly, was another one of those media
entities disparaged by the spooks at “ProporNotâ€
â€" where I read an illuminating article by Ms. Pam Martens. I read this in hard
copy, and I believe the edition I read was from February 2008. [And I hope you, Ms. Smith,
don’t mind that I plugged a like-minded writer, but I think she should be
recognized.] Ms. Martens noted how Obama took advantage of coding of industries (back then,
it was the “SIC†code) to dupe the public into thinking that
he was not taking Wall Street money. Worked like a charm, as Ms. Martens more-or-less
predicted.
I should also say that, as a Veteran, I was quite dismayed by many in the anti-war
movement (in which I was active back then, in the Imperial Capital) who fell for Obama,
instead of backing Cynthia McKinney. When Obama said he was only against
“dumb warsâ€, I instantly interpreted that as a loophole
through which a blind person could drive a Mack truck, and yet so many in the movement fell
for it. It was a lonely time, to be sure.
I also sensed that Obama was a fraud from the beginning, or if not a fraud, that he would
prove to be weak and easily manipulated. I never voted for him, not in 2008 or in 2012.
But people wanted to believe in the man, and for eight years, too many people made excuse
after pathetic excuse for the man. Even today, the excuses continue, because people want to
badly to believe.
Another gift to Obama was that he was able to claim he was opposed to the Iraq War.
He wasn’t a US Senator at the time, so he did not have to vote
yay/nay.
His opposition was limited to a critical speech, which was used as evidence of his
opposition of the war.
Obama was an orders of magnitude better conman than Trump. Many in America believed that
Trump was a conman, but Obama largely avoided this description.
I know people who still believe Obama wanted and tried to do the right things but was
prevented by the “evil†Republicans.
Adolph Reed described Obama’s future behavior very early.
“Adolph Reed was the first writer to see who Obama was. In 1996, Reed
wrote about him in The Village Voice:â€
“In Chicago, for instance, we’ve gotten a foretaste
of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices; one of them, a smooth
Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal
politics, has won a state senate seat on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and
development worlds. His fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric
of authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social
problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program â€" the point
where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form
over substance. I suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics, as
in Haiti and wherever else the International Monetary Fund has sway. So far the black
activist response hasn’t been up to the challenge. We have to do
better.â€
If the title said “Barack Obama was a Horrible President†I
would agree and the text would support the headline.
But this post and yesterday’s post purported to tell us why we have
horrible presidents. So why do we?
Personally, I think it is because the United States is in the process of collapsing. The
horribleness of our presidents both confirms that the collapse is happening and ensures that
the collapse will continue until the United States no longer exists, probably less than a
decade from now.
But I would be very interested in other views on why our presidents are so horrible.
Our vaunted republic has been taken over by a duopoly of corporatists. They carefully vet
and choose Presidents from their network of cronies, while pretending it’s
the choice of the people. E.g., what else are the superdelegates for? Result: a series of
horrible leaders. Trump was an exception in that he slipped around the usual process of
vetting and show democracy, like a rat that entered a fancy restaurant via the service
entrance, and for that he had to be annihilated.
The exception that recently said his greatest accomplishment in office was the corporate
tax cuts. Trump merely used their fraudulent ways in his own interest. He out-frauded the
frauders by recognizing their game and one-upping them. Yay. As for the rest of us?
Trump was surrounded by and gladly operated in the same morass of financial and corporate
shysters and Israel-firsters that the previous administrations were inundated with.
Adding, I’d like to preempt right now any thought that this is in any
way a defense of Obama, who I despise. It’s simply a reminder that Trump
is an absolute con too (obviously).
Let’s not forget Mr. TPP here, who put more energy into trying to sell
the democracy destroying TPP and ISDS than he did trying to get the public option into the
ACA. Not that they had any intention of doing so. Standing just a stones throw from the
outsourced grave of my wife’s career and lecturing us on how wonderful it
was going to be, and how we should stop complaining and take our medicine. But what do I
know, I’m just an F’n retard. The
administration’s term, not mine.
And then there was austerity, the cat food commission, and no doubt his
administration’s failures economically helped set the stage for Trump.
Personally, I think the worst thing Obama did was to rob those who suffered from his
dreadful economic policies from the dignity of being able to understand why they had failed,
why they suddenly had a lot less, or nothing. All his charm and eloquence was marshaled to
make sure that people would never identify the true villains of their collapsing personal
narratives. And the media was only too happy to comply, as Obama fluently escorted millions
into self-loathing and despair, with nary a shred of hope. Of course, the absence of a single
banker conviction was all part of that narrativeâ€"they didn’t
do anything wrong, it’s just more complicated than you think, because,
well, because you don’t have the sophistication of an investment banker to
really understand, and maybe if you went to a better college, or a college at
all…… It all created the carcass of civil society
that Trump so effectively weaponized with resentment and anger.
And then of course we were all forced to listen to the endless excuses of our friends and
colleagues, often good people who had worked hard to elect him, and knew exactly what he had
promisedâ€"after all, he’s an effective speaker,
no?â€"and now were forced into wild and tortured tales of why he
couldn’t, or wouldn’t, or shouldn’t,
do all those great things he had said he believed in.
I thought I hated Bush, but I didn’t vote for him, and knew he was a bad
guy. But the Obama betrayal? That hit deep, deeper than Bush. He twisted so many of my
friends and relatives into raving fools. He normalized nearly every Bush atrocity, and still
walks the earth like a great man.
I remember when Bernie first hit the campaign trail in 2015 and began to point very directly
to the 1%. You could feel the electricity surge through the population like a lightning bolt,
hitting places that had lain dormant for decades. The power of narrative is everything. Obama
was the worst, an absolutely abominable President.
Also Obama opened up the Arctic to oil exploration, full assault on the press by
threatening to use the Espionage Act, campaigning to end wars but created around 3-4 new
conflicts (bombing of Libya, Syria, and Yemen), and used more armed drones than George W.
Bush did.
“Obama fluently escorted millions into self-loathing and
despairâ€.
This is beautifully said.
I am very late to this discussion, but would like to add that I think of Obama as an
example of the Dunning-Krueger effect. That is, he was/is an intellectual flyweight
â€" and not so much “educated†as
“groomed†â€" and this ENABLED him to be so
satisfied with himself.
The article and comments provide sufficient evidence that Obama was well beyond your
(Rose) garden-variety fraud. The clarifying moment for me was his speech in Hiroshima,
delivered with heart-rending sincerity and conviction (I was getting choked up even though I
could never stand the sound of his voice), all while putting the finishing touches on his $1
trillion nuclear weapons modernization plan. An article in The Diplomat called it irony,
“a missed opportunity.†I call it the epitome of cold,
calculating evil. https://thediplomat.com/2016/05/obamas-hiroshima-speech-a-missed-opportunity/
P.S. “President†shouldn’t be
capitalized (especially not this one), unless it’s used as a title
directly before the executive person’s name.
No sitting US President or ex President deserves the Nobel peace price. That says a
lot..having said that, Obama’s book also shows the inner workings of his
world view…he was conflicted too many a times.
He paid lip service to his conscience.
He resolved all of his conflicts in the same way, in the service of money.
No violence to the social order allowed.
Violence to all the people being screwed by the social order?
…well that’s ok, they need to learn to get in
line…
Back in 2008 I thought that America had finally caught a break in having Obama come into
office as by that stage, George Bush was getting to be downright clownish with his
Presidency. The first warning though was just after he had been elected when it came out that
his campaign had gotten two advertising awards. It was at that point I remembered the
articles trying to warn people that Obama was not who people though he was which I had just
assumed at the time were Republican screeds. It did not take long after that for him to show
his true colours. The number of crimes that he did, the looting that he allowed are mentioned
here in some detail but I thought to take a 10,000 foot view of his Presidency.
When Bill Clinton was President, he really allowed neoliberalism to take over America by
having the media and defence corporations to consolidate, removing laws that had been in
place since the days of FDR, etc. and it took Wall Street less than a decade to steer America
into a ditch because of all this. But during the time following you had George Bush as
President who let loose the dogs of the neocons in an attempt to secure American hegemony for
the rest of the 21st century but which actually revealed America’s
limitations of power and which taught other nations how to fight back against America.
Between the destruction of the middle class, the disruption in the world as America caused
chaos in one country after another, the militarization of the police, etc. all set rifts into
motion at home. So in 2008 the stage was set.
What was critically needed was a reformist President who would bring back law and order to
America and the rest of the world. Who would reverse course on the destruction of the world
through climate change. Who could develop mature relations with such countries like Russia,
China, Cuba, Iran, etc and come to some sort of diplomatic accommodation. One who could take
advantage of public feeling and tame Wall Street and put the bankers back in their box.
America desperately needed a change of direction before it steered right into the coming
iceberg fields. Instead you got Obama who doubled down on the worse of America and put his
foot down on the pedal with every fiber of his exceptional soul. The rifts in American now
became chasms which resulted in Trump being elected followed by Biden who is now doubling
down on everything in an attempt to make America great again.
The one best chance for America to get back on course and reform itself and you had Obama
come in and help betray Americans instead to the worse of their own kind â€" and
all for his own personal wealth and aggrandizement. History will judge him harshly.
The Rev Kev
April 27, 2021 at 5:39 am
https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/under-obama-democrats-suffer-largest-loss-in-power-since-eisenhower/
President Obama entered the White House with his party touting a 60 seat majority in the
Senate and 257 seat majority in the House. Democrats now hold a 48* seat minority in the
Senate and 194 seat minority in the House â€" a net loss of 12 and 64 seats
respectively.
In 2009, President Obama’s party controlled both chambers of 27 state
legislatures. Eight years later, Democrats control both chambers in only 13 states.
=====================================
Inadvertent…or intended? At best, startling incompetency.
Actually it was worse than that, dan. Under Obama, the Democrats lost nearly 1,000 State
legislator seats as well. Democrat party finances had collapsed too which was why Hillary was
able to go in and buy it up before the 2016 elections-
And now we hear so many complaints about the electoral college, but nothing about how much
further Obama put us from the 2/3 of state legislatures necessary to change it. Assuming we
even want or need to to do that â€" I think Democrats need to make their case in
every state, and Obama purposefully undermined that by rejecting the 50-state strategy.
Adolph Reed saw Obama for what he was early in Obama’s career. In 1996
Reed wrote in the Village Voice: †In Chicago, for
instance,we’ve gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched
black communitarian voices; one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good
credentials and vacuous â€" to repressive neoliberal policies, has won a state
senate seat on a base mainly in the liberal foundations and development
worlds.â€
“… you had Obama come in and help betray
Americans…â€
Because that’s what he was hired to do.
A quick glimpse at his political career in Chicago, to say nothing of Adolph
Reed’s prescient assessment in 1996 (!), should have revealed his
duplicity and narcissism. Then, taking Lieberman as his mentor upon entering the Senate
should have also told us everything we needed to know.
On a personal level, I can’t bear the sound of his voice, or the
banality of his “soaring†rhetoric.
Presidents are elected on their message to voters. For Obama it was hope and change. Trump
won on make America great again. These are great slogans because they say nothing. It is left
up to the voter to interpret what it means. I’m a life long registered
Democrat.I didn’t vote for Obama either time. This was because I observed
Obama during his time in the senate. Obama wasn’t my idea of a real
democrat. He was a Wall Street democrat. They are really what used to be called moderate
Republicans. As long as monkey trumps everything, we won’t have a
government that represents the people.
Obama in Flint epitomizes the man. Flint needed Federal aid to help clean their drinking
water. Giving these deplorables money they don’t deserve is against elite
priorities and would set a bad precedent. Cue Obama, who gladly goes and puts on not one
â€" but two â€" separate performances where he delights in faking
taking a sip of water. He has the audacity to say “This is not a
stunt†as he’s in the middle of performing his show for the
people of Flint. He then repeated his performance backstage for a smaller media audience. All
of this was done eagerly, without a hint of remorse or conscience.
I’ve actually gotten a few Obamaphiles to at least stop and think for a
moment upon viewing his disgusting display in Flint.
I made a similar list to this one, but mine was much longer, when Mr. Obama left office.
One disaster you left off, understandable because of your economic and political focus, was,
well, Arne Duncan. After writing my first draft, I found I had added the former Secretary of
Education’s name to the list three times. The failure of the Obama
administration to defend and support public education is a lasting smear on our society.
And his lack of effort to directly help Black people, for fear of seeming to have a bias
was also unsupportable. What President doesn’t have a bias or two or
twenty?
I love Welsh’s site, and yes, Hugh is very big on US
“humanitarian†interventions. Those swarthy complexioned
people living abroad don’t know what’s good for them,
but Hugh is very confident that the empire does, despite the historical record.
Well, I always refer to the Obama Depression, from 2008 onward, and we are still in it.
There was no recovery. All the GDP growth since 2008 has accrued to only 5% of the
population. (Pavlina Tscherneva’s charts)
But we need to go beyond Obama. The problem is the Democratic Party itself. THEY produced
him, and Joe Lieberman tutored him on just whom to serve. And he locked in the
DNC’s right-wing control (while dismantling local Democratic politics in
red states).
In that sense he really was a Republican. But it’s necessary to trace how
he wrecked the Democrats.
Obama was embarrassed by economic stimulus. His was supposed to be the presidency that
established centrist neoliberal austerity and show everyone how great it is. Everyone who
mattered, that is. It wasn’t supposed to be cleaning up after a
depression. So he had to be dragged into action and almost immediately
“pivoted†to the deficit. That eventually gave us Trump.
Obama was an inspiring 1 percenter. If I recall, the Kennedys were early promoters as
well.
Republican / Democrat? Seriously why do we care these days? If Lambert wrote this article
from the perspective of the top 5% of the global elite looking at the executive, legislature,
and judiciary successes and failings at the federal / state / international levels, how
dramatically different would this article be? What would the score cards for Democrat v.
Republican look like? How would they overlap and compliment one another?
I suspect Clinton, Bush and Obama would be considered highly excellent executives /
politicians if one’s grading standards use the top 5%’s
objectives and goals as the guidelines.
We like to say special interests and bribes are the
“reason.†If only there were
“good†politicians… There are extremely
good politicians. Look at all the changes that have happened to our society in the last few
decades and how they are accelerating with only minor bumps in the road to said changes.
Until we accept that the political class is part and parcel of the top 5% and treat them
as true adversaries, societal changes at a global level will continue on its death cult
course.
Just think… if we were to lose half of the global population how that
would rise the standard of living. It would certainly solve a lot of global problems even if
it created others. Yeah, I really do believe that there are people in positions of power
thinking that way.
Good morning,
I remember before his 100 days were up, he dismantled the grassroots coalition that gave him
the Presidency. He is alive, his family are alive. I do not know what i would do. America is
a scary place. Sun’s nice in Miami.
Pusillanimously,
John
His personal ambition was to become America’s first billionaire
ex-president.
His ambition for his daughters is to elevate them up into the Bush Class. . . . . the High
High High global gentry. Martin Luther King’s dream, no doubt.
And Black America , in its millions, is beside itself with worshipful humble servile pride
in their Obama.
Add Yemen to the list. There was zero excuse for this. Yes, they wanted to reassure the
Saudi “ regime†( we never call our scumbag allied governments
“ regimesâ€) after the Iranian agreement ( which was one good
thing Obama did). But obviously the war would be be long massive crime and that was true from
the start. I once saw a YouTube link where John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, was
explaining to a Russian reporter that Saudi bombing of civilians was due to an imprecision in
the targeting process, while Russian bombing in Syria was a crime. I never get over how
amazingly hypocritical people are on this. Of course, our own bombing of Fallujah, Mosul, and
Raqqa was every bit as destructive as anything the Russians did in Aleppo.
I found that most liberals I spoke to online and in real life in 2016
didn’t know about Yemen and when I told them, with one or two exceptions
they brushed it off or assumed there was some good reasons for it or even used the
“ placate the Saudis†justification. Everything has to be run
through a partisan filter before judging it as right or wrong. And if Obama was responsible,
it couldn’t be that bad.
Let us not forget foreign policy: Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Honduras. Even though his Cuba
and Iran policy were hits in between the second base and center field, he still only batted
below 150 and continually left runners on base.
It seems like an eternity since Obama took office. Hope and change. I’m
forever amazed at how much we learn and change as a community in such short periods of time.
We should have a tab, like the Top Ten ideas of the year. Since Obama’s
pathetic debacle the country has changed so much it’s hard to even make a
list. We are no longer naive politically, we are no longer naive economically, we are
watching the military like doves; we are not in denial about our unexceptionalism, we are
serious about our overconsumption and the environment, and we don’t seem
to even care about political promises; we are now demanding the things we need â€"
we know everything went to hell. So maybe it’s hopelessness and change.
Because if you have hope you just keep hanging on to the same old crap. When Obama proved to
be ineffective, when he wept during his SOTU and asked the electorate to
“demonstrate†more for social equality, when he caved to the
banks and ruined every spark of hope in America, America did indeed change. Powerful voices
came through the fog (think NC here) and there’s no going back.
He lost me when he appointed Geitner for Treasury. I shouldn’t say
“lost me†so much as “showed me his true
character.â€
He was so arrogant that he thought his charm and brilliance would win over rank and file
Republicans in the House and Senate. Failed.
He did that one big thingâ€"the ACAâ€"but let Congress mangle and
distort the thing so badly. He could have lowered the age of eligibility for Medicare to 55
but for Joe Lieberman, who decided against it.
In retrospect, a Romney win would have been a better outcome in 2012. As we know, Romney
is not the “strict conservative†he presented to the Tea Party
in order to gain their favor. He would have governed as a New England liberal Republican, ala
Rockefeller, perhaps. Instead, we got four more years of neo-liberal mush.
But most damning: “No one is above the law, but on the other hand . .
.â€
I used to live on the surface.
I didn’t really have time to analyse anything in detail, and I got my
information from the mainstream media.
Bill Clinton was a good President, and the Republicans were behaving terribly trying to
remove him from office.
New Labour were really going to change things in the UK, I thought this was just what the UK
needed.
The Iraq war seemed sensible enough; Saddam Hussein was a terrible leader and needed to be
removed.
Then I had more time to look at things in more detail.
The more you scratch away at the surface and look underneath, the worse it gets.
The image of Bill Clinton that I had received from the mainstream media gave no indication of
some of the awful legislation he passed.
I was firmly behind New Labour when they were in office, but I am now pretty sure they were
not who I thought they were.
I was still pretty near the surface when Barack Obama came into office and things did look
very hopeful.
I won’t be surprised by any revelations now.
During Obama’s Presidency, I used to argue that
Obama’s terrible policies were not the result of his being malicious or
evil, but because he was thoroughly trained and indoctrinated in neo-liberalism. This
explains Obama’s awful economic policies, but it does not explain, to my
satisfaction, the first two examples Lambert uses â€" surveillance, and
torture.
As I have sought for a solution to the problems USA and the world faces, I have since come
to also realize that elites are trained â€" not just in USA but all over the world
â€" to be ruthless and vindictive. That is how they rise to the top of any
organization they are in. I think part of this is captured by Ian Welsh’s
argument that managers are taught to make all decisions using cost-benefit analysis to some
degree. I think a very large part of it is captured by Thorstein Veblen’s
analysis of the ruling Leisure Class. Marxist analysis, I have concluded does not offer much
in the way of understanding the psychology of sociopathy that characterizes elites. Veblen
offers many insights on this, Marx does not. This is why Marxists cannot explain why actual
socialism or communism failed to change human nature, but Veblen can. All other analysts of
elites psychopathology since Veblen, including Wolin and Hedges, basically restate what
Veblen already wrote a century and a quarter ago.
Another conclusion I have reached from all this searching, inquiring, and pondering, is
that the principles of civic republicanism offer workable solutions out of this accelerating
vortex of catastrophe. First, civic republicanism demands that the rights and needs of
community be given equal, and sometimes greater, weight, than individual liberty, while at
the same time demanding the creation and maintenance of institutions devoted to preserving
individual liberty. In essence, civil republicanism recognizes and accepts that there are
some really bad parts of human nature, and that governments must be instituted to guard
against the effects of these. Socialists and communists are just plain wrong in their belief
that changing or eliminating property relations and who owns the means of production will
result in a better human nature.
Second, civic republicanism demands an active promotion of “the
good.†Now, of course, you can debate what “the good
is†at any given moment, or for any given society, but this is exactly why public
education grounded in classics such as Plato, Euripides, Plutarch, Milton, Shakespeare, is
indispensable to self-government and the maintenance of liberty. But to see what I mean about
an active promotion of “the good†just look at the life and
achievements of Benjamin Franklin, especially the various voluntary, charitable, and
political institutions he helped establish and create.
Looking at Obama, I think that is the key element that was missing: the personal
determination, which was never inculcated in him through his thorough education in
neoliberalism, to do good. Cost benefit analysis was drilled into him, but not a wide-ranging
examination and understanding of doing good.
In the end, how a society behaves will be determined by what the members of that society
believe. In USA, we have discarded civic republicanism â€" aided and abetted by a
wrong-headed leftist insistence that racism and empire were baked into the USA from the
beginning â€" and replaced it with the neoliberal insistence that only markets are
the true and just arbiter of human affairs, not humans themselves.
The reason you dare not condemn Obama in public is because his worshipful millions of
black worshippers will call you racist and will Wokemail and Wokestort you to â€
take your racist racism against Obama back, you racist.â€
Don’t believe it? Try it and see.
I remember reading about how the black racist comedian Trevor Noah played the racist card
against people noting Obama’s corruption. I can’t find
the referrence now on my search prevention engines.
So I will just send along this other link about the racist comedian Trevor
Noah’s documented racism in another context. https://thebrag.com/trevor-noah-controversial-remarks-indigenous-women/
Ditto. I am sure the CIA will be grinding the generals as we speak. Even the letter in
Politico could well be one of their strategies. I posted a piece in the open thread yesterday
from The HILL that was
pure propaganda.
USA is not alone in losing guerrilla warfare.
Watch for Biden announcing a 'shake up' of the military command in the next few
weeks/months.
The US military 2021 retreat from Kabul will result in a slaughter in the USA.
I see the Pentagon pulling the plug on the opium income for the CIA. Now THAT is the real
war. So the CIA now has to pay its mercenary army to defend the harvest and extraction. That
added cost to the CIA will not be taken lightly.
"... By Tom Engelhardt. Originally published at TomDispatch ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... I supported the rule of law and human rights, not to mention the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. ..."
"... In these years, one key to so much of this is the fact that, as the Vietnam War began winding down in 1973, the draft was ended and war itself became a “voluntary†activity for Americans. In other words, it became ever easier not only to not protest American war-making, but to pay no attention to it or to the changing military that went with it. And that military was indeed altering and growing in remarkable ways. ..."
"... “The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on armaments†..."
"... “The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on armaments†..."
"... “Large-scale armaments are inseparable from the expansion of the armed forces and the preparation of plans for a war of conquest. They also induce competitive rearmament of other countries.†..."
Yves here. Englehardt describes how US war-making has been a continuing exercise starting
with World War II. It’s important to recognize that before that, US military
budgets were modest both in national and global terms. But with manufacturing less specialized,
the US was able to turn a considerable amount of its productive capacity to armaments in fairly
short order.
A second point is as someone who was in Manhattan on 9/11, I did not experience the attacks
as war. I saw them as very impressive terrorism. However, I was appalled at how quickly
individuals in positions of authority pushed sentiment in that direction. The attack was on a
Tuesday (I had a blood draw and voted before I even realized Something Bad had happened). I was
appalled to see the saber-rattling in Bush’s speech at the National
Cathedral on Friday. On Sunday, I decided to go to the Unitarian Church around the corner. I
was shocked to hear more martial-speak. And because the church was packed, I had to sit in the
front on the floor, which meant I couldn’t duck out.
Here’s the strange thing in an ever-stranger world: I was born in July
1944 in the midst of a devastating world war. That war ended in August 1945 with the atomic
obliteration of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the most devastating bombs in
history up to that moment, given the sweet code names
“Little Boy†and “Fat Man.â€
I was the littlest of boys at the time. More than three-quarters of a century has passed
since, on September 2, 1945, Japanese Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and General Yoshijiro
Umezu
signed the Instrument of Surrender on the battleship U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay,
officially ending World War II. That was V-J (for Victory over Japan) Day, but in a sense for
me, my whole generation, and this country, war never really ended.
The United States has been at war, or at least in armed conflicts of various sorts, often in
distant lands, for more or less my entire life. Yes, for some of those years, that war was
“cold†(which often meant that such carnage, regularly sponsored
by the CIA, happened largely off-screen and out of sight), but war as a way of life never
really ended, not to this very moment.
In fact, as the decades went by, it would become the
“infrastructure†in which Americans increasingly invested their
tax dollars via aircraft
carriers , trillion-dollar jet fighters, drones armed
with Hellfire missiles, and the creation and maintenance of hundreds of military garrisons
around the globe, rather than roads, bridges, or
rail lines (no less the high-speed
version of the same) here at home. During those same years, the Pentagon budget would grab
an ever-larger percentage of
federal discretionary spending and the full-scale annual investment in what has come to be
known as the national security state would rise to a staggering $1.2
trillion or more.
In a sense, future V-J Days became inconceivable. There were no longer moments, even as wars
ended, when some version of peace might descend and America’s vast military
contingents could, as at the end of World War II, be significantly demobilized. The closest
equivalent was undoubtedly the moment when the Soviet Union imploded in 1991, the Cold War
officially ended, and the Washington establishment declared itself globally triumphant. But of
course, the promised “peace dividend†would never be paid out as
the first Gulf War with Iraq occurred that very year and the serious downsizing of the U.S.
military (and the CIA) never happened.
Never-Ending War
Consider it typical that, when President Biden recently
announced the official ending of the nearly 20-year-old American conflict in Afghanistan
with the withdrawal of the last U.S. troops from that country by 9/11/21, it would functionally
be paired with the news that the
Pentagon budget was about to rise yet again from its record heights in the Trump years.
“Only in America,†as retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and
historian William Astore wrote recently,
“do wars end and war budgets go up.â€
Of course, even the ending of that never-ending Afghan War may prove exaggerated. In fact,
let’s consider Afghanistan apart from the rest of this
country’s war-making history for a moment. After all, if I had told you in
1978 that, of the 42 years to follow, the U.S. would be involved in war in a single country for
30 of them and asked you to identify it, I can guarantee that Afghanistan
wouldn’t have been your pick. And yet so it’s been. From
1979 to 1989, there was the
CIA-backed Islamist extremist war against the Soviet army there (to the tune of billions
and billions of dollars). And yet the obvious lesson the Russians learned from that adventure,
as their military limped home in defeat and the Soviet Union imploded not long after
â€" that Afghanistan is indeed the “graveyard of
empires†â€" clearly had no impact in Washington.
Or how do you explain the 19-plus years of warfare there that followed the 9/11 attacks,
themselves committed by a small Islamist outfit, al-Qaeda, born as an American ally in that
first Afghan War? Only recently, the invaluable Costs of War Project
estimated that America’s second Afghan War has cost this country almost
$2.3 trillion (not including the price of lifetime care for its vets) and has left at least
241,000 people dead, including 2,442 American service members. In 1978, after the disaster of
the Vietnam War, had I assured you that such a never-ending failure of a conflict was in our
future, you would undoubtedly have laughed in my face.
And yet, three decades later, the U.S. military high command still seems not faintly to have
grasped the lesson that we “taught†the Russians and then
experienced ourselves. As a result, according to recent reports, they have uniformly
opposed President Biden’s decision to withdraw all American troops from
that country by the 20th anniversary of 9/11. In fact, it’s not even clear
that, by September 11, 2021, if the president’s proposal goes according to
plan, that war will have truly ended. After all, the same military commanders and intelligence
chiefs seem intent on organizing long-distance versions of that conflict or, as the New
York Timesput
it , are determined to “fight from afar†there. They are
evidently even considering
establishing new bases in neighboring lands to do so.
America’s
“forever wars†â€" once known as the Global War on
Terror and, when the administration of George W. Bush launched it, proudly aimed at 60 countries â€"
do seem to be slowly winding down. Unfortunately, other kinds of potential wars, especially new
cold wars with China and Russia (involving new kinds of
high-tech weaponry) only seem to be gearing up.
War in Our Time
In these years, one key to so much of this is the fact that, as the Vietnam War began
winding down in 1973, the draft was
ended and war itself became a “voluntary†activity for
Americans. In other words, it became ever easier not only to not protest American war-making,
but to pay no attention to it or to the changing military that went with it. And that military
was indeed altering and growing in remarkable ways.
In the years that followed, for instance, the elite Green Berets of the Vietnam era would be
incorporated into an ever more expansive set of Special Operations forces, up to 70,000 of
them (larger, that is, than the armed forces of many countries). Those special operators would
functionally become a second, more secretive American military embedded inside the larger force
and largely freed from citizen oversight of any sort. In 2020, as Nick Turse reported, they
would be stationed in a staggering 154 countries
around the planet, often involved in semi-secret conflicts “in the
shadows†that Americans would pay remarkably little attention to.
Since the Vietnam War, which roiled the politics of this nation and was protested in the
streets of this country by an antiwar movement that came to include significant numbers of
active-duty soldiers and veterans, war has played a remarkably recessive role in American life.
Yes, there have been the endless thank-yous
offered by citizens and corporations to “the troops.†But
that’s where the attentiveness stops, while both political parties, year
after endless year, remain remarkably
supportive of a growing Pentagon budget and the industrial (that is, weapons-making) part
of the military-industrial complex. War, American-style, may be forever, but â€"
despite, for instance, the militarization
of this country’s police and the way in which those wars came home
to the Capitol last January 6th â€" it remains a remarkably distant reality for most
Americans.
One explanation: though the U.S. has, as I’ve said, been functionally at
war since 1941, there were just two times when this country felt war directly â€" on
December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and on September 11, 2001, when 19
mostly Saudi hijackers in commercial jets struck New York’s World Trade
Center and the Pentagon.
And yet, in another sense, war has been and remains us. Let’s just
consider some of that war-making for a moment. If you’re of a certain age,
you can certainly call to mind the big wars: Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1954-1975)
â€" and don’t forget the brutal bloodlettings in neighboring Laos
and Cambodia as well â€" that first Gulf War of 1991, and the disastrous second one,
the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Then, of course, there was that Global War on Terror that began
soon after September 11, 2001, with the invasion of Afghanistan, only to spread to much of the
rest of the Greater Middle East, and to significant parts of Africa. In March, for instance,
the
first 12 American special-ops trainers
arrived in embattled Mozambique, just one more small extension of an already widespread
American anti-Islamist terror role (
now failing ) across much of that continent.
And then, of course, there were the smaller conflicts (though not necessarily so to the
people in the countries involved) that we’ve now generally forgotten about,
the ones that I had to search my fading brain to recall. I mean, who today thinks much about
President John F. Kennedy’s April 1961 CIA disaster at the Bay of Pigs in
Cuba; or President Lyndon Johnson’s sending of 22,000 U.S. troops to the
Dominican Republic in 1965 to “restore orderâ€; or President
Ronald Reagan’s version of “aggressive
self-defense†by U.S. Marines sent to Lebanon who, in October 1983, were attacked
in their barracks by a suicide bomber, killing 241 of them;
or the anti-Cuban invasion of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada that
same month in which 19 Americans were killed and 116 wounded?
And then, define and categorize them as you will, there were the CIA’s
endless militarized attempts (sometimes with the help of the U.S. military) to intervene in the
affairs of other countries, ranging from taking the nationalist side against Mao
Zedong’s communist forces in China from 1945 to 1949 to stoking a small ongoing
conflict in Tibet in the 1950s and early 1960s, and overthrowing the governments of Guatemala
and Iran, among other places. There were an
estimated 72 such interventions from 1947 to 1989, many warlike in nature. There were, for
instance, the proxy conflicts in Central America, first in Nicaragua against the Sandinistas
and then in El Salvador, bloody events even if few U.S. soldiers or CIA agents died in them.
No, these were hardly “wars,†as traditionally defined, not all
of them, though they did sometimes involve military coups and the like, but they were generally
carnage-producing in the countries they were in. And that only begins to suggest the range of
this country’s militarized interventions in the post-1945 era, as journalist
William Blum’s “
A Brief History of Interventions †makes all too clear.
Whenever you look for the equivalent of a warless American moment, some reality trips you
up. For instance, perhaps you had in mind the brief period between when the Red Army limped
home in defeat from Afghanistan in 1989 and the implosion of the Soviet Union in 1991, that
moment when Washington politicians, initially shocked that the Cold War had ended so
unexpectedly, declared themselves triumphant on Planet Earth. That brief period might almost
have passed for “peace,†American-style, if the U.S. military
under President George H. W. Bush hadn’t, in fact, invaded Panama
(“Operation Just Causeâ€) as 1989 ended to get rid of its
autocratic leader Manuel Noriega (a former CIA asset, by the way). Up to 3,000 Panamanians
(including many civilians) died along with 23 American troops in that episode.
And then, of course, in January 1991 the First Gulf War began . It
would result in perhaps 8,000 to 10,000 Iraqi deaths and “onlyâ€
a few hundred deaths among the U.S.-led coalition of forces. Air strikes against Iraq would
follow in the years to come. And let’s not forget that even Europe
wasn’t exempt since, in 1999, during the presidency of Bill Clinton, the
U.S. Air Force launched a destructive 10-week bombing
campaign against the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia.
And all of this remains a distinctly incomplete list, especially in this century when
something like 2
00,000 U.S. troops have regularly been stationed abroad and U.S. Special Operations forces
have deployed to staggering numbers of countries, while American drones regularly attacked
“terrorists†in nation after nation and American presidents
quite literally became assassins-in-chief . To this day,
what scholar and former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson called
an American “empire of bases†â€" a historically
unprecedented 800 or more of them â€"
across much of the planet remains untouched and, at any moment, there could be more to come
from the country whose military budget
at least equals those of the next 10 (yes, that’s 10!) countries
combined, including China and Russia.
A Timeline of Carnage
The last three-quarters of this somewhat truncated post-World War II American Century have,
in effect, been a timeline of carnage, though few in this country would notice or acknowledge
that. After all, since 1945, Americans have only once been “at
war†at home, when almost 3,000 civilians died in an attack meant to provoke
â€" well, something like the war on terror that also become a war of terror and a
spreader of terror movements in our world.
As journalist William Arkin recently argued , the U.S. has created a
permanent war state meant to facilitate “endless war.†As he
writes, at this very moment, our nation “is killing or bombing in perhaps 10
different countries,†possibly more, and there’s nothing
remarkably out of the ordinary about that in our recent past.
The question that Americans seldom even think to ask is this: What if the U.S. were to begin
to dismantle its empire of bases,
repurpose so many of those militarized taxpayer dollars to our domestic needs, abandon this
country’s focus on permanent war, and forsake the Pentagon as our holy
church? What if, even briefly, the wars, conflicts, plots, killings, drone assassinations, all
of it stopped?
What would our world actually be like if you simply declared peace and came home?
Here in Asia, many people think the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan was an act of
flaying the dying horse, since Japan was staring at defeat even without the bombs. It was a
totally callous act of the USA to drop the bombs just to “test their
efficacyâ€.
Why then the bombs could not have dropped on Germany that was still waging war at that
time? Asians smirk and say one) the “collateral†damage of
radiation etc., to neighbours like France who were Allies and two) they were (and are)
‘whites’; unlike Japan and its neighbours.
I think that you have the dates mixed up. The war against Germany in Europe ended on May
7th and the testing of the first atom bomb was not until 16th July when the first bomb went
off at Alamogordo in New Mexico. The following month the two remaining atom bombs that the US
had were dropped on Japan. In short, the bombs arrived too late to use in Europe.
The bomb was built with Berlin being the first target, but because the war ended a year
sooner than what everyone thought it would and making the very first bombs took longer than
planned, it was used on Japan. It was probably used as a demonstration for the Soviets, but
considering that sixty-six other large Japanese cities had already been completely destroyed
by “conventional†firebombing, and in
Tokyo’s case, with greater casualties than either nuclear bombing, the
Bomb wasn’t really needed. The descriptions and the personal accounts of
the destruction of Tokyo (or Dresden and Hamburg) are (if that is even possible) worse than
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Honestly, just what new and excitingly horrific ways of killing people the atom bomb used
was not clearly understood. They generally thought of it as a bigger kaboom in a smaller
package. And honestly, being pre-cremated during an entire night with your family and
neighbors in the local bomb-shelter or dying after a few days, weeks, or even a month from
radiation poisoning, is not really a difference is it?
“FOR 20 years after Harry Truman ordered the atomic bomb dropped on
Japan in August 1945, most American scholars and citizens subscribed to the original,
official version of the story: the President had acted to avert a horrendous invasion of
Japan that could have cost 200,000 to 500,000 American lives. Then a young political
economist named Gar Alperovitz published a book of ferocious revisionism,
“Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam†(1965). While
acknowledging the paucity of evidence available at the time, he argued that dropping the
atomic bomb “was not needed to end the war or to save livesâ€
but was Truman’s means of sending a chastening message to the Soviet
Union.â€
If we accept that at face value, then certainly the second bombing was unecessary. The
threat would have been enough. But the US had a second bomb design to
test…
Few things working here. The US needed Japan to surrender quickly before Stalin invaded
(which they asked him to do) so he couldn’t get his forces onto the island
where the Allies couldn’t stop him. Most Japanese feared Stalin and
preferred surrendering to the US but the Japanese government was trying to use talks with the
USSR to get better terms than unconditional surrender (little did they know Stalin was
licking his chops for more territory under his iron curtain).
The first bomb design (little man) was significantly less ambitious, it was so certain to
function they never tested it because a study had proven there was almost no chance it would
fail.
Fat boy was the scientific leap in technology needing to be demonstrated. Building little
man was mostly a matter of enriching Uranium vs Fat boy Plutonium enrichment harder and
detonation mechanism more complicated. However the end result was a bomb that could produce
significantly higher yields with smaller amounts of fissionable material where both the size
of the bomb could be significantly reduced and the yield of the device could be significantly
scaled up at the same time.
Fat boy demonstrated the USA could someday be putting nukes on V2 rockets recently
smuggled out of Germany. Even more important Fat boy is a precursor to the mechanism that
initiates the H bomb fusion devices that Edward Teller would soon be Dr Strangloving.
Even after Trinity Fat boy still had very high odds of failure. They feared looking like
fools if it failed and the USSR ended up with the Plutoniumt. As a result the US Air Force
dropped little man first because it was certain to work. After the 1st bomb dropped, the
Soviets declared war and began their invasion of Japan which forced
Truman’s hand to drop Fat boy too. Even after Fat Boy, war mongers in
Japan still refused to surrender where Emperor Hirohito finally overruled them and although
there was a military coupe attempted, it failed.
Thus ended the most bloody conflict in the history of human kind.
I’m not saying it isn’t true, but is there any
actual evidence that the bombs were dropped as “a message to the Soviet
Union†and not to speed the end of the war?
Also, who exactly wanted to send this “message� The US
generals were against it, I understand.
“What would our world actually be like if you simply declared peace and
came home?â€
a. All those families whose livelihood is based on waging war would have to find a new
job. These people will fight tooth and nail to avoid change
b. The resource grabs by the rich people behind the Oz-like curtain would fail. Their fate
would be that of the English aristocrats who have to rent out their castles in order to
maintain a roof over their head. These people will fight tooth and nail to avoid change
c. The general public would have a fire-hose of newly-available resources to direct toward
activities which benefit all the rest of the families outside A and B above
d. Fear-based leverage by the few over the many would be diminished. Attention would be
re-directed toward valid problems we all face
=====
There’s an interesting question which I see posed from time to time,
and often ask myself. It runs thus:
“Who decides who our “enemies†are, and
why they are “enemies�
This is a fundamental question which I believe very few of us can currently answer
accurately. Yet this question carries a $1.2T per year consequence. That’s
a lot of money to allocate toward something we know nothing about.
One time I asked an acquaintance â€" who spent a career at CIA â€"
that question. His reply was “Why, Congress decides who our enemies are,
and why. Congress then tells the CIA what to doâ€.
I wasn’t sure if he truly believed that. It’s quite
possible he did, of course, and I’m sure many of the people in group A
above surely do think they’re doing honorable and patriotic work.
Group B above â€" the people who are actually moving the chess pieces of
“the Great Game†â€" they are pretty clear on who
defines our “enemies†and why they are
“enemiesâ€. And they wisely don’t stand in
front of podiums and explain their actions. These people aren’t visible,
or explained, or known because it’s better for them not to be.
The way to combat manipulation by these predators is to:
a. Know them by their actions. Predators predate.
b. Don’t participate. In order for them to predate, they need minions.
Don’t be a minion. Instead…
c. Be the giver, the creator and the constructor of things that are of no use to
predators
It’s not the soldiers but the contractors who live in dumpy overpriced
holes like Northern Virginia.
As to your acquaintance, my godfather was in the CIA in the 60’s and a
bit into the 70’s, and he might not say Congress as much as the
President’s Chief of Staff as threat they choose what the President sees.
You have to remember it’s primarily an organization of boring paper
pushers looking to get promoted which requires political patronage. Imagine getting the
Canada desk. You’ll be at a dead end unless you paint it as a grave
threat. Then there is information overload and just the sheer size of the US. They would file
reports, he mentioned an incident in Africa in the wake of decolonization when y godfather
was stationed there that maybe warranted the President’s attention, but to
get information to the President’s CoS took so long, it was in the
President’s daily newspaper before the report could be handled. By then,
why care, given the size of the US? Who can get to the Chief of Staff? Congress, so everyone
else lobbies them. The CIA director is an appendage of the CoS.
When the President wants something, everyone jumps, but when the President
doesn’t care, everyone is jockeying get for patronage.
The war machine is sustained by plutocrats and their sociopathic flunkies in the national
security state. How this works is clearly depicted in “The
Devil’s Chessboard,†by David Talbot, a deeply depressing
chronicle of how Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles did the dirty work of US
corporations worldwide. The arrogance, impunity, and irresponsibility of these men
established the framework of our secret government, which remains intact to this day.
It would be pleasant to believe that this evil persists because of public ignorance, but
like the good Germans of the Nazi era, Americans accept that deception, torture, and murder
are routinely practiced on our behalf to maintain our high standard of living and to keep us
“safe.†The reverence for the operatives of the US national
security state is evident throughout our popular culture, and that is a damning judgment on
the American people.
Of course the core problems are stationed at the place hardest to get to: right between
our ears. This complicity disease runs deep and wide.
While I often succumb to that same despondency you mentioned, occasionally I interrupt the
doom tape to notice that there’s a lot of people who are paddling hard
toward a new ethos…like the posters here @ NC, for ex.
So today I’m going to indulge in a little happiness. Plant a tree. Do
something good, something durable, something hopeful.
Something that offers no real hope of rent extraction potential.
It was nice being accused of supporting the terrorists because I supported the rule of
law and human rights, not to mention the United States Constitution and the Bill of
Rights.
WTF do some people think that the Founders wanted an extremely small army, a large
organized militia, and passed the Bill of Rights? It was a reaction to what the British Army
did to them (using much of the same tactics as the current
“justice†system does today.) The ignorance and lack of
thinking is really annoying.
Much of what the British military did was not good. Even now some of it would not be
allowed in a court of law, but I do not recall them being nearly as violent, brutal, or
deadly in their tactics while enforcing the King’s Law as the current
regime or the local police are. That the milder British tactics caused a civil war with in a
decade, and that the people then had less to fear from an occupying army as we do from
“our†police is disturbing to think on.
But wars always come home, don’t they? Faux toughness on the supposed
baddies here with claims of treason and insurrections on protests and riots now that often
would hardly be in the news fifty years ago, so great was the protests and riots happening
then. The cry to use the same tactics that did not work overseas to be used here at home.
“To keep us safe.â€
There’s truth to this, but once the war was really on, British and
Tory/Loyalist brutality had decisive effects on public opinion, putting lots of people into
the Whig/Patriot camp. Tom Paine makes great efforts to publicize British sexual assaults,
looting, and general thugishness as they chase the Continental Army across New Jersey in
1776; the cruelty of backcountry British cavalry officers and Tory rangers in the Carolinas
was legendary as the war reaches its latter phases.
And there was brutality on the other side, too, especially for Loyalist elites who faced a
kind of “social death.†It was a war, after all, as well as a
social revolution. It wasn’t France in 1789 or Russia in 1917, but it was
rough, especially given the small population size.
Except as Engelhardt just pointed out, the national security state does not
“maintain our high standard of livingâ€.
It’s an immense net drain on our standard of living. The only Americans
made well-to-do or wealthy by it are those who are directly involved in supplying contract
goods and services to the system.
I don’t know if Americans “accept†it as
opposed to taking a dim view of being able to affect change.
The levers the average person has to change the behavior of the state is infinitesimal.
Add to that the scope of action and Overton window mediated by the hypernormalized press
ecosystem just means those in power get to act without restraint.
Hell, Obama literally said “We tortured some
folks†and the media and government barely shrugged. To my knowledge, no one went
to jail, no one was brought up in the Hague, and some of the same ghouls that perpetrated
such crimes got cushy commenter jobs in the media.
Right now, localities can’t even keep their police from regularly
killing citizens.
What does the average person do in the face of such things?
Hell, Obama literally said “We tortured some folks†and
the media and government barely shrugged. To my knowledge, no one went to jail, no one was
brought up in the Hague, and some of the same ghouls that perpetrated such crimes got cushy
commenter jobs in the media.
No one went to jail. Certainly no one went before the Hague. No bankers went to jail
either. Even during the nutty Reagan administration, people went to jail for financial
shenanigans. Some got long sentences. Hell, the Iran-Contra stuff was at least covered and
people were indicted, even if they all got pardoned. Not anymore. These shenanigans are the
norm and happen right out in the open. I’d imagine some of
it’s been given legal cover. It seems like it’s become
the expected behavior within these circles. To act otherwise â€" to attempt to be
honest, in other words â€" is seen as weak and is mocked as fiercely as a weaker
child on the playground might be.
It’s just a continuing regression. And as you note,
it’s an excellent career builder:
“Looking for a job in mainstream media? Research has shown that
reducing your sense of ethics and morality actually helps you get ahead.â€
Doubtless, Ms. Smith and Ms. Engelhardt have provided a key public service here. And I
speak as a veteran, decorated for service in the War Over Oil (a.k.a. the
“Persian Gulf Warâ€).
Between the vast economic inequality currently raging in our country, the social
stratification enabled by access to colleges and universities accepted as
“eliteâ€, the trashing of Constitutional protections (e.g. the
4th Amendment, now thoroughly eviscerated owing to the “PATRIOT
ACTâ€), and the rampaging rule by “intelligence
agencies†over foreign policy, I see no reason why any father should tell his
children that this is a country worth fighting and dying for. [Think: China] Of course, the
Empire â€" just as Rome did in its dying days â€" will be able to find
enough desperately poor who will take the king’s shilling and don the
uniform.
If anyone wishes to prove me wrong, let them work for a substantive
“peace dividend†for a 2-3 years. Then we can sit down and
talk; I’ll buy the ale.
In these years, one key to so much of this is the fact that, as the Vietnam War began
winding down in 1973, the draft was ended and war itself became a
“voluntary†activity for Americans. In other words, it became
ever easier not only to not protest American war-making, but to pay no attention to it or to
the changing military that went with it. And that military was indeed altering and growing in
remarkable ways.
Because, imo,
Since the Vietnam War, which roiled the politics of this nation and was protested in the
streets of this country by an antiwar movement that came to include significant numbers of
active-duty soldiers and veterans, war has played a remarkably recessive role in American
life.
Despite having already ‘pledged’ at my Uncles
Invitation, with the Draft’s End, I had great hope my future would see the
great Peace Dividand rather than 9 more Opportunity Conflicts.
Little did that then 21 year old see the brilliance in that Pentagon Strategy.
I Now firmly support a No Exemption Draft for all post HS.
Military Service being only one, and a restricted one, of many counter-balancing options
available for Public Service for that cohort.
This article reminded me of one of the best Congressional Research Service reports that
I’ve read: Instances of Use of United States
Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-2020 . Despite being just a list of dates and locations with a
brief description, it comes in at around 50 pages, which I think is a testament to how
important foreign military engagement has been to the growth of the US even before 1945.
Between these foreign wars and the genocidal war against the indigenous people of the
continent I think it’s fair to say this country has been at war since its
founding.
Correct. Even the so called Louisiana Purchase was not really a purchase of land, but a
faux “option†to engage in land treaties with the native
Americans;.the US chose Indian Wars and relocation treaties that have been violated
repeatedly. (This territory is now known as the Red States.)
The rest of the land extending to the west coast was acquired through conquest with the
new nation of Mexico. I guess the only real honest acquisition would be
Seward’s Icebox.
>>I guess the only real honest acquisition would be Seward’s
Icebox.
Alaska has only been inhabited for a few tens of thousands of years. I would think that
the natives should have some say about who “owns†the land
even though the Russian Empire did say that they did. The reasons sometimes included the use
of guns. As for stealing Mexico’s territory, again that was, and in some
areas still is, inhabited by natives who somehow became under the
“governance†of New Spain or the country of Mexico despite not
being asked about it and often still a majority part of the population in many areas when
Mexico lost control.
Often, Europeans or Americans would show up somewhere, plant a flag, and say that they
claimed or owned the very inhabited land, sometimes with farms and even entire cities. Rather
arrogant, I would say.
I agree. Seward’s Icebox was not empty at time of sale. My
understanding is that Seward thought it was. So faraway, so cold; no one would be living
there, right?
As I’ve commented here many times, it was small pox not small bullets
that allowed the Old World to take the New. There were estimates of 20 million native
Americans living on the land now known as Mexico and the US. 90% were felled by Old World
disease before Custer lost his scalp to the northern Plains Indians. In a fair fight the
Indians would be enforcing the treaties.
It is amazing how the US continues to engage in war and still lose: Korea, Vietnam,
Afghanistan, Iraq. . .Ukraine?
For nearly a decade now every time I’ve read about the war in
Afghanistan I’ve thought about Tim Kreider’s mordant
2011 cartoon We
Could’ve Had The Moon, Instead We Get Afghanistan . Ten years later,
that $432 billion has ballooned to $2.3 trillion (and more) and every word he wrote still
stands. :-(
The author has retired from cartooning and now focuses on essay writing.
We are going to have to halt the production lines.
The warehouses are full of bombs already, there is no more room.
Biden to the rescue; he’s started dropping bombs already.
When you have a large defence industry, you need war.
The only purpose is to use up the output from the defence industry.
“The dislike of government spending, whether on public investment
or consumption, is overcome by concentrating government expenditure on
armamentsâ€
“Large-scale armaments are inseparable from the expansion of the
armed forces and the preparation of plans for a war of conquest. They also induce competitive
rearmament of other countries.â€
These were the lessons they learnt from the 1930s.
So now, here we are. And how do we create a peaceful world? Refit the US military for a
sustainable world. It will prove to be very useful. We and other advanced nations still have
the advantage for prosperity but we should not abuse it. The whole idea back in 1945 was for
the world to prosper. So I’ll just suggest my usual hack: Get rid of the
profit motive. It’s pure mercantilism. And totally self defeating in a
world seeking sustainability for everyone.
The Manhattan Project was an enormously expensive enterprise with two components
â€" the development of a uranium bomb (Oak Ridge) and a plutonium bomb (Hanford,
WA).
If no bomb had been used, the project would have been considered a waste of time, and
there would have been a congressional investigation. If only one bomb had been used, half the
cost would have been considered a waste.
I’m not saying these were the only reasons for dropping the bombs. The
event was, as they say, “overdetermined.â€
Few people, apart from specialists, may have heard of the JCPOA Joint Commission.
That’s the group in charge of a Sisyphean task: the attempt to revive the
2015 Iran nuclear deal through a series of negotiations in Vienna.
The Iranian negotiating team was back in Vienna yesterday, led by Deputy Foreign Minister
Seyed Abbas Araghchi. Shadowplay starts with the fact the Iranians negotiate with the other
members of the P+1 â€" Russia, China, France, UK and Germany â€" but not
directly with the US.
That’s quite something: after all, it was the Trump administration that
blew up the JCPOA. There is an American delegation in Vienna, but they only talk with the
Europeans.
Shadowplay goes turbo when every Viennese coffee table knows about
Tehran’s red lines: either it’s back to the original
JCPOA as it was agreed in Vienna in 2015 and then ratified by the UN Security Council, or
nothing.
Araghchi, mild-mannered and polite, has had to go on the record once again to stress that
Tehran will leave if the talks veer towards “bullyingâ€, time
wasting or even a
step-by-step ballroom dance, which is time wasting under different terminology.
Neither flat out optimistic nor pessimistic, he remains, let’s say,
cautiously upbeat, at least in public: “We are not disappointed and we will
do our job. Our positions are very clear and firm. The sanctions must be lifted, verified and
then Iran must return to its commitments.â€
So, at least in the thesis, the debate is still on. Araghchi: “There are
two types of U.S. sanctions against Iran. First, categorized or so-called divisional sanctions,
such as oil, banking and insurance, shipping, petrochemical, building and automobile sanctions,
and second, sanctions against real and legal individuals.â€
“Second†is the key issue. There’s
absolutely no guarantee the US Congress will lift most or at least a significant part of these
sanctions.
Everyone in Washington knows it â€" and the American delegation knows it.
When the Foreign Ministry in Tehran, for instance, says that 60% or 70% has been agreed
upon, that’s code for lifting of divisional sanctions. When it comes to
“secondâ€, Araghchi has to be evasive: “There
are complex issues in this area that we are examiningâ€.
Now compare it with the assessment of informed Iranian insiders in Washington such as
nuclear policy expert
Seyed Hossein Mousavian : they’re more like pessimistic realists.
That takes into consideration the non-negotiable red lines established by Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Khamenei himself. Plus non-stop pressure by Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, who are
all JCPOA-adverse.
But then there’s extra shadowplay. Israeli intel has already notified the
security cabinet that a deal most certainly will be reached in Vienna. After all, the narrative
of a successful deal is already being constructed as a foreign policy victory by the
Biden-Harris administration â€" or, as cynics prefer, Obama-Biden 3.0.
Meanwhile, Iranian diplomacy remains on overdrive. Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is visiting
Qatar and Iraq, and has
already met with the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim al Thani.
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, virtually at the end of his term before the June
presidential elections, always goes back to the same point: no more US sanctions;
Iran’s verification; then Iran will return to its
“nuclear obligationsâ€.
The Foreign Ministry has even released a quite detailed fact sheet once again
stressing the need to remove “all sanctions imposed, re-imposed and
re-labeled since January 20, 2017â€.
The window of opportunity for a deal won’t last long. Hardliners in
Tehran couldn’t care less. At least 80% of Tehran members of Parliament are
now hardliners. The next President most certainly will be a hardliner. Team
Rouhani’s efforts have been branded a failure since the onset of
Trump’s “maximum pressure†campaign.
Hardliners are already in post-JCPOA mode.
That fateful Fateh
What none of the actors in the shadowplay can admit is that the revival of the JCPOA pales
compared to the real issue: the power of Iranian missiles.
In the original 2015 negotiations in Vienna â€" follow them in my Persian
Miniatures e-book â€" Obama-Biden 2.0 did everything in their power to include
missiles in the deal.
Every grain of sand in the Negev desert knows that Israel will go no holds barred to retain
its nuclear weapon primacy in the Middle East. Via a spectacular kabuki, the fact that Israel
is a nuclear power happens to remain “invisible†to most of
world public opinion.
While Khamenei has issued a fatwa clearly stating that producing, stockpiling and using
weapons of mass destruction â€" nuclear included â€" is haram (banned by
Islam), Israel’s leadership feels free to order stunts such as the sabotage
via Mossad of the (civilian) Iranian nuclear complex at Natanz.
The head of Iran’s Parliament Energy Committee, Fereydoun Abbasi Davani,
even accused Washington and London of being accomplices to the sabotage of Natanz, as they
arguably supplied intel to Tel Aviv.
Yet now a lone missile is literally exploding a great deal of the shadowplay.
On April 22, in the dead of night before dawn, a Syrian missile exploded only 30 km away
from the ultra-sensitive Israeli nuclear reactor of Dimona. The official â€" and
insistent â€" Israeli spin: this was an “errantâ€.
Well, not really.
Here â€" third video from the top
â€" is footage of the quite significant explosion. Also significantly, Tel Aviv
remained absolutely mum when it comes to offering a missile proof of ID. Was it an old Soviet
1967 SA-5? Or, rather more likely, a 2012 Iranian Fateh-110 short range surface-to-surface,
manufactured in Syria as the M-600 , and also possessed by Hezbollah?
A Fateh family tree can be seen in the attached chart. The inestimable Elijah Magnier has
posed some very
good questions about the Dimona near-hit. I complemented it with a quite enlightening
discussion with physicists, with input by a military intel expert.
The Fateh-110 operates as a classic ballistic missile, until the moment the warhead starts
maneuvering to evade ABM defenses. Precision is up to 10 meters, nominally 6 meters. So it hit
exactly where it was supposed to hit. Israel officially confirmed that the missile was not
intercepted â€" after a trajectory of roughly 266 km.
This opens a brand new can of worms. It implies that the performance of the much hyped and
recently
upgraded Iron Dome is far from stellar â€" and talk about an euphemism. The
Fateh flew so low that Iron Dome could not identify it.
The inevitable conclusion is this was a message/warning combo. From Damascus. With a
personal stamp from Bashar al-Assad, who had to clear such a sensitive missile launch. A
message/warning delivered via Iranian missile technology fully available to the Axis of
Resistance â€" proving that regional actors have serious stealth capability.
It’s crucial to remember that when Tehran dispatched a volley of
deliberately older Fateh-313 versions at the US base Ayn al-Assad in Iraq, as a response to the
assassination of Gen Soleimani in January 2020, the American radars went blank.
Iranian missile technology as top strategic deterrence. Now that’s the
shadowplay that turns Vienna into a sideshow.
Biden is privatising the war in Afghanistan. 18,000 private contractors will stay behind
to maintain a landing area for U.S. aircraft should the need arise. According to war monger
Lynn Cheney the "troops will never leave". The U.S. National Guard has been fighting
undeclared wars all over the ME for twenty years and legislation is being proposed at the
state level to end the abuse. I personally know one man who has done three tours in Iraq as a
National Guardsman.
I totally agree with your comments concerning the U.S. government here at home. It is
Bolshevism 2.0.
a disgusting person, this "lady" is responsible for many human lives, but that doesn't
matter, Kissinger and Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for mass murder, maybe she is
next....
Sir Edge 2 hours ago (Edited)
Victoria Nuland Is Now Highest-Ranking Member Of US Foreign Service
I Have Shock Fatigue ...
Unknown 3 hours ago
This Neoliberal ... made a career out of Russophobia.
popeye 32 minutes ago remove link
Same as it always was. If you want ta assess an American President, don't listen to what
they say, watch who they appoint.
When you assess in this manner, you don't find many good'uns.
NuYawkFrankie 5 hours ago (Edited)
Sicky Vicky Nuldelman...
the Kiev Cookie Monster from HELL!
SoDamnMad 4 hours ago
Passing out cookies while the CIA sharpshooters shot at both sides, killing policemen and
protestors to ferment rioting. Why else would they cut down all the trees on those streets
except to prevent anyone from noticing where the bullets came from.
2banana 5 hours ago (Edited) remove link
Obama overthrew the legitimately elected government of the Ukraine with the help of this
creature.
They got rid a mildly pro Russian administration and installed a rabidly anti Russian
administration without an election.
Talk about foriegn government interface. And Pelosi got so upset over some Russian
Facebook ads.
What they didn't count on is that some Ukrainians in the Dunbass and Crimea would actually
pick up arms and fight this massive corruption (unlike the docile Americans who do
nothing).
_arrow
otschelnik 4 hours ago
Cookies Nuland is a neocon.
Her husband is Robert Kagan at Brookings and founder of the New American Century.
Robert's brother Fredrick is another neocon working for the Republicans over at the
American Enterprise Institute.
Fredrick's wife is Kimberly who has her own think tank, the Institute for the Study of War
which designs regime change programs with the help of social media and other means.
Cookies used to be at another one Center for New American Strategy.
The donors of these groups reads like the A-list of our MIC, Ratheon, Boeing, UTX,
Northrup-Grumman.....
All the neocons in one family.
zitch 4 hours ago remove link
Nurse Ratchet.
Max21c 4 hours ago
Cookies Nuland = 15 to 20k dead, 30 to 40k wounded, 1.6 million displaced persons.
and she handed out a few batches of cookies.
Secret Weapon 1 hour ago
Pure psychopath.
Snidely 3 hours ago
No surprise, scum usually floats to the top
judgement put 4 hours ago remove link
"Nuland like her boss Joe Biden may have unfinished business in Ukraine ..."
Absolutely. That business is called facing justice.
European Monarchist 1 hour ago (Edited)
Question: How many non-(((tribal))) people do you know who, with a single Bachelor of Arts
degree in Russian literature, political science, and history, have moved to the highest
echelons of the U.S. Government in just a few short years???
Victoria Nuland was born in 1961 to Sherwin B. Nuland , a surgeon, and
Rhona McKhann. [8] She graduated
from Choate
Rosemary Hall in 1979. [9] She earned a
Bachelor of Arts degree from Brown University in 1983, where she
studied Russian literature, political science, and history. [10]
From 2003 to 2005, Nuland served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice
President ****
Cheney , exercising an influential role during the years the U.S. invaded and occupied
Iraq.
From 2005 to 2008, during President George Bush's second term, Nuland served as U.S.
ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) in Brussels, where she concentrated on mobilizing European support
for the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. [12]
The insane and quite kosher Biden Administration is pushing Russia into the arms of China,
possibly even the EU, when we should be friends with Russia.
Have a look at Joe Biden's Deep State Kosher Cabinet:
(((They))) run our U.S. State Department and the American intelligence community, while
Biden is not exactly firing on all thrusters.
Packard27 3 hours ago
Before it is too late, we all ought to be demanding to know exactly what is America's
strategic interest in fighting WW III in defense of central Europe? What do the Germans,
French, Italians, Danes, Austrians, Finns, Norwegians, Swedes, and Brits all say about
stumbling into another continental war for yet another no-name country like a Ukraine or
Serbia?
Once the guns begin to fire and American blood is spilled (see: Great Britain, August
1914-November 1918), posts like this will be quickly censored. Forewarned is forearmed.
12Y_LURKER 3 hours ago remove link
I've seen things unfold the last few years to my dismay but other's victory --
That's power.
To be honest, I'm not sure this is the future you wanted.
Son of Captain Nemo 3 hours ago (Edited)
"To be honest, I'm not sure this is the future you wanted. "
Please forgive my leaving out the /s. But since this ( https://www.ae911truth.org/ ) came to fruition and will be
seeing it's 20th Anniversary without justice to quote the "beast" that was denied -"What
difference does it make"!...
On Thursday the US Senate confirmed Victoria Nuland as Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs , which has been described as the fourth most important position in the State
Department. Though as the first three are filled by political appointees and the other by a
career foreign service officer, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs is the
highest-ranking member of the US Foreign Service .
In an appearance before
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April as part of her confirmation process, she
reflected on her thirty-two years in the Foreign Service working for five presidents of both
parties and nine secretaries of state. She retailed some of her "historic moments" in that
career, among them "working on tough arms control problems and conflicts from Rwanda to Haiti
to Bosnia and Kosovo." But what she expressed as her last-listed and perhaps proudest moment
was, while she served as Deputy Chief of Mission at NATO, the military bloc for the first time
activating its Article 5 collective defense clause, which contributed to the now
twenty-year-old war in Afghanistan , a comprehensive naval interdiction mission in the
Mediterranean Sea (Operation Active Endeavor) and European AWACS flights over the U.S. along
with several other missions.
A major part of her career has been spent at NATO headquarters: she was Deputy Permanent
Representative (ambassador) to NATO from 2000-2003 and Permanent Representative from 2005-2008.
In both positions she was instrumental in recruiting military forces from NATO allies and
partners for the war in Afghanistan, with NATO military personnel also stationed in Kyrgyzstan,
Pakistan, Tajikistan and Pakistan. At one point 130,000 of the 150,000 foreign troops in the
country served under NATO command in the International Security Assistance Force: service
members from 54 countries. Never before or since have troops from so many nations fought in a
war, much less in one theater of war or one country.
She also worked on promoting seven nations to NATO membership at the historic Istanbul,
Turkey summit in 2004: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.
All are in Eastern Europe; all but Slovenia were members of the defunct Warsaw Pact; three
– Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – were Soviet republics. Bulgaria and Romania
provided the U.S. and NATO with eight military bases in the following two years. NATO has flown
fighter jets from air bases in Latvia and Lithuania for years, in the case of the second nation
since 2004.
Her State
Department biography states she also served as Deputy to the Ambassador-at-Large for
the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s (That was likely under
Strobe Talbott, later president of the Brookings Institution.) She had a brief stint as a
faculty member at the National War College. And she was Principal Deputy National Security
Advisor for Vice President Dick Cheney from 2003 to 2005; that is, during and immediately after
the invasion of Iraq.
During the transition period in Russia immediately following the dissolution of the Soviet
Union she worked at what is described as covering Russian internal politics at the American
embassy in Moscow and served on what the State Department termed the Soviet Desk in Washington.
She is, in short, a seasoned Russia hand. She is reported to speak Russian and "a smattering"
of Chinese, having worked in Guangzhou, China (1985-86) and at the State Department's Bureaus
of East Asian and Pacific Affairs the following year. She was in Mongolia in 1988 where she has
been credited with assisting in setting up the first American embassy in the nation that is
wedged between Russia and China.
She was a visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations twice, and the second time, as
a State Department fellow, she directed a Council on Foreign Relations task force on "Russia,
its Neighbors and an Expanding NATO." She has also been a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution , and a senior counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group of former U.S.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. And she is on the board of the National Endowment for
Democracy. (Her husband, Robert Kagan, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and
member of the Council on Foreign Relations and was a member of the defunct Project for the New
American Century, of which he was a key founder along with Bruce P. Jackson, also past
president the U.S. Committee on NATO/Expand NATO. Both Nuland and Kagan are now Democrats.)
But the world would likely never have heard of her until now except for her role in
engineering the overthrow of the government of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.
Her face was first revealed to viewers outside the State Department, the National War College
and major think tanks as she was handing out food to anti-government rioters in Kiev at the
beginning of that year .
Having been appointed Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs the
preceding year, she became the major American official assigned to Ukraine during the crisis of
late 2013 and early 2014. In a leaked phone conversation of January 28, 2014 between her and
American ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, the two provided future historians with a
textbook-perfect specimen of engineering a coup, replete with the exact people who would lead
the post-coup "transitional government." Three and a half weeks before President Yanukovych was
deposed.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/L2XNN0Yt6D8
When the tape appeared on YouTube it created an international furor, not because of what it
revealed about plotting the overthrow of a government which shares a 1,200-mile border with the
U.S.'s nuclear rival Russia, not because it exposed the most naked form of interference in the
internal affairs of a sovereign nation, not because shortly afterward the plot resulted in a
what is now a seven-year war with the ever-worsening prospect of a direct military
confrontation between the U.S. and NATO on one side and Russia on the other – no, but
because the diplomat with decades of diverse experience said, when the ambassador raised the
issue of the European Union's role in the transition, "F-ck the EU." That made the conversation
noteworthy.
The only outrage in the West was over the fact that the contents of a private conversation
has been divulged. Russia was blamed of course. Three years later Hillary Clinton denounced the
leak as an example of Russia "weaponizing" intelligence information. She had no objection to
overthrowing a friendly government and plunging Europe into a new war.
Yesterday no doubt there was rejoicing and exultation in Kiev. There should have been
weeping and gnashing of teeth in the Donbass and Crimea. And grave concern in Moscow. Nuland
like her boss Joe Biden may have unfinished business in Ukraine. y_arrow
Dumpster Elite 5 hours ago
Now that the Globalists are back in control at the White House, I would love to have a
betting pool about where the next forever war will be started. MIC says, "There is once again
profit to be had." Wonder how much the Biden crime family stands to gain?
domoga 5 hours ago
At least we understand what the policy will be.
fishpoem 1 hour ago
Woopee! Another blood-thirsty war-mongering Talmudic joins the State Department. Her
father was, of all things, a bioethics professor. He taught her nothing? https://www.nndb.com/people/567/000120207/
Smart secular **** that I know are absolutely against foolish wars and war crimes against
civilians. And yet dual-citizen Talmudics so abundant in Washington serve the interests of
the military industrial complex with ruthless enthusiasm. Do they not know what war crimes
are? Have they never heard of Eichmann?
Lucius Quinctius 2 hours ago (Edited)
Someone in the comment section a ways back described US Foreign policy as the varying
unguided summation of random power vectors .A good description.
The financial aristocracy , the banks and industries ,the governments and media they
control and own outright have different goals .The result is a myopic ,sclerotic insistence
on clinging to an antique Cold War scheme of familiar enemies and arrangements.
Problem is the world has its own organic geopolitical evolution. It will not fit into the
little antique Cold War boxes Nuland and her ilk insist on. This American ancien regime is,on
this course, bound for failure.A literal bloody failure.
An intelligent, nimble American foreign policy would facilitate and manage Russian
integration into Europe, creating a peaceful and rewarding alliance between two resonant
cultures.
Instead we have this ugly Nuland creature, the representative of a failing , arrogant ,
retrograde clique, divorced from the sentiments and interests of the people.
It will not get better.
play_arrow
consider me gone 2 hours ago remove link
With rigged elections going forward, policy will be more consistent. Will it be wiser? No,
but it will be consistently unwise.
Sarrazin 3 hours ago (Edited)
Victora Nuland is a warmongering psychopath, no wonder she's a high ranking US
servicewomen.
Habeeb 5 hours ago
Like the African slave trade war is big buisness. Just trace where all those poor
Ukrainian girls are going.
Lord Raglan 5 hours ago
nice to see Xiden get some new blood in the Foreign Service, given how successful foreign
policy was under Barry Soetero
Pdunne 3 hours ago
Her career has been one of the reasons Foreign Policy in the USA is failing.
"... Bernie Sanders in 2016, the self-described democratic socialist "showed little interest or knowledge about US-Russia relations and the attendant dangers of a new cold war." Instead, Sanders was ultimately content to mimic the juvenile and Manichean "democracies versus authoritarians" model of international relations. ..."
"... in the Obama era, as mediocre academics like Celeste Wallander were given positions on the National Security Council, and an ideologue like Michael McFaul was bizarrely appointed as ambassador. ..."
"... Under Biden – who caved to pressure from the foreign policy blob to not appoint Rojansky – the advisers who are in place or in line, including Jake Sullivan , Antony Blinken , Madeleine Albright/Hillary Clinton adviser Wendy Sherman, the German Marshall Fund's Karen Donfried , and State Department nominee Victoria Nuland represent more of the same dangerous ineptitude and strident thinking. Many of these advisers, like their predecessors, have little on-the-ground experience with contemporary Russia. ..."
"... Neoconservative ideologue Nuland, of course, is a slightly different case in that she has put her boots on the ground in the region. Unfortunately, that experience includes facilitating the dangerously divisive 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which Crimea would still be in Ukraine and the Donbass would be at peace. Competent officials would have warned Obama and Biden that the Maidan would lead to consequences like these. ..."
"... importantly, this 'perceived enemy' and its corresponding narrative sells... it enriches the military complexes, CIA etc. Even if it sounded unbelievable and outrageous, they will still be regurgitated and at best, given a new guised repackaging ..."
"... the author assumes that the mistakes made by advisors to Obama and others were because of incompetence, when in fact it should be seriously considered they were actually quite deliberate and planned ..."
"... the job was NOT to deliver facts to the public; the job was to tell the public how to think and what to believe; ie. anti-Russia propaganda. ..."
The rejection
of Matthew Rojansky's candidacy as a Russia adviser to Joe Biden represents an escalation, and
not a departure, from a pervasive bipartisan American pattern of dangerous ignorance about
Russia in the post-Soviet era.
It was reported last week that Joe Biden's government would not be hiring Rojansky, of the
Kennan Institute think tank, to help form policy towards Russia. Though the analyst is known as
a moderate realist regarding Russia issues – in other words, he is not a virulent
anti-Moscow ideologue – he was considered too controversial to be allowed a hearing
during White House deliberations on policy regarding the world's largest country.
Rojansky's sin? Unlike many of the current crop of foreign policy officials, he actually has
some expertise and experience on the subject.
While the scholar's fate may be a glaring and extreme
example of an anti-Russia mindset in Washington that is counterproductive, it represents
only a new low, and not a change from a pervasive bipartisan pattern in the post-Soviet
era.
Those who aspire to, or attain, the most powerful executive position in the United States
have shown a disturbingly willful ignorance of Russia. I learned from a former State Department
official that, in response to a renowned Russia expert attempting to brief presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders in 2016, the self-described democratic socialist "showed little
interest or knowledge about US-Russia relations and the attendant dangers of a new cold
war." Instead, Sanders was ultimately content
to mimic the juvenile and Manichean "democracies versus authoritarians" model of
international relations.
Similarly, an American business executive told me that, during a lunch with him and other
leaders of commerce at the US Embassy in Moscow in 2012, then-Vice President Joe Biden showed
no interest in his interlocutors' suggestions that it was in the US' best interests to partner
with Russia after they offered social, economic, and strategic justifications for their
view.
Biden seemed to see the meeting as an opportunity to lecture on his position rather than to
learn or seek insight on Russia.
Moreover, once a US president is in power, the advisers that are appointed to counsel the
commander in chief about Russia have been less than impressive from the 1990s onward.
Condoleezza Rice served as an expert in the George Bush Senior administration and was
wrong about the impending collapse of the Soviet Union. During her stint as secretary of
state in the second term of the junior Bush administration, her Russian counterparts who spent
significant time with her made the observation
that Rice was "a Soviet expert, and not a Russia expert."
There was little improvement in the Obama era, as mediocre academics like Celeste Wallander were
given positions on the National Security Council, and an ideologue like Michael McFaul was
bizarrely appointed as ambassador.
According to investigative journalist Gareth Porter, advisers to Obama were so utterly
incompetent that those serving in the administration really didn't think Russia had the ability
or inclination to counter Washington's provocative actions in
Syria, and therefore they did not plan for that possibility. This incompetence was also
highlighted by Obama's public comments to the Economist in 2014, in which he claimed that
Russia didn't make anything, immigrants didn't go there, and male life expectancy was 60 years
– three claims that anyone with actual expertise on Russia should have easily known were
false.
In fact, at that point, Russia was the second most popular migration destination in the
world, after America itself, while average lifespans have been converging with those of the US
over the past decade. As for manufacturing, Obama said these words at a time when the US, for
instance, was totally reliant on Russian rockets for access to space, having retired its own
unreliable Space Shuttle fleet. If he had access to a competent adviser on the subject, would
he have made these mistakes?
Under Biden – who caved to pressure from the foreign policy blob to not appoint
Rojansky – the advisers who are in place or in line, including Jake Sullivan , Antony Blinken ,
Madeleine Albright/Hillary Clinton adviser Wendy Sherman, the German Marshall Fund's Karen
Donfried , and State
Department nominee Victoria Nuland represent more of the same dangerous
ineptitude and strident thinking. Many of these advisers, like their predecessors, have little
on-the-ground experience with contemporary Russia.
Neoconservative ideologue Nuland, of course, is a slightly different case in that she has
put her boots on the ground in the region. Unfortunately, that experience includes facilitating
the dangerously divisive 2014 coup in Ukraine, without which Crimea would still be in Ukraine
and the Donbass would be at peace. Competent officials would have warned Obama and Biden that
the Maidan would lead to consequences like these.
It takes a special kind of hubris for the US political class to keep thinking they can get
away with this level of sloppiness in understanding the world's other nuclear superpower
– a country so massive that it straddles two major continents and is the sixth largest
economy in terms of purchasing power parity – without serious consequences. At what point
will God's providence run out?
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
Natylie Baldwin is author of "The View from Moscow: Understanding Russia and U.S.-Russia
Relations," available at Amazon. She blogs at http://natyliesbaldwin.com/ .
"Washington has a dangerous & destructive pattern of wilful ignorance on Russia in
post-Soviet era" It is not just wilful ignorance per se. Without a 'perceived enemy', the
narrative for Russia will fall apart. Ditto China, Iran, N Korea et al.
But importantly, this
'perceived enemy' and its corresponding narrative sells... it enriches the military
complexes, CIA etc. Even if it sounded unbelievable and outrageous, they will still be
regurgitated and at best, given a new guised repackaging, but with the antiquated contents
remaining intact.
dotmafia 6 hours ago 6 hours ago
Good article, but, the author assumes that the mistakes made by advisors to Obama and others
were because of incompetence, when in fact it should be seriously considered they were
actually quite deliberate and planned. In the example of Obama's remarks to The Economist,
the job was NOT to deliver facts to the public; the job was to tell the public how to think
and what to believe; ie. anti-Russia propaganda.
Levin High 8 hours ago 8 hours ago
It used to be said that you couldn't be fired for buying IBM, now days in the US you seem to
be hired for blaming Russia.
apothqowejh 9 hours ago 9 hours ago
The US State Department is packed with idiots, political appointees, ideologues and globalist
nut jobs. Their lack of anything remotely like competence is as astonishing as the CIA's full
on embrace of evil.
wowhead1977 4 hours ago 4 hours ago
The cabal in America always want to blame Russia. I'm a American citizen and have no problem
with Russia. These so called sanctions on other countries is a control tactic that most
Americans didn't vote for. This race baiting tactic is from The Fabian Society play book.
Wolf in sheep's clothing is the Fabian Society logo.
We must realize that our Party's most
powerful weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races,
that for centuries have been oppressed by the Whites, we can mold them to the program of the
Communist Party ... In America, we will aim for subtle victory. While enflaming the color
people minority against the Whites, we will instill in the Whites, a guilt complex for the
exploitation of the color people.
We will aid the color people to rise to prominence in every
walk of life, in the professions, and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this
prestige, the color people will be able to intermarry with the Whites, and begin a process
which will deliver America to our cause." ~ Israel Cohen - Fabian Society Founder
Biden's Western Hemisphere foreign policy is not much different from that of Obama's,
Wayne Madsen writes.
Like proverbial bad pennies, the neocon imperialists who plagued the Barack Obama
administration have turned up in force in Joe Biden's State Department. Secretary of State
Antony Blinken has given more than winks and nods to the dastardly duo of Victoria Nuland,
slated to become Blinken's Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, the number three
position at the State Department, and Samantha Power, nominated to become the Administrator of
the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Nuland and Power both have problematic spouses who do not fail to offer their imperialistic
opinions regardless of the appearance of conflicts-of-interest. Nuland's husband is the
claptrappy neocon warmonger Robert Kagan, someone who has never failed to urge to prod the
United States into wars that only benefit Israel. Power's husband is the totally creepy Cass
Sunstein, who served as Obama's White House "information czar" and advocated government
infiltration of non-governmental organizations and news media outlets to wage psychological
warfare campaigns.
True to form, Blinken's State Department has already come to the aid of Venezuela's
right-wing self-appointed "opposition leader" Juan Guaido, whose actual constituency is found
in the wealthy gated communities of Venezuelan and Cuban expatriates in south Florida and not
in the barrios of Caracas or Maracaibo.
Blinken and his team of old school yanqui imperialists have also criticized the
constitutional and judicially-warranted detention of former interim president Jeanine
Áñez, who became president in 2019 after the Movement Toward Socialism (MAS)
government of President Evo Morales was overthrown in a Central Intelligence Agency-inspired
and -directed military coup. The far-right forces backing Áñez were roundly
defeated in the October 2020 election that swept MAS and Morales's chosen presidential
candidate, Luis Arce, back into power. It seems that for Blinken and his ilk, a decisive
victory in an election only applies to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, not to Arce and MAS in
Bolivia.
It should be recalled that while Blinken was national security adviser to then-Vice
President Biden in the Obama administration, every sort of deception and trickery was used by
the CIA to depose Morales in Bolivia and President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. In fact, the
Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, claimed its first Latin
American political victim when a CIA coup was launched against progressive President Manuel
Zelaya of Honduras. Today, Honduras is ruled by a right-wing kleptocratic narco-president, Juan
Orlando Hernández, whose brother, Tony Hernández, is currently serving life in
federal prison in the United States for drug trafficking. For the likes of Blinken, Power,
Nuland, and former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice, who currently serves as
"domestic policy adviser" to Biden, suppression of progressive governments and support for
right-wing dictators and autocrats have always been the preferred foreign policy, particularly
for the Western Hemisphere. For example, while the Biden administration remains quiet on
right-wing regimes in Central America that are responsible for the outflow of thousands of
beleaguered Mayan Indians to the southern U.S. border with Mexico, it has announced that Trump
era sanctions on 24 Nicaraguan government officials, including President Daniel Ortega's wife
and Nicaragua's vice president, Rosario Murillo, as well as three of their sons –
Laureano, Rafael, and Juan Carlos – will continue.
Biden's Western Hemisphere foreign policy is not much different from that of Obama's. Biden
and Brazilian far-right, Adolf Hitler-loving, and Covid pandemic-denying President Jair
Bolsonaro are said to have struck a deal on environmental protection of the Amazon Basin ahead
of an April 22 global climate change virtual summit called by the White House. A coalition of
198 Brazilian NGOs, representing environmental, indigenous rights, and other groups, has
appealed to Biden not to engage in any rain forest protection agreement with the untrustworthy
Bolsonaro. The Brazilian president has repeatedly advocated the wholesale deforestation of the
Amazon region. Meanwhile, while Biden urges Americans to maintain Covid public health measures,
Bolsonaro continues to downplay the virus threat as Brazil's overall death count approaches
that of the United States.
Blinken's State Department has been relatively quiet on the Northern Triangle of Central
America fascist troika of Presidents Orlando of Honduras, Alejandro Giammattei of Guatemala,
and Nayib Bukele of El Salvador. Instead of pressuring these fascistas to democratize and stop
their genocidal policies toward the indigenous peoples of their nations, Biden told Mexican
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador that he would pump $4 billion into supposed
"assistance" to those countries to stop the flow of migrants. Biden is repeating the same old
American gambits of the past. Any U.S. assistance to kleptocratic countries like those of the
Northern Triangle has and will line the pockets of their corrupt leaders. Flush with U.S. aid
cash, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador will be sure to grant contracts to greedy Israeli
counter-insurgency contractors always at the ready to commit more human rights abuses against
the workers, students, and indigenous peoples of Central America.
Biden is also in no hurry to reverse the freeze imposed by Donald Trump on U.S.-Cuban
relations. Biden, whose policy toward Cuba represents a fossilized relic of the Cold War,
intends to maintain Trump's freeze on U.S. commercial, trade, and tourism relations with Cuba.
Biden's Homeland Security Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, a Jewish Cuban-American expatriate, is
expected to reach out to right-wing Cuban-Americans in south Florida in order to ensure
Democratic Party inroads in the 2022 and 2024 U.S. elections. Therefore, even restoring the
status quo ante established by Barack Obama is off-the-table for Biden, Blinken, and Mayorkas.
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Cuban-American and
ethically-challenged Democrat Bob Menendez, has stated there will be no normalization of
pre-Trump relations with Cuba until his "regime change" whims are satisfied. Regurgitating
typical right-wing Cuban-American drivel, Mayorkas has proclaimed after he was announced as the
new Homeland Security Secretary, "I have been nominated to be the DHS Secretary and oversee the
protection of all Americans and those who flee persecution in search of a better life for
themselves and their loved ones." The last part of that statement was directed toward the
solidly Republican bloc of moneyed Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Bolivian interests in
south Florida.
While Blinken hurls his neocon invectives at Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Cuba, he
remains silent on the repeated foot-dragging by embattled and highly unpopular right-wing
Chilean President Sebastian Pinera on implementing a new Constitution to replace that put into
place in 1973 by the fascist military dictator General Augusto Pinochet. The current Chilean
Constitution is courtesy of Richard Nixon's foreign policy "Svengali," the duplicitous Henry
Kissinger, an individual who obviously shares Blinken's taste for "realpolitik" adventurism on
a global scale.
While Blinken has weighed in on the domestic politics of Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and
Cuba, he has had no comment on the anti-constitutional moves by Colombian far-right
authoritarian President Ivan Duque, the front man for that nation's Medellin narcotics cartel.
It would also come as no surprise if Blinken, Nuland, and Power have quietly buttressed the
candidacy of right-wing banker, Guillermo Lasso, who is running against the progressive
socialist candidate Andrés Arauz, the protegé of former president Rafael Correa.
Blinken can be expected to question the results of the April 11 if Lasso cries fraud in the
event of an Arauz victory. Conversely, Blinken will remain silent if Lasso wins and Arauz cries
foul. That has always been the nature of U.S. Western Hemisphere policy, regardless of what
party controls the White House.
Don't make simple things complicated the irony of starting this way for this post lol :D
(of course everything is complicated as well as simple, language betrays us all).
· The people of the Warsaw pact and then the Russians did what they did for
themselves and not for others, and they did it by themselves. It went well as long as the
people were in charge (ie. the initial actions) but the politicians then soon messed it up as
politicians anywhere are bound to do.
Gorbachev and Yeltsin didn't want or wish for disasters due to the results they got (and
maybe their tasks were impossible in their context). Clear mistakes were made and crimes
"allowed", far too much was rushed and ill thought out. The politicians had no way of being
prepared any more than they would be in the US right now.
· The US is out-competed, dysfunctional, and trapped in a cycle of excuses
in order to shoehorn their labyrinth of lies into their current reality. All people lie
despite this clear lesson as to why no one should, it is the lies one tells without realizing
they are lies that are the worst. This is much like the USSR was but easily even worse.
Will people in Europe and the US manage to duplicate the fall of the Warsaw pact and the
USSR? Right now it looks unlikely but remember or be aware that no one predicted the fall of
the Iron Curtain or the Politburo and most if not all outsiders in "the west" had trouble
believing it and understanding it when it happened or even now (and especially people
on both/all sides that are running on ideological biases as fuel).
(Our systems and models do not capture reality and can not, not even theoretically, a
different bigger discussion which boils down to the Shannon limit in the end (but I notice
thermodynamics is contentious among some so why would I invite that much work?)).
A repeat of history is not necessary nor automatic; the US isn't doing anything to stop
its own ongoing fall, at least not anything that I have noticed.
Because b is right.
(I really hope the CPC has a better grasp on this than that article vk posted hints at
because I want a stable prosperous China and that includes/demands the continuation of the
CPC and the way they have shaped and structured the Chinese system which is noticeable for
not taking the USSR approach that worked itself into a blind alley despite decades of
repeated attempts at reform (hell even Stalin tried)).
This was Bush racket. Invasion on false pretenses to establish a foothold
and get to former USSR republic. This move was initially a big success (and
Putin helped by using his influence on Northern Alliance) but later
backfire. In other words this was typical imperial policy.
I would guess 2 things, 1. He's hoping if he ends the war then none
of the terrorists that just snuck in won't attack. 2. He plans on
starting a war elsewhere.
"Obama may have gotten (U.S. soldiers) out wrong, but going in is,
to me, the biggest single mistake made in the history of our
country." -- Donald J. Trump
The policies of the Biden administration towards Russia and China are delusional. It
thinks that it can squeeze these countries but still successfully ask them for cooperation.
It believes that the U.S. position is stronger than it really is and that China and Russia
are much weaker than they are.
It is also full of projection. The U.S. accuses both countries of striving for empire, of
wanting to annex more land and of human rights violations. But is only the U.S. that has
expanding aspirations. Neither China nor Russia are interested in running an empire. They
have no interest in planting military bases all over the world. Though both have marginal
border conflicts they do not want to acquire more land. And while the U.S. bashes both
countries for alleged human rights issues it is starving whole populations (Yemen, Syria,
Venezuela) through violence and economic sanctions.
The U.S. power structures in the Pentagon and CIA use the false accusations against Russia
and China as pretense for cold military and hot economic wars against both countries. They
use color revolution schemes (Ukraine, Myanmar) to create U.S. controlled proxy forces near
their borders.
At the same time as it tries to press these countries the U.S. is seeking their
cooperation in selected fields. It falsely believes that it has some magical leverage.
Consider this exchange from yesterday's White House
press briefing about Biden asking for a summit with Putin while, at the same time,
implementing more sanctions against Russia:
Q What if [Putin] says "no," though? Wouldn't that indicate some weakness on the part of
the American administration here?
MS. PSAKI: Well, I think the President's view is that Russia is on the outside of the
global community in many respects, at this point in time. It's the G7, not the G8. They
have -- obviously, we've put sanctions in place in order to send a clear message that there
should be consequences for the actions; the Europeans have also done that.
What the President is offering is a bridge back. And so, certainly, he believes it's in
their interests to take him up on that offer.
The G7 are not the 'global community'. They have altogether some 500 million inhabitants
out of 7.9 billion strong global population. Neither China nor India are members of the G7
nor is any South American or African country. Moreover Russia has
rejected a Russian return into the G7/8 format:
"Russia is focused on other formats, apart from the G7," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov
said in a brief statement ..
Russia has no interest in a summit which would only be used by the U.S. to further bash
Russia. Why should it give Biden that pleasure when there is nothing that Russia would gain
from it. Russia does not need a 'bridge back'. There will be no summit.
... ... ...
If Biden wants cooperation with Russia or China he needs to reign in the hawks and stop
his attacks on those countries. As he is not willing or capable of doing that any further
cooperation attempts will fall flat.
The U.S. has to learn that it is no longer the top dog. It can not work ceaselessly to
impact Russia's and China's military and economic security and still expect them to
cooperate. If it wants something it will first have to cease the attacks and to accept
multilateral relationships.
Posted by b on April 17, 2021 at 17:53 UTC |
Permalink
"It can not work ceaselessly to impact Russia's and China's military and economic security
and still expect them to cooperate"
You have to understand the USA. They're doing it against Europe on a daily basis, and it
actually works... Get them confused why it doesn't always work against others.
It's interesting what's happening right now (in the past hour or so).
First: Russian and Belorussian news about the arrest of leaders (or key participants) of
an attempted military coup in Belarus, planned by the US security services.
Then, 30 minutes later: the Czechs expel 18 Russian diplomats, accusing them of spying and
of connection to some explosion back in 2014.
I could've been skeptical about the details of the first story, but the second one seems
to confirm it. The second story appears to be an obvious attempt to squeeze the first one out
of the news. And who else could order the Czech government to do this with a 30 minute
notice?
Wouldn't Oceania rulers love to print more of their own currency to buy up all the paper
rights to industrial output without having to invest in the factories or anything else! They
love this kind of business model.
"The secret of success is to own nothing but control everything."
Because of what's at stake and how little I trust Oceania, I confess I no longer have an
opinion about global warming. Even if many of its scientists are *earnest*, who obtained,
processed, and stored the data before they started building models? Those institutions are
capable of anything.
The U.S. has leveled sanctions on Russia over election interference and cyberattacks,
including barring U.S. financial institutions from buying new domestically issued Russian
government debt.
The Biden Administration went where Presidents Obama and Trump had not, barring U.S.
financial institutions from buying new domestically issued Russian sovereign bonds. The move
excluded the secondary market, though. Anyone can still trade the so-called OFZs already in
circulation. And it was matched by a substantial carrot: a dovish speech on Russia by Biden,
floating a potential summit with Putin this summer.
The market had feared worse, says Vladimir Tikhomirov, chief economist at BCS Global Markets
in Moscow. The ruble is still down 4%, and stocks 3%, since Russia stoked tensions a month ago
by massing troops on Ukraine's border. That is despite buoyant oil prices that should benefit
Russia. "Everyone was discussing direct punishment of Russian companies or a cutoff from
SWIFT," he says, referring to the backbone for global financial transactions. "The actual
sanctions turned out to be relatively mild."
Global investors have been fleeing the OFZ market without any push from the White House.
Foreigners' share of outstanding bond holdings have fallen to 20% from about a third last
summer, notes Aaron Hurd, senior currency portfolio manager at State Street Global
Advisors.
Political risk still depresses the value of Russian assets by 15%, Tikhomirov
estimates. That is reasonable considering Biden's options for escalating sanctions, says
Daniel Fried, an Atlantic Council fellow who was the State Department's sanctions coordinator
under Obama. "He could move into the secondary debt market, restrict state-owned energy
companies' ability to raise capital, or go after the money hidden by Putin and his cronies," he
says. "It could get to be a pretty tight squeeze."
To close the political risk gap, Putin needs to at least restore calm with Ukraine, risking
domestic political face after a month of hyping the alleged threat from Russia's southern
neighbor. The coming week offers two opportunities for Putin to move toward Biden's proffered
stable relationship, Tikhomirov says. He could sound friendly in an annual state of the nation
address scheduled for April 21, and he could turn up (virtually) for the global climate summit
Biden has called on April 23-24.
These may be far overshadowed by Alexei Navalny, the
Russian opposition leader who is on hunger strike in a maximum-security prison outside
Moscow. Navalny-allied doctors said April 17 he could "die within days" without outside medical
intervention. Backing off from its merciless treatment of Navalny would also look like an
embarrassing climb-down from the Kremlin's point of view.
Hurd expects a stalemate where Russian assets could nudge higher as oil prices remain firm
and the Central Bank of Russia raises interest rates. Putin will make few concessions with his
party facing parliamentary elections in September, he predicts. Washington will be constrained
by the European Union's reluctance to stiffen anti-Russian measures. "The ruble could still go
higher from here, but we remain tentative over the next six months," he says.
Putin has essentially accomplished the goal he set after his 2014 invasions of Ukraine, a
self-sufficient Russia that can pursue its perceived security interests without worrying what
the rest of the world thinks, says Yong Zhu, portfolio manager for emerging markets debt at
DuPont Capital Management.
Government debt amounts to a mere 18% of gross domestic product, and in a pinch can be
serviced domestically. That keeps yields too low to pay for the country's geopolitical
turbulence, he concludes: 10-year Russian domestic bonds pay about 7% annually, compared with
9% for Brazil or South Africa. "Russia doesn't really need anything beside the iPhone," Zhu
quips.
Self-reliance has also spelled isolation from the capital and talent that could lift Russia
to its proper place in global innovation and growth. But Putin and his regime seem to like it
that way.
While I agree with 99% of your post, there is one point that I think needs to be keeping
in mind. While the populace of this particular manure-hole certainly has its equal share of
dumb creatures, the people running things cannot be so easily dismissed. The problem as I see
it is they have a great deal of a certain kind of intelligence, as someone said "smart, but
not wise". They are educated, but insane. The cream of the crop that has gone sour. In my
travels I would often ask people what they actually thought of "Americans". An Indonesian man
responded " soft, but cunning. You have to be careful around them."
If these cunning, insane, power hungry creatures were simply dumb and not truly evil, we
might be in less of a shit show (nod to psychohistorian) than we are.
After 20 years of regular interaction with Amerikastanis online and in real life, I have
realised that they live in a parallel universe in which Hollywood is the arbiter of truth.
They genuinely believe that anything they choose to imagine is the truth just because they
imagine it.
A couple of days ago when the Imperialist States admitted its "Russia Bounty" story was
concocted, the people who had shrieked to the skies about it last year had a chance to
apologise. Did they? They ignored it. It did not happen because they chose to believe it
didn't.
Dementia Joe and his coterie of enablers have embarked on a foreign policy that is likely to result in a new war that will
endanger America and further a growing perception that the United States is weak and divided. There are three troublesome
flashpoints (Ukraine, China and Iran) that could explode at any time and catapult our nation into a costly, deadly military
confrontation. Topping the list is the Ukraine.
The corrupt dealings in Ukraine over the last four years by Joe and Hunter Biden leaves them completely compromised and
subject to coercion, even blackmail. With this as a backdrop the decade long effort by the United States to weaken Russia's
influence in eastern Ukraine has been revived with Biden's arrival in the White House.
Let me first introduce you to some essential facts:
Larry Johnson,
If the Ukraine blows so will Syria! Then the situation might transition from nemesis to tisis in short order. Here is a
strangely appropriate analysis with just one word blanked out.
In the
years ahead, _____________ will assuredly find itself in new international crises involving nations or groups that have
powerful leaders. In some cases, these leaders may have a special, dangerous mindset that is the result of a
"hubris-nemesis complex." This complex involves a combination of hubris (a pretension toward an arrogant form of
godliness) and nemesis (a vengeful desire to confront, defeat, humiliate, and punish an adversary, especially one that
can be accused of hubris). The combination has strange dynamics that may lead to destructive, high-risk behavior.
Attempts to deter, compel, or negotiate with a leader who has a hubris-nemesis complex can be ineffectual or even
disastrously counterproductive when those attempts are based on concepts better suited to dealing with more normal
leaders.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR461.pdf
We, too, pray for sanity.
Ishmael Zechariah
Reply
Larry, I unfortunately agree with your observations and conclusion.
I would add that in my opinion, the Russians are a lot more determined, as are the Chinese and Iranians, then the
generally self absorbed younger generations in the West. "Woke" culture has no answer to sunken warships, downed
aircraft and body bags. Do the SJWs want to die for LBGTIQ rights in Russia or another of their pet obsessions de jour?
I don't think so.
My concern for President Biden and America is that, if Ukraine attacks, unless President Putin succeeds in delivering a
very short, sharp and successful lesson to Ukraine there is not going to be a clear path forward to a negotiated
armistice. If that doesn't happen through bad luck, the fog of war, etc. Then I don't think Biden has the intelligence
to get us out of the mess.
If you add to that the possibility that Zelensky may demand American support "or else" when he starts to lose then we
are in very very dangerous territory. If I were the Chinese, I would just stand back and watch. Taiwanese independence
is a meaningless concept without American military backing and I'm sure the Taiwanese know it.
The wild card to me is what is Israel's attitude? Is it possible that they might be a moderating influence for a change?
Reply
Oh, yeah .!!!!!! The country that shoots women and children who get too close to the fence they have constructed in
PALESTINE on other people"s land will be the moderating party. Or maybe Mad Dog Bolton.
Try getting real, and come up with real world situations. Not some fantasy of killers acting like kittens. The
Russians seem more balanced in responding to such provocations than the U.S. & it's gang of follower- puppets. How
long would any of the these follower-puppets be able to go toe to toe with Russia in all-out-war situation. I'd bet
less than 24 hours, probably far less. Or as a Chinese General once asked: would you want to give up Los Angeles to
save Tiwan? The U.S. doesn't seem to have any sort of reliable anti-missile defence system. Would Ole Uncle Joe
really like to get into such pissing contest so early on in his term of presidency? Maybe I am wrong, but from what I
have seen so far, he just seems to be throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. In this game, if one
blunders, the walls vanish, an the lights go out.
Reply
Russia moves cannon boats and amphibious vessels from Caspian Sea to the Black Sea, but in reality these combatants are
perfect for operations in shallow waters and that means Azov Sea and Ukraine's South-Western flank. These ships can form
both a surface group capable of dispatching anything Ukraine may have on Azov Sea, plus form excellent tactical
amphibious group which can land a battalion or two of marines and support them with fire from the sea, both artillery
and MLRS. Of course, there are other forces Russia has there but it is a good way to give Caspian Flotilla a chance for
yet another combat deployment, after its missile ships spearheaded first salvos of 3M14 cruise missiles at ISIS targets
in Syria in 2015. Here are some of those ships:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Caspian_Corvette_Astrakhan_2.jpg
Russia has an overwhelming firepower in the Black Sea proper and whatever the US is sending there is primarily for ISR
purposes in case Ukies go bananas and decide to attack Donbass in death by cop scenario. The US will not interfere in
any meaningful way other than supplying Ukies with recon data.
Reply
It is bigger than Biden or even the Military Industrial Complex. The establishment foreign policy apparatus transcends
political parties and has a continuity that survives changes in administrations. It is obsessed with Russia. It opposed
not just communism but Russia itself so when the Berlin wall fell for it the Cold War never ended and it successfully
pursued the the break up and looting of the Russian Empire and the relentless eastward march of NATO. Putin pushed back
on this resulting in him being demonized by the orchestrated Western media. Trump for all his faults had at least a
halfway rational view of these matters but now the Borg is back and spoiling for a fight. I never cease to be amazed by
the stupidity of these people, their apparent lack of understanding of the importance of Ukraine and Sevastopol in
Russian history and their inability to read a map or know the basics of military operations to see the obvious
indefensibility of Ukraine's eastern border. The danger now is that Ukraine's leaders will overestimate the support they
think they have from the United States and start something they can't stop. This has the feel of 1914.
Reply
Or the Georgian/Russian of 2008 when Georgia attacked on Russian territory. President Bush was talking tough, saying
he would send aid to Georgia on warships. But the rules governing ships entering the Bosferus proscribed such stuff,
aND Bush ended doing nothing. The Russians quickly neutralized the Georgian forces and pushed deeper into Georgia
where they currently remain. The odiot who started the mess was forced out of Georgia & was afterwards appointed a
governor or some such in Ukraine. But I think that too went bad. Such is the level of governance in Ukraine.
Reply
The last 5 Ukros killed were killed by mines. The contact line has many zones where minefields are employed by both
sides. It appears some were killed in their own minefield according to local reports. Civilians in the LPR and DPR have
been killed by incoming fire, most recently a 5 year old boy. Of course OSCE is worthless except as a "bean counter";
who fired what and where is too much to record..
Reply
US defence attache with a group was up at the front yesterday as well as the comic.
Ukraine really has its back up against the wall financially. This year with big interest payments due and no way to get
the funds as the IMF seems to hit its limit on their 'we're never getting it back' budget. Their only steady source of
funds is ironically Russia with the gas transit fees guaranteed at $7B total over the next four years, much of which
will go to the EU and IMF as interest payments. After that the gas fees will drop to zero as the gas transits move to
TurkStream and NS2. With nothing to pay Russia, apart from the little mentioned oil transit fees, Russia may stop
shipping gas/coal/electricity for local consumption as well. At that point either Ukraine crashes or someone else has to
pick up the bill.
Although Kiev will lose dramatically there are very good reasons why Kiev would push the button. Will they ever again
have this PR opportunity to play the innocent victim?
Reply
Earlier this morning I saw a pic of Zelenskiy visiting the front, behind him was a makeshift field tent with a sign on
it, the sign is in Ukrainian but translates as "Vietnam". Is Biden serious about backing Zelenskiy, I guess we'll find
out soon enough.
Reply
wondering if anyone can point me to a fairly, anyway, reliable, (assuming one exists) 'war games scenario' document on
an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China. Intuitively, it would seem a difficult challenge, especially given China's
lack of any appreciable experience in seaborne invasion. Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide, and my
apologies upfront LJ if you deem this offtopic.
Reply
Not meaning to be a smart-alec about it, but why assume that an invasion has to be "seaborne"?
In WW2 the Royal Navy had total control of the waters around Crete. So the Germans simply went over the top of them
and invaded the island from the air.
It was very definitely touch and go for a while until German paratroopers managed to capture an airfield, and from
that point it was all over.
No idea how well defended Taiwanese airfields are, but the PLA would only need to capture one and, again, the final
result will not be in doubt.
Reply
well, the quick answer to your question would be 'fine, alter my initial question to include war games scenarios
on airborne attacks on Taiwan. The glib answer might be, Taiwan is not Crete. And the Chinese PLA are not the
Wehrmacht. Who, by the time of the Crete attack had built up a record that included many successful airborne
attacks. I see no such history with the PLA. That, by no means rules it out. But, in any event, I can't imagine
the PLA would role the dice, SOLELY, on an airborne attack. They would have to have a seaborne plan of attack, in
case Plan A failed. So, in any event, I would be still be in search of that war games scenario.
Reply
Absent any new evidence, I am going to continue to assume that this is really about Nordstream II. The Biden Junta are
probably planning on having their Ukrainian cat's paw make a lunge at DNR/LNR, forcing the Russians to intervene
directly. Ukraine, of course, is not actually a full NATO member, so no Article 5 will be triggered. Instead, Washington
just self-righteously hollers 'Russian aggression!' and demands that Merkel immediately shut down Nordstream II -- the
Russian pipeline into Germany -- just before it's ready to go online.
And then, as a lush reward for their undying loyalty, the Germans get to import frack-gas and oil all the way from the
US at four or five times the market rate. Problem solved!
Reply
you are correct – the Ukraine state does not really want the return of the Donbass region let alone Crimea as it
would result in a complete change in the balance of power in the Ukraine with the Russian-speaking population being
able to form the government, as it had done pre 2014. They really want to push the Germans into stopping Nord Stream
2 by provoking Russia
Reply
Struggling to understand how a Ukraine with such supposedly strong ties to National Socialists of a century ago managed
to end up with a Jewish comedian as President.
Reply
Here's the viewpoint of Ukraine Army's snipers who are primarily composed of volunteer housewives. While to D.C. and
Moscow, it's part of their sphere of political chess, however to those on the front lines, it is survival and protection
of their loved ones.
Almost half a century ago, I took a course in the German language as a refresher during the summer session at my local
junior college. The woman who taught the course was a native Ukrainian. She told the class a little about her
background.
When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, she was in her mid- to late-teens. She had an intense dislike (hatred) of the
Russians and took a job working for the German military government of occupation as an interpreter. She said they had
welcomed the Germans as liberators from the oppression of the Soviet Communists.
Later, when the Red Army juggernaut was rolling west through Ukraine, she realized that it would not be good for her
long-term prospects to remain at home. She chose to move west with the retreating German army. Subsequent to the end of
the war in Europe, she rattled around for awhile in displaced person camps, and ultimately made her way to the United
States.
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of her story. This was my first introduction to the enmity between the Russians
and the Ukrainians.
Reply
Biden is a tin-hat emperor moving tin soldiers in his bathtub at play time. Surrounded by self-selected idiots who make
him dangerous as hell. This is what his "return to decency" looks like? May he be struck down deaf and dumb.
Reply
Two front war – Russia moving into Ukraine at the same time China moves on Taiwan. They put their wet fingers up to the
wind to see which way the Biden operation blows.
And they could not escape the conclusion this was the time to strike if there is any fortuitous time to strike. Biden
and his new team muddle deeply into reckless ineptitude. And Kamala Harris doesn't have anything to wear.
Reply
An odd thesis. The Russians are signally very, very strongly that they do not want the Ukraine to start a war by
attacking the rebels in Donbass.
They could not be more explicit if they sent a hypersonic cruise missile through Zelensky's office window with a sign
on it that reads "Don't start something you won't even live to regret".
They very clearly do not think that this is "the time to strike", nor even that they think there is a "fortuitous
time" for them to go to war with Ukraine.
If Ukraine strikes first then, sure, they'll strike back. But I fail to see how anyone can come to the conclusion
that the Russians are provoking this when it is very clearly the Ukies and their promoters in the White House who are
pushing these buttons.
Similarly with Taiwan.
The Chinese are not provoking this. They made their red lines clear to everyone as far back as Nixon's trip to China
i.e. if the USA sticks to a one-China-policy then the mainland will refrain from using force against Taiwan.
But the USA is not sticking to the one-China-policy. Recent US diplomatic moves look exactly like what it is:
maneuverings to prepare for when the Taipei government declares independence.
Which is crazy.
But in both cases the USA may well provoke a conflict and then dump their patsies like a discarded toy.
Which would be beyond crazy. It would be an outcome so loopy that there isn't even a word to describe it.
Reply
Thank you for setting it straight.. it seems pretty evident Russia does not want a war but is sure as hell ready
to finish this business if a war is pushed on to them and pushed on to them by the Americans. Ukraine has been
armed by the U.S , funded by the IMF, and cheered by NATO. They will not do a single thing without their owners
permission.
Reply
Back in December 2020 Putin had an expanded meeting with his Defense Ministry Board. In it he laid out several items and
agendas to be carried out by the Military Staff.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64684
March 24th saw Ukraine's Zelensky virtually declaring war against the Russian Federation. One can not rule out Zelensky
using the trade deals with Doha and use the direct flights between Kiev and Doha to smuggle in Jihad's from Syria and
Libya to fight in Donbas. Zelensky on March 3rd in a joint press conference with the European Council President in Kiev
stated that the retaking of Crimea from Russia was now Ukraine Official Policy.
https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/ukraine-redux-war-russophobia-and-pipelineistan/
Reply
Speaking of 'foreign policy', question is who will win out -- D.C. or Tel Aviv?
'The model' is headed to D.C. to try and convince our IC's head-cheeses that the Iran JCPOA isn't such a good deal, and
Tel Aviv is trying to get him an audience with his high-arsed the 'King', China Joe. If D.C. swallows 'the model's'
spiel, then they're bigger suckers than they already appear to be.
Assume this Mossad meeting will take place between Kackling Kamala who will be channeling Obama-Jarrett; or will it
be Stinking Liar Susan Rose channeling Obama-Jarrett? But the Big Guy will be out to lunch.
Reply
"... I have a feeling, it's only a feeling right now, that the looted black hole that's Ukranazistan after 7 years of "freedom " is such a drain that the EUNATO gangsters behind the Maidan would love to palm the ruins off to Russia. "Here, you broke it, you own it." ..."
I have a feeling, it's only a feeling right now, that the looted black hole that's
Ukranazistan after 7 years of "freedom " is such a drain that the EUNATO gangsters behind the
Maidan would love to palm the ruins off to Russia. "Here, you broke it, you own it."
Patrick Armstrong "Sunbeams From Cucumbers: The View From the Khanate of Kaganstan"
showcases the lack of wit and wisdom of those running the Ukrainian program. Truly scary.
hat fading sound (the doppler effect) one is hearing is time passing by the Robert Kagan's
Project for a New American Century PNAC. That other little known effect, the doper effect,
where dumb ideas coming at you seem smart is still having an effect on those running the
western geopolitical policy. For how much longer will this go on and when will the penny hit
the floor? The increased pitch of the vitriol emanating from the PNAC leads me to believe
that this too shall pass, and soon.
The western press is portraying the events of the past few weeks as representing an
unmotivated unilateral Russian troop buildup.
Canada's Globe and Mail yet again deliberately deceives its readers with omission-plagued
reporting which the author must know is wrong. This includes describing the Minsk agreements
as "the Kremlin's version of how to make peace" which are being utilized in an "enforcement
operation" featuring a "coercive use of force" meant to "induce Kyiv, Berlin and Paris" to
accept "Moscow's terms." Awful reporting by any objective measure.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-ukrainian-commander-sees-parallels-with-2014-as-russian-military-build/
Meanwhile, a Heritage Foundation flunky describes "spontaneous" Russian deployments
designed to "keep Ukraine out of organizations such as the EU or NATO".
Russia should be opposed because: "Modern Ukraine represents the idea in Europe that each
country has the sovereign ability to determine its own path, to decide with whom it has
relations, and how and by whom it is governed." https://www.arabnews.com/node/1840341
Both reporters make the same observation in opening paragraphs, supporting the notion that
these pieces are derived from a distributed script or collection of talking points:
1) "For weeks, Russian social media accounts have been flooded with videos showing long
convoys of tanks, troop trucks and artillery pieces "
2) "Dozens of videos in social media posts show hundreds of Russian tanks and armored
vehicles pouring into the region."
It's been made clear that a Ukrainian attack on the D & L republics would be met with
a direct Russian intervention into the conflict and likely would result in the loss of the
whole of the disputed oblasts to the separatist republics. Russia has no intention of
eliminating Ukraine or occupying Kyiv, but that kind of defeat in the east would spell the
end of what political stability remains in Ukraine and likely lead to a new Maidan against
Zelensky and possibly further secessions. That's the real downside of this for Russia.
Ukraine is threatening to immolate itself as a form of brinksmanship.
Failing that death wish, only if Moscow somehow agrees to stay out of the war does this
have the remotest possibility of achieving what the Kyiv government needs. Otherwise it will
not attack.
Time is in Russia's favor: let the Ukraine continue to serve as a financial black hole to
the IMF. Let the Western Ukrainians continue to emigrate en masse to Poland and then to the
rest of the EU and the UK. Russia has already received some 1 million Eastern Ukrainian;
those are probably the more well-educated, more productive Ukrainians, ...
Posted by: vk | Apr 11 2021 1:20 utc | 77
This is rather sketchily related to reality.
1. Ukraine is not a "black hole for the IMF". They got a smallish credit, and now they are
being denied extensions on rather preposterous grounds, and Ukraine is charged for the unused
credit line. Contrary to Nulands boasting, the West keeps Ukraine on a leash with a rather
skimpy budget.
2. There is no clear distinction between migration patterns. The one time I was in Russia,
the tourist guide on a one-day bus trip was from Rivne -- in Poland in years 1918-39. And as
Polish medical workers go to Spain etc., Ukrainian once fill the vacant positions, and they
may come from any place. Ditto with the "quality of workers". Poland has more of seasonal
jobs in picking crops (while Poles do it further West) than Russia, Russia perennially seeks
workers ready to accept extra pay in less than benign climes. The closest to truth is
scooping engineers and highly qualified workers from factories that before worked for Russian
market, including military, replaced with Russian factories and, when needed, Ukrainian
know-how. That is pretty much accomplished -- predominantly from the Eastern Ukraine. As a
result, the remaining workforce is so-so from east to west.
Khomchak does not want war, which was basically clear from his terrifying speech in the
parliament where he proclaimed the military to be "ready for every scenario", and than
describing a series of "buts" that prompted a young impressionable deputy from the ruling
party to text "Time to get out from Ukraine". It was a vision of "terrible civilian losses in
Donbass" and somehow related and strongly implied vision of Russian battalions traipsing
along the banks of Dnieper (perhaps even near the capital).
In the last 10 years, Russia modernized her forces, improved morale and got field
experience on rotation -- especially the air force. Ukraine -- not so much. Ukraine has
numerically impressive army if you compare to NATO countries like Poland, but that is
predicated on using cheap weapons, and absolutely not affordable with NATO standards that
stress very expensive weapons (thus Poland, with similar military budget as Ukraine, has 3-4
times smaller military). But cheap weapons require domestic production, and not-NATO weapons
were produced with many parts from Russia etc. Russia had no huge problem replacing parts
from Ukraine using new factories and engineers in part from Ukraine (fluent in Russian and
presumably loyal). But Ukraine could not do the reverse.
A sprinkling of NATO standard high tech would not help more than it help in Afghanistan,
where locals are armed and trained for nearly 20 years. It seems that NATO standard is a
perverse form of disarmament -- high expense, but the military with reduced capabilities.
Like Lithuania that valiantly exceeds 2% pledge and cannot afford tanks (or they got several?
they had none the last time I checked).
So here is a dilemma in the concept of war in Ukraine. It may scare Europeans to abjectly
defer to USA and break all trade etc. with Russia, and follow assorted other diktats. But
what if they are REALLY scared, and decide that patching up the relations with Russia is the
only realistic alternative? EU cannot rely on easy deficit money to the extend that USA can,
and even before the pandemic the national budgets were in sorry shape in many countries, I
suspect than now even in Germany the picture is grim (Germans have much higher standards
concerning the budget than Italians, so to them the picture may look very grim). Pandemic
also undermine the trust in the government and, I guess, in USA -- no photo ops of ships from
USA bearing huge loads of vaccines...
I'll throw my 5 cents behind naive optimism, or even wishful thinking, in interpreting the
situation as a theatrical performance on the part of the Ukraine, the intent of which was to
garner attention from "international allies" who were growing increasingly distant and
disinterested. Being recently relegated to a topic rather than participant in discussions
between world leaders, and a low-priority one at that, prompted the government to
irrationally escalate tensions in order to demonstrate an urgent need of supervision; like a
rowdy child feeling neglected by the baby-sitter. Not excluding, of course, that this scheme
was hatched by US advisors who themselves stand to benefit from being moved up a notch in the
cue of priorities with the US administration, who I don't believe had much interest in
navigating a full-blown crisis in the Ukraine at present.
What's left is to talk the suicidal patient down from the roof, with assurances of support
in the form of condemnations of Russian aggression, while maintaining, as much as possible,
the illusion that the suicidal patient is actually a respectable businessman, that the asylum
is a prosperous tech enterprise and that the care-takers haven't lost control of the facility
and aren't themselves insane. This doesn't exclude the possibility of the patient jumping, or
any number of events taking place that might prompt the "law enforcement agency" to go in and
restore order, but I do see this situation more as having put the Maidan-coalition on the
back-foot and having to disentangle themselves, rather than a carefully pre-planned and
coordinated operation.
You might not be wrong about oddly quiet neocon propagandists. I recently read a pretty
well written piece which postulated that these propaganda operations are highly coordinated,
and that they seem to often dial back their attacks a bit shortly before a renewed campaign,
as if to ensure maximum effect when they launch their new one.
Interesting interview. Apparently, Yuri Andropov had a contingency plan on the event of
the disintegration of the USSR - and yes, it included the partition of the Ukraine into two
("east bank Ukraine" and "west bank Ukraine" - probably West of the Dnieper, East of the
Dnieper). It's in Russian, so maybe inconsistencies with automatic translation may exist:
The interview is with Russian neoliberal banker (of the circle of Yeltsin and Gaidar, St.
Petersburg intelligentsia) Viktor Loshak, from "Alfa-Bank group" (machine translation). He
was a working under Shatalin in the 1980s, so he's allegedly an eye witness (primary source)
of the alleged plans.
He also claims that the St. Petersburg neoliberals never intended to end the Union, and
that what really happened in the 1990s wasn't intended. Smells like revisionism to me, but
ok, the St. Petersburg circle was never known for their intellectual prowess, so it's
possible.
--//--
@ Posted by: Mao Cheng Ji | Apr 10 2021 21:07 utc | 51
It has in the sense that the Ukraine wants to restore its entire territory, not just some
part of it. There is no scenario where, it being able to reconquer LPR-DPR, it would leave
Crimea with Russia.
The World Health Organization recently published its report on the
origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which has caused the Covid-19 pandemic. Most scientist agree
that the virus is of zoonotic origin and not a human construct or an accidental laboratory
escape. But the U.S. wants to put pressure on China and advised the Director General of the
WHO, Tedros Adhanom, to keep the focus on China potential culpability. He acted accordingly
when he
remarked on his agency's report:
Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this
requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist
experts, which I am ready to deploy.
The Governments of Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States of America remain steadfast in our commitment to working with the World Health
Organization (WHO), international experts who have a vital mission, and the global
community to understand the origins of this pandemic in order to improve our collective
global health security and response. Together, we support a transparent and independent
analysis and evaluation, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the
COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, we join in expressing shared concerns regarding the
recent WHO-convened study in China, while at the same time reinforcing the importance of
working together toward the development and use of a swift, effective, transparent,
science-based, and independent process for international evaluations of such outbreaks of
unknown origin in the future.
The most interesting with the above statement is the list of U.S. allied countries which
declined to support it,
Most core EU countries, especially France, Spain, Italy and Germany, are missing from it.
As is the Five-Eyes member New Zealand. India, a U.S. ally in the anti-Chinese Quad
initiative, also did not sign. This list of signatories of the Joint Statement is an
astonishingly meager result for a U.S. 'joint' initiative. It is unprecedented. It is a sign
that something has cracked and that the world will never be the same.
The first months of he Biden administration saw a rupture in the global system. First
Russia admonished the EU for its hypocritical criticism of internal Russian issues. Biden
followed up by calling Putin a 'killer'. Then the Chinese foreign minister told the Biden
administration
to shut the fuck up about internal Chinese issues. Soon thereafter Russia's and China's
foreign ministers met and agreed to deepen their alliance and to shun the U.S. dollar. Then
China's foreign minister went on a wider Middle East tour. There he reminded U.S. allies of
their
sovereignty :
Wang said that expected goals had been achieved with regard to a five-point initiative on
achieving security and stability in the Middle East, which was proposed during the visit.
"China supports countries in the region to stay impervious to external pressure and
interference, to independently explore development paths suited to its regional realities
," Wang said, adding that the countries should " break free from the shadows of big-power
geopolitical rivalry and resolve regional conflicts and differences as masters of the
region ."
Suffice to say, the China-Iran pact deeply is embedded within a new matrix Beijing hopes to
create with the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Iran. The pact forms part of a new
narrative on regional security and stability.
Countries in Asia and further afield are closely watching the development of this
alternative international order, led by Moscow and Beijing. And they can also recognise the
signs of increasing US economic and political decline.
It is a new kind of Cold War, but not one based on ideology like the first incarnation.
It is a war for international legitimacy, a struggle for hearts and minds and money in the
very large part of the world not aligned to the US or NATO.
The US and its allies will continue to operate under their narrative, while Russia and
China will push their competing narrative. This was made crystal clear over these past few
dramatic days of major power diplomacy.
The global balance of power is shifting, and for many nations, the smart money might be
on Russia and China now.
The obvious U.S. countermove to the Russian-Chinese initiative is to unite its allies in a
new Cold War against Russia and China. But as the Joint Statement above shows most of those
allies do not want to follow that path. China is a too good customer to be shunned. Talk of
human rights in other countries might play well with the local electorate but what counts in
the end is the business.
Even some U.S. companies can see that the hostile path the Biden administration has
followed will only be to their detriment. Some are asking the Biden gang to
tone it down :
[Boeing] Chief Executive Dave Calhoun told an online business forum he believed a major
aircraft subsidy dispute with Europe could be resolved after 16 years of wrangling at the
World Trade Organization, but contrasted this with the outlook on China.
"I think politically (China) is more difficult for this administration and it was for
the last administration. But we still have to trade with our largest partner in the world:
China," he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Aviation Summit.
Noting multiple disputes, he added: " I am hoping we can sort of separate intellectual
property, human rights and other things from trade and continue to encourage a free trade
environment between these two economic juggernauts. ... We cannot afford to be locked out
of that market. Our competitor will jump right in."
Before its 737 MAX debacle Boeing was the biggest U.S. exporter and China was its biggest
customer. The MAX has yet to be re-certified in China. If Washington keeps the hostile tone
against China Boeing will lose out and Europe's Airbus will make a killing.
Biden announced that "America is back" only to be told that it is no longer needed in the
oversized role that it played before. Should Washington not be able to accept that it can no
play 'unilateral' but will have to follow the real rules of international law we might be in
for some
interesting times :
Question: Finally, are you concerned that deteriorating international tensions could lead
to war?
Glenn Diesen: Yes, we should all be concerned. Tensions keep escalating and there are
increasing conflicts that could spark a major war. A war could break out over Syria,
Ukraine, the Black Sea, the Arctic, the South China Sea and other regions.
What makes all of these conflicts dangerous is that they are informed by a
winner-takes-all logic. Wishful thinking or active push towards a collapse of Russia,
China, the EU or the U.S. is also an indication of the winner-takes-all mentality. Under
these conditions, the large powers are more prepared to accept greater risks at a time when
the international system is transforming . The rhetoric of upholding liberal democratic
values also has clear zero-sum undertones as it implies that Russia and China must accept
the moral authority of the West and commit to unilateral concessions.
The rapidly shifting international distribution of power creates problems that can only
be resolved with real diplomacy. The great powers must recognize competing national
interests, followed by efforts to reach compromises and find common solutions.
Russia's president Vladimir Putin has repeatedly asked
for a summit of leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council:
Putin argued that the countries that created a new global order after World War II should
cooperate to solve today's problems.
"The founder countries of the United Nations, the five states that hold special
responsibility to save civilisation, can and must be an example," he said at the sombre
memorial ceremony.
The meeting would "play a great role in searching for collective answers to modern
challenges and threats," Putin said, adding that Russia was "ready for such a serious
conversation."
Such a summit would be a chance to work on a new global system that avoids unilateralism
and block mentality. As the U.S. is now learning that its allies are not willing to follow
its anti-China and anti-Russia policies it might be willing to negotiate over a new
international system.
But as long as Washington is unable to recognize its own decline a violent attempt to
solve the issue once and for all will become more likely.
Posted by b on April 1, 2021 at 17:52 UTC |
Permalink
Very thought provoking b, I wish time off brought me back firing on all cylinders like
this!
No doubt vk will chime in here better than I but it surely cannot be a matter of "if
America decides". There are historical forces at work in this financialized phase of late
capitalism that are not grasped by the US leadership, let alone factored into intelligent
policy debates. Biden is an arch-lobbyist for the vested interests which compel the US's
unilateral and interventionist foreign policy. I'm quite sure he is incapable of 'deciding'
anything (not just mentally but institutionally). But the underlying dynamic of
world-historical change is beyond him and his whole country. The die was cast long ago when
the Soviet Union fell and the US couldn't help themselves. Junkies for unilateralism since
1989, they will keep shooting up until they OD (Boeing notwithstanding...). I suspect they
will end up like the schizoid UK, psychologically unable to accept increasing and humiliating
losses of empire until it hits the bottom of the dustbin of History.
Starvation via military invasion and looting is a war crime.
"Though the Biden forces dismantled their illicit military base at the silos, in February,
the criminal American troops have returned several times, to empty the grain, so many times
that it might be convenient to create a template and just fill in the dates. Between mid- and
late March, the American war criminals pillaged 112 truckloads of Syria's wheat from this
facility."
The US-China meeting in Anchorage took place 75 years almost to the day of the Winston
Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri. Just as the latter signalled a break point in the
uneasy, war forced cohabit of the West with the communist Soviet Union, so too the Anchorage
will enter the history as the break point in the US hegemony threatening collaboration of the
West and China.
Since WW2, no other nation, not even Russia, has confronted the US so firmly and so
publicly as did Yang Jiechi, one of the ruling member of the Chinese Politburo when he said
that "the United States does not have the qualification to speak to China from a position of
strength'.
That was a slap in the face the Americans will have to respond to, and it's in the nature
of the response one will find whether the American Governing elite is prepared to share power
or go for a confrontation.
The real question is not about his neocon delusions, which are pretty predictable, but about
the ability for the USA project global dominance in the decade to come.
Blinken is a marionette. And pretty much second rate even in that.
Notable quotes:
"... Let's consider this headline for a moment: "Blinken Accuses China of Trying to Undermine US-Dominated World Order." Blinken provides us with a definition of that "world order" in his own words cited in the article: "'... preserve the rules-based international order, in which we have all invested so much over the past 75 years , and which has served our interests and values well'." [My Emphasis] ..."
Let's consider
this headline for a moment: "Blinken Accuses China of Trying to Undermine US-Dominated
World Order." Blinken provides us with a definition of that "world order" in his own words
cited in the article: "'... preserve the rules-based international order, in which we have
all invested so much over the past 75 years , and which has served our interests and
values well'." [My Emphasis]
Clearly, he's referring to the rules put in place by the UN Charter. But as we at this bar
all know, it's the Outlaw US Empire for whom Blinken works that's the #1 criminal when it
comes to violating the UN Charter which is why it's "served our interests and values
well."
Now when we turn to reality, it become very clear that China seeks to uphold the UN
Charter--it's one of the foundational members of the newly established Friends of the UN
Charter Group that the Outlaw US Empire will certainly snub because of the reality of its
actual relations to that Act and Organization .
Indeed, what is being said by the very formation of that Group is a big NO!! to the
Outlaw US Empire's attempt to say it abides by the system it's continuously violated for the
past 75+ years. Yet, it's also clear that NO!! isn't being shouted out by global media
enough, particularly when Outlaw US Empire officials give such an excellent opportunity to be
rebuffed and ridiculed for their lies.
We have many good writers here who could take Blinken's words and turn them into an
indictment of himself and the nation he represents. That implies that writers for global
publications are just as good but need to examine the framing of their articles. Peace won't
come to our planet unless the Outlaw Bully Nation is daily accused for what it is and
does.
NATO is a distinct minority yet it holds the world captive in a terroristic manner. It's
well past time to stop groveling and kow-towing and to stand-up and call out the bullshitters
for what they are since being nice isn't getting us anywhere.
...Apart from Biden's ABC interview, the nomination of Victoria Nuland as undersecretary of
state for political affairs has sent an unmistakable signal to Moscow and, more importantly, to
America's European allies.
In early 2014 Nuland was taped on a cell phone call with America's ambassador to the Ukraine
ordering the composition of the next Ukrainian government after the Maidan coup, in the tone of
a colonial viceroy.
Told that there might be some difficulties, Nuland explained that the UN was being enlisted
in support and said, "That would be great, I think, and help glue this thing." She added, "And,
you know, fuck the
EU." German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the time denounced the remark as "unacceptable."
That sort of faux pas normally would rate being assigned a diplomatic mission to the South
Pole, but such is Washington's ideological fervor that Nuland survived and resurfaced.
Nuland is a neoconservative, a former deputy national security adviser to then-vice
president Dick Cheney, as well as the spouse of Robert Kagan, one of the most persistent
advocates of global transformation via the projection of American power.
In 2014, she believed that the American-backed Maidan rebellion in Ukraine could be repeated
in Russia. Regime change in Russia has been the fixed idea of the American neocons and large
parts of the intelligence community since Putin took over from the corrupt, ineffectual and
alcoholic Boris Yeltsin in 1999.
Moscow (and Paris and Berlin) will read the reinstatement of Nuland as well as Biden's
public denunciation of Putin as signs that Washington really believes in regime change in
Moscow.
Putin has his internal problems, to be sure, but the party most likely to supersede him is
not pro-American democrats but, rather, "Eurasianist" elements of the military and security
forces who think that Putin has been too soft on the West.
... ... ...
Marx said on the occasion of Napoleon III's 1851 coup that great historical events occur
twice, the first time as tragedy and the second as farce. The neoconservatives may be back in
business under the Biden administration, but they lack the wherewithal at home and abroad to do
very much damage.
At the height of their influence during the George W Bush administration, the belief that
America's chief export should be democracy held sway in Washington, and its ideologues ruled
the Republicans with the party discipline of a Trotskyite sect.
Their ideology is a sort of right-wing Marxism. Being determines consciousness, taught Marx,
and ideology arises from the social structure. For Marx, that meant that communism would create
a New Man free of the vices of capitalism; for the neoconservatives, it meant that the mere
forms of democratic governance would create democrats.
America's allies laughed at them. Germany's foreign minister at the time was Joschka
Fischer, now an elder statesman of the Green Party.
A couple of years ago he told me, "It was a matter of great good fortune that I started my
career on the extreme left of politics. When I came to Washington as foreign minister during
the [George W Bush] administration and met the neoconservatives, I instantly recognized them as
the old comrades! I got the book by Richard Perle and David Frum, An End to Evil, and
took Trotsky's Permanent Revolution from my bookshelf, and compared them page by page.
Except for some changes in terminology, they were the same book."
The neo-conservatives persuaded Bush and his successor Barack Obama to spend over $6
trillion on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria. According to a recent report
from the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University the total
spending was $6.4 trillion and the study also finds that more than 801,000 people have died as
a direct result of fighting.
Meanwhile America lost industrial jobs at the fastest rate in its history, and America's
trade deficit ballooned to $600 billion a year. It failed to export democracy, but also stopped
exporting anything else. It all came to a horrible end in the Great Financial Crisis of
2008.
America had a freer hand in 2001 when George W Bush took office than any power since Rome;
Russia had gone bankrupt in July 2008 and China still was a small dark cloud on the strategic
horizon. In those days one spoke of America as a "hyperpower" rather than a "superpower."
And America dumbed it away in a dozen years in its quixotic resolve to "seek and support the
growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate
goal of ending tyranny in our world," as Bush declared in his second Inaugural Address
(ghostwritten by neocon ideologues Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer).
Although the neoconservatives for the most part abominated Donald Trump, they were
responsible for his improbable march to the presidency. Between 2000 and 2009, US manufacturing
employment fell to 11 million from 17 million.
Trump's tirade against "endless wars" set him apart from all the other Republican
candidates, who dragged the Bush legacy behind them like the chains on Marley's ghost, and his
appeal to the gutted industrial towns of the upper Midwest secured his majority in the
Electoral College.
With the diminution of American power, the neoconservatives have become less a menace than
an annoyance. America doesn't have another $5 trillion to throw away on what Trump called
endless wars; it has to borrow almost that much every year to cover federal expenditures,
including the income subsidies that are holding up the US economy by its collar.
The American population cheered George W Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq in a grim national
mood following the attack on the World Trade Center two years earlier, but has no stomach for
foreign wars today. China stood aside at the UN Security Council on the Iraq issue; today
its military power rivals America's, at least in the Pacific.
Just what do the Louis Napoleons of the US national security establishment have in mind?
Victoria Nuland, that is, Robert Kagan, wrote in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs:
The time has come to tell Americans that there is no escape from global responsibility,
that they have to think beyond the protection of the homeland. They need to understand that
the purpose of NATO and other alliances is to defend not against direct threats to US
interests but against a breakdown of the order that best serves those interests. They need to
be told honestly that the task of maintaining a world order is unending and fraught with
costs but preferable to the alternative.
A failure to be square with the American people has led the country to its current
predicament, with a confused and angry public convinced that its leaders are betraying
American interests for their own nefarious, "globalist" purposes. The antidote to this is not
scaring the hell out of them about China and other threats but trying to explain, again, why
the world order they created still matters. This is a job for Joe Biden and his new
administration.
There is no way to parse out of Kagan's peroration what sort of policy he has in mind. As
matters stand, Joe Biden will stand as the godfather to a Chinese-Russian-European coalescence
that will dominate Eurasia and the world economy.
Even before the targets in Yemen had been "legally" designated as
a Foreign Terrorist Organization Obama used cluster bombs to shred
dozens of women and children in a failed attempt to hit members of
"al Qaida in Yemen (AQY)".
.
The war crime immediately became a dirty Obama secret, covered up
with the help of the MSM, in particular ABC.
.
An enthusiastic White House had leaked to their contacts at ABC that
Obama had escalated the War on Terror, taking it to another country,
Yemen. This was December 17, 2009 only days after Obama had returned
from his ceremony in Oslo where he proudly accepted the Nobel Peace
Prize.
.
ABC was thrilled with their scoop and in manly voices announced
the escalation in the War on Terror.
.
The very next day ABC went silent forever about it, joining the cover up
of a war crime.
.
Hillary Clinton, by the way, committed her own act of cover up.
Covering her butt by backdating a memo.
.
The designation of a organization as a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization)
is not official nor legal until it is published in the Federal Register.
An oversight? Obama attacked Yemen before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
had done the paperwork to make the killing legal?
.
The designation was not published until a month later, January 19, 2010.
Hillary Clinton back dated the memo she published in the Register with the date of
December 14, 2009, to somewhat cover her butt.
.
Obama's acceptance speech in Oslo for the Nobel Peace Prize was December 10th.
.
Yemen leaders agreed to participate in Obama's coverup saying it was their
own Yemen forces that had accidentally shredded dozens of women and children.
.
Obama was grateful to the Yemen leaders. The Yemen leaders were not
honored in Oslo. But, ironically, Obama ended his speech honoring women
and children, days before he ordered their slaughter.
.
Obama in Oslo, December 10, 2009:
.
"Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty
still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what
few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she
believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's
dreams.
.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will
always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the
intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed,
we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace.
We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the
.
hope
.
of all the world; and at this moment of challenge,
that must be our work here on Earth.
.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
.
One week later Obama shredded dozens of women and children in Yemen
and covered it up.
.
Here is ABC's Brian Ross using his most masculine voice to boast about Obama's attack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcg3TNSRPs
.
Wikileaks cable corroborates evidence of US airstrikes in Yemen (Amnesty Intl)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-corroborates-evidence-us-airstrikes-yemen/
.
Actual cable at Wikileaks: https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10SANAA4_a.html
.
More at ABC [12/18/2009]: https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236 https://web.archive.org/web/20190624203826/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236
">https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236">https://web.archive.org/web/20190624203826/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236 https://web.archive.org/web/20190725171012/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr
">https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr">https://web.archive.org/web/20190725171012/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr
To go back to a previous BTL discussion on Patrick Cockburns recent article in
Counterpunch, Bidens missteps so early on are a very worrying indicator that his foreign
policy team is worse than just being malign. They are incompetent. Thats a very dangerous
combination.
I don't think the Russians, Chinese, or most other major countries (apart from Europe) had
a fundamental problem with Trumps approach. They understood him, and were quite happy to
ignore his bombast and threats and focus instead on what was happening in the real world. But
things are different for someone like Biden, and I'm very surprised nobody in his team seem
to realise this. When he talks on the record, its assumed that it is a reflection of a real
policy. At first, I thought maybe he was just doing the usual new guy in power thing of
talking tough to set the ground for later compromises (the opposite of Obama, who appeared
very weak to other leaders, and then just looked indecisive when his policies turned more
hardline). But that does not seem to be the case so far.
I've no idea what the final outcome will be, but I do think that this is one of those
points in history where things take a very sharp and irreparable change in direction.
Obviously, things have been brewing for years, but the ineptness of US foreign policy seems
to have created a strategic Russian/China alliance which will force many countries to make
some very hard choices about which side of the fence they are on.
On a related note, I woke up this morning to find that a speech by Lawrence P. Wilkerson,
who is associated with the conservative paleoconservatives is getting very wide circulation
in China (you know this has to be officially approved otherwise it disappears very rapidly on
WeChat. He makes a claim that the CIA back in the early '00's intended to use the Uigurs as a
sort of proxy army to destabilise China. For all sorts of reasons, I would doubt that, but it
is now widely believed among Chinese people, even those who have no liking for the CCP. The
notion that the Uigurs are a sort of third force within China, and as such need to be
destroyed now seems to be very deeply embedded in Chinese thinking, and the interference by
'official' western NGO's are undoubtedly making things much worse for them.
"[Wilkerson] makes a claim that the CIA back in the early '00's intended to use the Uigurs
as a sort of proxy army to destabilise China. For all sorts of reasons, I would doubt that,
but it is now widely believed among Chinese people, even those who have no liking for the
CCP."
Just curious as to what your reasons would be for doubting this. The CIA has been doing
precisely this all over the world for over 70 years. There is a clear pipeline between the
Uighurs in China and the CIA-supported "rebels" in Syria. The expatriate Uighur organizations
that are integral to the Western propaganda apparatus is supported and amplified by the NED
and other CIA fronts, as your last sentence implies. This is not to deny the historical
Uighur desire for autonomy in Western China, nor to defend Chinese policies toward them.
Rather, it is to acknowledge the CIA's use of ethnic tensions to sow chaos and division in
non-conforming nations *everywhere*.
1. The US has had little to no success in its many attempts to establish an intelligence
foothold in China. There is zero evidence, direct or indirect, that it has had any successful
contact with Uigur groups directly, although contacts via others, such as the Pakistani or
Turkish intelligence agencies are possible. If there was even the tiniest amount of evidence
of such a link, the Chinese would be broadcasting it from the skies, and not just
re-messaging out tired CT stuff. Chinese intelligence is far ahead of the US in that region,
so they would certainly know if something like that was happening.
2. Uigur groups in general such as we know about them tend to be as virulently anti
Western as anti Han Chinese. All evidence suggests that the brand of Islam that has been
belatedly introduced into those regions is essentially second hand Wahhabism (traditionally,
they were never all that religious).
3. Any such attempt could be easily countered by China – simply by dumping Uigur
radicals into Afghanistan to bolster the Taliban, or anywhere else that would create trouble.
The fact that they haven't done this strongly suggests that the Chinese themselves see no
link.
4. US military intelligence is often a misnomer, but even the CIA can't be stupid enough
to think that fostering another islamic state on the borders of Afghanistan is anything but a
terrible idea.
Of course, no doubt some mid ranking CIA officer may have circulated some report saying
more or less 'hey, maybe we can use those Uighurs or whatever they are called'. But thats an
entirely different thing from suggesting that there have been active links and a strategy for
using them to destabilise the borders of China. The reality is that the US has been entirely
unsuccessful in any attempts (when they've been made) to undermine China via internal Chinese
ethnic or religious groups.
Incidentally, the reliability of Wilkerson (who I actually quite like and who says some
interesting things), on that topic can be measured by his statement that the invasion of
Afghanistan was motivated by an attempt to stop the Belt and Road Initiative. It's quite
impressive intelligence if that was the case as the invasion predated the Belt and Road
Initiative by more than a decade.
Yes, I think the important point is your last one. It's not out of the question that on a
rainy afternoon in Virginia some junior CIA analyst amused himself by sketching out such an
idea, and one day the product may leak and be presented as "proof." But for the reasons you
give, the political leaders who would have to approve the scheme would turn it down, even if
it were physically possible. I doubt it would be, actually: from what little information is
publicly available, the US seems to be having little or no luck penetrating that area.
Thanks for the systematic reply. I appreciate each of your points, and pretty much agree
with the first one – including your comment about Turkish intelligence. But regarding
the others, the fact that we are talking about anti-Western Wahabist radicals does not mean
the CIA (or elements of the CIA or other military/intelligence operations) would hesitate to
weaponize them if possible. We did this in Afghanistan, Bosina, Kosovo, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Chechnya etc. Indeed, we seemed to *welcome* the fostering of an Islamic State in Eastern
Syria, because the various jihadists were a means to destroy the Syrian government. When the
goal is to foster chaos and destruction in order to *undermine* an existing state, the
calculus of unleashing the head-choppers is different than if we were actually interested in
fostering stability in the region. I admit that such a strategy might sound insane to *us*,
but Einstein's definition of insanity seems to rule our National Security Establishment.
Not PK, but I would suggest these cases are not only different from each other, but also
different from the Uigurs. Essentially, there was a war going on in all of these cases, and
the US (and they were scarcely the only ones) decided to try to get a bit of influence by
arming one or more of the factions. This is a tactic which is as old as arms themselves, and
has a pretty spotty record of success, if that. Its advantage is that it is low-key and
doesn't require a massive presence (the classic case is the Soviet Union and the Chinese
flooding Africa with AK-47s and copies in the 1960s and 1970s). But the cases you mention are
very disparate. In Bosnia there do seem to have been some (illegal) CIA deliveries to the
Muslims in violation of the embargo, but these were very small scale and in any event the
Muslims were one of the major parties to the conflict, as well as constituting the de facto
government in Sarajevo, because the other ethnicities had withdrawn. Likewise, and in spite
of preening memoirs and films, the US influence in Afghanistan was quite small : the
mujahideen were already forming in the 1970s, and the only contribution the US really made
was to supply anti-aircraft missiles, which complicated the Russians' existence quite a bit.
But actually fomenting and arming an insurgency next to one of the three or four major powers
on the planet, with highly skilled intelligence services? There is stupidity and there's
downright insanity.
I the 1950s, the CIA and MI6 trained and armed the "Forest Brothers" in the Baltics.
Neutral Sweden and Finland were across hundreds of km of water. Land access was through
Soviet territory or satellites. There was no significant international trade or commerce in
the area at the time. Yet they had tens of thousands of well supplied (for that era)
resistance fighters that took a decade for the USSR to stomp out.
To suggest that today's CIA is incapable of stirring things up in a well-connected
Xinjiang when thousands of foreigners travel there, tons of business shipments and
international flights and road transport is a mystifying statement. Particularly after CIA's
decades of experience managing jihadis all across North Africa, Mideast and Central Asia,
more than a few being Uigurs.
And suggesting that the only thing the US supplied the Afghan jihadis were Stinger
missiles is far off the mark. It was a multi-billion dollar per year operation conducted by
the US with collaboration of the ISI and Saudis. All those tens of thousands of jihadis
didn't arrive by camels and make slingshots.
I agree "There is stupidity and there's downright insanity" in fomenting troubles in
Xinjiang. The US has already passed that test. Many times.
We are three generations past the 1950s. Not a relevant example.
The US is not even remotely as good as you'd have to believe to accept this theory. For
starters, we don't begin to have enough people with native level language competence, much
the less willing to live there long enough to be trusted. They'll take our arms, but our
directives?
It is in the interest of the CIA to take credit for all sorts of things where their role
was non-existent to marginal because funding.
I can't claim any great knowledge or insight into the region, but the notion that the
Uighurs were part of a grand CIA strategy, or that they have had sufficient influence in the
region to manipulate them into opposing China, just doesn't pass the smell test.
Unfortunately, like the notion that Covid is spread on frozen food, so far as I can tell it
is now considered 'a fact' by most Chinese, inside and outside the country. As a result, even
Chinese who strongly dislike their government are not at all bothered by reports coming out
of the region.
For what its worth, I knew an English guy who lived for a few years in Urumqi with his
Chinese wife about 15 years ago. He was virulently anti-muslim and didn't much like the
non-Chinese locals he met, but I remember at the time that said that what he saw around him
convinced him that things were going to end very badly for the Uighurs, the Chinese were just
waiting for the opportunity to wipe them out. I was in Tibet at that period (I was fortunate
to get a visa on the last year solo traveller were allowed in) and witnessed the way Tibetans
were openly abused on the street by Chinese soldiers. Even Tibetans said that the Uighurs got
it worse.
The US government and privately motivated US citizens have no credibility on this issue.
That means if anyone is going to raise it, it will have to be someone other than America or
Americans.
That doesn't change the fact of Great Han Lebensraum genocide-policy against the Uighurs
on the part of the Chinese Communazi Party. And Chinese statements about their Lebensraum
genocide against Uighuria are just as much hasbara as Israeli statements about
antiPalestinianitic persecution in the Occupied West Bank.
And if that purely-private opinion of a mere U S citizen makes any Great Han hasbarists (
or might I say . . . Hansbarists) on this thread mad, then that makes me happy.
Your friend was English; I have not seen this attitude on the part of Chinese friends or
Chinese I've talked with. I was traveling on a domestic flight in China a number of years ago
and found myself sitting on a plane next to a random Chinese soldier -- a memorably tall,
handsome young man. He spoke English well enough to have a discussion (the relaxed atmosphere
and the need to pass the time does wonders when it comes to breaking down language barriers).
Major Uighur terror attacks and unrest had been in the news (around 2009), so I asked him
what he thought about it. He said that he grew up in Xinjiang. His parents were Han Chinese
who had first come to Xinjiang during the cultural revolution to build some local
infrastructure/improvement project (he described it to me but I don't remember the details).
They saw their goal as improving conditions in the region. Of course, the government wanted
to solidify Chinese presence in that region of their country, but I heard no hint of anger or
derision toward the Uighur. He said he was very concerned that the Uighur people were happy
and he hoped China could find a way to mend the relationship. He said that growing up, there
were many mixed Chinese/Han marriages and that "people say" that mixed Han/Uighur marriages
produced the most physically beautiful children. I didn't see any evidence of the malignant
racism you describe on the part of your English friend.
Strong central governments vs violent separatist movements tend to create lasting
problems. Growing up in a border state over 100 years after our own civil war, I grew up with
the fact that many people had still not let go of that resentment. Southerners still
maintained a sense of grievance back then. The Maryland state song that I learned as a child
is only now being decommissioned by the state legislature. One stanza refers to the "Northern
scum".
This week's WaPo headline: "Maryland poised to say goodbye to state song that celebrates
the Confederacy".
If your Han Chinese interlocutor's feelings are widely shared among the ruled-over rather
than ruling-over ordinary majority of Han citizens, then it would appear that it is the
MonoParty RegimeGovernment ruling over China which is Communazi, not the people as such.
Regardless, it will be up to countrygovs which have moral standing in this area to comment
or not, not the US anymore. At least for now.
Probably the Uighurs have it even worse than Tibetans because Uighuria is very inhabitable
by Han settlers whereas Tibet is high and dry enough that ( I have read), that
lowland-adapted Hans have trouble physically coping over time with the lower oxygen levels at
Tibet altitude.
If that is so, then the High Tibetan Plateau at least would not provide Lebensraum for
millions of Han Settlers in any case, so why clear the Tibetans off the plateau and out of
existence? Not so much need, in Tibet's case.
@PlutoniumKun
I have no knowledge about points 1 to 3, but totally disagree with point 4.
The hubris and desire of the US alphabet agencies to meddle is remarkable. A current example
is the CIA support of jihadis in Syria that the US military itself is fighting against.
Interesting caution re Wilkerson – do you have a link?
Here is a link to an article talking about that talk PK. Having a coupla thousand Uygurs
in Syria gaining combat experience for use later who knows where was probably proof enough
for China of western intentions. Just think of the other Jihadists who have been used in
places like Libya and the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war and the Chinese would be drawing their
own conclusions-
A draft copy of the accord that surfaced on media last year showed plans for long-term
supply of Iranian crude to China as well as investment in oil, gas, petrochemical, renewables
and nuclear energy infrastructure.
Lured by the prospect of cheaper prices, China has already
increased its imports of Iranian oil to around 1 million barrels a day, eroding U.S.
leverage as it prepares to enter stalled talks with Tehran to revive a nuclear deal.
The Biden administration has indicated that it's open to reengaging with Iran after
then-President Donald Trump abandoned the accord nearly three years ago and reimposed economic
sanctions, but the two sides have yet to even agree to meet. Iran exported around 2.5 million
barrels of oil a day before American penalties resumed.
Iran's closer integration with China may help shore up its economy against the impact of the
U.S. sanctions, while sending a clear signal to the White House of Tehran's intentions. Wang
Yi, who arrived in Tehran on Friday, also met with Rouhani to discuss the nuclear deal.
In a televised speech, Rouhani raised the prospect of restrictions being eased before the
end of his second and final term as president in early August.
"We're ready for the lifting of sanctions," he said on Saturday. "If obstacles are removed,
all or at least some sanctions can be lifted."
No additional details of the agreement were revealed as Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad
Javad Zarif and Chinese counterpart Wang Yi took part in a ceremony marking the event.
The deal marked the first time Iran has signed such a lengthy agreement with a major world
power. In 2001, Iran and Russia signed a 10-year cooperation agreement, mainly in the nuclear
field, that was lengthened to 20 years through two five-year extensions.
Before the ceremony Saturday, Yi met Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and special Iranian
envoy in charge of the deal Ali Larijani.
Saeed Khatibzadeh, spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, on Friday called the agreement
"deep, multi-layer and full-fledged."
The deal, which had been discussed since 2016, also supports tourism and cultural exchanges.
It comes on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and
Iran.
The two countries have had warm relations and both took part in a joint naval exercise in
2019 with Russia in the northern Indian Ocean.
Reportedly, Iran and China have done some $20 billion in trade annually in recent years.
That's down from nearly $52 billion in 2014, however, because of a decline in oil prices and
U.S. sanctions imposed in 2018 after then-President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally
out of a nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, saying it needed to be renegotiated.
Iran has pulled away from restrictions imposed under the deal under those sanctions in order
to put pressure on the other signatories -- Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China -- to
provide new economic incentives to offset U.S. sanctions.
Thanks Dennis.
It is easy for us to discount the production capacity of Iran, however this could be a
mistake.
If China needs oil it will fund production in Iran, regardless of the 'worlds' concern over
Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions [very aggressive ambitions that are largely
theocratically driven].
This weekend-
'Iran, China sign strategic long-term [25 yr] cooperation agreement
The agreement covers a variety of economic activity from oil and mining to promoting industrial
activity in Iran, as well as transportation and agricultural collaboration.' https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/27/iran-china-agreement-478236
History doesn't repeat, but it sure as hell rhymes.
The Revolutionary and Civil war was fought against finance capital; where said capital
emanated mostly from London. By 1912 the U.S. was no longer Industrial Capitalist, but had
been usurped by Finance Capitalism, and of course the (((usual suspects))) were pulling
strings in the background.
WW2 was the now finance capitalist allies against the industrial capitalist axis
powers.
The run up to WW2 had the axis "industrial capitalist" powers exit the London based
finance capitalist "sterling" system. Churchill even admitted to the reason why the allies
attacked.
Germany's most unforgivable crime before the Second World War was her attempt to
extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange
mechanism which would deny (((world finance))) its opportunity to profit.
Finance capital exported jobs from the U.S. and the West toward China; this in order to
take wage arbitrage. China then rope-a-dopes the dummies from the west, and uses its state
credit and industrial capitalist system to acquire intellectual know-how, and climb the
industrial curve.
Finance capitalist are slowly being cut-out of taking wage arbitrage from China and
realize that their "assets" over there, can be taken by the Chinese state at any time. Now
they want war to secure their asset position, and to buy more of China at a war time fire
sale price.
Finance capital runs the same playbook over and over. The bad guys won in WW1 and 2. The
(((international))) finance class works behind the scenes to take sordid gain on humanity,
including mass death.
If your government is festooned with ne0-con Jews, then that should be strong signal that
your country is not sovereign, but instead is operated by stealth with finance capital and
its oligarchs.
This time around is different, China and Russia will exit the dollar system, and the
western finance capitalist class can do nothing but make idle threats. Some will argue that
the West will resort to nukes.
Maybe? I'm assuming that our (((friends))) are not completely insane, as they would lose
their capital and asset position. Their greed will stop them from destroying themselves, and
us.
"If your government is festooned with ne0-con Jews, then that should be strong signal
that your country is not sovereign, but instead is operated by stealth with finance capital
and its oligarchs. "
You are a wise man Mefobills
If your government is festooned with ne0-con Jews, then that should be strong signal
that your country is not sovereign, but instead is operated by stealth with finance capital
and its oligarchs.
"When the law no longer protects you from the corrupt, but protects the corrupt from you
– you know your nation is doomed."
Actually, it is the ***American people*** who are fucked. The little people that is.
Fucked on behalf of Israel/Neocons, the MIC, the Neolibs, and the other "owners" of the
country.
The good news is that when the above have thoroughly looted the country, and the rest of
the world sheds the by then worthless US dollar, and the City on the Hill becomes the
Toothless Slum on the Hill,
@Anonymous that a strong American military and national security posture is the best
guarantor of peace and the survival of our values and civilization.
Stavridis has been at the forefront of the mass slaughter known as the implementation of the
Oded Yinon Plan for Eretz Israel:
From 2002 to 2004, Stavridis commanded Enterprise Carrier Strike Group, conducting combat
operations in the Persian Gulf in support of both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom.
Stavridis "oversaw operations in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria." In short, this prominent
racketeer is dripping with the blood of hundreds of thousands of the victims.
Edited for clarity; racial slurs are removed... Paradoxically recently due to summer riots
the attitude toward Zionism among the US public slightly improved, as least as far as domestic
policies are concerted...
American Renaissance has done important work, but it is ultimately useless because it
pulls its punches or willfully misses what should be the main target: Zionist Supremacist
Power. Take Jared Taylor's commentary of the US military in the video below. It's pure
Pat-Condell. He blames everything but will not name the power behind the mess. Shhhh about
the Zionists.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/03vYmvgpmBQi/
At this point, why should Taylor lament that Mexican-American soldiers proudly display the
Mexican flag? Why not, when the US flag represents nothing abroad but 'twerking', Zionist
supremacism, Wars for Israel, mindless animus toward Russia, ridiculous paranoia about China,
nonstop hatred toward Iran, complete nonsense about Venezuela, BLM stupidity, and global
dissemination of globo-homo ludicrousness? Americanism meant something when
Anglo-Americans(and those properly Anglo-Americanized) ruled the nation with pride and
confidence. Then, Americanism was based on the Great Compromise: A move toward a more
merit-and-rule-based on the part of Anglo-Americans who took the land from the Indians,
brought blacks in chains, and encouraged mass-immigration to develop the land. In return,
non-Anglos would acknowledge the Anglo-foundation of America and try to be Good Americans.
That compromise is no longer relevant because the US is now totally Zionist-supremacist,
meaning the New Americanism is predicated on just about everyone and everything revolving
around the question of "Is it great for Zionists?" If Zionists want it, they get it
eventually. No wonder the First and Second Amendments are now hanging by a thread. Zionists
don't like the Constitution now that they got total power.
Other than Zionists, Jared Taylor should be blaming his own Wasp kind. Why did they hand
over power to the Zionists almost completely? That was the beginning of much of the rot
since. Taylor bitches about blacks, Mexicans, and etc. not being properly patriotic in the
new order, but who created the new order? Zionists spearheaded the making of New America, but
Wasps just played along. If Wasps are such worthless cucks to Zionists, why should it be
surprising that nonwhites would no longer respect whites? Of course, given that most
nonwhites would find it odd if Zionists told them, "Americanism = Zionist Greatness",
Zionists encourage the next-best-thing, which is anti-whiteness or 'scapewhiting'(scapegoat
whitey for everything), as it unites all nonwhites with Zionists in the War on Whiteness. War
on Whiteness or WOW is great for Zionists as it morally shames and paralyzes whites into
having no pride and prestige, which translates into having no will and agency. Filled with
shame and 'white guilt', whites become mired in mode of redemption, the terms of which are
decided by Zionists who advise Total Support for Zion, More Wars for Israel, More Diversity,
and More Globo-Homo(proxy of Zionist Power).
The source of the problem is the Zionist-White relations. When whites handed over power to
Zionists, Zionists made the key decisions, and those have been premised on
whatever-necessary-to-secure-Zionist-power. #1 priority for Zionists is then White
Submissivism to Zionist Supremacism. If Taylor will not discuss Zionist Power, it's like
complaining about the smoke without mentioning the fire. Also, does it make sense for whites
to bleat about blacks, browns, yellows, and etc. when whites themselves cravenly collaborate
with Zionist Power? Whites, especially the elites, don't stand for what is good for America
as a whole. They suck up to Zionists and support Zionist identity & Zionism. When whites
act like that, why should nonwhites be good American patriots? Whites have led the way in
betraying the original Americanism. In some ways, nonwhites, such as blacks into black power
and Mexican-Americans into Mexican pride, are more admirable because, at the very least, they
are tribal-patriotic about their own kind. In contrast, whites have betrayed both White Power
and Traditional Americanism. They are now allergic to anything white-and-positive but also
utterly lack a general sense of Americanism. White 'liberals' love to virtue-signal by
supporting blacks, diversity, & globo-homo, AND white 'conservatives' love to cuck-signal
by waving the Israeli Flag & yapping about how Israel is "America's best, greatest,
closest, and dearest ally." Both groups fail at simple generic patriotism based on rules and
principles. For white 'liberals', blacks are higher than other groups, and for white
'conservatives' it's Zionists-uber-alles.
In the current order, Zionists encourage nonwhites to wave their own identitarian flag
AGAINST whiteness while encouraging whites to wave the Zionist flag. In a way, one might say
this Zionist strategy is foolish. After all, if nonwhites are made to be anti-white and if
whiteness is made to be synonymous with support-for-Israel and praise-of-Zionists, might it
not lead to nonwhites being anti-Israel and anti-Zionist as well? After all, if whiteness =
love-for-Zionists whereas non-whiteness = anti-whiteness, wouldn't it lead to non-whiteness =
anti-Zionistness since whiteness is so closely associated with cucking to Zionists?
Zionists bank on two factors in this strategy. They figure (1) nonwhites are too dumb to
connect the dots or (2) even if nonwhites connected the dots and became more critical of
Israel & Zionist Power on account of whiteness = support-for-Zion, it will draw whites
even closer to Zion as white-knight-defenders of Israel against the rising tide of darkies.
We see scenario 2 play out with both Mitt Romney and Jared Taylor. They hope that powerful
Zionists will like them more if they stand with Zionists against the 'antisemitic'
darkies.
It's like Zionists encourage Ilhan Omar to be anti-white while white conzos beat their
chests as noble defenders of Zionists from 'Anti-Semites'.
The Russian government is
responding angrily to Biden's derisive comments about Putin:
The Kremlin has reacted angrily to US President Joe Biden's remarks that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin is "a killer," calling the comment unprecedented and describing the
relationship between the two countries as "very bad."
U.S.-Russian relations have been deteriorating steadily over the last ten years, and it
always seemed unlikely that Biden would improve them. Now there will be even less of a chance
that Biden can work constructively with his Russian counterpart. The president's blunt answer
to a rather silly question from George Stephanopoulos has further damaged the relationship to
neither country's benefit. Anatol Lieven
observed recently that this is a "completely unnecessary confrontation with Russia" at a
time when the U.S. needs Russian cooperation on some important issues. Lieven cites U.S.
reentry into the JCPOA and extricating U.S. forces from Afghanistan as his examples of issues
where Russian cooperation could be very valuable, but he could have added new negotiations on
future arms control agreements as well. Making progress on any one of these becomes much more
challenging when our president is gratuitously insulting theirs. For an administration that
prides itself on practicing diplomacy, they have a funny way of showing it.
The Joseph Biden administration has named Richard Nephew as its deputy Iran envoy. As the
former principal deputy coordinator of sanctions policy for Barack Obama's State Department,
Nephew took personal credit for depriving Iranians of food, sabotaging their automobile
industry, and driving up unemployment rates.
Nephew has described the destruction of Iran's economy as "a tremendous success," and
lamented during a visit to Russia that food was still plentiful in the country's capital
despite mounting US sanctions.
Nephew's appointment to a senior diplomatic post suggests that rather than immediately
returning to the JCPOA nuclear deal, the Biden administration will finesse sanctions
illegally imposed by Trump to pressure Iran into an onerous, reworked agreement that Tehran
is unlikely to join.
Nephew's "simple framework" for "sanctions to perform their expected function" reads like
a torturer's manual (replace "target state" with "prisoner"):
- identify objectives for the imposition of pain and define the minimum necessary remedial
steps that the target state must take for pain to be removed
- understand as much as possible the nature of the target, including its vulnerabilities,
interests, commitment to whatever it did to prompt sanctions, and readiness to absorb
pain
-develop a strategy to carefully, methodically, and efficiently increase pain on those
areas that are vulnerabilities while avoiding those that are not
-monitor the execution of the strategy and continuously recalibrate its initial assumption
of target state resolve, the efficacy of the pain applied in shattering that resolve, and how
best to improve the strategy
Combatting malign influences in the Americas: OGA (Office of Global Affairs) used
diplomatic relations in the Americas region to mitigate efforts by states, including Cuba,
Venezuela, and Russia, who are working to increase their influence in the region to the
detriment of US safety and security. OGA coordinated with other U.S. government agencies to
strengthen diplomatic ties and offer technical and humanitarian assistance to dissuade
countries in the region from accepting aid from these ill intentioned states. Examples
include using OGA's Health Attaché office to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian
COVID-19 vaccine, and offering CDC technical assistance in lieu of Panama accepting an offer
of Cuban doctors.
US sanctions have brought the number of Syrians who are close to starvation to 12.4 million,
or 60% of the country...
Great dollops of hypocrisy invariably accompany expressions of concern by outside powers for
the wellbeing of the Syrian people. But even by these low standards, a new record for
self-serving dishonesty is being set by the Caesar Civilian Protection
Act , the new US law imposing the harshest sanctions in the world on Syria and bringing
millions of Syrians
to the brink of famine .
Supposedly aimed at safeguarding ordinary Syrians from violent repression by President
Bashar
al-Assad , the law is given a humanitarian garnish by naming it after the Syrian military
photographer who filmed and smuggled out of the country pictures of thousands of Syrians killed
by the government. But instead of protecting Syrians, as it claims, the Caesar Act is a measure
of collective punishment that is impoverishing people in government and opposition-held areas
alike.
Bad though the situation in Syria was after 10 years of warfare and a long-standing economic
embargo, the crisis has got much worse in the nine months since the law was implemented on 17
June last year. It has raised the number of Syrians who are close to starvation to 12.4
million, or 60 per cent of the population, according to the UN.
Already, more than half a million children under the age of five are suffering from stunting
as the result of chronic malnutrition . As the Syrian currency collapsed and prices rose by 230
per cent over the last year, Syrian families could no longer afford to buy basic foodstuffs
such as bread, rice, lentils, oil and sugar.
"The war of hunger scares me more than the war of guns," says Ghassan Massoud, the Syrian
actor famous for playing Saladin in
the 2005 Ridley Scott film Kingdom of Heaven . A politically neutral and popular figure in
Syria, Massoud is quoted as saying that government employees are earning 50,000 Syrian pounds
($13/£9) a month when they need 800,000 Syrian pounds to survive. "I am a vegetarian but
I do not accept that a citizen is not able to eat meat because a kilo costs 20,000 Syrian
pounds."
The Caesar Act threatens sanctions on any person or company that does business with Syria
and thereby imposes a tight economic siege on the country . Introduced just as the Covid-19
epidemic made its first onset in Syria last summer and soon after the implosion of the Lebanese
economy to which Syria is closely linked, the law has proved the final devastating blow to
Syrians who were already ground down by a decade of destruction .
It was supposedly aimed at Assad and his regime, but there was never any reason to believe
that it would destabilize them or compel them to ease repression. Since they hold power, they
are well placed to control diminished resources. As with the 13 years of UN sanctions directed
against Saddam Hussein between 1990 and 2003, the victims were not the dictator and his family
but the civilian population. Iraqi society was shattered, with results that are still with us,
and the same is now happening in Syria.
A concise summary. A cold geopolitical decision by arch war criminal Obama, following
decades of meddling.
The destructions of Iraq, Syria, and Libya are the most serious state-led crimes of this
century, yet in the western bubble the fingers point to Crimea, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong.
Bhadrakumar's "Animal Farm" reference is apt.
Blinken, like his boss, is a complete moron. He blew it with his patronising threatening
'rules based order' drivel because he has no expertise. Blinken has been doing this for a
decade or two: Syria, Libya, Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran, and on and on. He has the form of a
killer, the mind of a killer and the intentions of a mass murderer. He has proven the latter
and is the type of global ambassadorial psychopath that one should meet with once and then
never meet again.
The USA has lost its mind and every day that passes proves that point.
This bar deserves broader analysis of other quarters of the planet and no more references
to the Guardian or NYT.
Biden under pressure to tap fewer political ambassadors than Trump, Obama
Donors are growing impatient as Biden delays naming coveted ambassador posts.
I know that the United States and its leaders are determined to maintain certain relations
with us, but on matters that are of interest to the United States and on its terms. Even
though they believe we are just like them, we are different. We have a different genetic,
cultural and moral code. But we know how to uphold our interests. We will work with the
United States, but in the areas that we are interested in and on terms that we believe are
beneficial to us. They will have to reckon with it despite their attempts to stop our
development, despite the sanctions and insults. They will have to reckon with this.
The author provides basic but essential definition of conflict resolution. The USians either
don't understand or defy it.
Your link to statement by Blinken & Sullivan is propaganda as you say. It is also an
expression of how deeply limited and very stupid these two are. They have no idea what just
hit them.
"The alternative to a rules-based order is a world in which might makes right and winner
takes all and that would be a far more violent and unstable world," Blinken said.
Coming from the Empire this is not an explanation but rather a threat.
@ 139 william gruff... i never thought of it like that, but i think you are right to
characterize it that way... the language of a bully is on regular display thanks the
exceptional nation... i have gotten so used to it, i overlook this feature..
The madness of the Outlaw Empire is not about to shrink from bringing down the curtain on
the human race, if that's what it takes to see their power of command obeyed. The US, as it
is today, doesn't respect any nation's sovereignty and is mostly indifferent to allies and
foes alike. The regime considers itself the only sovereign worthy of such title on earth; and
expects to be allowed to run the table at its pleasure, or else it will supervise the burning
down of the house.
Biden meanders about, not even possessed of his right mind, holding on to the delusions
and lies of several presidents who lately came before him; and he is just the man to keep all
the fires of destruction burning, while the torture of innocence is unceasing, and as the
arrogant demands made against other countries become more absurd. What else is more obvious?
These are the things we have seen foreshadowed before and after 9/11.
As long ago as the 80s Reagan was told about the reality of nuclear winter. In A Man
Without a Country , Kurt Vonnegut described how scientists explained to G.W. Bush that a
nuclear exchange of even a moderate duration and size, could still depopulate the earth of
most of its people. The Bush Administration, toying with the idea of deploying baby nukes,
for strategic exigency, short of total war, went with "guesswork" rather than prudent
scientific advice. It was their best guess that the circumspect, abbreviated use of nukes
wouldn't destroy humanity itself, or cause ice age conditions, or bring about global
starvation.
At least in the conduct between civilized countries, a minimum level of protocol and respect
matters. It may make much of a difference especially when dealing with conflicts. And the conduct
of the US americans is worrying. They are behaving like rabid dogs.
Toothless sabre rattling is about all the USA has left. A bunch of old men with a world
view from the 1950s whose own virility is long gone is not going to come to an epiphany about
their encroaching impotence. The Establishment has no other choice, absent common sense and
critical thinking, but to double-down on arrogant self-righteousness bred by sophomoric
jingoism that defines 'shallow.'
Empire is crumbling before our eyes. The question is will it take the rest of the world
with it as it falls into its own footprint.
Perhaps one of the more predictable mistakes the US will commit next, is misinterpret the
stern warnings of the past few days by Russia, China and even NK, as evidence the new
Biden/Blinken regime is less feared or respected than the Trump/Pompeo one.
I suspect a more accurate interpretation would be, "ok, you had the crazy guy for 4 years
and we cut you some slack, hoping once the grown ups were back we could reason as adults, but
if you're gonna carry on with the same attitude, basically, Democrat or Republican, you can
all summarily go fxxx yourselves".
Particularly at the end of the term, the Obama regime was already being met by a very
hostile China and Russia, well before Trump took over with his less than diplomatic style (or
lack thereof). Anyone recall the airport security debacle with China during Obama's last
weeks?
How our interaction w/China was reported FOX did a full throated, fake narrative
just to suit their pro-Trump agenda. When they quoted, 'you cannot talk to us from a position
of strength' they made is sound like the Chinese were scoffing at Blinken's weakness rather
than his moral turpitude. They made it sound like Blinken surrendering to his Chinese
overlords, squandering the strong hand the Trump gave him.
In FOX land, all that matters is that you come up with a great sounding argument. The
truthfulness of that arguments is not relevant.
The USA's situation is very dire indeed. The Americans are resorting more and more to
"Hail Mary" moves to keep their hegemonic position.
And even then they're blundering. I would not be surprised at all if they start to
straight out have to falsify diplomatic transcripts in order to try to create something
favorable to them.
Related to US-China tensions, if anyone likes documentary shows, CNA (Channel News Asia, a
broadcaster out of Singapore) has a good four-part documentary released in January 2021
called "When Titans Clash", about the US-China trade/tech tensions, that I would recommend.
(I watched the first two yesterday and will watch the other two this weekend.)
Each of the 4 parts is about 48 minutes long and available for watching on YouTube and
CNA's website too.
Touches on some of the things ak74 mentioned in his
comment on the other thread: outsourcing, deindustrialization, the US dollar as reserve
currency, etc.
It's from Pearl Forss who was also involved in CNA's 2015-2019 series " The New Silk
Road ", about China's BRI, that I can recommend as well.
Many great observations tonight, but all, beg the question; How do we change a nation
state that has so thoroughly morphed into an advertising and marketing phony, aided and
abetted by so many deluded morons?
This is interesting. Apparently both the Russians and the Chinese have concluded that
Biden intends to use "CornPop" faux-macho posturing as his foreign policy, and they have both
decided that "f**k that, let's nip this in the bud".
Because it looks like they have decided they have had a gut-full of US "exceptionalism"
and are quite determined to say so. To anyone, but especially to the Americans.
Going to be a lot of very confused people at Foggy Bottom. They may never have experienced
this degree of contempt before.
I about fell on the floor when I read Blinken's words, my first thought being "this klutz
has zero knowledge of history since 1588 and just admitted as much. In China, Blinken would
never achieve any position of power.
The decadence of the Outlaw US Empire's government is like so many prions turning brain
tissue into a swiss-cheese-like mass and then boasting about how finely tuned are its
cognitive abilities. And when Harris is installed, we'll have a genuine novice in charge--The
Blind leading the Blind.
It's no wonder the Chinese sought an audience with Lavrov ASAP.
The Americans have completely lost the culture of negotiation. If there are no elementary
human manners, then what kind of agreements can we talk about? A sad picture. And
dangerous. A madman with nuclear weapons (and chemical weapons, by the way) is not the best
option for a reliable negotiating partner.
Israel has targeted at least a dozen vessels bound for Syria and mostly carrying Iranian
oil out of concern that petroleum profits are funding extremism in the Middle East, U.S.
and regional officials say, in a new front in the conflict between Israel and Iran.
Since late 2019, Israel has used weaponry including water mines to strike Iranian
vessels or those carrying Iranian cargo as they navigate toward Syria in the Red Sea and in
other areas of the region. Iran has continued its oil trade with Syria, shipping millions
of barrels and contravening U.S. sanctions against Iran and international sanctions against
Syria.
Some of the naval attacks also have targeted Iranian efforts to move other cargo
including weaponry through the region, according to U.S. officials.
The attacks on the tankers carrying Iranian oil haven't been previously disclosed.
Iranian officials have reported some of the attacks earlier and have said they suspect
Israeli involvement.
The 'exclusive' leak to the WSJ , by U.S. officials(!), is designed to damage the
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahoo.
It explains a number of recent incidents which Israel had claimed to be 'Iranian
aggressions' but which were caused by Israel itself or were in obvious retaliation for
Israeli deeds.
Israel closed all its Mediterranean beaches until further notice on Sunday, days after an
offshore oil spill deposited tons of tar across more than 100 miles (160 kilometers) of
coastline in what officials are calling one of the country's worst ecological disasters.
Activists began reporting globs of black tar on Israel's coast last week after a heavy
storm.
...
The Environmental Protection Ministry and activists estimate that at least 1,000 tons of
tar, a product of an oil spill from a ship in the eastern Mediterranean earlier this month,
have already washed up on shore. The ministry is trying to determine who is responsible. It
declined commenting on details of the investigation because it was ongoing.
Posted by b at
9:17 UTC |
Comments (21) Surely one significant aspect of this story is that US govt officials,
speaking as they always do "anonymously", informed none other than the Murdoch-owned Wall
Street Journal. Does Rupert Murdoch no longer support Binyamin Netanyahu? Has Netanyahu's
appeal dimmed somewhat since the death of US casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson whose
newspaper "Israel Hayom" was a big Netanyahu supporter? Is the Biden-soon-to-be-Harris
administration tiring of Netanyahu and keen to throw him and his wife Sara under a huge bus?
"... A former senior official from Israel's Aerospace Industries claims to have first-hand
knowledge of the 15-page long legal contract between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and
his wife Sara, writes The Times of Israel.
In a video interview, posted on the internet, David Arzi, former vice president of
commercial and civil aviation at Israel Aerospace Industries, says he was allowed to read
clauses of the contract in 1999, during Netanyahu's first stint as prime minister, by the
Prime Minister's lawyer and cousin David Shimron ...
...The legal contract signed by the couple, he says, grants Sara Netanyahu (Sara
Ben-Artzi prior to her marriage) far-reaching control over their life. Accordingly, she is
reportedly allowed to sign off on appointments of the heads of Mossad intelligence agency,
Shin Bet domestic security service, and the Israeli military.
In line with the contract, according to Arzi, the prime minister vows not to take any
overnight trip without taking along his wife, by profession an educational and career
psychologist, who is also allegedly permitted to take part in top-secret meetings ...
... "She authorises the following appointments, the head of the Mossad, the head of
the Shin Bet and the IDF chief of staff. And that is in writing, she has to give the
authorization in writing, if not, it is a violation of the contract," continues the
ex-Aerospace Industries' official.
He adds in the video that violation of the contract would result in Benjamin Netanyahu
"forfeiting all their property to her."
Regarding finances, the alleged contract stipulates that Sara Netanyahu wields major
control as well.
"There was a very detailed section that she would handle their finances It was written
that he would not have credit cards, only she would. And if he needed money she would give
it to him," says Arzi in Hebrew, as quoted by the outlet ..."
Well, talk about Israel being the only democracy in the Middle East when the place seems
to be run by wannabe Queen Hatshepsut.
@Bemildred 4 "Pres. Biden is, like Trump, a vindictive man, and he does not like Nuttyahoo."
I don't think this has anything to do with anyone's (and especially Biden's, who probably
doesn't remember who Netanyahu is) alleged personality traits. This is not how things are
done. An official leak published by WSJ should have a better explanation, imo.
Shot themselves in the foot again, have they? The Zios are good at doing that. The day is
coming when they will make one misstep too far and go over the edge.
! خلاص
U.S. officials then leak the whole scheme to the WSJ to stop Netanyahoo from continuing the
self-defeating campaign. USA officials don't release this kind of information without a
purpose.
Jen @ 5 thinks maybe "Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal may no longer support
Binyamin Netanyahu?
<== to jen I add the conspiracy theory that Maybe the official anonymous disclosure
reflects wall streets concern that Netanyohoo is a husband victim of something like this which uses marriage
contracts to cover for spouse side family control over appointments, to the head of the
Mossad, to the head of the Shin Bet and to the IDF chief of staff. I can not imagine any
other reason for documents exposed here today to have been written and their terms
enforced.
Why where those documents written is my question? great work B.
They fall into the pit they dig for others I knew something was up when both the
Mossad and Defense Minister went out of their way to disavow the Israeli EPA minister's
claim. MoA, I know that you are pining for, and holding a torch for Donald J. Trump, the
Insurrector and Chief, but his Administration would NEVER leak this to the press.
Israel's lesson only attack Iranian tankers in the Red Sea. That will harm their
new found friends, the Saudis, Egyptians, and Sudan but I don't think Netanyahu cares about
them.
Bravo, B!
So many distortioners would have written that these oil spills ravaged "the coasts of
Israël". You put tne matter straight through calling entire the stretch of coastline
between Egypt and Lebanon "the coast of Palestine. Thank You!
Why would Israel pollute their own shores by attacking an Iranian ship in the
Mediterranean?
Please do not say 'false flag'. The most simple explanation is that the
Izzies figured that the Iranians (or ship owner) would direct the tanker to the nearest port
for repairs, there are several in Egypt. Victimized tankers likely did that before, but in
this case, the Capt decided to make a run for Syria.
... a new bombshell report in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday reveals Israeli
intelligence has been waging its own tanker sabotage campaign against the Iranians over the
past two years ...
It also appears part of the Israeli and US campaign to essentially starve the Assad
government and bring it to its knees, further amidst near weekly Israeli airstrikes inside
the war-torn country. The new report clearly suggests US intelligence officials knew about
the covert tanker sabotage campaign in real time, and may have even assisted in some level
of the planning or operations ...
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Why didn't they tell us about the continuing tanker war when they announced that the
Israeli ship was "struck" by an explosion?
One must wonder if they are revealing this now because Israel's story about the tanker
being attacked lacks credibility. They desperately want us to believe that the damage to the
ship was NOT a false flag (Israeli sabotage of their own vessel).
But it gets even better. They also implicitly excuse (depict sympathetically) Israel's
attacks on Iranian tankers ... because they oppose Assad and Biden's Iran initiative. Where
is the condemnation for such behavior?
Yes, interesting as to the motives. One hopes this is part of a plan of strategery to
'de-escalate' the wag-the-dog mentality that runs the 'Middle East' foreign policy of the US.
War with Iran is insane. Those who foment war with Iran are insane. It is good to walk it all
back. Is this what is happening? We'll soon know.
The Syrian Arab Army and Russian forces inside that country, fired Tochka Ballistic missiles
at Oil Storage Tank Facilities being occupied by and used by the United States, Turkey and
Israel, inside Syria. Giant explosions levelled most of the storage tank farms, rendering it
impossible for the US, Turkey or Israel to continue STEALING Syrian Oil; something that has
been going on for years while the US was allegedly "fighting ISIS."
... ... ...
Images coming out of Syria provide irrefutable proof the missiles used were Russian Tochka,
also known in NATO circles as the SS-21.
The video below comes from a COVERT INTELLIGENCE SOURCE inside Syria, from directly next to
the destroyed and burning oil storage tank farm: (Article continues below green subscriber
only area below)
PREMIUM CONTENT:
This section of the article is only available for Subscribers who support this web site with
$1 a week billed either Quarterly ($13) or monthly ($5).
This is necessary because this is a CLOUD-BASED web site. The way it works is YOU READ . . .
I GET BILLED for "Data Transfer."
Despite being politely asked for voluntary donations, few people ever bothered to donate.
Then, despite being asked to click an ad within a story to generate ad revenue for this site,
the majority of the general public couldn't be bothered with that, either. So there's no reason
to give the general public free news anymore; they don't pull their own weight.
With tens-of-thousands of people reading stories here every day, the costs nearly drove the
site out of business.
In order to be able to continue providing cutting-edge news, often hours or even DAYS before
Drudge and most of the "mass-media" -- if they even cover it at all -- I need to be able to
sustain this effort. To do that, I rely on folks like YOU contributing a pittance of about $1 a
week; which is chump-change that you won't even miss! Yet that small amount makes all the
difference in the world to the continued existence of this web site.
In the final analysis, knowledge is power. Getting information first, or info that other
sources simply don't report, is usually well worth a few bucks in the long run.
Please click
here to choose a subscription plan in order to view this part of the article.
YOU MUST SET YOUR WEB BROWSER TO "ACCEPT COOKIES" FROM THIS SITE IN ORDER TO LOGIN OR ELSE
YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE PREMIUM CONTENT.
The missile debris in the second video above makes clear this was a RUSSIAN attack. Initial
intelligence estimates are saying Russia intentionally destroyed these Syrian oil storage
facilities, likely with the permission of the Syrian government, to put an end to the rampant
THEFT of Syrian oil by the United States, Turkey and most recently, Israel.
Conservative estimates reported that, during it's battle against ISIS, the USA stole $30
Million a month. Later when Turkish troops entered Syria allegedly to contain the Kurds, Turkey
began stealing the oil too, raising the amount stolen to about $60 Million a month. Most
recently, Israel allegedly joined the theft, and was allegedly stealing another 20-30 Million
for themselves each month, causing Syria to lose upwards of $100 Million a month to this theft
ring.
No one knows who is getting all the oil money. Speculation exists that it is greasing the
pockets of American military higher-ups, American politicians, and those of similar position in
both Turkey and in Israel. Russia just slapped all of them in the face and destroyed their
money pipeline. They can't steal the oil anymore because Russia just smashed the needed oil
storage facilities from which the oil was being smuggled out of Syria.
With its free money pipeline cut off, the "Deep State" is likely to go berserk, and thus my
former colleagues in the Intel Community tell me the push will be "on" in the Intel and
military communities, to drive the US to direct war against Russia inside Syria.
My former colleagues also told me that the most immediate and likely retaliation will be a
major escalation inside eastern Ukraine, as the US and the West strike back to cause big
trouble for Russia.
The most staggering warning from my former colleagues is that "this situation could
rapidly escalate to direct warfare, inside Syria, between the US and Russia, with a second
front opened against Russia by Europe, with warfare in Ukraine on the continent of
Europe."
We could be seeing the actual outbreak of what history may call World War 3.
No other mass media outlets are covering this either in the US or in Europe. Both the
American people and folks in Europe are blissfully unaware of how badly things have just
escalated. If war breaks out, the civilian populations in American and Europe will be caught
completely off-guard and with no preparations.
Prep now. Have emergency food, emergency water, spare supplies of medicines you may need.
Spare fuel. Have a way to generate electricity. Have CB or HAM radios for communications.
If this goes bad, it will go bad fast.
MORNING UPDATE
March 6, 2021 - 7:30 AM EST
The Russian missiles not only struck oil storage tank farms, they also went after the oil
smuggling tanker trucks as well. Entire parking areas filled with hundreds of smuggler tanker
trucks were hit and destroyed.
This killed a number of truck drivers, but it also sent a message to every other truck
driver: Don't be involved in stealing Syrian Oil for the Americans or anyone else, or YOU can
be blown up too.
In one fell swoop, Russia stabbed the Syria smuggling and oil theft operation, directly in
its heart. Even if teh US, Turkey and Israel _wanted_ to continue stealing, no one in his right
mind will drive a smuggling truck for them; for fear of being blown to bits by Russia missiles
again.
The "Deep State" has had its illegal oil smuggling cash cow, slaughtered by Russia last
night.
Now that you have read this story, please COVER THE COST for what your visit cost this
site by clicking one or more of the ads below which generates Advertiser revenue of two to
three cents per click - no purchase necessary by you -- and helps offset operating costs for
this web site.
When YOU read a story here, the web hosting company charges us for "data transfer /
Bandwidth" to convey the material to you. Without your help by clicking an ad below, this web
site would be in danger of shut down from the data transfer charges. Please click any ad below
to offset the cost of bringing this news to you
MORNING UPDATE
March 6, 2021 - 7:30 AM EST
The Russian missiles not only struck oil storage tank farms, they also went after the oil
smuggling tanker trucks as well. Entire parking areas filled with hundreds of smuggler tanker
trucks were hit and destroyed.
This killed a number of truck drivers, but it also sent a message to every other truck
driver: Don't be involved in stealing Syrian Oil for the Americans or anyone else, or YOU can
be blown up too.
In one fell swoop, Russia stabbed the Syria smuggling and oil theft operation, directly in
its heart. Even if teh US, Turkey and Israel _wanted_ to continue stealing, no one in his right
mind will drive a smuggling truck for them; for fear of being blown to bits by Russia missiles
again.
The "Deep State" has had its illegal oil smuggling cash cow, slaughtered by Russia last
night.
Because the $31Bn (which is probably understated) would primarily have gone to the lower
classes in which the U.S. caused humanitarian disaster is most prevalent. Rich, formerly
colonial Venezuelan families don't give a shit. The and their ex-pat kids live most of the
year in Miami or Vancouver or Madrid. The white upper class in Venezuela is the exact group
from which Mr. Random Guy-do emanates and who he represent. They live in gated communities
including in the hills around Caracas and their stores are likely fully stocked (as reported
by Max Blumenthal last year). However, they are a small minority compared to the indigenous
peoples who these sanctions are DESIGNED to hurt. The bank accounts of the colonials are safe
while a small number, relatively speaking, of pro-Chavista/Maduro operatives are completely
cut off by the Empire.
Same thing in ANY country that the USA is sanctioning. Have a look at Biden's Iran envoy's
statements about everyday Iranian people.
In response to online criticism, Nephew has claimed that "the main target" of the sanctions
regime he designed was "the oligarchs." But his book on "The Art of Sanctions" tells
another story.
Nephew fondly recalls how he structured sanctions to sabotage Iranian economic reforms
that would have improved the purchasing power of average people. The Obama administration
destroyed the economic prospects of Iran's working-class majority while ensuring that "only
the wealthy or those in positions of power could take advantage of Iran's continued
connectedness," he wrote. As "stories began to emerge from Iran of intensified income
inequality and inflation," Nephew pronounced another success.
As he made clear, the rising inequality "was a choice" that Washington "made on the
basis of helping to drive up the pressure on the Iranian economy from internal sources."
Nephew went on to claim credit for October 2012 protests brought on by the devaluation of
Iran's currency.
So these sanctions and the loss in $31Bn for Venezuela was designed to and in fact did
hurt the poorest of the poor and the working 'middle' class in that country.
here's a snippet, about Venezuela and the US supported/directed economic terrorism, which
has obviously caused much economic mayhem and dislocation, humanitarian disaster, and a large
number of deaths (I have seen figures up to hundred thousand or more, from the food and
medicine sanctions etc. Not to mention England stealing Venezuela's gold. I would imagine the
real death toll is quite a bit larger)
"......Subversion in Venezuela, by contrast, might not require as much 'engagement'. In
Cuba the government is stable and the opposition isolated. In Venezuela, by contrast, the
Maduro government faces a deep economic crisis (dramatically and intentionally exacerbated by
US sanctions) and major public discontent. Betting on Maduro's vulnerability, Biden continues
to recognize the self-appointed 'president' Juan Guaidó. Under Obama, Biden courted
Guaidó ally Leopoldo López – a so-called political prisoner arrested for
inciting violent protests that killed dozens of people – who is now calling for Biden
to lead a renewed international effort to topple Maduro. US support for the far-right forces
of Guaidó and López is intended to prevent a deal between Maduro and the more
pragmatic elements of the opposition. Such a deal might alleviate Venezuela's economic
crisis, but it could leave Maduro in power and thus derail the US's regime change agenda.
In late 2018 Biden complained that Trump's 'intensified sanctions on Venezuela have been
clouded by sabre-rattling' and 'clunky sloganeering'. At that time, those intensified
sanctions had already killed an estimated 40,000 civilians, with an unknown number of
additional deaths after Trump imposed harsher measures in 2019. But the goal of regime change
had not succeeded. Trump's crime in Venezuela was not his lethal denial of food and medicine
to the population, but rather his 'faulty execution' of the policy. This critique informs
Biden's current roadmap for Venezuela, which hinges on refining the sanctions to inflict
maximum political damage. Secretary Blinken argues that sanctions must be honed 'so that
regime enablers really feel the pain', while González favours a 'smart' use of
'multilateral sanctions' over Trump's go-it-alone programme...."
"America is back" claimed Joe Biden to no ones amusement. But the world has changed
after four years of Trump and after a pandemic upset the world. The U.S. position in this
world and its role in it have thereby also changed. To just claim one is back without
adopting to the new situation promises failure.
As candidate Joe Biden promised that there would be no changes.
Former Vice President Joe Biden assured rich donors at a ritzy New York fundraiser that
"nothing would fundamentally change" if he is elected.
Biden told donors at an event at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan on Tuesday evening
that he would not "demonize" the rich and promised that " no one's standard of living
will change, nothing would fundamentally change ," Bloomberg News reported.
That Biden statement destroyed the illusion of those who had hoped that he would lift
the standard of living for the average Amercian.
Biden stayed true to his words at the fundraiser. There will be no rise in the minimum
wage. The $2,000 checks he promised to all voters will now be only $1,400 checks. They will
also be
heavily means tested . Those who made more than $80,000 in 2019 but lost their income
in 2020 will get no check at all.
Even as they hold the White House and the House and Senate majorities the Democrats are
unable or unwilling to deliver basic progress. This will likely cost them their House
majority in 2022 and the presidency in 2024.
Biden's "nothing will fundamentally change" attitude extends into foreign policy.
Secretary Pompeo @SecPompeo - 0:29 UTC · Dec 21,
2019
Today, the #ICC prosecutor raised serious questions about the ICC's jurisdiction to
investigate #Israel. Israel is not a state party to the ICC. We firmly oppose this
unjustified inquiry that unfairly targets Israel . The path to lasting peace is through
direct negotiations.
---
Secretary Antony Blinken @SecBlinken - 1:34 UTC · Mar 4,
2021
The United States firmly opposes an @IntlCrimCourt investigation into the Palestinian
Situation. We will continue to uphold our strong commitment to Israel and its security,
including by opposing actions that seek to target Israel unfairly.
That nothing will change is also expressed in two policy papers the Biden administration
released yesterday. The early emphasis on human rights, which distinguished it from the
Trump administration, is already gone.
The common theme is now 'democracy' as if that were not just a form of government but a
value in itself.
The White House published an Interim National
Security Strategic Guidance (pdf). The paper is dripping with ideological LGBTQWERTY
librulism. Its central claim is that 'democracy' is under threat:
At a time when the need for American engagement and international cooperation is greater
than ever, however, democracies across the globe, including our own, are increasingly
under siege . Free societies have been challenged from within by corruption, inequality,
polarization, populism, and illiberal threats to the rule of law. Nationalist and
nativist trends – accelerated by the COVID-19 crisis – produce an
every-country-for-itself mentality that leaves us all more isolated, less prosperous, and
less safe. Democratic nations are also increasingly challenged from outside by
antagonistic authoritarian powers. Anti-democratic forces use misinformation,
disinformation, and weaponized corruption to exploit perceived weaknesses and sow
division within and among free nations, erode existing international rules, and promote
alternative models of authoritarian governance. Reversing these trends is essential to
our national security .
It then singles out China:
We must also contend with the reality that the distribution of power across the world is
changing, creating new threats. China , in particular, has rapidly become more assertive.
It is the only competitor potentially capable of combining its economic, diplomatic,
military, and technological power to mount a sustained challenge to a stable and open
international system. Russia remains determined to enhance its global influence and play
a disruptive role on the world stage. Both Beijing and Moscow have invested heavily in
efforts meant to check U.S. strengths and prevent us from defending our interests and
allies around the world. Regional actors like Iran and North Korea continue to pursue
game-changing capabilities and technologies, while threatening U.S. allies and partners
and challenging regional stability. We also face challenges within countries whose
governance is fragile, and from influential non-state actors that have the ability to
disrupt American interests.
To fight China the U.S. will (ab)use its allies:
We can do none of this work alone. For that reason, we will reinvigorate and modernize
our alliances and partnerships around the world. For decades, our allies have stood by
our side against common threats and adversaries, and worked hand-in-hand to advance our
shared interests and values. They are a tremendous source of strength and a unique
American advantage, helping to shoulder the responsibilities required to keep our nation
safe and our people prosperous. Our democratic alliances enable us to present a common
front, produce a unified vision, and pool our strength to promote high standards,
establish effective international rules, and hold countries like China to account.
Good luck with that. Neither the European U.S. allies, nor the Asian ones, have any
interest in following the U.S. into a confrontation with China. It is their greatest
trading partner and they do not perceive it as an ideological or security threat.
The more we and other democracies can show the world that we can deliver, not only for
our people, but also for each other, the more we can refute the lie that authoritarian
countries love to tell, that theirs is the better way to meet people's fundamental needs
and hopes. It's on us to prove them wrong.
So the question isn't if we will support democracy around the world, but how.
We will use the power of our example. We will encourage others to make key reforms,
overturn bad laws, fight corruption, and stop unjust practices. We will incentivize
democratic behavior.
But we will not promote democracy through costly military interventions or by
attempting to overthrow authoritarian regimes by force. We have tried these tactics in
the past. However well intentioned, they haven't worked. They've given democracy
promotion a bad name, and they've lost the confidence of the American people. We will do
things differently.
The "lie that authoritarian countries love to tell, that their's is the better way to
meet people's fundamental needs and hopes" is targeted at China. But that China did and
does much better than the U.S. to meet its people's needs and hope is not a lie. The
pandemic has again demonstrated that.
The last quoted paragraph has seen some positive attention on social media. But it is
based on a falsehood. The U.S. has not once used military means to 'promote democracy'. Not
ever. It has used war to gain markets and power, to destroy its competition. The
neo-conservatives have claimed to be motivated by 'democracy promotion'. But that was
always just a pretext to hide the real reasons for waging war. Iraq became democratic not
because the U.S. wanted it to be that. In fact, after invading Iraq the the U.S. pro-consul
Paul Bremer tried to prevent universal elections in Iraq. Only the insistence of Ayatollah
Sistani on a universal vote led to a somewhat democratic system in Iraq.
Blinken is, just like Pompeo before him, focused on China:
And eighth, we will manage the biggest geopolitical test of the 21st century: our
relationship with China.
Several countries present us with serious challenges, including Russia, Iran, North
Korea. And there are serious crises we have to deal with, including in Yemen, Ethiopia,
and Burma.
But the challenge posed by China is different. China is the only country with the
economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge the stable
and open international system – all the rules, values, and relationships that make
the world work the way we want it to , because it ultimately serves the interests and
reflects the values of the American people.
That there is no change from the Trump to the Biden administration in hostility to China
is disappointing only for those who had expected some:
Pang Zhongying, a specialist in international relations at Ocean University of China,
said Beijing would be disappointed with the Biden administration's approach to "continue
and even elevate" the tough policies of the Trump era and to strengthen alliances to deal
with China.
"There does not seem to be any change yet in the serious tensions in China-US
relations," he said. "I think there may be some frustration in Beijing that after more
than 40 days [of the new administration] they have not seen any change but there is
actually more pressure from the US."
Beijing will manage the conflict and it is likely to see it as a chance.
The U.S. failure to adopt to new circumstances will accelerate its demise. The U.S.
empire was a historical abnormality and its twilight is near
:
[The Realist professors of International Relations David Blagden and Patrick Porter]
observe America's "position as 'global leader' is premised on a set of impermanent and
atypical conditions from an earlier post-war era", but " the days of incontestable
unipolarity are over, and cannot be wished back ". The result is that "overextension
abroad, exhaustion and fiscal strain at home, and political disorder feed off one another
in a downward spiral, cumulatively threatening the survival of the republic".
The US empire is, then, at an impasse. Its moral and political justification of
overseeing a global order of universal liberal democracy -- the closest real-world
equivalent to the Kantian perpetual peace that has both motivated and eluded liberal
idealists for the past two centuries -- is now beyond its capabilities to maintain.
...
How does this end for America? Biden and the presidents after him will be forced to make
a hard choice: whether to retrench to a smaller and more manageable empire, or to risk a
far greater and more dramatic collapse in defence of global hegemony.
Biden has made his choice. Nothing will fundamentally change under him. He is thereby
likely to repeat all of Trump's foreign policy failures. There will be no new JCPOA with
Iran nor will there be any win for the U.S. in the Middle East. North Korea will continue
to test bombs and missiles. The U.S. will continue to be stuck in Afghanistan. The
Chinese-Russian alliance will strengthen. U.S. allies will further distance themselves from
it.
We can not yet know what, at what point will cause the collapse of U.S. hegemony. But we
are coming more near to it.
Posted by b on March 4, 2021 at 18:04 UTC |
Permalink
Frankly, Biden's speech to the grand poobahs sounded more like a plea for understanding
than a promise, and if you take what the policy paper says at face value it suggests that
"Biden" understands that we have to change to compete. It is also an admission that they
have presided over a period of decline in Uncle Sugar land, so of course they don't want to
dwell on that. I think Biden is worried the "owners" wom't let him do anything.
And it is totally appropriate that Biden is the guy up there trying to deal with this
mess, because he as one of the prime intigators or the present situation, going back 40
years.
Patrick Porter's book, The False Promise of Liberal Order, is good.
But, his realist critique of vulgar liberal propaganda for US imperialism doesn't locate
the source or material roots of US grand strategy.
Realist theory understands power, hegemony and balancing only in terms of military
power. That is the only currency of power in realist thinking, because realism rests on a
state centricity which insists on the autonomy of the state from any social or economic
factors. Military power is thus all that remains.
This theory obviously fails to explain the real history of US foreign policy, which has
used militarism and other tools in support of strategic economic interests on a global
scale, primarily in the South. The military balance of power is by and large only an
expression of the economic balance of power and the class interests of ruling classes
derived from it.
Porter and other realists point out the contradictions of liberal theory and practice
but fail to provide a scientific explanation for consistent US policies.
There is a partnership currently but it's not yet an alliance. The rationale for one is
very strong. Russia needs China or it will be overwhelmed by a hostile US and fairly
hostile Europe. China needs Russia to save it from a resource embargo by US and allies.
Together they will form a huge power bloc in Eurasia combining their respective territories
with joint influence over Central Asia. Other countries in Asia like South Korea, Vietnam
and India will see bloc and decide to stay neutral or side with the China-Russia bloc.
As compelling as this vision is it hasn't happened yet. It takes time sure but there
must be reluctance from within the countries and other challenges. Which side is dragging
its feet more? It would be interesting to understand why things aren't moving faster.
As compelling as this vision is it hasn't happened yet. It takes time sure but there
must be reluctance from within the countries and other challenges. Which side is dragging
its feet more? It would be interesting to understand why things aren't moving
faster.
Posted by: dsfco | Mar 4 2021 18:54 utc | 4
A guess: PRC having vastly greater economic power thinks its share of influence should
be greater. Russia having vastly superior military power & technology, disagrees. For
example the Chinese government might like access to the most advanced Russian military
technology; the Russians having been invaded many times from both East & West, probably
take the long view.
This week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a confirmation hearing for Wendy Sherman, nominated by the Biden
White House to serve as deputy secretary of state.
The career diplomat answered the usual questions on how she views United States posture toward American rivals and official
enemies like Russia, China, and Iran. Once again it was Sen. Rand Paul who had the most direct pushback and biting
criticism against an administration that seems bent on returning to the foreign adventurism and unilateral military
interventionism of the Obama and Bush years.
"We've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton,"
Paul said of President Biden
during his turn to question Sherman. Paul is especially outraged over Biden's Syria strike without consulting Congress last
week.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/8HanUqh_-CE
During the above exchange with Wendy Sherman, Paul in his concluding remarks had blasted away at Biden's vision of the
world, citing past failed Democratic-led military interventions in places like Libya, Yemen, and Syria.
"I think we've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton with your new boss and that's
something I'm really concerned with,"
Paul said.
"All I will say is that
we're bombing now again in Syria without Congressional
approval and we're sending more convoys in there without Congressional approval
. It's a messy war - it's been
going on forever, there's nothing good that's going to come out of our involvement," Paul explained in his statement.
"People say
'well US lives are at risk'
...
yeah
because we put'em there
. We put them in the middle of a civil war that's largely over but can continue if we
keep putting troops into there... to put our troops as a 'trip wire' to get involved in a further escalation of this war."
And that's when the Republican Senator from Kentucky blasted President Biden on his Syria stance and general
interventionist foreign policy:
"I hope that we'll be sane voices and I hope that you'll be one of those," he said addressing Sherman.
"But I don't have a great deal of confidence that we've actually gone away from John Bolton,
I've
think we've gone to a liberal form of John Bolton with your new boss, and that's something I'm very concerned with
."
Sherman in response had tried to claim that the Biden admin is not trying to get more deeply involved in the Syria
conflict, but maintained the 'countering ISIS' stance that the Pentagon has used for years to argue it must continue the
occupation of the northeast portion of the country.
The USAi has lost control of its occupying army. Xerxes had the same problems in his ancient
chain of command.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Mar 6 2021 6:02 utc | 82
Yes. I think it has always been that way with a couple of historical exceptions. So it's
what I look for, and why when things happen, I don't assume that "Biden" necessarily knew
about it beforehand. All that stuff about civilian control is "exaggerated", that corporate
trough is mighty tasty. It's common in a lot of places, almost a norm. The CIA is very fond
of taking its own advice too.
If you want to read "Catch-22" by Joe Heller, he's not kidding about all that.
Regarding that particular incident I ran into a piece yesterday that framed it just like
that, and attempt to get an unconsidered response by some officer with ideas. But they hit
the wrong people.
The Russians and/or Syrians seem to be tearing it up in Northern Aleppo. The Russian
military, on the other hand, seems to have its shit unusually well put together these days. I
don't think there is anybody else I can say that about. They do much with little.
These are not normal people in charge. They have lost their minds.
I agree with that. It applies especially to the US, but you can include the rest
of the western "leaders" with the same diagnosis. In fact there is a huge vacuum of sanity
being filled with total insanity, there are no real leaders. They have all been assassinated
like Olof Palme in Sweden or totally corrupted like Jens Stoltenberg and Boris Johnson.
Now these corrupt idiots are getting scared and are doubling down with criminal and insane
behavior. We need a Nuremberg style cleanup.
The Russians and/or Syrians seem to be tearing it up in Northern Aleppo.
That oil smuggling bombardment will perhaps awaken Erdoghan. Given the extreme mendacity of
Erdoghan and his provocation in Nagorno-Karabakh/Azerbaijan, I expect his entire Syrian
playground to be drastically reduced in the next week and the SDF to have its wings
clipped.
Thanks for the Catch 22 reference, read that accurate history lesson in my younger days.
Accurate indeed.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Mar 6 2021 7:45 utc | 86
Maybe, maybe just a little propaganda from a Turkophobe. That is common enough in the
Orthodox world, however, you never know with Erdoğan, and NATO doesn't even have to be
in the picture. I suppose, we will find out soon enough where the truth lies. Erdoğan
runs his own ship and changes allies depending on the direction of the wind.
Posted by: Bluedotterel | Mar 6 2021 10:47 utc | 92
I agree, I don't think Erdogan is that stupid. He is a smart politician, and Putin does
not want to alienate Turkey, so they play games. The NK situation look unstable, so ...
But I don't think Erdogan is dumb enough to try to plant jihadis there now. This Aliyev
fellow looks like a shifty person though, crooked and ambitious. I see hints that both Russia
& Iran are annoyed about what happened there.
Syria: Aaron Mate gives a penetrating and documented account of U.S. war crimes by showing
clips of Biden and his people admitting their support of Wahabi terrorists and criminal
sanctions. Mate cites Tulsi Gabbard's courageous and consistent positions in support of the
Syrian people against the crimes of Obama, Trump and now Biden/Harris.
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/05/tulsi-gabbard-calls-out-the-us-dirty-war-on-syria-that-biden-aides-admit-to/
Ecuador:Ben Norton was in Ecuador during and after the first election on Feb. 7. He exposed
Yaku Perez as a "woke" fraud. A number of "woke" inteligencia in the U.S. wrote a letter
denouncing Norton and this is Norton's response. It is one of the most coherent, well
researched, rebuttals I have ever read. In the process he exposes the actions of his accusers
and lists their self-serving actions as they cater to the power elites of the globe,
particularly, Latin America. Norton also gives a lot of background into Yaku Perez's wife, a
French/Brazilian dripping with cutting edge "woke" identity and a consistent supporter of
corporate and right wing powers. Norton gives us a multi-faceted look at the face of our
"liberal" enemy which peels off especially young idealists and turns them against the true
people's movements such as in Bolivia and Ecuador. It's not working there but it's not
over. https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/01/academic-letter-censor-grayzone-ecuador-yaku-perez/
The third piece in this trifecta by Anya Parampil and Max Blumenthal is about "Jimmy" Story,
fake U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, stationed in Bogota, Colombia, also a "must read". Gives
plenty of Story's history through Obama, Trump and now Biden. Starts with an account of
Story's pig barbecue party/meeting at his Bogota home with Colombian and Venezuelan coup
plotters to talk more about how to....wait for it... overthrow Maduro.
https://thegrayzone.com/2021/03/03/virtual-ambassador-venezuela-hosts-insurrectionist-bidens-guaido/
The Grayzone has become the best site for investigative journalism by North Americans
especially regarding U.S. imperial actions in Latin America. Aaron Mate is the top guy on
Russiagate which also leads into many topics; Ukraine, Syria, Euro shenanigans.
One of the favourite tropes of the transparent cabal who have seized power in the US and
other captive nations is that the solution to the Palestine/Israel problem is "the path to
peace is through direct negotiations.'
This proposition requires the occupied bartering away their land and amending their
borders, always for the benefit of the illegal occupier. These 'negotiations' are expressly
forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. Every functioning government in the world knows
this.
The alien invaders are under an obligation to simply get out. Every 'agreement' is null
and void.
The New Zealand government and the NZ superannuation fund has recently decided to divest
their investments in Israeli banks citing international law, the Geneva Conventions and
reputation damage as key factors.
It is sheer hypocrisy for the usual suspects to talk about human rights, rules based
international law, democracy and our values, while advocating the opposite policies in the
middle east.
Is it possible they actually believe their own propaganda and their own lies through
Bernays like repartition?
Soviet leaders were of the people as you say, yes, but when you drill into the details of
their careers before they became General Secretaries of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, you find they had careers as political administrators and propagandists. Only Leonid
Brezhnev had a technical background. They were the early equivalents of people like former UK
Prime Minister David
Cameron who went straight into the British Conservative Party after leaving Oxford
University with typical graduate qualifications for a career party hack and who for a time
worked for a media communications company; or like current Australian Prime Minister
Scott Morrison
who worked in marketing executive roles in which his most outstanding qualities were his
sheer ineptitude and flouting procurement guidelines.
From Nikita Khrushchev onwards, all General Secretaries with the exceptions of Yuri
Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko (neither of whom lasted long as leaders) had some personal
or family connection with the Ukrainian SSR. This may not have been coincidence: it may
suggest that there was a network of individuals selecting future leaders for promotion based
on close personal career connections.
Until recently most people in the most senior
levels of the Communist Party of China , from whom China's leaders are drawn, had
technical, engineering or scientific backgrounds. Current members are now drawn from most
walks of life though several of them have worked in factories or done manual labour at some
point in their working lives.
As a south east asian myself, I do think the east asians really aren't the way forward,
not until Korea is united, Vietnam and China rid themselves of "to be rich is to be glorious"
Dengists, Japan free of LDP and American sock puppetry. I'm also VERY wary of chinese
reactionaries who speak of Confucianism.
Maybe the grass is always greener on the other side, but I look favorably to the slavs and
their culture, and of course the shining beacon that was the USSR and the 2nd world until
1991 fucks everything up.
Taoism nowadays is basically superstitions. The historical taoist practiced by the ancient
and medieval chinese political class is basically free market libertarianism "just let the
market regulates itself bruh".
There's a reason that most of the greatest chinese emperors practice legalism (Qin Shi
Huang, Liu Bang, Han Wudi), which is direct government intervention in all matters,
especially in market and infrastructure, while the Taoist-leaned dynasty (i.e. the Song)
resulted in mysticism and the take-over of China by the khitdan and then mongols.
In the West, "Taoism" and "Buddhism" are rebranded as some kind of new age exotic
philosophies, but in Asia proper, Taoism is kookery and Buddhism is militarist/nationalist
state religion, see Myanmar and Thailand.
I see you qualify your comment by specifying Hong Kong Chinese. They most certainly are
not Mainlanders and have a culture polluted by British Imperialism that's closer to the
Gangsterism of Chiang Kai-shek than Mao's Collectivism.
You may recall the book and video Affluenza that does a good job of explaining how
traditional conservative mores are assaulted and trampled by affluent modernity. Such
outcomes aren't restricted to North America but are global thanks to human similarity.
If one were to develop a moral equivalency chart evaluating all global cultures and major
sub-cultures, you'd see a majestic hodge-podge with very little uniformity, which also
relates to the very uneven state of human development in all its facets. The great task of
humanity over the next several centuries is to peacefully level out those disparities. But as
I wrote on the Shia thread, the remaining Imperialist nations are a very large impediment in
attaining that goal and need to be removed so humanity can evolve.
There is no reason to speculate. Chinese culture, history, stories, have the answers.
The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, for example, has:
3 brothers who are put forwards as "godly". There is a celebrated image of the three of
them making the vow of brotherhood in an orchard. The leader, Liu Bei, is a prince of the
declining dynasty. He basically constantly virtue signals, but basically mostly does as the
rest, which is fight, kill, and grab other people's territories. His two other brothers
include a psycho drunk and a supremely self satisfied other. They look good next to a
character like Cao Cao;
the intelligentsia are basically bunch of self satisfied gurus of varying degrees of
competence that compete with devising deception schemes against other kingdoms.
the military is hardcore, brutal. also stuck on formations, aesthetics, which can be a
weakness.
the general population are docile cattle.
What the world hasn't seen for 2 centuries is the famous Chinese arrogance that was their
reputation until they truly pooped the pooch of their country with the arrival of Jews and
Europeans.
A certain fragrance of superstition and sentimentality also is always present, at various
degrees.
Obsequious to superiors, inhuman to inferiors. This is what you can expect from a world
order with Chinese characteristics.
Lurking Dragon 66
Obsequious to superiors, inhuman to inferiors. This is what you can expect from a world order
with Chinese characteristics.
Well, this is what we are seeing from our western "partners" as was bestowed upon the
globe by so many self righteous defenders of human rights, democracy and the "white man's
burden"
See for an example Halliburton's mercenaries, ISIS and other creepy creatures invented and
bestowed upon civilisation by people that believe that if you are not jewish, you are not
human and, therefore, can be dispensed at will if of no use to the chosen ones.
Yes, the western hippie generation is very fueled by drugs and new age philosophies. But
note that these rebranded exotic religions do not resemble the native ones.
For example in Asia proper, you have actual deities to worship in Taoism, and it's not
just a philosophy waxing about the Dao like in the west. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daode_Tianzun
And Taoist priests are still an actual thing, and you can hire them to check Feng Shui and
even exorcism.
Still, it's superstitions and money making schemes, and I wouldn't put much trust in
them.
Obsequious to superiors, inhuman to inferiors. This is what you can expect from a world
order with Chinese characteristics.
Posted by: LurkingDragon | Mar 6 2021 1:17 utc | 66
That sounds pretty much like every job I have had here in the USA all of my life. (Except
the union jobs.) There is a reason they hate unions, especially ones that have not been
domesticated yet.)
Hong Kong culture is very different from the culture of Mainland China, thanks in no small
part to HK having once been a link between China and the rest of the world for a long time
and becoming very wealthy as a manufacturing and financial services centre as a result. HK
people are very materialistic and status-conscious, and look down on other Chinese (to say
nothing of what they think of other Asians and other non-white people) who do not speak HK
Cantonese. The only people HK people respect are English-speaking white British and
Americans.
My parents visited HK back in the 1990s and my mother tried speaking Taishanese (our
native language: it is related to Cantonese and is spoken just west of the Pearl River delta
not far from Macau, in Guangdong province) to shop assistants. They ignored her and it was
only when she switched to English that their attitude changed dramatically and fell over one
another to help.
Before the 1980s, huge numbers of Cantonese people living in English-speaking countries
were actually Taishanese speakers. My parents visited San Francisco's Chinatown in 1988 and
nearly everyone they came across spoke Taishanese. It was the dominant language there.
My dad's second (and current) wife is Chinese. He met her online in the late 90's, and she
moved with her young son to Wisconsin and married him around 2000.
I think my dad was looking for a docile women after his previous marriage and girlfriends,
and on the surface, Xue Lin seemed docile...in reality she is not docile, but subtle, a
characteristic I found true of her, her son and the Chinese people I have met thru them.
Nobody ever got my dad to work as hard or be as frugal as she!
They came over with money and bailed my dad out of a tax mess. She still owns apartment
buildings in China. Both are very hard working, smart and frugal, but not materialistic.
Jake (her son) and I ended up being pretty close. He received an MBA from the University
of Wisconsin and worked in the natural gas business in Texas before moving back to China
where I've had the pleasure of visiting him.
My impression of China and the Chinese is largely positive, the extreme work ethic can be
a bother given I am a pothead hippy slacker. There is a lot of optimism and energy there, it
makes the USA feel like a barbaric backwater country whose best days are past.
@66
Sounds like projection. You have nicely described my experience in the USA! Aside from my
union jobs, it has been kiss up and kick down...even self-employed.
"A certain fragrance of superstition and sentimentality also is always present, at various
degrees." Growing up in a small, conservative religious town, this is a great description of
my experience.
I will say, the general American population isn't docile, but are herded about like cattle
none the less. I'd also say the Chinese aren't so much docile as they are subtle, which I
believe is far more effective than rowdy but dumb.
The stereotype of the Chinese as the greedy merchant in SE Asia comes from the colonial
era. Western colonization of China created a Chinese comprador elite who was allowed many
commercial privileges within the Mainland (as middlemen) but also in the SE Asian region. As
every Latin American well know, comprador elites are the worst of the worst. No wonder the
peoples of Indonesia, Philippines etc. etc. see the Chinese as a negative force in their
countries.
The same is true for the stereotype of the Chinese as a mafioso in Latin America: the
Chinese who emigrated to Latin America are mainly triad and hyper-capitalists from Taiwan or
pre-communist China (who may or may not have indirectly come from Taiwan in later
decades).
The same is true for the stereotype of the Chinese as the arrogant, pro-laissez faire
upper middle class individualist in Canada, USA, Australia and Western Europe in the modern
times. They are most tourists and/or a selected bunch of upper middle class Chinese who are
lured into real estate schemes in those countries (Australia, Vancouver etc.).
As we can see, peoples make up stereotypes of other peoples based on small and heavily
skewed samples. That's why we have statistics, and they tell us the Chinese are one of the
most if not the most down-to-Earth, non-religious, socialist and tolerant peoples of the
world today.
Are you gonna believe what I tell you or are you gonna believe what you see, comes to mind.
I believe what I see and I don't see the USA doing any bridge building, even in its own
country where bridge infrastructure is in serious decay.
I repeat: These are not normal people in charge. They have lost their minds.
Maybe once a long time ago the USA diplomatic corp was supported by elected officials that
set out to make allies based on mutual respect. But those days are long gone. The only
bridges the USA builds is munition supply channels, be it by air or by sea. They destroy
physical and metaphorical bridges in every nation they occupy.
The USA builds walls and barriers and obstruction: at home at the Mexican border, in the
capital state, by economic sanctions illegally applied throughout the world, by destroying
its home regulatory system to keep poisoned citizens from seeking judicial or regulatory
redress for pollution and human suffering.
I see a mendacious, failed state surrounding its elected officials and financial
institutions and even suburbs with walls and barriers. Then they attack people who criticise
them in moderately peaceful ways. That is who they are, that is what I see.
The Afghans (including the Taliban) do not want the US to leave their country. The flow of
US$ into the country (including the flow of heroin$) is what the Afghans have lived on for
many decades. Its not like the Afghans don't have control of their own country. They have
complete control of all the parts of the country that they want to control. They are
perfectly happy to allow Americans to control small parts of the country as long as the $$$
keep flowing into the whole country.
The US power elite may have figured out that just like every other power that has ever
tried to occupy Afghanistan that it is a black hole that sucks the life out of the power
trying to conq
@76 Tom
Interesting! Been too busy for reviewing the new military appointees until I read your post.
It looks like this is a last ditch attempt by Trump to get troops out of Afghanistan and
Syria...
"withdrawing troops from Afghanistan may well be exactly what TPTB want."
Posted by: jinn | Nov 12 2020 23:34 utc | 81
Well, they have had, what 19 years years to do that and now that President Trump makes
another push for it, all hell breaks loose from the forever war team, you know that team of
Democrats and RINO's who are now vying for a spot on Biden's team of psychopaths for war. The
we came, we saw and aren't leaving team.
"withdrawing troops from Afghanistan may well be exactly what TPTB want."
Anything is possible, but given the pushback that is taking place (quietly of course, lest
the masses get awoken) that is seriously doubtful.
Afghanistan can be likened to one of the central squares on a chessboard...control of
central squares is vital as it reduces the mobility of your opponent and lays ground for
offensive action.
China has a border with Afghanistan, as does Iran...were Afghanistan to free itself from
USA occupation, it would make a great conduit for the BRI.
That is without getting into Afghanistan's role in opium trade and the related black
budget, nor its wealth in rare minerals. One might say for the Hegemon to remain the Hegemon
it needs to control Afghanistan.
The problem for the hegemon is Afghanistan is expensive to hold on to...and this is
without Russia, Iran or China putting any effort in to chase US troops out via arming and
training proxies...that could be done quickly, and I am guessing the groundwork is already in
place.
Well, they have had, what 19 years years to do that
_________________________________________
Well sure but you need to remember the story of why we were there in the first place.
They can't just dump all the BS that they have been feeding us for nineteen years and say
"never mind" like Roseanne Roseannadanna.
As for the warmongers who support attacking Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc that was done to send
a message to any country that does not want to knuckle under to the $$$ hegemony and thinks
about trying to escape it.
That messaging does not apply to the Afghan war. That war sends the exact opposite
message.
My apologies if this has already been posted. Aaron Mate continues to rise in stature--
IMO-- as he keeps digging into Russiagate and exposing deeper and deeper proof of U.S. and
U.K. plots, programs and coverups regarding Russia. In this video Mate and Max Blumenthal
start by explaining how Twitter inadvertently boosted the Grayzone's explosive uncovering of
the BBC, Bellingcat and others' programs designed to do what Russiagaters accuse Putin of
doing; the difference is that Blumenthal gives evidence in the form of emails. impressive.
bottom line, "R2P""Russia bad"... the wheels are falling off.
Biden has been a major disappointment for those who hoped that he'd change course
regarding America's pathological involvement in overseas conflicts
Who hoped that? He didn't run on such a platform. "Engagement with the world" and a
"restoration of the pre-Trump era" was his platform. Don't ask me why but this made him
more popular. He was literally the VP in the most interventionist Presidency in US
history.
... People like Giraldi sometimes seem like plants put in place to discredit
anti-interventionism by trying to make it synonymous with anti-semitism.
In the late 1980s, Rannie Amiri, an independent commentator on political affairs, challenged
then-Senator Joe Biden on his stance toward the Israel-Palestine conflict following a campus
speech that Biden gave, asking him:
Rather than succumb to the influence of various lobbying groups in Washington, such as
AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- which promotes the views of Israel's
right-wing Likud Party], and the untold amount of money they use to dictate policy,
wouldn't it be more prudent to examine the real effects that collective punishment, daily
humiliation, and countless civilian casualties inflicted by the Israelis have on an
occupied population, and use that understanding to formulate a more rational approach
toward the Palestinians?
Here is Biden response to that:
At the end of the exchange, Biden turned, put his arm around Amiri's shoulder, and
addressed the audience.
If this was not such a fine, articulate, and sincere young man, and he implied that my
vote had been bought, I would give him a swift kick in the ass.
The audience roared in applause, and Amiri sat back down to his chair defeated.
However, a friend rose up to defend him, telling Biden: "If my father heard you say such a
thing, I believe he would have done the same to you first."
The tribal stupidity of the people who support Israel first is beyond words. Who would
think in the 20th and the 21th century we would be led by primitive thinking of tribal
fantasies from thousands of year ago?
Most of the us in the west did not know that this has been going on for so long since we
have been deluded with the term "free press" to describe our press in the west. We are slowly
waking up to reality with some "freedom" here and there on the internet like this site.
So, Biden has been a major disappointment for those who expected that he might change
course regarding America's pathological involvement in overseas conflicts while also having
the good sense and courage to make relations with countries like Iran and Israel responsive
to actual U.S. interests.
You're giving the morons way too much credit, Sir. It's doubtful even 5% of voters know or
care about geopolitics, and probably less than 1% who voted based on fraudsident biden's
foreign policies.
For 5 years it was nonstop Trump-hatred from the ((( lügenpresse ))) even as Trump
did weasel jared's bidding. Stevie Fking Wonder could see the election was rigged.
The USA is kaput, the supreme joke spineless
The ((( Underminers ))) are a c ** t-hair away from total control.
The Free United States must part ways with the devils in DC. Texas, Florida,
Oklahoma, the Dakotas and Montana for starters.
@Harold
Smith br> Larry Summers (former head of the US Treasury)
Bill Richardson (former Governor of New Mexico, ex-ambassador to the United Nations and
United States Energy Secretary)
Michael Steinhardt (hedge fund manager)
Jacob Rothschild
Mary Landrieu (former United States Senator from Louisiana)
All of the above are complicit in the violation of international law and can be prosecuted
as such one day should anyone have the will to do so, as well as Trump himself.
Trump's reward for this illegal recognition: his name on an illegal Zionist colony on
occupied Syrian territory: "Trump Heights" by none other than Benjamin Mileikowsky
(Netanyahu).
"Respecting the rule of law. And treating every person with dignity. That's the grounding
wire of our global policy. Our global power. That's our inexhaustible source of strength,"
Biden said.
Seventeen people were murdered in Syria today because the US totally ignores any
international law that is in the way. If Biden wanted to send a message to Iran, why murder
those 17 who simply signed up to fight ISIS, to do good a thousand kilometers from where the
US was attacked in Iraq?
Biden is going to sanction Russia over Navalny being poisoned even though the US murders
its own citizens abroad using drones.
Nixon recognized China's sovereignty over Taiwan in the Shanghai Declaration 50 years ago.
Biden sent warships through the Taiwan Strait in his first month in office.
It appears that the inexhaustible strength of the US is derived from profound weakness of
character.
You would think they would hire people who have some idea as to what might be plausible
when they invent these stories? It's very strange to see. There has been a long string of
these unconvincing stories aimed at Russia. The claim the supported Trump after 2016 was a
watershed too, all caution to the winds after that. Skripals, Navalny, one after another that
makes no sense. It's like they want to make a point and are failing. Or maybe propaganda is
all they have.
@Sirius e Council on Foreign Relations quest for a New World Order through global
cooperation, ending borders of trade and immigration, and continuing America's military role:
ready to intervene anywhere in the world if necessary.
Yes and amazingly the NYT is allowing oomments from people who know the truth of that
tragedy. Assad will need considerable foreign aid to survive given their economic woes so I
would not say the US/Saudi/Israel have lost yet.
Just when I thought (again) that they couldn't possibly sink any lower, I find that the US
and its allies are allegedly committing widespread grain theft and crop destruction in
Syria.
The above articles are all from the same source, which clearly (and very reasonably) has
an axe to grind. Does anybody know of reliable corroborating reports? Thanks.
>>I can't imagine the US would be willing to compensate the EU for any losses it has
to sustain by sanctioning Russian government officials and businesspeople.
The place of the EU in this whole scheme was already described by Victoria Nuland. That is -
"F the EU". :)
This is not a problem though, they have long experience with it.
"... The information discussed is from government files which outlay various projects and from companies and -- interestingly -- from charities who make bids to run the FCO projects. All underlying files are available for download as one archive file (~80 MB). ..."
"... The budget for the various anti-Russian projects runs at dozens of millions pounds per year. The first programs were launched in 2016 and some continue through this year. ..."
"... Note that 'Russian disinformation' is whatever Britain does not like about Russia. 'Exposing' such 'disinformation' is best done by spreading one's own. These are not defensive programs but attacks on Russia. ..."
"... Many years of painstaking work of HMG through its embassies and intelligence cutouts precede a chemical attack. They create Media, CSOs and pseudo humanitarian organisations that happen to be just at the correct place and in the correct time with their cameras ready when 'suddenly' a dreadful accident 'shocks every one into action'. ..."
"... Do you believe HMG staged the 'Navalny accident' as part of some kind of a secret operation? Did HMG create Media outlets, nurture bloggers and stringers that it controlled? Did it engage Russia's youth and CSOs? Did it try to demonise Putin just like it had done with Assad by labeling them Evil Dictators who poisoned their people with forbidden chemical weapons? Do you know what all of this is needed for? They need it to delegitimise a leader of a country and convince people around the world that 'no holds should be barred to fight a mad dictator'. Can you grasp the gravity of what is going on? ..."
"... That view is not even exaggerated. The 'west' has the knives out against Russia. We previous mentioned a report from the Pentagon think tank RAND which evaluated how to best 'unbalance and overextend' Russia. ..."
"... The aims we have towards Russia are very big. We do not want anything less but regime change in Russia, which is difficult to achieve by economic pressure. ..."
"... The new documents also reveal some interesting new points on Navalny who seems to be on the British government payroll: ..."
"... By now you must have guessed the identity of one of the popular YouTubers investigating corruption. After obtaining EXPOSE Network files and examining the case studies two years ago, we didn't figure out which YouTuber the FCO supported through ZINC. We refrained from making any preliminary conclusions even when journalists discovered that Vladimir Ashurkov, a close ally of Alexei Navalny, was a part of the Integrity Initiative cluster. ..."
"... But when we saw Mr. Navalny and Bellingcat together, things started to make sense. By digging deeper, we discovered another Navalny's supporter who lives in London - some shadowy Maria Pevchikh who is promoting a system of smart voting in Russia. The Labour used a similar voting system to take the votes of the Conservatives. So, basically it is highly likely that the UK recommended the system to Mr. Navalny. ..."
"... It also turned out that Navalny began a smear campaign against the RT - one of the few media outlets in the West that allows those who disagree with the official position of western government to speak out. Note that Navalny's campaign was running in parallel with that of the Integrity Initiative. A reasonable question is - why Navalny who is mostly engaged in political battles inside Russia spends time fighting a TV network operating outside the country? ..."
"... Not only countries bordering Russia, a cell existed in Spain and it had consequences, when the new government came to power the local cell ran a campaign against the new nominee for National Security for not being tough on Russia as required, he was out of the job, and the main local newspapers were and are in bed with British intelligence dutifully reporting how bad Russia is and how good Navalny and his boys are, journalists working for the media with the largest readership in the country. ..."
"... Devinette: when was the last time a state which was not supported by the US has committed a chemical attack? ..."
"... BTW Maria Pevchikh accompanied Alexei Navalny from Omsk to Berlin. She was the one who was supposed to have gone to his hotel room in Tomsk and picked up the water bottle supposed to contain Novichok, at least until information came out that she acquired the water bottle from a vending machine at Omsk airport en route to Berlin. Pevchikh was the one person in Navalny's entourage who did not submit to questioning by Russian authorities on Navalny's poisoning. ..."
"... I recall that I first found the video below from a MofA comment, but very pertinent to this discussion and maybe it is discussing the same program: Top French Intel Boss Reveals Operation Beluga: US UK Plot to Discredit Putin and Destabilize Russia ..."
"... It gives me pause to try to understand the ethics / morals / humanity of the thousands of western bureaucrats working on these elaborate (sometimes comical) plans to destroy other nations. ..."
"... One visible thing about the complete "undermining of Russia", is that a large amount of bureaucratic planning has gone into it. The quantity of companies that have been employed and with specific duties to perform is shocking. An incidental factor is that the UK and French participants get well paid. £975 or £700 per day, in comparaison to "locally found" participants. ..."
The reporting was based on the British Integrity Initiative's internal files which some 'anonymous' organization had acquired
and published.
Data acquired from Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office by the same group
revealed large British propaganda programs in support of Jihadis in Syria as well as British influence operations designed to
undermine the security institutions of Lebanon and to secretly influence its population.
Now another large set of files has been published by the same source. These describe an extensive British government program designed
to undermine Russia by organizing and financing 'independent' Russian language media, by 'training' Russian journalists and by secretly
paying Russian influencers. It is certainly not the only British anti-Russia program but it probably has, secretly, the most public
influence.
The anonymous author has laid out the complete Undermining Russia program in four extensive parts:
One ,
two ,
three ,
four .
The information discussed is from government files which outlay various projects and from companies and -- interestingly -- from charities
who make bids to run the FCO projects. All underlying files are available for
download as one archive file (~80 MB).
The most interesting files are the bids the companies make for projects. They reveal previous projects, methods and people and
thereby create the larger picture.
The budget for the various anti-Russian projects runs at dozens of millions pounds per year. The first programs were launched
in 2016 and some continue through this year.
ENGAGE – working through the British Council to implement people-to-people activities between ethnic Russians and
local communities to develop links along the lines of 21st century skills – includes English language skills and media literacy,
social enterprises and cultural activities;
ENHANCE – supporting independent media in Russia's near abroad to bring balance and plurality to Russian language
media, in the Baltic States and Eastern Partnership countries;
EXPOSE – by debunking and exposing Russian disinformation in real time, which can be reported in mainstream media
with the goal to expose malign state disinformation in countries that are targeted by it. If you expose disinformation, it
is less likely to be impactful; therefore, the Russian State becomes less credible.
ENABLE – working with allied governments through the Government Communication Service to improve their strategic
communications to their populations.
Note that 'Russian disinformation' is whatever Britain does not like about Russia. 'Exposing' such 'disinformation' is best
done by spreading one's own. These are not defensive programs but attacks on Russia.
Projects to achieve the above were to be implemented in nearly every country that borders Russia and has a Russian speaking minority
as well as in Russia itself.
The British government does not want you to know about such projects. The 'Supplier Event' sheet says:
Security
No unauthorised disclosures of activity on this work. Contract will need to take a look at who we are working with. Basic IT
security reasonable steps should cover our requirements but the FCO may request an explanation of what steps have been taken to
ensure security and Duty of Care.
It should be noted that for security reasons, some grantees will not wish to be linked to the FCO. It should be noted that
the Programme Team would prefer the programme documents do not end up in the Russian media. We know that they are following us,
and we are expecting an expose soon.
What is the overall purpose of such secret programs? The author of the Undermining Russia series
explains that with regards
to the 'poisoning' of Alexei Navalny:
Many years of painstaking work of HMG through its embassies and intelligence cutouts precede a chemical attack. They create
Media, CSOs and pseudo humanitarian organisations that happen to be just at the correct place and in the correct time with their
cameras ready when 'suddenly' a dreadful accident 'shocks every one into action'.
Do you believe HMG staged the 'Navalny accident' as part of some kind of a secret operation? Did HMG create Media outlets,
nurture bloggers and stringers that it controlled? Did it engage Russia's youth and CSOs? Did it try to demonise Putin just like
it had done with Assad by labeling them Evil Dictators who poisoned their people with forbidden chemical weapons? Do you know
what all of this is needed for? They need it to delegitimise a leader of a country and convince people around the world that 'no
holds should be barred to fight a mad dictator'. Can you grasp the gravity of what is going on? Well, you ought to. They
are preparing us for war with the Russians and the Chinese. They are looking for casus belli, and only the truth can stop them,
because 'if wars can be started by lies, they can be stopped by truth'. (Julian Assange)
That view is not even exaggerated. The 'west' has the knives out against Russia. We previous
mentioned a report from the Pentagon think tank RAND which evaluated how to best 'unbalance and overextend' Russia. In the
end it was clearly aimed at regime change in Russia, or if not otherwise possible, war. On Friday
Gabriel Felbermayr , the president of the Kiel
Institute for the World Economy, was asked by a German radio station about new sanctions the EU might impose on Russia. He is skeptic
that those might work
because (my translation):
The aims we have towards Russia are very big. We do not want anything less but regime change in Russia, which is difficult
to achieve by economic pressure.
The new documents also reveal some
interesting new points on
Navalny who seems to be on the British government payroll:
These self-exposing documents show that the FCO has established a network of popular YouTubers in Russia who investigate corruption
in the government, and the YouTubers get assistance from some journalists from the Baltic States. Also, the FCO has experience
of instigating protests in Russia.
By now you must have guessed the identity of one of the popular YouTubers investigating corruption. After obtaining EXPOSE
Network files and examining the case studies two years ago, we didn't figure out which YouTuber the FCO supported through ZINC.
We refrained from making any preliminary conclusions even when journalists discovered that Vladimir Ashurkov, a close ally of
Alexei Navalny, was a part of the Integrity Initiative cluster.
But when we saw Mr. Navalny and Bellingcat together, things started to make sense. By digging deeper, we discovered another
Navalny's supporter who lives in London - some shadowy Maria Pevchikh who is promoting a system of smart voting in Russia. The
Labour used a similar voting system to take the votes of the Conservatives. So, basically it is highly likely that the UK recommended
the system to Mr. Navalny.
It also turned out that Navalny began a smear campaign against the RT - one of the few media outlets in the West that allows
those who disagree with the official position of western government to speak out. Note that Navalny's campaign was running in
parallel with that of the Integrity Initiative. A reasonable question is - why Navalny who is mostly engaged in political battles
inside Russia spends time fighting a TV network operating outside the country? Was RT really such a problem for him? No, it wasn't.
It was a problem for the Western imperialists and apparently, they told Navalny to join in.
Anyway. Here are again links to the four parts of 'Undermining Russia':
One ,
two ,
three ,
four .
They give extensive insight into the methods the 'west' is using to destroy foreign countries. Knowledge that one needs to really
understand what is happening in this world.
Posted by b on February 15, 2021 at 19:24 UTC |
Permalink
Projects to achieve the above were to be implemented in nearly every country that borders Russia and has a Russian speaking
minority as well as in Russia itself.
Not only countries bordering Russia, a cell existed in Spain and it had consequences, when the new government came to power
the local cell ran a campaign against the new nominee for National Security for not being tough on Russia as required, he was
out of the job, and the main local newspapers were and are in bed with British intelligence dutifully reporting how bad Russia
is and how good Navalny and his boys are, journalists working for the media with the largest readership in the country. Some
got fired when the scandal went public, others went through the revolving door, that simple. They had a lot to do with the Assange
case, as explained in the link bellow.
Russian authorities are more sophisticated that the British, not to mention Americans. The way I see it, American flunkies tend
to make most glaring mistakes routinely, and with propaganda efforts they may get some mileage in Latin America -- not as much
as they could wish. But in Europe and Middle East, it takes the British to keep track which country is which etc.
In that vein, Russia is not so eager to clobber Navalniks with political accusations. To a larger degree than China and the
West, Russia wants to allow free access to information etc., and focuses on discrediting "Navalniks". Let them have 40 offices
around the country plus a slew of foreign ones, online TV channels etc. In the same time, Russia is copying Western methods.
For example, tagging people as "foreign agents" if they use foreign money to operate.
Converting stories "discrediting the regime" into flops, like "Putin palace".
Imposing rules that make it hard for new parties to run in elections -- copied from New York State?
Imposing rules that make it hard to run demonstrations where you want and issuing pesky penalties for violations.
In the same time, collaborating with the West puts people who do it in an unpopular box. Navalny tries to circumvent those
limitation with rank demagogy, but he still suffers by contagion, and from condemnations from less cynical followers of other
Western projects -- for accepting Russian Crimea, frowning on immigrants etc.
On the US side, the program 60 Minutes just aired a segment where president of Microsoft claimed that the Russians used 1000+
hackers for the SolarWinds flair. No wonder Microsoft produces such crap software. If the Russians could manage 1000+ engineers,
then they should be outsourced for all of DOD's software.
The Biden admin is supposedly now deciding what new sanctions or actions to take against Russia. And this psyop comes out.
Timing. All about timing. Somebody timed this.
Just confirms that the Biden regime will take the US into a shooting war with Russia just as the Brits were going toward that
if their propaganda failed to oust Putin.
Thanks b.
Skimmed through part 1.
I see you are quoted. A question (which may be answered in a later part of the same), are the connections to the "five eyes" as well as the Spanish
(re. Paco post) organised by the UK or are they joint efforts? (Anonymous doesn't think too much of the others.)
The FCO seems to be the operative, but is it really the originator? In the sense that at present the financial and "sanctions"
elements are part of US/Israel policy. They may have been suggested by the FCO discretely?
-----
I note that Corbyn was attacked for anti-semitism by the FCO and also by Israeli media. They also seem to be deeply involved in
the same setup. Were the Israelis involved in the planning?
Many things to consider given this new information. It provides extra dimensions to
Today's Crooke
essay and the
one by Tim Kirby I posted yesterday. Agent Smith tried to pooh-pooh it all by saying the international culture wars are a
side show when in reality they are the crux of the matter since at the end of the day everything boils down to First Principles--Values.
Truth, Virtue and Promotion of the Individual to Advance the Many versus Lies, Deceit and Denigration of the Individual to Advance
The Few.
@10 erelis. Noticed the paid advert on 60 minutes last nite, also. But after watching for 5 minutes, had to switch channels. Saw
b's latest write up on Solarwinds which I would tend to trust note than ms / CBS. A follow up from b would be nice.
The poisoning narratives touted by the Western oligarchies and their corporate media should be seen for what they are, hilariously
funny. As I said on a previous occasion, I laughed out loud for about half a minute when I read that Navalny had been poisoned
with a 'novichok-like substance'. In the most literal sense those stories do not pass the laugh test. From the
Litvinenko-polonium
story to the Navalny- novichok underpants story they have all been a tissue of quite absurd lies.
Worryingly, despite the absurdities and the frequent changing of details in these narratives, people who are demonstrably quite
intelligent in their daily lives appear to be buying into the anti-Russian narrative. People who can watch 'Game of Thrones' and
comprehend a fictional character's argument when he asks the question 'why would I frame myself' are seemingly incapable of applying
the argument in real life situations. Why would the FSB frame themselves? Why would they use a substance that has not yet succeeded
in killing any of the intended targets? There must be literally hundreds if not thousands of toxins that could be used and there
are countless other ways of killing a person.
Imagine a check box list of the desirable characteristics of an assassination weapon, neither 'novichok' nor polonium would
tick enough (if any) of those boxes to be considered.
So what is it about? Clearly that rubbish is not going to work on the people of the Russian Federation (at least not enough
of them to be worthwhile) That just leaves us as the target, they are quite obviously manufacturing consent. Do they actually
mean to start WW3? or is it a bluff intended to frighten the Russians into submission? Or ruin their economy with massive increases
in arms expenditure? Perhaps it is just more pressure to cancel Nordstream 2 so the US can sell their overpriced fracked gas and
delay their coming economic collapse for a short while. Only time will tell, I fear the worst.
Oligarchies usually end with arrogance, stupidity, ignorance and eventually insanity. The modern counterparts of Nero and Caligula
are running the western world. While dynasties are usually founded by exceptional people, as a rule the only exceptional thing
about their descendants is their arrogance.
Russians can, and do, watch and read western media to see firsthand how badly western press slander Putin and Russians in
general. Putin is extremely popular in Russia for saving the country from oligarchs, reuniting Crimea, shutting down western sponsored
terrorism in southern Russia and standing up to naked aggression from NATO. Western press shows Russians just how stupid western
people have become by believing the inane poisoning stories, airplane shootdowns, and Russian "invasions" such as Crimea. The
Russians only need to read western press to know the west is preparing regime change or war. Putin and the Kremlin do not need
to say a word to convince Russians the west considers them enemies.
The constant lies about Russia and threats to Europeans and Turkey are backfiring. The Germans, Turks and others are furious
over the British and Americans constantly demonizing them for making smart business deals and military purchases with Russia.
With all the "maximum pressure" campaigns and sanctions, some European and Middle East countries consider the US and UK bigger
threats than Russia.
If the west actually achieves the goal of starting war with Russia, the result will be disastrous for the west. Russia has
become so advanced militarily, there is no doubt Russia would easily crush any attacks and then counter attack. Be careful what
you wish for, Americans.
Whilst we the British people, who have no problem with the Russians, have no say in the matter.
Oh to be a fly on the wall at the next official Anglo Russian get together. That will be a 'shortest straw' gig as no British
politician will want to face Lavrov now, especially after that EU prat visit last week.
What's going on? Why this animosity towards Russia?
I'll give you my opinion.
The British leadership are VERY ambitious. The nature of their empire has changed. First, They no longer seek to become an
empire of nations, but rather an empire of national leaders - primarily Heads of State who control the domestic legal system.
Second, they are a feminist empire, with power passed from mother to daughter. They are able to do this because, while there can
be but one King, there can be multiple queens simultaneously. For example, from the death of George vi in 1952 until the death
of Mary of Teck in 1953 there were no less that three queens of the United Kingdom. Then until 2001 there were two queens. Like
chess, with two queens you always win the game.
But they can only do this while the United Kingdom exists. England alone, shorn of Scotland, loses the medieval laws and powers
that underpin this empire.
If you investigate the monarchies of Europe you will find that they all are members of the Order of the Garter (KG). This is
a sovereign order, which means that in order to join one must swear an oath to the Sovereign of the Order, Queen Elizabeth.
If you investigate the politicians of the US you will find many that have joined the Order of Bath (KB) even though it is explicitly
against the constitution for them to do so (I think it is called the Emoluments Clause, but I may have misremembered). Again,
in order to join this organization you must swear an oath to Queen Elizabeth.
It used to be that only the Republicans (Reagan, Bush, Weinberger and so on). But in January 2001 I came across a photograph
of the three Clintons "leaving Buckingham Palace following a private visit". The benefits gained by the Clintons is what has launched
the family into the big time of money and personal unrestrained power and the complete control of the Democratic Party.
This is a millennial empire. It is meant to last for a thousand years. The other great civilizations - Russia, China, Iran - are equally millennial, and are seen as a threat to the British plans
for world domination.
The other great civilizations understand all I have written. They know a fight is coming. And I think that this is the reason
that Lavrov finally took off the gloves when dealing with Borrell last week. For while he would bend over backwards to understand
the EU position in the past, the UK has now quit the EU. The only ties now to the British Empire are those personal ones to the
monarchs of Europe like, in the case of Borrell, Felipe vi and his father, juan Carlos. Both Knights of the Garter.
@ John Cleary | Feb 15 2021 22:07 utc | 19 with the description of the British empire
About that Queen thing. I can't think right now where the details are but it is my understanding that annually the Queen presents herself to the City
of London in a supplicatory manner. I agree that there is empire and that the Queen is part of the fabric of the curtain behind which are the real lever movers,
those that own global private finance.
British hostility to Russia has a long history. Indeed, we should not forget that the British Royal family supported Hitler. No
doubt this, at least in part, accounts for Neville Chamberlain's 'appeasement' Adolf Hitler, following Germany's annexation of
Sudetenland in 1938 and sequent invasion of Czechoslovakia in March, 1939.
See- A brief history of the British Royals and their alleged Nazi connections 28 Aug 2017; Link:
https://www.sbs.com.au/guide/article/2017/08/28/brief-history-british-royals-and-their-alleged-nazi-connections
Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 15 2021 21:27 utc | 14 -- "Many things to consider given this new information. It provides extra dimensions
to Today's Crooke essay and the one by Tim Kirby I posted yesterday. Agent Smith tried to pooh-pooh it all by saying the international
culture wars are a side show when in reality they are the crux of the matter since at the end of the day everything boils down
to First Principles--Values. Truth, Virtue and Promotion of the Individual to Advance the Many versus Lies, Deceit and Denigration
of the Individual to Advance The Few."
Thanks, karlof1, for yet another informative article. Saved it for study along with the Tim Kirby article.
So much to read... so much to learn.... so much to pleasure in.... first principles, eternal values, objective truth, good
governance... and did God say that the white man's burden is to go rape, pillage, rob the rest of the world?
And thanks for reminding me that his name is Agent Smith.
This is to help me remember not to engage trolls and / or idiots:
"Never again will we try to persuade a foolish person with reason, for it is senseless and dangerous. In conversation with
them, one virtually feels that one is dealing not at all with a person, but with slogans, catchwords and the like that have taken
possession of them. They are under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in their very being.' -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters
and Papers from Prison
... These self-exposing documents show that the FCO has established a network of popular YouTubers in Russia who investigate
corruption in the government, and the YouTubers get assistance from some journalists from the Baltic States. Also, the
FCO has experience of instigating protests in Russia ...
It would be interesting to know if the Russian-language news website Meduza.io might have some connection to this assistance
to the YouTubers. Meduza.io is based in Riga, Latvia, and employs Russian-language journalists.
Kevin Rothrock , formerly of The Moscow Times (English-language
newspaper in Moscow), is editor-in-chief of Meduza.io's international version.
BTW Maria Pevchikh accompanied Alexei Navalny from Omsk to Berlin. She was the one who was supposed to have gone to his hotel
room in Tomsk and picked up the water bottle supposed to contain Novichok, at least until information came out that she acquired
the water bottle from a vending machine at Omsk airport en route to Berlin. Pevchikh was the one person in Navalny's entourage
who did not submit to questioning by Russian authorities on Navalny's poisoning.
I think we should see a bit more (in Google's English-language translation) of what Gabriel Felbermayr said to Katharina Petz
of Deutschlandfunk:
Gabriel Felbermayr : I am sceptical about [further sanctions]. The question is always what we want to achieve with
sanctions. If we really want to bring Russia to its knees economically, we would need a large coalition of countries to do so,
and Europe alone cannot do as much as is necessary. At least China on board and, best of all, India and other [Russia's] trading
partners would need it. The fact that sanctions have worked so badly in the past has to do with the fact that they are being undermined
by other countries, that is a key problem. That is why I am sceptical that putting a on it (sic) really helps now. The objectives
we have with Russia are very large. After all, we want nothing less than regime change in Russia, which is very difficult to achieve
with economic pressure ...
... I believe that we must also see who we are hitting with the sanctions. Are these really the people who are acting and
who, in the light of the sanctions, may then reconsider their actions, or is it the general population that is hit very diffusely,
each a little bit. This does not hurt enough, so to speak, to put great pressure on the regime, but it does hit the general public.
That is why I believe that a sanctions instrument that is much more adicating (sic) to individuals is more promising and does
not affect the broad mass of Russians. That already exists, we are using it in the European Union. These could be travel restrictions,
that could be the freezing of assets abroad, and this could also be sanctions against certain companies that are very close to
the Kremlin. Perhaps there is more that can be done than Europe alone, because Russian foreign assets are not in China, so to
speak, and the second residences of Russian oligarchs are not somewhere in the Third World, but in Monaco and London and Paris.
So smart sanctions are certainly what is more promising – one has to ask whether Europe has the right instruments ...
...Yes, of course, the economic impact of the sanctions is quite different. Germany suffers from the Russia sanctions that
have been in place since 2014, more than any country in the world, in absolute terms, and is also much more affected in percentage
of economic output than in France. In Germany, this costs about 0.2% of GDP, according to various estimates, and in France this
figure is much lower. There are, of course, other European countries where the level of concern is higher, [Bulgaria] for example,
or the Eastern European Member States of the European Union as a whole. This unequal concern is certainly a political dilemma.
It is also a political problem with regard to the United States of America, which, while always insisting and pushing for
sanctions, has so far drawn little economic disadvantage from it, simply because US trade with Russia is very low. That is the
core problem when it comes to forging a broad coalition that costs are too unevenly distributed. We would certainly also have
to think about compensation mechanisms within Europe or within the Western world, so that the joint fight against the violation
of human rights, for example in Russia, must be paid for economically, not only by a few countries ...
... Yes, I would agree, I think [Nordstream II shutdown] is overestimated. The question is how much billions of export revenues
Russia generates in the European Union by selling natural gas, that is the central question. And whether natural gas enters the
European Union via Ukraine or Turkey or Germany does not matter much. It may even be the case that the possibility of shutting
down or blocking such a pipeline again, or imposing conditions, means that Germany will even get a leverage over Russia that would
not otherwise have been possible.
So I also think that Nord Stream 2 is overestimated. Here again the question would have to be asked, who does it actually
cost if you do not complete the project. A great many European and German investors are also negatively affected, and with sanctions
we want to inflict pain, above all, on the Russian power apparatus and not on ourselves. I believe that Nord Stream 2 is a bad
instrument ...
So the sanctions regime against Russia is hitting the EU, and Germany and parts of Eastern Europe in particular, harder than
it's hitting Russia and the EU needs more nations on board with sanctioning Russia.
I can't imagine the US would be willing to compensate the EU for any losses it has to sustain by sanctioning Russian government
officials and businesspeople.
The UK aristocracy and their opportunists have nothing to credit themselves but ill-gotten money or the hope thereof, they have
always been forced to equate money=virtue to pretend to any merit, between themselves and their families. This is the cause of
their eternal hatred of socialism and virtue in government, and their eternal hatred of Russia, even in the post-USSR era. If
they have no one with less money to hate, they have no claim to personal merit, and must face the truth.
Of course the same is true of the upper classes anywhere, even among the poorest. For what was the purpose of their lying,
cheating, stealing and perpetual materialism, what were the values they taught their children, if money is not virtue. Virtue
is an unknown land to them, an unforgiveable sin, for that way lies the ugly truth about them.
Lots of people living in la la land - that is - in the good old times when the West subjugated the planet.
UK economic drop 2020
-10 %
EU economic drop
-7 %
Russia economic drop
-3.1 %
Moment to reach 2019 Q4 economic level:
UK beginning of 2023
EU beginning of 2023
Russia Autumn 2021
>>Gabriel Felbermayr: The aims we (EU) have towards Russia are very big. We do not want anything less but regime change in
Russia.
Yes, Gabi, it is good that you are honest. It will only warn people of your intentions, so it is preferable to talk that way.
:) Meanwhile, in the real world, lots of EU businesses and NGOs will flew out from Russia and be replaced with Asian ones. It already happening with cars, trade, energy flows, diplomatic missions and tourists. So good riddance to bad rubbish.
>>I can't imagine the US would be willing to compensate the EU for any losses it has to sustain by sanctioning Russian government
officials and businesspeople.
The place of the EU in this whole scheme was already described by Victoria Nuland. That is - "F the EU". :)
This is not a problem though, they have long experience with it.
US will not be selling any LNG to EU/Germany to compensate for loss of NS2. The fracking business is shutting down and shutting
down right now. Wells are going offline, replacements are not being drilled. No drill, no gas. Fertilizer shortages are already
in sight. As we lose ability to grow food we will not be sending feedstock material across the ocean just because it sounded good
in a strategic fantasy.
Posted by b on February 15, 2021 at 19:24 UTC | -- "They give extensive insight into the methods the 'west' is using to destroy
foreign countries."
Thanks, B, for using the light of truth to expose the insanity of western leadership. It gives me pause to try to understand the ethics / morals / humanity of the thousands of western bureaucrats working on these
elaborate (sometimes comical) plans to destroy other nations. How does a "civil" servant like that conceive such evil, then go home to teach their children how to be human beings? This banality of evil is absolutely unfathomable to ordinary people such as I.
Reminds me of the thousands of good Germans who "went along to get along" on the way into WW2. Also, the thousands of good British "planners" who war-gamed their way into WW2.
>>And whether natural gas enters the European Union via Ukraine or Turkey or Germany does not matter much.
This ignorant euro-puppet should be fired immediately.
Having a gas pipeline via Turkey increases the geopolitical weight of Turkey and it allows it to blackmail the Balkan Countries
receiving the gas.
Using the Ukrainian route means that additional billions of euros will have to be invested in repairing the old and disrepeit
Ukrainian Gas Transit Network which is from the 80s, with good amount of the money disappearing due to corruption.
The gas then may stop due to Russia-Ukrainian disputes (as it happened in the past) or "misterious" explosions may happen on
the pipeline (as it happened too).
It is also unclear for how long will Russia be interested in saving the EU from freezing (in January the EU was forced to buy
record amounts of gas due to cold temperatures), considering the rise of Asian markets.
Right now Russia is connecting the Western pipelines and the Eastern Pipelines, meaning that "EU gas" may be reserved for the
East.
Gazprom is also looking to accelerate work on the Power of Siberia 2 (PoS2) pipeline, as part of plans to unite domestic gas
transmission infrastructure across eastern and western Russia into a single system.
TASS reports Lavorv's comments after meeting Finnish Foreign
Minister revealing the lawless nature of the EU's behavior as it abets crimes against its own laws:
"The minister paid special attention to the fact that Brussels enables brazen violations of rights of Russian speakers and
attacks on the Russian language and culture in the Baltic States, Ukraine and several other states. '
Of course, we cannot
but take into account the EU condoning blatant breaches of Russian speakers, Russians and the attacks on the Russian language
and culture that we witness in the Baltic States, Ukraine and some other countries. When Russian-speaking [TV] channels are shut
down, when criminal cases are opened against Russian-speaking journalists for simply doing their jobs, when the disgraceful institute
of statelessness remains in the EU, while the European Union watches it all without any desire to change anything, I believe that
it is not Russia distancing itself from the EU, but the very EU moves away from the Russian language, Russian culture and all
things Russian, meaning that it is drifting away from the Russian Federation ,' the minister noted." [My Emphasis]
As reported earlier, Russia will finish Nord Stream 2 and continue fulfilling its commitments. But given EU co-responsibility
for the terrorism and refugee crises combined with the recent revelations, I don't see any positive developments occurring.
Thanks for that very revealing translation of Gabriel Felbermayr's words. It shows that a man can be intelligent and insane
at the same time. He speaks as if the need for destroying Russia is a given. Sounds like he is one of those thousands who go along
to get along....
"I fooled myself. I had to. I didn't want to see it, because I would then have had to think about the consequences of seeing
it, what followed from seeing it, what I must do to be decent. I wanted my home and family, my job, my career, a place in the
community." -- Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45
For Psychohistorian and John Cleary, regarding the City of London...
The City was never thoroughly brought to heel by William the Conqueror with the result that it was granted a sort of autonomy
within the realm, hence its absence in the Doomsday Book, which assessed the realm's lands for taxation by the crown. Whether
or not it is part of the United Kingdom is a moot point, for its autonomy (strengthened over time) makes it, in a sense, impervious
to United Kingdom legislation that it wishes to ignore. In this regard, it is a sort of anomaly, like the Channel Islands (the
last remaining part of the Duchy of Normandy still under the British crown) and the Isle of Mann, both of which are NOT part of
the United Kingdom and were not part of the European Union, and both of which are notorious tax havens.
The peculiar status of the City of London is what has made it a great financial center, for it can regulate itself (and does,
to some extent, if only to keep the scandalmongers at bay), unlike the New York and Swiss financial centers, which are subject
to "outside" oversight, New York by the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) and Switzerland by the FINMA (Financial Market
Supervisory Authority).
MarkU @ 16 -- "While dynasties are usually founded by exceptional people, as a rule the only exceptional thing about their descendants
is their arrogance."
Ancient Chinese wisdom on generational wealth: First generation make money; second generation keep money; third generation
lose money. Start over.
MarkU @ 16 -- "Oligarchies usually end with arrogance, stupidity, ignorance and eventually insanity. "
Good fit for most parts of the Western (*) leadership, lying one day, reversing their own lies the next, then reverting to
their original lie, then pivoting to some other lie. Insane. They have gone past derision, gone past shame, gone past dishonour,
into insanity. Destruction cometh next.
"Now it's time to expose another intelligence cutout - BBC Media Action. Don't be surprised that the detested mainstream media
outlet BBC has its own secret firm which gets its funding from your taxes as well as from the CSSF." (Taken from part two)
One visible thing about the complete "undermining of Russia", is that a large amount of bureaucratic planning has gone into
it. The quantity of companies that have been employed and with specific duties to perform is shocking. An incidental factor is
that the UK and French participants get well paid. £975 or £700 per day, in comparaison to "locally found" participants.
Other things of note are the targeting of Russian speaking, younger age groups and the admission that the over 40's are more
difficult to change. (This is a common factor for other areas of propaganda as well.)
The "Covid story" has had an effect. No longer are " mother and daughter tea parties " with 40 participants possible.
Not a joke , but it serves to underline the thoroughness of the propaganda effort leading up to effect a "regime change".
----
About the Monarchy, and inferred connection to the "landed Gentry Aristocracy". Possible, but would rely on education in the "best"
Schools, and their production of eligible members of "secret" manipulative societies via old boy networks, as well as "ordinary"
leaders. ie Politicians, Top civil servants.
Private Schools such as Eton and Harrow have recognised "specialities" and form the basis of networks. It is not for nothing that
you have to put the names down of likely progeny almost at birth. Closed shop attitude as in a "trade Union"! ST. Johns, Leatherhead,
produces clergy for example.
The UK Monarchy was connected by intermarriage to almost all the Royalty in Europe. There are still connections (for those who
have the cash), through such goups as Bilderberg, etc.
The relation of the "Dukes" to a desire to take over Russia, is a possible source of interest. ie. The Duke of Grosvernor owns
the Square mile of the City of London. (Which is an entity in itself.) The City has the key to the finance of the UK and much
of the "dark money, and money laundering in the world.
----
all for today.
Obama, Bernie and DJT have led their flocks to nowhere. What led us to them is the establishment's desire to derail
populist Movements.
One clue (among many): Each of these so-called populists is pro-Empire.
Obama conducted covert wars and regime changes. He declined to prosecute any CIA people for rendition & torture
and dismissed privacy concerns about NSA spying. He also lied to us: 1) about a 'public option' in his healthcare plan and
2) never making the Bush tax cuts permanent (Obama participated in the 'fiscal cliff' farce that made most Bush tax cuts permanent
while cutting social programs);
Bernie , aka "Senator F35" is a closet Zionist that supports the Empire. He was Hillary's sheepdog in 2016. He then
founded "Our Revolution", a nonprofit that accepted money from large donors. Bernie folded like a tent in 2020 to support establishment
candidate Biden. Bernie put forth a bogus bill to end US involvement in the Saudi war on Yemen that would not actually end
that involvement due to an exception. And he has criticized Venezuela's Maduro as USA has been trying to overthrow him.
Trump - a billionaire conman, Clinton insider, and friend of Epstein - got in front of the Tea Party parade with
slogans like "America First". His actions show that he is a fraud who is actual "Empire First". Trump dramatically increased
spending on the military, terminated multiple peace agreements, renegged on his peace deal with North Korea, gave Israel everything
on its wish list (including killing Iranian Gen. Soleimani), militarized space, and continued the War on Whistle-blowers with
prosecution of Assange. Along the way he lied to the American people about the severity of the looming pandemic and excused
MbS's killing of Jamal Khashoggi.
Nothing will change as long as we keep falling for compromised leaders that are promoted by a compromised media.
I heard this when I was a student in London. It may be hearsay after all, as I also tried to find relevant info after your
comment. Trouble is the enormous power of the City, the Banks, and major corporations all who have a "vote" (or not) in the affairs
of the Corporation, make any detailed study next to impossible. Trusts, etc. I followed somebodies FOI request which led to .....
nothing.
Note that known Grosvenor territory (the house I had a flat in. The street belonged to them.) were part of their assets, and
in the last seven years of a 99yr lease. After which it had to be "returned in the same state as it was "sold" in the first place.
The present Duke does apparently not have much to say in the Grosvenor Family Trust. He is still rich. (according to one grovelling
article).
It does make a prime suspect for setting up the Anti-Russian saga, as those Banks/Corporations and Billionaires etc. would
be the ones to profit massively from a"regime change".
Like clockwork, the NYT begins to set a rationalization for more US imperialism in Syria. This is such a contrived article. It
doesn't come out of the blue.
These ferocious dogs never stop. The push is to rebuild the Turkish relationship, and so regain influence over Syria through 'protecting
Idlib' and its 'children.'
About Tim Kirby advises to Russia. The guy is completely delusional and really ignorant of Russia history and mental structures.Russi
is not going to metamporphose in USA or UEJohn Hermer:
http://johnhelmer.net/1000th-dance-with-bears/
But Russia is going fine with China
Thanks for your reply! I've often disagreed with Kirby; but as I wrote in my first linking to his essay, there are some suggestions
that merge with ideas we've discussed over the months here. I've written about what I see as Russia's fundamental ideology, how
it differs from the West, and fume intensely when Putin says differences with the West aren't ideological when it's so clear they
are--Putin just laid out the vast chasm in his Davos speech. Lavrov just reiterated that Russia cannot abide nations/organizations
that are pathological prevaricators. And China is the same. IMO, the First Principles of Russia and China are the ones humanity
needs to adhere to and merge with policy. They are the same as those proposed by Henry Wallace for his Century of The Common Man.
I see them as an evolutionary step forward to a Commonwealth of Humanity that would inspire a Great Leveling--which the elite
of course oppose. The most recent manifestation of the Abrahamic Religions also appeals to such an arrangement as does most Afro/Asian
philosophy.
What we have is an embattled minority trying to keep its power using every trick at its disposal. The #1 question most of us
have: Is that minority suicidal--will it see nuclear war as a way to keep its position? Putin has answered that if it does try
it will lose. And IMO, the minority knows that it currently will lose but hopes to reverse that outcome--They don't seek compromise
as they want it all. And that's where the big problem lies--How to dissuade them of their unattainable Zero-sum Fetish?
So empire (is it British, American, Jewish...) threw up Donald Trump as the attempt to gather the totally delusional around a
maniacal "strong/bully" leader to push back against the Russia/China axis and it didn't work entirely like they wanted but it
broke enough social anchors to increase the fragility/fear factors of society. When the mostly manufactured crisis does come they
trust their ability to manufacture Western outcomes that keep private finance alive and with some ongoing control over some chunk
of the world.
I don't expect to live to see private finance go entirely away anymore. I think the trajectory is set in that direction but
the timeframe will be longer than I wanted/expected. Look at the number of commenters here that still want to play whack-a-mole
bad apples games while behind the curtain the global private finance elite are continuing their species perversion through British
ways like b has shown here.
The West needs a better social system that has the broader public instead of a cult of folks as its focus or we will continue
our road to deserved extinction.
emersonreturn @ 9, I have just done the same this morning as gently as I could with family members in New Zealand. It is very
hard for them to recognize this is not all Trump's doing - especially when they are benefitting from better government themselves
as far as coping with the virus, and they remember fondly better days in the relationship with the US.
Lavrov at work, day after day. Today with Togolese Foreign Minister, a quick translation so as to induce a little smile:
Question: How do Western countries view the rapprochement between Russia and African countries?
Foreign Minister Lavrov: In different ways. Some are neutral, others, like the former US Administration, are very negative.
Former US Secretary of State M. Pompeo traveled to Africa before the end of President Trump's term and publicly urged not to cooperate
with Russia and China in the field of trade, because Moscow and Beijing allegedly proceed from geopolitical interests, trying
to benefit. The United States, on the other hand, "does it from the heart." I will not comment on this kind of position.
Recently, representatives of the new US Administration called on the Russian Sputnik V vaccine to be viewed with suspicion,
since again, this is a "Kremlin's geopolitical plan" and one must be "careful" not to become "dependent on Russia."
I think Crimea was meant to be the new homeland for Israel citizens, when the usurpator state goes down. Now they will have to save
themselves to Patagonia.
Intriguing topic.
It's anyone's guess why the Christian West's front-of-curtain leaders are training the Homeland serfs to become accustomed to
24/7 lies about remote enemies. The notion that the West can "win" a war with Russia/China is laughable. Each/both could retaliate
EFFECTIVELY if attacked. So if the bs isn't about WWIII then what is it about?
My guess is that it's nothing more sophisticated than Creative Distraction from what's been going on in AmeriKKKa and, to a
lesser extent the Rest of the West, since the Oligarchs had their own taxes slashed in the '70s, '80s and '90s. This helped to
fund the Oligarch's favourite hobby: "Privatise Every Publicly Owned Monopoly/Utility." Keeping wage-growth flat also helped to
fund the take-over.
From a country-to-country perspective the trend, whilst quite uneven, has been inexorable. And there is a notable absence of
serious debate about reversing the trend.
It doesn't matter what the ultimate goal of this social engineering may or may not be. It has to be reversed. And one way to
reverse it would be to submit every excuse Rich People use to justify their tax breaks to Public Scrutiny and laughed out of court.
In the 1950s Rich People, worldwide, paid eye-watering Taxes on all 'excess income' beyond the top marginal rate. And when
they went to Heaven their Estate was taxed on its 'excess value'. They've killed off those taxes too, by playing one country/
jurisdiction off against another - using Lawfare (high-priced lawyers whom ordinary folk can't afford).
They're too eerily inept to win a war against Russia/China. Their war is against their own countrymen. And it's aim is to prevent
as many serfs as possible from getting their grubby little mits on OUR MONEY!
Thank you, karlof1 @ 14; Crooke's essay is masterful! If only others in the West could be persuaded to read it -- the references
to Ireland and India are so persuasive, but then he doesn't stop but demonstrates how the situation today is so much worse. The
bolded quote,
"...We may have democracy, or we may have surveillance society, but we cannot have both." (Emphasis added).
has to be seen in the entirety of the article to be appreciated, and his definition of the EU as a cartel is pure genius! They
are all not even worthy of the title 'empire' -- they are all cartels!!
UK loaned 1.5b to Ukraine to build 2 warships for them...plus rebuild shipyards to re construct the navy....paratroopers are training
Ukraine forces....do they plan to go against Donbass like this....reminds me of old film a bridge too far where British forces
failed ......and Nato gonna give Black Sea a lot more trouble for Russia too.
I was just going to post the link to that transcript,
From it
much can be learned about the degree of Russian involvement in Togo and Africa as a whole; this for example:
"The Association for Economic Cooperation with the African States was created in Russia following the 2019 Sochi summit. It
includes representatives from the related departments and major Russian companies. The Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, which
is a political association, was created as well. Its secretariat is located at the Russian Foreign Ministry. We agreed to hold
the forum's annual political meetings at the foreign minister level, from Russia and the African Union Troika that is comprised
of its former, current and incoming chairpersons. In 2020, we held them via videoconference with the foreign ministers from South
Africa, Egypt and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Hopefully, we'll be able to meet in person in 2021."
That's a lot of interaction that also includes Russian businesses, all of which ought to be added to China's activities. In
addition to what Paco provided, there's this closing paragraph that reveals more of the Anti-Russian nature of BidenCo:
" It wasn't long ago that representatives of the new US administration said the Russian Sputnik V vaccine should be treated
with suspicion, since it was another geopolitical plan from the Kremlin, and that one must be careful not to become dependent
on Russia . It's sad if they have nothing else to say about normal and friendly relations between countries, and if this is
the only thing that they have to say about this. We never make friends with other countries in order to oppose third countries.
If Russia and its foreign partners are mutually attracted, we have every right to develop our relations as we see fit. I hope
others will also learn their lessons and treat our ties with Africa with respect." [My Emphasis]
Russia and China act while the Outlaw US Empire focuses on fashioning a False Narrative that can easily be seen as such. However,
it seems the underlying scourge is becoming easier for English speakers to see: "All animals are equal; but some animals are more
equal than others."
Too bad the mid.ru site usually does not publish the guests comments and answers, excess of caution maybe, but it was interesting
what the Togo foreign minister had to say concerning good relations with the Soviet Union and then Russia in many countries all
over Africa, he expressed his gratitude for the many African students in Russia, students that have become high cadres in Togo
and other countries. Another interesting point was the fact that Lome is the main deep water port in all of West Africa, and therefore
the minister was talking about regional matters, Togo as a hub. Macron must have watched the press conference, after all the foreign
minister spoke in French. Russia is recovering lost presence in Africa.
The prize for the truly awful story of the week goes to the appointment of AIPAC monster
to head Pentagon planning for the Middle East.
The extension of the nuclear arms agreement between Russia and the United States and the
decision to stop directly supporting the war on Yemen may have been the only good news items to
come out of Washington last week. The really bad news came when President Joe Biden
warned Russia that "the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia's
aggressive actions, interfering with our elections, cyber-attacks, poisoning its citizens, are
over." It was an empty threat full of innuendo that virtually guarantees four more years of
Russiagate or something like it. It was an odd statement considering that it has been
Washington doing all of the provoking during the Donald Trump administration, much of it
instigated by Democrats who are still looking for a scapegoat for the defeat of Hillary in
2016.
The mainstream media hasn't been reporting many second-tier stories because of the still
playing out double impeachment saga combined with the lingering debate over who actually won
the election. Whether Trump personally incited a riot or something worse depends on one's point
of view, but what is really sad to watch is the efforts being made by a "woke" Democratic Party
leadership and a frenzied media to destroy Trump's life and businesses even though he is no
longer in office, a revenge scenario that goes well beyond previous political vendettas. Worse
still, the attempts being made to render White House employees and Trump supporters
unemployable or even try to send them to jail based on convoluted interpretations of
legislation reflects a level of vindictiveness not seen since the Catiline Conspiracy in
Republican Rome.
Well, the incident on January 6 th wasn't exactly a replay of the storming of the
Bastille, but as it is all we have it will have to make do. Were those folks wandering around
inside the Capitol Building tourists who had gotten separated from their tour guide or were
they confused citizens from the Dakotas who had a couple of stamps remaining on their hunting
licenses allowing them to bag a Democrat or two? They would have been better advised to set up
a couple of feeder bait sites under the Rotunda loaded with Benjamins and the Congress-critters
would have arrived in droves. And that guy who stole Nancy Pelosi's podium only had to announce
that he was holding a Black Lives Matter meeting and good old Nancy would have arrived tout
suite on her knees with an African kente cloth stole draped around her neck. Alas,
we may never know the truth about what actually happened on that fateful day, but the
speculation will keep us going for months more.
There is a definite paucity of actual fact-based news that might make sense to a third
grader, particularly given the decline in American public education, which now only teaches
about the holocaust and racism. Consequently, I have fallen into the habit of saving links to
stories during the week and then deciding on the weekend which are worthy of special
recognition for being particularly ridiculous.
There were some really absurd articles last week. A particularly fascinating story describes
what is going on at the Pentagon, which is frantically sneaking more soldiers into Syria and
canceling any reduction in force in Afghanistan until the situation stabilizes, a policy move
by Biden that reverses one of the few good things that Trump initiated. Unfortunately, the
withdrawal from Afghanistan should take another twenty years or so to finish.
But the
really interesting development is the new mission of the U.S. Army, which will soon be
halting training and other bellicose activity to ease the transition into a full-time military
force dedicated to making sure that everyone observes diversity. It is a long overdue move that
the entire nation can be proud of, plus the U.S. will as a result be made safer from the
Chinese, Iranian and Russian threats. The tricky part is identifying those soldiers who think
racist thoughts, even if they never perform a racist act, because they are guilty of not
conforming to "woke world." They will have to be identified by special trained psychologists
before being dishonorably discharged and made unemployable as they are not fit to mix with
decent people.
Paul Kersey reports some of the details,
how the "Pentagon [has ordered] a 'stand down' in [the] next 60 Days" to identify and
address the problem of extremists in the military. It should be observed that soldiers who kill
civilians are not the extremists in question because killing is what soldiers are supposed to
do. It is instead "white people in the U.S. Military who display an insufficient loyalty to
Diversity, Inclusion, Equity and Tolerance. [They] are [the] domestic enemy, and unworthy as
individual[s] of defending our nation against the only threat our elite have united to defeat:
that, of course, being whiteness."
And for those apostatizing white supremacist civilians who don't want to get left out when
the diversity train rolls into their town, the Democratic Party is
looking into setting up Truth Commissions to make sure that anyone who ever entertained a
racist thought or used the "N" word will not be missed.
Make no mistake, an army that really knows what is important is surely great news. It will
be an excellent return on the taxpayers' trillion dollars annual investment, particularly as
the Constitution was written by a bunch of slave holders and is no longer worth swearing an
oath of allegiance to. But perhaps of more interest to foreign policy wonks is what is going on
in some of the other Pentagon offices dedicated to finding new enemies so there will always be
a supply of wars to fight after everyone in Afghanistan and Syria is exterminated.
As telling other nations how to behave backed up by the 101 st Airborne division
has become a wonderful indoor board game in this age of Coronavirus-19, my favorite article for
the past week has to be the news that Honest Joe Biden has appointed yet another Zionist harpy
to his team of war planners in an apparent attempt to keep Nuland, Sherman, Haines, Rice, Power
and Neuberger company. Her name is Dana Stroul and she
will be running the Pentagon's Middle East Desk, making her the senior policy official
focused on that region. Indications are that her eagle eye will be fixed on those major
malefactors Iran and Syria.
Stroul has been whisked away from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP),
where she has been the Shelly and Michael Kassen Fellow in the Institute's Beth and David
Geduld Program on Arab Politics. WINEP is the think tank founded by the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in an attempt to demonstrate that hatred of all of Israel's enemies
in the Middle East is somehow an American vital interest, so it is perhaps odd to consider that
the organization would even allow Arabs to have politics. Stroul had worked at the Pentagon and
had also co-chaired the Syria Study Group set up by Congress prior to landing at WINEP.
Stroul,
who believes that there is a threat to the U.S. from "Iranian nuclear ambitions and support
for terrorist groups throughout the region," also has had some interesting ideas about what
should be done to Syria, some of which was laid out in a final report that was presented to
Congress in September 2019 by the Syria Study Group.
The report states that "From the conflict's beginning in 2011 as a peaceful domestic
uprising, experts warned that President Bashar al-Assad's brutal response was likely to have
serious, negative impacts on U.S. interests. Given Syria's central location in the Middle East,
its ruling regime's ties to terrorist groups and to Iran, and the incompatibility of Assad's
authoritarian rule with the aspirations of the Syrian people, many worried about the conflict
spilling over Syria's borders The threats the conflict in Syria poses -- of terrorism directed
against the United States and its allies and partners; of an empowered Iran; of an aggrandized
Russia; of large numbers of refugees, displaced persons, and other forms of humanitarian
catastrophe; and of the erosion of international norms of war and the Western commitment to
them -- are sufficiently serious to merit a determined response from the United States. The
United States and its allies retain tools to address those threats and the leverage to promote
outcomes that are better for American interests than those that would prevail in the absence of
U.S. engagement. The United States underestimated Russia's ability to use Syria as an arena for
regional influence. Russia's intervention, beginning in 2015, accomplished its proximate aim --
the preservation of the regime in defiance of U.S. calls for Assad to 'go' -- at a relatively
low cost. Russia has enhanced its profile and prestige more broadly in the Middle East."
One immediately notes the incoherence of the argument being made. To make U.S. presence in
Syria palpable to the long-suffering American public, it is necessary to attempt to establish a
threat against the United States even though in this case there is none. And the repeated
citation of "interests" without credibly explaining what interests might compel invading and
occupying a foreign country is completely lacking in any detail. Stroul also several times
cites the heavy terrorist threat, ignoring the fact that the existing terrorists are being
sustained by Israel and by the United States, while President Bashar al-Assad has the
overwhelming support of most of the Syrian people. Reports are that Syrians are returning home
after a refugee crisis caused by the United States and its allies. And we all know that the
last refuge of a scoundrel is to play the Russian card, which Stroul does, as well as surfacing
that perennial demon Iran. U.S. support of Israeli bombing attacks are also just fine in her
opinion, even though they are a clear violation of the "international norms of war" that she
pretends to defend.
Stroul inevitably supports U.S.
retention and what she curiously refers to as "ownership" of the one third of Syria that is
"resource rich." That includes the Syrian oil producing region now occupied by U.S. troops as
well as by what she euphemizes as "Syrian Democratic Forces." She observes that it also
includes the country's best agricultural land, which, if denied to the government in Damascus,
could be used as leverage to bring about regime change. Starving Syrians are not Stroul's
concern so she consequently opposes any form of international relief or reconstruction funding
for the Syrian people and supports U.S. pressure on international lenders through the worldwide
banking system to deny Damascus any money to rebuild.
So, the prize for the truly awful story of the week goes to the appointment of this monster
daughter of AIPAC to head Pentagon planning for the Middle East, joining a sterling cast of
characters at State Department and in the intelligence community. Also, if one includes the
account of a diversified U.S. Army where soldiers will now be encouraged to snitch on each
other over privately held views, one has to ask "Can it get any worse?" Judging from Joe
Biden's list of appointments so far, it will, yes it will.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest.
As an ex-Vet and the son of a Korean War Vet let me boldly say that any White that enlists
in the military needs to have his or her head examined. I guess American Indian war hero Ira
Hayes HAD to serve back then with the draft and all, but no way should an American Indian
have been forced to fight for a nation that had treated him so badly. I would have sided with
Muhammad Ali in his refusal to fight for America back then. Ali grew up in a different era
and wasn't spoiled and catered to like all Blacks born in the mid 1950s to now. Right now,
the Whites in this country are being attacked in every way they turn just for having been
born with white skin. Whites are attacked daily in the streets by Blacks not to mention an
assortment of other "diversities." Maybe I am TRULY colorblind when it comes to right and
wrong which is totally opposite to the kind of thinking exhibited by our Jewish overlords and
Black racists. When it comes to RIGHT or WRONG, I, not (((them,))) see no color. With all the
Jewish and Black Privilege out there, I think it is high time they do the fighting. Of course
there are plenty of Blacks in the military because like poor Whites, it often comes down to
needing a job, nothing more or nothing less. I would always laugh when people would tell me,
"thank you for your service.?" What, I needed a job, man. Time for Shlomo to start moving up
the enlisted ranks since he likes fighting so much.
I would always laugh when people would tell me, "thank you for your service.?"
I myself cringe, but at least I like to think that I'm a bit less easily duped now.
Never again.
PS: Shlomo never was in the enlisted ranks in either the USSR or the USSA.
[In] an article written on
12th April, 1919, in a paper called The Communist, at Kharkov, by one M. Cohen :
"The great Russian revolution was indeed accomplished by the hands of Jews. There are
no Jews in the ranks of the Red Army as far as privates are concerned, but in the
Committees, and in the Soviet organization as Commissars, the Jews are [38] gallantly
leading the masses. The symbol of Jewry has become the symbol of the Russian
proletariat, which can be seen in the fact of the adoption of the five-pointed star, which
in former times was the symbol of Zionism and Jewry."
– Captain Achibald.H.Maule Ramsay, The Nameless War, p29.
Mr. Giraldi: At the risk of beating a dead horse, I think that it is vital that the truth
about 9-11 be brought to the forefront of the present discussion. While it is apparent, as
you have been noting so convincingly over recent times, that Israeli/Jewish interests have
been prevailing over what should be an independent US foreign policy that serves the United
States, we must, it seems to me, resurrect the pursuit of the truth about 9-11, which is that
it was a predominantly Israeli/Jewish operation, undertaken with absolutely no concern for
the fact that thousands of Americans would be killed thereby by their own government in order
to foster a narrative that the Arabs in the Middle East had to be subdued to save Western
civilization.
9-11 was characterized by all of the clever and malevolent false flag subterfuges that
also characterized the "coup plotting" that resulted in the fraudulent 2020 election, and all
of its horrible aftermath. It is, for example, quite clear from the evidence that has been
developed through the brave work of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 truth, so well
documented in the lengthy documentary by Massimo Mazzucco, entitled 9-11 The New Pearl
Harbor, and the writings of several French analysts detailed in Voltaire.net , that while Arab interests might well have had an
aspiration to do damage to the United States/Israel by attacking the World Trade Center, that
the plot was uncovered very early by American/Israeli authorities, who, instead of squelching
it, decided to piggyback on it as a perfect cover for "doing the attacks right" so that they
might elicit the sort of outrage that would put the United States in complete service
henceforth to the Israeli nation-wrecking project in the Middle East.
Among the things that seem apparent to any half way objective observer, are that the owner
of the buildings ( or the lease) on the World Trade Center was completely compliant with the
placement of explosives in the building via the so-called elevator repair project undertaken
by the fictitious front company called Urban Moving Systems out of New Jersey, with its
Israeli demolition experts; that the owner of the buildings insured them shortly before 9-11
against terrorist attack, and that he uncharacteristically stayed away from the buildings on
9-11, that he was Jewish (perhaps a merely coincidental attribute) , and that he cried
crocodile tears after the "murders" of 2000 people who were not in on the "fix" ("such a
shame," I believe he said, shortly before he collected his massive insurance settlement and
started planning for his replacement tower which would have "much better sight lines") .
There is obviously much more evidence than I can detail here, as to the utter fraudulence of
the entire official story. Suffice to say that the horrid and unjustifiable wars that were
unleashed in the Middle East subsequently by the United States were a direct result of the
9-11 fraud. The fact that the bastards got away with that one made it clear to them that
stealing a presidential election in plain sight would be child's play.
Also, if one includes the account of a diversified U.S. Army where soldiers will now be
encouraged to snitch on each other over privately held views, one has to ask "Can it get
any worse?" Judging from Joe Biden's list of appointments so far, it will, yes it will.
Both Trump and Biden are minions of the Deep State both totally support the Deep
State.
@Ugetit n in life
back then was my sex life and clubbing. I NEVER watched (((news))) and my world was very
small. I read the sports pages and drank beer. I enjoyed my youth to the fullest and I slept
like a baby. IF someone would have shown me a book about Hitler or the holocaust, or told me
about how we must stand with muh Israel, I would have given the same old indoctrinated
Pavlovian response that some moronic Whites still have in 2021. I WOULD have said that Hitler
was the most evilest evil man that ever ever walked the earth and that America must stand
with muh Israel no matter what. Oh well, that is life in the fast lane. haha.
Jewish dominance is everywhere. Are they truly qualified? Biden should be ashamed of
himself for his appointments by overlooking more qualified Americans and for selecting Kamala
Harris as his VP. There were many women far more qualified and far more tolerant than Ms.
Harris. 2022 will probably see the Democrats losing both houses. JFK wanted to issue Treasury
currency, stop Israel from getting nuclear weapons, and pulling out of Vietnam. His
assassination caused America's loss of American independence. In June 1967 when Israel
attacked an unarmed American ship of the line, USS Liberty (in international waters), Johnson
refused to allow U.S. carrier planes to splash attacking IDD planes (using napalm) and sink
their torpedo boats from firing torpedos into the USS Libert – adding to the death and
carnage already be inflicted on the defenseless U.S. ships and its sailors. LBJ was worried
about his Jewish constituency and how they might react. Israeli influence took a quantum leap
then and it keeps increasing. Trump was guilty but Biden will be more giving to this small
foreign and theocratic nation. Buchanan's Whose war? in the American Conservative was an
honest eye-opener. Since the Democrats like impeaching out of office president – why
not Johnson RIP?
The tricky part is identifying those soldiers who think racist thoughts, even if they
never perform a racist act, because they are guilty of not conforming to "woke world." They
will have to be identified by special trained psychologists before being dishonorably
discharged and made unemployable as they are not fit to mix with decent people.
The sick irony here is that Judaism can be described as a canon of "racist thought." So it
is racist Jews, crypto Jews and their lickspittle (the Chosen-Elect) who are enforcing this
"anti-racism" social-engineering program on the American people, but doing so to hide their
own racist Zionism and the quest to set up Israel as the moral authority of the planet;
indeed, the moral authority of the universe.
I guess the best defense is a good offense. I guess all people were created equal, but
some people are more equal than others.
Orwell was absolutely dead-on about the sick, warped, totalitarian character of the
Jewish-infiltrated Anglo elite. The Zionism at the center if it all didn't come into fruition
in his day, but he nailed it nonetheless.
Possibly the real motive is to get an army that will be willing to point guns at the
American population should things ever get to that point. They'll psychologically screen them
to make sure they won't identify too closely with the mass of Americans but will follow
orders. Their war fighting capabilities take a secondary consideration to that of shielding
an illegitimate regime. They may have big plans ahead in Syria and Iran and are getting ready
to make sure things don't come apart at home as in the Vietnam war. They're probably getting
the VA hospitals ready for a new influx down the road. Looks like we're on a crash course
with Syria, Iran and Russia. One incident, one false flag coming out of nowhere and here we
go.
Come on, DIET is a clever move for the army. They have a little problem with war crimes.
The ICC began an inquiry into Afghanistan war crimes years ago. There's no statute of
limitations on such universal jurisdiction crimes. Any UN member nation can prosecute or
extradite suspects. And treaty bodies of multiple binding treaties have adjured the USG to
impose command responsibility. It puts a crimp in AFRICOM, IMET, all sorts of army gravy
trains, not just on Blowing Shit Up.
The traditional US way of maintaining impunity for grave crimes is CIA's bad-apples
canard. Lock up a couple hillbillies. With DIET, Army has institutionalized CIA's bad-apples
ploy as a vague ideological taint. If they can tie war crimes to doctrinal impurity, then
they can call inveterate war criminals bad apples instead of special forces. It's not going
to work in the civilized world, but it will probably protect BMD commanders here at home.
Now then. DO killed inter lotsa alia a judge, an ex-attorney general, a Prime Minister of
Congo, a UN Secretary-General, a Prime Minister of Sweden, a legally sacrosanct diplomatic
envoy of Iran, numerous Russia diplomats, more than 3,000 workers in a New York skyscraper, a
US president, and 475,000 Americans (with banned biological weapons!) And you got away with
it all. If you guys really minded, you would take care of this Izzie fifth column toot sweet.
That you do not shows that it works for you.
"Diversifying" the military has a very clear advantage in terms of domestic control. A
Black lesbian will have little compunction in firing upon a group of white people that she is
told are "insurrectionists".
However, what is puzzling is how much less effective these "diversified" forces will be in
future wars on behalf of Israel. You would think that the oligarchs would want to keep the US
military as lethal as possible in support of their future global conquests. Perhaps they plan
two forces, one to battle white supremacists and "misinformation" domestically, and another
less diverse segment to wage war externally.
As telling other nations how to behave backed up by the 101 st Airborne division
has become a wonderful indoor board game in this age of Coronavirus-19, my favorite article for
the past week has to be the news that Honest Joe Biden has appointed yet another Zionist harpy
to his team of war planners in an apparent attempt to keep Nuland, Sherman, Haines, Rice, Power
and Neuberger company. Her name is Dana Stroul and she
will be running the Pentagon's Middle East Desk, making her the senior policy official
focused on that region. Indications are that her eagle eye will be fixed on those major
malefactors Iran and Syria.
Stroul has been whisked away from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP),
where she has been the Shelly and Michael Kassen Fellow in the Institute's Beth and David
Geduld Program on Arab Politics. WINEP is the think tank founded by the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in an attempt to demonstrate that hatred of all of Israel's enemies
in the Middle East is somehow an American vital interest, so it is perhaps odd to consider that
the organization would even allow Arabs to have politics. Stroul had worked at the Pentagon and
had also co-chaired the Syria Study Group set up by Congress prior to landing at WINEP.
Stroul,
who believes that there is a threat to the U.S. from "Iranian nuclear ambitions and support
for terrorist groups throughout the region," also has had some interesting ideas about what
should be done to Syria, some of which was laid out in a final report that was presented to
Congress in September 2019 by the Syria Study Group.
The report states that "From the conflict's beginning in 2011 as a peaceful domestic
uprising, experts warned that President Bashar al-Assad's brutal response was likely to have
serious, negative impacts on U.S. interests. Given Syria's central location in the Middle East,
its ruling regime's ties to terrorist groups and to Iran, and the incompatibility of Assad's
authoritarian rule with the aspirations of the Syrian people, many worried about the conflict
spilling over Syria's borders The threats the conflict in Syria poses -- of terrorism directed
against the United States and its allies and partners; of an empowered Iran; of an aggrandized
Russia; of large numbers of refugees, displaced persons, and other forms of humanitarian
catastrophe; and of the erosion of international norms of war and the Western commitment to
them -- are sufficiently serious to merit a determined response from the United States. The
United States and its allies retain tools to address those threats and the leverage to promote
outcomes that are better for American interests than those that would prevail in the absence of
U.S. engagement. The United States underestimated Russia's ability to use Syria as an arena for
regional influence. Russia's intervention, beginning in 2015, accomplished its proximate aim --
the preservation of the regime in defiance of U.S. calls for Assad to 'go' -- at a relatively
low cost. Russia has enhanced its profile and prestige more broadly in the Middle East."
One immediately notes the incoherence of the argument being made. To make U.S. presence in
Syria palpable to the long-suffering American public, it is necessary to attempt to establish a
threat against the United States even though in this case there is none. And the repeated
citation of "interests" without credibly explaining what interests might compel invading and
occupying a foreign country is completely lacking in any detail. Stroul also several times
cites the heavy terrorist threat, ignoring the fact that the existing terrorists are being
sustained by Israel and by the United States, while President Bashar al-Assad has the
overwhelming support of most of the Syrian people. Reports are that Syrians are returning home
after a refugee crisis caused by the United States and its allies. And we all know that the
last refuge of a scoundrel is to play the Russian card, which Stroul does, as well as surfacing
that perennial demon Iran. U.S. support of Israeli bombing attacks are also just fine in her
opinion, even though they are a clear violation of the "international norms of war" that she
pretends to defend.
Stroul inevitably supports U.S.
retention and what she curiously refers to as "ownership" of the one third of Syria that is
"resource rich." That includes the Syrian oil producing region now occupied by U.S. troops as
well as by what she euphemizes as "Syrian Democratic Forces." She observes that it also
includes the country's best agricultural land, which, if denied to the government in Damascus,
could be used as leverage to bring about regime change. Starving Syrians are not Stroul's
concern so she consequently opposes any form of international relief or reconstruction funding
for the Syrian people and supports U.S. pressure on international lenders through the worldwide
banking system to deny Damascus any money to rebuild.
LINK BOOKMARK So, the
prize for the truly awful story of the week goes to the appointment of this monster daughter of
AIPAC to head Pentagon planning for the Middle East, joining a sterling cast of characters at
State Department and in the intelligence community. Also, if one includes the account of a
diversified U.S. Army where soldiers will now be encouraged to snitch on each other over
privately held views, one has to ask "Can it get any worse?" Judging from Joe Biden's list of
appointments so far, it will, yes it will.
Philip Giraldi, Ph.D. is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest.
John Kerry proudly states that Qatar, Saudi Arabia would fund US army to invade and topple
Syrian President Al Assad. And Israel goad America to fight "for its interests". Words of
Major General Smedley Butler that essentially US army is a mercenary unit comes to mind.
"Oh say, can you see! By Dawn's early light; a pro-dollar trade; that puts the bears to
flight?" Bloomberg Daybreak this morning boldly states "American exceptionalism is back"
(baby). Apparently better-than-expected data and corporate earnings and the prospects of fiscal
stimulus show the USA is still the global standout after all. As a result, bearish USD trades
touted for the first month of the year need to suddenly be unwound: EUR is now back below 1.20,
AUD is clinging to 0.76, and JPY is past 105.50, while as an EM proxy, MXN is back to 20.38 at
time of writing vs. 19.55 on January 21.
... ... ...
President Biden has called on the military in Myanmar to relinquish power after their recent
coup. What happens when they refuse? A signature criticism of the Obama foreign policy team was
its refusal to match US rhetoric (e.g., "pivot to Asia") with any substantive action (e.g., in
the South China Sea or Syria). The new team gave interviews before assuming office saying they
had learned these lessons. So what options with teeth does the US have for the generals in
Naypidaw to back their demand? Sanctions are meaningless for a group who rarely travel abroad
and whom can look to China for support if needed, despite their coolness towards Beijing to
date.
This underlines the need for any top dog (or cat) to build up a pack (or clowder). Here
again we see problems. Many articles have been written about the new US administration's call
for the EU to stand alongside it to create new global frameworks favourable to the West (and by
extension for USD) and not China (and CNY); and about how the EU is not willing to step up to
that plate because of French exceptionalism and German Merkel-cantilism. Macron now says
the EU should not gang up on China with the US : " This kind of common front against China
risks pushing Beijing to lower its cooperation on issues like combatting climate change, and
exacerbating its aggressive behaviour in Asia, including in the South China Sea, " he says. So
will the US response then have to be Trumpian and EUR negative, like last time? If not, then
what exactly?
Of course, the previous administration had been building bridges to India, which has its own
issues with China. However, this relationship is still in its early stages, and India has
traditionally looked to Russia for muscle, a role Moscow would be happy to play again. In that
regard, the White House backing large anti-government protests in New Delhi against an
agricultural reform programme ostensibly to the US's liking, and criticizing the government for
cutting off the internet to try to disrupt them, is unlikely to help build bridges: indeed,
India has already drawn comparisons to the events of 6 January in the US Capitol, showing the
US is not as exceptional as it likes to project it is. These kind of shifts can matter, even if
this is just one small step on a much longer journey (and USD trend channel).
Meanwhile, the Aussie government (which has also never and will never target house prices,
"just land, bricks, mortar, etc.") might be wondering what the US will help do about a report
that
a Chinese company is planning to build a new city on a Papua New Guinea island near Australia's
northern border . 'New Daru City' allegedly includes an industrial zone, seaport, business
and commercial zone, along with a resort and residential area. Will Canberra regard this as a
market-driven response to the well-known Chinese demand for lifestyle residences in the vibrant
cultural hub that is the PNG hinterland, or as a Bond-villain project to develop a port just
200km from their Northern Territory? The PNG Prime Minister himself says he is "unaware" of
this proposal(!) Yes, this may well not come to pass; but one can again see the paving stones
being prepared for alternative paths for currencies like AUD, USD, and CNY (to say nothing of
PNG's Kina) to travel over the course of the 2020s.
Meanwhile, the US can at least rely on the UK, as usual, where yesterday saw regulators ban
China's CGTN TV news service, and the Telegraph also reports that three Chinese spies posing as
journalists have just been expelled from the country. Somehow, along with the whole BNO
passports issue, this is not likely to help ensure the "golden era" of Sino-British relations
promised under previous UK leadership.
But will it ensure a golden era of Bido-BoJo relations? That is another path as yet
untrod.
Happy Friday! "We love it so much, I think you do too."
If you go back under Eisenhower, the wealthiest segment of the population, the wealthiest
corporations paid 91% income tax. What you saw, and I learned much of this from Ralph Nader who
was turned into a pariah consciously, is that they pushed out the real liberal wing of the
Democratic party. Ralph himself wrote I think 24 pieces of legislation, consumer protection,
the mine and safety act, the clean water act. This was all Nader. But it was pushed through by
liberal senators, Proxmire, Fulbright and others, Wellstone, maybe being one of the last. All
of these people were pushed out of the Democratic party and replaced with these full liberal, I
would call them full liberals figures like Obama, figures like Clinton, who spoke in that
traditional feel, you're paying language of the Democratic party but serve the interest of Wall
Street. Cornel West called Barack Obama black mascot for Wall Street which was correct.
The head of US Strategic Command (STRATCOM)
warned that a nuclear war with Russia or China is a "real possibility" and is calling for a
change in US policy that reflects this threat .
"There is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate
quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons, if they perceived a conventional loss would
threaten the regime or state," Vice Adm. Charles Richard wrote in the February edition of the
US Naval Institute's monthly magazine .
Richard said the US military must "shift its principal assumption from 'nuclear employment
is not possible' to 'nuclear employment is a very real possibility,' and act to meet and deter
that reality."
The STRATCOM chief said Russia and China "have begun to aggressively challenge international
norms and global peace using instruments of power and threats of force in ways not seen since
the height of the Cold War."
Richard hyped up Russia and China's nuclear modernization, calling for the US to compete
with the two nations. When it comes to China's nuclear weapons, the US and Russia have vastly
larger arsenals. Current estimates put
Beijing's nuclear arsenal at about 320 warheads, while Washington and Moscow have about 6,000
warheads each .
Even if Beijing doubles its arsenal over the next decade, as the China hawks are predicting,
it will still be small compared to Washington's. The US would have to eliminate a good amount
of its arsenal to convince Beijing to participate in arms control agreements.
Since STRATCOM is the command post that oversees Washington's nuclear arsenal, its
commanders are always overplaying the risk of nuclear war and asking for more money to
modernize the stockpile. But with the US prioritizing so-called "great power competition" with
China and Russia and an increased US military presence in places like
the South China Sea ,
the Arctic , and
the Black Sea , the threat of nuclear war is rising.
On January 19th, the US Senate held confirmation hearings for Joe Biden's Secretary of State
nominee Antony Blinken. Blinken has a reputation on both sides of the aisle for being
exceptionally qualified for the job of America's top diplomat, which is surprising considering
he was on the wrong side of every major foreign policy blunder of the last 20 years ;
Iraq, Libya, and Syria .
When Senator Rand Paul
asked Antony Blinken what lessons he has learned from his disastrous foreign policy record
in Libya and Syria, Blinken replied that after "some hard thinking" he's proud that he has done
"everything we possibly can to make sure that diplomacy is the first answer, not the last
answer, and that war and conflict is our last resort."
Of course war is the last resort. Even the most hawkish war criminals would agree that war
is the last resort. But the question is, war is the last resort to accomplish what? If war is
the last resort to get a country to fully capitulate to Washington's demands then eventually
the US will be at war with everyone. To Blinken, war as the last resort can only be understood
in the same way a mugger considers shooting his victim as a last resort to stealing their
wallet.
Blinken displayed his hubris a few minutes later when he said, "The door should remain open"
for Georgia to join NATO under the justification of curbing Russian aggression .
Rand Paul informed Blinken, "This would be adding Georgia, that's occupied [by Russia], to
NATO. Under Article 5, then we would go to war ."
Senator Paul is right. According to Washington, Russia has been
occupying 20 percent of Georgia since 2008. Under the principle of collective defense in
Article 5 of NATO, the US would be obligated to treat Russia's occupation of the country of
Georgia the same way the US would treat a Russian occupation of the US state of Georgia. That
sounds like a recipe for war. But don't worry, peaceniks, Antony Blinken has assured us that
war is the last resort!
Blinken's framing of the issue exposes his disingenuous approach. Russian aggression is a
term used by Washington insiders to describe a Russian reaction to western aggression. Blinken
knows that the 2008 war between Russia and Georgia was not Russian aggression, he calls it that
because it suits his agenda and the American press is dependably ignorant enough to not ask
questions.
In the 2008 war, Georgia
was the aggressor against the South Ossetians, a people who are ethnically distinct from Georgians, and
who have never --
not even for one day -- considered themselves a part of Georgia. The Ossetians have a
history of Russian
partiality ; they were among the first ethnic groups in the region to join the Russian
Empire in the 19th century and the USSR in the 1920s. Today, ethnic Ossetians straddle both
sides of the current Russian border, and they are more aligned with the Russian government than with the
Georgian government.
When Georgia gained sovereignty from the former Soviet Union in 1991, South Ossetia declared
its independence. In response, Georgian forces invaded South Ossetia, initiating an armed
conflict that killed more than
2,000 people . In 1992, a ceasefire agreement was signed in Sochi between Georgia, Russia
and South Ossetia, which created a
tripartite peacekeeping force led by Russia. Although the international community never
acknowledged South Ossetia's independence, they have enjoyed political autonomy since the 1992
Sochi agreement.
The Sochi agreement held up until Georgia's ultra-nationalist President Mikheil Saakashvili
came to power in the 2003 western-backed
bloodless " Rose
Revolution " coup-d'etat. The pro-western President Saakashvili advocated joining the EU
and NATO, and insisted on asserting Georgian rule over South
Ossetia. U.S. President George Bush
supported the new Georgian president's effort to bring Georgia into NATO, which for Russia
would mean bringing a hostile military up to its border. In 2006, President Saakashvili offered
South Ossetia autonomy in exchange for a political settlement with Georgia. A
referendum was held, and the South Ossetian people overwhelmingly reaffirmed their desire for
independence from Georgia.
In August, 2008, After exchanging artillery fire with South Ossetia,
Georgia invaded South Ossetia's capital city of Tskhinvali, killing
1,400 civilians and
18 Russian peacekeepers . Georgia's attack triggered a Russian invasion into South Ossetia
and Abkhazia (another breakaway region) to restore stability and protect peacekeeping
forces.
Russia is by no means innocent -- they used
disproportionate force attacking targets inside Georgia -- but only a Russophobic shill
would conclude that this war was somehow caused by Russian aggression. The idea that Russia had
no business intervening is laughable. Under the
1992 Sochi agreement , Russia took charge of a peacekeeping coalition to help prevent
exactly the scenario that happened in the summer of 2008.
If George Bush had succeeded in bringing Georgia into NATO, the United States may have been
dragged into war with Russia in 2008. Antony Blinken claims that NATO membership deters Russian
aggression, but does he really believe that Russia would have been deterred from intervening to
protect its own peacekeeping force? Does Blinken believe that Georgia -- backed by the U.S.
military -- would have acted more cautiously in South Ossetia, or is it more likely they would
have been bolder?
It's undeniable that it is in Russia's best interest to have pro-Russian countries on its
borders. But pretending as if Russia is going to march into Tbilisi and reabsorb the entire
country of Georgia into Russia is a level of paranoia that should disqualify anyone from having
an opinion on the subject. The military conflict in Georgia is about the two breakaway regions
and their right to self determination. Russia's self interest happens to align with the wishes
of the people in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
By supporting Georgia, America -- the champion of democracy and self determination -- has
adopted the position that South Ossetians didn't really mean to repeatedly choose independence
when given the option. This is a situation where America's professed values are diametrically
opposed to its policy of countering Russian influence everywhere on the map.
Antony Blinken should pause to consider if America's policy objectives are worth fighting a
war for. Is it worth confronting Russia in South Ossetia? Was it worth confronting Russia over
Crimea and the Donbas in
Ukraine ? Is it a good idea to withdraw from the INF
Nuclear Treaty and the
Open Skies Treaty ? Should we have spent the last 30 years marching NATO -- a military
alliance hostile to Russia -- right up to the doorsteps of
Russia ? Is any of this really making us safer?
Blinken has bought into his own propaganda. To Blinken, regardless of the stubborn details
of history, every conflict on Russia's border is simply Russian aggression. Washington's
solution is the expansion of NATO, which Russia describes as "
NATO encirclement. " This is an unacceptable military threat to Russia, who has
a deep distrust of western intentions due to a long history of western invasions into Russia.
Antony Blinken still lives in a bipolar world in which the United States and Russia are
existential threats to each other's existence. Every conflict and every alliance is only viewed
through the lens of the New Cold War crusade against Russia. This maniacal crusade could thrust
America in the unthinkable abyss of nuclear war.
Rand Paul got his answer, Antony Blinken learned nothing from all his mistakes! The danger
isn't merely resorting to war too early, the danger is in sticking our noses in conflicts that
we have no business being in. War should be the last resort to defending America's people and
it's homeland from foreign invasion; it should not be the last resort to enforcing America's
utopian vision on the world, and it certainly shouldn't be the last resort to prevent an ethnic
group in the South Caucasus -- that almost no American has ever heard of -- from the right to
self-determination.
Kenny MacDonald is a former Navy SEAL and Afghanistan War veteran. He is currently pursuing
a bachelor's degree in history. Youtube Channel . Medium . Facebook .
6 Warning Signs from Biden's First Week in Office The "progressive" candidate praised as
a "woke bloke" seems to be carrying on where all his authoritarian Imperialist predecessors
left off Kit Knightly
What do these orders, or any of his other moves, tell us about the future plans of the
recently "elected" administration? Nothing good, unfortunately.
1. VACCINATION
PASSPORTS
I still remember people claiming the introduction of vaccination passports (or immunity
passes or the like) was just a "conspiracy theory", the paranoid fantasy of fringe "covidiots".
All the way back in December, when they were
getting fact-checked by tabloid journalists who can't do basic maths .
International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis. Consistent with applicable law,
the Secretary of State, the Secretary of HHS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security
(including through the Administrator of the TSA), in coordination with any relevant
international organizations, shall assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to
International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) and producing electronic
versions of ICVPs.
2. CABINET APPOINTMENTS
Biden's cabinet is praised as the "most diverse" in history, but will hiring a few non-white
people really change the decades-old policies of US Imperialism? It certainly doesn't look like
it.
His pick for Under Secretary of State is Victoria Nuland , a neocon warmonger and
one of the masterminds of the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014. She is married to Robert Kagan , another neocon
warmonger, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century and senior fellow at the
Brookings Institute and one of the masterminds behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken , is also an inveterate US
Imperialist, arguing for every US military intervention since the 1990s, and criticised Trump's
decision to withdraw from Syria.
Biden's pick for Defence Secretary is the first African-American ever appointed to this
role, but former General Lloyd Austin is hardly going be some kind of "progressive" voice int
his cabinet. He's a career soldier who retired from the military in 2016 to join the
board of Raytheon Technologies , an arms manufacturer and military contractor.
As "diverse" as this cabinet may be in skin colour or gender there is most certainly no
"diversity" of opinion or policy. There are very few new faces and no new thoughts.
So, it looks like we can expect more of the same in terms of foreign policy. A fact that's
already been displayed in
3. IRAQ
Despite heavy resistance from the military and Deep State, Donald Trump wanted to end the
war in Iraq and pledged to pull American troops out of the country. This was one of Trump's
more popular policies, and during the campaign Biden made no mention of intending to reverse
that decision.
The Iraqi parliament has made it clear it wants the US to
take its military off their soil , so any American forces on Iraqi land are technically
there illegally in contravention of international law. But that never bothered them
before.
4. AFGHANISTAN
Turns out the US can't withdraw from Afghanistan either. Last February Trump signed a deal
with the Taliban that all US personnel would leave Afghanistan by May 2021.
Joe Biden has already committed to "reviewing"
this deal . Sec. Blinken was quoted as saying that Biden's admin wanted:
to end this so-called forever war [but also] retain some capacity to deal with any
resurgence of terrorism, which is what brought us there in the first place".
As a great man once
said , nothing someone says before the word "but" really counts. The US will not be
withdrawing from Afghanistan, and if there is any public pressure to do so, the government will
simply claim the Taliban broke their side of the deal first, or stage a few terrorist
attacks.
5. AND SYRIA
Far from simply continuing the on-going wars, there are already signs Biden's "diverse" team
will look to escalate, or even start, other conflicts.
Syria was another theatre of war from which Donald Trump wanted to extricate the United
States,
unilaterally ordering all US troops from the country in late 2019.
We now know the Pentagon ignored those orders. They lied to the
President , telling Trump they had followed his orders but not withdrawing a single man.
This organized mutiny against the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces was played for a
joke in the media when it was finally revealed.
There will be no need for any such duplicity now Biden is in the Oval Office, he was a
vocal critic of the decision to withdraw , claiming it gave ISIS a "new lease of life".
Indeed, within two days of his being sworn in a column of American military vehicles was
seen entering Syria from Iraq
.
6. DOMESTIC TERRORISM
We called this before the
inauguration . They made it just too obvious. Before the dirty footprints had been cleaned
from Nancy Pelosi's desk it was clear where it was all going.
Direct the Justice Department, FBI and National Security Council to execute a top-down
approach prioritizing domestic terrorism; pass new domestic terrorism legislation; or do a
bit of both as Democrats propose a crack down on social media giants like Facebook for
algorithms that promote conspiracy laden posts.
That last part is key. The "crack down on social media" part, because the anti-Domestic
Terrorism legislation will likely be very focused on communication and so-called
"misinformation".
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has publicly called for a congressional panel to
"rein in" the media :
We're going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can't just
spew disinformation and misinformation,"
And who will be the target of these crack downs and new legislations? Well, according John
Brennan (ex-head of the CIA and accomplished war criminal), practically anybody:
They're casting a wide net. Expect "extremist", "bigot" and "racist" to be just a few of the
words which have their meanings totally revised in the next few months. "Conspiracy theorist"
will be used a lot, too.
Further, they are moving closer and closer toward the "anyone who disagrees with us is
literally insane" model. With many articles actually talking about "de-programming" Trump
voters. The Atlantic suggests "mental
hygiene" would cure the MAGA problem.
Again AOC is on point here, clearly auditioning for the role of High Inquisitor, claiming
that the new Biden government needs to fund programs that "de-radicalise" "conspiracy
theorists" who are on the "spectrum
of radicalisation" .
*
As I said at the beginning, it's been a busy week for Joe Biden, but you can sum up his
biggest policy plans in one short sentence: More violence overseas, less tolerance of dissent
and strict clampdowns on "misinformation".
Blinken does not seem to have repented from his fundamentalist belief in American
imperial goodness, notwithstanding his appeal for "humility".
Barring an earthquake in Washington, Antony Blinken is set to become the new U.S. Secretary
of State and America's top diplomat. The youthful and telegenic Blinken (58) takes over from
Mike Pompeo who was America's representative to the world under the last Trump
administration.
The contrast could not be more stark. In place of Pompeo's thuggish, rough-edged style,
Blinken has the appearance of consummate diplomat. He's fluent in French owing to a European
education, he's urbane and sophisticated and comes from a family which has diplomacy in its
genes. His father was an ambassador to Hungary and an advisor to President John F Kennedy. An
uncle was ambassador to Belgium.
Blinken has Hungarian and Russian Jewish ancestry. His mother remarried a Polish-American
Jewish survivor of the Nazi holocaust. During his confirmation hearing in the Senate this week,
Blinken
told the story of how his stepfather escaped from a Nazi death march in Bavaria and was
eventually rescued by an American tank driven by an African-American officer.
That story has shaped Blinken's worldview of America's prestige and international role. He's
a proponent of U.S. military interventionism with a presumption of moral duty. He's an advocate
of America working with European allies and upholding the transatlantic alliance – in
contrast to Trump's boorish America First sloganeering. Understandably, Blinken is imbued with
an unshakable belief in "American exceptionalism" and "manifest destiny" as a world leader.
The Senators at his confirmation hearing this week
swooned as Blinken spoke. He's certain to be confirmed as the new Secretary of State in the
coming days. That's because he is seen to be perfect for the task of restoring America's
international image which has been so badly tarnished under Trump and his grumpy gofer Pompeo.
The Europeans will lap up Blinken and his transatlantic romanticism.
Blinken has said that America's foreign policy must be conducted with "humility and
confidence", which may sound refreshingly modest. But it's not. Underlying this "quiet
American" is the same old arrogance about U.S. imperial might-is-right and Washington's
presumed privilege of appointing itself as the "world's policeman".
If Blinken's record is anything to go on, his future role as America's top diplomat is
foreboding.
Previously, he was a senior member in the Obama administrations serving as national security
advisor to both the president and Joe Biden who was then vice-president. Blinken rose to become
deputy Secretary of State in the final years of the second Obama administration. In those roles
he was a key player in a series of foreign interventions which turned out to be utterly
disastrous.
He was a big proponent of U.S. military intervention in Libya in 2011 which led to the
toppling and murder of Muammar Gaddafi. That intervention along with other NATO powers has left
a ruinous legacy not only for Libya but for North Africa, the Mediterranean and Europe.
Blinken was also a point-man in Obama's intervention in Syria where the U.S. (and other NATO
powers) supplied weapons to anti-government militants. The so-called "rebels" were in fact
myriad terrorist groups affiliated with Al Qaeda and other extremist Islamists. Up to half a
million people have been killed in the decade-long Syrian war and much of that blood is on
America's hands from its de facto support for terror gangs. Maybe Blinken genuinely thought he
was supporting "pro-democracy rebels". But even if we give him the benefit of doubt, the upshot
is still a disaster of American interventionism.
Another catastrophic consequence of Blinken's policymaking is Yemen. Under his direction,
the Obama administration backed the Saudi war on its southern neighbor beginning in March 2015
and continuing to this day. Yemen has become the worst humanitarian crisis in the world with
millions facing starvation amid Saudi aerial bombardment carried out with U.S. warplanes and
logistics.
The new Biden administration has indicated it will withdraw military support for Saudi
Arabia in its war on Yemen. But that doesn't absolve the U.S., and Blinken in particular, for
having created the horrendous quagmire from which it is belatedly trying to extricate itself
from.
What's rather perplexing, however, is that Blinken does not seem to have repented from his
fundamentalist belief in American imperial goodness, notwithstanding his appeal for "humility".
During his Senate hearings, he
showed little regret about America's illegal bombing of Libya and its arming of jihadists
in Syria.
He described the world with the conventional brainwashed American ideology as being a place
where China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are enemies that must be confronted. He also
told Senators he was in favor of increasing supplies of lethal weaponry to the Ukraine and
its rabidly anti-Russian regime in Kiev. Recall that it was the Obama administration which
instigated a coup d'état in Kiev against an elected president in February 2014. The new
regime was and is dominated by far-right nationalists who laud past links to Nazi Germany. If
Blinken has his way the war against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine will escalate and could
ignite a bigger confrontation between Russia and the U.S.
One of the hallmarks of the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev is its espousal of Neo-Nazi
traditions and in particular antisemitic hatred.
Given Antony Blinken's own Jewish ancestry and his own intimate connection to the Nazi
holocaust, you do have to question his competence if he becomes America's foreign policy
leader. His boss President Joe Biden has fondly lionized Blinken as a "superstar" of diplomacy.
Superficially perhaps, he has finesse and intelligence. But in much the same basic way of
adhering to American imperialism, Blinken is as crude and thuggish as his predecessor Pompeo.
He just projects a more plausible look and sound, which is most desirable as a moral cover for
America's criminal imperialism.
Blinken is
known to self-deprecate his "insatiable habit" for making up bad puns. For example, on one
occasion when he was addressing an audience on policy regarding the Arctic, he began by joking
he would be "breaking the ice". Given his ability to pursue destructive dead-end policies, he
might therefore appreciate the moniker "Secretary of State Tony Blinkered".
Speaking about rich families who own the world. There is one unique feature of german
oligarchy, they don't change. More than half of the hundred richest families now have already
been rich before ww1. They made the crazy history of last century possible. Please just go
for a second in the perspective they have.
Using the short form of trillion, and counting that the Pentagon budget (+ secret ops) was
already estimated to be 1'2 trillion about five years back. Which makes $3'287'671'232.88 per
day. Three thousand two hundred and eighty two million.. Easier to calculate, (incl US
contribution) is that the total NATO budget is x 22 that of Russia.
No surprise to hear that all of a sudden, and so soon after Joe Biden's inauguration as
US President, Syria is coming back into the United States' target sights. The team that used
to advise O'Bomber on his Middle East policy must have all come back and are probably also
being paid bigger bucks for the next four-year cycle.
Is al-Tanf really a launching pad for ISIS attacks in the region?
This question reminded me of something Putin told Oliver Stone in Episode 1 of The Putin
Interviews regarding the Chechen 'uprising'. About 40 minutes in he tells Stone that "The
Americans were flying fighters around (inside Russia)."
Putin complained about this to Bush II. The US response came in the form of a letter from the
Director of the CIA which said, in effect: "The CIA reserves the right to engage with
Opposition parties and will continue to do so."
In other words "Go fuck yourself."
Putin doesn't say what action, if any, Russia took in response to Yankee Chutzpah inside
Russia but he's certainly familiar with Yankees throwing their weight around inside other
people's countries.
The foregoing occurred AFTER Russia had moved heaven and earth to help and co-operate with
the Yankees in their Fake War in Afghanistan.
This article from
thesaker site last week relates:
"Unable to achieve complete regime change, the Empire has shifted gears and now is
waging a war primarily based on starvation. Limiting the flow of food and energy in the
country may not even succeed in directly impeding military operations, but it can
effectively turn Syria into a third world country by grinding civilian life to a halt and
starving the population."
- Deir Ezzor is a Sign of Things to Come
It ties in how, the US in 2003 "unilaterally disbanded the Iraqi army without pay,
despite warnings that this would create a pool of manpower for terrorism. Many of these
soldiers later filled the ranks of ISIS."
It could also have tied in how, in 2011, the US overthrew the stable, peaceful government
in Libya and ensured the spread of weaponry to Syria/Iraq/ISIS/AQ/Africa, despite many
warnings about that too. So the US deliberately created a pool of manpower for terrorism,
then deliberately created a pool and flow of weaponry.
As stated in a 2014
article , "The states which the US planned to destroy in 2001 (as reported by General
Wesley Clark in his memoirs) - Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran and Syria - are now
in fact destroyed societies. All but Iran are left with civil war and majority destitution
where once they had been relatively prosperous and life secure."
The people of Syria suffered far less under Trump than under Obama/H.Clinton/Biden, and,
unfortunately, just days into the new administration it already looks like they will suffer
more again now that Biden has empowered the neocons again.
It's extraordinary that in the current balance of power situation the SAA (Syrian Arab
Army) and the Russian Military have to tolerate these clandestine operations in Syria by US
and UK Special Forces protected by the threat of US and Israeli air power and invasive US
military reaction. These operations have been initiated at the end of the proxy war waged
unsuccessfully by the US/UK since 2012 with the aim in the longer term to extend by violence
and terror the strength and penetration of Salafist Jihadist terrorism (embracing ISIS
remnants etc) into mainland Syria much like the incursions conducted by the Contras in
Nicaragua in the eighties to weaken the state and demoralise the people. That there is some
confusion as to the role of these occupied Syrian territories despite the covert nature of
the US/UK presence is worrying since it must be understood that the US and UK military are
now providing direct operational and logistical support in addition to training, financing,
resupplying terrorists including ISIS all operating from safe, protected bases inside Syria
controlled by the US. It's now obvious that unlike earlier in the Syrian conflict when US/UK
involvement was limited by the policy of fronting the proxy war in Syria by Saudi Arabia,
Gulf States and Turkey the US has stationed its forces on the front line of this low level
proxy war which the US intends to stage manage while economic war is waged against the Syrian
people to further weaken their resolve and resistance. This blatant criminal enterprise
cannot go unanswered by all anti imperialist forces and organisations in the Middle East and
Europe.
Not only is the US/UK military occupation of Syrian sovereign territory illegal but the
'pillage' of Syrian oil is also illegal and prohibited by the Hague Conventions. This has
been customary international law for over one hundred years.
So much for the fabled 'ruled based international order' a phrase which is recited by rote
and trumpeted endlessly by the self same Anglo/Zionists. As if saying the phrase means doing
it.
These war criminals will stop at nothing in the service of bandit state.
T here's a
news story about a U.S. military convoy entering Syria being shared around social media
with captions claiming that President Joe Biden is already "invading" Syria which is getting
tons of shares in both right-wing and left anti-imperialist circles.
But if you read the original report everyone jumped on, accurately titled "U.S. military
convoy enters northeast Syria: report," you don't have to read too far to get to this line :
"Other local media report that such maneuvers are not unusual as the U.S. often moves
transfers equipment between Iraq and Syria."
So, while this is a movement of troops between illegitimate military occupations which have
no business existing in either country, it is nothing new and would have been happening
regardless of which candidate had won the last U.S. presidential election.
Another inaccurate narrative that's gone completely viral is the claim that Biden is sending
more troops to Iraq. This one traces back to a single Twitter post by some Trumpy
account with the handle "@amuse" who shared a Jerusalem Post article with the caption
"BREAKING: President Biden is considering reversing Trump's drawdown in Iraq by adding
thousands of troops to combat growing terror threats in the region as evidenced by Thursday's
attack near the U.S. embassy."
If you read the actual JPost article titled "
Baghdad bombing could be the Biden admin's first challenge " you will see that it contains
no such claim, and if you were to search a bit you would find @amuse claiming that they
were sharing something they'd learned from "sources" in D.C. instead of accurately summarizing
the contents of the article.
Unless you know this person and know them to be consistently trustworthy, there is no valid
reason to believe claims allegedly said by alleged anonymous sources to some openly partisan
anonymous account on Twitter.
But the bogus tweet was amplified by many influential accounts, most notably by Donald Trump
Jr with the caption "Getting back into wars on the first full day. The Swamp/War Inc. is
thrilled right now."
Its virality then caused it to work its way outward to dupe many well-meaning
anti-imperialists (myself included until I looked into it) who are vigilant against
Biden's notorious warmongering , and now there's a widespread narrative throughout every
part of the ideological spectrum that Biden is escalating warmongering in both Syria and
Iraq.
It is entirely possible – probable even – that reliable warmonger
Joe Biden will end up sending more U.S. troops to Iraq and Syria at some point during his
administration. But if the antiwar community keeps staring at the movement of ground troops
with hypervigilant intensity, they won't be paying enough attention to the areas where the more
deadly aspects of Biden's hawkishness are likely to manifest.
Jan. 28, 2019: The Trump administration's U.S. National Security Advisor John R. Bolton,
left, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin announce sanctions of the Venezuela oil company
PDVSA. (The White House, Wikimedia Commons)
Trump may not have started any "new wars," but he kept the old ones going and inflamed
some of them. Just because you don't start any new wars doesn't mean you're not a
warmonger.
Rather than a throwback to "new wars" and the old-school ground invasions of the Bush era,
the warmongering we'll be seeing from the Biden administration is more likely to look like
this. More starvation sanctions. More proxy conflicts. More cold war. More coups. More special
ops. More drone strikes. More slow motion strangulation, less ham-fisted overt warfare.
It is certainly possible that Biden could launch a new full-scale war; the empire is in
desperate straits right now, and it could turn out that a very desperate maneuver is needed to
maintain global domination. But that isn't the method that it has favored lately.
The U.S. empire
much prefers nowadays to pour its resources into less visible acts of violence like
economic siege warfare and arming proxy militias; the Iraq invasion left Americans so bitter
toward conventional war that any more of it would increase the risk of an actual antiwar
movement in the United States, which would be disastrous for the empire.
So rather than tempt fate with the bad publicity of flag-draped coffins flying home by the
thousands again imperialism is now served up with a bit more subtlety, with the military
playing more of a backup role to guard the infrastructure of this new approach.
It appears clear that this would be the Biden administration's preferred method of
warmongering if given the choice.
The incoming Secretary of State Tony Blinken now advocates replacing the
old Bush model of full-scale war with "discreet, small-scale sustainable operations, maybe led
by special forces, to support local actors." Biden's nominee for CIA Director William Burns
urged caution in the lead-up to the Iraq
invasion and later expressed regret that he didn't push
back against it.
Antiwar protest in San Francisco, Aug. 29, 2013. (Steve Rhodes, Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)
Too much of the antiwar community is still stuck in the early 2000s. The Western war machine
just doesn't generally kill that way anymore, and we need to adjust our perspectives if we want
to address the actual murderousness as it is actually showing up. If you keep looking out for
obsolete ground invasions, you're going to miss the new form of warmongering completely.
Trump supporters who claim to oppose war missed this completely throughout the entirety of
his presidency, confining the concept of "war" solely to its most blatant iterations in order
to feel like their president was a peacemaker instead of a warmonger.
One of the few positive developments that could potentially arise from the Biden
administration is helping such people to recognize acts of violence like starvation sanctions
as war, since they will be opposing Biden and that is how this new administration will be
manifesting much of its murderousness.
The political/media class likes to keep everyone focused on the differences between each
president and his immediate predecessor, but we can learn a whole lot more by looking at their
similarities. Biden's warmongering is going to look a lot like Trump's -- just directed in some
different directions and expressing in slightly different ways -- despite all the energy that
has been poured into painting them as two wildly different individuals.
Once you see beyond the partisan puppet show, you see a single oligarchic empire continuing
the same murderous agendas from one sock puppet administration to the next.
It's part & parcel here especially from DUP types who sometimes appear to be living in
a fantasy world – Shinners not so much but I imagine that SF dissidents have similar
extreme positions & all of this comes from some intelligent & professional people not
just the malleable mobs. Meanwhile there is a turf war for the gangster versions of both UVF
& UDA hitting the streets in Belfast.
I recall a few years back reading an account from a British Army general who was familiar
with both Northern Ireland & the former Yugoslavia before they blew up, who in both
instances was shocked by how people who had for the most part lived happily side by side
within a relatively short space of time became sworn enemies. All of that had a religious
background with the latter including ethnicity, but to him both sides in both cases spiraled
down through negative reactions into extremes, becoming in the end each others sworn
enemies.
Politics & Class have I believe caused the same fractures & after all the
successful & presumably intelligent PMC also have their deplorable others that are
largely a construction based on generalisations & stereotypes, while sadly peace &
reconciliation efforts as far as I can tell always appear to arrive as an epilogue to a very
bad book.
Yugoslavia definitely didn't live happily side by side. Its tensions were hidden under
Tito, but existed before (cf WW2 Croats vs Serbs, as most visible example), and blew up
after, to a great extent because they were so supressed before w/o any reasonable outlet. It
might have given a semblance of "happines", but it wasn't really there.
I was only in Yugoslavia once for about a week in 1982, and you could see what a mess it
was in the making. I'm used to Europeans drinking, but Belgrade made em' look like
teetotalers. Add in age old tensions and kaboom!
One of the biggest hyperinflationary episodes came out of their civil war, only to be
eclipsed in the numbers game by Zimbabwe after the turn of the century.
I was going through Yugoslavia by train in 1981 and the one thing that struck me looking
out the windows was flags. You had Yugoslavian flags everywhere you looked to the point that
it was almost a fetish. It was only years later that I wondered if the point of those flags
was to encourage the different groups to think of themselves as Yugoslavians first and
foremost.
> to a great extent because they were so supressed before w/o any reasonable
outlet.
But this seems to excuse the fighting? If everybody was "suppressed" then why did they
kick sideways, rather than up? As I think I said once before, my friend from Serbia would say
"I'd be on "my" side of the street and "they" would be shooting at me, and then I'd cross the
street and "my" people would be shooting at me".
He, like so many nowadays, came to the US not because this was some beacon of hope but
because where he lived, a place he loved for many reasons, was that messed up.
Reading Wikipedia I come across this tiresome sentence: "The Croat quest for independence
led to large Serb communities within Croatia rebelling and trying to secede from the Croat
republic. Serbs in Croatia would not accept a status of a national minority in a sovereign
Croatia, since they would be demoted from the status of a constituent nation of the entirety
of Yugoslavia."
Croats? Serbs? Like they are fundamentally different species? It's as bad as the
Reconstruction South, but per my example above people didn't even have different colored
skin, heck they were physically indistinguishable. They just wanted something they themselves
couldn't even describe without foaming at the mouth.
To be considered above somebody else by birth was what it really was.
Oh, and another head-banging quote: "the "Croatian Spring" protest in the 1970s was backed
by large numbers of Croats who claimed that Yugoslavia remained a Serb hegemony and demanded
that Serbia's powers be reduced .Tito, whose home republic was Croatia,"
An iron-fisted dictator runs the country, he is from Croatia, yet the country is
considered by Croatians to be "Serb hegemony". Ok whatever, hey it does make more sense than
following a normal-height dark-haired dark-eyed man because he says that tall blond-haired
blue eyed people are superior. And that was a short-by-American-standards drive away
We can give the globe a spin and find the same idiocy in Asia, where "they all look alike"
to western eyes but oh boy they slaughter each other just as regularly as we do.
Ok I'm done ranting. What a plague on the planet this species is.
Kicking sideways (or downwards) is always easier than kicking upwards, especially if
people were doing it for years.
Otherwise, you're just accentuating my point – and I agree with you. It was
incredible watching people in pub who were getting on very well until one of them asked where
the other was from, and that has changed the whole atmosphere.
My cousin from Prague came to America in the late 90's to live on a genuine ranch for a
spell and go on a long roadtrip in search of
So he gets pulled over for speeding in a red state and gives the officer his Czech drivers
license, and he told me the officer went into a harangue over all the ethnic cleansing that
was going on in his country, and how sorry he was about it, and let him off.
Cousin was torn between telling the copper, nah that's a few countries over, but went for
the victim card instead.
Hah, do you know the Western press brain-melt induced by having Slovakia and Slovenia
(which, moreover have very similar flags..) in the same World Cup (soccer) 2022 qualification
group?
Croats? Serbs? Like they are fundamentally different species?
Not different species, but different religions; Roman and Orthodox Catholicism,
respectively. Think German-speaking Europe during the Thirty Years War.
The irony of course is that, in 1992, Croats for the most part didn't go to mass, Serbs
did go to Liturgy, and Bosniak Muslims thought beer went well with their pork chops.
Think of it not as a religious war, but a re-hash of WWII.
Diana Johnstones "Fools Crusade" goes into the destabilization efforts made by various EU
and Nato entities to precipitate the break up. It's where the Clintons beta tested the nation
breaking tools Bush/Cheney began deploying around the world.
Karl Von Hapsburg and the Pope were both involved in prying the Catholic portions loose
from the Yugoslav federation and bringing them back into the Mont Pelerin orbit of the former
Habsburg empire.
The Orthodox regions have been left to the Russians with black markets to everyone's
benefit and the Bosnians given the standard settler/colonial treatment of designated
"races."
Vlade – perhaps I should not have used the word happily but basically neighbours
were not killing each other as was also mainly the case in NI, although there were tensions
gradually building up in tandem with the Civil Rights movement based on the MLK. model.
I don't know what the tipping point was in the Balkans, but in NI it was the treatment
received by the marchers & the likes of the Bogside at the hands of the B specials &
RUC in Derry which gradually spread elsewhere in mass battles between mobs from both sides
& the above armed cops. All of this capped off in 72 by the Provos most successful
recruiting campaign courtesy of the Parachute regiment on Bloody Sunday, while about that
time around 10,000 Catholic refugees crossed into the Republic.
If the General thought that people in NI lived happily side by side before the Troubles,
then he was sorely misinformed. Tensions were always very strong, although not just religious
ones. In Dublin growing up I had neighbours who were Belfast protestants but had been driving
out of Belfast because their grandfather was involved in a shipyard trade union and that was
sufficient for him to have been labeled as a communist and Taig lover.
Yes happily was the wrong word but in the North outside of the cities there was mixing
& occasionally mixed marriages.
You are very correct in relation to the troubles in the shipyards, which I read a few
books about in prep for a statue. Funny thing is that during my 2 stints at the Titanic
studios for GoT I was informed by the top man that many of the tradesmen were ex
paramilitaries from both sides who managed to work well together for a decade, but in
separate teams. That was also tjhe case during the yearly Wraps where they all took full
advantage of the free bars but besides a few scuffles, there was never any real trouble.
A lot of the work would have been carried out in the original paint hall.
You have lost me there Vlade ( If you were indeed commenting on my post ) as I don't know
the book, but you have reminded me of one very violent incident on location in Spain between
2 Catholics in a bar. It was due to one of them being a member of another group of savages
that plagued Belfast as the other 2 wound down.
They were called the Hoodies who were part of the huge crime wave that hit Belfast as a
consequence of the Troubles. It was cleaned up in Catholic areas over about 7 years under the
command of Bobby Storey.
In a matter of hours, Biden's key national security people -- Antony Blinken as secretary of
state, Avril Haines as director of national intelligence, and Lloyd Austin as defense secretary
-- gave us a remarkably fulsome idea of what we are in for these next four years.
Haines and Austin, neither of whose records are to be admired, are at bottom functionaries
who were nominated and swiftly confirmed because they do what they are told and do not think
too much -- always a career-advancer in Washington.
It is instead Blinken, who is said to enjoy some kind of
"mind-meld" with Biden, that we must consider carefully. (Such a meld must be odd
terrain.)
Blinken's Senate
testimony last Tuesday sprawled over four hours. It is best to scrutinize his remarks while
seated in a chair with sturdy armrests, ideally to calm one's nerves with a pot of chamomile
tea.
Seen or read as a whole, those four hours gave us an extraordinary display of how empire
works and how it prolongs itself. One by one, Blinken's senatorial interlocutors told him in so
many words, "Son, this is what you need to say if you want our confirmation. We want you to
endorse our commitment to aggression, to unlawful interventions, to 'regime change' ops, to
merciless sanctions, and altogether to the empire. But you must make it look nice. Make it look
thoughtful and complicated and considered."
July 14, 2016: Vice President Joe Biden, right, and Deputy Secretary of State Antony
Blinken. (Air Force, Christopher Hubenthal)
I am convinced, having endured the entire C–Span recording, that what I watched was
sheer ritual. Blinken won the Senate's support and now succeeds the shockingly bovine Mike
Pompeo at State. He will do so, however, with the élan and faux sophistication
our nakedly bankrupt foreign policy now requires if the American pantomime is to be sustained
another four years.
Among Blinken's many rather sad-to-witness "Yes sirs," two standout: his finely chiseled
endorsement of Pompeo's reckless assassination a year ago of Qassem Soleimani, Iran's revered
military commander ("Taking him out was the right thing to do"), and his approval of the Trump
administration's decision to send lethal arms to the manically corrupt regime in Kiev
("Senator, I support providing that lethal defensive assistance to Ukraine," when the Obama
administration, from which he comes, did not.)
Late last year, Blinken
appeared on "Intelligence Matters," the podcast run by Michael Morrell, the coup-mongering
former deputy director at the Central Intelligence Agency and now -- of course -- a regular
commentator on the televisions news networks. In their exchange, the two took up the question
of our "forever wars" and Biden's well-advertised commitment to ending them. Here is a snippet
from Blinken's remarks:
"As for ending the forever wars, large-scale deployment of large, standing U.S. forces in
conflict zones with no clear strategy should and will end under his [Biden's] watch. But we
also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless wars with large-scale,
open-ended deployment of U.S. forces with [sic], for example, discreet, small-scale
sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces to support local actors. In ending the
endless wars we have to be careful not to paint with too broad a brushstroke."
This is what we are in for these coming years, the hyper-rational irrationality of the
middling technocrat. There will be adjustments at the margin, reconsiderations of method. There
will be no consideration whatsoever of America's hegemonic objectives -- of the imperial
project.
Blinken's testimony reflected these bitter truths start to finish.
Changes to the Iran Deal
July 14, 2015: President Barack Obama, with Vice President Joe Biden, announcing the signing
of the Iran-nuclear agreement. (White House)
Of the various questions the new secretary of state took up during his confirmation
hearings, Iran is the most pressing. Senator Bob Menendez, Blinken's interlocutor in this case,
insisted that yes, the U.S. wants to rejoin the 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear programs,
but only if this includes prohibitions against Tehran's "destabilizing activities" and a
missile program that Iran justly considers essential to its security.
An honest, clear-eyed diplomat who wanted to get somewhere with Tehran would have rejected
the very frame of Menendez's line of inquiry, with its references to "support for terrorism"
and "funding and feeding its proxies." But Blinken read his cues and tucked right in:
"The president-elect believes that if Iran comes back into compliance we would, too, but
we would use that as a platform to seek a longer, stronger agreement and also, as you have
pointed out, to capture these other issues, particularly with regard to missiles and Iran's
destabilizing activities. This would be the objective."
This is sheer charade. Blinken knows as well as anyone else that the added conditions the
Biden regime will require before rejoining the agreement -- an end to Iran's ballistic missile
programs and its support for the Syrian government against Islamists and the illegal U.S.
incursion -- effectively cancel all chances that the U.S. will rejoin the accord.
I
predicted in this space shortly after Biden was elected that he and his foreign policy
people only pretended to be serious about reviving the nuclear agreement with Iran. Blinken's
testimony confirms this.
Over the weekend The Times of Israel , citing Channel 12 television,
reported that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sending Yossi Cohen, chief of Mossad and
a close confidant, to Washington to "set out terms" for any revival of the nuclear deal. Israel
purports to "set out terms," and Biden will receive this spook? This is getting completely
unserious. Completely.
On China, Russia, and Venezuela: Blinken was putty in the hands of the Foreign Relations
Committee's across-the-board hawks. A two-fronted new Cold War across both oceans -- Sinophobia
and Russophobia all at once -- is to be our reality these next four years.
Over the weekend, to be noted, the American Embassy in Moscow had the gall to broadcast
routes protesters could take to demonstrations in various Russian cities to dispute Alexei
Navlany's arrest . A good start.
Marco Rubio, the coup-loving senator from Florida, wanted to know if Blinken thought the
U.S. should continue backing Juan Guaidó, the buffoon Rubio and Pompeo puffed up as
Venezuela's "interim leader" as part of a failed coup operation a couple of years ago.
Blinken:
"I very much agree with you, senator, first of all with regard to a number of the steps
that were taken toward Venezuela in recent years, including recognizing Mr. Guaidó and
seeking to increase pressure on the regime . We need an effective policy that can restore
Venezuela to democracy, and how can we best advance that ball? Maybe we need to look at how
we more effectively target the sanctions that we have ."
Grim, grim times lie ahead if Blinken runs State as he promised the Senate he would.
There are those among us who look for shafts of light. People I greatly respect (some,
anyway) thought it was good news when Biden named William Burns, a career foreign service
officer, to head the CIA. At last diplomacy, not unlawful interventions!
Over the weekend, there were reports
that Biden will review -- not more at this point -- the designation of Yemen's Houthis as
terrorists, a label Pompeo affixed as he emptied his desk last week. Finally, we will stop
supporting the Saudis' savagery!
People believe what they need to believe these days, I find, and belief overrides cognition
in many such cases. I caution these people. At bottom Blinken demonstrated for us that no one
who purports to alter our imperial course will ever be allowed to hold high office. For people
such as Blinken, it is merely a question of wielding influence without having any.
This is where Americans live -- in a crumbled republic no longer capable of changing.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter @thefloutist . His web site is Patrick Lawrence . Support his work via
his Patreon site .
John Allen aka Ol' Hippy , January 26, 2021 at 12:16
I'm 66, almost 67, and will, most likely, never see any real peace from the US government.
A big portion of the economy is based on imperialist actions and the manufacture of conflicts
around the globe mainly to keeps the arms makers in business. Or simply, war. And no, there
is no nation willing to risk the wrath of the US government by trying to halt this insane
posture of aggression, it's just too big and has a momentum all its own. Biden will continue
unabated this absurd, insanely expensive machine to its eventual implosion in the near
future. All the parts of the fall of the economy are in place, all that's needed is some ill
defined tipping point to be crossed. Perhaps, a war with Iran?
"Blinken has said that America's foreign policy must be conducted with 'humility and
confidence', which may sound refreshingly modest. But it's not. Underlying this 'quiet
American' is the same old arrogance about U.S. imperial might-is-right and Washington's
presumed privilege of appointing itself as the 'world's policeman'.
"If Blinken's record is anything to go on, his future role as America's top diplomat is
foreboding.
"Previously, he was a senior member in the Obama administrations serving as national
security advisor to both the president and Joe Biden who was then vice-president. Blinken
rose to become deputy Secretary of State in the final years of the second Obama
administration. In those roles he was a key player in a series of foreign interventions which
turned out to be utterly disastrous."
The once upon a time manufactured aura of Virtue projected by the Outlaw US Empire that
was swallowed by so many naïve nations has vanished with nothing other than its stark
ugliness as a replacement. Refusal to see that reality is what Xi just referred to again as
"arrogance" which puts Blinken into the same ideological camp as Pompeo. As Global Times notes
, if the Outlaw US Empire's attitude's not going to change, than why should China's as
Pompeo's constant lying is replaced by Psaki's:
"When White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki responded to a question Monday about US-China
relations, she said that 'China is growing more authoritarian at home and more assertive
abroad,' adding that China 'is engaged in conduct that hurts American workers, blunts [US]
technological edge, and threatens [US] alliances and [US] influence in international
organizations.' She also noted that Washington is 'starting from an approach of patience as
it relates to [its] relationship with China.'"
The editor's response to such inanity:
"Psaki's statement shows that the Biden administration's view and characterization of
China is virtually identical to those of the Trump administration. Psaki stressed that 'We're
in a serious competition with China. Strategic competition with China is a defining feature
of the 21st century,' reflecting that the Biden administration only cares about a "new
approach" to holding China accountable."
And Psaki's words are the same as Blinken's, which were the same as Pompeo's and Trump's.
In other words, the hole digging by the Outlaw US Empire in its relations with the rest of
the world will continue, which will cause further deterioration of its domestic Great
Depression 2.0. Yesterday I posted a comment that highlighted Putin's expounding on the
further enhancement of the educational component of Russia's Social Contract that is
impossible for Navalny's backers to match. On the previous thread, a good comparison was made
between the Yeltsin years and the ongoing drowning of the Outlaw US Empire. The Reset that's
in the works isn't the one envisioned by Global Neoliberals like Klaus Schwab of the
WEF/Davos crew. It's what Xi spoke of yesterday that I commented upon and Escobar reported on
today. The Winds of Change are blowing again, but there's a gaping hole in the USA's wind
sock so it can't see in which direction it's blowing.
blinken is bad news.. i think that is very obvious from a superficial read on him.. the usa
can't get out of the ditch it has made for itself.. nothing is gonna change...
'liberal interventionism' has always been the hallmark of the US Liberal Class and its
foreign policy Establishment, especially since at least Wilson's jumping into WWI.
Has the US ever not intervened in Latin America whenever it felt like it or thought its
"interests" were at stake?
I think Caitlan J. has a good grasp on what to expect from the Biden war mongering crowd
that has recently moved into DC once again:
"....Trump's base has been forcefully pushing the narrative that the previous president
didn't start any new wars, which while technically true ignores his murderous actions like
vetoing the bill to save Yemen from U.S.-backed genocide and actively blocking aid to its
people, murdering untold tens of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions, rolling
out many world-threatening Cold War escalations against Russia, engaging in insane
brinkmanship with Iran, greatly increasing the number of bombs dropped per day from the
previous administration, killing record numbers of civilians, and reducing military
accountability for those airstrikes....
....Rather than a throwback to "new wars" and the old-school ground invasions of the Bush
era, the warmongering we'll be seeing from the Biden administration is more likely to look
like this. More starvation sanctions. More proxy conflicts. More cold war. More coups. More
special ops. More drone strikes. More slow motion strangulation, less ham-fisted overt
warfare...."
---
Simply put, more small scale wars/ops mostly by proxy, more support for local wankers
(like Guaido in Venezuela, who has incredibly little popular support), and more of these
killing sanctions, which are especially pernicious to the civilian populations in vulnerable
countries like Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Nicaragua and Venezuela, etc.
"... Almost immediately after taking command at CENTCOM in March 2019, McKenzie launched his campaign of political manipulation. By requesting additional forces to contain a supposedly urgent Iranian threat, McKenzie triggered the dispatch of an aircraft carrier strike group and a bomber task force to the Middle East. A month later, he told reporters he believed the deployments were "having a very good stabilizing effect," and that he was in the process of negotiating on a larger, long-term U.S. military presence. ..."
A four-star general who previously served as director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon,
McKenzie is regarded as the most politically astute commander ever to lead Middle East
Command, according to journalist Mark Perry. He has also shown himself to be exceptionally
brazen in scheming to defend his interests.
Almost immediately after taking command at CENTCOM in March 2019, McKenzie launched his
campaign of political manipulation. By requesting additional forces to contain a supposedly
urgent Iranian threat, McKenzie triggered the dispatch of an aircraft carrier strike group
and a bomber task force to the Middle East. A month later, he told reporters he believed
the deployments were "having a very good stabilizing effect," and that he was in the
process of negotiating on a larger, long-term U.S. military presence.
As a result of his maneuvering, McKenzie succeeded in acquiring 10,000 to 15,000 more
military personnel, bringing the total in his CENTCOM realm to more than 90,000. The rapid
increase in assets under his command was revealed in a Senate hearing in March 2020.
Now, flipping through printout cards of his speech in Paris, McChrystal wonders aloud
what Biden question he might get today, and how he should respond. "I never know what's
going to pop out until I'm up there, that's the problem," he says. Then, unable to help
themselves, he and his staff imagine the general dismissing the vice president with a good
one-liner.
"Are you asking about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal says with a laugh. "Who's
that?"
"Biden?" suggests a top adviser. "Did you say: Bite Me?"
From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on Afghanistan, to
use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency.
COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that
attempts to square the military's preference for high-tech violence with the demands of
fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge numbers of ground
troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly
rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation's government – a process that even its
staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve. The theory
essentially rebrands the military, expanding its authority (and its funding) to encompass
the diplomatic and political sides of warfare: Think the Green Berets as an armed Peace
Corps. In 2006, after Gen. David Petraeus beta-tested the theory during his "surge" in
Iraq, it quickly gained a hardcore following of think-tankers, journalists, military
officers and civilian officials. Nicknamed "COINdinistas" for their cultish zeal, this
influential cadre believed the doctrine would be the perfect solution for Afghanistan. All
they needed was a general with enough charisma and political savvy to implement it.
Now Trump has shafted DR Congo because the money was well appreciated by Dan Gertler as
documented by Dershowitz.– "Letting Dan Gertler off the hook sends a message to the world's
most corrupt businesspeople that the U.S. will let them walk free after a bit of
lobbying,"-NYTimes
Notable quotes:
"... Trump's most pervasive foreign policy initiatives have involved Israel, encouraging the Jewish state's attacks on Palestinian, Iranian, Lebanese and Syrian targets with impunity, killing thousands of civilians on his watch. Trump has given Israel everything it could possibly ask for, with no consideration for what the U.S. interests might actually be. The only thing he did not do for the Jewish state was to attack and destroy Iran, and even there, reports suggest that he sought to do just that in the waning days of his administration but was talked out of it by his cabinet. ..."
"... But even given all that, Trump the panderer clearly wanted to give one last gift to Israel, and he saved it for his last day in office, when he issued more than 140 pardons and commutations. Though other presidents have issued controversial pardons, no other head of state has so abused the clemency authority to benefit not only friends and acquaintances but also celebrity defendants including rappers, some advocated by the likes of the Kardashians, and also those promoted by monied interests. Most of the pardons went to cronies and to supplicants who were willing to pay in cash or in kind to be set free. It was suggested that Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner was engaged in the selection process and money was often a key element. Some might describe that as corruption. ..."
"... Elliott Broidy, former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, had no less than five Rabbis vouching for him. Last year Broidy had pleaded guilty to acting as an "unregistered foreign agent," part of a larger investigation into the Malaysian "1MDB Scandal" in which Prime Minister Najib Razak stole more than $700 million dollars from his country's state-run 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). Broidy worked on behalf of Razak and was offered $75 million if he could get the U.S. Justice Department to drop its own investigation into the scandal. ..."
"... Another clemency beneficiary who exploited his Jewish links was Philip Esformes, a former nursing home executive who executed one of the biggest Medicare frauds in U.S. history. Just days after being released after serving four years of his 20-year sentence, Esformes celebrated his daughter's wedding in a lavish party held at his multi-million dollar Florida home. He benefited from a lobbying campaign by the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitch Aleph Institute, a group advised by the ubiquitous former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz. The movement reportedly has connections to Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. ..."
"... Another person pardoned by Trump was Sholam Weiss, a Hasidic businessman from New York who was sentenced to more than 800 years in prison in 2000 for racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering connected to a huge fraud scheme that stole $125 million from the National Heritage Life Insurance Company, leading to its bankruptcy. He fled the country but was subsequently arrested in Austria and extradited to the United States. Weiss had reportedly received the endorsement of from Dershowitz, who also recently has been involved in the Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell espionage case. ..."
"... Trump gave a full pardon to Aviem Sella, a seventy-five year old former Israeli Air Force officer, who was indicted in the U.S. in 1987 for espionage in relation to the Jonathan Pollard spy case. Sella fled to Israel days before Pollard was arrested outside the Israeli embassy in Washington D.C. and the Israeli government refused to extradite him. Sella, at the time doing a degree course at New York University, was Pollard's initial contact. He had started working part-time for the Mossad intelligence agency in the early 1980s and received some of the classified top-secret documents provided by Pollard in exchange for money and jewelry. ..."
One keeps hearing that former President Donald Trump will be judged well by the history
books because he was the only American head of state in recent memory who did not start any new
wars. Well, the claim is itself questionable as Jimmy Carter, for all his faults, managed to
avoid entering into any new armed conflict, and Trump can hardly be described as a president
who eschewed throwing his weight around, both literally and figuratively. He attacked Syria on
two occasions based on fabricated intelligence, assassinated an Iranian general, withdrew from
several arms and proliferation agreements, and has been waging economic warfare against Iran,
Syria, Venezuela and Iraq. He has sanctioned individuals and organizations in both China and
Russia and has declared Iranian government components and Yemeni Houthi rebels to be
terrorists. He has occupied Syria's oil producing region to "protect it from terrorists" and
has generally exerted "maximum pressure" against his "enemies" in the Middle East.
So no, Donald Trump is no antiwar activist. But Trump's most pervasive foreign policy
initiatives have involved Israel, encouraging the Jewish state's attacks on Palestinian,
Iranian, Lebanese and Syrian targets with impunity, killing thousands of civilians on his
watch. Trump has given Israel everything it could possibly ask for, with no consideration for
what the U.S. interests might actually be. The only thing he did not do for the Jewish state
was to attack and destroy Iran, and even there, reports suggest that he sought to do just that
in the waning days of his administration but was talked out of it by his cabinet.
Trump's pander to Israel started out with withdrawing from the nuclear monitoring agreement
with Iran, followed by his shutting down the Palestinian offices in the United States, halting
U.S. contributions for Palestinian humanitarian relief, moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights, giving a green light for Israel
to do whatever it wishes on the formerly Palestinian West Bank, and, finally permitting paroled
former Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard to go "home" to Israel where he received a hero's welcome.
Trump, to be sure, was aided in his disloyalty to his own country by former bankruptcy lawyer
Ambassador David Friedman in place in Israel, an ardent Zionist and a cheerleader for whatever
atrocities Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to commit. Couple that with a Congress
that gives billions of dollars to Israel annually while bleating that the Jewish state has a
"right to defend itself" and a media that self-censors all the human rights violations and war
crimes that Netanyahu unleashes, and you have a perfect love fest for Israel expressed daily
throughout the United States.
But even given all that, Trump the panderer clearly wanted to give one last gift to Israel,
and he saved it for his last day in office, when he issued more than 140 pardons and
commutations. Though other presidents have issued controversial pardons, no other head of state
has so abused the clemency authority to benefit not only friends and acquaintances but also
celebrity defendants including rappers, some advocated by the likes of the Kardashians, and
also those promoted by monied interests. Most of the pardons went to cronies and to supplicants
who were willing to pay in cash or in kind to be set free. It was suggested that Trump
son-in-law Jared Kushner was engaged in the selection process and money was often a key
element. Some might describe that as corruption.
Those of us in the actual antiwar plus anti-surveillance-state movement had been hoping that
Trump would actually do something good at no cost to himself, pardoning whistleblowers Edward
Snowden, John Kiriakou, Reality Winner, and Chelsea Manning as well as journalist Julian
Assange. Kiriakou
has reported that when he petitioned for a pardon through one of Trump lawyer Rudi
Giuliani's aides, he was told that such an arrangement would cost $2 million.
Bribes for pardons aside, it would have cost Trump nothing to pardon the whistleblowers and
it would be a vindication of those who had put themselves at risk to attack the machinations of
the Deep State, which Trump had blamed for the coordinated attacks against himself. This was
his relatively cost-free chance to get revenge. Admittedly,
there is speculation that Senator Mitch McConnell may have warned Trump against pardoning
Julian Assange in particular, threatening to come up with enough GOP votes to convict him in
his upcoming impeachment trial if he were to do so. Be that as it may, not a single
whistleblower was pardoned though there was room on the ship for plenty of heinous white collar
criminals. Former Dr. Salomon Melgen, for example, had his sentence commuted. Melgen, a close
friend of the seriously corrupt Senator from New Jersey Robert Menendez got into
trouble in 2009 when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) discovered that
he had overbilled Medicare for $8.9 million for a drug called Lucentis. Two years later
Melgen's business was hit with a $11 million lien from
the IRS and four years after that he was charged and convicted over more than 76 counts of
health care fraud and making false statements.
Some of those pardoned had Jewish organizations going to bat for them. Elliott Broidy,
former finance chair of the Republican National Committee, had
no less than five Rabbis vouching for him. Last year Broidy had pleaded guilty to acting as
an "unregistered foreign agent," part of a larger investigation into the Malaysian "1MDB
Scandal" in which Prime Minister Najib Razak stole more than $700 million dollars from his
country's state-run 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB). Broidy worked on behalf of Razak and
was offered $75 million if he could get the U.S. Justice Department to drop its own
investigation into the scandal.
Another clemency
beneficiary who exploited his Jewish links was Philip Esformes, a former nursing home
executive who executed one of the biggest Medicare frauds in U.S. history. Just days after
being released after serving four years of his 20-year sentence, Esformes celebrated his
daughter's wedding in a lavish party held at his multi-million dollar Florida home. He
benefited from a lobbying campaign by the Hasidic Chabad-Lubavitch Aleph Institute, a group
advised by the ubiquitous former Trump lawyer Alan Dershowitz. The movement reportedly has
connections to Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner.
Another person pardoned by Trump was Sholam Weiss, a Hasidic businessman from New York who
was
sentenced to more than 800 years in prison in 2000 for racketeering, wire fraud and money
laundering connected to a huge fraud scheme that stole $125 million from the National Heritage
Life Insurance Company, leading to its bankruptcy. He fled the country but was subsequently
arrested in Austria and extradited to the United States. Weiss had reportedly received the
endorsement of from Dershowitz, who also recently has been involved in the Jeffrey
Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell espionage case.
And, of course, there was also the Israel factor. For no plausible reason whatsoever and
contrary to actual American interests, Trump
gave a full pardon to Aviem Sella, a seventy-five year old former Israeli Air Force
officer, who was indicted in the U.S. in 1987 for espionage in relation to the Jonathan Pollard
spy case. Sella fled to Israel days before Pollard was arrested outside the Israeli embassy in
Washington D.C. and the Israeli government refused to extradite him. Sella, at the time doing a
degree course at New York University, was Pollard's initial contact. He had started working
part-time for the Mossad intelligence agency in the early 1980s and received some of the
classified top-secret documents provided by Pollard in exchange for money and jewelry.
Sella had passed on the Pollard contact to Mossad's agent handler Rafi Eitan, who continued
to "run" Pollard until he was arrested. Sella's indictment was essentially meaningless theater,
as is generally true of nearly all Israeli spy cases in the U.S., as Tel Aviv refused to
extradite him to the United States and the Justice Department made no attempt to arrest him
when he was traveling outside Israel. Trump's pardon for Sella as a favor to Netanyahu sends
yet another signal that Israel can spy against the U.S. with impunity. The request to Trump for
clemency came from the Israeli government itself and was reportedly endorsed by Netanyahu,
Israeli Ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer, the United States Ambassador to Israel
David Friedman, and Miriam Adelson. According to the White House statement on the pardon, "The
state of Israel has issued what a full and unequivocal apology, and has requested the pardon in
order to close this unfortunate chapter in U.S.-Israel relations."
Was it a gift or merely a pander? Note particularly the inclusion of David Friedman, who as
U.S. Ambassador to Israel is supposed to defend the interests of the United States but never
does so. Once upon a time it was considered a potential conflict of interest to send a Jewish
Ambassador to Israel. Now it seems to be a requirement and the Ambassador is apparently
supposed to be an advocate for Israel as part of his or her mission. Friedman will no doubt be
replaced by a Democratic version to deliver more of the same. And then there is Miriam Adelson.
Good old Sheldon is hardly cold on the ground and his wife has taken up the mantle of
manipulating players in Washington on behalf of the Jewish state.
Money talks and so the drama in Washington continues to play out. Trump manages to make
himself look even worse with his last round of pardons and commutations on his ultimate day in
office. No one who deserved clemency got it and a lot of well-connected rogues who were willing
to fork over money in exchange for mercy benefited. Business as usual delivered by the
so-called Leader of the Free World.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected]
While I whole heartily agree with Dr Giraldi, I strongly believe that Trump was a hostage
of wealthy Jews and Zionists. It is most likely that he has committed misdemeanour while he
was involved (friendship) with Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine who operated an elitist paedophilia
criminal enterprise. The criminal enterprise was to advance the interests of Israel and Jews.
It was used as a honey trap. Remember, Trump was under constant threat by wealthy Jews and by
right-wing Zionists like Senators Mitch McConnell, Robert Menendez, etc. Trump was not a
smart president. He committed heinous crimes on behalf of Israel and wealthy Jews.
All Shabbos goys. Our nation is truly Zionist occupied territory. It has been for a long
time, but under trump it became overt, and will continue to be under Biden.
Our whole reality, in a sense, has become a Talmudic dialectic. The rabbinate's
mouthpiece, our media, disseminates the two sides of that demonic dialectic. The education
system and academia train and mold Shabbos goys and Noahides. We work for them and they see
us as beasts of burden.
Our citizenry likes the slavery they have been placed in. They are content.
So, the Populist is a shill for Israel and Qanon is probably a psy-op run from Tel Aviv. I
wanted to believe there was hope for the USA. I really did. Now we have Biden "I am a
Zionist" with an Israeli cabinet. Was there really election fraud? Will we ever know?
What's next?
I pity those people, probably otherwise good folks, that were conned by this character.
Was a blanket pardon for all Jews and BLACKS just not possible? I'm confident Alan Dershowitz
could have worked through the complex legalities of such a "comprehensive" pardon.
What are a few yid pardons when, unbelievably, Americans routinely mutilate the sex organs
of their male offspring at birth to demonstrate total fealty to the vile Cock Cutter Cult
that rules them ..a practice so bizarre even an equatorial pygmy would laugh at the
practitioners. Of course, the practitioners claim hygienic as well as spiritual benefits look
ma, no dick cheese!
Trump is a crypto Jew. Well at least all his grandkids are ..real Jews. So is Hillary's
grandkid. So corrupted on both side. What's new? Nothing. The only thing remarkable is that
red necks still believe in Trump, hence the white race is doomed.
Agree with most of the article, but calling Jimmy Carter a recent president is more than
just a bit of a stretch.
Carter exited office 40 years ago. The current median age in the US is about 38.4
(2019).
So in the lifetime of a very large portion of Americans there has not been a president that
hasn't started a new war.
Frankly, I don't see why presidents should have the power to pardon. It has been abused so
much that perhaps it's time to strip presidents of that power, or at least there should be an
appeals process or some sort of oversight when that abuse becomes so egregious. Aside from
all the financial criminals, he pardoned actual war criminals, men who murdered innocent
civilians in Iraq. Pardons weren't meant for this.
Of course, leave it to Trump to take it to new levels of corruption as well as abuse. If
John Kyriakou's allegation of Trump's directly selling pardons is true, that should be a
first.
Carter kickstarted funding the Taliban 6 months before the Russians intervened.
I'm nor surprised by Trump's graft, but the whole system of making laws in Congress
includes bribery so nothing new here to see.
Aside from being a bad manager, he is no strategist it seems. Not pardoning Assange means
the GOP are going to vote not to impeach you? How gullible is he? He is getting impeached
whatever he does, he could jump on a literal sword and they'd still impeach him because they
are so offended by the prols.
The sight of Dersh rubbing his hands in the pic is nearly enough to induce this commenter
to say good riddance despite the obviously stolen election and the incoming disaster. I got
the Apolitical Blues.
It would not have mattered whether Donald Trump had pardoned any whistleblowers.
As we can see, the Harris administration is dismantling as much of his legacy as they can,
as fast as they can.
The parts that offend, that is.
It only matters if the CIA pardon Snowden or Assange, else they will forever be looking
over their shoulders, wondering when something will be slipped into their tea, or over their
doorknob..
@Z-man ing
back.
Therefore: stop bad-speak. Stop unauthorized thinking. For the love of God: eradicate
anti-Semitism!
Has Israeli dominance of Zio-Washington and US 'news' ever been greater? Nah. And it may
even be growing. OK, Trump blew the whistle on 'fake news'. But that teaser was pretty much
far as it went.
For all his boldness, Trump realized that–when it came to Israel and the deep
state– he met is match. Time to retreat.
Meanwhile, Israel and Zionist America have basically merged. In the dark of night, no
less.
This article is a full on demolition of the idea that Trumpstein is any sort of patriot. I
can not imagine any patriotic figure in all of human history doing a tenth of what this
shabas goy has done for another country – and one so universally despised as Israel
– and not only getting away with it, but still being praised in certain circles for
standing up for his "motherland". Bonkers.
Go back to the preposterously optimistic article and comments under "A Pardoning Time of
Year," December 29, 2020.
Will his supporters who thought that Mr. Trump would do right, even if only on his way out
the door, now admit that they were duped?
A few, maybe. But there will still be plenty like them for the next Most Important
Election Ever, their dissent channeled into naive, participatory assent to more
Red+Blue governance from Washington.
Amerimutts are either kikes or kike slaves. There is no other places on earth (except
semitic hell, of course), where "huwhites" cut children's foreskin against their will, as
good "Christians".
Disgusting nation of heretics, quadroons, subhumans, kike lovers and yids.
No surprise here, coming from "the best president Israel ever had". Expect more of the
same from the new administration of Israeli stooges. I was hopeful the orange bastard would
pardon Snowden and Assange, oh well.
Pedo Joe is wasting no time showing Jews & Israel he can pander and grovel to Israel
and Jew Inc better than Zion Don.
Look at 10 of his high-level Cabinet appointments..ALL Jews. If they had been all Muslims
or all Chinese, it would've hit the fan and by now, most would have dropped out from that
spot.
But since their Jews, well look the other way you Silly Goyim.
I thought Diversity was our strength?
All 10 of Biden's High Profile Appointees Are Jews
Anthony Blinken, Secretary of State
David Cohen, CIA Deputy Director
Merrick Garland, Attorney General
Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence
Ronald Klain, Chief of Staff
Eric Lander, Office of Science and Technology Policy director
Rachel Levine, deputy health secretary
Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security
Anne Neuberger, National Security Agency cybersecurity director
Idiocracy, the director's cut. Trump grabs himself by the pussy in a surprise ending!
Remember, the Phoenix cannot rise from the fire, it has to rise from the ashes. Only then
can the real MAGA begin. See if its true that Bismarck (allegedly) stated that " there is a
special providence for drunkards, fools and the United States of America".
It's pretty fascinating for anyone who knows what's happening to see Jews utterly destroy
and evacuate yet another great civilization by using the same corrupting forces and patterns
used in their clearly deliberate rotting out of Rome, the destruction of the Holy Roman
Empire, then Russia, and now the USA. It's like Jews are a kind of human parasitoid that will
always kill its host as part of its lifecycle after it has drained all energy and resources
from within.
Remember that movie Alien, there the larva like offspring attaches to inject its seed into
humans and then clearly affects the human's nervous system to make them kind of forget that
ever happened as they carry the parasitoid in them that develops and feeds on their body
until the day it bursts from their chest in the form of the beast we know as the alien.
As stated about our in the movie, something along the lines of "pure survival instinct
burned by the limitations of delusions of morality"; pretty much describes how Jews operate
and act, and how they keep infecting and then destroying the very societies and civilizations
they feed on until they burst from their victims' chest.
I wish China all the luck it needs to see this threat from this parasitoid and freed
themselves of it before it infiltrates and infests and feeds on their society out too. By all
indications it is already too late for them too and they just don't realize it yet. The
recent video of the Chinese academic bragging about the control of American officials would
indicate as much, judging by the section of the video that was totally ignored, about the
Jewish woman executive of an American bank who is thick as thieves with the Chinese communist
party who manipulated things for the Chinese in America.
Jimmy Carter, for all his faults, managed to avoid entering into any new armed
conflict
What about Iran. Carter must take responsibility for the mishandling of Iran by letting
the Shah into the US, and failing to withdraw the embassy when it became obvious Iranian
internal politics meant US diplomats were becoming targets.
He attacked Syria on two occasions based on fabricated intelligence.
Russian forces fought a whole war in Syria on a correct appreciation of what could be
gained for Russia.
Trump, to be sure, was aided in his disloyalty to his own country by
America has to come to the aid of its allies, right or wrong, otherwise it will have no
allies.
[J]ournalist Julian Assange
Assange didn't describe himself as simply such until after his legal troubles started.
As for Snowden he wasn't drafted but rather was sought the job. He knew it was was not in
a boy scout group, and the secrets he was swearing an oath to keep were not going to be about
thoroughly wholesome activities such as training guide dogs for the blind. No more than
someone who becomes a made member of the mafia could Snowden be shocked at what the
organization he was associated with was doing.
Business as usual delivered by the so-called Leader of the Free World.
He never claimed to be a global Santa for those who brought nothing to the table.
Trump is pathetic. Anyone still making excuses for him is a battered wife and a sycophant.
I hope they continue to humiliate him now that he's out of office, because it's exactly what
he deserves.
Trump, just like his Republican counterparts, are more despicable than shitlibs and the
radical left, because they lie and stab you in the back every single time. At least the
shitlibs and radical leftists don't pretend they don't absolutely hate us.
If bribe money was paid, how was it spread around, and what besides money can be extracted
in return? A "no" vote on inpeachment? Pardons to Mossad/Israeli connected cases in return
for their pressure on certain politicians on whom they have compromising photos, etc?
A pardon for Assange and Kiriakou takes the pressure off Biden to do so, and these are
Obama political persecutions. And Winner was arrested in what, June 2017, by the FBI for
leaking classified info feeding the feeble Russian election interference narrative? She
posted numerous anti-Trump diatribes.
Sure, they and Snowden deserve pardons, but now the Dems will face dissension, criticism,
and sniping within their own ranks on these matters.
Trump might as well be more corrupted than Joe Biden at this point.
I'm convinced the American deep state removes him because he's actually an Israeli agent
which would make the Zionist scene in USA look bad, like holy hell, is there any zionist jew
he doesn't suck off? That's disgusting.
The hierarchy that controls our government and moral/social values, in order, goes as
follows:
Yids
Nigs
Spics
Trump, loved with under-educated and redneck whites, was an all-out Shabbos goy, not to
mention he was greedy, egotistical/egoistical and a self-serving liar.
In many ways Trump has been like a Terminator sent by the Jewish Establishment to
completely derail, discredit and destroy the Patriot movement in America. Now any American
Patriot who is against the U.S. Establishment and says CNN is fake news is automatically
associated with Trump and deemed an enemy of America. Can you say Mission Accomplished? The
Jewish Snake must be patting itself on the back for its brilliant move to hurt the greatest
threat to it in a long time.
Unfortunately there are many people who still believe that Trump was a great President
sent by God to save America. It makes me sad to see so many people so clueless. I wish that
all those still supporting Trump will wake up and recognize as so many others have that the
man is nothing but a Snake who knows how to speak your language while totally betraying your
cause. How can you support a two faced man like this who has hurt your cause more than anyone
else possibly could?
EDIT TO ADD: Trump left office in disgrace just as was intended but the real disgrace is
not on Trump but on the American Patriot movement. Now the American Patriot movement is in a
far worse position than it was in 2016 before it accepted Trump as its leader. We were
greatly deceived but in 2020 there is no excuse for anyone to still be deceived about Trump.
He completely betrayed our cause and it was all by design. His entire purpose for becoming
POTUS was, outside of giving Jerusalem and the Golan Heights to Israel (his true loyalty), to
turn our cause into something that the American public would perceive as ugly and to be
shunned when in reality our cause is very noble. We were played by Trump and his Jewish
backers but that is now in the past. Let us stop talking about this man once and for all. He
is nothing but a distraction away from what it is important to us. I consider anyone still
supporting Trump at this point or in the future to be an enemy. http://www.chuckmaultsby.net/id55.html
Providing mucho fertilizer for excellent articles like this which expose the hideous and
disgusting perfidy of the Zionist sewer and its catamites is only worth of the Chrumpster and
his time as Netanyahu's orifice.
@Ron G , just
get me into the WH.
Which will happen, we'll have a power-mad prez that has never won any primaries doing
Israel's blood work.
THERE'S A WAR GOING ON OVER KAMALA HARRIS'S WIKIPEDIA PAGE, WITH UNFLATTERING
ELEMENTS VANISHING
A line about Harris traveling to Israel and the West Bank in November 2017, where she
met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was removed altogether.
My comment a few days ago on transgenerational hate got a lot of negative feed back. You
are correct though, boomers and church goers worship the yids, despite what Jesus said about
them and later Martin Luther.
"I've never seen a President -- I don't care who he is -- stand up to them. It just
boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the
time. I got to the point where I wasn't writing anything down. If the American people
understood what a grip these people have on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our
citizens certainly don't have any idea what goes on." – Admiral Thomas Moorer, head of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, interview, 24 Aug. 1983
Now that "Zion Don" appears to be out of the way, we can get back to encouraging illegals,
giving them their rights, setting our sights on the another Hitler in Syria, globalizing
what's left of the industrial base, getting trannies more judgeships, queering history, and
on and on cuz all dem ideas are homegrown and strictly non-kosher.
I thought the pardons were great. Who knew there were so many criminal Jews who have been
actually convicted? Its almost like the Jewish stereotypes are really true. Does that mean no
one can be anti Semitic? Also the way black rappers get killed off, supply and demand
dictates jailed ones need to be free. Very Reaganesque.
Sarcasm aside I think Jews tended to hate Trump because in sucking up to them, The Donald
wound up revealing many ugly truths. Outside of Trump's energy and environmental policies,
its a good riddance from me. Unfortunately the looming costs related to energy and taxes,
I'll eventually and unfortunately will wind up missing the weak and Ivanka sniffing SOB.
Run for president in 2024. Ya' got one vote here. You can use the catchphrase, "Make
America Independent Again". Red, White, and Blue hats, etc. Your campaign rally speeches
would be epically entertaining in the gnashing of establishment journo's teeth as they
described them.
Drumpf the rancid orange golem played you all to the very last coda, pissing in your eyes
as he pardoned a most rancorous group of bent buddies and chosen criminal diversities . maga
men hung to dry, swinging in the wind.
Half of america shafted and stockholm syndromed, as the fake fat narcissist waltzes of to
play golf and hide the ginger squirrel with the reanimated frank-epstein and his
transhumanised teenage sorority clones in tel-aviv.
by the way see where this link leads: antifa.com .
hint: the whitehouse.
@LarryS nd
its American friends get what they want, no matter what.
Trump was terrible and I'm glad to see him gone. Problem is Biden & Co. will probably
be worse, letting in countless third worlders and pandering to BLM, trannies and countless
other perverts and sexual curiosities.
Neither party represents the interests of the American people. Did we really want 14
million illegals here and $6 trillion spent on failed adventures in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan,
etc.?
I harken back to H L Mencken who said both parties spend their time proving the other is
unfit to govern and are both right.
The pardoning of the Blackwater scum has fascinating implications for any country with a
Status of Forces Agreement /Visiting Forces Agreement, which is what, 80% of the world?
A host country might want to revisit these terms if it means that their women &
children could be raped, killed, mutilated whilst the perpetrators walk free.
This is beyond belief. Are Americans blind? Is there something in the water they
drink?
A whole population bent over with their posteriors pointed at the sky, willingly accepting
the abuse by the zionists.
Love them or hate them, these jews dream big. Bravo
Another on target Giraldi article. The ultimate blame for our being occupied and used
without a shot being fired is with American gullibility and blindness. How does a global
power, in almost every way, become the lap dog, errand boy, bully and financier for such an
ungrateful, blood sucking little country? We have created a Frankenstein Monster for the
world.
@SolontoCroesus
ight Palestinians were there even if there was strong Israel Lobby domestic pressure. But in
1979 Carter–distracted by the fall of the Shah–merely brokered a Egyptian-Israeli
peace treaty deal that eliminated Egypt from the conflict, and the lack of the deterrent they
represented meant meant hat Israel was free to do what it liked in the West Bank and attack
Lebanon. The Palestinians will never get another US president like Carter. Israel does not
want an agreement, the current situation suits them very well. So Iran is not deterring
Israel from doing anything it wants to do. Moreover, Israel likes having a pseudo threat like
Iran.
Well I have to say this comes as a surprise. To think that American politicians take
bribes, favour one particular group etc etc is news to me. However, Trump catering to the
foreskin modifiers and the dick cheese eliminators is the good news.
The bad news is the new team is already in bed not only with the foreskin challenged
sticks, but with the chopsticks and every other stick with a dollar bill wrapped around the
head. When the 25th collides with Joe's worn out pecker and Kamala takes over that will be
the sign that circumcised or not we are all fucked.
As some readers commented on UR, honesty is the best policy, turn the other cheek and love
conquers hate. All good advice I am sure but redundant and inapplicable in the world we live
in.
The ruled live by these rules but the rulers live by their own !
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a
threat to the neoliberal international order. Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the
neoliberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War
era.
After the Cold War, neoliberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition
– suggesting that neoliberal democracy should be at the center of security strategies.
However, by linking neoliberal norms to US leadership, neoliberalism became both a
constitutional principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of neoliberal values – without mentioning that its
second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative and authoritarian than Russia – and
Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of
democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility to revert to its original mission as a military
bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until
the West supported the coup in Ukraine. Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul
inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed to his
ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its
borders, as it would give hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological
lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails to explain why Russia does not
mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good
relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that
endow them with the right to defend other peoples. The French National Convention declared in
1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to recover their
liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed,
if necessary, to the fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American neoliberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the
world with "democracy promotion" and "humanitarian interventionism" when it
conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that democracy is
advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack
if Russia interferes in the domestic affairs of US. The neoliberal international system is one
of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are
merely motivated by the objective of liberating Russians from their government, which is why he
advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between Putin and the
Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the
Cold War – the US supposedly does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only
altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their leaders such as Slobodan
Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other neoliberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance,"
which does not make much sense after the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011.
However, under the auspices of neoliberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as it defends
the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the
neoliberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US,
before outlining his strategies for interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul
blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations" that
are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He
goes on to explain that the US government must counter this by establishing new
"non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils of their
government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom
tend to promise perpetual peace. Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of
human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed defender of the
ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world
and utopia can be bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power
politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security
strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides
states into good and evil, into peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by
the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist, believing he has
broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Ghanima223 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:36 AM
In short, the tables have turned since the end of the Cold War. It is no longer communist
ideologues that try to export revolution and chaos while the western world would promote
stability and free markets. Now it's western ideologues that are trying to export revolutions
and chaos while clamping down on free markets with Russia, as ironically as it sounds, being
a force for stability and a strong proponent for the free exchange of goods and services
around the world. The west will lose just as the USSR has lost.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:01 AM
The Dollar is the only fake reason that still keeps US afloat. The moment that goes, it loss
will be a lot worse then of USSR.
US_did_911 Ghanima223 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 12:58 AM
That happened not exactly after the end of the cold war. It was about even for a decade after
that. The real u-turn happened after the 9/11 false flag disaster.
Amvet 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:00 AM
Foreign dangers are necessary to keep the attention of the American people away from the 20
ton elephant in the room--the fact that 9/11 was not a foreign attack. Should any of the main
stream media suddenly turn honest and report this in detail, things will get interesting.
King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:11 AM
I wouldn't worry too much. At the same time Biden will be purging the US military of any men
of capability and replacing them trans and political appointments. The traditional areas
where the military recruited it's grunts are falling as they are waking up to the hostility
of the state to their culture and way of life. The US military will end up a rump of queerss,
off work due to stress or perceived persecution and fat doughballs sat in warehouses
performing drone strikes on goats.
Fjack1415 King_Penda 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:20 PM
Yes, you point to a paradox. While the globalists are using the US as their military arm for
global domination, they are at the same time destroying the country that supports that
military. Perhaps the US military will be maintained by dint of its being the only employer
for millions of unemployed young men in the American heartland, doughballs or not.
Ghanima223 King_Penda 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:39 AM
Ideologues will always be more concerned with having political reliable military leadership
as opposed to actually qualified leaders. It took the Russians 2 decades to purge their own
military of this filth of incompetent 'yes' men within their military.
UKCitizen 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:09 AM
'The Liberal International Order' - yes, that seems a fair description. Led by what might be
termed 'liberal fundamentalists'.
far_cough 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 07:01 AM
the military industrial complex and the various deep state agencies along with the major
corporations need russia as an adversary so that they can milk the american people and the
people of the western world of their money, rights, freedoms, etc etc...
roby007 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:54 AM
I'm sure Biden will pursue "peaceful, productive coexistence" just as his friend Obama did,
with drones and bombs.
Paul Citro 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:16 AM
I hope that Russian leaders fully realize that they are dealing with a country that is the
equivalent of psychotic.
Fjack1415 Paul Citro 1 day ago 23 Jan, 2021 01:26 PM
True, the ruling party and MSM mouthpieces and their readers and followers are now truly
INSANE. Beyond redemption. Staggering in the depth and power of the subversion of so many
people, including many with high IQs (like my ex girlfriend and housemate in the US).
Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 10:57 AM
US security strategy is committed to global dominance
Absolutely. Biden has filled up his admin with "progressive realists," which
when it comes to foreign policy, is just a euphuism for neocons and their lust for world
empire. So expect an unleashing of forces in the coming two years that will finally humble
America's war machine.
tyke2939 Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 01:07 PM
They are desperate for a war with someone but it must be someone they can beat convincingly.
It certainly will not be Russia or China and I suspect Iran will be a huge battle even with
Israel s backing. More than likely they will invade some country like Venezuela as Syria has
Russia covering its back. What a dilemma who to fight.
9/11 Truther Anastasia Deko 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
The "American war machine" has been humbled from Saigon, Vietnam 1975 to Kabul, Afghanistan.
Salmigoni 2 days ago 22 Jan, 2021 09:25 AM
They are not really liberals. They are blood thirsty parasitic neoconservative fascist war
mongers working for the Pentagon contractors. General Eisenhower warned us about these evil
people. A lot of Americans still do not get it.
"... Not surprisingly, Blinken is a favorite of the AIPAC-bankrolled Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which, as Phil Giraldi reported , Tweeted that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be very fortunate to have them in public service." ..."
"... We have Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to thank for at least bringing up the fact that Blinken has blundered from foreign policy disaster to foreign policy disaster – which only gets you promoted in Washington DC. In Blinken's confirmation hearing, Paul reminded Blinken of his addiction to intervention in the Middle East and how that has worked out for everyone. ..."
"... Yes, Senator Paul is right. "Regime change" doesn't work. It kills or destroys the lives of the most vulnerable. The poor and the innocent. The US enemies may occasionally find themselves on the wrong end of a noose or a knife rape , but it is the civilians who always suffer when they are "liberated" by Washington. ..."
"... Buckle up, as incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer advised, there's a whole lot of interventionism in the queue. There's a whole lot of death and destruction to be unleashed by Biden, Blinken, and their gang of " humanitarians ." ..."
While the saccharine continues to ooze from the mainstream media for the incoming Biden
Administration, the real iron fist of what will be the Biden foreign policy is starting to
materialize. As if on cue, major bombings in Baghdad – by ISIS remember them? –
have
opened the door for the Biden Administration to not only cancel President Trump's troop
drawdown from Iraq but to actually begin sending troops back into Iraq.
Is this to be Iraq War 4.0? 3.7? 5.0? Anybody's guess.
If Biden uses this sudden – and convenient – unrest in Iraq as a trigger to
return US troops (and bombs), it should not surprise anyone. As Professor Barbara Ransby points
out in this video , Biden did much
more to make the disastrous 2003 attack on Iraq happen than just vote "yes" on the
authorization to use force. As Professor Ransby reminds us, Biden used the full power of his
position as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to ensure the Senate approved
George W. Bush's lie-based war on Iraq. Biden prevented any experts who challenged the "Saddam
has WMDs and he's about to use them" narrative from being heard by Members of Congress,
guaranteeing that only the pro-war narrative was heard.
As much as Bush or Cheney, Biden owns the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, which killed a million
Iraqi civilians. And he may well be taking us back.
One figure in the Biden Administration who will play a pivotal role in returning the US to
its hyper-interventionism in the Middle East is Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken . As
a Biden Senate staffer in 2003, he helped the then-Foreign Relations Committee Chairman put
together a pro-war coalition in the Democratic Party to support President Bush's Republican
push for invasion.
Later on Blinken was Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, where he successfully made
the case that destroying both Libya and Syria were fantastic ideas. Both countries drowned in
the Obama Administration's "liberation" bloodbath and neither country has recovered from the
"democracy" brought by Washington, but being a neocon foreign policy ideologue means never
having to say you're sorry.
And Blinken isn't.
Not surprisingly, Blinken is a favorite of the AIPAC-bankrolled Foundation for the Defense
of Democracies, which, as Phil Giraldi reported ,
Tweeted that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be
very fortunate to have them in public service."
We have Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) to thank for at least bringing up the fact that Blinken has
blundered from foreign policy disaster to foreign policy disaster – which only gets you
promoted in Washington DC. In Blinken's confirmation hearing, Paul reminded Blinken of his
addiction to intervention in the Middle East and how that has worked out for everyone.
Paul reminded the Secretary of State nominee that his only criticism of the Syria "regime
change" plan was that the US did not successfully overthrow Assad. But the US was using
jihadist proxies to overthrow the
secular Assad , so what does this say about Blinken's judgement?
"The lesson of these wars," said
Paul , is that 'regime change' doesn't work!"
Paul added:
Even after Libya you guys went on to Syria wanting to do the same thing again it's a
disaster.
You got rid of one 'bad guy' and another 'bad guy' got stronger.
Yes, Senator Paul is right. "Regime change" doesn't work. It kills or destroys the lives of
the most vulnerable. The poor and the innocent. The US enemies may occasionally find themselves
on the wrong end of a
noose or a
knife rape , but it is the civilians who always suffer when they are "liberated" by
Washington.
Buckle up, as incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer advised, there's a whole lot of
interventionism in the queue. There's a whole lot of death and destruction to be unleashed by
Biden, Blinken, and their gang of " humanitarians ."
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
After the Coup in Ukraine in 2014 for several years I listened weekly to the John
Batchelor show when he interviewed Russia scholar the late Stephen Cohen.
From those conversations I learned that Ukraine is politically divided EAST (pro European
Union) / WEST (pro Russian) (a bit like the United States is divided RED / BLUE).
Politically by vote Ukraine was close to 50% pro E.U., 50% pro Russia.
After the Coup Crimea voted to return to Russia thus making the political breakdown of
Ukraine more pro E.U.
Forbes Magazine in 2008 republished an interview with Soviet critic Alexander
Solzhenitsyn
Solzhenitsyn, among other things, noted 1) in 1919 Lenin in bringing Ukraine into the
Soviet Union gave Ukraine "several Russian provinces to assuage her feelings," 2) that when
in 1954 Khrushchev gave Crimea to Ukraine Sevastopol was not transferred to Ukraine as
Sevastopol was a military city subject to the Central Government of the U.S.S.R.
I would note that Khrushchev's transfer of Crimea to Ukraine violated Soviet Law /
Constitution as the people of Crimea were not asked if they wanted to be transferred.
At the time I did some searching about the history of Crimea and Ukraine and it turns out
that shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union Crimea wanted to separate from Ukraine and
the Central Government of Ukraine threatened to invade Crimea.
The Central Government of Ukraine in its Constitution gave Crimea a special status not
given other provinces.
I would note that in October 1962 Joe Biden was 19 years 11 months old and likely a
college student. In October 1962 the world came close to ending (at least a good deal of the
so called civilized world) with the Cuban Missile Crisis.
However, in 2014, ignoring the warning of Robert F. Kennedy of the need to put yourself in
the other Country's shoes, Biden supported the violent Coup which essentially included a
violent takeover of the Ukrainian Parliament (Rada) by violent protesters, much akin to the
Trump Taliban taking over the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
It seems that Biden thought that NATO could just move into Sevastopol and take over not
just the port of the Russian navy, but the Russian Navy itself.
"... Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance, while berating Russia for "revisionism." ..."
ByGlenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, and an editor at the Russia in Global
Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenndiesen
Donald Trump's efforts to reduce the ideologically driven base of US foreign policy fuelled great resentment among those who believed
it betrayed Washington's leadership position in the so-called "liberal international order."
Now that power has changed, will the pendulum swing in the opposite direction, with Joe Biden's administration applying a radical
ideological foreign policy?
A recent article by Michael McFaul, once Barack Obama's ambassador to Russia and a noted 'Russiagate' conspiracy theorist, indicates
what such an ideological foreign policy would look like. McFaul's article, 'How to Contain Putin's Russia', makes a case for a containment
policy.
Containment: learning from the past or living in the past?
To advance his argument, McFaul quotes George Kennan, the author of the Long Telegram and architect of erstwhile US containment
policy against the Soviet Union. McFaul suggests that Kennan's advocacy for a "patient but firm and vigilant containment"
against the revolutionary Bolshevik regime 75 years ago remains as valid as ever.
It would have made more sense to
quote Kennan when
he condemned NATO expansionism and predicted it would trigger another Cold War. As Kennan noted: "there was no reason for this
whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their
graves."
Kennan continued to express disbelief over the rhetoric by the misinformed US leadership, presenting "Russia as a country dying
to attack Western Europe. Don't people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now
we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime."
Kennan then went on to correctly predict that, when Russia would eventually react to US provocations, the NATO expanders would wrongfully
blame Russia.
Ideologues often have nostalgia for the Cold War, when the bipolar power distribution was supported by a clear and comfortable
ideological divide. The Western bloc represented capitalism, Christianity, and democracy, while the Eastern bloc represented communism,
atheism, and authoritarianism. This ideological divide supported internal cohesion within the Western bloc and drew clear borders
with the adversary.
The liberal international order has attempted to recast the former capitalist-communist divide with a liberal-authoritarian divide.
However, the ideological incompatibility between American liberalism and Russian conservatism is less convincing. For example, McFaul
cautions against Putin's nefarious conservative ideology committed to "Christian, traditional family values" that threatens
the liberal international order.
The new ideological divide nonetheless advances neo-McCarthyism in the West. McFaul presents a list of European conservatives
and populists that should be treated as American conservatives, purged from political life as enemies of the liberal international
order and thus possible agents of Russia. Hillary Clinton even suggested that the Capitol Hill riots were possibly coordinated by
Trump and Putin – yes, Russiagate is here to stay. The solution, for McFaul, is for American tech oligarchs to manipulate algorithms
to protect populations from Russian-friendly media.
An American ideological project
McFaul cautions against what he refers to as "Putin's ideological project" as a threat to the liberal international order.
Yet he is reluctant to recognize that the liberal international order is an American ideological project for the post-Cold War era.
After the Cold War, liberal ideologues advanced what was seemingly a benign proposition – suggesting that liberal democracy should
be at the center of security strategies. However, by linking liberal norms to US leadership, liberalism became both a constitutional
principle and an international hegemonic norm.
NATO is presented as a community of liberal values – without mentioning that its second largest member, Turkey, is more conservative
and authoritarian than Russia – and Moscow does not, therefore, have any legitimate reasons to oppose expansionism unless it fears
democracy. If Russia reacts negatively to military encirclement, it is condemned as an enemy of democracy, and NATO has a moral responsibility
to revert to its original mission as a military bloc containing Russia.
Case in point: there was nobody in Moscow advocating for the reunification with Crimea until the West supported the coup in Ukraine.
Yet, as Western "fact checkers" and McFaul inform us, there was a "democratic revolution" and not a coup. Committed
to his ideological prism, McFaul suggests that Russia acted out of a fear of having a democracy on its borders, as it would give
hope to Russians and thus threaten the Kremlin. McFaul's ideological lens masks conflicting national security interests, and it fails
to explain why Russia does not mind democratic neighbors in the east, such as South Korea and Japan, with whom it enjoys good relations.
Defending the peoples
States aspiring for global hegemony have systemic incentives to embrace ideologies that endow them with the right to defend other
peoples. The French National Convention declared in 1792 that France would "come to the aid of all peoples who are seeking to
recover their liberty," and the Bolsheviks proclaimed in 1917 "the duty to render assistance, armed, if necessary, to the
fighting proletariat of the other countries."
The American liberal international order similarly aims to liberate the people of the world with "democracy promotion"
and "humanitarian interventionism" when it conveniently advances US primacy. The American ideological project infers that
democracy is advanced by US interference in the domestic affairs of Russia, while democracy is under attack if Russia interferes
in the domestic affairs of US. The liberal international system is one of sovereign inequality to advance global primacy.
McFaul does not consider himself a Russophobe, as believes his attacks against Russia are merely motivated by the objective of
liberating Russians from their government, which is why he advocates that Biden "distinguish between Russia and Russians – between
Putin and the Russian people." This has been the modus operandi for regime change since the end of the Cold War – the US supposedly
does not attack countries to advance its interests, it only altruistically assists foreign peoples in rival states against their
leaders such as Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin etc.
McFaul and other liberal ideologues still refer to NATO as a "defensive alliance," which does not make much sense after
the attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999 or Libya in 2011. However, under the auspices of liberal internationalism, NATO is defensive, as
it defends the people of the world. Russia, therefore, doesn't have rational reasons for opposing the liberal international order.
McFaul condemns alleged efforts by Russia to interfere in the domestic affairs of the US, before outlining his strategies for
interfering in the domestic affairs of Russia. McFaul blames Russian paranoia for shutting down American "non-governmental organizations"
that are funded by the US government and staffed by people linked to the US security apparatus. He goes on to explain that the US
government must counter this by establishing new "non-government organizations" to educate the Russian public about the evils
of their government.
The dangerous appeal of ideologues
Ideologues have always been dangerous to international security. Ideologies of human freedom tend to promise perpetual peace.
Yet, instead of transcending power politics, the ideals of human freedom are linked directly to hegemonic power by the self-proclaimed
defender of the ideology. When ideologues firmly believe that the difference between the current volatile world and utopia can be
bridged by defeating its opponents, it legitimizes radical power politics.
Consequently, there is no sense of irony among the McFauls of the world as US security strategy is committed to global dominance,
while berating Russia for "revisionism."
Raymond Aaron once wrote: "Idealistic diplomacy slips too often into fanaticism; it divides states into good and evil, into
peace-loving and bellicose. It envisions a permanent peace by the punishment of the latter and the triumph of the former. The idealist,
believing he has broken with power politics, exaggerates its crimes."
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of RT.
"... "Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad. He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and values", or, simply, chaos may follow! ..."
"... At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially in cyberspace." ..."
I would not set too much store by Plato's political philosophy. For Plato, the political
ideal was a society of three layers: philosopher kings who rule, guardians (the military),
producers / workers.
Ideally philosopher kings would be trained from childhood, adolescence or young adulthood
onwards to be rational and to think in terms of what is best for society as a whole. They
would be trained to be selfless and to shun the pursuit of material wealth.
There are many criticisms that can be made of Plato's ideal society. One such criticism
among others is that philosopher kings / rulers may have a very narrow idea of what is best
for society as a whole and may lead their people into trouble with, erm, "noble lies" (in
whatever form the propaganda and the cultural conditioning take - and when does a "noble" lie
cease to be "noble" and become just plain outright manipulation and falsehood?) if they
confuse their own interests with the interests of society, when the reality is that their
interests as philosopher kings and the interests of the rest of society are far apart.
The irony I've just uncovered is that the present system of government that exists in the
US looks a little too much like Plato's ideal.
@ Jen | Jan 21 2021 0:50 utc | 114... thanks jen... i was waiting to find out from
juliania, but i appreciate your take on this which seems fairly informed... i know nothing
about all of it, but it was an interesting idea cross purposing bidens inaugurations speech
with platos idea of a or the noble lie... the problem with ideals, is they are hard to live
in reality, thus they remain ideals only.. it sems philosopher kings and political leaders
rely heavily on ideals to make a pitch to the public.. not everyone is receptive to them
though... thanks for your input!
"Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad.
He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global
leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not
leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and
values", or, simply, chaos may follow!
Now, that's an extraordinary boast so soon after the Capitol Riots whose leitmotif was
Chaos in capital "C". Blinken made a laughable claim. But it also betrays delusional
thinking.
At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the
challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and
Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international
system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially
in cyberspace."
@follyofwar
hat Trump did not, and for which Trump deserves credit: NOT attacking Iran; NOT starting a
war in the Donbass region of Ukraine; and NOT escalating the attack on Syria to the point
where Syria collapses and Al-Nusra and ISIS terrorists take over (which is what Israel has
openly said they would prefer to Assad!) And I am NOT a 'Trumper', think he was a disgusting
zionist boot-licker, and that he didn't do diddly squat of what he promised to do for the
average American, but sure kissed Wall Street's bottom. The problem is, Bidet may be worse,
if his past is any indication.
Regardless, the next four years are gonna be ugly, really ugly, foreign policy-wise, I'm
afraid ..
I would not set too much store by Plato's political philosophy. For Plato, the political
ideal was a society of three layers: philosopher kings who rule, guardians (the military),
producers / workers.
Ideally philosopher kings would be trained from childhood, adolescence or young adulthood
onwards to be rational and to think in terms of what is best for society as a whole. They
would be trained to be selfless and to shun the pursuit of material wealth.
There are many criticisms that can be made of Plato's ideal society. One such criticism
among others is that philosopher kings / rulers may have a very narrow idea of what is best
for society as a whole and may lead their people into trouble with, erm, "noble lies" (in
whatever form the propaganda and the cultural conditioning take - and when does a "noble" lie
cease to be "noble" and become just plain outright manipulation and falsehood?) if they
confuse their own interests with the interests of society, when the reality is that their
interests as philosopher kings and the interests of the rest of society are far apart.
The irony I've just uncovered is that the present system of government that exists in the
US looks a little too much like Plato's ideal.
@ Jen | Jan 21 2021 0:50 utc | 114... thanks jen... i was waiting to find out from
juliania, but i appreciate your take on this which seems fairly informed... i know nothing
about all of it, but it was an interesting idea cross purposing bidens inaugurations speech
with platos idea of a or the noble lie... the problem with ideals, is they are hard to live
in reality, thus they remain ideals only.. it sems philosopher kings and political leaders
rely heavily on ideals to make a pitch to the public.. not everyone is receptive to them
though... thanks for your input!
"Blinken acknowledged that the US must set an example at home on what it preaches abroad.
He also stressed the need for "humility". But he insisted nonetheless that the US' global
leadership "still matters" since the world is incapable of organising itself "when we're not
leading," as some other country may usurp America's lead role impacting "our interests and
values", or, simply, chaos may follow!
Now, that's an extraordinary boast so soon after the Capitol Riots whose leitmotif was
Chaos in capital "C". Blinken made a laughable claim. But it also betrays delusional
thinking. At any rate, Blinken has pledged to "revitalise American diplomacy" and address the
challenges of "rising nationalism, reseeding democracy, growing rivalry from China, and
Russia and other authoritarian states, mounting threats to a stable and open international
system and a technological revolution that is reshaping every aspect of our lives, especially
in cyberspace."
H ard as it is to believe in this time of
record pandemic deaths, insurrection, and an unprecedented
encore impeachment, Joe Biden is now officially at the helm of the U.S. war machine. He is,
in other words, the fourth president to oversee America's unending and unsuccessful post-9/11
military campaigns.
In terms of active U.S. combat, that's only happened once before, in the , America's
second-longest (if often forgotten) overseas combat campaign.
Yet that conflict was limited to a single Pacific archipelago. Biden inherits a global war
-- and burgeoning new Cold War -- spanning
four continents and a military
mired in active operations in dozens of countries, combat in some 14 of them, and bombing
in at least seven.
That sort of scope has been standard fare for American presidents for almost two decades
now. Still, while this country's post-9/11 war presidents have more in common than their
partisan divisions might suggest, distinctions do matter, especially at a time when the White
House almost unilaterally drives foreign policy.
So, what can we expect from Commander-in-Chief Biden? In other words, what's the forecast
for U.S. service-members who have invested their lives and limbs in future conflict, as well as
for the speculators in the military-industrial complex and anxious foreigners in the countries
still engulfed in America's war on terror who usually stand to lose it all?
Many Trumpsters, and some libertarians, foresee
disaster : that the man who, as a leading senator facilitated and cheered on
the disastrous Iraq War, will surely escalate American adventurism abroad. On the other hand,
establishment Democrats and most liberals, who are desperately (and understandably) relieved to
see Donald Trump go, find that prediction preposterous.
Clearly, Biden must have learned from past mistakes, changed his tune, and should
responsibly bring U.S. wars to a close, even if at a time still to be determined.
In a sense, both may prove right -- and in another sense, both wrong. The guess of this
long-time war-watcher (and one-time war fighter) reading the tea leaves: expect Biden to both
eschew big new wars and avoid fully ending existing ones.
At the margins (think Iran), he may improve matters some; in certain rather risky areas
(Russian relations, for instance), he could worsen them; but in most cases (the rest of the
Greater Middle East, Africa, and China), he's likely to remain squarely on the status-quo
spectrum. And mind you, there's nothing reassuring about that.
Sgt. John Hoxie watches 82nd Airborne Division's All American Week celebration May 18, 2009.
Hoxie returned to Fort Bragg for the first time since he was injured during a 2007 deployment
to Iraq. (U.S. Army/Flickr)
It hardly requires clairvoyance to offer such guesswork. That's because Biden basically is
who he says he is and who he's
always been , and the man's simply never been transformational. One need look no further
than his long and generally interventionist
past record or the nature of his current national-security picks to know that the safe
money is on more of the same.
Whether the issues are war,
race , crime , or economics ,
Uncle Joe has made a career of bending with the prevailing political winds and it's unlikely
this old dog can truly learn any new tricks.
Furthermore, he's filled his foreign policy squad with Obama-Clinton retreads, a number of
whom were
architects of -- if not the initial Iraq and Afghan debacles -- then disasters in Libya,
Syria, West Africa, Yemen, and the Afghan surge of 2009. In other words, Biden is putting the
former arsonists in charge of the forever-war fire brigade.
There's further reason to fear that he may even reject Trump's "If Obama was for it, I'm
against it" brand
of war-on-terror policy-making and thereby reverse The Donald's very late, very modest troop
withdrawals in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia.
Yet even if this new old hand of a president evades potentially existential escalation with
nuclear Russia or China and offers only an Obama
reboot when it comes to persistent low-intensity warfare, what he does will still matter --
most of all to the global citizens who are too
often its victims.
So, here's a brief region-by-region flyover tour of what Joe's squad may have in store for
both the world and the American military sent to police that world.
The Middle East: Old Prescriptions for Old Business
It's increasingly clear that Washington's legacy wars in the Greater Middle East -- Iraq and
Afghanistan, in particular -- are generally no longer on the public's radar. Enter an elected
old man who's charged with handling old business that, at least to most civilians, is old
news.
Odds are that Biden's ancient tricks will amount to safe bets in a region that past U.S.
policies essentially destroyed. Joe is likely to take a middle path in the region between
large-scale military intervention of the Bush or Obama kind and more prudent full-scale
withdrawal.
As a result, such wars will probably drag on just below the threshold of American public
awareness, while avoiding Pentagon or partisan charges that his version of cutting-and-running
endangered U.S. security. The prospect of "victory" won't even factor into the equation (after
all, Biden's squad members aren't stupid), but political survival certainly will.
Here's what such a Biden-era future might then look like in a few such sub-theaters.
"Wars will probably drag on just below the threshold of American public awareness."
The war in Afghanistan is hopeless and has long been failing by every one of the U.S.
military's own measurable metrics, so much so that the Pentagon and the Kabul government
classified them all as secret information a few years back.
Actually dealing with the Taliban and swiftly exiting a disastrous war likely to lead to a
disastrous future with Washington's tail between its legs is, in fact, the only remaining
option. The question is when and how many more Americans will kill or be killed in that
"graveyard of empires" before the U.S. accepts the inevitable.
U.S. Army helicopter pilots fly near Jalalabad, Afghanistan, April 5, 2017. (U.S. Army,
Brian Harris, Wikimedia Commons)
Toward the end of his tenure, Trump signaled a serious, if cynical, intent to so. And since
Trump was by definition a monster and the other team's monsters can't even occasionally be
right, a coalition of establishment Democrats and Lincoln-esque Republicans (and Pentagon
officials) decided that the war must indeed go on. That culminated in last July's obscenity in
which Congress officially
withheld the funds necessary to end it.
As vice president, Biden was better than most in his Afghan War
skepticism , but his incoming advisers weren't
, and Joe's nothing if not politically malleable. Besides, since Trump didn't pull enough
troops out faintly fast enough or render the withdrawal irreversible over Pentagon objections,
expect a trademark Biden hedge here.
Syria has always been a
boondoggle , with the justifications for America's peculiar military presence there
constantly shifting from pressuring the regime of Bashar al-Assad, to fighting the Islamic
State, to backing the Kurds, to balancing Iran and Russia in the region, to (in Trump's case)
securing that country's meager oil supplies.
As with so much else, there's a troubling possibility that, in the Biden years, personnel
once again may become destiny. Many of the new president's advisers were bullish
on Syrian intervention in the Obama years, even wanting to take it further and topple
Assad.
Furthermore, when it comes time for them to convince Biden to agree to stay put in Syria,
there's a dangerous existing mix of motives to do just that: the emotive sympathy for the Kurds
of known gut-player Joe; his susceptibility to revived Islamic State (ISIS) fear-mongering; and
perceptions of a toughness-testing proxy contest with Russia.
When it comes to Iran, expect Biden to be better than the Iran-phobic Trump administration,
but to stay shackled "inside the box."
First of all, despite Joe's long-expressed desire to reenter the Obama-era nuclear deal with
Iran that Trump so disastrously pulled out of, doing so may prove harder than
he thinks. After all, why should Tehran trust a political basket case of a negotiating partner
prone to significant partisan policy-pendulum swings, especially given the way Washington has
waged nearly 70 years of interventions against
Iran's politicians and people?
In addition, Trump left Biden the Trojan horse of Tehran's hardliners, empowered by dint of
The Donald's pugnacious policies. If the new president wishes to really undercut Iranian
intransigence and fortify the moderates there, he should go big and be transformational -- in
other words, see Obama's tension-thawing nuclear deal and raise it with the carrot of
full-blown diplomatic and economic normalization. Unfortunately, status-quo Joe has never been
a transformational type.
Though it garners far less public interest than the U.S. military's long-favored Middle
Eastern playground, Africa figures significantly
in the minds of those at the Pentagon, in the Capitol, and in Washington's influential
think-tanks.
For interventionist hawks, including liberal ones, that continent has been both a petri dish
and a proving ground for the development of a limited power-projection paradigm of drones,
Special Operations forces, military advisers, local proxies, and clandestine intelligence
missions.
It mattered little that over eight years of the Obama administration -- from Libya to the
West African Sahel to the Horn of East Africa -- the war on terror proved, at best, problematic
indeed, and even worse in the Trump years.
There remains a worrisome possibility that the Biden posse might prove amenable yet again to
the alarmism of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) about the rebirth of ISIS and the spread of other
al-Qaeda-linked groups there, bolstered by fear-mongering
nonsense masquerading as sophisticated scholarship from West Point's Combating Terrorism
Center, and the Pentagon's perennial promises of low-investment, low-risk, and high-reward
opportunities on the continent.
So, a savvy betting man might place chips on a Biden escalation in West Africa's Sahel and
the Horn of East Africa, even if for different reasons.
American Special Forces and military advisers have been in and out of the remote borderlands
between Mali and Niger since at least 2004 and these
days seem there to stay. The French seized and suppressed sections of the Sahel region
beginning in 1892, and, despite granting nominal independence to those countries in 1960, were
back by 2013 and have been stuck in their own forever
wars there ever since.
American war-on-terror(izing) and French neo-colonizing have only inflamed regional
resistance movements, increased violence, and lent local grievances an Islamist resonance.
Recently, France's lead role there has truly begun to
disintegrate -- with five of its troops killed in just the first few days of 2021 and
allegations that it had bombed another wedding party. (Already such a war-on-terror cliché
.)
Don't be surprised if French President Emmanuel Macron asks for help and Biden agrees to
bail him out. Despite their obvious age gap, Joe and Emmanuel could prove the newest and best
of chums. (What's a few hundred extra troops between friends?)
Especially since Obama-era Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her then-favored errand
boy, inbound national security adviser Jake Sullivan, could be said to have founded the current
coalition of jihadis in Mali and Niger.
That's because when the two of them championed a heavy-handed regime-change intervention
against Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, thousands of his Tuareg fighters
blew back into that region in a big way with more than just the clothes on their backs.
They streamed from post-Gaddafi Libya into their Sahel homelands loaded with arms and
anger.
It's no accident, in other words, that Mali's latest round of insurgency kicked off in 2012.
Now, Sullivan might push new boss Biden to attempt to clean up his old mess.
Jake Sullivan, second from left, as deputy chief of staff to the secretary of state, with
his boss Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, Nov. 20, 2012. (White House, Pete
Souza)
On the other side of the continent, in Somalia, where Trump began an 11th-hour withdrawal
of a long-failing and aimless U.S. troop presence (sending most of those soldiers to
neighboring countries), there's a real risk that Biden could double-down in the region, adding
soldiers, special operators, and drones.
After all, if Trump was against it, even after exponentially increasing bombing in the area, then any
good Democrat should be for it, especially since the Pentagon has, for some time now, been
banging the drum about Somalia's al-Shabaab Islamist outfit being the biggest
threat to the homeland.
However, the real selling point for Biden might be the fantasy that Russia and China are
flooding into the region. Ever since the 2018 National
Defense Strategy decisively shifted the Pentagon's focus from counterterror wars to "great
power competition," or GPC, AFRICOM has opportunistically
altered its own campaign plan to align with the new threat of the moment, homing in on
Russian and Chinese influence in the Horn region.
As a result, AFRICOM'S come-back-to-the-Horn pitch could prove a relatively easy Biden
sell.
Russian Bears & Chinese (Sea) Dragons
Chinese President Xi Jinping, left, with Russian President Vladimir Putin during visit to
Moscow for state visit, Xi Jinping. (Kremlin)
With that new GPC national security obsession likely to be one Trump-era policy that remains
firmly in place, however ill-advised it may be, perhaps the biggest Biden risk is the
possibility of stoking up a "new," two-theater, twenty-first-century version of the Cold War
(with the possibility that, at any moment, it could turn into a hot one).
After making everything all about Russia in the Trump years, the ascendant Democrats might
just feel obliged to follow through and escalate tensions with Moscow that Trump himself
already brought
to the brink (of nuclear catastrophe). Here, too, personnel may prove a key policy-driver.
Biden's nominee for secretary of state, Anthony Blinken, is a resident
Russia hawk and was an early " arm-Ukraine "
enthusiast. Jake Sullivan already has a tendency to make mountains out of molehills on the
subject, as when he
described a minor road-rage incident as constituting "a Russian force in Syria aggressively
attack[ing] an American force and actually injur[ing] American service members."
Then there's the troubling signal of Victoria Nuland, the recent
nominee for undersecretary of state for political affairs, a pick that itself should be
considered a road-rage-style provocation. Nuland has a history of hawkish antagonism toward
Moscow and is reportedly despised
by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Her confirmation will surely serve as a conflict
accelerant.
Nevertheless, China may be the lead antagonist in the Biden crew's race to risk a foolhardy
cataclysm. Throughout the election campaign, the new president seemed set on out-hawking Trump
in the Western Pacific, explicitly writing about "getting tough" on China in a March 2020 piece
he penned
in Foreign Affairs .
Joe had also previously called Chinese President Xi Jinping " a thug ." And while Michèle Flournoy
may (mercifully) have been passed over for secretary of defense, her aggressive posture toward
Beijing still infuses the thinking of her fellow Obama alums on Biden's team.
As TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich pointed out last
September, a Flournoy Foreign Affairsarticle
illuminated the sort of absurdity she (and assumedly various Biden appointees) think necessary
to effectively deter China.
She called for "enhancing U.S. military capabilities so that the United States can credibly
threaten to sink all of China's military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the South
China Sea within 72 hours." Consider that Dr. Strangelove -style strategizing retooled
for an inbound urbane imperial presidency.
Endgame: War as Abstraction
Historically, foreign-policy paradigm shifts are exceedingly rare, especially when they tack
toward peace. Such pivots appear almost impossible once the immense power of America's
military-industrial complex, invested in every way in endless war, as well as endless
preparations for future Cold Wars, has reached today's grotesque level.
This is especially so when each and every one of Biden's archetypal national security
nominees has, metaphorically speaking, had his or her mortgage paid by some offshoot of that
war industry. In other words, as the muckraking novelist Upton Sinclair used to say : "It is difficult to
get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
Count on tactics including drones, commandos, CIA spooks, and a mostly amenable media to
help the Biden administration make war yet more invisible -- at least to Americans. Most
Trump-detesting, and domestically focused citizens will find that just dandy, even if exhausted
troopers, military families, and bombed or blockaded foreigners won't.
More than anything, Biden wishes to avoid overseas embarrassments like unexpected American
casualties or scandalous volumes of foreign civilian deaths -- anything, that is, that might
derail his domestic agenda or hoped-for restorative leadership legacy.
That, unfortunately, may prove to be a pipe dream and leads me to two final predictions:
formulaic forever war will never cease boomeranging back home to rot our
republican institutions, and neither a celestial God nor secular History will judge
Biden-the-war-president kindly.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and contributing editor at antiwar.com . His work has appeared in the LA Times ,
The Nation , Huff Post , T he Hill , Salon , Truthdig ,
Tom Dispatch , among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance
units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders
of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . His latest book is
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War. Follow him on Twitter at
@SkepticalVet . Check out his
professional website for contact info,
scheduling speeches, and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
Happy Friday America! It's been less than 48 hours and already our brave redacted Commander
in Chief has, finished with using 25,000 troops he says he can't trust to ethnicly cleanse the
Capital of all Americans, sent troops back to Syria. Come on man, we gotta take on the
Roooshans, just like we've been telling you for years. For (check's list) Freedom in the Middle
East.
I guess those four peace treaties the Trump administration helped to get enacted don't
matter. Ready or not, here they come:
That's a brave warrior of Meal Team VI, just finishing protecting Bomb'n Biden from the
YUUUGE inaugural crowds.
You remember when Joe campaigned on bringing the troops home defending Syrians in Syria from
Syrians? It was right there in the answer to the question posed by the third circle
reporter:
Ah, what a campaign. Dominionating the Donald. It will go down in infamy history as the most
free and fair election ever!. Now, back to war. (Thanks Joe! That's what 80 million voted for.)
Here they are,
bravely moving forward from where Donald J. Trump ordered them not to be in the first
place.
I'm so glad our officer corps is loyal. Let me pause here to pronounce my loyalty to the man
who garnered more votes than Barack, more votes than any president in history. Phew, glad I got
that out. I'd hate to be pronoun-ed disloyal the Resistance.
"A large U.S. military convoy was seen entering
northeastern Syria on Thursday, marking the first time since Damascus issued its letter to the
United Nations Security Council demanding the immediate withdrawal of American forces from the
Arab Republic. "According to a field report from northeastern Syria on Thursday, the U.S.
military convoy entered the Al-Hasakah Governorate from neighboring Iraq, as they were observed
entering the Arab Republic via the Al-Waleed Crossing." (Apparently that site is currently
under a DNS attack. Surprise, surprise.) Thank's Joe. Nothing says unity quite like body bags
back from Kabul Baghad NW Syria where we bravely went to do what? Infrastructure, good jobs,
Climate Change? Whatever. I'm sure they'll be remembered: Though unlike
brain cancer victims they won't get to lie in state in the Senate Rotunda. We're back baby!
Bomb's Away! It's the Bomb'n Biden Agenda. 80,000,000 votes. I'm sure that's worth one bomb
each? At least the MSM won't be talking about China, FangFang, Corruprtion, The Big Guy's 10%,
or even why gas prices are already up 10%.
Senator Rand Paul recently challenged the new Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken on
his history of pushing regime change in the Middle East and North Africa:
"Regime change in the Middle East has led to chaos, instability and more terrorism," Sen.
Paul argued.
"Like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton you've been a supporter of military intervention in
the Middle East from the Iraq war to the Libyan war to the Syrian civil war..." he introduced
in his Tuesday questoning of Blinken.
Sen. Paul began his argument by questioning Blinken's role in the NATO intervention of Libya
in 2001 and his support for the US military invasion of Iraq in 2003, which the Kentucky
congressman said was a major disaster that paved the way for a stronger Iran.
The congressman argued that Blinken continued to push regime change in Syria, which he said
was a significant blunder, especially with the amount of money spent training "moderate rebel
forces" .
Sen. Paul said the administration of former President Barack Obama spent $250 million (USD)
on training 60 rebels [as part of the DoD side; the CIA program was much more expansive], which
he said was a waste of money.
He would go on to question why Blinken would support the Syrian opposition groups on the
ground, as he pointed out the most powerful fighters are those from the jihadist groups like
the Al-Nusra Front .
"Even after Libya you guys went on to Syria wanting to do the same thing again... it's a
disaster. The lesson of these wars is that regime change doesn't work!" Paul said.
"You got rid of one 'bad guy' and another 'bad guy' got stronger," Paul added while
lambasting the US strategy of going after Iran while Iraq is still weakened by Bush's regime
change war there.
"Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul continued.
Blinken claimed in response that he wasn't supportive of a full-scale 'Iraq-style' regime
change war in Syria while vaguely claiming that he's done "deep thinking" and reflection on the
issue . Blinken never repudiated the policy of regime change in the Middle East, however.
Sen. Paul then shifted his attention to NATO, which he said Blinken was trying to strengthen
for the purpose of combatting Russia. The senator said Blinken's policy on NATO would lead to
war with Russia, which the latter responded would have the opposite effect.
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
The Luftwaffe 8 hours ago
We will see a new major war started by this administration within two years
Cloud9.5 7 hours ago
We have to do something to reduce the population.
Leather-Dog 7 hours ago
You mean in addition to the 103.5% effective covid vaccine?
RiverRoad 7 hours ago
On duckduckgo.com search > "Med
Cram".
On You Tube: Dr. Seheult's med school video lecture "Vitamin D and Covid 19: The Evidence for
Prevention and " (5.3m views)
Vitamin D3 is sold over the counter.
Karma is coming for Covid.
eatapeach 7 hours ago
Hopefully it's also coming for the thieving liars who pushed this cheap PsyOp (Pompeo is
one, Fauci is another).
bigjim 3 hours ago
I guess Bibi mis-spelled Rand's email address on the memo.
boattrash 2 hours ago
103.5%... that sounds like the voter turnout in all the blue cities.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
If one could take all the people in the world and cram them into a city as dense as Tokyo,
it would cover the area of Rhode Island.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 5 hours ago
BS
Tokyo pop density=16121.8 /sq.mi.
Rhode Island = 1045 sq.mi.
At that density RI would hold 16.8 million people.
At the average annual population growth rate of the last century there will be 1 sq.m. of
land per person in only 750 years. That includes all mountains, frozen tundra, jungles and
deserts... now "get off my lawn".
bearwinkle 6 hours ago
Sure, that's why Xiden is allowing millions of immigrants to invade our borders.
aloha_snakbar 7 hours ago
I thought it might be like today...
Hatterasjohn 7 hours ago
Anyone crazy enough to join ,or be in the military , is out of his friggin mind.
BarnacleBill 7 hours ago
Or likes killing civilians. Don't overlook the psychopaths.
headslapper 7 hours ago
and that will be the end of the US.
RiverRoad 7 hours ago
How about the Regime Change just effected right HERE in the good old USA?
Im1ru12 4 hours ago
Exactly - "Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul
continued
That's what they do - they just did it here
starman99 7 hours ago
(((Anthony Blinken)))
USAllDay 7 hours ago
I'd take Assad over Biden.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago (Edited)
Assad has more integrity in his shoe than Biden has accumulated in the past 50 years.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
If the deep state hates Assad, then I know he must be legitimately a good guy deep down.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
BINGO!
Brutlstrudl 6 hours ago
It seems that after each election, the USA becomes more of a contrarian indicator
SERReal1 7 hours ago
I agree. At least Assad puts his country first and gives the finger to the Deep State.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 5 hours ago
Plus a secular government that respects the rights of all religious minorites. Sets a bad
example for all the intolerant apartheid states in the region.
Hopefully the "Assad Must Go" curse gets the entire Biden Administration sooner rather than
later.
aloha_snakbar 8 hours ago
Who cares...Uncle Scam lost the tiny bit of credibility he had on 01/20/2021. RIP
America....
eatapeach 7 hours ago
I care. Here's yet another Israel-first douchenozzle getting put in a very, very high
position. And acting like it'd be any different with Trump at the helm is severe folly.
(Pompeo)
FluTangClan 6 hours ago
Sorry bro but anyone with eyes hasn't thought the US credible for more than a century.
4Celts 7 hours ago
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
Pardon , but the " cost " to the military shouldn't be the top/only argument. What happened
to morally/ ethically wrong ?
SwmngwShrks 7 hours ago
"All wars are Bankers' wars." -Smedley Butler
white horse 7 hours ago
Moral is dead long ago, replaced by new fake moral called humanitarianism.
DonGenaro 7 hours ago
You're an astute observer - few detect such "tells"
Feck Weed 5 hours ago
Consider the audience
FringeDweller 5 hours ago
Fair point.
Lord JT 5 hours ago
He mentioned that it creates more terrorism, and that the incoming regime may be even worse
than the previous.
Unknown User 8 hours ago
Biden will start a war, or two, or three...
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with
Russia, we aren't going to see a revolution to get rid of the corruption the population is
lazy and scared of doing without.
Maybe forced into mutual assured destruction is truly the only way to get rid of the deep
state...
Russia lost approx 250 million via communism over decades, maybe we need to just swallow
the poison pill and get it over with.
Not all of us will die, and definately no one is going to listen to the deep state leaders
after the dust clears...
FluTangClan 6 hours ago
Cho Bai Den fol peace!
wick7 5 hours ago
It's amazing how Democrats flipped overnight to being pro war once Obama started new wars.
They were mad when Trump was signing peace deals. Lol.
You_Cant_Quit_Me 8 hours ago
He's right. One disaster after another. Who has Assad attacked? If small countries want the
US to back off then they must develop nuclear weapons. When was the last time the US attacked a
country with nuclear capabilities?
JRobby 7 hours ago
Bust Blinken's balls until he quits like a little rat trying to naw through steel cables
gespiri 7 hours ago
The only way to stop these wars is to send the people (and their kids) who are pushing for
it in the first place to the front lines.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
Or make the state obsolete by transitioning to a private law society.
RedDog1 7 hours ago
Remember how Gaddafi surrendered his nukeprogram to Bush, a few years later Obama/HRC
invaded...resulting in Gaddafi being lynched?
eatapeach 7 hours ago
Iran and NK and Syria remember, for sure. Wish we all remembered the USS Liberty when
shaping foreign policy.
LooseLee 4 hours ago
Remember Libya has no central bank?
Pandelis 3 hours ago (Edited)
you really believe that bs ... it is much more than that ... at the end is about the land
and the people ... money can be printed out of thin air and there is nothing libya (or iraq,
iran etc.) central bank can do about it ...
bring on dr. fraucistein to explain it all to us ... maga!!
roach clipper 6 hours ago
Assad placed his country too close to Is ra hell
manofthenorth 8 hours ago
Sorry guys but we have been played like a second hand fiddle.
I assume Paul has figured out by now that being a murderous psychopath is a job requirement
in DC. It's the first question in the job interview. "Do you enjoy death and destruction for
profit and personal power?"
littlewing 7 hours ago
Remember when Trump bombed Syria and all of a sudden everyone in DC loved him for 15
minutes.
Talk about the big reveal.
aloha_snakbar 7 hours ago
The same Rand Paul who was criticizing Trump in the eleventh hour? That one?? They are all
swamp creatures and seriously make me want to vomit...
pro·le·tar·i·at 7 hours ago
The apple rolled away from the tree.
Leather-Dog 7 hours ago
Paul, I like you, you seem to care a little bit. However, if they haven't cared in the last
forever, they are definitely not going to start now. They just regime changed ourselves with
almost no substantial resistance, you think they will care about Syria?
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
He puts on a show to care once in a while.
He didn't stand for the truth when it counted.
Goat of Steverino 7 hours ago
GREAT RAND, BUT WHERE WERE YOU ON BIG TECH CENSORSHIP AND ELECTION FRAUD?
Bank_sters 7 hours ago
He's cucked.
Ted Baker 6 hours ago
What is this obsession with Russia? Russia is a peaceful country who defends its people. How
difficult is that to understand?
ReadyForHillary 6 hours ago
Russia isn't down with the NWO.
Dinaric 7 hours ago
(((Blinkin))) is all you need to know.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Does anyone honestly believe that if Biden was honest and had any degree if integrity that
he would be president at this moment in U.S. history? That boy is a 50 year swamp critter A
thoroughly reliable member of the compromised fraternity. Same for Nancy.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Remember the video of younger Biden telling some voter that he graduated top of his class,
with honors????
None of which were true.
littlewing 7 hours ago
His degree is from University of Phoenix.
Now all colleges are that. haha
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Ironically, he wants to set up a comity for Integrity In Government.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Yeah. Thats hysterical!!
Saturday Night Live material - if they had any spine.
BarnacleBill 7 hours ago
Which they don't. Come on, man!
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
Yep. They needed someone with zero integrity.
yeketerina velikaya 7 hours ago
You know who's been right all along?
Tulsi Gabbard.
Right on big tech
Right on Kamala
Right on pardoning Assange and Snowden
Right on the uniparty and false flags in Syria
Right on Queen of Warmongers Hillary and DNC
Right on the MSM
Right on securing the elections/ballot harvesting
She's the real deal and would have delivered on these things but never had a shot.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
She was wrong on gun control. Very wrong! And that's a non-negotiable.
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Don't worry real gun control is coming and so much more you didn't ask for...
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
She should have been Trump's vp choice.
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
You know....I think you're right. I hadn't thought of that.
StanleyTheManly 5 hours ago
I like Tulsi. She seems like a genuine person with integrity that really cares about the
country. BUT I disagree with her on quite a few issues. Maybe she'll come around.
littlewing 7 hours ago
The steal was sealed when the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case.
Greasy John Roberts wrecked America.
Max21c 7 hours ago
The steal was sealed when the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case.
True.
Vichy John Roberts went full Quisling and brought back Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court
endorsed election fraud, supported the coup d'etat, forced Trump from power, helped usher in a
new era for the banana republic of Jim Crow laws...
phillyla 7 hours ago
John Roberts is compromised 8 ways to Sunday. Trump should have had him impeached and
removed from the bench
El Chapo Read 7 hours ago
If you thought Trump was surrounded by Red Sea Pedestrians with an agenda, research the
ethno-religious background of Biden's cabinet picks.
Shalom!
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Every administration is. Trumps son in law and advisor is as well. Please see the entire
picture for a change.
snatchpounder PREMIUM 7 hours ago
How about closing all military bases overseas and dismantling the MIC and oh **** it an old
demented neocon is playing president for a few months, scratch that.
rastanarchocapitalist 7 hours ago
The crack up boom of the FRNs may force that one day
snatchpounder PREMIUM 7 hours ago
I think it'll happen sooner rather than later, the chances are good based on the demented
old pedophile being selected president and his retards at the fed.
rastanarchocapitalist 4 hours ago
In the long run, that might be a good thing if we return to honest money but you can be sure
they'll try to kick the can for another 50 years with some form of new fiat or erasing a couple
of zeroes of our current notes.
Hopefully the masses will just say know but I wouldn't put much faith in that.
RedNemesis 6 hours ago
Parents, do not let your smart, winning kids into the armed services. The MIC will grind
them out with PTSD, brain injuries, and lost limbs. There is no 'patriotism' or allegience to
the Deep State.
Why-Am-I-Banned 6 hours ago
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with Russia,
we aren't going to see a revolution to get rid of the corruption the population is lazy and
scared of doing without.
Maybe forced into mutual assured destruction is truly the only way to get rid of the deep
state...
Russia lost approx 250 million via communism over decades, maybe we need to just swallow the
poison pill and get it over with.
Not all of us will die, and definately no one is going to listen to the deep state leaders
after the dust clears...
Max21c 6 hours ago (Edited)
Maybe the best thing that could happen to free us all finally is an all out war with
Russia..
Maybe we should instead just launch a sneak attack on Alpha Centauri instead. Skip the small
fry like Russia and China. In a few generations we shall know whether our Earthling space
torpedoes hit Alpha Centauri. This of course should be debated by the people and approved by a
plebiscite per ballot referendums. Then the space war bill sent to the Earthlings Politburo for
their approval. It'll take around a decade or more to design and build the space torpedoes...
then 100 years plus for travel time and the same to get the data back from the
mothership...
Plus we can have both a Cold War and a Hot War with Alpha Centauri... under the leadership
of an Earthling appointed or elected by the Earthlings Council and elevated to the rank of Don
Quixote with the accompany title of Primal inter Pares
We just need more right thinking smart people to join the cult and become enlightened to the
prospects of a new 100 years war with other planets...and maybe some small wars with
planetoids...asteroids and comets...
We can establish of house of OverLords composed of only the best Astrologers to help pick
out which planets to attack & destroy...based upon whether they have offended our star
charts or the zodiac calls for war... In addition we can establish a lower house of UnderLords
composed of mad scientists and Generalissimos and crazy Spy Chiefs... and maybe some nutty
press types from the official media and puppet press to lead us in the Two Minutes Hate against
the Alpha Centauri folks, the space peoples, and the flying saucer people...
Maghreb2 5 hours ago
CIA already had plans for all this under the Stargate Program. After Ike's treaty with
various alien species the MIC began its descent into madness and universal conquest.
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
A war like that might "free" you, because the Russians will kick your ***.
balz 7 hours ago
Each time I see this "Office of the President Elect" picture thing, I get nauseous.
Fake office for a fake president who wasn't elected in the first place.
BLOTTO 8 hours ago
Like nothing happened back here at home.
Max21c 6 hours ago
Blinken may prove out to be more slick and savy than Dumbo Pompeo the flying cartoon
elephant but he's still a fawking neanderthal and a ******. Maybe an elite ****** but he's
still a ******. Blind, deaf, and dumb is still blind, deaf, and dumb even with all the powers
of the secret police at their disposal.
Ms No PREMIUM 7 hours ago
Rand is sick too. He goes on about how these things are bad specifically because they
strengthened Iran? How about liberty crushing mass murder?
"Sen. Paul said the administration of former President Barack Obama spent $250 million (USD)
on training 60 rebels [as part of the DoD side; the CIA program was much more expansive], which
he said was a waste of money."
So your mad they steal money while creating terrorists? Or are you mad that they don't tell
you what they do with the rest? They abduct children from war zones to make them. Maybe the
indoctrination and rape children's homes are expensive. They have screwed the entire
planet.
There is something wrong with him too. He is another limited hangout
silverlinings00 7 hours ago
He's all bark no bite like Elizabeth Warren. Trotted out to show a feigning resistance.
Insert farm animal here 4 hours ago
Poor Rand is going to have a tough and lonely battle over the next few years. Let's wish him
well, he'll be going it alone for sure.
the_pencil 2 hours ago
It seems odd that no one has allied themselves with him in the same manner as McCain &
Graham.
Pareto 6 hours ago
Another life long bureaucrat talking about his resume. And fails to answer a simple
question. Woop there it is. That's why they hated Trump. Because somebody off the street had
better answers than 25 years of experience.
Rand Paul, one of the few good ones left. Good Luck with Biden and his war hawks!
NumbNuts 6 hours ago
These same people are attempting a regime change in the United States too. From Freedom to
Fascism.
Helg Saracen 6 hours ago
The Americans lost perspectives and actually real freedom when Woodrow Wilson sold US to
international banksters in 1913, now this scam just ends and a new scam begins. You haven't
figured it out yet. By the way, fascism is Italian National Socialism. No offense.
frank further 6 hours ago
Then what was German National Socialism, if not fascism?
/
/
BluCapitalist PREMIUM 6 hours ago (Edited)
They are not attempting. They have done it. They have perfected their craft over the last 70
years in other countries and they brought it home to keep their criminal organization
going.
urhotdogs 6 hours ago remove link
They didn't attempt, they did it! Took a little over 4 years but had to stoop to massive
election fraud and changing state laws on the fly. It was coordinated throughout all levels of
government down to states and courts and SCOTUS.
bunkers 5 hours ago
Communism
bunkers 5 hours ago
Maybe not.
WhiteHose 6 hours ago
Russia Russia Russia! They never stop! BTW, wheres scumbag Hunter?
starman99 7 hours ago
(((Anthony Blinken)))
rkb100100 7 hours ago
Yea we know the cabinet is full of heeb's.
brown_hornet 7 hours ago
Is he in the boat with Winken and Nod?
GatorMcClusky 7 hours ago
Good one.
Mount Massive 7 hours ago (Edited)
There is a reason Russia has spent the last 2 months ramping up testing of its mil hardware
including hyper-vel ICBM's and SLBM's. - Xiden
SelectedNotElectedBiden 7 hours ago
Rand will be the only Senator to give the Dems a hard time. Sad since it should be payback
for EVERY Republican Senator.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Cruz will be fun to watch too. They excel being outnumbered.
Ms No PREMIUM 7 hours ago
If they wanted Rand out of that spot he would have been gone a long time ago.
Bob Lidd 5 hours ago
Does anyone think the US policy in the middle east will change with 10 of biden's
appointees being jewish .......??
The "greater israel" will continue no matter the cost to the American tax cattle.......
((((blinken))) ..........
ReadyForHillary 7 hours ago
The neocons are back!
Max21c 7 hours ago
The neocons are back!
Does not matter. They could not win before and they shall not win now. They're ineffective,
inept, and incompetent. They won't be able to fix the messes and disasters they've created for
themselves. At best they might be able to sick the secret police on a few people at home and
drop some bombs or missiles abroad. But for the most part it's some more of the same. Evil is
as evil does. They're not going to be able to work themselves out of the fix they've got
themselves into or figure it out. They're toast. They're bad people and they're toast.
Washingtonians may have absolute power but they've had absolute power all along...and they
still can't fix the disasters they've caused.
Northern Exposure 6 hours ago (Edited)
Oh thank God!
If we're not looking for a new pointless war to start or jumping into an existing one then
this isn't the America that I know and love!
</sarc>
karzai_luver 7 hours ago
Where is the BUFFALOBILL dude storming the Senate to drag this blinken criminal scum out and
do justice for his wanton murder of thousands?
Shut down this freak show.
I would rather have BUFFALOBILL and his idiots running the place than these feckless
people's representatives.
Tony , have you learned your lesson?
Senator - screw you and your people I will think it over.
Alexander 7 hours ago
Silence republicans! Yes we stole the election using widespread mail in ballots, yes your
state governments changed the rules to allow us to count these mail in ballots more quickly,
yes there were far more votes in this election than any other ever. ANDDDD... NO we will not
look into the validity of this election becuase muh capital rioting grandma threatened sweet
little socialist AOC.
Now give us your children to fight a war in syria.
artless 7 hours ago
Barack Obama. Neocon to the core. Biden is no different. Gonna do us some "liberating"
again. And from the left there will be silence as thousands of poor, short brown people are
killed as "collateral damage".
Welcome back America to what you do the best. Destroy lives. Any over/under on how many days
it takes Biden to start killing folks and hence become a war criminal like pretty much all his
predecessors? I might like a piece of that action.
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Republicans are neocons, democrats are neoliberal. You're basically right, just left out
half the problem.
pods 7 hours ago
Can't bitch about foreign actions in our elections when we pick other governments.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pick ???? Surely you jest !
pods 7 hours ago
We choose sides right?
We picked the CIA stooge in Venezuela.
Not sure about your question.
Maybe "kinetically pick" would be better?
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Sorry, I didn't read your post properly. I didn't see "other" governments.
rwe2late 7 hours ago
you either forgot the sarc tag
or failed to notice such as V. Nuland hand-picking leadership in Ukraine,
or the Trump picking of Guiado for Venezuela.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Poor eye sight is my best and only excuse.
SelectedNotElectedBiden 7 hours ago
Where is Hunter?
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
The Big Guy made him the Advance Minister of Foreign Extortion.
headslapper 7 hours ago
The faces change but the song remains the same. What a waste of energy this government is.
Resources thrown down the toilet to make the Ruling class more wealthy. Why do we even pay
attention. We all need to have a look in the mirror. Myself included of course.
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
So now that you've looked in the mirror, what are you going to do about it? Send a
strongly-worded letter? Or are you ready to actually step up. As morally wrong and demented as
the radical left is, at least you have to admire them in the sense they actually step up to the
plate to get sh!t done. It's immoral, but effective.
Canadian Dirtlump 7 hours ago
Lest we forget the same bearded butchers that Chris Stevens flew into ben gazi with (al
Quaeda inter alia aligned ) who were funded and trained by the West were the same ones who flew
from ben gazi to the incirlik nato base to try to do the same thing in syria.
The only reason it didn't work was because of the SAA, Hezbollah and of course the ultimate
backstop Russia. I'm thankful for this.
mikka 7 hours ago
Imagine Russian or Chinese parliament publicly debating regime change in USA.
Uncle_Cuddles 7 hours ago (Edited)
Debating? China has ALREADY done it here.
joew8989 7 hours ago
Rand will continue to fight the good fight, when you live a life based on principal, that's
what you do. We will always need more people like him. That's what built this country, not the
parasites at the helm now.
ItsTooHotForThis 6 hours ago
Paul voted to confirm the electors. His challenge to the new Sec. of State means
nothing.
Garciathinksso 5 hours ago
his argument was based on State's right issue, in case you care
bunkers 5 hours ago
It doesn't matter WHY, he voted with traitors, only, that he did.
SillyTheEnemy 6 hours ago (Edited)
This is literally the only guy we have in the senate who even remotely gives a ****. Yet the
amount of **** that is going to happen to us when biden heats up the war in Syria is
immeasurable. F*ck me
hardright 6 hours ago
Rand Paul is wasting his time.
If he wants to make a difference he should be lobbying Russia to send more troops into
Syria.
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
And arranging imports of the Russian vaccine. Less likely to kill you and more effective
than the only 45% effective Pfizer ****.
BluCapitalist PREMIUM 6 hours ago
This guys eyes look exactly like the vampires in the movie 30 days of night. Am I in a
simulation? Why do these people actually look like fictional villains? I mean Whitmer, Newsom,
this new fat, unhealthy, mentally ill assistant "health secretary"? Did I do something really
wrong? Am I in hell and don't know it? No. I am here on earth and psychopaths are real and evil
is real.
duckandcover 1 hour ago
they're just a little scared and overwhelmed. You might be too
WhiteHose 7 hours ago
Look at this Blinken twit! F you pal! And....wheres HUnter??? Diddling his brothers minor
niece? Again? Still?
First Ron and now Rand. I think the club just lets them in as the token Don Quixote. They
have been the only voices of reason for the last 25 years or so, but they are only tilting at
windmills. Nothing is going to change until something forces them to change. The war mongering
and corruption will just roll right along while the MIC and congress get richer by the
minute.
The unrelenting droning of brown people in foreign lands that are ill-equipped to fight back
will commence in 3,2,1...
SassyPants 7 hours ago
Leaving the Republican Party would be the first best step.
ejmoosa 7 hours ago (Edited)
We put too much on one man and one man alone to change things.
Faced with judges and a House and A Senate against him the task before Trump was
Herculean.
Add to that 2/5ths of the states with governors also against Trump and it's even worse.
What you need to do is get involved in your local politics and take control back of your
Cities and County Commissions, as well as your state governments.
Had Trump held control of the House and the Senate and we had sitting on Courts people who
put the Constitution first FOR the people rather than using it against them, things would be a
lot different today.
The choice is yours.
Time to play 7 hours ago
It's good to see that Rand, is starting to think more like his father!
north_hand_demon 7 hours ago
So he's controlled opposition, too?
Lyman54 7 hours ago
Pretty early to be smoking crack isn't it?
otschelnik 7 hours ago
With Cookies Nuland as Blinken's deputy, you've got the neocon family business installed at
Foggy Bottom. Robert (Victoria's huband), Fredrick, and Kim each with their own pro-war think
tank, and a list of supporters which constitute the "A-list" of the USSA's merchants of death.
Northrup-Grumman, UTX, Raytheon, Lockheed....
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Winken, Blinken and Nod.
That's the administration we got now.
silverlinings00 8 hours ago
Careful Rand, we wouldn't want you to get another "visit" from a neighbor while you're
mowing the lawn.
Pdunne 3 hours ago (Edited)
Biden's biggest Cabinet mistake will ultimately be Blinken.
Like Obama picked H Clinton with disasterous consequences Biden picks Blinken.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
Rand Paul says " Assad is a terrible person " !!!
Dr Assad is a HERO !!
Rand Paul is either completely misinformed or just another useless politician afraid to
speak the TRUTH !
A COWARD !
Hessler 4 hours ago
Assad may be a good person at heart but he is not qualified to run a state. He should be a
doctor or something.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
And Joe Biden is ??
OR Boris Johnstone ??
Helg Saracen 4 hours ago
It is up to the Syrians to decide, not you. You already paid for the genocide of the Syrian
Christians in the "fight against the tyrant Assad." I've seen all kinds of idiots and
hypocrites, but you are their king.
Hessler 4 hours ago (Edited)
Why did not Assad anticipated the Zionist invasion even though the Snowden document reveled
the CIA/Mossad works in the making in 2006 ??
If he did anticipated an invasion why he did not do anything to safeguard his nation and
it's people ?
Why every men, women and child capable to lift and shoot was not given and an ordinance and
proper training ?? Israel has that. Why can't Syria ?
Syria is a part of Greater Israel. They have been marked for genocide the day Israel was
created, what haste did Mr. Assad showed to safeguard his country against their genocidal
maniacs psychopaths ??
I will never forgive those who inflicted the terrible atrocities on the children and women
and Mr. Assad has a blame to share.
mark3383 3 hours ago
Assad risked his life and continues to do so every day, trump recently bragged he thought
about "taking him out". he's a true hero more than you or I will ever be
steve2241 5 hours ago
Rand Paul doesn't understand. Blinken follows the path that Israel tells him to. Middle East
instability benefits Israel. The fomenting of Sunni-Shia conflict kills Israels' enemies, the
muslims, without Israel having to lift a finger. Syria is no longer a threat to Israel. Mission
accomplished.
Hessler 4 hours ago (Edited)
You're wrong on two accounts. First, there's no ****te/Sunni conflict. What goes in Miiddle
East is entire different than what is portrayed here. The locals know but how many of them get
interviewed on live TV or get a airtime on a prime time desk ? Those are reserved for the
chosenites who spew BS about Arabs and Muslims 24/7.
****te/Sunni fiction as broadcasts in the west is nothing but a ploy to wash the hands of
the responsibility and pin the blame on the victims.
Second, Syria is now a bigger threat to Israel than it was in Pre War era. Battle Hardened
troops, better organization, training with Russian/Iranian Military, better equipment, talented
strategists and when you fight a war like that for that long you tend to grow a bigger set of
balls.
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
Syria wants the GOLAN back - I would say they are a threat to ISRAEL !!
Sick Monkey 5 hours ago
Speaking of war didn't Rand Paul vote to accept the illegitimate electors. I like Paul he
seems to have a level head but you voted to put the commies in power. Like you said in your
speech "there are repercussions". Those who took a stand against this coup must be kept in
power as they put skin in the game. That's a rare and precious gift to us the people. In the
year 2021 it's as good as gold.
Taffer 5 hours ago
Exactly, hence my previous comment below.
mark3383 3 hours ago
trump lost the election because he allowed million of fraud votes to be counted and never
said or did anything about it in the year leading up to it. he 's the one that lost it. no one
else
Sinophile 6 hours ago
"War Pigs"----Black Sabbath
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of death's construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds
Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Yeah!
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'til their judgement day comes
Yeah!
Now in darkness world stops turning
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has struck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees the war pig's crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan laughing spreads his wings
oh lord yeah!
surroundedbyijits 6 hours ago
Circuses. Theatre for the plebes. Not one bit of foreign policy is decided or affected by
debates or hearings in the Legislative branch. They're all following a script, some of them act
like they aren't in on the joke.
Cloudcrusher 6 hours ago
Psychosis the denial of reality. The military industrial complex is make believe. It's
military industrial congress, Congress is in charge they alone are to blame know one else. The
sooner everyone starts living in reality the better off will be. You want to win the war of
words better start with reality. Or your going to get a another kind of war one where only the
strong survive.
Max21c 6 hours ago (Edited)
Watch: Rand Paul Challenges New Secretary Of State Over Regime-Change In Syria
Meaningless inside the beltway for the record drool-n-dribble... Rand Paul just wants to pad
his resume, bio, and gain some street cred claims...
TahoeBilly2012 6 hours ago
When do the new wars start? Dems can't wait. Blame them on Covid or something, they will buy
it.
vspam 7 hours ago
Biden will go to war with Iran and turned thr ME into a fireball. The mainstream media will
cheer him on under the banner of peace and unity
Max21c 7 hours ago
Diablo Corona
Washingtonians are for the most part the spawn of Satan.
DC= the Devil's City... they are evil... Washingtonians are just pure rotten evil...
Washington DC ... Devil's City
Washington DC .... Devil's Crown
The evil ones cannot change their evil ways... they're too far gone... the evil ones cannot
be redeemed...
Max21c 7 hours ago
Paul concluded by saying that regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in
long wars that are costly to the military.
Too late. Washington is toast. It's just a question of when Washingtonians lose in Syria,
Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, et cetera. They already made a mess of things and they do not
have the brains to fix it. Same with their inabilities as regards nonproliferation, North
Korea, et cetera. They don't have what it takes to figure it out and work it out and nobody is
going to fix it for them because they're assholes regardless of which cabal of Ivy League
assholes or ******* elites are in power.
ThomasEdmonds 7 hours ago
Paul isn't supposed to question a Zionist's motives..
aloha-snackbar 7 hours ago
if the youth said no to war and moms said not my child and burned down the recruitment/death
centers then war would end...
tunEphsh 7 hours ago
Thank goodness that Paul told the idiot Blicken to lay off regime change. Obama-Biden made a
mess of the middle east and caused a refugee crises which is still with us. Instead of being
named secretary of state, me thinks Blicken should be put in jail for acts in the Middle East
which killed hundreds of thousands of people.
moneybots 7 hours ago
The EU has become a mess because of regime change.
freakscene 7 hours ago
Of course he should. But that would require sanity.
yerfej 7 hours ago (Edited)
Simple way to stop all this insane venturism and nation building it to MANDATE that every
aysshole like Blinken have a spouse or child or sibling or relative ON THE GROUND fighting in
one of these shyyytholes. These elites love this crap because THEY never pay a personal price,
no they have farmed that out to the "commoners" who supply the bodies. The filthy elites are
good at leveraging everyone else to fulfill their fantasies while paying no price.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
You've seen the videos of Chelsea and Malia on tour in Kabul? Yeah?
yerfej 7 hours ago
More like Eeyore pontificating from her 20 million dollar penthouse about how she is so not
into money, or Maglia dancing around stoned like a "social justice warrior".
Flynt2142ahh 7 hours ago (Edited)
The senate needs more Rand Paul types - and they dont have to be in the Republican
party...This would force actual accountability of uniparty folks and these appointees. We need
less murkowski and collins
phillyla 7 hours ago
I am going to harp on this
in 2014 Matt Bevin challenged McConnell in a Senate Primary
He was gaining momentum
Then Rand endorsed McConnell
Bevin lost McConnell got re-elected
Bevin was later elected Governor of KY so he had the votes
Rand Paul Broke my heart
Leguran@premium PREMIUM 7 hours ago
We need use the Progressive's signage: He is not my President.
LostMyGunsInABoatingAccident 7 hours ago
You can't necessarily call it an "American" policy.
America lost control of it's policy long ago.....
Mount Massive 7 hours ago
Here comes another war, and this time, it will spiral out of control. In two years or less,
I expect the US to be in a major conflict and/or hit at home. Sigh....Leftist
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pelosi just took Rand aside and said, wait and see what your neighbor on the other side of
you has to say about this.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
Rand is in the senate. nancy runs the house. That would be Schumer's job.
Invert This, Media Matters Monkeys 7 hours ago
Pelosi seems to be running the show and is the face of the party
WorkingClassMan 8 hours ago (Edited)
Rand Paul, the lone voice of sanity in a rubber-stamp corrupt government.
If you or someone you care about is either in or thinking about joining this nation's
military...please don't. Let these antiwhites fight their own wars. They hate you and don't
trust you because you're White and they hate you owning guns, but they'll put a gun in your
hand and point you at their and Isn'treal's enemies without hesitation.
fudge punch 8 hours ago
Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
AVmaster 3 hours ago
"Regime change in the Middle East has led to chaos, instability and more terrorism,"
Uhhh, yea...
... Thats what they WANTED!
Duh!
Scipio Africanuz 3 hours ago
Thank you Senator Paul..
For your candor..
The challenge of US Foreign Policy, is akin to a heroin addiction. It's bad for the country,
but all attempts to cure the country of addiction to imperialism has failed, including our
energetic efforts over the years..
Too many people benefit from the ruination of the country as it engages in squandering
lives, honor, power, reputation, and treasure, in maintaining a facade of illusory power, at
the expense of the true power of the country..
Put simply Senator, at this point, we don't believe any entity on earth can cure the US of
the addiction to depravity save nature, which cure is more preferable to that of the Entity
whose decision is not subject to appeal..
Now Senator, you may not believe in God Almighty and thus, swat away the simple insight but
God does not require your belief to act..
Over His creation..
The only cure, if sense and rationality don't prevail, is exactly what we don't desire to
know and why?
Because we've seen it before, applied to different societies with similar mentality over the
course of human history and Senator, it's never palatable..
Anyhow, probation is till summer, to allow folks do intensive introspective contemplation,
enough to acquire prudent humility and if they don't, well..
Cheers...
Ckierst1 2 hours ago
I believe the Senator is a Christian.
Pdunne 4 hours ago
Blinken is a bald faced liar and is already working with Ms Nuland on more regime
changes.
Venezuela and Syria need to get ready for more robust attacks.
Dzerzhhinsky 2 hours ago
Control the oil, you control the world.
the_pencil 2 hours ago
Oil was the cause of every war for the past century.
Posa 4 hours ago
A ridiculous exchange. Sen Paul seems to take at face value the Liberal-NeoCon claim that
Regime Change is good-intentioned attempt to democratize the Middle East.
Hardly. Regime Change was always designed to a) install Israeli supremacy in the region
("Operation Clean Break"); and b) secure US Global Uni-polar dominance (the Wolfowitz Doctrine)
as part of the Brezezinski "Grand Chessboard". That's the intention... this exchange
demonstrates how out of it Rand Paul is; and what a nasty weasel Blinken is.
Ckierst1 2 hours ago
That's not what Sen. Paul said. He doesn't agree with regime change. That's what he
said.
PaulDF 5 hours ago
To which the Biden appointee replied, "You know, the thing!"
mark3383 3 hours ago
cmon man!
duckandcover 2 hours ago
do your job!
Taffer 5 hours ago
Rand Paul's opinion and $6 will get him a latte at Starbucks.
Hessler 6 hours ago (Edited)
Foreign policy is never gonna change no matter who's in change because the way system is
setup.
The lifestyle (our way of life) pertaining to the western model of civilization (our values)
needs unlimited supply of money to be supported. The money that can't be made by legal means,
hence the continues war that needs to be maintained overseas while also starting new ones as
requirement arise.
And since this is a continues state, so accompanies it continues propaganda, lies, false
flags, deception and manipulation of facts and truth. LYING IS IN VERY GENES OF THE WHITE
CHRISTIAN WEST. They have been doing it for so long that they have almost mastered the "the art
of lying" the zenith of which is to project your own flaws and crimes on to the subjects you
carried it out on. One thing you can always be sure of, they will never admit their crimes
unless there's no other way. And that they will be accusing their opponents of the same things
they would be doing.
War underpins their society, nation and civilization.
steve2241 4 hours ago
The problem is that the U.S. is abusing its position as printer-in-chief of the Reserve
Currency of the world. With that fake money, it can intervene in the affairs of nations
throughout the world - a capability that no other country enjoys. Take away its reserve
currency and watch how quickly middle eastern strife ends - and the nation of Israel, too.
apparently 6 hours ago
will the left and their mindless supporters be comforted to know that their guy promotes
these "endless wars"? will they be happy to sacrifice their sons and daughters for desert
real-estate whose oil we don't want?
Paul was being way too polite. He should simply say: "I'm not voting to confirm this war
monger" then get up and leave the room.
Hessler 6 hours ago
If you think it's about the oil, you really don't understand the world you inhabit.
apparently 6 hours ago (Edited)
I don't think it's about oil but I'm struggling to name a single US interest in sand-wars.
maybe you can? yes, yes, military/industrial complex, blah, blah, but why the middle east?
please enlighten us.
Hessler 5 hours ago (Edited)
It's to rebuild the world in the image of the west and Islam is the biggest hampering in the
way. Like other religions, it can't be altered or dominated so the only way is to completely
destroy it. This is why Israel was setup by the Anglos at a strategic location in the heart of
the Arab world to engage them into perpetual war and destroy them.
That's about it.
And whenever a war on a civilization is waged, there are always monetary benefits. Oil, MIC,
Political donations come into play here. But that's just a sideshow. And with a civilization as
big as Islamic, benefits also tend to be massive.
apparently 5 hours ago
no evidence that the arab spring was against islam. why aren't we doing regime change in
indonesia? why did joe just reverse the Muslim travel ban?
do you understand anything about the world you live in?
Hessler 5 hours ago (Edited)
A lot actually. We are concentrating on the core of the Islamic civilization for when the
core collapses, the outer layers collapses with it. It's the core that holds the entire thing
together, hence we concentrate on Middle East and not on Indonesia.
Arab spring was to sow chaos and turmoil. By the way of deception.....Jewish moto
It is not that Israel establishes America's foreign policy. It is that the basic world view
produced by WASP culture is naturally aligned with Jewish thought in most ways, especially in
terms of Empire: ruling the world.
InflammatoryResponse 5 hours ago
it was not a muslim travel ban. it was a ban on places that didn't have adequate
infrastructure to verify who was travling.
duckandcover 1 hour ago
where is the last place, core or not core, that Islam religion and Muslim culture has been
eradicated by any means? Yugoslavia? India? Not seeing it. Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
Your argument does not hold.
starman99 5 hours ago
(((THEM)))
Groucho 5 hours ago
No of course not. Nothing to do with what George Kennan called "the greatest strategic
material prize in world history".
Hessler 5 hours ago
And whenever a war on a civilization is waged, there are always monetary benefits. Oil, MIC,
Political donations come into play here. But that's just a sideshow. And with a civilization as
big as Islamic, benefits also tend to be massive.
apparently 2 hours ago
by now, we should be weary (and wary) of "it's all a sideshow" arguments.
it simply asserts greater knowledge (never disclosed) and terminates the thread.
as for the grand anti-islam plan... how's that going in western europe?
Groucho 5 hours ago
No of course not. Nothing to do with what George Kennan called "the greatest strategic
material prize in world history".
JackOliver4 4 hours ago
It is ALWAYS about the OIL - thats why IRAN and VENEZUELA are being weakened by crippling
sanctions !!
THAT"S how the ZIO/US does it - SANCTIONS first - WAR 2nd !
Doesn't work anymore since RUSSIA stepped in !
nocturnal66 7 hours ago
Just ask if this 100 year plus war is to create "greater Israel" . It all documented. Enough
already with the lies. Just admit it.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
WWE- fake fights have begun again in earnest .....................
Paul Ryan could fake a punch as good as John Boehner ............
Max21c 7 hours ago (Edited)
"Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle East," Paul continued.
The Washington establishment imposed their chosen ruler Joe Schmo Biden to rule over
America.
jesus_loves_you 7 hours ago
H a n g t h e m a l l
Aquamaster 7 hours ago
Should we have a contest to see who can pick the first country Biden will send troops
to?
Lyman54 7 hours ago
DC !
SERReal1 7 hours ago
You win!
WTFUD 7 hours ago
Blinken Heck , don't worry ya'll, Nuland (Nudelman's) back to steady the ship with a fab new
chocolate chip cookie recipe that the terrorists will adore.
littlewing 7 hours ago
And they aren't even trying to hide it.
fzrkid 7 hours ago
Rand can say whatever he wants and it changes NOTHING
Armed Resistance 7 hours ago
Who is still planning on filing taxes? At the very least, turn your back on the
system-right? Upvote for not filing, downvote for I just want to avoid conflict-I'm filing.
brown_hornet 7 hours ago
But, we are getting a return.
No paying next year though.
rwe2late 7 hours ago (Edited)
Doesn't matter if it is a disaster for the peoples invaded and for domestic liberty in the
USA.
It's considered "worth it" by those in power
to protect the financial supremacy of the dollar,
promote the regional military supremacy of Israel,
and continue the war profiteering of the MIC.
north_hand_demon 7 hours ago
So what? Your cushy lifestyle and mine is a direct result of hegemony. Get over it.
rwe2late 7 hours ago (Edited)
Celebration of a "cushy lifestyle" gained by plunder and murder is not for everyone.
To revel in it, one requires a special insensibility.
DonGenaro 7 hours ago (Edited)
This fence-sitter did virtually NOTHING to stop the steal.
Now he's whining about having to lie in bed his cowardice helped make.
Many MORE thousands will soon be massacred by these war-mad psychopaths.
This POS is DEAD TO ME.
littlewing 7 hours ago
Rand is smart, he knew no matter what Xiden was going to be installed.
HominyTwin 7 hours ago
He's smart. A bunch of idiots, after a good breakfast at IHOP, were herded into the capital
by govt informants to break stuff for the cameras, and then herded right back out in time for a
hearty dinner at Golden Corral. They did sacrifice their lunch for exactly nothing, though.
Congrats. He stayed away from all that nonsense.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago
That's about the size of it, in retrospect.
zulu127 7 hours ago
regime change needs to end because it is involving the US in long wars that are costly to
the military.
Wrong! "regime change needs to continue because it is involving the US in wars that are
profitable to the military.
ableman28 4 hours ago
Part of the problems is that neither the democrats or republicans are primarily in favor of
DEMOCRATIC governments in the middle east. When Egypt FREELY ELECTED the Muslin Brotherhood to
power in Egypt the US fell all over itself to help unseat them, using every technique we
can.....currency debasement, food aid manipulation, tacit encouragement to strongment
(military) that we feel are controllable, etc. etc.
The US was never in favor of one man one vote in South Africa during apartheid and explained
this convenient hypocrisy as an unfortunate necessity.
Supporting regime change is entirely, ENTIRELY, different than supporting democracy. The US
has a very very very long history of supporting the former and claiming it was the latter when
in fact it wasn't. Democracy means letting the chips fall where they may. In countries whose
ruling leadership is oppressive to its people and for which we have a long history of support
its very unlikely that any democratic election would bring us new friends. It would, in every
case, bring to power people who opposed the old government and by association US.
People playing to the stands here in the US are smart enough to know this. But maintaining
the correct political position for domestic consumption also trumps doing the right thing in
anywhere else.
International politics is a pure expression of national interest. Our national interest is
economic outside the US. That part of socialist or marxist theory is spot on.
Hessler 4 hours ago
Insightful, thanks!
LooseLee 4 hours ago
'Disaster' is the MO, Rand. Please, get real or get lost.
Musum 5 hours ago
Senator Rand Paul recently challenged the new Secretary of State nominee Anthony Blinken
on his history of pushing regime change in the Middle East and North Africa
Pointless and hopeless. The only way to end America's endless wars is to deal with the guys
in small hats.
Hessler 5 hours ago
Small hats were employed by the English speaking protestants for their ulterior motives,
world view, global ambitions which were in alignment with the chosenites.
You can't solve the Jewish problem without solving the problem of western civilization.
Fire_Hog 5 hours ago
The real problems are the 3 letter intelligence agencies, not religion.
Musum 4 hours ago
Are you naive or misdirecting? Offices are occupied by people.
train rider 6 hours ago
Deep thinking and reflection...what about our military personnel and contractors...why are
we putting them in danger with these interventionist kockamamie screw balls coming up with
these strategies...meanwhile innocent civilians keep getting maimed and killed.
We have no business over there, let the countries decide for themselves what they want etc.
we need energy idependence...greta can go fly a kite...keep reducing emissions with tech we
have.
It is very sad that paul's neighbor does not have a more lethal right hook.
TheZeitgeist 7 hours ago
Sen. Paul began his argument by questioning Blinken's role in the NATO intervention of Libya
in 2001
So...only off by a decade. I think ZeroHedge drops these snafus into the copy just to see if
anyone actually reads the stuff.
freakscene 7 hours ago (Edited)
Its skimming material at best. Reading all the way through went out the window when ZH
become a CNN sponsor.
:)
littlewing 7 hours ago
When Ron Paul was calling out Bernanke you would see they were alone in the room.
There is no debate, its all a fraud. Saw the vote on election theft and it was their aides
voting for them.
StanleyTheManly 7 hours ago
Give me a break, Rand Paul. YOU KNOWINGLY voted for this by not standing for our elected
President.
You're a traitor. Shut up and sit down.
TRON Paul 7 hours ago
PRESIDENT PAUL!
PRESIDENT PAUL!
PRESIDENT PAUL!
wmbz 7 hours ago
War is a business, and "we" are big business. Matter no how many completely innocent people
get blown away. What matters are the spoils. We were warned over and over again about the MIC
yet here we are.
Profit always wins over peace, no money in it.
totally unwise 7 hours ago
Today, wars aren't meant to be won
they're meant to bring chaos
Chaos
Calling Maxwell Smart and agent 99
Where's that shoe phone ?
freakscene 7 hours ago
I guess, good for Rand? Thats about all he can do.
Dog Will Hunting 7 hours ago
Oh, that Rand Paul. I wondered where he was hiding this whole time peels back Trump's saggy
*** cheeks to find the good doctor
in_xanadu_did_kubla_khan 8 hours ago
Achoo: Hey, Blinkin
Blinkin: Did you say Abe Lincoln?
Achoo: No! I said, HEY, BLINKIN!
createnewaccount 8 hours ago
If we can't have Giant Meteor maybe a global helter skelter of 'regime change' will be a
good consolation prize.
Lt. Frank Drebin 8 hours ago
I voted for Giant Meteor, but the Dominion voting machines switched my vote to turd
sandwich.
Holding My Breath 7 hours ago
A big upvote for sarcasm (or is it utter stupidity?)
The Military/Industrial Complex needs endless foreign wars and imaginary enemies so that the
money won't be spent at home helping Americans. Such as infrastructure projects. The goal from
within is to destroy the American middle class and turn the United States into a third world
country. Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump all served the crooks.
littlewing 7 hours ago
Uh then why didn't Trump start wars?
Bear 11 minutes ago
Like father like son ... insight and wisdom
Arizona1234 26 minutes ago
China Joe and the mentally ill Marxist that run his crap show already started a multi
Trillion dollar endless war. The War on the weather they call Climate Crisis. It's the one
where we loose and wind up praying to find the small potato to make it through the day, and
then hope to find a few dry sticks for the fire to cook it. Where you will have to make the
small fire at night so that mentally ill #AOC carbon police can't easily see the smoke.
Maltheus 1 hour ago
It's taken less than 24 hours, after Biden's inauguration, for ISIS to magically make an
appearance again. They're not even pretending anymore.
Tom Angle 2 hours ago
I think I had heard all I want to hear from Rand Paul after.
boattrash 2 hours ago
Gawdamit Rand, we like you and everything, but the Coup you should be focused on is HERE,
even if it means you should spit in your hands, hoist the black flag and start slittin
throats.
Sincerely,
The American People
Dzerzhhinsky 3 hours ago
If the US can steal Syria, it means it will be able to build a pipeline, steal Iranian gas
and sell it to Europe.
The US needs something to give its financiers and controlling energy supplies to Europe would
go a long way to paying off the debt.
learnofjesuits 4 hours ago
vatican's wars
Hessler 3 hours ago
Puritans burred the Vatican so deep underground that if even the nuke detonates there, if
won't make a shockwave on the ground
TemporarySecurity 4 hours ago
Perfectly fine for anybody in the executive to lie through their teeth.
Say one thing in the hearing and do what they always do once confirmed. Our post
Constitutional government needs to fail.
tangent 4 hours ago
Ran Paul's ability to talk as if they are not simply being outright bribed for their
positions is impressive. I suppose the new CCP SoS will take the positions of the CCP, which is
the one paying him the most money for those positions.
richnhappy 4 hours ago
Just read confessions of an economic hit man, by john perkins, all you need to know. The
playbook sounds like what china is doing in the us now, distract the masses with the middle
east ****show.
Seditious 4 hours ago
We have had just one president so far this century that has not used American blood and
treasure to destroy a nation. He was a rogue billionaire that got taken out by every other
billionaire that wanted to stay in the club. The American people are going to have to figure
out that they will have better results solving this nations problems at the Bezos, Walton,
Zuckerberg and Dorsey homes than they will going to the Capitol in Washington DC.
The Child sacrifice murders committed by these people don't occur in some hidden room at a
pizza parlor. They occur on public roads under semitrailers marked Amazon Prime and Walmart
that wouldn't be allowed on the roads of nations that we used to call the third world.
I suppose the only big question is, who's child dies tomorrow?
Maghreb2 4 hours ago
You could look it at that way. I'd say he was a hairs breadth from starting world war III
with Iran and China and was removed by a stroke of bad luck from Wuhan and the old
establishment asserting their authority through corruption.
Trump might be remembered fondly for actually lowering the number of small conflicts but the
U.S war machine is bigger than any one president and his closeness to Israel show what camp he
was in. Only God or a few insiders can really judge what his ultimate aim was but he wasn't the
man who pulled the first shot of the first world war. Damn well loaded the gun and gave it to
the Israelis in my opinion.
Seditious 4 hours ago
During Obama's time in office we had a year in which the United States dropped bombs in more
nations than they did in any single year during WW2.
Bezos, Walton's and others spill our blood domestically. Biden will spill our blood overseas
to keep some other billionaires happy.
Based on your comment, I take it you REALLY like Blinken! Yes?
Fire_Hog 5 hours ago
The same thing happened in Egypt when Obama pushed for and got quick elections when the only
organization that could field candidates was the Muslim Brotherhood. The result was very
predictable.
The Brotherhood took over and the result was so bad that the people finally rebelled against
Morsi's government. This lead to Al Sisi who was better than Morsi. I question whether the
situation improved by letting the Muslim Brotherhood take control.
Maghreb2 4 hours ago
People? Thought that was the military?
WatchnSee 5 hours ago
"regime change doesn't work" "Maybe we shouldn't be 'choosing' governments in the Middle
East,".... nor in the USA. Time will tell.
Hessler 6 hours ago (Edited)
Don't worry Mr. Paul, these white men in the suits are the leaders of the terrorists groups.
It's hardcoded in their genes, they don't know any other way of earning a living.
Mancolo 6 hours ago
Lessons? I don't need your stinking lessons. I've got friends to pay off.
Pvt Joker PREMIUM 7 hours ago
I like the US policy of Perma War and Regime change. The more troops over there , the less
troops over here.
Scornd 7 hours ago
I dont understand the complaints.
You voted for this.
MCDirtMigger 6 hours ago
By 'you', do you mean Dominion?
littlewing 7 hours ago
District of Criminals
that's all they are.
I am bailing out forever now.
Just looking at them and their actions is self harm.
Max21c 7 hours ago (Edited)
District of Criminals
Diablo Corona
Washingtonians are for the most part the spawn of Satan.
DC= the Devil's City... they are evil... Washingtonians are just pure rotten evil...
Washington DC ... Devil's City
Washington DC .... Devil's Crown
The evil ones cannot change their evil ways... they're too far gone... the evil ones cannot
be redeemed...
LorDampNuts 7 hours ago
Keep sending your donations to Stop the Steal, Trump has a plan and will be sworn in by
April when it warms up. Free Chumptard hat with every $100 donation.
Occams_Razor_Trader 7 hours ago
I'd donate a hunny for you to flush your head in a toilet ...............
foxenburg 7 hours ago
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Rammbock 7 hours ago
Republicans are great actors
Kotwica 44 7 hours ago
This guy speaks truth, but, no one gives a flying fu<k.
Ajax_USB_Port_Repair_Service_ 7 hours ago
Attention Secret Police: We've got one for you!
freedommusic 7 hours ago (Edited)
Whatever these folks say is irrelevant. They are all sitting on foreign soil. The UNITED
STATES CORPORATION is a foreign Municipal entity owned by China claimed in the recent
bankruptcy settlement. POTUS said when he was leaving. Go ahead, take it. The buildings, the
chairs, statues, it's all yours . Anyone who steps outside of that foreign jurisdiction will be
entering American soil and subject to the Laws of the United States Constitutional Republic and
prosecuted for treason and sedition.
DC is now a Chinese embassy.
I wonder how much food they have stocked up in there? I would presume the military would
uphold a blockade and prevent the exchange of trade from occurring into a surrounded hostile
territory of the enemy.
YOU WANT IT
YOU GOT IT
HAVE A NICE DAY
SERReal1 7 hours ago
Where was Rand in calling out the election fraud?
Now he is acting all tough again on the deep state creatures.
9.1ontherichterscale 7 hours ago (Edited)
He wants to stay in office. No way is going to touch the third rail. None of them will.
rkb100100 7 hours ago
This is part of a Punch and Judy show put on for retards.
leodogma1 7 hours ago
And yet not one peep of this Quislings tie's to the Chinese Communist party of Evil !
Southern Discomfort 7 hours ago
I'm sure it will be blamed on an action taken by Trump and the only cure will be
intervention. Maybe Joetard can set up a new cabinet level position to seek out opportunities
for new wars.
More-Cowbell 8 hours ago
The show must go on. As if these asz clowns ( all of them ) matter.
north_hand_demon 8 hours ago
Whatever. Your cushy lifestyle, and mine, exists because we're the dominant imperial power
on the planet. Might makes right. Paul knows it too; this is just virtue signaling.
artless 7 hours ago (Edited)
And in your statement lies the real problem with the vast majority of people in this
country.
Yeah I edited the lame ad hom line after I read a few comments. But perhaps it is long due
that rather than simply accept things as the way they are and calling any opposition to it the
thoughts of a ten year old, it might be high time to actually try to make a change in how
people think and ultimately behave.
Too many people letting their wishful thinking override their wisdom, just like when Obama
was enthroned. I will admit that I was fooled back in 2008 as well, thinking "This time
things are finally different!" , though in my defense I will say that the "Reality
Distortion Field" built around BHO by the mass media was far more believable than the one
they have scraped together for Biden.
Biden being installed will thus buy the empire a "grace period" in which other
countries (EU mostly) will happily buy into America's next war effort. As with the
post-Bushlette era decorated with the Obama figurehead, the empire will take advantage of
this "grace period" to escalate its violence.
After all, that is why they want someone like Biden in the White House in the first place.
If the imperial establishment were at all interested in global de-escalation then they would
have gone forward with it when Trump demanded troops out instead of playing shell games to
keep the empire's wars on a low boil. Trump's belligerent noise-making made it impossible
for the empire to escalate its wars. The empire needs someone who is willing to put a nice
"progressive" spin on mass murder in order to get buy-in for a renewed round of
slaughter.
The empire will not waste this opportunity. They have been waiting four years for it.
There will be more war.
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 20 2021 21:14 utc | 77
Agree with most of this as well as your other post earlier in the thread.
Biden is an attempt to put the mask back on the monster so that the woke, "resistance"
crowd will continue to not care about the unabated slaughter abroad. I mean, when you really
look at it, they (and the corporate mainstream "liberal" media) rarely criticized Trump's
foreign policy and often cheered it, albeit without ever openly praising him, per se. We saw
the occasional article about the ethnic cleansing in Yemen that Trump greatly aided and
abetted, but everyone including the NYT was completely behind his war on Venezuela and
attempt to create war with Iran. The media got a bit up in arms when Kashoggi was murdered -
because of course he was then a journalist - but even that died down quite quickly while
Trump continued feting the Israelis and Saudis.
The coming hot wars will be fought with all of the record breaking arms that Trump sold in
the Middle East and Southeast Asia.
All of that having been said, I'll repeat a point I've made since we started talking about
the election: Trump didn't "start any new wars" because there wasn't much left to do after
Obama and Bush set the world on fire and the Iranians (and Venezuelans) showed restraint when
attacked - both physically and economically. Trump and his Zionist handlers would have loved
it if the USA had ended up in a war with either of those countries and I have no doubt that
if he was elected to a 2nd term, we'd have seen one or both transpire. With Biden, same thing
as the first thing about Trump - There isn't much left to destroy that the USA could actually
get away with and I suspect he will continue the existing wars for however long he (or
Kopmala) is in office.
It's an Empire with a revolving-door Emperor called a President or Prime Minister. The
facts are fixed around the policy. We're obviously headed back toward a more 'can't we all
get along' empire, after four years of a guy who thought he was an actual emperor, instead of
a bobble-head. The differences between the two monopoly parties in the USA are entirely
domestic and are nothing but the size of the crumbs given to the people who think they are
free.
bottom line kadath.. the usa will be an ongoing slavish servant to israel.. that much is
clear as day... which way it goes - syria or iran - none of the saber rattling will stop..
israel doesn't want it to stop! neither does the american duopoly! the people might, but
they don't get a say and generally are not interested in foreign policy..
IMO Biden will do as he is told. His white house chief of staff is a powerful and
skilled player and is quite experienced in working with Biden. Joe could well be diverted to
give solid focus on the home front while the rats he has appointed continue their global
piracy and belligerence. I figure that is why they ran the old fool.
On January 21, the president-elect will sign a number of executive actions to move
aggressively to change the course of the COVID-19 crisis and safely re-open schools and
businesses, including by taking action to mitigate spread through expanding testing,
protecting workers, and establishing clear public health standards.
On January 22, the president-elect will direct his Cabinet agencies to take immediate
action to deliver economic relief to working families bearing the brunt of this crisis.
Between January 25 and February 1, the president-elect will sign additional executive
actions, memoranda and Cabinet directives. The president-elect will fulfill his promises to
strengthen Buy American provisions so the future of America is made in America. He will
take significant early actions to advance equity and support communities of color and other
underserved communities. He will take action to begin fulfilling campaign promises related
to reforming our criminal justice system. The president-elect will sign additional
executive actions to address the climate crisis with the urgency the science demands and
ensure that science guides the administration's decision making. President-elect Biden will
take first steps to expand access to health care – including for low-income women and
women of color. He will fulfill his promises to restore dignity to our immigration system
and our border policies, and start the difficult but critical work of reuniting families
separated at the border. And, President-elect Biden will demonstrate that America is back
and take action to restore America's place in the world.
As noted above, this list is not comprehensive. More items and more details will be
forthcoming in the days ahead.
Time will tell how the other appointees in the administration align with Klain and the
extent of the savage power struggle that is soon to manifest.
The USA is now the proverbial Whale in a Swimming Pool: it is big, powerful and impressive
- but can't hide its moves anymore and has little to none margin for any maneuver.
The American Center-wing is ossifying, or, in Cold Warrior terminology (Arthur
Schlesinger Jr.), is losing its "vitality". It is entering a stage where it must "burn the
village in order to save it".
... it seems the answer is that Germany plays the role in Europe that the US plays in the
world and both are satisfied with that role even though neo-liberalism, austerity and
war-mongering are leading us to inhumanity and disaster.
Like i said before elsewhere Biden would capitalize on what Trump has put forth and take
the infamy and blame for instead of moving in the opposite directions of whatever Trump
criticized for in foreign policy. That means be it trade war with China, renege on climate
deals, strong arming NATO and EU countries, or giving everything Israel wants nothing stop
Biden from maintaining what has been put in place.
At most they'll just make excuse on why they had to maintain the policies they themselves
criticized Trump for without changing direction.
He said Joe Biden's strong conviction was that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a "bad idea"
and that the administration would use "every persuasive tool" to convince partners,
including Germany, to discard the project.
That is pretty much a declaration of war against countries in Europe. Stay
away,
America's
disarray is its own woes, not other countries' opportunity The Financial Times lives in
a world where the USA doesn't have more than 2,000 operational nukes, doesn't control the
financial system (SWIFT), doesn't issue the universal fiat currency (Dollar Standard),
doesn't have a big fucking navy, doesn't enjoy absolute ideological hegemony etc. etc.
...Tronald's foreign policy has been a disaster, even if he has supposedly not sparked a
new war. Let's not talk about all the secret operations, multiplied drone attacks, state
terrorist assassinations, etc. And the new administration is now continuing this...
They've stopped thinking, become utterly predictable.
They just go through the motions. They know that they can't win-achieve their long held
objectives-but they can't stop repeating themselves, including their past errors. They are
not allowed to. The US ruling caste-servants of the ruling class- are only allowed to
operate within very narrow boundaries. They aren't allowed to take radical measures when
faced with new crises- they are confined within ever diminishing political circles. The
duopoly has become an obvious One Party system. And its politics are those of the Gilded
Age-150 years old and still going strong.
The only solution to America's problems is defeat so complete that it cannot be denied
even by the least perceptive. Anyone with money to spare should be buying popcorn
futures.
...Biden is an elderly figurehead. Trump's mistake was being openly bullying and vulgar
instead of underhanded. Already, the EU ( as cowardly vassals ) are falling into line on
Iran and Russia.
...Paul Craig Roberts is correct. There has not been a regime change, there has been a
revolution and treating policies of this "president" as if he is more than a figurehead
being run by oligarchs is foolish in the extreme.
They've stopped thinking, become utterly predictable.
One could say this about the American people who have been herded into two camps so that
the Center can rule. Here's an example: One of Biden's first executive actions is to
include undocumented residents in the Census. This will please the Left immensely and
outrage the Right. But the Census is conducted every 10 years and it was completed in 2020.
So Biden's action is actually meaningless. How many people will actual notice this? Very
few.
It is funny/sad to see the Post Trump Stress Disorder victims are already rationalizing
and making excuses for the war that the establishment drones they voted for will be
starting, and those drones are not even sworn in to office yet. They know that they voted
for war yet their plastic, Hollywood "identities" are so intertwined with their assumed
self-evident moral superiority that they are compelled to defend the evil they are
responsible for even before it is committed. For them, doing nothing crudely is far worse
than murdering millions accompanied by lofty and emotive platitudes.
Meet the Filthy Rich War Hawks That Make up Biden's New Foreign Policy Team
"I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to
continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of "limited
engagement," – Biden Biographer Branko Marcetic
by Alan Macleod November 13th, 2020
https://www.mintpressnews.com/filthy-rich-war-hawks-make-joe-biden-foreign-policy-team/273039/
Neera Tanden – Reduce US Deficits by Raiding the Economies of Countries We Have
Destroyed:
Neera Tanden, Biden's Pick for Budget Office: Now Is Not the Time To 'Worry About Raising
Deficits and Debt'
by Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/11/30/neera-tanden-biden-omb-debt-deficit/
She once suggested that if Americans care about the deficit so much, maybe we should make
Libya pay for it.
| 11/30/2020
( Ariana Ruiz/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom )
Trump ripped the mask off US foreign policy and exposed it for what it is - ugly Zionism
and outrageous Jewish supremacy. Trump did many foreign policy changes previous incumbents
and their handlers wanted to do but were constrained by the optics and international
opinion.
I agree the Biden administration will continue the same tired old foreign policy, only
with the mask back on. Of course the media won't notice the similarities, but the public
will. No matter how fervently the managers tinker with the edges it is events that drive
changes and change people.
I just listened to President Biden's speech. It was a good one, even a great one. Thinking
about what Plato means by the 'noble lie' it was a noble speech, and there wasn't much of a
lie about it.
b finished the posting with
"
While Trump had continued the wars the U.S. waged when he came into office he did not start
any new ones. Since Joe Biden first entered the Senate 47 years ago he has cheered on every
war the U.S. has since waged. It would be astonishing to find four years from now that he
did not start any new ones.
"
Prepare to be astonished. Biden isn't going to start any new wars for the same reason
that Trump didn't......MAD
Humanity has been in the MAD phase of the civilization war we are in since the Obama era
push back in Syria.
Biden's chest beating will not be as "impressive" as Trump's but the trajectory is the
same.
The new chief says to tighten the circle of wagons, but those accused of besieging the
Outlaw US Empire's wagon train stopped attacking and moved on long ago. Meanwhile,
supplying the wagon train continues to take resources away from dealing with very real
domestic problems. The upshot is China will continue to pull away and increase its lead
geoeconomically, and together with Russia will continue to solidify and strengthen the
Eurasian Bloc. Very soon, the EU is going to be faced with a very stark choice--to join the
Eurasian Bloc and thus stave-off economic atrophy or continue to allow its brand of
Neoliberal Parasites to eat and risk rupture, perhaps not in 2021 but before 2030.
The key is that the false narrative that was initiated in 1945 and bolstered in 1979
continues to be treated as gospel despite its path to certain ruin. I noted there were no
questions asked about the international call for a Bretton Woods 2.0 that would end dollar
hegemony and Petrodollar recycling, while removing the one source of coercion behind its
illegal sanctions.
The only possible target of opportunity I see is Venezuela as the frack-patch is about
to fold-up shop and fuel prices cause domestic inflation to soar -- Here in Oregon, gas
prices have gone up 50cents/gal since the first of the year--25%. The oil being the obvious
target now the the lower-48 has definitely peaked.
@ 32 juliania... you are the eternal optimist! there is something admirable about that!..
however you have to contend with a lot of cynical people who think like it's business as
well, as b's post notes..... you might not like to hear this, but nothing is going to
change under biden... big wheels set in motion and biden is not interested in the least in
changing any of it... neither was trump as some of his fanbots are coming to see too...
political speeches are just so much b.s... juliania - as the saying goes, talk is cheap, it
is actions that count.... watch peoples actions, not their talk... biden can talk a good
line, but that has nothing to do with his actions... top of the day to you!
@34 Invading Venezuela and 'taking the oil' won't be easy though there is a possibility
Colombia will help out. Which means the total disruption of South America. More economical
to just buy the stuff.
"It is funny/sad to see the Post Trump Stress Disorder victims are already rationalizing
and making excuses for the war that the establishment drones they voted for will be
starting, and those drones are not even sworn in to office yet. They know that they voted
for war yet their plastic, Hollywood "identities" are so intertwined with their assumed
self-evident moral superiority that they are compelled to defend the evil they are
responsible for even before it is committed. For them, doing nothing crudely is far worse
than murdering millions accompanied by lofty and emotive platitudes."
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 20 2021 16:16 utc | 26
Tnx for expressing this in a much nicer and polite way then i would have written. And
yes, yes it is sad/amusing to watch NPC`s turn into pretzels to explain away their
cognitive dissonans ,utter foolishness and stupidity.
"... If not for the "new normal" we 100% would guarantee a new war – or a restarted old war – within a year. As it stands, we're only 60% sure they'll be some kind of military intervention sometime soon (Venezuela wouldn't be a surprise). ..."
"... The real crackdowns are going to be domestic. There is a huge push to take "domestic terrorism" seriously , and that will go hand-in-hand with increased purges of social media (again with "Russian disinformation" playing a major role). ..."
"... I wonder if the military occupation was designed to disguise the total lack of support, given the evidence of election fraud. You couldn't get more emptiness and virtual absence of reality if the military conducted the installation in a bunker in the dying days of the Reich. ..."
"... Another poster said it looked like a junta in a minor banana dictatorship. Spot on. It was a military installation visually and in a political sense for there were no people. ..."
This particular inauguration is going to look a lot different from all the others –
the twin bogus narratives of coronavirus and the "attempted
coup" on January 6th have forced, FORCED, capitol city into an almost Martial Law-like
standing.
A heavy troop presence as your leader is sworn in is one of the hallmarks of legitimacy, you
understand. And not even slightly a sign of power being seized illegitimately.
That said, Biden will technically be "President", so it's time to ask ourselves –
what kind of world are we in for?
Internationally it's likely to be business as usual. If you look at his cabinet choices,
from
Victoria Nuland to
Samantha power , we have a LOT of warmongers who bleat about America's "responsibility to
protect". While politicians and pundits are already rebuking Trump & Johnson for failing in
US/UK's
"moral leadership" of the world, or praising Biden for his plans to "counter Russian
disinformation".
If not for the "new normal" we 100% would guarantee a new war – or a restarted old war
– within a year. As it stands, we're only 60% sure they'll be some kind of military
intervention sometime soon (Venezuela wouldn't be a surprise).
The real crackdowns are going to be domestic. There is a huge push to take "domestic
terrorism" seriously , and that will go hand-in-hand with increased purges of social media
(again with "Russian
disinformation" playing a major role).
The big question is whether the inauguration will go off smoothly, or they'll try another
manufactured incident to sell that agenda.
How do you think President Creepy Uncle Joe is going to shape our world? How long before,
for whatever reason, Kamala Harris replaces him? Will the pandemic be "solved"? Will we have a
new war? Discuss below.
Jan 21, 2021 2:24 AM
Washington DC was empty except for the troops. Windblown streets. Jason Goodman did his
walkabout could not even get a distant view of the Capitol. It's as if no one voted for Biden: no supporters even tried to attend the inauguration. You would have expected someone a few diehards who hadn't heard about the military
occupation.
I wonder if the military occupation was designed to disguise the total lack of support,
given the evidence of election fraud. You couldn't get more emptiness and virtual absence of
reality if the military conducted the installation in a bunker in the dying days of the
Reich.
Another poster said it looked like a junta in a minor banana dictatorship. Spot on. It was a
military installation visually and in a political sense for there were no people.
An inauguration of the leader of a nation cannot be legitimate if the people play no part
.
Celebrities cheered with exaggerated leering grins and lockjaw, tongues lolling in a vain
caricature of support from the class of paid actors.
The term 'State Actor' has a new meaning today. The Corporatist Media could not recognise
its own banality. This was like the USSR Actors' Union huddling and fawning around Secretary
General Brezhnev as the Soviet Union teetered to collapse.
Social cretinism is the best one can say about this sorry debacle but I fear it is something
much, much worse.
Disillusioned Peasant , Jan 21, 2021 2:38 AM Reply to theobalt
Agreed, Trump was used as a puppet to shame anybody who questions the narrative or resists
the deep state. He was asked to be a cartoon, a ridiculous exaggeration of a "traditionalist"
or "nationalist" to forever tarnish that stance. He was basically the Alex Jones president
.the ultimate controlled opposition. A clown.
I'm so embarrassed I fell for it in 2016. Of COURSE he was phony. Jan 21, 2021 1:39 AM
The snake as a new head. It's still the same snake. It still crawls on it's belly and it
still spits the same lies on behalf of the masters who stand behind the curtain. We could
still hear Bush Sr when Clinton spoke ; We could still hear Bush Jr when Obama spoke. Red and
Blue are the same colour.
It was refreshing in parts to have an American president who didn't try to contrive a
narrative that would justify invading another country or contrive yet another cell of
'radicalised' terrorists. No explosions on home soil intended to be taken as an attack from
foreign soil. Nothing in four years.
It was all the more surprising as many believed that Trump was and is a great real estate
dealer and TV celebrity who has manufactured his charisma from arrogance and ignorance. He
has never been celebrated for much beyond his business acumen in the real estate area and TV.
This wasn't exactly an erudite man. Former presidents of different ages were and were capable
of putting it on paper in their memoirs. Trump was the sign of the times ; a Twitter
president. His reign was punctuated by the occasional flexing of Uncle Sam's muscles with
threats and a go -ahead-punk-make-our-day approach to public speaking. Yet still no
threats of war. This was an odd four years. That odd = peace says more about the US than
Trump though. So, what was his role ?
In 2001 we had the Twin Towers. The most dramatic mass murder and the destruction of the
laws of Physics and Logic all in one day. Soon after we had the destruction of personal
freedom and the creation of domestic terror. It had been suggested by Philip Zelikow three
years earlier that a 'searing event such as a terror attack' would be a useful and
effective tool in transforming the future by breaking away from the past in no uncertain
terms. It would be the event that nobody dare question, and that would be perfect for
creating a real fear within the people of the west that such a disaster could occur any time
without warning. All they needed was the right salesman to address us.
And so the Patriot Act was born. The surveillance of everyone in their streets, in other
towns and their homes was pushed through as a public health measure and a matter of
national security. If you protested you were a ' 9 /11 denier' and 'unpatriotic'. If
we went too long without evidence of this terror then somewhere would be bombed and the
bomber would be 'neutralised' before we would ever learn who was behind it. It took time to
become a 'new normal' but it became the 'new normal'. Complain- you were a 'dangerous'
conspiracy theorist; in some states it was considered grounds to label you under the mental
health act. Just for asking questions.This was how to protect democracy- by
tyranny.
So, two decades on we were ready and primed.
Gates and his cohort billionaire 'philanderers' had been beavering away for decades
creating more subtle forms of terror. No bangs; no smoke; no mess. These 'missiles'
were microbes and the control groups had been observed closely. From mice, to bats to black
people to gay people. Once the results /data became big enough numbers, the bomb factory went
to work behind the closed doors of 'Cancer Research ' facilities.
We all know now about the hypothetical exercises 'imagined' by the Gates 'Good
Club' ; nightmares of being unprepared etc. They penned in 2030 as target date for the
endgame. . A date that will have seen the human race enslaved or culled by their
terrorism.
Liability would have been taken off the table, giving them free reign. All involved sank
their pennies into the manufacturing of these little bombs. And all Academic Institutions,
MSM platforms, and pharmaceutical industries were funded by Gates and Co. Then
Monsanto and it's subsidiaries were purchased the same way, and the same immunity from
prosecution granted from the damaging synthetic /poison crops and food.
So, 2020, was Trump's last stand. He had his '9 /11'. He had domestic bio
terrorists. Then the rest of the world had it. We had the same threats to national
security and the same 'need' for a new version of a Dystopian Patriot Act.
This wasn't about ISIS or Al -Qaeda and their radicalised lunatics. Trump had found a new
group of Bogeymen. China. He would have sounded a bit paranoid if Russia was blamed for
something again. Besides, everyone knows that all SARS- type or flu-like viruses are made in
China quicker and cheaper. And the US should know that by looking in their many, many
stockpiles in their own Biological War labs they pretend are trying to cure
cancer.
Trump decided to refer to the Covid 19 virus as 'The Chinese disease '. Fang
Ling Fauci had told him to on behalf of Wong Sing Gates.
He went on to call himself a 'war time president' ( there you go- he got one).
He invoked the Defence Production Act, an old Cold War law which allows the Executive
Branch to control and redirect the production and distribution of scarce materials deemed
"essential to the national defense. " In an executive order dated March 18th,
2020.
To add another layer to the movie the troops were brought in and all medics were now
'heroes on the front line'.
The script went global. It began in the country that Gates had composed such a
hypothetical scenario- America. Hence the 'Chinese Disease'. It was the new war on terror
minus the James Bond bad guy Bin Laden.
So Trump ushered it in right on time. It didn't win the election( we were told). Instead,
it won it for Obama's man, Biden.
Biden and Obama were the most vehement advocates of Monsanto, Sterilisation, and Social
Technology ( eugenics ; social cleansing). Obama was made a very wealthy man for his
services to the Gates agenda, pharma and GM / Frankenfood. He was surprisingly racist
as well as elitist. Tom Vilsack was their frontman. Biden has already called him out of
retirement.
So, given the 'war-on-(bio)-terror ' that was born in the USA and sold worldwide,
there was no place for Trump. His job was to let the the 'enemy' in, warn us of the possible
'war ahead' and leave it to Gates. But Trump seemed to have spotted that and didn't
seem too keen on the narrative. So, come on down Barack O Biden. The timing's right.. Jan 20,
2021 11:40 PM Reply to Ben
Do not be bamboozled, in SHAM DEMOCRACY USA there is only one party, THE
REPUBLICRATS (the WAR RACKETEER CORPORATE FASCIST political racket so corrupt it needs two
aliases).
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral
and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never
did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have
found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these
will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of
tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
~ Frederick Douglas, 1857
Schmitz Katze , Jan 20, 2021 10:44 PM
„That said, Biden will technically be "President", so it's time to ask ourselves
– what kind of world are we in for? –
The real crackdowns are going to be domestic.-
Will the pandemic be "solved"? „
It will only be solved when people have had enough of it. The deep state got rid of Trump
(for the timebeing-) under the guise of a pandemic. For them and their minions in MSM,
government and academia it´s a gift that keeps on giving, with never ending corona
mutation fearporn.
It´s totalitarianism, it´s dystopia under under the guise of –
domestic-safety.
Gosh! The UN General Assembly actually affirmed that Israel's continued occupation of the
Golan Heights is 'a violation of international law'!! But the USA voted against the
resolution. Does that mean the USA supports violations of international law, or that it
believes it has the right to decide what does or does not constitute violations thereof?
My vote is with option B. As others have pointed out, the USA loves to throw the weight of
'international law' about, often when there is no such backing and even more often without
getting any more specific than just 'international law'. The supposed annexation of Crimea is
a natural example – the USA and Ukraine monotonously refer to the transfer of Crimea to
the Russian Federation as such a violation, but do not specify what law was violated, instead
bleating about the Budapest Memorandum.
The latter is not international law, and more importantly, it assumed that conditions
which prevailed at the time of signing would endure; no provision was made for a bloody coup
right next door, and nobody would be fool enough to sign such an agreement as unconditional.
Not to blame it all on the USA and Ukraine, either – the USA's retinue of lickspittles
who depend on it for trade and economic reasons are happy to parrot it as a 'violation of
international law'.
That only shows you how easily an action the west routinely lauds as the very essence of
democratic principles – a declaration of independence supported by a huge majority of
the inhabitants – can be made to seem 'a violation of international law': simply refuse
to recognize the decision as the will of the people, and characterize it as a forced decision
made under duress. Because America says the Crimean referendum was not legal or proper,
Crimea should have been forced against its will to remain a possession of Ukraine – the
very and complete polar opposite of the USA's customary prancing and whooping about
'freedom'.
I wouldn't want to be a Russian in Ukraine now, though. Hysteria will be high, and the
nationalists will be looking for an outlet for their frustration and hate.
Since a nation's territorial Waters extend 12 miles beyond its coast, doesn't that put the
entirety of the Ketch strait in Russian territorial waters ??
BTW What happens where the 12 mile extensions of two nations overlap???
The usual anti-Russian subject in "western" political circles use the incident to
demand more measures against Russia. Fronting the effort is the weapon industry lobbying
group Atlantic Council:
Anders Åslund, a resident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center,
said: "NATO and the United States should send in naval ships in the Sea of Azov to guarantee
that it stays open to international shipping."
Such action, Åslund said, "would be in full compliance with the UN Law of the Sea
Convention of 1982 and the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits of
1936."
Anders Aslund is listed as member of the "U.S. & Canadian Cluster" of the secret
influence operation by the British Foreign Office describe here two days ago. He is obviously
unable to read a map, sea chart, or UN convention. The Ukrainian attempt to pass through the
Kerch Strait without Russian consent is a breach of Article 7, 19 and 21 of the UN Law of the
Sea Convention (pdf):
Article 7: "Subject to this Convention, ships of all States, whether coastal or
land-locked, enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea."
Article 19-1: "Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good
order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this
Convention and with other rules of international law."
Article 21-4: "Foreign ships exercising the right of innocent passage through the
territorial sea shall comply with all such [coastal state] laws and regulations and all
generally accepted international regulations relating to the prevention of collisions at
sea."
There will now be again a lot of noise in the media about the 'nefarious Russians' and
new demands for even more useless sanctions. But the legal case is clear. It was the
Ukrainian navy that willfully attempted to pass from the Black Sea into the Sea of Azov
through Russian territorial waters without regard to the laws and regulations of the coastal
state. Russia was within its full rights to prevent the passage and to seize the Ukrainian
boats.
Dear God; Anders Aslund. Now he's an expert in maritime law. Might as well, I guess; he's a
chrome-plated clusterfuck as an economist – good on you, Anders, to make a career
change so late in life.
Anders Aslund is a wooden-head whose sole useful function is to give the veneer of
academia to agit-prop.
The Atlantic Council seems to attract many people who have quite sudden and dramatic mid-life
career changes, for example that former women's lingerie salesman turned investigative
journalist Eliot Higgins.
This comes at a time when Americans are now
reporting that they trust corporations more than they trust their own government or media,
when pundits are gleefully proclaiming in The New
York Times that "CEOs have become the fourth branch of government" as they pressure the
entire political system to smoothly install Biden, when the leading contender for the
Department of Justice's Antitrust Division is an Obama holdover who went from the
administration to working for both Amazon and Google, and when Americans are being
paced into accepting an increasing amount of authoritarian changes for their own good.
And this manic celebration and increasing brazenness of corporate power are of course
overlaid atop an unceasing river of human blood as the globe-spanning empire continues to smash
any nation which disobeys it into compliance so as to ensure lasting uncontested planetary
hegemony.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
DH Fabian , January 18, 2021 at 12:03
Yes, nervous middle classers pray Joe Biden will be their salvation. The rest of us know
why "business as usual" will continue. The only real difference between Biden and Trump is
that Biden is more likely to start a catastrophic war (as his record clearly indicates).
Jeff Harrison , January 17, 2021 at 23:17
Good points. Since Americans don't see any consequence to their government's outrageous
behavior, everything's outstanding (there are real benefits to those two oceans)! And it will
remain outstanding until someone shoves our bad behavior in our faces (which could really
happen. The Russians and Chinese are arming themselves to defend themselves from the US.
That's a lot cheaper than having to support a major offensive capability) or our brokeness
blows our economy to hell. You might want to read up on what happened to Sparta ..
No, I am not excited for the inauguration of a man who: Wrote the crime and bankruptcy
bills, voted for the Iraq War, took more money from Wall Street than Trump, and told a room of
rich donors that "nothing will fundamentally change." Democrats are part of the problem
too.
What a lie. The bombs being dropped from the U.S. made jets the Saudi pilots fly over Yemen
killing civilians leaves blood all over his hands not to mention shaking the hand of the
Saudi that murdered a journalist before selling him weapons to kill Yemen's civilians.
Waryaa Moxamad 48 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 05:36 PM
1) False flag chemical attack on Syria. 2) killing Soleimani in a sovereign country he was
invited to 3) Guaido 4) Bolivia. 5) continuing the wars predecessors started.
Who is being fooled that U.S. presidency has any say in America's imperialism?
Who really pushed for General Soleimani to be killed and has the most personal and intense
vendetta against Soleimani? Mike Pompeo. Trump did not give the Pentagon and CIA all the wars
they wanted, especially in Syria. Now the Pentagon and the CIA have their puppet, Corrupt
Biden, who will do what they command him to do. I would expect in one year to see another
massive war. Where? Syria. The US mothers will cry when their sons come home in coffins. The
Hez in Lebanon will not back down, and they will enter Syria again. Trump did not want young
American boys coming back in coffins!!!!!!!
By 2016 the concept of "liberal democracy," once bright with promise, had dulled into a
neoliberal politics that was neither liberal nor democratic. The Democratic Party's turn toward
market-driven policies, the bipartisan dismantling of the public sphere, the inflight marriage
of Wall Street and Silicon Valley in the cockpit of globalization -- these interventions
constituted the long con of neoliberal governance, which enriched a small minority of Americans
while ravaging most of the rest.
Jackson Lears is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of History at Rutgers,
Editor in Chief of Raritan, and the author of Rebirth of a Nation: The Making of Modern
America, 1877–1920, among other books. (January 2021)
If there must be a CIA, I feel better with Bill Burns being in charge of it.
William Burns in 2014 as U.S. deputy secretary of state. (State Department)
By John Kiriakou Special to Consortium News
P resident-elect Joe Biden has finally named a new CIA director, one of the final
senior-level appointees for his new administration. Much to the surprise of many of us who
follow these things, he named senior diplomat Williams Burns to the position. Burns is one of
the most highly-respected senior U.S. diplomats of the past three decades. He has ably served
presidents of both parties and is known as both a reformer and as a supporter of human
rights.
Burns is currently the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an
important Washington-based international affairs think tank. He served as deputy secretary of
state under President Barack Obama and was ambassador to Russia under President George W. Bush
and ambassador to Jordan under President Bill Clinton. He was instrumental in the negotiations
that led to the Iran Nuclear Deal and spent much of his career focused on the Middle East Peace
Process. Burns joined the Foreign Service in 1982.
Please
Contribute to Consortium
News ' Winter Fund Drive
"Bill Burns is an exemplary diplomat with decades of experience on the word stage keeping
our people and our country safe and secure. He shares my profound belief that intelligence
must be apolitical and that the dedicated intelligence professionals serving our nation
deserve our gratitude and respect. The American people will sleep soundly with him as our
next CIA Director."
The message from Biden is clear: The CIA will not be led by a political hack like Mike
Pompeo, a CIA insider like John Brennan, or someone associated with the CIA's crimes of
torture, secret prisons, or international renditions like Gina Haspel. Instead, the
organization will be led by someone with experience engaging across a negotiating table with
America's enemies, someone experienced in solving problems, rather than creating new ones,
someone who has dedicated much of his career to promoting peace, rather than to creating
war.
Rank & File Response
The question, though, is what will be the response from the CIA's rank-and-file to Burns'
appointment? I can tell you from my 15 years of experience at the CIA that there will be two
reactions. At the working level, analysts, operators, and others will continue their same level
of work no matter who the director is. Most working level officers don't even care who the
director is. It doesn't matter to them. They never encounter the director and policies made at
that top level generally don't impact them on a day-to-day basis.
At the senior levels, the leadership levels, CIA officers will be of two minds. Some will
welcome Burns and his professionalism. They'll welcome a director who doesn't attract adverse
press because of a past history of committing war crimes or crimes against humanity. (Even if
they supported those crimes when they were being committed, press attention is always
unwelcome.) They'll welcome a director who didn't head secret prisons overseas. They'll
welcome a director who wasn't in charge of Guantanamo. They'll welcome a director who
wasn't in charge of maintaining a secret "kill list."
Others will resent Burns, though, as they resented an earlier outsider, Admiral Stansfield
Turner. Turner had been appointed by President Jimmy Carter to "clean up" the CIA. Turner then
fired fully a third of the CIA's operations officers, some just months away from qualifying for
retirement. He was universally reviled after that, and he never regained the trust of agency
personnel.
That's not Burns' style. He's not a military officer who demands fealty. He's a diplomat, a
negotiator. The CIA has to be cleaned up. Its policies have to be reformed. If there must be a
CIA, I feel better with Bill Burns being in charge of it. At the very least, we should give him
enough time to at least get started.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
As a top-level State Department official through the administrations of Reagan, Bush I,
Clinton, Bush II and Obama, Burns is implicated in virtually every crime of US imperialism
over the past three decades, including the war in Iraq, the US-NATO attack on Libya, the
military coup that drowned the Egyptian Revolution in blood, and the US intervention in
Syria.
After such a career, as the saying goes, Burns knows where all the bodies are buried. Now
he is assigned to head an agency that is probably responsible for more killing, torture and
mass suffering than any other on the planet: the CIA.
A preview of what to expect from a Burns-led CIA was given during an interview with
National Public Radio's Mary Louise Kelly on "US Global Leadership" held June 19, 2019 at the
Truman Center for National Policy in Washington, DC. In the extended conversation, Burns
defended the US and NATO-led coup in Libya which ended with the grisly murder of Muammar
Gaddafi, followed by an ongoing civil war, the torture and killing of refugees and the return
of slave-markets.
"It was right to act in Libya in the way that we did," Burns said. While the US government
might have "got some assumptions wrong," he expressed no regrets, saying that he still
thought Obama's "decision to act was unavoidable."
Anne , January 12, 2021 at 14:15
I would agree with your estimation some one, anyone who can think, believe, say etc that
what we did in Iraq, Libya (I don't doubt Serbia), Syria is "rightful" has a heinously
distorted mind (pretty much everyone in DC, in the MICIMATT) And Biden has revealed himself
– again – as a subject of the corporate-capitalist-imperialist plutocratic ruling
elites (and one with his hand forever stuck out)
was a member of the British Parliament for nearly 30 years. He presents TV and radio shows
(including on RT). He is a film-maker, writer and a renowned orator. Follow him on Twitter
@georgegalloway
19 Jan,
2021 18:23 It's hard not to wonder if Joe Biden will even last his first 100 days in office...
but those arguing his mind isn't sound enough shouldn't expect a swift exit, because since when
was that a disqualifier?
... ... ...
The madness of Donald Trump had nothing on his Republican predecessor and fellow-impeachee
Richard Nixon. So disturbing were the last days of Tricky Dicky, it came as a relief to America
and the world when he resigned – even though it was famously said his successor Gerald
Ford couldn't chew gum and walk in a straight line at the same time. Bovine he may have been,
but a mad-cow he wasn't.
The Raging Bull Donald J Trump – grotesque, bizarre, unbelievable – had the
misfortune to go quite mad in the age of cable news and social media. His narcissistic
predilections always bordered on personality disorder. But his natural braggadocio stormed him
to victory in 2016 in a backlash against the super-smooth professorial presidency of Barack
Obama, with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton riding shotgun.
Under Obama, the Clintonite deindustrialisation of America became almost complete .
China was presented with America's lunch. And in no less than nine conflicts across the
globe Obama was 'nation-building' in other people's countries while his own country was falling
apart. But a dark storm was gathering
If only the Democrats had not started out by trying to steal Trump's election in a flurry of
pussy-hats and fake Russiagate hoaxes. If only they hadn't striven might and main to railroad
the Electoral College into betraying their mandate and – in the case of
Nancy Pelosi – make a thinly disguised call for "uprisings throughout the country."
If only they hadn't spent countless millions and two whole years of a four year-term with the
Mueller Inquiry and the cockamaney theorem that the man who confronted Russia from Ukraine and
the Baltics through the wrecked INF and Open Skies treaties to the killing fields of the Levant
was, in fact, an agent of Vladimir Putin. If only, if only
As it happened, the descent into madness of Trump was complete by the end. The coronavirus
he derided at first, before predicting it would disappear in the warm weather of spring, before
pondering whether bleach up the bahookie might not be an option as a cure. The Tammany Hall
skullduggery of election day, practiced over a century in places like New York, rolled out
across the country. The political suicide of only half-making a revolution on January 6 dug
his own grave. Nobody ever beat a candidate who polled over 75 million votes before. But
Sleepy Joe Biden did.
And he did it hardly ever leaving his basement home studio, where he painfully struggled to
read an autocue even with an earpiece shrieking the words to him. When he did speak, it was
often gibberish that would have made Ronald Reagan blush. He oftentimes plainly didn't know
where he was, what office he was running for, which woman was his sister and which was his
wife.
When Boris Yeltsin was rattling down, the world endlessly amused itself at the sight of
Russia on its back, legs akimbo with thieves picking its pocket. With Joe Biden, though, the
political class and its media echo-chamber merely look the other way.
Despite Democratic Party control of all levels of Federal power, it seems unlikely we are
about to witness an FDR or a JFK barnstorming 100 days. It seems fair to wonder if Sleepy
Joe will even see out a hundred days in office. It is, however, certain that if he is in office
he will not be in power. Because power has already passed to the cavernous uncertainty of Vice
President Kamala Harris.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Mark Conley 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:44 PM
Thanks for reminding the world that the president of the USA including his puppet elected
office bearers has absolutely no power whatsoever. Well said. Thus you have answered your own
observation at the end. The future is indeed dark and uncertain with the only certainty that
nothing good can be expected from any USA government. Thus the onus is on the peaceful
majority to do what is necessary.
Atilla863 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:15 PM
One thing is certain in the new leadership - the debt will go on growing, perhaps reaching
40+ T dollars before the next elections. While this trend continues - the Chinese will be
laughing all the way running to their banks as their economy records fortune after fortune
proportional only inversely to the rate at which America recedes into superpower sunset.
JJ_Rousseau 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:18 PM
I'm surprised at George Galloway's comments, as he is a former MP in British politics. Kamala
in charge? Don't make me laugh. The cabal is in charge, as they have been since Woodrow
Wilson. Before actually, as Garfield was assassinated for shedding light on the banker
machinations. Garfield knew that control of the nation's money was control of the nation. The
coup of America is complete. The POTUS is only the spokesman for the cabal, nothing else
Biden will be much easier to control and manipulate by the Jewish Banking Cartel, which
ultimately controls the US government and Wall Street. Trump was too unpredictable and would
have made it difficult for them to achieve their historical hope. "The Jews energetically
reject the idea of fusion with other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope
of World Empire." - Dr. Max Mandelstamm ***We should always listen to the doctors.
Not stolen.....50 states certified, 60 plus courts found nothing fraudulent, and the
electoral votes were confirmed by the House and Senate, with the Senate led by Pence. So, as
the world knows and anyone who knows election laws, the election was one of the most
legitimate ever held in the US.
KarlthePoet 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The Jewish Banking Cartel is ultimately in control of the US government and Wall Street.
They've been in control for decades. Now they've obviously teamed up with the Jewish Big Tech
companies like Facebook and Google in order to gain even more control. Controlling the money,
money system, and the minds of the masses has been their goal. Two Jewish controlled
companies control over $9Trillion of American's wealth. (BlackRock Inc. & Goldman Sachs)
They've finally achieved their goal. The cartel is now in control of a country that is
completely out of control. Karma!
Daffyduck011 KarlthePoet 38 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:18 PM
Ashkenasty banking cartel.
JJ_Rousseau KarlthePoet 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:29 PM
It's not only the banking cabal, it's the media (which the same gang own, of course). This
cannot happen without a complicit media. This is a very old strategy
Blackace180 7 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:49 PM
He'll be impeached multiple times, along with his family. Removed and jailed. People need a
reminder of just how messed up Obama/Biden was and it is coming. The caravans are already on
the way and gas has jumped 55 cents a gallon since the election, for no reason other than it
is Biden. People will run the nutcracker right out of office, hopefully before the country
collapses from his nutcracker policies.
White Elk 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:45 PM
The press-elected.
Xilla White Elk 33 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:23 PM
How did the press elect him?
Franc 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:28 PM
Xilla/Herrbifi, you're not welcome here. We all know what your goals are, and we all know
you're just here to make a pointless mess.
5th Eye 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:18 PM
An Italian bureaucrat once said, "Everything is changed, so that it remains the same." It
will be exactly like that under Biden to legitimate his regime.
The_Chosenites 51 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
Since both Trump and Biden are proud zionists, the only thing I am certain of is Israel and
the Jewish community have won another election and we'll see many jewish politicians elevated
to positions of power in the Biden administration. Biden best do what's best for Israel if he
knows whats good for him and his health.
KarlthePoet The_Chosenites 16 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:40 PM
Maybe when Kamala becomes President she can get advice from her Jewish husband, who is a
lawyer. What a coincidence.
Enki14 9 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:48 PM
That Henry Kissinger, long time shadow government puppet endorsed demented biden is a clue as
to what might happen as they know in 2 years the masses will reinstate conservatives and in 4
years another trumpster. We may see sweeping changes, with some huge blowback.
The_Chosenites Enki14 4 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:53 PM
Kissinger has had a bed in the oval office for many a President, he must have been installed
by the Chosennites to stay in office forever. Presidents come and go, but Kissinger remains
to pull the strings. Goldman Sach's et al rule the roost.
Daniel Fernald 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:42 PM
Biden's 100 days are interesting. It's exactly 100 days from January 20 to May 1, which is
the communist May Day.
Skeptic076 Daniel Fernald 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:44 PM
Used to be the American May Day as well, you know? Interesting if you research why it is not
anymore.
Michael Knight 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:46 PM
Impossible to believe he'll be in charge????? That's probably because he won't be!
RCBreakenridge Mike Freeman 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:28 PM
Mike, seriously? What echo chamber are you living in? How can you look at Biden and not
understand that he's little more than a life-size cardboard cutout of the man that used to be
Obama's puppet? He'll be in office as long as they can continue to stand him up for photo ops
and he continues to do exactly what he is told. As soon as either of those conditions falter,
Nancy and friends will roll out the 25th amendment, show him the door and lead KH to the
presidents chair. But make no mistake, the only choices Sleepy Joe will be making are to do
as he is told.
>>Today, the Trump administration filed an appeal against the UK decision not to
extradite Assange. I must imagine that means that Trump has no intention of pardoning
Assange.
Trump was a desperate "Murica must have the biggest dick" imperialist massively triggered
by the US decline and trying to save the US Empire. Like a rabid dog that is wounded, he
attacked anything that moves, including those who helped him get into power.
Anyone who thought that he will help the likes of Russia or Assange does not understand
the psychology of elite US WASPs.
These people thought that they and the US should rule the world and that they are the
cream of the cream. Anything denying them that would lead to crazed reactions, hysteria,
rabid animalistic behavior, and snarling and gnashing of teeth at anything that moves.
Simply put, their decline caused them to go rabid. A rabid dog attacks anything that
moves, whether friendly or not. Unfortunately for the likes of Russia and Assange.
The Pew surveys have found the same thing: In almost all countries surveyed, other than
Poland, public approval of America's leadership plunged when Trump replaced Obama, and that low
approval stayed down throughout Trump's Presidency.
Of course, Congress was also culpable in all of these Robin-Hood-in-reverse policies (
protecting Wall Street while
abandoning Main Street ), but the ultimate leadership was at the top, and it was a policy
of sheer hypocrisy. Trump has merely been hypocritical in a different way, and espousing a
different set of excuses for his failures.
The purpose of Title XIII ("Pay it Back Act") of the DoddFrank Act, according to Senator
Michael Bennett, was to "rebuild the credibility of our financial system, save taxpayers
billions of dollars, and finally move to end the TARP"12 by "prevent[ing] further government
spending, recaptur[ing] taxpayers' investment in financial institutions, and ensur[ing] that
repaid funds are used for deficit reduction."13 Under Title XIII, TARP funding authorized under
the EESA was reduced from $700 billion to $475 billion.14 Also, no additional TARP funds can be
spent on any program initiated after June 25, 2010; any money repaid to the TARP fund must be
used for deficit reduction only.15 Title XIII amends the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of
2008. The Treasury must allocate the sale of obligations and securities, as well as fees paid
by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Federal Home Loan Banks to the General Fund of the Treasury
("General Fund").16 The funds must be "dedicated for the sole purpose of deficit reduction" and
"prohibited from use as an offset for other spending increases or revenue reductions."17
Similarly, TARP funds provided to a state under ARRA and rejected by the Governor or by the
State legislature, or funds withdrawn or recaptured by the head of an executive agency not
obligated by a State or local government, will be rescinded and deposited in the General
Fund.18 Once in the General Fund, the money will be "dedicated for the sole purpose of deficit
reduction" and "prohibited from use as an offset for other spending increases or revenue
reductions."19 Section 1306 further provides that discretionary ARRA appropriations that have
not been obligated as of December 31, 2010 shall also be rescinded and deposited in the General
Fund for the sole purpose of deficit reduction.
Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for the massive federal bank bailout
program, or TARP, is stepping down from his post in March. He says the Obama administration's
program to prevent foreclosures is broken, and that many of the people it's supposed to be
helping are now "in a far worse place than they would have been had this program not
existed."
The megabanks had gotten their federal help, but foreclosures and boarded-up windows and
storefronts were appearing everywhere and were lowering the surrounding property-values, so
that both lower and middle-class real estate were getting progressively worse and more
run-down. The TARP Bailout Program saved the
megabanks but not their victims; and here is why, as explained even by a conservative,
pro-corporate, source:
The Problem With the TARP Program for Homeowners
Why didn't more people take advantage of the HAMP and HARP programs? This would have
pumped billions into the economy and helped millions of homeowners avoid foreclosure.
The problem was the banks. They cherry-picked applicants and refused to consider those
with lower equity.Banks were too wary of riskto allow the programs to work.
These were the same banks, who just a few years before, were giving out loans to anyone
because they were making money on the investments that were created from the loans.
There was no risk to the banks, as all these loans were guaranteed byFannie Mae or
Freddie Mac. Banks didn't want to be bothered with the paperwork involved with
homeowners who hadmortgage insurance.
The admirers of President Trump are equally deceived -- no less deceived than the admirers
of Obama had been. Trump promised to "drain the swamp" and did none of that .
In foreign policies, Trump continued Obama's wars (including aggressive sanctions), such as
against Syria, and against Russia, and against Iraq, and intensified Obama's war against China
and against Iran and against Venezuela -- all of these being against countries that had never
threatened to invade the U.S., and so all of them were (and are ) actually wars of
aggression, not of defense.
Americans are profoundly deceived to accept such people as leaders, instead of to reject
them as liars and as traitors.
Most Americans -- and many people throughout the world -- prefer one or the other of those
two American Presidents on the basis only of political prejudices, but the actual differences
between Obama and Trump were more stylistic than substantive .
President Trump, at the end of his Presidency, is polling, among the American public,
both as one of the worst Presidents ever and as one of the best Presidents ever , and this
is a reflection of the astoundingly sharp partisan divide now between Democrats and
Republicans. Pathetically few Americans recognize that both of the two Parties represent only the billionaires -- not the
American people . This pervasive miscomprehension, by the public, results because the
billionaires control not only the Government, they also control the press -- they shape the
population's perceptions, so as to make this aristocracy (America's billionaires) acceptable to
the public, directing the public's rage to be against the opposite Party, instead of against
the billionaires themselves , who
actually control the country .
Consequently, Democratic Party voters think that that Party is their Party, and
Republican Party voters think that that Party is their Party. However, in reality, both
Parties are controlled by America's hundreds of billionaires -- not by the Party's
voters. Obama represented the Democratic Party's billionaires, and Trump represented the
Republican Party's billionaires (other than the ones who, in 2020, disliked Trump so much that
they donated instead to the Biden campaign or to one of its PACs). This is a Government of the
people, by the billionaires, and for the billionaires. It's no democracy , whatsoever, and the U.S.
Constitution has been covered-over, by the U.S. aristocracy's Supreme Court's rulings, to
become, by now, merely a parchment document, which 'means' whatever the (majority of) the U.S.
aristocracy's Supreme Court say that it means. Although those jurists are paid by the
public, they don't represent America's Founders, and they don't represent the American people.
They represent -- and protect the interests of -- America's billionaires. They were chosen
because that is what they had been doing before they had been chosen. If they hadn't been doing
this, they wouldn't have been chosen. That's today's American reality.
Reports of Victoria Nuland's future appointment are sure to come as a source of elation to
the government in Kiev. By the same token, they send perhaps the clearest message yet to Moscow
that the prospects for meaningful U.S.-Russian rapprochement under a Biden administration
appear exceedingly slim.
...Nuland was the U.S. Ambassador to NATO under President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2008.
She served as State Department spokesperson under Secretary of State of Hillary Clinton before
succeeding Philip Gordon as the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
More than simply an "Obama veteran," Nuland played a central role in executing the Obama
administration's Ukraine policies during and after the 2014 Euromaidan revolution. She conveyed
U.S. support for demonstrations in Kiev against the government of President Viktor Yanukovyvch,
condemning efforts by local police to quell the protests. "It is still possible to save
Ukraine's European future, and that's what we want to see the president lead. That's going to
require immediate security steps and getting back into a conversation with Europe and with the
International Monetary Fund and bringing justice and human dignity to the people of Ukraine,"
said Nuland in December 2013. She met with pro-EU protesters in Kiev on Dec.
11, distributing food in a symbolic gesture of solidarity with anti-government protesters; the
move prompted widespread outrage in the Kremlin, which perceived Nuland's
outing as a brazen act of public interference in Ukraine's domestic affairs.
It was revealed in early 2014 that Nuland, along with then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Geoffrey Pyatt, was intimately
involved in ongoing
U.S. efforts to curate and install a new government in Ukraine. "I think Yats is the guy
who's got the economic experience, the governing experience," said Nuland in a leaked phone
conversation with Pyatt, referring to the installation of Ukrainian politician Arseniy
Yatsenyuk to a top government post. Nuland likewise voiced her strong dispreference for
opposition leader Vitali Klitschko: "I don't think Klitsch [Klitschko] should go into the
government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea." The phone call is
best remembered for Nuland's colorful reference to the European Union, which did not fully see
eye-to-eye with Washington on key questions involving the fate of the Yanukovych government:
"OK. He's now gotten both [proposed UN mediation team member [Robert] Serry and [UN Secretary
General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be
great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, F*** the
EU." After widespread rebuke
from high-placed EU officials, State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki announced
that Nuland "has been in contact with her EU counterparts and of course has apologized for
these reported comments."
Nuland continued to play an active role in shaping U.S. policy toward a post-Maidan Ukraine,
meeting with President Petro Poroshenko on several occasions to
discuss the implementation of the Minsk protocols
and Ukraine's progress on domestic reforms. Nuland was likewise involved in ultimately
successful efforts to press
for lethal military aid to Ukraine.
More broadly, Nuland has supported and facilitated Obama-era policies aimed at confronting,
containing, and deterring Moscow across multiple policy fronts. Nuland was a prominent voice in
favor of
expanding the Magnitsky Act in response to Russian
opposition leader Boris Nemtsov's assassination. The act was successfully bolstered in 2016,
giving the U.S. government broad leeway to impose sanctions on anyone found to be guilty of
human rights violations. Vice President Biden, who was referenced in the call between Nuland
and Pyatt, likewise played an active role in supporting the Maidan demonstrations. He
subsequently developed a personal relationship with Poroshenko, allegedly
offering the Ukrainian president specific policy guidance during a leaked 2016 phone
conversation.
Nuland in, short, is a capable and committed advocate of the Obama-Biden approach to Russia
and Ukraine. In a Summer 2020 op-ed for Foreign
Affairs , Nuland offered a series of policy
prescriptions for the next president on how to deal with Russia: a united global front to
check and deter Russian military aggression, a more robust toolkit to crack down on Russian
disinformation, further sanctions, and public diplomacy efforts aimed directly at the Russian
people. Many of these proposals enjoy widespread support throughout the rest of Biden's
assembled
foreign policy team , and with the president-elect too.
Reports of Nuland's future appointment are sure to come as a source of elation to the
government in Kiev. By the same token, they send perhaps the clearest message yet to Moscow
that the prospects for meaningful
U.S.-Russian rapprochement under a Biden administration appear
exceedingly slim .
Mark Episkopos is a national security reporter for the National Interest.
Casino magnate and Israeli patriot multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson, one of the world's
richest men, died in Las Vegas on January 11 th at age 87. He had been suffering
from cancer and has been buried at the
Mount of Olives Cemetery in Israel . When his body arrived in Israel it was met by Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well as Jonathan Pollard, the most damaging spy in United States
history. Tributes to the fallen "hero" poured in from the political class in both the United
States and Israel and it has even been reported that President Donald Trump was intending to
hoist the American flag at half mast over federal buildings to honor the "great humanitarian
philanthropist." Unfortunately, the flag was already at half mast honoring the death of Capitol
Police Force officer Brian Sicknick, who was murdered in the Capitol building last
Wednesday.
Trump has not mentioned the service unto death of Sicknick and the flag lowering itself was
apparently a bit of an afterthought on behalf of the White House, but he had plenty to say
about his good buddy Adelson, who has been the principal funder of the Republican Party over
the past five years. As he can no longer use Twitter, the president's
condolences were posted on the White House site: "Melania and I mourn the passing of
Sheldon Adelson, and send our heartfelt condolences to his wife Miriam, his children and
grandchildren. Sheldon lived the true American dream. His ingenuity, genius, and creativity
earned him immense wealth, but his character and philanthropic generosity his great name.
Sheldon was also a staunch supporter of our great ally the State of Israel. He tirelessly
advocated for the relocation of the United States embassy to Jerusalem, the recognition of
Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and its
neighbors. Sheldon was true to his family, his country, and all those that knew him. The world
has lost a great man. He will be missed."
Missing from the Trump eulogy is any mention of what Adelson did for the United States,
which is his country of birth and where he made his fortune engaging in activity that many
would consider to be a vice. In fact, Adelson was all about the Jewish state, positioning
himself as the principal funder of the Republican Party under Donald Trump and receiving in
return as a quid pro quo the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement (JCPOA),
the move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, the recognition of Israeli annexation of
the Syrian Golan Heights, and a virtual concession that the Jewish state could do whatever it
wants vis-à-vis the Palestinians, to include expelling them from Palestine. Adelson once
commented that Israel does not have to pretend to be a democracy but it must be Jewish,
presumably to help the process of Arab genocide move along.
Adelson's mechanism, initiated under George W. Bush, is familiar to how the Israel Lobby
operates more generally. It consisted of the exploitation of the incessant need of campaign
money by the GOP, which Adelson provided with strings attached. He worked with the Republicans
to completely derail the admittedly faux peace process begun under Bill Clinton, which
depended on a two-state solution, and instead give the Jewish state a free hand to implement
its own unilateral Greater Israel Project extending from "the Jordan River to the
Mediterranean." As part of that expansion, Israel has been building illegal settlements while
also bombing and killing Lebanese, Syrians, and Iranians and assassinating scientists and
technicians throughout the region.
All of the interventions against Israel's neighbors took place even though the Jewish state
was not technically at war with anyone. The U.S. meanwhile funded Israeli aggression and
watched the spectacle without any complaint, providing political cover as necessary, while also
maintaining a major military presence in the Middle East to "protect Israel," as Trump recently
admitted.
In short, Sheldon Adelson committed as much as half a billion dollars from his vast fortune
to buy control over a major element of U.S. foreign policy and subordinated American interests
to those of Israel. In addition to direct donations to both major political parties, he also
paid for Congressional "fact finding" trips to Israel and funded a number of pro-Israel
lobbies, so-called charities and other related Jewish projects. It is indisputable that he
wielded an incredible degree of power to shape Washington's actions in the Middle East. In
her own tribute to her dead husband, Miriam Adelson, an Israeli, described how he "crafted
the course of nations."
Adelson was actively engaged on Israel's behalf until the week before his death. He provided
his casino's private 737 luxury executive jet to transport Jonathan Pollard "home" to Israel.
Pollard has served 30 years in prison after being convicted of espionage and was on parole,
which restricted his travel. As yet another a gift to Israel, Donald Trump lifted that
restriction, allowing him to fly to Israel where he received a hero's welcome. It is generally
agreed that Pollard was the most damaging spy in American history, having stolen the keys to
accessing U.S. communications and information gathering systems. A month after Pollard's arrest
in 1985, C.I.A director William Casey stated: "The Israelis used Pollard to obtain our war
plans against the USSR – all of it: the co-ordinates, the firing locations, the
sequences, and Israel sold that information to Moscow for more exit visas for Soviet Jews."
Sheldon Adelson used his wealth and political connections to shield himself from any
criticism due to his openly expressed preference for Israel over the land of his birth. He
famously publicly
stated that he wished he had worn the Israeli Army uniform instead of that of the U.S.
Army, where he served briefly as a draftee. He also expressed his desire that his son would
serve as an Israeli army sniper, presumably allowing him to blow the heads off of Palestinians.
In 2013
Adelson advocated ending nuclear negotiations with Iran and instead detonating a nuclear weapon
in "the middle of the [Iranian] desert," followed by a threat to annihilate the capital city
Tehran, home to 8.6 million, to force Iran to surrender its essentially non-existent nuclear
program.
Other acknowledgements of the impact of Adelson came from officials in
the Trump Administration. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo commented how his "efforts to
strengthen the alliance between Israel and the United States the world, Israel and the United
States are safer because of his work." Yeah, right Mike.
So, the world is definitely a better place due to the passing of Sheldon Adelson. Or is it?
His Israeli wife Miriam owns more than 40% of Las Vegas Sands Corp Casinos Inc.,
estimated to be worth in excess of $17 billion. She has proposed that a new chapter be
included in the Jewish bible, the Book of Trump, and has pledged herself to continue her
husband's work. Trump had previously given her the highest award that a president can bestow,
the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Freedom, of course, does not apply to Palestinians. And if
one is concerned that the Democrats will not be cooperative, they too have their own major
donor similar to Adelson. He is an Israeli film producer named Haim Saban, who, echoing a
similar statement by Adelson, said that he is a one issue guy and that issue is Israel.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website ishttps://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]
"... "A month after the election, Biden's nominations make clear that the president-elect is most focused on trying to fulfill his ..."
"... to donors that nothing fundamentally changes. And yet, that tacit admission may have stunned those who keep hearing from liberal and progressive groups in Washington that, in fact, the left has been notching monumental victories in Biden's cabinet appointments ..."
"... What little organized left political infrastructure exists in Washington is largely valorizing or publicly defending swamp creatures who at minimum deserve a loyal opposition. The ..."
"... being done by a small handful of under-resourced groups to mount a real opposition is getting trampled by a culture of obsequiousness. This culture of acquiescence gives swamp creatures a free pass ..."
"... Despite Tanden's ..."
"... push for Social Security cuts ..."
"... , Beltway liberal groups whose mission is to defend Social Security ..."
"... . Despite Tanden having her organization ..."
"... rake in cash ..."
"... from Wall Street, Amazon, billionaires and ( ..."
"... ) foreign governments, a Ralph Nader-founded, all-purpose consumer advocacy group ..."
"... CAP as "one of our key partners in the fight to tax corporations and the rich, rein in monopoly power, tackle government corruption, and much more." Despite Tanden ..."
"... a union at CAP, ..."
"... union leaders ..."
"... in Washington lauded her. ..."
"... American Prospect ..."
"... "a President Biden would be in the business of confronting Mr. Putin for his aggressions, not embracing him. Not trashing NATO, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Ukraine, Georgia, the Western Balkans ..."
"... "a President Putin would be in the business of confronting Mr. Biden for his aggressions (in Syria, or elsewhere), not embracing them. Not trashing the Warsaw Pact, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Canada, Mexico, and other nations that are near the U.S. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Bernard Schwartz, ..."
"... a former Vice Chairman and top investor in Lockheed Martin ..."
"... (which is by far the largest seller to the U.S. Government, and also the largest seller to most of America's allied Governments), is one of Joe Biden's top donors. CNN headlined, on October 24th, ..."
"... "Biden allies intensify push for super PAC after lackluster fundraising quarter" ..."
"... , and reported that, "Bernard Schwartz, a private investor and donor to the former vice president's campaign, said he spoke with Biden within the last two weeks and encouraged him to do just that." It's not for nothing that throughout Biden's long Senate career, he has voted in favor of every U.S. invasion that has been placed before the U.S. Senate. ..."
That didn't take long. He's not even in office, and he has already surrounded himself, as
the incoming President, with individuals who derive their wealth from (and will be serving)
America's top defense contractors and Wall Street. The likelihood that these Government
officials will be biting the hands that feed them is approximately zero. Great investigative
journalists have already exposed how corrupt they are. For that to be the case so early (even
before taking office) is remarkable, and only a summary of those reports will be provided here,
with links to them, all of which reports are themselves linking to the incriminating evidence,
so that everything can easily be tracked back to the documentation by the reader here, even
before there are any 'Special Prosecutors' (as if those were serving anyone other than the
opposite Party's political campaigns, and, ultimately, the opposite Party's billionaires).
First up, is the independent investigative team of David Sirota and Andrew Perez. On
December 4th, they bannered "The Beltway
Left Is Normalizing Corruption And Corporatism" , and reported that "A month after the
election, Biden's nominations make clear that the president-elect is most focused on trying to
fulfill hispromiseto donors that nothing fundamentally changes. And yet, that tacit
admission may have stunned those who keep hearing from liberal and progressive groups in
Washington that, in fact, the left has been notching monumental victories in Biden's cabinet
appointments ."
Liberal (that's to say Democratic Party) U.S. media hide the corruptness of Democratic
politicians, and conservative (that's to say Republican Party) U.S. media hide the corruptness
of Republican politicians; and, so, the public today are getting corrupt leaders whichever side
they vote for. No mainstream 'news' media report what independent investigative journalists
such as Sirota and Perez report. Authentically good journalists use as sources -- and link to
in their articles -- neither Democratic nor Republican allegations, but instead are on the
margins, outside of the major media, and so rely on whistleblowers and other trustworthy
outsiders, not on people who are somebody's paid PR flacks, individuals who are being paid to
deceive. As Sirota and Perez state: " What little organized left political infrastructure
exists in Washington is largely valorizing or publicly defending swamp creatures who at minimum
deserve a loyal opposition. Thegood workbeing done by a small handful of under-resourced groups to mount a real opposition is
getting trampled by a culture of obsequiousness. This culture of acquiescence gives swamp
creatures a free pass ." It's all some sort of mega-corporate propaganda -- 100%
billionaire-supported on the conservative side, 100% billionaire-supported also on the liberal
side, and 0% billionaire-supported for anything that is authentically progressive (not
dependent, at all, upon the aristocracy).
That independent reporting team focused on Biden's having chosen an economic team which will
start his Administration already offering to congressional Republicans an initial Democratic
Party negotiating position that accepts Republicans' basic proposals to cut middle class Social
Security and health care benefits in order for the Government to be able to continue expanding
the military budgets and purchases from the billionaire-controlled firms, such as Northrop
Grumman -- firms whose entire sales (or close to it) are to the U.S. Government and to the
governments (U.S. 'allies') that constitute these firms' secondary markets. (In other words:
those budget-cuts aren't going to be an issue between the two Parties and used by Biden's team
as a bargaining chip to moderate the Republicans' position that favors more for 'defense' and
less for the poor, but are actually accepted by both Parties, even before the new
Administration will take office.) Obviously, anything that both sides to a negotiation accept
at the very start of a negotiation will be included in the final product from that negotiation;
and this means that during a Biden Presidency there will be reductions in middle-class Social
security and health care benefits in order to continue, at the present level -- if not to
increase yet further -- Government spending on the products and services of such firms as
Lockheed Martin and the Rand Corporation (firms that control their market by controlling their
Government, which is their main or entire market).
Sirota and Perez focus especially upon one example: Neera Tanden, whom Biden chose on
November 30th to be the White House Budget Director, and who therefore will set the priorities
which determine how much federal money the President will be trying to get the Congress to
allocate to what recipients:
Despite Tanden'spush for Social Security cuts, Beltway liberal groups whose mission is to
defend Social Securitylauded
herthink
tank. Despite Tanden having her organizationrake in
cashfrom Wall Street, Amazon, billionaires and (previously) foreign governments, a Ralph Nader-founded, all-purpose consumer
advocacy group
praisedCAP as "one of our key partners in the fight to tax corporations and the
rich, rein in monopoly power, tackle government corruption, and much more." Despite Tandenbustinga union at CAP,twonationalunion
leadersin Washington lauded her.
Next up: One of the rare honest non-profits in the field of journalism is the Project on
Government Oversight, POGO, which refuses to accept donations from "anyone who stands to
benefit financially from our work," and which states in its unique "Donation Acceptance Policy" that,
"POGO reviews all contributions exceeding $100 in order to maintain this standard." In other
words: they refuse to be corrupt. Virtually all public-policy or think-tank nonprofits are
profoundly corrupt, but POGO is the most determined exception to that general
rule.
On 20 November 2020, POGO headlined "Should
Michèle Flournoy Be Secretary of Defense?" and their terrific investigative team of
Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey delivered a scorching portrayal of Flournoy as irredeemably
corrupt -- it ought to be read by everybody. It's essential reading throughout, and its links
to the evidence are to the very best sources. So, I won't summarize it, because all Americans
need to know what it reports, and to be able to verify, on their own (by clicking onto any link
in it that interests them), any allegation that the given reader has any question about.
However, I shall point out here the sheer hypocrisy of the following which that article quotes
Flournoy as asserting: "It will be imperative for the next secretary to appoint a team of
senior officials who meet the following criteria: deep expertise and competence in their areas
of responsibility; proven leadership in empowering teams, listening to diverse views, making
tough decisions, and delivering results." (Of course, that assertion presumes the
given 'expert' to be not only authentically expert but also honest and trustworthy,
authentically representing the public's interest and no special interests whatsoever -- not at
all corrupt -- which is certainly a false allegation in her own case.) She had urged the 2003
invasion of Iraq, and had participated in planning and overseeing both the war against Syria,
and the coup that destroyed Ukraine (and none of those countries had ever invaded, or even
threatened to invade, the United States); and, so, for her to brag about her
"delivering results" is not merely hypocritical, it is downright evil, because she is obviously
proud, there, of her vicious, outright voracious, record.
Her business-partner, Tony Blinken, has already received Biden's approval to become his
Secretary of State, and the first really good investigative journalist that American
Prospect magazine has had, Jonathan Guyer, headlined on November 23rd, "What You Need to Know About Tony Blinken" , and what Guyer
reports is just what any well informed reader would expect to see for a business
partner of Flournoy's.
Guyer's report closes by making passing reference to a CBS 'news' puff-piece for Blinken. In
that CBS
puff-piece , Blinken says, "a President Biden would be in the business of confronting
Mr. Putin for his aggressions, not embracing him. Not trashing NATO, but strengthening its
deterrence, investing in new capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer
space, under the sea, A.I., electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to
countries like Ukraine, Georgia, the Western Balkans ." What would Americans think if
Russia were to have retained its Warsaw Pact, and "a President Putin would be in the
business of confronting Mr. Biden for his aggressions (in Syria, or elsewhere), not embracing
them. Not trashing the Warsaw Pact, but strengthening its deterrence, investing in new
capabilities to deal with challenges in cyberspace, in outer space, under the sea, A.I.,
electronic warfare, and give robust security assistance to countries like Canada, Mexico, and
other nations that are near the U.S. "? Guyer pointedly noted that "The [CBS News] podcast
was sponsored by a major weapons maker. 'At Lockheed Martin, your mission is ours,' read an
announcer." Tony Blinken's mission is theirs. These people get the money both coming and going
-- on both sides of the "revolving door." Today's American Government is for sale to
the highest bidders, on any policy, domestic or foreign. 'Government service' is just a
sabbatical to boost their value to the firms that will be paying them the vast majority of
their lifetime 'earnings'. This is the reality that mainstream U.S.-and-allied 'news' media
refuse to publish (or, especially , to make clear). Only an electorate which
is ignorant of this reality can accept such a government.
Back on 26 January 2020, I had headlined "Joe Biden Is as Corrupt as They
Come" and documented the reality of this, but America's mainstream media were hiding that
fact so as to decrease the likelihood that the only Democratic Party Presidential candidate whom no billionaire
supported , Bernie Sanders, might win the nomination. Perhaps now that it's too late, even
those 'news' organizations (such as CNN, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times ,
Washington Post , PBS, and NPR) will start reporting the fact of Biden's corruptness.
Where billionaires control all of the mainstream media, there is no democracy -- it's not even
possible , in such a country
Bernard Schwartz,a former Vice Chairman and top investor in Lockheed Martin(which is by far
the largest seller to the U.S. Government, and also the largest seller to most of America's
allied Governments), is one of Joe Biden's top donors. CNN headlined, on October 24th,"Biden
allies intensify push for super PAC after lackluster fundraising quarter", and
reported that, "Bernard Schwartz, a private investor and donor to the former vice president's
campaign, said he spoke with Biden within the last two weeks and encouraged him to do just
that." It's not for nothing that throughout Biden's long Senate career, he has voted in favor
of every U.S. invasion that has been placed before the U.S. Senate.
Near the end of the Democratic Party's primaries, on 16 March 2020, CNBC headlined
"Megadonors pull plug on plan for anti-Sanders super PAC as Biden racks up wins" , and
reported that Bernard Schwartz had become persuaded by other billionaires that, by this time,
"Biden could handle Sanders on his own." They had done their job; they would therefore control
the U.S. Government regardless of which Party's nominee would head it.
Biden -- like Trump, and like Obama and Bush and Clinton before him -- doesn't represent the
American people. He represents his mega-donors. And he is staffing his Administration
accordingly. He repays favors: he delivers the services that they buy from him. This is today's
America. And that is the way it functions.
46 Follow RT on Outgoing US
President Donald Trump has delivered his "parting gift" to the Moscow-led Nord Stream 2 gas
pipeline, with newly announced sanctions targeting a pipe-laying vessel and companies involved
in the multinational project.
The specialist ship concerned, named, 'Fortuna,' and oil tanker 'Maksim Gorky', as well as
two Russian firms, KVT-Rus and Rustanker, were blacklisted on Tuesday under CAATSA (Countering
America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) as part of Washington's economic war on Moscow.
The same legislation had been previously used by the US to target numerous Russian officials
and enterprises.
Russian energy giant Gazprom warned its investors earlier on Tuesday that Nord Stream 2
could be suspended or even canceled if more US restrictions are introduced.
However, Moscow has assured its partners that it intends to complete the project despite
"harsh pressure on the part of Washington," according to Kremlin press secretary Dmitry
Peskov. Reacting to the new package of sanctions on Tuesday, Peskov called them
"unlawful."
Meanwhile, the EU said it is in no rush to join the Washington-led sanction war on Nord
Stream 2. EU foreign affairs chief, Josep Borrell, said that the bloc is not going to resist
the construction of the project.
"Because we're talking about a private project, we can't hamper the operations of those
companies if the German government agrees to it," Borrell said Tuesday.
Nord Stream 2 is an offshore gas pipeline, linking Russia and Germany with aim of providing
cheaper energy to Central European customers. Under the agreement between Moscow and Berlin, it
was to be launched in mid-2020, but the construction has been delayed due to strong opposition
from Washington.
The US, which is hoping to sell its Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) to Europe, has hit the
project with several rounds of sanctions over scarcely credible claims that it could undermine
European energy security. Critics say the real intent is to force EU members to buy from
American companies.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
46 Follow RT on
Trends:
Fatback33 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The group that owns Washington makes the foreign policy. That policy is not for the benefit
of the people.
DukeLeo Fatback33 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:06 PM
That is correct. The private banks and corporations in the US are very upset about Nord
Stream - 2, as they want Europe to buy US gas at double price. Washington thus introduces
additional political gangsterism in the shape of new unilateral sanctions which have no merit
in international law.
noremedy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:22 AM
Is the U.S. so stupid that they do not realize that they are isolating themselves? Russia has
developed SPFS, China CIPS, together with Iran, China and Russia are further developing a
payment transfer system. Once in place and functioning this system will replace the western
SWIFT system for international payment transfers. It will be the death knell for the US
dollar. 327 million Americans are no match for the rest of the billions of the world's
population. The next decade will see the total debasement of the US monetary system and the
fall from power of the decaying and crumbling in every way U.S.A.
Hanonymouse noremedy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:37 PM
They don't care. They have the most advanced military in the world. Might makes right, even
today.
Shelbouy 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:25 PM
Russia currently supplies over 50% of the natural gas consumed by The EU. Germany and Italy
are the largest importers of Russian natural gas. What is the issue of sanctions stemming
from and why are the Americans doing this? A no brainer question I suppose. It's to make more
money than the other supplier, and exert political pressure and demand obedience from its
lackey. Germany.
David R. Evans Shelbouy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
Russia and Iran challenge perpetual US wars for Israel's Oded Yinon Plan. Washington is
Israel-controlled territory.
Jewel Gyn 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:34 AM
Sanctions work both ways. With the outgoing Trump administration desperately laying mines for
Biden, we await how sleepy Joe is going to mend strayed ties with EU.
Count_Cash 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:20 AM
The US mafia state continues with the same practices. The dog is barking but the caravan is
going. The counter productiveness of sanctions always shows through in the end! I am sure
with active efforts of Germany and Russia against US mafia oppression that a blowback will be
felt by the US over time!
Dachaguy 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:24 AM
This is an act of war against Germany. NATO should respond and act against the aggressor,
America.
xyz47 Dachaguy 42 minutes ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:20 PM
NATO is run by the US...
lovethy Dachaguy 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:04 PM
NATO has no separate existence. It's the USA's arm of aggression, suppression and domination.
Germany after WWII is an occupied country of USA. Thousand of armed personnel stationed in
Germany enforcing that occupation.
Chaz Dadkhah 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:19 PM
Further proof that Trump is no friend of Russia and is in a rush to punish them while he
still has power. If it was the swamp telling him to do that, like his supporters suggest,
then they would have waited till their man Biden came in to power in less than 24 hours to do
it. Wake up!
Mac Kio 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:34 PM
USA hates fair competition. USA ignores all WTO rules.
Russkiy09 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:33 PM
By whining and not completing in the face of US, Russia is losing credibility. They should
not have delayed to mobilize the pipe laying vessel and other equipment for one whole year.
They should have mobilized in three months and finished by now. Same happens when Jewtin does
not shoot down Zio air force bombing Syria everyday. But best option should have been to tell
European vassals that "if you can, take our gas. But we will charge the highest amount and
sell as much as we want, exclude Russophobic Baltic countries and Poland and neo-vassal
Ukraine. Pay us not in your ponzi paper money but real goods and services or precious metals
or other commodities or our own currency Ruble." I so wish I could be the President of
Russia. Russians deserve to be as wealthy as the Swiss or SIngapore etc., not what they are
getting. Their leaders should stand up for their interest. And stop empowering the greedy
merchantalist Chinese and brotherhood Erdogan.
BlackIntel 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:27 PM
America i captured by private interest; this project threatens American private companies
hence the government is forced to protect capitalism. This is illegal
Ohhho 3 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 12:15 PM
That project was a mistake from the start: Russia should distance itself from the Evil
empire, EU included! Stop wasting time and resources on trying to please the haters and
keeping them more competitive with cheaper Russian natural gas: focus on real partners and
potential allies elsewhere!
butterfly123 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 01:58 PM
I have said it before that part of the problem is at the door of the policy-makers and
politicians in Russia. Pipeline project didn't spring up in the minds of politicians in
Russia one morning, presumably. There should have been foresight, detailed planning, and
opportunity creation for firms in Russia to acquire the skill-set and resources to advance
this project. Not doing so has come to bite Russia hard and painful. Lessons learnt I hope Mr
President!
jakro 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:37 AM
Good news. The swamp is getting deeper and bigger.
hermaflorissen 4 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 11:49 AM
Trump finally severed my expectations for the past 4 years. He should indeed perish.
ariadnatheo 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 03:06 PM
That is one Trump measure that will not be overturned by the Senile One. They will need to
amplify the RussiaRussiaRussia barking and scratching to divert attention from their dealings
with China
Neville52 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:01 PM
Its time the other nations of the world turned their backs on the US. Its too risky if you
are an international corporation to suddenly have large portions of your income cancelled due
to some crazy politician in the US
5th Eye 2 hours ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:03 PM
From empire to the collapse of empire, US follows UK to the letters. Soon it will be
irrelevant. The only thing that remains for UK is the language. Probably hotdog for the US.
VonnDuff1 1 hour ago 19 Jan, 2021 02:10 PM
The USA Congress and its corrupt foreign policy dictates work to the detriment of Europe and
Russia, while providing no tangible benefits to US states or citizens. So globalist demands
wrapped in the stars & stripes, should be laughed at, by all freedom loving nations.
Below is a list of which House Republicans voted to impeach Trump on Wednesday.
Rep. John Katko
(N.Y.) : "To allow the President of the United States to incite this attack without
consequence is a direct threat to the future of our democracy. For that reason, I cannot
sit by without taking action. I will vote to impeach this President."
Rep. Liz
Cheney (Wyo.) : " There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United
States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I will vote to impeach the
President. "
Rep. Adam
Kinzinger (Ill.) : "There is no doubt in my mind that the President of the United
States broke his oath of office and incited this insurrection I will vote in favor of
impeachment."
Rep. Fred Upton
(Mich.) : "Enough is enough. The Congress must hold President Trump to account and send
a clear message that our country cannot and will not tolerate any effort by any President
to impede the peaceful transfer of power from one President to the next. Thus, I will vote
to impeach."
Rep. Dan Newhouse
(Wash.) : "A vote against this impeachment is a vote to validate the unacceptable
violence we witnessed in our nation's capital. ... I will vote yes on the articles of
impeachment."
Rep.
Peter Meijer (Mich.) : "With the facts at hand, I believe the article of impeachment to
be accurate. The President betrayed his oath of office by seeking to undermine our
constitutional process, and he bears responsibility for inciting the violent acts of
insurrection last week."
Rep. Anthony Gonzalez
(Ohio) : "When I consider the full scope of events leading up to January 6th including
the President's lack of response as the United States Capitol was under attack, I am
compelled to support impeachment."
Rep. Tom Rice (S.C.) : "I
have backed this President through thick and thin for four years. I campaigned for him and
voted for him twice. But, this utter failure is inexcusable."
Rep. David Valadao
(Calif.) : "Based on the facts before me, I have to go with my gut and vote my
conscience. I voted to impeach President Trump. His inciting rhetoric was un-American,
abhorrent, and absolutely an impeachable offense. It's time to put country over
politics."
"These leaders are trusted at home and respected around the world, and their nominations
signal that America is back and ready to lead the world, not retreat from it,"
Biden said on Saturday in a statement announcing his picks to fill top positions under his
nominee for secretary of state, Anthony Blinken.
Like Blinken, the five latest State Department picks are veterans of the Obama-Biden
administration. Nuland , a
neoconservative who was named undersecretary for political affairs, goes all the way back to
former President Ronald Reagan's administration and was a foreign policy adviser to former Vice
President Dick Cheney.
Other new re-hires include: Wendy Sherman, deputy secretary of state, who led the
Obama-Biden administration's negotiating team on peace talks with Iran; Brian McKeon, deputy
secretary for management and resources, who was a national security adviser to then-Vice
President Biden; Bonnie Jenkins, undersecretary for arms control and international security,
who previously coordinated nonproliferation programs; and Uzra Zeha, undersecretary for
civilian security, who formerly was charge d'affaires at the US Embassy in Paris.
After four years of President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, including efforts to
wind down foreign interventions and broker peace deals, Biden's declaration of "America is
back" portends a sharp contrast in foreign policy. He said his latest nominees will "use
their diplomatic experience and skill to restore America's global and moral
leadership."
Nuland, who studied Russian literature at Brown University, wrote last summer in Foreign
Affairs of how "a confident America should deal
with Russia " with a more "activist" policy, including "speaking directly to
the Russian people about the benefits of working together and the price they have paid for
(President Vladimir) Putin's hard turn away from liberalism." She added, "Washington and
its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results
for many years after."
Nuland perhaps was using such "statecraft" when, as assistant secretary of state in
December 2013, she handed out cookies
to protesters at Kiev's Maidan Nezalezhnosti square who were demanding the resignation of
President Viktor Yanukovich. An audiotape leaked in February 2014 showed that
her involvement in the uprising went well beyond cookies, as she spoke with US Ambassador
Geoffrey Pyatt about plotting to replace Yanukovich with Washington's chosen opposition leader,
Arseny Yatseniuk, and about involving the UN to "f**k the EU" by pushing through a
US-preferred Ukraine policy.
Ironically, Nuland's appointment comes just as politicians in Washington fret over this
month's storming of the US Capitol by pro-Trump protesters, which some called a
coup attempt.
"I knew it wasn't a real coup because Victoria Nuland wasn't handing out cookies,"
Cato Institute senior fellow Doug Bandow said of the Capitol assault. "She'll be back
overthrowing governments in the Biden administration, so it remains a valid standard."
In light of Nuland's hawkish history, 25
anti-war groups have jointly called for the Senate to
reject confirmation of her nomination as undersecretary for political affairs.
"Victoria Nuland is returning to the State Department," one commenter wrote on
Twitter. "The United States is returning to the former Soviet republics with great strides.
A fierce struggle with Russia begins."
"... , and author of several books, including ..."
"... Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran ..."
"... . @medeabenjamin; Nicolas J. S. Davies, an independent journalist, a researcher with CODEPINK and the author of ..."
"... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
"... . @NicolasJSDavies; and Marcy Winograd of Progressive Democrats of America served as a 2020 Democratic delegate for Bernie Sanders,and is Coordinator of ..."
Yves here. Biden's nominees have skewed towards the awful, particularly on the foreign
policy front. But his plan to install Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland at State is a standout. For
those of you new to this site and not familiar with Nuland's sorry history, this post gives an
overview of her role in fomenting the coup in Ukraine and in putting relations with Russia on a
Cold War footing. The authors encourage readers to call their Senators and urge them to vote
against her nomination.
And before you get unduly excited by Biden nominating Gary Gensler to the SEC, I would much
rather have seem Gensler at Treasury. Gensler demonstrated at the CFTC that he's effective and
dedicated to combatting abuses by Big Finance. However, his best shot at making the SEC feared
and respected again is to appoint a tough head of enforcement, so keep an eye out for that
pick.
The problem that Gensler will have at the SEC is that it is the only Federal financial
services industry regulator that is subject to Congressional appropriations, rather that living
off its fees and fines (the SEC collects far more than Congress allows it). And Democrats, like
Joe Lieberman, then the Senator from Hedgistan, have been if anything more aggressive than
Republicans in threatening the SEC and in keeping it budget-starved.
I had said to Lambert that if Biden wanted to be Machiavellian, the way to pretend to reward
Elizabeth Warren while actually sandbagging her would be to make her SEC chair. Let's hope that
isn't his logic for appointing Gensler.
Photo Credit: thetruthseeker.co.uk Nuland and Pyatt planning regime change in Kiev
Who is Victoria Nuland? Most Americans have never heard of her because the U.S. corporate
media's foreign policy coverage is a wasteland. Most Americans have no idea that
President-elect Biden's pick for Deputy Secretary of State for Political Affairs is stuck in
the quicksand of 1950s U.S.-Russia Cold War politics and dreams of continued NATO expansion, an
arms race on steroids and further encirclement of Russia.
Nor do they know that from 2003-2005, during the hostile U.S. military occupation of Iraq,
Nuland was a foreign policy advisor to Dick Cheney, the Darth Vader of the Bush
administration.
You can bet, however, that the people of Ukraine have heard of neocon Nuland. Many have even
heard the leaked four-minute audio of her saying "Fuck the EU" during a 2014 phone call with
the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt.
During the infamous call on which Nuland and Pyatt plotted to replace the elected Ukrainian
President Victor Yanukovych, Nuland expressed her not-so-diplomatic disgust with the European
Union for grooming former heavyweight boxer and austerity champ Vitali Klitschko instead of
U.S. puppet and NATO booklicker Artseniy Yatseniuk to replace Russia-friendly Yanukovych.
The "Fuck the EU" call went viral, as an embarrassed State Department, never denying the
call's authenticity, blamed the Russians for tapping the phone, much as the NSA has tapped the
phones of European allies.
Despite outrage from German Chancellor Angela Markel, no one fired Nuland, but her potty
mouth upstaged the more serious story: the U.S. plot to overthrow Ukraine's elected government
and America's responsibility for a civil war that has killed at least 13,000 people and left
Ukraine the poorest
country in Europe.
In the process, Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan, the co-founder of The Project for a New
American Century , and their neocon cronies succeeded in sending U.S.-Russian relations
into a dangerous downward spiral from which they have yet to recover.
Nuland accomplished this from a relatively junior position as Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs. How much more trouble could she stir up as the #3 official
at Biden's State Department? We'll find out soon enough, if the Senate confirms her
nomination.
Joe Biden should have learned from Obama's mistakes that appointments like this matter.
In his first
term , Obama allowed his hawkish Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Republican Secretary
of Defense Robert Gates, and military and CIA leaders held over from the Bush administration to
ensure that endless war trumped his message of hope and change.
Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, ended up presiding over indefinite detentions without
charges or trials at Guantanamo Bay; an escalation of drone strikes that killed innocent
civilians; a deepening of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan; a self-reinforcing
cycle of terrorism and counterterrorism; and disastrous new wars in
Libya and Syria
.
With Clinton out and new personnel in top spots in his second term, Obama began
to take charge of his own foreign policy. He started working directly with Russia's President
Putin to resolve crises in Syria and other hotspots. Putin helped avert an escalation of the
war in Syria in September 2013 by negotiating the removal and destruction of Syria's chemical
weapons stockpiles, and helped Obama negotiate an interim agreement with Iran that led to the
JCPOA nuclear deal.
But the neocons were apoplectic that they failed to convince Obama to order a massive
bombing campaign and escalate his covert,
proxy war in Syria and at the receding prospect of a war with Iran. Fearing their control
of U.S. foreign policy was slipping, the neocons launched a
campaign to brand Obama as "weak" on foreign policy and remind him of their power.
With
editorial help from Nuland, her husband Robert Kagan penned a 2014 New Republic
article entitled "Superpowers Don't Get To Retire," proclaiming that "there is no democratic
superpower waiting in the wings to save the world if this democratic superpower falters." Kagan
called for an even more aggressive foreign policy to exorcise American fears of a multipolar
world it can no longer dominate.
Obama invited Kagan to a private lunch at the White House, and the neocons' muscle-flexing
pressured him to scale back his diplomacy with Russia, even as he quietly pushed ahead on
Iran.
The neocons' coup de grace against Obama's better angels was Nuland's 2014 coup
in debt-ridden Ukraine, a valuable imperial possession for its wealth of natural gas and a
strategic candidate for NATO membership right on Russia's border.
When Ukraine's Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych spurned a U.S.-backed trade agreement with
the European Union in favor of a $15 billion bailout from Russia, the State Department threw a
tantrum.
Hell hath no fury like a superpower scorned.
The EU trade
agreement was to open Ukraine's economy to imports from the EU, but without a reciprocal
opening of EU markets to Ukraine, it was a lopsided deal Yanukovich could not accept. The deal
was approved by the post-coup government, and has only added to Ukraine's economic woes.
The muscle for Nuland's $5 billion coup was Oleh
Tyahnybok's neo-Nazi Svoboda Party and the shadowy new Right Sector militia. During her leaked
phone call, Nuland referred to Tyahnybok as one of the "big three" opposition leaders on the
outside who could help the U.S.-backed Prime Minister Yatsenyuk on the inside. This is the same
Tyanhnybok who once
delivered a speec h applauding Ukrainians for fighting Jews and "other scum" during World
War II.
After protests in Kiev's Euromaidan square turned into battles with police in February 2014,
Yanukovych and the Western-backed opposition
signed an agreement brokered by France, Germany and Poland to form a national unity
government and hold new elections by the end of the year.
But that was not good enough for the neo-Nazis and extreme right-wing forces the U.S. had
helped to unleash. A violent mob led by the Right Sector militia marched on and invaded the
parliament building , a scene no longer difficult for Americans to imagine. Yanukovych and
his members of parliament fled for their lives.
Facing the loss of its most vital strategic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, Russia
accepted the overwhelming result (a 97% majority, with an 83% turnout) of a referendum in which
Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which it had been a part of from 1783 to
1954.
The majority Russian-speaking provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk in Eastern Ukraine
unilaterally declared independence from Ukraine, triggering a bloody civil war between U.S.-
and Russian-backed forces that still rages in 2021.
U.S.-Russian relations have never recovered, even as U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals still
pose the greatest single
threat to our existence. Whatever Americans believe about the civil war in Ukraine and
allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, we must not allow the neocons
and the military-industrial complex they serve to deter Biden from conducting vital diplomacy
with Russia to steer us off our suicidal path toward nuclear war.
Nuland and the neocons, however, remain committed to an ever-more debilitating and dangerous
Cold War with Russia and China to justify a militarist foreign policy and record Pentagon
budgets. In a July 2020 Foreign Affairs article entitled "Pinning Down Putin," Nuland
absurdly
claimed that Russia presents a greater threat to "the liberal world" than the U.S.S.R.
posed during the old Cold War.
Nuland's
narrative rests on an utterly mythical, ahistorical narrative of Russian aggression and
U.S. good intentions. She pretends that Russia's military budget, which is one-tenth of
America's, is evidence of "Russian confrontation and militarization" and calls
on the U.S. and its allies to counter Russia by "maintaining robust defense budgets,
continuing to modernize U.S. and allied nuclear weapons systems, and deploying new conventional
missiles and missile defenses to protect against Russia's new weapons systems "
Nuland also wants to confront Russia with an aggressive NATO. Since her days as U.S.
Ambassador to NATO during President George W. Bush's second term, she has been a supporter of
NATO's expansion all the way up to Russia's border. She calls
for "permanent bases along NATO's eastern border." We have pored over a map of Europe, but
we can't find a country called NATO with any borders at all. Nuland sees Russia's commitment to
defending itself after successive 20th century Western invasions as an intolerable obstacle to
NATO's expansionist ambitions.
Nuland's militaristic worldview represents exactly the folly the U.S. has been pursuing
since the 1990s under the influence of the neocons and "liberal interventionists," which has
resulted in a systematic underinvestment in the American people while escalating tensions with
Russia, China, Iran and other countries.
As Obama learned too late, the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time can, with a
shove in the wrong direction, unleash years of intractable violence, chaos and international
discord. Victoria Nuland would be a ticking time-bomb in Biden's State Department, waiting to
sabotage his better angels much as she undermined Obama's second-term diplomacy.
So let's do Biden and the world a favor. Join World Beyond War , CODEPINK and dozens of other
organizations opposing neocon Nuland's confirmation as a threat to peace and diplomacy. Call
202-224-3121 and tell your Senator to oppose Nuland's installation at the State Department.
Nuland has also been declared persona non grata by Russia, so she would not be able to go
with Biden, were he to visit Moscow. Russian foreign minister Lavrov, actually refused to
shake her hand when she attended a US-Russia meeting with Kerry. She is poison to any attempt
to peaceful relationships.
Yes, I remember that meeting clearly. Can't cite the network, but it covered her closely
– body language only. I wonder where Biden stood on that act of diplomacy given his own
corruption, and also what John Kerry's thinking is about now. John Kerry's stepson was in
cahoots with Hunter Biden. It looked like Kerry brought her along for some rehabilitation and
Lavrov was having none of it. Instead he went directly to the delegation from Ukraine and
they stood in a circle all with their backs turned to Vicky who had no choice but to wander
over to the coffee table and pretend she wasn't totally uncomfortable. Totally excluded. How
can she recover from that?
If there is one thing that Russia hates it is fascists and that is because of the enormous
damage caused by them in WW2. We call those invaders Nazis but the Russians seem to call them
fascists. I sometimes wonder if it is part of their mother's milk this hatred. For people
like Nuland to help topple the government of a large, bordering country like the Ukraine and
install people that were literally fascists was too much for the Russians. These were fascist
of a very low order that had the old 1930s routines down pat, including the torchlight
parades. And there was Nuland, handing out cookies to the rioters, many of whom had been
trained in rioting tactics in Poland and were being paid about $100 a day by the US if I
recall correctly. Of course Nuland was not alone as there was also a Representative from the
EU also handing out cookies. The only equivalent that comes to mind is a violent revolution
in Canada using professional rioters and having diplomatic representatives from the Russian
Federation and China handing out donuts to the rioter. I wonder what Washington would say
about a stunt like that.
Nuland is a disgusting human being. Since she is a right winger, regardless of what party
may be listed on her voter ID, I don't think Bettridge's law applies here at all.
So glad all these 'woke' people put good old Uncle Joe back in office. Wonder how many
realized they were supporting people being burned alive by actual Nazis in doing so?
Thanks for this. Our "learned nothing/forgot nothing" Bourbon restoration will be led by
one of the dimmer Bourbons who couldn't even set up a good grift in Ukraine without boasting
about it and then angrily denying it. Should the press finally, improbably turn on him it
should make for some fun news conferences. But perhaps he'll merely be moving to the White
House basement from his Delaware basement.
CFTC's budgets are also set through congressional authorization and appropriations. Yes,
the CFPB is not subject to Congressional appropriations, but for good reasons. However, all
financial regulation can be overturned by the Congressional Review Act.
As for the article, citation needed. Sort of a laundry heap of questionable material. Make
no mistake, the Russo-Ukrainian War is a real war. Uniformed Russian armored infantry of
331st regiment of the 98th Svirsk airborne division dropped into Ukraine territory on 24
August 2014. From 25 to 27 August, Russian troops in civilian clothing, backed up by an
armored column [not in disguise] took Novoazovsk. This is about Russia not being able to
station 25,000 troops in Crimea as they had under Yanukovych. US troop levels in Europe have
been at their lowest for the last 20 years. The US would like to [nay, needs to] keep it that
way. However, the erosion of territorial integrity is a touchy subject in Europe given the
lasting peace of the post-war period in a place where the wars have a pre-fix like "Hundred
Years".
President Arseniy Yatsenyuk is of Jewish origin so the claims of coordination with Nazi
sympathizers is dubious. Not even going to get the boycotted unconstitutional Crimean
referendum.
As for WW III, Obama's defense department made it a priority to recover all the MANPADS,
such as the Chinese-made FN-6 [via Qatar], Russian-made Strela-2's and Igla-S's [via Libya]
from the FSA without so much as a thank you from the Russian Air Force. [Turkey, on the other
hand, armed the FSA with Stinger's.] It should be noted that the Syrian conflict's death
toll, in just four years, surpassed the 19-year death toll in all the Afghanistan, Pakistan,
and Iraq war theatres combined.
Think about this way: who needs NATO and the EU more to maintain his power structure, Joe
Biden or Vladimir Putin. Isn't it clear Americans don't care, and American business does not
look to compete in Russian anytime soon. The geography is wrong. But Putin must find a way to
engender ethnicities who do not like the Russian Empire, who had been cleansed by Stalin. One
way is to sell energy below cost to the republics and buy in back from political allies in
the form of electricity. Something upon which the EU frowns. [Personally, I did not care for
the way Putin early on systematically and indiscriminately starved Chechen civilians for
years. It was cruel on a level unseen outside of the Rwandan genocide. More importantly, it
was the Russian Federation abdicating its authority by not providing for its own citizens and
not letting NGO's fill the calorie gap. I'd like to think had Putin's admin not been so
wobbly the first few years, he might've let the Red Cross feed the children.]
Russia was never going to permit a US orchestrated coup in Ukraine without resistance. The
idea that Putin needs NATO more than Biden does seems unreasonable.
Talking about "citations", perhaps you could supply the readership of this site with some
credible citations and links for a few of the far fetched claims you're making here. Most of
this comment reads like pro-Ukrainian propaganda.
I heard about Gary Gensler, Samantha Power, and Victoria Nuland, and I immediately
thought, "The good, the bad, and the ugly."
Gensler surprised everyone when he was at the CFTC by doing his job, and doing it well,
and his running the SEC is a good thing.
Samantha Power is an aggressive war monger, and in her position at USAID, she will likely
have her fingers in regime change pie, since USAID is part of the deep state regime change
apparatus..
I've long suspected that NATO has existed since 1991 to allow the US/EU axis to control
Middle-Eastern and African resources. For example, the Rammstein military hospital is where
every Gulf War soldier was airlifted for major treatment and convalescence.
Also, there is a huge international trade in opium. It's grown in Afpak and shipped out in
every direction. I suspect that a fair amount of that flows through Ukraine and Crimea. If
you look at a topo map of Crimea, there's a lot of seashore that could be good "smuggler's
coves". Following this line of argument, Russia grabbing it from Ukraine was a gimme to
Russia's gangsters. This, as well as the "Pipeline Wars", gives Russia a strong reason to
encircle Ukraine.
The Putsch Govt and Tech & Media Oligarchs are "Riding the Tiger"
The reason I'm laughing, is because Joe and the deep state are exposing themselves for
who they are, a bunch of corrupt government officials who don't have the support of the
citizens.
Joe is going to have a really hard time unless they institutionalize the election
fraud and continue it, which is my biggest fear because it means we've become a corrupt
banana republic, and poverty will quickly ensue.
Big government brings poverty to the
public (and riches to the deep state) while freedom (i.e., small government that just
protects our freedoms, rather than socialism that promises to provide for us but instead
brings government forcing us to work) brings prosperity to the people.
"...It's so crazy how Israel's constant airstrikes on Syria are just background noise that
hardly anyone is aware of. Imagine a country in western Europe routinely bombing its neighbor
and killing large numbers of people and the public being generally unaware that it's
happening because the press barely reports it..."
with this added paragraph and link in the antiwar.com article
"....US officials are pointing to their own involvement with this, saying Mike Pompeo
provided the intelligence to Mossad. They suggested the intelligence was about Iranian arms.
It's not clear why so many troops were killed if warehouses were the target..."
Surely the war against Syria has to rank as one of the greatest wars crimes of the last
50-60 years or more.... But not a liberal in sight. hah.
Oh I almost forgot that this great crime, along with the complete destruction and
destitution of the richest nation in all of Africa, Libya, was all started under
Obama-Biden-Clinton-Rice-Power administration. double hah.
Victoria Nuland, former foreign policy adviser to vice president Dick Cheney, should not be
nominated for undersecretary of state [for political affairs], and if nominated should be
rejected by the Senate.
Nuland played a key role in facilitating a coup in Ukraine that created a civil war costing
10,000 lives and displacing over a million people. She played a key role in arming Ukraine as
well. She advocates radically increased military spending, NATO expansion, hostility toward
Russia, and efforts to overthrow the Russian government.
The United States invested $5 billion in shaping Ukrainian politics, including overthrowing
a democratically elected president who had refused to join NATO. Then-Assistant Secretary of
State Nuland is on
video talking about the U.S. investment and on
audiotape planning to install Ukraine's next leader, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who was
subsequently installed.
The Maidan protests, at which Nuland handed out cookies to protesters, were violently
escalated by neo-Nazis and by snipers who opened fire on police. When Poland, Germany, and
France negotiated a deal for the Maidan demands and an early election, neo-Nazis instead
attacked the government and took over. The U.S. State Department immediately recognized the
coup government, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk was installed as Prime Minister.
Nuland has
worked with the openly pro-Nazi Svoboda Party in Ukraine. She was long a leading
proponent of arming Ukraine. She was also an advocate for removing from office the
prosecutor general of Ukraine, whom then-Vice President Joe Biden pushed the president to
remove.
Nuland
wrote this past year that "The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to lead the
democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia - one that builds on
their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable, including among his own
citizens."
She added:
" Moscow should also see that Washington and its allies are taking concrete steps to shore
up their security and raise the cost of Russian confrontation and militarization. That
includes maintaining robust defense budgets, continuing to modernize U.S. and allied nuclear
weapons systems, and deploying new conventional missiles and missile defenses, . . .
establish permanent bases along NATO's eastern border, and increase the pace and visibility
of joint training exercises."
The United States walked out of the ABM Treaty and later the INF Treaty, began putting
missiles into Romania and Poland, expanded NATO to Russia's border, facilitated a coup in
Ukraine, began arming Ukraine, and started holding massive war rehearsal exercises in Eastern
Europe. But to read Victoria Nuland's account, Russia is simply an irrationally evil and
aggressive force that must be countered by yet more military spending, bases, and hostility.
Some U.S.
military officials say this demonizing of Russia is all about weapons profits and
bureaucratic power, no more fact-based than the Steele Dossier that was
given to the FBI by Victoria Nuland.
SIGNED BY:
Alaska Peace Center
Center for Encounter and Active Non-Violence
CODEPINK
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
Greater Brunswick PeaceWorks
Jemez Peacemakers
Knowdrones.com
Maine Voices for Palestinian Rights
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
Nukewatch
Peace Action Maine
PEACEWORKERS
Physicians for Social Responsibility – Kansas City
Progressive Democrats of America
Peace Fresno
Peace, Justice, Sustainability NOW!
The Resistance Center for Peace and Justice
RootsAction.org
Veterans For Peace Chapter 001
Veterans For Peace Chapter 63
Veterans For Peace Chapter 113
Veterans For Peace Chapter 115
Veterans For Peace Chapter 132
Wage Peace
World BEYOND War
TimeTraveller 36 minutes ago (Edited)
The funny thing about appointment of Nuland, is that basically every European government
hates her.
Those idiots in the EU complained about Trump. Well the American Empire war machine is
about to ratchet up a notch or three, btches.
Max21c 50 minutes ago
The U.S. State Department immediately recognized the coup government, and Arseniy
Yatsenyuk was installed as Prime Minister.
The Washington establishment immediately recognized the coup government, and Joe Schmoe
Biden was installed as ruler.
replaceme 52 minutes ago
Why wouldn't they appoint a murderer?
TimeTraveller 50 minutes ago (Edited)
It is funny that they oppose that. After all, every single person in the Democrat party
was in agreement with those foreign coup and wars. If we're going to all of a sudden start
pointing the finger, then there would be no Democrats left in congress
aspnaz again 38 minutes ago
Nationalist, extremist, exceptionalist, white supremicists are okay if they are
democrats.
eatapeach 13 minutes ago
She's an Israel-firster, thus has a pass?
TimeTraveller 51 minutes ago
Those 25 organizations are about to be cancelled. Social Media thought police will be
working overtime tonight.
You_Cant_Quit_Me 52 minutes ago
So we go around the world interfering with every country's internal affairs but when they
do it to the US is meddling in US elections.
does nooner know how hypocritical Washington sounds?
Ms No PREMIUM 36 minutes ago
"pro-Nazi Svoboda party"
That is a headfake there. They are definitely tyrannical and Bolshevik, but not targeting
Jewish people.
As a matter of fact Nuland's Council on Foreign Relations huband-brother (whatever they
really are) is a Kagan, like Kagan-ovich, and that ain't a coincidence.
So you can see what the mob did there. It helps with plausible deniability down the road
when they get charged with war crimes, crimes against humanity, terrorism, aggression,
etc
xious 37 minutes ago
They don't care what you think. You will watch child molesters on TV and like it.
TryingSomethingNew 38 minutes ago
But she's Jewish and a woman, right? Those 25 organizations are clearly Anti-Semitic and
sexist.
Ms No PREMIUM 35 minutes ago
Why would a Jewish Mobster set up a Nazi like color revolutionary group and coup the
Ukraine with it?
Already looking at plausible deniability down the road. Nobody's *** is covered anywhere
but theirs. Their apparatchiks should ponder that.
Pliskin 43 minutes ago
Amurikans should keep the fcuk out of other countries affairs...!
Sad-sacks!
Dzerzhhinsky 48 minutes ago
People think Zionists are anti Nazi, but Zionism is the non Christian version of Nazism.
Herzl the founder of the Zionist party was enamoured with the Nazis, but they rejected him on
religious grounds.
It's natural for Nuland and the other Kaganites to be in bed with Ukrainian Nazis.
Ms No PREMIUM 22 minutes ago remove link
I remember Lavrov getting grilled by angry journalists about why Russia wasn't bombing the
**** out of the color revolutionaries that took the Ukraine with US money.
He basically said, What would you have us do, cause countless deaths of our own Russian
speaking people? They don't care about their deaths but we have to.
Then the first thing the US did was put in illegal bioweapons labs in the Ukraine. There
was a super weird outbreak prior to the color revolution takeover too..Then Russians were
really pissed off. So Putin drew red line in Syria
Russia will get the Ukraine back someday. They have to. It was their bread basket during
last grand minimum.
bluskyes 14 minutes ago
perhaps, when the western threat become stronger than ethnic bias. Though it will probably
split first.
Anthraxed 38 minutes ago
Victoria Noodlebrain should be on Interpol's top 10 most wanted list.
Cautiously Pessimistic 49 minutes ago
Man....I had all but forgotten about many of these scumbags that are resurfacing now in
the Biden administration. This woman should be waterboarded until deceased.
Dzerzhhinsky 46 minutes ago
It's always the same people, the front men change, but behind the scenes it's always the
same people.
RKKA 6 minutes ago
Again, all these demons of the Obama era are striving for power. During the Trump
presidency, we have already forgotten about these devils.
Victoria Nuland, her real Jewish surname is Nudelman, her parents are Moldovan ****. The
parents of the former Ukrainian President Poroshenko, who seized power as a result of the
Maidan and the coup d'etat, are also Moldovan **** by the name of Valtsman. Already in
adulthood, Petr Valtsman took the name of his wife and became - Poroshenko. They are the
father and mother of the war in Ukraine, and Joe Biden blessed them for this.
Another Ukrainian oligarch, also a ***, Igor Kolomoisky, financed the Ukrainian
nationalist battalions of Azov, Dnepr and Aydar. Tell me, what are these Nazis who are
financed and serve the ****? Adolf spins tirelessly in his coffin!
And you probably thought that the **** are such poor and offended children of the
Holocaust and the Nazis are their enemies? No, **** and Nazis merged in violent ecstasy and
it is time to introduce the term - Jewish Nazism into the lexicon!
de tocqueville's ghost 28 minutes ago
that was a good four years...no new wars. Good going liberals, you voted for a war
monger.
Lt. Shicekopf 14 minutes ago
Yes! Maybe we can do to all kinds of countries what we did to Libya. The continuing
calamity that has been going on in Libya since Obama and Hillary got done with them has been
studiously ignored by all the Western media. Anarchy, chaos, death, an open slave market in
which black Africans are bought and sold by Arab traders. All good stuff to the American
left.
David Q. Little 45 minutes ago
Joe and Hunter owe her a favor.
Musum 19 minutes ago
Neocons are returning with a vengeance.
Death2Fiat 28 minutes ago
Her job is to destroy the US and do the bidding of the Globalists.
tbone654 28 minutes ago
none of it matters... with the dems controlling everything the [M]ilitary [I]ndustrial
[I]ntelligence [C]omplex is gonna ramp up and spend a crap-ton on wars all over the globe...
it's how it works when they have the throttle... everyone was worried about Trump, but he
de-escalated everywhere...
The people have spoken (I mean cheated) and now they must be punished... Ed Koch
Lyman54 34 minutes ago
Yatsenyuk, Nulands pick, was given a Canadian passport. Likely hiding in Manitoba.
ThomasEdmonds 36 minutes ago
Some things in this life don't matter and Biden cares squat. Perhaps these groups can
express their contempt for Samantha Power as well. Let's extend that to his foreign policy
team.
WTFUD 13 minutes ago remove link
Joseph Biden reminds me of Hedley Lamar in Blazing Saddles, forming a posse of the biggest
wackjobs available.
As long as he doesn't put Hunter in charge of the Afghani Poppy Crop Investment Fund then
his Middle-East and Central Asian policy could prove fruitful.
The apartheid settler gang is beneath contempt. It blocks supply of vaccines for covid to
the Palestinian people and blockades their trade and freedom of travel and navigation. Like
the USA they have totally filled up with hubris and lost their way in the world.
Biden has surrounded himself with dual allegiance appointees in the critical security
agencies so that he cannot achieve peace or make progress with any of his (foolishly)
perceived enemy nations. He will find it almost impossible to negotiate in any meaningful way
with Iran or China or Russia or Iraq or Syria or pretty much any other nation that is invaded
by his armies or sanctioned by his idiot decisions or threatened by Israel's
belligerence.
The tensions have been incredibly heightened in many nations due to the coronavirus
transmission within their populations and the persistent suspicion that it has a USA origin.
Any USAi pretense of negotiating in good faith in these circumstances is virtually
impossible. All the more so when reactionaries lead both Israel and USA.
Biden is right when he says nothing will change. His ally in the middle east, Israel, has
an arsenal of formidable power sufficient to command an uncomfortable peace in any
circumstance. Yet it has no integrity to clinch a deal with anybody such is the universal
distrust of their intentions. Time and again this illegal settler state has mauled every
neighbor in a most grievous way. Every week they attack Syria with missiles! The aggrieved
neighbors will not forget or forgive the treachery. That is just how it is.
There are no statesmen in the USA or Israel with the nous or capacity to find a way
out.
Few observations on Biden, Iran and the nuclear deal.
I don't know if US will or will not return to implement it's obligations under the UNSC 2231,
nor I know if US Jewish lobby will allow that. But for sure Iran will not renegotiate for new
terms or a new deal on nuclear program secondly under no circumstances Iran will negotiate
(with anyone) her conventional military capabilities or her policies and alliances toward her
allies in the region since these are real matter of national security for Iran. But also
there are signs from Biden that should be considered. Firstly almost all Biden's national
security team are diplomats with experience negotiating with Iran that could be a signal on
policy change, secondly I believe due to strategic failure of maximum pressure to subdue Iran
and more importantly due to US' own strategic necessity to keep China and Russia away from
ME, US and EU will want to decouple or even prevent Iran from a mutual strategic necessity or
alliance with China or and Russia for that reason IMO it might be possible US will adopt a
new posture toward Iran. I also believe Iran's foreign policy in ME is basically based on her
long term interests and security with her regional alliances, multipolarity, and stability in
her region, therefore any proposal by US or EU to agitate this policy will be rejected or not
adopted by Iran.
The apartheid settler gang is beneath contempt. It blocks supply of vaccines for covid to
the Palestinian people and blockades their trade and freedom of travel and navigation. Like
the USA they have totally filled up with hubris and lost their way in the world.
Biden has surrounded himself with dual allegiance appointees in the critical security
agencies so that he cannot achieve peace or make progress with any of his (foolishly)
perceived enemy nations. He will find it almost impossible to negotiate in any meaningful way
with Iran or China or Russia or Iraq or Syria or pretty much any other nation that is invaded
by his armies or sanctioned by his idiot decisions or threatened by Israel's
belligerence.
The tensions have been incredibly heightened in many nations due to the coronavirus
transmission within their populations and the persistent suspicion that it has a USA origin.
Any USAi pretense of negotiating in good faith in these circumstances is virtually
impossible. All the more so when reactionaries lead both Israel and USA.
Biden is right when he says nothing will change. His ally in the middle east, Israel, has
an arsenal of formidable power sufficient to command an uncomfortable peace in any
circumstance. Yet it has no integrity to clinch a deal with anybody such is the universal
distrust of their intentions. Time and again this illegal settler state has mauled every
neighbor in a most grievous way. Every week they attack Syria with missiles! The aggrieved
neighbors will not forget or forgive the treachery. That is just how it is.
There are no statesmen in the USA or Israel with the nous or capacity to find a way
out.
A new JCPOA will obviously have to eliminate all sanctions. But that might not be
enough. Iran might want compensation for the economic damage done, compensation from the UK,
France, and Germany as well as the US. Moreover, Iran will want to keep its now much larger
stockpile of low-enriched uranium. It might want an even larger stockpile, and the right to
enrich to 20%, which it is now doing. A breeder reactor and a plutonium stockpile would be
nice, too.
But there are even other demands that might be made: reduction or removal of
US/NATO/Israeli forces in the Gulf; reduction or elimination of Israeli nuclear
weapons.
That train left the station.
In the past 5 years Iran re-configured it's economy into an autarcic fully industrialized,
food secure, and diversified economy. It now earns more from the sale of manufactures and
foods than from petroleum. It now manufactures AfraMax tankers, general cargo vessels, and
naval vessels. It manufactures cars and trucks, and railroad rolling stock. It built hydro
and irrigation schemes. It launches satellites into orbit.
Iran is now pressing ahead with the Arak heavy water reactor.
Khameni just banned import of NATO vaccines, and ordered the country to be vaccinated with
Iran's own vaccine.
Khameni and the hard liners will not permit Iran to rejoin or to negotiate any agreements
with the "Great Satan". Their line will be the US must show itself to be agreement capable by
rejoining the JCPOA and removing any and all sanctions while paying damages too.
Iran will increase the amount of assistance given the Houthis. Trump's declaration of the
Houthis as terrorists, benefits the resistance by solidifying their adherence to it. The
Houthis must now "go for broke" or surrender. They will not surrender.
The harsh reality is Biden/Harris will be occupied at home suppressing the MAGA crowd.
Since this group is 74 million strong, and mostly white, in a country trying to make them
second class citizens, will be quite a challenge that. The jury is still out on that one.
Then there is the not so small matter of US oil production dropping like a stone from 12
mmBbl/day to 7 by July with further drops in the following 12 months. This coupled with and
likely due to bankruptcies of a large number of producers going forward.
Sheldon Adelson, the casino oligarch who has financed far right causes as well as the
political careers of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahoo, has
died . In 2013 Adelson had called for nuking Tehran (vid).
Good Riddance.
Unfortunately his money will continue to flow to the far right as his Israeli wife is the
one who is now running the show .
In other news B'Tselem, the topmost Israeli human rights organization, finally describes both Israel
and its control of the Palestinian territories as a single apartheid regime:
B'Tselem rejects the perception of Israel as a democracy (inside the Green Line) that
simultaneously upholds a temporary military occupation (beyond it). B'Tselem reached the
conclusion that the bar for defining the Israeli regime as an apartheid regime has been met
after considering the accumulation of policies and laws that Israel devised to entrench its
control over Palestinians.
Nothing really new there but it makes it official.
With B'Tselem finally speaking out it is much easier to refute those who falsely denounce
the much justified condemnation of Zionism and Israel as anti-semitic.
This comes at a time when Israel is
scheming to derail the incoming Biden administration's plan to return to the nuclear deal
with Iran:
Israel will start by sending a stream of envoys on visits to Washington, the official said,
requesting anonymity to discuss private deliberations. It's stated publicly that it doesn't
want the U.S. to abandon sanctions on the Islamic Republic without a new deal, and that a
tougher stance should be taken toward its nuclear project, ballistic missile program and
regional proxy forces.
That strategy runs against the Biden team's willingness to re-enter the deal, then
negotiate an expansion of its terms. It's conditioned on Iran's returning to compliance
with the accord, whose limits it breached after President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out
of the agreement in 2018.
...
Israel also has a higher-risk card up its sleeve: the potential to upend diplomatic efforts
through covert operations against Iran.
...
Netanyahu has been open about his intention to thwart renewed U.S. participation. In a rare
public split, he rebuked his envoy to Germany for supporting Berlin's push to expand the
deal.
"There should be no return to the Iran nuclear agreement of 2015 -- a deal which is
flawed to its foundations," Netanyahu said.
With Biden being an arch-Zionist
and with a team
of Zionist Jews leading the State Department the chances of a fast return to the deal can
be regarded as slim.
CHARLES ROMLEY ALDER WRIGHT – THE FOREFATHER OF HEROIN
Dr. Charles Wright, born in 1844, was a physics and chemistry researcher in London. Well
respected, he helped found the Royal Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland.
With his chemist skills, he had been experimenting with morphine, combining it with various
acids. He had hoped to discover a nonaddictive alternative to the medicine and soon
discovered a more potent version of morphine by boiling anhydrous morphine alkaloid with
acetic anhydride. Called diacetylmorphine at the time, this is the substance today known as
heroin. Following Wright's discovery, the drug was marketed as an analgesic and a cough
sedative in 1888. It wasn't until 1913 that its addictive qualities were officially
discovered and it was swiftly taken off the market.
JOHN PEMBERTON – THE FOREFATHER OF COCAINE
Following injuries he sustained as a Colonel in the Confederate Army, John Pemberton,
also a pharmacist, searched for a cure to counteract his addiction to morphine, which he
had been using as a painkiller. After experimenting with coca and coca wines, he came up
with what he called Pemberton's French Wine Coca, an alcoholic blend designed to reduce
nervousness; stomach, bowel, and kidney irregularities; and more. Following temperance
legislation, Pemberton was under pressure to create a non-alcoholic version of his medicine
and invented Coca-Cola by accident in 1886. It was the result when he mistakenly blended
his base syrup with carbonated water, and he decided to market it as the fountain drink we
know today. Ten years later, the Coca-Cola company ran into controversy after it was
discovered cocaine was an addictive and dangerous substance. A glass used to 9 mg of its
primary secret – now illegal – ingredient.
...
NAGAI NAGAYOSHI – THE FOREFATHER OF METHAMPHETAMINE
Nagai Nagayoshi, who became the first doctor of pharmacy in Japan, was sponsored by the
Prussia government to study at the University of Berlin and went on to receive a doctorate
based on his study of eugenol. Nagayoshi later became a professor of chemistry and pharmacy
in 1893, and it was this year he became the first to synthesize methamphetamine, which came
from ephedrine. It was Nagayoshi's work that led pharmacologist Akira Ogata to synthesize
the crystalline form of methamphetamine, which we today know as crystal meth.
FRIEDRICH SERTÜRNER – THE FOREFATHER OF MORPHINE
Born in 1783, Friedrich Sertürner, achieved a number of recognized accomplishments
at a young age when he worked as a pharmacist's apprentice. He isolated morphine from
opium, becoming the first person to ever extract an alkaloid from opium and thus to isolate
an alkaloid from a plant. This feat made Sertürner the first person ever to isolate a
medicinal plant or herb's active ingredient. He named the alkaloid "morphium," after
Morpheus, the Greek god of dreams. Having morphine literally at his fingertips to examine,
Sertürner investigated its effects. The drug became a widely used sedative after 1815,
and Sertürner worked as a successful pharmacist until his death in 1841.
I take the blame for starting the thread on discussing opiate addiction @ 5. This was due
to my picking up these paragraphs at the Buzzfeed News article that B linked to in connection
with Miriam Adelson.
... Miriam [Adelson] married fellow physician Ariel Ochshorn in the 1970s, and had two
daughters with him, Yasmin and Sivan. After they divorced in the 1980s, she came to New
York to do a fellowship at Rockefeller University with Dr. Mary Jeanne Kreek. The two
doctors have remained friends and collaborators to this day.
Kreek, who began her conversation with BuzzFeed News by stressing that she had gotten
permission from Miriam to do the interview, said that she had been approached by an
official in Israel's Ministry of Health in 1986 about sending an Israeli doctor to
Rockefeller to work on addiction medicine. In short order, Adelson came over to New York
with her two teenagers, who attended the Ramaz School on Manhattan's Upper East Side.
At the time, treating heroin addicts with methadone was still considered a
cutting-edge treatment, and Kreek and Adelson (then Ochshorn) were on the forefront. It
was also starting to become controversial; while many doctors argue that methadone
maintenance is an effective harm-reduction tool that allows people to master their
addiction and live normal lives, opponents say that using methadone instead of heroin is
really another form of dependence. Kreek, who receives significant funding for her program
from the Adelsons, decried the "stigma" surrounding methadone maintenance treatment ...
Here is a link to an article Miriam Adelson co-authored on whether methadone maintenance
treatment (at her clinic, I presume) might improve opioid addicts' cognitive abilities:
Whether the success of the treatments at Dr Adelson's clinics are actually due to the
treatments themselves, and whether their success can be replicated in other clinics not owned
or run by Dr Adelson, might be another issue.
"... I hate virtually all of Trump's policies. I hate his stupidity in continually hiring people who hated him. He could have turned to members of the genuine left -- men such as Stephen Cohen -- for advice. ..."
"... n a classic act of projection, woke Dems accuse Trump of not conceding, whereas in fact they are the ones who never conceded the presidency in 2016. This is so obvious, and yet it has apparently become invisible to most!!! Memory hole opened up like a crack in the earth behind each step. ..."
"... The gullibility of Trump is astounding. He did everything to keep the swamp happy, to keep Israel happy, flipped on Nato and on Russia, had hawks left and right and at the end he will be discarded like a used condom. ..."
"... can't help but think that Donald Trump is a man with no common sense, lacking the real conviction of his words and just not very bright or he was to some degree willfully complicit in this now obviously dire state the U.S. finds itself. ..."
"... If anyone thinks there is some good news because this murderous, warring empire is coming to an end, I suggest you think again. The war machine is still fully intact and funded. The international bankers who are in complete control are buying up everything and are planning on a 'reset' dictated by them. To the world! Understandably, there will likely be a few countries who do not feel inclined to agree with this reset and it's terms. There will have to be war to correct this thinking, even if a billion or more are killed. The more the merrier. Less 'useless eaters' to deal with. ..."
Mr. Roberts is right on point when he says that Trump will be locked up.
The people running the United States are going to make an example of Trump. They will send
a message that no "outsider" should ever again dare to run for President.
Trump will spend the rest of his life behind bars.
I fear you are right. In this case it might be better if he weren't such a street fighter,
because standing up for himself to me isn't worth the price he will pay. He should get
himself and his family post haste to a country with no extradition and simply live the rest
of his life in peace. No one needs the vitriol that has been and will continue to be heaped
on him.
Trump _should_ spend the rest of his life behind bars -- for contributing to the deaths of
tens of thousands of human beings. Ordinary Syrians, Iranians, Cubans, and Venezuelans died
because of the murderous sanctions Washington put on their countries, and Pres. Trump did
nothing to help -- and in fact, intensified them.
Very similar to his indifference to the plight of Edward Snowden & Julian Assange.
Trump is a monster of self-centredness. In fact, in the words of his own former White House
Chief of Staff, he is 'the most damaged human being I have ever met.' Just the sort of
creature we would expect to find as head of the US empire
I'm afraid you are spot on -- Trump lies to the World when he was running for President
& then broke almost all of his promises -especially to drain the Swamp. He also
unforgivably allowed the Jews to take over Palistinian land etc. He has alot to answer for
even if he wasn't as War like as the 3 Presidents before him.
YOu re problably right, Jimmy.
But it turns out differently when one gets the point where Trump locked up prospect here is
not him but a whole lot of american people trying to get rid of globalism and the need for
wars
Who might be buried up along with him.
But not a word about the crimes of those who preceded him, which included the ultimate
crime, that of engaging in unjustified warfare?
Your post implies you have a standard of behaviour you are judging Trump by. By definition
it must be universally applied, otherwise all you are seeking is the selective imposition of
your view.
I agree. If Trump deserves lockup, so do Obama, Bush, and the Clintons.
I hate virtually all of Trump's policies. I hate his stupidity in continually hiring
people who hated him. He could have turned to members of the genuine left -- men such as
Stephen Cohen -- for advice.
But that is not the point. Since 2016 those who tried to eliminate Trump did so not for
his real crimes but for made-up. Basically his crime of being president in the first
place.
I n a classic act of projection, woke Dems accuse Trump of not conceding, whereas in
fact they are the ones who never conceded the presidency in 2016. This is so obvious, and yet
it has apparently become invisible to most!!! Memory hole opened up like a crack in the earth
behind each step.
Trump's crime, for which he may actually be locked up, was in truth just winning the
presidency in 2016 and humiliating Hillary (whom everyone hated anyhow). I am becoming quite
terrified of people I have known all my my life and even am related to.
Corrected assessment. His wealth and his 5 children (and their future) are too much of a
liability for him to do the necessary. His policy of appeasement will not work though with
the rabid bolshevik kabal.
I think he and his family will be persecuted and likely prosecuted unless the has the
foresight to move to Russia and save his skin.
The gullibility of Trump is astounding. He did everything to keep the swamp happy, to
keep Israel happy, flipped on Nato and on Russia, had hawks left and right and at the end he
will be discarded like a used condom.
Russia saw it from the get go, at the end he will have the full weight of both parties
against him, and instead of locking her up it will be the other way around. The cowards have
no sense of decency, they will not show any good will like he did.
Trump betrayed his base, failed to organize again and again, put his trust in all the
wrong people and now is done. I'll be surprised if he doesn't face jailtime on some trumped
up charges.
For all his charisma and good intentions he turned out a clueless clown, sad clown at the
end. History will not be kind, and neither will the victors.
True Americans have seen their last train leave the station, it will take time to realize
that there are no more trains. Game over.
I thought this was a good summation by Dr. Roberts. I can't help but think that Donald
Trump is a man with no common sense, lacking the real conviction of his words and just not
very bright or he was to some degree willfully complicit in this now obviously dire state the
U.S. finds itself. Maybe he owed the Rothschild clan a favour.
If anyone thinks there is some good news because this murderous, warring empire is
coming to an end, I suggest you think again. The war machine is still fully intact and
funded. The international bankers who are in complete control are buying up everything and
are planning on a 'reset' dictated by them. To the world! Understandably, there will likely
be a few countries who do not feel inclined to agree with this reset and it's terms. There
will have to be war to correct this thinking, even if a billion or more are killed. The more
the merrier. Less 'useless eaters' to deal with.
Try to see something good in creation every day. Try to do good every day. This world as
it is does not have much time. Someone said that what cannot go on forever won't! At some
point, the One who gives life to all will say it is enough. Some of us just celebrated his
most blessed nativity.
This guy biden is king of promises, and as every year goes by and so many promises are not
met, don't think these people wont show up on D.C.'s doorstep looking for revenge.
Who better to preside over the collapse of the empire? The usual rules will apply: the
feckless Dems – always at their abysmal worst when they assume power – will blame
the "evil Reps" for everything that goes wrong (and there will be plenty – although
none of it will ever be discussed publicly!), and the Reps will be at their sterling
obstructionist best. Talk of impeachment for Biden – who will be nowhere in sight for
most of his term – will linger throughout his term, while Trump will soon be prosecuted
and jailed, his entire administration canceled from the official histories, with Queen
Hillary named "Presidentess in Exile" for 2016-2020 due to alleged Russian interference with
her rightful coronation. The Empire will trumpet from on high for all to hear that this
signals the glorious victory of US Democracy (angelic chorus sounds here) over the forces of
darkness, or some such agitprop; and the skies will clear, the birds will sing, and a rosy
glow will return to the cheeks of all the fair maidens and indeterminant gendered of our
great land. The masks, of course, will remain firmly in place, as the "new normal" slowly
becomes merely business as usual, and the sheeple graze contentedly in their prison stalls,
content in the knowledge that Big Brother is looking out for their health and welfare, at
least until the ritual sacrificial slaughter of the lambs should be deemed necessary. For the
good of all, of course. Should all make for some excellent reality TV.
Well the empire is going to collapse the citizens before it collapses, and even before the
empire collapse comes a global scare of epic proportions to shake and rattle the cage for
those whom are not prepared.
Trump isn't going anywhere. I was at the rally in DC and listened to his
entire speech on the ellipse. He stated that he would not concede. With
this assurance why would the demonstrators have any reason to aggressively
breach the Capitol building? The whole thing was a staged provocation by antifa.
There are videos of how this was staged all over the internet. Let us all
hope and pray that the Scarlet(Whore) color revolution against Trump is finally
eradiated and extirpated now that all the Deep Satanists have been exposed for
their participation in the coup and election fraud.
The question has been asked – what is the US military going to do? Will they just
stay put and watch the theft unfold?
Whilst many commentators were soiling themselves in phantasies of a pro trump military coup
to end the charade, drain the swamp and burn down DC, PCR had a very clear view (expressed
elsewhere): why would the military object to a new leadership if it promises more war, more
blood, more money? It won't, it will welcome it in fact.
Be it as it may, and despite all the stinkin' lies about the election I would think it is
too tall an order for a non-murrican to mourn the self-destruction of the most evil, ghastly,
ruthless hegemon the world has seen in the last 100 years.
I second the sentiment. It's not even that. The media are full of Muricans' moaning about
their fate. It's everywhere – and on top of that, the scumbags are accusing China and
Russia for their "tribulations".
We don't care and we don't want to hear about how hard the life is for Billy Bob who would
die for the very criminals that have condemned him to a life of meth, moonshine and
malingering – while telling him that he is solely responsible for his own miserable
existence.
There is a huge big world elsewhere that is currently booming – thousand flowers are
blooming despite the oppression by the parasitical cancerous sub-empire – and yet, we
obsess over whether Trump is a fraud or not.
I suppose it provides a great platform for ranting :-)
"... The military would support whomever pays their salary and their pensions, i.e. the Establishment. However, as Iraq and Afghanistan has shown, the U.S. military, while possessing remarkable firepower when taken on directly and openly, is quite vulnerable. The U.S. military is essentially mercenaries. Mercenaries work for pay. Mercenaries are not willing to die for a cause. You can't spend money if you're dead. ..."
As a person who grew up in the glorious aftermath of World War II, it never occurred to me
that in my later years I would be pondering whether the United States would end in civil war or
a police state. In the aftermath of the stolen presidential election, it seems a 50-50 toss
up.
There is abundant evidence of a police state. One feature of a police state is controlled
explanations and the suppression of dissent. We certainly have that in abundance.
Experts are not permitted forums in which to challenge the official position on Covid.
Teachers are suspended for giving offense by using gender pronouns.
Recording stars are dropped by their recording studios for attending the Trump rally.
Parents ratted on by their own children are fired from their jobs for attending the Trump
rally. https://www.rt.com/usa/512048-capitol-riot-employees-fired/
Antifa is free to riot, loot, intimidate and hassle, but Trump supporters are
insurrectionists.
White people are racists who use hateful words and concepts, but those who demonize whites
are righting wrongs.
Suppression of dissent and controlling behavior are police state characteristics. It might
be less clear to some why dictating permissible use of language is police state control. Think
about it this way. If your use of pronouns can be controlled, so can your use of all other
words. As concepts involve words, they also can be controlled. In this way inconvenient
thoughts and expressions along with accurate descriptions find their way into the Memory
Hole.
With the First Amendment gone, or restricted to the demonization of targeted persons, such
as "the Trump Deplorables," "white supremacists," "Southern racists," the Second Amendment
can't have much life left. As guns are associated with red states, that is, with Trump
supporters, outlawing guns is a way to criminalize the red half of the American population that
the Establishment considers "deplorable." Those who stand on their Constitutional right will be
imprisoned and become cheap prison labor for America's global corporations.
Could all this lead to a civil war or are Americans too beat down to effectively resist?
That we won't know until it is put to the test.
Are there clear frontlines? Identity Politics has divided the people across the entire
country. The red states are only majority red. It is tempting to see the frontiers as the red
center against the blue Northeast and West coasts, but that is misleading. Georgia is a red
state with a red governor and legislature, but there were enough Democrats in power locally to
steal the presidential and US senate elections.
Another problem for reds is that large cities -- the distribution centers -- such as
Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los
Angeles -- are in blue hands as are ports and international airports. Effectively, this cuts
reds off from outside resources.
What would the US military do? Clearly, the Joint Chiefs and the military/security complex
are establishment and not anti-establishment Trumpers. With the soldiers themselves now a
racial and gender mix, the soldiers would be as divided as the country. Those not with the
Establishment would lack upper level support.
Where are the youth and younger adults? They are in both camps depending on their education.
Many of the whites who went to university have been brainwashed against themselves, and regard
white Americans as "systemic racists" or "white supremacists" and feel guilt. Those who did not
go to university for the most part have experienced to their disadvantage the favoritism given
to people of color and have resentment.
What about weapons? How can the reds lose when guns are a household item and blues would
never dirty themselves by owning one? The answer is that unlike the War of Northern Aggression
in the 1860s, today the weapons in the hands of the military are devastating compared to those
in the hands of the public. Unlike in the past, it is impossible for a citizens' militia to
stand against the weapons and body armor that the military has. So, unless the military splits,
the reds are outgunned. Never believe that the Establishment would not release chemical and
biological agents against red forces. Or for that matter nuclear weapons.
What about communications? We know for an absolute fact that the tech monopolies are aligned
with the Establishment against the people. So much so that President Trump, in the process of
being set-up for prosecution, has been cut off from communicating with his supporters both in
social media and email.
The American Establishment is doing to President Trump exactly what it did to Ukrainian
President Yanukovych in Washington's orchestrated "Maidan Revolution," called "the Revolution
of Dignity" by the liars at Wikipedia, and precisely what it did to Chavez, Maduro, and would
like to do to Putin.
Suppose an American civil war occurs. How is it likely to play out? Before investigating
this, first consider how the Establishment could prevent it by bringing the red states to its
defense. The Trump supporters are the only patriots in the American population. They tend to
wear the flag on their sleeve. In contrast, blue state denizens define patriotism as
acknowledging America's evils and taking retribution on those white racists/imperialists who
committed the evils. In blue states, riots against the "racist system" result in defunding the
police. If the Antifa and Black Lives Matter militias were sicced on the Biden regime, red
state patriots might see "their country" under attack. It is possible that the "Proud Boys"
would come to Biden's defense, not because they believe in Biden but because America is under
attack and he is "our president." Alternatively, an Antifa attack on the Biden regime could be
portrayed as an unpatriotic attack on America and be used to discourage red state opposition to
the police state, just as "Insurrection" has resulted in many Trump supporters declaring their
opposition to violence. In other words, it is entirely possible that the patriotism of the
"Trump Deplorables" would split the red state opposition and lead to defeat.
Assuming that the Establishment is too arrogant and sure of itself or too stupid to think of
this ploy, how would a civil war play out? The Establishment would do everything possible to
discredit the case of the "rebels." The true rebels, of course, would be the Establishment
which has overthrown the Constitutional order, but no media would make that point. Controlling
the media, the Establishment, knowing of the patriotism of its opponents, would portray the
"rebels" as foreign agents seeking to overthrow American Democracy.
The "foreign threat" always captures the patriot's attention. We see it right now with Trump
supporters falling for the disinformation that Switzerland and Italy are behind the stolen
election. Previously, it was Dominion servers in Germany and Serbia that did the deed.
On whose head will the Establishment place the blame for "the War Against America"? There
are three candidates: Iran, China, and Russia. Which will the Establishment choose?
To give Iran credit conveys too much power to a relatively small country over America. To
blame Iran for our civil war would be belittling.
To blame China won't work, because Trump blamed China for economically undermining America
and Trump supporters are generally anti-China. So accusing the red opposition with being China
agents would not work.
The blame will be placed on Russia.
This is the easy one. Russia has been the black hat ever since Churchill's Iron Curtain
speech in 1946. Americans are accustomed to this enemy. The Cold War reigned from the end of
World War II until the Soviet Collapse in 1991. Many, including retired American generals,
maintain that the Soviet collapse was faked to put us off guard for conquest.
When the Establishment decided to frame President Trump, the Establishment chose Russia as
Trump's co-conspirator against American Democracy. Russiagate, orchestrated by the CIA and FBI,
ensured for three years that Trump was accused in the Western media of being in cahoots with
Russia. Despite the lack of any evidence, a large percentage of the American and world
population was convinced that Trump was put into office by Putin somehow manipulating the
vote.
The brainwashing was so successful that three years of Trump sanctions against Russia could
not shake the Western peoples back into factual reality.
With Russia as the historic and orchestrated enemy, whatever happens in the United States
that can be blamed elsewhere will be blamed on Russia. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former US
Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, and former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes
have already associated "Trump's insurrection" with Russia. https://www.rt.com/russia/512071-capitol-violence-consequences-fear/
Suppose that an American civil war becomes intense. Suppose that the Establishment's
propaganda against Russia becomes the reigning belief as propaganda almost always becomes, how
can the Establishment not finish the insurrection threat by attacking the country responsible?
The Establishment would be trapped in its own propaganda. Emotions would run away. Russia would
hear threats that would have to be taken seriously.
You can bet that Biden's neocon government will be egging this on. American exceptionalism.
American hegemony. Russia's fifth column, the Atlanticist Integrationists, who wish absorption
into the degenerate and failing Western World, will echo the charges against Russia. This would
make the situation a serious international incident with Russia as the threatened villain.
What would the Kremlin do? Would Russia's leaders accept yet another humiliation and false
accusation? Or will the anger of the Russian people forever accused and never stood up for by
their own government force the Kremlin into awareness that Russia could be attacked at any
moment.
Even if the Kremlin is reluctant to acknowledge the threat of war, what if another of the
numerous false warnings of incoming ICBMs is received. Unlike the past, is it believed this
time?
The stolen election in America, the emerging American Police State, more vicious and better
armed than any in the past, could result in American chaos that could be a dire threat to the
Russian Federation.
What Trump and his supporters, and perhaps the Kremlin, do not understand is that real
evidence no longer counts . The Establishment makes up the evidence that it needs for its
agendas. Consider how easy it was for the Capitol Police to remove barriers and allow some
Antifa mixed in with Trump supporters into the Capitol. This was all that was required to
create a "Trump led insurrection" that terminated the presentation of evidence of electoral
fraud and turned the massive rally of support for Trump into a liability. Trump now leaves the
presidency as an "insurrectionist" and is set up for continued harassment and prosecution.
As I previously wrote, the stolen election and its acceptance abroad signifies the failure
of Western democracy. The collapse of the Western world and its values will affect the entire
world.
No member of the State wants to be picked off one by one, be it military, cops, leadership
or functionaries.
What has been overlooked in the debate over the combat potential of violent extremists
is the diffusion of something much more rudimentary and potentially more lethal: basic
infantry skills. These include coordinated small-team tactical maneuvers supported by
elementary marksmanship. The diffusion of such tactics seems to be underway, and it may
generate serious concerns for U.S. security policy in the future if ignored.
Imagine if fuel pipe lines to urban areas were hit, railroad tracks hit, water processing
facilities hit; the vision of an easy victory over Red America would quickly come home to the
city dwellers.
Elections in the US are not about picking winners. They are about making voters complicit
in governance by their having voted. The most recent election failed to make the Red voters
"complict" because there was no transparency and everyone believes there was fraud. No
election with mail in voting in the US will every work because everyone will assume
fraud.
In a nation as large as the US with as much concentrated city living, logistics are a
nightmare. The next time the lights go out, you may wonder. When your grocery chain runs out
of meat, you may wonder. When sewers in your city keep breaking, you may wonder. Thus truly
scares me.
today the weapons in the hands of the military are devastating compared to those in the
hands of the public
True enough. However, the weapons and the ammunition don't magically appear; they need to
be manufactured somewhere, and those places (and/or their suppliers) can be destroyed.
I must disagree. There will be no "civil war" in the United States. The establishment
controls the levers of power and all communications and all organized structures. There may
be a bunch of disaffected citizens, but they will remain a disorganized mob. Any apparent
emergent rival for power will be ruthlessly suppressed, deplatformed, villified, or co-opted.
The working class has been effectively divided and will waste its energy fighting itself over
crumbs ('diversity').
Disorganized mobs do not fight civil wars.
No, the fate of the United States will be the sort of chaotic autocracy we see in places
like Mexico and Brazil. Verging on being a failed state, the rich will nonetheless live lives
of great luxury secure in their walled estates. Meanwhile the average person will be crushed
into poverty, criminal gangs will flourish, and there will be a tension between the central
police and local gangs, but gangs are rarely organized enough to truly challenge centralized
states, and life will muddle on. There will be little social cohesion and no real trust of
central authorities, but that only matters if you want a strong and unified society. The rich
will do fine.
On the other hand, the overall national power will decline, and other powers like China
(which for all its flaws has not declared war on the working class, nor does it routinely
excuse or celebrate incompetence in leadership) will rise and take its place both on the
world stage and as the cutting edge of science and culture.
to me the biggest outcome of this faux coup/insurrection is the splintering of the
republican party. with this schism the trump "populists" have been cleanly pared off of the
party and thrown overboard and the remaining party will meekly do the bidding of the neocon
deep state that now totally controls both of these sock puppet parties. we will now see both
parties calling for a unification of our "indispensable nation". more than likely some false
flag will provide the necessary impetus to bury the hatchet and focus us all on our new/old
enemy. the only hope i see is an outside chance that so many republicans have been redpilled
that the party becomes the new whigs and fades into obscurity, leaving room for new parties
to rise from the ash. the dems are ripe for a schism themselves with aoc champing at the bit
to kick the boomers to the curb and the bernie bros finally realizing that three card monty
is a rigged game. i would love to see the destruction of both of these hopelessly corrupt
parties but the deep state cthulhu has its tentacles thoroughly wrapped around our poor
planet and anything emerging out of this toxic mess would most likely be even worse. the
situation reminds me of voltaire's candide and his sage advice to cultivate your garden.
I'd advise the young to develop a "plan B". Pick another country you find bearable amd
study it. Find out what jobs are in demand there. Develop those skills in your spare time
(computers, electricians, mechanics, etc.). Practice their language an hour or two per week
with online resources/dvd's/books. Research their immigration laws and perhaps contact their
embassy.
If it gets really awful for whites here, you may be able to take your family some place
more hospitable. Hopefully none of this will be neccessary and the rhetoric will tone down.
Trump personally really got under the left's skin. Don't umderestimate Hillary's supporters
influence here. They were ticked off. The Obama's too. Perhaps they will calm down a notch
now. Have a plan B though young whites.
Another insightful article by PCR. However, I must somewhat disagree on some points.
What would the US military do?
The military would support whomever pays their salary and their pensions, i.e. the
Establishment. However, as Iraq and Afghanistan has shown, the U.S. military, while
possessing remarkable firepower when taken on directly and openly, is quite vulnerable. The
U.S. military is essentially mercenaries. Mercenaries work for pay. Mercenaries are not
willing to die for a cause. You can't spend money if you're dead.
Think of the Troubles in Ireland.
The Establishment absolutely can deliver a punch to an identifiable opponent, but it can't
take a punch. Low level violence directed at officers and politicians would bring them to
their knees.
Controlling the media, the Establishment, knowing of the patriotism of its opponents,
would portray the "rebels" as foreign agents seeking to overthrow American Democracy.
I agree that they will try. However, I suspect that PCR is underestimating how little
faith many whites have in the media.
The Establishment will never be more powerful than it is today. They have inherited
institutions, the people to man those institutions and a generally functioning economy.
Basically, they stole the keys to car that they didn't create. But the Establishment run
those institutions and economy into ground. They will slowly start to show cracks.
Whites need to stay low, start forming small groups and begin preparing for the openings
that will come.
The racial right has been fantasizing about a civil war since forever, but I can't see it.
Too many people have too much to lose, there's no real desire for blood, and the people are
anyway too soft to initiate or withstand the violence real war would unleash upon them.
Further, and in stark contrast to the SJWs and antifa, the few racially conscious whites who
fantasize about this are mostly too old to make good soldiers. Also, just like the "God
emperor" himself, Trumpers are some of the stupidest people on the face of the earth, largely
down with their own enslavement, nauseatingly fond of "law and order", sporting "Blue Lives
Matter" badges, etc. Despite being preyed upon by blacks and browns for decades now, they
still refuse to become racist. Most of them are Bible thumpers who really believe that race
is just skin color, that all are equal before their imaginary friend called God, and that
Israel is America's greatest ally. Then too, vast numbers of whites work for the government
or its many offshoots such as education, law enforcement, the military, and the defense
industry. Civil war would mean they'd be revolting against themselves.
Will America become a police state? In case you haven't noticed, Americans already
live in a police state, and have for decades. PCR should know this as well as anyone, as he
was part of it during the Reagan years. America is an open-air prison Americans built
themselves, and they rat each other out and betray each other to keep themselves
ideologically in line. When someone white is doxxed and fired for having bad thoughts, who do
you think does the enforcing? For the most part, it's other white people. Fake president and
China asset Biden is just the new warden.
As a person who grew up in the glorious aftermath of World War II, it never occurred to
me that in my later years I would be pondering whether the United States would end in civil
war or a police state. In the aftermath of the stolen presidential election, it seems a
50-50 toss up.
In a very meaningful sense we already have a "police state." Why do we have a police
state? Because our masters realize that they can't run the whole world from anything
resembling a constitutional republic (as the Founders and Framers envisioned it). It's the
agenda for complete world domination and control that's driving the domestic oppression. As
they continue to squander everything of value on the agenda and take more risks, etc., while
the corruption and rot continue to take a toll and the country crumbles, the boot will need
to come down ever harder on the neck.
And please stop kidding yourself about Trump. It wasn't for the benefit of Joe and Jill
Sixpack that he seized Syrian oilfields, tried to start a war with Iran, tried to overthrow
the Maduro government in Venezuela, tried to stop Nord Stream 2, started a trade war with
China, pulled out of all the nuclear treaties, etc. Trump wasn't just fully onboard with the
agenda, he pursued it enthusiastically.
If Trump's nuclear brinkmanship and aggressive foreign policies aren't promptly reversed,
the U.S. may end as a pile of nuclear ash. Comments coming out of Moscow recently seem to
suggest that Russia is finally losing its patience with interminable U.S. hostility and may
soon start responding more forcefully to U.S./NATO provocations (and Biden's tough talk on
Russia isn't helping matters any).
Neither Russia, China nor Iran are going to surrender to the USraeli empire and start
taking orders, so either the U.S. "government" must back off and accept a multipolar world or
WW3 is still on the table, even by accident.
From Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War.
The Civil War in Corcyra
"So savage was the progress of this revolution, and it seemed all the more so because it
was one of the first which had broken out. Later, of course, practically the whole of the
Hellenic world was convulsed, with rival parties in every state – democratic leaders
trying to bring in the Athenians, and oligarchs trying to bring in the Spartans. In peacetime
there would have been no excuse and no desire for calling them in, but in time of war, when
each party could always count upon an alliance which would do harm to its opponents and at
the same time strengthen its own position, it became a natural thing for anyone who wanted a
change of government to call in help from outside.
So revolutions broke out in city after city, and in places where the revolutions occurred
late the knowledge of what had happened previously in other places caused still new
extravagances of revolutionary zeal, expressed by an elaboration in the methods of seizing
power and by unheard-of atrocities in revenge. To fit in with the change of events, words,
too, had to change their usual meanings . What used to be described as a thoughtless act
of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to
think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea
of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character ; ability to
understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action.
Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back
was perfectly legitimate self-defence. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be
trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect. To plot successfully was a sign of
intelligence, but it was still cleverer to see that a plot was hatching. If one attempted to
provide against having to do either, one was disrupting the unity of the party and acting out
of fear of the opposition. In short, it was equally praiseworthy to get one's blow in first
against someone who was going to do wrong, and to denounce someone who had no intention of
doing any wrong at all. Family relations were a weaker tie than party membership ,
since party members were more ready to go to any extreme for any reason whatever. These
parties were not formed to enjoy the benefits of the established laws, but to acquire power
by overthrowing the existing regime ; and the members of these parties felt confidence in
each other not because of any fellowship in a religious communion, but because they were
partners in crime. If an opponent made a reasonable speech, the party in power, so far from
giving it a generous reception, took every precaution to see that it had no practical
effect.
As the result of these revolutions, there was a general deterioration of character
throughout the Greek world . The simple way of looking at things, which is so much the
mark of a noble nature, was regarded as a ridiculous quality and soon ceased to exist.
Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps , and each side viewed
the other with suspicion. As for ending this state of affairs, no guarantee could be given
that would be trusted, no oath sworn that people would fear to break; everyone had come to
the conclusion that it was hopeless to expect a permanent settlement and so, instead
of being able to feel confident in others, they devoted their energies to providing against
being injured themselves."
Whether civil war as we may imagine it, or something equally unappealing to our every day
lives, something bad is about to happen.
I'm curious though, regarding what I do believe was unprecedented election fraud. How is
it possible, after watching the Georgia State Farm arena video, that the President of the
United States, with all the power that office should hold, could not force the woman
identified in that video, one Ruby Freeman, to answer questions about what we saw? Ruby
Freeman was never questioned as far as I can find. How is this possible? Nothing makes sense.
Before we begin killing one another, can we do two things; 1. Interrogate Ruby Freeman and 2.
Interrogate the killer of Ashli Babbit?
Little bit feverish article. And I do have to say no.
Civil war can happen only after hyperinflation accompanied with lawlessness.
And that will happen only if US looses its international position.
Everything depend now on Germany.
If Germany joins China Russia camp than US as a world leader will not mean anything
anymore.
China now is courting Europe intensively. Particularly is courting Germany.
Nothing is set yet.
So everybody can relax.
.
Biden is out of his mind. In his speech he said that he wants to increase minimum wage and
reestablish unions. That could be a little help also.
People living in the core areas of Ziocorporate globalism, like the US/EU, remain mostly
oblivious about the nature of their ruling regime than those living in the direct periphery
of globalist power. Take Colombia for an example, like Mexico's, all its presidents are
subservient to US Ziocorporate power. Last one, a Nobel peace prize winner under whose
pre-presidential stint as "Defense" minister oversaw the US-serving Colombian military's
systematic massacre of tens of thousands of lower class Colombian youths who were then
disguised as guerrillas to cash in rewards paid US Plan Colombia dollars, proceeded, now as
president, to negotiate the disarmament of the actual guerrillas under the Obama/Biden
regime's orders. Massmurder and massacres maintained an average level.
Then, in 2018, right after the Trumpet, a shamelessly pro-US regime, even for Colombian
standards, took over and massacres and massmurder picked right up again, to an average of 2
or 3 per week, with exploding cocaine production even for Colombia standards as well, and
extreme political polarisation, and all the while the Ziocorporate mother ship in Washington,
with its Qtard and MAGA bullshit, looked the other way except to accuse Venezuela of being
undemocratic and of human rights violations.
If Americans weren't so stupid and daydreaming like fucktards that they live in "muh
democracy/republic" instead of the Ziocorporate conglomerate regime that rules over them,
they could take a clue or two from their own regime's foreign policy, not only did Trumpet do
things like transferring $400 billion in weapons to ISIS/al-Qaeda royal Salafi patrons in
Ziodi Wahhabia, he doubled-down on the Obama/Biden policy of Venezuela "is a national
security threat to muh democracy and freedom"; to start pondering about the kind of
manipulation and radicalisation Ziocorporate agents Trump/Republicans and Biden/Democrats
have in store for them. Cointelpro certainly mutates far faster than Covid-1984.
What do Qtarts and the like need to realise this simple, evident facts? That the Trumpet
himself comes on national TV telling you all "I and the Democrats have been playing divide
and conquer with you dumbfucks for 4 years"?
The American Establishment is doing to President Trump exactly what it did to Ukrainian
President Yanukovych in Washington's orchestrated "Maidan Revolution," called "the
Revolution of Dignity" by the liars at Wikipedia, and precisely what it did to Chavez,
Maduro, and would like to do to Putin.
What Trump and his supporters, and perhaps the Kremlin, do not understand is that
real evidence no longer counts . The Establishment makes up the evidence that it
needs for its agendas.
Their playbook "Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals" by Saul D.
Alinsky, makes it clear that it's necessary to play dirty. This covers all aspects of their
Regime Change projects and the current US project surely isn't any different.
It's a cocktail of lies, fabrications, subversion, threats, blackmail, false friendships
– in fact any means to advance themselves.
For example: From Alinsky – "Means and Ends" His take on morality:
Rule 10) You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
Rule 11) Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", "Of
the Common Welfare, "Pursuit of Happiness" or "Bread and Peace".
So yes, this is why the most unpatriotic Patriot Act is called the Patriot Act and they
operate from patriotic sounding places like the American Enterprise Institute.
If traditional America is going to get anywhere in the upcoming conflict they have to get
used to playing by the same rules – difficult for them – but they have to do it.
It's inevitably going to be a dirty war.
Point of order- Russia is not the historic enemy, but the orchestrated one, rather it was
the Soviet Union which is the historic enemy, as the sponsors of the destruction of Russia
are behind the destruction of America.
We are already in a police state and you can kiss goodbye to the 1st and 2nd amendment
soon as free speech becomes hate speech just like they did in Europe.
So this site and many others in the alt news universe will soon be gone.
There's not going to be a civil war as the current generation of young people are too weak
and distracted and have been brainwashed into hating themselves.
There's a big elephant in the room and wild card that's been missed too and that's the new
covid vaccines who's long term effects on health are unknown.
Vaccines need to be studied for about 10 years before their safety can be guaranteed.
If tens / hundreds of millions are willing to be injected with a new untested genetic
engineered substance that could make them disabled or kill them in 5 years to save them
against something with a 99% survival rate what does that tell you about the mental state of
the Population?
The US as you once knew it is finished it's just that many are still in denial or haven't
realized it yet.
I see no civil war in the USA. I see no organisation amongst the people in order to carry
it out. They have no leader, they have no Hannibal, Boadicea or Adolf to rally them together
for a major insurrection against The Beast Empire. Unless of course something is brewing
secretly.
A French style form of resistance, as previously mentioned in these comments, also takes a
lot of planning and organisational skills, and I see no inkling of that taking place amongst
American patriots.
I also believe many do not realise how serious the matter is, they still, being bogged
down in irrelevant party politics.
If however a large swathe of the police and US Military including officers were to desert
their corrupt masters, things would look very different and a civil war could happen.
The civil was has been on since Crossfire Hurricane, the usurpers of the constitution
simply kept it cold because they thought they could enforce their tyranny silently.
And if Trump surrenders then they would have been proven right, at least for the
leadership fight.
Biden will likely launch a war because he already has his bay of pigs with his graft, and
will need a moonshot for the misdirection.
I don't think they can fight half the nation (and the military will split), and Russia at
the same time, so the only question is on whom the war will be launched. I still think the
odds are higher that it will be a civil war, but the Russia option looms strong for sure.
The US military is the most "woke" diverse incompetent organization in America.
Remember- contractors do all the heavy lifting "in theater"- from cooking to plumbing to
firefighting to IT to combat.
This knowledge is hidden from view- kept on the down low.I only know because my brother
has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan for KBR for the past 15 years. I have seen him accumulate
well over Half a million in cash. What does he do? He makes sure the troops have water and
food. He is in logistics. For the past decade I have heard hundreds if not thousands of
stories of the jaw dropping incompetence, insouciance and laziness of the American
military.
Rank-and-file Americans, indeed no one, talks about this very real infrastructure that
props up every dumb, overweight enlisted. About 4 contractors to every enlisted.
Most of the contractors in theater are from Eastern Europe and sub Sahara Africa. If they
were given orders to release biological or chemical weapons on the American populace, as long
as the huge checks were hitting their account they would do it in a heartbeat
More than the military- fear the shadow military that knows the systems, does the work ..
And will do whatever it is asked as long as they are paid.
Their mother doesn't live here.
Everywhere we turn, diversity and hiring people from the "other" never works out.
*** Side note: My brother revealed that when blacks came back from their R&R after the
George Floyd insanity, most of them became more aggressive and entitled. Unable to do their
work because they could not stop going to report others for incidence of racism.
This includes the American black contractors and enlisted.
These are dumb young black men and women who are making $92,000 a year to move pallets
around. If they were asked to stop calling in sick every day, they would run to report their
supervisor for-
Racism.
Many whites have lost their lucrative positions or been subject to discipline for having
the audacity to ask blacks to come to work.
"... Clinton hollowed out his own country in order to completely remove all constraints (financial, mediatic, military). He doesn't get called out for it nearly enough in my opinion. ..."
"... Clinton was a particular type of low-class, sybaritic evil but he didn't have a strong USSR to contend with. Instead he had the drunken traitor Yeltsin dance for him like a bedraggled starving bear. ..."
"So when was this golden age? Under Reagan? Well, this is when the dismantling of the
inner core of the empire began."
Beg to differ. Reagan understood how to administer the US empire. He knew the risks of
overstretching it. He made the promise to the Soviets not to encroach on their sphere of
influence. He defended the high interest rates which strengthened the USD and which kept the
banking sector in check.
All of that went to hell with Bill Clinton:
He broke Reagan's promise and expanded NATO eastwards, he dismantled the Glass Steagall act
which led to a malignant hypergrowth of the banking sector, and he was the who introduced the
telecommunications act in 1996 which allowed for the concentration of corporate media in the
hands of the few.
Bill Clinton basically turned the empire into a rapacious and uncontrollable animal.
(Funny how noone here is talking about imprisoning him )
There is a silver lining to Bill C's blood-soaked administration. It was while he was in
power, that the Russians finally awoke from their 1990s stupor. They began to understand the
mortal danger they were facing, and they patriotically chose Putin to lead them in 1999.
– Reagan was a disgusting Russophobe and Serbophobe who proclaimed 10th April (the
founding of the Independent State of Croatia) a national holiday in California as governor.
Not surprising given that his was the most RC government ever – he also colluded with
the Polish anti-Christ to destroy the USSR. In the process he encouraged the German Nazis
(see visit to Bitburg) who then destroyed Yugoslavia.
– He brought the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust that was prevented by a
vigilant Russian officer (in 1983?).
– He turbo-charged the power of corporations and decimated social structures and the
rights of the working class (the Americans are paying for this now).
This is not to say that the scumbag Clinton was good – after all he was trained at
Georgetown – that seminary for American murderers.
Thanks for this Ken. Good to know who Reagan really was!
To get back to your point about the "dismantling of the empire" Reagan, for all his
personal awfulness and recklessness (and subversiveness) was still more restrained than
Clinton. Clinton hollowed out his own country in order to completely remove all
constraints (financial, mediatic, military). He doesn't get called out for it nearly enough
in my opinion. I guess it's personal, after what he did to us.
Clinton was a particular type of low-class, sybaritic evil but he didn't have a strong
USSR to contend with. Instead he had the drunken traitor Yeltsin dance for him like a
bedraggled starving bear. Never again!
@84:
As sometimes said: don't sweat the small stuff.
This "We are all Taiwanese now" stunt is Pompeo's act of petty spite for getting outfoxed in
the Hong Kong colour revolution play.
Empire's useful idiots were let loose to trash the hapless city, fired up by the Western
propaganda machinery.
Now Beijing is putting the stock on those pompous minions with the National Security Law, and
their foreign masters can't do nuffin' except squeal human rights and apply some nuisance
sanctions.
The West fails because it looks at China through ideological lenses and sees Communists, who
can fall back on 5000 years of statecraft to push back at interlopers.
Beijing's moves can be likened to two classic strategies.
1. Zhuge Liang fools the enemy to fire all their arrows at straw men, which become ammunition
against them.
2. The Empty City strategy. Invaders take over an ostensibly abandoned city, only to be
trapped inside.
Global Times is cantankerous and sometimes risible, but even a broken clock is right, twice a
day.
So when it says that crossing Beijing's red line on the Taiwan issue is not in the island's
best interests, the incoming BiMala administration should take note.
Trump run his election complain of 2016 as champion of common Americans. After he won the
office the betrayed them all and governed like Bush III with his own cabal of neocons and
neoliberals. \
He betrayed his followed again on Dec 6, when he first incited them for the action but did not provide organization, security
and the plan needed to press Congress to appoint the commission for investigation of election "irregularities" for then days
before Biden inauguration. He is now completely spent politically and his enemies and first of all, Ms Pelosi, are after him.
Moreover he gave a shot in the arm for the gang of Russiagaters who were pursuing him
since his inauguration.
The fact that Trump leaves the political scene is good. While useful as a wrecking ball for
the neoliberal empire and neoliberal establishment he proved to be completely inept as
a politician and lack courage necessary for the national leader. Which he proved again on Dec 6. Famous quote from
Friedrich Schiller's play Fiesco "The Moor has done his duty. The Moor can go." is probably applicable. What is interesting
is that Zionists betrayed Trump.
But the fact hat he will be replaced by neocon warmonger and staunch neoliberal Biden means
that there is no light at the and of tunnel for the common people.
Like Trump, Biden was never Presidential material. He a a mediocre politician, by all
accounts. And extremely corrupt in addition to that.
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump denounced the people whom he personally called to protest. His close political allies withdrew their support. ..."
"... The deck was stacked against President Trump from Day One. His orders were ignored. The US courts, judges, police, the whole system of law enforcement was against him; his orders were blocked or overturned, while the media made fun of him and the opposition relentlessly delegitimised him. ..."
"... On January 6, a massive demonstration in his support gathered in Washington, DC. Hundreds of thousands Americans came to the capital to demand justice after the election fraud became obvious. They hoped that the Republican representatives would refuse to certify the fraud and appoint a commission to check and recount the votes. ..."
"... The horror and outrage of the Dem politicians and media were as faked as their news. During last year, many government buildings were taken over by Dem-sponsored BLM activists, and in not one case did the police use lethal weapons or even rush the protesters out of buildings. ..."
"... For them, it was an honest and funny way to express their indignation. But the real gambit plotters intended to frame them. They even murdered four protesters hoping they would respond with violence, but in vain. ..."
"... White American protesters are exceptionally non-violent lot; as with Occupy Wall Street a few years back the January 6 Capitol protesters were timid and obedient as lambs. For this reason, BLM was invented, for Blacks are able to riot violently, as opposed to well-trained whites. It is not a race thing: lily-white French Yellow Vests and Ukrainian nationalists have fought the police all right. But US whites are not prone to riot, not since the Civil War. ..."
"... Anyway, their non-violence didn't help them. The president-elect Biden begrudged them even the name of protesters: "Don't dare call them protesters. They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists." Indeed, the name should be preserved for Deep State-authorised looters and their brethren all over the world, whether in Hong Kong or Minsk, in Seattle or Portland. ..."
"... researchers will argue whether duplicitous Biden's minions organised it or just capitalised on the Trumpers' sincere protest. ..."
"... There is no doubt that to an objective observer the 2020 elections were profoundly unfair. I won't trouble you with too many published details about the statistically impossible results, but here is one example of fraud. The city of Detroit gave 95 per cent of its vote to Biden/Kamala, a number that Mr Kim Jong-un would view with slight envy, while Mr Lukashenko would murmur, "How can it be done?" It is highly likely this mind-boggling result was achieved in the following way. ..."
"... The problem is, Trump was a poor organiser. He could win elections, if he could prevent Cynthia Stephens's kind of legislation, outlaw postal ballots, enforce obligatory IDs for voting, mobilise his people for election control. A formidable task, but not impossible, while dealing with a prone-to-cheat adversary. He could even do a revolution on January 6, tasking the right people to act, forming a revolutionary HQ, planning a strategy of takeover, but he didn't do anything of the sort. He probably thought Congress would see the vast crowds and allow for the checking of election results. ..."
"... Alternatively, he was so naïve that he believed revolutions just happen by themselves, as in the movies. They do not. Behind every successful revolution, there is a lot of planning, armed force, weapons ready for use, supply lines, logistics, media support, and communications. Trump had none of that. It was enough to turn off Twitter to make him deaf and dumb. ..."
"... There was no coup attempt, as correctly stated by Tyler Durden : "Trump has never had the concentration, organizational acumen, or ideological coherence to mount a bona fide "coup," and a mob intrusion which was swiftly dispersed by armed agents of the state doesn't change that. ..."
"... Many Trumpists believed in the QAnon and Kayfabe conspiracies; they posted reports of bad guys being arrested, of servers snatched by the FBI, of Clinton and Biden waiting for rough justice behind bars. This belief disarmed people who would otherwise have fought to achieve this very result. That is the problem with conspiracies: imaginary conspiracies prevent real action. ..."
"... He succeeded against enormous odds in improving the lot of American workers: for the first time since the 1970s, their incomes rose in relation to the other classes. He stopped mass migration to the US: legal immigration went down to a trickle. He avoided new wars; he tried to make peace with Russia. He refused to bomb Iran even in the last days of his presidency, though some pro-Israel supporters promised him a second term if he would. ..."
"... His fight against the corona madness was his great achievement. He was against the lockdowns that are about to destroy our world so completely that few things will survive. The last great US ruler who didn't wear the cowardly mask will be remembered. He could not defeat the mighty medical complex, or FAGMA, or the Masters of Discourse, but he tried. ..."
President Trump was decisively beaten, if not fair and square. The hopes of millions of
American voters were squashed and extinguished. The saga of the Orange Man is over. The victors
used a gambit: they sacrificed the sanctity and security of the Capitol, allowed intruders in,
permitted them to take selfies in the Speaker's office, and then faked horror and outrage. The
attempted calls for electoral transparency were deflated in real time as huge crowds were
dispersed, electors were confirmed, and the ascendancy of Biden was assured, while Trump
followers were branded 'domestic terrorists'.
Donald Trump denounced the people whom he personally called to protest. His close political
allies withdrew their support. Within hours, or even minutes, this ruler of the world admired
by millions became a non-person. Like a boy who posted an obscenity, he was banned by Twitter
and Facebook. Time will tell whether he will go to prison, as so many Dems pray for, but his
political life seems to have ended, even if his cause may live.
The deck was stacked against President Trump from Day One. His orders were ignored. The US
courts, judges, police, the whole system of law enforcement was against him; his orders were
blocked or overturned, while the media made fun of him and the opposition relentlessly
delegitimised him. He was blocked even by Fox News. Dem-run states adjusted their laws to
assure the elections' result. Trump was a lame duck from the very beginning of his presidency
to its bitter end. He was kept on a short leash by the almighty Deep State, and when he tried
to free himself, they pulled the leash.
On January 6, a massive demonstration in his support gathered in Washington, DC. Hundreds of
thousands Americans came to the capital to demand justice after the election fraud became
obvious. They hoped that the Republican representatives would refuse to certify the fraud and
appoint a commission to check and recount the votes. Some of the protesters managed to break
into the Capitol, or were let in by the police. This peaceful Occupy Capitol action, the
exercise of a natural right to protest, was met with lethal fire, and a young female protester
from San Diego, Ashli Babbitt, was murdered by the plainclothes police. The Republican
representatives were cowed and surrendered; Biden was confirmed to take office.
The horror and outrage of the Dem politicians and media were as faked as their news. During
last year, many government buildings were taken over by Dem-sponsored BLM activists, and in not
one case did the police use lethal weapons or even rush the protesters out of buildings.
"Shortly after 8 p.m. Wednesday, hundreds of protesters gathered outside the locked King
Street entrance to the Capitol, chanting "Break down the door!" and "General strike!" Moments
later, police ceded control of the State Street doors and allowed the crowd to surge inside,
joining thousands who had already gathered in the Capitol to protest the votes. The area
outside the Assembly, which is scheduled to take the bill up at 11 a.m. today, was crowded
with protesters who chanted, "We're not leaving. Not this time."
Department of Administration spokesman Tim Donovan said although protesters were being
encouraged to leave, no one would be forcibly removed. Mayor Dave Cieslewicz said he had
instructed Police Chief Noble Wray not to allow his officers to participate in removing
demonstrators from the building."
This was what happened in Madison, Wisconsin in March 2011, as
Steve Sailer reminded us. Indeed, this is what the protesters expected; some were dressed
in flamboyant carnival attire; they behaved well and peacefully, within acceptable limits. It
was not an insurrection; they didn't try to take over the Congress in any meaningful sense.
For them, it was an honest and funny way to express their indignation. But the real gambit
plotters intended to frame them. They even murdered four protesters hoping they would respond
with violence, but in vain.
White American protesters are exceptionally non-violent lot; as with Occupy Wall Street
a few years back the January 6 Capitol protesters were timid and obedient as lambs. For this
reason, BLM was invented, for Blacks are able to riot violently, as opposed to well-trained
whites. It is not a race thing: lily-white French Yellow Vests and Ukrainian nationalists have
fought the police all right. But US whites are not prone to riot, not since the Civil War.
Being a foreigner, I do not understand why the Americans want to keep their guns if they never
use them, but that's the way they are.
Anyway, their non-violence didn't help them. The president-elect
Biden begrudged them even the name of protesters: "Don't dare call them protesters. They
were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists." Indeed, the name should be
preserved for Deep State-authorised looters and their brethren all over the world, whether in
Hong Kong or Minsk, in Seattle or Portland.
Russian social networks were comparing the Washington DC events with those nearer to home
and complained of 'double standards'. The US media expressed no indignation when their
appointee Boris Yeltsin shelled the Russian Parliament in 1993. The New York Times and
the State Department had encouraged the nationalist mob to storm Ukrainian government offices
in 2014. They cheered on the opposition in Minsk in taking over their parliament after failing
to win elections. The Belarus protesters claimed their country's election results were rigged,
just like Trump supporters did for the US elections, but Biden didn't call them "domestic
terrorists". (Actually, neither did President Lukashenko: he called them 'protesters', and
their violent demos were dispersed without a single shot fired.) In such cases, Jews respond
with "How can you compare?!"
The Russians compared the Capitol 'coup attempt' with their own semi-staged 'coup' of 1991,
a partly pre-planned provocation. In 1991, the feeble coup organisers could not detain Yeltsin
and surrendered as if on cue; the wave of indignation removed Gorbachev and the Communist party
from power. In the Capitol, too, police waved the 'invaders' in, as you can see on this video
forwarded by the BBC. More videos suggesting Capitol police involvement in the ostensible
provocation are presented
here . The orchestrated indignation allowed the victors to censor and purge the defeated
Trump and his followers. Just as the USSR went down in August 1991, Trump's America went down
in January 2021, and the liberal elites representing the big corporations came to power. It was
achieved by a provocation, but ordinary Trump followers were really angry with the Election
Steal. Likewise, 1991 was a provocation, but ordinary Russian citizens were angry at
Gorbachev's perestroika, while the liberal elites used it to dismantle the Soviet state and
transfer all assets to their oligarchs.
People with a good knowledge of history refer to the Reichstag Fire of February 1933, the
arson contrived by the newly formed Nazi government itself to turn public opinion against its
opponents and to assume emergency powers. Alternatively, other researchers have contended that
there was no proof of Nazi complicity in the crime, but that Hitler merely capitalised on the
Dutch Communist van der Lubbe's independent act. The fire is the subject of continued debate
and research, says
the Encycopaedia Britannica . Probably the same will be said about the Capitol "invasion",
and researchers will argue whether duplicitous Biden's minions organised it or just
capitalised on the Trumpers' sincere protest.
There is no doubt that to an objective observer the 2020 elections were profoundly
unfair. I won't trouble you with too many published details about the statistically impossible
results, but here is one example of fraud. The city of Detroit gave 95 per cent of its vote to
Biden/Kamala, a number that Mr Kim Jong-un would view with slight envy, while Mr Lukashenko
would murmur, "How can it be done?" It is highly likely this mind-boggling result was achieved
in the following way.
Detroit Dems outsourced ballot
harvesting to local drug lords, offering them as a prize – recreational marijuana
business licenses. These licences are the best thing sincea licence to print
money . Having such licenses is like having your own ATM. Here
you can read about their profitability and the lengths criminals will go to obtain them.
Detroit Dems had
changed local laws allowing the sale of marijuana in their fine city (it was forbidden
until November 2020). They changed local laws prescribing the
issuing of marijuana licences to drug dealers with previous convictions for drug dealing.
They let drug lords out of
jail . They changed local laws to allow ballot harvesting; that is, collecting postal votes
and assisting with the filling in of ballots. After that, the drug dealers went around
collecting postal ballots and filling them in immediately, if they were conscientious, or just
filling them in at their leisure, if feeling lazy. They had a judge at their disposal,
Cynthia Stephens , who
single-handedly
changed Michigan election laws, and then
rejected Trump's claims of fraud.
Yes, Virginia, there was election fraud in many American states. They are used to
gambling; they aren't surprised by a beautiful hand of four aces, as Mark Twain suggested.
Usually the two parties deal in turns, and cheat in turns. Only this time, Trump convinced many
people that it is different; that this is their last chance.
The problem is, Trump was a poor organiser. He could win elections, if he could prevent
Cynthia Stephens's kind of legislation, outlaw postal ballots, enforce obligatory IDs for
voting, mobilise his people for election control. A formidable task, but not impossible, while
dealing with a prone-to-cheat adversary. He could even do a revolution on January 6, tasking
the right people to act, forming a revolutionary HQ, planning a strategy of takeover, but he
didn't do anything of the sort. He probably thought Congress would see the vast crowds and
allow for the checking of election results.
Alternatively, he was so naïve that he believed revolutions just happen by
themselves, as in the movies. They do not. Behind every successful revolution, there is a lot
of planning, armed force, weapons ready for use, supply lines, logistics, media support, and
communications. Trump had none of that. It was enough to turn off Twitter to make him deaf and
dumb.
There was no coup attempt, as correctly stated by Tyler
Durden : "Trump has never had the concentration, organizational acumen, or ideological
coherence to mount a bona fide "coup," and a mob intrusion which was swiftly dispersed
by armed agents of the state doesn't change that. Shortly after the breach, he released a
video instructing his followers not to take Senators hostage or imprison Mike Pence, but to "go
home." No factions of the federal government joined the mob on Trump's orders, because he
didn't bother issuing any. The whole episode never stood the remotest chance of preventing the
certification of Joe Biden, much less overthrowing the government. It was just another goofball
charade, and in that sense, a fitting end to the Trump presidency."
Conspiracy theories played their disappointing part in the debacle. Many Trumpists
believed in the QAnon and Kayfabe conspiracies; they posted reports of bad guys being arrested,
of servers snatched by the FBI, of Clinton and Biden waiting for rough justice behind bars.
This belief disarmed people who would otherwise have fought to achieve this very result. That
is the problem with conspiracies: imaginary conspiracies prevent real action.
Still, I do not want to finish this piece on such a sad and disappointing note. President
Trump was a great leader. He succeeded against enormous odds in improving the lot of
American workers: for the first time since the 1970s, their incomes rose in relation to the
other classes. He stopped mass migration to the US: legal immigration went down to a trickle.
He avoided new wars; he tried to make peace with Russia. He refused to bomb Iran even in the
last days of his presidency, though some pro-Israel supporters promised
him a second term if he would.
His fight against the corona madness was his great achievement. He was against the
lockdowns that are about to destroy our world so completely that few things will survive. The
last great US ruler who didn't wear the cowardly mask will be remembered. He could not defeat
the mighty medical complex, or FAGMA, or the Masters of Discourse, but he tried.
The day of his defeat, January 6, was the Epiphany, or Adoration of the Magi, of the Three
Wise Men who came to worship Jesus in his cave. It was also Christmas Eve for the Eastern
Church. It is the darkest time of the year; from now on, the day will increase and so will our
hopes.
Various media outlets are reporting that Joe Biden will nominate Victoria Nuland for the
influential role of under secretary of state for political affairs.
He said today: "Victoria Nuland has had a long and storied career in the foreign service and
for a long time was viewed with something like reverence by career officers. Nuland served as
U.S. Ambassador to NATO and later was national security adviser to vice president Dick Cheney.
After that, Nuland found herself on the 'outs' at the State Department during the early Obama
years. But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had other plans for Nuland, the well-connected
wife of the neoconservative publicist Robert Kagan. Clinton, to the astonishment of many of the
political appointees in Clinton's orbit, plucked Nuland from the obscurity of her position at
the Naval War College to become Clinton's spokeswoman.
"This was the road back to influence and Nuland used it, quickly ascending to the position
of assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. It is from that post that
she oversaw U.S. efforts to encourage a street coup in Kiev -- going so far as to hand out
cookies to anti-government protesters alongside the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt.
The February 2014 coup, undertaken by an alliance of pro-Western liberalizers and hardline
anti-Semitic militants, resulted not in a more peaceful order, but in a civil war (in which
both Russia and NATO funded and armed their proxies) that resulted in the loss of over 10,000
lives and the displacement of well over a million people from the Russophone east. After the
coup, Nuland became an unwitting symbol of American heavy-handedness in the region when a call
between her and Pyatt leaked in which they were seen to be hand-picking personnel for the new
government in Ukraine. What would the EU think? 'Fuck the EU,' exclaimed Nuland, a
diplomat.
"After the coup -- violent and unnecessary, given that the deposed Ukrainian leader had
agreed to an early peaceful transition at the ballot box, Nuland bragged at a conference
sponsored by Chevron that: 'Since Ukraine's independence in 1991, the United States has
supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic
participation and good governance. We've invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these
and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.'
"In the years following, we have 'invested' a great deal more money into Ukraine -- for
questionable returns. But the affair has not seemed to have clouded Nuland's career prospects.
Smart, well-connected, and well-liked, she, like many of her fellow neocons, seems to move from
strength to strength in this town, never held to account for the damage they've caused. After
her stint in the State Department ended (she was replaced in the early Trump years by the
woefully unqualified neocon operative A. Wess Mitchell), Nuland took up what one can only
assume were lucrative positions on the
other side of the revolving door at the Center for a New American Security (where she served as
CEO), the Boston Consulting Group and the Albright Stonebridge Group (from which, perhaps not
coincidentally, her future boss, Biden's nominee for deputy secretary of state, Wendy Sherman,
hails).
"Her views on Russia and European affairs are well known. Less known, however, are her views
on America's role in the Middle East. Let's hope that changes because in an article in
Foreign Affairs earlier this year, Nuland lamented that the U.S., under Trump, 'made
both Putin's and Assad's lives easier by neutralizing a shared threat, the Islamic State, or,
ISIS.'
"As Biden's undersecretary of political affairs, Nuland would have immense influence over
policy and personnel. Progressives in Congress and their partners in the media, think tank
world and among grassroots activists should join forces with the growing caucus of
anti-interventionist Republicans on the Hill and vigorously oppose this nomination." Filed
Under: Biden's
Cabinet
Fyodor Lukyanov, the
editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, chairman of the Presidium of the Council on
Foreign and Defense Policy, and research director of the Valdai International Discussion
Club How could something like this happen in Washington? It was assumed that, despite all
its social and political problems that have worsened in recent years, America was different and
far more robust than we are now seeing. A habit of being special
The rule of thumb was, 'there is America and there are others'. With the others,
shortcomings are natural and to be expected, even if many of them are well-established
democracies. But America is a different story, because by default, the US is a role model that
was supposed to remain the democratic icon forever.
Exceptionalism is foundational for America's political culture. This type of
self-identification was the cornerstone on which the nation and society were built a couple of
hundred years ago. That's how Americans are raised. And you will run into this phenomenon
everywhere.
When asking his supporters gathered by the Capitol building to go home, President Donald
Trump said, "You are special." People from the more liberal political camp have even
deeper convictions about the US being exceptional and therefore under an obligation to bring
light into the world, as they see it.
That's why everybody is shocked – how could this have happened? The reaction was
followed by a wave of explanations as to why the clashes near and inside the Capitol building
only looked like similar events in other countries, but in reality, they were something
entirely different. Here is a comment from the CNN website, "Sure there are superficial
similarities... but what's happening in America is uniquely American. It is that country's
monster."
Such restlessness is understandable. If we look at exceptionalism in the context of the
world order that we've had in recent decades, we see that after the end of the Cold War, the US
has held the unique position of the sole global hegemon. No other power in world history has
ever reached this level of dominance.
Besides massive military and economic resources, America's exceptionalism has also been
relying on the idea that this nation sets the tone for the global worldview. This authorized
America to certify systems of government in other countries and exert influence in situations
that it believed required certain adjustments. As we all know, this influence took different
forms, including direct military intervention.
We are not going to list the pros and cons of such a world order in this article. What's
important is that one of the key aspects of this order is the belief in the infallibility of
the global leader. That's why American commentators and experts are so worried about the
Capitol Building events and Trump's presidency in general hurting the international status of
the US.
Boomerang effect
Generally speaking, post-election turmoil is not a rare occurrence. After all, the US itself
has encouraged the new political tradition that has emerged in the 21st century. In recent
times, in certain places, election campaigns haven't ended after the votes were counted and the
winner is announced. Instead, Washington often encouraged the losing side to at least try to
challenge the results by taking to the streets. Indeed, resistance was part of the US
Declaration of Independence after all.
Western capitals consistently emphasized the legitimacy of such actions in situations when
people believed that their votes had been 'stolen'. Washington was usually the lead voice in
these declarations. Granted, this mostly applied to immature democracies with unstable
institutions, but where are all those unshakable, solid democratic countries today? The world
is experiencing so much instability that nobody is exempt from major shocks and
crises.
Information overload
There is another reason why traditional institutions are losing their footing. They were
effective in a solidified informational environment. The sources of information were either
controlled or perceived as trustworthy by the majority.
Today there are problems with both. Technological advances boost transparency, but they also
create multiple realities and countless opportunities for manipulation. Institutions must be
above reproach if they are to survive in the new conditions. It would be wrong to say that they
are all crumbling. They are, however, experiencing tremendous pressure, and we can't expect
them to be perfect.
Looking for a scapegoat
The US is not better or worse at facing the new challenges. Or, rather, it is better in some
areas and worse in others. This would all be very normal if America's exceptionalism didn't
always need affirmation.
Situations in which the US appears to be just like any other country, albeit with some
unique characteristics, are a shock to the system. In order to stay special, America looks
where to place the blame. Ideally, the guilty party should be someone acting in the interests
of an outside power, someone un-American.
This mechanism is not unknown to Russians from the experience in our country – for a
long time now, Russian elites have been keen to blame outsiders for their own failures. But
America's motivation today is even stronger; there is more passion, because simply covering up
the failures is no longer enough – America wants to prove that it is still perfect.
Russia says American system 'archaic' & not up to 'modern democratic standards' after
rioters raid Washington's Capitol building
Democrats are taking back the American political landscape. For the next two years (until
the 2022 mid-term elections), they will have all the power – in the White House and
Congress. Trump's supporters have seriously scared the ruling class, and the Capitol building
debacle during the last days of his presidency has created a perfect pretext for cleaning
house. Big Tech companies are at their disposal (so far).
Internal targets
Target number one is Trump himself. They want to make an example out of him, so that others
wouldn't dare challenge the sanctity of the political establishment. But Trump will not be
enough, something must be done about his numerous supporters. The awkward finale of his
presidency opens the door for labeling his fans as enemies of the republic and democracy.
The Democrats will do everything within their power to demoralize their earnest opponents.
This won't be hard, since the Republican Party itself is a hot mess right now. Trump has
alienated almost all his supporters from the party leadership, but he is still popular among
regular voters.
Demonstrative restoration of order and democratic fundamentals will also be used to reclaim
the role model status. The reasoning is clear – we successfully neutralized the terrible
external and internal threats to our democracy, so now we have regained the right to show the
world how one should deal with the enemies of said democracy. The 'summit of democracies' idea
proposed by Joseph Biden is starting to look like an emergency meeting for closing the ranks in
a fight against enemies of progress.
Foreign targets
And this brings us back to the foreign policy issue, because it's not difficult to predict
who will be enemy number one. Putin as an almighty puppeteer of all undemocratic forces in the
world (including Trump) has been part of the rhetoric for a few years now. Hillary Clinton said
it when giving a campaign speech in Nevada in August 2016, and Nancy Pelosi echoed the
sentiment after Trump supporters stormed the Capitol Building. Of course, China is a close
second on the enemy list created by the Democratic leadership, but there are some economic
restraints there.
America's inevitable strife to reclaim its exceptionalism will clash with the current
tendencies in global development. All aspects of international affairs, from economy to
security, to ideology and ethics, are diversifying. Attempts to divide the world along the old
democracy vs. autocracy lines, i.e. go back to the agenda prevalent at the end of the 20th to
the beginning of the 21st century, are doomed, because this is not the way the world is
structured now.
But attempts will be made nevertheless, and we can't rule out some aggressive 'democracy
promotion'. Even if it's just to prove that the embarrassing Trump episode was nothing more
than an unfortunate accident. This, by the way, could become a short-term unifying factor for
the diverse members of the Democratic Party, some of whom represent the old generation, while
others are energetic young proponents of left-wing politics.
We can conclude that the world will not really benefit from the new presidency, even if
respected foreign policy professionals return to the White House now that Trump is leaving. It
might stabilize America's frenzy in international affairs that we are all used to by now, but a
new wave of ideology will neutralize the potential advantage (if it even existed, which is
debatable).
America's resolve to prove to the world that it's not like others will encounter the
large-scale 'material resistance', which will make a dangerous situation even worse. At least
with Trump we knew that he didn't like wars, and he didn't start any new ones. Biden's credit
history is very different.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the
author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Recently on Twitter, a someone graciously dubbed me a "prophet" after
rereading my April
article arguing that "American Exceptionalism Scars Both Victim and Victimizer" –
and which pivoted around actual philosophical prophet, Ms. Simone Weil . This social media
follower, " TheAyatollaOfRocknRolla ," is clearly a man of
cinematic allusion – to 1981's
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior – after my own heart. Still, my anecdote transcends
any possible proclivity for the ole backdoor brag.
Because what prompted the Ayatolla's comment was, as he noted, perusing the piece "as we
watch the tragic comedy of political stupidities unfold!" That, of course, was a few days
before the delusional – but dangerous – MAGA maelstrom
unleashed on the Capitol yesterday. It is perhaps also an illustrative diagnosis of a broken
system, rigged long before the latest indecency that's been the Trump phenomenon – and
which status quo Joe neither can,
nor means , to overhaul.
That discomfiting truth is reemphasized each time the president-elect nominates a new
national security official for his incoming team. It hardly takes a prophet to predict the
sort of characters Biden trusts to caretakers America's imperium. Frankly, it barely even
demands an assiduous researcher. Rather, the only real qualification seems a masochistic
willingness to pull the same old threads and discover the old same disappointing
interest-conflict certainties. And, in one sense, that's no small thing – such
commitment in the face of near-certain chagrin.
It recalls my own glutton for punishment guilty pleasure: true crime murder
(non-)mysteries. Call me crazy but I find myself repeatedly rooting for the husband
not to be the killer whenever a woman ends up dead, knowing full well he almost always
is. Just for change. And, appalling as the ongoing epidemic of violence against women is
– and probably something one shouldn't wager even mental TV bets on – the
seemingly eternal bipartisan appointment of war-industry shills custom-made and
meticulously trained to implement endless war, augurs even higher body counts. And the hits
just keep on coming with Biden's bunch.
I'd scarcely finished a critical analysis of the probable first female deputy defense
secretary, Kathleen Hicks, when I awoke to Wednesday's news that Uncle Joe had called up
three more problematic prospects from the military-industrial complex minors. The three
veterans headed back up to the show are Jon Finer, for deputy national security adviser;
Wendy Sherman, for deputy secretary of state; and worst of all, Victoria Nuland, as under
secretary of state for political affairs.
All are Obama Administration alumni; each worked for former Secretary of State John Kerry
at one time or another. These are steady hands, experienced presiders over perennial war
– capable company men to captain a systemic ship headed straight for a
republic-shattering iceberg. Biden has entrusted them with the middle-management they know.
Yet they've neither the mandate, mindset, nor skillset to turn this suicide machine around.
One fears their fate lies – F. Scott Fitzgerald-style – in their personal and
professional backstories.
So, like another tragic literary figure, expect each member of Biden's Gatsby-like gang to
"beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past" – a past of
futile interventionism that profits the war-profiteers who pay their immense mortgages in
communities gated off from both far-flung foreigners and fellow citizens incurring the costs
of their imperial nostalgia.
A Trio of Archetype's Archetypes
There's nothing so uninspiring as a played-out platitude. Unfortunately, Uncle Joe's band
of brothers (and more than the typical tally of sisters) are a passing coterie of walking
clichés. They're so embarrassingly formulaic that even a cursory investigator can seem
a soothsayer. But the truth is, the consistent accuracy of my own depiction of the "archetypal
Biden bro" is more function of a simple and proven model than mystical clairvoyance.
So to test that theory and see how closely the three newest appointees hew to my a
November article model, let's review
the paradigm:
[The archetypal Biden nominee] sprang from an Ivy League school, became a congressional
staffer, got appointed to a mid-tier role on Barack Obama's national security council,
consulted forWestExec
Advisors(an Obama alumni-founded outfitlinkingtech firms and the Department of Defense), was a fellow at the Center for New American
Security (CNAS), had some defense contractorties, andmarriedsomeone who's
alsoin the game.
Taking the trio in sequence and by the numbers:
First, deputy national security adviser appointee Jon Finer : hails from Harvard (then Oxford and
Yale); held a hodgepodge of Obama administration positions – ranging from White House
fellow, the office of the White House chief of staff, national security council staff,
special advisor for the Middle East and North Africa and foreign policy speechwriter for Vice
President Biden, senior advisor to deputy national security advisor (and now nominated
secretary of state) Antony Blinken, and finally chief of staff and director of policy
planning in John Kerry's State Department.
After eight years in Obamian Camelot, Finer oversaw the political risk and
public policy practice at Warburg Pincus, LLC, a global investment firm that holds
some $62 billion in assets led by Obama's first treasury secretary, Timothy Geitner.
Warburg Pincus also just so happens to invest in companies that
do extensive business with "blue chip customers" like General Electric, Honeywell, and
Lockheed Martin, for such platforms as the perennially cost-overrunning
money-pit that is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. In his spare time, Finer's also a senior
fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
It's worth noting, however, that Finer has some rare – for a Biden bro –
redeeming and unique experiences. Before entering government, he was a foreign and national
correspondent for the Washington Post , embedded with the Marines during the 2003 Iraq
invasion, and later spent 18 months in Baghdad as it lurched towards civil war. Unlike his
classic chickenhawk of a future boss, Jake
Sullivan , Finer's extensive experience with real Iraqis may have motivated his
co-founding the Iraqi Refugee
Assistance Project .
Second, deputy secretary of state nominee Wendy Sherman : may have
graduated from from sub-Ivy Boston University and the University of Maryland, but she is a
professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. She then follow platitudinal protocol
and served as chief of staff for then Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski, even managing her first
successful senate campaign. Sherman was also CEO and President of the 2008 financial
crash-implicated Fannie Mae Foundation, and served as – Iraqi
child-sanctions-starvation apologist – Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright's counselor. During the Obama years, Wendy was appointed
undersecretary of state for political affairs by Hillary Clinton.
Since then, Sherman has worked with or for a range of military-industrial and strategic
consultancy-complex related rackets. Specifically, she was Vice Chair of the Albright
Stonebridge Group – her old boss's international consulting firm – plus serves on
the boards of the International Crisis Group and Atlantic Council, and is a member of the
Council on Foreign Relations and the Aspen Strategy Group. Wendy's even an MSNBC global
affairs contributor.
She's also married to another player, Bruce Stokes – director of global
economic attitudes at the Pew Research Center, executive director of the Transatlantic Task
Force of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, and a former senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations. That said, on the positive side, Sherman was, in fact, a social
worker before entering public policy service, and a chief negotiator of the eminently
sensible Iran nuclear deal.
Lastly, under secretary of state for political affairs nominee, Victoria Nuland : is an alum of Brown
University, and held a variety of positions of increasing responsibility in Bill Clinton's
and George W. Bush's State Department. In the Obama years, she served as special envoy for
conventional armed forces in Europe, then as State Department spokesperson, and finally as
assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. During her Trump-era holding
pattern, Nuland was a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution, CEO of the Center for
a New American Security (CNAS), on the board of the National Endowment for Democracy, and
senior counselor at – you guessed it! – the Albright Stonebridge Group.
Then there's this: Nuland's husband is Robert Kagan , an overtly
neo-imperialist historian and hawkish foreign policy commentator at the Brookings
Institution. And when it comes to Queen Victoria-the-Troubling, it is that "married to
someone in the game" bit that's particularly unsettling. Enter the neocons Kagan: a family of
fiasco artists.
A Couple of Wild&Krazy Kagans
Before exploring the implications of her having married into the Kagan's veritable [war]
crime family, it's worth noting that she's a problematic hawk in her own right. With his
decision to nominate Nuland as under secretary of state for political affairs, Joe may've
really done it – risked real war, that can't be won, and needn't be fought, with a
Russian nuclear superpower. That's a function of Nuland's history of hawkish antagonism
towards Moscow, plus meddling to orchestrate a Ukrainian regime change in
the nearest of Russia's near-abroad. Nominating Nuland is nothing less than an unnecessarily
provocative finger in the Russian eye. She's a known quantity east of the Dnieper, and not in
a nice way – she's
despised by Mr. Putin and her confirmation will surely serve as a conflict
accelerant.
Furthermore, as a simple – and somehow satisfying – spiral on the ole
Wikipedia all to easily reveals, Nuland's nuptial connections could offer nothing less than a
path back into power for not just the usual Biden bunch neoliberal interventionists, but
Bush-Cheney-era neoconservatives. First off, she
was Principal Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney from July
2003 until May 2005 – rather pivotal and horrifying decision-making years, those.
Equally troubling, she's married to none other than Robert Kagan – the man Col. (ret.)
Andrew Bacevich called
America's "chief neoconservative foreign-policy theorist."
In 1997, Kagan co-founded the king neoconservative think tank Project for the New American
Century (PNAC) with William Kristol – an outfit which wrote the faux-scholarly
policy papers , and provided much of the intellectual energy, undergirding not only the
unhinged
Iraq invasion , but the broader neo-imperial
strategy that's brutally transformed the world and killed maybe
millions. And the influences and machinations of the Kagan Krew runs far deeper still. The
still living 88-year old patriarch, Nuland's father-in-law Donald , was
a signatory to PNAC's " Statement of
Principles " – along with a who's who of war crime architects and enablers, such as
Elliott
Abrams , Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, "Scooter"
Libby , Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz .
Ms. Nuland's brother-in-law and his bride, Fred and Kim Kagan, must represent the familial
version of Marx's old truism that history repeats the
second time around (or in this case, second generation) as more farce than tragedy. These two
fellow West Point faculty alumni may be historians by day, but they're cartoonish – if
apparently
convincing – neoconservative zealots in their free time. Both
advised on – some say cooked-up – Bush's Iraq "surge" strategy, received
official hearings, and held positions on the staffs of Generals David Petraeus, Stanley
McCrystal, and John Allen in Baghdad and Kabul. Kim is an especially enthusiastic – and
frankly offensive to we foot soldiers – combat voyeur, having according to her own
bio ,
"conducted many regular battlefield circulations" of Iraq and Afghanistan between 2007 and
2010.
Suffice it to say I've heard at least one highly respected senior military officer say
something to the effect of: "Oh Christ! The damn Kagans are coming to visit again!" In other
words, their distant dogmatic abstractions didn't usually jive with realities of soldierly
leaders on the ground. No doubt these armchair militarists at least looked the part on their
brief bits of war tourism (or is war porn?): Kim, in particular, tends to sport the latest in British Raj-khaki
and American combat-fatigue fashion on her
Potemkin-like jaunts through amply-guarded Basra and Baghdad markets. That way she could
look the part before penning premature progress reports long-after she's left the exasperated
and sleep-deprived guardians of her human-safari strolls to continue killing and dying in
wars that – despite her emphatic protestations to the contrary – have yet to
end.
So it goes; and so some will ask, if Nuland's husband and his neocon-royalty family will
really have meaningful influence on how her suit of the "political affairs" under her
under-secretarial charge at State? It's hard to say, of course, but count this author a firm
believer that the personal is, in fact, often political – and possessing enough of the
historians eye to know that informal and romantic relationships are often uncomfortably
impactful . Look no
further than Sarah Polk crafting speeches and correspondence for her Mexico-conquering
husband; Edith Wilson basically taking control of the presidency after Woodrow's
publicly-downplayed stroke; or even Nancy Reagan turning "to the stars" – well, an
astrologer – to time everything from White House meetings, travel, and even Ronnie's
cancer surgery.
Besides, Nuland has paved a hawkish enough path of her own these last three decades to
raise five-alarm fire bells. Just one pesky problem: thanks to Biden's batch of other picks,
there'll be only interventionist arsonists running the response. That is, the rest of Joe's
almost absurdly incestuous lot – a sort of best friends gang that joins all the same
clubs.
Take the Truman Center
for National Policy , and its "membership of diverse leaders inspired to serve in the
aftermath of 9/11 and committed to shaping and advocating for tough, smart national security
solutions." Well, some of those members committed to – unneeded and counterproductively
chickenhawk – toughness include: passed over defense secretary prospect Michele
Flournoy, (formerly) Hunter Biden, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, deputy defense
secretary nominee Kathleen Hicks, and secretary of transportation nominee Pete Buttigieg. In
other words, their's is a small world full of small thinking masquerading as big ideas. And
that , babies, is a formula for four more years of failure.
PS: this like to thank Wikipedia for providing easy and speedy access to the basic
backstory and context that most mainstream media has been willfully ignoring – even
before this Wednesday's MAGA-madness at the Capitol
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer, senior fellow at theCenter for
International Policy(CIP), contributing editor atAntiwar.com, and director of the new Eisenhower Media
Network (EMN). His work has appeared in the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post,
The Hill, Salon, The American Conservative, Mother Jones, Scheer Post and Tom Dispatch,
among other publications. He served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught
history at West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq
War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the SurgeandPatriotic Dissent: America in
the Age of Endless War. Along with fellow vet Chris "Henri" Henriksen, he co-hosts
the podcast "Fortress on a
Hill." Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVetand on hiswebsitefor media requests
and past publications.
The "patriotism" of the previous establishment was bound up with their economic interests.
Once the USA dropped protectionism, the allure of cheap foreign labor (via immigration or
outsourcing) became too much for them and they abandoned the interests of their fellow
Americans to follow the profits.
Thanks for the Tralfamidor perspective. Those of us here on earth know that the US was
never a democracy and always existed as a mechanism for exploitation of everyone else by an
oligarchy.
The USSR was collapsed by traitors as a function of the US imperial drive to destroy them
economically, not because the people were enraged at the "hostile elite". The US henchmen in
the Kingdom in Riyadh pitched in to break the Soviet economy by destroying the Soviet
capacity to obtain foreign exchange.
High treason, where, what? Did I miss something then ? I think not. The Soviet Union was
doomed,
virtually bankrupt, its population queuing for almost everything, DDR likewise and Poland
too, I have seen it in all three places. Oh, you could get everything if you had dollars!
Poland 1975: 1 kg of Russian Caviar and 4 bottles of the best Crimean Champagne :$10 !
Russia: Brand new Makarow, 9 mm, and 100 shots $20 including nice shoulder holster too in
leather $30
But ordinary people did not have $, only the nomenclature had $. A totally corrupt and failed
system in all the Eastern block. I was there then, saw it, and I have not forgotten.
So it was high time for change, and yes it would be tough, but the eastern people are tough
people ( and hospitable, very indeed)so they stood it out.
Abe, take a trip to Russia and speak to some older people, so you may stop posting
nonsense!
Him and his underlings, along with its successor Yeltsin (died too soon, unfortunately)
are directly responsible for millions of dead and destroyed lives in Russia in the `90-ties.
But I sense you are from countries that now grow unhealthy and pathological hate towards
Russian people, so as far you are concerned, it was great period, right?
Blame the Soviets for the economy of places ravaged by war and sabotaged by the West?
Remember the Eastern Front suffered the majority of action. Russia itself suffered the worst
and had to rebuild more than anybody, whereas USA factories easily re-supplied Western
Europe.
Eastern Europeans better guard against being played by the West into fighting Russia
again. They allied with Western-financed Hitler the last time. So, I'm a little worried
they'll be conned again.
It is curious that in one of the articles MoA wrote that, in his opinion (which I share),
there are now two superpowers - the United States and Russia, while China is only on the way
to this.
But Chinese journalists think differently - for example, in this article (very controversial,
btw) the author asks the question "Russia has the potential to become a superpower,
what are the factors preventing it from doing this?" At the same time, apparently, the
journalist believes that the current superpowers are China and the United States, while
"something prevents" Russia from becoming such.
Funny.
Just one quote from the article:
The distance between Russia and the superpower is still very large, and not only because of
the country's "internal problems" - the United States is also constraining and restraining
Russia by all means. It is not easy to become a superpower.
"If you talk to older people in Russia they'll tell you how deeply they despise the
"marked one" as they call him."
I know there are multiple perspectives when assessing Gorbachev's legacy, but I also
encountered that reaction often during my time there by old and young alike. It was a
surprise to me as I had assumed he would be universally accepted in a positive light as he is
in the west.
Asking them why they felt that way, a common response was that he had been too trusting of
the US promises, which ushered in the looting and manipulation of the 90's. Many mentioned
Baker's promise to Gorbachev that if East Germany went to the west, NATO would not move "one
inch to the east", and Gorbachev's failure to get that in writing. (Not to say the US would
have honored it even then, of course, but at least some proof to show the west's
duplicity).
vk@8 "The USSR could've reformed and opened up like China did, and would be in a much better
situation than what really happened (Yeltsin's neoliberal genocide)."
This is nonsense. That's exactly what Gorbachev did. The relative stagnation of the USSR
turned into an economic catastrophe under Gorbachev who dismantled a still-functional
economy. Yeltsin's neoliberalism was a continuation of Gorbachev's economics. Yeltsin's
revolution was not to impose a new policy but to smash the opposition to the new policy, to
carry it out ruthlessly, to concentrate the theft of public property in Great Russian hands.
China's opening up was deliberately fostered by the western powers as a way of separating the
socialist powers. There was never going to be any such opening up with Europe, not for the
USSR. There wasn't in NEP in the Twenties. This absurd counterfactual misreads what happened
with the capitalist roaders in China.
There also seems to be some nonsense lurking about how the Cultural Revolution was a
gigantic catastrophe. Of course, though no one cares to notice, if this was true, then India
would have had all those years to race ahead of China, not being cursed with such a
nightmare. In truth, the Cultural Revolution brought many benefits to the countryside in
particular, and still progressed the economy as a whole. Then after the murderous Deng took
over, there wasn't any magical Great Leap Forward on IOUs to Imperialism as he promised. For
years and years, the wonders of reform and opening up delivered not much faster (at all?)
than the previous system. Not even the notorious Southern Tour was so miraculous. The failure
to deliver on his overblown promises is why the students at Tien An Men square were so
worried about getting good jobs commensurate with their higher elite status, reaffirmed by
Deng. Only after decades did the economic conjuncture finally lead to rapid growth...but at a
tremendous social cost still denied by too many. The iron rice bowl was broken long before
the privilege of working for a capitalist firm started to really pay.
I've seen a lot of comments over the years calling things "theater', but I never felt
compelled the use the word until this event.
I'm only just gathering pieces of the forensic deconstruction, but this thing is fishy as
hell. In fact, I'm not even opening my eyes much to this one, because the smell alone gives
it all away.
I learned about this a few hours ago in a Zoom business meeting, and the lady is talking
about someone shot and died - she was laying this at Trump's door - and I looked up RT and
got the story that the police shot her. But how do people get into the Capitol building
anyway, that has to be super hardened - and of course it already looks like the security let
them in, and everything else follows and falls into place from that.
[And then a guy enters my meeting and says Putin is celebrating and I had to deal with
that bullshit for a minute. Lord, deliver me from brainwashed America, especially when
they're my colleagues - but fuck 'em, actually, because the power has passed from their side
and they don't know that, but they can feel the difference. No one needs to bother to explain
to them, but even if they don't know, they can feel that you don't care, and they have no
ground to stand on - so yes, we have moved on in the information space, in case you
wondered.]
So the rest is pretty obvious, and pretty lame...and it's worth waiting a day or two to
gather all the forensics in some reviews of this obvious false flag. I imagine b will have
more in a day or two. It's a strange and pathetic brainwash here, that will undoubtedly work
its way on many millions, and work its other way on many other millions. Divide and rule.
~~
And apparently the Jews have discarded Trump and thrown him to the wolves. I'm searching
for the link but I guess it's from a comment in one of the Saker threads - can't find it now
- but the US organization of...something or other but definitely and formally representing
Jews and their political influence in the US, has said this is unacceptable and perhaps
they're even standing behind impeachment or treason charges, I'm not sure.
So that's the kiss of death, and we get to watch the sacrifice now.
And this is where the CIA learned how to treat its assets. The bend-over-backwardness of
Trump to appease the Israelis was so pronounced that they had to despise him for his
subservience. Everyone hates a toady. They had to throw him away, being careful not to let
any of him get on their shoe. Nothing says a person was appeasing the Zionists so much as how
forcefully they discard that person when used up.
Donald Trump encouraged his supporters to protest Congress. Today's anarchy is the
result. We want stable democracy. The Cabinet should consider applying the 25th amendment
to immediately remove Trump from office to end this incitement against our democracy.
Nuland will be nominated for the position of under secretary of state for political affairs,
the US media said on Tuesday with Politico being the first to
drop the scoop. It's the highest-ranking post in the department after the secretary and deputy
secretary. During the Obama administration, Nuland served as assistant secretary of state for
European and Eurasian Affairs, and was a key official in formulating and implementing his
Russia policies. She also served as US envoy to the UN under George W. Bush and advised Vice
President Dick Cheney on foreign policy.
The news that the vocal Russia hawk was returning to the White House was understandably met
with loud cheering by the fans of Pax American on both sides of the Atlantic. Critics were
dismayed and somewhat horrified, considering her record.
Arguably the most publicly known episode of Nuland's Obama tenure came in 2014, when a tape
of her conversation with then-ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked. It happened
shortly after Ukraine's democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in a wave
of street protests culminating in an armed coup, which happened with much encouragement from
Washington.
Nuland and Pyatt were discussing who among the coup leaders should be in the upcoming
Ukrainian government, which indicated that Washington played a much bigger role in the crisis
than it publicly admitted. The infamous " F**k the EU" remark came as Nuland expressed
frustration with European nations, who were reluctant to lend legitimacy to the benefactors of
the events, and said UN officials could be called in to help "glue this thing"
instead.
The EU's skepticism at the time could have been due to the fact that President Yanukovich
was expelled under a threat of violence just hours after Germany and Poland helped seal a power
sharing
agreement between him and the opposition leaders, serving as guarantors of the deal. Her
return as a senior diplomatic official is likely to get on a few people's nerves in Europe,
which is ironic considering how the Biden administration is supposed to rebuild alliances
damaged by the Trump presidency.
While flying private in the world of academia and think tanks during the Trump years, Nuland
maintained her confrontational attitude to anyone challenging US dominance. Her recipe for
dealing with Russia, as outlined
in Foreign Policy magazine last summer, is more sophisticated weapons, permanent NATO bases on
the Russian border (which will require abolishing a key Russia-NATO agreement) and deniable
cyber operations against Moscow.
Nuland also played a
peculiar part in US domestic affairs, possibly having a hand in the promotion of the
notorious Steele dossier. The collection of opposition research and rumors was used by the FBI
to justify surveillance of the Trump campaign and fueled the endless flood of claims that the
incumbent president was somehow a Russian stooge.
An FBI memo released last
year revealed that Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson "and others were talking to Victoria Nuland
at the US State Department" about the file. The firm looked into Donald Trump for the
Hillary Clinton campaign and retained retired British intelligence agent Christopher Steele for
the job.
In multiple interviews, Nuland insisted that her role with the dossier was very limited
because it dealt with domestic politics. "[Steele] passed two to four pages of short points
of what he was finding, and our immediate reaction to that was, 'This is not in our
purview,'" she
told CBS News in 2018, adding that she advised him to go to the FBI. Some skeptics believe
her role in launching the Steele dossier may have been much more significant.
Nuland is one of many Obama-era officials tapped by Biden to serve again with him at the
helm. In addition to her, the latest reported batch includes Wendy Sherman, the former under
secretary of state for political affairs, Jon Finer, who had various roles under Obama, and
Amanda Sloat, ex-deputy assistant secretary for Southern Europe and Eastern Mediterranean
affairs.
Trump obviously wants better diplomatic relations with Russia. He is reluctant to
counter its military might. He is doing his best to make it richer. Just consider the
headlines below. With all those good things Trump did for Putin, intense suspicions of
Russian influence over him is surely justified.
There followed 34 headlines and links to stories about Trump actions, from closing Russian
consulates to U.S. attacks on Russian troops, that were hostile to Russia.
In fact no other U.S. administration since the cold war has been more aggressive towards
Russia than Trump's.
But some U.S. media continue to claim that Trump's behavior towards Russia has not been
hostile at all. Consider this line
in Politico about anti-Russian hawks in the incoming Biden administration:
Nuland and Sherman, who entered academia and the think tank world after leaving the Obama
administration, have been outspoken critics of President Donald Trump's foreign policy --
particularly his appeasement of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Where please has Trump 'appeased' Vladimir Putin?
Here are a number of headlines which appeared in U.S. media since we published our first
list two years ago. Which of the described actions were designed to 'appease' Putin or
Russia?
When one adds up all those actions one can only find that Trump cares more about Russia,
than about the U.S. and its NATO allies. Only with Trump being under Putin's influence,
knowingly or unwittingly, could he end up doing Russia so many favors.
Why, you certainly could view most (if not all) of those actions as favors.
People feel attacked, unite, rally around the flag. Internal problems are blamed on the
external enemy. The sanctions, the sort the West likes to impose, help develop domestic
industries. Etc. Yeah, favors.
Point on! Trump was never 'the Russians' bitch'. He was the whore of the Russian
émigré mafia that had relocated to the US in south Queens in New York City. A
major difference!
Well, the logic is to destroy or ad least severely weaken Russia. Yet damn Russia is
getting stronger and stronger, hence what ever happened under Trump's watch must have been a
favor to Russia.
Competent government would look itself in the mirror and admit it is their own fault and
stupidity, but that ship sailed long time ago for US.
Point on! Trump was never 'the Russians' bitch'. He was the whore of the Russian
émigrés mafia that had relocated to the US in south Queens in New York City. A
major difference!
Of course the whole point of US and Western MSM obsession with demonising Russia and
China, and castigating those like Trump (for not going far enough to oppose either one or the
other nation, or both), is to divert public attention away from govt failings at home and to
push the public into supporting regime change against both Russia and China.
B's post should be read as a companion piece to his previous post on China as an
existential threat to the US, as an example of a nation that achieved stability, peace and
enough prosperity for most of its people by pursuing an alternate political and economic
ideology in the space of 40 years. An ideology that moreover challenges the ideology that the
West has followed for the past 500 years, and the assumptions on which that ideology is
based. Despite Western attempts to destabilise, break up and impoverish Russia in the 1990s,
in order to steal its energy and mineral resources, that nation managed to bounce back to
some level of stability and economic security. In addition Russia and China signed a
friendship treaty in 2001 and are committing to a closer political ans economic
relationship.
All this serves to marginalise the Anglosphere nations and to deny the US, the UK and
their elites the opportunity to plunder these nations and their allies for their natural
resources.
Point on! Trump was never 'the Russians' bitch'. He was the whore of the russian
emigrée mafia that had relocatet to the US in south Quens in New York City. A maijor
difference!
Exactly that, thank you. The mafia that manages the D party are of Mediterranean roots and
are totally pi$$ed of with the Russians.
Enough of this polite avoidance of the reality of the USAi gangland - it is a mafia state.
The D 'reformist' squad just blew their best chance to start the reformation. They will be
neutered well before another chance arises.
AFAICT Russiagate's neo-McCarthyism and Trump's supposed friendliness toward Putin was a
set up prior to Trump negotiations with Putin at Helsinki.
"I'm your only friend ... and your last best hope ..." is a powerful pitch -
especially when it is accompanied by generous offers of aid and support. And perhaps it
would've worked if it had come years before.
So now we have a new Cold War - with both Russia and China.
Democratic President-elect Joe Biden plans to name U.S. foreign policy veterans Wendy
Sherman and Victoria Nuland to be the No. 2 and No. 3 officials at the State Department, two
sources familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.
Sherman, a key negotiator of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran that Republican President
Donald Trump abandoned, is to be tapped for deputy secretary of state, the sources said,
confirming a report that first appeared in Politico newspaper.
Nuland, a retired career foreign service officer who served as the top U.S. diplomat for
Europe, NATO ambassador and State Department spokeswoman, is to be nominated as
undersecretary of state for political affairs, effectively the third-ranking U.S. diplomat,
the sources added, also confirming Politico's report.
Victoria Nuland, wife of neoconservative Robert Kagan, is expected be nominated for under
secretary of state for political affairs
According to a report from
Politico , Joe Biden's transition team is expected to nominate Victoria Nuland to
be the under secretary of state for political affairs for the incoming administration's State
Department.
Nuland, who is married to neoconservative Robert Kagan, is known for her role in
orchestrating the 2014 coup in Ukraine while she was the assistant secretary of state for
Europe and Eurasian affairs in the Obama administration.
A recording of a phone call between Nuland and then-US
Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked and released on YouTube on February 4th,
2014 . In the call, Nuland and Pyatt discussed who should replace the government of former
Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, who was forced to step down on February 22nd,
2014.
The US-backed coup sparked the war in eastern Ukraine's Donbas region and led to the Russian
annexation of Crimea. Both regions have a majority ethnic-Russian population who rejected the
nationalist, anti-Russian post-coup government that even had
neo-Nazis in its midst .
In a
2020 column for Foreign Affairs titled, "Pinning Down Putin," Nuland said Russian
President Vladimir Putin "seized" on the 2014 coup and other "democratic struggles" to "fuel
the perception at home of Russian interests under siege by external enemies." She also cited
the war in the Donbas and annexation of Crimea as examples of Russian aggression, as most in
Washington do.
Nuland worked in the Bush administration from 2005 to 2008 as the US ambassador to NATO.
From 2011 to 2013, she served as the spokesperson for Barack Obama's State Department, and from
2013 to 2017, Nuland was the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian affairs.
Politico also reported that the Biden administration is tapping Wendy Sherman to
work directly under Secretary of State-designee Anthony Blinken. Sherman worked in the Obama
administration's State Department and played
a crucial role in negotiating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
Ever since November third the American political/media class have been keeping Democrats fixated on Trump's post-election shenanigans
with garment-rending urgency, now going so far as to
call for yet another oxygen-sucking impeachment
as he's on his way out the door while millions of Americans are struggling just to meet their basic needs.
You wouldn't know it from the dominant chatter, but Trump's impotent attempts to reverse the election results don't rank anywhere
remotely near the top ten worst things this president has done while in office,
which include vetoing attempts to end
the world's worst mass atrocity in Yemen, escalating world-threatening cold wars with both Russia and China, murdering untold tens
of thousands of Venezuelans with starvation sanctions, pushing Iran to the brink of war by assassinating its top military commander,
expanding the "war on terror" and rolling back airstrike regulations designed to protect civilians.
US political discourse hasn't reflected the fact that Trump's foreign policy has been far more atrocious than anything he's done
domestically–and certainly anything he's done since November–because news media coverage does not reflect this fact. News media coverage
does not reflect this fact because western news media regard imperialism and mass military slaughter as normal US presidential stuff,
and do not regard brown-skinned foreigners as human.
I point this out because it's good to note, as Trump leaves office, that he spent his entire administration
advancing murderous imperialist
agendas which spilled very real blood from very real human beings while mainstream America barely even noticed. Their attention
was drawn instead to endless narrative theater which had no impact whatsoever on the concrete actions taken by the US government's
executive branch. Their gaze was kept fixated on meaningless political drama while the war machine marched on unseen.
Americans are famously uninterested in the rest of the world, to such an extent that you can only get them to watch a British
sitcom if it's remade with American actors and they don't know that having your nation's flag flying all over your neighborhood isn't
normal. The story of Kanye and Kim's divorce is going to generate more news media views than the entirety of the Yemen war since
it began. This lack of interest in war and foreign policy is mighty peculiar, seeing how the people who run their country make it
their primary focus.
Americans only care about America while their rulers only care about the rest of the world. This is entirely by design.
Americans fixate on America while ignoring the rest of the world not because they are genetically prone to self-obsessed navel
gazing, but because their attention is being constantly and deliberately manipulated away from the stage upon which their government
is perpetrating monstrous acts.
The nationless alliance of plutocrats and government agencies who drive the US government's foreign policy cannot have the common
riff raff interfering in their affairs. Immense amounts of energy have gone into preventing the rise of an antiwar movement in the
hub of the empire like the one which began shaking the earth in the sixties and seventies, with propaganda playing a leading role
in this suppression. The US is far too important in the operation of the empire-like power alliance which sprawls across the earth
to permit its inhabitants to interfere in its operations by using the power of their numbers to force their nation's wealth and resources
to be used at home. So propaganda is used to hold their attention inside America's borders.
"The danger for American elites is not that the U.S.
may become less able to accomplish geopolitical objectives. Rather, it is that more Americans might begin to question
the logic of U.S. global hegemony," writes
@RichardHanania>
China's
Real Threat Is to America's Ruling Ideology", Richard Hanania argues that the example China sets as a nation rising to superpower
status by relatively peaceful and lawful means is deeply threatening to the orthodoxy promoted by western imperialists. If the world
in general and Americans in particular were to become more conscious of how a civilization can succeed and thrive without waging
endless wars in the name of "freedom" and "democracy", they might begin calling for such an order themselves.
"While most Americans will never experience a ride on a Chinese bullet train and remain oblivious in differences in areas like
infrastructure quality, major accomplishments in highly visible frontiers like space travel or cancer treatment could drive home
the extent to which the U.S. has fallen behind," Hanania concludes.
"Under such conditions, the best case scenario for most Americans
would be a nightmare for many national security and bureaucratic elites: for the U.S. to give up on policing the world and instead
turn inward and focus on finding out where exactly our institutions have gone wrong."
In other words, China's rise threatens to reverse the carefully-engineered dynamic which has Americans looking inward while their
government points its attention outward. If Americans begin turning their gaze internationally and use the power of their numbers
to force their government to heal and nurture their crumbling nation, it would spell the end for the imperialists. But it could also
be the beginning of a peaceful and harmonious world.
CAROLYN L ZAREMBA / JANUARY 6, 2021
It is an erroneous generalization to say "Americans only care about America". Which Americans? If you are talking about the
ruling class of the United States, even they don't care much about America, only their bank accounts and their stock portfolios.
Witness their indifference to the thousands of deaths from Covid-19 through a lack of lockdowns, testing and contact tracing.
Witness their demanding that schools and factories remain open, probably to kill as many of the working class as possible while
these wealthy goniffs drink champagne on their private islands.
I am born and reared in the United States, and I hate the government of my country of birth. I have hated them since the 1960s.
I am an internationalist. Nationalism is a 19th century idea that is past its prime. Ultra nationalism is fascism. All Americans
do not support fascism. Many of us are Marxists.
And when you use the term "American", you should be clear that you mean the United States, and not Canada, Mexico, Panama,
Brazil or Ecuador, among others.
STANLEY N LAHAM / JANUARY 6, 2021
When Vladimir Putin said that the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of post WWII was the dissolution of the USSR, he was right
on the button. What unraveled next was story of unparalleled greed and hubris in the United States in believing the world was
its spoils for winning the Cold War.
From Eastern Europe to Asia and South America it went on a rampage like an elephant in a tea house making and breaking governments,
bombing and dismembering viable states, creating chaos in order to come in and establishing its new Pax Americana. From Yugoslavia
to Libya to Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Honduras etc, it either promoted downright Coup d'États or mercilessly bombed destroying people
and infrastructure to achieve its agenda unopposed by a weak Russia and a Warsaw Pact that had gone to its grave. And in so doing
caused the greatest mass migration of refugees to Europe the likes of which the world had never seen since WWII.
Yet all this was conceived and effectuated not in secret rooms but openly declared as official policy. In the mid nineties
a new political doctrine that would guide policy was announced in the form of "Project for a New American Century" which is nothing
less than Manifest Destiny on steroids and on a global scale. This was soon followed by its military doctrine of "Full Spectrum
Dominance" over all countries of the earth. Well when the drunk Boris Yeltsin realized belatedly what was afoot, he literally
ceded control of the Russian Federation to Putin in 2000 who went about repairing the social, economic and military disaster his
country had become,
Starting in Syria in 2014, Vladimir Putin started challenging the American Empire that can no longer project the military supremacy
it enjoyed for nearly two decades and this has enraged its planners. The demonizing of Russia is for having stopped dead in its
tract the military supremacy of the US and the demonizing of China for having stopped its economic one and challenging the supremacy
of the dollar.
CAROLYN L ZAREMBA / JANUARY 6, 2021
Putin was quite right. The only brake on the brazen greed for power of the United States was the huge land mass of the Soviet
Union. That brake was removed when Gorbachev waved the white hankie and surrendered. The rest is nightmare.
ROUNDBALL SHAMAN / JANUARY 6, 2021
"Americans are famously uninterested in the rest of the world Americans only care about America while their rulers only care
about the rest of the world. This is entirely by design."
In a sense, you can't blame Americans for being so shallow-visioned. From birth, Americans are taught that they belong to "The
Exceptional Nation". Well, if you are Exceptional, that must mean everyone else ISN'T Exceptional. So why in the world would Americans
care about those unimportant outsiders?
Add to that the fact that most people are innately selfish anyway and just naturally don't care about anyone or anything much
but themselves. The World beyond USA borders is just some kind of unimportant black hole that doesn't count for anything. Or so
the belief goes. Generation to generation.
And add to that fact what does any of this have to do with big shiny pickup trucks, cold beer, and American football? Those are
the three dominant religions in America and have been for a long time. Why would Americans care about anything else? There's only
so many hours in the day, you know?
"The nationless alliance of plutocrats and government agencies who drive the US government's foreign policy cannot have the common
riff raff interfering in their affairs."
Where things seem to headed the nationless alliance of plutocrats and government agencies who drive the US government's foreign
policy cannot have the common riff raff AROUND AT ALL. Various scenarios in play for that outcome.
We need to live each day as if it is our last. Because one way or another, The Last One is getting closer. Do cattle at the stockyards
realize that they are in a stockyards and their brothers and sisters go into that big building and don't seem to come out? Will
we?
EDWARD HACKETT / JANUARY 6, 2021
You have completely summed up the central points of American thinking. Don't wear a mask or social distance because that interferes
with my right to be an idiot.
We get the best government money can buy. When will we stop electing celebrities and old white men? Someday there will be a
book called "The Decline and Fall of America". I hope someone is around to read it.
S.A. HOGAN / JANUARY 6, 2021
Dear Caitlin (with typos fixed),
I'm afraid I must take offense when you paint things with a broad brush–which is almost invariably a no-no, the stuff of which
prejudice is made–and say "Americans care only about America."
While our media may encourage an ethnocentric, myopic viewpoint
of the world, the cure is to A. explore the viewpoints of other countries, and B. get out there...
NEWTON FINN / JANUARY 6, 2021
"Americans fixate on America while ignoring the rest of the world not because they are genetically prone to self-obsessed navel
gazing, but because their attention is being constantly and deliberately manipulated away from the stage upon which their government
is perpetrating monstrous acts." Not entirely correct. Because of the basic decency of the American people, their imperial government
is compelled to use its MSM mouthpiece to sell wars to them in explicitly moral terms.
First, their attention is relentlessly
focused ON a specific foreign stage. Then, the leader of that foreign country is demonized as a new Hitler. Finally, the responsibility
of the exceptional nation is asserted to protect the citizens of that foreign country from their demonic leader. This longstanding
propaganda strategy of R2P (responsibility to protect), previously described by Caitlin and Diana (the other Johnstone), provides
strong evidence that the character of the American people, as Caitlin indicates, is no worse than that of other nations.
Indeed,
is it not precisely the morality and decency of American citizens which are manipulated by their government and MSM to provide
sanction and support for evil deeds?
America got shot with an animal tranquilizer dart in November 1963.
I'm praying for her to wake up and stand.
JWK / JANUARY 6, 2021
As is always the case, governments being the ideal environment for psychopaths, they eventually are saturated with them. The
longer they are around, and the more resources they have, the worse they get. America is peaking, I wonder what nation takes their
place?
FRED GROSSO / JANUARY 6, 2021
Good discussion Caitlin. I only add that America could never do the things you suggest it needs to do with Trump and his goons
in charge. With the Democrats we have a slim chance. I did not support Clinton in 2016 as I saw her a a hawk, and I found Biden
to be a weak choice, but at least one we could work with, just barely. We have a lot of work ahead of us.
KHATIKA / JANUARY 6, 2021
How could things be any worse than the US coming in and bomb you back to the stone age killing millions. Let people take care
of their own problems or at least have them solved regionally. The number one problem today is people determined on telling others
how to live their lives.
EDWARD HACKETT / JANUARY 6, 2021
Much of what you say about America's lack of involvement with foreign affairs is correct. If you asked the average American
citizen where is Yemen? You would get a blank stare...
SOLLY / JANUARY 6, 2021
No need for a long essay on the subject. Americans are violent, egotistic, egoistic, ignorant and greedy.
EDWARD HACKETT / JANUARY 6, 2021
In many cases you are correct, but I think that analysis applies more to our governing class than to the man in the street.
The average American is consumed with earning a living and watching TV. They have little knowledge of the world at large nor do
they have any interest in learning about the greater world.
Many of your criticisms could be directed to people around the world. We Americans don't have a corner on your listed qualities
but we are certainly in the top 10 of those that share our worst qualities.
MR OBVIOUS / JANUARY 6, 2021
We are a empire in decline riding on power and might derived from the WW2 victory and addicted to a system that is totally
inadequate for the present. Like any dying behemoth do not get close as the thrashing around is extremely dangerous. We will change
if modern civilization is so fortunate to survive.
ZARD / JANUARY 6, 2021
'A nation with a collective, room-temp IQ' :
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" ~ H.L. Mencken
left（ZOG）right =Divide and Conquer
STEPHEN MORRELL / JANUARY 6, 2021
Here is one of the most insightful recent conversations on the rise of China and the decline of the US empire which will never
reach the mainstream, between Michael Hudson and Pepe Escobar:
I think Caitlin's post on the current state of American society was a Curate's egg : good in parts only. She is absolutely
correct to draw attention to US capitalism's desire to impose its dominion over the entire world by ANY means, including war,
if necessary.
Trump has confined himself to launching trade wars against US capitalism's rivals – Russia, China, and the EU trading bloc.
But the US military has kept up its murderous blood-letting in the Middle East and in Yemen, where the prize is control over the
region's oil and gas reserves.
Caitlin is, however, way off beam in her assessment of the "average" American, who, she believes, is only interested in American
affairs, flag-waving, and TV. This pessimism simply does not correspond with reality. American cities have been ablaze with revolt
for the last 2 years, in response to US police murders of innocent people, and especially black people. These mass demonstrations
reflect a revolutionary state of mind amongst wide layers of American working class people, especially the youth of America who
correctly see no future for themselves in capitalist America.
... ... ...
A Stalinist China is most definitely not to be admired, or emulated. I can assure Caitlin that she would not be allowed to
run her platform in Beijing. On the contrary, she would probably be put in jail for "deviationism," which is Stalinist doublespeak
for refusing to repeat, parrot fashion, every word that emanates from the mouths of the Chinese billionaire, fake "Communist"
leaders...
ROBERT L PHILLIPS / JANUARY 6, 2021
I very much agree with most of what the author states, but I agree that holding China and it's authoritarian regime up as anything
to emulate is wrong. But that nation is indeed racing past the United States in many technological areas.
I tend to agree with her assessment of 'most Americans,' however, as the vast majority could not pass a basic current events
quiz, don't know who Julian Assange is, and readily welcome ever stricter controls over the populace due to their fears of – anything
and everything, including CV19. Not all, but the majority.
Americans I am one but do you think I have a choice? Most of the people I know. Ok to be honest, all of them, consider themselves
well informed... Dissing people who live in a cultural wasteland is not a good use of time. As a great man once said: 'Forgive them father, they know not what they do.
I made it clear that Americans are the victims of imperialist propaganda brainwashing. My American husband who co-wrote this
article says stop being so precious about your nationality.
ANNA QUAY / JANUARY 6, 2021
As a Brit I hear you. This political ignorance is certainly not confined to America. I would go as far as to say it extends
to all of the English speaking countries of the world. Oh, I would also suggest that you can throw in most of Europe, then add
Asia into the mix. It is an affliction that affects humanity.
It is borne from years of being ruled by a hierarchy. We have a
slave mentality and it is only individuals who are awake. Collective groups of people usually belong to some organisation and
therefore by the nature of their organisation simply follow the doctrine/dogma or ideology of that organisation.
Once again Ms Johnstone hits it out of the park with an article that brings goosebumps to this old man. The United States government
is completely corrupt and its world-wide killing sprees are way worse than anything that Mr. Hitler ever did. No morals and no
ethics and no empathy are the hallmarks of its nature that need to be done away with ASAP. Thank You Ms Johnstone for you honest
assessment of the United States Monster.
The author says that China, even as it is growing and has passed the U.S. economically, is
not an enemy of the U.S. and no danger to U.S. or others' security:
While China is not blameless, one could reasonably make the argument that, from an
international perspective, it has had easily the most peaceful rise to great power status of
any nation of the last several hundred years.
...
Perhaps, as the McMasters of the world claim, this is all because Beijing is biding its time
in hopes of world domination. Alternatively, China may be an inwardly focused civilization
that, while it may have disputes with its neighbors, is not on a mission to fundamentally
remake the world. While it would naturally prefer rules that favor it and resists any
principles that would legitimize regime change supported from abroad, Beijing does not seek
to fundamentally replace the U.N. or rewrite international law. Its strategy has mostly
sought stability and growth within the rules of the system developed by Western democracies
in the aftermath of the Second World War. While its current position of strength is recent,
it has not yet broken from this precedent.
Nor does it, as far as is known, plan to do so.
Various U.S. influenced political scientists have claimed that democratization and
liberalization is a necessary precursor for peace and economic growth. That ideological
argument was used to seek and kill various 'dictator' dragons abroad. China has proved them to
be wrong. And therein lies the real danger to the U.S. establishment.
China's development over the last 40 years proves that it is not necessary to wage wars in
foreign countries to be secure and to prosper. For U.S. ideologues that is a bad example that
should not exist:
If universal democratization is not the ultimate endpoint of history -- or even an imperative
for development, peace, and prosperity -- how can the American role in the world be
justified? What will it say about the American system if the U.S. is no longer the wealthiest
and most powerful nation in the world, having been surpassed by a country that became the
dominant power in East Asia without even paying lip service to democratic ideals?
Ultimately, Americans themselves might begin asking themselves difficult questions about
how well they have been served by their own system, including the sacrifices in blood and
treasure they are regularly asked to make abroad.
That would be really bad as the monetary fodder in the trough the national security
establishment is feasting from would suddenly be seen as an unnecessary waste. That is the real
danger to the blob:
Ultimately, the danger for American elites is not that the U.S. may become less able to
accomplish geopolitical objectives. Rather, it is that more Americans might begin to question
the logic of U.S. global hegemony . Perhaps not every state is destined to become a liberal
democracy, and nations with very different political systems can coexist peacefully, as many
countries in East Asia do. Maybe the U.S. will not always be at the frontier of military and
economic power, and the country that overtakes it may have completely different attitudes
about the nature of the relationship between government and its citizens.
While most Americans will never experience a ride on a Chinese bullet train and remain
oblivious in differences in areas like infrastructure quality, major accomplishments in
highly visible frontiers like space travel or cancer treatment could drive home the extent to
which the U.S. has fallen behind. Under such conditions, the best case scenario for most
Americans would be a nightmare for many national security and bureaucratic elites: for the
U.S. to give up on policing the world and instead turn inward and focus on finding out where
exactly our institutions have gone wrong.
What then is the U.S. establishment going to do?
The U.S. rose to global supremacy on the back of two world wars which destroyed the
industrial capacities of its main competitors while the wars hardly touched its own country.
Could it arrange for a comparable event, by maybe instigating a conflict between Japan and
China, that would again lead to a major destruction of global production capabilities while the
U.S. stays on the sidelines?
Letting Japan, South Korea and Taiwan(!) have
their own nuclear weapons , as another writer proposes, may be a way to get there:
What to do [about China]? There is one way to square the circle. The Biden administration
should reconsider reflexive U.S. opposition to "friendly proliferation."
...
Taiwan is in greatest need of such a weapon, but developing one would be highly
destabilizing, since Beijing would be tempted to preempt the process. The alternative would
be for Washington to fill Taiwan's need, with a profound impact on Sino-American relations.
Proliferation would not be a good solution -- but it might be the least bad one.
No doubt, a nuclear-armed China would react badly to better-armed neighbors, but it is no
happier with a more involved United States.
...
It is easier to know what not to do with China than what to do. Don't go to war. Don't stage
a new cold war. Don't sacrifice core values and basic interests. Don't make the issue all
about Washington. Don't waste money and credibility on overambitious, unsustainable attempts
at containment. Don't attempt to dictate to the PRC.
But what to do? The United States should think creatively about new approaches to old
problems. One way to do so is to stop hectoring partners and preventing them from doing what
they want to do. Including, perhaps, developing nuclear weapons.
I expect that this and other such ideas will soon proliferate.
Posted by b on January 5, 2021 at 19:19 UTC |
Permalink
Fortunately the Taiwanese are smart enough not to use nuclear weapons.
Seems to me that China threatens mostly Big American companies - Google Facebook etc, and
therefore the US stock market valuations that depend on huge growth expectations remaining
credible.
thanks b... the idea to stop when digging a ditch for yourself is not something the usa has
ever demonstrated in my memory.. it would be nice if the usa could change its approach on the
world stage, but at this point i give it very low odds.. instead the usa will be forced to
adjust to a different reality, much like all the innocent people in the usa left behind by a
system that is broken.... the usa is becoming what it has failed to address and becoming a
failed state... it seems like it is now on one of those china bullet trains to reach this
failed state destination, as no other options are likely to be explored here forward...
i am presently reading a book by linda mcquaig given to me for christmas - the sport and
prey of capitalists - .... essentially the capitalist template used in the usa the past 40 or
more years is being pushed onto canada - privatization and allowing big finance firms like
blackrock into the halls of canuck political power to decide the direction that we have to
privatize our public institutions... again - we are back to the conversation that
@pshycohistorian likes to focus on - public, verses private finance... these financial
monoliths are dominating the landscape of the west... i don't know how we move forward and
put them to rest... i suspect a financial collapse is the only way, and i am not convinced
that the new system will be better then the last... the predators, although a small
percentage on the planet, are especially focused on there desire for financial power and
dominance.... is china headed in the same direction?? or russia?? i can't tell... as for
canada, the future looks grim if one was to just read this book i refer to...
Agree 100%. We can't expect the USA to suffer its own Shock Doctrine can we? The American
Fantasy of World Savior is too engrained in Establishment thought to give up its American
Exceptionalist, Unitary Super Power, Plunder for Profit, in the name of FREEDOM all while
doing Blankfein's God's Work without a fight.
Imagine the horror, the horror I tell you, of American Introspection at the nation's utter
failure at everything it pretended at.
As for China, I believe it's conclusively demonstrated the superiority of its
sociopolitical model. Growing economy, growing prosperity, growing influence in the world, no
wars.
Just ideas? Or maybe they have plans that they are already implementing?
Seems like the latter to me. But then I've been saying (repeatedly) that everything
changed in 2013-14 when USA realized that the Russia-China Alliance had teeth.
Some Chinese commenter here please help me, but, if I'm not mistaken, China has a doctrine
that in the US thinktankland they call "China's Peaceful Development Doctrine". In Chinese
the call it the "Celestial Ascension" [Doctrine] or something like that. And yes, it requires
socialism in order to make sense (the demonstration as to why the doctrine is socialist is
too long to put it here, but it is).
So, the author from the Paladium Magazine is reinventing the wheel here, as China makes no
secret of its global doctrine.
I maintain my opinion that nukes eliminate the prospect of another Kondratiev Cycle being
forced on a world war. Nukes not only destroy infrastructure - it also destroy land and air
themselves. It subtracts space from capitalism.
"If universal democratization is not the ultimate endpoint of history -- or even an
imperative for development, peace, and prosperity -- how can the American role in the world
be justified?"
Good question; but note that the question itself assumes that "universal democratization"
HAS in fact been the point of our imperial endeavors around the world. As can be seen from
our close and personal relationships with the Gulf monarchies, the Egyptian tyrant, the SE
Asia wars, and many many other examples to mention over the decades past, this is manifestly
not true.
The truth is that "universal democratization" and the so-called "rules-based order" post
ww2 have ever only been a narrative justifying (first) imperial anti-socialism and (now)
anti-localism. The truth is that what they are deathly afraid of is losing the all-important
NARRATIVE. Because, as the article points out, once the narrative of the savior nation is
lost, how can the expense in lives and treasure and thereby the feeding of the Mil-Sec-Think
Tan Complex) possibly be justified.
Given the gigantic problems facing the Outlaw US Empire that are detailed in the links I've
posted today on the week-in-review thread, I'll add
this interview that mostly covers its current domestic turmoil. Furthermore, given the
massive skewing of economic data over the past 30 years, those sitting in DC haven't a clue
as to the severity of the domestic crisis. From the interview:
"Colin Cavell: Failing to address the massive problems of unemployment and lack of jobs,
failing to address the massive wealth gap between rich and poor, failing to ensure adequate
healthcare to millions, failing to protect the American public during the course of the
current Covid-19 pandemic, failing to address the festering racial divisions, especially with
regards to the criminal justice system, and failing to instill a unified trust in the
governing apparatus and ruling economic class, then, yes, Biden will preside over a
collapsing economy, a divided country, and a distrustful citizenry, and thus open the door to
either another term for an older Trump or some other demagogue or outright fascist to
'restore order'."
And all that's primed to worsen more before it improves any. And the international
situation vastly differs from that of the Great Depression years with Fascism rising in
Europe and Asia. Hudson in his talk and the Keiser's guest both mention the chasm opening
economically between China and the Empire--they're heading in opposite directions as we've
been discussing here for months. If the mainland got any inkling that Taiwan was going to be
given nukes, it would be occupied the next day. Japan and RoK both want to be rid of their
occupier which is preventing them from gaining economically by further engaging with China.
And the same can be said for the EU. The bottom line is no nation shares the interests of the
Outlaw US Empire excepting perhaps Poland and Ukraine--not even Occupied Palestine.
The Parasite has almost devoured its Host, and in the process has disarmed it. Those
sitting in DC can't see that fact because the Parasite controls their collective brains, so
we get treated to idiotic essays like the one at Foreign Policy b linked above. Obama
chose to feed the Parasite in 2009 instead of having it executed. And that's why we are in
deep bantha pudu today.
I think the main problem are the two different approaches taken by the US or Chinese, which
are diametrically different. The Chinese seem to use a " Cumulative " approach, while
the US is based on what I call " Winnowing " as a state. Take their respective
attitudes towards the poor.
First the Chinese; Cumulative , we are all in this together . If everyone
has a "job" be it ever-so lowly, selling food on a street corner for example, then for the
Chinese this is a "plus". The person is more or less responsible for his own well being, is
not a burden on the State for handouts, and could be (potentially) taxable etc. The object
being that ALL Chinese then become positive factors in the society. They are also more
motivated because they have a "place" in society. The recent case of Jack Ma and an IPO is
not the opposite, but he was trying to get ahead by means that would have led to more
unemployment - on the back of the Chinese Government. He was not adding to the cumulative
good of the country. Only his own riches. (The Chinese do have billionaires and riches - but
are constrained by Corporate credit ratings as explained on a previous - very interesting -
thread. Thanks to: psychohistorian | Jan 5 2021 2:08 utc | 162. The MoA Week In Review - OT
2021-001)
The US. The attitude is to beat out the chaff leaving only the "kernel ". To "
Winnow " the population leaving only the top. ie the poor are sidelined, they become a
problem for the Government (needing support, food etc.). A net negative value to US society.
(The Rich also get handouts from the Fed. as free money has become an habitude, but that is
an another way of winnowing out the chaff - as others do NOT get the trillion dollar
handouts) The poor have no "place" in a society that has rejected them and so are less
motivated. They must fend for themselves and are expected to obey. If they do not there are
always the police to enforce obedience.
"Cumulative = win-win", and "Winnowing = Only the top win".
Your "Winnowing" differs little from Zero-sum. The big problem is the Outlaw US Empire's
initial storyline is greatly at odds with Zero-sum. As I've written many times at MoA, The
Constitution's Preamble that's taught to all citizens says the government's purpose is to
"form a more perfect Union...," and what's happening now--for several decades in reality--is
the exact opposite. US politicians and business magnates from the Guilded Age knew very well
that the way to keep the peace was for everyone to perceive they had a stake in the system.
Neoliberalism's Zero-sum throws that rationale under the bus, which in turn has generated the
current domestic turmoil. The one thing Trump failed to do was to promise to all Americans
they'd have a stake in the system, which is essentially what Hitler and Mussolini told their
masses. Trump intoned and shouted MAGA, but did nothing to show that he was serious about
doing so. That's why he failed. And that's why the D leg of the Duopoly will also break. It's
that break we must act upon when it occurs.
I think the oligarchic death cult that manages USAi affairs is not the slightest bit
interested in "universal democratization": just scan the homeland to see that. The death cult
is only interested in wealth accumulating their way. Every year they go into a demented
trance screaming about the evil of taxes. Whenever a crisis emerges or a bill goes to the
House they scramble to append as many 'tax relief measures' as they can.
The USAi oligarchy and their death cult regulate as many US political candidates as
possible to destroy any chance of a government introducing a universal education or universal
health system that will need taxes to supply it. Look at what just happened with the
#forcethevote attempt to get medicare for all to commence in the USAi. It was the best
opportunity in a century to implement it and the only possible advocates totally ignored the
initiative.
They became the FraudSquad instead: they used the M4All advocacy to get elected and then
ignored their electorate.
Something like %70+ of the people approve of this and the best advocates bowed to the
oligarchy death cult and have been since the day they were elected.
So what might the oligarchs think of Chinese people with their resounding support for the
Communist Party of China? They will hate them with every bone in their body, they will be
furious that this country resists and denies them a chance to plunder it - yet again. The
oligarchic death cult will be extremely angry that a single country presents an excellent and
achievable system of government and financial management and community betterment to all the
other nations on earth.
The oligarchy death cult will do anything to destroy them. And they have the perfect
compliant tool in the Biden Harris Presidency.
b - insightful perspectives.
But while I'd agree that China's threat to US ruling ideologies features foreign relations as
the leading edge of conflict, the danger of a good alternative may be even greater as it
concerns domestic policies.
If a reckoning comes for US ruling elites, the prosecution may begin with the offshoring
of US jobs, broad-based prosperity, manufacturing and strategic infrastructure development.
Indeed Trump's greatest threat might have been drawing a dotted line if not a solid one to
the culprits.
Exhibit B becomes the Chinese model's successes in poverty eradication, general rises in
broad-based prosperity, stunning growth in STEM capacities and jobs with futures and now,
obviously, competence in public-health crisis management.
The next phase may be litigating the hollowing out of the MIC itself through the
corruption of the national defense by a revolving door of staff officers, lobbyists, tankies,
bureaucrats and legislators for-profit, for-show, for-corruption.
An additional phase, should the human race survive it, may be tribunals -- such as those
of the Reign of Terror, in the event of revolution, or, in the event of war, along the lines
of war-crimes tribunals under Chinese / Russian direction, once a suitable city in the
smoldering ruins of the continental US equivalent to Nuremberg in German can be found.
It's not so much the American people but the people of the "blob" themselves who increasingly
question American exceptionalism. That's why they become ever more crazy and aggressive. They
compensate their (unconscious) self-doubts with fanatism.
The empire may be considering arming and provoking its vassals near China into nuclear war,
but America would never consider anything so terrible as trying to cripple China with
biological weapons! That would be just crazy!
There are several levels of analysis here that are being muddled by theoretical ignorance.
The liberal theory says that political democracy and free markets create economic growth,
responsible government, mutual gains from trade, economic interdependence, and a zone of
peace, reinforced and cemented by multilateral institutions. The liberal zone of peace is
threatened, though, by authoritarian regimes with state-run economies, and the former need to
contain and overthrow the latter.
Realist theory starts with the state and the state-system, which is anarchic and thus
produces conflicts over the balance of power. Defensive realists say that a prudent grand
strategy would focus solely on territorial integrity and sovereignty, because any aggressive
actions only produce balancing. Offensive realists say that hegemony is the only source of
security and that great powers should go to war and wage the arms race to achieve it.
Marxists say that none of these dynamics are distant from the class relationships and
competitive dynamics of capitalism and so both liberal and realist arguments turn out to be a
crude apologia for imperialism -- for the class-based strategies of dominant states.
With this in mind, we can turn the US' China problem. As the article says, China poses no
threat to the US state, nation and territory, so the defensive realist argument for
containing China is groundless. Likewise, China's economic growth and stability in the
absence of liberal democracy also undermines liberal arguments about the conditions of war
and peace in the world. Finally, the balancing of China and Russia against US primacy
strategies has undermined offensive realist fantasies of hegemony.
So, what is actually driving US aggression vis-a-vis China?
The only answer is that the long-term material interests of the American capitalist class
are threatened by the emergence of a superior competitor, namely, China.
This is true in several respects, most of which I can't cover here.
But, China is building dense global relationships, and positioning itself as a central
node of economic growth, technological prowess, social stability, manufacturing power,
consumer demand, green innovation, and multilateral reliability.
The US is in deep trouble as a result. As the world becomes more China-centric, the major
economic powers will stop funding US trade and government deficits. This will reduce the
value of the dollar and diminish the global roles of the Treasury Dept and Federal Reserve,
and of Wall Street. The US will fail to meet its debt obligations and the standard of living
will plummet as debt-financed consumption winds down. The USG will face fiscal dilemmas, all
of which pose serious problems: cut social programs and risk riots; cut the military and risk
the empire; raise taxes and risk capital flight and economic stagnation. Given the dynamics
of American domestic politics, these dilemmas will not be solved.
These are the underlying material fears of the US ruling class and they EXPLAIN the real
drive to containment and war with China.
In short, Marxism is a better science of world politics than are liberalism and
realism.
Nuclear Japan? Maybe. Nuclear South Korea? Maybe. It could be argued that both already are by
virtue of the U.S. occupation of both.
Nuclear Taiwan? I don't see that happening, and any attempt to do so would offer China the
perfect excuse to formally reabsorb that Chinese island.
American paranoia over China (and Russia) seeking to usurp the US and take over as world
hegemon is pure paranoia and projection. It's the western model of the world that considers
it normal and desirable to have one country or ideology ruling the entire globe.
China has no history of using its power to force the world to accept it as sole ruler. The
reason the US and the west are so paranoid about China et al is because they give
themselves the "divine" right to force their ideology onto others, first with Christianity, a
monotheistic religion that has converting the heathens, savages and infidels to its screed at
the center of its philosophy, and then with liberalism + capitalism (now neoliberal rentier
capitalism) and they, falsely, assume every country and ideology is like that.
American and western European foreign policy is a study in Psychological Projection 101.
When imperialists like Porcine Pompeo and Lurch Kerry accuse other states of aggressive
behavior, violating sovereignty and so forth, they are actually talking about their own
country's actions.
In the US, now that corporations are people, and since the corporations and tools of finance
are privately owned, the concept of democracy is a lie or myth if that offends you.
That is why I keep dragging the ideology discussion to the reality of public/private
finance.
It comes down to risk management decisions about the allocation of scarce resources. In
the West now those risk management decisions have a ROI skew which includes a profit
component that does not exist in China risk management decisions.
We are in a civilization war because the West will not show well in a social system merit
comparison...and the elite know this....hence the ongoing shit show to control the
narrative.
First off all....there is a difference between WAR and PIRACY
I did not see any bomb landing on US ground or soldier.
Second....free trade agreement is responsible for China economic succes.
Finally...bring back the production on US GROUND...that will kill China
Prof K@18 has a very optimistic scenario where China becomes the safe haven for capital and
then other countries stop using the dollar as the world currency and t-bills are passed over
in favor of the RMB and investors will prefer investing in Shanghai stock market because
their money will be more liquid thereand something something will happen so that they (whoc?)
won't finance US trade deficits. I don't understand this last, as it is entirely unclear in
what sense US trade deficits are being financed. In fact, actual trade deficits aren't being
financed. But then the balance of payments isn't just trade in goods, but financial services
and US stock markets and yes, government treasuries are also part of that.
It is entirely unclear to me how socialist China, where as of now the ren min bi is not
freely convertible, where the government has enormous influence on import and export of
capital and capitalists are not only not guaranteed bailing out by the Reserve Bank but
regulations are much more onerous than in the US especially with enforcement by prison
sentences even for the wealthy...it is unclear to me how this China can replace the US as
safe haven, at least while remaining some sort of socialist country at all, even in a
NEP-is-the-road-to-socialism kind of way. Further, the US role as the safe haven was not just
historically due to it's relative victory (as compared to its capitalist rivals,) in WWI and
WWII, but due to its military power. The US pursues a policy of rule or ruin, and ruins
selected easy targets on a regular basis (since Bush the senior at the latest,) just to keep
the point vivid in everyone's minds. The dollar is not founded on US economic
production/productivity but on blood. It is impossible to imagine today's China becoming a
capitalist policeman guarding the gates of the bazaar and collecting backsheesh, so to speak.
The Chinese capitalists would have to really take over and seriously re-organize Chinese
society to do this.
This all sounds pie-in-the-sky at best, I think. Except that's prettifying the ideal, I
think. I don't believe a reformed capitalist world system is even possible. Capitalists
ultimately depend on their states in their rivalries. There inevitably comes a point when the
states must resolve conflicts with wars. The pursuit of a multipolar world is a pursuit of a
world safe for war, not a pursuit of peace.
The link is to an article by Doug Bandow, titled "America's Asian Allies Need Their Own
Nukes". Bandow recommends "friendly nuclear proliferation".
This is how far the US has decayed: that a respected journal like Foreign Policy should
publish such insanity.
And yes, it's totally insane. The US is not the only country capable of proliferation. The
day after Taiwan gets nuclear weapons, so will Mexico and Hezbollah. The day after
that , so will many other countries. It's impossible to foresee all the consequences
of irresponsible proliferation, but one outcome is the most likely: doomsday for
humanity.
-// Another veteran diplomat, Victoria Nuland, will be nominated [by Biden] for the role of
under secretary of State for political affairs, one of the people said. //-
Lets look at what
China plans to do over the next 5 years . The article provides a very broad explanation
then links to some specifics at the bottom, the item about the Yangtze River Economic Belt
being most important. I found this bit of reporting highly important:
"More specifically, these days the government uses the five-year plans to reinforce and
complement the market dynamic by providing regulation and guidance. That includes providing
the legal and social framework, such as issuing monetary and fiscal policies, providing
public goods and services, such as building high-speed rails, and correcting for market
failures like pollution."
There's a vast difference in focus between China and the West--China's sharply focused on
its development in ways the West isn't whatsoever, and it makes certain its citizenry knows
that and everyone's working as a team--every job has its own value and is important. The best
explanation I have is that China is doing while the West is watching and not doing;
therefore, China continues to grow ahead of those standing watching with their jaws
agape.
China outnumbers the Outlaw US Empire by more than one billion people. That's a huge team
working together to advance their nation and themselves. Within the Empire, at least 30% of
the labor force is idle and not even counted for unemployment purposes since they aren't
actively looking for non-existent jobs while about 24% of the active labor force is
unemployed. That's 54% of your human capital that's not being used at all to better
themselves and their nation. Honestly, which one has the better outlook?
The enemies of the USA reside within it. Yeah, I've said that before and the evidence
continues to prove I'm correct.
All of this makes me think about the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century
according to Vladimir Putin: The fall of the Soviet Union. Not because of the shrink of the
Russian Empire, but for the loss of an equal to the USA in the international stage. That
would make the remaining superpower to have some sort of delusional sense of destiny, as seen
in Fukuyama's 'End of History'.
How the situation evolves in a timeframe of 5-10 years in the future is hard to evaluate
given the many factors that will influence the outcome but IMO, the only thing that can be
taken for granted is the further the USA gets weaker, the more dangerous it becomes for the
future of Humanity.
My first post at MoA, keep on with the good work :)
I would add that the threat China poses isn't just ideological - it is operational.
The US derives enormous benefit from the US dollar as reserve currency; from the USD as
alternative savings vehicle of choice by foreigners against their own currency; by all manner
of favorable international institutions like the World Bank and IMF.
Secondly, China isn't some bare assed Middle Eastern terrorists or Central Asian mountain
tribes. It has more people, it will or already has a larger economy and it is proceeding
apace with technology development.
This is very different than Russia or even the Soviet Union, for example.
The West was always far bigger, wealthier and productive than the Soviet Union - this enabled
all sorts of strategies like outspending on defense, buying job lots of puppet politicians in
vassal states, etc.
This won't work with a China that is a bigger supplier as well as all of the other
size-related advantages already noted.
Can the American oligarchs stand being 2nd fiddle in the medium term? Certainly in the long
term? Would their domestic and foreign empires hold up?
Sputnik publishes its own analysis , which relies rather heavily on Beijing-based
American commentator Thomas Pauken who has his own credibility issues as readers will
discover at the article's conclusion.
"democratization and liberalization is a necessary precursor for peace and economic
growth"
Well, anyone with any notion of history before 1800 knows this is absolute bullshit and those
aren't linked at all.
The affairs of humans are paltry compared to the vast changes that are taking place in
nature: the Sixth Mass Extinction resulting from our destruction of habitat and the stability
of the climate system. As methane has begun erupting from the enormous stores in the Arctic,
accelerating the forcing and ice melt, we continue on our merry way oblivious to the fate
that awaits us in the near future. Faster than expected, abrupt climate disruption is
nature's revolution to clear the earth of the invasive species -- humans.
The United States should think creatively about new approaches to old problems. One way to
do so is to stop hectoring partners and preventing them from doing what they want to do.
Unless, of course, they want to become friends with China -- this should be prevented at
all costs!
amerika's corrupt and undemocratic system of government will bring itself undone long before
it could succeed in any attempt to disrupt China's system.
The stupid two party both the same just tell different lies farce is tearing the population
apart, that's not going to get better it will get much much worse. In fact I suspect the
'prez-elect' is desperately hoping that the rethugs win both senate seats in Georgia as that
provides him with a way to avoid following up on his vague minutely left of center campaign
promises.
He may be outta luck cos at
this stage with about 25% counted the Dems have a lead in both races. Still that's mostly
urban electorates and as I understand 'urban' has become amerikan code for unwhite, so if the
dems are trying to fluff this contest it will be by Dems failing to turn out the rural
african american vote that saves creepy joe from embarrassment. We shall see cos the state
dems may not agree to that.
Anyway the lack of a shared dialog between amerikans is getting worse as we see even here
at moa where some of these fools come over all hysterical about quite minor issues. You get
that when it is barely possible to pull a cigarette paper between dem & rethug policies
on the big stuff, so all that is left are the same deliberately selected emotive issues such
as abortion & capital punishment that both parties have been encouraging the citizens to
obsess over for the last 60 years.
Those fools will go into a civil war over the emotive, totally irrelevant to living in a
functioning society, issues which have been beaten up & propagandised for so long, and
that will be the end of the threat to the rest of the world amerika poses.
I don't believe a reformed capitalist world system is even possible. Capitalists ultimately
depend on their states in their rivalries. There inevitably comes a point when the states
must resolve conflicts with wars. The pursuit of a multipolar world is a pursuit of a world
safe for war, not a pursuit of peace.
Ergo, we must pursue a socialist multipolar world.
An USA wich is not leader of the world is not possible. This is the central myth. Growing
toward that or beeing it. But without that there is no imaginable USA. I come for myself to
the conclusion, a multipolar world will cause breakup. As unit of one country it is just not
agreement capable.
In 1941, during WWII, Harry Truman wanted a brutal and prolonged conflict in order to inflict
as much death and destruction in Europe as possible, declaring:
"If we see Germany winning, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to
help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible."
The US - or at least its ruling elite as expressed by one of its key leaders and
subsequent president - wanted the brutal war to continue for as long as possible, so that as
many Russians and Germans as possible would be killed, (with other Europeans, including Jews,
as inevitable collateral casualties in that process,) so that the US could then step in at
the very end to dominate war-destroyed Europe.
Following the same playbook, the US warmongering/plundering elite would love it if they
could pit Russia vs. China, Europe vs Russia, India vs. China, Japan vs. China, etc. So long
as Eurasia is divided instead of cooperating with itself, the US remains the hegemon. Even
better if a destructive war breaks out over there, that the US would sustain from over here,
and step in as the noble saviours at the last minute to plunder the spoils.
-
The threat of the example that China happens to provide is not just about preserving
America's ruling ideology ("universal democratization", "democracy", "freedom", etc.,) but
also about preserving US-led geopolitical hegemony and US-led plutocracy.
The US-spouted ideology is a tool for its hegemony that in turn is a tool for its
plutocracy to continue to enrich itself through plunder.
Any example of a country that serves its people, let alone one that does so without
foreign wars and regime change subversion, cannot be allowed by a plutocracy that sustains
itself through wars, subversion, parasitism, and plunder.
That means, unfortunately, we in the West will continue to be force-fed a barrage of
propaganda from our establishment media so that people can't perceive that example, (and are
even made to reject it as evil,) lest they start questioning the corrupt, plutocratic system
they live in.
Been thinking about what u said, rr 39..
Canada waits with baited breath... the burned out remains of empire's creche, negotiating for
commerlcial union with their long traditional north-south continental neighbors. Perhaps the
midwest could share in monopolizing grains ...
Or the sea coasts with the fisheries..... otherwise, i don't see it.
I think we are going to collapse to local economy, and maybe build bacl to anational economy,
after some time. I don't know when.
Your Brainwashing is complete, you have swallowed the green pill and happily pay your
carbon taxes and live in the fear artificially inserted into your sub/conscious having
trusted proven liars and and having failed to verify things for yourself or trust your own
senses. All thinking is filtered through your gree-coloured glasses.
You have swallowed wholly the manufactured-for-the-masses groupthink propaganda and
espouse it from the core of your very soul, shout it from the mountaintops. Be the
chickenlittle that you are and just come out and say, it will be cathartic and will feel good
- THE SKY IS FALLING!
You and your ilk are fools, and are dangerously fascistic, climate fatalist totalitarians
and you will not be satisfied until any and all opposing views/data/freedom of thought are
outlawed.
many comments mention "oligarchs" - and their power, nationally and internationally. I see a
serious danger of the "Oligarchic Internationale" (a wordplay on the marxist 19th. century
"Workers Internationale" with their slogan "Workers of the world, Unite! I say that for the
very few MoA readers who are too young or not educated in history or economy, apology to the
most MoA readers). The Oligarchs of the world (be it USA, China, Russia, Israel, and from
wherever they may creep) are de facto already in an "Internationale" type organization - they
say silently "Oligarchs of the World - Unite!" and they don't want a big war , which would
upset the status quo. They will try to keep it for themselves and their offspring with very
forceful means - Internationally enforced. Smaller proxi-wars may happen, but no WW 3, in my
laymen's opinion.
I've been pondering lately this one question: what is the point of even having a country
if the advantages to the ordinary citizen of having a country are no longer maintained?
In the US, if we can't get the federal government to act on behalf of the people, maybe
the only answer is to discard that government. In the USA, this can be done, lawfully and
peacefully (although with high drama, for sure) by the States acting in agreement to dissolve
the Union.
The United States acts under a certain hindrance by having two levels of government, but
this is also a great treasure as well. The top layer of government can go away, and the
people will still have a sovereignty-based government to live under, and to be represented
by, and to engage with.
So here's a proposal from each State to the Federal establishment: you discorporate, we
keep all our monies, and all federal properties within our borders convey to us. You fuck
off: we'll get by without you somehow; don't worry about us - and adios .
~~
And rico rose, your point about the multi polar world is very important I think. When you
say "a multipolar world will cause breakup" , I suggest that a multipolar world will
better allow breakup. It's kind of the same thing, the same result from two different
ends: from one end, the Demonstration Effect from the rest of the world including China
showing to the US populace that there is a much better way to live, and from the US end, the
general dissatisfaction growing among that populace as the federal government continues to be
useless.
It could take a short decade at most, I reckon, for the rest of the world to be so
impressive that US media can't hide it from the people any longer, and for US oligarchy to be
so lawless and ravaging that the people simply can't take it anymore.
In a softer world that follows the example of Asia, and especially given the natural
borders of North America anyway, there is no great threat from armed invasion to any of the
States, even if each one were to stand alone. Many states would form new unions, but even so,
the citizenry in place in each state possesses the firepower to resist any invasion, I
suggest.
So if there's no defense to be provided for, all that's left is the welfare of the
citizens to be provided for. And 2020 has shown dramatically that, while the federal
government has abandoned that sense of provisioning, the States and their people still care
passionately about this very thing.
~~
Apparently the calls for "secession" are arising again in the US, or so I've heard. It's a
crude concept at the moment, and there is no right of secession. But there is every right to
amend the Constitution, by a 3/4 majority of the States, and to dissolve the present Union,
in order to create a "more perfect" arrangement.
China has many billionaires, but I don't think they have the degree of power over the
Chinese government and society implied by the term "oligarch". Jack Ma may be the richest man
in China, but that hasn't stopped the Chinese government from quite effectively cutting him
down to size.
The pandemic is the final nail into the coffin of the Western Empire. Asia and South Pacific
nations functioned as they should and their public health systems are controlling the virus
but must enforce quarantines on the infected world to continue their ascension.
It is now a multi-polar world. The exploitative capitalism of the West intentionally
destroyed democracy and good governance to increase profits. Reality has bitten back. The
remains of the former public health system are corrupt and incompetent as exemplified by Dr.
Anthony Fauci. The virus basically spread unhindered in the USA and UK. The difficulty is
that in times of stress human being revert to tribal beliefs. The reality of the change in
power dynamics will be denied by Western decision makers. The truth is that if the West
cannot control a virus, it will never address the existential crises; climate change, rising
inequality and perpetual war.
Mankind will only survive if it learns how to live on a finite planet in peace.
No worry, Nature will take care of itself after we humans have disposed of ourselves. I
deplore our general destruction of the environment we live in and the misuse/abuse of
resources, but humans are not as strong as we think we are. We may cause considerable damage
to the mega fauna and flora, and severely damage ecosystems, but our current war against the
planet is one we cannot win and should not even be trying to (capitalism and its God Mammon,
again). Life will go on with or without us. Evolution is a fact of life, whether our
religions, corporate board rooms, genetics manipulation corps or biological weapons
departments understand that or not.
Faster than expected, abrupt climate disruption is nature's revolution to clear the earth
of the invasive species -- humans.
We're not an invasive species, but I broadly agree. The best thing to happen to the
beautiful planet in the last million years would be the extinction of the smart pest, Homo S.
Too bad I won't be around to enjoy a people free Earth.
I usually read MoA in the morning, yet today it late pm. Your article reminded me of an
earlier article read this morning re USA and China Wages comparison. Here is the article pay
particular attention to the graph. Pretty much sums it up in that China have an expansionist
economy while the USA has (with exception to the Financial rubbish posing as assets) a
contraction economy. Globalisation and Austerity from Reagan_nomics/Thatcher_nomics from the
"70's have lead the west into the debt ridden marsh we are in now. Yet the lesson of an
expansionist economy (which all western economies have done in the past) escapes the thinking
of those who supposedly matter. Personally I think the world needs a lot more "Musk's
(creating massive employment in making new tech cars and rockets plus solar) and a lot less
Bezios's and Jack Maa's (Alibaba china) (Using others products and screwing them on margins
to increase his wealth) https://thenewdaily.com.au/finance/2021/01/05/michael-pascoe-wages-graph-globalisation/
I agreee that the US is almost easier to define. Zero-sum or winnowing, both are reductive
traits. ie the population gets sidelined.
However, I also think that part of "our" problem is that the comments and viewpoint, are
generally all "western-centric" and not enough attention is paid to the fundamental
differences in attitudes. Chinese are being "gifted" with US preoccupations to show
that they are basically the same as those of the US itself. ie. The US is right-superior in
its attitudes and so others STILL try to copy-steal-follow it. Something that is becoming
visibly not true. Which is why my comment also mentioned the "cumulative" Chinese attitude.
It being probably more important to understand why China is on the ascendant.
Note that "Democracy", "communism" or whatever, all have the same stated object of
population input and therefore good for the masses. It is when their lofty ideals are no
longer seen to be true, (and are not true in practice?) that the edifice cracks. (Ie, part of
the USSR collapse corresponds with the rise of the Nomenklatura of only 750'000 people with
the right to vote etc. It worked as long as it worked, but fell through when the mass
realised they were NOT getting their part somewhere)
Sorry, Very short reply, as I have problems with internet to resolve, with a bit of luck
and perseverance I may be able to continue later today.
Exactly right. The second largest problem in the world just now is the Government of the
US. Breaking up the US would effectively get rid of the problem. Then we could deal with
climate change more effectively.
The current hatred and division between red and blue, the lack of effective health
services, the deterioration of infrastructure, the future demise of dollar power and thus
lack of funding for the military all give me cause to hope that break up will happen. Lets
all do our best to make it so.
@Canadian Cents #42
It shouldn't surprise you; Truman was closely associated with the Pendergast political
machine (Kansas City mob).
His Attorney General was closely involved in serious corruption in the IRS and DOJ-Tax
division.
He dropped the bomb and was a nasty person in general.
Meanwhile, Assange is denied bail. Something tells me that, even if not extradite,
they plan to hold him in prison indefinitely - if not American, British would do just as
well.
Wow! When did MoA give up all rationality? The US has long since dug its own grave and long
since guaranteed its unviability as a superpower. Everything from here is downward, as long
as it clings to the mad idea of supremacy. And the longer it continues to deny reality the
bigger and more brutal the bang when it finally collapses - or it disappears in its own
nuclear conflagration.
The US produces virtually nothing, except over-priced and disfunctional weapons.
Everything else that it has is stolen. It does not have the capability to reverse that trend
- that horse has long since bolted and disappeared over the horizon. Unlike the US, countries
like China and Russia create genuine wealth through their own productive efforts, and they
have the military and economic means to ensure that the US cannot strangle them. The economic
advantages of China and Russia will only increase compared to the US, and everything the US
is doing to sabotage their efforts only makes them stronger and the US weaker.
Nuclear weapons to Taiwan??? Only SuperMorons could entertain the notion for more than 2
seconds (and there are plenty such supermorons at the Foreign Policy Institute, that's part
of what got the US to this status in the first place). If the US gives nuclear weapons to
Taiwan they will be giving nuclear weapons directly to China. China would know about it
before it happens, and long before they could be operational Taiwan would cease to be Taiwan
and would be a province of Mainland China. Not to see that China has that capability - and
the resolution to carry it out - is sheer idiotic blindness.
Even if Taiwan could install such nuclear weapons before China takes over, where would
they hide them? The stupidity of thinking a tiny one-point nation on China's borders can
seriously threaten the entirety of nuclear-armed China - in alliance with Russia - defies
fantasy. Doing so requires not "superior weapons" (which the US does not have anyway, that
prize belongs to China's ally Russia) but superior idiocy and superior self-deception.
The US is on a bullet train to self-destruction. Stopping that train is impossible without
making changes in the past that were not made - unless it gives up 100% of its ambitions to
supremacy and becomes a minor self-sufficient village minding its own business. That is its
only chance.
Instead of waffling about and navel-gazing over such tiresome fantasies of the US
exceptionalists, MoA would do much better to concentrate on the serious issues that confront
the world today - like confronting the damage wreaked on society worldwide by the
hyper-unbalanced madness of covid policies; the direction of political changes in Europe; the
ever continuing instability in the Middle East; signs of latent possible resurgence of
society in Latin America (cf Bolivia etc); containment of the US madness; etc.
So here's a proposal from each State to the Federal establishment: you discorporate, we
keep all our monies, and all federal properties within our borders convey to us. You fuck
off: we'll get by without you somehow; don't worry about us - and adios.
Posted by: Grieved | Jan 6 2021 4:42 utc | 47
Sounds good to me! One specific form of the "village" alternative I mentioned above, in
another name.
I have wondered how we can go to war with actual bombing and stuff like that with China
because many many items that we use every day are purchased from factories in China, having
been manufactured there by, it seems to me, "American" (now, of course, multinational)
companies. Think apple. Or Ralph Loren. Or any item at the Dollar Store. Have you looked at
the labels on your purchases? In addition, we buy all kinds of medicinal products from China.
And socks. The US and China are intertwined in many ways.
I thought the MAGA theme of Pres. Trump was to lessen the immense difference in trade
amounts - we buy tons of stuff from China but they do not buy that much from us - by imposing
tariffs on good imported from China and demanding that "American" companies agree to
manufacture in the US again. I thought, well, fat chance.
It is a problem. I am not a "better red than dead or dead than red" or whatever it is, but
I cannot see the point of blowing up the world because we can't be the king of it.
Pres. Trump never struck me as a war monger although he has been surrounded by
them.
The big 'domino' has fallen: Red America; and Brexit is a second. Does anyone believe
that this American epiphany; this exploding of American delusions, will leave Europe
untouched? Or, that other states will not observe it too, and understand from it that the
past need to submit their own cultures to European moral scrutiny is over?
We claim our enemies fear us for the same reason that we actually fear China.
Experts say, Russia 'invaded' Ukraine because Putin was terrified about having an example of
a free and prosperous country on their border and Russians would ask themselves, why can't we
have that?'
Talk about projection.
Even so, why can't we coexist?
Most Americans don't travel, Neocons can do what they do best, just lie about other countries
and say that China is a starving mess and we are #1. Who in the U.S. would know, who in the
MSM would bother to find out otherwise. No set of facts would convince us otherwise.
China could voluntarily decide to go to their own graduate schools and stop going to the
U.S. because it's a waste of time and money.
Neocons: 'we banned Communist Chinese students protect our valuable IP'
China could surpass our economy to the point where hovercraft is commonplace.
Neocons: 'Communist China is destroying their environment, our kerosene scooters and trucks
are the best thing in the world'
The average fool in the U.S. would never know how backward we had become (or maybe are, I
don't travel either)
I guess that is too passive, Neocons have to justify their paycheck.
The Degradation of American Democracy -- And the Court
Foreword by Michael J. Klarman
[...] Freedom House, which researches and advocates for democracy around the world,
lowered the United States on the organization's scale of zero to 100 measuring political
rights and civil liberties from ninety-four in 2010 to eighty-six in 2017. The decline in the
United States' rating exceeded that of other Western democracies.
...
More than thirty years ago, political scientist Francis Fukuyama, reflecting on a wave of
democratization that had swept the world beginning in the 1970s, concluded that liberal
democracy had become inevitable -- the logical endpoint in the evolutionary trajectory of the
modern state. However, over roughly the last fifteen years, Freedom House has recorded
erosion in levels of freedom in once-strong democracies such as Hungary, India, the
Philippines, Poland, and Turkey. Governments in these countries have shut down independent
media, assailed and incarcerated independent journalists, packed courts and bureaucracies
with their supporters, dismantled independent institutions of civil society, and vilified
racial and religious minorities to distract attention from problems they cannot solve.
Many Americans cannot imagine the erosion of their own democracy. The United States has
the longest-standing constitution in the world, a strong middle class, high levels of wealth
and education, and deeply entrenched democratic institutions and mores. Yet the United States
is not immune from world trends of declining democratization. In addition to the developments
already noted, research shows that younger Americans are much less committed to democracy
than their elders are. Among Americans born in the 1980s, only twenty-nine percent believe
that living in a democracy is "essential," as compared with seventy-one percent of those born
in the 1930s.
This Foreword examines the recent degradation of American democracy, seeks explanations
for it, and canvasses the Supreme Court's contribution to it.
In Chinese the call it the "Celestial Ascension" [Doctrine] or something like that. And
yes, it requires socialism in order to make sense (the demonstration as to why the doctrine
is socialist is too long to put it here, but it is).
Having studied Chinese language and history in Europe and China for years since 1972 and
practiced as a teacher, interpreter and guide, I have never come accross any Mainland or
Táiwan Chinese text or person who have used the expression "Celestial Ascention" in
the Chinese language to describe what's been goin on the last fourty years. WHere have You
picked up this belief, Herr Jan?
@ Posted by: Tollef Ås/秋涛乐 | Jan 6 2021 16:11 utc | 66
Heard it from a Brazilian scholar who once told me, a long time ago (don't even remember
the exact term). Never heard it ever since.
But my point is: China's geopolitical doctrine is not secret/cryptic. You only have to
know where to find it (and, preferably, know how to read Chinese). China never hid the fact
it is socialist (Market Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is the official name of the
system) and never hid the fact that it has a geopolitical doctrine that is in accordance with
its system (i.e. also a socialist geopolitical doctrine).
Dear Jan ;
As for the expression "Celestial ascention" (vk | Jan 5 2021 20:00 utc | 7), this mai be av
mistranslation of various chinese expressions for "natural rise" ('tiānrán
shēngqilai' or 'qiántiān-dìngde shēngzhǎng' both meaning
"coming naturally". Many other possibilities, byt the semi.religious or semi-imperial
associatons of "celestial" are definitely never heard in CHina nowadays. s
@Tolled As #68
You should be aware that black has many views which are literally unique.
It is also clear that few, if any, of them are based on first hand knowledge or
experience.
"Socialism with market characteristics" is something Deng brought in - it certainly was not
CCP ideology before that.
Having visited China many times as a fluent speaker starting in the early '80s, the
difference between the present day ideology and the past is stark.
But not to someone who has never been there and doesn't have good discernment in secondary
sources to boot.
@ Posted by: Tollef Ås/秋涛乐 | Jan 6 2021 16:23 utc | 68
Maybe the Brazilian scholar was too creative.
Either way, the consecrated term in English is a surprisingly good translation ("China's
Peaceful Development/Rise/Development Doctrine"), which is also colloquially called
"win-win". But the doctrine is actually much more complex than that term suggests.
One should google the background of that Richard Hanania person.
Supposedly he is currently a postdoc fellow at Columbia University, and alredy serves as
President of some 4 letter institute/stink tank tere that was just set up in 2020[!!].
Before that he got a PhD (political sci) from UCLA (2017-2019?);
before that he got a JD from U. Chicago.
Quite the pedigree. Three top private or out-of-state high tuition schools in expensive
cost of living places. Likely his education was *state-sponsored*.
But which State? CIA? Mossad? Who's paying his bills?
@47 grieved yes, I like federalism as the basic concept because it works in booth directions
if needed. Towards unity but keeping the option of separation. Why not having California as
member of the Paris declaration alone. It opens the door for development for problems to
early to call. The negotiation process staying open for undecided parts. That is what
multipolar means in the core and I guess the only hope for the USA as a nation.
Germany is similar structured. The central government is only allowed to work from own power
in defence and foreign relations. For almost everything else it have to use the organs of 15
strong states. Also the source of statehood is coming from them. It is a bit covered right
now by EU and covid but there are deep contradiction inside of Germany. If EU, also because
of German influence a federation, fails maybe not the old country come up again. I see big
chance of totally different structures.
Global
Times article , "US politics in reality 'more interesting than House of Cards
,' entertains Chinese amid pandemic," is absolutely fascinating and revealing--essentially,
Chinese are roaring with laughter at the Emperor without clothing. This long excerpt helps
explain:
"'Nobody knows more about trending on Weibo better than me,' an internet user mocked Trump
via a Weibo comment, adding that 'Weibo would face huge losses after Trump steps down' since
the entertainment will largely subside .
"Chinese experts said Americans or other Westerners might not understand why Chinese
people are just curious about but don't admire US democracy, but instead treat it as a
variety show which is much more interesting than House of Cards . In fact, Chinese
people are pretty familiar with the US election and most of them can objectively observe and
compare it with the Chinese national conditions.
" House of Cards is the most famous US TV series viewed in China that has helped
many Chinese people learn about how US politicians struggle and vie for power. Now Chinese
people might learn that the scriptwriters of this TV series have actually underestimated how
much drama really occurs in US politics.
"Some experts of US studies said that in House of Cards , Chinese audiences have
learned that US politicians have a very vague bottom line. As long as they can make gains,
they will betray anyone. In reality, Trump has just proven that there is no bottom line at
all, as he empowers his family members in the White House as much as he wants, and uses
presidential authority to pardon many people with close connections to him.
" House of Cards tells the audience that mainstream media outlets are influential
and can impact politics, but in reality, Trump shows that he can use social media networks to
undermine the influence of mainstream media and the conservative new media can even
consolidate Trump's base by selling anti-intellectual information or conspiracy
theories."
"Some experts of US studies said that in House of Cards , Chinese audiences have
learned that US politicians have a very vague bottom line. As long as they can make gains,
they will betray anyone. In reality, Trump has just proven that there is no bottom line at
all, as he empowers his family members in the White House as much as he wants, and uses
presidential authority to pardon many people with close connections to him.
" House of Cards tells the audience that mainstream media outlets are influential
and can impact politics, but in reality, Trump shows that he can use social media networks to
undermine the influence of mainstream media and the conservative new media can even
consolidate Trump's base by selling anti-intellectual information or conspiracy theories."
[My Emphasis]
So the longstanding rule that Truth is Stranger than Fiction is again being proven true in
China. Most importantly, the chaos within the Outlaw US Empire is serving as education for
Chinese and other people globally showing quite graphically the absolute dysfunction of its
political system.
I haven't watched House of Cards or Game of Thrones , but I did just
recently watch a considerable portion of The Hunger Games . Combine reality with their
stories and we'll need to adjust our evaluation of Hollywood propaganda. Add the persecution
of Julian Assange for revealing capital crimes--something he'd be rewarded for doing in
China--into this mix and there's no way the Neoliberal West is ever going to win Chinese
hearts and minds; rather, the opposite's occurring at a rapid pace.
c1ue @56, thanks, knew that Truman unnecessarily dropped the atomic bomb on civilians twice,
but didn't know those other details about him. The point is, given the foreignpolicy.com
writer that suggests "creatively" encouraging seeding "friendly proliferation" of nuclear
arms to Taiwan, South Korea, Japan with the expecation that that would induce China to "react
badly to," it seems that the same sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies as Truman expressed are
still very much present in the US ruling foreign policy elite.
Along with the WWII example, the US induced and sustained a brutal war in Afghanistan in
1979 for its own hegemonic/plutocratic interests:
In 1979, the US began to covertly foster Wahhabi extremism in Afghanistan (another case of
"friendly proliferation") to, in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, "induce" a brutal war in
order to inflict on "the USSR its Vietnam war," at the casual expense of thoroughly
destroying the country and society of the people of Afghanistan for decades.
Robert Gates, the former Defense Secretary under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and
former CIA director under George H. Bush and Ronald Reagan, stated in his 1996 memoirs "From
the Shadows" that American intelligence services began to aid the opposing factions in
Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet deployment in 1979.
That confirms what Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter
and also an adviser to Barack Obama, stated in a 1988 interview:
"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during
1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979."
"But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July
3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of
the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I
explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military
intervention."
"That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians
into the Afghan trap [..] The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to
President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed,
for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war [..]"
- Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, foreign policy
advisor to Barack Obama, in Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
There's a country run by sociopathic/psychopathic elements that has a pattern of inducing
conflicts and brutally destructive wars to disrupt constructive cooperation and
development.
The truth is out - Hollywood only makes "tele-reality shows" with a bit of extra gloss on
them for export. The Chinese have the right idea.
I should have realised that since we have been living the "Twitter era", that variety has
become our spice of life, and Shakespeare's "all the worlds a stage" was just a realistic
appraisal that we would become a comedy skit. I like the idea, I never did appreciate
melodramas or horror films either....
PS. Biden apparently doesn't "tweet", so will we regress to "silent movies"? He can at
least do some of the actions. Keystone cops anyone?
So it doesn't occur to this idiot that if the USA engages in "friendly proliferation" then
both Russia and China will do the same?
This is the central problem with American foreign policy "experts" - they are so shallow
that they never consider that every action they propose will lead to a reaction from those
that they target.
Here, consider this vapid statement: "No doubt, a nuclear-armed China would react badly to
better-armed neighbors, but it is no happier with a more involved United States."
F**k me.
Look, dude, this is very simple: if the USA gave nukes to (say) Taiwan then China would
consider that all niceties are out the window and will look to give nukes to some country on
the USA's doorstep.
You know: Cuba, or Venezuela. Or both.
How smart would that "least bad solution" look then?
I see that "cookie monster" Nuland is supposed to become Deputy secretary of State under
Biden. As a new of version of Pompeo she will obviously be sending tins of fresh home baking
to Putin.
Maybe she will use her Maidan experience and let Joe sniff a bit first.
Why the protégé of Cheney Nuland? Why now? Did Biden completely succumbs to
Alzheimer? Does Biden administration strive to be as dysfunctional, neocon-dominated and
destructive as Obama administration?
Politico reports Tuesday that President-elect Joe Biden is tapping former senior Obama
administration foreign affairs officials to serve in his cabinet.
Most notably among them is neocon Victoria Nuland, who has just been tapped as Biden's state
department undersecretary for political affairs.
Writes Politico :
"Another veteran diplomat, Victoria Nuland, will be nominated for the role of under secretary
of State for political affairs, one of the people said. Nuland also previously served in the
Obama administration, as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs."
Recall that in this capacity she ran point for Obama's regime change "democracy
promotion" efforts in Ukraine . In 2014 leaked audio clip posted to YouTube caused deep
embarrassment for the State Department amid accusations the US was coordinating coup efforts
using the ongoing "Maidan Revolution" to oust then President Viktor Yanukovych.
In that leaked
phone call Nuland told US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt "F*ck the EU" - for which
she was later forced to apologize. Here's some of the audio for a little trip down memory
lane.
She had also been instrumental in her prior postings at the State Department in Obama's
disastrous Libya intervention.
After the Obama administration she's been part of various think
tanks, including the hawkish Brookings Institution, where she's been a fierce critic of Trump's
supposed "appeasement" of Putin. She's also argued for deeper military intervention in Syria
.
Politico in its description of the incoming Obama-era officials underscores they are
hawks on
Russia :
Nuland and [Wendy] Sherman, who entered academia and the think tank world after leaving
the Obama administration, have been outspoken critics of President Donald Trump's foreign
policy -- particularly his appeasement of Russian President Vladimir Putin .
On the National Security Council, former State Department official Jon Finer will be named
deputy national security adviser, the people said, reporting up to incoming national security
adviser Jake Sullivan. Finer, a former journalist, joined the Obama White House as a fellow
in 2009 and served in various roles throughout Obama's tenure, including as a foreign policy
speechwriter for Biden and a senior adviser to then-deputy national security adviser Blinken.
Finer had been working in political risk and public policy at the private equity firm Warburg
Pincus, which was co-founded by Blinken's father, since leaving government in 2017.
The key NSC role of senior director for European Affairs will go to Amanda Sloat, a
Brookings Institution fellow ...
... ... ...
As is the unfortunate norm in the Washington beltway, the Liberal hawks under Obama simply
went to who's who of neocon think tanks like Brookings, and have now been called back in
revolving door fashion for pretty much a return to Obama era foreign policy (and its
disasters ).
Robert Farley
explains why the U.S. can't end endless wars if it pursues an aggressive China policy:
The problem is straightforward: Any effort to characterize China as an existential threat
to the United States necessarily implies a level of conflict that will (as it did during the
Cold War) provide justification for US intervention anywhere in the world. The solution for a
less interventionist foreign policy is not to play up the threat of Beijing in the hopes the US
will stop intervening elsewhere, but rather to carefully rethink what constitutes a threat to
US core values, and what the United States must sacrifice to meet that threat.
The open-ended wars that the US has been fighting for the last two decades were the result
of exaggerating a relatively small, manageable threat (i.e., terrorist attacks) into a major
global menace that required massive resources and frequent military interventions in many
different countries. One can only imagine how much worse things will be if the US replaces its
militarized overreaction to terrorism with a militarized overreaction to the Chinese
government. A hard-line China policy not only increases the likelihood of conflict between the
US and China in East Asia, but it is also likely to encourage more interference in the affairs
of other countries that have close relations with China.
If a U.S.-China rivalry follows the pattern of other great power rivalries, that would
involve trying to subvert client governments through proxy wars and coups and sometimes
intervening directly to overthrow those clients. Policymakers would predictably claim that
peripheral countries are actually vitally important and must be "defended" or pulled into our
orbit. Hawkish pundits would write articles about "who lost Malawi" and explain why it was
absolutely "crucial" to American security that we prop up a dictator in Uzbekistan. The US
would wage wars for "credibility" and refuse to end them for the same reason.
One could argue that rivalry with China need not be global and could be confined to East and
Southeast Asia, but the tendency with these sorts of policies is towards expansion. Kennan's
original idea of containment was never intended to justify waging wars of choice in Asia, but
it was almost immediately expanded to apply everywhere even when no real U.S. interests were at
stake. A China policy that sought to "contain" China would almost certainly expand in the same
way. If someone thinks there can be an intense rivalry with another major power but that it
won't become heavily militarized, I refer you to the record of U.S. foreign policy for the last
seventy years. All of this has happened before, but it doesn't have to keep happening.
Constant meddling and interventionism are driven by an overly expansive definition of U.S.
interests, threat inflation, and a strategy of pursuing global dominance. The meddling and
interventionism won't lessen if Washington identifies a different adversary to obsess over. The
only things that might change will be the names of the countries that the U.S. sanctions and
bombs.
If we want a more peaceful and less interventionist foreign policy, we have to challenge and
reject the assumptions that lead the U.S. to interfere in conflicts that have little or nothing
to do with us. The first steps in doing that involve rightly identifying what our vital
interests are and accurately assessing the threats to those interests. If we do that, we will
recognize that China poses much less of a threat to the U.S. than China hawks claim, and we
will see that increasing hostility towards China is not in the interests of our country or the
interests of our major allies.
Shocking how so few realize that the same people on the right and left think confronting
China via a zero-sum approach can be consistent with their support for reducing U.S. military
and foreign interventionism. These folks preaching withdrawal from Middle East, Pivot to Asia,
or "Rebalancing" crowds are active foreign interventionists by any other definition.
On that note I'm curious which sources of foreign policy information/podcast/writers out
their have a sensible approach to China. I do follow some leftist anti-imperialist voices for
perspective, but unfortunately they are far too forgiving of Beijing (think Grayzone or the
Qiao Collective), but everyone else to the right of these avowed Marxists are even worse,
parroting the same hawkish anti-China narrative as Washington's foreign policy blob.
From my reading of things, China is a nationalist country with a formal communist ideology
and the facto regular economy, with private and state ownership, but with a relatively muscular
regulatory state (not captured by the Ownership class) that ultimately has the decisive power
on things. Massive problems with corruption, which is a constant through Chinese history. The
corruption is so apparent because the state actually tries to do something about it, whereas in
the US the corruption is legalized and formalized.
As any country, China has its problems that should not be dismissed. Also not exaggerated
either. If one dreams of democracy in China, one needs to be very realistic about it. The
extremely long tradition (2000 years) of a bureaucratic/meritocratic state in China, from the
beginning can take the air from any democratic attempts, never mind half backed ones like the
US Polity). It is not the Communist Party Rule that is necessarily the biggest problem standing
in the path of a more democratic China.
Another great problem on a greater opening and relaxing of China is the US imperialist
attacks. China is under greater attacks and not because of Trump. That was coming. China is
developing more and more and is reaching escape velocity. Also, it has consistently refused to
relinquish a greater share of its economy profits to the US Oligarchy and US pension funds that
will be tanking in the foreseeable future given the gap between their outlays and their
returns... In the current climate, with the US the far greater evil, I am more than willing to
cheer for China and its president (2019 saw about 140,000 corruption cases in China acted upon,
from confiscations, firings, imprisonment, to the occasional death sentence... Go China! What
is the tally in the US? just check on the suffering of whistleblowers...)
The current term "globalization" was originated by Ted Levitt in an article in the Harvard
Business Review in the 80s and taken up by the Reaganites to push for offshoring of factories
to countries with fewer workers rights and environmental concerns. He edited the magazine and
was a professor at Harvard Business School. Those "weirdos" who championed the term were the
corporate and financial behemoths that preferred it as a euphemism for "economic
imperialism"
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Jan 4 2021 1:07 utc | 56
Our nation, right now, is on the cusp of a great earthquake which will change its
arrangement so that the interior will not be beholden to the coastal elites much longer,
who have themselves thrown off the mantle of nationhood in favor of the globalist paradigm
which values nihilistic individualism over all.
So, in short, you're describing capitalism. A capitalist economy favors individualism,
profits over morality, and is mostly centered around the idea of private property as
described by John Locke. This worked wonders in the vast uncharted territories of America in
the 18th and 19th century, when the population of the United States was below 20 million and
they needed to compete, FAST, against agressive european civilizations who looked at them
with envy.
Now that they are 332 millions and counting, that their natural resources are slowly
depleting and that other civilizations have adapted to the previously unknown phenomenon of
the American empire, USans are faced with a crisis in all sectors, including faith. How come
a system that worked so well for you these past 300 years suddenly fails? well, not suddenly,
but realizing that took a while.
Oh, I know!! It must be because of all those treacherous businessmen who traded their
souls and their country for a quick buck! but we need to condemn them without condemning the
whole system, and saying "capitalism sucks" makes us sound like Ivan the Red Commie. What a
pickle. Let's call them "globalists"! so we can rally the nationalists as a bonus and say
it's all because of evil foreigners.
On certain sites, it goes as far as calling "globalists" ... communists. Or Chinese. Or
Russian. Sure, why not, everyone needs their Emmanuel Goldstein.
"Globalism" is a funny name some weirdos invented since the first Wall Street crashes
happened to justify the worst excesses of the current capitalist economic system without
pointing the finger at the real culprits. I say it's funny because it looks like nationalist
clickbait for the 2 minutes of hate everyone in the West is prescribed each day in this
hyper-social Internet.
Sad fact is, "globalists" are run-of-the-mill bosses who decided it was better for their
end-of-year bonuses if they outsourced some or all of their production to cheap chinese
companies, and not have to pay US salaries anymore. That's not globalist, that's called
looking to make a profit in the short term.
Tell me a better term than "globalist" for nationals who are titans of industry who
betray their fellow nationals in the labor force by looking outside their own nation?
A term of rather recent vintage is Labour arbitrage that is substituting less
costly labour for higher costing labour. The driving motive for all offshoring or
externalising labour resources from the home marketplace. Walmart made billions doing this as
does Amazon.
I agree with Lemming's position on this. And I think Nemesis Calling is wrong about what
the term "Globalist" implies. If a "nationalist" is someone who's loyal to a nation, then
isn't a "globalist" someone who is loyal to the whole globe? Humanity today has many massive
problems that are extremely difficult and perhaps impossible to deal with on a purely
national basis. Nuclear weapons, global climate change, pandemic diseases, the potential
threats and benefits of real artificial intelligence, the extinction of so many species,
controlling multinational corporations, the threat of mass starvation, global inequality...
these are all problems which seem to many people to need the whole human species, or the
whole globe, working together to address them.
I think the major reason why many capitalists started calling themselves "globalists" back
in the 1980's was because they saw this was an idea which was becoming increasingly popular,
and they wanted to try and coopt it for their own benefit.
The trouble was that the CEO's who decided it would be personally profitable for them to
ship their companies jobs to low wage countries were not "real" globalists. If they had
really understood what the decisions they were making would do to their countries, or even to
the corporations they were responsible to their shareholders for managing, they might be
accused of being frauds or even traitors. But they probably didn't understand, so it's
probably more accurate to just call them parts of a greedy and shortsighted elite, which was
far too arrogant to realize how countries like China would be able to exploit their
shortsighted folly. They thought they were being so clever about their plans to exploit the
Chinese. But the irony is that a major reason why they underestimated the Chinese is that
they didn't understand that the fact that the Chinese were Marxists meant that the Chinese
had a different and in some ways better understanding of how Capitalism worked than they did.
They never dreamed that the Chinese would be able to make Lenin's prediction that capitalists
would sell them the rope they needed to hang capitalism come true.
"Obama Official Ben Rhodes Admits Biden Camp is Already Working With Foreign Leaders:
Exactly What Flynn Did" [ Glenn Greenwald ]. "Any
doubts about how customary it is for such calls to be made by transition officials were
unintentionally obliterated on Monday night by former Obama national security official Ben
Rhodes, who is almost certain to occupy a high-level national security position in a Biden
administration. Speaking on MSNBC -- of course -- Rhodes, while amicably chatting with former
Bush/Cheney Communications Director turned-beloved-by-liberals-MSNBC-host Nicolle Wallace,
admitted in passing that ' foreign leaders are already having phone calls with Joe Biden
talking about the agenda they're going to pursue January 20 ,' all to ensure 'as seamless
a transition as possible,' adding: 'the center of political gravity in this country and the
world is shifting to Joe Biden.'" • Presumably the FBI should be interrogating Rhodes
about his guilty knowledge. Anyhoo, I'm so old I remember when IOKIYAR was current in the
blogosphere: "It's OK If You're A Republican." But now IOKIIOG: "It's OK If It's Our Guy."
>David Sirota – "That was enough to barely defeat Trump.."
I'm getting confused, was Trump officially defeated. If not why are all these folks making
these kinds of statements without any qualifications, none, zip. He could have said "most
likely" or some other qualifier. Am I missing something here? Let the legal process of
contesting the election play out for Pete's sake.
"... The Biden administration, staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario, then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible coalition of allies against China. ..."
"... Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their Republican counterparts. ..."
Under Barack Obama, the containment of
China -- the "pivot to Asia" -- took the form of what might be called trilateralism, after
the old Trilateral Commission of the 1970s. According to this strategy, while balancing China
militarily, the United States would create trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic trade blocs with
rules favorable to the United States that China would be forced to beg to join in the future.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was intended as an anti-Chinese, American-dominated Pacific
trade bloc, while the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) sought to create a
NATO for trade from which China would be excluded.
Obama's grand strategy collapsed even before the election of 2016. TTIP died, chiefly
because of hostility from European economic interests. In the United States, the fact that the
TPP treaty was little more than a wish-list of giveaways to U.S. finance and pharma interests
and other special-interest lobbies made it so unpopular that both Hillary Clinton and
Trump
renounced it during the 2016 presidential election season.
Trump, like Obama,
sought to contain China , but by unilateral rather than trilateral measures. The Trump
administration emphasized reshoring strategic supply chains like that of steel in the United
States, unwilling to offshore critical supplies even to allies in Asia and Europe and North
America. This break with prior tradition would have been difficult to pull off even under a
popular president who was a good bureaucratic operator, unlike the
erratic and inconsistent Trump.
The Biden administration,
staffed with Obama veterans , may be in effect a third Obama term. Biden may seek a
détente with China on some issues. But Democratic foreign policy elites as well as
Republicans view China more harshly than they did four years ago. The most likely scenario,
then, is an attempt to restore Obama's trilateral strategy of building the biggest possible
coalition of allies against China.
An emphasis by the Biden administration on alliances may succeed in the case of the
U.S.-Japan-Australia-India "Quad" (Quadrilateral alliance). The UK may support America's East
Asian policy as well. But Germany and France, the dominant powers in Europe, view China as a
vast market, not a threat, so Biden will fail if he seeks to repeat Obama's grand strategy of
trilateral containment of China.
Democratic foreign policy elites are much more Europhile and Russophobic than their
Republican counterparts. In part this is a projection of domestic politics. In the
demonology of the Democratic Party, Putin stands for nationalism, social conservatism, and
everything that elite Democrats despise about the "deplorables" in the United States who live
outside of major metro areas and vote for Republicans. The irrational hostility of America's
Democratic establishment extends beyond Russia to socially-conservative democratic governments
in Poland and Hungary, two countries that Biden has denounced as "totalitarian."
In the Middle East, unlike Eastern Europe, a Biden administration is likely to sacrifice
left-liberal ideology to the project of
maximizing American power and consolidating the U.S. military presence, with the help of
autocracies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Any hint of retrenchment will be denounced by the
bipartisan foreign policy establishment that lined up behind Biden, so do not expect an end to
any of the forever wars under Biden. Quite the contrary.
Michael Lind is Professor of Practice at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of the University of
Texas at Austin and the author of The American Way of Strategy. His most recent book is The New
Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite.
Russiagate has been an obvious coup attempt from the beginning
jinn @ May 10 15:20
That is not at all obvious... you have to be extremely gullible to believe any of it is
real.
IMO Russiagate was about initiating a new McCarthyism.
And Trump's Deep State selection was about re-igniting nationalism in response to
the Russia-China alliance which was recognized as a threat to the Empire in 2013-2014 with
Russia's blocking of US action in Syria and Ukraine.
There was nothing mysterious about "Russiagate." It was a transparently false narrative
designed, by the most incompetent election campaign team in history, to excuse their shocking
inability to defeat one of the weakest and most discredited Presidential candidates there has
ever been.
_________________________________________________
Yeah that is what we are asked to believe, but the problem is how did this incompetent
election campaign keep the ball in the air for more than 2 years?
They did not invent the Flynn lied to FBI story and they did not invent the Trump
obstructed justice stories. And they did not create any of the silly stories about contacts
with Russians. There is no doubt the Hillary supporters sat on the sidelines and cheered all
the nonsense that was unfolding in the Russiagate narrative but the storyline that they were
cheering for was all created by Trump and his lackeys.
rump the New Yorker was a stranger in a strange land, having nothing of the sensibility of
the insular, self-serving swamp-dwellers in Washington and no grasp whatsoever of the power of
the Deep State, whose ire he quickly aroused. Trump was a terrible statesman, too
seat-of-the-pants, but what was to him dealmaking was at bottom diplomacy, an activity
Washington has little time for.
Why did Trump surround himself with people who opposed him and not infrequently sabotaged
those few foreign policy ideas one can approve of -- constructive ties with Russia, an end to
wasteful wars, peace in Northeast Asia, sending "obsolete" NATO into the history books? What
were H.R. McMaster, John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and numerous others like them but of lesser
visibility doing in his administration?
I am asked this not infrequently. My reply is simple: It is not at all clear Trump appointed
these people and at least as likely they were imposed upon him by the Deep State, the permanent
state, the administrative state -- whatever term makes one comfortable. Let us not forget,
Trump knew nobody in Washington and had a lot of swivel chairs to fill.
We must add to this Trump's personal shortcomings. He is by all appearances shallow of mind,
poorly read (to put it generously), of weak moral and ethical character, and overly concerned
with appearances.
Put these various factors together and you get none other than the Trump administration's
nearly illegible record on the foreign policy side.
Trump is to be credited with sticking to his guns on the big stuff: He held out for a
new-détente with Russia, getting the troops out of the Middle East and Afghanistan,
making a banner-headline deal with the North Koreans. He was scuttled in all cases.
Complicating the tableau, the prideful Trump time and again covered his impotence by
publicly approving of what those around him did to subvert his purposes. A year ago, the record
shows, Pompeo and Mark Esper (then the defense secretary) concocted plans to assassinate Qasem
Soleimani, the Iranian military leader, flew to Mar –a –Lago, and presented
Trump with a fait accompli -- whereupon Trump acquiesced as the administration and the
press pretended it was White House policy all along.
Now We Come to Iran
Hassan Rouhani, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, addresses the 74th session of the
United Nations General Assembly's General Debate, Sept. 25, 2019. (UN Photo/Cia Pak)
Pulling out of the Iran nuclear accord a year into his administration was among the most
destructive moves Trump made during his four years in office. It was afterward that the
shamefully inhumane "maximum pressure" campaign against Iranians was set in motion.
Trump's intention, however miscalculated, was the dealmaker's: He expected to force Tehran
back to the mahogany table to get a new nuclear deal. As secretary of state, Pompeo's was to
cultivate a coup or provoke a war. It was cross-purposes from then on, notably since Pompeo
sabotaged the proposed encounter between Trump and Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN GA.
Now we have some context for the recent spate of Iranophobic posturing and the new military
deployments in the Persian Gulf. We have just been treated to four years of a recklessly
chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep State waged against a pitifully weak
president who threatened it: This is the truth of what we witness as Trump and his people fold
their tents.
Trump the dealmaker a year ago now contemplates an attack on Natanz on the pretext Iran is
not holding to the terms of an accord he abandoned two years ago? The only way to make sense of
this is to conclude that there is no sense to be made of it.
Who ordered the B–52 sorties and the Nimitz patrols? This question promises a
revealing answer. It is very highly doubtful Trump had anything to do with this, very highly
likely Pompeo and his allies in hawkery got it done and told the president about it
afterward.
Trump is out in a few weeks. The self-perpetuating bureaucracy that made a mess of his
administration -- or a bigger mess than it may have been anyway -- will remain. It will now
serve a president who is consonant with its purposes. And the eyes of most people who support
him will remain wide shut.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author and lecturer. His most recent book is
Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century . Follow him on Twitter
@thefloutist . His web site is
Patrick Lawrence . Support his
work via his Patreon site
.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Ed Rickert , December 31, 2020 at 10:06
A first rate analysis of the inconsistent and inchoate policies of Trump as well as an
acute assessment of his psychology, notably his weakness when challenged. Equal cogent is
Lawrence's trepidation and concern over the policies and potential actions of the
administration that is to replacement Trump. Thank you for your thoughtful work.
Pierre Guerlain , December 31, 2020 at 06:51
I would just like to have a linkto the sources for Pompeo hoodwinking Trump for the
assassination of Soleimani.
Linda , December 30, 2020 at 18:42
Thank you, Patrick, for this very clear article summarizing Trump's clumsy attempts at
making peace with other countries (a campaign offering to voters) and the Deep State's
thwarting of those attempts. My friends and I intuitively knew the people taking roles around
the Trump presidency were put there by the "system". Trump had been made into a pariah by the
Press, his own Republican Party, and shrieks for 'Resistance' by Hillary Democrats in the
millions across the country even before he was inaugurated. There was no 'respectable' person
in Washington DC who would dare help Trump make his way in that new, strange land. Remember
one of the Resistanace calls to the front? . "Become ungovernable!!!!" Tantrums, not
negotiations, have become the norm
So long, any semblance of Washington DC respectability. It was nice to think you were
there at one time.
Dear readers and supporters of Consortium News around the Earth,
Please pass the following important message along to the genuine war criminals United
States President Donald Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson:
"Do the right & moral thing for once in your hideous, miserable & pathetic lives,
– and free genuine peacemaker Julian Assange."
***
Please consider making the (1st ever in history) establishment of genuine Peace on Earth
the absolute overwhelming #1 New Year's Resolution worldwide for 2021. The quality of life
for future generations depends on the good actions of this generation.. Thank you.
I thank these commentators, a couple of whom read these pieces regularly, and all others
who've taken the time this year gone by to put down their thoughts. I read them always and
almost always learn things from them. Blessings to all and wishes for a superb new year! --
Patrick.
Lee C Ng , December 30, 2020 at 14:02
I agree 100% with the writer. Example; if Bolton, probably pushed into the administration
by the Deep State, didn't sabotage Trump's talks with the N. Koreans in Vietnam, we might've
had a peaceful settlement on the Korean peninsular by now. And it's no surprise that Trump on
several occasions prevented the success of US-China trade talks – it was more than
likely he was forced to do so. Trump wasn't a politician, much less a statesman. But he
wasn't an orgre either, despite the hostility of the corporate press towards him (and I'm no
fan of Trump).
Biden will represent better the real forces behind all US administrations – the
forces responsible for the over 200 wars/military interventions in its 242 years of
Independence.
Jeff Harrison , December 30, 2020 at 00:19
Thank you, Patrick, you have made some sense out of a nonsensical situation. "We have just
been treated to four years of a recklessly chaotic foreign policy, outcome of a war the Deep
State waged against a pitifully weak president who threatened it: This is the truth of what
we witness as Trump and his people fold their tents." What is it that the Brits call their
Deep State? It's something like the civil service but it's actually called something
else.
You called Donnie Murdo a deal maker. Donnie Murdo is a New York hustler. His
"negotiation" style only works when his interlocutor must make a deal with him. If his
interlocutor can walk away, he will and Donnie Murdo will go bankrupt. The real problem is
that the US doesn't need a deal maker – we have people for that. The Prezzy & CEO
is frequently called that, the chief executive officer. But that's an administrative title.
He is also frequently called the commander in chief but that really only applies if we are at
war which we should be at as little as possible. What the prezzy really is supposed to be is
a leader. If Donnie Murdo were, in fact, a leader, John Bolton would have been taking a
commercial flight back to the US after his little stunt in Vietnam. But he didn't. So the
question isn't what could Donnie Murdo do in the next three weeks, it's what can Donnie
Murdo's henchmen do in the next three weeks?
Casper , December 29, 2020 at 18:19
One of the other personal things about Donald Trump, was that he had no skill nor
experience in leading and manipulating a bureaucracy. He had basically directed a family
business and his personal publicity machine. To the extent that Trump hotels had thousands of
employees, Trump hired managers to do that. It would appear that the Trump family business
largely concentrated on making of new deals for new hotels.
Thus, Donald Trump arrived in Washington completely unprepared to be the leader of a
bureaucracy and completely unskilled at being able to get it to do what he wanted it do
do.
I'm not a Joe Biden fan, but he's been in Washington since the 1970's. He's seen the
bureaucracy from the Senate point of view for 40 years, then got at least a view of what it
was like to try to direct it from watching as Veep. I still suspect the real power lies with
the military command, and has since the 1950's, but this administration is going to come in
with at least some skills in terms of trying to get a government to do what it wants.
PEG , December 29, 2020 at 17:46
Perfect article – and epitaph on Trump's foreign policy record.
Anne , December 29, 2020 at 14:00
Indeed, Patrick, they (the eyes of most of the electorate) will remain shut, eyelids
deftly closed Only other peoples commit barbaric, heinous war crimes, invade other cultures
completely without cause, bomb other peoples to death, devastation, loss of livelihood, home
water supply We, the perfecto (along with one other group now ensconced – illegally,
but apparently western acceptably – in the ME) people do what we do because, well, we
are perfecto and thus when we commit these barbarisms, they aren't such. And are, it would
seem, totally ignorable. Wake me in the morning style .
Truly, the vast majority of those – whatever their skin hue, ethnic background
– who voted for the B-H duo are comfortably off, consider themselves oh so bloody
"liberal" (do they really know what that means, in fact? Or don't they care?), so to the left
of Attila the Hun (which obviously doesn't mean much, Left wise) .and what the MICMATT does
to other people in other societies matters not flying F .After all, aren't they usually of
"swarthy" skin hue and likely not western and of that offshoot religion of the one gawd, the
third go around?
The west (US, UK, FR, GY etc ) really and truly need to develop a Conscience, a real
morality, humanity but I fear that that is all too late
By Jonny Tickle In recent years, the US has gone crazy with its idea of 'American
exceptionalism' and Washington has taught its people that the country does not need to follow
any rules and can disregard international agreements, Moscow claims.
Maria Zakharova, the spokesperson for Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, made the claim
on Thursday to YouTube channel 'Izolenta live.'
"It's a nuclear power that has gone wild with the idea of its own exceptionalism,
withdrawing from lots of documents, treaties, international organizations," she
said.
Zakharova also believes that Washington has "encouraged its population to think that they
don't owe anybody anything" and "they should not obey anyone," up to and including
international law.
However, she noted that the White House may one day decide to return to various deals
sidelined in recent years, presumably referring to the incoming president, Joe Biden.
Since the incumbent at the White House, Donald Trump, came to power in 2017, Washington has
reduced its participation in international organizations. In 2018, the US withdrew from UNESCO
and from the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). A year later, Trump pulled his country out of the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), and in 2020 the country left the Open Skies
Treaty. Furthermore, on February 5, a fortnight after Biden is due to take office, the US will
depart from the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty unless the Kremlin and the new
president's team quickly come to an understanding.
Last month, at his annual press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin chided the US
for pulling out of treaties that Russia is fully supportive of, noting that there could be an
"arms race" if Biden doesn't agree to an extension of START.
"We heard the statement by the president-elect that it would be reasonable to extend the
New START. We will wait and see what that will amount to in practical terms. The New START
expires in February," Putin pointed out.
Senate Overrides Trump Veto Of Defense Bill BY TYLER DURDEN FRIDAY, JAN 01, 2021 -
15:15
Meeting for a rare New Year's Day session, the Senate voted 81-13 on Friday to override
President Trump's veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which Trump said
"fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect
our veterans and our military's history, and contradicts efforts by my Administration to put
America first in our national security and foreign policy actions."
A two-thirds majority was needed to override the veto - which would mark the first in
Trump's presidency. The NDAA authorizes over $740 billion in military programs and
construction, as well as 3% pay raises for US troops. It also contains a provision to rename
military bases named after Confederate generals .
Trump also wanted to force a repeal of Section 203 protections for social-media companies
enjoy due to their constant editorializing of user content, however lawmakers refused to
include the provision.
The rare January 1st session comes as the new Congress is set to be sworn in on Sunday.
On Wednesday, the Senate voted 80-12 to begin an official debate on overriding the veto,
proving that Congress can act with lightning speed when properly motivated.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on Tuesday that the NDAA is crucial to
national defense, and to "deter great power rivals like China and Russia." The bill "will
cement our advantage on the seas, on land, in the air, in cyberspace and in space," he
added.
During Trump's time in office, he has vetoed eight other bills - several of them focused on
foreign policy and national security issues, according to the Wall
Street Journal .
The fight over the NDAA also underscored broader tensions over national-security issues
between congressional Republicans and Mr. Trump. On foreign policy and national-security
issues, many Republicans have readily bucked Mr. Trump during his presidency even as they
have stood by him on many other issues.
For instance, the Trump administration's recent effort
to cut troop levels in Afghanistan in half , to roughly 2,500, by Jan. 15, has alarmed
some Republicans. The NDAA requires the administration to submit to Congress a comprehensive
assessment of the withdrawal before it can use funds to pull out troops. -WSJ
In addition to creating a commission to assess changes to bases, displays, monuments,
symbols and other paraphernalia related to Confederate commanders, the bill limits the
president's ability to use emergency military construction funds for other purposes . It also
restricts employees or former employees from the military-industrial complex to work directly
for the Chinese government or government-controlled companies.
Banned Banana 56 minutes ago
Dwight Eisenhower warned us about this 60 years ago, and we have done exactly nothing.
RasinResin 50 minutes ago
When you comb through who is doing what, you realize it's just politicians supporting
monopolistic companies. Lawyers in essence, always have been, and always will be the problem.
Just ask Shakespere.
Orange Man Rad 53 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
McConnell is on a suicide mission for the GOP as a political party. I'm guessing he could
careless as he won't be running for reelection. I always knew he was a swamp creature that
hated Trump. He never once publicly defended Trump in 4 years. I will be changing my party
affiliation to Independent on January 7th. I'm waiting until then so it has maximum impact
after the scumbags throw Trump under the bus. Good riddance GOP.
It fully explains why China Mitch is fine being Minority Leader. Follow the money!!
Obake158 40 minutes ago
Don't change your party affiliation, do what I did and go to your town hall and unregister
to vote. There is absolutely no point in participating in this sham of a system. Voting for
muppet A or muppet B is silly when both sides are played by the same interests. All you do by
giving your consent to be ruled is create a mandate that the agent of corruption uses to lord
over you. I am 100% done playing with their system and by their rules. Politicians are a
verminous class of filth. They need to be purged, swapping a rat for a snake for a maggot is
what voting results in. Think of a single politician that represents you and your interests
and that you look up to. I haven't been able to say anything good about a politician since
Ron Paul was active, they are all treason scum.
techengineer 15 minutes ago
The Republican Establishment is disgusting.. A damn disgrace.. We can't get rid of the
rotten bastards without turning it over to even worse Democrats..
Bernout Sanders 43 minutes ago remove link
For those of you keep asking "but why doesn't Trump do more?" - this is your answer.
Could Trump have expanded the use of the Executive Order into clearly unconstitutional
territory and hope the Supreme Court would support this? Perhaps.
When it comes to legislation, though, sadly there are less than 10 (and perhaps less than
5) Republican Senators worth a hill of beans.
I mean, look at Utah. Solidly Republican, elect the sorriest GOP Senator and carpetbagger
Mittens, and even their decent Senator, Mike Lee, is militantly pro-immigration.
Until Republicans start primarying SOB RINO's like Democrats do in their caucus, there
will never be any change.
AboveAverageIdiot 27 minutes ago
Senators who voted to sustain Trump's veto of defense bill:
Booker (D)
Braun (R)
Cotton (R)
Cruz (R)
Hawley (R)
Kennedy (R)
Lee (R)
Markey (D)
Merkley (D)
Paul (R)
Sanders (I)
Warren (D)
Wyden (D)
yerfej 27 minutes ago
The endless wars continue. What the phyuyk is wrong with a country that can't stop
starting wars yet never has the balls to finish them? Oh its just a facade for ayssholes to
line their pockets.
dustnwind 43 minutes ago
"Amazing how fast Congress can act when properly motivated..."
Yes motivated by special interests, lobbyists and perks. Someday R voters might realize
that R politicians were just as involved in the voter scams to neuter(2018) and remove Trump
as the democrats. Any appearances to the contrary are simply theater to retain the voter base
Trump had.
vasilievich 21 minutes ago
The mood in this country seems to be poisonous. In this little county of ours, population
about 220,000, the food bank is moving into larger premises. Also there will be a residence
for those in need, available only to women and children.
I think it's doubtful that this sort of thing can go on without consequences, some of
which may be dramatic.
I had family in Europe which lived through something similar, the result of which was a
world war.
aliens is here 29 minutes ago
When comes to fudging over the people, congress wastes no time doing it.
GreatUncle 29 minutes ago
The politicians on all sides support the censorship and cancellation culture through big
tech editing.
Handful of Dust 28 minutes ago
The Republicans had complete control of both houses during Trump's first two years and did
ZERO for the working middle class American.
Jon_noDough 7 minutes ago
Can't give the citizens more than a pittance for Covid relief but no limits to military
industrial swamp complex...
Baronneke 8 minutes ago
"National Offense Authorization Act " is a more appropriate name as the US was never
attacked after ww2 so no need to Defend. The 5-6 last US presidents on the other hand are all
war criminals and have attacked (including sanctions) countless countries since the end of
ww2. Far over 700 Billion Dollars to the DOO. Just crazy !!
HoodRatKing 4 minutes ago (Edited)
The US is in BUSINESS, one of their top businesses is SELLING ARMS...
I can't of course discuss their other lucrative businesses in Asia &
Afghanistan...
JaWS 5 minutes ago (Edited)
I understand that Cocaine Mitch will be visiting the spa in the near future.
F ormer acting CIA Director Mike Morell, who has disingenuously argued for years that he had
nothing to do with the agency's torture program, but who continued to defend it, has
taken himself out of the running to be President-elect Joe Biden's new CIA director.
The decision is a victory for the peace group Code Pink, which spearheaded the Stop Morell
movement, and it's a great thing for all Americans. Now, though, we have to turn our attention
to Biden's nominee to be director of national intelligence (DNI), Avril Haines.
Haines is certainly qualified on paper to lead the Intelligence Community. A longtime Biden
aide, she has the president-elect's confidence. But that's not good enough. Haines is exactly
the kind of person who shouldn't be in a position of authority in intelligence. She is
the kind of neoliberal intelligence apologist whom so many of us have opposed for so many
years. Don't just take my word for it, though. Look at
her record .
Haines first began working for Biden when she served as deputy general counsel of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee when Biden was its chairman. When Biden became vice president in
2009, Haines moved to the State Department, where she was the assistant legal adviser for
treaty affairs. After only a year, she moved to the White House, where she became deputy
assistant to the president and deputy counsel to the president for national security affairs,
the National Security Council's chief attorney.
That's quite a position. What it means was that her job was to legally justify President
Barack Obama's decisions on such intelligence issues as drone strikes and whether to release
the CIA Torture Report. She served there under CIA Director John Brennan. Obama apparently
liked the job she did for him because in 2013, he named Haines deputy director of the CIA
(DD/CIA).
Haines was the first woman to be named DD/CIA, and she served again under Brennan, who
proved time and again that he was no fan of
congressional oversight . Haines's attitude was similar to Brennan's: The CIA was going to
do what it was going to do, and she would make no apologies for it.
There were three controversial areas where Haines made a name for herself and for which she
should have to answer in a confirmation hearing: The CIA's refusal to release the Senate
Torture Report and the decision to hack into the Senate Intelligence Committee's computer
system; the CIA's decision to not punish those officers who carried out the hack and who killed
and tortured prisoners beyond even what the Justice Department said was permissible; and the
government's drone program, in which hundreds, perhaps thousands, of civilians were killed.
Drone "pilots" launch an MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle for a raid in the Middle
East. (U.S. military)
Haines' Torture Cover-Up
You may recall that in December 2014, the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee released a
heavily redacted version of the executive summary of the committee's torture report, the
result of years of investigation using primary-source CIA documents. The executive summary was
about 525 pages long, just a fraction of the nearly 6,000-page complete report. And the release
of the 525 pages was the result of protracted negotiations between the committee and the
CIA.
In the end, the public heard a few details of what the CIA's prisoners underwent at secret
prisons around the world. But the full story was never made public. It likely never will be.
And that's thanks to Avril Haines.
Earlier that year, then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein took to the
Senate floor in a very unusual display and accused CIA Director Brennan of spying on her
committee's staff members. Specifically, Feinstein said that CIA officers had hacked into the
Senate's computers to see what it was that committee investigators were focusing on.
The hacking was unprecedented, and Feinstein referred it to the Justice Department for
prosecution. Attorney General Eric Holder, however, chose not to pursue the case. Brennan took
responsibility for ordering the hacking and he made no apologies for it. But his top aide, his
assistant, his legal adviser through the episode was Avril Haines. She has never explained her
decisions in support of the hack.
Furthermore, it was Haines who
overruled the CIA's inspector general and who decided not to punish those CIA officers who
hacked into the committee's computers, or those CIA officers who had gone over and above what
the Justice Department had authorized in its "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" program,
killing and maiming prisoners.
In the end, not only were no CIA officers punished, but the leaders and most prominent
officers in the torture program were promoted, in some cases into some of the most sought-after
positions in the CIA. I know this to be true. I worked for them.
Haines and Drones
One area in which Haines has not received a great deal of media coverage has been her role
in the drone
program . When Haines was the National Security Council's top lawyer, Brennan was the
keeper of the so-called kill list. It was Haines who took phone calls in the middle of the
night asking her for legal authority -- permission -- to launch missile attacks from drones.
She has never answered for her actions.
Now is the time for Americans to put down their collective foot on Biden's national security
appointees. Morell was utterly inappropriate for a senior position in the Biden national
security apparatus. Haines is, too. She has, very simply, committed crimes against humanity.
I'm under no illusions that Biden is a progressive or that he will differ greatly from previous
Democratic presidents on national security.
But I do believe that wrong is wrong. Avril Haines is exactly the kind of person we
don't want running the Intelligence Community. This is the moment for opponents of her
nomination to lobby senators on the Intelligence Committee. There's still time to defeat
her.
John Kiriakou is a former CIA counterterrorism officer and a former senior investigator with
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. John became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the
Obama administration under the Espionage Act -- a law designed to punish spies. He served 23
months in prison as a result of his attempts to oppose the Bush administration's torture
program.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Cadogan Parry , December 30, 2020 at 21:51
The Intercept (26-June-2020) reported Haines' consulting for controversial data-mining
firm Palantir. Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel is also an investor in Carbyne, co-owned by
the late Jeffery Epstein and members of the Israeli political and intelligence establishment.
Ties between Palantir and Carbyne were cemented when it opened a center in Israel in 2013.
Hamutal Meridor, Palantir Israel's current head, served as senior director of Verint, with
deep ties to Unit 8200. Verint was previously implicated in being one of two companies hired
by the NSA to put a backdoor into US telecommunication systems and popular applications,
ensuring it's immediate access.
I urge all who have read this article to watch "Silenced", a James Spione film about John
Kiriakou, Thomas Drake and Jesselyn Radack -- whistleblowers who paid a very high price for
their honesty and integrity (hXXp://silencedfilm.com). Mr. Kiriakou gave up a lucrative job
and almost two years with his family for sharing the truth. His voice needs to be heard now .
Avril Haines' record of ignoring tremendous human rights violations makes it clear that she
should not hold a position of power in the intelligence community of the upcoming
administration.
Anonymot , December 29, 2020 at 19:31
Mr. Biden is a male clone of Mrs. Clinton who is a mouthpiece for the CIA/MIC/WallSt. She
is still the person who controls the Democrat National Committee (DNC) via Tom Perez and they
control and advise old Joe. Joe is merely the puppet at the end of the inner organization's
strings. They are all yes-men/women in the service of the shadow's mindset.
We will have another Obama puppet show.
After 4 years of the unique societal insanity ward that destroyed a maximum of the little
remaining democracy, including the directorship and key personnel of every Washington bureau,
there is little improvement to expect under the Biden Harris clone team. In the stupid
intelligence area that Trump damaged even more deeply than is publicly known, Brennan and
Clapper are back as Biden advisors.
Once again, the eagles have died, replaced by beagles sniffing out more war, more oil, and
more empire.
The past year began with the assassination of the Iranian military genius General Qasem
Soleimani by the United States, and it ended with the murder of the prominent scholar Mohsen
Fakhrizadeh by the Israelis. In early January, Iran, expecting another aggressive action from
the West, accidently shot down a Ukrainian civil aircraft that had inexplicably altered its
course over Tehran without request nor authorization. Around the same time, Turkey confirmed
the deployment of its military in Libya, beginning a new phase of confrontation in the region,
and Egypt responding with airstrikes and additional shows of force. The situation in Yemen
developed rapidly: taking advantage of the Sunni coalition's moral weakness, Ansar Allah
achieved significant progress in forcing the Saudis out of the country in many regions. The
state of warfare in northwestern Syria has significantly changed, transforming into the formal
delineation of zones of influence of Turkey and the Russian-Iranian-Syrian coalition. This
happened amid, and largely due to the weakening of U.S. influence in the region. Ankara is
steadily increasing its military presence in the areas under its responsibility and along the
contact line. It has taken measures to deter groups linked to Al-Qaeda and other radicals. As a
result, the situation in the region is stabilizing, which has allowed Turkey to increasingly
exert control over most of Greater Idlib.
ISIS cells remain active in the eastern and southern Syrian regions. Particular processes
are taking place in Quneitra and Daraa provinces, where Russian peace initiatives were
inconclusive by virtue of the direct destructive influence of Israel in these areas of Syria.
In turn, the assassination of Qasem Soleimaniin resulted in a sharp increase in the targeting
of American personnel, military and civil infrastructure in Iraq. The U.S. Army was forced to
regroup its forces, effectively abandoning a number of its military installations and
concentrating available forces at key bases. At the same time, Washington flatly rejected
demands from Baghdad for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops and promised to respond with
full-fledged sanctions if Iraq continued to raise this issue. Afghanistan remains stable in its
instability. Disturbing news comes from Latin America. Confrontation between China and India
flared this year, resulting in sporadic border clashes. This situation seems far from over, as
both countries have reinforced their military posture along the disputed border. The aggressive
actions of the Trump administration against China deepen global crises, which has become
obvious not only to specialists but also to the general public. The relationship between the
collective West and the Russian Federation was re-enshrined in "the Cold War state", which
seems to have been resurrected once again.
The turbulence of the first quarter of 2020 was overshadowed by a new socio-political
process – the corona-crisis, the framework of which integrates various phenomena from the
Sars-Cov2 epidemic itself and the subsequent exacerbation of the global economic crisis. The
disclosure of substantial social differences that have accumulated in modern capitalist
society, lead to a series of incessant protests across the globe. The year 2020 was accompanied
by fierce clashes between protesters professing various causes and law enforcement forces in
numerous countries. Although on the surface these societal clashes with the state appear
disassociated, many share related root causes. A growing, immense wealth inequality, corruption
of government at all levels, a lack of any meaningful input into political decision making, and
the unmasking of massive censorship via big tech corporations and the main stream media all
played a part in igniting societal unrest.
In late 2019 and early 2020 there was little reason for optimistic projections for the near
future. However, hardly anyone could anticipate the number of crisis events and developments
that had taken place during this year. These phenomena affected every region of the world to
some extent.
Nevertheless, Middle East has remained the main source of instability, due to being an arena
where global and regional power interests intertwine and clash. The most important line of
confrontation is between US and Israel-led forces on the one hand, and Iran and its so called
Axis of Resistance. The opposing sides have been locked in an endless spiral of mutual
accusations, sanctions, military incidents, and proxy wars, and recently even crossed the
threshold into a limited exchange of strikes due to the worsening state of regional
confrontation. Russia and Turkey, the latter of which has been distancing itself from
Washington due to growing disagreements with "NATO partners" and changes in global trends, also
play an important role in the region without directly entering into the confrontation between
pro-Israel forces and Iran.
As in the recent years, Syria and Iraq remain the greatest hot-spots. The destruction of
ISIS as a terrorist state and the apparent killing of its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi did not
end its existence as a terror group. Many ISIS cells and supporting elements actively use
regional instability as a chance to preserve the Khalifate's legacy. They remain active mainly
along the Syria-Iraq border, and along the eastern bank of the Euphrates in Syria. Camps for
the temporary displaced and for the families and relatives of ISIS militants on the territory
controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in north-eastern Syria are also breeding
grounds for terrorist ideology. Remarkably, these regions are also where there is direct
presence of US forces, or, as in the case of SDF camps, presence of forces supported by the
US.
The fertile soil for radicalism also consists of the inability to reach a comprehensive
diplomatic solution that would end the Syrian conflict in a way acceptable to all parties.
Washington is not interesting in stabilizing Syria because even should Assad leave, it would
strengthen the Damascus government that would naturally be allied to Russia and Iran. Opposing
Iran and supporting Israel became the cornerstone of US policy during the Trump administration.
Consequently, Washington is supporting separatist sentiments of the Kurdish SDF leadership and
even allowed it to participate in the plunder of Syrian oil wells in US coalition zone of
control in which US firms linked to the Pentagon and US intelligence services are
participating. US intelligence also aids Israel in its information and psychological warfare
operations, as well as military strikes aimed at undermining Syria and Iranian forces located
in the country. In spite of propaganda victories, in practice Israeli efforts had limited
success in 2020 as Iran continued to strengthen its positions and military capabilities on its
ally's territory. Iran's success in establishing and supporting a land corridor linking
Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iraq, plays an important role. Constant expansion of Iran's military
presence and infrastructure near the town of al-Bukamal, on the border of Iraq and Syria,
demonstrates the importance of the project to Tehran. Tel-Aviv claims that Iran is using that
corridor to equip pro-Iranian forces in southern Syria and Lebanon with modern weapons.
The Palestinian question is also an important one for Israel's leadership and its lobby in
Washington. The highly touted "deal of the century" turned out to be no more than an offer for
the Palestinians to abandon their struggle for statehood. As expected, this initiative did not
lead to a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian relations. Rather the opposite, it gave an
additional stimulus to Palestinian resistance to the demands that were being imposed. At the
same time, Trump administration scored a diplomatic success by forcing the UAE and Bahrain to
normalize their relations with Israel, and Saudi Arabia to make its collaboration with Israel
public. That was a historic victory for US-Israel policy in the Middle East. Public
rapprochement of Arab monarchies and Israel strengthened the positions of Iran as the only
country which not only declares itself as Palestine's and Islamic world's defender, but
actually puts words into practice. Saudi Arabia's leadership will particularly suffer in terms
of loss of popularity among its own population, already damaged by the failed war in Yemen and
intensifying confrontation with UAE, both of which are already using their neighbor's weakness
to lay a claim to leadership on the Arabian Peninsula.
The list of actors strengthening their positions in the Red Sea includes Russia. In late
2020 it became known that Russia reached an agreement with Sudan on establishing a naval
support facility which has every possibility to become a full-blown naval base. This foothold
will enable the Russian Navy to increase its presence on key maritime energy supply routes on
the Red Sea itself and in the area between Aden and Oman straits. For Russia, which has not had
naval infrastructure in that region since USSR's break-up, it is a significant diplomatic
breakthrough. For its part. Sudan's leadership apparently views Russia's military presence as a
security factor allowing it to balance potential harmful measures by the West.
During all of 2020, Moscow and Beijing continued collaboration on projects in Africa,
gradually pushing out traditional post-colonial powers in several key areas. The presence of
Russian military specialists in the Central African Republic where they assist the central
government in strengthening its forces, escalation of local conflicts, and ensuring the
security of Russian economic sectors, is now a universally known fact. Russian diplomacy and
specialists are also active in Libya, where UAE and Egypt which support Field Marshal Khaftar,
and Turkey which supports the Tripoli government, are clashing. Under the cover of declarations
calling for peace and stability, foreign actors are busily carving up Libya's energy resources.
For Egypt there's also the crucial matter of fighting terrorism and the presence of groups
affiliated with Muslim Brotherhood which Cairo sees as a direct threat to national
security.
The Sahel and the vicinity of Lake Chad remain areas where terror groups with links to
al-Qaeda and ISIS remain highly active. France's limited military mission in the Sahara-Sahel
region has been failure and could not ensure sufficient support for regional forces in order to
stabilize the situation. ISIS and Boko-Haram continue to spread chaos in the border areas
between Niger, Nigeria, Cameroun, and Chad. In spite of all the efforts by the region's
governments, terrorists continue to control sizable territories and represent a significant
threat to regional security. The renewed conflict in Ethiopia is a separate problem, in which
the federal government was drawn into a civil war against the National Front for the Liberation
of Tigray controlling that province. The ethno-feudal conflict between federal and regional
elites threatens to destabilize the entire country if it continues.
The explosive situation in Africa shows that post-colonial European powers and the "Global
Policeman" which dominated that continent for decades were not interested in addressing the
continent's actual problem. Foreign actors were mainly focused on extracting resources and
ensuring the interests of a narrow group of politicians and entities affiliated with foreign
capitals. Now they are forced to compete with the informal China-Russia bloc which will use a
different approach that may be a described as follows: Strengthening of regional stability to
protect investments in economic projects. Thus it is no surprise that influential actors are
gradually losing to new but more constructive forces.
Tensions within European countries have been on the rise during the past several years, due
to both the crisis of the contemporary economic paradigm and to specific regional problems such
as the migration crises and the failure of multiculturalism policies, with subsequent
radicalization of society.
Unpleasant surprises included several countries' health care and social protection networks'
inability to cope with the large number of COVID-19 patients. Entire systems of governance in a
number of European countries proved incapable of coping with rapidly developing crises. This is
true particularly for countries of southern Europe, such as Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece.
Among eastern European countries, Hungary's and Romania's economies were particularly badly
affected. At the same time, Poland's state institutions and economy showed considerable
resilience in the face of crisis. While the Federal Republic of Germany suffered considerable
economic damage in the second quarter of 2020, Merkel's government used the situation to inject
huge sums of liquidity into the economy, enhanced Germany's position within Europe, and
moreover Germany's health care and social protection institutions proved capable and
sufficiently resilient.
Coronavirus and subsequent social developments led to the emergence of the so-called "Macron
Doctrine" which amounts to an argument that EU must obtain strategic sovereignty. This is
consistent with the aims of a significant portion of German national elites. Nevertheless,
Berlin officially criticized Macron's statements and has shown willingness to enter into a
strategic partnership with Biden Administration's United States as a junior partner. However,
even FRG's current leadership understands the dangers of lack of strategic sovereignty in an
era of America's decline as the world policeman. Against the backdrop of a global economic
crisis, US-EU relations are ineluctably drifting from a state of partnership to one of
competition or even rivalry. In general, the first half of 2020 demonstrated the vital
necessity of further development of European institutions.
The second half of 2020 was marked by fierce mass protests in Germany, France, Great
Britain, and other European countries. The level of violence employed by both the protesters
and law enforcement was unprecedented and is not comparable to the level of violence seen
during protests in Russia, Belarus, and even Kirgizstan. Mainstream media did their best to
depreciate and conceal the scale of what was happening. If the situation continues to develop
in the same vein, there is every chance that in the future, a reality that can be described as
a digital concentration camp may form in Europe.
World media, for its part, paid particular attention to the situation in Belarus, where
protests have entered their fourth month following the August 9, 2020 presidential elections.
Belarusian protests have been characterized by their direction from outside the country and
choreographed nature. The command center of protest activities is officially located in Poland.
This fact is in and of itself unprecedented in Europe's contemporary history. Even during
Ukraine's Euromaidan, external forces formally refused to act as puppetmasters.
Belarus' genuinely existing socio-economic problems have led to a rift within society that
is now divided into two irreconcilable camps: proponents of reforms vs. adherents of the
current government. Law enforcement forces which are recruited from among President
Lukashenko's supporters, have acted forcefully and occasionally harshly. Still, the number of
casualties is far lower than, for example, in protests in France or United States.
Ukraine itself, where Western-backed "democratic forces" have already won, remains the main
point of instability in Eastern Europe. The Zelenskiy administration came to power under
slogans about the need to end the conflict in eastern Ukraine and rebuild the country. In
practice, the new government continued to pursue the policy aimed at maintaining military
tension in the region in the interests of its external sponsors and personal enrichment.
For the United States, 2020 turned out to be a watershed year for both domestic and foreign
policy. Events of this year were a reflection of Trump Administration's protectionist foreign
policy and a national-oriented approach in domestic and economic policy, which ensured an
intense clash with the majority of Washington Establishment acting in the interests of global
capital.
In addition to the unresolved traditional problems, America's problems were made worse by
two crises, COVID-19 spread and BLM movement protests. They ensured America's problems reached
a state of critical mass.
One can and should have a critical attitude toward President Trump's actions, but one should
not doubt the sincerity of his efforts to turn the slogan Make America Great Again into
reality. One should likewise not doubt that his successor will adhere to other values. Whether
it's Black Lives Matter or Make Global Moneymen Even Stronger, or Russia Must Be Destroyed, or
something even more exotic, it will not change the fact America we've known in the last half
century died in 2020. A telling sign of its death throes is the use of "orange revolution"
technologies developed against inconvenient political regimes. This demonstrated that currently
the United States is ruled not by national elites but by global investors to whom the interests
of ordinary Americans are alien.
This puts the terrifying consequences of COVID-19 in a new light. The disease has struck the
most vulnerable layers of US society. According to official statistics, United States has had
about 20 million cases and over 330,000 deaths. The vast majority are low-income inhabitants of
mega-cities. At the same time, the wealthiest Americans have greatly increased their wealth by
exploiting the unfolding crisis for their own personal benefit. The level of polarization of US
society has assumed frightening proportions. Conservatives against liberals, blacks against
whites, LGBT against traditionalists, everything that used to be within the realm of public
debate and peaceful protest has devolved into direct, often violent, clashes. One can observe
unprecedented levels of aggression and violence from all sides.
In foreign policy, United States continued to undermine the international security system
based on international treaties. There are now signs that one of the last legal bastions of
international security, the New START treaty, is under attack. US international behavior has
prompted criticism from NATO allies. There are growing differences of opinion on political
matters with France and economic ones with Germany. The dialogue with Eastern Mediterranean's
most powerful military actor Turkey periodically showed a sharp clash of interests.
Against that backdrop, United States spent 2020 continuously increasing its military
presence in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea basin. Additional US forces and assets were
deployed in direct proximity to Russia's borders. The number of offensive military exercises
under US leadership or with US participation has considerably increased.
In the Arctic, the United States is acting as a spoiler, unhappy with the current state of
affairs. It aims to extend its control over natural resources in the region, establish
permanent presence in other countries' exclusive economic zones (EEZ) through the use of the
so-called "freedom of navigation operations" (FONOPs), and continue to encircle Russia with
ballistic missile defense (BMD) sites and platforms.
In view of the urgent and evident US preparations to be able to fight and prevail in a war
against a nuclear adversary, by defeating the adversary's nuclear arsenal through the
combination of precision non-nuclear strikes, Arctic becomes a key region in this military
planning. The 2020 sortie by a force of US Navy BMD-capable AEGIS destroyers into the Barents
Sea, the first such mission since the end of the Cold War over two decades ago, shows the
interest United States has in projecting BMD capabilities into regions north of Russia's
coastline, where they might be able to effect boost-phase interceptions of Russian ballistic
missiles that would be launched in retaliatory strikes against the United States. US
operational planning for the Arctic in all likelihood resembles that for South China Sea, with
only a few corrections for climate.
In Latin America, the year of 2020 was marked by the intensification Washington efforts
aimed at undermining the political regimes that it considered to be in the opposition to the
existing world order.
Venezuela remained one of the main points of the US foreign policy agenda. During the entire
year, the government of Nicolas Maduro was experiencing an increasing sanction, political and
clandestine pressure. In May, Venezuelan security forces even neutralized a group of US
mercenaries that sneaked into the country to stage the coup in the interests of the
Washington-controlled opposition and its public leader Juan Guaido. However, despite the
recognition of Guaido as the president of Venezuela by the US and its allies, regime-change
attempts, and the deep economic crisis, the Maduro government survived.
This case demonstrated that the decisive leadership together having the support of a notable
part of the population and working links with alternative global centers of power could allow
any country to resist to globalists' attacks. The US leadership itself claims that instead of
surrendering, Venezuela turned itself into a foothold of its geopolitical opponents: China,
Russia, Iran and even Hezbollah. While this evaluation of the current situation in Venezuela is
at least partly a propaganda exaggeration to demonize the 'anti-democratic regime' of Maduro,
it highlights parts of the really existing situation.
The turbulence in Bolivia ended in a similar manner, when the right wing government that
gained power as a result of the coup in 2019 demonstrated its inability to rule the country and
lost power in 2020. The expelled president, Evo Morales, returned to the country and the
Movement for Socialism secured their dominant position in Bolivia thanks to the wide-scale
support from the indigenous population. Nonetheless, it is unlikely that these developments in
Venezuela and Bolivia would allow to reverse the general trend towards the destabilization in
South America.
The regional economic and social turbulence is strengthened by the high level of organized
crime and the developing global crisis that sharpened the existing contradictions among key
global and regional players. This creates conditions for the intensification of existing
conflicts. For example, the peace process between the FARC and the federal government is on the
brink of the collapse in Colombia. Local sources and media accuse the government and affiliated
militias of detentions and killings of leaders of local communities and former FARC members in
violation of the existing peace agreement. This violence undermine the fragile peace process
and sets conditions for the resumption of the armed struggle by FARC and its supporters. Mexico
remains the hub for illegal migration, drug and weapon trafficking just on the border with the
United States. Large parts of the country are in the state of chaos and are in fact controlled
by violent drug cartels and their mercenaries. Brazil is in the permanent state of political
and economic crisis amid the rise of street crime.
These negative tendencies affect almost all states of the region. The deepening global
economic crisis and the coronavirus panic add oil to the flame of instability.
Countries of South America are not the only one suffering from the crisis. It also shapes
relations between global powers. Outcomes of the ongoing coronavirus outbreak and the global
economic crisis contributed to the hardening of the standoff between the United States and
China.
Washington and Beijing have insoluble contradictions. The main of them is that China has
been slowly but steadily winning the race for the economic and technological dominance
simultaneously boosting own military capabilities to defend the victory in the case of a
military escalation. The sanction, tariff and diplomatic pressure campaign launched by the
White House on China since the very start of the Trump Presidency is a result of the
understanding of these contradictions by the Trump administration and its efforts to guarantee
the leading US position in the face of the global economic recession. The US posture towards
the South China Sea issues, the political situation in Hong Kong, human rights issues in
Xinjiang, the unprecedented weapon sales to Taiwan, the support of the militarization of Japan
and many other questions is a part of the ongoing standoff. Summing up, Washington has been
seeking to isolate China through a network of local military alliances and contain its economic
expansion through sanction, propaganda and clandestine operations.
The contradictions between Beijing and Washington regarding North Korea and its nuclear and
ballistic missile programs are a part of the same chain of events. Despite the public rhetoric,
the United States is not interested in the full settlement of the Korea conflict. Such a
scenario that may include the reunion of the North and South will remove the formal
justification of the US military buildup. This is why the White House opted to not fulfill its
part of the deal with the North once again assuring the North Korean leadership that its
decision to develop its nuclear and missile programs and further.
Statements of Chinese diplomats and top official demonstrate that Beijing fully understands
the position of Washington. At the same time, China has proven that it is not going to abandon
its policies aimed at gaining the position of the main leading power in the post-unipolar
world. Therefore, the conflict between the sides will continue escalating in the coming years
regardless the administration in the White House and the composition of the Senate and
Congress. Joe Biden and forces behind his rigged victory in the presidential election will
likely turn back from Trump's national-oriented economic policy and 'normalize' relations with
China once again reconsidering Russia as Enemy #1. This will not help to remove the insoluble
contradictions with China and reverse the trend towards the confrontation. However, the Biden
administration with help from mainstream media will likely succeed in hiding this fact from the
public by fueling the time-honored anti-Russian hysteria.
As to Russia itself, it ended the year of 2020 in its ordinary manner for the recent years:
successful and relatively successful foreign policy actions amid the complicated economic,
social and political situation inside the country. The sanction pressure, coronavirus-related
restrictions and the global economic crisis slowed down the Russian economy and contributed to
the dissatisfaction of the population with internal economic and social policies of the
government. The crisis was also used by external actors that carried out a series of
provocations and propaganda campaigns aimed at undermining the stability in the country ahead
of the legislative election scheduled for September 2021. The trend on the increase of sanction
pressure, including tapering large infrastructure projects like the Nord Stream 2, and
expansion of public and clandestine destabilization efforts inside Russia was visible during
the entire year and will likely increase in 2021. In the event of success, these efforts will
not only reverse Russian foreign policy achievements of the previous years, but could also put
in danger the existence of the Russian statehood in the current format.
Among the important foreign policy developments of 2020 underreported by mainstream media is
the agreement on the creation of a Russian naval facility on the coast of the Red Sea in Sudan.
If this project is fully implemented, this will contribute to the rapid growth of Russian
influence in Africa. Russian naval forces will also be able to increase their presence in the
Red Sea and in the area between the Gulf of Aden and the Gulf of Oman. Both of these areas are
the core of the current maritime energy supply routes. The new base will also serve as a
foothold of Russia in the case of a standoff with naval forces of NATO member states that
actively use their military infrastructure in Djibouti to project power in the region. It is
expected that the United States (regardless of the administration in the White House) will try
to prevent the Russian expansion in the region at any cost. For an active foreign policy of
Russia, the creation of the naval facility in Sudan surpasses all public and clandestine
actions in Libya in recent years. From the point of view of protecting Russian national
interests in the Global Oceans, this step is even more important than the creation of the
permanent air and naval bases in Syria.
As well as its counterparts in Washington and Beijing, Moscow contributes notable efforts to
the modernization of its military capabilities, with special attention to the strategic nuclear
forces and hypersonic weapons. The Russians see their ability to inflict unacceptable damage on
a potential enemy among the key factors preventing a full-scale military aggression against
them from NATO. The United Sates, China and Russia are in fact now involved in the hypersonic
weapon race that also includes the development of means and measures to counter a potential
strike with hypersonic weapons.
The new war in Nagorno-Karabakh became an important factor shaping the balance of power in
the South Caucasus. The Turkish-Azerbaijani bloc achieved a sweeping victory over Armenian
forces and only the involvement of the Russian diplomacy the further deployment of the
peacekeepers allowed to put an end to the violence and rescue the vestiges of the
self-proclaimed Armenian Republic of Artsakh. Russia successfully played a role of mediator and
officially established a military presence on the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan for the
next 5 years. The new Karabakh war also gave an additional impulse in the Turkish-Azerbaijani
economic and military cooperation, while the pro-Western regime in Armenia that expectedly led
the Armenian nation to the tragedy is balancing on the brink of collapse.
The Central Asia traditionally remained one of the areas of instability around the world
with the permanent threat of militancy and humanitarian crisis. Nonetheless, despite forecasts
of some analysis, the year of 2020 did not become the year of the creation of ISIS' Caliphate
2.0 in the region. An important role in preventing this was played by the Taliban that
additionally to securing its military victories over the US-led coalition and the US-backed
Kabul government, was fiercely fighting ISIS cells appearing in Afghanistan. The Taliban, which
controls a large part of Afghanistan, was also legalized on the international scene by direct
talks with the United States. The role of the Taliban will grow and further with the reduction
of the US military presence.
While some media already branded the year of 2020 as one of the worst in the modern history,
there are no indications that the year of 2021 will be any brighter or the global crises and
regional instability will magically disappear by themselves. Instead, most likely 2020 was just
a prelude for the upcoming global shocks and the acute standoff for markets and resources in
the environment of censorship, legalized total surveillance, violations of human rights under
'democratic' and 'social' slogans' and proxy wars.
The instability in Europe will likely be fueled by the increasing cultural-civilizational
conflict and the new wave of newcomers that have acute ideological and cultural differences
with the European civilization. The influx of newcomers is expected due to demographic factors
and the complicated security, social situation in the Middle East and Africa. Europe will
likely try to deal with the influx of newcomers by introducing new movement and border
restrictions under the brand of fighting coronavirus. Nonetheless, the expected growth of the
migration pressure will likely contribute to the negative tendencies that could blow up Europe
from inside.
The collapse of the international security system, including key treaties limiting the
development and deployment of strategic weapons, indicates that the new detente on the global
scene will remain an improbable scenario. Instead, the world will likely move further towards
the escalation scenario as at least a part of the current global leadership considers a large
war a useful tool to overcome the economic crisis and capture new markets. Russia, with its
large territories, rich resources, a relatively low population, seems to be a worthwhile
target. At the same time, China will likely exploit the escalating conflict between Moscow and
the US-led bloc to even further increase its global positions. In these conditions, many will
depend on the new global order and main alliances within it that are appearing from the
collapsing unipolar system. The United States has already lost its unconditional dominant role
on the international scene, but the so-called multipolar world order has not appeared yet. The
format of this new multipolar world will likely have a critical impact on the further
developments around the globe and positions of key players involved in the never-ending Big
Game.
* * *
DEAR FRIENDS. IF YOU LIKE THIS TYPE OF CONTENT, SUPPORT SOUTHFRONT WORK: PayPal: [email protected] , http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront , BTC:
3Gbs4rjcVUtQd8p3CiFUCxPLZwRqurezRZ, BCH ABC: qpf2cphc5dkuclkqur7lhj2yuqq9pk3hmukle77vhq, ETH:
0x9f4cda013e354b8fc285bf4b9a60460cee7f7ea9 10,271 14
"... Then the exceptionalist-triumphalist power inevitably runs off-the-rails, and -- especially when it feels threatened or insecure -- lashes out in fits of aggressive military, economic, religious, or racial chauvinism. This cycle tends to replay again and again until the empire collapses, usually through some combination of external power displacement and internal exhaustion or collapse. ..."
Exceptionalism, triumphalism, chauvinism. These characteristics define most empires, including, like it or not, these
United
States . The sequence matters. A people and national government that fancies itself exceptional -- an example for the rest of
the world -- is apt to assert itself militarily, economically, and culturally around the globe. If that self-righteous state happens
to possess prodigious power, as the U.S. has since the Second World War, then any perceived success will lead to a sense of triumphalism,
and thus put into motion a feedback loop whereby national "achievement" justifies and validates that conception of exceptionalism.
Then the exceptionalist-triumphalist power inevitably runs off-the-rails, and -- especially when it feels threatened or insecure
-- lashes out in fits of aggressive military, economic, religious, or racial chauvinism. This cycle tends to replay again and again
until the empire collapses, usually through some combination of external power
displacement and internal exhaustion or collapse.
Such imperial hyper-powers, particularly in their late-stages, often employ foot soldiers across vast swathes of the planet, and
eventually either lose control of their actions or aren't concerned with their resultant atrocities in the first place. On that,
the jury is perhaps still out. Regardless, the discomfiting fact is that by nearly any measure, the United States today coheres,
to a remarkable degree, with each and every one of these tenets of empire evolution. This includes, despite the hysterical denials
of sitting political and Pentagon leaders, the troubling truth that American soldiers and intelligence agents have committed war
crimes across the Greater Middle East since 9/11 on a not so trivial number of occasions. These law of war violations also occurred
during the Cold War generation -- notably in Korea and Vietnam -- and the one consistent strain has been the almost complete inability
or unwillingness of the U.S. Government to hold perpetrators, and their enabling commanders, accountable.
Enter the International Criminal Court (ICC). First
proposed , conceptually, in 1919 (and again in 1937, 1948, and 1971), in response to massive war crimes and human rights violations
of the two world wars, the Hague-headquartered court finally opened for business in 2002. With more than 120 signatory member states
(though not, any longer, the U.S.) the ICC has the jurisdiction to prosecute international violations including "genocide, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression." A compliment, rather than a replacement, to sovereign national justice
systems, the ICC is designed to be the "court of
last resort," obliged to exercise jurisdiction only when a nation's courts prove unwilling or unable to prosecute such crimes.
All of which sounds both admirable and unthreatening (at least to reasonably well-behaved states with accountable, responsive
justice systems), but to the contemporary American imperial hyper-power, the very existence of the ICC is viewed as a mortal threat.
Matters demonstrably came to a head this past week when an ICC appeals court
reversed a lower-level decision and allowed its special prosecutor -- whose visa Washington has already revoked -- to simply
open an official investigation into alleged war crimes committed in Afghanistan by all three major parties to the conflict:
the Taliban, U.S., and U.S.-backed Kabul-based Afghan government. This decidedly mild decision, which only allows a multi-directional
inquiry , unleashed an immediate firestorm in Washington.
The reflexive reactions and responses of current and former Trump officials was both instructive and totally in line with decades
worth of bipartisan U.S. disavowal of the very notion of international norms and standards. Trump's recent hawkish national security
adviser, John Bolton -- now an MSNBC-DNC
darling for his apparent critique
of the president in a new memoir -- has spearheaded opposition to the ICC since its inception, has
asserted that the ICC is "illegitimate," and that the U.S. Government "will not sit quietly," if "the court comes after us."
After the most recent ruling, Secretary of State (and former director of the very CIA that is likely to be implicated in said war
crimes investigation) Mike Pompeo
declared the ruling a "truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable, political institution masquerading as a legal body," adding,
threateningly, that "we will take all necessary measures to protect our citizens from this renegade, unlawful, so-called court."
On that latter point, Pompeo is neither wrong, nor espousing a policy -- no matter how aggressive or rejectionist -- unique to
Donald Trump's administration. Here, a brief bit of all but forgotten history is in order. In 1998, the UN General Assembly
voted 120-7 to establish the
ICC. The United States, in good company with a gaggle of criminally compromised states -- China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Yemen, and
Qatar -- voted against the measure. Two years later, however, President Bill Clinton unenthusiastically
signed onto this foundational
Rome
Statute , but with some dubiousness and the requisite American exceptionalist caveat that he "will not, and do not recommend
that my successor, submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until our fundamental concerns are satisfied."
Then came the 9/11 terrorist attacks. This tragedy turned (for then ascendant neoconservatives)
opportunity for expanded U.S. military global
assertiveness, ensured that Clinton's successor -- one George W. Bush -- wouldn't even consider ICC treaty submission to the Senate.
Rather, in May 2002, Bush
sent a note to the UN Secretary General informing him that the most powerful and influential country in the world no longer intended
to ratify the Rome Statute or recognize any obligations to the ICC (which officially
opened for business only two months later
). Never simply a morality tale of Republican villainy, Bush's disavowal didn't explain the half of it.
Far more disturbingly, a stunningly euphemistic
American Service-members' Protection Act
of 2001 amendment, first introduced just 15 days after the
9/11 attacks, to the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States,
was already under consideration in Congress. With broad bipartisan majorities, that legislation -- which authorized the U.S. president
to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned
by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court" -- passed in the
House a couple weeks after Bush sent his note
to the UN, and the Senate just two weeks later.
President Bush then signed this authorization for, up to and including military, force into law on August 2, 2002. Much of the world
was appalled and international human rights organizations took to – quite appropriately – calling it the "
Hague Invasion Act ." It remains
in force today.
The timeline is instructive and itself tells a vital part of the story. Democrats and Republicans alike had chosen to "preempt"
-- an internationally prohibited precedent that Bush would
later invoke to invade Iraq -- the not yet in force ICC with this bill. They did so, I'd assert, because they knew a salient dirty
secret: the U.S. was about to unleash martial fury across the Greater Middle East. In the process, inevitably, American troopers
and intelligence spooks would push the limits of acceptable wartime behavior, and thus be vulnerable to international prosecution
by the soon effective ICC.
This was unacceptable for an exceptionalist, triumphalist nation, about to undertake chauvinist actions the world over. That unilateral,
world-order-be-damned national position held, and still holds, sway in the intervening 18 years. So, for all the Trump administration's
coarse obtuseness in response to the opening of the latest ICC Afghan investigation, this is, at root, not (as the mainstream media
will inevitably now claim) a Donald phenomenon.Three administrations, and multiple guard-changing Congresses, chose to not to touch
the infamous Hague Invasion Act or realign the U.S. with the ICC or the spirit (or even the pretense) of international law.
The cast of elite characters, many still politically influential, who voted for the Hague Invasion Act is nothing short of astounding.
The bill passed the House by a margin of 280-138, and counted
such "yea" votes as House Intelligence Committee Chair -- top Trump opponent and Russiagate investigator -- Democrat Adam Schiff.
Notably, especially in this ongoing electoral cycle, then Vermont Representative Bernie Sanders opposed the measure.In the
Senate , an even larger portion of Democrats joined current Speaker Mitch McConnell (and most of his Republican caucus), to vote
for the Act. These included such past and present notables as former Secretaries of State John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, current
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and, then Foreign Relations Committee Chair, and now Democratic presidential frontrunner, Joe Biden.
His vote, naturally, should come as scant surprise since even in early Senate committee
hearings four years
earlier, ranking minority member Biden was at best tepid, and at worst quite skeptical of the ICC – even finding unlikely points
of agreement with the later Hague Invasion Bill's sponsor, and longtime unilateralist hawk, Republican Senator Jesse Helms.
Still, the swift, frenetic response of senior Trump officials to ICC decision is telling. I suspect that Pompeo and Bolton know
the inconvenient truth – that U.S. national security forces have committed crimes in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) and that
the U.S. Government hasn't ever truly held these select perpetrators sufficiently accountable. Contra Pompeo, Bolton, and other Trump
officials' ardent public assertions, the U.S. military and intelligence community are, in fact – due to being demonstrably "unwilling
or unable to prosecute such [war] crimes" – the perfect candidates for ICC investigation, and if evidentiary appropriate,
prosecution. The U.S. has a historically abysmal
record either of
restraining or punishing wartime violations.
The rarely recounted
record is an extensive as it is appalling:
After U.S. Air Force pilots and U.S. Army soldiers strafed and gunned down some 400 Korean refugees (most women, children,
and old men) hiding under a bridge at No
Gun Ri over the course of four days in 1950, there was no criminal investigation when the military determined the killings
represented naught but an "unfortunate tragedy inherent to war."
When, after a two-year coverup, the journalist Seymour Hersh brought to light the blatant execution of at least 504 civilians
in the hamlet of My Lai , South Vietnam, just six
soldiers were charged, and only one – Lieutenant William Calley – convicted. Though countless victims were beheaded, scalped,
or had their throats slit in an orgy of violence, even Calley's original life sentence was repeatedly reduced by senior generals
until he was ultimately granted clemency by President Richard Nixon. Convicted by jury of military officer peers of personally
killing at least 22 civilians, Calley served only five months in detention and some three years under house arrest.
Later in the Vietnam War, when Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Herbert
blew the whistle on
endemic torture among some U.S. troops, and a subsequent investigation uncovered 141 confirmed incidents of prisoner abuse, not
a single criminal charge was filed and only three soldiers were administratively fined or reduced in rank. The only significant
punishment meted out was leveled at Herbert -- recipient of four Silver Stars and three Bronze Stars, who was also shot 10 ten
times and bayonet thrice -- when his reputation and career were ruined in retaliation.
When allegations of systemic prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib Prison were reported by Major General Antonio Taguba, and
simultaneously uncovered by the very same Seymour Hersh, not a single soldier above the rank of staff sergeant faced charges.
Taguba, incidentally, did suffer
-- his career unceremoniously curtailed in the wake of threats, intimidation, and harassment by the senior army commander
in Iraq (General John Abizaid) and the then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Finally, and perhaps most relevant to the current ICC investigatory backlash, after an American AC-130 gunship unloaded on
a civilian hospital (by definition, a war crime) repeatedly for 30-60 minutes and killed 42 doctors, patients, and staff members,
the top theater commander, General John Campbell, and then Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter
changed
their stories four times in four days without ever fully explicating what exactly caused the massacre. An official military
probe – instructively, the generals always investigate themselves in these matters – found no criminal culpability, and, while
Campbell's nominal boss, General Joseph Votel, claimed to have administratively disciplined sixteen soldiers and officers, the
names of those personnel – and he details of their punishment – were never released.
Add to that the disconcerting fact that the U.S. crossed a rather macabre
tipping
point in 2019, whereby, for the first time, the American military and its Afghan allies killed more civilians than the Taliban,
and this brings us full circle to an alarming present reality. The very figures who championed and supported the wildly chauvinistic
"Hague Invasion" Act seem set to hold sway over, and in Biden's case serve as candidate for, the Democratic Party.In November, that
faction will likely, then face off against a Trump team that vehemently opposes even a basic investigation into alleged American
criminal misbehavior in the Afghan theater of its ongoing forever wars.
All of which demonstrates, once and for all, that human rights, and international law or norms were never of genuine interest
to the United States. None of this will play well on the "Arab," or even broader global, "Street," and will – just like U.S. abuses
at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo – actually
increase worldwide "terrorism"
and anti-Americanism. None of which matters to, or greatly concerns, a Washington elite lacking even a modicum of self-awareness.
Because empires, like the United States, which peddle in exceptionalism, triumphalism, and chauvinism are, historically, the world's
true rogue states
.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and a contributing editor at antiwar.com
. His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications.
He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point.
He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . His forthcoming book, Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War is
now available for
pre-order . Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet . Check out
his professional website for contact info, scheduling speeches, and/or access
to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
"... The most overrepresented group in Washington, the "hard power primacists," is also the one with the most destructive track record. This is the group that cheers on John Bolton and Mike Pompeo as they trash America's reputation while putting us at greater risk of pointless wars. Only 10% of the respondents belonged to this group, and even among Republicans they make up less than 25%. There is remarkably little popular support for the position that has become the default Republican Party agenda. ..."
"... The EGF survey likewise asked a question about American exceptionalism, but phrased it a bit differently. They asked if America was exceptional for what it had done in the world (20% agreed), exceptional because of what it represented (40%), or not exceptional (38%). While most of these respondents still affirmed some support for the idea, support is declining with each generation. While the president proposes "teaching American exceptionalism" in schools (whatever that might mean in practice), such lessons seem likely to fall on deaf ears. ..."
"... It becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a myth of exceptionalism when our institutions are so faulty, our infrastructure so derelict, and our political leaders so inept. If each new generation is more disillusioned than the last with this myth, it is because they have seen how false it is in real life and they have seen how it has been used to rationalize some of the worst policies imaginable. ..."
The American public is increasingly supportive of a foreign policy that is more engaged diplomatically and more restrained in
its use of force. Large majorities want the U.S. to rejoin agreements and institutions that the U.S. has left over the last four
years, but there is also substantial support for reducing America's military footprint in many other parts of the world. Most Americans
don't care for the wrecking of successful agreements, including the nuclear deal with Iran, but many would welcome troop withdrawals
from deployments overseas.
Those are some of the findings from the Eurasia Group Foundation's annual
survey of what Americans think
about U.S. foreign policy and our country's role in the world. There is a major constituency in both parties for a foreign policy
that is less militarized and more involved in constructive international cooperation. This could be the foundation for a broad coalition
in favor of greater restraint, and it shows that most of the public is not interested in maintaining the status quo of militarized
hegemony.
The survey divides the respondents into four groupings based on their answers.
There are the "traditional internationalists" that don't want to reduce U.S. forces overseas and want to remain in international
institutions,
And then there are the "hard power primacists" that have no use for institutions and treaties but want to dominate militarily.
There are the "global ambassadors" that want deeper diplomatic engagement, but also want to reduce military forces overseas
and move away from a militarized U.S. foreign policy.
Finally, there are the respondents that the survey classified as so-called "genuine isolationists." The choice of isolationist
here was unfortunate because even among these respondents the preference is for reduced engagement of all kinds, but not necessarily
the separation from the world that the isolationist label implies. When push comes to shove, almost no one is a "genuine isolationist"
in this country or anywhere else, and a more extensive survey might be able to tease out how these "isolationists" really think
the U.S. should act in the world.
Out of these four, the "global ambassadors" made up the largest contingent: "The most popular position was that of the Global
Ambassadors, who support active diplomacy and participation in international institutions, trade and treaties but oppose global military
primacy." It would be fair to say that this position is closest to the views held by advocates of restraint. According to the survey,
38% of respondents fit this description, and they were pretty evenly distributed between different political affiliations. 40% of
Democrats gave answers that put them in this group, and the same was true for 32% of Republicans.
There is a clear majority that doesn't support a strategy of primacy. As the report notes, "When "engagement" is split into military
and non-military components, only three in ten Americans favor liberal hegemony." Between the "global ambassadors" and so-called
"genuine isolationists," those opposed to primacy to one degree or another made up almost 60% of the total. These are potentially
huge blocs of voters that prefer a more peaceful, less interventionist foreign policy, and they are woefully underrepresented in
Washington today. This is a large audience that would seem to be receptive to what advocates of restraint have to say, and so we
need to find more ways to reach them.
The most overrepresented group in Washington, the "hard power primacists," is also the one with the most destructive track
record. This is the group that cheers on John Bolton and Mike Pompeo as they trash America's reputation while putting us at greater
risk of pointless wars. Only 10% of the respondents belonged to this group, and even among Republicans they make up less than 25%.
There is remarkably little popular support for the position that has become the default Republican Party agenda.
There is more popular support for bringing U.S. forces home from all over than there is for keeping them there. 44% say that the
U.S. should decrease the number of troops it has in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, and they also say that the U.S. should reduce
its commitments to other countries in these regions. Only 31% were in favor of the status quo or an increase in troop levels. This
is consistent with the findings of other surveys, including the new
poll from the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which found that 57% approved of the announced troop withdrawal from Germany, and another 16%
wanted full withdrawal of all of the remaining troops.
One of the other interesting results that the Chicago Council
survey found is the growing partisan
gap over the question of "American exceptionalism." 80% Republicans are in agreement with the definition of exceptionalism the survey
provided (the U.S. has a "unique character that makes it the greatest country in the world"), and only 35% of Democrats held the
same view. It is possible that this gap is exaggerated by the fact that Democrats seem to have soured on the idea during Trump's
presidency, and the numbers may go up again in the future, but there seems to be something more significant going on. Insofar as
"American exceptionalism" has been turned into a motto for excusing U.S. rogue behavior in the world, it has become an increasingly
loaded phrase that provokes strong reactions in both directions. The experience of the last twenty years would also give many people
good reasons to doubt that the U.S. deserves to be called the greatest country.
The EGF survey likewise asked a question about American exceptionalism, but phrased it a bit differently. They asked if America
was exceptional for what it had done in the world (20% agreed), exceptional because of what it represented (40%), or not exceptional
(38%). While most of these respondents still affirmed some support for the idea, support is declining with each generation. While
the president proposes "teaching American exceptionalism" in schools (whatever that might mean in practice), such lessons seem likely
to fall on deaf ears.
It becomes increasingly difficult to maintain a myth of exceptionalism when our institutions are so faulty, our infrastructure
so derelict, and our political leaders so inept. If each new generation is more disillusioned than the last with this myth, it is
because they have seen how false it is in real life and they have seen how it has been used to rationalize some of the worst policies
imaginable.
Probably the most discouraging result in the EGF survey came in response to a question about war powers. There is a large majority
that thinks that Congress has to authorize the use of force first, and that is something that advocates of restraint can build on,
but it is disturbing that so many would support presidential overreach in matters of war. When asked if the president needed Congressional
authorization before ordering military action abroad, 26% said that he didn't. While this is a distinctly minority view, it was supported
by half of the Republican respondents, and it shows that roughly a quarter of the public holds an important part of the Constitution
in contempt. When such a large group endorses illegal presidential warmaking, it is another sign that our political culture has been
badly corrupted by decades of war and arbitrary presidential power grabs. The failure to prevent previous illegal wars and the failure
to hold presidents accountable for trampling on the Constitution have paved the way for this.
Foreign policy tends to be a low priority for most voters, and few use these issues to determine their voting decisions, but public
opinion still has to be kept in mind in any foreign policy debate. Most Americans are not paying close attention to what the government
is doing in the world, but there are limits to what they will tolerate. The public also has fairly clear preferences for greater
international cooperation without the unnecessary burdens of endless wars and excessive military commitments around the world. There
is an opening here for a prudential and restrained internationalism that draws support from across the political spectrum, but to
take advantage of that will require organizing these disparate groups of Americans to achieve greater influence in both parties.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo
blog . He has been published in the New York Times Book
Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene,
and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster,
PA. Follow him on Twitter .
Foreign policy tends to be a low priority for most voters, and few use these issues to determine their voting decisions
Unfortunately, I think this is the most important sentence in the article. The fact of the matter is FP stuff is a very low
priority for most Americans and "supporting the troops" is often conflated with money for the pentagon.
Worst of all, Americans will oppose attacking Country X until the president says "We need to attack Country X" and then they
are all for it. I mean, during all of 2017 half the country suddenly knew we absolutely needed to attack North Korea.
I agree with Tom. These polls rarely mean much on any topic, and when it's as low priority as foreign affairs, there's even
less significance. There is some brave talk among Democrats about cutting defense spending, but in the past both parties have
been happy to give the Pentagon as much, and frequently more, than it wants. And the military is devoted above all else to maintaining
its global presence, so that all its toys can be given at least a veneer of purpose. Trump, with all his disgusting bluster, is
clearly more risk averse than Obama, who stupidly cost his party the presidency by trying to play the hero in Libya. I'm am (pretty)
sure that Biden will continue this restraint, but on the other hand his administration will almost surely be stocked with Wilsonian
interventionists, who have learned nothing and forgot plenty.
The polls have been consistent for a long time now. But this is America - what the elites want, the elites get and since when
did the voters start to matter?
Agreed. But to be precise, the "elites" in this particular case are nothing other than the military brass, the military contractors,
and the senators/reps they've purchased. Well funded and unbelievably well-placed to influence/leverage/etc. whoever is the President.
And what powerful/wealthy interests are lobbying on the other side? Few, if any.
The building block is the UN Charter and agreed upon International Law. but while Russia 7 China & others would love to have
those treaties respected, the US Gob wants to follow the "rules based order". Moon of Alabama and others talk about these very
fundamental issues, and how the West in fact has lost all its legal and moral ground and became in fact Mordor ru by Sauron:
The best thing that could happen to tilt American foreign policy more in the direction of restraint would be a consistently
populist, in the true sense, political force. Interventionist foreign policy is a dream world and plaything of elites, for elite
gain.
Right now you have way too many peace-inclined left wing people fighting peace-inclined right wing people, in a clear divide
and conquer setup. Left and right identity politics are being used to preserve a decadent status quo a bit longer, including in
foreign policy.
Professor Mearsheimer discusses the foreign policy agenda of the President Biden administration.
He shares his insights on the likely continuities as well as differences between the Biden administration's policies and the
policies pursued by President Trump over the past four years.
About the Speaker: John J. Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell
Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, where he has taught since 1982. He
graduated from West Point (1970), has a PhD in political science from Cornell University (1981), and has written extensively
about security issues and international politics. Among his six books, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001, 2014) won
the Joseph Lepgold Book Prize; and The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (with Stephen M. Walt, 2007), made the New York
Times bestseller list.
His latest book is The Great Delusion: Liberal Ideals and International Realities (2018), which won the
2019 Best Book of the Year Award from the Valdai Discussion Conference, Moscow.
In 2020, he won the James Madison Award, which
is given once every three years by the American Political Science Association to "an American political scientist who has made
a distinguished scholarly contribution to political science." Recorded on the 17th of November 2020
His predictions here are coming true right now. I would also add that the polarization of politics in the US will have
continued unpleasant domestic social ramifications. Do I want to stay and endure it ? Trump did try like hell to back the
US out of long standing losing wars in the middle east. Nobody appreciates this though.
Mearsheimer expects the Dems to give up on the mindless saber-rattling directed at Russia for the last four years. He may be
right, the D's were likely cynically providing "boob bait for the bubbas." Taking a tough line vs China is more unlikely given
that PRC is so closely tied to the Silicon Valley and Wall Street plutocrats who are the real base of the Democrat Party.
The war in Afghanistan, now in its 19th year, is the longest and most intractable of America's forever wars. There are now
American
soldiers fighting in Afghanistan
who were born after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the ostensible
casus
belli
. The American public has long ago grown tired of the war. A
YouGov
poll
conducted in July of 2020 showed that 46 percent of Americans strongly supported withdrawing troops from Afghanistan,
with another 30 percent saying they "somewhat" approved of troop withdrawal.
But this 76 percent majority is deceptive. Given the fact that America has a volunteer army and American casualties in
Afghanistan remain sporadic, this is not an issue that the public is passionate about. An inchoate dissatisfaction is compatible
either with disengagement or just a lack of interest. Conversely, those in the national security establishment who do
passionately support the war are able to thwart political leaders who want a drawdown. Under both Barack Obama and Donald Trump,
presidential efforts to disengage from Afghanistan and the larger Middle East were met with resistance from a foreign policy
elite that sees any withdrawal as a humiliating defeat.
Trump tried to resolve the contradiction between his desire to remove troops and the foreign policy elite's commitment to the
Afghan war by
loosening
the rules of war
. The thinking of the Trump administration was that by unleashing the military and intelligence agencies, it
could subdue the Taliban -- thus preparing the way for a drawdown of troops. Special priority was given to CIA-run covert operations
using Afghan paramilitaries, with the belief that this would lead to a more sustainable war that didn't require American soldiers
to participate in fighting.
A report in
The Intercept
, written by reporter Andrew Quilty,
documents
the horrifying consequences
of this policy: Afghan paramilitary units, known as 01 and 02, have acted as death squads,
launching raids against civilians that have turned into massacres. Many of these raids have attacked religious schools, the
famous madrassas, leading to the death of children as young as 8 years old.
According to Quilty, "Residents from four districts in Wardak -- Nerkh, Chak, Sayedabad, and Daymirdad -- spoke of a string of
massacres, executions, mutilation, forced disappearances, attacks on medical facilities, and airstrikes targeting structures
known to house civilians. The victims, according to these residents, were rarely Taliban. Yet the Afghan unit and its American
masters have never been publicly held accountable by either the Afghan or U.S. governments."
These raids all involve Afghan paramilitaries who are outside the control of the Afghan government and working in conjunction
with American handlers who provide high-tech aid and direction, Quilty reports.
The units' American CIA advisers go by pseudonyms or call signs rather than
names.They not only train Afghan unit members, but also choose their targets, which the Americans call "jackpots"; issue
detailed pre-mission briefings; and accompany Afghan paramilitaries on the ground during raids. The Afghans and Americans are
ferried to remote villages at night by American helicopters, and American assault aircraft hover overhead while they conduct
their raids, providing lethal firepower that is sometimes directed at health clinics, madrassa dormitories, or civilian homes.
Despite providing detailed accounts of American-led war crimes,
The
Intercept
's report has been met with near-silence from the American media. Jake Tapper of CNN
retweeted
the article
, but otherwise there is little indication that the American media cares.
As
Intercept
reporter Ryan Grim
notes
,
"It's been two days since this story was published, and the mainstream media has been largely silent on it. Imagine if the media
treated the My Lai massacre this way." (In fact, the mainstream press sat on whistleblower Ron Ridenhour's warnings about My Lai
for a year before Seymour Hersh and the scruffy Dispatch News Service finally broke the silence.)
Grim also suggested that the Biden administration might want to bring justice to the perpetrators of these alleged war crimes.
"One of the most outspoken proponents of bringing a fine legal eye to war has been Avril Haines, who will be Joe Biden's Director
of National Intelligence," Grim observes. "She'll have the authority and the ability to discover who in the CIA was involved in
these operations, and bring them to justice."
This is a forlorn hope given the Obama administration's
failure
to go after war crimes
committed by the CIA under George W. Bush. Further, Biden himself is ambiguous on Afghanistan in a way
that calls to mind Trump himself.
As Quincy Institute president Andrew Bacevich
noted
in
The
Nation
earlier this month, Biden "wants to have it both ways" on the Afghan war. Biden will occasionally say, "These
'forever wars' have to end," but he will also say that America needs to keep a contingent of forces in Afghanistan. As Bacevich
observes, "Biden proposes to declare that the longest war in US history has ended, while simultaneously underwriting its
perpetuation." Biden's support for a light military footprint could very easily lead him to the same position as Trump: using
covert CIA operations to maintain American power in Afghanistan with minimal use of uniformed troops. This is a recipe for more
massacres.
Writing in
The Washington Post
last month, veteran Afghanistan
analyst Carter Malkasian
made
a compelling case
that the United States is facing a "stark choice" between "complete withdrawal by May or keeping 2,500
troops in place indefinitely to conduct counterterrorism operations and to try to prevent the collapse of the Afghan government.
There's no doubt that withdrawal will spell the end of the Afghan government that the United States has supported for 19 years."
Malkasian makes clear that the counterterrorism operations would merely be an exercise of staving off defeat, with no prospect of
an end to the war. Given the enormous moral costs of this counterterrorism, unflinchingly described by
The
Intercept
, the argument for complete withdrawal becomes stronger.
It's likely that Biden will continue the policy of previous presidents of kicking the can down the road by using covert CIA
operators to fend off defeat. But Americans should have no illusions: That means perpetuation of horrific war crimes in a
conflict that cannot be won.
Before our national self-inquest on Donald Trump has run its course, we will be prompted
to remember again that the world exists. President-elect Joe Biden's appointments at the
departments of defense, state, and the national security council are likely to include some
combination of Michele Flournoy, Jake Sullivan, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and others of the
globalization group around Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. These people believe in
the rightness of a world with the United States at its center, deploying commercial strength,
trade agreements, diplomatic suasion, and military alliances in a judicious synthesis. Armed
intervention, preferably multilateral, is held in reserve. They take on trust the global
politics of neoliberalism. For them, the Trump presidency, though unanticipated, was merely a
disagreeable hiatus. They have never stopped planning for their return.
SPONSORED CONTENT
How To Entirely Empty Your Bowels Each Morning (1 Min Routine) Your Gut Reboot
[Photos] The Most Dangerous Place Where You Should Never Swim Is Actually In New Jersey
Tie Breaker
[Photos] Marisa Tomei Gave The Crew A Little Extra Graduatez
They did not study the catastrophe of Vietnam, and they have not learned from it. As
Gareth Porter showed in Perils of Dominance , that war, whose atrocities the world
remembers more vividly than Americans do, was protracted not from morbid credulity regarding
the domino theory but rather a primitive fear of losing face. It was carried forward through
presidencies in both parties with a maximum of deception. The War in Afghanistan has
similarly extended over three presidencies; and yet, to the neoliberal establishment,
Afghanistan in 2020 is a good deal like Vietnam in 1971. It must not be "abandoned." A recent
New York Times story praised some generals for "tempering" the rashness of Donald
Trump's attempt to withdraw once and for all.
For reasons of personality that hardly bear looking into, Trump in foreign policy
represented a break from the militarized globalism the United States had adopted with the
fall of the Soviet Union and the coming of a unipolar world. The laboratory for this approach
was the Yugoslavia intervention commandeered by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair. The madness
under the idealism was revealed in the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq in 2003.
That seems a long generation ago, to the short memory of Americans. Even more thoroughly
forgotten has been the Libya War -- President Obama's disastrous bid to show support for the
Arab Spring -- with all the destruction it wrought: the civil war that followed, the swollen
mass migrations from North Africa to South Europe, the opening of slave markets in Libya
itself. After Libya came Syria, in which the United States supported an Al Qaeda offshoot in
another humanitarian cause. After Syria came the Obama-Trump support for the Saudi
obliteration of Yemen.
The United States has long faced the peculiar choice -- messianic on both sides -- of
serving the world as an exemplary nation or as an evangelical one. The former image was best
drawn by Abraham Lincoln when he said that the proposition "all men are created equal" was
meant as "a standard maxim for free society," which would be "constantly approximated" in the
United States itself, "constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the
happiness and value of life to all people of all colors everywhere." By contrast, the
evangelical image was epitomized by John Kennedy's eloquent and dangerous inaugural address:
"we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any
foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." Lincoln's standard
maxim meant the force of our example. Kennedy's bear any burden meant the force
of our weapons.
A new Cold War with Russia was dragged onto center stage in 2013–2014. The process
began at the Sochi Olympics and was locked in by the American reaction to the Russian
reaction to the coup in Ukraine. The neoliberal elite is deciding, at this moment, whether to
prefer Russia or China as the number-one U.S. enemy on the horizon. But must we have one?
"Faith in a fact can help create the fact," said William James. A named expectation of
trouble creates the conditions for that trouble. And yet, informed citizens today in the
United States, in China, and in Russia all know that such a return to the inveterate habits
of the old Great Powers would be supremely irresponsible. Our most dire confrontation now is
with the natural world, which, in the form of climate change, is taking its revenge on
humanity for a century of abuse.
SPONSORED CONTENT
[Photos] At 56, Laura Ingraham Has Never Been Married And Now We Know Why Graduatez
[Photos] Behind Her Fame, Milana Vayntrub Has Some Secret Now Out In The Open Penguin M.D.
[Photos] 35 People That Forgot to Check The Background Before Taking Photo Penguin
M.D.
If the fires and floods of the last many years, in Australia and California, in Prague and
Houston, have nothing to say to you, it is not clear what planet you are fit to live on. The
best thing the policy elite could do, for the United States and the world, would be to put
themselves out of business. Begin a series of international agreements to cooperate in
slowing the progress of climate change, and in anticipating and defending against the worst
of its effects. Practically speaking, as a matter of course, this will require a new ethic of
international cooperation. Not war, not even an enhanced trade war, and not with China and
Russia most of all.
David Bromwich is Sterling Professor of English at Yale University. He is the author
of American Breakdown:
2020 just keeps getting crappier. This is the year when I have had to bow down and accept
that there is some line in the sand which past means that it doesn't matter how spectacularly
wrong you have been you still get treated as some sort of expert. You would think the fact
that Kissinger and Albright not being pariahs would have made that clear long ago, but no I
still clung to the belief that actions have consequences.
This year found a spectacularly bad ex President put his thumb on a primary to give the
nomination to a racist misogynistic geezer with cognitive issues whose entire time as a
public official was as a bank bagman who fought to destroy the middle class, criminalize
being a poor minority, increase the police state, indemnify banks and major corporations from
criminal acts, and force bad neoliberal economic policies on other countries by force.
That is when he wasn't selling access for profit, lying whenever possible and plagiarising
others work. When this "paragon" won we got retreads from the spectacularly bad ex
president's administration along with suggestions for positions for CEOs known for destroying
well run and ethical corporations leaving shells in their place. But the best is the return
of Summers, whose history of hubris and failure should have made him hard pressed to get a
job as a night gas station attendant.
The only response anyone should see to this "advice" was: "If Summers is against this and
fears its effect on the economy that can only mean the economy must need that payment to not
only be that large but be two or three times larger. Forget how mean and cruel his attitude
is about Americans in need, except to say perhaps it is long past time to strip him of all
income and most of his savings in order to keep the economy from getting overheated so he can
learn what the economy actually looks like." But no he is still accorded some respect.
is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for
Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic 22 Dec, 2020 12:08 Joe
Biden, set to be the oldest-ever US president, is actually on the younger side of people
currently running the American political establishment, who show no sign of wanting to ever
step aside for another generation.
It is often overlooked that Donald Trump currently holds the distinction of being the
oldest-ever US president, being 70 at the time of his inauguration. Biden will take that trophy
as well if he's inaugurated in January 2021, having turned 78 last month. Even so, he is
actually younger than the current leaders of the House and the Senate!
Though all major power brokers in Washington are older than the "gerontocracy" that
ruled the Soviet Union in the 1970s and the 1980s, you won't hear the US mainstream media make
the comparison, as it wouldn't fit their Narrative.
Sure, there has been some carefully calibrated talk about the "cognitive decline" of
Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is 87. But Feinstein is from an overwhelmingly Democrat state and
she can be easily replaced at the same time as Kamala Harris, Biden's running mate who still
hasn't resigned her Senate seat.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is 80, and has raised eyebrows herself with the
whole "Good Morning. Sunday Morning" glitch-in-the-Matrix behavior during a TV
appearance in September.
Way back in 2018 , Pelosi
insisted that any talk about wanting someone younger in the leadership position was
"sexist," and went on to ruthlessly crush any opposition to her getting the gavel
– and the power that went with it – inside the party. In the same interview, Pelosi
blanked out on the name of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), calling him
"whatshisname."
Born several months ahead of Biden in 1942, McConnell is 78 himself. He had a bout with
polio when very young, and though successfully treated, he's had difficulty climbing stairs all
his life. While he hasn't shown any signs of cognitive decline, his political choices as of
late have certainly caused some Republicans to wonder if he's truly the legislative genius his
supporters make him out to be.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) is "only" 70, but has actually been
in Congress longer than McConnell, if one counts his 18 years in the House before he got
elected to the Senate in 1998.
Only House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, 55, technically qualifies as a member of
'Generation X' rather than a Baby Boomer. Nor does he have any Cold War political baggage like
the rest, having been in the House since only 2006. If the Republicans somehow win the House
majority in 2022, he might gain more influence – but that's speculation at this point, on
both counts.
Meanwhile, the young activist House members who came in with 2018's "Blue Wave," such
as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), are being kept in check by the old guard. Just last
week, AOC was denied a spot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, thwarting her plans to
push for her "Green New Deal" proposal.
Compare this state of US politics with the notorious "gerontocracy" of the Soviet
Union. Three aging Soviet leaders died in quick succession between 1982 and 1985, prompting
then-US president Ronald Reagan to say "How am I supposed to get anyplace with the Russians
if they keep dying on me?" Yet Reagan was 74 at the time, older than all three.
Leonid Brezhnev was 54 when he took over the Communist Party in 1964. For the sake of
political stability, he remained a figurehead after his 1975 stroke and "ruled" the USSR
until his death in 1982, as no one in the party could agree on who ought to succeed him. His
18-year tenure was later dubbed the "Brezhnev stagnation."
Former KGB chief Yuri Andropov, part of a triumvirate running things for the better part of
Brezhnev's latter years, died himself at the age of 70 in 1984. He had led the Soviet Union for
less than 16 months. Konstantin Chernenko, 73, took over from Andropov – and died in
March 1985, after only 13 months in charge. His successor, Mikhail Gorbachev, was 54 at the
time, two years younger than Kamala Harris is now.
In one of those strange intricacies of the American political system, Harris went from
getting zero delegates in the Democrats' nomination process and dropping out before the first
primary to being widely expected to take over from Biden sooner rather than later. One might
say her relative youth and being a 'Woman Of Color' – an identity politics feature
increasingly important to the Democrats – might spell the end of the Boomer
dominance.
The thing to keep in mind, however, is that the "young reformer" Gorbachev managed to
run the Soviet Union into the ground within five short years. In 1991, the old guard tried a
military coup against him. Though Gorbachev survived the coup, the Soviet Union didn't. By the
end of that year, the USSR had "dissolved," breaking up along Communist-drawn boundaries
into independent and quasi-independent states.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
UKCitizen 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 08:34 AM
Not only American politics but much of USA public life too. I believe one facet of rule by a
gerontocracy is maintenance of the status quo; another is less control over younger and more
vigorous members of society. The two come together in the rise of Silicon Valley and
dominance of USA affairs by corporate interests. But nothing lasts forever and there are long
cycles too. Little will change in the short term but I predict at least four years of more
serious decline in America. The turning point will be final disillusionment with liberal-left
politics (see K/r theory) and the arrival of some younger leaders, not yet known.
Liberal-leftism will fail eventually for the simple reason it is founded in utopian like
fantasies, disconnection with the real life (however harsh,and probably because it is harsh)
but above all an attempt to spread finite resources veneer thin and remove any effort to get
them (free everything and equality for all). America will come round eventually but it will
be painful and will require it to revise much of its political structure to becoming a true
democracy, which even I have realised it isn't, and probably only has been fleetingly since
its founding. K/r theory is magnificently expounded in the 'The Evolutionary Psychology
Behind Politics' and long cycles in 'Biohistory'. The former rings true on just about every
page.
KarlthePoet UKCitizen 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 11:35 AM
America is collapsing because its foundation is solidly built on lies. The US government and
Wall Street are ultimately being controlled by the Jewish Banking Cartel. It cannot be
denied. Take the Federal Reserve away and America collapses overnight. Trillions upon
Trillions of dollars that are being printed out of thin air are keeping the failed system
afloat, for now. A massive global economic collapse is imminent. Just watch. Happy Holidays
Thomas74 17 hours ago 23 Dec, 2020 03:46 AM
There are clear parallels between the USSR and USA. The question is whether the leadership in
the USA's leader class has the same self-awareness that arose at the top of the USSR in its
last years. Also whether the American people will tolerate the economic hardship that the
former Soviet peoples endured in the transition. Is this what we're seeing now with the
coronavirus situation? A gradual taking down of expectations in the West behind the
smokescreen of a virus?
Anubis64 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 12:24 PM
Dear Nebojsa, So what? Andropov would have made a first-class statesman (give or take his
infatuation with technocracy). Brezhnev was not only a hero but a capable statesman whose era
is remembered with nostalgia. Let us focus on the fact that Russia's responses to the blows
coming hard and fast are rather passive and lacking any historical vision. It is not age but
will that matters.
Anubis64 Anubis64 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 12:53 PM
Then, a young scoundrel was brought in by the shady Yakovlev character and destroyed the
greatest country in the world in less than a decade. May the same happen to the insufferable
Americans.
Krieger 1 hour ago 23 Dec, 2020 08:34 PM
I think this is mostly apples and oranges. In the USSR, the "old guard" were patriots who
wanted to preserve their country. The "young reformers" were traitors who wanted to destroy
their own country to benefit their Western masters and personally enrich themselves. In the
USA, on the other hand, both the young and old politicians are totally corrupt and want to
maintain the status quo, which is slowly destroying the country from within.
Mira Golub 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 10:17 AM
America is ruled by mobster clans, the puppets are indeed resemble walking dead. Russian
imbecile liberal pro Western 2% 'opposition' though are getting their jollies by calling
Putin who is 68 'grandpa'. Bunch of degenerates.
Marek Weglinski 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 08:25 AM
Maybe it's a telltale that the Soviet-like demise for the US is near. Hopefully the American
empire will not come to a SUPERNOVA-like ending (inflicting great damage to the rest of the
world), before turning itself into a dwarf.
Ohhho Marek Weglinski 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 11:37 AM
The Evil empire will implode and take the rest of the world down with it, that's the problem!
USSR had it's own economic system pretty much isolated from the Western world, and when that
system collapsed the effect was felt all around the satellite countries for years!
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is ..."
The upcoming year should be interesting. The Establishment "Deep State" has won a major
victory in the United States with the election of Joe Biden as president. What remains to be
seen is whether or not there will be significant bloodletting as a consequence, revenge for the
presumed misdeeds that constituted the core legacy of four years of Donald J. Trump as chief
executive. Many in the Democratic Party harbor deep resentments that go back to the election of
2016, which spawned the myth that foreign interference by the Russians was responsible for the
upset victory by the GOP candidate. Even at this distance, few if any Democrats are willing to
admit that Hillary Clinton was a deeply flawed candidate whose condescension towards whole
categories of voters ultimately inspired many "undecideds" to vote against her.
Indeed, Trump came closer to repeating his improbable victory in 2020 than anyone would have
predicted and the stench of possible widespread fraud continues to hang over the result. Donald
Trump entered office with a pledge to "drain the swamp," something that he found more difficult
to actually do rather than just talk about doing. The Democrats will surely now work hard to
methodically eliminate all political appointees in the vast bureaucracy guilty of Trumpism.
That replacement of bureaucrats is referred to as the "spoils systems" and it is to be
expected, but there is something more sinister in the works with leading Democrats and some
journalists calling for heads to roll, metaphorically to be sure but with real impact on the
lives of those who supported the losing side. The Washington Post 's resident
Trump-hating Zionist Jennifer Rubin summed it up nicely in a tweet three days after the
election, posting "Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the
will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a
corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into 'polite' society. We have a
list."
And Bill Clinton's former Labor Secretary Robert Reich has been even more explicit,
tweeting a demand to create a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission." The commission borrows
the name and would be modeled on the organization set up in South Africa after the fall of the
apartheid government and the establishment of majority black rule, an exercise in attempted
democratization that has nevertheless failed to put an end to extremely high levels of
corruption and communal violence in the country.
Reich's objective is not limited to punishing the Trump White House's top officials who may
have promoted policies considered anathema by the incoming Democratic administration. He has
also tweeted "When this nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It
would erase Trump's lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every
official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this
catastrophe." The Reich proposal would potentially mean punishing thousands of otherwise
innocent individuals who had little influence over what happened during the past four years.
"Enabled" covers a lot of ground, and is prone to devolve into something like a witch hunt.
One Reich supporter wrote
in defense of the proposal "As long as unresolved historic injustices continue to fester in
the world, there will be a demand for truth commissions" and there have been numerous comments
on social media sites like Facebook insisting that "something be done" about the "deplorables"
who voted for and supported Trump. Interestingly, even though the comments constitute actual
threats, Facebook has not deleted them, unlike the elimination of posts that run afoul of the
censors by questioning the validity of the election or challenging conventional wisdom on
COVID-19.
Another commenter on twitter agreed with Reich, though complaining "But it doesn't go far
enough, clearly. Trump's assets and those of his voters should be seized by the state through
legislation and distributed to those he's harmed as reparations. Surely that's the only way to
heal our nation. Land of the free!" And finally, still another cheerleader enthused "Robert
you're right. And after we win we'll come for you all we're pretty much over trying to share a
country with you anyway. Four years ago I thought you were people with bad ideas. I was wrong:
YOU'RE BAD PEOPLE."
To be sure, Trump invited much of the hostile response to what he represents when he held
rallies where supporters called out Hillary Clinton with chants of "Lock her up!" So the anger
is there on both sides and momentum is building not just to replace or ignore Trump's
associates and his supporters, but to punish them for their alleged inability to comprehend the
many benefits derived from Democratic Party rule. As no mechanism actually exists to enable the
new regime to punish supporters of the previous administration, unless they have actually
committed a crime, one suspects the process of purging the bureaucracy and voters rolls will
pretty much be improvised while Biden and Harris get settled in.
Donald Trump also does not help either himself or the cause he represents. His insults and
abusive language invite hostility, having his tweets turn allies into enemies and making
friends of the "revolution" that he represents wish that he would just shut up. Current media
reports suggesting that he might not
vacate the White House on January 20 th as he continues to be convinced that he
won invite a nasty response from the Democrats. Ex-president Barack Obama
has warned , possibly in jest, that Trump might need to be removed forcibly by Navy
SEALS.
And, of course, violence could beget violence. If denigration of Trump supporters followed
by a real purge does take place it will impact on the tens of millions of voters who still
believe President Trump should have won re-election but for fraud. They are ready for a fight,
and not necessarily limited to the metaphoric. As I said in the beginning, it could be an
interesting year here in America.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website ishttps://councilforthenationalinterest.orgaddress is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected]
To be sure, Trump invited much of the hostile response to what he represents when he
held rallies where supporters called out Hillary Clinton with chants of "Lock her
up!"
So it's Trump's fault – not for anything he has said or done, but for what his
supporters have said.
Indeed, Trump came closer to repeating his improbable victory in 2020 than anyone would
have predicted and the stench of possible widespread fraud continues to hang over the
result.
I could continue, but won't. Even when criticising the Democrats, his hostility towards
Trump and his supporters never lets up. Any dispassionate observer can see that widespread
electoral fraud was actual and likely swung the election Biden's way. Even honest leftist
observers agree. Giraldi should have mentioned this, but didn't. Having perpetrated it once,
the Democrats will do it again. The likelihood is that there will be no fair elections in
future. So the Democrats will have the time to enforce their revenge agenda in perpetuity.
Again Giraldi fails to mention this.
Donald Trump entered office with a pledge to "drain the swamp," something that he found
more difficult to actually do rather than just talk about doing.
Especially when Trump himself hired nothing but nevertrumpers and swamp rats and
listened to his know-nothing rat-in-law.
(Didn't this guy have a tv show for 13 years about hiring the best people?)
It's secession time, has been for years before Orange Golfbag. Don't worry about whether
the federal mafia approves of the parting of ways, their new scamulus includes $300,000,000
to bring in more rapefugees aka your replacements.
When hawks in the U.S. and Israeli governments talk about "restoring deterrence," what
they really mean is that they want to commit acts of aggression but present them as defensive
actions.
The president made more reckless threats against Iran today:
When the president illegally ordered the assassination of Soleimani in January of this year,
administration officials eventually lined up behind the excuse that it was intended to "restore
deterrence" against rocket attacks from Iranian-backed Iraqi militias. Even though these
attacks have continued throughout the year much the same as before, we are back to the same old
tired issuing of threats of military action in response to attacks that would not be happening
if it were not for the president's own reckless actions. As the anniversary of the Soleimani
assassination approaches, we are once again drifting towards an avoidable and unnecessary
conflict.
Were it not for the president's "maximum pressure" campaign, U.S. forces in Iraq would face
far fewer risks than they do today, and conflict between our governments would be much less
likely. Had it not been for the president's decision to order the illegal and provocative
attack that killed Soleimani and an Iraqi militia leader, tensions between the U.S. and Iran
would not be as great as they are now. Trump's approach to Iran for the last two and a half
years has been to pick a fight and then blame the other side for responding to his
provocations. Far from deterring attacks from Iranian-backed militias and the Iranian military
itself, the Trump administration has been provoking and inviting them. It is mostly a matter of
luck that this has not yet triggered a larger conflict.
For its part, the Israeli government is also raising the temperature by
sending one of its submarines through the Suez Canal to signal its readiness to respond to
retaliation for its murder of Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh:
An Israeli submarine has embarked for the Persian Gulf in possible preparation for any
Iranian retaliation over the November assassination of a senior Iranian nuclear scientist,
Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, Israeli media reported.
The above-water, fully visible Israeli deployment into the Suez Canal and then the Red Sea
was a rare move that was reportedly carried out with the acquiescence of Egyptian authorities
and was seen as a clear warning to Iran that Israel was preparing for battle as hostilities
continue to rise.
The deployment of the Israeli submarine is described as a "message of deterrence," but it is
in fact the result of an ill-advised and illegal attack inside Iran. Had the Israelis not
carried out a terrorist attack on Iranian soil, they would not now be worried about possible
retaliation. This gets at a basic problem with the hawkish framing of our news coverage related
to Iran and the constant misuse of the concept of deterrence by both the U.S. and Israeli
governments.
First Panel, TAC's 7th Annual Foreign Policy Conference What Does 2020 Mean For
Foreign Policy 00:07 / 01:00 3
When hawks in the U.S. and Israeli governments talk about "restoring deterrence," what they
really mean is that they want to commit acts of aggression but present them as defensive
actions. Blowing up Soleimani had nothing to do with deterring future attacks, and we can see
that it has failed to deter them. Murdering Fakhrizadeh definitely had nothing to do with
deterring anything. It was just a gratuitous killing that the Israel government did because
they could. Now both the U.S. and Israel find that they have to make additional shows of force
and issue new threats to ward off possible responses to these earlier aggressive acts. Instead
of making them more secure, these aggressive acts have exposed Americans and Israelis to
greater risks than they faced earlier on.
In light of reports that the president has asked for military options for attacking Iran and
reports that Israel has been preparing for such an eventuality, we have to take the possibility
of a U.S. or joint U.S.-Israel attack on Iran seriously. There is absolutely no justification
for such an attack, but that is no guarantee that it won't happen. It needs to be emphasized
that none of this would be happening if the Trump administration had not taken the reckless and
destructive step of reneging on the JCPOA and launching an economic war on Iran. Whatever
happens in the next few weeks can be traced back to that, and the president is responsible for
the consequences.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in
the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics
Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The
American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
he Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) recently released a lengthy report that
predictably advocates for an aggressive and activist foreign policy that they euphemistically
dub "defending forward." Like the British imperial "Forward Policy" that it calls to mind and
resembles, so-called forward defense seeks to justify interventionism and open-ended warfare in
far-flung parts of the world in the name of national security. The essays included in the
report warn against "retrenchment" and repeatedly attack advocates of foreign policy restraint
in dishonest and misleading ways, and they sound all the usual alarms about the supposed perils
of extricating the U.S. from its many unnecessary foreign wars. These arguments are neither new
nor particularly interesting, but they can't be ignored because of the significant influence
that their purveyors continue to have in Washington and in the Republican Party in particular.
If we are going to build a foreign policy of peace and restraint, these arguments have to be
answered and discredited.
Panetta sets the tone for the document right away: "More than ever, Americans must go abroad
to remain secure at home." This is the interventionists' axiom from which everything else
follows, so it is important to start by explaining how wrong it is. To the extent that American
security is threatened by other states and terrorist organizations, a forward policy invites
more attacks and challenges and exacerbates the dangers it is supposedly combating. Our
militarized engagement in many parts of the world is simultaneously destabilizing and
provocative, and it makes us far more enemies than we would have otherwise.
Forward deployments make U.S. troops targets, and those deployments then become ends in
themselves. Putting these troops in harm's way for decades isn't making Americans any safer,
and the "war on terror" has led to the metastasization of terrorist groups on two continents.
The forward "defense" that interventionists believe is so critical to our security is at best a
redundant waste of lives and resources. At worst, it is sowing seeds for future attacks on
Americans and our allies, and it is doing so at enormous expense. Sending troops to the other
side of the world is not necessary to keep Americans safe at home. "Defending forward" has
nothing to do with defense and everything to do with power projection and domination.
H.R. McMaster joined FDD shortly after being fired from his position as National Security
Advisor, and in the last two years he has been attacking restrainers and promoting aggressive
policies in a number of prominent articles. His contribution to the FDD report is a previously
published Foreign Affairs article called "The Retrenchment Syndrome." As the title
suggests, McMaster sees advocates of restraint (or "retrenchment hard-liners" as he calls them)
as suffering from a dangerous malady, and his only prescription is more foreign entanglements.
I have previously answered McMaster's arguments here
, but I will add a few more remarks. McMaster wrongly accuses restrainers of "national
narcissism," but he demonstrates no ability to understand the views of his domestic opponents
or the thinking of the foreign adversaries whose motives he claims to know. He supports U.S.
dominance and power projection in the world, and so he assumes that other major powers must
have the same goal, but this is just an alibi for pursuing the aggressive policies that he
already favors.
Misunderstanding and misrepresenting the views of restrainers is a running theme in the
report. Mark Dubowitz and Jonathan Schanzer are some of the worst offenders. They can't stop
themselves from dubbing Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer "realists-cum-isolationists," which
is as insulting to them as it is wildly inaccurate. Both of those scholars favor a strategy
involving offshore balancing, and Mearsheimer is rather hawkish on China, but they want to
reduce the U.S. military footprint in the Middle East and that is unacceptable to FDD. That is
why they are branded with the i-word. Dubowitz and Schanzer also mock the Quincy Institute for
Responsible Statecraft for supposedly not understanding the foreign policy views of John Quincy
Adams, but this just shows how eager they are to distort the views of non-interventionists both
past and present. Their contribution is long on accusations of isolationism without offering
any evidence, but then this is the point of the isolationist smear. It is never meant to
describe, only to distort and vilify, and they resort to this because they are afraid to engage
restrainer arguments on the merits.
Like some melodramatic villain from a superhero movie, they declare, "History,
unfortunately, is a forever war." One gets the impression that they do not really regard this
as misfortune, but rather see it as an opportunity. Yes, history is full of conflicts, but
there is far more to our history than warfare, and one thing we should have learned from all
those conflicts is how pointless and unnecessary most of them have been. At the very least, we
should know to steer clear from aggressive policies that make such conflicts more likely. The
Trump administration Iran policy that FDD has championed for years has done just that, and that
is one of many reasons why we should regard their recommendations with suspicion.
First
Panel, TAC's 7th Annual Foreign Policy Conference What Does 2020 Mean For Foreign Policy 00:06
/ 01:00 1
Their account of the recent past is no better than their tedious comparisons with the 1930s.
They write, "Al-Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks despite America's best efforts to steer clear
of Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda was and is based." This is mind-boggling
revisionism, conveniently ignoring that the attacks were carried out in large part in response
to the continued U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia and U.S. support for the despotic
government there. Dubowitz and Schanzer point to the clearest example of disastrous blowback in
modern U.S. history and then have the gall to say that this example supports their argument for
keeping U.S. forces permanently deployed in other countries where they aren't wanted.
Not surprisingly, the consistent misreadings and distortions of history are some of the
biggest flaws in the report. Bradley Bowman and Clifford May rattle off historical "facts"
about wars throughout history that elide far more than they reveal. For instance, they speak of
"Persian-Roman wars" running from the battle of Carrhae between the Roman Republic and the
Parthians to the battle of Nineveh in the seventh century between the Byzantines and the
Sasanians. That lumps together many different regimes and dynasties in very crude fashion, and
it also misleads the reader into thinking that conflict was incessant when it was not.
While there were many wars between these two powers over the course of seven hundred years,
these two states were at peace with each other for the vast majority of that period of time.
Indeed, for most of Byzantine history, the emperors in Constantinople were wary of engaging in
open warfare and sought to avoid it as much as possible because of the cost and the potential
for disaster. This strategy did not invite aggression, and it succeeded in allowing the empire
to husband its resources and preserve its strength. One could say that the Byzantines usually
practiced responsible statecraft. That is one reason why their empire managed to endure for as
long as it did.
Treating war as being essentially unavoidable, Bowman and May belittle restrainers for
"stunning ignorance" in calling to end U.S. involvement in its foreign wars today. This amounts
to little more than mindless fatalism in accepting that the U.S. is bound to be at war much
more often than not. But constant warfare and the strategy that undergirds it are both choices.
Vietnam was completely avoidable for the U.S. and also entirely unnecessary for U.S. security,
just as our current wars are all wars of choice. Conflict may be an ineradicable part of the
human condition, but it doesn't follow that any particular conflict has to happen or that we
are fated to participate in it when it does.
There may always be some conflict somewhere (though there has been much less of it in recent
decades), but nowhere is it written that a major power has to be at war all of the time, much
less in multiple places around the globe. The empires that have engaged in constant warfare
have tended to suffer bankruptcy and ruin. Many of these states were governed by men who also
believed that peripheral interests were worth fighting over, and they ultimately exhausted
themselves in fruitless conflicts.
The U.S. is unusual among great powers in history in that it is relatively separated from
its rivals by great distance, but it still chooses to entangle itself in the affairs of distant
regions instead of taking advantage of our favorable geography. While modern technologies have
reduced the importance of that advantage, they have not eliminated it. America is, in fact,
extraordinarily secure from foreign threats, and so it becomes necessary to inflate these
threats and overstate the capabilities of other states to make the case for a "forward"
policy.
Writing for The New Republic , Jacob Silverman sums
up the report very well:
That is the purpose of "Defending Forward": to contort the English language to convince a
war-weary public that there is no alternative but to continue the status quo of "forward
defense-in-depth military deployments," as Leon Panetta, the former CIA director and defense
secretary, euphemistically calls them. But the FDD publication succeeds only in reminding us
that, after 19 years of a catastrophic, immoral, illegal war on terror, America's hawks are
simply out of answers.
The U.S. has been following something like a "forward defense" strategy for decades. The
results have been almost twenty years of expensive failed wars that have caused the deaths of
hundreds of thousands of people. The U.S. desperately needs to change its strategy and practice
restraint in its use of force and the deployment of its armed forces. America does not need to
police and dominate the world to be secure, and the sooner we all realize that the better it
will be for our country and for the rest of the world. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in
the New York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics
Review , Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The
American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
No, hehe, all Powers are not all in the end economic. We can be good at economicing life some
of us, but Most have no clue about all the real Powers.
KlausR922 Ghanima223 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 09:43 AM
Russia and China do not have enough fleet to populate the oceans around the US but have more
immigrants in the US. Instead, attracting foreign funds or investors (even through mixed
marriages) destabilizes their own economies. This suggests, however, that the 'balance of
power' remains to the advantage of the US. In fact, if we are all capitalists, what is the
significance of this balance?
Jewel Gyn 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 03:21 AM
"the two most significant threats to this era of global peace and prosperity," Look at
yourself in the mirror. US is without doubt the biggest threat to global peace and
prosperity. The only reason countries are silent is because of your military and economic
might. But it won't be for long...
USA is building useless junk more fitting to the times of Neanderthals and definitely
obsolete in the 21st century with borrowed money. Nothing mighty about that.
USA no longer has a mighty economy. Has the world's biggest debt mountain instead along with
a permanently concussed military by Iran!! Clown.
Iwanasay 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 04:07 AM
This report says it all, the US objective is to dominate the world, not be a part of it, it
also proves that the US is military dictatorship where politicians are only elected to
channel huge sums of taxpayers money into the Pentagon and military industry purse. Hurry up
China and Russia, form a military alliance and bankrupt the US as it wastes more & more
against non-existent enemies
Fjack1415 Iwanasay 1 day ago 21 Dec, 2020 01:25 PM
Yeah, the Star Wars strategy supposedly used by Pres. Reagan to bankrupt Soviet Russia, now
can be used against the US. The US needs to spend about ten times what Russia or China spend
in order to achieve the same result (if that) and what is more, it is borrowed money.
GorillaBalls Iwanasay 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 09:27 AM
Joetex America is obsolete already.
Dachaguy 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 03:13 AM
Balance? The US has no interest at all in balance. The US focus is domination. It's what the
Project for a New American Century was all about.
Except, China and Russia and the rest of the real free world has their own plans for the
future without the US!!!!
shadow1369 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:55 AM
Us regime calls its own relentless aggression 'assertive policy', and accuses anybody who
resists their global tyranny a 'threat to peace'. Nothing new.
GorillaBalls 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:37 AM
USA has been saying the same thing and has been spending the most money on its military but
the reality is it has never won a war with a major military beyond own shore.
Joetex GorillaBalls 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 07:04 AM
All wars the US has fought have been beyond its own Shores including WWI and WWII, which by
the way were victorious.
GreenPizza804 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:03 AM
"Our actions in this decade will shape the maritime balance of power for the rest of this
century." they think Russia and China don't have any plan to this ?
Joetex GreenPizza804 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 06:56 AM
It's to late Trumps Trillion Dollar Plan in 2018 went to Mostly Navy and Space Force. And
Already is more Advanced than China and Russia Combined.
shadow1369 GreenPizza804 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 06:02 AM
In the Project for a New American Century, the US version of Mein Kampf, the warmongers
preached 'full spectrum dominance'. They remind me of the last days of the nazis, deploying
non existant armies to fend off the fast approaching allied powers. Any pretence of US global
hegemony was destroyed in Syria.
wawya 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:36 AM
The USA is the greatest threat to all countries yet masquerades as a friend to many. Make no
mistake, it is an ally only when it suits. China has asperations on having a blue water navy
but is a fair way off. Russia, apart from its SSN & SSBN boats is very much a green water
navy. The Americans are kidding themselves.
Mickey Mic 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:30 AM
Let's not forget, the central banks can't operate with the current market status, hence, the
delay in Nancy's relief tactics. War is imminent for the survival of banking cartels, Trump
denied the banks wars, so cheat Trump out of office was is the highest demand for the Federal
Reserve banking system. They needed a compromised President to bend to their will, Joe was
picked for the Job due to his corrupt career and dysfunctional mentality . Bernie was cheated
(No charges) Trump has been surrounded by disloyal shape-shifting swamp monsters, his proof
of voter Fraud is meaningless in the land of oil & vinegar. Biden was illegally installed
to launch wars & secure the final stages of the Wuhan virus (Forced Vaccinations). Let's
face it, Biden's choices for Cabinet positions line directly with Hillary Clinton's friends,
he is not in charge to make any choices on his own. He is supplying an empty shell to fill
the oval office for the shadow Gov. The majority of US leadership thinks they'll be safe
inside Cheyenne Mountain to protect their own sacred seed from destruction. PS: From the
counterfeit Supreme Court, to the Masonic lodges better known as the "House of senators &
Congressman"...Lurks a perpetual centrifugal motion to consume their greedy desolation.
Galaxy31 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 03:32 AM
As US looses global dominance, the more desperate it becomes. This time though, it doesn't
look it will work, but unfortunately because of this desperation, it may end up tragically
for all of us human beings.
GorillaBalls Galaxy31 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:27 AM
"The US Navy will adopt a more 'assertive' approach to China and Russia, according to the
country's new maritime strategy, which says that actions taken in the next decade will
determine power dynamics for the rest of the century." Making big talk about the future with
20th century and OBSOLETE aircraft carries that can be quickly sent to the bottom with a few
comparatively much cheaper hypersonic carrier killer missiles those tubs are DEFENCELESS
against.
straightasarrow69 Galaxy31 18 December, 2020 18 Dec, 2020 05:15 AM
America spends more on their military than the next 10 nations combined. More engineers
graduate in China every year than exist in the whole of America. America believes it needs to
manufacture enemies to prop up its main export, death and destruction. This further explains
why some American politicians have stated, "if an Israel did not exist we would have to
invent one." Birds of a feather. Time to diversify Americas economy. China, Russia, and
America are brothers.
The ascendancy of neoliberal forces to the executive branch of the U.S. state represents a
development that potentially will be even a more dangerous period of aggression from the U.S.
white supremacist settler state and its white supremacist colonial European allies.
Why is this so? The primary agenda of the right-wing neoliberal forces represented by the
Biden Administration is to reassert U.S. global leadership by reconsolidating a common
U.S.-European capitalist program of domination that was disrupted with the "America first"
positions of the Trump Administration.
The Biden Administration is animated by the belief that the objective logic of overall
Western hegemony is tied to finding a way for more effective collaboration around a common
imperialist agenda. This belief is shared by Angela Merkel of Germany, and despite some
contrary public declarations from French President Macron on issue of European independence,
Macron sees an effective Western alliance as critical, even if it is under U.S. leadership
once again.
The racialist character if these appeals are obvious to those of us who operate from a
critical anti-colonialist frame that centers race and violence as the essential elements of
the rise of the Pan-European white supremacist colonial/capitalist patriarchal project. The
commitment to continued white colonial/capitalist global hegemonic dominance is clear.
Biden's objective to revive a U.S. hegemonic role over the Western project of collective
domination must be seen as a race project.
Trump's plan from the beginning of his administration was to complete the Obama pivot to
Asia, but those efforts were undermined by the domestic political obstacles he faced in just
trying to gain full control of the Executive Branch. And while Trump was eventually
successful in winning over elements of the U.S. and European ruling classes to a more
aggressive stance against China, his short-sighted, erratic "America first" policies and his
inability to consolidate effective power over the U.S. state were a destabilizing force for
the continued hegemony of the Western colonial/capitalist project.
The U.S.-EU unity project with its NATO military wing in the service of collective
imperialism and under U.S. leadership is the neoliberal corrective strategy to
Trump.
Biden's Intersectional Imperialism is Exposed
Obama represented the last stage of what Gramsci called a passive revolution where
oppressive state mitigates the influence of antagonistic groups through "gradual but
continuous absorption."
The U.S.-EU race and class project of unity adopted by the Biden Administration will face
serious political and economic challenges. The clumsy attempt to utilize Obama's soft power
ideological mystifications in the present circumstances of capitalist crisis together with a
deep legitimation crisis will result in abject failure by the Biden administration on both
the global and domestic levels.
First among the challenges facing the incoming administration is the competing economic
interests among Western capitalists. The abrogation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPA) with Iran by the Trump Administration and the reimposition of sanctions that required
economic disengagement from Iran by many European firms, was a major fissure in the Atlanta
alliance.
The lost revenues by European firms as a result of economic disengagement with Iran and
the efforts to undermine the Russian NORD stream two pipeline that alienated significant
elements of German capital are just two of the issues that will weigh on the trust factor in
U.S. political leadership going forward.
Moreover, there are two interrelated contradictions of this unity strategy that the
Northern neoliberal capitalist class must confront but will be unable to resolve: first, the
impact of the capitalist crisis exacerbated by COVID that has unleashed forces disruptive to
the capitalist order from both the left and the right. And secondly, the attempt by the left
and social democratic movements and nations to develop, however tentatively, from the
obviously failed neoliberal capitalist model.
The U.S.-EU Unity Process Requires a Countervailing Peoples Unity Process
The strategic challenge for the left in Northern countries is countering these efforts
with a coherent anti-capitalist, internationalist, anti-imperialist, anti-white supremacist
and pro-socialist popular movements and structures.
But in the U.S. and Europe, that is easier said than done. Along with the ideological and
organizational fragmentation of the left, one of the main issues that undermines the ability
for the left to cohere in the U.S. and Europe is the cultural and ideological influences of
white supremacist ideology.
The inability to reject the fiction of a "Europe" and its civilizational superiority has
thoroughly corrupted the worldviews and politics of Western leftism. In the face of the
U.S/EU/NATO attacks and subversion on Syria, Libya to Venezuela and Bolivia, instead of
anti-imperialist solidarity, the left engaged in torturous abstract "discussions" around the
merits and mistakes made by these various Southern nations, not recognizing the arrogant
white supremacist positionality of that approach.
Anti-imperialist marginalization is reflective of the shift in the consciousness not only
of the public in various Western nations but of the putative left as well. Even among Black
liberationist forces in the U.S., who have traditionally had internationalism and
anti-imperialism at the center of their worldviews and politics, a strange U.S.-centrism has
emerged. This tendency along with an ironic embryonic racial chauvinism that elevates a
distinctive "African American" construction of so-called global anti-blackness as an
intractable ontological phenomenon, has created serious ideological and political challenges
for anti-imperialist coalitional work.
Yet, those challenges must be met by African/Black left and left forces in general. It is
impossible for forces in the U.S. and Europe to avoid their unique responsibilities situated
at the center of the colonial empires, to the peoples of the world who have the knee of
collective imperialism on their necks.
Bringing this discussion closer to the territory referred to as the United States,
anti-imperialism, and the struggle against U.S. chauvinism among the left must be taken up as
an area of struggle. For African/Black revolutionaries, and indeed for the working and
laboring classes, our gaze must extend beyond our local and national realities. Not because
those realities are unimportant but because we are unable to understand local realities
without understanding the full constellation of class, race and material forces that shape
those structural realities nationally and locally.
Mobilizing our forces to confront and defeat the Pan-European project is not a call to
abstractionism. The organizational challenge is to answer the question of how does local
work, that is, building a real, concrete internationalism, look.
It is not enough to position ourselves in solidarity with the victims of U.S. imperialism.
The base-building work that we engage in must reflect that mutual connection with the
colonized.
That is why the Black internationalist stance is not some exotic addition to radical
organizing but must be seen as fundamental to our movement building work. Understanding that
we are immersed in a system of exploitation and oppression that is global, even though it has
local manifestations, is critical for us to effectively address that perennial task of
determining "what must be done" to advance our forces.
Confronting that question of what is to be done has become even more crucial today amid
the irreversible decline of the capitalist order. And while we commit to building a mass
movement of the exploited and oppressed, we must take account of some troubling developments
over the last four years.
The unveiling of the left patriots who were concerned with "our democracy" and who
enthusiastically propagated the talking points of neoliberalism while remaining silent on
U.S. imperialism, and entered the intra-bourgeois class struggle as junior partners to
neoliberal right, revealed once again that if the left is not prepared to defeat whiteness
and the U.S./EU/NATO Axis of Domination, it will join as the tail to the neoliberal right in
the cross-class white supremacist fascist project led by neoliberals.
Our survival demands that we remain "woke" to that possibility and plan accordingly.
Ajamu Baraka is the national organizer of the Black Alliance for Peace and was the 2016
candidate for vice president on the Green Party ticket. He is an editor and contributing
columnist for the Black Agenda Report and contributing columnist for Counterpunch
magazine.
"... USAID led at that time by someone named Rajiv Khan, I think it was, and directed by Hill, comandeered the few landing spots at the airport for themselves preventing planes carrying Actual Aid -- you know, food, clothing, meds -- from landing and unloading. ..."
"... I have friends who lived in Haiti at the time and years after the disaster only 6 new residences had been built and the promised factories? As far as I know, never did get built. ..."
"... USAID seems to be about anything but AID. ..."
"... When pressed about the lack of progress made in the (housing) rebuilding efforts, including inabilities to provide shelter, Secretary of State Clinton said "Those who expect progress immediately are unrealistic and doing a disservice to the many people who are working so hard. ..."
USAID led at that time by someone named Rajiv Khan, I think it was, and directed by Hill,
comandeered the few landing spots at the airport for themselves preventing planes carrying
Actual Aid -- you know, food, clothing, meds -- from landing and unloading.
Then Bill was named "Ambassador to Haiti" and the situation Never improved.
I have friends who lived in Haiti at the time and years after the disaster only 6 new
residences had been built and the promised factories? As far as I know, never did get
built.
good example! I vote Power and Sunstein to head USAID! i was a bit more than surprised
that ann garrison never mentioned it's a CIA cut-out, to say the truth.
on edit: ach; you'd meant Bill Fuck over haiti Clinton!
' F*cking the Haitian 99%: Another Clinton Family Project ', October
27, 2015 by wendyedavis (longish, but this key excerpt)
"Sure, Bill and Hill love sweatshop industrial complexes (from nacla.org) more than houses
for Haiti, and love HELP™ (comically ironic acronym):
"On September 20, Haitian prime minister Jean-Marc Bellerive, U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, and the World Bank's International Finance Corporation announced their
partnership with the South Korean garment firm Sae-A Trading Company to establish an
industrial park that will create 10,000 garment assembly jobs in Haiti. Without a doubt,
earthquake-ravaged Haiti needs jobs, mainly to provide the country's 1.3 million homeless
with the means necessary to rebuild their destroyed homes.
While little progress has been made on Haiti's immense housing needs since the January 12
earthquake, Clinton assured the investing public that factory development was moving full
steam ahead. These 10,000 jobs, she assured critics "are not just any jobs. These are good
jobs with fair pay that adhere to international labor standards, . . . Haiti is open for
business again."
Well, sure; at a $3.09 daily minimum wage (upped later to $5, but almost no one actually
gets paid at that rate), what's not to love?
"When pressed about the lack of progress made in the (housing) rebuilding efforts,
including inabilities to provide shelter, Secretary of State Clinton said "Those who expect
progress immediately are unrealistic and doing a disservice to the many people who are
working so hard."
Bill Clinton, UN Special Envoy to Haiti, has been equally optimistic about Haiti's cheap
labor prospects, especially since the passing of the Haitian Economic Lift Program (HELP) in
May. The bill would increase the amount of Haitian assembled goods that could be imported
into the United States duty free. "This important step," Clinton said, "responds to the needs
of the Haitian people for more tools to lift themselves from poverty, while standing to
benefit U.S. consumers."
But my, oh, my; the Big Dog loves high-end resort tourism, too. The Marriott opening was
well-attended by toffs, including Senn Penn, as I remember it.
Lavrov welcomed to Moscow Syria's new Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the
Syrian Arab Republic Faisal Mekdad, who took over after Walid Muallem's passing, and his
delegation. The introduction was
followed later by a presser that provided some reminders and updates:
"We confirmed Russia's unchanged stance in favour of unconditional respect for Syria's
sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence as well as the right of the
Syrian nation to determine its own fate and future. All these principles are clearly and
unambiguously stated in UN Security Council Resolution 2254. All countries without
exception must follow these principles ." [My Emphasis]
The bolded sentence is yet another direct demand for the Outlaw US Empire to change its
ways and cease its illegal behaviors. That was quickly followed thusly:
"The attainment of socioeconomic development goals in Syria is being hindered by the
illegal (and even criminal in light of the COVID pandemic) unilateral sanctions adopted
against Syria by the United States and some of its allies.
"We reaffirm our condemnation of the continued illegal presence of foreign troops in
Syria."
This has made the continuance of the "Astana three" a requirement since "[i]t is the only
international assistance mechanism for the Syrian settlement that has actually proved its
efficiency and relevance." On Syria's economy, 2021 looks like it will be a huge improvement
over 2020:
"As for economic rehabilitation, in the past few weeks we have adopted a number of very
serious decisions, which will greatly enhance Syria's opportunities to organise systemic work
in this sphere. We continue providing humanitarian aid. We have delivered 100,000 tonnes of
Russian grain. These deliveries will continue. We are discussing practical steps now. A
comprehensive strategic programme for economic cooperation is being prepared.
"A new Syrian co-chair of the intergovernmental commission in trade and economic
cooperation has been appointed this month. The commission is preparing for a full-scale
meeting early next year, during which all these topics and joint practical actions will be
discussed."
Lastly, Lavrov was asked to comment on Pompeo's most recent series of lies regarding
Russia in Libya and the Mediterranean region. His 5 paragraph reply was as close to a tirade
as Lavrov gets. Here's the first to give readers a taste:
"During the past four years of working with the current US administration, we have become
used to the United States showing no desire, ability or skill when it comes to discussing
their concerns openly and on the basis of facts during direct negotiations. The Americans and
their Western allies have developed a trend of publicly accusing others without any facts,
making these accusations part of the international agenda and, finally, presenting them as a
proved matter. This is what they did and what they are doing regarding the US elections and
the recent complaints about hackers. This is what they did in the case of the Skripals, and
this is what they are doing in the Navalny case. They have no facts, not a single one, to
prove their point."
Do please read the rest! It should be very clear by now after decades of lies,
distortions, and the gamut of other prevarications that nothing uttered by anyone
representing the Outlaw US Empire should be believed while also assuming the opposite is most
likely true until refuted by genuine facts coming from an unbiased source.
"The march of freedom of the past one hundred and fifty years has been a long-drawn-out
people's revolution. In this Great Revolution of the people, there were the American Revolution
of 1775, The French Revolution of 1792, The Latin-American revolutions of the Bolivarian era,
The German Revolution of 1848, and the Russian Revolution of 1917. Each spoke for the common
man in terms of blood on the battlefield. Some went to excess. But the significant thing is
that the people groped their way to the light. More of them learned to think and work
together....
"The people are on the march toward even fuller freedom than the most fortunate peoples of
the earth have hitherto enjoyed. No Nazi counter-revolution will stop it. The common man will
smoke the Hitler stooges out into the open in the United States, in Latin America, and in
India. He will destroy their influence. No Lavals, no Mussolinis will be tolerated in a Free
World.
"The people, in their millennial and revolutionary march toward manifesting here on earth
the dignity that is in every human soul, hold as their credo the Four Freedoms enunciated by
President Roosevelt in his message to Congress on January 6, 1941. These four freedoms are the
very core of the revolution for which the United Nations have taken their stand. We who live in
the United States may think there is nothing very revolutionary about freedom of religion,
freedom of expression, and freedom from the fear of secret police. But when we begin to
think about the significance of freedom from want for the average man, then we know that the
revolution of the past one hundred and fifty years has not been completed, either here in the
United States or in any other nation in the world. We know that this revolution can not stop
until freedom from want has actually been attained .
"And now, as we move forward toward realizing the Four Freedoms of this people's revolution,
I would like to speak about four duties. It is my belief that every freedom, every right, every
privilege has its price, its corresponding duty without which it can not be enjoyed. The four
duties of the people's revolution, as I see them today, are these:
1. The duty to produce the limit.
2. The duty to transport as rapidly as possible to the field of battle.
3. The duty to fight with all that is in us.
4. The duty to build a peace -- just, charitable and enduring.
"The fourth duty is that which inspires the other three ."
Wallace laments about the failure after WW1; but when he spoke, few knew the actual reasons
for the war, although Wallace was correct that it wasn't to serve the Common Man's interest. To
solve the basic problem that in reality goes back 4-5,000 years. Wallace then drives the nail
home:
"We did not build a peace treaty on the fundamental doctrine of the people's revolution.
We did not strive whole-heartedly to create a world where there could be freedom from want
for all peoples . But by our very errors we learned much, and after this war we shall be in
position to utilize our knowledge in building a world which is economically, politically and, I
hope, spiritually sound."
The United Nations contained within it the above vision that it could become the vehicle for
attaining the goals enunciated in that last sentence. It's now 75 years later, and it appears
we might have an opportunity to attain Wallace's, FDR's, and numerous others dream goal of an
unfettered people living in harmony while enjoying those four basic freedoms, but most
importantly, the freedom from want and the chains of debt that attends it always .
Wallace knew about banks and finance from the farmer's POV for he was a member of a
longstanding Iowa farming family--the Iowa Asgards. And he knew about the Devilish threats
within the USA to the Four Freedoms as he noted in his speech. Although the focus was on
Germany, Wallace knew the Nazi Devil lived in many places:
"Through the leaders of the Nazi revolution, Satan now is trying to lead the common man of
the whole world back into slavery and darkness. For the stark truth is that the violence
preached by the Nazis is the devil's own religion of darkness. So also is the doctrine that
one race or one class is by heredity superior and that all other races or classes are supposed
to be slaves . THE belief in one Satan-inspired Fuhrer, with his Quislings, his Lavals, and
his Mussolinis -- his "gauleiters" in every nation in the world -- is the last and ultimate
darkness. Is there any hell hotter than that of being a Quisling, unless it is that of being a
Laval or a Mussolini?" (Quisling was a Norwegian Fascist executed in 1945 for treason.) [My
Emphasis]
Wallace knew and he displayed his knowledge in a very famous op/ed written at the request of
the NY Times and vetted by FDR, "The Dangers of American
Fascism," published 9 April 1944. Besides that message, Wallace's most powerful message was
spoken toward the conclusion of his speech which provides an excellent benchmark to measure
just how far we've come and how much farther we need to go:
"Some [Henry Luce] have spoken of the 'American Century.' I say that the century on which we
are entering -- The century which will come out of this war -- can be and must be the century
of the common man. Perhaps it will be America's opportunity to suggest that Freedoms and duties
by which the common man must live. Everywhere the common man must learn to build his own
industries with his own hands is a practical fashion. Everywhere the common man must learn to
increase his productivity so that he and his children can eventually pay to the world community
all that they have received. No nation will have the God-given right to exploit other
nations. Older nations will have the privilege to help younger nations get started on the path
to industrialization, but there must be neither military nor economic imperialism . The
methods of the nineteenth century will not work in the people's century which is now about to
begin. India, China, and Latin America have a tremendous stake in the people's century. As
their masses learn to read and write, and as they become productive mechanics, their standard
of living will double and treble. Modern science, when devoted whole-heartedly to the general
welfare, has in it potentialities of which we do not yet dream.
"And modern science must be released from German slavery. International cartels that serve
American greed and the German will to power must go. Cartels in the peace to come must be
subjected to international control for the common man, as well as being under adequate control
by the respective home governments . In this way, we can prevent the Germans from again
building a war machine while we sleep. With international monopoly pools under control, it will
be possible for inventions to serve all the people instead of only a few.
"Yes, and when the time of peace comes, The citizen will again have a duty, The supreme
duty of sacrificing the lesser interest for the greater interest of the general welfare. Those
who write the peace must think of the whole world. There can be no privileged peoples. We
ourselves in the United States are no more a master race than the Nazis. And we can not
perpetuate economic warfare without planting the seeds of military warfare. We must use our
power at the peace table to build an economic peace that is just, charitable and enduring
.
"If we really believe that we are fighting for a people's peace, all the rest becomes easy."
[All Emphasis Mine]
Reading between the lines, we can sense Wallace's apprehensions about what the USA will
become; and as we've witnessed, he was quite correct in his suspicions. But the people were
quickly duped and he didn't have any chance of besting Truman in 1948 being attacked in media
by those who supported him and FDR during the Depression and war--very much like the attacks on
Sanders during the last two election cycles. As Wallace feared, something very similar to
Nazism took hold within the USA quickly after the war. Behind it then as now stood Private
Finance and the Neoliberals went to work, their goal to privatize everything and ensure the
Common Folk owned nothing but the debt that enslaved him/her. No other political-economic
example was to be allowed to exist; their one greatest failure and the only reason we're now on
the path to the better world we should have already attained if the sort of Christian
Commonwealth vision Wallace had and many shared could have arisen instead of the latent fascism
within the USA gaining control.
Three month ago we
reported on documents obtained from of 'Her Majesties Government' in Britain which revealed
the intense involvement of the UK government in organizing, financing and propagandizing
'Syrian rebels' since the start of the war on Syria. These programs were coordinated with the
CIA's and the Gulf Arab's arming of the various Jihadis:
Most of the documents are detailed company responses to several solicitations from the
Foreign Office for global and local campaigns in support of the 'moderate rebels' who are
fighting against the Syrian government and people.
The documents lay out large scale campaigns which have on-the-ground elements in Syria,
training and arming efforts in neighboring countries, command and control elements in Jordan,
Turkey and Iraq, as well as global propaganda efforts. These operations were wide spread.
...
Most of the documents are from 2016 to 2019. They detail the organization of such operations
and also portray persons involved in these projects. They often refer back to previous
campaigns that have been run from 2011/2012 onward. This is where the documents are probably
the most interesting. They reveal what an immense effort was and is waged to fill the
information space with pro-rebel/pro-Islamist propaganda.
For any informed person who had watched the development of the war on Syria it was no
surprise that such programs existed. But the immense extend of these was really astonishing.
Consider what ARK, one of the involved companies run by 'former' British spies, organized as part of a
British government 'Strategic Communication' program:
ARK,as a company that has specialised in Syria programming for more than three years, has
access to a wide-range of networks in Syria. ARK has trained over 1,400 beneficiaries
representing over 210 beneficiary organisations in more than 130 workshops, and disbursed
more than 53,000 individual pieces of equipment. This network reaches into all of Syria's 14
governorates (see map below), including liberated, regime-and extremist-controlled areas, and
ranges from the most senior Syrian opposition politicians, to armed groups, civil society
organisations and ordinary Syrians. This includes but is not limited to:
61 stringers; 17 teams of distributors;
14 FM radio stations; 11 community magazines; two local TV stations;
17 Civil Defence teams in Aleppo; 16 in Idlib;
58 police stations in Aleppo; 32 in Idlib; eight in Latakia;
10 Syrian field researchers; 60 Syrian researchers who can conduct broad-based
population surveys (a survey study in May 2014 reached 1,300 individuals); a focus group
database of over 800 individuals; Dozens of Local Councils; judicial courts; documentation
centres; and
Keep in mind that these were not social programs for the benefit of Syrians but part of a
number of clandestine support measure for a violent international Jihadi movement organized to
overthrow the Syrian government.
While such a program may be rationalized as part of a war it is astonishing to find that
very similar measures are also used against 'friendly' governments.
New documents obtained from the British government and published here and
here
(complete download here ) reveal an
intense British 'Strategic Communications' program that is directed against the government of
Lebanon.
Those who obtained the files, they use the 'Anonymous' label, introduce the new cache:
Money quote: "First thing to do when 'unrest rears its ugly head' is shut down external
communications and kick out any of the Five Eyes operating an embassy in your country. It
happnens so often."
The most unfortunate aspect of these large scale disruption and regime change operations
exploit actual grievances and truly indigenous civil society reform movements, thereby
compromising even the most authentic efforts by the people. Not only that but this casts
serious doubt on both authenticity and goals of all kind of demonstrations and civil
unrest, even in more developed countries, including ostensibly First World.
Take the HK demonstrations for example - how much of it was real, genuine unrest caused
by this or that more heavy handed China policy? truth is we don't know because by
definition, the exploitation of such protest movements - almost always led by supposedly
disaffected youth - includes a very sophisticated propaganda handbook that seeks to
effectively "erase" the controlling hands behind the scenes.
Or, even the BLM movement - a lot that happened with these protests seem to jive with
the instruction manuals per the ARK. Notice how these could be turned on and off - in this
or that city, made to appear organic, when in fact those invisible hands from behind
directed much of the action.
Another aspect that is very noticeable for both the HK and BLM movements is the way they
were directed at some very specific issue that most people would have a hard time
disagreeing with - on its face. Be it political "freedom", new "rules", new "taxes" and/or
police brutality - there are numerous commonalities - too many to dismiss as mere
coincidences.
At the same time, much care seems to have been taken to not allow these protests to be
directed at the actual ruling class, the 1%, the elites, big finance and the
corporatocracy. I always thought it was kind of funny the way these BLM protesters somehow
were not there when Bernie sanders ran his campaign, even though Bernie had their
grievances near the top of his list on the official platform (police brutality, uneven
criminal justice system and prison reform were huge issues for him). Yes, there were plenty
of black youths who voted with the Sanders movement in the primary (the one that was
basically a fraudulent one, due to outright vote flipping, as was exposed by several
credible analysts). But the BLM protests only came into being following the one GF killing
and were directed mostly against police in large cities, and, of course against anything
the federal government could try and do.
Now that Biden is all but declared as 'elect", those protests have died down (except for
a few flare-up points like Portland, where they seem to have taken permanent residence).
Funny that....must be that the "defund the police" was successful and black people no
longer suffer from unequal law enforcement.....so all is well now.....
Sometimes I thought something like this happened in Libya. Libyan army cleared this
town, that city, next town, moving east to west, then just before Benghazi, we get our
consent manufacturing message that Gaddafi said there would be a slaughter in Benghazi. So
NATO just had to attack, to save Benghazi.
After Libya was smashed, turns out a whole gang of British "diplomats & SAS" were in
Benghazi.
thanks b! informative... this ARK is not noahs or boris's... who is behind this grand
scheme?? it seems the idea of keeping lebannon and syria in a state of tension is the
goal.. whose purpose does this serve? it seems like an agenda written in tel aviv, or is it
washington?? who is behind all this?? it seems clear enough that the goal is to coddle
israel... take this money and make sure israel continues to dominate in the middle east and
all other countries are destabilized basket cases... these are sick people behind all
this.. that much is very clear... who would spend money like this??
the really shocking thing is the UK gov't is in on it, but don't want it to appear this
way.. the people in the UK sure are a weird lot.. i think they are weirder then the people
in the USA!
ARK (Analysis Research Knowledge) has a website and its founder, former British diplomat
Alistair Harris has a LinkedIn account you can look up on Google or whatever search engine
you normally use. The company is based in Dubai.
Among ARK's various activities in Syria was managing the Facebook page and probably
other PR for the White Helmets. The propaganda surrounding Bana Alabed and other Syrian
children seems to be of a type similar to White Helmets propaganda - designed to appeal to
people's emotions, particularly women's emotions - so there is a possibility all this
rubbish was being generated by the same organisation.
In the end the target audience for all this propaganda is us, as our support is needed
to justify an eventual US or NATO invasion of Syria and Lebanon.
First thing to do when 'unrest rears its ugly head' is shut down external communications
and kick out any of the Five Eyes operating an emmbasy in your country. It happnens so
often. Kick Out the Five Eyes (I live in one of them). Media Communications (the industry I
work in) is the publicly acceptable term for Information Program, Propaganda, Information
Warfare. It's all the same thing, with Event Management being the sister of and information
program.
I've worked in both areas; external media communications programs and event
coordination and management , often dovetailing the two and switching between roles in
order to 'maximise stakeholder value' for the benefit of the client. Who is the
client..? If the client isn't obvious then Follow the money. It is always the person
paying the bill. Follow the money people... follow the money and you will understand the
objectives of even the most obtuse communications programs.
As an aside, with all the hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons being pumped into
the MENA, 'no one in Government' is able to 'shut down the wars. It's a joke, Government
can track your spending down to the last cent and hit you up with a fine for 'incorrect tax
return' but they 'can't follow the hundreds of billions of dollars' in weapons that gets
flown around the world. Follow the money people. Follow the money and you'll catch the
culprit.
The announcement drew praise from many professional climate activists and groups, perhaps
assuming that Kerry was taking his lead from Bernie Sanders, who has for years been saying
the same thing. Executive Director of the Sunrise Movement, Varshini Prakash said his
statement was an "encouraging move," while 350.org's Bill McKibben, predicted Kerry would
be an excellent climate czar. Yet, as media critic Adam Johnson argued, Kerry's
proclamation should deeply concern progressive activists and will likely lead to expanding
the already bloated military budget.
Kerry is a founding member of the Washington think tank, the American Security Project
(ASP), whose board is a who's who of retired generals, admirals and senators. The ASP also
hailed the appointment of their man, explaining, in a little-read report, exactly what
treating the climate as a national security threat entails. And it is nothing like what
Sanders advocates.
For the ASP, climate change constitutes an "accelerant of instability" and a "threat
multiplier" that will "affect the operating environment," and notes that Kerry will have
three priorities in his role as President Biden's right-hand man. What were those three
priorities? Making sure people in the Global South could eat and have access to safe
drinking water? Reparations? Disaster relief or response teams? Cutting back on fossil fuel
use? Indeed not. For the ASP, the primary objectives were:
A huge rebuilding of the United States' military bases,
Countering China in the Pacific,
Preparing for a war with Russia in the newly-melted Arctic.
"... Last but not least, Exhibit D is the assertion that the "Democratic National Committee's computers were raided by Russian military intelligence to disrupt the 2016 election." That is another assertion, based on allegations listed in indictments by special counsel Robert Mueller. As a federal judge helpfully reminded Mueller in another 'Russiagate' case, which the government later dropped, allegations made in indictments aren't statements of fact. ..."
"... If the phrase "consistent with" jumps out at you here, that's no accident. Notice there is no actual evidence offered for any of these claims, only an insinuation that these alleged attacks would be "consistent" with what the US spies, anonymous sources and mainstream media think might be Russian objectives. That's exactly the claim made by the infamous January 2017 "intelligence community assessment," which the media falsely attributed to "17 intelligence agencies" instead of a hand-picked team involved in spying on the Trump campaign at the time. ..."
"... Now, the Post editors may be privileged people, living comfortably off of Jeff Bezos's Amazon fortune even as their country collapses under pandemic lockdowns. However, it would be a mistake to write off this editorial as a mere product of their vivid and feverish imaginations. After four years of Russiagate hysteria that even the Trump administration has internalized, this kind of rhetoric is actually dangerous . ..."
Democrat Joe Biden, anointed by the US mainstream media and Silicon Valley as the next
president, "must call out Putin's secret war against the United States" when he assumes
office, the Post's editorial board argued this week.
But this "secret war" exists only in their feverish imagination. Each and every one
of the things they list as examples of it consists of assertions based on insinuation at best,
or has otherwise been debunked as outright fake news.
Exhibit A is the "mysterious attacks" that supposedly "targeted" US diplomats
and spies in Cuba, China, Australia and Taiwan. This 'Havana Syndrome' was blamed on Russia last
week in a coordinated media campaign, but the "scientific" paper it was based on
carefully avoids actual attribution, saying only that the vague symptoms were
"consistent" with a posited microwave weapon.
This is an evolution of the original story, which claimed that Russia had used "sonic
weapons," not microwave ones. Even the New York Times later admitted
that the headaches, sleep deprivation and other problems were more likely caused by the loud
chirping of Cuban crickets.
Exhibit B is another doozy, the infamous "Russian bounties" story. The New York Times
claimed in June that
some money captured from local mobsters in Afghanistan was somehow proof that Russia was paying
the Taliban to kill US soldiers – again, not on the basis of actual evidence, but on
conjecture that this was "consistent" with what the CIA and US military said were
Russian objectives.
Thing is, neither the US
intelligence community nor the Pentagon were
ever able to confirm the story, having investigated it for months. It just so happened that it
was brought up just as the DC establishment sought to torpedo President Donald Trump's plan to
pull out of Afghanistan and end the 20-year war that has long since forgotten its
purpose.
Exhibit C is the "looting of valuable hacking tools" from the cybersecurity firm
FireEye, announced earlier this
week. FireEye itself never named the culprit, with its CEO Kevin Mandia only saying it was
"consistent with a nation-state cyber-espionage effort."
That didn't stop the Post from claiming that "spies with Russia's foreign intelligence
service" are "believed" to have hacked FireEye, citing "people familiar with the
matter." Well there you go, anonymous and unverifiable sources asserted it, therefore it
must be true!
Last but not least, Exhibit D is the assertion that the "Democratic National Committee's
computers were raided by Russian military intelligence to disrupt the 2016 election." That
is another assertion, based on allegations listed in indictments by special counsel Robert
Mueller. As a federal judge helpfully reminded Mueller in another 'Russiagate' case, which the
government later dropped, allegations made in indictments aren't statements of
fact.Another nail
in Russiagate coffin? Federal judge destroys key Mueller report claim
If the phrase "consistent with" jumps out at you here, that's no accident. Notice
there is no actual evidence offered for any of these claims, only an insinuation that these
alleged attacks would be "consistent" with what the US spies, anonymous sources and
mainstream media think might be Russian objectives. That's exactly the claim
made by the infamous January 2017
"intelligence community assessment," which the media falsely attributed to "17
intelligence agencies" instead of a hand-picked team involved in spying on the Trump campaign at the
time.
Keep in mind that these are the same spies and media that never saw the demise of the Soviet
Union coming, and have been predicting Russia's impending collapse any day now – for the
past 20 years. So much for their actual knowledge of Russian goals or thinking.
Speaking of 'Russiagate,' the Post has been on the leading edge of that conspiracy theory
from the start. It won Pulitzers for pushing it on the
American public. It also played a key role in smearing Trump's first national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn, so he would be fired – and later cheered his railroading by Mueller.
At least they're consistent , so to speak.
Now, the Post editors may be privileged people, living comfortably off of Jeff Bezos's
Amazon fortune even as their country collapses under pandemic lockdowns. However, it would be a
mistake to write off this editorial as a mere product of their vivid and feverish imaginations.
After four years of Russiagate hysteria that even the Trump administration has internalized,
this kind of rhetoric is actually dangerous
.
That's because the Post is literally in bed with what Trump called the Washington
"swamp," the entrenched US political establishment. What they print is what that
establishment thinks and wants Americans to believe. With Joe Biden in the White House, the
objectives of that establishment and the official US government would be, to use their own
phrase, consistent .
Which is why the Post's "secret war" fantasy is, shall we say, highly likely
to become an actual shooting war with Moscow. As the US and Russia have enough nuclear weapons
between themselves to destroy the world several times over, that can't possibly be good for
Amazon's bottom line. Someone ought to tell Bezos.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for
Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
"... I don't disagree with the idea that Trump should go (he is clearly incompetent for this position), but to think that Biden (personally also completely incompetent due to his health condition, and even before that; can you imagine this second rate politician summit with Macron, Merkel, or Putin even if we ignore his current health problems ), in some ways, will be an improvement is pretty optimistic. ..."
"... Biden administration will be especially dangerous in foreign policy where Russiagaters mafia clearly returned to power, (and chickenhawks like Nuland are in demand again; as well several other flavors of "national security parasites".) ..."
"... Both are puppets of approximately the same social force -- the union on neoliberal oligarchy and MIC (aka Uniparty.) Biden mafia simply will be slightly more polished, and less "in your face." But both are brutal gangsters, both domestically and on foreign arena. And that's pretty depressing. And one great service of Trump administration was that it exposed what is behind the fake facade. Biden will try to rebuild this fake facade, this Potemkin village again. that's all the difference. ..."
When left becomes right, progressive become regressive, and fascist becomes anti-fascist,
then we have to invent whole new vocabularies just to discuss the problems that humanity is
facing. What is worse though is that upending the language of political society in this
manner makes the amassed knowledge from the past less accessible to the present. I suppose
that is the point though.
This is pretty interesting thought, thank you very much. Kind of Orwellian ""War
is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength," on a new, more sinister level as in
"this manner makes the amassed knowledge from the past less accessible to the present."
But is reality Henry Ford quote "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he
wants so long as it is black." is perfectly applicable to any US elections and political life
in general.
Some commentators here for some reason think that Biden (yes, this semi-senile Biden, a
marionette from the very beginning; senator from credit card companies; the worst enemy of
working class in Congress ) is somehow preferable to Trump (yes, this Trump, a marionette of
Zionists, the President who completely betrayed his electorate, best friend of billionaires
and Pentagon; kind of Bush III replicating both intellectual level of Bush II and his
policies, including a tax cut for the rich).
I don't disagree with the idea that Trump should go (he is clearly incompetent for
this position), but to think that Biden (personally also completely incompetent due to his
health condition, and even before that; can you imagine this second rate politician summit
with Macron, Merkel, or Putin even if we ignore his current health problems ), in some ways,
will be an improvement is pretty optimistic.
Biden administration will be especially dangerous in foreign policy where Russiagaters
mafia clearly returned to power, (and chickenhawks like Nuland are in demand again; as well
several other flavors of "national security parasites".)
Both are puppets of approximately the same social force -- the union on neoliberal
oligarchy and MIC (aka Uniparty.) Biden mafia simply will be slightly more polished, and less
"in your face." But both are brutal gangsters, both domestically and on foreign arena. And
that's pretty depressing. And one great service of Trump administration was that it exposed
what is behind the fake facade. Biden will try to rebuild this fake facade, this Potemkin
village again. that's all the difference.
"When left becomes right, progressive become regressive, and fascist becomes
anti-fascist, then we have to invent whole new vocabularies just to discuss the problems that
humanity is facing. What is worse though is that upending the language of political society
in this manner makes the amassed knowledge from the past less accessible to the present. I
suppose that is the point though."
Yes, that's what the gaslighing is all about, but the problem - as our self-designated
betters are finding out now - is that you cannot run a sucessful competitive modern society
that way, banana republics do not get to rule the world.
Even ... Henry Ford understood he had to take good care of his employees.
Biden is going to have his hands full without looking for any more trouble.
or Donald Trump, truth is a matter of convenience, with facts entirely optional and plenty
of space allowed for make-believe. Yet in American public life, our current president is far
from being the sole purveyor of fictions and falsehoods. The very institutions that citizens
count on to distinguish between fact and fable engage in their own forms of mythmaking. While
they may steer clear of telling outright lies, they dispense no small amount of drivel,
concealing actual truth behind a veil of illusion.
Allow me to offer an illustrative example in the form of a recent column by the
Washington Post's David Von Drehle, a seasoned journalist now installed in that paper's
stable of political commentators and called upon twice weekly to reflect on the fate of
humankind.
The title of Von Drehle's essay poses a question: "Joe Biden says America is back. Back to
what?" Von Drehle then proceeds to spell out his own answer to that what. Yet in doing
so, he packages his views in a specific historical context. It's that context that is
instructive.
Let us acknowledge that the Biden team is no more likely to take its cues from some
garden-variety pundit than from members of the outgoing administration. Van Drehle's policy
recommendations -- that Biden should "end the mollycoddling" of Saudi Arabia, insist that China
"play by the rules," and knit "the Americas into a hemisphere of happiness" -- carry about as
much weight with the incoming administration as do Mike Pompeo's opinions, i.e. next to none
whatsoever.
Yet this is not to say that Von Drehle's column is just so much hot air. From his perch at
the Post, he is a small, but not inconsequential player in a grand project to which
members of the foreign policy establishment swear fealty. The aim of that project is to salvage
and rejuvenate claims of American Exceptionalism that Donald Trump mangled and trashed nearly
beyond recognition.
The establishment's preferred version of exceptionalism emphasizes not America as exemplar
-- that's for sissies -- but America as the instrument chosen by God or Providence to direct
history itself. Pumping new life into this hoary old notion requires persuading Americans today
that before Trump screwed things up, the United States had history well in hand, with the world
taking its cues from Washington.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.426.0_en.html#goog_738456037 Ad ends in
15s
Von Drehle purports to believe that such a world actually existed. Furthermore, he believes
that a sufficiently savvy U.S. president can restore that world -- all that's required is
assertive American leadership. Nor is he alone in entertaining the prospect of going "back" to
that triumphal time, before Trump appeared on the scene and messed everything up. Indeed, take
Biden's rhetoric at face value and our next president may well share in this fantasy.
So of considerably greater significance than Von Drehle's policy prescriptions is the
historical wrapping in which they arrive. It's history with a specific and carefully selected
time horizon. For Von Drehle (and probably for Biden), the history that matters begins with the
end of World War II, a moment that ostensibly inaugurated "seven decades of bipartisan [foreign
policy] consensus." Providing a foundation for that consensus was a "win-win view of America's
role in the world." Generations of postwar leaders, according to Von Drehle, understood that
"the long-term interests of Americans were best served by the gradual expansion of peace and
prosperity worldwide." The result was "an expansive, internationalist approach" to basic
policy. This, in sum, is the past that Von Drehle is selling as a roadmap to a happy
future.
Now such assertions may not qualify as bald-faced lies in a Trumpian sense, but taken
together they amount to a fairy tale. The postwar bipartisan consensus was never more than
partial and tentative at best. When put to the test -- with Vietnam as the most vivid example
-- it gave way. Nor did the Cold War and the accompanying nuclear arms race reflect a win-win
view of America's role in the world. The Cold War was a zero-sum game, pitting us against them
-- "better dead than Red," remember?
As for the United States promoting the gradual expansion of peace and prosperity worldwide,
that claim is difficult to square with Washington's marriages of convenience with sundry
dictators, involvement in numerous coups and assassination plots, and the U.S. penchant for
killing people in faraway places, unmatched by any other nation on the planet. Since 9/11 in
particular, war and disorder rather than peace and prosperity have been America's principal
exports. All of this predated Trump.
Von Drehle is eager for the United States to resume "its rightful place in the world order"
as "the friend of freedom and the scourge of tyrants." Forget just for a second that the United
States befriended a long list of tyrants: Batista, Somoza, Marcos, Noriega, the Shah of Iran,
Mubarak of Egypt, and, until 1990, Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Of greater relevance to the present
moment is this question: who or what assigns nations their rightful place in the world order?
This is not a matter upon which columnists in the employ of the Washington Post are
inclined to reflect, preferring to assume that history's decision is irreversible: we are
Numero Uno. Period. Full stop. Been that way forever.
Yet this is a form of madness, as utterly detached from reality as Trump's insistence that
he won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Von Drehle is peddling tripe. He pays no price for doing so. In some respects, doing so
defines the essence of his job. In a couple of days, he will produce another column, further
embellishing the nation's achievements as friend of freedom and scourge of tyrants, as will his
various counterparts at the Post, the Times, the Wall Street Journal , and
other prestige outlets.
They will collaborate in minimizing the moral ambiguity that permeates America's past. They
will shrug off crimes or lock them away in a box labeled "Sorry. Didn't Mean To." They will
inhibit learning and bury truth.
And they will get away with it.
Andrew Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and TAC's
writer-at-large.
I'm not sure that "they" can continue to "get away with it." The US financial situation
is not good. The US government is dysfunctional, and US society as a whole, the combination
of capital and people, is no longer particularly competitive. No matter what Biden, et al,
think they are going to do with respect to leading the world, it's not clear that the world
will pay any attention, or that the the US can even afford it.
It's a tragic, in the classic sense, situation, as almost everything that has weakened the
US empire has been self inflicted.
All true. To see a better reflection of America, maybe one should read Serghei Lavrov's
interviews and press conferences:
https://thesaker.is/foreign...
or see how the Chinese are trolling Australia in the aftermath of the scandal of the
Aussie special forces killing (with intent) scores of civilians (probably far less than the
US troops) in Afghanistan - just as a fast track on how Americans are regarded outside
their border...
While Mr. Von Drehle sees and praises Dorian Gray, the world at large watches with
fascination another patch of horror coming up on his portrait...
I totally agree with Bacevich. There is really nothing that generates global more
resentment than this kind of American hubris, American arrogance:
The establishment's preferred version of exceptionalism emphasizes not America as
exemplar -- that's for sissies -- but America as the instrument chosen by God or Providence
to direct history itself.
"Yet this is a form of madness, as utterly detached from reality as Trump's insistence
that he won Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Von Drehle is peddling tripe. He pays no price for doing so. In some respects, doing so
defines the essence of his job. In a couple of days, he will produce another column..."
As will Andrew J. And you can be sure Bacevich will use any topic at hand to slip in as
many backhands against President Trump as he can muster. Once a RINO, always a RINO. But
despite all the snide slurs against the President here & elsewhere, Bacevich's
preferred candidate, stately Joe Biden may soon dignify the Oval Office (maybe); & then
Andrew can spend the next four years defending him, just like Von Drehle.
America HAS NO memory, particularly regarding the heinous aspects of its past. Who
remembers the Indian removals, Chinese and Japanese exclusion acts, or the Philippine
insurrection?
As success and comfort displace esteem and integrity and corruption turns pervasive the
virtuous order of society is overturned: independent, principled, talented spirits are
typically encountered only well away of the mainstreams of media while middling
obsequiousness and venality rise above their betters in pubic view.
Tripe, deception and corrupton are what one can expect from corporate governance no
matter which wing s dominant. We haven't seen the
worst of it yet, though we are getting there faster than we thought.
I agree w/Bacevich. I love how R's and D's pretend they are different.
'The America First policy is gone' scream the Laura Ingraham's as she (and the other
Republican Hawks) lament a possible decrease in hostility with China and Iran. The
Democrats pronounce, 'America is back, now we are really going to get tough with Russia and
do regime change in Venezuela right!'
Here is the new boss, same as the new boss. We will continue to waste our treasure and
energy harming other countries and neglect ourselves until we are spent.
Editor's note : US President-elect Joe Biden nominated Neera Tanden, a close ally of
Hillary Clinton and president of neoliberal DC think tank the Center for American Progress, on
November 29 to serve as director of his administration's Office of Management and Budget.
Tanden is notorious on Twitter for her aggressive attacks on the left.
In response to the nomination, The Grayzone is reprinting this
June 20, 2016 report by Ben Norton.
"Unless we take the oil from Libya, I have no interest in Libya," Donald Trump declared in
an April 2011 interview on CNN's "Newsroom."
The U.S. government was considering military intervention in the oil-rich North African
nation at the time. Trump said he would only participate if Washington exploited Libya's
natural resources in return.
"Libya is only good as far I'm concerned for one thing -- this country takes the oil. If
we're not taking the oil, no interest," he added.
NATO claimed its U.S.-backed bombing campaign was meant to protect Libyans who were
protesting the regime of longtime dictator Muammar Qadhafi. Micah Zenko, a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, used NATO's own materials to show that this was false.
"In truth, the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start," Zenko
wrote in an exposé in Foreign Policy in March.
Trump was not the only figure to propose taking Libya's oil in return for bombing it,
however. Neera Tanden, the president of the pro-Clinton think tank the Center for American
Progress, proposed this same policy a few months after Trump.
"We have a giant deficit. They have a lot of oil," Tanden wrote in an October 2011
email
titled "Should Libya pay us back?"
"Most Americans would choose not to engage in the world because of that deficit. If we want
to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil rich countries partially pay us
back doesn't seem crazy to me," she added in the message, which was obtained and first
published by The Intercept .
Liberal hawkishness
Tanden is a close ally of Hillary Clinton, and is frequently named as a likely
chief-of-staff in a Hillary Clinton White House. The Center for American Progress, which Tanden
leads, was founded by John Podesta, a key figure in the Clinton machine.
Podesta is the chairman of
Hillary's 2016 presidential campaign, and he previously served as chief of staff under
President Bill Clinton. With his brother Tony, John also co-founded the Podesta Group, a public
affairs firm that has
lobbied for Saudi Arabia , among other countries.
Tanden has expressed hawkish views, although in a statement to Salon she strongly opposed
being described as hawkish. The New York Times has described Hillary Clinton as
more hawkish than her Republican rivals , although it still endorsed her for president.
The Center for American Progress president
invited hard-line right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in
Washington, D.C. in November, after he had spent months aggressively trying to jeopardize the
Iran nuclear deal.
Tanden does not comment on international affairs much, but her tweets provide some insight
into her hawkish views, which do not reflect the official policy of the Center for American
Progress.
In September 2013, when the Obama administration was preparing to bomb Syria, she tweeted support,
writing, "On Syria, while I don't want to be the world's policeman, an unpoliced world is
dangerous. The US may be the only adult in the room left."
Just over a week later, the administration
backed off of its plans, in response to enormous backlash -- and in fear that it would end
up with another Libya on its hands.
During the lead-up to the war in Libya, Tanden expressed support for military intervention.
She suggested that Americans should
be "chanting" for Qadhafi's ouster.
Days after the NATO operation was launched, she wrote , "To liberal friends
worried re Libya, is there better reason 4 use of US power than 2 protect innocent civilians
from slaughter by a madman?"
Like many liberal figures who supported the NATO bombing of Libya, she
stopped talking about the country between 2011 and 2014, while it was roiled by violent
chaos and extremism.
These tweets came before the October email in which Tanden suggested taking Libya's oil in
return for bombing it. Trump made the same proposal several months before, in April.
After this article was published, Tanden stressed in a statement to Salon that her views do
not reflect those of the Center for American Progress, which did not take a position on
Libya.
She claimed being labeled "a hawk is a ridiculous caricature," adding, "I opposed the Iraq
war from the beginning." Tanden noted that the Center for American Progress "was among the
first think tanks to lay out concrete plans for ending the war in Iraq." She also said that she
does not support putting U.S. troops in Syria.
"CAP is a think tank," Tanden stressed, referring to the organization by its acronym. "We
have internal discussions and dialogues all the time on a variety of issues. We encourage the
deliberation of ideas to spur conversation, push thinking and spark debate. We do this in
meetings, on phone calls and yes, over e-mail. One internal e-mail exchange among colleagues --
which was leaked to another organization -- or a few tweets does not constitute a published,
official policy position."
Salon never once stated that Tanden's views reflect the Center for American Progress'
official policy, but Tanden accused Salon of implying this.
Leftist critics have long lambasted the Democratic Party's militaristic foreign policy,
arguing it is not much different than the GOP's. This exploitative idea proposed by both Trump
and Tanden lends further credence to the argument that, when it comes to the U.S. empire, the
Democratic and Republican parties are much more similar than their adherents make them out to
be.
A strange mix
At the time of his April 2011 CNN interview, Trump was considering running as a Republican
in the 2012 election. His nationalistic rhetoric then was very consistent to that of today.
Trump lamented that the U.S. was "just not respected" and had become "a laughing stock
throughout the world." He hoped that he could reverse this supposed trend, just as he now
promises to "make America great again."
Trump's proposal on Libya was consistent with his views on Iraq. He
declared at the American Conservative Union's 40th Conservative Political Action
Conference, in 2013, that the U.S. should "take" $1.5 trillion worth of Iraq's oil to pay for
the illegal war.
In his presidential campaign today, Trump has made similar proposals. His foreign policy is
a strange mix of skeptical non-interventionism and hawkishness.
In the 2011 CNN interview, Trump expressed skepticism about the rebels in Libya. "They make
the rebels sound like they're from 'Gone With the Wind,' very glamorous," Trump said. "I hear
they're controlled by Iran. I hear they're controlled by al-Qaeda."
The rebels had very little to do with Iran. Iran did express support for the opposition to
Qadhafi's dictatorship, but it
staunchly opposed Western military intervention, which it warned was hypocritical,
neocolonial in nature and motivated by Libya's large oil reserves.
By no means were all of the rebels extremists, but there were al-Qaeda-linked elements in
the opposition to Qadhafi. Human rights groups documented atrocities committed by extremist
rebels, including
ethnic cleansing of black Libyans .
After the NATO war toppled Qadhafi, the country was thrown into chaos. Rivaled forces,
including extremist groups such as Ansar al-Sharia and eventually ISIS, seized control of
swaths of the country, and weapons from Qadhafi's enormous cache ended up in the hands of
extremist groups throughout the region. To this day, large parts of Libya are not under the
control of the internationally recognized government.
Disastrous Libya war
Hillary Clinton played the
leading role in rallying up U.S. support for the NATO war. Reports have since shown that
the Pentagon was skeptical of U.S. involvement at the time, but, under the leadership of
Secretary of State Clinton, the Obama administration portrayed it as a humanitarian
mission.
President Obama insisted at the beginning of the intervention, "Broadening our military
mission to include regime change would be a mistake." The State Department likewise said
"President Obama has been equally firm that our military operation has a narrowly defined
mission that does not include regime change."
Then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates later told The New York Times, "I can't recall any
specific decision that said, 'Well, let's just take him out,'" referring to Qadhafi.
Micah Zenko, the Council on Foreign Relations scholar, showed this to be false. "This is
scarcely believable," Zenko rejoined in his detailed report
. "Given that decapitation strikes against Qaddafi were employed early and often, there almost
certainly was a decision by the civilian heads of government of the NATO coalition to 'take him
out' from the very beginning of the intervention."
"The threat posed by the Libyan regime's military and paramilitary forces to
civilian-populated areas was diminished by NATO airstrikes and rebel ground movements within
the first 10 days," he explained. "Afterward, NATO began providing direct close-air support for
advancing rebel forces by attacking government troops that were actually in retreat and had
abandoned their vehicles." The military intervention continued for more than seven months.
Rebel forces went on to brutally murder Qadhafi, sodomizing him with a bayonet. When
then-Sec. Clinton heard that he had been killed, she rejoiced in front
of TV cameras, joking, "We came, we saw, he died!"
In April, Obama singled out U.S. support for the NATO war in Libya as the worst decision of his
presidency.
Zenko warned that the "intervention in Libya shows that the slippery slope of allegedly
limited interventions is most steep when there's a significant gap between what policymakers
say their objectives are and the orders they issue for the battlefield."
"Unfortunately, duplicity of this sort is a common practice in the U.S. military," he
added.
Interestingly, Trump himself cautioned in an interview on Fox News' "Fox
& Friends" in March 2011 that U.S. intervention in Syria would be a "slippery slope."
"It is a slippery slope and more and more, you realize that we're over there fighting wars
to open up these governments and they would have opened up themselves," Trump said, expressing
skepticism about U.S. military involvement very early on in the war.
Clinton called for the exact opposite in Syria. She would go on to oppose diplomacy and
insist the U.S. should support the "hard men with the guns."
DNC hack
Trump's unusual mix of anti-interventionist and exploitative foreign policy views are
highlighted in the Democratic National Committee's alleged opposition research.
A hacker broke into the computer network of the DNC and leaked its opposition research on
Trump. A 210-page
document that appears to be this report highlights Trump's past remarks on Libya, Syria,
Iraq and more.
Also revealed in the report is that Trump bragged that he "screwed" Muammar Qadhafi with an
unfair business deal.
U.S. media outlets immediately blamed the DNC hack on the Russian government. Soon after,
however, they quietly backed away from the hasty conclusions they made based on what
progressive media watchdog Fairness in Accuracy and Reporting pointed out
was incredibly flimsy evidence.
Ben Norton is a journalist, writer, and filmmaker. He is the assistant editor of The
Grayzone, and the producer of the Moderate Rebels podcast, which he co-hosts with editor
Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .
P resident-elect Joe Biden's pick to run the Office of Management and Budget has a history
of defending British ex-spy Christopher Steele's
discredited anti-Trump dossier.
Years of controversial claims about the Trump-Russia controversy, particularly about the
dossier funded in part by Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, presents one of several obstacles
for Neera Tanden, a longtime Democratic operative, to achieve Senate confirmation next
year.
A significant question that remains is how the two Senate runoff races in Georgia shake out
in January, with control of the upper chamber hanging in the balance. Tanden is sure to meet
stiff opposition from Republicans, who will be led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, whom Tanden
derisively tweeted in August 2019,
"Stacey Abrams just called McConnell 'Moscow Mitch.' Love it."
In selecting Tanden on
Monday, Biden described the president
of the left-wing Center for American Progress as "a leading architect and advocate of policies
designed to support working families." Tanden worked on Bill Clinton's successful run in 1992
and Barack Obama's successful presidential run in 2008. She was also an adviser on Hillary
Clinton's successful Democratic primary effort in 2016 and the failed general election run that
November.
Not mentioned in her Biden transition team biography was the role Tanden played in promoting
unsubstantiated claims throughout the Trump-Russia controversy.
Tanden launched the
"Moscow Project" in 2017, and after Buzzfeed published Steele's dossier in January 2017,
Tanden's think tank released a
statement saying, "The intelligence dossier presents profoundly disturbing allegations;
ones that should shake every American to the core." Tanden went on to defend the Steele dossier
repeatedly on Twitter, attacking those who critiqued the FBI for relying on its claims to
obtain Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authority against former Trump campaign associate
Carter Page and implying that critics of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation were doing
Russia's bidding.
"Make Chris Steele the next James Bond," Tanden tweeted in January
2017.
In a tweet about Rep. Devin Nunes's FISA memo in February 2018, which criticized the FBI's
surveillance of Page and its use of the dossier, the Washington Examiner's Byron York
noted that "no FISA warrant would have been sought from the FISA Court without the Steele
dossier information." Tanden responded by saying, "Even
if this is true, hasn't the dossier been mostly proven to be true? It's amazing how comfortable
the likes of Byron York are happy to run interference for Russians intervening in our
elections." Tanden followed up with another tweet claiming that the
"dossier has been mostly established as right."
Tanden's "Moscow Project" also
released a flawed critique of the Republican FISA memo, with Tanden defending the FBI's
surveillance. In addition, Tanden tweeted in April 2018 that
the dossier was "started with funding by a GOP megadonor."
Although the conservative Free Beacon had hired the
opposition research firm Fusion GPS, it said in October 2017 that it "had no knowledge of or
connection to the Steele dossier." It later emerged that Steele was not commissioned by Fusion
GPS (and did not begin compiling his dossier) until Clinton campaign lawyer
Marc Elias hired Fusion.
"What parts of the dossier have been disproven?" Tanden tweeted in January 2019.
"I will wait."
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz's December 2019 report and subsequent
declassifications undermined Steele's claims in the dossier. Horowitz said the Trump-Russia
investigation concealed exculpatory information from the FISA court, and he
criticized the Justice Department and FBI for at least 17 "significant errors and
omissions"
related to the FISA warrants against Page and for the bureau's reliance on Steele.
Declassified footnotes show the FBI knew Steele's dossier may have been compromised by
Russian disinformation . Horowitz said FBI interviews with Steele's main source, U.S.-based
and Russian-trained lawyer Igor Danchenko, "raised significant questions about the reliability
of the Steele election reporting."
FBI Director Christopher Wray called the FISA findings "utterly unacceptable" this
year and concurred with the DOJ's conclusions that at least two of the four FISA warrants
against Page amounted to illegal surveillance.
Nearly all the FISA signatories -- Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates , Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein , fired FBI Director
James Comey , and fired FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe -- indicated under oath they wouldn't have signed off on the surveillance if
they knew then what they know now, and a declassified FBI spreadsheet showed the
lack of corroboration for Steele's claims.
Other Russia-related claims Tanden has made could present sticking points during her
confirmation process.
She tweeted on Oct. 31, 2016,
that President Trump was a Russian "puppet" in part because there was a "Trump server connected
to Russian bank" and tweeted again in December
2016 that Trump may have gotten "talking points from the server at Trump Tower connected to
Russia."
The
claim that a Russian Alfa Bank server was secretly communicating with a server at Trump
Tower, also pushed by Steele, emerged in 2016, but Horowitz noted the FBI "concluded by early
February 2017 that there were no such links," and the Senate Intelligence Committee's August
report
did not find "covert communications between Alfa Bank and Trump Organization personnel." Jake
Sullivan, Biden's pick for national security adviser, also pushed the refuted Alfa
Bank claim in 2016.
The week after Trump's victory, following reports that Russian cyberactors had targeted a
number of state election systems, Tanden mused, "Why would hackers hack in unless they could
change results?" The next day, she pushed back against
criticism she received, tweeting, "Funny, I don't remember saying Russian hackers stole
Hillary's victory." There is
no evidence that Russian hackers changed any votes in 2016.
"Mueller found Russian interference in the election. He also found Trump coordinated with
Russia. These are facts," Tanden tweeted in October.
Although Mueller's investigation concluded in 2019 that the Russian government
interfered in a "sweeping and systematic fashion," the report "did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities."
After the report's release, Tanden tweeted that
"Mueller has failed the country" and "Adam Schiff > Robert Mueller." Earlier this year,
Schiff released dozens of House Intelligence Committee witness interviews that showed Obama's
top national security officials
testified they hadn't seen direct evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
I for one am getting really excited by the staff that Honest Joe Biden is pulling together
for the White House. When I first heard the name Tony Blinken during the Obama kleptocracy I
assumed that he was one of those Ivy League lawyer types that proliferate in Washington, likely
affiliated with the firm of Winken, Blinken and Nod, which we all know to be in partnership
with Dewey, Cheatem and Howe. But I was wrong. He actually was affiliated to a much bigger
fraternity, which one might call Zionists in government. You know, those nice well educated,
always polite Jewish boys and sometimes girls who have self-designated as foreign policy
experts and who work their way up through the various levels of power that might lead to the
most coveted positions at the top in the state department and national security apparatus.
Blinken was one such striver, and I began to feel the pricking in my thumbs that was telling me
that something evil this way was coming when he was mentioned now and again as a former close
adviser to the already beatified Barack Obama. And some in the media had observed with approval
that he had more recently been briefing Joe Biden, particularly about Israel and the Middle
East.
In an interview in
the Times of Israel Blinken confirmed Biden's position on possibly reducing aid to
Israel if the Jewish state were to do things that damaged U.S. interests. Blinken " reiterated
Biden's position that he would not condition aid to Israel. He [Biden] is resolutely opposed to
it. He would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political decisions it makes, full
stop."
The question of withholding aid is itself moot as Israel does nothing but "do things" that
damage U.S. interests, knowing that no president or the Congress would dare to turn off the
money tap, but it is an interesting unambiguous admission from Blinken that both he and Joe
Biden put Israeli interests ahead of those of the United States.
Blinken's personal view of unfettered support for Israel allegedly derives from his
stepfather having claimed to be a survivor of the so-called holocaust, a tale that
he invoked several times during his acceptance speech on November 24 th . The
Times interview
concludes with Blinken asserting that "One of the things that's really shaped the vice
president's career-long support for Israel and its security is the lesson of the Holocaust. He
believes strongly that a secure Jewish homeland in Israel is the single best guarantee to
ensure that never again will the Jewish people be threatened with destruction."
The indefatigable Israel-firster Tony Blinken has also served
as a "conduit" to those in government for Israel advocacy groups like the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). And now that we have Tony Blinken as Secretary of State
Designate the door will soon be wide open to the Israel Lobby.
If you need to know more about what Tony Blinken is all about you only have to look at his
friends and his track record. Israel was inevitably quick off the mark in saluting the
appointment, both in its media and through its mouthpieces in the United States. Stalwart
Canadian Zionist Mark Dubowitz, who heads the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD),
tweeted
that Blinken would be part of a " superb national security team. The country will be very
fortunate to have them in public service."
The signal from FDD is particularly important as the organization is directed by the Israeli
Embassy in Washington. FDD is the leading neoconservative bastion seeking a war with Iran,
Israel's bête noir . Its Leadership Council has featured former CIA Director James
Woolsey, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Bill Kristol. Its advisors and experts are mostly Jewish
and most of its funding comes from Jewish oligarchs.
A recent
expose by al-Jazeera exposed how FDD and other Lobby groups work directly with the Israeli
government, collecting information on U.S. citizens, spying on legal organizations, and both
planning and executing disinformation at Israeli direction, making it an Israeli agent by the
definition of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). Unfortunately, the Department
of Justice has never sought to compel FDD to register under FARA. In fact, the U.S. government
has never compelled any part of the vast and powerful Israel Lobby to register.
Tony, inevitably a Harvard graduate plus a JD from Columbia who has never served in the U.S.
military, is inevitably a chicken-hawk because that is what America's Zionists and their
political neocon wing are made of. It is a phenomenon that has often been noted. In 2017,
Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Tzipi Hotovely
called out American Jews as "people that never send their children to fight for their
country, most of the Jews don't have children serving as soldiers, going to the Marines, going
to Afghanistan, or to Iraq. Most of them are having quite convenient lives " Of 1,300,000
active duty personnel in the U.S. armed forces, only 4,515 are Jewish.
This is how it works: instead of actually fighting in the wars you are promoting, you have
your tax-exempt "educational foundations" pour tons of money into a project to go to war and
corrupt the politicians to issue the necessary orders so unemployed kids from Arkansas and
North Dakota can go off and die for Israel. You yourself remain safe at home, free to deliver
bellicose speeches about how Iran threatens the world through its "meddling" in the Middle
East. And, of course, about how the dumbass Palestinians have failed to accept the hand of
Israel offered in peace.
That is what Tony's record demonstrates. Blinken has come a long way with Biden, all the way
back to the Clinton Administration. And he
he has always been there for the Jewish state. During the Obama Administration when
relations with Israel were often strained, Blinken was the contact point for "Jewish leaders
[differentiating] him from others in the White House at the time who weren't as sympathetic to
Israel's position." Dennis Ross, often described as Israel's lawyer, praises him for having "
an instinctive emotional attachment to Israel," referring to Blinken's frequently cited Jewish
and refugee roots.
Other media reporting
indicates that "Blinken was a top aide to Biden when the then-Senator voted
to authorize the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and Blinken helped Biden develop a
proposal to partition
Iraq into three separate regions based on ethnic and sectarian
identity. As deputy national security adviser, Blinken supported
the disastrous military intervention in Libya in 2011, and in
2018 he helped launch WestExec Advisors, a 'strategic
advisory firm' that is secretive about its clients, along with other
Obama administration alumni like Michèle Flournoy. Jonathan
Guyer writes
in The American Prospect , 'I learned that Blinken and Flournoy used
their networks to build a large client base at the intersection of tech and
defense. An Israeli surveillance startup turned to them. So did a major U.S.
defense company."
Beyond the intersection of government policy and personal profit exhibited by Blinken, the
Washington Post in 2013 described Blinken as "[o]ne of the government's key players in
drafting Syria policy" and he recalled that "This is a little bit personal to me, and any of us
-- and I start with myself -- who had any responsibility for our Syria policy in the last
administration has to acknowledge that we failed. Not for want of trying, but we failed." What
Tony failed at was overthrowing Syria's legitimate government and turning the country over to
the terrorist linked groups that he and Hillary and Obama were supporting.
The Democrats are particularly good at coming up with secretaries of state that one would
like to forget, and that is saying quite a lot given the recent appointees by the Republicans.
One recalls immediately the big-hearted Madeleine Albright, who found the killing of 500,000
Iraqi children by sanctions "worth it," or Hillary Clinton, who laughed out loud as she
recalled the death of Libya ruler Muammar Ghaddafi by having a bayonet inserted up his anus.
Clinton, who more than anyone launched the war against Africa's most developed nation,
paraphrased Julius Caesar, who, upon returning from a rapid victory in Asia during the Rome's
Second Civil war, described the event as "Veni, vidi, vici," in English "I came, I saw, I
conquered." For the laughing Hillary it was "I came, I saw, he died!" The anarchy in Libya
persists to this day and it included the payback killing of four U.S. Embassy employees in
Benghazi in 2012, with Hillary and Susan Rice at the helm. It is generally believed that both
Clinton and Rice might well have senior positions in the incoming Biden Administration.
But back to Blinken. Israel loved the way the Trump Administration showered favors upon it,
nearly always without any quid pro quo . But for all his Dispensationalist fervor,
salesmen like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were little more than goys who had been seduced by
the myth of Israel. They were, as Lenin would have described it, little more than "useful
idiots," which is allegedly an expression that certain Israeli politicians have used to
describe their passionate Christian Zionist supporters in the U.S. Now, with Blinken, the
Israeli hard liners will have the "real thing," a convincing Jewish boy who fatuously
describes an apartheid Israel as "the anchor and foundation for democracy in the region."
Tony believes in the Zionist cause and will do the Jewish state's bidding with a malleable Joe
Biden. And if Joe should go, there is always Kamala Harris, who is married to a Jewish lawyer
lobbyist. Win-win either way.
Even though it's early days, Blinken joins a number of other American Jews already tagged
for senior positions, including Alejandro Mayorkas, the nominee for Secretary of Homeland
Security who is a Latino Jew. Ron Klain, Biden's Chief of Staff and Janet Yellen, his pick for
Treasury Secretary, are also Jewish. The liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz
reports how "Having Jewish men and women in prominent government positions is so standard
that it's barely even a talking point " before observing that "The fact that some of
President-elect Joe Biden's top cabinet picks are Jewish should be a source of pride for the
community 'These people are being chosen because they're incredibly competent, because they're
incredibly talented, because they're incredibly experienced,' Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan
Greenblatt told Haaretz in a phone interview." Indeed, if one believes Greenblatt
pressure from the Israel Lobby, the media and billionaire donors as well as networking by the
Jewish mafia inside the government itself have nothing to do with it.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Only good thing that could come out of this development, should the Harris-Biden selectees
actually come into power is that this massive infusion of rabid Zionists into high levels in
the Demo administration is so blatant that the awakeners will increase in numbers and in
determination.
Self-proclaimed President-elect Joe Biden has chosen a budget director, Neera Tanden, who
once argued the US should ease funding shortages for left-wing social programs by making
countries like Libya pay for being bombed. Biden's transition team on Monday announced its
nominations for the six people selected to fill key economic roles in the incoming
administration, led by former Federal Reserve Bank Chair Janet Yellen as treasury secretary.
Tanden, a Hillary Clinton loyalist who currently heads the Center for American Progress, will
be director of the Office of Management and Budget if Biden's media-declared election victory
withstands legal challenges from President Donald Trump.
This crisis-tested team will help lift America out of our current economic downturn and
build back better -- creating an economy that gives every single American a fair shot and an
equal chance to get ahead. https://t.co/F6JMBHUgVx
-- Biden-Harris Presidential
Transition (@Transition46) November
30, 2020
However, critics have already recalled an example of her unusual budgeting philosophy. In a
2011 email that was made public by WikiLeaks, Tanden said Libya should be made to pay for the
bombing campaign that helped to topple Muammar Gaddafi's government, which would help balance
the US domestic budget.
"We have a giant deficit, they have a lot of oil," Tanden said. "Most Americans
would choose not to engage in the world because of that deficit."
If we want to continue to engage in the world, gestures like having oil-rich countries
partially pay us back doesn't seem crazy to me.
Jim Bovard urges Trump to open the files to provide activism ammo for the vast numbers of
Americans who vehemently oppose forever wars.
Sen. Kamala Harris, at left, accepts the Democratic Party's nomination as vice president,
Wilmington, Delaware, Aug. 19, 2020. (Lawrence Jackson, Biden for President, Flickr, CC
BY-NC-SA 2.0)
H ow many Syrians did you vote to kill on Election Day? Thanks to our perverse political
system, the answer will be revealed over the next four years if the Biden administration drags
the U.S. back into the Syrian Civil War. But there are steps that President Donald Trump can
take in his final months in office to deter such follies.
Syria was not an issue in the presidential campaign and there were no foreign policy
questions in the two presidential debates. That won't stop the Biden team from claiming a
mandate to spread truth and justice via bombs and bribes any place on the globe.
The Biden campaign promised to "increase pressure" on Syrian
presiden t Bashar al-Assad – presumably by providing more arms and money to his
violent opponents. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris declared that the U.S. government "will
once again stand with civil society and
pro-democracy partners in Syria and help advance a political settlement where the Syrian
people have a voice."
Northeastern University professor Max Abrahms observed, "Every foreign policy 'expert' being
floated for Biden's cabinet supported toppling the governments in Iraq, Libya and Syria,
helping Al
Qaeda and jihadist friends , ravaging the countries, uprooting millions of refugees from
their homes."
Syria policy has long exemplified the depravity of Washington politicians and policymakers
and the venality of much of the American media.
The same "Hitler storyline" that American politicians invoked to justify ravaging Serbia,
Iraq and Libya was applied to Assad by Secretary of State
John Kerry in 2013. Once a foreign leader is irrevocably tagged with the scarlet H, the
U.S. government is automatically entitled to take any action against his nation that would
purportedly undermine his regime.
Every side in the Syrian civil war committed atrocities, but the Obama administration acted
as if there was only one bad guy.
Much of Raqqa, Syria, suffered extensive damage during the battle of June–October
2017. (Mahmoud Bali, Voice of America, Wikimedia Commons)
Trump attempted to extract the U.S. from the Syrian conflict, but his sporadic, often
unfocused efforts were largely thwarted by the permanent bureaucracy in the Pentagon, State
Department and other agencies. Considering the likelihood that the Biden administration will
rev up the Syrian conflict by targeting Assad, recapping how America got involved in this mess
to begin with is worthwhile.
President Barack Obama promised
16 times that he would never put U.S. "boots on the ground" in the four-sided Syrian civil
war. He quietly abandoned that pledge and, starting in 2014, launched more than 5,000
airstrikes that dropped more than 15,000 bombs in Syria.
Lying and killing are often two sides of the same political coin. The U.S. government
provided cash and a massive amount of military weaponry to terrorist groups seeking to topple
the Assad regime. The fig leaf for the policy was that the U.S. government was merely arming
"moderate" rebels -- which apparently meant groups that opposed Assad but which refrained from
making grisly videos of beheadings.
U.S. policy in Syria became so bollixed that Pentagon-backed Syrian rebels
openly battled CIA-backed rebels. The U.S. government spent billions aiding and training
Syrian forces who either quickly collapsed on the battlefield or teamed up with the Islamic
State of Iraq and Syria, or al-Qaeda-linked forces.
Federal law prohibiting providing material support to terrorist groups was not permitted to
impede Obama's Syrian crusade. Evan McMullin, a 2016 presidential candidate, admitted on
Twitter: "My role in the CIA was to go out & convince Al Qaeda operatives
to instead work with us."
Most of the media outlets that shamelessly regurgitated the George W. Bush administration's
false claims linking Iraq to Al Qaeda to justify a 2003 invasion ignored how the Obama
administration began aiding and abetting terrorist groups. The Intercept's Mehdi Hasan
lamented last year that those who warned that the U.S. government "providing money and weapons
to such rebels would backfire were smeared as
genocide apologists , Assad stooges, Iran supporters."
A Turkish think tank analyzed the violent groups committing atrocities in Syria after the
start of the Turkish invasion in 2019: "
Out of the 28 factions , 21 were previously supported by the United States, three of them
via the Pentagon's program to combat [ISIS]. Eighteen of these factions were supplied by the
CIA."
American policy in Syria has been incorrigible in part because most of the media coverage of
the conflict has been like a fairy tale that sometimes showcased our national goodness. Trump's
finest hour, according to the American media, occurred when he launched missile strikes on the
Syrian government in April 2017 after allegations that President Bashar al-Assad's forces had
used chemical weapons.
MSNBC host Brian Williams gushed over the video footage of the attacks: "I am
guided by the beauty of our weapons." Washington Post media columnist Margaret
Sullivan groused that "
praise flowed like wedding champagne -- especially on cable news."
President Donald Trump meeting with advisers at his estate in Mar-a-Lago on April 6, 2017,
regarding his decision to launch missile strikes against Syria. Items in the image were altered
for security purposes. (White House, Shealah Craighead)
That wasn't the only time that top-tier media celebrated carnage. Later in 2017,
Washington Post columnist David Ignatius proudly cited an estimate from a "knowledgeable
official" that "CIA-backed fighters may have
killed or wounded 100,000 Syrian soldiers and their allies over the past four years."
Ignatius did not reveal if his inside source also provided an estimate of how many Syrian
women and children had been slaughtered by CIA-backed terrorists.
Capitol Hill has been worse than useless on Syria. When Trump announced plans to pull U.S.
troops out of Syria, the House of Representatives condemned his move by a 354 to 60 vote.
Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, blathered, "At
President Trump's hands, American
leadership has been laid low." Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who was elected after
lying to voters by claiming he fought in the Vietnam War, said he felt "
horror and shame " over Trump's action.
Congress showed more outrage about a troop pullback than it had shown about the loss of all
the American soldiers' lives in pointless conflicts over the past 18 years.
April 9, 2019: The family of U.S. Army Chief Warrant Officer 2 Jonathan Farmer attend his
military funeral. The deceased was killed in Manbij, Syria on Jan. 16, 2019. (Arlington
National Cemetery, Flickr)
Foreign policy "experts" are Washington's most respected con artists . It will be no
surprise if Biden appointees repeat the same too-clever-by-half routine of the Obama years,
bankrolling terrorists to torment a nation ruled by someone who Washington disapproves of.
If the Biden administration commences bombing Syria to topple Assad, Americans would be
naive to expect to learn the facts from cable news or their morning newspapers. Syrian children
who die in U.S. airstrikes will be as invisible as Hunter Biden's laptop in the vast majority
of American media coverage. The media will also continue to ignore the slaughter of Syrian
Christians, one of the largest and least recognized victims of the civil war.
The best hope to prevent a new round of mistakes, lies, and atrocities is an epic disclosure
of prior U.S. mistakes, lies and crimes in Syria. There is an old saying that sunshine is the
best disinfectant. For U.S. policy in Syria, what is needed is an acid burn that permanently
sullies the reputations of any government official involved in creating, perpetuating or
covering up debacles.
Any U.S. government official involved in arming the "moderate" rebels deserves to be
ridiculed in perpetuity.
(James Bovard)
The vast majority of records on U.S. intervention in Syria are likely classified as military
or national security secrets. But the president is authorized to disclose as he chooses.
Perhaps what is needed is a WikiLeaks -style massive dump of documents with only the
names of innocent Syrians redacted.
Almost 20 years ago, Washingtonians were riveted by the last-minute pardons that Bill
Clinton uncorked until almost the final moment of his presidency. Trump could do the same thing
with deluges of disclosures on Syria and other quagmires until the moment that Biden leaves his
basement for swearing-in.
If blanket revelations are not possible, then selective disclosures with high entertainment
value would include the cozy ties between federal agencies and journalists and think tanks who
won official favor by shamelessly recycling official lies.
Revealing the strings that foreign governments pulled to propel or perpetuate U.S.
intervention could vaccinate Americans against similar ploys in the future. The Israeli
government admitted last year (after years of denials) that it had long provided military
aid to radical Muslim Syrian groups fighting Assad.
With the Obama administration's approval, the
Saudis poured massive amounts of arms and money into the hands of terrorist groups fighting
the Assad regime. Both the Israeli and Saudi military aid made the Syrian assignment more
perilous for American troops. Other governments helped sow chaos and carnage in Syria while the
Obama administration pretended that the main or sole problem was Assad.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir meet on
Dec. 14, 2015, at the French Foreign Ministry in Paris before a multinational meeting to
discuss the future of Syria. (State Department)
Sweeping disclosures could also enable Trump to settle scores with appointees who subverted
his policies. Trump appointed a Never-Trumper letter signer, Jim Jeffrey, as his special envoy
for Syria. Last week, Jeffrey explained how he and others thwarted Trump's efforts to disengage
in Syria: "We were
always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had
there."
The actual number was far higher than the 200 Trump thought would be left in the country.
The charade on troop deployments was a "success story" for Jeffrey, Defense One noted,
because it "ended with U.S. troops still operating in Syria, denying Russian and Syrian
territorial gains."
But denying "Syrian territorial gains" to Syrians was not the policy Trump touted.
Washington Post reporter Liz Sly savored the charade: "US officials have been lying to
Trump – and the American people – about the true number of US troops in Syria in
order to deter
him from withdrawing them, according to the outgoing Syria envoy. Trump thinks it's
200."
Sly added two laughing emojis after that line. (No word on whether the Post will add
laughing emojis to its "Democracy Dies in Darkness" motto.)
James F. Jeffrey swears in as special representative for Syria engagement, Aug. 17, 2018.
(State Department, Ron Przysucha)
Opening the files on Syria would provide the ammo for activism by vast numbers of Americans
who vehemently oppose new wars. In August 2013, Obama was on the
verge of bombing the Assad regime after allegations it had used chemical weapons.
A vast outcry against intervention, including a dramatic
protest outside the White House while Obama was making a Saturday speech on his Syrian
plans, temporarily deterred further U.S. escalation (beheading videos were the Aladdin's Lamp
for interventionists). There is far more evidence of the folly of U.S. intervening in Syria now
than there was in 2013 and probably more folks today ready to raise hell.
America can no longer afford to cloak its foreign carnage in the shroud of good intentions.
There is no transcendent national interest that justifies pointlessly killing more Arabs in
Syria or elsewhere. Americans need to scoff at those who portray keeping U.S. boots on foreign
necks as a triumph of idealism.
None of this is secret if one bothers to search the Internet to find stories such as this,
or this short video "The Covert War on Syria".
hXXps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ours_8ygO0A
Stephen Verchinski , November 26, 2020 at 18:59
65,000 new military officers are, with advise and consent of the Senate are beought in
every two years. How are these supposed to earn stars and bars without illegal
unconstitutional undeclared wars?
Defund all illegal unconstitutional undeclared wars. U.S. Representatives who fail to do
so need removal.
Only cursory allusion to Israel, though. I find myself wondering if your editors censored
what you know so well and what should be an integral part of any attempt to enlighten readers
about the main factor driving what the U.S. has been doing in Syria. It is a rather clear
case of Washington doing Israel's bidding. Even the NY Times, on one bright shining morning
(Sept. 6, 2013), made that clear when its Jerusalem bureau chief reported what she hear from
senior Israeli officials about Israeli [and of course, lemmingly, U.S.] objectives in
Syria.
That day the headline of the lead article "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria"
provoked little more than a yawn. But those readers who read down the column, and were
familiar with NYT usual coverage of Israel, were in for a shock.
With more dogs of prolonged war about to let slip out of the kennel, Jodi Rudoren, then
NYT Jerusalem Bureau Chief -- to her credit -- sought informed views on Israel's objectives
for Syria. Rudoren got unusually candid responses from senior Israeli officials, when she
asked them about Israel's preferred outcome in Syria. Rudoren minced few words in reporting
Israel's view that the best outcome for Syria's civil war was "no outcome".
She wrote:
"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective,
seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a
strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't
want one to win -- we'll settle for a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general
in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here.
As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"
Three years later Obama he told journalist Jeffrey Goldberg how proud he was at having
resisted strong pressure from virtually all his advisors to launch cruise missiles on Syria
in Sept. 2013. Obama waxed eloquent that he had for once not adhered to what he derisively
called the "Washington Playbook" (in this context, read "U.S.-Israeli Playbook"). Instead,
Obama chose to take advantage of Russian President Vladimir Putin's offer to get the Syrians
to surrender their chemical weapons for destruction, verified by the U.N., aboard a U.S. ship
configured for such destruction.
Let's hope Biden remembers all that, AND how it took only five months for the neocons to
scuttle the emerging trust between Putin and Obama by mounting the coup in Ukraine and then
demonizing Putin for his JFK-Cuban-missile-crisis-type response.
Regards,
Ray
Andy , November 26, 2020 at 09:41
This is crux of the problem, if you were to speak these truths in the UK you would be
called antisemetic.
I just can't see how things will ever change when AIPAC and other related lobby groups have
so much influence
in Capitol Hill.
David Otness , November 26, 2020 at 17:12
Thank you, Ray. That needed saying. This quote too is all-telling of the morality
structure of this Israeli-induced quagmire:
'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic thinking here. As long as
this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"
The above quote illustrates why and how the U.S. and Israel find such ease of comity in
the misery they both inflict on mostly innocents.
Pure Madeline Albright re: the 500,000 murdered by sanctions Iraqi infants and toddlers: "We
felt it was worth it."
"Once a foreign leader is irrevocably tagged with the scarlet H, the U.S. government is
automatically entitled to take any action against his nation that would purportedly undermine
his regime."
..and sanction anyone or nation who doesnt follow suit
JOHN CHUCKMAN , November 25, 2020 at 16:30
Here is good idea that will not happen, just as so many good ideas fail in America.
Trump has been quite servile towards Israel's interests.
And what was the Syrian horror really about?
Bulldozing part of Israel's neighborhood in a 1960s-style "slum clearance" project. Only
this project took 600,000 lives and continues taking them.
it is hardly likely Trump would act against what Israel regards as its interests as he
leaves office.
Please note how he has illegally kept troops in the NE to deprive Syria's government of
oil revenue for reconstruction. The US troops are also working on encouraging the local Kurds
to fight the national government.
The US is also very active in discouraging the return of refugees that Russia encourages
to help rebuild the country.
This war was not a civil war. That was a façade for a hybrid war on a beautiful and
historic place, one Israel hates.
jo6pac , November 25, 2020 at 18:57
Nailed it, this was never a civil war. I thank the Russian Govt. and others that have help
the Syrian people in the fight to save their country.
Sadly biden will continue the endless wars
Dennis Hanna , November 26, 2020 at 15:26
The truth must always be kept well hidden.
Yes, the archaic
so-called "Military Industrial ( original draft Congressional ) Complex [ modern, current
construct: Military, Industrial Surveillance, Security State – M.I.S.S.S. ] did accrue
some financial benefit.
But, that "benefit" was the magician's distraction, deception and misdirection away from
the real party and people to whom accrued the benefit.
The Zionist colonial, settlement entity, Zionists, Christian Zionists, and
Neo-conservatives were and are the true beneficiaries of so-called Middle East Policy.
Always have been and always will be.
A short history:
Did it start with:
"A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm"
First neocon report calling for Iraq invasion. Delivered to Israel in 1996.
hXXps://zfacts.com/p/139.html
[ further reading from different perspectives:
hXXps://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-01/short-history-neocon-clean-break-grand-design-regime-change-disasters-it-has-fostere
"Of course, we say it's our land, the Torah says it, but they (Palestinians & Arabs)
don't believe in the Torah. So that's the reason there is not peace." – Senator Chuck
Schumer's speech at AIPAC.
2,079
8:52 PM – Mar 6, 2018
Did it start with:
Wesley Clark 7 counties in 5 years
Did it start with the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national
home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement
of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice
the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights
and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
( The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government in 1917
during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a "national home for the
Jewish people" in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a small minority Jewish population.
)
Did it start with:
The First Zionist Congress was held in Basel (Basle), Switzerland, from August 29 to
August 31, 1897.
Zionism aims at establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in
Palestine. For the attainment of this purpose, the Congress considers the following means
serviceable:
1. The promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in
Palestine.
2. The federation of all Jews into local or general groups, according to the laws of the
various countries.
3. The strengthening of the Jewish feeling and consciousness.
4. Preparatory steps for the attainment of those governmental grants which are necessary to
the achievement of the Zionist purpose.
1. Israel consisting of the so -called "Biblical" reality of Israel from East bank of the
Nile River, including Cairo, to the West Bank it the Euphrates River, South to
the Red Sea and North to at least all of Lebanon, if not a large part of Turkey and limitless
borders as promised by the Hebrew God.
(References)
Genesis 15:18-21; Exodus 23:31; Numbers 34:1-15; and Deuteronomy 19:8, which claims limitless
borders, "And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and
give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers; (K.J.V.)
-- ?Formula adopted by the First Zionist Congress
Did it start with:
Book 5 of the Torah
Attributed to a Moses
So-called: Deuteronomy 20:10-17
King James Version (KJV)
10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it.
11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be,
that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall
serve thee.
12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt
besiege it:
13 And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male
thereof with the edge of the sword:
14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all
the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine
enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.
15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of
the cities of these nations.
16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an
inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the
Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath
commanded thee:
[ Traditionally understood as the words of a "god" as spoke to a Moses delivered before
the conquest of Canaan. ]
Why am I wrong?
dennis hanna
Realist , November 26, 2020 at 07:26
It might be likened to Washington recruiting, arming and training a bunch of Québec
separatists and encouraging them to invade and occupy large swaths of the Maritime provinces
and Eastern Ontario because the American deep state recognises that many of the spoils(I mean
resources) must be seized (I mean protected), like control of the St. Laurence Seaway, the
Grand Banks fisheries and most of the world's production of maple syrup. If the "moderate"
Québécoise can't get the job done, Washington could always turn to recruiting
from among the hard core psychopaths in its supermax prisons. Mind you, this would only be
done out of strict altruistic principles to bring freedom and democracy to the locals. And,
if they are ungrateful for our meddling (I mean intercession), they can always migrate to
Nunavut and live on the dole. Don't think of it as conquering, ravaging and exploiting
another country, consider it more like renovating the place.
Anne , November 26, 2020 at 09:36
Oh So True, Mr Chuckman, so barbarically true And equally true is that the vast majority
of those among the comfortably off who voted in this latest election (laughingly called
democratic) really do not give a bugger about what the US, via any of its MICI arms, does to
peoples, cultures, societies, countries across the seas They might as well not exist and then
there are those folks who work for the MIC (clearly no consciences) and those whose pension
plans benefit nicely from the manufacture and use of all that materiel
Why would anyone think declassifying any Syria documents would make a difference.? The
2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document, inadvertently released, acknowledged that the
"opposition to Assad has been driven by Al Qaida" and that it was likely a Salafist state
would emerge, something the US favored because "It would be a valuable strategic asset to be
used against Assad" was of no consequence whatsoever. The Organization for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons engineers report that was leaked revealed that the "chemical weapons attack"
that precipitated the launching of scores of cruise missiles against Syria was a false flag
and the OPCW itself has been corrupted by the United States. That was a story of immense
importance that got zero coverage in any of the media sources relied upon by the American
public. The US ostensibly has a "free press" but the fact is, it serves as nothing other than
the propaganda arm of the US government. Syria's best hope is that the Russians make it plain
to the US that further intervention in Syria will be met with resistance.
Guy , November 25, 2020 at 16:13
How could anyone disagree with such an article .If reparations for the death of innocents
and damage to the country's infrastructure are out of the question for the perpetrators of
this totally useless carnage then the least that could be done is bring the troops home and
let the country rebuild . The old saying states ,lead,follow or get the hell out of the way
.
The following quote is just one example of the futile battle to stop the juggernaut that
drives endless wars.
"Sweeping disclosures could also enable Trump to settle scores with appointees who
subverted his policies. Trump appointed a Never-Trumper letter signer, Jim Jeffrey, as his
special envoy for Syria. Last week, Jeffrey explained how he and others thwarted Trump's
efforts to disengage in Syria: "We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our
leadership how many troops we had there."
Trump is a complex fellow. In some ways he tried to get and keep us out of quagmires, in
other like Iran and now China, he appears to fall in line or even make it worse.
Bovard idea is a great one. Put it all out there. It's worth a try. Maybe Trump is bitter
enough to do it. And maybe his drive for nomalization between the Jews and Arabs might result
in unintended consequences that are positive, even for the Palesstinians.
Me my self , November 25, 2020 at 15:17
"Declassify America's Dirty Secrets"
I second the notion!
And while you're at it the clean ones as well.
Tell the truth so help you god! Because no one else will.
With President Donald Trump all but conceding to the transition team that will take over
after January next year, interest now shifts to President-elect Joe Biden's choices for
cabinet. On the national security front, the imperial-military lobby will have reasons to be
satisfied. If Trump promised to rein in, if not put the brakes on the US imperium, Biden
promises a cocktail of energising stimulants.
While campaigning for the Democratic nomination, Biden tried to give a different impression.
Biden the militarist was gone. "It time to end the Forever Wars, which have cost us untold
blood and treasure," he stated
in July 2019. Pinching a leaf or two out of Trump's own playbook, he insisted on bringing "the
vast majority of our troops home – from the wars on Afghanistan and the Middle East".
Missions would be more narrowly focused on Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Support would also be withdrawn
from the unpardonable Saudi-led war in Yemen. "So I will make it my mission – to restore
American leadership – and elevate diplomacy as our principal tool of foreign policy."
This was an unconvincing display of the leopard desperately trying to change its striking
spots. During the Obama administration, the Vice-President found war sweet, despite subsequent
attempts to distance himself from collective cabinet responsibility. These included the current
war in Yemen, the assault on Libya that crippled the country and turned it into a terrorist
wonderland, and that "forever war" in Afghanistan. In 2016, Biden claimed to be the sage in the
administration, warning President Barack Obama against the Libyan intervention. An impression
of combative wisdom was offered. He had "argued strongly" in the White House "against going to
Libya," a position at odds with the hawkish Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who insisted
on something a bit more than going to Libya. After the demise of Muammar Gaddafi, what then?
"Doesn't the country disintegrate? What happens then? Doesn't it become a place where it
becomes a – petri dish for the growth of extremism?" So many questions, so few
answers.
The Iraq War is another stubborn stain on Biden's garments. His approval of the invasion of
Iraq has been feebly justified as benign ignorance. As he explained
to NPR in September last year, he had received "a commitment from President [George W.] Bush he
was not going to go to war in Iraq." Bush looked him "in the eye at the Oval Office; he said he
needed the vote to be able to get inspectors into Iraq to determine whether or not Saddam
Hussein was engaged in dealing with a nuclear program." Then came the invasion: "we had a shock
and awe". For Iraqis, it was a bit more than shock and awe.
With the warring efforts of the US in Iraq turning sour, Biden entertained
a proposal reminiscent of Europe's old imperial planners: the establishment of "three
largely autonomous regions" for each of Iraq's ethnic and confessional groups, governed by
Baghdad in the execrable policy of "unity through autonomy". Not exactly an enlightened
suggestion but consistent with previous conventions of dismemberment that have marked Middle
Eastern politics.
In considering Biden's record on Iraq, Spencer Ackerman of The Daily Beast was
clear in describing an erratic, bumbling and egregious performance. "Reviewing Biden's
record on Iraq is like rewinding footage of a car crash to identify the fateful decisions that
arrayed people at the bloody intersection."
Now, we forward ourselves to November 2020. The
Trump administration has given a good cover to the incoming Democratic administration.
Considered putatively wicked, all that follows the orange ogre will be good. In introducing
some of his key appointments, Biden's crusted choices stood to attention like storm
troopers-elect, an effect helped by face masks, solemn lighting and their sense of wonder.
"America is back,"
declared Biden. A collective global shudder could be felt. The Beltway establishment,
mocked by Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes as "the Blob," had returned.
In the cast are such figures from the past as former Deputy Secretary of State and former
Deputy National Security Adviser, Tony Blinken. He will serve as Secretary of State. National
Security adviser: former Hillary Clinton aide and senior adviser Jake Sullivan. Director of
National Intelligence: Avril Haines ("a reliable expert leading our intelligence community,"
remarked CNN's unflinching militarist Samantha Vinograd of CNN, herself another former
Obama stable hand from the National Security Council). Secretary of Defence: most probably
Michèle Flournoy, former Under Secretary of Defence for Policy.
Blinken, it should be remembered, was the one who encouraged Biden to embrace the
antediluvian, near criminal project of partitioning Iraq. This does not worry The Guardian,
which praises his "urbane bilingual charm" which will be indispensable in "soothing the
frayed nerves of western allies, reassuring them that the US is back as a conventional team
player." He is a "born internationalist" who likes soccer and played a weekly game with US
officials, diplomats and journalists before joining the Obama administration.
Johannes Lang, writing
in the Harvard Political Review, is a touch sharper, noting that Blinken "is a committed
internationalist with a penchant for interventionism." The two often go together. As Blinken
recently told
The New York Times (members of the UN General Assembly, take note), "Whether we like it or not,
the world simply does not organize itself."
Flournoy and Blinken have been spending time during the Trump years drawing sustenance
through their co-founded outfit WestExec Advisors, a consulting firm promising to bring "the
Situation Room to the Board Room." Revolving door rhetoric is used unabashedly: We knew power;
we can show you how to exploit it. Having served in a presidential administration, these
individuals are keen to use "scenario
development and table-top exercises to test ideas or enhance preparedness for a future
contingency". The consultants are willing to give their clients "higher confidence in their
business decisions," as Flournoy puts it, in times of "historic levels of turmoil and
uncertainty around the world".
The Flournoy set have also been the beneficiaries of the US defence funding complex,
fronting think tanks that have received generous largesse. In a
report for the Center for International Policy, Ben Freeman notes that, "Think tanks very
considerably in terms of their objectives and organization, but many think tanks in Washington
D.C. share a common trait: they receive substantial financial support from the US government
and private businesses that work for the US government, most notably defense contractors."
Flournoy's own Center for a New American Security now
ranks second to the RAND Corporation in the cash it gets from defence contractors and US
government sources.
Biden's Department of Defense agency review team, tasked with informing what is hoped will
be a "smooth transfer of power," has its fair complement of those from entities either part of
the weapons industry or beneficiaries of it. According to
In These Times , they make up at least eight of the 23 people in that team. Think tanks
with Biden advisory personnel include the militarily minded Center for Strategic and
International Studies, which boasts funding from Raytheon, Northrop Grumman Corporation,
Lockheed Martin Corporation and General Dynamics Corporation.
America – at least a version of it – is back, well and truly. The stench of wars
continuous, and interventions compulsive, is upon us.
Earlier this year, our friend and colleague
Stephen Cohen passed away. His contributions to the field of Russian, East European, and
Eurasian Studies will be felt for years to come. Professor Cohen was a historian, but his
legacy extends far beyond his scholarly work. Every year, the Stephen Cohen
Fellowship -- established on Professor Cohen's initiative and supported by Katrina vanden Heuvel
and the Kat Foundation -- funds the graduate education for master's students in the Department
of Russian & Slavic Studies at NYU. Professor Cohen has also helped enable doctoral
students to conduct dissertation research in Russia through the Cohen-Tucker Fellowship .
As we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving in the United States, we give thanks to Stephen
Cohen for not only his work in the REEES field but for the generosity he, Katrina vanden
Heuvel, and the Kat Foundation have shown to budding Russia scholars. We honor him today by
publishing the testimonials of some of current and former students who have benefitted from
Cohen Fellowships.
Natasha Bluth (Cohen Fellowship)
The Stephen Cohen Fellowship enabled me to continue my studies of the former Soviet Union,
not only easing the financial burden of graduate school, but also providing the opportunity to
merge journalistic training with area studies, engage with a wide range of scholars and
regional specialists, and conduct field research in Ukraine. The support and encouragement
Stephen Cohen offered at our annual fellowship alumni dinners also inspired me to pursue a PhD
in sociology in order to explore post-Soviet civil society, nationalism, and gender from a
social-scientific perspective.
Michael Coates (Cohen-Tucker Fellowship)
During the 2018-19 academic year, I held a Cohen-Tucker Dissertation Fellowship, which I
used to fund over a year of archival research in Russia on the history of the Great Soviet
Encyclopedia. The fellowship allowed me to visit more than a dozen archives in Moscow and Saint
Petersburg, and to copy thousands of pages of original documents. Had I not been able to carry
out this archival work, I would not have been able to write my dissertation. The travel that
the Fellowship enabled was also personally significant to me, because I had never been to
Russia before I arrived in Moscow for my research year, even though I had already been studying
the country and its language for several years. It is one thing to read books about a
particular place, but actually experiencing life there first-hand is quite another, and has
been essential to the development of my understanding of the region. I am extremely grateful to
Prof. Cohen and Ms. vanden Heuvel for their generosity in funding the next generation of Russia
specialists.
Stephen F. Cohen performed a great service in the last four years as he relentlessly
refuted the great Russiagate hoax which not only distorted our political life but seriously
wounded US-Russia relations for years to come. That hoax is a threat to world peace and Prof.
Cohen from the very first saw through it. Both in his writings for The Nation and his near
weekly conversations with John Batchelor of ABC radio rebutted it clearly, eloquently and at
times with good humor. How very much he is missed.
President Trump gave to Israel all she could wish for; he hoped that in return, the Jews
would give him America to rule another term. A simple give-and-take, but it didn't work out as
intended. If he were to run for the presidency of Israel, he would have it. If Brooklyn were to
decide who'd inhabit the White House, he would be the Chosen one. But Trump's plan to bribe US
Jews by bearing gifts to Israel failed completely.
East Europeans define the difference between Jews and Hungarians (or Poles) as follows. All
of these would sell their grandmother for a fistful of coins; but only a Jew would deliver.
This non-delivery of America will be remembered by future US presidents. Perhaps we witness a
defining moment for the downturn in American support of Israel, in direct contradiction to the
main thesis of our colleague Philip Giraldi who said this week that "Israel's Power Is
Unlimited". Why did it happen? The US Jews didn't take the bait. And now for details.
"Zionist" is a euphemism for "Jew", isn't it? Up to a point. Zionists, that is Jews (and
others) who care and work for Israel, are strongly supportive of the US President, but Jews
that matter, that is elite liberal progressive US Jews, won't support Trump even if he were to
pave Tel Aviv with golden bricks. Three out of
four US Jews voted for Joe Biden , about the same proportion of Jews who voted for Barack
Obama, though Obama was quite critical towards Israel, while Trump did all the Israelis could
wish for.
The Jews that cared more about Israel voted for Trump, but they are powerless. They have
money, they have good positions in society, but they aren't top dogs. The Orthodox Jews are for
Trump; not so much for the sake of Israel but rather for his conservative agenda. They do not
like gay parades, do not care for transgenderism, and for them, Black Lives do not matter much.
Social justice is not their credo.They have little influence outside their own milieu. They
voted 77 to 23 for Trump. Right-wing Jews are strongly Zionist and support Trump. Their
publication FrontPage Magazine is all out for Trump. But they would be for Trump even if he
hadn't left Iran agreement.
Polls of Jewish voters show that they do not care much about the steps taken by Trump in
order to please Israel. They are worried about Covid pandemics, about medical care, while
economics occupies fifth place in their concerns, and Israeli-related acts are at the very
bottom. The only place where one can notice some positive change is Florida, where
Jews actually shifted in noticeable numbers to Republicans. But even there it seems to be a
part of a
Latino shift rather than a separate phenomenon.
Elite Jews voted for Biden and for Dems as advised by the NY Times. For them, Trump's
friendship with PM Netanyahu was a drawback rather than an advantage. If they care for Israel,
they would prefer a quieter approach as usual, within the Two States paradigm. None of what
Trump did for Israel found a response in their hearts.
According to the AJC (American Jewish Committee) Biden bested Trump on every issue including
handling the coronavirus pandemic, 78%-19%; combatting terrorism, 71%-26%; dealing with Iran,
71%-27%; handling crime, 72%-24%, and strengthening U.S.-Israel relations, 54%-42%. (The
Republican Jewish Coalition has slightly better numbers, as they polled older Jews.) Trump has
expressed frustration that his Israel decisions have not garnered greater support in the Jewish
community, and many activists have spoken of "treason".
If Trump had known in advance that courting Jews would bring neither votes nor political
profit, probably he would have wasted less time in the Zionist cul-de-sac. Jews are connected
with the Dem Party, remember! All Jewish congressmen but two are Democrats; strongly pro-Israel
Senator Chuck Schumer, the Dem leader in the Senate, is as hostile to Trump as any man. Only
those Jews really matter; only those Jews have their unique access to media, movies, art,
politics, and universities. Perhaps they would act differently if Israel were in danger; but
thanks to the generous politics of Donald Trump they didn't need to worry about Israel.
(Preceding American presidents were aware of this catch, and were careful not to give too much
to Israel. This was also the view of Dr Kissinger).
Israeli Jews are much more pro-Trump than their American cousins. If Israel were a US state,
it would be deep red. They feel gratitude to the man who moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem and
recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. They appreciate his drive for normalisation with
the Arab states; his non-interference in the Palestinian issue; his recognition of the Golan
Heights. Being more conservative, they are on the same page as Trump on many issues. However,
even before Trump, the majority of Israeli Likud-voters are and have been for the Republicans
for many years. They did not like Obama and Clinton, and they do not care for Biden. A
prominent high tech Israeli personality prophesied that Biden would bring disaster for
Israel.
However, in Israel, too, there is a sharp division between elites and Deplorable masses. The
Deplorables support Netanyahu and Trump, vote domestically for Likud or religious parties. The
Deplorables rule Israel for over twenty years; Netanyahu is the Israeli Trump who succeeded to
keep power.
The Israeli elites support Biden. For them Trump is a mirror image of their own PM
Netanyahu, the man they hate with gusto. The problem with Israeli elites is that they have lost
their ability to govern. Their parties disintegrate; their causes are lost. If there is a
common cause for Israeli elites it is rejection of PM Netanyahu mirroring the NeverTrump
spirit of American elites, and their belief that they are elites and destined to govern.
They want to get rid of Netanyahu, like the US elites wanted to get rid of Trump. This
desire caused three rounds of national elections in the last year, but despite trying hard,
they could not vote him out. Now they hope he will be removed by the Supreme Court, and by
massive demonstrations near the PM's residence. They say he is corrupt, that he takes bribes,
that he didn't save Israel from Coronavirus – just like the Dems had tried to impeach
Trump for ridiculous reasons. They want Netanyahu to die in jail, just like the Dems hope to
see Trump rotting in Guantanamo. (There are hundreds of women ready to swear Trump almost-raped
them fifty years ago when they were underage.)
The case against Netanyahu is feeble at best. He received a pack of cigars and a box of
champagne from an American film producer; he promised to help a newspaper publisher if he would
stop attacking him. A murky case connects him to a German submarine sale, but it is too opaque
even for Netanyahu haters.The PM had been indicted by the state attorney, but by Israeli law,
he does not have to resign unless found guilty. Israel is experiencing huge and violent demos
against Netanyahu almost daily. But the deplorables still support their Bibi, and vote for him.
As opposed to Trump, Netanyahu has a newspaper, and it makes a lot of difference.
It would be nice if there were some positive differences between the Israeli Left and Right
on important issues. No such luck. There is practically no difference between Likud and the
liberal parties regarding the really important Palestinian question. The Left-wing and
Right-wing Jews are on the same page: they do not want to grant equality to non-Jews. They
treat Palestinians much worse than the Blacks were treated in Alabama a hundred years ago. They
aren't even interested in Palestinians.
The Israeli liberal left is interested in Lesbians and Gays; the main point of the election
campaign of the once-radical-left Meretz (I was their spokesman 40 years ago) was gay adoption
and access to surrogate mothers. And that in a society where workers earn less and less every
year, while houses cost more and more; where regular employment is a dream for workers; where
trade unions collapsed, and instead of employment, workers are offered a contract with
unlimited working hours, no holidays and no security at all. All in a country where
Palestinians are not allowed even to bathe in the sea a few miles from their besieged
villages.
Another topic of the liberal elite is their fight against religion.They are equal haters,
hating religious Jews as well as Christians and Muslims. The outbreak of Covid provided them
with a new reason to hate the believing Jews: they go to synagogues instead of staying at home
or going to demos against Netanyahu. I do not know any redeeming feature of this group, but
they are quite similar to liberal elites elsewhere.
In France, too, the ruling elite hates Islam and promotes Charlie Hebdo; but they hate
Christianity, too. The first thing Macron did in the present lockdown was to ban the Mass. And
his support groups, the elite liberals, were mighty pleased. In this video , you can see young
liberals asking police to disperse Catholics praying outside of Church. The same happens in
Israel, and in New York, where police have interfered with praying Jews.
The main difference between the populists of Netanyahu and the elitists is in their attitude
to ordinary people. The populists exude empathy while elitists just deplore. At the practical
level, they do not differ. Both are equally bad for workers, for ordinary Jews and
Palestinians. Populists waste public money on Jewish settlements in the occupied territories,
while elitists offer free Nepalese surrogate mothers for every gay.
As for Covid lockdowns, the elitists approve of them, just like Biden and his Dems do. The
deplorables dislike them greatly, for they lose their jobs, and they can't afford it, but they
still do not rebel.
In the US, the populists of Trump did not get much from his first cadence. A possible
solution would be the integration of left populists and right populists, of Trump taking Tulsi
Gabbard as his VP or at least as Secretary of State, of Trump giving every American citizen
medical care as in Europe, of him providing quality education free, of him taxing billionaires
and supporting workers. Such a ticket would be unbeatable. And stop bothering with the Jews and
Israel; they have nuisance value, but nothing more.
Now we can explain why the Trump Zionist Offensive didn't help him. The US (as well as US
Jews and Israel) is split into incompetent but cocksure elites and gullible but angry
Deplorables. The vote in the recent elections was a test of loyalty: are you with the elites or
with the Deplorables (in Hebrew, עמך)? In the US, where many Jews actually
belong to elites, even those outside accept elite values and narratives and still hope to get
invited in. A US Jew has to despair to join Trump and his counter-élites, and they are
still hopeful.
The Jewish newspaper Forward
tells of "two young Jewish political activists who formed the Jewish Unity PAC and raised all
of $31,000, and every cent of it was spent supporting Joe Biden and Kamala Harris." It's not
that they care for Biden, but these young people know where their bright future may lie.
In Israel, the elites are against Netanyahu, but the majority of Israelis, Jews or non-Jews,
have already despaired of being invited into the traditional elites. So they have no problem
voting for Netanyahu or supporting Trump. However, the Israel of Netanyahu and his Deplorables
is much less attractive to US Jews than the old elitist Labour-ruled Ashkenazi Israel. They do
not admit it; certainly not in writing, but there is no social lift for a US Jew in going to
Israel or even in supporting Israel. Thus Zionism as a cause has lost its attraction for US
Jews. And probably this change is irreversible: the old Ashkenazi elite of Israel is gone, and
it won't come back. It has been supplanted by Oriental Jews, by religious folk, by the
Ashkenazi counter-elites of Likud. There is no profit in courting Israel as much as Trump
did.
If Trump does, despite enormous odds, gain his second term, perhaps he will learn the lesson
and treat Israel as Jewish Liberia. It would be a great relief for the US and for the people of
Israel. Being cut off from the US supply pipeline, Israel may yet make peace with Palestinians
and become a normal Middle Eastern state. The US won't be driven into far-away wars. It would
be better if Trump had understood earlier, but better late than never.
American support is as dangerous for Israel as Russian support is for Armenia. Armenians had
30 years to make peace with their neighbours but they didn't for they were sure of Russian
support. Israelis had 50 years, but they didn't because of the US support. Armenians already
came to grief, and for Israel it is coming, unless they will disengage from their protective
superpower. So the special relations between the US elites and Israel are fully exhausted for
both sides.
And meanwhile, Israel sits on the fence. "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose not to
refer to Joe Biden as president-elect during a press conference Monday, saying instead that
Biden was "supposed to be appointed the next president", reported Haaretz .
But one must remember: both parties are completely totally pro-Israel. Meaning the there
is no reward for a politician in supporting Israel, only punishment for those that don't.
And while this might or might not completely apply to Trump, most modern American
politicians don't care all that much about winning elections. They care about doing the
bidding of their wealthy patrons, and getting rewarded on the side. It's about putting on a
show for the masses, and as in professional wrestling, both the 'winners' and the 'losers'
get paid. Sitting on corporate boards, distinguished positions in academia, cushy book
contracts, the press treating them like senior statesmen, awards and accolades, that sort of
thing.
Consider also: Trump presumably will continue to run businesses and will need contacts and
support etc from other wealthy people, many of whom of course will be Jewish. Not pissing off
the Jews might still be critical to him in the days to come
Jews were the prime movers in the effort to impeach Clinton as told by David Brock in
'Blinded by the Right', and Jews were the prime movers in the effort to impeach Trump as was
widely publicized, and yet the response of Clinton and Trump was to redouble their efforts to
please the Jews . probably to 'follow the money'.
The author concedes that there is no "Jewish Side" and in fact details how there are
significant numbers of Jews on opposing sides.
However, in Israel, too, there is a sharp division between elites and Deplorable masses.
The Deplorables support Netanyahu and Trump, vote domestically for Likud or religious
parties.
The Israeli elites support Biden. For them Trump is a mirror image of their own PM
Netanyahu, the man they hate with gusto. The problem with Israeli elites is that they have
lost their ability to govern
The virulent Anti-Semitism of Islam is aggressively trying to contaminate certain western
parties such as Labour and the DNC. However, movements like Muslim BLM are generating so much
backlash that they are already losing traction. In the U.S.:
-- Conservatives are likely to join the Orthodox, majority voting for GOP Populism and
workers.
-- Reform and Reconstructionist are likely to stay aligned against workers with the Blue SJW
Elites of the Globalist DNC.
I find it baffling that Jews openly oppose Judeo-Christian values by staying with SJW
"woke" apostasy. However, it is a fact that huge numbers of Jews act against their own self
interest.
It is not unique to them. Huge numbers of Christians make the same mistake siding with SJW
deviancy.
You cannot be serious BuelahMan? Take your blinders off.
Those that you speak of are indeed many, but not so Mr. Shamir.
Great read Mr. Shamir. Thank you!
Republicans are not courting American Jews in order to win their votes. Republicans are
courting American Jews in order to win their wallets and positive press coverage. There are
not enough Rebublican Jews to sway an election, but there is enough Republican Jewish money
and Republican Jewish media for the Republican Party to pay attention to them.
@No Friend Of The
Devil Bingo. Plus, to fend of the inevitable, demagogic "anti-Semitism" accusations from
liberals, leftists and Democrats, and their stooges in MSM.
The "anti-Semitism" accusation has paid off well for Jews. It's kind of like the
"Holocaust" wail -- the gift that keeps on giving. Someday, all that Jewish dogma will be
recognized as the grift it's always been. Not today, but maybe tomorrow, or the day after
Then we can watch ALL the grifters scramble for cover. Maybe they'll hide in an attic.
Then they'll make up some story of epic persecution and start the cycle over again.
How many times will Charlie Brown fall for it? How many times will Charlie Chan fall for
it? We'll find out.
Jews dumped Trump for Biden because he didn't do enough. With Biden they get even more
support for Israel, including putting more troops in Syria to finally take out Assad, and
perhaps finally going to war with Iran, which Trump wouldn't do. Plus Biden will give them
billions of taxpayer money to run the Diversity Industrial Complex, with every government
agency now requiring diversity training, and lots more diversity and race initiatives
everywhere, all rackets run by Jews, with a few token blacks. And then there's media
censorship, which Trump won't give them but Biden/Harris are already putting on the
agenda.
"Biden bested Trump on every issue including strengthening U.S.-Israel relations,
54%-42%."
Biden puts a more "civilized" face on Israel's inhumane ethnic cleansing. Trump was so
obvious and garish about it. Trump ran the risk of calling too much attention to Israel's
crimes. But "both sides" were still willing to have Israel grab all that Trump was "giving"
(though illegal and not Trump's to give). As others have noted, Trump's payoff may come after
he is out of office. Much is theater.
Come to think about it Trump could make good money opening a TV station. all sane
Americans would watch it. The advertisement money would just be poring in. This would be
excellent thing.
Trump has many followers. Trump would give his followers some hope.
The purported failure of Jews to deliver presupposes Jews are under some sort of
obligation to deliver. Jews are in total control. They have the sworn, unsolicited and total
subservience of any American presidential candidate of substance. Quite the contrary, it is
the Jewish colony of America that must deliver to its colonial master.
A Jewish dialectic. By design and effort. That's what it always comes down to. That is the
vicious cycle that needs to broken. Jewish thesis, Jewish antithesis, Jewish synthesis, rinse
and repeat.
It is true that Democrats are bought and owned by Jews. But, I have to agree with Andre
Joyce. Jews are very unreliable people, possibly the most unreliable of backers. Trump
exhausted his usefulness to Jews and they threw him under the bus. Jews want someone as
racist Zionist as Biden.
In Biden Jews find a long time obedient Gentile servant. Biden will do what Obama and
Trump refused to do. He is a well-known war criminal and he will leash war on the Middle
East.
Great article. Did the Jews deliver ? The question should be did any one group deliver ?
Trump was way to erratic and made way to many enemies and always seemed to say the first
thing that popped into his head. A good example of one of the stranger incidents was in Oct.
2018 when Rap star and mental defective Kanye West sat in the Oval Office and went a
non-stop, rambling, incoherent tirade. The President of the United States sat there like a
moron nodding approvingly it made Trump look foolish and cheapened all Americans. He sunk
himself with his big mouth and his tantrums. As far as the voting went it brings to mind the
Joe Pesci character from Casino in the end they all had enough.
Yeah, liberal Jews profess universal values, they keep their fervent support for Israel
hidden, because that gives away the fact that they are hypocrits. It's like the whore that
they're banging at every opportunity. And now Trump comes out and admonishes them in the open
to vote for him because of the jewlery and boob job he's bought her – as much as they
like it, they are profoundly mortified by his crude appeal. . and of course they know that
she's being taken care through all the institutions they're supporting.
In some sense, Trump missing the boat on this issue is like Hillary selling herself as a
war hawk, when that didn't actually sell anymore; she had missed the boat by 40 years.
No, the Jews did not fail to deliver. Jews always support both sides in any conflict so
that whoever wins they can claim to have supported / made the winning side...
It would be nice if there were some positive differences between the Israeli Left and
Right on important issues. No such luck. There is practically no difference between Likud and
the liberal parties regarding the really important Palestinian question.
I don't find it all that different here.
Quite a few Jews on the American left expose their Zionist underbelly whenever the
question of Palestine arises...
American support is as dangerous for Israel as Russian support is for Armenia.
Armenians had 30 years to make peace with their neighbours but they didn't for they were
sure of Russian support. Israelis had 50 years, but they didn't because of the US support.
Armenians already came to grief, and for Israel it is coming, unless they will disengage
from their protective superpower. So the special relations between the US elites and Israel
are fully exhausted for both sides.
Excellent article, sticking more or less dispassionately to the facts. Also, it draws the
logical inference of these facts, as outlined above. The economic collapse of America is only
a matter of time, and with it the collapse of its subsidies to Israel. History is full of
instances of small states encouraged in their intransigence by their patrons, whether
intentionally or indirectly. With the loss of the patrons, their clients are then forced to
agree terms at very unfavourable conditions, compared to what they would have got, had they
negotiated previously.
Obama critical of Israel? Are you kidding or may be misleading? Ehud Barak is on record
(Charlie Rose Show now defunct) stating unequivocally that the other Barak had done more for
Israel than any other American president before him.
No matter how you cut it, Jews alone have a way too much power in the U. S Take for
example a mundane decision to cap number of people that should get together for the
Thanksgiving: not 9 or 11 but exactly 10, per Dr. Ranit Mishori (she is an Israeli woman) on
PBS Newshour last night. Her explanation was very disarming when asked about it. Oh, she
said, "they" decided that ten was the right number guess how many people does it take to form
a "community of Israel" or the so called Minyan?" TEN! It's all about Jews and Israel even at
the freaking NIH (the National Institute of Health).
Unquestioning and unequivocal support for Israel has become a part of the Republican
platform, mostly a result of Evangelical Christians, a large denomination of dupes who
believe that the modern state of Israel, established by European colonists in Palestine, is
somehow related to the biblical Israel and biblical prophecy.
Jews voted the same way the have for generations as they are assured that Biden is going
to provide unquestioning support to Israel too.
Their Jewish votes hardly matter as they are mostly concentrated in New York and
California, which are not swing states. It is Jewish power in media and campaign donations
that matter, which both candidates could not do without.
"If Trump does, despite enormous odds, gain his second term, perhaps he will learn the
lesson and treat Israel as Jewish Liberia. It would be a great relief for the US and for the
people of Israel. Being cut off from the US supply pipeline, Israel may yet make peace with
Palestinians and become a normal Middle Eastern state. The US won't be driven into far-away
wars. It would be better if Trump had understood earlier, but better late than never"
I doubt this. The irony is that the same deep state that pushed regime change hook or
crook in Bolivia, Iran, and Venezuela is the same deep state that pushed for regime change in
the USA against Trump in 2016 (Russia controls Trump bs) and again with the voting fraud of
2020. And yet Trump seems to like regime change when it benefits his Israeli and Saudi
patrons. You live by the sword; you die by the sword.
There is the well reasoned narrative that the last US president who took on the CIA with
vengeance had his head blown apart in Dallas. The real power in Washington is with the
merging of the military, intelligence, silicon valley tech community. The civilian leadership
from both parties in the US are mere order takers from this oligarchy.
Government is just a means for the elite to impoverish the public and strip every liberty
from them. They are not part of the answer. They are part of the problem.
Trump condemns globalism, touts nationalistic view of foreign affairs at U.N."The future
does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots," Trump said. "The future
belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their
neighbors and honor the differences that make each country special and unique."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-touts-nationalistic-view-of-foreign-affairs-at-un/2019/09/24/e4a8486a-ded2-11e9-8fd3-d943b4ed57e0_story.html
This is why Jews and pro globalists want Biden and Harris. Barbra Lerner Spectre speaks about
multiculti and Israel expels black Jews giving them the one way tickets, because "they do not
mix well with other Israelis' ' . Hypocrisy in full spectrum. They just want other countries
( not Israel) to lose their traditions, customs and values. When the society is divided and
broken it is easier to rule throwing various groups against each other's throats. While
groups fight with each other, they pursue their agendas unnoticed. Today Trump's lawyers were
talking about lawyers who wanted to represent Trump getting threats, even death treats. How
did this happen in the US? Who's "accomplishment" this is?
Obama did a lot .He tolerated Israeli attacks on Gaza. He offered 40 billions worth of new
dole to israel in exchange for Israel delaying the commission of the illegal activity (
postponing of the settlement for 3-4 month ).
He made sure Sisi was not opposed and Morsi was deposed . He got USA involved in Syria and
tolerated open advocacy for war by AIPAC against Syria . He tolerated the opposition to Park
51 construction mounted by Neocons . In his time Islamophobia introduced by the neocons
skyrocketed .
He campaigned for anti-American charlatan like Joe Liberman . Israel got him do a lot of
damages to Iran economically and physically
I did notice what I think is a surprising omission.
You didn't mention once the Israeli/Zionist goal of breaking physical connection between
Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. That has surely been the underlying motive for Israeli/Zionist
antagonism towards a unified, independent Syria and has explained worldwide Zionist support
for the ongoing foreign-backed assault on Syria that's been underway now for nine years.
Trump tried to buy Israeli/Zionist support by concessions to Israel such as recognizing
annexation of the Golan Heights and moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem. But he baulked at
taking on Russia in Syria – and indeed indicated his lack of enthusiasm for conflict
with Russia as early as the 2016 Primaries. It was one thing that lifted his popularity with
voters – and made many more conventional Zionist Republicans distrust him.
So Trump hasn't really let the Zionists down. They just wanted more. The Golans were a
nice snack, but they were already in the pocket. Completing the destruction of independent,
unified and anti-Zionist Syria – now that would be something worth switching sides to
support. I suspect – and fear – they have reason to believe it more likely that
Biden/Harris will deliver their more prized objective.
A QUESTION FOR MISTER SHAMIR APROPOS THE ARMENIANS AND THE QUESTION OF GENOCIDE:
Question for Shamir: when will the prophecy be fulfilled? When will Russia liberate
Constantinople??? There are certain Holy Elders of the Orthodox Church who prophesied that,
when the Tsar returns, a great war will ensue and Constantinople will be liberated
p.s. "Genocide" is a relative term. One must look at the results. Anatolia was 20%
Christian before WWI. Now it is 0.2% Christian. Stalin gave Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan
against the will of the local Armenian majority. Compare this to the Balkans. The Balkan
Muslims like to adopt victim status in Bosnia and Kosovo and complain of "genocide" at the
hands of Serbs and others. But despite the "genocide" in Bosnia, Muslims are 50% of Bosnia,
20% of Montenegro, 3% of Serbia, 60% of Albania, probably up to 5% in Greece, 30% in
Macedonia, 8% in Bulgaria, 95% in Kosovo
Now remember, Israel, these were lands that the native Christian Slavs and Greeks
liberated at great cost, centuries of passive and active resistance.
So when we consider the word "GENOCIDE," think of the results. If the Yugoslavs and
Bulgarians and Greeks had adopted the brutal and unscrupulous tactics of the Turks, there
would be no Muslims in the Balkans today. Yet, they equal rights, the Mufti of Sandzak is a
regular guest on Serbian television. This doesn't exist in Turkey. The Greeks and Armenians
in Istanbul are second class citizens. The Greeks in Istanbul cannot even re-open the Halki
seminary on the Princes' Islands. The Suriani Christians in Mardin and Midyat live in fear of
their lives from Islamist Kurds. 90% have left for Sweden.
So yes, when considering "GENOCIDE," one must ponder the results. The complete eradication
of all Christian communities in Turkey, whether Greek, Suriani, Armenian, versus the
persistent presence of strong Muslim minorities in places like Thrace or Montenegro, which
suffered centuries of brutal Ottoman occupation.
@A123 onducting
unconventional warfare. That form of combat is defined by the U.S. government's National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 as "activities conducted to enable a
resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt or overthrow an occupying power or
government by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary or guerrilla force in a
denied area" in the pursuit of various security-related strategic objectives.
t is an undeniable fact that the republic has entered one of the most dangerous crises of
its short existence. This is not only due to the disputed election results of November 3
rd , but also to a multitude of other factors beyond American borders, including the
global financial crisis which a certain pandemic has unleashed upon the world, and slide
towards a major world war between great powers that has accelerated chaotically in recent
years.
As unpopular as it might be to state in polite society, as of this writing it is still
impossible to state with 100% certainty that Joe Biden will in fact be inaugurated on January
20, 2021. The simple reason for this is that verifiable evidence of vast partisan vote fraud
tied to the highest echelons of British Intelligence have mounted with every passing day with
Dominion voting systems most recently accused of
erasing 2.7 million Trump votes across the nation , and giving 220 000 pro-Trump votes to
Biden in Pennsylvania (along with hundreds of other vote counting anomalies and technology
glitches across all major swing states).
These and other major signs of mass vote fraud have giving rise to reasonable questions of
the validity of the official results which will be taken to the courts as Gen. Michael Flynn's
Attorney Sidney Powell eloquently laid out recently.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SFCXPw1t17o?feature=oembed TRUMP, BIDEN AND THE ONCOMING
MELTDOWN
By now most people reading this are aware (or should be aware) that the trans Atlantic
financial system has been set to melt down under a $1.5 quadrillion derivatives time bomb being
held together by a mix of wishful thinking, hyperinflationary money printing and vast unpayable
securitized debts waiting to default. It should also come as no surprise that the Great Reset
Agenda designed to coordinate the "post-COVID world order" has nothing to do with any actual
pandemic, and everything to do with imposing a new bankers' dictatorship onto the nations of
the earth.
Both Trump and Biden profess to support American leadership to the world going into this
storm, but both men operate on very much opposing paradigms of what this means, and what
foreign policy tradition should be activated.
Where Biden has championed the idea that "America should lead the world" in opposition to
the dangerous rise in "authoritarianism, nationalism and illiberalism" giving the reigns of
foreign policy over to a team packed with hawkish representatives of the Military
Industrial Complex, Trump has done something different.
On November 9 the incumbent president fired Mark Esper
(possibly to subvert a planned coup) and instated General Christopher Miller to the position of
Defense Secretary who has called for a total end to the 19 year Afghan war
stating :
we are not a people of perpetual war. It is the antithesis of everything for which we
stand and for which our ancestors fought. All wars must end."
Having vocalized his desires to return the USA to its traditional protectionist,
non-interventionist agenda repeatedly over four years, Trump famously characterized the battle
at hand as one of "patriots against the globalists."
And yet, despite these facts, many apparently intelligent people have celebrated that the
"bad orange man" has finally been ousted and normality may once again occur.
Hogwash.
In an
April 2020 Foreign Policy article , Joe Biden called for the re-assertion of American
leadership of the world order stating that "for over 70 years, the United States under
democratic and republican presidents, played a leading role in writing the rules" of the
world order. Predicting the two possible scenarios that will befall the world should the USA
continue to "abdicate our leadership" as Trump has done, Biden says that either: 1)
Someone else takes America's place as global hegemon that doesn't "advance our interests and
values or 2) "No one will and chaos will ensue".
But wait a minute!
Shouldn't there be a third option in Biden's crystal ball? What about the option of a world
defined by sovereign nations working in win-win cooperation and mutual self interest? Sadly,
from a zero-sum mind that can only think in "balance of power" terms, this third scenario
cannot exist.
The paradox for such little minds, however, is that the very essence of America's emerging
from WWII in a leading position that Biden praises is entirely premised on the understanding
that the world is more than a zero-sum system.
THE FORGOTTEN MULTI-POLAR TRADITIONS OF
THE USA
From the drafting of the UN Charter in 1941, the formulation of the Bretton Woods system in
1944, to the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, there is no doubt that there is very
little that America has not directly influenced.
While this leadership is undeniable and often objectively destructive as sin, it is too
easily forgotten that the UN Charter, as outlined by Franklin Roosevelt was premised on the
belief that America must never become an empire but merely help those in need by providing the
means of industrial development. This was essentially understood as the internationalization of
the New Deal which included social safety nets, bank regulation, productive work guarantees and
infrastructure projects to all other nations aspiring independence across Africa, Asia and the
Americas or struggling the heal from the destructive effects of the war.
FDR's vision for the IMF/World Bank mandates were never to reconquer poor nations under a
new system of debt slavery and conditionalities, but to extend productive credit for long term
megaprojects that were in the common aims of mankind and which
angered Churchill immensely.
Most importantly, this vision was premised on the need for a trust-based U.S.-Russia-China
alliance that never would have permitted the emergence of a bipolar Cold War.
Working alongside such anti-imperial co-thinkers as Republican leader Wendell Willkie, Vice
President Henry Wallace, economist Harry Dexter White, confidante Harry Hopkins, Asst.
Secretary of State Sumner Welles and Attorney General Robert Jackson (to name a few), this
small but powerful group of patriots representing both parties, worked vigorously to ensure not
only that the Wall Street/City of London Frankenstein Monster of Nazism would be put down but
that Churchill's vision of a restored British Imperial system would not succeed.
THE TRUE
SPIRIT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Unlike the earlier "League of Nations" which intended to destroy all national sovereignty in
the wake of WWI, the United Nations was always meant to become a platform for dialogue, and
economic multilateral trust-building much more in harmony with the multipolar alliance now
sweeping the world (and scaring the hell out of the thing that controls Joe Biden).
To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective
measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of
acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal
rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen
universal peace;
To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic,
social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human
rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or
religion; and
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common
ends.
These principles were expanded even further to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on
December 10, 1948 which re-iterated the founding principles of America's Declaration of
Independence- extending those unalienable rights to all mankind as FDR envisioned stating in its
preamble :
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all
members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have
outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy
freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest
aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort,
to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule
of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between
nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights
of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in
larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United
Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance
for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as
a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every
individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall
strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by
progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective
recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the
peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
These were the ideas that were meant to give life to the "Four Freedoms" first enunciated by President
Roosvelt in 1941 and re-asserted by his anti-imperial Vice President Henry Wallace in
1942.
Now admittedly this positive American foreign policy outlook which launched the post-war age
is a far cry from anything the world has come to recognize in the USA since the emergence of
the Cold War and especially since the murder of John F Kennedy who had done much to resist
America's full takeover by this newly revised British Empire (which some have chosen in recent
years to label "the deep state").
Much like the US Constitution itself, these principles largely remained ink on parchment as
a new age of Cold Warriors, Rhodes Scholars and Fabians directed from
British Intelligence created NATO , divided the world among the lighter skinned haves and
darker skinned have nots while unleashing a system of endless wars onto the earth under a new
Pax Americana.
Today a small window is still open for a renewal of the forgotten traditions of the American
republican traditions that were upheld by such leaders as John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, Grant,
Garfield, McKinley, Harding, FDR and JFK. President Trump has clearly taken a stand in
opposition to the reconquest of the republic by the deep state and it remains to be seen if the
American people have the fortitude to do everything in their power to organize themselves in
defense of the republic and civilization more generally.
"OR"
There are also middle ways: my ideal would be a real United Nations without dominant bullies,
capable of reigning in globalist MNCs, governments or religions.
Population numbers will have to weight in much more for voting power and no SC privileges for
amassing nuclear bombs.
Melvin Logan , Nov 23, 2020 1:08 PM
This essay includes McKinley as a defender of "Republican traditions," and of course it's
hard to argue against that position, seeing as how McKinley was a tool of the Big City
corrupt political system. That he fraudulently used the sinking of the "Maine" to declare war
on Spain, and then put down an insurgent revolt by natives of the Philippines by allowing
U.S.soldiers to garott them, is simply in the tradition of Republicans. We agree.
Paul Vonharnish , Nov 23, 2020 1:02 AM Reply to
Doctortrinate
Excellent scripting in the court scene. I remember seeing this film when it was first
released. Made goose bumps
The public has been drummed down to the point where they refuse to question what props up the
fake wigs on the court jesters
yes, It was an eclectic time examination post experimentation perhaps .and there was room
for it, uncrowded by the weight of obligation – keeping it at distance was comfortable
even held the sense that the destructive order was being outrun, until..the reconditioning
ascent of a harpy and it's handbag,
The cess-pit beneath our seeming foundation, is become a source for self-righteous
vengeance – coming into our very private chambers after we seemed to 'save face' or
raise it over and against the hateful in conquest.
The presumption to be free of the evil that one has set ones face against is the
generating of the 'cess-pit' as something to be eradicated, lidded over, cancelled, such as
to preserve the 'order' that runs above its denial.
Self-revulsion as a concept, can be opined about, but human self-hatred is a hell indeed
if not a final fact.
The revealing of us to ourselves can be the dis-illusioning of what we thought to be and
truly believed but was never true – even though lived.
or the tarrying in such illusion as the exploiting of its underlying themes of 'getting' for
a self set apart from the life it represents.
richard , Nov 22, 2020 9:02 PM
"THE TRUE SPIRIT OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Unlike the earlier "League of Nations" which intended to destroy all national sovereignty in
the wake of WWI, the United Nations was always meant to become a platform for dialogue, and
economic multilateral trust-building much more in harmony with the multipolar alliance now
sweeping the world "
Oh really? hear are some U.N. quotes:
"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their
individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas."
– Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization
"A world government can intervene militarily in the internal affairs of any nation when it
disapproves of their activities." – Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General
"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order
[referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if
they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial"
invasion], whether real or *promulgated* [emphasis mine], that threatened our very existence.
It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one
thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this *scenario*, individual rights
will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the
World Government."
Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991
"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship
Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."
David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations
"The UN is but a long-range, international banking apparatus clearly set up for financial
and economic profit by a small group of powerful One-World revolutionaries, hungry for profit
and power.
"The depression was the calculated 'shearing' of the public by the World Money powers,
triggered by the planned sudden shortage of supply of call money in the New York money market
.The One World Government leaders and their ever close bankers have now acquired full control
of the money and credit machinery of the U.S. via the creation of the privately owned Federal
Reserve Bank."
Curtis Dall, FDR's son-in-law as quoted in his book, My Exploited Father-in-Law
"The planning of UN can be traced to the 'secret steering committee' established by
Secretary [of State Cordell] Hull in January 1943. All of the members of this secret
committee, with the exception of Hull, a Tennessee politician, were members of the Council on
Foreign Relations. They saw Hull regularly to plan, select, and guide the labors of the
[State] Department's Advisory Committee. It was, in effect, the coordinating agency for all
the State Department's postwar planning."
Professors Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter, writing in their study of the CFR, "Imperial
Brain Trust: The CFR and United States Foreign Policy." (Monthly Review Press, 1977).
"The most powerful clique in these (CFR) groups have one objective in common: they want to
bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the U.S. They
want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties supposedly to increase
business and ensure world peace. What they strive for would inevitably lead to dictatorship
and loss of freedoms by the people. The CFR was founded for "the purpose of promoting
disarmament and submergence of U.S. sovereignty and national independence into an
all-powerful one-world government." Harpers, July l958
Paul Vonharnish , Nov 23, 2020 12:47 AM Reply to
richard
Hello richard: Excellent listing of verifiable quotes. Thanks!
The establishment of the United Nations has done more to dis-unite the world than any
other singular effort. Yet civilians are still looking for some daddy authority to straighten
out the sticky fuzz they found in their navels
I don't know, I think the US going around the world for the last 100+ years bombing anyone
who threatened their capitalist hegemony can pick up a pretty good share of the blame for an
unstable world
paul , Nov 22, 2020 6:02 PM
Neither will win. As always, the only real winners will be a certain Levantine minority.
Heads they win, tails you lose.
The great mock battle to choose Israel Puppet 46 will play out over the next few weeks as
pure theatre, with Creepy Joe picking up Trumpo's somewhat tarnished crown in due course. For
all the difference it makes. Creepy Joe will be marginally even more of a puppet than
Trumpo.
The court challenges are going nowhere. Some have already been dropped or dismissed, and the
rest soon will be, irrespective of vote rigging and ballot stuffing on an epic scale.
Likewise, there will be no attempt to reverse the current outcome at the electoral college
next month. Nothing's going to happen. Nada. Zilch. It's all pure kabuki.
Clowns and court jesters like Alex Jones or Giuliani will caper about making an exhibition of
themselves, peddling their vitamin supplements and lining their pockets.
Trump will squeeze whatever cash he can from his gullible base to pay off his campaign debts.
But none of this is serious. Trumpo has gone AWOL. He is not holding any public events. The
lawsuits have been dropped. He is not putting any of his own money into them. The electoral
college delegates will not go rogue to keep him in power. Georgia is gone. He is not going to
flip Michigan or Pennsylvania.
Trumpo deserved to lose, whether he actually did or not. He abandoned his base the minute he
was elected, and served out his time as a Zio Shill.
He built a grand total of 4 miles of his Big Beautiful Wall. Some of it has already fallen
down. That only leaves 1,996 miles for the Beaner Illegal Immigrant Hordes to walk through.
Obomber deported far more illegal immigrants than Trumpo, 1.1 million v. 800,000. His idea of
draining The Swamp was to appoint Bolton, Abrams, Pompeo, Haspel, and half of Goldman Sachs
to all the senior posts in his administration. The same goes for Bringing The Troops Home.
None will actually be withdrawn from Afghanistan, despite the latest announcement. Like
Rebuilding The Infrastructure.
Trumpo is a con man, a Bunko Artist. He achieved nothing. Because he never intended to. He
never even tried. He was just another Mitt Romney.
Trumpism will just provide him with a meal ticket for some time to come. He needs to find
another $400 million from somewhere to pay off his debts. The GOP will go full on Zionism,
Globalism, Faggots, Trannies, Globo Homo, Open Borders, Amnesties.
One of Trumpo's last of many favours for Israel is to pardon the traitor and Israeli spy
Jonathan Pollard. He will soon be on his way home to a hero's welcome in Kosherstan.
Biden's new administration will be virtually 100% kosher, apart from a few token black/ gay/
trannie/ vagina/ shabbos goys.
Chief of staff, Attorney General, Treasury, all Chosen Folk.
Trumpo was never more than a Zionist puppet, just like Wilders, Orban, Salvini, AFD, Duterte.
All 100% Faux Right Controlled Opposition created by the Chosen Folk.
Thanks Paul, for that excellent description of Trump and what we can expect from Biden
until he leaves/dies and we have Kamala. The policies will remain virtually unchanged as the
President is irrelevant.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 5:58 PM
Bankers have been running the world for centuries, not empires, not presidents, not
parties, not nations.
They provide nation states with two (or more) parties with seemingly oppositional values,
but who are controlled behind the scenes by the same banking cabal. Trump is working with the
cabal, just as closely as his predecessors, Obama, Bush, Clinton etc., to create the illusion
of opposition, the illusion of difference, the illusion of choice and the illusion of
hope.
Just as the election was obviously stolen, so too it was planned to create internal
conflict and violence. Both parties play the game of electioneering to obfuscate the theft of
civil rights and assets from the populace without opposition. The media enhances the process
of obfuscation. The voters are too busy fighting amongst themselves to see the outright theft
of their real assets.
There are no individuals or groups who attain positions of power in any government or
nation who oppose the banking cartel that rules the world, owns and controls all the largest
corporations, security state apparatus, the militaries and defense sectors of all
nations.
There are no heroes coming to anyone's rescue. No white hats, no black hats. They are all
agents of the cryptocracy, because the goal has always been the enslavement of humanity, and
that goal was attained long ago and has never wavered.
The New World Order was achieved with the formation of the United Nations as a front for
the cryptocracy (banking cartel) to further its objectives through the cooperation of
governments individuality and collectively controlling their populations.
Whether our enslavement was achieved using a kindler, gentler slavery called "capitalism",
based on the consumption of poorly made goods exploiting cheap labor by corporate entities
majority owned and controlled by the cryptocracy, in faux democracies, using the fake two
party system, or whether slavery was achieved by force through communism where an appearance
of state ownership obfuscated cryptocracy ownership and control, so wages could be lowered
and people more tightly controlled, both political systems were a sham. Both systems were
always controlled by the same cryptocracy; the banking cartel.
The cryptocracy ruled the capitalist West and the communist Eastern bloc with ease.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:06 PM Reply to
Researcher
Just as all political parties are false enemies who work together behind the scenes, so
too is the enmity between nation states and the supposedly opposed political and nation state
blocs and alliances.
Opposition is created as a facade and pretext to facilitate immensely profitable
skirmishes, occupations, hot wars, cold wars and civil conflicts. These methods of
manufactured conflict accomplish control and ownership for the cryptocracy of large tracts of
land with rare earth minerals and energy reserves as well as the labor and industry of large
and small populations plus access to the taxes and wealth of all nation states.
These faux oppositional forces whether they be internal or external, create an illusion of
a divided, hostile and fractured world for the unknowing and distracted public, who have had
their history altered and rewritten, indoctrinated with propaganda in a Prussian model of
education as 'learning by rote' instead of learning through exploration, reason, logic,
invention and experimentation. As such, 'educated' populations have become another tool of
the controllers where they are largely ignorant of the inextricable links between politics,
energy, economies, the monetary system, wars, governments, crime, industry and human
enslavement.
The false appearance of separation of these issues into compartmentalized subjects,
compartmentalized thinking, are further enhanced and driven through sound bites using the
cryptocracy owned corporate media.
Binary choices, compartmentalized issues, and supposed random events are sold to humanity
to corral thinking, coerce conformity, limit options and choices within illusory paradigms
where full spectrum dominance is fulfilled. Subsequently, all resources on earth including
populations can be easily exploited for the purpose of profiteering, while simultaneously
inflicting unnecessary misery and suffering through the leverage of usury and forced taxes
within the monetary system.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:10 PM Reply to
Researcher
The banking cartel (BIS, IMF, World Bank) own the major energy corporations, green and
carbon based and that is why there has been a decades long push for carbon control and
capture, using climate change pseudo science and propaganda as a way to control and limit our
individual, national and collective energy consumption and output.
Since energy is the real currency that runs the world, and energy is also the way which we
as humans and living creatures survive, innovate, create and function – as electrical
and energetic beings – the cryptocracy believe that all energy, including our physical
and neuronal bodily functions be wholly controlled by them, and them only. The cryptocracy
already control our external energy and power systems and grids, and all oil, coal, gas,
wind, hydro, nuclear, solar and hydrogen, which fuel human and economic activity.
The cryptocracy are not content to let us decide our own fates, occupations, business
dealings, economies, health or lives using our inherent freedom as thinking, sentient and
independent beings who are born free. They seek to further enslave our every thought,
function and action through the technocracy and the biometric control and data grid they have
built around us for the last century.
In the beginning of the 20th century, the banking cartel through their control of the
chemical industry, extended their model of human slavery to include profiteering from
destroying people's health, by controlling genetic and epigenetic expression through
increased toxic exposure to external radiation, a poisoned and altered food chain, deficient
soil, a poisoned fluoridated water supply, increased exposure to carcinogens, endocrine
disruptive chemicals and unnecessary vaccines that wrought irreversible, long term negative
effects.
The medical industrial complex and vaccine industry sought to claim credit for the
eradication of diseases that had already been quelled through proper sanitation, plumbing,
better nutrition and improved living conditions.
The control grid of populations through the economic system, military industrial complex,
monetary system, faux governments, and the medical industrial complex has merged into a
totalitarian model of complete control of all human behavior, health and bodily functions
using faux pandemics, where governments coordinate terror operations against the
citizenry.
The bankers are transitioning away from the current monetary, economic Ponzi scheme using
the US petro dollar fractional reserve banking system, which could only function for a
limited time, in a debt expansionary environment, underpinned by constant economic expansion
and population growth.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 6:13 PM Reply to
Researcher
A number of factors including increased standards of living, women entering the workforce,
contraception and immunocontraception and cultural changes have inhibited population growth
in developed nations, so that expansionary model has reached its 'limits of growth'.
Governments have been hiding the lack of population growth using immigration. They've been
hiding the contracting economic activity in developed nations by creating fake financial
products and accounting frauds, banking fraud, rigged market indices and markets. The
cryptocracy knowing this economic model would eventually collapse at their discretion,
created unseen enemies to unite us against, be it a fictional virus, or fictional global
warming, the result being a coordinated, top-down authoritarian monitoring, control of
populations, economies and individuals.
The bankers, governments and industrialists are forcing humanity to transition to a
technocracy controlled economy based on humans as capital, the collection, collation and
control of all organic and non organic resources on earth including our biometric data and
behavioral obedience, while they simultaneously enforce a liquidation of assets phase.
We are their assets and we are being liquidated.
At the end of every transitory economic cycle or created currency or financial crisis, the
banking cartel and their minions facilitate a global catastrophe, whether that's a planned
war between nations, civil unrest or a manufactured terror event. This serves as a cover for
the harm that their planned economic transition (and failure) creates. These planned failures
of economic systems created by the cryptocracy provide additional profits for the banking
cartel where real assets are stripped from citizens in the form of savings, land, property,
assets, businesses and redistributed by force, upwards to the oligarchs and cryptocracy.
That is the purpose of the lockdown and the faux pandemic. A continued and further
redistribution of the global wealth of the majority of citizens to the 0.01% so that bankers,
industrialists and governments who already control our food and energy supply, can force the
majority into compliance with the vaccine program. The vaccine program creates a legal and
cost efficient liquidation of the majority of humanity and the biometric enslavement of the
remaining youth who manage to survive, while transitioning to the new economic model of a
global digital currency based on physical human enslavement, human data management, with
central command control using Artificial Intelligence.
Jean Wilson , Nov 22, 2020 8:07 PM Reply to
Researcher
Thank you Researcher. Brilliant writing!
Lost in a dark wood , Nov 22, 2020 4:41 PM
No wonder the CIA hates Trump!
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/361227-us-begins-bombing-taliban-opium-plants-in-afghanistan
US begins bombing Taliban CIA opium plants in Afghanistan
11/20/17
The U.S. military has begun bombing opium production plants in Afghanistan as part of a new
strategy targeting Taliban revenue, a top general said Monday. "Last night, we conducted
strikes in northern Helmand [Province] to hit the Taliban where it hurts, in their narcotics
financing," said Gen. John Nicholson, commander of the NATO-led Operation Resolute Support in
the country.
--
What has happened to people? If the U.S. says it is bombing an opium production plant,
that means they're lying. First thing I think of is who did the U.S./CIA/Trump want killed
and why? But you interpret it as Trump trying to stop the opium business of the CIA?
And then you follow it with Trump, after four years of bombing Afghanistan, is somehow
being pressured by Germany to continue bombing Afghanistan?
Frankly, I don't think we have any idea what the CIA thinks of Trump.
Researcher , Nov 22, 2020 7:32 PM Reply to
wardropper
They must think he's the greatest actor on earth, since apparently some who understand the
bankers are in league with and controlling governments, the UN, WHO and the WEF against
humanity, yet they also believe that Trump is standing up for the Constitution against the
banking cartel, the military and the vaccine industry.
Except he isn't and hasn't.
By declaring a fake emergency and continuing that emergency, while creating OPERATION WARP
SPEED, he handed the country over to the military, PhRMA and FEMA.
He has no intention of handing it back to the citizens and he's had every means and every
opportunity.
I think a great majority of people are simply in denial on the left and the right because
they don't want to believe they've spent their entire lives being conned by bankers,
politicians and oligarchs using cheap tricks, third rate acting, fake science and obvious
monetary fraud and gangster governments.
The veil of their human enslavement has been lifted off their faces and they still refuse
to see the obvious truth.
Instead they hide behind masks, false enemies and the lies they tell themselves. It'd be
sad if it wasn't so pathetic.
wardropper , Nov 22, 2020 7:58 PM Reply to
Researcher
I agree with all that, but the CIA is not renowned for advertising what it 'thinks'
Moneycircus , Nov 22, 2020 11:08 PM Reply to
wardropper
The CIA does not 'think'. It was set up by Wall Street and the bankers as the muscle of
Wall Street and the bankers
Trumpo deserves to be put on trial and executed after a suitably fair trial if only for
his actions in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Palestine and elsewhere. For the murder of General
Soleimani and 30 others, for all the children who have died in those countries as a result of
US economic terrorism and actual terrorism on his watch. It doesn't matter if he failed to
control others who were allowed to pursue their own agenda. A commander who loses control of
his troops is fully liable when they run amok.
Their is very little to be said in his favour. We have come very close to war on a colossal
scale on several occasions over the past two years as a result of his actions. The fact that
this did not come to pass and disaster was avoided in no way goes to his credit. This should
be attributed to the Grace of God or my lucky rabbit's foot. And the fact that Russia, China,
and even Iran and North Korea have incomparably better and more responsible leadership than
we do.
Western leadership, Obama, Clinton, Trump, Sarkozy, Macron, Merkel, May, Cameron, Johnson, is
the worst in its history. Arrogant, venal, corrupt, irredeemably ignorant, delusional and
ideologically driven.
So can anything positive at all about Trump's legacy?
Biden may be even worse.
Clinton, rabid and deranged, and even more dishonest, certainly would have been.
But we deserve something better than the choice between a dogshit sandwich or a catshit
sandwich.
Trump has at least exposed the MSM for what it is, and forced the deep state to take off the
mask of sham democracy and reveal its true ugly face.
But it's not much of a legacy for four years.
John Goss , Nov 22, 2020 1:08 PM
The Second World War was the turning point here in the UK and in the US, When the war
finished there was a Labour Party which was actually a Labour Party. For some years before
that the US Democratic Party had been and was a Democratic Party, When paper ballots
mitigated against fraud Franklin D, Roosevelt was elected for an amazing 4 terms. He died
days before the end of the war having introduced welfare reforms that endeared him to
people.
It has been pretty much downhill since then, ending up with Keir Starmer at the head of
the Labour Party and Joe Biden at the head of the Democratic Party. Need I write more?
el Gallinazo , Nov 22, 2020 3:19 PM Reply to
John Goss
Problem>reaction>solution. The Great Depression in the USA was triggered by
the banksters being instructed to create a vast credit bubble in the 20's with their
fractional reserve system (being able to lend 9 fake dollars for every one they actually
owned) and then instructed to withdraw credit very rapidly, creating a cascade of defaults..
That is a historical fact easily researched.
This article's view of recent history is among the most superficial I have ever read. I do
not believe in democracy being an Agorist, because democracy is a trick of the predator
class. When I see a government which does not enforce its rules through the barrel of a gun
and cages, I may be tempted to re-evalute my views. Still waiting however. That said, the one
thing that I agree with in this article is that Trump won the election handily based on legal
and valid votes and the apparent Biden win was based on huge fraud. One should never
underestimate Sydney Powell, even with her sweet Georgia Plantation accent. She may be the
first competent snd trustworthy hire Trump has ever made in the last four years, and one may
ask why this is. On one level, the fraud was designed to put Biden in the White House. On a
deeper level, it was designed to rip the country apart. I would recommend that the American
people rushing to the giant box stores (which are permitted to stay open while the various
governors' blatantly illegal EO's have shut down their mom and pop competitors) to buy toilet
paper for the coming Darkest Winter of the fake scamdemic, would be wise to load up also on
beer and popcorn so they can watch this shitshow on their giant plasma TV's from the
sofa.
Melvin Logan , Nov 23, 2020 1:34 PM Reply to
el Gallinazo
The notion of "fraud" in the election is a charade. Research the Dominion voting system
and you will discover that Ms. Powell, despite the high regard she has attained, is blowing
smoke. Her entire case against Dominion from Chavez to German vote counting is a fat joke. On
her, and on us. Why is she doing this? We will find out in due time.
When every girl in my entourage was melting over Obama, the first thing I did after saying
"hey wait a minute" was to read a book about what he had been up to in Chicago (knew it) then
it has been "we'll bail them for 70 billion, then 700, then 1.4 tril," (always decreasing
speech volume) then "we are going to decrease troops in Afghanistan, then more troops, then
more troops (always decreasing in speech volume)
That Nobel "War" Prize created the perfect cocktail of Benadryl+Marezine that send the
herd of moron slaves, practically all over the world, into numbing mode!
He was, and still is, the perfect jester.
And is being very well compensated for it.
"Splitting the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even
communicate with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace
impotent, ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful."
Surely so. But I'm not sure whether this was deliberately planned by the plutocrats as a
political strategy, or whether this bifurcation spontaneously emerged from tech company
algorithms designed only to increase their profits.
Clearly, the plutocrats have seized upon this bifurcation to keep the populace divided and
engaged in a kind of civil war, but it's sort of like the pandemic – was it a plot
hatched or an opportunity exploited?
This might not seem to matter at this point, but IMHO the answer helps to determine not
only what we're up against but also the best ways to fight the bastards.
SHOCKER / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
https://www.wakingtimes.com/tyranny-standing-rock-govt-divide-conquer-strategy-work/
`
"Divide and conquer.
`
"It's one of the oldest military strategies in the books, and it's proven to be the police
state's most effective weapon for maintaining the status quo.
`
"How do you conquer a nation?
`
"Distract them with football games, political circuses and Black Friday sales. Keep them
focused on their differences -- economic, religious, environmental, political, racial
[gender- pandemic] -- so they can never agree on anything. And then, when they're so divided
that they are incapable of joining forces against a common threat, start picking them off one
by one."
JWK / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
"We live in different information universes, chosen for us by algorithms whose only
criterion is how to maximise our attention for advertisers' products to generate greater
profits for the internet giants,"
Which precisely explains how we got the recent POTUS candidates, displayed as the "best and
brightest". Really? That's the best they have? You can look across the board at ALL of the
two party's leadership and get the same picture. These are far from the "best and brightest".
They may be bright, since psychopaths are often quite intelligent, but they certainly have
zero qualification for best.
KHATIKA / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
Regardless. The democrats ignored people like Tulsi Gabbard and Sanders to flock to Biden.
This is just a sign of how brainwashed the people have become. The propaganda is working
quite well.
ANARCISSIE / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
This raises the question of why these people were selected. I think Trump sabotaged the
Republican fix for 2016 by exploiting weaknesses in its pseudodemocratic primary structure,
but the choice of Biden is hard to figure from any angle. Someone should investigate. About a
year ago I was conversing with some deplorables about Biden and a perfectly intelligent young
Black woman hotly defended him against all criticism. Anita Hill, the crime bill, the
invasion of Iraq, his creepiness, just bounced off her shell. How do people get this way?
JULIUS SKOOLAFISH / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
in passing
. WESTERN VALUES™ . The country that judges other countries' elections just
had an election. Somebody won. One day a court will tell us who. Apparently counting votes is
a tremendously difficult task, requiring enormous amounts of time.
. http://russiahouse.org/current_news.php?language=eng&id_current=3183
.
See also (via Fort Russ – Matthew Ehret)
Ah, Ms Johnstone, my fellow United States citizens love their " echo chamber comas "
because it allows them to completely suppress any and all logic, justice, empathy, and shame
for the blood-thirsty Evil Empire that they cherish and support. The Evil Empire has no soul
at all; and it requires its subjects to be soul-less as well. Resistance is futile!
hroughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign policy,
claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray.
He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation.
While Donald Trump called to make America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American Empire
Great Again.
Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the
decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush
administration.
Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will task ending them to the
most neoconservative elements of the Democratic party and ideologues of permanent war.
Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain
trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war going back to the Clinton
administration.
In the Trump era, they've cashed in, founding Westexec Advisors – a corporate
consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to
government.
Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for secretary of defense and Blinken is expected to be
national security advisor.
Biden's foxes guard the henhouse
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's,
Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of
mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic
attack against the United States."
Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate foreign relations committee chair Joe Biden,
who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq.
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war. The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the world's
most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to
defend our interests anywhere in the world."
With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the
sidelines.
In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one
of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS).
CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech
giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big banks.
Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for
policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon.
She was keenly aware that the public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial
Defense Review, she crafted a new concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state
while giving the appearance of a drawdown.
Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's
drone assassination program.
This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called for the U.S. to be able to
simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare, clandestine weapons
transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all buttressed with propaganda
campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and corporate news
media.
Architects of America's Hybrid wars
Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key
architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body
bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she
deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the
tide against the Taliban.
Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban
back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into
the future.
Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued
to argue against a U.S. withdrawal.
That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in
Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying
some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele
Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a
presence.
In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO
regime-change war on Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had
given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.
Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they
waged an extensive propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were
on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.
All of this was based on a report from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by
the Qatari monarchy that was arming extremist militias to overthrow the government.
Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.
Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing
rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war.
Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change
in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels"
that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a
full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the
U.S. had waging for more than a decade.
Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its
ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is
facing famine,
Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of
Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.
When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a
chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass
destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of
Defense James Mattis admitted.
While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria,
Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government
overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the
ground.
At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for
economic pressure.
Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony
Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.
Trump obliged.
The Third Offset
While the U.S. fuelled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift
called the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S.
used to maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.
The Third Offset strategy
shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition
against China and Russia, seeking to ensure that the U.S. could win a war against China in
Asia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities, development of
futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones, hypersonic weapons,
cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence making unimaginably
complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind. All of this would
be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley giants that it
birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.
The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner
of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of
this dangerous new escalation.
In June, Flournoy published a lengthy commentary laying out her strategy called "Sharpening
the U.S. Military's Edge: Critical Steps for the Next Administration".
She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and
reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might
not be able to defeat China in Asia.
While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied
forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive
capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the
entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea. Not only a blatant
war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.
At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational
stance against Russia, a position Flournoy shares.
As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast.
The end of forever
wars?
So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the
public doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.
In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and
parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power
competition.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that "Long-term strategic competitions with
China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and
Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."
As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support, but in 2019,
Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations.
However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek
engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the
devil.
In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used
as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.
His Venezuela policy will be almost identical to Trump's – sanctions and regime
change.
In Central America, Biden has proposed a 4 billion dollar package to support corrupt
right-wing governments and neoliberal privatization projects that create even more
destabilization and send vulnerable masses fleeing north to the United States.
Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global
supremacy, escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of
humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."
Feature photo | Graphic by Antonio Cabrera for MintPress News
Dan Cohen is a journalist and filmmaker. He has produced widely distributed video reports
and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. Dan is a correspondent at RT America and
tweets at @ DanCohen3000
.
This is nothing new, the war machine keeps going and going. I actually found an individual
that has the same outlook on stopping the behavior of the United States as I do.
International lawyer Christopher Black in this interview had the following to say.
Question: What in your view needs to change in order to make U.S. foreign conduct abide by
international law and therefore enhance the prospects for world peace?
Christopher Black: It will require a revolution in the United States to do that, an
overthrow of the economic powers that control the machinery of the state, but there is no
prospect of that happening. There is really no effective opposition to these policies in
the U.S. The peace movement is weak and fragmented, dominated by the "cruise missile
liberals". The voices of reason have no power, no real influence among the masses of the
people which are dominated by a sophisticated propaganda machine known as the "media".
Censorship is increasing and the few critical voices that exist are being silenced.
It will take, in my view, a military defeat of the United States in order to bring
about the conditions necessary for the required changes. And, perhaps that will happen,
as China has stated time and again, that if Washington decides to take direct control of
their island of Taiwan and the Americans interfere or if they are attacked in the South
China Sea, they will defeat the U.S. But such a war would have world consequences and would
cause realignments of power not only in the USA, if we all survive it.
Biden is a tent revival for the aptly named "cruise missile liberals" and some of the more
shadowy neo-conservative forces in retreat and determined to bring democracy building home
after their colonial expeditions extinguished it at home, hastening the rise of America's own
Saddam in Trump. Biden's own instincts may be decisive, however, and he was against war in
Libya while also in favor of splitting Iraq. The dementia rumors are nonsense; Biden is a
canny and often mendacious operator, and while I think Trump is a fascist and quite possibly
a Russian mafia sub-boss, Biden may well be the restoration of more homegrown, American mafia
rule. An argument that Giuliani has made in so many words, standing as he does on the Russian
side and yelling into the shifting parapolitical winds.
It's not really that complicated for China. They have no interest in or need to strike the
American mainland. That would only be necessary if they were seeking global hegemony like the
US, which they are not. Their strategic nuclear capabilities are strictly deterrence. All
China has to do is survive the coming conflict arising from the Thucydides Trap that the US
and China are caught in with minimal damage to their industrial capacity, infrastructure, and
population.
That I specified "survive" and not "win" is not a mistake. The default
outcome if nothing is done is that China ascends to uncontested sole global economic
superpower status. That is not necessarily their intention but rather the natural outcome of
China continuing the development of their domestic human capital and quality of life for 1.4
billion people. China doesn't have to take the fight to the US to end up on top, and the US
has no choice but to somehow turn back the economic clock in China to keep its position as
global imperial hegemon. Color revolution attempts, trade war, and bioweapon attacks have all
failed the empire miserably, so all the US has left is to go kinetic.
The "US aircraft carrier force projection model" is effectively nullified by China,
but those assets are still protected by America's delusional reality exclusion zone:
"Destroying our carriers is unthinkable! No one would ever dare do that!" . That
defense will prove inadequate against China's variety of "carrier killer"
missiles.
As for America's stealth aircraft, China's defenses will likely be a surprise to many in
the American empire. Furthermore, America's only stealth aircraft with sufficient range to
reach China's mainland on anything other than a one way suicide mission would be the B-2
bomber, of which America only has 21. Those 21 will not last long in a kinetic conflict.
Quite a few will likely simply be destroyed on the runway in Diego Garcia while the survivors
will get to find out how well China's nifty new quantum radar works. The F-22 and F-35 would
require refueling to get from carrier stand-off distance to the mainland and refueling again
to get back, with America's aerial tankers needing to loiter within range of China's air
defenses... not a good battle plan for the empire. Those stealth aircraft will not shift the
advantage in the empire's favor, and attrition will be much higher than expected among
them.
It must be repeated that China doesn't need to destroy the United States. They are not
playing the board game "Risk" after all. China just needs to defeat the American
empire's military force projection capabilities in their own neighborhood, and China already
has that capacity right now. Every day that elapses shifts the advantage further into China's
favor, so the empire needs to act while they still have the ability to do so. Trump's
unwillingness to do more than bark loudly and his resistance to going kinetic is why the
imperial elites had to fraud the elections so openly to get a more compliant figurehead into
office ASAP. That the empire couldn't wait another four years means that we will see
"interesting times" (yeah, even more interesting than the preceding twelve months!)
real soon now.
"A cornered dog will bite, even if it is obvious that it cannot win."
So will I, so what?
"It was never China's nor Iran's intention to "corner" the empire. That is simply the
situation that America finds itself in now that its economy is in "late capitalism" decline.
It is really not even anyone's fault, not even Trump or Reagan or any of the other usual
suspects."
I agree, but again, so what? I'm not concerned with who is morally correct, I'm mainly
concerned with whether there is going to be a big war and what happens if there is, that's
not a moral question. I've been waiting around 40 years to watch our collapse, and I still
think there is enough that is/was good here to be worth hoping for a soft landing. That's
probably better for the rest of the planet too, but it's arguable.
Neither Iran of China is cornered, they are well-prepared, well-supported by "partners",
and on their home turf. WE are not ready. We are vunerable. But we are not cornered either,
nobody is going to come over here and interfere while we fight among ourselves.
Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 25 2020 13:10 utc | 109
What scares me about Blinken and Sullivan is the career trajectory. Both had completely
unearned and unreasonable success every step of their lives. There is never any explanation
for this manner of success but family connections. Neither has done anything of note other
than to occupy positions of power.
Sullivan is all of 43 years old, has been a mover and shaker since his twenties. Any who
have never read Halberstam's Best and Brightest might look at that now. We are in for a shit
show. Biden is not going to do anything but take his meds and take a lot of naps. Already he
is not to be seen. The crew named so far will steamroller Kamala, she is no more than a
figurehead.
Likely she won't even stay in the room when it gets serious. Best possible outcome is that
kids who have never done anything but suck up won't know what to do when they are left in
charge with no adult supervision. Or there will be shadowy figures in background who steady
the rudder.
Yes, it is not a moral question, it is an economic one. Wars have never been about
morality.
That said, China has for a number of years now been preparing for a minimally damaging
escape from the Thucydides Trap, and by "minimally damaging" I mean for the US as
well. As I said above the Chinese are not at all interested in hurting the US.
The plan is to "spring" the Thucydides Trap in the South China Sea and hopefully
confine most of the damage to that area. If successful then the empire gets its soft landing
(albeit with significant amounts of military materiel and personnel sacrificed) and humanity
moves beyond the Trap.
@ PB 75
visible costs of vassaldom . . costs of American presence....decreasing the national
security. . .participating in sanctions
Yes, plus a primary reason . . .Cost of buying US military junk like F-35. Foreign military
sales is a mainstay of the US economy.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 25 2020 3:43 utc | 83
When you add the numbers, "military junk" has notable prestige -- with matching prices,
but the total loot of American companies is probably many times larger. For example, Trump
waged a series of trade wars to perpetuate negligible taxation of "technology giants" like
Google or Amazon. "Intellectual property" was a stumbling block in the trade war with China,
with dire consequences for soy growing farmers in USA (and a boon to their colleagues in
South America). Then there is pharma. It seems that the really big companies are comfortable
being in relative shadow behind arms makers, and discourse on security threats and needs
--because Russian use trolls to interfere with elections, we (all countries that cherish what
is good and precious) need new generations of nukes, planes, ships and toilet seats. However
illogical, it is more noble sounding than preventing the likes of Apple from more than
nominal taxation.
"... Because people are a lot more likely to click, read and share information which validates their pre-existing opinions and follow people who do the same, social media is notorious for the way it creates tightly insulated echo chambers which masturbate our confirmation bias and hide any information which might cause us cognitive dissonance by contradicting it. Whole media careers were built on this phenomenon during the years of Russiagate hysteria, and we see it play out in spheres from imperialism to Covid-19 commentary to economic policy. ..."
"... Someone benefits from this dynamic, and it isn't you. As we've discussed previously, we know from WikiLeaks documents that powerful people actively seek to build ideological echo chambers for the purpose of propaganda and indoctrination, and there is surely a lot more study going into the subject than we've seen been shown. Splitting the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even communicate with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace impotent, ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful. ..."
"... It's just people manipulating you away from your natural, healthy inclination toward peace. Get out of your echo chamber, look at the raw information instead of the narratives, and stop letting the sociopaths manipulate you. ..."
"... Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces. ..."
This complete schism from reality, where you've got an incoming administration stacked with
Beltway insiders who want to attack Chinese interests running alongside an alternate imaginary
universe in which Biden is a subservient CCP lackey, is only made possible with the existence
of media echo chambers. It's the same exact dynamic that made it possible for liberals to spend
four years shrieking conspiracy theories about the executive branch of the US government being
run by a literal Russian agent even as Trump advanced mountains of world-threatening cold war
escalations against Moscow in the real world.
You see this dynamic at work in conventional media, where
plutocrat-controlled outlets like Breitbart are still frantically
pushing the Russiagate sequel narrative that Hunter Biden's activities in China mean that
his father is a CCP asset. You also see it in social media, where, as explained by journalist
Jonathan Cook in an article about the
documentary The Social Dilemma , "as we get herded into our echo chambers of
self-reinforcing information, we lose more and more sense of the real world and of each
other."
"We live in different information universes, chosen for us by algorithms whose only
criterion is how to maximise our attention for advertisers' products to generate greater
profits for the internet giants," writes Cook.
Because people are a lot more likely to click, read and share information which validates
their pre-existing opinions and follow people who do the same, social media is notorious for
the way it creates
tightly insulated echo chambers which masturbate our confirmation bias and hide any information
which might cause us cognitive dissonance by contradicting it. Whole media careers were built
on this phenomenon during the years of Russiagate hysteria, and we see it play out in spheres
from imperialism to Covid-19 commentary to economic policy.
Someone benefits from this dynamic, and it isn't you. As we've
discussed previously, we know from WikiLeaks documents that powerful people actively
seek to build ideological echo chambers for the purpose of propaganda and indoctrination, and
there is surely a lot more study going into the subject than we've seen been shown. Splitting
the public up into two oppositional factions who barely interact and can't even communicate
with each other because they don't share a common reality keeps the populace impotent,
ignorant, and powerless to stop the unfolding of the agendas of the powerful.
You should not be afraid of your government being too nice to China. What you should worry
about is the US-centralized power alliance advancing a multifront new cold war conducted
simultaneously against two nuclear-armed nations for the first time ever in human history.
There are far, far too many small moving parts in such a cold war for things to happen in a
safely predictable manner, which means there are far, far too many
chances for something to go very, very wrong.
Whenever someone tells you that a US president is going to be "soft" on a nation the
US government has marked as an enemy, you are being played. Always, always, always, always.
It's just people manipulating you away from your natural, healthy inclination toward peace. Get
out of your echo chamber, look at the raw information instead of the narratives, and stop
letting the sociopaths manipulate you.
By Caitlin Johnstone , an independent journalist based in Melbourne, Australia. Her
website is here and you can follow
her on Twitter @caitoz
USA-MA BIN LADEN / NOVEMBER 25, 2020
America desperately needs its Two Minutes of Hate against other countries like a meth
addict needs his next hit.
For Democrats and their ilk, Hate Russia was their unifying and mobilizing ideology.
For Republicans and their ilk, Hate China is their unifying and mobilizing ideology.
Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces.
Deep down, Americans know that – and that is why they so readily engage in these
spittle-flecked campaigns.
Welcome to the Orwellian world of America where the same American Empire that bombs,
invades, sanctions, regime changes, encircles, or colonizes multiple nations around the world
whines like a triggered little snowflake that poor innocent war criminal America is being
"threatened"!
Truly pathetic.
CHRISTIAN J. CHUBA / NOVEMBER 24, 2020
There are many good websites (in addition to this one of course). I'd always tell someone,
just look to see what speaks to you my list some are 'out there' I'll summarize.
https://www.antiwar.com/ –
Kind of like a drudgereport for decent people on world events. They go through the effort of
summarizing AP and other official news outlet stories rather than mindlessly link to them.
Just hearing the same stories minus the slavish propaganda will deprogram many people.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/ – M.E., Yemen, if
your friend is very sensitive to anything that insinuates that Israel is not the celestial
city he might be offended.
https://southfront.org/ – Ah
.. on our State Dept list of Russian disinfo. Discuss military conflicts, sympathetic to the
countries at the receiving end of our attention.
http://thesaker.is/ – Saker was an
intel guy from the 'other side' during the Cold War, values decency, Orthodox Christian, only
site that regularly publishes speeches from Nasrallah, does military analysis, arrogant but I
always feel like I learned something.
http://www.moonofalabama.org
– anonymous analyst, German Intel guy, writes very well. I put him last because he has
been on a pro-Trump binge lately. I think they are secret lovers. Given what he normally
writes about I have no idea what he sees in him.
In Washington foreign conflicts are to policymakers what lights are to moths. The desire
to take the U.S. into every political dispute, social collapse, civil war, foreign conflict,
and full-scale war seems to only get stronger as America's failures accumulate.
There may be no better example than the battle between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the
latter's claim to the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, contained within Azerbaijan but largely
populated by ethnic Armenians. Distant from the US and Europe, the struggle matters most to
nearby Georgia, Turkey, Iran, and Russia.
The impact on Americans is minor and indirect at best. Yet there is wailing and gnashing
of teeth in Washington that the US is "absent" from this fight. Send in the bombers! Or at
least the diplomats! Candidate Joe Biden predictably insisted that America should be leading
a peace effort "together with our European partners," without indicating what that would mean
in practice.
The roots of the conflict, like so many others, go back centuries. Control of largely
Muslim Azerbaijan and Christian Armenia passed among Persia, the Ottoman Empire, and Russian
Empire. After the Russian Revolution the two were independent and fought over N-K's status,
before both were absorbed by the Soviet Union. Nagorno-Karabakh's ethnic Armenian population
began pressing for transfer to Armenia during the U.S.S.R.'s waning days. After the latter
collapsed in 1992 the two newly independent nations again fought, resulting in tens of
thousands of deaths and hundreds of thousands of refugees, and Armenia grabbed the disputed
land as well as even larger adjacent territory filled with ethnic Azerbaijanis.
A ceasefire froze the bitter conflict, leaving the conquered territory under Armenian
control. Although Yerevan's gain was tenuous, unrecognized by the rest of the world and
dependent upon a geographic corridor between Armenia and N-K, the government, largely in
response to internal political pressures, grew steadily more aggressive and unwilling to
honor previous commitments. Violent clashes mixed with ineffective talks between the two
states.
With no prospect of resolution, despite long-standing diplomatic efforts through the
so-called Minsk Process, involving America and France, among others, Azerbaijani forces,
relying on Turkey, employing Syrian mercenaries, and utilizing Israeli-made drones, launched
an offensive in September. With Yerevan losing troops and territory, Moscow brokered a new
ceasefire, which required Armenia's withdrawal from areas conquered a quarter century ago.
The transportation corridor is to be policed by Russian peacekeeping forces; Turkish
officials will help monitor the ceasefire.
The result was jubilation in Baku and riots in Yerevan. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol
Pashinyan, under political siege, declared: "This is not a victory, but there is no defeat
until you consider yourself defeated, we will never consider ourselves defeated and this
shall become a new start of an era of our national unity and rebirth." More accurate was
Azerbaijani President Ilham Alyev's assessment: "This [ceasefire] statement constitutes
Armenia's capitulation. This statement puts an end to the years-long occupation. This
statement is our Glorious Victory." With Pashinyan's authority in tatters and Alyev
triumphantly enjoying a surge in popular support, hostilities could easily explode again.
Why would any sane American want to get in the middle of this fight?
Demands that Washington "do something" ignore three important realities. The first is that
the conflict has nothing to do with the US and threatens no serious American interests. The
fighting is tragic, of course, as are similar battles around the world. However, this
volatile region is dominated by Iran, Russia, and Turkey. Iran previously supported Armenia,
Turkey strongly backed Azerbaijan, and Russia has good relations with both, including a
defense treaty with Yerevan which Moscow deemed not to cover contested territory, meaning
N-K.
Which of these powers, all essentially American adversaries – despite Ankara's
continued membership in the transatlantic alliance – dominates which neighbor is a
matter of indifference to Washington. It simply doesn't matter, and certainly isn't worth
fighting over. Once US officials would have preferred Turkey over Iran and Russia, but
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has taken his nation in an Islamist and authoritarian
direction, warmed relations with Russia, the only serious target of NATO, and begun
aggressively expanding Turkish influence and control in Syria, Libya, and the eastern
Mediterranean. Ankara encouraged the current military round by enhancing Azerbaijani
capabilities.
Georgia also shares a border with both combatants but is only a bit player in the ongoing
drama. However, it has lobbyists in Washington whose mission is to get Tbilisi into NATO and
thus turn Georgia into another US defense dependent. Doing so would create a direct border
conflict with Russia, made much more dangerous by the volatility of Georgian politics. The
irresponsible and reckless President Mikheil Saakashvili triggered the brief yet disastrous
2008 war with Russia and remains active politically. Tbilisi's dubious role is another reason
for the US to avoid deeper involvement in the region's disputatious politics.
The second point is that there is nothing sensible America for do, despite cacophonous
demands otherwise. In October Washington Post columnist David Ignatius complained:
"The global power vacuum invites mischief. The war between Armenia and Azerbaijan has
escalated over 10 days of fighting. Armenian leaders initially hoped that US diplomacy could
produce a ceasefire; now they look to Moscow."
Translated, Yerevan wanted Washington to save Armenia from both its original aggression
and later intransigence. Like many other governments have desired in other conflicts. But how
was the US to restrain Azerbaijan, which was able to recover long-lost territory only by
resorting to force? America's regional policy has been a disaster. Washington already
demonstrated its impotence in Ankara as Erdogan charted an independent course. The US turned
a difficult relationship with Moscow into a mini-Cold War. The Trump administration foolishly
declared economic war on Iran, creating regional instability and precluding negotiation.
As for Azerbaijan, military intervention would risk war for no good reason. Economic
sanctions would punish Baku, but to what end? So far, the president's constant resort to
"maximum pressure" has failed to induce political surrender in Havana, Caracas, Damascus,
Pyongyang, or Moscow. Whatever the economic price, Aliyeh could ill afford to retreat and
anger an entire population currently celebrating his triumph. Anyway, the issue is not worth
another failed American attempt at global social engineering. Which means Washington had
nothing to offer but words.
Certainly the US should encourage a peaceful settlement and negotiation, but this is a
conflict for which there is no obvious diplomatic answer. It is easy to insist that Baku
should not have restarted hostilities, but the Alyev government struck because diplomacy had
frozen along with the dispute. And Baku's success dramatically reshaped the balance of power,
leaving Armenia in a far worse position than before. Creative mediation might help, but
Azerbaijan, on offense, showed no interest in such an effort. Nor has Washington demonstrated
the ability to reign in Baku's main backer, Turkey, anywhere else. Washington is filled with
magical thinking, the belief that the president merely need whisper his command and the
entire world will snap to attention. Alas, America long ago lost that ability, if it ever had
it.
Moreover, US officials share some blame: On the presumption that Azerbaijan was committed
to a peaceful settlement, Washington provided it with arms and aid to combat terrorism.
Unfortunately, weaponry, like money, is fungible. And that mistake cannot be unmade.
An equally mistaken belief in the Trump administration's commitment also might have helped
lead Armenia astray. Since taking power in the Velvet Revolution two years ago, Pashinyan
sought to move westward. However, in the present crisis neither America nor Europe did
anything to assist Yerevan – whose occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh remains illegal under
international law. Some US interest groups attempted to turn Armenia into a cause celebre of
religious persecution, but the Muslim-Christian clash is incidental to broader geopolitics
which little concerned the West.
The horrid genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire against ethnic Armenians a century ago
is constantly cited but remains irrelevant to today's conflict. Around three decades ago
Armenia invaded Azerbaijan to seize incontestably Azerbaijani land. Baku struck back for
reasons of nationalism, not religion. The essential irrelevance of religion is reflected in
Christian Russia's good relations with Muslim Azerbaijan, Jewish Israel arming Muslim
Azerbaijan, and Muslim Iran's long backing for Christian Armenia, though these ties ebbed in
the last couple years. The US should no more be a crusading Christian republic than a
crusading republic.
Finally, Russia demonstrated that other powers have an interest in peace and stability and
are able to act. That is a tough lesson for the denizens of Washington to learn, given their
irrational hatred of Russia. Vladimir Putin is no cuddly liberal but most American
policymakers make hypocrisy and sanctimony the foundations of their approach to Moscow. After
all, Putin has killed fewer innocent people than Trump administration's favorite dictator,
Mohammed bin Salman, whose aggression against Yemen has resulted in more than five years of
murder and mayhem and created the worst humanitarian disaster on the planet. Yet Washington
continues to sell Saudi Arabia more weapons and munitions with which to kill more Yemeni
civilians.
Moreover, though Moscow has behaved badly, in Georgia and Ukraine in particular, so has
the US in Russia's eyes. Washington misled Moscow over NATO expansion, dismantled longtime
Russian friend Serbia, pushed NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, embraced Tbilisi,
which fired on Russian troops guaranteeing security in neighboring secessionist territory,
encouraged a street putsch against an elected, Russophile government in Kiev, and sought to
push Moscow out of Syria, an ally of nearly 70 years. The expectation of American
policymakers that they can use military force to push the Monroe Doctrine up to Russia's
border without triggering a sharp response is unrealistic at best, deadly at worst.
Of course, the Russia-brokered accord was a clear diplomatic triumph and likely will
solidify Moscow's influence. However, with success has come responsibility, which could prove
costly to Moscow. The accord remains fragile and unstable, and might collapse.
By its nature the agreement is short-term and does not address the fundamental issue, the
status of N-K. Indeed, on its own terms either party, which would most likely be Azerbaijan
in this case, can order the withdrawal of Russian monitors in five years. However, the modus
vivendi might not last even that long. Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev posited: "I hope
that today's ceasefire and our further plans to normalize relations with Armenia, if
perceived positively by the Armenian side, can create a new situation in the region, a
situation of cooperation, a situation of strengthening stability and security." With Yerevan
aflame after angry mobs took over the National Assembly building, severely beat that body's
speaker, trashed the prime minister's home, and forced him into hiding, "positive" probably
is not the right word to describe Armenians' perception of the settlement. In fact, those who
abandoned their homes in territory turned over to Azerbaijan adopted a scorched earth policy,
destroying everything.
Both sides probably view the latest agreement a bit like French Gen. Ferdinand Foch
presciently saw the Versailles Treaty: "This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years."
Only the N-K time frame might be much shorter. Nevertheless, no one else has offered any
better alternative. Unfortunately, zero-sum disputes over territory are among the most
difficult disputes to resolve. Either Armenia or Azerbaijan will control N-K. Either ethnic
Armenians or Azerbaijanis will live in N-K. Yes, the ideal would be people from both lands to
live together in a democratic state, joining hands around a bonfire to sing Kumbaya every
night. However, no one believes that is even a remote possibility.
With nothing meaningful to offer to solve the current firefight, it was best for
Washington to stay out. In fact, Armenia's old guard, pushed out of power by Pashinyan two
years ago in the Velvet Revolution, blame their nation's defeat on his government's
subsequent turn West, from which it received little support. Brokering the current defeat
would merely have reinforced anger against America.
Russia acted because it has far more at stake. Let it undertake the burden of seeking a
settlement. Let it accept the cost of enforcing a settlement. Let it bear the blame if the
system again crashes.
US policymakers have trouble imagining a world in which a sparrow falls to earth, to
borrow Biblical imagery, without the US responding. If the bird falls in Nagorno-Karabakh, at
least, Americans should allow someone else to pick it up. It is not Washington's purpose to
make every conflict on earth America's own.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute. A former Special Assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
Predictions are tricky matters in world affairs – and as it turns out, prescience
produces little in the way of public or personal vindication. There's scant satisfaction when
one's subjects tend towards the tragic. Take the (for now) paused 44-day war in the South
Caucasus. Back in an October
interview , I offered this (then) seemingly provocative prognosis:
"If this thing gets solved, or put back in the freezer, which is about the best we can
hope for right now, it will be Putin playing King Solomon and cutting the Nagorno-Karabakh
baby in half."
Think Moscow will merit plaudits from mainstream media? After all, four weeks ago, a
U.S.-brokered truce held a whole
few hours !
Snark aside, intellectual merriment loses luster when it amounts to dancing on thousands
of fresh graves filled with family members of the tens of thousands more newly
displaced . Only the implications of the ceasefire's terms – under which Armenian
troops withdraw from Nagorno-Karabakh after a 26 years occupation and replaced by Russian
peacekeepers – are also disturbing. The outcome also set potentially long-lasting
precedents.
Make no mistake this was no small victory for the initiator – if not aggressor
– nation of Azerbaijan. That under the agreement , Azeri troops stay
in place within areas of Nagorno-Karabakh they seized in battle, has profound ramifications.
War worked. Furthermore, seven odd weeks of combat proved – once again – that it
often does, at least in certain contexts.
What are those (not-so) special situations, you ask? Easy: be in the esteemed and wealthy
Western camp. Kow-tow diplomatically and play ball economically – especially in energy
sales – with multinational corporations headquartered in North American and European
capitals. Thus, win powerful friends and influence prominent people and nearly anything is
permissible.
Anyway, both people and leaders in Baku – especially the mini-Stalinist Aliyev dynasty running the
family fiefdom – are thrilled with the outcome. Same goes for folks in Ankara, and
madcap Erdogan – the man who would be sultan – himself. Instructively, there's no
less enthusiasm in Tel Aviv – not just by Bibi Netanyahu's dominant rightist ethnocrats .
Because this much you can't make up: pro-Baku rallies and the
waving of Azeri flags in Israel!
Look, Ankara hates their Armenian late genocide victims for surviving to tell the
Turk-indicting tale. Besides, Erdogan is pursuing neo-Ottoman
adventurism region-wide, and more than happy to tap in into ethno-Turkic and co-religionist
solidarity to grease those grandiose wheels. Israel's self-styled Jewish and Democratic
hybrid state support for Shia Islamic majority Azerbaijan seems stranger – unless one's
in the know on the lengthy and sordid ties
between Bibi and Baku.
Not so among Armenians in Yerevan – where protesters stormed the parliament, physically
accosted the speaker and reportedly looted the prime minister's own office. Something tells
me we haven't heard the last of Armenia's army in Nagorno-Karabakh – given the soreness
and inherent instability of losing sides in long-standing and externally-escalated
ethno-religious conflicts.
And here's the troubling rub: if not quite smoking guns there's plenty of smoke
indicating that Turkey – and to a lesser but
significant extent, Israel – conspired with Azerbaijan's petty autocrats to conquer
(or reconquer) Nagorno-Karabakh. The preparatory collusion was years in the making, ramped up
mightily in the months before D-Day – yet unfolded largely under the U.S. and broader
international radar. Consider a cursory recitation of the salient sequence.
Ankara's support for its Azeri Turkic-brethren has grown gradually more overt for years.
So have its long-standing arms-sales to Baku. Then came a decisive pivot – according to
one report , a six-fold jump in weapon's transfers to Azerbaijan over the last year.
Then, this past summer, Turkish troops trained and did joint exercises with Azeri forces.
Consider it a pre-invasion capstone.
Finally – now here's a cute catalyst – Ankara
reportedly moved those implausibly-deniable Syrian mercenaries into Azerbaijan two weeks
before Baku's attack. Don't take my radical word for it, though. Consider the
conclusions of the decidedly establishment-friendly Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace's resident Caucasus expert. Fellow longtime NK-watcher Tom de Waal was as clear as he
was concise:
"It's pretty obvious that Azerbaijan has been preparing for this. Azerbaijan decided it
wanted to change the status quo and that the Armenian side had no interest in a war " and
"Clearly, the decisive factor in this conflict is Turkey's intervention on Azerbaijan's
side. They seem to be heavily coordinating the war effort."
All told, that indirect intervention, coordination, and the combat-
proven capabilities of allied arms sales bonanzas – especially Turkish Bayraktar
TB2 and Israeli kamikaze drones – were decisive. Thousands of Yerevan's troops were
killed, about a third of its tanks were destroyed, and at least 50,000 Armenians have fled in
the face of Azeri gains.
Then, in the eleventh hour breach – as if to force friendly peace terms from Russia
– Turkey
threatened to intervene outright. Just how did big, bad, unhinged and the 10-foot-tall
Putin of Democrat-delusions respond to Erdogan's provocation? Well, he essentially folded
– or settled – in the interest of temporary tranquility in Russia's restive
near-abroad. Recall that Moscow eschewed even much menacing – let alone actual
intervention – on behalf of its official Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)
Armenian ally.
That this was all so represents nothing less than a paradigm-shifting precedent-setter. Or
at least a reminder of force's forever utility for some. Boost your batch of backers, gather
the tech-savvy arsenal that's thus available, and ready your patron-trained troops for war.
Invade only once the green-light comes from on-external-high, and the "rules-based"
international order that isn't – but is dominated (for now) by Washington
– will avert eyes long enough to enable Nuremberg's "
supreme crime " of armed aggression to work its magic.
So force pays if your government has coveted energy resources, the cash they produce, the
weapons they buy – plus powerful patrons willing to sell you the cutting edge stuff.
Just ask sundry Gulf Arab autocrats! (Though it rarely turns out as well for internal –
especially Shia dissidents or, you know, Yemeni kids).
To take it a step further, maybe your benefactor even tosses in some third-party
mercenaries, trains and advises your army just before game-time, and threatens outright
intervention if your little-bro-government doesn't get it's way. It also helps if your
patron's patron is still a hyper-hegemon that bullies – I mean, "leads" by principled
example – much of the wealthy world into silence or complicity, and looks the other way
long enough for facts on the ground to turn your way. Now there's a formula for force as
solution to frozen conflicts!
No doubt other parties paid attention. Heck, they want in on the violent game-changing
game! Believe you me, there are plenty of neo-fascists, adventurist American "allies," and
frenemies – all in need of a little citizen-distraction from Covid, corruption, and
economic collapse – who are all in for applying the new NK-formula. Ukrainian fascists,
Georgian Euro-aspirants, frightened and ever-opportunist Baltic bros or Taiwanese troops,
Egypt's military coup-artists, Arabian princely theocrats, and no doubt Israel's Bibi bunch
– yea, they all took careful Caucasus-notes.
So where does America's president-elect, Joe Biden, stand on the Russian-brokered truce,
you ask? About as you'd suspect from a fella inside the beltway cult of "collusion." Biden
picked partisan point-scoring over principled consistency. He "
slammed " Trump's supposed slow response to the NK-fighting and accused him of
"delegating the diplomacy to Moscow." In fact, his campaign's initial
statement singled out Moscow's ostensibly "cynical" arms sales to both conflict parties
and failed to name even once the war's Beetlejuice of bellicosity – Turkey.
Never known for nuance, the gut-player-elect failed to couch his rather bold critique with
admissions of US security assistance to both sides, acknowledge the Tel Aviv and Ankara
accelerants, nor the circumscribed options for any administration in an unfrozen conflict in
which Washington has no real "
dog in the fight ." Well, that's strange – seeing as the Russian-led settlement
pushed past achieving one of Biden's publicly
stated goals: to "make clear to Armenia that regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh cannot
be occupied indefinitely."
Well, so it goes with Russia-obsessed Democratic administrations beset with the
clinical -narcissism of American exceptionalism. No matter how distant the conflict, no
matter how far off the citizenry's obscurity-radar: the maelstrom must be about us .
See everything, everywhere , is apparently about US interests, anxieties, and
obsessions. Today's obsessive flavor of the moment – and for most of the century since
Bolshevik Red October – is Moscow.
Therein lies the problem, and what I've been boy-who-cried-wolfing about regarding the
real
risk regarding the coming Democratic administration. That is, after making everything
about Trump and Russia for four years, they might begin believing their own exaggerated
alarmism and follow through with legit escalation and acceleration of theater numero uno of a
dual-front, Eurasia-spanning Cold War encore. If Moscow and Beijing are forever branded bad
boys – in motive and machinations – then on shall continually churn the war
state, with all the pecuniary and professional benefits to both the outgoing Trump team and
incoming
Biden bunch alike.
Few Americans will notice, or bother to bother themselves about it – pandemic
preoccupied and social media distracted as they be – until the fruits of folly flash in
front of their eyes (pun intended).
Forget Condi Rice's farcical foreboding of a mushroom cloud as smoking gun . Even the Bushies'
bald-faced lies rarely reached past Saddam's singular nuclear blasts – Washington and
Moscow might end the world in an afternoon.
So permit me one final prediction: if they do, some staunch US"ally" learned-of the latest
Caucasus-conclusions will be the one to drag us down to oblivion.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer, senior fellow at theCenter for
International Policy(CIP), contributing editor atAntiwar.com, and director of the new Eisenhower Media
Network (EMN). His work has appeared in the NY Times, LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post,
The Hill, Salon, The American Conservative, Mother Jones, Scheer Post and Tom Dispatch,
among other publications. He served combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught
history at West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq
War,Ghostriders of
Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the SurgeandPatriotic Dissent: America in
the Age of Endless War. Along with fellow vet Chris "Henri" Henriksen, he co-hosts
the podcast "Fortress on a
Hill." Follow him on Twitter@SkepticalVetand on hiswebsitefor media requests
and past publications.
Vicky left fake democracy promotion was always about expanding and sustaining controlled
from Washinton global neoliberal empire. It is a part and parcel of Full Spectrum Dominance
doctrine implementation. So it will lean to further drop of the standard of living on the
majority of US people.
Biden is a tent revival for the aptly named "cruise missile liberals" and some of the more
shadowy neo-conservative forces are in retreat and determined to bring democracy building
home after their colonial expeditions extinguished it
"... Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces. ..."
America desperately needs its Two Minutes of Hate against other countries like a meth
addict needs his next hit.
For Democrats and their ilk, Hate Russia was their unifying and
mobilizing ideology. For Republicans and their ilk, Hate China is their unifying and
mobilizing ideology.
Hate is the only thing that holds the American Empire together. Without its Two
Minutes of Hate, America will break up apart into a million pieces.
You can't find better smarter neocons to pursue the Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine to the
total decimation of the standard of living of ordinary Americans ;-)
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
... During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President
Bush is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction"
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war. The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the world's
most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using it to
defend our interests anywhere in the world."
... In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
Joe Biden's national security adviser pick defended the anti-Trump dossier in 2018 as
"perfectly appropriate."
Many news outlets have declared Biden the president-elect. Newsmax has yet to project a
winner, citing legal challenges in several key battleground states.
Jake Sullivan, who worked for Biden when he served as vice president in the Obama
administration and as a senior foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton during her
presidential race in 2016,
made the comments on a podcast interview with David Axelrod, the chief strategist for
Obama's presidential campaigns.
"I mean, I believe that it is perfectly appropriate and responsible if we get wind, or if
people associated with the campaign get wind, that there may be real questions about the
connections between Donald Trump, his organization, his campaign and Russia that that be
explored fully," he said at the time, The Daily
Caller reported.
Sullivan worked for Clinton when a law firm representing her campaign hired an opposition
research firm to investigate Trump's possible ties to Russia. The firm hired Christopher
Steele, the author behind the dossier alleging a "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation
between the Trump campaign and Russian government."
Special counsel Robert Mueller later found those claims to be unfounded during his probe
into Russian interference in the election, writing in his
report "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or
coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
ELECTION 2020: What President Biden Won't Touch November 24, 2020 Save
Considering the think-tank imperialists in the bunch Biden is naming to direct U.S. foreign
policy, Danny Sjursen expects little to change in the essence of the war-state.
Military aircraft streaming red, white and blue during the welcoming ceremony for President
Donald Trump, May 2017, King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (White House,
Andrea Hanks)
I n this mystifying moment, the post-electoral sentiments of most Americans can be summed up
either as "Ding dong! The witch is dead!" or "We got robbed!" Both are problematic, not because
the two candidates were intellectually indistinguishable or ethically equivalent, but because
each jingle is laden with a dubious assumption: that President Donald Trump's demise would
provide either decisive deliverance or prove an utter disaster.
While there were indeed areas where his ability to cause disastrous harm lent truth to such
a belief -- race relations, climate change, and the courts
come to mind -- in others, it was distinctly (to use a dangerous phrase) overkill. Nowhere was
that more true than with America's expeditionary version of militarism, its forever wars of
this century, and the venal system that continues to feed it.
For nearly two years, We the People were coached to believe that the 2020 election would
mean everything, that Nov. 3 would be democracy's ultimate judgment day. What if, however, when
it comes to issues of war, peace, and empire, " Decision 2020 " proves barely
meaningful?
After all, in the election campaign just past, Donald Trump's sweeping war-peace rhetoric
and Joe Biden's hedging aside, neither nuclear-code aspirant bothered
to broach the most uncomfortable questions about America's uniquely intrusive global role.
Neither dared dissent from normative notions about America's posture and policy "over there,"
nor challenge the essence of the war-state, a sacred cow if ever there was one.
U.S. presidential debate, Sept. 29, 2020.
That blessed bovine has enshrined permanent policies that seem beyond challenge: Uncle Sam's
right and duty to forward deploy troops just about anywhere on the planet; garrison the globe; carry out aerial
assassinations; and unilaterally implement starvation
sanctions . Likewise the systemic structures that implement and incentivize such
rogue-state behavior are never questioned, especially the existence of a sprawling
military-industrial complex that has infiltrated
every aspect of public life, while stealing money that might have improved America's
infrastructure or wellbeing. It has engorged
itself at the taxpayer's expense, while peddling American blood money -- and blood -- on absurd
foreign adventures and autocratic allies, even as it corrupted nearly every prominent public
paymaster and policymaker.
This election season, neither Democrats nor Republicans challenged the cultural components
justifying the great game, which is evidence of one thing: empires come home, folks, even if
the troops never seem to.
The Company He Keeps
As the election neared, it became impolite to play the canary in American militarism's coal
mine or risk raising Biden's record -- or probable prospects -- on minor matters like war and
peace. After all, his opponent was a monster, so noting the holes in Biden's block of Swiss
cheese presumably amounted to useful idiocy -- if not sinister collusion -- when it came to
Trump's reelection. Doing so was a surefire way to jettison professional opportunities and find
yourself permanently uninvited to the
coolest Beltway cocktail parties or interviews on cable TV.
George Orwell warned of the dangers of such "intellectual cowardice" more than 70 years ago
in a
proposed preface to his classic novel Animal Farm . "At any given moment," he wrote,
"there is an orthodoxy that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not
exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it Anyone who
challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness."
And that's precisely what progressive paragon Cornel West warned against seven months ago
after his man, Sen. Bernie Sanders -- briefly, the Democratic frontrunner -- suddenly proved a
dead candidate walking. "Vote for Biden, but don't lie about who he really is," the stalwart
scholar suggested .
It seems just enough Americans did the former (phew!), but mainstream media makers and
consumers mostly forgot about the salient second part of his sentiment.
Cornel West speaking at a house party for Sen. Bernie Sanders in Des Moines, Iowa, Jan. 15,
2020. (Gage Skidmore, Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0)
With the electoral outcome now apparent -- if not
yet accepted in Trump World -- perhaps such politeness (and the policing that goes with it)
will fade away, ushering in a renaissance of Fourth Estate oppositional truth-telling. In that
way -- in my dreams at least -- persistently energized progressives might send President Joe
Biden down dovish alternative avenues, perhaps even landing some appointments in an executive
branch that now
drives foreign policy (though, if I'm honest, I'm hardly hopeful on either count).
One look at Uncle Joe's inbound nieces and nephews brings to mind Aesop's fabled moral: "You are judged by the company you
keep."
Think-Tank Imperialists
One thing is already far too clear: Biden's shadow national security team will be a
distinctly status-quo squad. To know where future policymakers might head, it always helps to
know where they came from. And when it comes to Biden's foreign policy crew ,
including a striking number of
women and a fair number of Obama administration and
Clinton 2016 campaign retreads -- they were
mostly in Trump-era holding patterns in the connected worlds of strategic consulting and
hawkish think tanking.
In fact, the national security bio of the archetypal Biden bro (or
sis ) would go something like this: she (he) sprang from an Ivy League school, became a
congressional staffer, got appointed to a mid-tier role on Barack Obama's national security
council, consulted for WestExec
Advisors (an Obama alumni-founded outfit linking
tech firms and the Department of Defense), was a fellow at the Center for New American Security
(CNAS), had some defense contractor ties , and
married someone
who's also
in the game .
It helps as well to follow the money. In other words, how did the Biden
bunch make it and who pays the outfits that have been paying them in the Trump years? None of
this is a secret: their two most common think-tank homes -- CNAS and the Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) -- are the second- and sixth-highest recipients, respectively,
of U.S. government and defense-contractor
funding . The top donors to CNAS are Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and the Department of
Defense. Most CSIS largesse comes from Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and
Raytheon.
How the inevitable conflicts of interest play out is hardly better concealed. To take just
one example, in 2016, Michèle Flournoy, CNAS co-founder, ex-Pentagon official, and "
odds-on favorite " to become Biden's secretary of defense,
exchanged emails with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ambassador in Washington. She pitched
a project whereby CNAS analysts would, well, analyze whether Washington should maintain
drone-sales restrictions in a non-binding multilateral " missile technology control "
agreement. The UAE's autocratic government then paid CNAS $250,000 to draft a report
that (you won't be surprised to learn) argued for amending the agreement to allow that country
to purchase American-manufactured drones.
Michèle Flournoy, at right, on front of WestExec Advisors homepage.
Which is just what Flournoy and company's supposed nemeses in the Trump administration then
did this very July past. Again, no surprise. American drones seem to have a way of ending
up in the hands of Gulf theocracies -- states with abhorrent
human rights records that use such planes to surveil and brutally bomb Yemeni civilians
.
If it's too much to claim that a future Defense Secretary Flournoy would be the UAE's
(wo)man in Washington, you at least have to wonder. Worse still, with those think-tank,
security-consulting, and defense-industry ties of hers, she's anything but alone among Biden's
top
prospects and nominees. Just consider a few other abridged resumes:
Tony Blinken, on left, with President Barack Obama, on WestExec Advisors homepage.
Tony Blinken , [named
secretary of state on Monday] a longtime foreign policy adviser, to serve as secretary of
State; frontrunner for national security adviser: CSIS; WestExec (which he co-founded with
Flournoy); and CNN analyst. Jake Sullivan , [named
national security adviser on Monday]: the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
("peace," in this case, being
funded by 10 military agencies and defense contractors) and Macro Advisory Partners, a
strategic consultancy
run by former British spy chiefs. Avril Haines [named
director of national intelligence on Monday]: CNAS-the Brookings Institution; WestExec; and
Palantir
Technologies , a controversial, CIA-seeded, NSA-linked data-mining firm. Kathleen Hicks , probable deputy
secretary of defense: CSIS and the Aerospace Corporation , a
federally funded research and development center that lobbies on defense issues.
An extra note about Hicks: she's the
head of Biden's Department of Defense transition team and also a senior vice president at
CSIS. There, she hosts that think tank's "Defense 2020" podcast. In case anyone's still
wondering where CSIS's bread is buttered, here's how Hicks
opens each episode:
"This podcast is made possible by contributions from BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Northrop
Grumman, and the Thales Group."
In other words, given what we already know about Joe Biden's previous
gut-driven policies that pass for "middle of the road" in this anything but middling
country of ours, the experiences and affiliations of his "
A-Team " don't bode well for systemic-change seekers. Remember, this is a president-elect
who
assured rich donors that "nothing would fundamentally change" if he were elected. Should he
indeed stock his national security team with such a conflicts-of-interest-ridden crowd,
consider America's sacred cows of foreign policy all but saved.
Biden's outfit is headed for office, it seems, to right the Titanic, not rock the boat.
Off the Table: A Paradigm Shift
President Barack Obama meeting with his national security team, April 25, 2011.
Michèle Flournoy, as under secretary of defense for policy. is on the president's right,
seated against wall. (White House, Flickr, Pete Souza)
In this context, join me in thinking about what won't be on the next presidential menu when
it comes to the militarization of American foreign policy.
Don't expect major changes when it comes to:
One-sided support for Israel that enables
permanent Palestinian oppression and foments undying ire across the Greater Middle East. Tony
Blinken
put it this way: as president, Joe Biden "would not tie military assistance to Israel to
things like annexation [of all or large portions of the occupied West Bank] or other decisions
by the Israeli government with which we might disagree." Unapologetic support for various Gulf
State autocracies and theocracies that, as they cynically
collude with Israel, will only continue to heighten tensions with Iran and facilitate yet
more grim war crimes in Yemen. Beyond Michèle Flournoy's professional
connections with the UAE, Gulf kingdoms generously fund the very think tanks that so many
Biden prospects have populated. Saudi Arabia, for example, offers annual donations to
Brookings and the Rand Corporation; the UAE, $1 million for a new CSIS office building ; and Qatar,
$14.8 million to Brookings. America's historically unprecedented and provocative
expeditionary military posture globally, including at least
800 bases in 80 countries , seems likely to be altered only in marginal ways. As Jake
Sullivan put it in a June CSIS interview : "I'm
not arguing for getting out of every base in the Middle East. There is a military posture
dimension to this as a reduced footprint."
Above all, it's obvious that the Biden bunch has no desire to slow down, no less halt, the "
revolving door " that
connects national security work in the government and jobs or security consulting positions in
the defense industry. The same goes for the think tanks that the arms producers amply
fund to justify the whole circus.
In such a context, count on this: the militarization of American society and the
"thank-you-for-your-service" fetishization of American soldiers will continue to thrive,
exhibit A being the way Biden now closes almost any speech
with "May God protect our troops."
All of this makes for a rather discouraging portrait of an old man's coming administration.
Still, consider it a version of truth in advertising. Joe and company are likely to continue to
be who they've always been and who they continue to say they are. After all, transformational
presidencies and unexpected pivots are historically
rare phenomena. Expecting the moon from a man mostly offering MoonPies almost guarantees
disappointment.
Obama Encore or Worse?
Tony Blinken, at right, as deputy national security advisor, with President Barack Obama,
Sept. 19, 2014. (White House, Pete Souza)
Don't misunderstand me: a Biden presidency will certainly leave some maneuvering room at the
margins of national security strategy. Think nuclear
treaties with the Russians (which the Trump administration had been systematically tearing
up) and the possible thawing of at least some of the
tensions with Tehran.
Nor should even the most cynical among us underestimate the significance of having a
president who actually accepts the reality of climate change and the need to switch to
alternative energy sources as quickly as possible. Noam Chomsky's
bold assertion that the human species couldn't endure a second Trump term, thanks to the
environmental catastrophe, nuclear brinksmanship, and pandemic negligence he represents, was
anything but hyperbole. Yet recall that he was also crystal clear about the need
"for an organized public" to demand change and "impose pressures" on the new administration the
moment the new president is inaugurated.
Yet, in the coming Biden years, there is also a danger that empowered Democrats in an
imperial presidency (when it comes to foreign policy) will actually escalate a
two-front New Cold War with China and Russia. And there's always the worry that the ascension
of a more genteel
emperor could co-opt -- or at least quiet -- a growing movement of anti-Trumpers, including
the vets of this country's forever wars who are increasingly
dressing in antiwar clothing.
What seems certain is that, as ever, salvation won't spring from the top. Don't count on
Status-quo Joe to slaughter Washington's sacred cows of foreign policy or on his national
security team to topple the golden calves of American empire. In fact, the defense industry
seems bullish on Biden. As Raytheon CEO Gregory Hayes recently put it ,
"Obviously, there is a concern that defense spending will go way down if there is a Biden
administration, but frankly I think that's ridiculous." Or consider retired Marine Corps major
general turned defense consultant Arnold Punaro who recently said
of Biden's coming tenure, "I think the industry will have, when it comes to national security,
a very positive view."
Given the evidence that business-as-usual will continue in the Biden years, perhaps it's
time to take that advice from Cornel West, absorb the truth
about Biden's future national security squad, and act accordingly. There's no top-down
salvation on the agenda -- not from Joe or his crew of consummate insiders. Pressure and change
will flow from the grassroots or it won't come at all.
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and contributing editor at antiwar.com . His work has appeared in the LA Times ,
The Nation , Huff Post , T he Hill , Salon , Truthdig ,
Tom Dispatch , among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance
units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the
author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders
of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . His latest book is
Patriotic Dissent: America in the Age of Endless War. Follow him on Twitter
at @SkepticalVet . Check out his
professional website for contact info,
scheduling speeches, and/or access to the full corpus of his writing and media appearances.
The choices the incoming president Joe Biden has made so far are not great at all. The
people he so far selected are staunch interventionists who will want to continue the wars
they have started during their previous time in office.
Tony Blinken will become Secretary of State. (It was probably thought to be too hard to
get Senate confirmation for the similar bad
Susan Rice.) In 2013 the Washington Post
described his high flying pedigree :
Blinken is deputy national security adviser to President Obama, who has also invoked the
Holocaust as his administration wrestles, often painfully, with how to respond to Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons. One of the government's key
players in drafting Syria policy, the 51-year-old Blinken has Clinton administration
credentials and deep ties to Vice President Biden and the foreign policy and national
security establishment in Washington. He has drawn attention in Situation Room photos,
including the iconic one during the May 2011 raid of Osama bin Laden's compound, for his
stylishly wavy salt-and-pepper hair. But what sets him apart from the other intellectual
powerhouses in the inner sanctum is a life story that reads like a Jewish high-society
screenplay that the onetime aspiring film producer may have once dreamed of making. There's
his father, a giant in venture capital; his mother, the arts patron; and his stepfather,
who survived the Holocaust to become of one of the most influential lawyers on the global
stage. It is a bildungsroman for young Blinken -- playing in a Parisian jazz band, debating
politics with statesmen -- with a supporting cast of characters that includes, among
others, Leonard Bernstein, John Lennon, Mark Rothko, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Abel
Ferrara and Christo.
The man is a war mongering psycho:
Blinken surprised some in the Situation Room by breaking with Biden to support military
action in Libya, administration officials said, and he advocated for American action in
Syria after Obama's reelection. These sources said that Blinken was less enthusiastic than
Biden about Obama's decision to seek congressional approval for a strike in Syria, but is
now -- perhaps out of necessity -- onboard and a backer of diplomatic negotiations with
Russia. While less of an ideologue than Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations (a job for which he was considered), he not surprisingly shares her belief that
global powers such as the United States have a "responsibility to protect" against
atrocities.
He has since shown
no remorse about those foreign policy failures:
Blinken maintains that the failure of U.S. policy in Syria was that our government did not
employ enough force. He stands by the false argument that Biden's vote to authorize the
invasion of Iraq was a "vote for tough diplomacy." He was reportedly in favor of the Libyan
intervention, which Biden opposed, and he was initially a defender and advocate for U.S.
support for the Saudi coalition war on Yemen. In short, Blinken has agreed with some of the
biggest foreign policy mistakes that Biden and Obama made, and he has tended to be more of
an interventionist than both of them.
If you can't quite place Jake Sullivan, he's was a long-serving aide to Hillary Clinton,
starting with her 2008 race against Barack Obama, then serving as her deputy chief of staff
and director of the State Department's Office of Policy Planning when Clinton was Obama's
secretary of state. (...) In 2016, during her failed presidential campaign, Sullivan once
again teamed up with Clinton, and he was widely expected to have been named to serve as her
national security adviser or even secretary of state had she won.
Since 2016, and since the creation of NSA, Sullivan has emerged as a kind of foreign
policy scold, gently -- and sometimes not so gently -- criticizing those who reflexively
oppose American intervention abroad and who disparage the idea of American
"exceptionalism." Indeed, in an article in the January-February issue of The Atlantic,
"What Donald Trump and Dick Cheney Got Wrong About America," Sullivan explicitly says that
he's intent on "rescuing the idea of American exceptionalism" and presents the "case for a
new American exceptionalism".
Sullivan
send classified documents to Hillary Clinton's private email server. He wrote to her that
Al Qaida is "on our side in Syria." He also hyped fake Trump-Russia collusion
allegations.
It is yet unknown who will become Secretary of Defense. Michèle Flournoy is the
most named option but there is
some opposition to her nomination :
[B]ackers of Michèle Flournoy, his likely pick for defense secretary, are trying to
head off a last-minute push by some left-leaning Democrats trying to derail her selection,
with many progressives seeing her nomination as a continuation of what critics refer to as
America's "forever wars."
I expect that the progressive will lose the fight and that either Flournoy or some other
hawkish figure will get that weapon lobbyist position.
Progressives also lost on the Treasury position. Biden's nomination for that is Janet
Yellen who is known to be an inflation hawk. She is unlikely to support large spending on
progressive priorities.
As usual with a Democratic election win the people who brought the decisive votes and
engagement, those who argue for more socialist and peaceful policies, will be cut off from
the levers of power.
In three years they will again be called upon to fall for another bait and switch.
Posted by b on November 24, 2020 at 16:32 UTC | Permalink
There are so many creatures that the swamp holds. Don't be surprised by what comes
next.
The entire project for Democrats in this election cycle was to get rid of Trump. There was
never any vision for the future or a presentation of policy to gain voters. It was all "Trump
is an existential threat and the only priority is to defeat him at the polls." Bernie Sanders
made this all quite clear as he again led his legion of lemmings off a cliff and into an
ocean of Neoliberal/neoconservative Forever Empire.
But hey, it's all worth it to get rid of The Man With The Golden Toilet.
Meanwhile, yeah, it's back to future with more of the same as far as the eye can see.
Which, with an economy in shambles, and a populace with a death wish, might not be as long as
one thinks.
At the very least "gravitas" will have been restored to its venerable and "sacred"
institution. And a good portion of the american population can heave a huge sigh of relief,
and go about their business of profound ritualistic conformity.
Gravitas restored by an aging old man, potentially on the verge of dementia, which is a
sad condition by any measure. A collection of Human beings about as bereft of solutions of
philosophy of spiritual comprehension as possible, at this point in human history. We all
have an enormous amount to look forward to!
It's a veritable who's who of the same criminals who instigated and executed the covert (and
sometimes overt) military and economic aggressions across several regions of the globe, to
include North Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.
"US multinationals aim to clear away a stumbling block, the Trump administration's
protectionism and anti-globalism, to push forward their international plans, in particular
their exploration of the Chinese market, experts said. They made the comments in response to
news that New York business leaders signed a letter urging the Trump administration to start
the power transition to the incoming Biden administration.
"They also predicted that many of the prejudicial and disruptive policies launched by the
Trump administration against China, like sanctions on Huawei and tariff hikes, will be
corrected once Biden becomes the new US president.
"More than 160 top US executives have signed a letter pressing the Trump administration to
acknowledge Joe Biden as the president-elect and begin the transition to the new
administration, according to a report by The New York Times. Most of the executives come from
US multinationals including Mastercard, Visa, Condé Nast, WeWork and American
International Group.
"Many top executives from US financial companies have signed the letter, including David
Solomon, chief executive of Goldman Sachs and Jon Gray, Blackstone's president."
Such an attitude might sway Biden away from a confrontation first policy with China since
the overall balance of power has changed greatly since he was Vice-President. Perhaps the
Neocons will finally learn Peace is more profitable than war.
@ karlof 73 Trump's draconian trade restrictions will soon be lifted
wiki: The trade war has negatively impacted the economies of both the United States and
China. In the United States, it has led to higher prices for consumers and financial
difficulties for farmers. In China, the trade war contributed to a slowdown in the rate of
economic and industrial output growth, which had already been on a decline. Many American
companies have shifted supply chains to elsewhere in Asia, bringing fears that the trade war
would lead to a US-China economic 'decoupling'. In other countries the trade war has also
caused economic damage, though some countries have benefited from increased manufacturing to
fill the gaps. It has also led to stock market instability. Governments around the world have
taken steps to address some of the damage caused by the economic conflict.//
As on war, and many other issues, the corrupt US Congress has allowed "executive
privilege" to enact measures and programs that would never be allowed in a real "democratic"
country, governed by citizens with availability to a free press.
Edward Abbey: "Democracy--rule by the people--sounds like a fine thing; we should try it
sometime in America."
The incoming Biden administration's cabinet carries a strong whiff of deja vu, and that's no
accident – the uninspiring president-elect is staking everything on evoking a lost utopia
that never existed under ex-president Obama.
The Biden campaign's rule of thumb for his cabinet appointments seems to be to channel the
Obama administration – with an extra helping of wokeness where possible. This has seen
him float Pentagon veteran and dyed-in-the-wool megahawk Michele Flournoy as the first-ever
female Secretary of Defense and former DACA czar Alejandro Mayorkas as the first Latino-Jewish
head of the Department of Homeland Security.
There's also the rumor he's planning to pick Obama's former Fed chair
Janet Yellen as the first-ever female Treasury Secretary – but even if she's not the
lucky lady, fellow former Clinton adviser Lael Brainard could get the nod, or one of two black
candidates – one of whom happens to be gay. Whoever he picks, they'll be a "first"
– and, given their institutional history as reliable servants of the ruling class under
Obama, a dependable source of more-of-the-same fiscal policies.
Lest all this wokeness turn off the Republicans who defected to Biden out of distaste for
President Donald Trump's determination to upset the military-industrial applecart, the presumed
president has also brought back ex-Secretary of State John Kerry, who'll be returning to
Washington to serve as a 'climate czar' on the National Security Council. While Kerry would be
the first person to hold such a position, which will allow him to skip a Senate confirmation
that could be unfriendly given the chamber's Republican control, Kerry's time at the head of
the State Department saw the Obama administration continue digging the US deeper into its
portfolio of ill-advised wars. And Kerry was the man who signed the Paris Climate Accords on
behalf of Washington in 2016, a treaty President Donald Trump wasted no time removing the US
from. He should go down plenty smooth indeed.
Most of the Biden picks were second-stringers during the Obama years and thus haven't quite
become household names yet. This is likely to be a point in their favor – if the history
of would-be Secretary of State Antony Blinken is any indication, Biden has good reason for
picking relative unknowns. A report from the American Prospect revealed Blinken had spent the
post-Obama years getting rich quick at consulting firm WestExec – which coincidentally
(or not) was co-founded by
would-be Pentagon chief Flournoy after her most recent stint at the Pentagon. The firm focuses
on "helping new companies navigate the complex bureaucracy of winning Pentagon
contracts" – suggesting a Biden presidency won't just deliver a fatter Pentagon
budget, but new wars to go with it.
It's no surprise, then, that Washington-watchers are sinking into deja vu. Biden was elected
as the "anti-Trump," a return to some vague fantasy of "normalcy" . Except the
nostalgia for the Obama era that helped shoehorn Biden into office earlier this month was based
on a wholly synthetic reimagining of the eight years in which the career politician served as
vice president.
Obama may have inherited George W. Bush's financial crisis in 2008, born of rapacious
investment banks that mistook people's life savings for free chips from a casino, but the "
recovery " he claimed as his own never bothered to lift up
most working- and
middle-class Americans . Many of these lost their homes, and if they didn't, their children
"failed to launch," in no position to strike out on their own. The younger generation
were either mired in student debt or merely unable to afford even the cheapest 'starter homes'
due to an absence of living-wage jobs open to young adults entering the
workplace.
Biden made it clear repeatedly in the run-up to this month's election that he had no
interest in feeling these people's pain. "I have no empathy for it – give me a
break," he said,
complaining that millennials had been given everything by his own generation, the Baby
Boomers. In reality, those "whiners" so loathed by the president-to-be made 20 percent
less than Biden's generation at the same age at best – assuming they were lucky enough to
have a job at all. Back when it was still considered acceptable to trash Biden, most
establishment outlets raked him over the coals for such tone-deaf comments. But such negativity
was memory-holed when the Democrats crowned Biden their pick to run against Trump –
speaking ill of the anointed one got progressives labeled Trump supporters or Nazis or
worse.
Those whose rose-colored glasses let them see Biden as the second coming of Obama forget
that "Bush in a black-man suit" turned two wars into seven, allowed Citibank – one
of the worst offenders of the 2008 financial crisis – to shape his cabinet, and passed a
mockery of "universal healthcare" that forced the lower-middle-class to purchase health
insurance they couldn't afford or shoulder a tax penalty they also couldn't afford. Biden has
promised to reignite the war in Syria, veto the actual universal healthcare policy that is
Medicare for All, and ensure nothing will fundamentally change for his fat-cat Wall Street
donors – and those
donors seem to be picking
his cabinet just like they did his boss' in 2008.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
82
Robin Olsen 13 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 10:23 PM
Restarting the war in Syria will take a major false flag that is bullet proof in order to get
Russia to withdraw...not one false flag chemical attack staged by Obama and Biden actually
worked in the past. Trump's failed too. The world is onto America's false flag strategy...To
get Americans behind another 20 years of forever wars is also gonna take significant false
flag. Americans will fall for it, they always do...but no one else will...not this time.
Without international support he cannot restart anything, the British are not enough to
counter Russian interference and I don't think Bojo will survive the next election anyways.
HypoxiaMasks 17 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 06:17 PM
With any luck he will bless us with Hillary, Comey, Brennan, the corpse of McCain and as an
added bonus Lil Bush and both Obamas
DukeLeo HypoxiaMasks 9 hours ago 24 Nov, 2020 02:50 AM
Biden has not officially been pronounced winner in the elections, and he already has picked a
neocon team. What a big surprise. Makes you wonder how many people who voted for him really
knew what they were doing.
Ibmekon 17 hours ago 23 Nov, 2020 06:34 PM
When Trump got into power he soon overtook Obama record of 26171 bombs in 2016. Trump since
2015 has dropped over 133,000 bombs . Trump tried to get troops out - the MIC just sent them
back in. Joey Biden and new secretary of state are committed to keep the troops out occupying
countries around the world - which requires the bombs to keep falling, one every 12 mins.
Because nobody actually wants the USA military in their country (apart from a few well bribed
military/religious dictators) We have no number for those murdered - the USA refuses to keep
any count.
Annoying Russians with a destroyer 10 miles or so from Vladivostok under good old Trump.
Apparently, after a series of moves that replaced some top figures in Pentagon. The
relationship with Russia, under Trump, is fully under control of Kaganate of Nulandia, or
whatever we see on the top of that iceberg -- and try to make a search what it would take to
change the course of an iceberg from Antarctics (people were investigating it as a way of
bringing fresh water to Arabian peninsula where money is plentiful but water is scarce).
There are two important aspects there. Local trade is more profitable than distant trade
when consider in totality, i.e. including the products that you would never make profit after
crossing oceans. Second aspect is that Far East is a cultural zone like Europe -- lots of
animosities collected over centuries, but even more commonalities in culture. As USA imposes
various types of tribute on allies/vassals, centripetal forces in various continents should
increase. Among visible costs of vassaldom:
1. paying costs of American presence
2. annoying China beyond the national needs, thus decreasing the national security
3. participating in sanctions imposed by USA, directly and indirectly (through resulting
conflicts) reducing profits in economies that are struggling
"... U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war, hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain unresolved. ..."
"... Medea Benjamin is ..."
"... of CODEPINK for Peace, and author of several books, including Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the US-Saudi Connection . Nicolas J. S. Davies is a writer for Consortium News and a researcher with CODEPINK, and the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
Congratulations to Joe Biden on his election as America's next president! People all over
this pandemic-infested, war-torn and poverty-stricken world were shocked by the brutality and
racism of the Trump administration, and are anxiously wondering whether Biden's presidency will
open the door to the kind of international cooperation that we need to confront the serious
problems facing humanity in this century.
For progressives everywhere, the knowledge that "another world is possible" has sustained us
through decades of greed, extreme inequality and war, as U.S.-led neoliberalism has repackaged and force-fed
19th century laissez-faire capitalism to the people of the 21st century. The Trump
experience has revealed, in stark relief, where these policies can lead.
Joe Biden has certainly paid his dues to and reaped rewards from the same corrupt political
and economic system as Trump, as the latter delightedly trumpeted in every stump speech. But
Biden must understand that the
young voters who turned out in unprecedented numbers to put him in the White House have
lived their whole lives under this neoliberal system, and did not vote for "more of the same."
Nor do they naively think that deeply-rooted problems of American society like racism,
militarism and corrupt corporate politics began with Trump.
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
– As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all Obama's aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors to
profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop Artificial Intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
– Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec
Advisors.
– Nicholas
Burns was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
2008, he has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
– As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director
and Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
– Samantha
Power served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National
Security Council. She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
– As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S. "crippling sanctions" on Iran and North
Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, to the climate crisis, mass extinction and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5% of their budget), trying to clean
up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the # 2 position at the State Department,
and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As Under
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Powell a prescient
and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the # 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also Members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs , or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats. But this will be a long two years if we let
Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on critical appointments, policies and legislation.
Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be an early test of whether Biden will be the
consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight for real solutions to our country's most
serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people
who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of
military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international
cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war,
hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain
unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Background: Burns, a career diplomat who has served as ambassador to Russia and as
deputy secretary of state, gets particularly high marks for cognitive empathy -- understanding
the perspectives and motivations of international actors.
Few if any contenders for foreign policy positions in the Biden administration surpass Burns
when it comes to appreciating one tenet of progressive realism: military interventions have a
way of leading to bad things. In a ten-page memo Burns wrote to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, then his boss, during the runup to the Iraq War, he laid out a
cornucopia of possible unintended consequences, including some that became all too real. (Like:
Iran feels threatened and acts accordingly.)
Even highly surgical uses of violence, Burns recognizes, can have blowback. Last year he
wrote
that, during the Obama administration, as "drone strikes and special operations grew
exponentially," they were "often highly successful in narrow military terms" but at the cost of
"complicating political relationships and inadvertently causing civilian casualties and fueling
terrorist recruitment."
So it's not surprising that Burns has often pushed for non-military solutions to foreign
policy problems. Still, he has supported dubious interventions -- such as America's joining
allies in arming Syrian rebels, a policy hatched while Burns was deputy secretary of state in
the Obama administration.
In retrospect, it's not shocking that this policy only succeeded in amplifying the killing
and chaos, given the conflicting agendas of our allies and the divergent aims of the various
rebel groups -- not to mention the aforementioned inherent unpredictability of military action.
Yet, even with years of hindsight, Burns confined his criticism of this proxy intervention to
matters of timing and execution. In his 2019 book The Back Channel , he said we should
have given more aid to the rebels earlier. But Burns does, at least, get credit for considering
Obama's public demand for regime change ("Assad must go") unwise, and for having initially
hoped for more open-ended negotiations than that demand permitted.
Cognitive empathy (A)
Burns is adept at seeing the perspectives of international actors, as demonstrated in
particular by his views on Russia. He has a history of dealing effectively with the country,
and he takes Moscow's interests seriously. Unlike many in the foreign policy establishment,
Burns doubts the wisdom of NATO expansion -- including its early phases but especially its
later ones. When the US "pushed open the door for formal NATO membership for Ukraine and
Georgia," he has
said , "I think that fed Putin's narrative that the United States was out to keep Russia
down, to undermine Russia and what he saw to be its entitlement, its sphere of influence."
Burns believes that, though Putin
clearly sees the US as an adversary, he doesn't see the US-Russia relationship in purely
zero-sum terms; Putin is capable of seeing "those few areas where we might be able to work
together. He is capable of juggling apparent contradictions."
Burns is very aware -- as many US officials over the years have not been -- that hectoring
foreign countries about how they should behave can be counterproductive. "I've always felt we
get a lot further in the world with the power of our example than we do with the power of our
preaching," he
said in a New Yorker interview. "Americans can sometimes... be awfully patronizing
overseas."
Respect for international law (B)
Burns is generally a strong advocate of international law. And in the course of his career
he has often had occasion to invoke it -- as when, in 2014, he
said disputes over islands in the South China Sea should be resolved via adjudicatory
mechanisms outlined in the Law of the Sea Convention. (Had he not been speaking for the US
government, he might have added that, regrettably, America itself has not ratified that
convention.)
Unfortunately, Burns seems to have adopted the habit, widespread in the foreign policy
establishment, of being more fastidious in applying international law to adversaries than to
the US. In The Back Channel he offers some practical criticisms of America's 2011
intervention in Libya, but he doesn't note that when the mission shifted from defending
imperiled civilian populations to overthrowing the regime, it arguably
violated the letter of the authorizing UN resolution and certainly violated its spirit.
Similarly, his discussion in that book of Obama's arming of Syrian rebels evinces no concern
about the fact that this intervention, according to common
legal reckoning , violated the UN Charter.
Support for international governance (A)
Burns certainly supports international governance of a progressive sort -- agreements and
institutions that address climate change and arms control, for example, and the inclusion of
labor and environmental provisions in trade agreements. And he has been deeply involved in
multilateral problem solving, such as the Iran nuclear deal.
But what sets Burns apart from your typical progressive supporter of international
governance is his understanding of the need to expand it beyond these traditional areas. He
recognizes, for example, that if work in artificial intelligence and genetic engineering
proceeds without restraint in a context of intense international competition, bad things could
happen. So he wants to
"create workable international rules of the road" in these areas, and he wants the US State
Department to "take the lead -- just as it did during the nuclear age -- building legal and
normative frameworks."
Universal engagement (A-)
As a quintessential diplomat, Burns believes that the U.S. should be open to relations with
any country willing to talk. He is especially emphatic about the importance of maintaining
diplomatic and economic engagement with China; he
criticizes those who "assume too much about the feasibility of decoupling and containment
-- and about the inevitability of confrontation. Our tendency, as it was during the height of
the Cold War, is to overhype the threat, over-prove our hawkish bona fides, over-militarize our
approach, and reduce the political and diplomatic space required to manage great-power
competition." And Burns recognizes one of the biggest payoffs of engagement with China: to
"preserve space for cooperation on global challenges."
Burns eschews a Cold War not just with China but with authoritarian states more broadly. He
is refreshingly
skeptical of proposals -- fashionable in neoconservative and some liberal circles -- to
form a "league" or "concert" of democracies that would fight "techno-authoritarianism."
Burns doesn't seem to have expressed the degree of skepticism about America's promiscuous
use of economic sanctions that a progressive realist might like. But he gets points for at
least recognizing the inconsistency of their application. "We focus our criticism on Maduro, in
Venezuela, who richly deserves it, and then pull punches with Mohammed bin Salman, in Saudi
Arabia," he
said in a New Yorker interview.
Burns also recognizes that the foreign policy establishment's obsession with Iran is, well,
obsessive. Tehran has "an outsized hold on our imagination," he
says . Yes, he believes, Iran poses threats to American friends and interests, but those
threats are manageable, in part because, contrary to a common American view, Iran is "not 10
feet tall."
Miscellaneous
(1) After leaving the government, Burns became president of the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. That's a highly and rightly respected position. But it should be noted --
since any good progressive realist wants to root out the influence of the military industrial
complex -- that Carnegie has taken money from Northrup Grumman
( as well as
from such foreign countries as Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates and from NATO).
(2) Burns deserves credit for seeing that the foreign policy establishment, confronted by
Trump's jarringly disruptive policies, is in danger of mindlessly retreating to pre-Trump
policies that in fact need sharp revision. Recounting (and embracing) the bipartisan opposition
to Trump's abrupt withdrawal of military support for Kurds in Syria, he
adds , "If all this episode engenders, however, is a bipartisan dip in the warm waters of
self-righteous criticism, it will be a tragedy We have to come to grips with the deeper and
more consequential betrayal of common sense -- the notion that the only antidote to Trump's
fumbling attempts to disentangle the United States from the region is a retreat to the magical
thinking that has animated so much of America's moment in the Middle East since the end of the
Cold War." This magical thinking, he continues, involves "the persistent tendency to assume too
much about our influence and too little about the obstacles in our path and the agency of other
actors."
Full spectrum dominance theorists are dusted off and put in key positions in new
administration. Instead of punishment and jail terms Russiagaters got promotion.
Biden signals US return to full-on globalism and foreign meddling by picking interventionist
Anthony Blinken as secretary of state
Joe Biden has named Anthony Blinken – an
advocate for isolating Russia, cozying up to China and intervening in Syria – as
secretary of state, cementing a foreign policy built on military forays and multi-national
motivations.
Biden, the nominal president-elect, announced his selection of
Blinken along with other members of his foreign-policy and national-security team, which is
filled with such veteran Washington insiders as John Kerry, the new climate czar and formerly
secretary of state in the Obama-Biden administration.
Blinken, a long-time adviser to Biden and deputy secretary of state under President Barack
Obama, has been hailed by fellow Democrats and globalists, such as retired General Barry
McCaffrey, as an experienced bureaucrat with "global contacts and respect." Enrico
Letta, dean of the Paris School of International Affairs, called Biden's choice the "right
step to relaunch transatlantic ties."
He was even praised for a 2016 appearance on the Sesame Street children's television
program, where he explained to the show's 'Grover' character the benefits of accepting
refugees.
While some critics focused on how Blinken " got rich working for corporate
clients " during President Donald Trump's term in office, the new foreign-affairs chief's
neoconservative policy recommendations might be cause for greater concern. He advocated for the
Iraq War and the bombings of such countries as Libya and Yemen.
Blinken is still arguing for a resurgence in Washington's
military intervention in Syria. He lamented in a May interview that the Obama-Biden
administration hadn't done enough to prevent a "horrific situation" in Syria, and he faulted
Trump for squandering what remaining leverage the US had on the Bashar Assad regime by pulling
troops out of the country.
"Our leverage is vastly even less than it was, but I think we do have points of leverage to
try to effectuate some more positive developments," Blinken said. For instance, US special
forces in northeast Syria are located near Syrian oil fields. "The Syrian government would
love to have dominion over those resources. We should not give that up for free."
Blinken also sees Biden strengthening NATO, isolating Russia politically and " confronting
Mr. [President Vladimir] Putin for his aggressions."
As for China, Blinken has said Washington needs to look for ways to cooperate with Beijing.
Reinvesting in international alliances that were weakened by Trump will help the Biden
administration deal with China "from a position of strength" as it pushes back against
the Chinese Communist Party's human-rights abuses, he said.
Throughout his campaign, Joe Biden railed against Donald Trump's 'America First' foreign
policy, claiming it weakened the United States and left the world in disarray. "Donald Trump's
brand of America First has too often led to America alone," Biden proclaimed.
He pledged to reverse this decline and recover the damage Trump did to America's reputation.
While Donald Trump called for making America Great Again, Biden seeks to Make the American
Empire Great Again .
Joe Biden: "Tonight, the whole world is watching America. And I believe at our best, America
is a beacon for the globe. We will lead not only by the example of our power, but by the power
of our example."
Among the president-elect's pledges is to end the so-called forever wars – the
decades-long imperial projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under the Bush
administration.
"It's long past time we end the forever wars which have cost us untold blood and treasure,"
Biden has said.
Yet Biden – a fervent supporter of those wars – will delegate that duty to the
most neoconservative elements of the Democratic Party and ideologues of permanent war .
Michele Flournoy and Tony Blinken sit atop Biden's thousands-strong foreign policy brain
trust and have played central roles in every U.S. war dating back to the Bill Clinton
administration.
During the Trump era, they've cashed in through WestExec Advisors – a corporate
consulting firm that has become home for Obama administration officials awaiting a return to
government.
Flournoy is Biden's leading pick for Secretary of Defense and Blinken is expected to be the
president's National Security Advisor.
Biden's foxes guard the henhouse
Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the
military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish
think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.
Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense
Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military's doctrine of permanent war – what
it called "full spectrum dominance."
Flournoy called for "unilateral use of military power" to ensure "uninhibited access to key
markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources."
https://www.youtube.com/embed/ivFFZ95EQvY
This video report was originally published at Behind The Headlines .
Support the independent journalism initiative here .
As Bush administration officials lied to the world about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD's,
Flournoy remarked that "In some cases, preemptive strikes against an adversary's [weapons of
mass destruction] capabilities may be the best or only option we have to avert a catastrophic
attack against the United States."
Tony Blinken was a top advisor to then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Joe Biden,
who played a key role in shoring up support among the Democrat-controlled Senate for Bush's
illegal invasion of Iraq.
During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Biden declared, "In my judgment, President Bush
is right to be concerned about Saddam Hussein's relentless pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction."
As Iraq was plunged into chaos and bloodshed, Flournoy was among the authors of a paper
titled "Progressive Internationalism" that called for a "smarter and better" style of permanent
war . The paper chastised the anti-war left and stated that "Democrats will maintain the
world's most capable and technologically advanced military, and we will not flinch from using
it to defend our interests anywhere in the world."
With Bush winning a second term, Flournoy advocated for more troop deployments from the
sidelines.
In 2005, Flournoy signed onto a letter
from the neoconservative think tank Project for a New American Century, asking Congress to
"increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps (by) at least 25,000
troops each year over the next several years."
In 2007, she leveraged her Pentagon experience and contacts to found what would become one
of the premier Washington think tanks advocating endless war across the globe: the Center for a
New American Security (CNAS). CNAS is funded by the U.S. government, arms
manufacturers, oil giants, Silicon Valley tech giants, billionaire-funded foundations, and big
banks.
Flournoy joined the Obama administration and was appointed as under secretary of defense for
policy, the position considered the "brains" of the Pentagon. She was keenly aware that the
public was wary of more quagmires. In the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review, she crafted a new
concept of warfare that would expand the permanent war state while giving the appearance of a
drawdown.
Flournoy wrote that "unmanned systems hold great promise" – a reference to the CIA's
drone assassination program. This was the Obama-era military doctrine of hybrid war. It called
for the U.S. to be able to simultaneously wage war on numerous fronts through secret warfare,
clandestine weapons transfers to proxies, drone strikes, and cyber-attacks – all
buttressed with propaganda campaigns targeting the American public through the internet and
corporate news media.
Architects of America's Hybrid wars
Flournoy continued to champion the endless wars that began in the Bush-era and was a key
architect of Obama's disastrous troop surge in Afghanistan. As U.S. soldiers returned in body
bags and insurgent attacks and suicide bombings increased some 65% from 2009 and 2010, she
deceived the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the U.S. was beginning to turn the
tide against the Taliban: "We are beginning to regain the initiative and the insurgency is
beginning to lose momentum."
Even with her lie that the U.S. and Afghan government were starting to beat the Taliban
back, Flournoy assured the senate that the U.S. would have to remain in Afghanistan long into
the future: "We are not leaving any time soon even though the nature and the complexion of the
commitment may change over time."
Ten years later – as the Afghan death toll passed 150,000 – Flournoy continued
to argue against a U.S. withdrawal: "I would certainly not advocate a US or NATO departure
short of a political settlement being in place."
That's the person Joe Biden has tasked with ending the forever war in Afghanistan. But in
Biden's own words, he'll "bring the vast majority of our troops home from Afghanistan" implying
some number of American troops will remain, and the forever war will be just that. Michele
Flournoy explained that even if a political settlement were reached, the U.S. would maintain a
presence.
Michele Flournoy: "If we are fortunate enough to see a political settlement reached, it
doesn't mean that the US role or the international community is over. Afghanistan without
outside investment is not a society that is going to survive and thrive. In no case are we
going to be able to wash our hands of Afghanistan and walk away nor should we want to. This is
something where we're going to have to continue to be engaged, just the form of engagement may
change."
In 2011, the Obama-era doctrine of smart and sophisticated warfare was unveiled in the NATO
regime-change war on Libya.
Moammar Gaddafi – the former adversary who sought warm relations with the U.S. and had
given up his nuclear weapons program – was deposed and sodomized with a bayonet.
Flournoy, Hillary Clinton's State Department, and corporate media were in lockstep as they
waged an elaborate propaganda campaign to deceive the U.S. public that Gadaffi's soldiers were
on a Viagra-fueled rape and murder spree that demanded a U.S. intervention.
Fox News: "Susan Rice reportedly told a security council meeting that Libyan troops are
being given viagra and are engaging in sexual violence."
MSNBC jumped on the propaganda bandwagon, claiming: "New reports emerge that the LIbyan
dictator gave soldiers viagra-type pills to rape women who are opposed to the government."
So did CNN.
As the Libyan ambassador to the US alleged "raping, killing, mass graves," ICC Chief
Prosecutor Manuel Ocampo claimed: "It's like a machete. Viagra is a tool of massive rapes."
All of this was based on a report
from Al Jazeera – the media outlet owned by the Qatari monarchy that was arming
extremist militias in Libya to overthrow the government.
Yet an investigation by the United Nations called the rape claims "hysteria." Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch found no credible evidence of even a single rape.
Even after Libya was descended into strife and the deception of Gadaffi's forces committing
rape was debunked, Michele Flournoy stood by her support for the war: "I supported the
intervention in Libya on humanitarian grounds. I think we were right to do it."
Tony Blinken, then Obama's deputy national security advisor, also pushed for regime change
in Libya. He became Obama's point man on Syria, pushed to arm the so-called "moderate rebels"
that fought alongside al-Qaeda and ISIS, and designed the red line strategy to trigger a
full-on U.S. intervention. Syria, he told the public, wasn't anything like the other wars the
U.S. had waging for more than a decade.
Tony Blinken: "We are doing this in a very different way than in the past. We're not sending
in hundreds of thousands of American troops. We're not spending trillions of American dollars.
We're being smart about this. This is a sustainable way to get at the terrorists and it's also
a more effective way."
Blinken added: "This is not open-ended, this is not boots on the ground, this is not Iraq,
it's not Afghanistan, it's not even Libya. The more people understand that, the more they'll
understand the need for us to take this limited but effective action ."
Despite Blinken's promises that it would be a short affair, the war on Syria is now in its
ninth year. An estimated half a million people have been killed as a result and the country is
facing famine.
Largely thanks to the policy of using "wheat to apply pressure" – a recommendation of
Flournoy and Blinken's CNAS think tank.
When the Trump administration launched airstrikes on Syria based on mere accusations of a
chemical attack, Tony Blinken praised the bombing, claiming Assad had used the weapon of mass
destruction sarin. Yet there was no evidence for this claim, something even then-secretary of
Defense James Mattis admitted: "So I can not tell you that we had evidence even though we had a
lot of media and social media indicators that either chlorine or sarin were used ."
While jihadist mercenaries armed with U..S-supplied weapons took over large swaths of Syria,
Tony Blinken played a central role in a coup d'etat in Ukraine that saw a pro-Russia government
overthrown in a U.S.-orchestrated color revolution with neo-fascist elements agitating on the
ground.
At the time, he was ambivalent about sending lethal weapons to Ukraine, instead opting for
economic pressure.
Tony Blinken: "We're working, as I said, to make sure that there's a cost exacted of Russia
and indeed that it feels the pressure. That's what we're working on. And when it comes to
military assistance, we're looking at it. The facts are these: Even if assistance were to go to
Ukraine that would be very unlikely to change Russia's calculus or prevent an invasion."
Since then, fascist militias have been incorporated into Ukraine's armed forces. And Tony
Blinken urged Trump to send them deadly weapons – something Obama had declined to do.
But Trump obliged.
The Third Offset
While the U.S. fueled wars in Syria and Ukraine, the Pentagon announced a major shift called
the Third Offset strategy – a reference to the cold war era strategies the U.S. used to
maintain its military supremacy over the Soviet Union.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The Third Offset strategy
shifted the focus from counterinsurgency and the war on terror to great power competition
against China and Russia. It called for a technological revolution in warfighting capabilities,
development of futuristic and autonomous weapons, swarms of undersea and airborne drones,
hypersonic weapons, cyber warfare, machine-enhanced soldiers, and artificial intelligence
making unimaginably complex battlefield decisions at speeds incomprehensible to the human mind.
All of this would be predicated on the Pentagon deepening its relationship with Silicon Valley
giants that it birthed decades before: Google and Facebook.
The author of the Third Offset, former undersecretary of defense Robert Work, is a partner
of Flournoy and Blinken's at WestExec Advisors. And Flournoy has been a leading proponent of
this dangerous new escalation .
She warned that the United States is losing its military technological advantage and
reversing that must be the Pentagon's priority. Without it, Flournoy warned that the U.S. might
not be able to defeat China in Asia: "That technological investment is still very important for
the United States to be able to offset what will be quantitative advantages and home theater
advantages for a country like China if we ever had to deal with a conflict in Asia, in their
backyard."
While Flournoy has called for ramping up U.S. military presence and exercises with allied
forces in the region, she went so far as to call for the U.S. to increase its destructive
capabilities so much that it could launch a blitzkrieg style-attack that would wipe out the
entire Chinese navy and all civilian merchant ships in the South China Sea . Not only a blatant
war crime but a direct attack on a nuclear power that would spell the third world war.
At the same time, Biden has announced he'll take an even more aggressive and confrontational
stance against Russia , a position Flournoy shares: "We need to invest to ensure that we
maintain the military edge that we will need in certain critical areas like cyber and
electronic warfare and precision strike, to again underwrite deterrence, to make sure Vladimir
Putin does not miscalculate and think that he can cross a border into Europe or cross a border
and threaten us militarily."
As for ending the forever wars, Tony Blinken says not so fast: "Large scale, open-ended
deployment of large standing US forces in conflict zones with no clear strategy should end and
will end under his watch . But we also need to distinguish between, for example, these endless
wars with the large scale open ended deployment of US forces with, for example, discreet,
small-scale sustainable operations, maybe led by special forces, to support local actors In
ending the endless wars I think we have to be careful to not paint with too broad a brush
stroke."
The end of forever wars?
So Biden will end the forever wars, but not really end them. Secret wars that the public
doesn't even know the U.S. is involved in – those are here to stay.
In fact, leaving teams of special forces in place throughout the Middle East is part and
parcel of the Pentagon's shift away from counterinsurgency and towards great power
competition.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy explains that, "Long-term strategic competitions with
China and Russia are the principal priorities" and the U.S. will "consolidate gains in Iraq and
Afghanistan while moving to a more resource-sustainable approach."
As for the catastrophic war on Yemen, Biden has said he'll end U.S. support; but in 2019,
Michele Flournoy argued against ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia .
Biden pledged he will rejoin the Iran deal as a starting point for new negotiations.
However, Trump's withdrawal from the deal discredited the Iranian reformists who seek
engagement with the west and empowered the principlists who see the JCPOA as a deal with the
devil.
In Latin America, Biden will revive the so-called anti-corruption campaigns that were used
as a cover to oust the popular social democrat Brazilian president Lula da Silva.
In Central America, Biden
has presided over a four billion dollar package to support corrupt right-wing governments
and neoliberal privatization projects, fueling destabilization and sending vulnerable masses
fleeing north to the United States.
Behind their rhetoric, Biden, Flournoy, and Blinken will seek nothing less than global
supremacy , escalating a new and even more dangerous arms race that risks the destruction of
humanity. That's what Joe Biden calls "decency" and "normalcy."
naughty.boy , 14 hours ago
deep state will bankrupt the USA with forever wars.
Distant_Star , 14 hours ago
Yes. As a bonus neither of these Deep State wretches has even seen a shot fired in anger.
They are too "important" to be at risk.
Former Vice President Joe Biden is reportedly set to announce this week that Tony Blinken,
who supported the idea of "Russia collusion," would be his Secretary of State.
President-elect Joe Biden intends to name his longtime adviser Antony Blinken as secretary
of State, according to three people familiar with the matter, setting out to assemble his
cabinet even before Donald Trump concedes defeat.
In addition, Jake Sullivan, formerly one of Hillary Clinton's closest aides, is likely to
be named Biden's national security adviser, according to two people familiar with the matter.
An announcement is expected Tuesday, the people said.
Blinken, who served as deputy secretary of state and deputy national security advisor under
President Barack Obama, has also been a New York Times
opinion writer and a "global affairs analyst" for CNN. In that capacity, he supported the
"Russia collusion" hoax.
As Breitbart News reported in 2017, Blinken
told CNN: "The president's ongoing collusion with Russia's plans is really striking,
intentional or not." He said that Russia had sown doubt about American elections and
institutions.
(Subsequently, an investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of any
collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.)
Blinken also
apologized earlier this year to left-wing anti-Israel radical Linda Sarsour, regarded by
many critics (
even on the left) as an antisemite, after the Biden campaign tried to distance itself from
her views.
He is also married to Evan Ryan, a former aide to then-First Lady Hillary Clinton. Ryan
worked for Clinton at a time when Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, acknowledged
accepting a campaign donation from entrepreneur Johnny Chien Chuen Chung.
Chung said that the donation was meant to help Clinton pay for Christmas receptions for the
Democratic National Committee at the White House, in exchange for "VIP treatment for a
delegation of visiting Chinese businessmen," according to the
Los Angeles Times .
Biden is expected to name several potential Cabinet nominees in the coming days.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart
News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7
p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The
Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump's Presidency . His recent
book,RED
NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a
conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship.
Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak .
is a former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and author of ' SCORPION
KING : America's Suicidal Embrace of Nuclear Weapons from FDR to Trump.' He served in the
Soviet Union as an inspector implementing the INF Treaty, in General Schwarzkopf's staff during
the Gulf War, and from 1991-1998 as a UN weapons inspector. Follow him on Twitter @RealScottRitter 21 Nov, 2020 13:52 Joe
Biden thinks he can save America and the world from four years of Donald Trump. Instead, Biden
will find himself in a foreign policy trap where his tough guy rhetoric compels him to finish
what Trump started.
If one listens to Joe Biden and his closest national security advisors, all it will take to
undo four years of Trump-era foreign policy is a few dozen strokes of the pen. According to the
plan, the presumptive president-elect will sign off on a series of executive orders which
reverse the course charted by Trump, returning America back to the path of greatness derived
from undisputed global leadership that had been the trademark of the Obama years, when Biden
reigned as vice president and Barack's right-hand man.
Rejoining the Paris Climate Accord, the Iran nuclear agreement and the World Health
Organization are all actions Biden can take as soon as he takes office. Reversing Trump's troop
withdrawal from Afghanistan and halting the redeployment of US forces from Germany are also
high on Biden's 'to do' list. However, simply reversing a decision made over the course of the
past four years does not reset the clock; for example, the world has moved on regarding climate
change, with nations like China taking the lead in promulgating plans for reaching a "carbon
zero" posture by 2060. Biden claims he can do this by 2050, but American domestic political
reality, shaped by an economy fine-tuned by Trump and inherently resistant to the kind of
economic change that would need to occur to make the Biden climate change plan viable, may have
something to say about that timetable.
The Iran deal
The Iran nuclear deal finds Biden trapped by his own hardline rhetoric, setting conditions
that are as unrealistic as they are unobtainable (for instance, requiring Iran to renegotiate
key aspects of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as a pre-condition for
the US rejoining that pact). Iran's foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, recognizing the bad
position Biden's mouth has placed its owner in, has wisely noted that Iran can return to its
JCPOA commitments simply by Biden signing an executive order cancelling the Trump sanctions.
This is one executive order Biden likely will not sign, because it requires him to certify the
JCPOA as being good as written, something he has already articulated against.
One of the first decisions Biden will be compelled to make upon assuming the presidency is
how to proceed on the issue of US troops in Afghanistan. If the Trump reductions are completed
as planned by January 15 (a big 'if', given the proclivity of the US military to
lie to Trump about actual troop deployments), Biden will be pressured by the Pentagon to
immediately redeploy up to 5,000 troops in order to create the force structure the Pentagon
believes necessary to ensure stability while Afghanistan transitions to peace. This, of course,
would kill the peace plan the US has in place with the Taliban, setting the stage for even more
'forever war'.
Regime change and more war
Other regional issues jump out – the ongoing effort to oust Nicolas Maduro in
Venezuela, and the ongoing Saudi-led war in Yemen, to name two. Biden's anti-Maduro rhetoric is
every bit as strong as Trump's, meaning there is little chance of a policy re-direct on this
front. Likewise, if Trump fulfils threats to name the Houthi rebels in Yemen as a terrorist
organization, it will be difficult for Biden politically to reverse that decision, or else be
doing the bidding of Iran. Yemen will become another example of a 'forever war' living up to
its name.
Awkward in Europe
Another issue Biden will be called upon to deal with is the ongoing American redeployment of
troops out of Germany. Trump has committed to sending thousands of these redeployed troops to
Poland, a move Biden will have difficulty reversing. In the end, Biden will be pressured to not
only halt the withdrawal of US forces from Germany, but also find fresh troops to replace those
headed for Poland. But such a commitment must be measured in relation to the ongoing
controversy over the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline connecting Russia with Europe. Trump has put in
place sanctions designed to halt the pipeline from being completed; Biden is likewise opposed
to the pipeline reaching fruition. Getting Germany to commit to taking in US troops while
blatantly interfering with German economic sovereignty is a balancing act Biden may not be up
to carrying out.
Arms control deadlock
Likewise, Biden has indicated that he would be inclined to sign an extension to the
soon-to-expire New START Treaty. Russia has long insisted that future arms control agreements
must consider missile defense issues. The Trump administration has just tested a missile
interceptor integral to the Aegis Ashore anti-missile system deployed in Romania and Poland in
an anti-intercontinental ballistic missile configuration. The likelihood of Russia agreeing to
any new arms control measures without a commitment on the part of a Biden administration to
reduce and/or eliminate European-based missile defense systems is zero. So, too, is are the
odds of a Biden administration doing away with missile defense in Europe. The result is an
expensive arms race at a time when the US can afford it least.
Finally, Biden inherits a policy posture toward both Russia and China which is as hostile a
relationship as has existed since the Cold War. Russia's force posture in Europe is such that
NATO would need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to be in a realistic position to take
on the Russian military in any conventional ground war in Europe. Moreover, it is unlikely
Europe will agree to either the formal endorsement of such an objective, or the economic
commitment needed to underwrite it. Complicating matters further is that China and Russia have
reacted to the aggressive policies of the US, which pre-dated the Trump era, by considering the
possibility of a formal alliance against what they term "western hegemony." Such an alliance
would complicate any effort on the part of a Biden administration to back up the
president-elect's pusillanimous rhetoric with actual muscle, since any conflict in Europe would
automatically trigger a Pacific response, and vice versa.
China's dominance
Regardless of anything else, perhaps the biggest challenge facing a Biden administration
will be in dealing with the consequences of Trump's decision to withdraw from the Obama-era
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an abortive free trade agreement designed to keep China out
while promoting American economic leadership. China, together with 14 other Asia-Pacific
nations, recently signed what amounts to the world's largest free trade agreement. The
signatories to this agreement, known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP),
include the 10 countries comprising the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), along
with China, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia, and together account for around 30
percent of global GDP. The RCEP cements China's status as the dominant economic power in the
Asia-Pacific regions, and represents a stunning reversal of fortune for the US, whose
precipitous withdrawal from the TPP in 2017 paved the way for China's stunning diplomatic
coup.
The collapse of the TPP, when combined with the economic crisis brought on by the Covid-19
pandemic, made the RCEP attractive to nations who looked to trade with China as the only viable
means of rebuilding their stricken economies. The RCEP helps solidify the regional geopolitical
objectives of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative by opening the economies of the Asia-Pacific
region to Chinese-funded development projects. The diplomatic victory of China in bringing the
RCEP to fruition represents a stunning defeat for the US, which had been seeking regional
support in its ongoing trade war with China. Moreover, given the linkage between economic and
security issues, the fact that major regional allies such as Japan, South Korea, New Zealand
and Australia have so decisively joined their economies to China's undermines ongoing US
efforts to build a regional coalition designed to contain and eventually roll-back China's
presence in the South China Sea. While President-elect Joe Biden has reached out to Japan and
South Korea in an effort to reassure them of his administration's commitment to their security,
a future Biden administration is ill-positioned to counter the economic influence China has
locked itself into through the RCEP. From an economic perspective, the US 'pivot to Asia' has
been effectively halted, with the Asia-Pacific nations now firmly in China's court.
From Europe, to South America, the Middle East, Southwest Asia, and on to the Pacific,
President Joe Biden will be inheriting a world transformed by four years of Trump policies.
While Biden has indicated that he is inclined to reverse many, if not all, of the Trump foreign
policy "disasters" as soon as practical after assuming office, the reality is that he
will find his hands tied by the combined impact of his own aggressive rhetoric, which in many
instances paralleled the policies undertaken by Trump, or the fact that the geopolitical
situation that exists today does not permit a return to the foreign policy of yore.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
An eye-popping array of corporate consultants, war profiteers, and national security hawks
have been appointed by President-elect Joe Biden to agency review teams that will set the
agenda for his administration. A substantial percentage of them worked in the United States
government when Barack Obama was president.
The appointments should
provide a rude awakening to anyone who believed a Biden administration could be pressured to
move in a progressive direction, especially on foreign policy.
If the agency teams are any indication, Biden will be firmly insulated from any pressure to
depart from the neoliberal status quo, which the former vice president has pledged to restore.
Instead, he is likely to be pushed in an opposite direction, towards an interventionist foreign
policy dictated by elite Beltway interests and consumed by Cold War fever.
Robert Gates, who served as defense secretary for the Obama administration, paused for a
moment and said "I don't know" in an interview Sunday when asked if he thinks former VP Joe
Biden would be a good president.
CBS's "Face The Nation" host Margaret Brennan asked Gates if he stood by a statement from
his memoir that Biden has "been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national
security issue over the past four decades." Recommended
MARGARET BRENNAN: I was rereading your memoir before we sat down to talk and you said in your
memoir, Joe Biden is impossible not to like.
Quote: "He's a man of integrity, incapable of hiding what he really thinks, and one of
those rare people you know you could turn to for help in a personal crisis. Still, I think
he's been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the
past four decades."
Would he be an effective commander-in-chief?
ROBERT GATES: I-- I don't know. I don't know. I-- I think I stand by that statement. He
and I agreed on some key issues in the Obama administration. We disagreed significantly on
Afghanistan and some other issues. I think that the vice president had some issues with the
military. So how he would get along with the senior military, and what that relationship
would be, I just-- I think, it-- it would depend on the personalities at the time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: He's a peer of yours. Does that mean you're older?
ROBERT GATES: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You think he's right for this moment?
ROBERT GATES: I think I'm pretty busy and pretty active but I think-- I think having a
President who is somebody our age or older, in the case of Senator Sanders, is- I think it's
problematic. I think that you don't have the kind of energy that I think is required to be
President. I think-- I'm not sure you have the intellectual acuity that you might have had in
your sixties. So, I mean it's just a personal view. For me, the thought of taking on those
responsibilities at this point in my life would be pretty daunting.
American libs are just as fundamentally imperialist as the right, and their obsession with
IdenPol garbage is just a smokescreen to pretend that they aren't.
Philosopher Hannah Arendt once wrote about
the banality of evil , and there's never been a more banal bunch than the foreign policy
and security state crew Barak Obama surrounded himself with for eight years beside the possible
exception of
Bush's own Neocons .
Now after three years screaming about
"Russian collusion" it appears the Evil Empire is about to regain its lost ground,
championing new wars and more interventionist expansionism with a much greater role for the US
military in the world.
Let's name names.
Pentagon
For the defense chief post, the Washington Post has portrayed the banal face of Michele
Flournoy as the pick to
'restore stability' to the Pentagon , an entirely false assertion. Recall that Fluornoy
promotes unilateral global US military intervention, and advocated the destruction of Libya in
2011. By the
military-industrial revolving door , Flournoy enabled many Corporate weaponry contracts
amounting to tens of millions. Likewise Fluornoy is on the Booz-Hamilton board, where the swamp
cannot get any deeper. As if this wretched example of an agent-provocateur for war and
destruction were not bad enough, Biden is reportedly considering Lockheed-Martin banal kingpin
Jeh Johnson for the DoD position, too.
Lockheed director Johnson was employed by Rob Reiner and Atlantic editor arch-Neocon
David Frum to run
the Committee to Investigate
Russia which mysteriously blew up as soon as the Mueller Report was released. Jeh Johnson
has continued to warn of "Russian interference" in the US presidential election until now.
Biden's anointing as president-elect has ended that. As Homeland Security head, Johnson
authorized cages for holding immigrant children. He also supported the assassination of General
Suleimani, and has voiced support for US wars in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
State
From Libya to Syria, Yemen, Ukraine and beyond, the banality of evil is perhaps best
personified by Susan Rice – apparently Biden's premiere pick for Secretary. Rice was an
abject failure at the United Nations, but all seems forgiven, probably at the behest of Biden's
donors. After her failure at the UN, Obama kicked Rice upstairs to be his National Security
Advisor, a position that does not require Senate approval.
An obvious war hawk in the mold of the Democrat's donor class, a Rice appointment could
reinforce the liberal mantra that women can be just as good at interventionism as men, and
ensure full re-establishment of the Neoliberal agenda in Washington. John Kerry has been
flagged as a potential for State (again) too, but at age 77 and subsequent to the failure
of the
JCPOA Kerry is an unlikely pick.
Another potential pick among the banal Daughters of Darkness is Victoria Kagan-Nuland ,
architect of the 2014 debacle in Ukraine (among other things). Outed at State in an
embarrassing act of what she called impressive statecraft and other
embarrassing incidents, Nuland seems an unlikely choice. But Kagan-Nuland is as banal as banal
can be, and Biden may somehow wish to reinforce his solidarity with the JTF and his donor class, on
Israel.
National Security Advisor
Banality is certainly the mark of the beast here, in the form of Tony Blinken. Well in with
Michele Flournoy (above) Blinken typifies
the type of banality the Deep State engages in to promote its evil, with Blinken as successful
as any other Deep State actor. A major hawk on Russia and war hawk in general, Blinken is an
apologist for Israel . Blinken is a war hawk on Afghanistan and Syria too, and Blinken was
directly
involved in CIA operation Timber Sycamore . Oh, the banality.
Another model of banality is Leon CIA Panetta who so far claims that cruising the Monterey
peninsula is more fun that being in Washington. But we know that's false and Panetta would be a
logical pick. Besides being a hawk on everything, and laughing about the fact he has no idea
how many wars Obama's America was fighting – because he lost count – Panetta is
simply another sycophant for evil like Hannah Arendt portrayed in her study of Adolf
Eichmann.
CIA
Banal of the banal is of course Mike Morell. This incredibly vacuous excuse for a human
being has been hate-mongering for years. Beside his
blatant pandering support for another banal and brutal warmonger – Hillary Clinton
– Mike Morell is one Neoliberal who still maintains that Saddam Hussein actively
aided and abetted al Qaeda with regard to the 911 attacks. But Morell simply and ultimately
represents the banality of evil, just as Arendt depicted Adolf Eichmann, but in Morell's case
succinctly summarized here by
Ray McGovern .
United Nations
Outing the banality of the banal would be incomplete without mentioning Jen Psaki . Although a potential pick for
White House Communications Director, why not promote an accomplished liar to a venue where
accomplished lying really matters?
Conclusion
There is no indication that the United States as an entrenched warfare state will ever
change its course until forced to. Mr Trump was incapable of enforcing that change. Sidelined
by
Russiagate psychosis , as a Beltway Neophyte and his own worst enemy at times, that sank
Trump's agenda. The actions of Mr Trump now – to end the wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan
and Yemen -- should have been undertaken in earnest and without compromise years ago. Point
being that Mr Trump's new appointments to the Pentagon – and let's hope CIA – will
hopefully blunt the efficacy of Biden's bad actors going forward.
Regardless, characters the same or similar to the ones listed above will definitely infest
Washington's infernal Beltway cesspool once again via Joe
Biden make no mistake. And they will be meaner and nastier than ever before!
Guaranteed.
Creative_Destruct , 2 hours ago
And the same old swamp slime (Morell, et al) waits eagerly to burst back in through the
doors of power. New boss, same as the old(er) boss(es). Uuuuuuggh.
EndofTimes , 5 hours ago
Obama's 3rd Term. Swamp will grow like a tumor. These demons are shaking with excitement
to get into office and fulfill the desires of the founders of the UN. Kill off America and
establish a global government
truth or go home , 4 hours ago
Biden is 100% deep state puppet. He will say and do whatever they tell him to.
Dominion = Scytl = CIA = Deep State = Swamp
CIA threw the election. Trump team caught them.
Trump has already cut the CIA off at the knees. Getting ready to fill up Guantanamo
again...
Giant war going on inside the gov right now - Biden enjoying the limelight before he is
retired to his rocking chair.
CatInTheHat , 5 hours ago
NICE JOB Biden voters!!
You MORONS electing Obama 2.0 on STEROIDS is WHY we got a Trump in the first place
To Hell In A Handbasket , 4 hours ago
The USSA electorate are idiots, and divided idiots at that. You got Trump because the
electorate was desperate, and you got Biden because the other half was desperate. That adds
up to a desperate population. Your enemy is not voters from the other side of the Uniparty.
Please get off the GOP vs DEMOCRAT horse$h1t.
Bay of Pigs , 3 hours ago
Quite an impressive list of Neoliberal globalist ****bags.
SabOObas , 3 hours ago
The establishment demonizes Trump for 4 years.
The sheeple voted to put the guy with 40 years of corruption under his belt in office,
because the establishment said its good for you.
Jgault , 2 hours ago
It is always the small man, the inept man, the insecure man who has a need to demonstrate
to the world his bravado with reckless and senseless gestures.
Biden and his brothel of advisors he surrounds himself with have perhaps the worst track
record of international policy since Jimmy Carter, absolute proven failures and disasters in
Ukraine, Syria, Lybia, and Egypt. This is the group that laid the intellectual groundwork for
what would become the largest refugee crisis and humanitarian disaster in nearly 50
years.
Laughably, now the MSM is doing a complete 180 in their editorial view of troops in
Afghanistan and Syria...what a shock!
Lacking foresight, insecure, lacking ethical standards and being given the ability to
order troops, how could this possibly go wrong?
Trump was the first President in 30 years not to provoke any new millitary interventions,
yet the world criticized him for his style. Let's see how long it takes for the world to
start looking back to a more stable past.
ReadyForHillary , 3 hours ago
The Democrat party is the WAR party.
RumbleGuts , 4 hours ago
Another article that doesn't realize red and blue are the same team. Make no mistake, big
baby bonespurs is in deep with the deep state. Think epstein. ;-)
Someone Else , 2 hours ago
Mike Morell, the most evil man to ever draw a breath, as CIA Director?
A Biden Presidency can never be allowed to happen.
flawse , 2 hours ago
There will not be a Biden presidency. There is obviously some other plan.
DebbieDowner , 3 hours ago
This author's last paragraph fails to acknowledge that the CIA and FBI has not obeyed
Trump's (or any President's) orders in quite some time. Now is the time for someone to
finally make a change and it took such a massive plan to expose them all to drain the
swamp.
How 'Western' Media Select Their Foreign Correspondentsgottlieb , Nov 20 2020
19:21 utc |
1
Did you ever wonder why 'western' mainstream media get stories about Russia and other
foreign countries so wrong?
It is simple. They hire the most brainwashed, biased and cynic writers they can get for
the job. Those who are corrupt enough to tell any lie required to support the world view of
their editors and media owners.
They are quite upfront about it.
Here is evidence in form of a New York Times
job description for a foreign correspondent position in Moscow:
Russia Correspondent
Job Description
Vladimir Putin's Russia remains one of the biggest stories in the world.
It sends out hit squads armed with nerve agents against its enemies, most recently the
opposition leader Aleksei Navalny. It has its cyber agents sow chaos and disharmony in the
West to tarnish its democratic systems, while promoting its faux version of democracy. It
has deployed private military contractors around the globe to secretly spread its
influence. At home, its hospitals are filling up fast with Covid patients as its president
hides out in his villa.
If that sounds like a place you want to cover, then we have good news: We will have an
opening for a new correspondent as Andy Higgins takes over as our next Eastern Europe
Bureau Chief early next year.
To be allowed to write for the Times one must see the Russian Federation as a
country that is ruled by just one man.
One must be a fervent believer in MI6 produced Novichok hogwash. One must also believe in
Russiagate and in the multiple idiocies it produced even after all of them have been
debunked.
One must know that vote counts in Russia are always wrong while U.S. vote counting is the
most reliable ever. Russian private military contractors (which one must know to be evil men)
are 'secretly deployed' to wherever the editors claim them to be. Russia's hospitals are of
cause always much worse than ours.
Even when it is easy to check that Vladimir Putin (the most evil man ever) is at work in the
Kremlin the job will require one to claim that he is hiding in a villa.
Most people writing for the Times will actually not believe the above nonsense.
But the description is not for a position that requires one to weight and report the facts.
It is for a job that requires one to lie. That the Times lists all the recent
nonsense about Russia right at the top of the job description makes it clear that only people
who support those past lies will be considered adequate to tell future lies about Russia.
No honest unbiased person will want such a job. But as it comes with social prestige, a
good paycheck and a probably nice flat in Moscow the New York Times will surely find
a number of people who are willing to sell their souls to take it.
Interestingly the job advertisement does not list Russian language capabilities as a
requirement. It only says that 'Fluency in Russian is preferred'.
'Western' mainstream media are filled with such biased, cynic and self-censoring
correspondents who have little if any knowledge of the country they are reporting from. It is
therefore not astonishing that 'western' populations as well as their politicians have often
no knowledge of what is really happening in the world.
Hilarious. Don't need no stinking
Operation Mockingbird anymore. Just put out a want-ad and plenty of brainwashed folks will
come flocking. Propaganda works.
This is such an odd job description with very few specific requirements and none detailing
how much experience or what level of knowledge or skill is required (in the form of X number
of years worked in some area requiring Russian language skills or university qualifications
obtained) that I almost wonder if this advertisement is for real.
One notices also that "Vladimir Putin's Russia" is presented as a story. Everything else
that follows in the second paragraph of the advertisement is also a story. Indeed everything
in the news media industry is a "story" as if instead of employing investigative reporters on
the beat grimly searching for hard facts like old pulp fiction detectives, the media now only
wants Hollywood script writers or graduates straight out of creative writing courses.
But then I suppose whoever gets the job at the NYT can hardly do worse than what the hack
Luke Harding did as The Fraudian's Moscow correspondent nearly 15 years ago, so much so that
the Russian govt must have suspected that he was more than just a bad paranoid plagiarist ...
he must have been a spy as well, that it would initially refuse to renew his visa. One would
like to see the job specifications for the position of The Fraudian's Moscow reporter that
Harding held for a number of years.
Incredible. What the acronym 'SMH' (shake my head) was invented for.
It's no wonder I switched off CBC radio, our national broadcaster here in Canada. Their
music programs were okay, but every hour they had a news update, and those were
stomach-turning. Superficial, biased, Empire-friendly nonsense...
Norman Solomon wrote about this problem fifteen years ago in his book "War Made Easy, How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us To Death"
. . .from Amazon: In War Made Easy, nationally syndicated columnist, media critic, and author
Norman Solomon cuts through the dense web of spin to probe and scrutinize the key "perception
management" techniques that have played huge rolls in the promotion of American wars in
recent decades.
p.116
. . .The attitudes of reporters covering U.S. foreign policy officials are generally
similar to the attitudes of those officials. "Most journalists who get plum foreign
assignments already accept the assumptions of empire," according to longtime foreign
correspondent Reese Erlick. He added, "I didn't meet a single foreign reporter in Iraq who
disagreed with the notion that the U.S. and Britain have the right to overthrow the Iraq
government by force. They disagreed only about timing, whether the action should be
unilateral, and whether a long-term occupation is practical." After decades of freelancing
for major U.S. news organizations, Erlich offered this blunt conclusion: "Money, prestige,
career options, ideological predilections--combined with the down sides of filing stories
unpopular with the government--all cast their influence on foreign correspondents. You
don't win a Pulitzer prize for challenging the basic assumptions of empire."
> social prestige, a good paycheck and a probably nice flat
The term that Paul Craig Roberts often uses, " presstitute ", comes to mind.
Echoing JimmyG. @4 and spudski @7, in Canada, our taxpayer-funded state news agency's
flagship program "The National" gives us regular Two Minutes Hate pieces currently
being churned out every two weeks or so by Moscow correspondent Chris Brown who fits this
article's description to a T.
I've lost count of how many times he and CBC The National's editors have singled out
Russia's handling of COVID-19 for criticism, when so many other countries have far worse per
capita fatality numbers than Russia.
While decrying Russia's COVID-19 deaths, they, of course, never mention the fact that
Canada has had more COVID-19 deaths per capita than Russia ...
It's absolutely pathetic.
5 years ago the truly great journalist Robert Fisk made the following observations during an
interview with the journal.ie amongst others.
Back's up everything you have pointed out about the sheer disappearance of any impartial
reportage from the NYT and printed media in general.
"Most newspapers that have lost circulation, particularly in the States, it's not because
of the internet, it's because those newspapers were simply no good. When I go to San
Francisco the coverage of the Middle East in its papers is frightened, cowardly, pathetic,
there's no serious foreign coverage at all."
"Newspapers themselves are to blame for the deterioration in their readership. I read the
New York Times when its free, period, it doesn't deserve to be paid for. It's not worth
it.
It doesn't matter whether it's online or not. If a paper's not worth buying you'll read for
free online regardless"
"Most people writing for the Times will actually not believe the above
nonsense."
Our host is much too charitable to the presstitutes. Those in the "Mockingbird"
mass media eat their own effluent like a sort of group ouroboric scatophagia. To maintain
their perverse form of "mental hygiene" they studiously avoid information sources
outside of their own circular reprocessing of yesterday's delusions into fresh steaming piles
for today's consumption. They have become so accustomed to feeding off their own delusions
that if a hint of reality were to intrude into their looped intellectual food chain their
minds would reject it like poison. They would likely exhibit physical symptoms, which
doubtless would be attributed to evil Soviet mind rays from Havana.
Stengel stated clearly that a "news cartel" of mainstream corporate media outlets had
long dominated US society, but he bemoaned that those "cartels don't have hegemony like they
used to."
Stengel made it clear that his mission is to counter the alternative perspectives given
a voice by foreign media platforms that challenge the US-dominated media landscape.
"The bad actors use journalistic objectivity against us."
Wow ...
I clicked on the New York Times job link, and journalistic objectivity and integrity are
nowhere to be found in the job descripton. But I did notice these lines that add to the ones
that b brought to our attention:
We are looking for someone who will embrace the prospect of traversing 11 time zones to
track a populace that is growing increasingly frustrated with an economy dragged down by
corruption, cronyism and excessive reliance on natural resources. This posting offers the
chance to chronicle the continuing reign of one of the world's most charismatic leaders,
President Vladimir V. Putin.
Not to mention, Putin ushered in changes to the constitution, so he will likely stay in
power for many years to come.
And, of course, we are on the cusp of a new, less Putin-friendly president in the US,
which should only raise the temperature between Washington and Moscow.
It's not Russia it's "Vladimir Putin's Russia," so that's one mandatory term checked off,
i.e. personalizing the appointed enemy. But then we read "It sends out hit squads. . ."
instead of the usual obligatory: 'The regime' . . . . .but the Times can't get everything
right.
The amount of hourly propaganda directed at and leveled at American people is
unprecedented, I had not seen it this intense in past years it reminds me of my High school
days in Shah's Iran. This kind and this intense of control on news can only be due to
instability of the regime. IMO in coming Biden Adminstration regime will impose new rules for
control of internet and access to foreign news. Currently using my Mobil cellular I can't
access any Iranian news site.
Was Trump an isolationist? Not really, though it's easy to see how he got this reputation,
at first glance of his foreign policy.
He had an aggressive posture
against Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela, with his illegal sanctions policy against these countries.
He demonstrated total fealty to the Israeli project to
annihilate Palestine. His "trade war" against China is sold as a way to rebuild the U.S.
economy, but it is also about maintaining U.S. power; for what other purpose could instruments
such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation and América Crece be used when they have
been
designed to advantage U.S. companies around the world?
Trump certainly attacked the Western military alliance system, trying to force NATO members
to spend more on their military. But at the same time, Trump developed other military
alliances: one of these, first developed by George W. Bush in 2007, is the Quadrilateral
Security Dialogue, or Quad, which draws Australia, India, and Japan into a military alliance
against China. At the same time, Trump drove an agenda in Latin America -- through the
Lima Group (established in 2017) -- to create an alliance against Venezuela.
Why Biden Is Not a Multilateralist
The liberal media portrays Biden as a multilateralist -- but the evidence for this
speculation on the president-elect's foreign policy is problematic, to say the least.
Biden wants to rebuild the Western military alliance system that Trump has eroded. An
indication of Biden's enthusiasm was an early phone
call to French President Emmanuel Macron, to suggest that the United States is back as a
player in Europe. This is not an advance toward a multilateral world order, but rather a return
to the old alliance system where the United States (with its Canadian and European allies)
attempts to dominate the world system by the use of its military, diplomatic, and economic
power.
Further evidence offered for Biden's multilateralism is his commitment to return the United
States to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (or the Iran deal) and the 2016 Paris
Agreement.
Why does Biden wish to return the United States to its commitments toward Iran? Obama
entered this deal because the Europeans were desperate for a source of energy after the United
States and France destroyed access to Libyan oil in NATO's 2011 war and hurt access to
Russian natural gas because of the Ukraine conflict in
2014. Obama agreed to the Iran deal because the Europeans were desperate, not to line up with
the demands of international law; Biden will give the Europeans this gift, welcomed by the
Iranian people, in order to cement the Western alliance system. Meanwhile, Biden continues to
talk
about suffocating the Iranian people.
On climate, during the negotiations that resulted in the Paris deal during Obama's
presidency, the United States
watered down the text of the agreement, preventing a truly multilateral deal that would
have accepted Western responsibility for a century of fossil fuel use. Again, there is no major
commitment to save the planet in Biden's pledge to return to the Paris Agreement; the main
agenda is to strengthen and subordinate the European countries to the U.S.-led alliance
system.
Primacy Remains the U.S. Goal
The U.S. State Department's Policy Planning Staff wrote in the early years of the
Cold War, "To seek less than preponderant power would be to opt for defeat. Preponderant power
must be the object of U.S. policy." This desire for primacy remains the explicit U.S. policy.
Trump, in his four years as president, did not depart from this policy. Nor has Biden in his
five decades in public office. They might differ in their tone or in their strategy, but not in
the pursuit of this goal. Biden's adviser Charles Kupchan has written a new book called
Isolationism , which offers a clichéd view of U.S. foreign policy, and then
concludes, "[T]he United States must reclaim its exceptionalist mantle"; this means that the
United States must continue to seek primacy.
This goal of primacy has made it difficult for the U.S. elites to come to terms with the
fact of the slow attrition of U.S. power since the illegal war on Iraq (2003) and the credit
crisis (2007). Failure to acknowledge that the world will no longer tolerate one single
superpower has led the United States to impose a warlike situation against China. This
begins with Obama's "pivot" to Asia in 2015, and intensifies with Trump's "trade war."
Cold War on China Looms
Since 2015, not one U.S. Silicon Valley CEO has made a robust statement for comity between
the United States and China. Apple's Tim Cook held a
meeting with Trump in August 2019 merely to allow Apple to better compete with Samsung,
which was not hit by the U.S. tariffs. There was no broad statement about Trump's "trade war,"
with which Cook seemed quite pleased.
Silicon Valley firms know that on certain technological developments -- such as 5G,
robotics, GPS, and soon microchips -- Chinese firms have clearly produced next-generation
technologies, and in many cases have leapfrogged over their U.S. counterparts. Silicon Valley
companies are quite happy for the U.S. government to put the entire weight of the state against
Chinese firms. This includes using the security apparatus to accuse Huawei of being involved in
Chinese government espionage. It is a curiosity that none of the Silicon Valley firms worry
about privacy per se, because -- according to the Edward Snowden revelations -- the
National Security Agency uses the PRISM program to collect data freely from Silicon Valley
internet firms; but the U.S. uses the privacy and espionage arguments to try to hurt Chinese
tech firms and protect the intellectual property and market advantages of Silicon Valley. Since
this is the real cause of the trade war, there is every likelihood -- and Biden has said so --
that a Biden administration would continue to prosecute the trade war.
In 2013, the Chinese government set up the One Belt, One Road (now Belt and Road Initiative,
or BRI) to extend its commercial links across the world. The Obama administration responded in
2015 with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a platform to break China's commercial ties
along the Pacific Rim. Trump jettisoned the TPP and went for a more direct trade war. To
counter the trillions of dollars that China will mobilize for the BRI, the United States used
the Millennium Challenge Corporation (set up in 2004) and América Crece (2019) to funnel
billions of dollars to countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. All of this is a desperate
attempt to undermine China and maintain U.S. primacy.
The United States is not yet prepared to acknowledge the changed world situation. This will
take time. Short of that, it is important for people to speak up against an escalation of hostilities.
This article was produced by Globetrotter.
Vijay Prashad's most recent book is No Free Left: The Futures of Indian Communism (New
Delhi: LeftWord Books, 2015).
The US military establishment will breathe a sigh of relief at Joe Biden's victory in the
presidential election. Nearly 800 former high-ranking military and security
officials penned an open letter in support of the Democratic candidate during the campaign.
A who's who of former generals, ambassadors, admirals and senior national security advisers --
from former Secretary of State Madeline Albright to four-star admiral and Bush-era Deputy
Homeland Security Advisor Steve Abbot -- backed Biden as the best bet to revive US power. A
month earlier, 70 national security officials who served in Republican administrations threw
their weight behind Biden (the list soon grew to 130), arguing that, on foreign policy, Trump
"has
failed our country" .
Why was Biden the war criminals' candidate of choice? The foreign policy chaos and
controversy of the Trump years were a symptom of a global superpower in relative decline, with
no real strategy out of the quagmire.
The US empire is at a turning point. It is the world's undisputed superpower; its reach is
global, both militarily and economically . The US has been the world's largest economy since
1871, and its military has close to 800 installations in 80 countries around the world. But
today, it is facing a growing economic rival in China, and several lesser powers challenging
its ability to call the shots in every corner of the globe, most notably Iran and Russia.
The War on Terror, launched by the administration of George W. Bush , resulted in the
invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. It killed more than a million people and
cost upwards of US$2.4 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. For the people
of the Middle East, it was a massacre. For US empire, it was a disaster. The destabilisation of
Iraq led to the expansion of Iranian influence across the region, rather than the regime change
in Tehran the Pentagon dreamed of. The intervention in Iraq was meant to secure US dominance.
It instead exposed the weaknesses and limits of US power right at the moment when China's
dramatic economic expansion was beginning.
Tensions between the US and China have been increasing for years. Since its accession to the
World Trade Organization in 2001, China has built its economic power, its diplomatic power and
its military power, while the US became bogged down in endless wars and suffered economic
crisis and depression with the 2008 financial crisis.
Barack Obama's "pivot to Asia", with its plan to increase US naval forces in the
Asia-Pacific, was a signal that the US ruling class wanted to contain and encircle China.
Obama's then classified Air-Sea Battle doctrine was an effort to create an operational plan for
a possible military confrontation. Leaked cables made public by WikiLeaks reveal that Australia
was in lockstep with US imperial strategy. In conversation with Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton in 2009, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd confirmed Australia's willingness to "deploy force
if everything goes wrong". But Obama's strategy was too little too late for containment. China
became more aggressive in pressing claims in the South China Sea while beginning to close the
enormous gap in military capabilities with the United States, engaging in the most rapid
peacetime arms build-up in history.
Under Trump, these tensions further increased. Trump's confrontational rhetoric and trade
war were a sharp break from the decades-long US strategy of integrating China into the
international liberal order. Since the Republican administration of Richard Nixon -- who in
1972 became the first US president to visit Beijing -- the US ruling class thought it could
ensure global supremacy by incorporating China into the world system. For a while, it appeared
to work. China became the world's sweatshop and a key site of investment for US companies such
as Apple and General Motors. But the strategy could be mutually enriching for only so long.
Today, China is leveraging its meteoric growth to challenge the United States' leadership in
the Asia-Pacific.
Obama's signature containment strategy was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP
would have been the largest free trade deal in history, lowering tariffs and other non-tariff
barriers to trade between eleven Pacific countries and the US. Its goal was to lock out China
and further integrate Pacific countries with the US economy. Obama's Defense Secretary Ashton
Carter said that the TPP was "as important as another aircraft carrier".
But just a few years later, Donald Trump tore up the TPP. The move was at odds with the
consensus among the US economic and military elite, but the new president had his own ideas
about how to contain China. Trump railed against the US trade deficit, accused Beijing of
currency manipulation and, as Obama did, of stealing technology from US companies. In the 2019
State of the Union address he said, "We are now making it clear to China that after years of
targeting our industries and stealing our intellectual property, the theft of American jobs and
wealth has come to an end".
By August this year, Trump had slapped tariffs on $550 billion of Chinese goods, with a
targeted campaign against tech giant Huawei, which had been tipped to overtake Apple in global
phone sales. While Republican and Democratic politicians have backed a hardline approach to
China, Trump's erratic protectionist approach to trade has alienated large sections of the
capitalist class otherwise happy with domestic tax cuts and deregulation. A Bloomberg Economics
report, released before the pandemic gripped the country, estimated that the escalating tariffs
on China would cost the US economy $316 billion by the end of this year.
More worryingly for the US establishment, Trump adopted a dismissive attitude towards US
allies, particularly the European Union. Trump prided himself on his ability to cut deals with
other nations that favoured the US. He signalled that the multilateral approach to trade was
over when he tore up the TPP, and followed that by applying tariffs on German cars, Canadian
steel and French luxury goods. For much of the US elite, these moves have simply created a void
that Beijing is attempting to fill with its own free trade deals and the $1 trillion Belt and
Road initiative, which aims to incorporate more than 138 countries into trade routes and
production chains centred on China.
The International Monetary Fund, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the UN and other
international institutions project US dominance by drawing allied nations behind US leadership.
Trump's presidency delegitimised or sidelined those institutions as he focused on an "America
first" posture. The military establishment believes that this has threatened, rather than
strengthened, US power -- although there is now an acknowledgement that those institutions
failed to keep China in check, something a Biden presidency will also grapple with.
The war criminals hope that Biden will restore political legitimacy to the office by
rehabilitating the liberal ideology that manufactures consent for American imperialism,
pitching US aggression as necessary to "make the world safe for democracy" and defending the
"rules-based liberal world order". Above all, the US establishment hopes that Biden will
restore relationships with US allies and construct a coalition of nations to confront China,
after a disastrous four years that called into question US global leadership. As the National
Security Leaders for Biden open letter bemoaned: "Our allies no longer trust or respect us, and
our enemies no longer fear us".
Biden has a proven record as a hawkish proponent of US empire. For decades, he served on the
Senate foreign relations committee. He was an early proponent of the expansion of NATO to
project US influence into the former eastern bloc after the fall of the USSR. He backed US
intervention in the Balkan war, supported the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, voted for the
war on Iraq in 2003 and, as vice president, backed the US intervention in Libya.
There is consensus within the US ruling class over the need to "get tough" with China. The
military establishment expects Biden to turn the screws. On the campaign trail, he accused
Trump of "getting played" by Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom he called a "thug". This is
consistent with Democratic Party practice in the Congress, which is to criticise Trump for not
being tough enough. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer, for example, accused Trump of
"selling out" by cutting a trade deal with China. Schumer also spearheaded legislation to
implement bans on Huawei when Trump appeared to back down.
Since his first days in Congress, Biden has also made a name for himself as a staunch
supporter of the apartheid state of Israel. According to Israeli publication Haaretz ,
Biden is said to have a "real friendship" with Israel's far-right president, Benjamin
Netanyahu. He was vice president when the US signed a $38 billion military aid deal with
Netanyahu, which the State Department called the "single largest pledge of bilateral military
assistance in US history". So while Trump pushed pro-Israeli rhetoric far to the right,
abandoning any pretence of support for Palestinian statehood, Biden put his money where his
mouth is when it came to propping up Israeli apartheid in Palestine.
On Afghanistan, Biden may prove to be to the right of Trump. As vice president, he supported
an enduring US military presence in the country. Trump, by contrast, shocked the US military
when he announced on Twitter that he wants all troops out by Christmas. In contrast, Biden in
an interview with Stars and Stripes , a military newspaper, said he would maintain a
troop presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Anti-imperialists need to judge Biden by his blood-soaked record in Congress and by the
company he keeps. The bulk of the US military establishment has backed Biden precisely because
they think his multilateral approach will restore credibility to US interventions. It's for
this reason that Forbes magazine senior contributor Loren Thompson predicted last month:
"A Biden presidency would be more likely to use US military forces overseas than President
Trump has been".
Global capitalism is facing a profound crisis that is reshaping international relations and
putting pressure on the fault lines of existing conflicts. Open imperialist rivalry will be a
feature of the coming period, along with wars over regional disputes. There is no length to
which the US ruling class won't go to safeguard its position as global superpower. And Joe
Biden is the commander-in-chief. He is now the most dangerous man in the world.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
While probably "less aggressively nasty" than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden is still a
"conventional politician," but it won't be easy for him to dismiss his party's progressive
wing, Larry Sanders told RT's Going Underground.
Brother to US Senator Bernie Sanders and the Green Party Spokesperson on Health and Social
Care (England & Wales), Larry Sanders told RT's Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi that
while Biden was not his "choice" for president, he prefers him over the current
incumbent, President Donald Trump.
... ... ...
As a fixture of the establishment, Biden will follow the interests of corporate money and
the military-industrial complex rather than anybody else's, Sanders noted.
"Biden is a conventional politician, he is beholden to big money, he is beholden to
defense industries,
joe_go 13 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 07:03 AM
If no one in America went to vote the country would still look the way it looks today. The
big money and military industry would run the country the way it runs it when people vote and
think it matters.
Spirgily_Klump 20 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 12:46 AM
Do you know after Biden was out of the VP office the Chinese communist party had donated $70
million to one of his foundations at the University of Pennsylvania from which Joe drew a
salary of over $900,000 per year? With his benefiting from the hundreds of millions his
family took in from foreign powers and persons how can he gain the security clearance
necessary for the presidency? The president needs the highest clearance. Even an applicant to
the CIA get polygraphed.
shadow1369 Spirgily_Klump 9 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 11:00 AM
Just one of many skeletons jangling in Bidet's closet, they will be used by his controllers
to keep him on track.
Iwanasay 19 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 01:22 AM
It doesn't matter who is in power, America's destiny has been chosen by other behind the
scene faces
RedDragon 15 hours ago 19 Nov, 2020 05:27 AM
All USA presidents are beholden to big money entities, inclusive incoming Biden presidency.
Trump is beholden to the Jewish money powers etc..
Hawlwy
wrote to the acting Defense secretary, Christopher C. Miller. "The costs of the war in Afghanistan continue to mount, and they are
borne disproportionately by working Americans. For these reasons, majorities of Americans, including veterans of the war itself, have
long called for an end to the war in Afghanistan. Yet most of our nation's policymakers have ignored them."
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., allied himself with the White House and those calling for a swift exit from Afghanistan on Tuesday.
"I write to express my support for President Trump's plan for the prompt withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan," Hawley
wrote to the acting Defense secretary, Christopher C. Miller. "The costs of the war in Afghanistan continue to mount, and they
are borne disproportionately by working Americans. For these reasons, majorities of Americans, including veterans of the war itself,
have long called for an end to the war in Afghanistan. Yet most of our nation's policymakers have ignored them."
Hawley's signaling is significant because it runs counter to the political assault on the Hill by Republicans to stop President
Trump's plot to exit from the troubled theater in his administration's closing days. On Monday, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressed,
in no uncertain terms, his vociferous opposition to a further drawdown: "A rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan now would
hurt our allies and delight the people who wish us harm."
McConnell was joined by Michael McCaul, the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, among others, in expressing
his displeasure with recent developments in President Trump's national security team. An embattled Trump has suddenly cleaned house
at the Pentagon , in a maneuver widely described as essentially outlaw.
Trump's moves at DoD are seen as part score-settling -- and part delivering on a major campaign promise. If he sticks the landing,
Trump's acolytes insist drawing down further in Afghanistan cracks the door open still wider for a potential 2024 repeat run.
"You wrote recently, 'All wars must end,'" Hawley wrote to Miller. "The time has come to end the war in Afghanistan. I urge you
to stand with President Trump and bring our troops home as expeditiously as possible."
Hawley has now staked out new territory, putting finishing touches on a Afghanistan policy he has been developing for some time.
In September, he
told
this magazine : "It's time for a strategic refocus. We have spent too much time on adventures in the Middle East and elsewhere
that do not serve our strategic aims and place enormous burdens on the class of working men and women who fight our wars."
Notably, Hawley's statements stand apart from other Republican senators, who are keen to enhance their bona fides to become the
leader of a future, "realigned" Republican Party.
Echoing McConnell, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida
told Politico
: "The concern would be it would turn into a Saigon-type of situation where it would fall very quickly and then our ability to conduct
operations against terrorist elements in the region could be compromised. That's my primary concern right now."
But the leadership class in Republican Washington continues to mostly diverge from those reading the tea leaves on the future
of the party. Rubio was not joined by Sen. Tom Cotton, who is traditionally seen as the most hawkish of the trio. Cotton has previously
noted that he
shares Trump's frustration with the war. And Ted Cruz, another 2024 contender, has so far been silent.
In any case, Hawley is the only GOP hopeful on the scene right now I could remotely contemplate voting for in 2024. Will continue
watching him with interest.
That's good to see. I like Hawley a lot on domestic policy, but he's stuck to a more or less pre-Trump GOP foreign policy up
till now. He needs to drop the deranged hostility to Iran to really win my support, but supporting a drawdown of our Middle Eastern
wars is better than the neocons banging the drums for indefinite occupations.
That's good to see. I like Hawley a lot on domestic policy, but he's stuck to a more or less pre-Trump GOP foreign policy up
till now. He needs to drop the deranged hostility to Iran to really win my support, but supporting a drawdown of our Middle Eastern
wars is better than the neocons banging the drums for indefinite occupations.
According to Reuters, citing Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan will be reduced,
but not a full withdrawal.
Once again, a failed Trump pullout. Such a pathetic little cuck.
Removal of troops from Syria should be the first step, since the illegality of that occupation is the most obvious, and then
Iraq. Afghanistan is somewhat prioritize because it is less important strategically right now and more cumbersome to deal with...
But the US would rather have its diplomatic missions in every country replaced with military bases...Superpowers!
Israel needs the US troops there to facilitate the genocide of Syria's Christians, which General Soleimani and Hezbollah, along
with the Syrian Arab Army, were protecting.
The saddest thing about this whole affair is that it is a sham to make it look as if Trump has kept his promise to bring US
troops home and then blame Biden for supporting endless wars if he has to send US troops back in to protect the troops that were
left behind. As the graduate of an elite law school Hawley is bright enough to know that terrorism is not going to abate in Afghanistan
or the Middle East or in parts of Africa but he also realizes that the great grandparents of the people who voted for him were
skeptical about the US entering WWI, had grandparents who did not see any reason to enter WWII until Pearl Harbor, and parents
who did not think invading Afghanistan made sense until 9/11. If you are thinking of running for president in 2024 this may seem
like a reasonable political move but ultimately really shows how facile Hawley's understanding of international affairs really
is and a basic dishonesty about what is really involved in maintaining US global power.
Beware savvy, sophisticate liberals bearing gifts of evasive and ethically empty prose.
Having, for my sins, spent a few weeks reading just about everything on offer from what
unrepentant neocon zealot – and born-again Washington Post columnist – Max
Boot
dubbed Joe Biden's foreign policy "A-Team," I can vouch for the new transition team's
vapidity and verisimilitude. Put another way, Boot's favored Biden Posse – the Iran
nuke channeling , P4
(Tony Blinken, Avril Haines, Jake Sullivan, and Nicholas Burns) +1 (Michèle Flournoy)
– have a rare gift for typing tons but saying little.
Worse still, what they do let slip drips with subtext of status quo-hawkishness
– Biden's shadow team of five ground hogs spotting their shadows and predicting four
more years of warfare winter. Moreover, these aren't just any Washington lowland creatures
– they're being groomed
, respectively, for national security adviser, director of national intelligence, a
senior
diplomatic role,
possible secretary of state, and probable secretary of defense.
Only you're not supposed to look under the lid of Biden's national security transition
team, because, well uh, Trump was worse, and there's, like, lots of ladies in the lineup. No
really, "serious" people are saying that . With straight faces. And clear consciences.
With no consequences. What a world!
This column's immediate genesis, though, was Glenn Greenwald 's vicious and vital
responsive -evisceration of
MSNBC contributor – and self-described "thriver on chaos"
– Mieke Eoyang's recent nonsense Newspeak tweet . Here's her attempt
to silence through shaming – and signaling by buzzword:
If the Chinese decide to really mess with the Biden administration, I'd imagine they would
do something like build a road or even a pipeline in Afghanistan, even though it is
completely unnecessary, simply to force the US to stay longer. Doesn't seem like their style,
though.
In regards to Russia, same as most of the last 100 years, really. If anything big happens
at all, it would be Putin retiring. In that case, CNN will have wild fantasies about Boris
Yeltsin 2.0, while in reality Russian oligarchs may have some kind of trial moment to figure
out whether his successor can continue to enforce a balance or not, which is a big question.
Team Biden brings nothing to the table in that situation other than talking sh#t and creating
confusion. The EU on the other hand could, but it's looking less and less likely. Especially
as they will likely be immersed in a post covid political crisis and renewed challenge from
right wing parties.
Last but not least, look for Biden to be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize before lunch on
his first day in.
here will be much pressure from the liberal hawks to finish the war they had launched
against Syria by again intensifying it. Trump had ended the CIA's Jihadi supply program.
The Biden team may well reintroduce such a scheme.
Susan Rice has criticized Trump's Doha deal with the Taliban. Under a Biden
administration U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan are therefore likely to again increase.
One possible change may come in the U.S. support for the Saudi war on Yemen. The
Democrats dislike Mohammad bin Salman and may try to use the Yemen issue to push him out of
his Crown Prince position.
Biden and his team have supported the coup attempt in Venezuela. They only criticized it
for not being done right and will probably come up with their own bloody 'solution'.
After four years of Russiagate nonsense, which Susan Rice had helped to launch, it is
impossible to again 'reset' the relations with Russia. Biden could immediately agree to
renew the New START treaty which limits strategic nuclear weapons but it is more likely
that he will want to add, like with Iran's nuclear deal, certain 'amendments' which will be
hard to negotiate. Under Biden the Ukraine may be pushed into another war against its
eastern citizens. Belarus will remain on the 'regime change' target list.
China would heave a big sigh of relief if Biden picks Rice as his secretary of state.
Beijing knows her well, as she had a hands-on role in remoulding the relationship from
engagement to selective competition, which could well be the post-Trump China policies.
For the Indian audience, which is obsessive about Biden's China policy, I would
recommend the following YouTube on Rice's oral history where she narrates her experience
as NSA on how the US and China could effectively coordinate despite their strategic
rivalry and how China actually helped America battle Ebola.
Interestingly, the recording was made in April this year amidst the "Wuhan virus"
pandemic in the US and Trump's trade and tech war with China. Simply put, Rice
highlighted a productive relationship with Beijing while probably sharing the more
Sino-skeptic sentiment of many of America's foreign policy experts and lawmakers.
All together the Biden/Harris regime will be a continuation of the Obama regime. It's
foreign policies will have awful consequences for a lot of people on this planet.
Domestically Biden/Harris will revive all the bad feelings that led to the election of
Donald Trump. The demographics of the election
show no sign of a permanent majority for Democrats.
It is therefore highly probable that Trump, or a more competent and thereby more
dangerous populist republican, will again win in
2024 .
Obama-Biden 3.0 as Pepe Escobar put it with an added twist
I do not agree with the assumption that the new administration (either Biden or Trump)
will start more wars, as you call them. I posit that Trump would have had his war if it
were possible but we are in a MAD phase of a civilization war and Biden will be just as
neutered as Trump.
We are not going back to Obama 3.0. That ship sank when Russia stymied Obama empire in
Syria. We are in a brave new world that is unfolding before our eyes....the future is all
around us but just not evenly distributed.
The Atlantic council this morning ("The way forward for transatlantic sanctions") is
already discussing new sanctions the Biden Administration will bring in against Russia over
the failed revolution in Belarus and the Navalny fraud. I'm amazed at how
self-congratulating these fools are, they truly are blind both to the problems the US is
facing and how the US is creating new international crisis that will destroy the
nation.
I can not understand why you insist here that Trump ended jihadist´s support in
Syria, when it was these past days that we knew by US envoy there, Jeffries, that the
troops not only were not decreased, by augmented.
Anyway, I guess we can conclude that if not directly, jihadists support continues
through Turkey, as we have witnessed in the past conflict in the Caucasus.
An article in Foreign Policy from a Bush era neo-con tells you what to expect:
Russia under Putin poses an existential threat to the United States and other countries of
the West, Russia's neighbors, and his own people. Biden seems to understand that, not least
because he has been the target of Russian interference in the 2020 election, including a
disinformation campaign tied to Russia that was designed to smear him and his son Hunter.
Earlier this year, Biden wrote, "To counter Russian aggression, we must keep [NATO's]
military capabilities sharp while also expanding its capacity to take on nontraditional
threats, such as weaponized corruption, disinformation, and cybertheft." He continued: "We
must impose real costs on Russia for its violations of international norms and stand with
Russian civil society, which has bravely stood up time and again against President Vladimir
Putin's kleptocratic authoritarian system." In an interview with CBS News' 60 Minutes
before the election, Biden said he considered Russia "the biggest threat to America right
now in terms of breaking up our security and our alliances."
These instincts are sound, and Biden likely will appoint officials who think the same
way he does when it comes to Putin's Russia.
The more articles and postings that I see that bemoan the Deep State restoration (horror!)
and return of business-as-usual (horror!), the more I think that we are being set up for an
eventual Trump win.
Recent history tells us that Republican Presidents do BIG WARS (invoking Republican's
claim to patriotism and a strong military) and Democratic Presidents do small, covert
wars.
Why else would Trump fight an EMPIRE-FIRST establishment that he largely agrees with (as
demonstrated by his actions while President)?
Mr Wabbit - as I've written before (here and elsewhere): there is NO really existing
difference between the which colored face(s) hang out in the WH (or in Congress) because they
all belong to the same political stratum and, essentially, hold exactly the same positions,
worldviews, attitudes, perspectives. All (aside from a tiny handful on occasion) support the
MICIMATT, are intrinsically part and parcel of it. All get to fatten their bank accounts, get
to revolve twixt this post and that in the MIC/TT/MA. At base most if not all (Blue/Red, it
matters not at all) work for/along with/are part of the corporate-capitalist-imperialist
plutocratic ruling elite.
Thus the warmaking will NOT stop without serious and continuous effort on the part of a
large part of this country's population - and that isn't likely to happen: lots of folks earn
their nice livelihoods in the MICIMATT industry; and most - overwhelmingly most - of the US
population do not give a fuck what this country does to any other around the world, so long
as a) doesn't affect them; b) their pension plans benefit; c) they can go back to sleep. How
many even know where Syria, Libya, Iran, Ukraine ARE????
And they do not care - except when there is the occasional blowback - which is viewed as
(what else?) terrorism, not simply retaliation. The real terrorism being projected, inflicted
by guess which nations?
Kevin Gosztole on Grayzone; Patrick Lawrence on Consortium News; Danny Sjursen on Anti-war
- all pieces give one despair, sheer and utter despair at the so-called electoral "choices"
we had and the reality of the continuation of the imperial war machine, run by the utterly,
completely grotesque, barbaric usuals (whatever their bloody sex, skin hue).
While lecturing the world over "international norms", the deliberate obliviousness over
the astonishing rolling humanitarian disasters initiated by the USA is beyond disturbing.
Watch out for Eliot A Cohen and what Phil Geraldi coined as "Kaganate of Nulandia" ilks in
that FP Team. In Obama's first year we had Dennis Ross at the WH and Jeffrey Feltman at
Turtle Bay whilst the R2P women were at Foggy Bottom : we got the Arab Spring followed by the
demise of Ghaddafi and the havoc in Syria.
Who will Susan Rice put in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to give the middle finger to
Abu Mazen?
While The Dem party is strongly anti-Russia, connected at it is to the Atlantic Council
and NATO, the probable next SecDef Flourney is throwing down the gauntlet on China.
...from TaiwanNews:
Flourney assessed that China is starting to believe it can achieve a quick strike that
would disable all U.S. defenses in the region, paving the way for an invasion of Taiwan.
"China's theory of victory increasingly relies on 'system destruction warfare' -- crippling
an adversary at the outset of conflict, by deploying sophisticated electronic warfare,
counterspace, and cyber-capabilities," wrote Flourney.
To boost deterrence capabilities, Flourney asserts that the U.S. must modernize and
strengthen its forces in the region to raise the cost of "Beijing's calculus." Such is the
buildup that Flourney is advocating, that it would enable the U.S. military to "credibly
threaten to sink all of China's military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships in the
South China Sea within 72 hours" . . here
This is quite a change from the current administration, which has followed the Taiwan
Relations Act in stressing that the break-away province is responsible for its own defense,
with no mention of US support. In fact the US does not have a mutual defense treaty with this
Chinese province. Normally these treaties only include countries of course, and while Taiwan
claims to be a country of course it isn't.
On the question of war, it's no secret that Biden is likely to prove more hawkish than
Trump, though Biden himself is a diplomatic man. However the world has changed since the days
of Obama. The Middle East has ground to a stalemate, and there are no objectives to achieve
by putting in more troops or air-strikes. Trump just tried and failed to bomb Iran. The
military advice to Biden won't be different.
With regard to the "pivot to Asia", I doubt that the Chinese are much afraid of a US
attack.
...Abstracting the factor of a new party naturally being inclined to reinitialize all the
wars abandoned or paralyzed by the previous party at a first glance...
1) Venezuela: I would bet Biden should have learned from Trump's mistake, but fact on the
field is the Southern Caribbean nation is a too appetizing target for him to to revisit it
and do a real invasion with Colombia through the land as an auxiliary;
2) South China Sea/Taiwan: Susan Rice's little story is touching, but the Western-backed
Asian MSM (SCMP, Asia Times etc.) is already preparing the psychological/ideological field
for a hot war between China and the USA there, which means they were already briefed by
Biden's team it will happen;
3) Afghanistan: at the heart of Central Asia (Heartland) + CIA opium = a matchstick will
rule over the Cocytus before the USA abandon its occupation of that country;
4) Yemen: the war pays for itself as the Saudis are recycling USDs into American weapons,
so I think inertia will prevail. When the Saudis say it's over, it's over;
5) Syria: game's over for the Americans there. The Russians imposed a no-fly zone to
NATO/USA. Most they can do is to prop up Turkey (which they don't like right now) to fund
terrorists in Idlib to try to drain the Russian coffers a little bit more but the Kremlin can
push the nuclear button anytime if it really comes to that point (if ever);
6) Belarus: it was more a German affair than an American affair. Doesn't apply;
7) Ukraine: unfinished business will probably lead to another ramping up over the Dnieper,
but the Donbassians have the geographical advantage and will never lose their territory as
long as they have full-fledged support from Russia;
8) Russia: the problem here is the USA is in a position it has to choose - Russia or the
European Peninsula? Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has already stated Germany's unconditional
loyalty to the USA is directly linked to the continuation of NATO. If NATO's gone, then the
European Peninsula may become a second Southeast Asia.
If ... Tom Cotton is the Republican nominee, a Dem Presidential victory in 2024 will make
Biden's 2020 landslide look like the small mound of sand sliding into the bottom half of an
hourglass.
Citibank's foreign policy Team would be much more accurate wouldn't it ?
That's like saying Obomber or Bush had their own foreign and economic policy.
The only reason DC puts on this shit show is to protect the owners from
accountability.
No matter who the "president" is there will be more war, sanctions, and coup attempts
because that's what the money/power cult needs to obtain more power and control.
These assholes successfully perpetrated a coup of the US government, why would they worry
about which flunky gets (s)elected ??
"Hillary Clinton at the UN? Whether or not Biden appoints her, things are getting very
brazen and very bitter, very fast."
Lawrence opines:
"Let us now send this conscienceless liar to the UN to make sure the world knows we're all
for international cooperation so long as all others submit to our dictates and don't get in
our way when we invade other countries, foment coups or otherwise breach international
law.
"I confess to longstanding animosity toward the odious Clinton. In truth she is merely the
apotheosis of what we've known for some time about the incoming regime's character.
"Biden's army of foreign-policy transition advisers -- 2,000 in number -- is chock-a-block
with warmongers, Russophobes, Sinophobes, Iranophobes, exceptionalists, puppets of apartheid
Israel, humanitarian interventionists, and others promising nothing but trouble. We've known
this for some time."
Lawrence did some great digging to complement the work done by other investigators. The
following is excellent:
"The Democratic 2020 platform published on the eve of Biden's nomination last summer,
intended to bring Bernie Sanders' supporters on board, included these commitments on the
foreign-policy side:
•"Bringing our forever wars to a responsible end."
•"Rationalizing the defense budget."
•Ending covert "regime change" operations in favor of "more effective and less costly
diplomatic, intelligence, and law enforcement tools."
•"Right-sizing our counterterrorism footprint."
•Scaling back U.S. involvement in Afghanistan in favor of "a durable and inclusive
political settlement" with a residual role for special operations forces.
"Didn't President Donald Trump attempt to achieve various of these objectives? Didn't
hawks in his administration and at the Pentagon vigorously and illegally subvert these
attempts? Didn't the mainstream press cheer on these subversions while lambasting Trump daily
for jeopardizing "national security" as he tried (however inconsistently) to bring troops
home, settle up in Afghanistan, negotiate with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, and other
such things?...
"Those who expected the Biden regime to give Americans a thoughtful, informed,
post-exceptionalist foreign policy -- and I am not among these people -- are in for too many
disappointments to list over the next four years. Let us consider a few of the more
consequential."
Lawrence goes on to detail why there'll be no peace in Eurasia and no reduction in the
Imperial Budget. I agree 100% with his summation:
"One principle will guide the Biden regime's foreign policies. Biden is a man of empire
and those around him empire's lieutenants. This will determine all of what is to come."
Realistically that means the Outlaw US Empire will continue to drown as it spins around
and slowly descends down the toilet bowl. Nowhere in anyone's analysis of this issue is there
any mention of the fact that great domestic strength and vitality are a prerequisite for any
attempt at Imperial Dominance, and nowhere in Bidenland is there any policy proposal to
rehabilitate that fact. Sure, all sorts of hawks will populate the Pentagon and continue at
the State Dept, but they might as well be doves since the Empire's industrial base can no
longer support an aggressive Imperial Policy. Then there's the Human Capital that's in just
as dire a condition as the Industrial Plant. Biden in many respects faces the same set of
problems Trump was confronted with and allowed to fester/worsen. Plus, half the nation is
dead-set against him and his regime, perhaps even more so than with Trump since there'll be
no constant BigLie Media smearing.
The gap between the Outlaw US Empire and those nations it's chosen to demonize as
competitors and worse continues to grow daily. The RCEP is only one manifestation. A second
is the continuance of BRICS, which just held a Summit. If Biden launches an attack against
Iran, he'll suffer a massive defeat for the same reasons as Trump. Same with North Korea.
Same as with the South China Sea. Same as with Taiwan. Same as with Syria. And I'd say the
last bullet within the Color Revolution gun available for use in Eurasia was recently fired
to no effect. Latin America is rebounding again. In almost every respect, the Outlaw US
Empire is weaker now than in 2017 when Trump took over. IMO, Biden's #1, most important and
difficult job will be domestic since his donors will insist they be allowed to continue to
eat away at the vitals that are the fundamental basis of support for the Empire--Following in
the footsteps of Rome.
Russia will be the main target of the new US regime, expect to see the russian underbelly
in flames in the Caucasus, in Central Asia and of course in Ukraine and Syria.
The russian regimen change project will be at full speed, economically, politically,
domestic and external insurgencies, all in order to bleed to death the Bear that they see as
a cultural, military, industrial and natural resources rival that has to be fully destroyed
and reduced to smithereens, divided in corrupt satrapies much smaller and easy dominate
"à la ukrainien" or georgian, to extract, on the cheap, all their natural resources
with nice fees for the Biden family or many others american plutocrats. Win-win
situation.
One of the pieces to "bleed the beast" project was the Pashinyan sororite hiper-corrupt
regime, who sell large amounts of weapons to the jihadis in Syria to kill russians and
syrians soldiers, this was the last straw for the russkies with them:
So the DoD just announced that Trump is drawing down troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to
2500 for each by January 15th 2020, and there are about 5,000 private military contractors in
each which will probably increase to compensate. Easy call for Trump.
Yes, I saw McConnel plead to be able to stay and "finish" Afghanistan. Such a tired show
now. The same ol' tune, spoken a thousand times on that senate floor.
But to your point, not all Republicans are non-interventionists. There are many, many
RINOs amongst them who actually loathed the idea of Trump as POTUS in 2015, so much so that
it took the groundswell of support for DJT that these RINOs relented and hopped aboard the
Trump-train.
Now that he has lost, they want to revert back to their prior and favored position as
controlled opposition to the Dem establishment. It will at first be subtle, with feigned
support for outgoing POTUS, but gradually, they will cease mentioning him at all.
It remains to be seen whether the constituents in these RINOs' districts will not see
through the subterfuge.
As I have mentioned before, I think they will come for the RINOs if they disembark the
Trump-train. They are sowing wind.
As we move forward resistance to American hegemony becomes stronger, more broad and a more
viable counterbalance to the western hegemony on world affairs. This is while US and her
allies have and are becoming weaker and therefore more unbalanced. Political and economic
unbalance as seen during the pandemic is much more difficult and costly for developed
nations as would be for the third world.
As has been seen in past few years this shifting power balance will naturally make the losing
power, more reactionary and more violent to preserve and restore her power, both domestically
and externally.
As this giant corpse start decaying her parasites start chowing more and demanding more to
save themselves, which makes this dying giant even more unpredictable, and perhaps more
reactionary and violent regardless who's the president and in power, Trump or Biden has not
and will not make any change difference for the Deep state policies.
Fortunately this is, and has been, the trajectory we are on for some time now, and IMO this
is unstoppable, no matter who and how much propaganda is leveled inside and outside of
west.
Biden has said that he will re-instate the nuclear agreement with Iran but with
'amendments'.
Wishful thinking by Biden and his faction, if he get into white house at all. The greatest
obstacle for any US president to get back to JCPOA is the general disqualification of US
governments to be part of any international agreement.
Obama signed, Trump teared in pieces, Biden signing again (are we in a Kindergarten?), who is
going to guarantee that the next republican president (in 4 years?) doesn't tear it in pieces
again or even the to-be president Kemala Harris (in 2 years?) doesn't trigger the snap back
as a friendly pay back gesture to the Zionist Apartheid regime for getting the job as
president?
Although Rouhani government has sent strong signals that they are ready for a new round of
negotiation, with less then 9 months to the next elections in Iran, almost no chance that the
next winner come from technocrat camp, theocracy not ready to support technocratic efforts
for new negotiations and finally wide popular resistance to continue the JCPOA even in the
current format. It would be more then a wounder to encounter JCPOA 2.0
What occupies the fantasies of the populace does matter to the oligarchs who run the show.
If it didn't matter to the elites they would not spend so much time and energy trying to
shape those fantasies...
The elites are going to support the politicians that are most accomplished and adept at
bolstering the fantasy of the two party system and American democrazy. There is no doubt that
Donald Trump is the salesman of the year for the smoke the elites are blowing up your ass.
There is no other politician that could get 150 million americans sucked into the
fantasy.
And what that means is they will do whatever they can to make sure trump gets another four
more years.
Can't say I disagree with much of this when taken at face value, but I'd appreciate some
backing to this assertion, for which it's quite uncharacteristic of b not to provide right up
front.....if true.
Biden and his team have supported the coup attempt in Venezuela. They only criticized it
for not being done right and will probably come up with their own bloody 'solution'.
I should note, and most MoA readers will agree, that it's nearly impossible to find any
Western media organization - including erstwhile progressive outlets - who don't agree with
the alleged status quo that Maduro is a "dictator" and "has to go."
So what WOULD a Biden administration do differently? All's I can find of substance is that
they'd use sanctions in a more precise manner, not the blunt force instrument that Trump has
applied - and - that they would grant temporary protected status to Venezuelans wishing to
flee (I'd bet there's a good mix of the Mestizo and Moreno poor, as well as the trust fund
descendants of the colonial elite) to the United States whereas Trump refused or dragged his
feet to the point that it didn't matter.
I think, then, that the decisions made will be less to do with Biden being a bad man
(which, like Trump, he is), but instead all grounded in the accepted "reality" that "Maduro
must go" and there must be a "peaceful democratic transition" (back to right-wing colonialist
descendants from whom (some of) their stolen land and oil leases were stolen back under
Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution. This falsehood has been cemented as truth and reality
across both sides of the U.S. political spectrum as well as that of the UK, Canada and
France: Maduro = Commie Dictator and Brutal Humanitarian Abuser. There is absolutely ZERO way
that Joe Biden would go against it in any meaningful way. He'll just do it a little less
roughly and mean spiritedly as Trump and Bush before him had done (no coups and fewer
sanctions under Obama).
This is a good article on the
intricacies of the politics of food (and resources - a good history lesson all the way
around and recommended - written in June of 2018 and looking back not only on the Chavez
years, but the colonial history that preceded him. I think it's required reading for anyone
who wants to get into a debate or discussion (here or elsewhere) about Chavez and Maduro.
Trump is war monger lite compared to Biden that is war monger/criminal heavy. Greater
chaos is coming inside and outside the US while liberals go back to sleep comfortable that
another Obama like admin is in charge.
My prediction: in the next four years it will be near impossible to paper over the
objective collapse of the US Empire of Insanity.
Biden's campaign said he "was among the first Democratic foreign policy voices to
recognize Juan Guaidó as Venezuela's legitimate leader and to call for Maduro to
resign."
Even socialist Sanders, who refused to call Maduro a "dictator", is anti-Maduro:
Sanders called Maduro a "vicicious tyrant" and said there should be "international and
regional cooperation for free elections in Venezuela so that the people of that country can
make -- can create their own future."
there's plenty of countries in the world where the US will continue and/or try to regime
change legitimate governments.
some of these were already started by Mr. Hope and Change, and will continue or be ramped
up by Mr. Sleepy/Rice/Flournoy - like Ukraine, a perfect pretext to irritate Russia with. And
poor Venezuela, which both current and past administrations have attempted to strangle to
death
Some of these came to fruition under Pompeo/Haspel/Trump like Armenia (2018); and some
like Belarus have survived, so far.
some where successfully changed under Trump, like Brazil.
some were temporarily regime changed, like Bolivia (2019), but are now back in the hands
of the real Socialists and indigenous peoples.
some were successfully carried out under Obama, like in Honduras and Paraguay.
The chinese finally learned and took action in Hong Kong which is now essentially out of
the regime change column. Iran will never be regime changed either, nor Syria.
And some like Lebanon are still in play.
I expect economic sanctions/warfare to be increasingly used by this incoming democratic
administration as much as the outgoing republican.
The way for all this nefarious and despicable activity by the US and the West to end
is....??
Trump just didn't have the same amount of low hanging fruit that Obama did . . .like
Ukraine and Syria
low hanging fruit: a thing or person that can be won, obtained, or persuaded with little
effort.
Let's be clear that Obama's "fruit" turned out to be rotten apples (losses in Ukraine*
& Syria**), plus Mr Hope & Change foolishly sent 70,000 more troops to Afghanistan,
destroyed one of the leading countries in Africa (Libya) for no reason, threatened Iran every
fortnight with his "all options on the table" BS then did an 'agreement' with Iran that was
easily overturned,. .the list goes on.
*NATO wanted Russia's only warm-water port in Crimea, and didn't get it.
**Russia stepped in to prevent US-supported regime change
All of the linear and conventional predictions about the next administration's foreign
policy will be proven wrong, because they neglect the near-fatal deterioration of the US
economy and its social fabric in the last 4 years. In short, any return to the pre-Trump
status quo is simply impossible. That ship sailed forever.
What is pretty much guaranteed, however, is significant and irreversible ratcheting up of
economic tension between America and the rest of the world. The approach may undergo some
finessing, but substance will not only remain but acquire additional urgency. The US is in
desperate need of reducing its current account deficit, and that can't be accomplished
without more threats, more brinkmanship, and more unilateral impositions. You can say goodbye
to any prospect of international harmony, it won't happen. Sure, Democrats may attempt
softening of rhetoric at first, but it will be proven counterproductive and abandoned rather
quickly.
The only reason the Deep State brought Biden back to political life, is because he is one of
the few remaining old Cold Warriors capable of achieving normalization of relations with
Russia. It's of overarching importance at this point, as without it nothing really works for
America and all possible geopolitical equations simply fall apart right away. It's also
pretty clear that because Biden's mental and physical condition is in rapid decline, such
normalization will be proceeding at breakneck speed. Expect Biden-Putin summit in first 6
months of the inauguration, ostensibly to sign new Start Treaty or prolong the old one. After
that, "the dialogue" will kick into overdrive.
All in all, modeling next 4 years of US foreign policy based on op-ed articles in American
MSM is just silly. These are written not to enlighten but to obfuscate. Expect secret
entreaties to Moscow literally within hours of January 20, 2021.
There may be some small cookies thrown Russia's way, but that country as a serious threat
must remain. The 500,000 person US ground force, modernly equipped, depends upon it. There is
no other justification, only a "dangerous" Russia.
Look at Zionist-imperialist bitch Susan Rice berating the UN General Assembly for its
overwhelming vote in 2012 on according Palestine non-member observer status:
Just as the US must have enemies, because there's so much money in it, it must also (for
the same reason) continue to have Israel calling the signals in the Middle East.
By "low hanging fruit" (or poisoned apples), what I meant was from the PR angle.
Situations in those places - by the CIA's making or not - were being reported in the West in
such a manner so that they were more easily than usual sold as "humanitarian interventions"
to "help democracy flourish" and the like. Whereas Bush had his 9/11 and fake WMD threats
from Saddam, Obama had the "organic" "grassroots" uprisings in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Tunisia
and other places which would be used as excuses to go in and steal gold, wreck nations who
were a threat to the Franco or American post-colonial control structures, and otherwise
instill chaos, which is one major goal of EVERY U.S. intervention - especially in the ME.
But yeah, what was done to Libya, Syria and the Ukraine is unforgiveable. I'm just saying
that TPTB when Trump was in office didn't have the easy, made-for-humanitarian intervention
news stories to excuse the next round of destruction. That's one reason they had to try so
hard with Iran - going as far as designating their military and its leaders as terrorists and
all that shit so they could bomb Soleimani while he was on a diplomatic mission. Can't have
an outbreak of peace, now, can we? That is, unless it's a carefully scripted PR version of
"peace" such as what we saw recently with the gulf monarchies and Israel.
Gonna have to say target numero uno has got to be Syria. Finishing off Syria, and chasing
the Russians home will be the lynchpin to the rest of Biden's Middle East Policy. Once Syria
is collapsed into chaos and ethnic cleansing, Lebanon/Hezbollah become much easier to deal
with. Iran becomes further isolated and it's ability to project power seriously reduced. The
whole point of JCPOA IMO was a delaying tactic, keeping Iran on the back burner while Iranian
Proxies and Regional Influence are mopped up.
I expect the Mighty Media Wurlitzer of Pro-War Propaganda will soon begin spinning up and
focusing on the brutality inflicted on the moderate head-choppers by the Assad
Regime...another chemical weapons attack anyone?
The Russian presence in Syria is actually quite precarious, despite their military gains
they don't project power very efficiently beyond their borders. The Biden Regime will
therefore turn up the heat, possibly with a No-Fly Zone over both Idlib and Southern Syria/Al
Tanf in conjunction with a well armed proxy offensive backed by air-support. DNC Dems/Deep
State/NeoCon believe Russia to be bluffing and will either back down or be rolled over in
short order.
Strange IMO.
Most everyone here is talking like it will be business as usual on foreign policy.
I am not so sure. I think that Covid19 has pricked the phony bubble created after the 08/09
collapse. I know the stock market is right back and everything looks fine but I think there
is deep rot beneath.
Couple that with a lot of draws in their latest endeavours and I doubt that the machine can
keep operating with such confidence/arrogance.
Do you also remember how the 2000 presidential campaign played out? Gore was characterized
by the MSM, straight up, as an "interventionist" while Bush - eager to distance his own
foreign policy from the Balkan wars and Clinton/Gore tried to walk a fine line between
isolationism (of which he was accused) and non-interventionism.
During the 2000 presidential campaign, George W. Bush announced that he would pursue a
"distinctly American internationalism" in foreign policy (Bush i999a), largely in contrast
to the liberal internationalism of the Clinton administration. He initially sought to have
a foreign policy that placed greater emphasis on American national interests than on global
interests.
(look up George W. Bush and "classical realism")
So what do Trump and Bush II have in common? How about Trump and Obama? I'll tell you: The
preceding administration of the opposite political party had a history of military
interventions that were quite unpopular with the public, which was looking for a change. And
guess what Obama said when he first stepped into office. That's right - he'd pursue a
retrenchment based foreign policy dedicated to fighting existing terror threats in places and
places near where the previous administration had already placed American troops - AND to
wrap up the already existing wars. From the Atlantic's retrospective:
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Although Obama never presented himself as a pacifist
candidate, his 2007-2008 presidential campaign was predicated in part on the promise to end
the war in Iraq and properly prosecute the war in Afghanistan. In March 2008, he declared
of Iraq, "When I am commander in chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this
war." Later that year, he listed his first two priorities for making America safer as
"ending the war in Iraq responsibly" and "finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the
Taliban." The president also promised a foreign policy that relied more on diplomacy and
less on military might in his first inaugural address, telling his audience that "our power
grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the
force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint." Well before the
tumult of the Arab Spring and its aftermath, Obama famously offered to extend a hand to
those willing to unclench their fist. (there are links embedded there)
Here's what Brookings has to say:
I do not mean to overstate. Obama's presidency will not go down as a hugely positive
watershed period in American foreign policy. He ran for election in 2007 and 2008 promising
to mend the West's breach with the Islamic world, repair the nation's image abroad, reset
relations with Russia, move toward a world free of nuclear weapons, avoid "stupid wars"
while winning the "right war," combat climate change, and do all of this with a
post-partisan style of leadership that brought Americans themselves together in the
process.[1] He ran for reelection in 2012 with the additional pledges of ending the
nation's wars and completing the decimation of al Qaeda. Six years into his presidency,
almost none of these lofty aspirations has been achieved.[2] There has not been, and likely
will not be, any durable Obama doctrine of particular positive note. The recent progress
toward a nuclear deal with Iran, while preferable to any alternative if it actually
happens, is probably too limited in duration and overall effect to count as a historic
breakthrough (even if Obama shares a second Nobel Prize as a result).
And before you start to think that Trump said much different, here's a blurb from your own
article:
"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we
shouldn't be involved with," Trump said. "Instead, our focus must be on defeating terrorism
and destroying ISIS, and we will."
Hence, there hasn't been a President for the last 50 years that has campaigned on, or
entered office with a PUBLIC plan to engage in foreign regime change activities. But nearly
every one of them, especially since Ronald Reagan, have had "excuses" crop up for
"humanitarian interventions" and that includes Bush II and Obama. The so-called Arab Spring
began in earnest in mid- to late 2010 and Syria and Libya were in mid to late 2011 during
their peak, at which point the U.S. and France got involved under the auspices of
"humanitarian intervention."
So more than 3 years into his first term, Obama still hadn't "started any new wars." Three
years is an incredibly short period of time when looking at history, even the history of the
United States. Trump's only been in office for about 3 years and 9 months. Nothing like the
Arab Spring has happened so far while he's been there. That is indisputable. What is also
indisputable is that Trump DID try to spark a war by assassinating General Soleimani. Whether
there was any plan AT THE TIME to end up invading Iran (a total fool's errand as you know
well), I doubt, but the goal of that assassination was to prevent an organic, non-U.S.
brokered peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which at the very least was a threat to Trump's
precious arms sales, but also very much in line with his Zionist friendly Israel policy. At
worst, who knows, but you can't make an unchallenged assumption that Trump and his advisors
had fully thought through all possible Iranian retaliation options and concluded that there
was no way the assassination would cause Iran to do something so bad that a new war was
justified regardless of the cost. Sorry, but you just can't.
Yeah, yeah, Trump hasn't started any "new wars" but his rhetoric and public facing stated
foreign policy goals were virtually the same as Obama's. Trump just didn't get any 9/11s,
Eastern European or Middle East uprisings that would have been sufficient for him or ANY
previous president to attempt to justify "humanitarian interventions" abroad. As I've said
for a while, if he had a second term, there would have been a new war - even if it was the
"deep state" and CIA who created the astroturf casus belli.
...Trump has also unleashed a mass proto fascist movement, which is based amongst the
lowest scum of the working class, various billionaire factions, and the white suburban middle
class and small business owners.
These genies will not go back into their bottles. Neoliberal hegemony is shattered.
All of this is the result of the 1% sucking the blood of the working class for the past
four decades. 2008 was the spark. Covid was the explosion.
I see this every damn day in the US, even in a wealthy liberal city. The social fabric has
largely fallen apart. Living in the US is daily suffering, dashed hopes, sadness, and rage.
It is awful.
Biden won't have any room for major wars abroad. He might try to rebuild liberal alliances
but he won't have any capacity to overthrow Asad or Maduro or to reverse the objective trends
of global capitalism. How can he reboot US primacy if China and Asia account for 90 percent
of world economic growth?
Covid has revealed the US as a paper tiger with little institutional capacity to manage
itself or the world. It is in fact a threat to the world.
Biden and his neoliberal coterie will act like arrogant pricks. They are arrogant pricks.
But we can laugh at them. They have a limited shelf life.
Well of course it will be awful. There has never been an administration in American
history that hasn't been awful on foreign policy. We've always been an empire.
Biden will find a world different than the one he remembers from four years ago. The
blustering incompetence of the Trump administration was the world's cue to move on. And the
empire now has a lot of issues in the home territory that need immediate and drastic
attention.
Few empires survive long after being forced to turn inward after a long period of
expansion. We're beyond things that can papered better with a glorious little war.
Biden likely takes power with a collapsed health care sector and a real economy of misery
for most. He'll have a federal government riddled wholly unqualified ideologues in a country
that went ahead and delegitimized it's own elections for one man's vanity. Where half the
country doesn't believe in the virus that crushed the health care system and wrecked the
economy. It will all be terrible because the US has reached the historical point where
terrible describes all the options.
"... There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. ..."
That Israel would blatantly and openly interfere in the deliberations of Congress raises
some serious questions which the mainstream media predictably is not addressing. Jewish power
in America is for real and it is something that some Jews
are not shy about discussing among themselves. Jewish power is unique in terms of how it
functions. If you're an American (
or British ) politician, you very quickly are made to appreciate that Israel owns you and
nearly all of your colleagues. Indeed, the process begins in the U.S. even before your election
when the little man from AIPAC shows up with the check list that he wants you to sign off on.
If you behave per instructions your career path will be smooth, and you will benefit from your
understanding that everything happening in Washington that is remotely connected to the
interests of the state of Israel is to be determined by the Jewish state alone, not by the U.S.
Congress or White House.
And, here is the tricky part, even while you are energetically kowtowing to Netanyahu, you
must strenuously deny that there is Jewish power at work if anyone ever asks you about it. You
behave in that fashion because you know that your pleasant life will be destroyed, painfully,
if you fail to deny the existence of an Israel Lobby or the Jewish power that supports it.
It is a bold assertion, but there is plenty of evidence to support how that power is exerted
and what the consequences are. Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy and Congressmen Paul
Findlay, Pete McCloskey and Cynthia McKinney have all experienced the wrath of the Lobby and
voted out of office. Currently Reverend Raphael Warnock, who is running against Georgia
Loeffler for a senate seat in Georgia demonstrates exactly how candidates are convinced to
stand on their heads by the Israel Lobby. Warnock was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights
and a critic of Israeli brutality.
He said as recently as 2018 that the Israelis were shooting civilians and condemned the
military occupation and settlement construction on the Palestinian West Bank, which he compared
to apartheid South Africa. Now that he is running for the Senate, he is saying that he is
opposed to the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement due to what he calls the
movement's "anti-Semitic overtones." He also supports continued military assistance for Israel
and believes that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, both of which are critical issues
being promoted by the Zionist lobby.
There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior
Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor
famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their
support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. Just
how Israel gains control of the U.S. political process is illustrated by the devastating
insider tale of how the Obama Administration's feeble attempts to do the right thing in the
Middle East were derailed by American Jews in Congress, the media, party donors and from inside
the White House itself. The story is of particularly interest as the Biden Administration will
no doubt suffer the same fate if it seeks to reject or challenge Israel's ability to manipulate
and virtually control key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
The account of Barack Obama's struggle with Israel and the Israeli Lobby comes from a
recently published memoir written by a former foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes. It is
entitled
The World As It Is , and it is extremely candid about how Jewish power was able to
limit the foreign policy options of a popular sitting president. Rhodes recounts, for example,
how Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once nicknamed him "Hamas" after he dared to speak up for
Palestinian human rights, angrily shouting at him "Hamas over here is going to make it
impossible for my kid to have his fucking bar mitzvah in Israel."
Rhodes cites numerous instances where Obama was forced to back down when confronted by
Israel and its supporters in the U.S. as well as within the Democratic Party. On several
occasions, Netanyahu lecture the U.S. president as if he were an errant schoolboy. And Obama
just had to take it. Rhodes sums up the situation as follows: "In Washington, where support for
Israel is an imperative for members of Congress, there was a natural deference to the views of
the Israeli government on issues related to Iran, and Netanyahu was unfailingly
confrontational, casting himself as an Israeli Churchill . AIPAC and other organizations exist
to make sure that the views of the Israeli government are effectively disseminated and opposing
views discredited in Washington, and this dynamic was a permanent part of the landscape of the
Obama presidency."
And, returning to the persistent denial of Jewish power even existing when it is running
full speed and relentlessly, Rhodes notes the essential dishonesty of the Israel Lobby as it
operates in Washington: "Even to acknowledge the fact that AIPAC was spending tens of millions
to defeat the Iran deal [JCPOA] was anti-Semitic. To observe that the same people who supported
the war in Iraq also opposed the Iran deal was similarly off limits. It was an offensive way
for people to avoid accountability for their own positions."
Many Americans long to live in a country that is at peace with the world and respectful of
the sovereignty of foreign nations. Alas, as long as Israeli interests driven by overwhelming
Jewish power in the United States continue to corrupt our institutions that just will not be
possible. It is time for all Americans, including Jews, to accept that Israel is a foreign
country that must make its own decisions and thereby suffer the consequences. The United States
does not exist to bail Israel out or to provide cover for its bad behavior. The so-called
"special relationship" must end and the U.S. must deal with the Israelis as they would with any
other country based on America's own self-interests. Those interests definitely do not include
funding the Israeli war machine, assassinating foreign leaders, or attacking a non-threatening
Iran while continuing an illegal occupation of Syria.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
Threat inflation is like Apple pie among Washington swamp national security parasites
Notable quotes:
"... The US security state, with its huge military forces and techno-industrial base, and no diplomatic need nor capability, REQUIRES (fake) "security threats" in order to exist. ..."
"... Those appointed "threats" are currently, probably not changing soon, in some order of "threat-size" . . . ..."
Applying any logic to the "threats" against the US "national security" AKA world hegemony
becomes much simpler with recognizing two simple facts:
1. The US security state, with its huge military forces and techno-industrial base, and no
diplomatic need nor capability, REQUIRES (fake) "security threats" in order to exist.
2. Those appointed "threats" are currently, probably not changing soon, in some order of
"threat-size" . . .
China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Venezuela, & African
"terrorists" -- did I miss anyone?
Trump's election, Russiagate and the smear campaign against Julian Assange have deluded and
disoriented many "left" organizations.
"I was shocked at the virulent animosity to anything Putin."
I returned from a delegation to
Russia a year ago, so am now more sensitive to the pervasive and persistent anti-Russia
propaganda in this country. To prepare for my trip, I read Stephen Cohen's War
with Russia? , which I believe is an unimpeachable source of information. So I was
dismayed to learn of his recent death, because he was a voice of reason amidst the salivating
war fever. Caitlin Johnstone does justice to
his memory: " We should heed the dire warnings that Cohen spent his last breaths issuing. We
should...call for détente with Russia and China. We should begin creating an opposition
to this world-threatening flirtation with armageddon before it is too late."
The delegation was led by Sharon Tennison, founder of Center for Citizens Initiatives , which has been taking citizen
diplomacy delegations to the USSR and Russia since 1983. On her recent 84th birthday she
published a letter about where she sees current US/Russian relations ,
including the risk of nuclear war. I posted her letter to a listserv of the National Lawyers
Guild, an organization I have been a member of for 37 years. Although I have previously
exposed the NLG for losing its political compass, I was shocked at the virulent animosity
to anything Putin, or even Russian, in the emails it generated.
Unfortunately, this anti-Russia bias is not unique to the Guild. Trump's election,
Russiagate, and the smear campaign against Julian Assange have deluded and disoriented many
organizations and individuals with profoundly critical and activist traditions, including the
Pacifica radio
network ,
Democratic Socialists of America and Democracy Now! Since COVID, China is now in the US
crosshairs as well, with increased risk of catastrophe. The intent of this article is to expose
this extremely dangerous political tendency, with the Guild as but one example, because it is
increasing international hostilities, at our peril. What we desperately need is an anti-war
movement.
"China is now in the US crosshairs as well."
I shared with a retired lawyer and fellow-member of the Russia delegation that a Guild
member said I would create more chaos than clarity on the left if I exposed the Guild. She
responded "'You will create more chaos than clarity on the Left,' sounds like old-time,
1930's communism when it was politically incorrect to criticize any defects in the party. Any
organization, or any individual, that lacks the backbone to stand up to criticism and to
examine itself to see if that criticism is warranted, and to self-correct if it is or to
vigorously defend itself if it isn't, is weak, an empty box echoing platitudes it cannot
defend."
Tennison received many positive responses to her birthday letter, such as:
"I thank you for the gift of that wonderfully thoughtful letter!"
"I liked your perspectives on President Putin."
"I think you make a persuasive case."
"I am forwarding your message to others."
Apparently, it's controversial to publish group emails anonymously without the author's
consent. I told Tennison that the many Guild responses were largely hostile to her point of
view and asked if it was ethical to expose them. She said, " I think you should expose them
on their ungrounded biases. Tell them to go see the country that was collapsing from communism
and then robbed blind by the oligarchs in the 90s, then finally began to get up on its knees by
the early 2000s and today is in amazing shape.What do you mean when you ask 'what are
the ethics?' You should tell the truth! That's the height of ethics!!!"
"You should expose them on their ungrounded biases."
Guild responses, which echo what many "progressive" groups are saying, include: "This is
garbage propaganda... Anyone with a small amount of knowledge of Russia knows this article is
absolutely not true. No matter what you think of the current state of our government, we have
nothing to gain from Putin. There is nothing admirable about him as a leader and there is
nothing admirable about his government. I can't even fathom the motivation for disseminating
this....I am hardly a lover of American MSM propaganda, but I am getting tired of seeing
knee-jerk reactions to any criticism or negative news about Putin or RT...I don't know if
Tennison's piece is propaganda (implying some intent), but it certainly is misguided. I (and
probably a fair number of other folks on this list) have not met Putin and am not particularly
invested in this debate...move this offlist, or set up a 'debates about politicians foreign and
domestic' sublist...I was disputing the accuracy of the author's description of Putin's
character and questioning why Putin's character is being defended on an NLG listserv."
A former comrade, who still probably calls himself a socialist, claimed it is an electoral
issue: "Riva doesn't give a damn if Trump is re-elected by the electoral college,...She even
attacked the NLG for failing to oppose Russia Today having to register as a foreign agent. The
discussion is a total turn-off to new and veteran members alike." Others voiced election
concerns: " Support for Putin is support for Trump...When I see an article like this come,
apparently, out of the blue and unrelated to the NLG's mission, I wonder who benefits from
propping up Putin's character?...It's difficult for me to believe that there are NLG members
who want to rehabilitate Putin's image in order to help the Trump Administration...My fears are
that the election is the motivation for the email supporting Putin."
" Support for Putin is support for Trump."
A Guild member of over 30 years said, "When nonsense like that is sent out by Guild
members it contributes to making the Guild irrelevant." Several others claimed the wisdom
of age and Red-rearing: "My own father was in Local 1199 In the 1930s and recruited and
covered for the absences of NYC Health workers sent to Spain as medics and ambulance drivers in
the Spanish Civil War... what could be more " pinko " than that!...Putin and his boss Leningrad
Mayor Anatoly Sobchak visited Los Angeles in the 1980s on a visit arranged by the LA-St
Petersburg Sister City Committee ( on which I served along with the CEO of Lockheed and other
major LA area companies). A fruit of their visit was booking a float in the Rose Parade
featuring tourism in St. Petersburg! Can't make this up!" [What is wrong with that? I wish
we could build more sister city relationships in Russia. I recently tried to get San Francisco
to consider having a sister city in Russia, and was told it wasn't a good time to do so.]
Another long-term socialist comrade said " in defending, as you do, Putin and Putin's
Russia, you lose credibility with Guild folks who, I suspect, also share our desire to not see
a US-Western World conflict with Russia. It is one thing to defend against red-baiting...as one
called before HUAC during Vietnam, believe me, I am deeply opposed to red-baiting...it is
another to present a picture of Putin which, quite frankly, does not square with reality. (I
know, you believe the western press gives us a false picture of Putin. But there are plenty on
the left, and in the left media, that have a very different assessment of Putin than the woman
writing that letter you sent around.)" It is remarkable that people who challenge my
questioning of the groupthink on Russia, refuse to offer a coherent, written counter to my
perspective or a defense of the groupthink.
And the younger generation: " These kinds of threads are the reason people unsubscribe
from lists and/or are turned away from the NLG altogether. I'm a very new member and am very
disheartened to see this exchange from Guild members who set the example for my generation This
is setting a bad precedent for the Next Gen by putting this BS on the NLG List...Well, speaking
for myself, this Next Gen member is unsubscribing, having applied my own judgment values and
critical thinking skills to the situation...This is a barrier to the Guild's outreach and
membership development, and has encouraged me to channel my energy into other
organizations."
"People who challenge my questioning of the groupthink on Russia, refuse to offer a
coherent, written counter to my perspective."
And of course people use the danger of fascism : "Many of us generally support radical or
left ideals. With the rise of fascism in this country, now, more than ever, we need to promote
inclusion and allyship rather than sectarianism and exclusion?" Does principled debate (let
alone simply posting a letter) imply "sectarianism and exclusion" and foreclose "inclusion and
allyship?" Others said there is an "expectation that we be collegial" and "good to each
other."
One of the very few positive responses came from a member who recently visited Russia:
"I must say I agree with many of those who criticize Tennison's piece on Putin -- but
very much oppose the notion that this list should be reserved for local Guild work. People who
are offended by or oppose comments posted by NLG members shouldn't be able to shut down
contentious discussions. It's easy enough to simply delete a thread that you consider
'irrelevant' -- although I would hope most Guild members would want to engage in discussion
about the countries and leaders that our governing elites and the MSM are attacking in
promotion of US imperial power (i.e. Russia, China, Venezuela, and Iran, for starters).The Guild is an organization of internationalists -- and not limited to local
struggles."
And there was this qualified support: "I agree that we should be very suspect of
Red-baiting news stories on general principle...while holding the nuance of resisting
authoritarianism includes using a critical lens."
A democratic organization requires open discussion and voting on controversial positions.
Until recently, since its founding in 1937, that occurred at the Guild's annual conventions. It
was through such a process that the Guild improved its position on Palestine. I have no problem
being a vocal minority in a democratic organization, but there must be debate for positions to
be clear. I have tried, unsuccessfully, several times over the Trump years -- and the New
McCarthyism -- to have such discussions. If there had been, I would have kept these issues
internal to the organization. The squashing of debate was the catalyst for my airing dirty
laundry, as well as its implications for the broad progressive community.
I was told that I will create "fissure" and "NLG folks will be on the defensive," (about
being called out on their anti-Russia bias?) and an old comrade says he will not respect me if
I expose the Guild's anti-Russia bias by pulling anonymous quotes from Guild members emails. As
to ethics, my Russia delegation comrade says: " Your old comrade favors quashing the truth
in order to present a good face. A false face, in fact. Is it ethical to do that? You are in
the boat that many of us are struggling to stay afloat in. Going against popular opinion
becomes a whole lot more than just a quaint quirk when the stakes are raised -- as they are
right now with the election in view and the Dems seriously worried. It is getting really nasty
out there."
Riva Enteen is a lifelong peace activist, social worker, lawyer, advocate for justice and
editor of"Follow the Money,"a
collection of Pacifica Radio's Flashpoints Interviews.
Here's China's unofficial response via this Global Times editorial . I
wish I could reproduce the art at the editorial's header as it's very spot-on:
"There is no new wording in the report, which can be seen as a collection of malicious
remarks from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other anti-China US politicians and senators.
Right now, only a little more than 60 days are left for the current US administration. An
official from the State Department explained that the report is not meant to constrain the
next US administration. But the fact is the Department of State fears that the Biden
administration will adjust US-China relations, and the release of the report is part of their
efforts to consolidate the current extreme anti-China path.
"But most Chinese scholars who have read the report believe it is an insult to Kennan by
labeling the report as Kennan-style. Kennan, then US charge d'affaires in Moscow, sent an
8,000-word telegram to the Department of State detailing his views on the Soviet Union. At
least, there was no special political motive in Kennan's report. But the latest report is
trying to leave a legacy for the extreme anti-China policy adopted by the Trump
administration and fawning on Pompeo, which is evil in essence .
"The impulsive and capricious governing style of Donald Trump leaves sufficient room for
politicians like Pompeo to give free play to their ambitions. The Department of State has
become the governmental organ that has the most serious clashes with China, outperforming the
CIA and the Department of Defense.
"Diplomats are supposed to be communicators, but Pompeo and his team have chilled the
communication atmosphere with China. In the China direction, today's US Department of State
can close its door.
"Surrounded by such deep hostility and prejudice toward China and the wild ambition of the
secretary of state, how could the Department of State's Office of Policy Planning make out
anything objective about China? Their observation ability, cautious attitude toward research,
and sense of responsibility for history have been severely squeezed. They are just currying
favor from their seniors and manipulating extreme paths, pretending to be
'thoughtful....'
"Chinese diplomatic and academic circles look down upon the Pompeo team, which lacks
professionalism, and acts like a group of gangsters suddenly taking official positions.
They not only have messed things up, but also hope to build their nonsense as legacy.
Pompeo's choice of opportunists like Miles Yu as advisor in particular has increased Chinese
people's doubts over the 'amateurism' and 'immorality' of the Pompeo team's China
policy....
"The US' China policy is very much like 'drunk driving' internally while on the
international stage it's like sailing against the current." [My Emphasis]
There's not much more to add aside for asking barflies to read the entire editorial.
"Although it is hardly atypical of the President Trump administration, the document is
significant because it represents yet another attempt by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to
immortalize his Cold War confrontation between the US and China, bind the succeeding
administration to it and most strikingly, institutionalize anti-Beijing ideas into American
bureaucracy.
"The push against China by the Trump White House is not designed to be a passing phase,
but a permanent and defining change of direction, for which this entire term in office has
sought to prepare. This document aims to be a blueprint for long-term ideological struggle
and a series of aspirations for maintaining hegemony, an affirmation of priority and a
statement that things cannot " go back to normal ". But it makes no guarantee that the
US can ever adequately understand China, or that it will succeed in its aims.
"The reference to George F. Kennan in pitching this document is appealing given the
historical parallels, but it is not an exact fit and this, in turn, helps shine a light on
Pompeo's own ignorance of China. It might be described in one simple sentence: China is not
the Soviet Union and the ideological stakes are not quite the same." [Emphasis Original]
While I'd agree that differences in ideology exist between China and the Outlaw US Empire,
it is the Empire that's constructed upon and is living the Big Lie inherent within
Neoliberalism, while China continues to perfect its already very efficient system of
Collective Libertarianism through its revamped Democratic Centralism. The really big
fundamental difference is that China has absolutely no need to lie to its people, whereas the
exact opposite's true within the Neoliberal West. After a lengthy period of public input, the
government meets and eventually publishes its 5-year plan of development, which is contained
within an even larger plan that's also been devised with public input and once put together
is also published for public consumption. And since 2010, all plans have existed within
China's UN 2030 Development plan, which is also available to the public. In a great many
respects. China is a more open society than the Outlaw US Empire. Why? Because it doesn't
need to lie to its citizens because it fights against the corruption that provides the reason
for such lies--China has no Financial Parasitism it must mask from its citizens whereas the
Outlaw US Empire is drowning in a massive sea of corruption that is killing it. Clearly,
Pompeo wants that to continue.
It has been fascinating to see both Republicans and Democrats denounce Trump on this. NPR
yesterday was in full-on war propagation mode, all of it's "experts" warning how dangerous a
withdrawal would be. Nary a mention anywhere that we have been there for 19 years, more
mocking Trump for "what he calls never-ending wars."
Like I told a liberal I know, recently. when he was complaining how Republicans were
destroying Democracy - why so sour? You won, remember? Now take heart, the Democratic Party,
major media and the Intelligence Community will be in sync restoring Democracy.
I wonder if we made it illegal for weapons/security contractors to trade their stock in
the markets, if most of this full throated support for war amongst our elite would
evaporate?
The interesting part is that the condemnation of Trump is coupled with "we're on the cusp
of victory" talk. America has been on the cusp of victory in Afghanistan multiple times, it
seems.
The Obama surge was prompted by General McChrystal's representations back in 2009 that the
war was winnable with more troops. In excess of 100,000 troops by 2011 was not sufficient to
achieve victory. The war then became an exercise in Afghan self-determination and honorable
withdrawal, reminiscent of "Vietnamization." This has been going on for nine years with, by
all accounts, the Taliban increasing its control of the country. There is no doubt that a
final withdrawal of U.S. troops would be a repeat of Saigon 1975.
Interestingly, the war morphed from removing Al Qaeda, propping up the Kabul government,
and defeating the Taliban, to being a protracted counter-narcotic operation. Given the
feudalistic realities of Afghan society, creating a Taliban-free, central government
controlled Afghanistan based upon western concepts is not a reality.
There is no doubt as to Afghanistan's strategic importance based upon its location and
resources. At the very least, those who condemn Trump for wanting to withdraw U.S. troops
from Afghanistan can be honest about why we are still there, although it's not a mystery in
geopolitical terms.
So, in Rubio's worldview Saigon would be better today if it were still occupied by
American soldiers. This imperialistic gene has to be eradicated from within these
Establishment armchair warriors. Our election of Donald Trump was a first raising of the hand
to say..stop. Stop it. Your time is through.
And now, since Democrats have flipped from freedom-loving liberals to authoritarian
leftists, they are united with the neo-con Republicans to keep imperialism alive and
prospering. America will soon come to understand that they've made a huge blunder in
replacing the one that has both the power and the will to turn us around. Only by electing
more Donald J. Trumps will the fever finally be broken.
US president-elect Joe Biden's approach to diplomacy is diametrically opposed to that of the outgoing Donald Trump, known as he
was to levy undiplomatic salvos at foreign leaders via social media. But one shouldn't expect a wholesale revamp in substance
when the veteran Democrat takes office in January. FRANCE 24 takes a closer look at Biden's foreign policy agenda.
ADVERTISING
The former
US
vice
president brings a wealth of foreign policy experience, expertise and, not insignificantly, genuine interest in global affairs
to the White House. The Democrat served as chair of the
Senate
Foreign Relations Committee
, readily making
trips
to Iraq and Afghanistan
to gather the facts on the ground, prior to spending eight years as President
Barack
Obama
's right-hand man from 2009 to early 2017.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Monday reflected fondly on her regular meetings with VP
Biden
under
Obama. "He knows Germany and Europe well. I remember good encounters and conversations with him," Merkel said as she
underlined Biden's "decades of experience in foreign policy" and "very warmly" congratulated him on his election win.
The transatlantic conversation is indeed likely to mellow amid a promised early flurry of multilateral moves on Biden's part
that dovetail with key European priorities and reverse the sorts of
Trump
manoeuvres
that boggled European capitals.
Biden
has
said
his foreign agenda would "place the United States back at the head of the table, in a position to work with its
allies and partners to mobilise collective action on global threats". The operative word there may be "table" -- Biden recognises
there should be one. After four years of "America First", with the erratic Trump toppling proverbial roundtables with an
iconoclastic flourish, Biden will be conspicuous about putting the pieces back together.
"For 70 years, the United States, under Democratic and Republican presidents, played a leading role in writing the rules,
forging the agreements, and animating the institutions that guide relations among nations and advance collective security and
prosperity -- until Trump," Biden wrote in a Foreign Affairs piece last spring that
reads
like a foreign policy manifesto
. "If we continue his abdication of that responsibility, then one of two things will
happen: either someone else will take the United States' place, but not in a way that advances our interests and values, or no
one will, and chaos will ensue. Either way, that's not good for America."
Biden says he will rejoin the
Paris
Climate Agreement
"on day one" and, "in his first 100 days in office", he will convene a global summit on climate to press
the world's top carbon-emitters to join the US in making national pledges more ambitious than the ones they made in the French
capital back in 2015.
On the campaign trail, the president-elect also pledged to rejoin the
World
Health Organization
on his first day in office -- after Trump eschewed and quit the Geneva-based institution in the midst of
the
Covid-19
global
public health crisis. "Americans are safer when America is engaged in strengthening global health," Biden reasons.
During his first year in office, the president-elect has also pledged to host "a global Summit for Democracy to renew the
spirit and shared purpose of the nations of the Free World". The gathering's stated aim is to obtain commitments toward
fighting corruption, countering authoritarianism, notably through election security, and advancing human rights globally.
Biden has also pledged to rejoin the United Nations Human Rights Council.
As a presidential candidate, Biden stumped for renewing America's support
NATO
,
calling his country's commitment to the 70-year-old political and military alliance "sacred, not transactional", in contrast
to his predecessor's vision of the body as a protection club with dues.
"NATO is at the very heart of the United States' national security, and it is the bulwark of the liberal democratic ideal -- an
alliance of values, which makes it far more durable, reliable, and powerful than partnerships built by coercion or cash," the
lifelong transatlanticist wrote. Cue the sigh of relief in Baltic capitals.
Countering 'Russian aggression'
Naturally, part of Biden's argument for bolstering NATO is the message it will send
Moscow
.
"To counter Russian aggression, we must keep the alliance's military capabilities sharp while also expanding its capacity to
take on nontraditional threats, such as weaponised corruption, disinformation, and cyber-theft," Biden explained in Foreign
Affairs.
He was vice president in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine, sinking ties between Moscow and Washington to a
post-Cold War low.
Observers note that Washington has not been complacent with Moscow in the intervening years, imposing sanctions on Russia
during Trump's term in office even as the man behind the desk in the Oval Office seemed keen to look the other way. But under
Biden, the mixed message of friendliness to Vladimir Putin conveyed by Trump -- who declined to address such affronts as the
bounties Moscow allegedly put on the heads of US troops in Afghanistan -- will likely be a thing of the past.
"We must impose real costs on Russia for its violations of international norms and stand with Russian civil society, which has
bravely stood up time and again against President Vladimir Putin's kleptocratic authoritarian system," Biden has pledged.
Despite his wariness of Moscow, Biden has promised to pursue an extension of the New START Treaty, which his campaign called
"an anchor of strategic stability between the United States and Russia" and use that nuclear arms reduction agreement as a
foundation for future arms control arrangements.
Coalescing allies to confront China
Biden sees
China
,
meanwhile, as the most pertinent threat to US interests long-term, a stance that enjoys rare relative bipartisan agreement in
Washington, meaning the shift on relations with Beijing will primarily be one of tone and method.
Biden has slammed China for stealing US firms' technology and intellectual property and for giving its state-owned firms an
unfair advantage with subsidies.
Instead of addressing US concerns unilaterally as Trump has, Biden has proposed building a coalition of allies to confront
China where the nations disagree (unfair commercial practices, human rights abuses) and to engage in cooperation where it is
needed (climate issues, global public health, nonproliferation, not least vis-à-vis North Korea).
"On its own, the United States represents about a quarter of global GDP. When we join together with fellow democracies, our
strength more than doubles. China can't afford to ignore more than half the global economy," wrote Biden in Foreign Affairs.
"That gives us substantial leverage to shape the rules of the road on everything from the environment to labour, trade,
technology, and transparency, so they continue to reflect democratic interests and values," he reasoned.
The Delaware Democrat has blasted Trump's propensity for designating imports from the European Union and Canada, America's
"closest allies", as national security threats, damaging long-entrenched relationships with "reckless tariffs".
"By cutting us off from the economic clout of our partners, Trump has kneecapped our country's capacity to take on the real
economic threat," he wrote, pointing to China.
No more 'forever wars' in the Middle East
Biden has pledged to "re-enter" the Iran nuclear deal, "negotiated by the Obama-Biden administration alongside our allies and
other world powers" -- namely France, Germany, the UK, the EU, China and Russia. He credits the accord with having blocked
Iran
from
obtaining a nuclear weapon and blames Trump's decision to cast it aside for prompting Iran to rekindle its nuclear ambitions
and adopt a more provocative stance. Biden has pledged to rejoin the agreement "if Tehran returns to compliance" and use
"hard-nosed diplomacy and support from our allies to strengthen and extend it, while more effectively pushing back against
Iran's other destabilising activities".
Meanwhile, the former vice-president has also said he would "end our support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen".
Although he has said Trump's unilateral approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has made the two-state solution for
Israel that Biden backs more difficult, he has said he
would
keep the embassy
Trump moved to Jerusalem in 2018 where it is. Biden has welcomed the normalising of relations the Trump
administration helped negotiate
between
Israel and Gulf states
in recent months.
The Democrat has pledged to sustain "an ironclad commitment to Israel's security". He has also cautioned the country over its
treatment of the Palestinian territories,
saying
earlier this year
, "Israel needs to stop the threats of annexation and stop settlement activity because it will choke off
any hope of peace."
In terms of US military commitments in the region, Biden has advocated bringing home the vast majority of American troops in
the Middle East and Afghanistan, in favour of narrowing the focus to Al-Qaeda and Islamic State group. He wants to end the
"forever wars" the US has waged in the region.
Daily newsletter
Receive essential international news every morning
"We must maintain our focus on counter-terrorism, around the world and at home, but staying entrenched in unwinnable conflicts
drains our capacity to lead on other issues that require our attention, and it prevents us from rebuilding the other
instruments of American power," he wrote in Foreign Affairs.
No hard-border Brexit
It would be a misnomer to count
Brexit
as
among Biden's hot-button policy issues. Indeed, while Trump ally Boris Johnson and his Conservative leadership in London once
looked forward to negotiating an "ambitious" post-Brexit trade deal with the US, neither Biden's campaign website's outline of
his foreign policy priorities nor the former vice president's quasi-manifesto in Foreign Affairs makes any mention of the
United Kingdom per se or its divorce proceedings from the EU. What is clear is that Biden is not poised to cater to the
so-called "Special Relationship" at any cost.
"We can't allow the Good Friday Agreement that brought peace to Northern Ireland to become a casualty of Brexit," the
president-elect, a noted Irish-American,
tweeted
in September
. "Any trade deal between the US and UK must be contingent upon respect for the Agreement and preventing the
return of a hard border. Period."
Not quite Twitter diplomacy as Trump might conduct it, but the president-elect's sentiment won't have escaped Downing Street's
attention as it turns the page on Europe.
Independent commentator Caitlin Johnstone is raining on the parade of Liberals and
Progressives who are hailing "barriers being broken" merely because Joe Biden is expected to
pick a woman for the top Pentagon post in a historic first, blasting
the spectacle as "Imperialism in Pumps" given presumed top choice Michele Flournoy hails
from deep within the heart of the hawkish military-industrial complex .
"President-elect Joe Biden is expected to take a historic step and select a woman to head
the Pentagon for the first time, shattering one of the few remaining barriers to women in the
department and the presidential Cabinet," the
Associated Press reported gushingly this weekend.
Seen as a steady hand who favors strong military cooperation abroad , Flournoy, 59, has
served multiple times in the Pentagon, starting in the 1990s and most recently as the
undersecretary of defense for policy from 2009 to 2012. She serves on the board of Booz Allen
Hamilton , a defense contractor...
This word "moderate" which the AP news agency keeps bleating is of course complete
nonsense. Standing in the middle ground between two corporatist warmongering parties does not
make you a moderate, it makes you a corporatist warmonger. Flournoy is no more "moderate"
than the "moderate rebels" in Syria which mass media outlets like AP praised for years until
it became undeniable that they were largely Al Qaeda affiliates ; the
only reason such a position can be portrayed as mainstream and moderate is because vast
fortunes have been poured into making it that way.
She highlights the nauseating spectacle of MSNBC and others attempting to frame it as a
great achievement for feminism:
"White progressives training their fire on women and women of color who are under
consideration to lead the nat sec departments makes me deeply uncomfortable about their
allyship for those communities," tweeted MSNBC contributor
Mieke Eoyang. "Especially when the nat sec community is dominated by white men."
It's only going to get dumber from here, folks.
Let's clear this up before the girl power parade starts: the first woman to head the US
war machine will not be a groundbreaking pioneer of feminist achievement. She will be a mass
murderer who wears Spanx. Her appointment will not be an advancement for women, it will be
imperialism in pumps.
Glenn Greenwald also pointed out the obvious in terms of what's really going on here,
deriding "the neoliberal scam of exploiting identity politics" .
Greenwald came under attack for so much as daring to question Flournoy's potential
appointment on the mere basis that one supposedly can't possibly question the choice when
"barriers are being broken" (and nevermind that a woman, Gina Haspel, currently runs the most
powerful spy agency in the world).
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Greenwald wrote of this tactic: "It belongs as a Hall of Fame exhibit showing why Democratic
Party neoliberals and militarists are indescribably deceitful and repulsive."
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all of Obama's more aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors
to profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop artificial intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New
American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec Advisors.
Nicholas Burns
was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since 2008, he
has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director and
Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
Samantha Power
served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National Security Council.
She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S.'s "crippling sanctions" on Iran and
North Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, the climate crisis, mass extinction, and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5 percent of their budget), trying to
clean up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism, and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the No. 2 position at the State
Department, and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As
Under Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Colin Powell a
prescient and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the No. 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome, and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea, and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs (or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine, or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats).
But this will be a long two years if we let Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on
critical appointments, policies, and legislation. Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be
an early test of whether Biden will be the consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight
for real solutions to our country's most serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas.
If Biden is surrounded by people who, against all the evidence of past decades, still
believe in the illegal threat and use of military force as key foundations of American foreign
policy, then the international cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be
undermined by four more years of war, hostility, and international tensions -- and our most
serious problems will remain unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
"... There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. ..."
Even though there was virtually no debate on foreign policy during the recent presidential
campaign, there has been considerable discussion of what President Joe Biden's national
security team might look like. The general consensus is that the top levels of the government
will be largely drawn from officials who previously served in the Obama administration and who
are likely to be hawkish. There has also been, inevitably, some discussion of how the new
administration, if it is confirmed, will deal with Israel and the Middle East in general.
Israelis would have preferred a victory by Donald Trump as they clearly understand that he
was and still is willing to defer to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on nearly all issues.
Indeed, that process is ongoing even though Trump might only have about nine more weeks
remaining in office. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is reportedly
preparing to sanction several international human rights organizations as anti-Semitic due
to the fact that they criticize Israel's brutality on the West Bank and its illegal settlement
policies. The White House is also prepared to free convicted but paroled Israeli spy Jonathan
Pollard from travel restrictions so he can move to Israel, where he is regarded as a hero.
Pollard was the most damaging spy in U.S. history and any mitigation of his sentence has been
opposed by both the Pentagon, where he worked, and also by the intelligence community.
Finally, it is widely believed that before the end of the year Trump
will declare that the United States accepts the legitimacy of Israeli intentions to
declare annexation of nearly all the Palestinian West Bank. The White House will actually
encourage such an initiative reportedly "to sow hostility between Israel and the Biden
administration." One should note that none of the pro-Israeli measures that are likely to come
out of the White House enhance U.S. security in any way and they also do nothing particularly
to benefit Trump's campaign to be re-elected through legal challenges.
If Biden does succeed in becoming president, the special place that Israel occupies in the
centers of American power are
unlikely to be disturbed , which is why Netanyahu was quick off the mark in congratulating
the possible new chief executive. Biden has proudly declared himself
to be a "Zionist" and his running mate Kamala Harris has been a featured speaker at the
annual gatherings of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington. Both
are strongly supportive of the "special relationship" with the Israel and will make no effort
to compromise America's apparent commitment to protect and nourish the Jewish state.
Though Israel is central to how the United States conducts its foreign policy, the country
was invisible in the debates and other discussions that took place among candidates during the
recent campaign. American voters were therefore given the choice of one government that panders
to Israel at the expense of U.S. security or another party that does exactly the same thing. To
be sure, Biden did state that he would work to reinstate the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(JCPOA) relating to Iran's nuclear program, which was canceled by Trump. But he also indicated
that it would require some amendment, meaning that the Iranians would have to include their
missile program in the monitoring while also abandoning their alleged propensity to "interfere"
in the Middle East region. The Iranian government has already indicated that additional
conditions are unacceptable, so the deal is dead in the water. Israel has also privately and
publicly
objected to any new arrangement and has already declared that it would "save the option" of
working through the Republican Senate to thwart any attempts by the Biden Administration to
change things.
That Israel would blatantly and openly interfere in the deliberations of Congress raises
some serious questions which the mainstream media predictably is not addressing. Jewish power
in America is for real and it is something that some Jews
are not shy about discussing among themselves. Jewish power is unique in terms of how it
functions. If you're an American (
or British ) politician, you very quickly are made to appreciate that Israel owns you and
nearly all of your colleagues. Indeed, the process begins in the U.S. even before your election
when the little man from AIPAC shows up with the check list that he wants you to sign off on.
If you behave per instructions your career path will be smooth, and you will benefit from your
understanding that everything happening in Washington that is remotely connected to the
interests of the state of Israel is to be determined by the Jewish state alone, not by the U.S.
Congress or White House.
And, here is the tricky part, even while you are energetically kowtowing to Netanyahu, you
must strenuously deny that there is Jewish power at work if anyone ever asks you about it. You
behave in that fashion because you know that your pleasant life will be destroyed, painfully,
if you fail to deny the existence of an Israel Lobby or the Jewish power that supports it.
It is a bold assertion, but there is plenty of evidence to support how that power is exerted
and what the consequences are. Senators William Fulbright and Chuck Percy and Congressmen Paul
Findlay, Pete McCloskey and Cynthia McKinney have all experienced the wrath of the Lobby and
voted out of office. Currently Reverend Raphael Warnock, who is running against Georgia
Loeffler for a senate seat in Georgia demonstrates exactly how candidates are convinced to
stand on their heads by the Israel Lobby. Warnock was a strong supporter of Palestinian rights
and a critic of Israeli brutality.
He said as recently as 2018 that the Israelis were shooting civilians and condemned the
military occupation and settlement construction on the Palestinian West Bank, which he compared
to apartheid South Africa. Now that he is running for the Senate, he is saying that he is
opposed to the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement due to what he calls the
movement's "anti-Semitic overtones." He also supports continued military assistance for Israel
and believes that Iran is in pursuit of a nuclear weapon, both of which are critical issues
being promoted by the Zionist lobby.
There is some pushback in Washington to Israeli dominance, but not much. Recent senior
Pentagon appointee Colonel Douglas Macgregor
famously has pointed out that many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their
support of Israel even though it means the United States being dragged into new wars. Just how
Israel gains control of the U.S. political process is illustrated by the devastating insider
tale of how the Obama Administration's feeble attempts to do the right thing in the Middle East
were derailed by American Jews in Congress, the media, party donors and from inside the White
House itself. The story is of particularly interest as the Biden Administration will no doubt
suffer the same fate if it seeks to reject or challenge Israel's ability to manipulate and
virtually control key aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
The account of Barack Obama's struggle with Israel and the Israeli Lobby comes from a
recently published memoir written by a former foreign policy adviser Ben Rhodes. It is
entitled
The World As It Is , and it is extremely candid about how Jewish power was able to
limit the foreign policy options of a popular sitting president. Rhodes recounts, for example,
how Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once nicknamed him "Hamas" after he dared to speak up for
Palestinian human rights, angrily shouting at him "Hamas over here is going to make it
impossible for my kid to have his fucking bar mitzvah in Israel."
Rhodes cites numerous instances where Obama was forced to back down when confronted by
Israel and its supporters in the U.S. as well as within the Democratic Party. On several
occasions, Netanyahu lecture the U.S. president as if he were an errant schoolboy. And Obama
just had to take it. Rhodes sums up the situation as follows: "In Washington, where support for
Israel is an imperative for members of Congress, there was a natural deference to the views of
the Israeli government on issues related to Iran, and Netanyahu was unfailingly
confrontational, casting himself as an Israeli Churchill . AIPAC and other organizations exist
to make sure that the views of the Israeli government are effectively disseminated and opposing
views discredited in Washington, and this dynamic was a permanent part of the landscape of the
Obama presidency."
And, returning to the persistent denial of Jewish power even existing when it is running
full speed and relentlessly, Rhodes notes the essential dishonesty of the Israel Lobby as it
operates in Washington: "Even to acknowledge the fact that AIPAC was spending tens of millions
to defeat the Iran deal [JCPOA] was anti-Semitic. To observe that the same people who supported
the war in Iraq also opposed the Iran deal was similarly off limits. It was an offensive way
for people to avoid accountability for their own positions."
Many Americans long to live in a country that is at peace with the world and respectful of
the sovereignty of foreign nations. Alas, as long as Israeli interests driven by overwhelming
Jewish power in the United States continue to corrupt our institutions that just will not be
possible. It is time for all Americans, including Jews, to accept that Israel is a foreign
country that must make its own decisions and thereby suffer the consequences. The United States
does not exist to bail Israel out or to provide cover for its bad behavior. The so-called
"special relationship" must end and the U.S. must deal with the Israelis as they would with any
other country based on America's own self-interests. Those interests definitely do not include
funding the Israeli war machine, assassinating foreign leaders, or attacking a non-threatening
Iran while continuing an illegal occupation of Syria.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
USA is dead, long live USA. We now officially live in JUSA, the New Weimar Republic.
Actually we have been for almost 70 years, since the Cultural Revolution. America is no
longer a Christian nation but a Jew nation, with all that that entails – greed,
unscrupulousness, end justifies means, intolerance for dissent, mass deception, hypocrisy,
over sensitivity, pleasure seeking, sexual deviance, narcissism, vengeful and punitive.
Jews now basically control all institutions of import in this country, from Wall Street to
Hollywood, DC to Silicon Valley, and everywhere in between, the media, academia, judiciary,
deep state including all of DOJ and the State department. Using their control of Big Tech,
they can censor and suppress all dissent. Websites that try to go their own way like Alex
Jones or Gab.com have trouble monetizing
themselves and face constant media and left wing harrassment.
They control both msm and the
"conservative" media like WSJ, FoxNews, Breitbart, Zerohedge, National Review all are just
controlled opposition. No matter who is in the white house, we get the same things: Zionism,
globalism, corporatism, endless wars, endless immigration.
How did they do it? Not just by controlling banks and profiting off wars that they
instigated, but by selling sin. Jews own the entire sin industry. From the opium trade to the
slave trade, tobacco trade, Bootlegging, JUUL, Opiod, marijuana, alcohol, Victoria's Secret,
casinos and brothels in Vegas, HBO soft porn to hardcore porn, all are owned by Jews. Sin is
an industry where supply creates demand, not the other way around. Using their lawyers, they
first make it all legal, then make it fashionable. As Andrew Joyce so aptly put, "sordid
commercial exploitation of vice", that is what Jews excel in.
The sin industry is a trillion dollar industry, and many of those trillions have been
siphoned off to Israel, along with all the money from Wall Street swindling and the weapons
industry. We are witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth from the rest of the world to
Israel.
China-Russia-Iran may provide the world with an alternative for the future, if they can
hold off this Jewish scorch, but the West is done for. We have nothing but decline, which
will be hastened by Biden/Harris. Someone needs to keep reminding the Chinese it was a Jew
David Sassoon who ran the opium trade and forced the two opium wars on them. Never forget,
never surrender!
It's a sort of sexual charisma: all three of Joe's kids are married into the tribe, as is
the VP. Though the crackhead kid's tatted up wife Melissa Cohen definitely isn't orthodox,
though she's hot enough I'd forgive her!
"to accept that Israel is a foreign country"
Nah, it's like Canada, an America Jr. If the people disagreed, they'd have elected Ron
Paul, Cynthia McKinney, etc.
Aspies aren't good with contradictions and ambiguity. Israel is both ours and sovereign,
foreign and domestic. Most people get it though.
Yo, the Great US of A, how about just do this one thing – fixed your problem of
Israeli infestation in your institutions of power, instead of running around with a dynamite
up you behind looking to fix other people's hemorrhoids all over the world
Based on what you write, it seems that only a smart, independent minded black politician
as president would have any chance to stand up a bit to the Israeli lobby. The black
politician does not have white guilt and is less self conscious of accusations of
antisemitism. Obama was one of the few people who could fit the bill. Corey Booker is a
potential black president meeting the description who could give it the college try and 25%
stand up to the Israel lobby once in office. You should write more appreciatively of Barack
Obama. Yeah, more BLM is a bad trade off that comes with a black president but life is always
a package deal.
"Bibi the Backstabber" – Gee, I thought he and Trump were pals but he seemed pretty
quick to acknowledge a Biden win BEFORE it has even been officially on the record. Regardless
of who you want as figurehead of the USA, that seemed like a pretty crappy move but then
again, we're talking about a snake. If Trump did end up "winning" after all the recounts and
possible court rulings, do you think Trump would welcome "Bibi the Backstabber" back? "Fool
me once " What a total farce this election and our Jew infested country is. Sad.
OK move along nothing to see here, just another description of Jewish subversion 101 which
has been going on for time immemorial. I think by now we should all know who's been behind
every war, famine, economic collapse etc. The occidental countries have the remaining 11.5%
of Whites left on the planet, it appears we are going to lose, so please try and enjoy what
little time is left just don't forget to put your mask on.
Joe Biden, a mediocre intellect and a corrupt long time D.C. insider as president of the
U.S., running with a shrill shrew as vice president is supposed to be a positive development
for the citizens of the U.S.? It's too funny. She was the first democrat to pull out of the
running in the primaries and I believe Biden was second. Harris also suggested Biden is a
racist, lol. It's too surreal to believe that this has happened. Thinking of Biden in charge,
is like the feeling that the cave is going to collapse with you in it, vs. seeing the light
at the end of the tunnel with President Trump. Oh well, ces't la vie
Well said Anon. There is a lesson here. It is one which any dog or cat knows but Jewish
social science has denied us: Do not let the parasite into the nest. A couple of million
Ashkenazim were admitted to this country between 1880 and 1920. The rest is history – a
history increasingly determined by THEM.
How this happened is a story I wish our white internet historians would tell us before the
lights are shut off
Israel is a leech. Liberalism in all its aspects, including racial egalitarianism,
feminism, homosexualism, and democracy is a cancer that has spread from head to toe in the
body of the nation. A leech won't kill you, but widespread cancer certainly will. What folly
it is to focus so much attention on the little parasite outside while ignoring the massive
malignancy inside.
Regarding the photo accompanying this article: it is always beyond disconcerting to see
Israel's satanic pentagram parked next to the American flag, it evinces the kind of sickening
aplomb you would find in the image of a gorilla sodomizing a doe.
I appreciate Giraldi's incisive analysis. No one writes better about Israel's parasitic
destruction of the US.
Someone needs to keep reminding the Chinese it was a Jew David Sassoon who ran the opium
trade and forced the two opium wars on them
This, of course, is in the Chinese ledger, but offsetting it is the more recent massive
transfer of manufacturing jobs, technology, engineering services and other indirect benefits
that derived from the "great offshoring" that first occurred in the late 70s. The
apparatchiks of the CCP know who was responsible for arranging this unprecedented largesse
and will consequently be reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them.
One can only conclude that American Christians relish being Jews' bitch. And here's the
dumbest thing that the otherwise astute P. Giraldi has said: "Many Americans long to live in
a country that is at peace with the world and respectful of the sovereignty of foreign
nations." LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PS: Phil, it's over for American. All hail, China!
All foreign aid should be turned off. Disaster relief should be looked at on a case by
case basis, but that just allows the most corrupt countries to rely on it to come to the
rescue when disaster strikes. I'd even prevent that.
Is there a single member of Congress with the intestinal fortitude to propose this? I
doubt it. The selctions process has installed people so beholden to the current power
structure that no one would dare put up a bill to stop foreign aid.
Doesn't that show that the US doesn't have a Federal Government, but does have a Federal
Mafia?
The so-called "special relationship" must end and the U.S. must deal with the Israelis
as they would with any other country based on America's own self-interests.
But, falling back on realism, what is second best for Americans,and *much* more likely to
be achieved?
As a preliminary sketch it is probably wrong to blame much of the disapointments and
tribulations of the least prosperous 80 per cent of Americans on Israel, even if the cost of
the Iraq war is included. Such a small country can eat only so much of America's breakfast.
It is big business's complicity in the rise of China's economy at the expense of American
workers and the open borders to cheap labour that counts for much more damage (I believe,
though open to refutation).
So, what is a more likely acceptable outcome than your ideal prescription? I suggest that
more Balkanising of the ME to eliminate threats to Israel would be part of it.That is
happening already with the Saudis and Gulf States falling i to line. It seems hard to see why
Israel should be unhappy about Russia remaining in Syria giving security to the Assad
régime. How Iran can be dealt with isn't clear but it seems unlikely that Russia or
China would be interested in an expensive effort to prevent the overthrow of the Iranian
theocrats. It would suit both well enough that the ME was made up mostly of small countries
mostly with oil or gas to sell and without much of a US connection. China would I guess be
happy to regard Pakistan as the one Muslim country that deserved special attention.
What about the Palestinians? Oh yes, easily forgotten. Well, surely it isn't too difficult
to think up several ways of giving them a much better deal than they have now with the one
condition satisfied that Israeli Jews will not find themselves outbred and outvoted by Arab
Muslims within the state of Israel. Secular outbred by Haredim? Oh well.
"Even to acknowledge the fact that AIPAC was spending tens of millions to defeat the
Iran deal [JCPOA] was anti-Semitic. To observe that the same people who supported the war in
Iraq also opposed the Iran deal was similarly off limits. It was an offensive way for people
to avoid accountability for their own positions."
And this , ladies and gentlemen, is why we come here and speak often of Jews:
because they make it so difficult to discuss their reality anywhere else.
This fact has to change in America and Europe as well.
Well, the verified Twitter account of BLM UK put out the above tweet, after that happened
we saw an ebbing away of support for it and footballers no longer kneeled before a game.
Really tells you a lot about the totem poll and which groups are placed where.
Before she met Biden, she was supportive of the Obama presidency, and critical of
President Trump.
After the white supremacist march at Charlottesville she wrote of the president: "To
those of you who voted for this POS [piece of s ** t] you should be ashamed. That's
all."
According to the New Yorker, Cohen has a tattoo of the word "Shalom," or "peace," in
Hebrew on her bicep.
While you might not have written the headline it's an accurate synopsis of your
argument.
I shouldn't give you a hard time for it because it's accepted across the geopolitical
universe on Israel. Including, as you have long detailed, by Israel itself.
Amusingly, if you compare the mirror position along this spectrum, for example,
elimination/"It's the 51st state!," they complete each other.
It just simply isn't true. Israel isn't sui genesis. It isn't a planet that doesn't have
to, or refuses to, obey the laws of geopolitical physics.
Think of it this way. There's a disingenuous disconnect between the public discussion and
that which takes place behind the curtain. As with seemingly everything else, it's just more
so when it comes to Israel.
All of that was the shortest predicate for suggesting you notice the slim to none argument
from this author in defense of the JCPOA, much less what the Obama administration sold as a
rapprochement with Iran.
Did it have any coherence in that regard? No, indeed the Iranians stupidly insisted on
rubbing it in our faces as an abandonment of not just Israel but all other states in the
region.
It's impossible to overstate how thoroughly this has discredited the proponents of a deal
with Iran.
Whatever you think are Israel's malefactions, they are no legitimate basis for the USG to
gift a trouble-making Iran anything. Least of all, regional hegemony at the expense of
everyone else.
The Anti-Defamation League is a front for Jewish organized crime that launders their money
and defames anyone who says anything about it. The ADL openly supports apartheid in
occupied Palestine. All Silicon Valley companies, including Wikipedia, count them as an
"expert" on "hate" – despite the ADL being openly pro-apartheid. All the major news
media corporations quote them as "experts" despite them being nothing more than a partisan
political lobby.
How is the world is such an organization considered "mainstream" as opposed to a fringe
hate group?
When it comes to Israel, it is obvious that President Trump has pretty much given the jews
everything they wanted.
From the annexation of Jerusalem proper to the Golan Heights, Israel has gained approval
for its questionable, illegal actions from President Trump and others in the U S government.
His encouragement of recognition of Israel by other middle eastern countries is telling.
President Trump has been dealing with jews all of his life, being in the New York City
real estate market. He KNOWS how jews act and what they are capable of, along with their
foibles and weaknesses.
Since Trump gave the jews just about everything they wanted, he is finally going to exact
his "price" for acquiescing to Israeli demands and is going to demand something in
return.
President Trump is about to reduce, if not withdraw the entire American troop presence in
the middle east. American troops can be replaced with Israeli troops.
Of course the jews will cry foul and scream that they need an American troop presence, but
if President Trump does anything right , the reduction or withdrawal of American troops in
the middle east would be a good first step.
President Trump has already replace the Secretary of Defense with someone more amenable to
him. The American military-industrial complex will not like the changes, but they can go
"pound sand".
Well they are the chosen ones, and the rest of us are just beasts of burden. Just ask
them. They wrote it in their book. The real travesty was putting the Torah in the Bible. Or
maybe the penultimate travesty was being forcibly converted to Christianity by the Roman
Catholic Church?
Here is another good source about the Sassoon's destruction of China in the 19th century.
The Chinese remember it well especially for what was done to their summer palace, Yuan ming
yuan. It held 5000 years of Chinese history.
Deference of Washington's elected politicians to Israel is repeatedly discussed in these
columns. Courts traditionally hesitate to adjudicate issues of Uncle Sam's wars and other
"foreign policy," and even related questions ( FEC v. Akins ). Americans tend to
assume and accept that the judicial "branch" of the USG has nothing to do with these
matters.
However, with another Presidential election possibly headed to the SCOTUS, there's an
intriguing adjective in this sentence:
One should note that none of the pro-Israeli measures that are likely to come out of the
White House enhance U.S. security in any way and they also do nothing particularly
to benefit Trump's campaign to be re-elected through legal challenges.
Does Dr. Giraldi believe that the measures may generally benefit the legal
challenges?
Without a doubt, her "tat" notwithstanding, she meant "piece." As in a piece for her and
hers sufficient to allow nothing left for the deplorable goyim.
After reading that I thought that Americans are really admirable. Kamala's both parents
came recently from foreign countries which have no close relation with the US. They were
recent immigrants, refugees from poverty and other inconveniences. A few years later the
daughter becomes vice president of the country, the controler of the president (one of them)
and possibly the next president and at the same time begins to tell Americans what they have
to think and to want. It's not even merely her opinion. She is telling Americans what they
have to think and to accept. You don't have any choice. Kamala has decided.
"It is time for all Americans, including Jews, to accept that Israel is a foreign country
that must make its own decisions and thereby suffer the consequences."
You're still walking on eggshells, Giraldi. You're either having problem understanding or
are in deliberate need to evade the issue of a Jew not needing to practice Jewism (my
definition of a complete Jew), that is to say, separate himself from Israel no Jew can nor
will do so. Hence, America is either stuck with them or will have to declare that Jews, and
only Jews, aren't part of this great experiment called United States of America. It'll hurt
like hell to be divorced from present reality but at least this nation, without any natural
enemies, will have a fighting chance of being a truly great country within the commity of
nations. So long as a single Jew remains in America, there isn't any chance of having
daylight between two separate nations. So, what's going to be, slavery with comfort or
freedom with sacrifices?
@BuelahMan con
black and 99% NWO white Zionist on the inside. 2005 Senator Obama heads to Donetsk, Ukraine
with 40 million dollars to De arm the Ukrainian military – he was successful and I can
more that prove it since I lived there shortly after and knew some Ukraine military guys.
This was part/ start of the Maidan plan. Move along to 2013 " We now have the right to use
propaganda against our own citizens" Prez. Obama. Veterans Today – Obama WAS born in
Africa , but we support him 100% . And this is is also true which means we have a psyops
webpage there. Nam Vet here – and I don't like seeing Veterans screwed over by other "
Veterans".
The key to zionist ie Israels power comes from the zionist owning the FED and from this
came the zionist owning the government of the ZUS and from this came the trillions in debt
and the unending wars for the zionists and for Israel.
Also from this control of the ZUS came the assassination of JFK and RFK and JFKjr. and the
attack on the USS Liberty and the attack on the WTC on 911, which was used to plunge America
into the unending wars against the Arabs, all for the benefit of Israel and the zionist dual
citizen traitors in the ZUS.
Zionists are destroyers of nations and humanity and they are behind the covid-19 scam and
psyop which is being used to destroy America and they are doing this via the World Economic
Forum and the Rockefeller Foundation and UN Agenda 2030 which are the tips of the zionist
spears aimed at the heart of America.
@anarchyst be
illegal to print what Giraldi penned herein, as well as to discuss it over the internet, even
via 'private' e-mails. Anti-semitism was quickly made a capital offense when the mostly
jewish Bolshevik leaders enslaved Russia over a century ago. Expect similar here shortly, as
many of us on Unz are somewhat elderly, and so a long prison term for 'inappropriate
political speech' is basically a death sentence, which will be gleefully enforced by Tribal
minions, of which there is never a dearth.
So we should enjoy our liberty to speak our minds freely here at Unz while we still have
it, as it won't last long, I can assure you .
also do nothing particularly to benefit Trump's campaign to be re-elected
through legal challenges.
Does Dr. Giraldi believe that the measures may generally benefit the legal
challenges?
wasn't your entire shtick that it doesn't matter in the least which whore of Zion sits in
the White House, and that we're all chumps for caring or voting, because it doesn't matter
one whit?
And now somehow that the voting is over, you still seem keen on obsessing over the
outcome.
To answer your question, (if I may Mr. G)..
'Pro-Israeli measures' (presidential slavish and abased fealty to Bibi/Israel) does
nothing to particularly *or* generally benefit Trump, vs. the other whore of Zion. As 'Bibi'
was one of the very first heads of state to congratulate Biden and toss his former supplicant
and courtesan out the door – with less grace or gratitude than I've seen sailors toss
two-bit hookers out the door once the service was performed.
I'm sure in both cases they feel particularly sullied. Considering how eagerly and
enthusiastically they swallowed their um.. duties.
I must say, I felt more pity for the whore in some Caribbean port, who sold herself for a
few pesos, than I do for the political whore who sold out my nation.
That said, Trump has done more to keep whatever shred of dignity a whore has, than all his
recent predecessors.. (how do you quantify the incomprehensible evil of 9/11, Shock and Awe,
Patriot Act, Gitmo, Obama's destruction of Libya and Syria, etc , using the English
language?)
The bar has been so low for so long, that simply not having destroyed several nations and
mass-murdered untold hundreds of thousands- in slavish fealty to Israel- is reason enough for
some of us to consider your presidency a measured success.
Our free-fall into the abyss hit a snag on the way down with the Trump administration.
But not to worry, under Biden/Harris, we'll get to those 'seven nations'. It's just going
to take a little longer than 'five years', is all.
Nor is it really about Jews as such, it is about a Jewish financial elite that took
control with the signing of the Federal Reserve act in 1913.
Face facts Americans, your 'deep state' is mostly controlled by Jewish bankers. If white
gentiles were really in charge of America would they be demonising themselves with anti-white
racism? Have you not noticed that your own political elites are marrying into the tribe?
Remember those royal weddings that European monarchies arranged to seal alliances with other
nations? Your political elites are cementing alliances with the bankers by marriage.
If you're serious about this, you will acknowledge that your bosses at NHB get away with
murder, torture, assassination of heads of state including your own, coercive interference,
aggression, and use of banned weapons. Now is the time to drop your Boy Scout act.
You won't have to lean on your vegetable Biden too hard to make him faithfully execute the
Symington-Glenn Amendment and the Leahy Law. That cuts off Mossad's bribe spigot. Maybe there
will be a little dustup on your own turf, but who's going to win that? When it comes down to
it, Israel is a one-nuke laydown.
The Israeli command structure are deep-dyed cowards. Whack a few in spectacular ways and
the grabass will stop. Start with Bibi.
And Phil is right, that we are very disgusted (understatement of the century) with
the Eternal Wars for Israel.
But like the French, (who bombed Libya into the stone age in fealty to Zion), and the
Brits who go along with it all, and the Germans who piss their lederhosen at the mention of
Israel, and all the other countries that are vassals of the Federal Reserve and their Satanic
minions, our institutions also have been utterly corrupted by this (((fiat paper))).
many American politicians get "very, very rich" through their support
That's one of the major features of American politics. American politicians are mostly
whores for sale so naturally various interests will buy them. It's not what's good for the
country but what's good for their bank account. Greed and corruption are what'll be the
undoing of the US.
It's only logical that Iran would want to build nuclear weapons since the US and Israel have
them and war has been threatened against Iran almost continuously. Being threatened has a way
of spurring on the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The US was the first to develop them and
then actually used them, setting off a chain reaction of other countries developing their
own. It seems to only be a matter of time before Iran actually has it. Then what?
Are we talking about the same Obama? The Obama who invaded Syria and Libya when they did
absolutely nothing to threaten the security of the US? The JCPOA was credit to John Kerry,
who was then slaughtered by msm on his way out for calling for a two-state solution that
includes Israel leaving the occupied West Bank.
Osama was spot on when he called Obama a "house nigger". That was all he was, nothing
more. We don't need another. We already had one.
They had a revolution to get rid of western influenced degeneracy. They support Palestine
unwaveringly. They support Lebanon unwaveringly. They defended Syria along with Russia. They
are Russia's closest ally in the world. They stand up to Israel. They fight Israel. They
attack the social and political theory of Zionism as well it's existence.
God bless them and protect them because often it seems like they are the only ones at a
state level doing anything about the evil in our world.
Those are things happening IN Canada due to its insane decision to import Muslims and
Haitians.
You're right that Israel at times can be brutal. Muslim barbarism coarsens those around
them. Not just Israel: Thailand, Philippines, Burma, India, Ethiopia, Greece, Armenia.
The worldwide Jihad Colin and Phil support creates bloody borders with Islam always
seeking to conquer and enslave.
Israel says NO! And that's why they are full of obsessive hate for it.
@anon ormer
number two at the State Department) and his son Douglas published 'The Passionate
Attachment," explaining how it had evolved over the years. In 2007 came the Mearsheimer/Walt
book on AIPAC. For a critical history of Israel wince Biblical times, see Laurent Guyenot's
book From Yahweh to Zion, published in 2018. The last-named says that Israel is responsible
for JFK's death. He had tried to stop Israel's nuclear weapons program and thus was killed.
The Warren Report covered up that particular crime. Jews are a tremendously talented tribe,
but they have no right to dominate the world, which is what Israel is now determined to do.
@Realist eing
but another hazard that the left takes advantage of, in order to silence the opposition, with
good effect, so far
All one has to do is look at the Memphis couple who was arrested for defending themselves as
well as James Fields who has been wrongly convicted of murder while attempting to escape
while being attacked.
At the present time, discretion is advised.
The only effective way to "nip this in the bud" would be to confront the police, city
officials, judges and prosecutors directly
As they are well-protected, that is not a viable option at this time presently, but in the
future who knows??
There are some very good books on the subject. See The Passionate Attachment by George and
Douglas Ball, published in 1992. (George Ball was the number two man at State under jFK and
LBJ.)
See the book on AIPAC by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, published in 2007. See Laurent
Guyenot's From Yahweh to Zion, published in 2018.
@BL Did Jews
learn nothing by wandering the desert for 40 years? Do they forget that they were
frog-marched for defying their own god, Yahweh, yet again? Yet they seem to think their
slow-motion shoahing of Palestinians will go unpunished.
How many future small-but-hugely-powerful guided missiles hitting Haifa, Tel Aviv, etc.
will Israelis be able to take? What their power-hungry pride protect them then?
Do Jews really think they will not be held responsible/targeted around the world for the
crimes of their state?
What other state, what other people, think only THEY matter?
The Jewish State has become a blight unto the nations.
Whilst human beings conspiring is as old nevertheless the Biden family is an example of
something way, way beyond human artifice. You do not have to be a Christian to recognize that
what Jesus said of the Jews was right on the mark – their father is a devil. The New
Testament says explicitly that the ruler of this world is the Satanic Majesties the Rolling
Stones celebrated in 1967.
Jesus was offered the entire world if he would take the knee not to Saint George of this
sick era but to satan. He replied that this was the epitome of shortermism.
People are no more than puppets on a string without divine protection and that is why I do
not hate Jews but only the vile evil in which they excel through the "gifts" of their
spiritual father.
@Rurik ion
sits in the White House, and that we're all chumps for caring or voting, because it doesn't
matter one whit?
And now somehow that the voting is over, you still seem keen on obsessing over the
outcome.
There's nothing inconsistent in (i) my position about the futility of Red/Blue politics to
effect any change in what matters to the Establishment and (ii) the question I've posed to the
author. In fact, how and why "the outcome" is arrived at may enlighten some gullible
voters.
Of course, you neither needed nor wanted to hear that. Which is why you didn't reply to me
directly, right?
Your observation is confirmed by Lord Beaverbrook explaining to the young Robert Kennedy at
the end of WW2 that the USA was a subjugated country run by Jews.
The Talmudic Zionist jew vampire pirates, in their arrogance, believe themselves to be
beyond accountability for their many misdeeds.
Speed The Day when their filthy little illegitimate enclave on the Easterrn shores of The Med
gets glassed over in a thermonuclear kind of way.
The remedy for the ills of Wall Street and The Bank of England will only be a tad less
harsh.
A bounty on all Rothschilds and Warburgs and their servile rats and snakes would also be
nice.
And then there's also the 'Atlas Shrugged' strategy- wherein all honest and productive
people of good will, eventually refuse to be willing lapdogs to this Satanic cabal.
As long as you'll lose your job, by mentioning the truth, don't do so. But more and more, as
the 'hundredth monkey' come around to the Great Awakening', like the Soviet Union, this devil'$
charade must certainly die its ignoble death.
and beauty, truth and peace, will once again rise like a phoenix from the ashes of Zion
The bolsheviks goal was a %90 reduction in population, the Talmud states that the "goy" were
to be their servants, the beasts are not worthy. 10% of the Russian goys would be enough.
After their reign of terror from 1917 to 1989, they sucked the rest of Russia dry and moved
to their next target, the USA. They are almost done here, they will poison us with the covid
vaccination and as a final F you leave us as a minority among the hoards of subhumans.
Their next target is Uzbekistan, this is why no one ever hears about the country or can
point it out on a map.
Ben Franklin, in his prescient wisdom, wanted a Constitutional inclusion that would have
barred (((them))) from even setting foot upon The New Republic.
Too bad that (((The Worms))) were already here perpetrating their financial scumbaggery.
@Anonymous e in
terms of any real concern for the national interest of the United States vis-à-vis Iran.
Also, did you intentionally omit the USA removing Iran's democratically-elected leader in
1953? Or America giving poison gas to Iraq to use against Iranians?
A word to the wise, sovereigns aren't cute and cuddly. The effect their interests with
little regard for humans in their way.
It's downright embarrassing that Iran and its acolytes are still belly-aching about
Mosaddegh. It's going to continue to be a hard road with the US if they don't learn to shake it
off.
dig a bit deeper on the interwebz and you will see that there are many wypipo historians
that have screamed this message the last 100 years+.
They get shunned, memoryholed or worse.
I will not link on purpose because the search is important for learning, but i will give you a
hint
archiveDOTorg have many off their books available.
Type "political zionism" into their searchbar and learn about the enemy of humanity and their
origins first.
Pharisees is their true name btw, b4 the 2 world wars this was common knowledge among us
Christian goyims
This is from wikipedia for whatever it's worth -- Centuries later, the Jews were
expelled from China proper during the Great Anti-Buddhist Persecution (845–46), where
they lived in the region of Ningxia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaifeng_Jews
@Greta Handel
p> The fact that I quoted you, on the same thread you're reading and writing on, means to a
certainty that I was responding to your post with the intent that you'd see it. (duh)
There's nothing inconsistent in (i) my position about the futility of Red/Blue politics to
effect any change in what matters to the Establishment and (ii) the question I've posed to
the author. In fact, how and why "the outcome" is arrived at may enlighten some gullible
voters.
Yea, that was your only interest, in your priggish, pedantic parsing of Philip's prose.
Canada has been kiked for 50 years. The Canada I grew up in had no problem pointing out
tribal influence, and no one called it Auntie Shem-itism.
We have gone from the 1930s when "one would be too many" was the attitude to Jewish "refugees"
asking for admission to openly admitting we are Israel's bitch. At the same time, making it
clear non-whites were not welcome to let's flood the country, already suffering from high
unemployment, with more than 1% of our population annually from the 3rd world.
"t's downright embarrassing that Iran and its acolytes are still belly-aching about
Mosaddegh."
It's downright embarrassing that Israel and its acolytes are still belly-aching about
Holocaust to steal few more pennies and dimes .
t's downright embarrassing that west and its acolytes are still belly-aching about 911 ,and
knife attacks and Chinese something to wage wars for Israel.
Good points all.
My suggestion?
Establish Greater Israel from Nile to Euphrates. Give Jews full hegemony in their new
country.
Then, deport 3/4 of American Jews. Make laws to prevent, here, Jewish control of finance,
education, or media. And above all, keep America's nuclear deterrent razor sharp.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
'Israel says NO! And that's why they are full of obsessive hate for it.'
No -- I'm full of hate for Israel because it's an evil, duplicitous, corrosive, criminal,
indefensible, and unnecessary state that generates a great deal of misery that wouldn't
otherwise happen and that has corrupted my own country and implicated us in its crimes.
You see, it is the Banana States of America which is the most indebted beggar nation on
earth. It survives because foreign nations perform trade using the dollar. Without that trade,
the Banana States would be on its knees, literally begging.
@frankie p
mplex–and often ruthless–political struggle.
In fact, 'anti-Semitism' is a legitimate and appropriate self-defense mechanism.
'Anti-Semitism' needn't produce violence, injustice, or bloodshed. It is fundamentally about
awareness and self-preservation. It is a discredited virtue, born from necessity.
Invasive, devious, and destruction species must be resisted. 'Anti-Semitic' theory suggests
that one party–often the dominant, duplicitous, and aggressive one– is endowed with
moral superiority in the struggle for political power and self-determination. This inculcated
myth is an oversized kosher lie.
@Cauchemar du
Singe . So do not knowingly set up equals to Allah ˹in worship˺ .
And if you are in doubt about what We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a
sûrah like it and call your helpers other than Allah, if what you say is true.
But if you are unable to do so -- and you will never be able to do so -- then fear the
Fire fuelled with people and stones, which is prepared for the disbelievers .
May your hate consume you in this world, while the fire of Hell awaits your kind with much
anticipation.
On the Day We will say to Hell, "Have you been filled?" and it will say, "Are there some
more?"
Just like any cancer, it finally kills it's host, and it goes down with it.
Some day , the cure will come , and the world will be rid of it's foremost problem
This narrative of the poor enslaved USA, beholden to Isreal is openly contradictory to our
manifest galactic power -- something, something middle-east energy and minerals, geopolitics
Whatever Boring!
As to heartache of Obama: While Isreal working him over through the derp state double agent
Rahm, U.S. Republicans shit on the President's head continuously, en masse for his entire
tenure and thwarted with open bigotry and contempt his every attempt to execute thoroughly
Republican policy!
So yes, Zion, and Republicans. Both a great threat to USA and democracy.
Old Joe's most humiliating (& revealing) experience
was immediately consigned to the Memory Hole:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
"I HAVE NOTHING TO OFFER YOU BUT BROKEN GLASS," Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed
US Vice President Biden during an after-dinner ceremony in Jerusalem on March 9, 2010.
Netanyahu had prepared a symbolic gift for visiting Vice President JoeBiden: a framed
document announcing that several trees were planted in Jerusalem in memory of Biden's mother, a
loyal supporter of Israel.
But with Biden's mission to persuade the Israeli government to begin shrinking Greater
Israel back to its pre-1967 borders, Netanyahu leaned on thepresent (NOT "accidentally" as
reported by the Jew-owned press) and shattered the glass frame.
Then came Netanyahu's cyptic warning and by way of indirection, a threat to Obama: "I have
one thing to offer you right now, and it's broken glass." [ViewFull Photo Here.]
It got worse. At a later tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial museum, Yad Vashem, the lights
in the Hall of Remembrance "unexpectedly" went out as a prayer for the dead was chanted.
Catching Biden's security detail by surprise as they anxiously stood forover 60 seconds in
utter darkness, only the "eternal fire" that honored the Jewish dead spread its ominous light
upon the Biden contingent.
By the time the lights flickered back on, Biden's Middle East fortunes were sealed with an
Israeli announcement that it would build 1,600 new homes for Jewish settlers, ignoring US and
Palestinian objections. On Biden's departure for Jordan, Ha'aretz reported that Israel plans to
build 50,000 new homes in East Jerusalem over the next three years.
The "broken glass" and the "moments of darkness" that Biden experienced were not chance
events. Nothing happens at official Israeli gatherings that is not carefully planned and
orchestrated in advance. And in spite of Biden's groveling before Netanyahu and Peres, with
vows of Israel being the "centerpiece of US policy," the Vice President's cowering was met with
glassy eyes by the leaders of the "master race."
Symbolic acts, such as the breaking of a glass by a Jewish groom beforemaking vows of
faithfulness to his bride at every Jewish wedding, are part of Jewish tradition. When the
Jewish groom crushes the glass beneath his rightfoot, he silently pledges to avenge the
destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and wage war on all those who would perpetuate
that destruction .
Trump hasn't just been dealing with Jews his whole life. The Trumps are Jews, as Trump's
elder brother told his frat brothers at his Jewish fraternity at college. What Trump did for
Israel was done because of what he considers himself to be. But that doesn't mean he doesn't
recognize something higher. He does. Himself. If he can't be a winner affirming Israel, then
the hell with Israel. That's really ultimate Jewish values, right? Some have spoken of it as
having no soul.
@anonymous e to
nothing to do with the US's foreign aid scam.
Foreign aid supports dictators around the world to see things the US's way.
It provides the money to, for example, Israel, to turn that money around to purchase weapons
and to bribe Congress with our own currency. In effect, the US uses foreign aid as a straw man
to simply funnel money from the US gov't to the US corporate elite and Congress.
Some of the money that went to Ukraine eventually found its way back to the US in Biden's
pocket along with a whole host of DNC operatives. That revelation should come out if the
Justice Dept weren't part of the scam.
Must be, look at what theyve gotten away with. COVID race specific biowar. 9/11. Theres no
terrorism, only Israel going for world domination. USS Liberty. Murder of Patton. On and
on.
@Rurik " into
pseudonymity by Mr. Unz's recent limit of three anonymous comments per day, tends to decay the
quality of discussion in comment threads. People think that they have to mark every hydrant,
and wait on each other to settle scores, rather than comment on the column. (I'm not immune!)
This is what happened at Taki's, ZeroHedge, and most recently Kunstler, where the same people
trudge into their pews every Monday and Friday, hear one of the same few sermons, and then
start snipping.
If we didn't have a history, "Rurik," I doubt that you would have taken much interest in my
#35, which you apparently still misunderstand.
Daniel Kovalik teaches International Human Rights at the University of Pittsburgh School
of Law, and is author of the recently-released No More
War: How the West Violates International Law by Using "Humanitarian" Intervention to Advance
Economic and Strategic Interests. You might have noticed something curious following
Biden's apparent election win – liberal politicians and media are sounding the alarm that
Trump may use his remaining months in office to draw down our troops from Afghanistan.
For example, the New York Times ran a piece on
November 12 claiming that " both in Kabul and Washington, officials with knowledge of
security briefings said there was fear that President Trump might try to accelerate an all-out
troop withdrawal in his final days in office " before the more "responsible" Biden can take
over and try to stop or at least slow this. It is clear now that it is the liberal
establishment, and the Democratic Party, which is more wedded to war than their counterparts
across the aisle, and that should be disturbing to people hoping for progressive change with
the incoming Administration.
First of all, we must start with this discussion with the undisputed fact that our leaders
do not know, and have not known for some time, what the US' goals and strategy in Afghanistan
even are. One would be forgiven for not knowing, or for forgetting this fact because the
incontrovertible evidence of it – the so-called "
Afghanistan Papers " – received scant and only momentary attention when they were
exposed last year by the Washington Post.
As these documents, consisting of interviews with hundreds of insiders responsible for
prosecuting the war show, the American public was intentionally lied to about the alleged "
progress " of this war, even as our leaders were unsure what " progress "
meant.
As the Washington Post noted, the US government never even decided who it was really
fighting there: " Was al-Qaeda the enemy, or the Taliban? Was Pakistan a friend or an
adversary? What about Islamic State and the bewildering array of foreign jihadists, let alone
the warlords on the CIA's payroll? According to the documents, the US government never settled
on an answer ." Almost to a person, everyone involved in this morass agreed that the
billions of dollars spent, and thousands of lives lost, have been in vain. It has all been a
colossal waste.
Now, however, we are being told to panic that Trump may end this disastrous conflict. For
example, the quite liberal and almost blatantly pro-Biden news outlet, National Public Radio
(NPR) ran segments all last week about
female soccer teams in Afghanistan. The message of these segments was clear – these
soccer teams are (allegedly) proof of women's advances in Afghanistan as a result of the US'
intervention since 2001, and these advances are in jeopardy if Trump ends this
intervention.
Such manipulative stories of course obscure the real fact that the US has been undermining
women's rights in Afghanistan since it began intervening there in 1979, and Afghanistan
still
ranks at the very bottom of all countries for women's rights. But there is no doubt that
such stories will warm the hearts of many Biden supporters to continue war there.
Meanwhile, it is not only Afghanistan which is the focus of the liberal enthusiasm for war.
Thus, as the Grayzone
has reported , Dana Stroul, the Democratic co-chair of the Congressionally-appointed Syria
Study Group, recently outlined the plans for even deeper US intervention in Syria – an
intervention which Trump has at least paid lip service to ending.
Specifically, Stroul emphasized that " one-third of Syrian territory was owned via the US
military, with its local partner the Syrian Democratic Forces, " that this territory
happened to be the richest in Syria in terms of oil and agriculture, and that the US would
intensify its intervention in and against Syria to keep its control of this territory and its
resources. Of course, taking over other nations' resources is a violation of international law,
including the Geneva Conventions prohibition against "plunder," but that seems to be of no
concern.
The liberal media is also elated by the prospect of a Biden White House being more
aggressive in its foreign policy towards both Russia and China.
As CNBC explains
, " Now there is likely to be a change in the air when it comes to U.S.-Russia relations. At
the very least, analysts told CNBC before the result that they expected a Biden win to increase
tensions between Washington and Moscow, and to raise the probability of new sanctions on
Russia...Experts from risk consultancy Teneo Intelligence said they expected more cooperation
between Biden and Europe on global issues such as 'countering China, Russia' ."
While one might think that increased tensions with two major nuclear powers would not be a
welcome development, years of the false Russiagate narrative have groomed liberals for such
tensions.
Incredibly, Trump has been portrayed as being soft on Russia, even as he backed out of a
major
anti-proliferation treaty (The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) which had been
signed with the Kremlin back in 1987, and even as he
sent the largest contingent of US troops (20,000) in a quarter of a century to train with
European soldiers on the Russian border. I must note here that the converse – Russia's
sending tens of thousands of troops to the border with the US – is simply inconceivable
and would indeed be seen in Washington as an occasion for war. I, for one, am quite alarmed to
think of what a Biden policy of "getting tougher" with Russia would look like, and what kind of
catastrophe it could bring about.
Regretfully, I now live in a country in which liberals outflanking conservatives in terms of
their tolerance and even eagerness for aggression and war, especially when that aggression and
war is being led by officials who, as I'm sure we will see in the new Biden Administration,
happen to be women or people of color. For the first time recently, I have seen the concept of
"intersectional imperialism" being used to describe this situation, and I believe this to be a
very real phenomenon; to be but another means of making war that much easier to swallow for
broad swaths of the American public.
The irony, of course, is that the bombs dropped by the US in war, no matter who happens to
be in charge of the US government at the time, disproportionately fall upon women and children
of a darker skin hue, and they maim and kill just as much as those dropped by old white male
Republicans. Sadly, few seem to understand or care about this.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
benalls 31 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:27 AM
It's not the "left" or "right", republicans or democrats, but a new American movement,,,,
CBM,,, wich usually means 'silent but deadly' but in this case it stands for "CEO's Bonus
Matters" . The movement congressional members from Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing vowed to
support. Its time for us to grab our shields, helmets, and frozen water bottles and travel to
a new neighborhood to loot and burn. Israel has given Harris and JOJO their instructions.
razzims 49 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:10 AM
same ol empire of chaos and their eternal war. no matter which party wins election
HypoxiaMasks 1 hour ago 16 Nov, 2020 09:42 AM
Other than the Bush and lil Bush, every war from the beginning of the 20th century was
started with a Democrat president. Tell me again how the Republicans are the party of war
MarkG1964 5 minutes ago 16 Nov, 2020 10:54 AM
The democrats and republicans are two wings on the same bird.
Worth the Price? Joe Biden and the Launch of the Iraq War is a documentary short
reviewing the role of then-Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) in leading the United States into the most
devastating foreign policy blunder of the last twenty years.
Produced and directed by Mark
Weisbrot and narrated by Danny
Glover , the film features archival footage, as well as policy experts who provide insight
and testimony with regard to Joe Biden's role as the Chair of the United States Senate
Committee on Foreign Relations in 2002.
Lawrence Wilkerson
, Former Chief of Staff to United States Secretary of State Colin Powell; Distinguished
Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William & Mary;
U.S. Army Colonel, Retired
https://www.youtube.com/embed/vhcuei8_UJM
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
The possibility of eased sanctions with Iran, while extremely important, is not guaranteed
and will be offset by Biden's own commitment to imperialist plunder in the region. One cannot
forget that Biden helped the Obama administration increase U.S. wars
from two to seven. In eight years, Biden assisted in the
coup of Honduras , the overthrow of Libya , and
the ongoing proxy
war in Syria . Biden's commitment to the WHO should not negate his firm opposition to any
single-payer model of healthcare and the large sums of
money he receives from the very healthcare industry which has ensured the U.S. is without a
public health system all together.
"Biden helped the Obama administration increase U.S. wars from two to seven."
Biden and the Democratic Party are joint partners with the GOP in the facilitation of the
ongoing Race to the Bottom for the working class. Wall Street
donated heavily to Biden with full knowledge that his administration will continue to
support the right of corporations to drive down wages, increase productivity (exploitation),
and concentrate capital in fewer and fewer hands. Boeing's CEO stated clearly clear that his
business prospects would be served
regardless of who won the election . Prison stocks rose after Biden announced Kamala Harris
as his
vice president . On November 4th, Reuters announced that the lords of capital were
quite pleased that
no major policy changes were likely under the new political regime elected to Congress and
the Oval Office.
Biden will inevitably rule as a rightwing neoconservative in all areas of policy. His big
tent of Republicans and national security state apparatchiks is at least as large as Hillary
Clinton's in 2016. Over 100 former GOP war hawks of the national security state endorsed
Biden in the closing weeks of the election. Larry Summers, a chief architect of the
2007-2008 economic crisis,
advised his campaign . Susan Rice and Michele Flournoy are likely to join Biden's
foreign policy team -- a key indication that trillions will continue to be spent on
murderous wars abroad.
The question remains whether Biden can effectively govern like prior Democratic Party
administrations. American exceptionalism is the Democratic Party's ideological base, but this
ideology is entangled in the general crisis of legitimacy afflicting the U.S. state. Biden's
ability to forward a project of "decency" that restores the "soul of the nation" is hampered by
his attitude that "nothing will fundamentally change" for the rich. Biden also lacks charisma
and talent. While millions were ready to vote for anyone and anything not named Donald Trump,
four years of austerity and war under a president with obvious signs of cognitive decline is
guaranteed to sharpen the contradictions of the rule of the rich and open the potential for
further unrest on both the left and the right of the political spectrum.
"Biden's big tent of Republicans and national security state apparatchiks is at least as
large as Hillary Clinton's in 2016."
To maintain social peace, Biden will use the Oval Office to consolidate its corporate forces
to suffocate left wing forces inside and outside of the Democratic Party. The graveyard of
social movements will expand to occupy the largest plot of political territory as possible. A
"moderate" revolution will be declared for the forces of progress in the ruling class. Perhaps
the best that can be summoned from a Biden administration is the advancement of consciousness
that the Democratic Party is just as opposed to social democracy and the interests of the
working classes as Republicans. Plenty of opportunities exist to challenge the intransigence of
the Democrats but just as many obstacles will be thrown in the way of any true exercise of
people's power.
The 2020 election is yet another reminder that social movements must become the focus of
politics, not the electoral process. This is where an internationalist vision of politics is
especially important. Social movements in Bolivia returned their socialist party to power after
a year living under a U.S.-backed coup. Massive grassroots mobilizations in Cuba, Vietnam, and
China contained the COVID-19 pandemic in a matter of months. Ethiopia and Eritrea have agreed
to forge peace rather than wage war. The winds of progress have been blowing toward the Global
South for more than a century. The most progressive changes that have ever occurred in the U.S.
have been a combined product of the mass organization of the U.S.' so-called internal colonies
such as Black America and the external pressures placed on the U.S. empire by movements for
self-determination abroad.
The 2020 election has come and gone. What we know is that Biden is a repudiation of
revolutionary change. Humanity will suffer many losses even if more of the oppressed and
working masses become aware of Biden and the DNC's hostile class interests. Trump was rejected
by a corporate-owned electoral process just as Clinton was rejected in 2016. Politics in the
U.S. remain confined to the narrow ideological possibilities offered by neoliberalism and
imperial decay. Oppressed people must create and embrace a politics that take aim at the forces
of reaction currently pushing humanity to the brink of total destruction. The only way this can
happen is if Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party become the primary target of the
people's fight for a new world.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Danny Haiphong is co-coordinator of the Black Alliance for Peace Supporter Network and
organizer with No Cold War. He and Roberto Sirvent are co-authors of the book entitled American
Exceptionalism and American Innocence: A People's History of Fake News–From the
Revolutionary War to the War on Terror (Skyhorse Publishing). His articles are re-published
widely as well as on Patreon at patreon.com/dannyhaiphong. He is also the co-host with BAR
Editor Margaret Kimberley of the Youtube show BAR Presents: The Left Lens and can be reached on
Twitter @spiritofho, and email at [email protected].
Elephants in the Room: Why Do America and Britain Commit War Crimes? Neoliberalism and
Predatory CapitalismPart II By Rod Driver Global Research, November 15,
2020 Region: Europe ,
USA Theme: History ,
US NATO War
Agenda
"I spent 33 years being a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and
Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall
Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for
American Sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see that Standard Oil went its way
unmolested. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."(1) (Major-General Smedley D. Butler,
1931 , US Marine Corps)
Once people understand the extent of the crimes of the US and British governments, the next
question they ask themselves is 'Why?'
The quote above shows clearly that US war and economic exploitation are two sides of the
same coin. Military aggression by rich nations often supports the economic interests of a small
number of the world's wealthiest and most powerful people and corporations. Decisions about
wars and decisions about how the world's trading system is structured are each made by a small
number of powerful people.
This includes not only politicians, but also senior executives in industry, particularly
banking, oil, mining, food and weapons. Most of these people live in the world's advanced
nations, particularly the US. I shall use the phrase 'Western elites' to refer to these people.
Some of these elites have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to make sure that their position
of power and wealth in the world is maintained. In 1948 the US had only 6% of the world's
population but 50% of the world's wealth. A US official stated at the time that their aim was
"to maintain this position of disparity"(2). As will become clear throughout these posts, the
views of US planners have changed little in the last 70 years.
Control of Resources and Trade
What is important in the minds of Western elites can be summed up by the phrase 'control of
resources and trade'. This is a shorthand way of summarising a number of connected ideas.
Resources include things like land, oil, minerals, crops and human labor. Rich countries want
poor countries to allow global corporations to extract and process these resources, and to take
them overseas, without too much interference from national governments, whatever the downsides
for local people. Rich countries also want poor countries to have economic systems that will
allow global corporations to dominate trade, buying and selling in order to make substantial
profits, without being too restricted by local laws. Again, this applies even where there are
downsides for local people.
Western elites therefore want leaders in other countries who will implement the 'right'
economic system. This means a particularly exploitative version of capitalism, sometimes called
neoliberalism or predatory capitalism, including widespread privatisation, weaker regulations
for big companies, and decreases in government expenditure, known as austerity. (These economic
policies will be discussed in more detail in later posts). The global financial and trade
system is manipulated deliberately and systematically to create this outcome. This might sound
like a conspiracy, but it does not really work that way. Provided everyone just plays their
part (corporate executives and bankers pursue profit, politicians make laws that favor
corporations, and trade negotiators from rich countries try to create trading agreements that
benefit their corporations), the rich get richer and the poor stay poor.
Blocking Independent Development
If leaders in other countries want to determine their own economic systems, this is known as
independent development. This does not mean that a country cuts itself off from the rest of the
world, or does not engage in trade. It simply means that the leaders of a country refuse to
implement neoliberal economic policies that allow corporations from rich countries to dominate
their economies, to plunder their resources, or to exploit their people. Western elites have
tried very hard to block independent development, because it limits their control. Leaders who
object to being exploited by rich nations can be overthrown and replaced, often causing
devastating consequences for their people, particularly the poor. The new leaders are often
referred to as US clients. They usually cooperate with the US because this helps them gain
power and wealth in their own country. Getting these rulers into power can be quite tricky.
Techniques range from manipulating elections right up to full-scale military invasion.
US Dominance
The US in particular has two other key goals. It wants to maintain a global financial system
based around the US dollar, and it would like to ensure that no other country becomes strong
enough, either militarily or economically, to be a rival. In 2018 the US announced that its
main focus was no longer on the 'war on terror', but would focus on "inter-state strategic
competition"(3), meaning Russia and China.
Whenever the reasons for a war are discussed in the mainstream, there is a tendency to look
for a single explanatory factor. In practice there tend to be a cluster of factors, often
connected to each other, that all push in the same direction. As well as the reasons discussed
above, there are plenty of big corporations that frequently benefit from war. This includes the
weapons industry, financial companies, private military contractors (mercenaries), oil and
minerals companies, and more recently many companies that win contracts to participate in the
reconstruction process in war zones.(4)
The Importance of Oil
Oil in the Middle East has been described as
"a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the great material prizes in world
history."(5)
Without oil, most advanced economies would grind to a halt. Of all the resources that
American leaders want to control, by far the most important is oil. Their control of oil is not
so much about wanting it all for themselves. It is more about being able to deny it to
others.(6) Anything that a country cannot produce for itself, but needs badly, can be used as a
means of control. A shortage of oil for a country such as China would make life very difficult
for them. This is the main reason that the major wars of the 21 st century have been
in oil rich regions. Specific motives relating to recent wars will be discussed in later
posts.
How Do We Know The Real Reasons For British and US Wars
Until 2006 it was difficult to know what politicians and government decision-makers were
really saying to each other about their reasons for wars and other activities. The government
kept many files secret in order to hide their crimes. In the UK we had to wait for 30 years
(this has now been reduced to 20 years) until some of these files became declassified. During
that period, we had to rely on the word of politicians and journalists for information. The
declassified files show that politicians often lie, particularly about their reasons for war,
and that mainstream media are not sufficiently questioning.(7) Time and again, the mainstream
media would show clips of Prime Ministers and Presidents saying 'We want peace', while those
same individuals were responsible for major wars. The files also show that Politicians use
concepts like 'national security' or 'official secrets' to cover up their crimes.
In 2006 a man named Julian Assange set up a new organisation called Wikileaks. This enabled
whistleblowers (people who witness criminal or unethical activity, usually by their employers)
to make information available to the public without their identity becoming known. Millions of
documents were given to Wikileaks exposing widespread war crimes by the British and US
governments, and widespread criminal activity by other governments and big companies. All of
these documents are available online and can be examined by anyone.(8)
Key Points
US and British wars are about control of trade and resources in other countries.
Of all the resources that the US wants to control, oil is the most important.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Rod Driver is a part-time academic who is particularly interested in de-bunking
modern-day US and British propaganda. This is the second in a series entitled Elephants In The
Room, which attempts to provide a beginners guide to understanding what's really going on in
relation to war, terrorism, economics and poverty, without the nonsense in the mainstream
media.
A pair of progressive House Democrats is urging President-elect Joe Biden not to nominate a Pentagon chief who has
previously worked for a defense contractor.
"Respectfully, and in full agreement with your past statements, we write to request that the
next secretary of Defense have no prior employment history with a defense contractor," Reps.
Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) and
Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
wrote in a letter to Biden released Thursday.
Pocan is the co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Lee is the caucus's
chairwoman emeritus.
Flournoy's career has been marked by the unethical spinning of revolving doors between the
Pentagon and consulting firms that help businesses procure Pentagon contracts. In 2018, she
joined the board of Booz Allen Hamilton, an IT company that played an important role in Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman's 2015 drive to consolidate power. Booz Allen employs dozens of
retired American military personnel to train the Saudi Navy and provide logistics for the
Saudi Army. They deny helping the Saudi war in Yemen, and if you believe that
It's true – we probably won't like anyone appointed to Secretary of Defense.
But we must firmly oppose the fundamental conflict of interest that occurs when the official
selected to oversee the Defense Department is beholden to the same companies that stand to
gain enormous profit under their tenure. We oppose Michele Flournoy and any candidate for
Secretary of Defense with ties to revolving doors of the Pentagon because when the military
contractors calls the shots, we get:
The sale of even more weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, further fueling those
repressive regimes and their war on Yemen
More money wasted on the Pentagon – despite the country being in dire need of
resources to combat the pandemic, stop climate change, and guarantee universal
healthcare
An escalation of the US's reckless cold war with China – which could turn into a
hot war, endangering millions of people around the globe
More drones, more money for weapons contractors, more violence and more death, at home
and abroad.
With this new administration and new progressive voices in Congress – Cori Bush and
Jamaal Bowman, for example – we have a real chance to prioritize peace over war. We
already have efforts in the works to finally end U.S. support for the war on Yemen, slash the
Pentagon budget, de-escalate the growing conflict with China, and advocate for a New Good
Neighbor Policy in Latin America. But these campaigns for peace, especially the work to end
the war in Yemen, could be in serious trouble if Michele Flournoy, or anyone who shuffles
between the revolving doors of the Pentagon and military contractors, is appointed to lead
the Department of Defense. Tell
Congress: Americans don't want someone who has supported the war in Yemen running the US
military! Don't support Michele Flournoy or any candidate with ties to military companies as
Secretary of Defense!
We knew we'd have to hit the ground running with a Biden presidency, and it looks like our
first urgent call to action is here. Contact your
Senators now!
Joe Biden's campaign message focused almost entirely on Donald Trump, and on Biden's
supposed ability to "unify" a polarized electorate and "restore the soul of
America." Since he claimed victory last week, Biden's prospective administration has begun
to take shape, and the reality behind the rhetoric has started to emerge.
On matters of defense, restoring America's "soul" apparently means placing weapons
manufacturers back in charge of the Pentagon.
Biden announced his Department of Defense landing team on Tuesday. Of these 23 policy
experts, one third have taken funding from arms manufacturers, according to a report published
this week by
Antiwar.com .
A knot of hawks
Leading the team is Kathleen Hicks, an undersecretary of defense in the Obama
administration, and an employee of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), a think tank funded by a host of NATO
governments, oil firms, and weapons makers Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
and General Atomics. The latter firm produces the Predator drones
used by the Obama administration to kill hundreds of civilians in at least four
Middle-Eastern countries.
Hicks was a vocal opponent of President Donald Trump's plan to withdraw a number of US
troops from Germany, claiming in August that such a move "benefits our adversaries."
Two other members of Biden's Pentagon team, Andrew Hunter and Melissa Dalton, work for CSIS
and served under Obama in the Defense Department.
Also on the team are Susanna Blume and Ely Ratner, who work for the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS). Another hawkish think-tank, CNAS is funded by Google, Facebook,
Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Three more team members – Stacie
Pettyjohn, Christine Wormuth and Terri Tanielian – were most recently employed by the
RAND corporation, which draws funding from the US military,
NATO, several Gulf states, and hundreds of state and corporate sources.
Michele Flournoy is widely tipped to lead the Pentagon under Biden. Flournoy would be the
first woman in history to head the Defense Department, but her appointment would only be
revolutionary on the surface. Flournoy is the co-founder of CNAS, and served in the Pentagon
under Obama and Bill Clinton. As under secretary of defense for policy under Obama, Flournoy
helped craft the 2010 troop surge in Afghanistan, a deployment of 100,000 US troops that led to
a doubling in American deaths and made little measurable progress toward ending the
war.
'Forever war' returns
President Trump, who campaigned on stopping the US' "forever wars" in the Middle East
and remains the first US president in 40 years not to start a new conflict, has nevertheless
also staffed the Pentagon with hawkish officials. Recently ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper
was a top lobbyist for Raytheon, while his predecessor, Patrick Shanahan, worked for Boeing.
Trump's appointment this week of National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller
as acting secretary of defense, coupled with combat veteran Col. Douglas MacGregor as senior
adviser, looked set to buck that trend, given MacGregor's vocal opposition to America's Middle
Eastern wars.
Yet Miller and MacGregor may not be in office for long, if Trump's legal challenges against
Biden's apparent victory fail. Should that happen, Biden's progressive voters may be in for a
rude reawakening when the former vice president returns to the White House.
Many of these progressives were supporters of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic
primaries, while others likely held their nose and voted for Biden out of opposition to Trump.
Reps. Barbara Lee (California) and Mark Pocan (Wisconsin), two notable progressives,
wrote to Biden on Tuesday asking him not to nominate a defense secretary linked to the
weapons industry.
Lee and Pocan cited President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address, in which he
warned of the "disastrous rise" of the "military-industrial complex."
Given Biden's fondness for Flournoy, whom he tapped in 2016 to head the Pentagon under a
potential Hillary Clinton administration, the former vice president appears unconcerned about
curtailing the influence of the armaments industry.
The industry apparently roots for Joe, too. As Donald Trump surged ahead of Biden on
election night, stocks in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and the Carlyle Group
all plummeted. Only when counting in swing states stopped and resumed, giving Biden the
advantage, did they climb again.
Should a Biden administration make good on running mate Kamala Harris' post-election
promise to return to regime-change operations in Syria, these firms and their supporters in
the Pentagon stand to make a killing.
However, anti-war leftists, progressives, and Bernie Sanders supporters may soon realize
that voting for a Democrat who supported the Iraq War, instead of a Republican who
called it "the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country," might just
benefit the military-industrial complex more than the "soul of America."
Many of the president-elect's potential picks for foreign policy positions -- including
Susan Rice and Michele Flourney -- have onlookers worried. "With a Biden administration, we can
expect a continuation of the Middle East wars and possible escalations in places like Syria.
Biden could be better than Trump on Iran and Yemen, but judging by his potential cabinet picks,
that should not be expected without significant pressure from antiwar activists and lobbyists
in Washington," Dave
DeCamp , assistant news editor of AntiWar.com told MintPress . "His administration will
likely be more successful than Trump at expanding the empire, with a more diplomatic and
coherent approach at building alliances to face Russia and China."
Rice, who was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and National Security Advisor under
Obama, has amassed a fortune of around $40
million . After leaving office, she was given a spot on the board of Netflix, being paid
$366,666 as a base salary. On top of that, she was given $2.3 million worth of the company's
stock. However, it is her husband, former ABC News executive producer Ian O. Cameron
(whose father was a super-wealthy industrialist), who is the prime source of her wealth. She
was a key driver in U.S. action in Libya, and also successfully lobbied Obama to place harsher
sanctions on North Korea and Iran.
Flournoy, meanwhile, was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the
Obama administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta. After "serving the
country," she received lucrative consulting contracts, joined corporate boards, and began her
own security think tank, WestExec Advisors. By 2017, she was making a reported $452,000
annually.
"Certainly the possible selection of Michele Flournoy and other WestExec advisors people is
concerning," Biden biographer Branko Marcetic told
MintPress .
This isn't just because of their corporate/financial ties, though of course that's
alarming -- can we be sure that people whose private sector career involved leveraging their
government experience and contacts to help multinationals secure favorable business
conditions will have their intentions calibrated toward good policy and not to their private
sector career?"
"Biden claims he wants an end to the Yemen conflict, but again, words are only so much. It's
highly likely that he will have Michele Flornoy as his Secretary of Defense who was one of the
voices that stated that weapons should continue to be sold to Saudia Arabia (during the Yemen
conflict), under certain conditions, as they have a right to protect themselves. This speaks
volumes," said Mariamne
Everett of the Institute for Public
Accuracy . Rice and Flournoy, she added, were vocal supporters of the disastrous Iraq
War, which does not bode well for those concerned with peace.
Marcetic agreed, noting that, while in office, Flourney was "a major liberal
interventionist hawk who not only wants U.S. troops deployed all over the world, but has also
publicly advocated for the U.S. to majorly exploit its fossil fuel reserves for global
dominance," something which would be a "disaster for containing climate
catastrophe."
The recycling of old faces (many of them considerably richer than before) into the new
administration suggests that there will be few breaks from the past on policy, and more in the
way of continuation. Biden himself has largely acknowledged this, tweeting , "When I'm speaking to
foreign leaders, I'm telling them: America is going to be back. We're going to be back in the
game." To many suffering under U.S. sanctions or hiding from U.S. bombs, these words will
likely not comfort them . DeCamp suggested that there will be no great difference in policy
between Trump and Biden administrations:
Despite Trump being painted as an 'isolationist,' his administration has actually
expanded NATO, shored up the support of some Asian countries to counter China, and
significantly increased Washington's military footprint in the Pacific. Biden will continue
this as he made clear in recent phone calls with Asian leaders and his tough talk on China's
claims to the South China Sea during the last presidential debate."
Flournoy meets with Afghan Army personnel during a tour of the Kabul Military Training
Center Aug. 7, 2010. Photo | DVIDS
Everett offered a similar analysis, suggesting that, with pro-Israel zealots like Rice
advising him, the Biden administration would "expand" on what Trump had done in Palestine as
well. Meanwhile, for Latin America, his foreign policy team intends
to revive the so-called "anti-corruption drives" of the Obama era, which ultimately overthrew
an elected government in Brazil and paved the way for the ascendency of far-right figure Jair
Bolsonaro.
Marcetic suggested that Biden would attempt to rejoin many of the international treaties and
organizations that the Trump administration had undermined or pulled out of, including NATO and
the Paris Climate Agreement.
I expect the prevailing direction of U.S. foreign policy over these last decades to
continue: more lawless bombing and killing multiple countries under the cover of "limited
engagement," continuing genocidal sanctions against countries like Iran and Venezuela,
ongoing treatment of Latin America as an American fiefdom, and militarism and conflict
continuing to be the dominant organising principle of U.S. foreign policy, rather than, say,
co-operation and stopping climate change," he added.
Independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone recently mockingly wrote that Biden
will have "the most diverse, intersectional cabinet of mass murderers ever assembled." If
representation is important, it is because it helps assure that people from all walks of life
will have a seat at the negotiating table. However, judging by Biden's wealthy picks, it
appears that yet again, no one will be representing the great majority of working-class
Americans.
"What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal," Jeffrey said.
" ... even as he praises the president's support of what he describes as a successful
"realpolitik" approach to the region, he acknowledges that his team routinely misled senior
leaders about troop levels in Syria.
"We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we
had there," Jeffrey said in an interview. The actual number of troops in northeast Syria is "a
lot more than" the roughly two hundred troops Trump initially agreed to leave there in 2019.
Defense One
-------------
"We?" Who are "We?"
State Department people? Well, certainly some of those were involved.
But ... IMO it would not have been possible to deceive or mislead the WH and specifically
the Commander in Chief without the active cooperation of CENTCOM, the JCS and OSD.
If they had not been participating in the lying, it would have been obvious in any number of
interactions with President Trump that the president's understanding of troop numbers in Syria
was not correct and that he was being deceived by "we." (whoever that was). That revelation
evidently did not happen. The NSC staff should have detected the lack of truth in reported
numbers. That it did not tells me that at least some of the NSC staff were disloyal to Trump.
Obvious? Yes, but that is worth re-stating.
James Jeffrey is quite proud of his achievement in maintaining a "realpolik" stalemate in
Syria, one that stymies both Russia and the Syrian government.
IMO opinion he is revealed by his own words as a treacherous back stabber. "Un hombre
sin honor." pl
This is exactly the result of Trump's lack of interest in fulfilling his original promise
of ending the "forever wars" in the middle east. This is exactly the result of putting
opelny-Democrat Jared Kushner (a lifelong member of Chabad-Lubavich network) and his ilk in
charge of the middle east geopolitics.
It also clearly proves that the State Dep. is a monsterous autonomous entity with its own
permanent objectives and agendas, independent of the WH. No matter what Trump wanted to
achieve in the ME, the so-called Blob (or as Col. Lang here has coined as the "BORG") do what
they will. You have to also remember that back in '17, career diplomats and high-ranking
State Dep. officials sounded the alarm that Rex Tillerson was down-sizing the Department so
much and that it was contrary to American interests abroad etc...fast forward to today, it
would not have mattered how much down-sizing Tillerson actually managed to do, they (people
like Jeffries) were still able to pursue their own agenda and undermine Trump's original
promise of ending the forever wars in the middle east.
The liberal elites managed to 'allegedly' manipulate the election against a sitting
president in favor of an highly unappealing candidate in Joe Biden. In all honesty, does
anyone think the Blob/Borg would NOT undermine the president's agenda and follow their own
permanent objectives aboard?
Trump should be furious about this. He should be firing everyone involved in the
deception. Those involved don't belong in ANY administration. Was convincing Trump that he
was getting the Syrian oil part of this despicable con? As you mentioned last night, this
deception is probably also going on in Afghanistan. This is a clear sign of a totally
dysfunctional nation security apparatus... Trump's national security apparatus. Could Trump
find no one he could trust to carry out his orders? Or did he just not even care? He
certainly wasn't up to the task.
However, our troop level in Syria has been widely and openly reported to be above the 200
level since Trump's initial announcement of a total pull out in December 2018. I thought it
was odd when shortly after that it was announced that more troops were being sent in to
facilitate the withdrawal of the 2,000 plus troops already there. We did reduce the level
somewhat, but then we brought in mech infantry with their Bradleys to secure the oil fields
and later more to counter the Russian patrols in northeast Syria. And isn't counting whatever
we have in Tanf.
"He should be firing everyone involved in the deception"
He just fired Esper. "Trump's national security apparatus." You mean America's natonal
security apparatus, the one that gave us LTC Vindman and that crew of Ambassadors, and the
'whistlebolower' Chief Justice Robert's wouldn't let any senator name nor ask questions about
during the impeachment. You remember all that don't you? I'm sure the same cast of characters
Biden would bring back if he succeeds in the rigged election would never do that to him.
COL(R) Mark Mitchell stated the following recently, regarding the duties and
responsibilities of the SECDEF in response to POTUS directives. The comments were in regard
to Acting SECDEF Miller (a longtime friend and colleague of Mitchell), but apply to any
Cabinet or sub-Cabinet post:
"He [POTUS] may make decisions that other people disagree with. They have two options:
they can do what he directs them to do, or after they've offered their advice, if they find
it illegal, immoral, unethical, unadvisable, they can step down," retired Col. Mark Mitchell,
who most recently served in the Pentagon as the principal deputy assistant defense secretary
for special operations/low-intensity conflict.
Mitchell added that he resented the implication at the defense secretary should be
expected to stand up to the president, or in his way, as the duly elected commander in
chief.
"You either carry out your lawful orders or you resign," he said. "We don't get the option
to 'stand up to him.' "(End of quote)
Unfortunately, President Trump made many poor personnel decisions, and selected people who
believed they had the duty and right to work against the President from within the
Administration. This has driven me nuts for the last four years, as I have watched senior
civilian and uniformed leaders actively undermining the Commander-in-Chief. They weren't
subtle about it. For whatever reason, they mostly got away with it.
To be clear, I am not writing this as a Trump supporter. As a career military
professional, I have a duty to support the Commander-in-Chief, and obey lawful orders from
the Commander-in-Chief.
It is very easy to play shell games with the BOG caps in the war zones.
Looking forward to a reprise of Trump's former starring role in The Apprentice, and
finally uttering yet again his immortal words: You're Fired!
The final days of Trump's first term are going to be awesome. Banish the Borg. BAMN. Put
Biden's fingerprints on any re-hiring.
Typically a new CEO will ask for everyone's resignation, and select and cull according to
new needs and new directions. Something Trump should have done, but he too was the apprentice
in this office when his term began.
Nothing to stop Trump from doing this now in reverse, and finally cleaning out the dross
that was dedicated to his administration's destruction. Better late than never. Our country
deserves nothing less. These insider traitors deserve to have their termination for cause
permanently be part in their career resumes.
It appears that POTUS Trump once his re-election is affirmed, urgently needs to fire a
large percentage of top-level ranks at the Pentagon, fire the CENTCOM CC and his staff, fire
the JCS, close down the NSC until it's thoroughly bleached, and charge all of them under the
UCMJ. Bust them down to slick-sleeves and show them the door. How many back-stabbing Vindman
types remain within the NSC? They need to be fired and prosecuted under the UCMJ as well.
As a citizen I am having great difficulty not concluding that the US is showing all the
signs of decline like the late Roman Republic.
James Jeffrey along with the rest of the herd that have run one agitprop disinformation
scheme after another since the 2016 election are like the roman senators that had the intent
to save the Republic but fatally weakened it by killing Caesar at its very center, in the
Senate.
Biden's people are openly calling for even more internet censorship and continuing to rush
out inherently dangerous mRNA vaccines without proper testing - and may force us to take it.
Groups are starting to create a database of Trump supporters to enable censoring them where
they work and live - what is this other than terrorism against half the voting population? If
just five percent of the 70M that voted for Trump moves together in resistance then the new
regime herd will be holding a tiger by is tail and with the election showing the people are
split right down the middle I fail to see how we can avoid even much worse chaos the next
four years. The American Republic is disintegrating while the herd is having a romp and
thinks it is winning while they are its assassins.
I am sick at heart of this and fear for the future of my children whose standard of living
opportunities are in free-fall.
We are shocked, SHOCKED! that military bureaucrats are acting in the same ways that they
always have. Come on now. The job of president is to get all these people to work in concert
to an extent adequate for getting things to come out mostly in our favor. None of this is
unique to Trump. Nearly every president in my lifetime has had to learn to deal with these
aspects of the military. Jimmy Carter trusted them to plan a rescue mission. They used navy
pilots for a mission over the desert! With no extra to enable adaptation to events! Ronald
Reagan sent a battleship to Lebanon and then found out the brass wouldn't take the risk of
actually using it for anything. Not to mention the superbly uncoordinated near simultaneous
invasion of Grenada. John Kennedy accepted a duplicitous projection of events for the bay of
pigs. Bill Clinton got caught in Somalia. George W. got sucked into a strategically unplanned
invasion of Iraq. Obama was told that an 18-month escalation would resolve Afghanistan. He
believed it! Boy were they shocked when he actually enforced the deadline. This is not a
criticism of any of those presidents. It is normal, however bizarre that may sound. My point
is that they mostly get bit once and learn not to trust the military's own estimates of what
they can or should do. Then they begin to do the job more adequately. They learn to pay
attention to goals and to manage their resources. Trump does not seem capable of this kind of
learning. The last months of an administration are not the time to suddenly discover the
nature of the organizations you are leading. And in any case, there is no time left for
learning how to get actual results.
JFK never should have unionized the government workforce.
Pits existential self-interests against patriotic national interest, should these
interests become in conflict. FDR warned against doing this. More attention needs to be paid
to this fundamental national turning point.
What ills were cured by this act (EO) and has the cure become worse than the perceived
disease. Must like term limits in California - the cure was 100 times worse than the original
disease.
Entrenched political personalities come and go; entrenched and corrupted political systems
are forever, because in the process they learned to self-perpetuate.
Name your favorite EO to strike down with an counter-mand EO, before a sitting president
leaves office:
1. Anchor baby citizenship triggering chain migration
2. Unionized government workforce
1. Use Democrat's standard politics of personal destruction to attack and harass any Trump
appointments; make working for the Trump administration so undesirable none dare even ask for
consideration.
2. Tie up the President's time with endless personal attacks, lies and investigations, so
Trump has no time as elected Chief Executive to oversee and clean up valid government
operations;
3. Take advantage of Trump's exclusively private sector experience to lull Trump into
thinking entrenched government BORGs are loyal government employees, who serve only to help
Trump carry out his Executive Office duties;
4. Leak like crazy; make things up if necessary that ensure the Trump administration
narrative appears chaotic and dysfunctional. Claim anonymous sources that undermine positive
functioning within Trump administration. Make everyone suspicious of everyone else.
5. Obliterate any recognition for the remarkable Trump administration accomplishments that
occurred, regardless of all of the above.
6. Pout relentlessly because regardless of the above, the President and the GOP Senate
appointed over 200 new federal judge and 3 new SCOTUS members.
7. In full public view, tear up the SOTU address listing remarkable administration
accomplishments mouthing - these are all lies -- laying down the gauntlet for all out
war.
8. Gin up pandemic hysteria to fill in any and all loopholes not yet covered by all of the
above.
Democrat skullduggery may have effectively destroyed an temporal administration, but Trump
Judiciary appointments are the equivalent of a very welcomed forever.
President Trump, you are missed already. But I suspect in short order it is you, who will
not miss the office. You are enshrined forever - #45 as President of the United States of
America. History will treat you far kinder than your current fellow citizens.
You broke up the Democrat plantation. You exposed the dark underbelly of the body politic.
Mission accomplished. There is no going back.
this sounds like the definition of a traitor to me - jeffery.... on the other hand one
could say he is working for wall st and the mil complex and has done a good job... which is
it??
I don't understand this. Trump is the Commander in Chief, at any time he could have asked
a straight-up question: How. Many. Troops. Do. We. Still. Have. In. Syria?
I find it astonishing that the military leadership would tell a lie to their Commander in
Chief when the question itself leaves no wriggle-room.
Heck, Trump could has asked for a list of every single one of those brave 200 boys, and
even if it included Name, Rank, and Serial Number that would still fit on a single
letter-sized printout.
I can't understand how Jeffrey's and his band of "we's" could get away with this unless
Trump wasn't paying any attention at all.
To those watching the drama unfolding in Washington, DC around the stalled efforts on the
part of nominal President-elect Joe Biden in forming a transition team, the parallels are
eerily familiar: a bitterly contested election between an establishment political figure and a
brash DC 'outsider', a controversial outcome delaying the implementation of the transition
between administrations, and an openly condescending atmosphere where the incoming team
postured as comprising a return to 'adult' leadership.
That time was December 2000, when a Republican team led by President-elect George W. Bush
stood ready to install a cabinet composed of veteran spies, diplomats, and national security
managers who had cut their policy teeth during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush. With Colin Powell as secretary of state, Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense,
George Tenet as director of central intelligence, and Condoleezza Rice as national security
advisor, the foreign policy and national security team that Dubya surrounded himself with upon
assuming the presidency was as experienced a team as one could imagine.
And yet, within two years of assuming their responsibilities, this team of 'adults' had
presided over the worst terrorist attack in American history, and the initiation of two wars
(in Afghanistan and Iraq) that would forever change both the geopolitical map of the world and
America's role as world leader.
Twenty years later, the roles have reversed, with an experienced team of veteran 'adults'
hailing from the eight-year tenure of President Barack Obama preparing to transition the US
away from four tumultuous years of the presidency of Donald J. Trump. While Biden has not
finalized his foreign policy and national security team, there is a consensus among experienced
political observers about who the top contenders might be for the 'big four' foreign and
national security policy positions in his administration.
While there is no doubting the experience and professional credentials of these potential
nominees, they all have one thing in common: a proclivity for military intervention on the part
of the US. For anyone who hoped that a Biden administration might complete the task begun by
President Trump of leading America out of the 'forever wars' initiated by the 'adults' of the
administration of George W. Bush, these choices represent a wake-up call that this will not be
the likely outcome.
Moreover, a potential Biden cabinet would more than likely complement the existing
predilection on the part of the president-elect for military intervention, pointing to a
foreign and national security policy which not only sustains the existing conflicts in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, but increases the likelihood of additional military
misadventures. The Biden team will almost certainly seek to shoehorn the president-elect's
aggressive "America is back" philosophy into a geopolitical reality that is not inclined to
accept such a role sitting down.
So who's likely to fill what role?
Secretary of State
The hands-on favorite here is Susan Rice, who served as both national security advisor and
US ambassador to the United Nations under Barack Obama. Biden knows her very well, and they
have a great working relationship. With a history of promoting US intervention in Syria and
Libya, Rice would more than likely support any policy suggestions concerning a re-engagement by
the US in Syria in an effort to contain and/or overthrow Bashar al-Assad, and would be reticent
to withdraw US forces from either Afghanistan or Iraq.
She would also most likely seek hardline 'confrontational' policies designed to 'roll-back'
Russian influence in Europe and the Middle East, as well as China's claims regarding the South
China Sea. Rice would seek to strengthen the military aspects of NATO to better position that
organization against Russia in Europe, and China in the Pacific.
A Rice nomination could run afoul of a Republican-controlled Senate, where a source close to
the current Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, has noted that a "
Republican Senate would work with Biden on centrist nominees " but would oppose "radical
progressives" or ones who are controversial among conservatives.
While Rice is not a "radical progressive," the Republicans continue to condemn her actions
while serving as the US ambassador to the UN in response to the 2012 terrorist attack on the US
Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans – including the US ambassador to
Libya – dead. This controversy prevented her from becoming secretary of state during
Obama's second term, and one can expect a very contentious Senate hearing if she is nominated,
with no guarantee that she would pass.
An equally qualified, but far less controversial, woman is the likely nominee for this
position. Michele Flournoy, if nominated and confirmed, would become the first female secretary
of defense in the history of the US. Given her extensive resume, which includes several
previous appointments in senior policy positions in the Department of Defense during both the
Clinton and Obama administrations, she would provide an experienced hand in the management of
the Pentagon.
Flournoy once famously told the New York Times that "
warfare may come in a lot of different flavors in the future. " In her previous postings
in the Pentagon, she took a hardline stance against both Russia and China, encouraged military
intervention in Libya and Syria, and sustained military operations in Afghanistan. Her
proclivity to seek military solutions to challenging foreign policy issues would reinforce the
similar inclinations of Biden. With Flournoy at the helm of the Pentagon, America can expect to
experience a full menu of war "flavoring."
While the above two positions represent the ostensible heads of US foreign and defense
policy, the reality is that the US has become increasingly reliant upon the covert action
capabilities of the Central Intelligence Agency when it comes to influencing diplomatic and
military outcomes. While news reports have on occasion lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding
covert CIA activities, allowing Americans and the world a small measure of insight into their
scope, scale and effectiveness, the reality is that the vast majority of the work of the CIA
remains classified, revealed only decades after the fact, if at all.
As the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and later as vice
president, Biden is intimately familiar with these covert activities, and of the potential of
the CIA to impact American foreign and national security policy. One of the names being bandied
about for the role of director is Michael Morell. He is a retired career CIA officer, having
worked his way up the ranks over the course of a 33-year career, finishing in 2013 having twice
served as the acting director under President Obama.
Morell would no doubt manage the agency in a professional manner. He is a CIA man, seeped in
the dark arts. Insight into how this experience might manifest itself in a Biden administration
was provided through comments Morell made about Syria
while appearing on PBS in 2016. " What they need is to have the Russians and Iranians
pay a little price ," he said. " When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons
to the Shia militia, who were killing American soldiers, right? The Iranians were making us pay
a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a
price ."
By "paying a price," Morell meant "killing." Russians and Iranians, he said, should be
killed " covertly, so you don't tell the world about it, you don't stand up at the Pentagon
and say 'we did this.' But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran ."
If state, defense and the CIA are the three principal tools available to Biden in the
conduct of foreign and national security policy, the person responsible for making these three
players – along with a host of other departments and agencies – come together as a
single team falls to the national security advisor. Here, Biden seems to be leaning toward
another experienced hand, Antony Blinken.
Blinken's resume includes stints at the State Department and National Security Council
during the Obama administration. Like the other potential nominees, Blinken possesses the kind
of experience necessary to hit the ground running. As someone who knows and is well known by
all the major policy players that could populate a Biden administration, including the
president-elect himself, Blinken would be able to coordinate policy formulation and
implementation in a seamless fashion.
Therein, however, lies the rub – Blinken would serve as a facilitator of
interventionist policy positions that he is inherently inclined to agree with. Like Biden's
other potential nominees, Blinken supported the Obama interventions in Syria and Libya, two
events that serve as a litmus test for ascertaining potential interventionist scenarios in the
future.
Whereas a national security advisor should insulate the presidency from the more focused,
hardline policy proposals put forward by state and defense, and provide balance when it comes
to considering covert action proposals from the CIA, Blinken would function more as a
superhighway of interventionist policy options between these entities and a president whose own
background can be defined as never having seen an opportunity for US intervention that he
didn't like.
As things stand today, one cannot predict the composition of a Biden cabinet with absolute
certainty; it is likely that one or more of the potential candidates listed here will fall by
the wayside, their path blocked by the unpredictability of a Senate confirmation at the hands
of a hostile Republican Party.
But the predilection for military intervention and covert action will define any Biden-led
cabinet, regardless of exactly who ends up seated there. In the end, the likelihood that this
iteration of 'adult' leadership ends up getting America embroiled in excessive interventions
that further disrupt the global geopolitical balance in the US's disfavor while costing its
people precious blood and treasure is high.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Joe Biden's campaign message focused almost entirely on Donald Trump, and on Biden's
supposed ability to "unify" a polarized electorate and "restore the soul of
America." Since he claimed victory last week, Biden's prospective administration has begun
to take shape, and the reality behind the rhetoric has started to emerge.
On matters of defense, restoring America's "soul" apparently means placing weapons
manufacturers back in charge of the Pentagon.
Biden announced his Department of Defense landing team on Tuesday. Of these 23 policy
experts, one third have taken funding from arms manufacturers, according to a report published
this week by
Antiwar.com .
A knot of hawks
Leading the team is Kathleen Hicks, an undersecretary of defense in the Obama
administration, and an employee of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS), a think tank funded by a host of NATO
governments, oil firms, and weapons makers Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon,
and General Atomics. The latter firm produces the Predator drones
used by the Obama administration to kill hundreds of civilians in at least four
Middle-Eastern countries.
Hicks was a vocal opponent of President Donald Trump's plan to withdraw a number of US
troops from Germany, claiming in August that such a move "benefits our adversaries."
Two other members of Biden's Pentagon team, Andrew Hunter and Melissa Dalton, work for CSIS
and served under Obama in the Defense Department.
Also on the team are Susanna Blume and Ely Ratner, who work for the Center for a New
American Security (CNAS). Another hawkish think-tank, CNAS is funded by Google, Facebook,
Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin. Three more team members – Stacie
Pettyjohn, Christine Wormuth and Terri Tanielian – were most recently employed by the
RAND corporation, which draws funding from the US military,
NATO, several Gulf states, and hundreds of state and corporate sources.
Michele Flournoy is widely tipped to lead the Pentagon under Biden. Flournoy would be the
first woman in history to head the Defense Department, but her appointment would only be
revolutionary on the surface. Flournoy is the co-founder of CNAS, and served in the Pentagon
under Obama and Bill Clinton. As under secretary of defense for policy under Obama, Flournoy
helped craft the 2010 troop surge in Afghanistan, a deployment of 100,000 US troops that led to
a doubling in American deaths and made little measurable progress toward ending the
war.
'Forever war' returns
President Trump, who campaigned on stopping the US' "forever wars" in the Middle East
and remains the first US president in 40 years not to start a new conflict, has nevertheless
also staffed the Pentagon with hawkish officials. Recently ousted Defense Secretary Mark Esper
was a top lobbyist for Raytheon, while his predecessor, Patrick Shanahan, worked for Boeing.
Trump's appointment this week of National Counterterrorism Center Director Christopher Miller
as acting secretary of defense, coupled with combat veteran Col. Douglas MacGregor as senior
adviser, looked set to buck that trend, given MacGregor's vocal opposition to America's Middle
Eastern wars.
Yet Miller and MacGregor may not be in office for long, if Trump's legal challenges against
Biden's apparent victory fail. Should that happen, Biden's progressive voters may be in for a
rude reawakening when the former vice president returns to the White House.
Many of these progressives were supporters of Bernie Sanders during the Democratic
primaries, while others likely held their nose and voted for Biden out of opposition to Trump.
Reps. Barbara Lee (California) and Mark Pocan (Wisconsin), two notable progressives,
wrote to Biden on Tuesday asking him not to nominate a defense secretary linked to the
weapons industry.
Lee and Pocan cited President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 farewell address, in which he
warned of the "disastrous rise" of the "military-industrial complex."
Given Biden's fondness for Flournoy, whom he tapped in 2016 to head the Pentagon under a
potential Hillary Clinton administration, the former vice president appears unconcerned about
curtailing the influence of the armaments industry.
The industry apparently roots for Joe, too. As Donald Trump surged ahead of Biden on
election night, stocks in Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and the Carlyle Group
all plummeted. Only when counting in swing states stopped and resumed, giving Biden the
advantage, did they climb again.
Should a Biden administration make good on running mate Kamala Harris' post-election
promise to return to regime-change operations in Syria, these firms and their supporters in
the Pentagon stand to make a killing.
However, anti-war leftists, progressives, and Bernie Sanders supporters may soon realize
that voting for a Democrat who supported the Iraq War, instead of a Republican who
called it"the worst single mistake ever made in the history of our country," might
just benefit the military-industrial complex more than the "soul of America."
"... It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement has now been born again, though the enemy is now the unreliable Trumpean-dominated Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini. ..."
"... The transition has also been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” being blamed for the party’s failure in 2016. ..."
"... The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state. ..."
"... That change has now occurred and the surge of neocons to take up senior positions in the defense, intelligence and foreign policy agencies will soon take place. In my notes on the neocon revival, I have dubbed the brave new world that the neocons hope to create in Washington as the “Kaganate of Nulandia” after two of the more prominent neocon aspirants, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. Her efforts were backed by a $5 billion budget, but she is perhaps most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
"... A lot of the neocons are Russian Jews who grew up in households that were Bolshevik communists. They're idea of spreading democracy goes back to Trotsky who tried to spread communism through the Soviet Union. Their hatred toward Russia dates back to their ancestors feudal days under the Tsars and the pogroms they suffered and the ice pick Trotsky got to the head. ..."
"... Obama's deep state lied, people died: https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/11/outgoing-syria-envoy-admits-hiding-us-troop-numbers-praises-trumps-mideast-record/170012/ ..."
"... I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology, beyond the fact that neocons seem devoted to the sort of status quo present in Washington, D.C. during the three administrations prior to Trump. Military adventurism, nation-building, and interventionist foreign policy, all based on nebulous concepts which are applied unevenly around the world. ..."
"... The Neocon movement seems to have morphed into nothing more than a club for bullies trying to one up each other. ..."
"... "It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way." ..."
"... Neocons don't really prefer war, so much as they prefer overseas "engagements" that may look like war and smell like war. All that's missing in neocon military operations is a defined end state. ..."
Donald Trump was much troubled during his 2016 and 2020 campaigns by so-called conservatives who rallied behind the #NeverTrump
banner, presumably in opposition to his stated intention to end or at least diminish America’s role in wars in the Middle East and
Asia. Those individuals are generally described as neoconservatives but the label is itself somewhat misleading and they might more
properly be described as liberal warmongers as they are closer to the Democrats than the Republicans on most social issues and are
now warming up even more as the new Joe Biden Administration prepares to take office.
To be sure, some neocons stuck with the Republicans, to include the highly controversial Elliott Abrams, who initially opposed
Trump but is now the point man for dealing with both Venezuela and Iran. Abrams’ conversion reportedly took place when he realized
that the new president genuinely embraced unrelenting hostility towards Iran as exemplified by the ending of the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the assassination of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. John Bolton was also a neocon in the
White House fold, though he is now a frenemy having been fired by the president and written a book.
Even though the NeverTrumper neocons did not succeed in blocking Donald Trump in 2016, they have been maintaining relevancy by
slowly drifting back towards the Democratic Party, which is where they originated back in the 1970s in the office of the Senator
from Boeing Henry “Scoop” Jackson. A number of them started their political careers there, to include leading neocon Richard Perle.
It would not be overstating the case to suggest that the neoconservative movement has now been born again, though the enemy is
now the unreliable Trumpean-dominated Republican Party rather than Saddam Hussein or Ayatollah Khomeini.
The transition has also
been aided by a more aggressive shift among the Democrats themselves, with Russiagate and other “foreign interference” being blamed
for the party’s failure in 2016. Given that mutual intense hostility to Trump, the doors to previously shunned liberal media outlets
have now opened wide to the stream of foreign policy “experts” who want to “restore a sense of the heroic” to U.S. national security
policy. Eliot A. Cohen and David Frum are favored contributors to the Atlantic while Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss were together at
the New York Times prior to Weiss’s recent resignation.
Jennifer Rubin, who wrote in 2016 that “It is time for some moral straight
talk: Trump is evil incarnate,” is a frequent columnist for The Washington Post while both she and William Kristol appear regularly
on MSNBC.
The unifying principle that ties many of the mostly Jewish neocons together is, of course, unconditional defense of Israel and
everything it does, which leads them to support a policy of American global military dominance which they presume will inter alia
serve as a security umbrella for the Jewish state. In the post-9/11 world, the neocon media’s leading publication The Weekly Standard
virtually invented the concept of “Islamofascism” to justify endless war in the Middle East, a development that has killed millions
of Muslims, destroyed at least three nations, and cost the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 trillion. The Israel connection has also resulted
in neocon support for an aggressive policy against Russia due to its involvement in Syria and has led to repeated calls for the U.S.
to attack Iran and destroy Hezbollah in Lebanon. In Eastern Europe, neocon ideologues have aggressively sought “democracy promotion,”
which, not coincidentally, has also been a major Democratic Party foreign policy objective.
The neocons are involved in a number of foundations, the most prominent of which is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
(FDD), that are funded by Jewish billionaires. FDD is headed by Canadian Mark Dubowitz and it is reported that the group takes direction
coming from officials in the Israeli Embassy in Washington. Other major neocon incubators are the American Enterprise Institute,
which currently is the home of Paul Wolfowitz, and the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at John Hopkins University.
The neocon opposition has been sniping against Trump over the past four years but has been biding its time and building new alliances,
waiting for what it has perceived to be an inevitable regime change in Washington.
That change has now occurred and the surge of neocons to take up senior positions in the defense, intelligence and foreign policy
agencies will soon take place. In my notes on the neocon revival, I have dubbed the brave new world that the neocons hope to create
in Washington as the “Kaganate of Nulandia” after two of the more prominent neocon aspirants, Robert Kagan and Victoria Nuland.
Robert was one of the first neocons to get on the NeverTrump band wagon back in 2016 when he endorsed Hillary Clinton for president
and spoke at a Washington fundraiser for her, complaining about the “isolationist” tendency in the Republican Party exemplified by
Trump. His wife Victoria Nuland is perhaps better known. She was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government
of President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election.
Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support
to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych’s government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies
on the square to encourage the protesters.
A Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton protégé, Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents
in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. Her efforts were backed by a $5 billion budget,
but she is perhaps most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she
and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp
break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
And, to be sure, beyond regime change in places like Ukraine, President Barack Obama was no slouch when it came to starting actual
shooting wars in places like Libya and Syria while also killing people, including American citizens, using drones. Biden appears
poised to inherit many former Obama White House senior officials, who would consider the eager-to-please neoconservatives a comfortable
fit as fellow foot soldiers in the new administration. Foreign policy hawks expected to have senior positions in the Biden Administration
include Antony Blinken, Nicholas Burns, Susan Rice, Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power and, most important of all the hawkish Michele
Flournoy, who has been cited as a possible secretary of defense. And don’t count Hillary Clinton out. Biden is reportedly getting
his briefings on the Middle East from Dan Shapiro, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who now lives in the Jewish state and is reportedly
working for an Israeli government supported think tank, the Institute for National Security Studies.
Nowhere in Biden’s possible foreign policy circle does one find anyone who is resistant to the idea of worldwide interventionism
in support of claimed humanitarian objectives, even if it would lead to a new cold war with major competitor powers like Russia and
China. In fact, Biden himself appears to embrace an extremely bellicose view on a proper relationship with both Moscow and Beijing
“claiming that he is defending democracy against its enemies.” His language is unrelenting, so much so that it is Donald Trump who
could plausibly be described as the peace candidate in the recently completed election, having said at the Republican National Convention
in August “Joe Biden spent his entire career outsourcing their dreams and the dreams of American workers, offshoring their jobs,
opening their borders and sending their sons and daughters to fight in endless foreign wars, wars that never ended.”
It should be noted that the return of "neocons" does not mean the return of people like Wolfowitz, Ladeen, Feith, Kristol who
are more "straussian" than "liberal/internationalist", but those like Nuland, Rice, Sam Powell, Petraeus, Flournoy, heck even
Hilary Clinton as UN Ambassador who are CFR-type liberal interventionist than pure military hawks such as Bolton or Mike Flynn.
These liberal internationalists, as opposed to straussian neocons, will intervene in collaboration with EU/NATO/QUAD (i.e. multilaterally)
in the name upholding human rights and toppling authoritarianism, rather than for oil, WMDs, or similar concrete objectives. In
very simple terms, the new Biden administration's foreign policy will be none other than the return to "endless wars" for nation-building
purposes first and last.
The name Kagan is the Russianized version of the name Cohen. He was going to be McCain's NSA had he been elected. They pulled
a stunt with the Bush admin to make Obama look weak by pushing Georgia into war with Russia in 2008. Sakaasvili, the president
of Georgia, was literally eating his own tie:
A lot of the neocons are Russian Jews who grew up in households that were Bolshevik communists. They're idea of spreading democracy
goes back to Trotsky who tried to spread communism through the Soviet Union. Their hatred toward Russia dates back to their ancestors
feudal days under the Tsars and the pogroms they suffered and the ice pick Trotsky got to the head.
I don't think they have that much influence. They pushed a lot of nonsense in the late 70/early 80s about how the Taliban were
George Washingtons and here we are today, they're worst than the Comanche. The last time I saw Richard Perle make a TV appearance,
he was crying like a baby. Robert Novak, the prince of darkness, was a Ron Paul supporter. The only ones really kicking around
are Bill Kristol and Jennifer Rubin, but Kristol was almost alone when he was talking about putting 50,000 boots on the ground
in Syria. Rubin is a harpie who only got crazier and crazier. Kagan had his foot in the door with Hillary only because of his
wife. Those two might get back in with Biden on Ukraine, but Biden would do well to keep them at a distance.
I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology, beyond the fact that neocons seem devoted to the sort of status quo present
in Washington, D.C. during the three administrations prior to Trump. Military adventurism, nation-building, and interventionist
foreign policy, all based on nebulous concepts which are applied unevenly around the world.
It seems now that there is a new breed of neocons, unified by opposition to Trump's messaging, but not much else. Odd to find
people like Samantha Power, John Bolton, Jim Mattis, and Paul Wolfowitz marching together in perfect step.
A good perspective by Philip Weiss on the same subject. Eliot A Cohen must be communicating a lot with the Kagan brothers ,
Dennis Ross and Perle to see who can be parachuted either to the WH or Foggy Bottom.
I've never quite figured out the "neocon" ideology
The revolutionary spirit (see E. Michael Jones' work). From communism to neoconservatism it's ultimately an attack on the Beatitudes
and Christ's Sermon on the Mount. "The works of mercy are the opposite of the works of war" -- Servant of God Dorothy Day
I hold the Cold Warriors like Scoop a species distinct from those of the post-USSR era. The current version started at the
end of the cold war. We felt like kings of the world after Gulf War 1 and the shoe seemed to fit.
The HW Bush administration pondered how best to use this power for good. I've read some things which report there was a debate
within the administration on whether to clean up Yugoslavia or Somalia first. They got Ron to "do the honors" for the invasion
of Somalia at Oxford: About 20 minutes in.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?35586-1/arising-ashes-world-order
That was played as part of the pep-talk on the Juneau off the coast of Somalia. Stirring stuff.
In some small way I never stopped sipping that Kool Aid. It's hard to stand by and watch unspeakable evil go down when you
have the power to stop it...or think you do. Time will tell if the Neocons are capable of perceiving the limits of force. Certainly
had some hard lessons in the last few decades.
Hogs lining up for a spot at the trough? The Neocon movement seems to have morphed into nothing more than a club for bullies trying to one up each other.
I think its generally shocking that Trump or the republicans didn't make a bigger issue of Biden's history of supporting disastrous
intervention, especially his Iraq War vote. Maybe they felt like its not a winning issue, that they would lose as many votes as
they gain by appearing more isolationist. But overall, Trump favoring diplomacy over cruise missiles should have been a bigger point in his favor in the election.
It is distressing to read that we will have people in the government who are looking for a fight. That is especially true in
view of China's aggression in recent years and the responses we will have to make to that. I think we will have more than enough
to do to handle China. What do the neocons want to do about China?
Here is an article about China that really startled me and made me realize how much of a threat is was becoming. The Air Force
chief of staff talks about the challenges of countries trying to compete militarily with us in ways that have not occurred for
awhile. Here are two quotes that really got me:
"Tomorrow's Airmen are more likely to fight in highly contested environments, and must be prepared to fight through combat
attrition rates and risks to the nation that are more akin to the World War II era than the uncontested environments to which
we have since become accustomed," Brown writes."
And
"Wargames and modeling have repeatedly shown that if the Air Force fails to adapt, there will be mission failure, Brown warns.
Rules-based international order may "disintegrate and our national interests will be significantly challenged," according to the
memo."
The article doesn't say we will have another arms race but that is an obvious response to China's competition with us. I thought
all that was done and gone. I do not want to resume it. I don't want another period of foreign entanglements, period. We still
haven't paid for the War Against Terrorism. I look into the future and all I see is us racking up bills that we have no ability
to pay. And then there is the human cost of all this, I don't want to even think about that.
Snouts in the trough accounts for a certain amount of neocons, I'm sure. There is, however, a unifying vision beyond that which
puzzles me, given the very different political orientations of various neocons. Neocons are found in academia and the media as
well. Those types are less dependent on taxpayer dollars in exchange for their views (they'll get whatever tax money gets pushed
their way in grants, etc regardless).
I find Polish Janitor's "straussian" and "liberal/internationalist" flavors of neocon intriguing, as I hadn't considered that
before.
COL Lang's quote from Plato reminds me of another (from Cormac McCarthy): "It makes no difference what men think of war, said
the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The
ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."
Neocons don't really prefer war, so much as they prefer overseas "engagements" that may look like war and smell like war. All
that's missing in neocon military operations is a defined end state.
I concur with your thoughts about standing by as evil occurs. We just have a habit of jumping into complex situations we don't
understand, and making things worse. I suspect you feel the same way.
The military misadventures during my career (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Syria) were marked by our own black and white
thinking. The more successful adventures (Colombia, Nepal) were marked by our appreciation (to a certain extent) of the complex
nature of the environments we were getting involved in...and the fact that we weren't involved in nation-building in the latter
two locales. There were viable governments in place, and we weren't trying to replace them.
Here is another Biden clip that should have been exploited too - way back when - when the media was a little more trusted,
but no less pompous. However, Biden The Plagerizer had it coming.
Though I am warming more and more to Trump Media becoming the real soul of America. Plus someone, in time. will need to pick
up Rush Limbaugh's empire. America needs a counter-weight to fake news more than it needs the keys to the White House, with all
its entangling webs, palace intrigues, chains and pitfalls.
Godspeed President Trump. If someone with as few talents s Biden can rise like Lazarus, just think what you can do with your
little finger. No wonder the Democrats want Trump destroyed; not just defeated in a re-election. We have your back, Mr President.
Are the people of America up for another arms race and a more or less cold war with China? I think the Chinese will give us
a lot more trouble than the Soviets ever did.
And yet we allow their students to come here and learn all we know and their elites to bring their dirty money here and we
give them green cards and citizenship and protect the money they took from the Chinese people. Not so smart on our part.
What is the next theater of war that Biden's new friends will involve us in? I noticed lots of Cold War era conflicts are heating
up lately, Ethiopia Morocco Armenia being recent examples. IS in Syria/Iraq is still castrated due to the continued mass internment
of their population base in the dozens of camps, but they have established thriving franchises in Africa and their other provinces
continue to smolder.
During a July 19, 2020 appearance on Operation Freedom, General Mclnerney, referring to his
original March 19, 2017 interview about TFIE HAMMER, stated:
What we didn't know 011 that date in March 2017 was that's what was presented to President
Obama on the 5th of January [2017] just before he left office when they opened the
investigation and he directed the FBI to look into and the reason why the FBI sent two people
over to interview General Flynn. Aid that information 011 the Kislvak memo came from HAMMER. It
wasn't a normal NSA document.
Aid that's why Sally Yates wasn't aware of it until the president mentioned it and said put
the appropriate people. That's a dog whistle to put our special team on. Aid so, Biden was
sitting in that meeting. Biden. Biden has got Russian collusion all over him along with
President Obama.
This could not have happened unless Obama was letting it happen. So that's why we've got to
get John Durham's grand juries going and going on in a hurry, so the Anerican people know how
corrupt the entire Democratic party is, but also the media...
...The Obama Administration cabal waged a criminal campaign against General Flynn, including
attempting to frame General Flynn with Logan Act violations when General Flynn had done no such
thing. Peter Strzok's hand-written notes suggest that it was Vice President Joe Biden who came
up with the idea of prosecuting General Flynn for Logan Act violations. General Flynn, the
incoming National Security Adviser, had cut no deals or suggested any deals to Russian
Ambassador Kislvak, as they well knew.
Director Comey's announcement that the FBI was investigating whether President Trump had
connections to the Kremlin, issued less than 24 hours after the conclusion of General
Mclnerney's radio interview, proved that Admiral Lyons and General Mclnerney, with information
from Fanning and Jones of The Anerican Report, were right 011 target -- THE HAMMER is the key
to the coup.
A the FBI used to say, "There are no coincidences."
They had stolen the keys to the kingdom, and they wanted to keep their weapon.
Strzok and Page were aware of, and texting about, Dennis Montgomery. Both Strzok and Page
were intimately involved with the Russian Collusion Hoax. Both Strzok and Page were key
participants in the coup d etat -- a coup d etat against a duly-elected United States
president. This act of treason had never been seen before in America.
Regardless of whether Strzok and Page had Iranian family members or grew up in Iran, their
oath as public servants was to the United States Constitution. The actions of Strzok and Page
were the actions of an enemy.
"... Now I'm posing this as a serious question. What does the Duopoly gain from Biden
that it can't get from Trump?"
Surely the money pump that was dispensing largesse to the post-Maidan regime in Ukraine
via the contacts that regime has with the DNC (Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council and the
media who take the Atlantic Council's money, like Bellingcat for example) before 2017, and
which must have dried up while Trump was President, will start up again should Biden last
long enough past his inauguration. After all, you know he did indeed push former Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to sack his Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin for continuing to
investigate the activities of Mykola Zlochevsky and his company Burisma Holdings (at which
Hunter Biden was on the Board of Directors) and even
boasted about it.
With Biden at the helm, both Democrats and those Republicans (like Mitt Romney) who do not
support Trump can push for further neoliberal, military and other activity against Russia in
eastern Europe and Transcaucasia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia). They might also try to resurrect
their war in Syria and ensure Syria can never get the Golan Heights back.
But if Atlantic Council is onlyy a DNC tool, how do you explain that under YTrump
administration and Pompeo SoS it was Atlantic Council fellow Franak ViaÇorca who
helped organize the Belarusina color revolution, to the extent that now he figures in his
Twitter account as Tikhanovskaya´s personal advisor?
Thanks for your reply! IMO, there wasn't much drop-off in Color Revolution activity under
Trump, and he followed fairly closely the National Defense Directives against both Russia and
China. Perhaps its the blatant rejection of treaties since Biden has vowed to
rejoin/renegotiate, particularly New START. Maybe it's resistance to a currently secret
policy ploy like the Great Reset or Biden's announced very different approach to the pandemic
or some other secret schism we're not privy to yet. I don't doubt the vote result here in
Oregon since our system is extremely hard to violate in any massive manner--it was an
emotional contest thus the high turnout. The joined Media Narrative is cause for concern for
it signals another BigLie, and to go through that effort means a rather important motive.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Nov 12 2020 1:34 utc | 143
The history of the last three decades show that Republican's wage major wars while
Democrats wage small and/or covert wars (liberal interventions) and regime changes.
Republicans will never relinquish the patriotic mantle that allows them to trump (pun
intended) the left's aspirations.
I don't think this holds water. What I see is a clear pattern of decline:
1) George H. W. Bush directly invades Iraq with legitimate American forces. It a
full-fledged invasion, the first war declared for explicitly economic purposes by the USA.
Nobody finds it weird or contests it, because the USA had just emerged victorious from the
Cold War and is now the sole superpower;
2) Bill Clinton, in order to not rub American supremacy on everybody's faces, invades
Somalia and annihilates Yugoslavia with legitimate American forces behind a UN flag. He wins
Yugoslavia but doesn't manage to do a Communist Nürnberg Trial, and loses in Somalia.
The first chink in the armor of the sole hegemon;
3) George W. Bush wins through electoral fraud (Florida). 9/11 happens with his blessing.
He then has to do a kabuki in order to blame it all on Iraq and Afghanistan. Even then he
doesn't earn the UN's blessing. He invades Iraq and Afghanistan with legitimate American
forces and wins in Iraq. He takes Iraq's oil reserves, but the objective doesn't solve
America's economic problems. Afghanistan turns into a swamp. He fails to invade Iran and
fails to bomb North Korea. He loses against Russia in Georgia. The USA still is able to
invade other countries and destroy them with legitimate American forces, but with much more
difficulty and not always achieving what it wants. For the first time since the beginning of
the End of History invasions are halted before they even begin;
4) Obama has to begin his government with a mammoth USD 1.1 trn unconditional bailout to
America's big banks and other companies. He tries to make a profit from the occupation of
Iraq by recalling American troops and substituting them with drones and mercenaries
(Blackwater). Afghanistan continues to drain the coffers. Russia rises. China rises. He
pathetically tries to invade Syria with auxiliaries (ISIS) and fails utterly (Russia even
imposes a no-fly zone to NATO/USA). Invasions are then further scaled down to color
revolutions (Ukraine, etc.). South China Sea is lost without even a fight. Ukraine is
partitioned by Russia after the color revolution and NATO loses the Black Sea forever;
5) Trump cannot even begin a new war. He contents himself with color revolution in Latin
America, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Belarus and other Central Asian countries. For the first time
since the End of History, a POTUS tries to be friends with a previous enemy nation (North
Korea and Russia). For the first time, a color revolution is reverted in Latin America
(Bolivia), while a clandestine invasion of Venezuela also fails.
So, the pattern here is clearly one of decline. At the beginning of the End of History
(1991), the USA can invade anyone with its regular forces, legally and with the blessing of
the UN and NATO - and wins all those conflicts. Then, it begins to lose or at least not
completely win - but still do the whole thing legally, with regular forces and with
blessings. Then it still is capable of invading and winning - but not legally and not with
the blessing of even the main NATO allies (France and Germany); also, even when it wins, it
is clear it was not what the Empire needed to stay afloat. Then, it has to abandon any
prospects of invasion by regular forces, having to resort to color revolutions and
clandestine auxiliaries (terrorist armies). Then it is not even capable of doing those color
revolutions successfully anymore (except in Latin America - the Empire's historical little
bitch, so it doesn't really count).
The conclusion we can reach here is that Trump didn't initiate any new war for the simple
fact he couldn't: the Empire is overstretched, its resources dwindling.
With Biden, I think we'll witness this process deepening, but in another key:
"Political wisdom holds that Americans, the American public, doesn't vote on foreign
policy," he said in New York, speaking before a crowd that included some former diplomats.
"But I think that's an old way of thinking. In 2019 foreign policy is domestic policy in my
view. And domestic policy is foreign policy."
With Biden, we can see for the first time in American history the USA officially admitting
it is an empire. The American people will be directly involved and voting and supporting for
foreign policy, i.e. invasions and interventions. Domestic policy will fuse with foreign
policy, in a typical imperial metamorphosis. There will be no going back, it will be a war of
annihilation between the USA (I'm here including its provinces) and the rest of the world. As
the famous Soviet epic once said, it will be a battle not for glory, but "for life on
Earth".
@Sirius No one believes the absurd cover story about "protecting oil". The incredibly
obvious & correct explanation is that Trump has no interest in the Erdogan/Obama "Regime
Change" policy.
The path to peace is straightforward. All non-Russian foreign forces and proxies need to
leave – U.S., Turkey, and Iran (including al'Hezbollah and other irregulars). It would
be easy for Trump to withdraw from a 100% Iran Free Syria. The sanctions needed to
prevent Iranian misappropriation of funds would no longer be needed.
However, as long as Syria is contaminated and destabilized by sociopath Khameni, both
Turkey and the U.S. will stay to counter that deranged menace to regional stability.
As easy as 123 huh? That poster has repositioned itself as some kinda conservative in a
few aspects, but a couple months ago was a rabid Zionist. That position becomes obvious at
the very end of the screed when pushing the primary Zionist meme -- hate on Iran, a country
that has never engaged in an act of aggressive war in over 200 years.
The incredibly obvious & correct explanation is that Trump has no interest in the
Erdogan/Obama "Regime Change" policy.
It's not that he "has no interest in (it)"; it's that with Russia involved his options on
the ground are limited, just like Obama's options were limited. This kind of stalemate is no
doubt one reason for Trump's nuclear brinkmanship: he and his handlers and enablers apparently
"think" they can make Russia back down and retreat from pursuing its legitimate interests (and
any other country for that matter e.g. China) if they can achieve nuclear primacy while
telegraphing a willingness to go to any extreme to have their way, apparently even including a
nuclear first strike.
During his election campaign, Biden has relied on foreign policy advisors from past
administrations, particularly the Obama administration, and seems to be considering some of
them for top cabinet posts. For the most part, they are members of the "Washington blob" who
represent a dangerous continuity with past policies rooted in militarism and other abuses of
power.
These include interventions in Libya and Syria, support for the Saudi war in Yemen, drone
warfare, indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, prosecutions of whistleblowers and
whitewashing torture. Some of these people have also cashed in on their government contacts to
make hefty salaries in consulting firms and other private sector ventures that feed off
government contracts.
– As former Deputy Secretary of State and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama,
Tony Blinken played a
leading role in all Obama's aggressive policies. Then he co-founded WestExec Advisors to
profit
from negotiating contracts between corporations and the Pentagon, including one for Google
to develop Artificial Intelligence technology for drone targeting, which was only stopped by a
rebellion among outraged Google employees.
– Since the Clinton administration,
Michele Flournoy has been a principal architect of the U.S.'s illegal, imperialist doctrine
of global war and military occupation. As Obama's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, she
helped to engineer his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and interventions in Libya and
Syria. Between jobs at the Pentagon, she has worked the infamous revolving door to consult for
firms seeking Pentagon contracts, to co-found a military-industrial think tank called the
Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and now to join Tony Blinken at WestExec
Advisors.
– Nicholas
Burns was U.S. Ambassador to NATO during the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since
2008, he has worked for former Defense Secretary William Cohen's lobbying firm The Cohen Group, which is a major global
lobbyist for the U.S. arms industry. Burns is a hawk on Russia and China
and has condemned
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden as a "traitor."
– As a legal adviser to Obama and the State Department and then as Deputy CIA Director
and Deputy National Security Advisor, Avril Haines provided legal cover and worked
closely with Obama and CIA Director John Brennan on Obama's
tenfold expansion of drone killings.
– Samantha
Power served under Obama as UN Ambassador and Human Rights Director at the National
Security Council. She supported U.S. interventions in Libya and Syria, as well as the Saudi-led
war on Yemen . And despite her human rights portfolio, she never spoke out against Israeli
attacks on Gaza that happened under her tenure or Obama's dramatic use of drones that left
hundreds of civilians dead.
– As UN Ambassador in Obama's first term, Susan Rice obtained UN cover for his
disastrous intervention in Libya. As National Security Advisor in Obama's second term, Rice
also defended Israel's savage
bombardment of Gaza in 2014, bragged about the U.S. "crippling sanctions" on Iran and North
Korea, and supported an aggressive stance toward Russia and China.
A foreign policy team led by such individuals will only perpetuate the endless wars,
Pentagon overreach and CIA-misled chaos that we -- and the world -- have endured for the past
two decades of the War on Terror.
Making diplomacy "the premier tool of our global engagement."
Biden will take office amid some of the greatest challenges the human race has ever faced --
from extreme inequality, debt and poverty caused by neoliberalism , to intractable wars and the
existential danger of nuclear war, to the climate crisis, mass extinction and the Covid-19
pandemic.
These problems won't be solved by the same people, and the same mindsets, that got us into
these predicaments. When it comes to foreign policy, there is a desperate need for personnel
and policies rooted in an understanding that the greatest dangers we face are problems that
affect the whole world, and that they can only be solved by genuine international
collaboration, not by conflict or coercion.
During the campaign, Joe
Biden's website declared, "As president, Biden will elevate diplomacy as the premier tool
of our global engagement. He will rebuild a modern, agile U.S. Department of State -- investing
in and re-empowering the finest diplomatic corps in the world and leveraging the full talent
and richness of America's diversity."
This implies that Biden's foreign policy must be managed primarily by the State Department,
not the Pentagon. The Cold War and American post-Cold War
triumphalism led to a reversal of these roles, with the Pentagon and CIA taking the lead
and the State Department trailing behind them (with only 5% of their budget), trying to clean
up the mess and restore a veneer of order to countries destroyed by
American bombs or destabilized by U.S. sanctions
, coups
and
death squads .
In the Trump era, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo reduced the State Department to little more
than a
sales team for the military-industrial complex to ink lucrative arms deals with India,
Taiwan , Saudi
Arabia, the UAE and countries around the world.
What we need is a foreign policy led by a State Department that resolves differences with
our neighbors through diplomacy and negotiations, as international law in fact requires , and a
Department of Defense that defends the United States and deters international aggression
against us, instead of threatening and committing aggression against our neighbors around the
world.
As the saying goes, "personnel is policy," so whomever Biden picks for top foreign policy
posts will be key in shaping its direction. While our personal preferences would be to put top
foreign policy positions in the hands of people who have spent their lives actively pursuing
peace and opposing U.S. military aggression, that's just not in the cards with this
middle-of-the-road Biden administration.
But there are appointments Biden could make to give his foreign policy the emphasis on
diplomacy and negotiation that he says he wants. These are American diplomats who have
successfully negotiated important international agreements, warned U.S. leaders of the dangers
of aggressive militarism and developed valuable expertise in critical areas like arms
control.
William
Burns was Deputy Secretary of State under Obama, the # 2 position at the State Department,
and he is now the director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. As Under
Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs in 2002, Burns gave Secretary of State Powell a prescient
and detailed but unheeded
warning that the invasion of Iraq could "unravel" and create a "perfect storm" for American
interests. Burns also served as U.S. Ambassador to Jordan and then Russia.
Wendy Sherman was
Obama's Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, the # 4 position at the State
Department, and was briefly Acting Deputy Secretary of State after Burns retired. Sherman was
the lead
negotiator for both the1994 Framework Agreement with North Korea and the negotiations with
Iran that led to the Iran nuclear agreement in 2015. This is surely the kind of experience
Biden needs in senior positions if he is serious about reinvigorating American diplomacy.
Tom
Countryman is currently the Chair of the Arms Control Association . In the Obama administration,
Countryman served as Undersecretary of State for International Security Affairs, Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, and Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs. He also served at U.S. embassies in
Belgrade, Cairo, Rome and Athens, and as foreign policy advisor to the Commandant of the U.S.
Marine Corps. Countryman's expertise could be critical in reducing or even removing the danger
of nuclear war. It would also please the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, since Tom
supported Senator Bernie Sanders for president.
In addition to these professional diplomats, there are also Members of Congress who have
expertise in foreign policy and could play important roles in a Biden foreign policy team. One
is Representative Ro
Khanna , who has been a champion of ending U.S. support for the war in Yemen, resolving the
conflict with North Korea and reclaiming Congress's constitutional authority over the use of
military force.
If the Republicans hold their majority in the Senate, it will be harder to get appointments
confirmed than if the Democrats win the two Georgia seats that are
headed for run-offs , or than if they had run more progressive campaigns in Iowa, Maine or
North Carolina and won at least one of those seats. But this will be a long two years if we let
Joe Biden take cover behind Mitch McConnell on critical appointments, policies and legislation.
Biden's initial cabinet appointments will be an early test of whether Biden will be the
consummate insider or whether he is willing to fight for real solutions to our country's most
serious problems.
Conclusion
U.S. cabinet positions are positions of power that can drastically affect the lives of
millions of Americans and billions of our neighbors overseas. If Biden is surrounded by people
who, against all the evidence of past decades, still believe in the illegal threat and use of
military force as key foundations of American foreign policy, then the international
cooperation the whole world so desperately needs will be undermined by four more years of war,
hostility and international tensions, and our most serious problems will remain unresolved.
That's why we must vigorously advocate for a team that would put an end to the normalization
of war and make diplomatic engagement in the pursuit of international peace and cooperation our
number one foreign policy priority.
Whomever President-elect Biden chooses to be part of his foreign policy team, he -- and they
-- will be pushed by people beyond the White House fence who are calling for demilitarization,
including cuts in military spending, and for reinvestment in our country's peaceful economic
development.
It will be our job to hold President Biden and his team accountable whenever they fail to
turn the page on war and militarism, and to keep pushing them to build friendly relations with
all our neighbors on this small planet that we share.
Biden has a long history of being deeply culpable in human rights abuses. Our instinct may
be to jubilantly proclaim that the suffering for vulnerable population will now end, but that
wouldn't be the case for, say, civilians in war zones. Biden's decision to actively advocate
for the disastrous war on Iraq and the crime bill, which imprisoned millions of
African-Americans, are rightly notorious.
Biden certainly also did not embolden Obama's more peaceful and internationalist
inclinations, which he demonstrated in his speech to the Muslim world and opposition to the
Iraq war, when he served as his vice-president. As the Guardian [2] reported about 2016, the
last year of the Obama administration, "the ( ) administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs.
This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas
with 72 bombs; that's three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day." Under Obama/Biden, ten times
more drone strikes were authorized than under Bush, and the US joined the coalition to bomb
Yemen, which has exacerbated a famine that had killed 84.701 by November 2018.[3]
Biden has never seriously reflected on the lives there were wrecked and the traumas that
were imposed during the post-9/11 wars, and there is no sign that he will deescalate US foreign
policy in 2021. But there is hope: In opposition to Trump, movements to bolster domestic human
rights in the US have been invigorated. The heroes of the last four years – the Dreamers,
as well as the BLM, anti-detention and Sanders activists – will not go away. Can their
call for moral transformation take on global dimensions?
None of our doubts about Biden should diminish our recognition of the racist horrors of the
Trump years. Some of his supporters claim that "Trump never started a war", and submit this
statement as proof that Trump is less damaging to the world than a centrist Democrat only tell
(or know) half the truth. The trend in US foreign policy has been to drop more and more bombs
since 09/11 – and the Trump administration, which was packed with notorious Islamophobes,
represented the sad, recent pinnacle of a trendline that will hopefully not be continued under
the Biden administration. In Afghanistan, warplanes dropped 7,423 bombs and other munitions in
2019, which was the highest number since the Pentagon began tracking how many bombs it drops in
2006.[4] Consequently the US, and its allied Afghani forces, killed more than the Taliban
within 2019.[5] Trump would have certainly further undermined international humanitarian law in
war zones. After all, he pardoned a war criminal as an intentional symbolical gesture,[6] and
advocated for bombing the families of terror suspects, which is, of course, a crime per the
Geneva Convention.
If the past years have shown anything, it is how important it is to limit the war powers of
presidents no matter who is in office. The next in line usually turned out to be worse in
important respects when it comes to questions of war and peace. The only antidote is holding
Biden accountable on foreign policy, starting today.
With Joe Biden declared president-elect by a chorus of major networks in unison on Saturday,
the same mainstream media has suddenly dropped any notion of 'Russian interference' in the
election which for years had received wall to wall coverage.
Over the weekend an MSNBC host went so far as to declare without evidence
"This might be the cleanest election we have ever had." And conveniently apart from the
'sudden' unprecedented leap in vaccine development and with markets soaring on the news, the
foreign policy "wins" are conveniently pouring in even before Biden enters the White House on
January 20.
As a case in point NATO's official message of congratulations to Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
underscored that a Biden White House will finally be able to confront "assertive Russia"
according to a statement by Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
"I warmly welcome the election of Joe Biden as the next President of the United States. I
know Mr. Biden as a strong supporter of NATO and the transatlantic relationship," Stoltenberg's
written
statement began .
And here's where the NATO chief referenced "assertive Russia" and the "rise of China":
"We need this collective strength to deal with the many challenges we face, including a
more assertive Russia, international terrorism, cyber and missile threats, and a shift in the
global balance of power with the rise of China," Stoltenberg stated .
The suggestion is of course that Trump didn't exercise enough "strength" - though it seems
hard to make this argument especially in the case of China.
And it's further long been pointed out that US-Russia relations have actually been at a low
point in recent history under Trump , given the Trump administration withdrawal from key
weapons treaties like the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Open Skies, and
with New START set to expire early next year.
There's also the attempts to block completion of the Nord Stream 2 Russia to Germany gas
pipeline, which has included targeted sanctions against Western companies helping to construct
it. The Trump State Department has also done much to open up weapons sales to Ukraine.
Recall too that not only has Trump throughout his presidency demanded European allies do
more in terms of shouldering their fair share of the burden of defense spending for which they
are "delinquent", but has repeatedly called the Cold War era alliance "obsolete" and at some
points even hinted the US could withdraw.
But his ultimate purpose in this appeared geared toward strengthening the organization into
a true alliance and not merely Washington carrying the burden of major spending.
NEVER
MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
We detailed last month that top NATO officials
appeared to be openly rooting for a Biden victory following four years of Trump being a
thorn in the side of Brussels. This is true enough, but in terms of Russia one could easily
argue Trump has been a greater hawk in terms of ignoring European demands that key nuclear and
weapons treaties be extended . 07564111 , 5 hours ago
ROFL .. idiot Stoltenberg thinks he is immortal.
cankles' server , 3 hours ago
Wasn't NATO literally designed for war?
teutonicate , 3 hours ago
NATO Declares Biden White House Will Finally Confront "Assertive Russia"
"the foreign policy "wins" are conveniently pouring in even before Biden enters the White
House on January 20."
The only reason any foreign power would prefer to work with Biden is that they know he is
a wimp, that he is corrupt and can be bought (as proven by his history with China) and that
for he will not look out for American interests (as opposed to theirs).
You see, Democrats define anything that takes down America as a win - including there own
contrived victories that will never materialize.
Biden would sit in his underwear and do what he's told to do, like any proper corpse.
That's why the dead (and blue-bots) voted for him.
LevelHeadedMan , 4 hours ago
As we say in Russia;
Собака лает, а
караван идёт.
The dog barks, yet the caravan moves on.
It means we will keep assembling more and more nukes while this idiot continues
bleating.
SMC , 3 hours ago
You have a lot of support from normal, productive Americans.
LevelHeadedMan , 3 hours ago
Thank you. We like regular Americans too!
richard_engineer , 1 hour ago
As an American, I think Russia has been legitimate in its attempts at peace while USA has
been continuously trying to provoke Russia. I think that the bolsheviks you kicked out are
trying to get revenge and use America as their pawn.
Seriously man, I'm legitimately afraid that Russia would launch a pre-emptive attack if
further cornered by USA & NATO. I live in Sacramento, CA - do you think this city would
be targeted by nuke?
I imagine Russia would focus on the defensive nukes placed in Europe first, and then
likely to target many large cities in USA & Europe. Russia has a lot of nukes so I
imagine it would launch full-scale attack to completely disable the opponent from future
attack.
EuroPox , 5 hours ago
So after Trump is sworn in on 20th January, NATO is finished. There is no way back from
this.
No1uNo , 5 hours ago
I support the sentiment, my fear is they've mobilised so much resources to constantly
attack Trump, I don't see those attacks ending only escalating. If you can see a way that the
CFR, Trilateral Commission, Atlantic Council, Soros NGO's etc all get disbanded and some
serious jail time thrown at them - then yes their pet projects will suffer. Without that
Trump needs to be very careful outside of the White House.
EuroPox , 5 hours ago
Trump could not take down the DS until everyone could see what was happening. The last 4
years have been all about this election - this is how people will finally SEE what has been
happening. There never were going to any arrests in the first term. Now there will be 4 years
to take down the DS... and another 4 years after that. No need to rush, one step at a time
will get us there.
Thurmonster , 3 hours ago
Riiiight.
philipat , 5 hours ago
LOL. And not a single example provided of Russia's "assertive" behavior towards Europe.
And I for one can't think of ANY yet I can think of many provocations against Russia by NATO.
And, of course, if NATO provokes Russia too hard and war does break out, Europe will be on
the front line and could, if Russia so wished, be reduced to rubble in short order. I can't
imagine why the Europeans would want to do this to themselves but there we have it. At least
it would mark the end of the awful EU!
East Indian , 5 hours ago
Russia has stealthily crawled to place itself just next to NATO's boundaries! Isn't
enough?
acementhead , 5 hours ago
And not a single example provided of Russia's "assertive" behavior towards Europe.
Come on man They're (Russia) building a pipeline to sell gas to Germany. How dare they,
that gas belongs to the US oligarchs.
xpxhxoxexnxixx , 1 hour ago
Isnt it funny that the MSM and Dems are completely fine glossing over the fact that half
the country voted against Biden. It's as if they think we're all united simply because of the
outcome. It's no wonder why we have the country we do, and why the dems continue to squeak by
year after year. There is no desire for them to understand the American people- they simply
figure 'we'll get just enough votes to do what we want' 100% of time. There is no desire for
them to actually want to work with others to improve the country. And year after year we
believe it simply in the 'name of democracy'- as if that actually means anything. So Trump is
the red flag commie garbage man to them, and literally anyone else is freedom. If you ever
see the MSM or social media start to talk about why we have a literal divide in this country,
I think i'll call it quits here on Earth. But it'll never happen.
GoldenDebt , 5 hours ago
These evil F-ers want nuclear war. Trump did it right. I suspect Trump was going to forge
a new peace, demonrats didnt want that. They want to kill us all with a nuke war. Democrats
are pure evil.
Jerzeel , 5 hours ago
More like the usual gang want to beat up again on some **** hole country.
Fireman , 5 hours ago
NATO, North Amerikan Terror Organ, that limp appendage dangling from the Pedophile
Politburo in Natostan capital of USSA's flaccid vassal Brussels, seat of the infamous albeit
collapsing EUSSR wants to be the global gangster sidekick of the Pentacon thugs but just
doesn't want to pay to play. Will the Germans get suckered for a third time into a global war
for their anglozionazi bankster masters and the Washing town thugocracy? Nah...they finally
seem to have figured it and STASI agent "Erika" out as the I$I$ "backed" Saudi Mercan IOU
petroscrip toilet paper dollah gets flushed from the global Ponzi sewer of the Potemkin
Village (idiot) Mercan "economy" of slaughter for the profit of the zero 1%.
Meanwhile the Dark Winter of financial collapse is upon US, on both sides of the
Atlanticist swamp, as the detritus of USSA'S Middle East judaic wars rapes, decapitates and
pillages its way across a seething Europe betrayed by the hag in Berlin and her Soros puppet
master. Syria is where the anglozionazi beast and Pentacon Murder Inc. finally bit off more
than they could chew in their serial judaic wars of terror and the rest of humanity sees it
for what it is. All the emasculated pedophile pawns in Natostan huff and puff at Mr. Bear's
doorstep but that is all these Brownstoned cretins will ever do. It is all over bar the
inevitable bankrupt collapse of €urolandia and the long awaited civil war reloaded in
Slumville, USSA. Bismarck was right more than a century ago, the only future Germany has and
Urupp by default is in the warm embrace of Mr. Bear and his vast supply of energy and
resources as USSA vainly squeezes gas from the "shale miracle" BS and hubris bloated turds in
the stinking Washing town swamp as the brand new cadaver in chief, Creepy Joe and his Camel
get ready to torch Slumville in the mother of all dumpster fires.
Onward to Leningrad with Onkel Adolf and the dancing fool of Natostan.
We need this collective strength to deal with the many challenges we face, including a
more assertive Russia...
Which is code for:
The EU is poorly run and incredibly weak, having to rely on other nations for resources
and subsidies, so please help us because the glory of Europe has pretty much completely
faded. -signed, little bitch Jens
Is-Be , 4 hours ago
"Mr. Gorbechov, you have my word that we will not advance one inch towards Russia."
They are not worthy of their ancestors. Real Northman are bound by their oaths.
Even Loki could not break his.
NorwegianKing , 5 hours ago
Jens Stoltenberg is a Quisling.
Alice-the-dog , 2 hours ago
So the extreme aggression of NATO is going to be used to attack the nonexistent Russian
aggression?
Fabelhaft , 1 hour ago
The plan ... is to minimize Putin and or his philosophy of 'Russian resources for Russia',
to the point that the Russian people will vote his method out and gladly surrender control of
their goods to the West. Then, be good servile Russians. Oh, and another thing, a big thing,
the West hates Russia's Cross. The Cross has to go, also.
Somewhat Unisex , 4 hours ago
The whole Russia tensions are nauseating.
Russia has a GDP similar to South Korea.
But the MIC always needs a boogeyman I suppose.
libfrog88 , 3 hours ago
NATO is so full of ****. They are the ones provoking Russia all the time. They need to
justify their worthless existence and it is costing far too much.
nanook007 , 4 hours ago
Yes of course......parasite globalist warmongers love the democrat pedophile hair
sniffer.
overmedicatedundersexed , 5 hours ago
"War is Peace.".some democrat leftist.
Stringer99 , 5 hours ago
Nato like many other organisations needs a threat, real or imaginary to exist. The US
spends more on weapon systems than the next 16 countries combined. Their usual reason is
things like 9/11. The same forces behind 9/11 include the same nato puppet masters and
connected think tanks who also profit from Nato funding. Its just another business model
involving trillions of dollars funded by taxpayers. Whether its the arms industry or big
pharma, fear is their currency of control.
TheySayIAmOkay , 4 hours ago
Great. When does ISIS funding kick back into full gear?
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 4 hours ago
These Northern Atlantic Terrorists Orcs took out 2 secular leaders (Qaddafi, Saddam) and
tried taking out a third (Assad), and they wonder why radical Islam is filling in the void?
How the hell are these sub humans ever in charge of making such decisions? NATO HQ should be
wiped off the map.
They also made the refugee problem worse.
Haboob , 5 hours ago
Russia is no longer the USSR so why "confront" them.
Simpson , 5 hours ago
Resource rich country.
SadhakaPadma , 5 hours ago
its not case...you cant milk taxpayers for 750 bilions usd a year withouth enemies and
threat...so Military industry created terrorists camps and as it failed..now they wanna
encyrcle china and russia and spread ******** about them...danger is if you provoke around
these borders the war might come even as accident as Putin warned..its all only
softwares...
SadhakaPadma , 5 hours ago
DESPITE the all Trump faults he gave humanity four more years...HIlary would go
nuclear...same apply with Biden.
dog breath , 5 hours ago
Gaslighting is strong with EU. Trump wants NATO military spending to be 2% of GDP. Germany
wants gas pipeline with Russia. This is direct contradiction to this NATO *******
propaganda.
minoas , 1 hour ago
They won't be happy until they kill us all in a nuclear war. Russia is not a threat to
Europe. China does not send it's troops around the world overthrowing governments. Encircled
by US bases, it has built a small island off it's coast to protect it's seas lanes while we
have nearly a thousand military installations around the globe if we count our covert ones.
Russia and China is athreat to world hegemony by the US. That is their crime
Tom Angle , 1 hour ago
Who sponsored a Neo-Nazi coupe on the Russian border? Who continually holds war games on
the Russian border? Who does Russian natural gas keep who warm in the winter? Who creates and
sponsors terrorists to make way for a pipeline to Europe? Who builds bio labs on Russian
borders? So who is assertive?
MoreFreedom , 2 hours ago
Translation: Stoltenberg says he's glad Biden is president because that means they'll all
pocket more US taxpayer money, and the US taxpayer is the sheep. There's money to be made in
NATO deals and deployments, provided the US pays for it.
Theremustbeanotherway , 2 hours ago
In the UK, our politicians are corrupt beyond redemption.
Our legal system is becoming corrupt beyond redemption.
The current senior personnel in our armed forces are pansies and incapable of defending
our nation and only capable of attacking the indigenous population.
The current senior personnel in our police forces are bent out of shape determined to
victimise the indigenous population.
We are still under the cosh of the Bolsheviks in Europe intent on promoting war.
Most of the population of the UK are incapable of seeing through the BS and lies - I now
know what it is like to be held hostage in an asylum!!
Old Captain Hindsight , 5 hours ago
NATO outing themselves as enemies of the people?
It is funny watching all of these idiots jump the gun.
jnojr , 41 minutes ago
Maybe Joe Biden can get a Nobel Peace Prize even faster than Barack Obama did?
Promethus , 1 hour ago
I started in the US military during the cold War. It is so sad that people like me no
longer recognize this country and look to Russia as a bulwark of Christianity and western
civilization.
Stay strong Russia. The USA and western Europe have abandoned God and now are reaping what
they sewed..
"Let's bring decency and integrity back to the White House." I can't count the number of
times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one of
many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald Trump
presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency -- which promises a return to
"normalcy" -- really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will? Below I summarise
some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the most likely foreign
policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet.
Susan Rice for Secretary of State
Susan Rice, who was also reportedly being considered for the role of Biden's Vice President,
served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and as National Security Advisor, both
under the Obama administration.
While Benghazi has been the focus of much criticism of Rice, she has received virtually no
scrutiny for her backing of the invasion of Iraq and claiming that there were WMDs there. Some
of her statements:
"I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons
and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that." (NPR, Feb. 6,
2003)
"It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass destruction
need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the question becomes
whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even as we move forward,
as we must, on the military side." (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)
"I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration
about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime
change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a
question of timing and tactics. We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution before
we can enforce this and previous resolutions." (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002; requests for audio of
Rice's statements on NPR were declined by the publicly funded network.)
She has also been criticised extensively for her record on the African continent, which
judging by the following quote at
the beginning of the 1994 Rwandan genocide seems to have been to adopt a "laissez faire"
attitude : "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the
effect on the November [congressional] election?"
In a
speech given at the AIPAC Synagogue Initiative Lunch back in 2012, Rice boasted about
vetoing a UN resolution that would deem Israeli settlements on occupied Palsestinian land as
illegal, and further characterized the Goldstone Report as "flawed" and "insisted on Israel's
right to defend itself and maintained that Israel's democratic institutions could credibly
investigate any possible abuses." Her position has changed little since then, as recently as
2016,
she proclaimed that "Israel's security isn't a Democratic interest or a Republican interest
-- it's an enduring American interest."
Tony Blinken for National Security Adviser
Tony Blinken is also an old member of the Obama administration, having served first as VP
Biden's National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2013, Deputy National Security Advisor from 2013
to 2015 and then as United States Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017.
Blinken had immense
influence over Biden in his role as Deputy National Security Advisor, helping formulate
Biden's approach and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"For Biden ", he argued , "and for
a number of others who voted for the resolution, it was a vote for tough diplomacy." He added
"It is more likely that diplomacy will succeed, if the other side knows military action is
possible."
The two of them were responsible for delivering on Obama's campaign promise
to get American troops out of Iraq, a process so oversimplified and poorly handled that it led
to even more
chaos than the initial occupation and insurgency.
Blinken seems to be
of the view that it is upto the US, and only the US, to take charge of world affairs : "On
leadership, whether we like it or not, the world just doesn't organize itself. And until this
[Trump] administration, the U.S. had played a lead role in doing a lot of that organizing,
helping to write the rules, to shape the norms and animate the institutions that govern
relations among nations. When we're not engaged, when we don't lead, then one or two things is
likely to happen. Either some other country tries to take our place – but probably not in
a way that advances our interests or values – or no one does. And then you get chaos or a
vacuum filled by bad things before it's filled by good things. Either way, that's bad for
us."
Blinken also appears to be steering
Biden's pro-Israel agenda, recently
stating that Biden "would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political decisions
that it makes, period, full stop." which includes an all out
rejection of BDS , the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement against Israel's
occupation of Palestine.
Michèle Flournoy for Secretary of Defence
Michele Flournoy was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama
administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta.
Flournoy, in writing the
Quadrennial Defense Review during her time as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy
under President Clinton, has paved the way for the U.S.'s endless and costly wars which prevent
us from investing in life saving and necessary programmes like Medicare for All and the Green
New Deal. It has effectively granted the US permission to no longer be bound by the UN Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that, "when the interests
at stake are vital, we should do whatever it takes to defend them, including, when necessary,
the unilateral use of military power."
While working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a "Top
Defense and National Security Think Tank" based in Washington D.C., in June 2002, as the
Bush administration was threatening aggression towards Iraq, she
declared , that the United States would "need to strike preemptively before a crisis erupts
to destroy an adversary's weapons stockpile" before it "could erect defenses to protect those
weapons, or simply disperse them." She continued along this path even in 2009, after the Bush
administration, in
a speech for the CSIS : "The second key challenge I want to highlight is the proliferation
– continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, as
these also pose increasing threats to our security. We have to respond to states such as Iran,
North Korea, who are seeking to develop nuclear weapons technologies, and in a globalized world
there is also an increased risk that non-state actors will find ways to obtain these materials
or weapons."
It is extremely important to note that Flournoy and Blinken co-founded the strategic
consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, where the two use their large database of governmental,
military, venture capitalists and corporate leader contacts to help companies win big Pentagon
contracts. One such client being Jigsaw, a technology incubator created by Google that
describes itself on its website as "a
unit within Google that forecasts and confronts emerging threats, creating future-defining
research and technology to keep our world safer." Their partnership on the AI initiative
entitled Project Maven led to a rebellion by
Google workers who opposed their technology being used by military and police
operations.
Furthermore, Flournoy and Blinken, in their jobs at WestExec Advisors, co-chaired the
biannual meeting of the liberal organization Foreign Policy for America. Over 50
representatives of national-security groups were in attendance. Most of the attendees
supported "ask(ing)
Congress to halt U.S. military involvement in the (Yemen) conflict." Flournoy did not. She said
that the weapons should be sold under certain conditions and that Saudi Arabia needed these
advanced patriot missiles to defend itself.
Conclusion
If a return to "normalcy" means having the same old politicians that are responsible for
endless wars, that work for the corporate elite, that lack the courage to implement real
structural change required for major issues such as healthcare and the environment, then a call
for "normalcy" is nothing more than a call to return to the same deprived conditions that led
to our current crisis. Such a return with amplified conditions and circumstances, could set the
stage for the return of an administration with dangers that could possibly even exceed those
posed by the current one in terms of launching new wars.
Mariamne Everett is an intern at the Institute for Public Accuracy currently living in
France.
Third, on the international front, we can expect even more hysterical Russia bashing
(the Dems all hate Russia with a passion, especially since they have brainwashed themselves
for four years that "Putin" had "attacked" the US elections). But there is really nothing
the US can do to Russia, it is way too late for that. So I would expect even more hot air
than from the Trump Administration, and probably not much more action, although that is by
no means certain, since a braindead nominal President like Biden would not have Trump's
intelligence to understand that a war against Russia, China or Iran would end in a
disaster: Dems always start wars to try to convince the public that they are "tough"
(Dukakis in his M-1 tank).
The Dems don't hate Russia it is used as a bogeyman to re direct the populace anget at the
neoliberal social system .
Russia, China, Iran and all the rest of the world probably can't believe their good
fortune the US is destroying itself.
Biden will not be in control of the US, or any part of it he will be in the corner pissing
his pants. The Deep State will be calling the shots.
"... Sam Husseini's writings are at husseini.org . He is the founder of VotePact.org , which encourages principled left-right cooperation against the pro-war establishment. ..."
Why are the major media calling Joe Biden the "president-elect"? The sitting president has
not yet conceded and the election results have not been certified. This effectively abrogates
government function to corporate media; it's a power grab.
Certainly, President Trump may be making a fool of himself with his current course of
action, but it is his right to dispute the results in court, and until the courts rule, anyone
with a modicum of respect for legal process should refrain from calling Biden "president-elect"
-- a term used in the Constitution. Nor should one refer to his remarks Saturday as his
"acceptance speech," as major media did.
In the view of this writer -- who has never voted for a Republican or a Democratic
presidential nominee -- the process of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 was highly dubious,
leading Gore Vidal to deride the "Cheney-Bush Junta." But it was still a procedure with set
legal processes.
What we have now is effectively government of, by, and for Big Media.
At the dawn of this millennium, Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin posited that global media "will
be and is fast becoming the predominant business of the 21st century." So predominant, in fact,
that the media business is "more important than government. It's more important than
educational institutions and non-profits."
Levin's prediction has come to pass, with Twitter and Facebook able to selectively suspend,
deplatform, and shadow ban whomever they want.
Now, the AP, NBC, CNN, et al are attempting to usurp the power of determining when and how a
future president is determined.
Certainly, given the evidence we have, it makes sense to refer to Biden as the projected
winner of the election. But "president-elect" is a bridge too far.
Some Biden supporters are attempting to take the "president-elect" mantle while
simultaneously claiming Trump and some of his supporters are incredibly dangerous and unstable.
They apparently don't see or don't want to see that if Trump is half as dangerous as they
claim, then their getting ahead of the legal process could set him and them off.
It's quite possible that William Barr and the Federalist Society majority on the Supreme
Court will come to Trump's rescue, but it seems unlikely. As with Rupert Murdoch and his Fox
News channel, they will likely nudge Trump out the door. For all these players, strict
observance of the facts is unlikely to be a determinative factor. Rather, with a media
establishment and roused liberal activists calling for Trump's head, siding against Trump
grants them a sort of legitimacy, the crowning achievement of Trumpwashing.
It also guards them against Trump's unpredictability. Trump has a reputation for turning on
former associates. And of course, the ever pro-war John Bolton and others who were in the
administration have turned on the president.
The likely reason for this is that one often overlooked fact remains: Trump is the only
president in decades (indeed, in my entire adult life) to not start an outright war. He was
full of loud threats, he didn't stop any wars like he said he would, he escalated some (most
notably the horrific Saudi assault on Yemen), he shredded treaties, he implemented awful
sanctions on Iran and Venezuela, and he moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. But again, the
fact remains: Trump is the only president in my adult life to not start an outright war -- that
is, a new bombing campaign (such as Yugoslavia or Libya) or invasion (Grenada, Panama,
Iraq).
Yet despite his not pulling the trigger on a new war, Trump's presidency was a great success
for the pro-war establishment. It made the Democratic Party even more war-like without actually
ending any wars. The good it did -- a thawing with North Korea -- seems highly reversible, like
the ostensibly pro-peace moves made by Obama.
Indeed, Obama and Trump seem like bookends, each perverting pro-peace impulses on their
respective sides of the political spectrum and diminishing them to the wishes of the pro-war
establishment.
Trump in 2016 skillfully derided Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton as associated with the Iraq
invasion. But incredibly, he failed to do so with Biden, though Biden played a central role in
ensuring that the Iraq invasion took place -- and repeatedly lied about it during the
Democratic primaries.
So why is Trump so disliked among the pro-war crowd? It reminds me of how Israel treated
Arafat. He effectively gave Israel things no one else could have, increased steps towards
regional recognition, a tacit legitimizing of the occupation with the Oslo agreement, but it
was never enough. Israel tossed Arafat at a time and place of its choosing, even bombing his
headquarters in Ramallah.
Trump's October 23 phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn't involve
any explosives being detonated at the White House, but Trump's near-pleading for a tacit
endorsement from Netanyahu, which was not forthcoming, clearly left the president deflated.
Indeed, with all the focus on Trump being "Putin's bitch" over the last four years, it's
difficult to imagine how Israel continues to play such an outsized role in American political
life. Would CNN have objected if Netanyahu gushed over Trump? How would the major media react
if Putin were on such a call?
Indeed, the last two one-term presidents lost shortly after criticizing Israel. Jimmy Carter
wrote that "Israel cast their lot with Reagan," apparently because then-prime minister Menachem
Begin feared that Carter might force Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and accept a
Palestinian state if he won a second term. And George H. W. Bush -- after pulverizing Iraq in
1991 -- had a highly publicized clash with Israel over loan guarantees, commenting that "there are
1,000 lobbyists up on the Hill today lobbying Congress for loan guarantees for Israel and I'm
one lonely little guy down here asking Congress to delay its consideration of loan guarantees
for 120 days."
Trump never said anything of this kind, but his servility to Netanyahu in the closing days
of the campaign highlights a troubling set of dynamics.
Sam Husseini's writings are at husseini.org . He is the founder of
VotePact.org , which encourages principled
left-right cooperation against the pro-war establishment.
There's a 'good chance' that the US will return to the policy of foreign wars under Joe
Biden, which will make its reconciliation with the EU impossible, Willy Wimmer, former
vice-president of the OSCE, warned.
The main reasons why the Americans voted for Donald Trump four years ago were their
tiredness of constant wars waged by their country and collapsing economy and infrastructure in
the US, Wimmer told RT.
Trump has kept his promise and didn't start any new foreign conflict, but that may well
change if a member of the Democratic Party is in the White House, former Vice President of the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary Assembly said.
Joe Biden isn't an empty white sheet – he represents the Democratic Party, who in
the 1990s destroyed the Charter of the UN.
The German political veteran recalled the US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia under Democratic
President, Bill Clinton, in 1999. He also pointed out that "in the presidency of [Barack]
Obama, Biden was Vice President and he was in absolute accordance with Obama's drone wars and
the wars in the Middle East, therefore there's a good chance that Joe Biden continues in the
same way as the Democratic Party did it in the 1990s and under Obama" before 2016.
"And going back to before 2016 means going back to war" for the US, Wimmer
argued.
Relations between Washington and Brussels have deteriorated under Trump over his demands for
the EU nations to make larger financial contributions to NATO as well as political and economic
pressure on the block to stop dealing with Russia and China.
Hopes that things would improve under Biden will be dashed, "as long as the US and NATO
don't return to the Charter of the UN," the 77-year-old, who also served as State Secretary
to Germany's Defense Minister, said.
However, he pointed out that it remains a question if the current US economy, which was
heavily hit by the coronavirus, would even allow Biden to return to the aggressive policy,
which the Democrats used to pursue.
Unlike German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, who already congratulated Biden over beating
incumbent Trump in the US presidential election, Wimmer believes that others "should be
very-very careful with congratulations."
The Democratic candidate declared himself the winner on Saturday after several major
television networks projected that he was on a path to take more than 270 electoral votes
needed to win the presidency after four days of tense vote counts in several battleground
states.
"It's quite unusual that the result of an election is announced by a news agency or a
news channel. We're used in all our countries, which belong to the OSCE, that we have Election
Committees, who announce results. And this hasn't been done yet in the US," he pointed out,
describing the events surrounding the American election as "unbelievable."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"... Andrew Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular , is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft . His most recent book is The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory . ..."
The so-called Age of Trump is also an age of instantly forgotten
bestselling books, especially ones purporting to provide the inside scoop on what goes on within Donald Trump's haphazard and
continuously shifting orbit. With metronomic regularity, such gossipy volumes appear, make a splash, and almost as quickly
vanish, leaving a mark no more lasting than a trout breaking the surface in a pond.
Remember when Michael Wolff's
Fire and
Fury: Inside the Trump White House
was all the rage? It's now available in hardcover for
$0.99
from
online used booksellers. James Comey's
Higher
Loyalty
also sells for a penny less than a buck.
An additional forty-six cents will get you Omarosa Manigault Newman's "
insider's
account
" of her short-lived tenure in that very White House. For the same price, you can acquire
Sean
Spicer's memoir
as Trump's press secretary, Anthony Scaramucci's
rendering
of
his tumultuous 11-day stint as White House communications director, and Corey Lewandowski's "
inside
story
" of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Bibliophiles intent on assembling a complete library of Trumpiana will not
have long to wait before the tell-all accounts of John Bolton, Michael Cohen, Mary Trump, and that journalistic amanuensis Bob
Woodward will surely be available at similar bargain basement prices.
All that said, even in these dismal times genuinely important books do
occasionally make their appearance. My friend and colleague Stephen Wertheim is about to publish one. It's called
Tomorrow,
the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy
and if you'll forgive me for being direct, you really ought to read it.
Let me explain why.
The "Turn"
Wertheim and I are co-founders of the
Quincy
Institute for Responsible Statecraft
, a small Washington, D.C.-based think tank. That
Quincy
refers
to John Quincy Adams who, as secretary of state nearly two centuries ago, warned his fellow citizens against venturing abroad
"in search of monsters to destroy."
Were the United States to do so, Adams predicted, its defining trait -- its
very essence -- "would insensibly change from
liberty
to
force.
"
By resorting to force, America "might become the dictatress of the world," he wrote, but "she would be no longer the ruler of
her own spirit." While his gendered punchline might rankle contemporary sensibilities, it remains apt.
A privileged man of his times, Adams took it for granted that a WASP male
elite was meant to run the country. Women were to occupy their own separate sphere. And while he would eventually become an
ardent opponent of slavery, in 1821 race did not rank high on his agenda either. His immediate priority as secretary of state
was to situate the young republic globally so that Americans might enjoy both safety and prosperity. That meant avoiding
unnecessary trouble. We had already had our revolution. In his view, it wasn't this country's purpose to promote revolution
elsewhere or to dictate history's future course.
Adams was to secretaries of state what Tom Brady is to NFL quarterbacks:
the Greatest Of All Time. As the consensus GOAT in the estimation of diplomatic historians, he brought to maturity a pragmatic
tradition of statecraft originated by a prior generation of New Englanders and various slaveholding Virginians with names like
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. That tradition emphasized opportunistically ruthless expansionism on this continent, avid
commercial engagement, and the avoidance of great power rivalries abroad. Adhering to such a template, the United States had,
by the beginning of the twentieth century, become the wealthiest, most secure nation on the planet -- at which point Europeans
spoiled the party.
The disastrous consequences of one European world war fought between 1914
and 1918 and the onset of a second in 1939 rendered that pragmatic tradition untenable -- so at least a subsequent generation
of WASPs concluded. This is where Wertheim takes up the story. Prompted by the German army's lightning victory in the battle
of France in May and June 1940, members of that WASP elite set about creating -- and promoting -- an alternative policy
paradigm, one he describes as pursuing "dominance in the name of internationalism," with U.S. military supremacy deemed "the
prerequisite of a decent world."
The new elite that devised this paradigm did not consist of lawyers from
Massachusetts or planters from Virginia. Its key members held tenured positions at Yale and Princeton, wrote columns for
leading New York newspapers, staffed Henry Luce's
Time-Life
press empire, and
distributed philanthropic largesse to fund worthy causes (grasping the baton of global primacy being anything but least among
them). Most importantly, just about every member of this Eastern establishment cadre was also a member of the Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR). As such, they had a direct line to the State Department, which in those days actually played a large
role in formulating basic foreign policy.
While
Tomorrow, The World
is not a
long book -- fewer than 200 pages of text -- it is a
tour de force
. In it, Wertheim
describes the new narrative framework that the foreign-policy elite formulated in the months following the fall of France.
He shows how Americans with an antipathy for war now found themselves
castigated as "isolationists," a derogatory term created to suggest provincialism or selfishness. Those favoring armed
intervention, meanwhile, became "internationalists," a term connoting enlightenment and generosity. Even today, members of the
foreign-policy establishment pledge undying fealty to the same narrative framework, which still warns against the bugaboo of
"isolationism" that threatens to prevent high-minded policymakers from exercising "global leadership."
Wertheim persuasively describes the "turn" toward militarized globalism
engineered from above by that self-selected, unelected crew. Crucially, their efforts achieved success
prior
to
Pearl Harbor. The Japanese attack of December 7, 1941, may have thrust the United States into the ongoing world war,
but the essential transformation of policy had already occurred, even if ordinary Americans had yet to be notified as to what
it meant. Its future implications -- permanently high levels of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases stretching
across the globe, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically
subversive
arms
industry
-- would only become apparent in the years ahead.
While Wertheim is not the first to expose isolationism as a carefully
constructed myth, he does so with devastating effect. Most of all, he helps his readers understand that "so long as the
phantom of isolationism is held to be the most grievous sin, all is permitted."
Contained within that
all
is a
cavalcade of forceful actions and grotesque miscalculations, successes and failures, notable achievements and immense
tragedies both during World War II and in the decades that followed. While beyond the scope of Wertheim's book, casting the
Cold War as a
de facto
extension of the war against Nazi Germany, with Soviet dictator
Josef Stalin as a stand-in for Adolf Hitler, represented an equally significant triumph for the foreign policy establishment.
At the outset of World War II, ominous changes in the global distribution
of power prompted a basic reorientation of U.S. policy. Today, fundamental alterations in the global distribution of power --
did
someone
say
"the rise of China"? -- are once again occurring right before our eyes. Yet the foreign-policy establishment's response
is simply to double down.
So, even now,
staggering
levels
of military spending, a vast network of foreign bases, a penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling
"national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry remain the taken-for-granted signatures of U.S.
policy. And even now, the establishment employs the specter of isolationism as a convenient mechanism for self-forgiveness and
expedient amnesia, as well as a means to enforce discipline.
Frozen Compass
The fall of France was indeed an epic disaster. Yet implicit in
Tomorrow,
The World
is this question: If the disaster that befell Europe in 1940 could prompt the United States to abandon a
hitherto successful policy paradigm, then why have the serial disasters befalling the nation in the present century not
produced a comparable willingness to reexamine an approach to policy that is obviously failing today?
To pose that question is to posit an equivalence between the French army's
sudden collapse in the face of the Wehrmacht's assault and the accumulation of U.S. military disappointments dating from 9/11.
From a tactical or operational perspective, many will find such a comparison unpersuasive. After all, the present-day armed
forces of the United States have not succumbed to outright defeat, nor is the government of the United States petitioning for
a cessation of hostilities as the French authorities did in 1940.
Yet what matters in war are political outcomes. Time and again since 9/11,
whether in Afghanistan, Iraq, or lesser theaters of conflict, the United States has failed to achieve the political purposes
for which it went to war. From a strategic and political perspective, therefore, the comparison with France is instructive,
even if failure need not entail abject surrender.
The French people and other supporters of the 1930s European status quo
(including Americans who bothered to pay attention) were counting on that country's soldiers to thwart further Nazi aggression
once and for all. Defeat came as a profound shock. Similarly, after the Cold War, most Americans (and various beneficiaries of
a supposed
Pax Americana
) counted on U.S. troops to maintain an agreeable and orderly
global status quo. Instead, the profound shock of 9/11 induced Washington to embark upon what became a series of "endless
wars" that U.S. forces proved incapable of bringing to a successful conclusion.
Crucially, however, no reevaluation of U.S. policy comparable to the "turn"
that Wertheim describes has occurred.
An exceedingly generous reading of President Trump's promise to put
"America First" might credit him with attempting such a turn. In practice, however, his incompetence and inconsistency, not to
mention his naked dishonesty, produced a series of bizarre and random zigzags. Threats of "
fire
and fury
" alternated with expressions of high regard for dictators ("
we
fell in love
"). Troop withdrawals were announced and then modified or forgotten. Trump
abandoned
a
global environmental agreement,
massively
rolled back
environmental regulations domestically, and then
took
credit
for providing Americans with "the very cleanest air and cleanest water on the planet." Little of this was to be
taken seriously.
Trump's legacy as a statesman will undoubtedly amount to the diplomatic
equivalent of
Mulligan
stew
. Examine the contents closely enough and you'll be able to find just about anything. Yet taken as a whole, the
concoction falls well short of being nutritious, much less appetizing.
On the eve of the upcoming presidential election, the entire national
security apparatus and its supporters assume that Trump's departure from office will restore some version of normalcy. Every
component of that apparatus from the Pentagon and the State Department to the CIA and the Council on Foreign Relations to the
editorial boards of the
New York Times
and
Washington
Post
yearns for that moment.
To a very considerable degree, a Biden presidency will satisfy that
yearning. Nothing if not a creature of the establishment, Biden himself will conform to its requirements. For proof, look no
further than his vote in favor of invading Iraq in 2003. (No isolationist he.) Count on a Biden administration, therefore, to
perpetuate the entire obsolete retinue of standard practices.
As Peter Beinart
puts
it
, "When it comes to defense, a Biden presidency is likely to look very much like an Obama presidency, and that's going
to look not so different from a Trump presidency when you really look at the numbers." Biden will increase the Pentagon
budget, keep U.S. troops in the Middle East, and get tough with China. The United States will remain the world's
number-one
arms
merchant, accelerate efforts to militarize outer space, and continue the
ongoing
modernization
of the entire U.S. nuclear strike force. Biden will stack his team with CFR notables looking for jobs on the
"inside."
Above all, Biden will recite with practiced sincerity the mantras of
American exceptionalism as a summons to exercise global leadership. "The triumph of democracy and liberalism over fascism and
autocracy created the free world. But this contest does not just define our past. It will define our future, as well." Those
uplifting sentiments are, of course, his from a recent
Foreign
Affairs
essay
.
So if you liked U.S. national security policy before Trump mucked things
up, then Biden is probably your kind of guy. Install him in the Oval Office and the mindless pursuit of "dominance in the name
of internationalism" will resume. And the United States will revert to the policies that prevailed during the presidencies of
Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama -- policies, we should note, that paved the way for Donald Trump to win the
White House.
The Voices That Count
What explains the persistence of this pattern despite an abundance of
evidence showing that it's not working to the benefit of the American people? Why is it so difficult to shed a policy paradigm
that dates from Hitler's assault on France, now a full 80 years in the past?
I hope that in a subsequent book Stephen Wertheim will address that
essential question. In the meantime, however, allow me to make a stab at offering the most preliminary of answers.
Setting aside factors like bureaucratic inertia and the machinations of the
military-industrial complex -- the Pentagon, arms manufacturers, and their advocates in Congress share an obvious interest in
discovering new "threats" -- one likely explanation relates to a policy elite increasingly unable to distinguish between
self-interest and the national interest. As secretary of state, John Quincy Adams never confused the two. His latter-day
successors have done far less well.
As an actual basis for policy, the turn that Stephen Wertheim describes in
Tomorrow,
The World
has proven to be nowhere near as enlightened or farseeing as its architects imagined or its latter day
proponents still purport to believe it to be. The paradigm produced in 1940-1941 was, at best, merely serviceable. It
responded to the nightmarish needs of that moment. It justified U.S. participation in efforts to defeat Nazi Germany, a
necessary undertaking.
After 1945, except as a device for affirming the authority of
foreign-policy elites, the pursuit of "dominance in the name of internationalism" proved to be problematic. Yet even as
conditions changed, basic U.S. policy stayed the same: high levels of military spending, a network of foreign bases, a
penchant for armed intervention abroad, a sprawling "national security" apparatus, and a politically subversive arms industry.
Even after the Cold War and 9/11, these remain remarkably sacrosanct.
My own retrospective judgment of the Cold War tends toward an attitude of:
well, I guess it could have been worse. When it comes to the U.S. response to 9/11, however, it's difficult to imagine what
worse could have been.
Within the present-day foreign-policy establishment, however, a different
interpretation prevails: the long, twilight struggle of the Cold War ended in a world historic victory, unsullied by any
unfortunate post-9/11 missteps. The effect of this perspective is to affirm the wisdom of American statecraft now eight
decades old and therefore justify its perpetuation long after both Hitler and Stalin, not to mention Saddam Hussein and Osama
bin Laden, are dead and gone.
This paradigm persists for one reason only: it ensures that statecraft will
remain a realm that resolutely excludes the popular will. Elites decide, while the job of ordinary Americans is to foot the
bill. In that regard, the allocation of privileges and obligations now 80 years old still prevails today.
Only by genuinely democratizing the formulation of foreign policy will real
change become possible. The turn in U.S. policy described in
Tomorrow, The World
came
from the top. The turn needed today will have to come from below and will require Americans to rid themselves of their habit
of deference when it comes to determining what this nation's role in the world will be. Those on top will do all in their
power to avert any such loss of status.
The United States today suffers from illnesses both literal and
metaphorical. Restoring the nation to good health and repairing our democracy must necessarily rate as paramount concerns.
While Americans cannot ignore the world beyond their borders, the last thing they need is to embark upon a fresh round of
searching for distant monsters to destroy. Heeding the counsel of John Quincy Adams might just offer an essential first step
toward recovery.
Share this:
Russia has consistently stressed its willingness to work with either candidate -- late last
month, the Kremlin's press secretary Dmitri Peskov rebuffed suggestions that Moscow prefers the
incumbent: "it would be wrong to say that Trump is more attractive to us."
But Russia's political commentary sphere has proven more polarized. Some cite
Biden's readiness to extend the New START treaty without additional conditions as evidence that
Biden is someone that the Kremlin can do business with; others have expressed concern over the
Democratic candidate's "Russophobic" cabinet picks and predict that, under a Biden presidency,
Washington's policy of rollback will escalate to an unprecedented level. But there is also an
overarching belief that Washington's Russia policy is so deeply embedded across U.S.
institutions that not much is likely to change in U.S.-Russian relations.
As Peskov put it, "there is a fixed place on the altar of US domestic policy for hatred of
Russia and a Russophobic approach to bilateral relations with Moscow." Still other commentators
are interested in the process as much as the outcome, drawing attention to ongoing mass unrest and
allegations of electoral misconduct in order to argue that Washington has forfeited its moral
authority to lecture others on proper democratic procedure and the orderly transition of
power.
"@realDonaldTrump election night 800,000 lead was wiped out by hundreds of thousands of
mail in ballots counted without any Republican observer," Giuliani tweeted on Sunday
morning, a day after Associated Press called Pennsylvania and the entire election in favor of
Joe Biden.
"Why were Republicans excluded?," he continued, before asking his followers to
"tweet me your guess, while I go prove it in court."
Like his boss, Giuliani has insisted that Biden's apparent victory was the result of fraud.
Republican observers say they were denied access to counting centers, which allowed staff
inside to do "bad things" with the ballots, in Trump's words. At least one postal worker
has claimed that he was ordered to backdate mail-in ballots, while the Trump campaign has
alleged that droves of dead people voted in Philadelphia, and that staff there illegally
counted late-arriving mail ballots.
Giuliani called the "Philadelphia Democrat machine" "brazen," and claimed that the
late heavyweight boxer Joe Frazier and actor Will Smith's grandfather both voted in previous
elections in the city after their deaths.
"I bet Biden dominated this group," he tweeted. "We will find out."
Just an example of how brazen the Philadelphia Democrat machine is.Former heavyweight
champion Joe Frazier voted in the 2018 election. He died on 11/7/18.Will Smith's grandfather
voted in 2017, 2018. He died in 2016.I bet Biden dominated this group. We will find
out.
Biden beat Trump in Pennsylvania by around 40,000 votes, or 0.6 percent of the total vote,
though a small number of ballots remain to be counted. Though Republicans in the Keystone State
have not outright called Biden's win fraudulent, State House Speaker Bryan Cutler called on
Friday for Governor Tom Wolf to launch a "full audit" of the vote there before
certifying the result.
In a
letter to Wolf, Cutler cited the widespread use of mail-in ballots without signatures, the
exclusion of Republicans from polling places, and the extension of the mail-in deadline as
"issues that cannot be overlooked."
Based on how the vote was run in Pennsylvania, "no matter who wins, you're going to have
50 percent of the population, no matter which side, that is not going to have faith in the
result," State Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman told reporters on Friday.
Quizzed by reporters about her handling of the vote, Pennsylvania's Secretary of State,
Kathy Boockvar said that she had done everything "to make sure every voter, every candidate
and every party has access to a fair, free, safe and secure election."
Biden has vowed to regain the world's respect for the Outlaw US Empire, which begs this
question: When did the world actually respect it? "Leaders" who uttered the word respect were
paid to do so as it was painfully clear for those at the top levels of governments that after
WW2 what was the USA was now the Outlaw US Empire since it had no compunction violating
International Law and thus its own fundamental Law--a nuclear armed outlaw is something you
fear, not respect. And even before WW2, FDR had to make clear his foreign policy toward those
in the Western Hemisphere was to be that of a Good Neighbor, not Loan Shark. Again, the Loan
Shark is feared, not respected. So, what respect is it that Biden seeks to regain since none
has existed for over a century? We'll need to wait and see what he does immediately after
he's sworn in on 20 January for he must first show respect for the Constitution he'll swear
to defend and uphold, and that means obeying the edicts of International Law as directed by
the UN Charter which is part of said Constitution. IMO, that would need to be a mandatory
first step if he wants to gain respect. Otherwise, he'll signal the USA will remain the
Outlaw US Empire.
Viewing Biden as a cannula to insert Harris and all that would imply, I ask how such a
weak person as Harris might seek to increase consent for her rule. Mrs Thatcher sought this,
as did Bush 43, Truman with Korea, and as many others have classically done, by making a war
and a victory. It does seem sure that the "election" has failed materially to achieve the
basic goal of creating consent. In the example of Thatcher, Robert Green tells us that in the
Belgrano affair the war went very nearly to atomic explosives. One is inclined, in the matter
of atomics, to speculate on how many times luck will prevent nukewar. Of course Korea also
came quite close to nukewar too, and remains there.
The glorious (if hypothetical so far) Harris War may not go well, as Martyanov tells us,
the US has in fact lost military supremacy, and the weak unconsented Harris is not liable, I
judge, to have the strength or understanding to avoid defeat.
Defeat, at this stage of empire, may be akin to the wizard of oz being seen to be a fake.
Indeed, Harris herself seems to be a fake "black" and also a fake champion.
When empires lose wars and are seen to be insane, the several satrapies begin to depart.
Only today, they say, Germany decided not to buy F35's... Therefore, considered as a whole
from this moment in History, it seems to me that we shall have a glorious atomic defeat, will
all that follows.
That would seem to satisfy the Deagle prediction of a mere 54 million persons in USA circa
2025.
When discussing weak people in the White House, don't forget the Bush Baby. Weak
presidents serve a purpose, which is to allow their handlers in the CIA/deep state to work
unimpeded. What this means is that Harris has no bearing on whether the US will go kinetic
again. That decision will be up to committees in the CIA/deep state. Unfortunately, the CIA
is a distillation of the very most violently psychotic and delusional freaks from American
society, which is itself a society that produces more than its share of violently psychotic
and delusional freaks.
Neoliberal fascists continue the purge of the real Left and give us a small taste of what
will happen under a Biden presidency
Posted by: killwallstreet | Nov 8 2020 13:37 utc | 3
------------------------------------------------------
Neoliberals and Neocons are both supporters of the Empire! The only difference is Neocon
don't hide their Empire agenda behind some nice words/slogans like the Neoliberals.
Mao once said he'd prefer to deal with the right party.
I ask how such a weak person as Harris might seek to increase consent for her rule.
I think you are failing to see the continuity of EMPIRE policy. Biden, Harris, Trump,
Hillary, Obama, GWBush, Clinton all did or will do what the Deep State EMPIRE managers want
them to. Harris is no any more prone to war-making than any of her predecessors and will not
take risks that the Deep State have not thoroughly examined.
This confirms my hypothesis that stated the liberals didn't like Trump merely because he's
vulgar - not because of his policies.
This is the "confidence thesis", which states that the sole factor for the success of any
given liberal system (not socialism - socialism is failed by design...) is merely the people
in it to make it work and trust blindly it will work. Guess where this thesis is dominant?
The financial sector.
The logic of finance is impregnating in every facet of American life and politics. The USA
is consolidating itself more and more as an exclusively financial superpower.
If he's smart, the likely President-elect will stop the unpopular endless wars and use the
money to help our domestic economy.
...Lunch Pail Joe was supposed to win back the support of white, blue-collar workers who had
defected to the Republicans. Campaign organizers said he would energize Black and Latinx
voters. But there wasn't much of a shift among non-college educated men. And those folks who
did go Democratic largely voted against Trump, notfor Biden. It's as if
Biden had undergone an enthusiasm bypass.
Trump's populist appeal has strong racist and misogynist elements, but also reflects a
genuine anger at economic inequality and endless wars. If Biden simply returns to mainstream
Democratic Party governance, it won't satisfy the Democratic Party base nor those Trump
supporters with legitimate complaints.
So what is to be done?
Biden will have his hands full reversing Trump's disastrous domestic policies. But he can
also make serious changes in US foreign policy.
Biden can implement progressive and popular policies during his first 100 days in office, in
many cases, programs that he already promised and which don't require Congressional approval.
These include:
Stop the war in Yemen : This years-long conflict, which benefits no one but the
oil-rich rulers of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, has killed more than 100,000
people and caused the preventable deaths of 113,000 children .
Biden could immediately freeze weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, forcing them to stop
bombing civilians and withdraw their troops. It would be one step toward ending unpopular,
endless wars.
Earlier this year, Democrats and anti-interventionist Republicans in the Senate voted to
invoke the War Powers Act to stop funding the Yemen war. It was vetoed by Trump.
To his credit, Biden supported the war powers resolution. His campaign spokesperson Andrew
Bates
toldThe Washington Post , "Vice President Biden believes it is past time to end US
support for the war in Yemen and cancel the blank check the Trump Administration has given
Saudi Arabia for its conduct of that war."
Lift Trump's unilateral oil blockade of Cuba and restore normal diplomatic relations:
Trump has gone further to economically attack Cuba than any other President. He cut off much of
Cuba's oil supplies from Venezuela by
applying sanctions against international shipping companies. This, combined with a halt in
foreign tourism, has wrecked the Cuban economy. Public transport doesn't have enough gasoline;
trucks can't bring produce from the countryside.
The people of Cuba pose no danger to the US. During the later part of Barack Obama's
presidency, people from the US freely visited Cuba, to the benefit of both countries.
During the campaign, Biden
said , "As President, I will promptly reverse the failed Trump policies that have inflicted
harm on the Cuban people and done nothing to advance democracy and human rights."
With a stroke of the pen Biden could lift the oil embargo, re-open US visits to Cuba, and
fully staff the Embassy in Havana, which is now operating with a skeleton crew.
Rejoin the Iran nuclear accord: Trump unilaterally withdrew from the internationally
binding Iran
nuclear accord and imposed harsh economic sanctions on the Iranian people. This policy of
"maximum pressure" has failed to change Iranian domestic or foreign policy. Biden should
immediately rejoin the accord and lift all sanctions related to nuclear issues.
In September, Biden wrote
, "If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the US would rejoin the
agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations." He added that the new administration
would lift the "disgraceful" ban that prohibits Iranians and people from other Muslims nations
from entering the US.
But Biden's promises were couched
in bellicose, Cold War rhetoric about Iran's alleged threats to the US. Democratic and
Republican hawks will certainly pressure Biden to take a hard line against Iran. But both
countries would benefit from re-implementing the accord and lowering tensions.
End attacks on China: Trump initiated a trade war against China. He tried to ban
Chinese technology from being used in the US and even
sought the arrest of a top Chinese corporate executive. But, of course, China retaliated.
Trump's policy against China has been a massive failure, with the US losing nearly
300,000 jobs as of September 2019.
China poses no military threat to the people of the US. China has one military base outside
its territory; the US has about 750. China now has also developed the world's second largest
economy and competes successfully with US corporations. The trade war is aimed at promoting US
corporate profits at the expense of Chinese competitors.
With executive action, Biden could end the trade war quickly. Unfortunately, Biden has
"drunk the Kool-Aid" when it comes to China. He said , "My focus will be on rallying our friends in
both Asia and Europe in . . . joining us to get tough on China and its trade and technology
abuses."
Biden must shift policies on China as part of recognizing that the world has changed a lot
in recent years.
Joe Biden is a mainstream Democrat who supported many of the foreign policy disasters
of past presidencies. He backed the occupation of Afghanistan and the 2003 Iraq War, and he
strongly supports Israel against the Palestinians.
But today, the US is considerably weaker, wracked by recession, and politically divided.
People are fed up with endless wars. Regional powers such as Turkey, Russia, and Iran are
exerting influence in areas formerly under US domination.
If he's smart, Biden will recognize the new reality, stop US interventions, and use the
money being spent on foreign wars to help our domestic economy. I'm confident he will make some
promised changes but progressives will have to build grass roots pressure to make the changes
we really need.
Foreign Correspondent appears every other week. Reese Erlich is an adjunct professor in
International Studies at the University of San Francisco. Follow him on Twitter , @ReeseErlich; friend him on Facebook ;
and visit his webpage .
The world Vice President Biden knew at the end of the Obama administration no longer exists.
In four years, President Trump reshaped the geopolitical reality around the globe, making
Biden's dreams of "normalization" impossible.
If the press reports are true, it appears that much of the world joined the roughly 50
percent of Americans who celebrated the news that Joe Biden had passed the Electoral College
threshold of the 270 votes needed to become president-elect. While America struggles to find a
path where Biden will be able to restore domestic tranquility to a deeply divided nation, the
world will likewise need to get to grips with how it will respond to an administration whose
thinking is rooted in a world that no longer exists.
The geopolitical reality that existed in 2016, following eight years of the Obama
administration, has been radically transformed after four years of a Trump administration which
broke with virtually every previously held diplomatic norm, tradition, and precedent. It was
not just US policy that had been altered – the world also changed, forced to adapt to
Trump's unconventional approach toward international affairs. A Biden administration which
seeks to recreate the world that existed in 2016 will find itself ill-prepared to deal with the
harsh new realities of a post-Trump world.
Repairing the US economy will be a top domestic priority for a Biden administration, and
this cannot be without consideration being given to the contentious state of US-China
relations. Policies
seeking to bring an end to the ongoing US-China trade war will collide with
Biden's tough rhetoric regarding China's military presence in the South China Sea and
elsewhere. It is hard to see how either can be done in isolation, meaning the status quo
inherited from the Trump administration will likely remain for some time to come.
Hollow
climate rhetoric
Joe Biden has promised that he would re-enter the Paris Climate Accord immediately upon
assuming the presidency. When the Trump administration formally withdrew the US from the Paris
Accord on November 4, 2020, Joe Biden responded by tweeting"Today, the Trump Administration officially left the Paris Climate Agreement. And in exactly
77 days, a Biden Administration will rejoin it."
Re-entering the Paris Climate Accord will not pose much of a problem – the US never
treated it as a treaty, with then-president Obama bypassing constitutional requirements for
Senate advice and consent by simply signing an executive order. But is unlikely that Biden will
be able to get Congress to fund a
multi-trillion-dollar initiative at a time when the US economy is reeling from the economic
downturn brought on by the Civd-19 pandemic. In short, Biden's plan to rejoin the Paris Accord
is little more than political theater with no chance of meaningful success.
Repairing the
Iran deal or not
Another "day one" priority for Biden is to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal). President Trump precipitously withdrew from this
Obama-legacy agreement in May 2018 (another agreement enshrined not as a treaty, but rather
through executive order).
Biden has committed to rejoining the deal "once Iran returns to compliance," and then use
the JCPOA as the basis upon which to negotiate a broader and longer-lasting deal with Iran.
One of the first challenges confronting a Biden administration is to navigate the issue of
what constitutes "returning to compliance." It was the US, not Iran, that withdrew from the
JCPOA, and today the JCPOA framework continues to exist, sans America. As such, the first step
that must be taken is for the US to rejoin without pre-conditions. Then and only then would
Iran consider the possibility of resuming negotiations about any post-JCPOA agreement.
However, some of Biden's key foreign policy advisers
appear to have re-thought their position on Iranian sanctions , which would be lifted if
the US rejoined the JCPOA. There is a feeling that the Trump policy of "maximum pressure" might
be on the verge of paying dividends. Void of any up-front commitment regarding future nuclear
policy, ballistic missiles or regional interference, there is a feeling in the Biden camp that
keeping sanctions in place might be the best policy option vis-a-vis Iran.
Further complicating any future Biden Iran policy will be how a Biden
administration deals with the issue of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria,
and the Trump Arab-Israeli "peace offensive" which has seen several Gulf Arab States normalize
relations with Israel as part of an effort to solidify an anti-Iranian coalition in the Persian
Gulf. It is highly likely that Biden will seek to solidify the US military presence in the
region, thereby threatening the peace agreement with the Taliban, and provoking pro-Iranian
militias in Iraq. Likewise, Biden will seek to use the US military presence inside Syria as a
means of strengthening US-Kurdish ties. In short, a Biden administration will find itself
rapidly bogged down in the forever wars in the Middle East, with no plan on how to either win
or get out.
US-Israeli relations during the Obama administration were at an all-time low, primarily
because of Israel's handling of the issue of Palestinian rights and statehood. With the Trump
administration all but writing Palestine out of any Arab-Israeli framework for peace, the Biden
administration will be immediately confronted by the issue of
how to re-engage on the issue of Palestine , knowing that in doing so it could upset the
trajectory of Arab-Israeli normalization that had been begun under Trump.
Turkey and
NATO
Likewise,
the issue of Turkey looms large . Turkey's involvement in Syria, Libya, Iraq, and now
Azerbaijan has changed the geopolitical landscape in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the Levant,
and the southern Caucasus in the four years since the Obama administration. Any effort to
aggressively confront Turkey would need to be taken in conjunction with Biden's plans to
"repair" America's relationship with NATO and the rest of Europe. This is especially the case
regarding Turkey's contentious relations with both France and Greece.
NATO itself is a major issue confronting a Biden administration.
Biden has said he will renew good relations between the US and its NATO allies strained by
four years of the Trump administration. But what does this mean exactly? Will Biden keep US the
forces in Germany that Trump had begun to withdraw? And what will Biden do about US forces in
Poland? Does Biden's pledge to "get tough" with Russia extend to doubling down on demanding new
elections in Belarus? Providing more lethal aid to Ukraine? Further encouraging Georgian
membership in NATO? What will Biden's policy be regarding intermediate-range missiles in Europe
following Trump's withdrawal from the 1987 landmark INF Treaty? The reality is Trump has left a
potential Biden administration a tangled mess in Europe, where any policy initiative in one
area raises a host of problems in another.
And then there is the issue of Russia. Biden spent
his entire campaign promoting how "tough" he was going to be on Russia , and in particular
its president, Vladimir Putin. Two major decisions that will be confronted by a Biden
administration early on, however, would require more finesse than muscle. The most pressing
will be the extension of the Obama-era New START treaty, set to expire on February 21, 2021
– exactly a month and one day after President Biden would be sworn into office. Russia
has indicated that it is ready to extend the New START treaty without preconditions, and
it is likely that a Biden administration would seek to do just this in order to preserve
the last reaming arms control framework between the US and Russia. The next step, however
– negotiating a follow-on treaty – requires an atmosphere of trust that, on the
surface at least – appears to be lacking on the part of a new Biden administration,
especially if it is simultaneously seeking to appear "tough."
Another problem is that of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, connecting Russia with Europe.
The Trump
administration has put in place strong sanctions designed to kill the project. Germany, a
critical NATO ally and one of the nations with which a Biden administration would logically be
seeking to repair relations (especially after the particularly contentious relationship between
Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel), has taken umbrage over what it deems to be US
interference in its sovereign economic interests.
When Biden was vice president under Obama,
he called the Nord Stream 2 project"a bad deal for Europe." Every indication is
that Biden continues to embrace this stance. Even if Biden were to soften his position on Nord
Stream 2 as an olive branch to Germany, however, it would not mean that Biden would be willing
to soften the US policy on sanctioning Russia over Ukraine. The fact is, Biden does not much
care for Putin, and it is hard to see how the kind of personal relationship that preceded most
meaningful US-Russian diplomatic breakthroughs could be engendered, let alone prosper.
There are many other critical foreign policy challenges facing a potential Biden
administration, including the issue of North Korean nuclear weapons, Venezuela, the war in
Yemen, and the growing ISIS presence in Africa, to name but a few. A Biden administration would
most likely seek to bring into its ranks foreign policy and national security experts who had
been weaned on eight years of the Obama administration. But the world these experts left in
2016 no longer exists. Moreover, these experts have been virtually shut out from any advisory
role during the Trump administration. A new Biden foreign policy team will be seeking to
rebuild relations with a world based upon an outdated game plan, creating the potential for a
disconnect between expectations and results that could further strain America's relationship
with the global community.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The prevailing view is that a victory for Biden would be bad for Russia, because a
Democratic administration is expected to impose new economic sanctions on Moscow as punishment
for its bad behavior -- first and foremost, for its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. This view is widely shared by pro-Kremlin pundits, senior officials and the
executives of state-owned enterprises, and is even promoted by the few remaining independent
Russian media outlets such as the Bell newsletter, a daily staple in the information
diet of the Russian upper-middle class.
A more nuanced view on Biden is held by some people working on U.S. issues in the Russian
government. A president who is not tainted by suspicion of being a Russian asset -- and who
knows how to organize a normal process for national security discussions -- will be able to
restore some guardrails to the U.S.-Russia relationship and prevent further deterioration,
those people argue. A President Biden would not be able to pay close attention to Russia, since
he and his senior advisers will be overwhelmed by domestic issues and otherwise focusing on
China. But a possible new Democratic administration appears to be open to retaining some
pillars of the arms control regime and discussing rules of competition in cyberspace. And it
could be more clear-eyed -- and therefore skeptical -- about the side effects and efficiency of
sanctions as the United States' major tool in Russia policy. Much will depend on who is put in
senior positions such as secretary of state and national security advisor, and on the midlevel
bureaucrats controlling the Russia portfolio.
After U.S.-Russian relations nearly hit rock bottom on Trump's watch, nobody in Russia
believes that four more years of Trump could be good for Moscow. If Trump is reelected, the
only silver lining will be the even deeper level of disarray in the Western alliance and U.S.
disengagement from its partners that a second Trump term would likely bring. For the Kremlin,
schadenfreude over the gradual demise of Pax Americana would simply sugarcoat the risks and
downsides of Trump remaining in the White House.
Alexander Gabuev is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center. Twitter:
@AlexGabuev
The Task before "Sleepy Joe" is to put Liberal America Right Back to Sleep
by Jonathan Cook / November 6th, 2020
At birth, all of us begin a journey that offers opportunities either to grow – not
just physically, but mentally, emotionally and spiritually – or to stagnate. The journey
we undertake lasts a lifetime, but there are dozens of moments each day when we have a choice
to make tiny incremental gains in experience, wisdom and compassion or to calcify through
inertia, complacency and selfishness.
No one can be engaged and receptive all the time. But it is important to recognise these
small opportunities for growth when they present themselves, even if at any particular moment
we may decide to avoid grasping them.
When we shut ourselves into the car on the commute to work, do we use it as a moment to be
alone with our thoughts or to silence them with the radio or music? When we sit with friends,
do we choose to be fully present with them or scroll through the news feed on our phones? When
we return from a difficult day at work, do we talk the issues through with family or reach for
a glass of wine, or maybe bingewatch something on TV?
Everyone needs downtime, but if every opportunity for reflection becomes downtime then we
are stagnating, not growing. We are moving away from life, from being human.
Dried-out husk
This week liberal Americans reached for that glass of wine and voted Joe Biden. Others did
so much more reluctantly, spurred on by the fear of giving his opponent another four years.
Biden isn't over the finishing line quite yet, and there are likely to be recounts, court
challenges and possibly violence over the result, but he seems all but certain to be crowned
the next US president. Not that that should provoke any kind of celebration. The rest of the
world's population, future generations, the planet itself – none of us had a vote –
were always going to be the losers whichever candidate won.
The incumbent, Donald Trump, miscalculated, it seems, if he thought dismissing his opponent
as "Sleepy Joe" would be enough to damage Biden's electoral fortunes. True, Trump was referring
to the fact that Biden is a dried-out husk of the machine politician he once was. But after
four years of Trump and in the midst of a pandemic, the idea of sleeping through the next
presidential term probably sounded pretty appealing to liberals.
Most of them had spent their whole political lives asleep, but four years ago they were
forcibly roused from their languor to protest against Donald Trump. They grew enraged by the
symptom of their corrupted political system rather than by the corrupt system itself. For them,
"Sleepy Joe" is just what the doctor ordered.
But it won't be Biden doing the sleeping. It will be the liberals who cheerlead him. Biden
– or perhaps Kamala Harris – will be busy making sure his corporate donors get
exactly what they paid for, whatever the cost to the rest of us.
In this analogy, Trump is not the opposite of Biden, of course. He represents stagnation
too, if of a different kind.
Trump channels Americans' frustration and anger at a political and economic system they
rightly see as failing them. He articulates who should be falsely blamed for their woes: be it
immigrants, minorities, socialists, or the New World Order. He offers justified, if
misdirected, rage in contrast to Biden's dangerous complacency.
But however awful Trump may be, at least some of those voting for him are grappling, if
mostly unconsciously, with the tension between stagnation and growth – and not of the
economic kind. Unlike most liberals, who dismiss this simplistically as "populism", some of
Trump's supporters do at least seem to recognise that the tension exists. They simply haven't
been offered a constructive alternative to anger and blame.
Ritually disappointed
Unlike the liberals and the Trumpists, many in the US have come to understand that their
political system offers nothing but stultifying stagnation for ordinary Americans by
design , even if it comes in two, smartly attired flavours.
They see that the Trump camp rages ineffectually against the corporate elite, deluded into
believing that a member of that very same elite will serve as their saviour. And they see that
the Biden camp represents an ineffectual rainbow coalition of competing social identities,
deluded into believing that those divisions will make them stronger, not weaker, in the fight
for economic justice. Both of these camps appear resigned to being serially – maybe
ritually – disappointed.
Failure does not inspire these camps to seek change, it makes them cling all the more
desperately to their failed strategies, to attach themselves even more frantically and
fervently to their perceived tribe.
That is why this US election – at a moment when the need for real, systemic change is
more urgent, more evident than ever before – produced not just one but two of the worst
presidential candidates of all time. We are looking at exactly what happens when a whole
society not only stops growing but begins to putrefy.
Enervating divisions
Not everyone in the US is so addicted to these patterns of self-delusion and self-harm.
Large swaths of the population don't bother to vote out of hard-borne experience. The system
is so rigged against them that they don't think it matters much which corporate party is in
power. The outcome will be the same for them either way.
Others vote third party, or consciously abstain in protest at big money's vice-like grip on
the two-party system. Others, appalled at the prospect of Trump – and before him the two
Bushes, and before that Ronald Reagan – were forced once again to vote for the Democratic
ticket with a heavy heart. They know all too well who Biden is (a creature of his corporate
donors) and what he stands for (whatever his corporate donors want). But he is slightly less
monstrous than his rival, and in the US system those are the meaningful electoral options.
And among Trump's supporters too, there are many desperate for wholesale change. They voted
for Trump because at least he paid lip service to change.
These groups – most likely a clear electoral majority – could redirect the US
towards political, social, even spiritual growth, if they could find a way to come together.
They suffer from their own enervating divisions.
How should they best use their numerical strength? Should they struggle to win the
presidency, and if so should it be a third-party candidate or should they work within the
existing party structures? What lesson should they draw from the Democratic leadership's
sabotaging – twice over – of Bernie Sanders, a candidate offering meaningful
change? Is it time to adopt an entirely different strategy, rejecting traditional politics? And
if so, can it be made to work when all the major institutions – from the politicians and
courts, to the police, intelligence services and media – are firmly in the hands of the
corporate enemy?
Terrible reckoning
There is no real way to sleep through life, or politics, and not wake up one day –
usually when it is too late – realising catastrophic mistakes were made.
As individuals, we may face that terrible reckoning on our death-beds. Empires rarely go so
quietly. They fall when it is time for their citizens to learn a painful lesson about hubris.
Their technological innovations come back to haunt them, as ancient Rome's lead water-pipes
supposedly once did. Or they over-extend with ambitious wars that drain the coffers of gold, as
warrior-kings have discovered to their cost through the ages. Or, when the guardians of empire
least expect it, "barbarians" – the victims of their crimes – storm the city
gates.
The globe-spanning US empire faces the rapid emergence of all these threats on a planetary
scale. Its endless wars against phantom enemies have left the US burdened with astounding debt.
Its technologies, from nuclear weapons to AI, mean there can be no possible escape from a major
miscalculation. And the US empire's insatiable greed and determination to colonise every last
inch of the planet, if only with our waste products, is gradually killing the life-systems we
depend on.
If Biden becomes president, his victory will be a temporary win for torpor, for complacency.
But a new Trump will emerge soon enough once again to potentise – and misdirect –
the fury steadily building beneath the surface. If we let it, the pendulum will swing back and
forth, between ineffectual lethargy and ineffectual rage, until it is too late. Unless we
actively fight back, the stagnation will suffocate us all.
The emergence in recent weeks of a coalition of neoconservative Republicans and former US
national-security officials who have thrown their support behind the Democratic candidacy of
Joe Biden is an ominous development to those who believe US foreign policy should be guided by
the principles of realism and military restraint, rather than perpetual wars of choice.
In early June, a group of former officials from the George W Bush administration launched a
political action committee (PAC) in support of Biden's candidacy. The group,
43 Alumni for Biden , boasts
nearly 300 former Bush officials and is seeking to mobilize disaffected Republicans
nationwide.
The mobilization appears to be having an impact: More recently, "more than 100 former staff
of [the late US senator John] McCain's congressional offices and campaigns also endorsed Biden
for president,"
according to NBC News , as well
as dozens of former staffers from Senator Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.
That Republican support comes in addition to the more than 70 former US national-security
officials who teamed up
and issued a statement urging Biden's election in November.
Citing what they believe is the grave damage President Donald Trump has done to US national
security, the group does include some mainstream Republicans like Richard Armitage and Chuck
Hagel, but also features notable neocon hardliners like Eliot Cohen, John Negroponte and David
Kramer, who, perhaps not incidentally, played a
leading role in disseminating the utterly discredited Steele dossier prior to Trump's
inauguration.
These are not merely grifters or desperate bids for attention by unscrupulous and avaricious
Beltway swamp creatures. Though there are those too: the so-called
Lincoln Project , helmed by neocon operative Rick Wilson, which is an outside group of
Republicans (including former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele)
devoted to defeating Trump in November.
As historian David Sessions recently
tweeted , "Basically nobody in liberal circles is taking seriously the consequences of the
fact that the exiled cadre of the Republican Party are building a massive power base in the
Democratic Party."
The merger between Democrats and neocons is not merely confined to the world of electoral
politics; it is already affecting policy as well.
Over the summer, in response to The New York Times'
dubious "Russia bounty" story , Democratic congressman Jason Crow
teamed up with Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney (daughter of former US vice-president
Dick Cheney) to prohibit Trump from withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and the House of Representatives Armed Services
Committee also collaborated to pass an amendment that
imposed restrictions on Trump's plan to withdraw troops from Germany , showing, if nothing
else, that the bipartisan commitment to the new cold war is alive and well.
It is noteworthy that while there has been considerable pushback to economic neoliberalism
within the Democratic Party in recent years, thanks, mainly, to the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders, the advocacy of reformers like Elizabeth Warren and the increasing popularity of
economists like
Stephanie Kelton , the same cannot be said for foreign policy.
Biden has evinced an openness to being "pushed left" on social and economic policies if he
is elected president, but on external affairs he still largely operates within the standard
Washington foreign-policy playbook.
If anything, on foreign policy Democrats have moved rightward in recent years, having fallen
not only under the spell of "Russiagate" but also increasingly under the influence of neocons
and other former Bush officials who have pushed that discredited narrative for their own
ends.
The Democrats have also displayed a rather supine obeisance in regard to the country's
intelligence community, in spite of a
multiplicity of well-documented lies or half-truths that would at the very least justify
some skepticism about their claims or motivations.
Nobody should be surprised.
The neocons had been signaling their intention to flee the Republicans as early as 2016 when
it was widely reported that Robert Kagan had decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for president
and speak at a Washington fundraiser alongside other national-security fixtures worried about
the alleged isolationist drift within the Republican Party.
Indeed, the Democrats welcomed the likes of Kagan and fellow neocon extremist Max Boot with
open arms, setting the stage for where we are today: a Democratic presidential nominee running
to the right of the Republican nominee on foreign policy.
Missing: whither the progressives?
Over the past few US election cycles, progressive Democrats have increasingly challenged the
party's prevailing neoliberal bias on domestic economic policy. Equally striking, however, is
that they have been delinquent in failing to provide an alternative to the hegemonic influence
of militarists and interventionists growing within their party regarding foreign policy.
As it stands today, the so-called progressive foreign-policy alternative is really no
alternative at all. To the contrary, it evokes Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa's seminal work,
The Leopard , whose main character, Tancredi,
sagely observes to his uncle , "If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to
change."
So it is with much of what passes for a genuine foreign-policy alternative: The rhetoric
slightly changes, the personnel certainly change, but in substance, the policy status quo
largely remains.
Consider a
recent interview with the socialist Jacobin magazine featuring Matt Duss, a foreign-policy
adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders. Duss, who seeks to articulate the foundations of a new
"progressive" foreign policy, told the Quincy Institute's Daniel Bessner:
"We have neither the right nor the ability to transform other countries, but we should do
what we can to protect and expand the political space in these countries for local people to
do that work. We can also provide funding or resources for American civil society actors to
work in solidarity with their international counterparts ." [emphasis ours]
That sounds anodyne enough, but in reality, it is nothing but a form of liberal
imperialism. Historically, seemingly benign initiatives conducted under the aegis of local
people backed by so-called democracy-building programs have often planted the seeds for more
malign military intervention later.
Who makes the decision as to which local people to support? How does one (purportedly)
protect and expand that political space? We have seen how well that worked out in Afghanistan,
Iraq, or, indeed, in the mounting human tragedy that is Syria today.
Comments like that of Matt Duss amount to this: "We don't have the right to transform other
countries but we're going to try anyway." Forswearing pre-emptive military action (wars of
choice) isn't enough. Change will only come about when US foreign policy adheres to the
principles of the UN Charter, and above all, the ancient Westphalian principle of
non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. American policymakers need to
learn that less is more.
That used to be a guiding principle of Democrats, for example, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "
good neighbor policy " that repudiated intervention in the domestic affairs of Latin
America.
Of course, as subsequent events such as World War II illustrated, there may be a point at
which external assistance/intervention in other parts of the world might become necessary; but
the United States should not perpetually arrogate to itself the role of sole judge and jury in
determining when that line should be crossed, no matter how benign its intentions might
appear.
The broader point is that explicating a foreign policy somewhat less hawkish and merely
paying lip service to international law that transcend the norms established by the Bush-Cheney
neocons isn't enough.
That is the foreign-policy equivalent of the Republican-lite economic agenda embraced by "
New Democrats " such as Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin, Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner,
whereby the Democrats internalize the Republican Party's market-fundamentalist paradigm, but
simply promise to implement it more fairly, rather than do away with it altogether.
That appears unlikely to change under a future Biden administration. As American
Conservative editor Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
has noted , "Democratic interventionists and Blob careerists now [sit] at the right hand of
[Biden] like [Antony] Blinken, Nicholas Burns, Susan Rice, Samantha Power and
Michele Flournoy , who has been touted as a possible secretary of defense.
"They would sooner drag the country back into Syria, as well as position aggressively
against China if the military pushed hard enough and there was a humanitarian reason to justify
it."
Nowhere in Biden's foreign-policy ambit do we find mainstream figures warning about the
dangers of a new cold war with Russia or China, nor to the broader problems posed by America's
overall propensity toward militarism. In fact,
Biden does just the opposite .
The shape of things to come?
With the notable exceptions of a few anti-war Democrats like Barbara Lee, Tulsi Gabbard, Ro
Khanna and Jeff Merkley, the opposition party has spent much of the Trump era turning itself
into the party of war.
Meanwhile, one could envisage a future where the Republicans, under the influence of
"national conservatives" such as Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, or even Trump advisers such as
retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor (recently nominated to be US ambassador to Germany),
becomes the party of realism and restraint abroad.
To the limited extent that President Trump has been guided by any kind of restraint (which
has been
capricious at best ), it has paid dividends for the United States. In the Middle East, for
example, given that the United States is now largely energy-self-sufficient, it no longer needs
to play policeman in that part of the world.
1. The phrase 'Make America Great Again' implicitly acknowledges that America which is
supposedly, 'the greatest country in the world', is not great and hence needs its 'greatness'
restored.
The problem is that the US rose to global hegemony amongst a backdrop of huge industrial
and manufacturing power. Whilst the Europeans were fighting each other on their continent in
WW2, US manufacturing was booming.
Then in the 70s US courts said factories were liable to huge lawsuits for environmental
and medical problems caused by them hence the resultant 'outsourcing' or transfer or labour
to countries with cheaper labour costs such as China, Vietnam, Bangladesh etc.
2. This de-industrialization of the US or at least decimating of its manufacturing leads
to systemic unemployment in the long run. The US is lucky in that it can still flourish with
the reserve dollar, a status it enforces with its global imperial power. However with the
Sino-Russian block seeking to end dollar hegemony the questions are:
- How long will dollar hegemony last for?
- At what pace will it decrease?
-To what point does the US economy experience decline until it substantially impacts the US
itself?
3. The same sort of 'patriots' and right-wingers in the early 2000s who would have cheered
on a US war in the early Bush era and before are now often the most opposed to war. Not on
grounds of altruism but because it doesn't benefit the US, or they themselves see no tangible
benefits whilst the US experiences socio-economic decline.
This trend of economic decline is only going to continue and with it US power.
The US is hardly interested in flexing its - still considerable - muscles in Libya. That
theatre is between the Turks, Arabs and Russians. The US is hardly much of a party in the
tension between Greece and Turkey over their EEZ claims.
This is now replicating itself in the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict where the US has little
power and the main external actors are the Turks and Russians and some others.
Expect this sort of trend to continue whereby regional actors and others will decide on
regional 'solutions' (arrangements) free of the US.
4. As for the US internally, it will experience some sort of internal decline and it will
either:
a: Change itself fundamentally.
b: Experience cessation or 'semi-cessation'. The latter meaning that the states will have a
new deal with the centre, whereby the 'US' can still exist but the states can opt out of
things they don't like.
c: Civil war or internal conflict, think post-George Floyd riots X 10 amidst the background
of far greater poverty in the future.
P.S. In terms of right-wing militias, the military if anything has indicated it is
slightly 'anti-Trump' (the hero of the right-wing militias). The military is a
civic-nationalist, racially inclusive organisation whose current head of the air force is a
black man. This is why in some quarters of the internet some US right-wingers who aware of
this are not so confident about default US backing of any right-wing
RSH's warning that Trump could still start a war should be taken very seriously. Trump has
vowed that he will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Will he leave office without
ENSURING that they cannot?
I don't think for a minute think that Zionist Biden will do anything to upset Israel. But
the election of Biden is a convenient excuse for Trump to start a war (probably based on a
false flag of some sort) that Biden (or Kamala-Hillary) will "inherit".
@ pnyx #43 . . .on Biden. Just think of the warmongering role he played for the Iraq war. The Neocons
would have an easier time with Biden than with Tronald
Yes. Biden is a Clintonite, Trump was anti-Clinton.
The US war in Iraq - Operation Iraqi Freedom - with its death, destruction and displacement
has been rightly called the worst US foreign policy move ever.
The Clintons started it, and then promoted it with Biden's assistance as Chair of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee.
President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law on October 31, 1998.
On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton announces he has ordered air strikes against
Iraq because it refused to cooperate with United Nations (U.N.) weapons inspectors.
Trump's foreign policies were remarkably different? How? He assassinated an Iranian
general, which nearly had the US enter into a hot war with Iran, bombed Syria twice, put
additional sanctions on Iran, Venezuela, Russia and the DPRK. Trump's State Department has
successfully enacted regime change in Zimbabwe, Sudan, El Salvador, Chile, Honduras, Bolivia
(Mike Pompeo congratulating Luis Arce on his win -- very suspicious), and is trying regime
change in Hong Kong, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran, Eritrea, and Zimbabwe again, and as
of late, Nigeria.
You could argue that Trump wants Iran to be somewhat stronger so he can sell more weapons
to his MIC buddies and profit that way, therefore he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, and
the weapons import/export sanctions on Iran expired. But that's a different and more brash
method of managing Empire. It's different from Biden's "strategic de-escalation" policy with
Iran via the Iran nuclear deal, but not that one that necessarily yields better results for
Iran in the long term.
Calm down folks, the elected officials in the US have been puppets of the elite for the
entire history of the country.
The problem we're facing is within the elite community and far above any government's
control.
They didn't legalize drone striking "terrorists" any where on the globe by accident.
This means the elite are terrified of the fact that the internet and Trump both have exposed
them for the morally bankrupt, greedy, mass murdering psychopaths they truly are.
The accidental presidency of Trump made them realize that their useful idiots(elected
officials) where more idiots than useful and that they had to use the state sponsored
monopolies in the press as well as their privately controlled publicly funded covert
community to steer the narrative away from actual reality into their alternative commoditized
version of reality.
Trump was never trying to defend America from the elite for the common man. He was trying
to exploit the elite who had rejected him and his father for decades as well as cash in on
their predicament in order to pay off his debts and start his own reality TV network.
I agree Trump was useful and informative but in the end he, like us is just along for the
ride.
Don't do anything rash and don't for one second think a regime change in America is a rare
occurrence. Remember the Kennedy's ?
The only way to win is to not become one of the elite's useful idiots by lashing out
against another citizen. Poor and middle class only get the illusion they help decide
policy.
The policy is decided and auctioned off within the billionaire funded think tanks and sent to
the useful idiots in DC to be rubber stamped in order to trick you into thinking the
legislative branch is legitimate. These people could f*ck up a two car parade and prove it
over and over again.
Stay sane folks, the motives haven't changed in centuries and the elite are far more
scared of us than they are the other elite's because they all know they're all cowards.
In addition, considering Trump was supposedly a Russian puppet, Congress under his admin
passed a bill which allowed the US to arm Ukraine against Russia even more.
Wonderful and thought provoking analysis of current political affairs b. However I would
like to add that Biden and Trump are the products of political trends that have deep roots in
modern US and world political affairs that have been ongoing for some 100 years or more.
Biden and Trump did not occur in a vacuum. Both are products of the two world wars that were
fought in the last century. More recently, the US since 1940 and continuing to the present
day, has been actively preparing or fighting a major war somewhere on this planet. This
development has in turn created a vast military and civilian bureaucracy that constantly
needs to be fed a diet of real or imagined threats in order to survive.
The world recognizes what U.S. elites don't: the utter, total American failure to contain
Covid-19 has damaged U.S. standing and will do so until the virus is controlled. Meanwhile,
regional powers, China and Russia, cooperate and share resources, particularly vaccines. Cuba
provides treatments, but the U.S. turns up its nose at Cuban medicine, even if it means more
American covid patients die – this, though Cuba's pharmacopeia for this plague appears
superior. China sends doctors and medicines across the globe. Russia opts for sane herd
immunity – through vaccination. These countries act like adults. Not a good look for the
U.S.
The Obama regime's deplorable trade and military "pivot to China," along with its sanctions
against high-ranking Russians and Russian energy, financial and defense firms and the Trump
regime's provocations, sanctions and insults aimed at both countries have now born fruit: There
is talk of a military alliance between China and Russia. Both countries deny that such is in
the offing, but the fact that it is even discussed reveals how effectively U.S. foreign policy
has created enemies and united them. Even if they would have drawn closer anyway, China and
Russia cannot ignore the advantage of teaming up in the face of U.S. hostility. A more idiotic
approach than this hostility is scarcely imaginable. Remember, not too long ago the U.S. had
little problem with its chief trading partner, China, and there were even reports some years
back of actual military cooperation in Syria between the U.S. and Russia. All that is gone now,
dissolved in a fog of deliberate ill-will.
So what are some of the absurd U.S. policies that have reaped this potential whirlwind? An
utterly unnecessary trade war with China, with tariffs that were paid, not by China, but by
importers and then passed on to American consumers. There is the Trump regime's assault on
China's technology sector and its attempt to lockout Huawei from the 5G bonanza. Then there are
the attacks on Russian business, like its deal to sell natural gas to Germany, attacks in which
the U.S. insists Germany buy the much more expensive U.S. product to avoid becoming beholden to
Russia. And of course, there are the constant mega-deals involving sales of U.S. weapons to
anyone who might oppose China, Russia, North Korea or Iran.
Aggravating these economic assaults, the U.S. navy aggressively patrols the South China Sea,
the Black Sea and more and more the Arctic Ocean, where Russia has already been since forever.
Russia has a lengthy Siberian coast, making U.S. talk of Russia's so-called aggressive posture
there just plain ludicrous. And now a NATO ally, Turkey, stirs the pot by egging on Azerbaijan
in its war against Armenia, which has a defense treaty with Russia. Azerbaijan is famous for
the oil fields of Baku.
Never has it been clearer that the U.S. deploys its military might to advance its
corporations' interests, international law be damned. As General Smedley Butler wrote of his
military service way back in the early 20 th century, he was "a high-class muscle
man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster
for capitalism. I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make
Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank Boys to collect revenues in," and on
and on. Nothing has changed since them. It's only gotten worse. Indeed now we're in a position
where it is Russia that abides by international law, while the U.S. flouts it, instead
following something bogus it calls the "rules of the liberal international order."
The biggest and most consequential U.S. foreign policy failure involves nuclear weapons.
Here the Trump regime has outdone all its predecessors. It withdrew the U.S. from the
Intermediate Range Nuclear treaty, which banned land-based ballistic missiles, cruise missiles
and certain missile launchers and which it first signed in 1987. It withdrew from the Open
Skies Treaty, inked in 1992. That agreement allowed aircraft to fly over the signatories'
territory to monitor missile installations.
Trump has also made clear he intends to deep-six the 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia,
which limits nuclear warheads, nuclear armed bombers, intercontinental ballistic missiles and
missile launchers. The Trump regime has made the ridiculous, treaty-killing demand that China
participate in START talks. Why should it? China has 300 nuclear missiles, on a par with
countries like the U.K. The U. S. and Russian have 6000 apiece. China's response? Sure we'll
join START, as soon as the U.S. cuts its arsenal to 300. Naturally that went over like a lead
balloon in Washington.
And now, lastly, the white house has urged nations that signed the Treaty on the Prohibition
of Nuclear Weapons – which just recently received formal UN ratification – to
withdraw their approval. The U.S. spouted doubletalk about the TPNW's dangers, in order to head
off international law banning nuclear weapons, just as it has banned – and thus
stigmatized – chemical weapons, cluster bombs and germ warfare. Doubtless the Trump
regime's panic over the TPNW derives from its desire to "keep all options on the table"
militarily, including the nuclear one.
What is the point here? To make the unthinkable thinkable, to make nuclear war easier to
happen. The Pentagon appears delighted. Periodically military bigwigs are quoted praising new
smaller nuclear missiles, developed not for deterrence, but for use. Indeed, scrapping
deterrence policy – which has, insofar as it posits no first use, arguably been the only
thing keeping humanity alive and the planet habitable since the dangerous dawn of the atomic
era – has long been the dream of Pentagon promoters of "small, smart nuclear weapons" for
"limited" nuclear wars. How these geniuses would control such a move from escalating into a
wider nuclear war and planetary holocaust is never mentioned.
Before he assumed office, Trump reportedly shocked his advisors by asking, if we have
nuclear weapons, why can't we use them? Only someone dangerously ignorant or profoundly lacking
in basic human morality could ask such a question. Only someone eager to ditch the
human-species-saving policy of no-first-strike nuclear deterrence but willing to risk nuclear
extinction could flirt with such madness. Later in his presidency, Trump asserted that he could
end the war in Afghanistan easily if he wanted, hinting that he meant nukes, but that he did
not incline toward murdering 10 million people. Well, thank God for this shred of humanity.
Some assume a Biden presidency would chart a different course, but they may be counting
their chickens before they're hatched. Biden has made very hostile noises about Russia, China
and North Korea and has surrounded himself with neo-con hawks. He has so far made no promise to
return to the nuclear negotiating table for anything other than START. Would he try to
resuscitate the INF and Open Skies treaties? Would he end Trump regime blather aimed at
scotching TPNW? Maybe. Or he may have imbibed so much anti-Russia and anti-China poison that
he, like Trump, sees the absence of treaties as a green light for nuclear aggression.
Biden's official Foreign Policy Plan says that he regards the purpose of nuclear weapons as
deterrence, thus endorsing this at best very flawed compromise for survival. That he,
apparently unlike Trump, abjures a nuclear first strike is a huge relief, but how long will it
last? The Pentagon has been very persuasive over many decades of center-right rule and there is
no reason to assume that it will suddenly adopt a hands-off policy with Biden just because he
favors nuclear deterrence. Some military-industrial-complex sachems regard the no-first-use
principle as a mistake. Also, remember, Obama okayed a trillion-dollar nuclear arms upgrade.
Biden was his vp. What about that? This is no minor, petty concern. Russia is armed to the
teeth with supersonic nuclear weapons and China has concluded from U.S. belligerence that it
better arm up too. We are in dangerous waters here. Let's hope they don't become
radioactive.
What is patently clear is how bitterly polarized and divisive US domestic politics have
become. This is due to the historic failing of the two-party system which has, over
decades, left whole swathes of the population, in particular the majority working class,
alienated from the political class. There is irreparable distrust and distortion among the
American populace. To the point where it would seem impossible for any nominal winner of
the election to be able to command a mandate.
A tried and trusted mechanism for galvanizing is to "unite" the people by rallying them
around the flag against some designated foreign enemy. Given the increasing unwieldy,
fractious nature of American society, it is all the more imperative for the US ruling class
to impose some level of coherence in order to restore the essential authority of governing
power. With this paramount need to shore up a sense of authority, it can therefore be
expected that American foreign policy will become more aggressive and militaristic in the
next four years.
The US is essentially another colony to the multinationals who can set up domiciles in tax
havens, bribe politicians to enact favorable laws, and lobby for spending to enrich
themselves. That's the reality, not the liberals versus conservatives. They also have the
benefit of an unelected body that can enrich them through printing money which gives them
more power to stop other fiscal stimulus. It's evident in much of the world where this is
going on in the West. It is a variation of the Economic Shock Therapy applied by the West,
except that the oligarchs are spared from the economic shock.
"Let's bring decency and integrity back to the White House." I can't count the number of
times I have heard and read this phrase uttered by U.S. expats here in Paris, France. As one
of many American expats living here, of course I share in the desire for an end to a Donald
Trump presidency. But at what cost? And will a Biden presidency – which promises a
return to "normalcy" – really merit the sigh of relief that so many think it will?
Below I summarize some of the most troubling information I have uncovered about some of the
most likely foreign policy picks for key positions in a Biden cabinet.
Susan Rice for Secretary of State
Susan Rice, who was also reportedly being considered for the role of Biden's Vice
President, served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and as National Security
Advisor, both under the Obama administration.
While Benghazi has been the focus of much criticism of Rice, she has received virtually no
scrutiny for her backing of the invasion of Iraq and claiming that there were WMDs there.
Some of her statements:
"I think he [then Secretary of State Colin Powell] has proved that Iraq has these weapons
and is hiding them, and I don't think many informed people doubted that." (NPR, Feb. 6,
2003)
"It's clear that Iraq poses a major threat. It's clear that its weapons of mass
destruction need to be dealt with forcefully, and that's the path we're on. I think the
question becomes whether we can keep the diplomatic balls in the air and not drop any, even
as we move forward, as we must, on the military side." (NPR, Dec. 20, 2002)
"I think the United States government has been clear since the first Bush administration
about the threat that Iraq and Saddam Hussein poses. The United States policy has been regime
change for many, many years, going well back into the Clinton administration. So it's a
question of timing and tactics. We do not necessarily need a further Council resolution
before we can enforce this and previous resolutions." (NPR, Nov. 11, 2002; requests for audio
of Rice's statements on NPR were declined by the publicly funded network.)
She has also been criticized extensively for her record on the African continent, which
judging by the following quote
at the beginning of the 1994 Rwandan genocide seems to have been to adopt a "laissez faire"
attitude : "If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the
effect on the November [congressional] election?"
In a
speech given at the AIPAC Synagogue Initiative Lunch back in 2012, Rice boasted about
vetoing a UN resolution that would deem Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian land as
illegal, and further characterized the Goldstone Report as "flawed" and "insisted on Israel's
right to defend itself and maintained that Israel's democratic institutions could credibly
investigate any possible abuses." Her position has changed little since then, as recently as
2016,
she proclaimed that "Israel's security isn't a Democratic interest or a Republican
interest -- it's an enduring American interest."
Tony Blinken for National Security Adviser
Tony Blinken is also an old member of the Obama administration, having served first as VP
Biden's National Security Advisor from 2009 to 2013, Deputy National Security Advisor from
2013 to 2015 and then as United States Deputy Secretary of State from 2015 to 2017.
Blinken had immense
influence over Biden in his role as Deputy National Security Advisor, helping formulate
Biden's approach and support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"For Biden ", he argued , "and
for a number of others who voted for the resolution, it was a vote for tough diplomacy." He
added "It is more likely that diplomacy will succeed, if the other side knows military action
is possible."
The two of them were responsible for delivering on Obama's campaign promise
to get American troops out of Iraq, a process so oversimplified and poorly handled that it
led to even more
chaos than the initial occupation and insurgency.
Blinken seems to be
of the view that it is up to the US, and only the US, to take charge of world affairs :
"On leadership, whether we like it or not, the world just doesn't organize itself. And until
this [Trump] administration, the US had played a lead role in doing a lot of that organizing,
helping to write the rules, to shape the norms and animate the institutions that govern
relations among nations. When we're not engaged, when we don't lead, then one or two things
is likely to happen. Either some other country tries to take our place – but probably
not in a way that advances our interests or values – or no one does. And then you get
chaos or a vacuum filled by bad things before it's filled by good things. Either way, that's
bad for us."
Blinken also appears to be steering
Biden's pro-Israel agenda, recently
stating that Biden "would not tie military assistance to Israel to any political
decisions that it makes, period, full stop," which includes an all out
rejection of BDS , the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Movement against Israel's
occupation of Palestine.
Michèle Flournoy for Secretary of Defense
Michele Flournoy was Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from 2009 to 2012 in the Obama
administration under Secretaries Robert Gates and Leon Panetta.
Flournoy, in writing the
Quadrennial Defense Review during her time as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy
under President Clinton, has paved the way for the U.S.'s endless and costly wars which
prevent us from investing in life saving and necessary programs like Medicare for All and the
Green New Deal. It has effectively granted the US permission to no longer be bound by the
UN
Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of military force. It declared that,
"when the interests at stake are vital, we should do whatever it takes to defend them,
including, when necessary, the unilateral use of military power."
While working at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a
"Top Defense and National Security Think Tank" based in Washington D.C., in June 2002, as
the Bush administration was threatening aggression towards Iraq, she
declared , that the United States would "need to strike preemptively before a crisis
erupts to destroy an adversary's weapons stockpile" before it "could erect defenses to
protect those weapons, or simply disperse them." She continued along this path even in 2009,
after the Bush administration, in
a speech for the CSIS : "The second key challenge I want to highlight is the
proliferation – continued proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass
destruction, as these also pose increasing threats to our security. We have to respond to
states such as Iran, North Korea, who are seeking to develop nuclear weapons technologies,
and in a globalized world there is also an increased risk that non-state actors will find
ways to obtain these materials or weapons."
It is extremely important to note that Flournoy and Blinken co-founded the strategic
consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, where the two use their large database of governmental,
military, venture capitalists and corporate leader contacts to help companies win big
Pentagon contracts. One such client being Jigsaw, a technology incubator created by Google
that describes itself on its website
as "a unit within Google that forecasts and confronts emerging threats, creating
future-defining research and technology to keep our world safer." Their partnership on the AI
initiative entitled Project Maven led to a rebellion
by Google workers who opposed their technology being used by military and police
operations.
Furthermore, Flournoy and Blinken, in their jobs at WestExec Advisors, co-chaired the
biannual meeting of the liberal organization Foreign Policy for America. Over 50
representatives of national-security groups were in attendance. Most of the attendees
supported "ask(ing)
Congress to halt U.S. military involvement in the (Yemen) conflict." Flournoy did not. She
said that the weapons should be sold under certain conditions and that Saudi Arabia needed
these advanced patriot missiles to defend itself.
Conclusion
If a return to "normalcy" means having the same old politicians that are responsible for
endless wars, that work for the corporate elite, that lack the courage to implement real
structural change required for major issues such as healthcare and the environment, then a
call for "normalcy" is nothing more than a call to return to the same deprived conditions
that led to our current crisis. Such a return with amplified conditions and circumstances,
could set the stage for the return of an administration with dangers that could possibly even
exceed those posed by the current one in terms of launching new wars.
With his laughable attempts at diplomacy and general hawkishness, he's certainly in the
runnings for the honor. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at a press conference at the
State Department in Washington, DC, on October 21, 2020. (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/POOL/AFP via
Getty Images) |
12:01 AM
Is Mike Pompeo the worst secretary of state ever? He's been awful, no doubt. However, there
are 69 other contenders for that title.
Among modern secretaries, Colin Powell was misused by George W. Bush, who defrauded the
country in selling the tragically misbegotten invasion of Iraq. Madeleine Albright, her mindset
permanently stuck in Adolf Hitler's world, stands out for her enthusiastic embrace of war for
others to fight. Alexander Haig achieved little beyond claiming to be in charge in the wake of
the assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan. William Rogers was overshadowed by National
Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, who eventually took the latter's position.
Going back a bit further, Robert Lansing helped maneuver the U.S. into World War I, one of
the dumbest, most counterproductive moves in American history. The earlier one looks, the more
circumstances diverge, making any comparative judgment more difficult.
Still, about the best that can be said of Pompeo is that he has not gotten America into any
new wars, despite his best efforts. Most often he has played the anti-diplomat, determined to
insult, hector, demand, insist, dictate, threaten, harangue, and impose. But never persuade.
The results speak for themselves: the administration's record lacks any notable successes that
benefit the U.S, the supposed purpose of an "America First" foreign policy. There was a bit of
good, a lot of bad, and some real ugly.
A solid good was President Donald Trump's most important diplomatic initiative: his opening
with North Korea. Pompeo took over in March 2018, with the first summit already planned. That
initiative faltered the following year at the second summit in Hanoi, which was Pompeo's
responsibility.
Alas, the secretary lost points by apparently doing nothing to disabuse the president of the
belief that Pyongyang was prepared to turn over its entire arsenal with the hope that
Washington would look favorably upon its future aspirations. That was never going to happen,
especially after the allied double-cross of Libya, which yielded its missiles and nascent
nuclear program, and after Trump dumped the nuclear accord with Iran, demanding that Tehran
abjectly surrender its independent foreign policy. The North can easily imagine similar
mistreatment, by this or a future administration.
Washington has also pursued better relations with India, which is a positive. As elsewhere,
however, concern about human rights violations is almost entirely absent from Pompeo's
portfolio unless it operates as a weapon against an adversary. The secretary cheerfully holds
the coat of allied dictators as they jail, torture, and murder. Such is the case with Prime
Minister Narendra Modi, who has abetted if not aided rising religious persecution.
The Abrahamic accords between Israel and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates were a tepid
good. Improved relations between Arabs and Israelis are useful, though strengthening two
authoritarian regimes is not. The Bahraini Sunni monarchy sits atop a Shia population with the
backing of the Saudi military, while the Emirates, nicknamed "Little Sparta," by the Pentagon
-- as if that's a compliment -- has used its military to commit murder and mayhem against Yemen
in a war of political aggression and economic exploitation. The related negotiations with Sudan
have been worse, using an unjust terrorist state designation to force recognition of Israel,
which will undermine the democracy that has yet to be fully born after last year's popular
revolution.
Examples of bad are far more common. For example, Pompeo has worked to thwart the
president's evident desire to exit "endless wars." Nineteen years of nation-building in
Afghanistan is enough. The U.S. does not belong in the Syrian civil war. Iraq and its neighbors
are capable of and should deal with whatever remains of the Islamic State.
The secretary has played an equally malign role in Europe, undercutting his boss -- and, not
incidentally, the American people -- by working to spend more on, and place more troops in, the
continent, even as Trump pushed the Europeans to do more on their own defense. This is an inane
strategy: Washington should cut defense welfare to states with the capability to protect
themselves and allow them to decide how to proceed.
Much the same policy has played out with America's relationship to South Korea. Japan has
escaped most of that pressure. Yet consider the defensive capabilities against China for Japan
and the region if Tokyo spent not 1 percent of GDP on its military, but 2 or 3 percent. And why
shouldn't it do so, instead of expecting Americans to do the job for it?
The secretary turned human rights into a political weapon, sacrificing any credibility on
the issue. He tears up while criticizing Iran but kowtows to the Saudi royals, who are far more
brutal killers. He is horrified by the crimes committed by Venezuela's Maduro regime, but
spreads love to Egypt's Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who has punished the slightest criticism, and
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is turning Turkey into an autocracy. Pompeo actually introduced a new
initiative in support of unalienable rights with the support of countries like Saudi
Arabia and other assorted tyrannies.
Then there is the ugly. Using sanctions to try starve the people of Syria and Venezuela in
order to force their governments to yield to America is not just immoral but ineffective. Both
regimes have survived much and are not inclined to surrender.
At least Venezuela is a matter of geographic interest to Washington. Syria has never
mattered to U.S. security and Pompeo should have backed the president's effort to bring home
all American troops. Today, U.S. and Russian troops are clashing there over the
administration's bizarre and illegal seizure of Syrian oilfields. Also inexplicable is
reinforcing six decades of failure by tightening sanctions on Cuba; the private business
community there has suffered badly as a result, reducing what was becoming a sharp challenge to
the political authorities during the waning days of the Obama administration.
The fixation on Iran, which appears to come more from Pompeo than Trump, can best be
explained as turning Mideast policy over to Saudi Arabia and Israel. The result of abandoning
the nuclear accord has been nothing short of catastrophic. The Iranians have refused to
negotiate. Instead they ramped up nuclear reprocessing, interfered with Gulf tanker traffic,
attacked Saudi oil facilities, and attacked U.S. bases and the embassy in Iraq. Far from
reestablishing deterrence, as claimed, the secretary was left to whimper and whine that he
might have to close America's embassy in Baghdad.
Pompeo has taken the lead in the administration's shameful policy toward Saudi Arabia,
aiding it in its war of aggression against impoverished Yemen. That nation has been at war
within and without for most of its existence. Riyadh decided to invade to restore a puppet
regime to power, turning typical internal discord into a sectarian war in which Tehran was able
to bleed the ineffective Saudi armed forces, which were armed and aided by the Pentagon. In
this way, the secretary has made the American population into accomplices to war crimes.
Even more foolish geopolitically, Pompeo has matched Albright's retreat to World War II
clichés with a stroll back into the Cold War. Russia is an unpleasant actor but doesn't
threaten American security. Europe is capable of defending itself. Alas, constantly piling on
sanctions without providing an off-ramp ensures continued Russian hostility and a tilt toward
China in that burgeoning struggle. How does this make any sense for America?
Finally, Pompeo has been his blundering, maladroit, offensive self in seeking to launch an
American-led campaign against the People's Republic of China. Beijing poses a serious
challenge, but not primarily a security issue. No one believes that the PRC plans to launch an
armada across the Pacific to conquer Hawaii. The issue is Washington's willingness to pay the
cost to forever treat Asia-Pacific waters as an American lake.
As for other issues, the U.S. needs work in concert with friendly powers. Pompeo has done
his best to drive away potential partners: for instance, the G-7 refused his demand to call
COVID-19 the Wuhan Virus and even allies such as South Korea have remained far more measured in
their relations with China, determined not to turn their large neighbor into an enemy. In what
promises to be a long and complicated relationship, genuine and serious diplomacy, which
obviously lies beyond Pompeo's limited capabilities, is required.
On the personal side, he appears to have abused his position for both personal and
ideological advantage. For example, so committed to showing his fealty to Riyadh, he declared
an "emergency" to thwart congressional opposition and rush munitions to the Saudi military so
it could kill more Yemeni civilians. He then sought to impede a departmental investigation,
pressuring and firing the inspector general. What prompted his determination to so avidly
assist a ruler who is ostentatiously vile, reckless, and even criminal is one of the greatest
mysteries of his tenure.
Tragically, Pompeo proved to be one of the greatest obstacles to the best of the president's
international agenda. In a speech delivered last year in which he claimed to be implementing
the Founders' foreign policy vision, he denigrated diplomacy and its successful fruits, such as
opening up both Cuba and Iran to potentially corrosive outside influences, which is the most
likely strategy to induce change over the long term. This approach would be more in sync with
Trump's desire to deal with countries such as North Korea and Iran.
Indeed, left to his own devices, Pompeo would likely have America at war with Iran and
perhaps beyond -- Venezuela, China, and/or Russia. His belligerence serves the American people
badly. As does his consistent campaign, conscious or not, to thwart the president's brave but
incompetent attempts to escape largely braindead practices enforced by what Ben Rhodes termed
"the Blob," the foreign policy establishment that dominates the field.
The secretary has forgotten that his job is not to push his personal ideological line.
Rather, it is to advance the interests of the American people, with a special emphasis on
defending their lives, territory, liberties, constitutional system, and prosperity. In this, he
has failed consistently. Maybe he isn't the worst secretary of state in history. But surely he
is one of the worst.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. A former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan, he is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
.
And this is also another opportunity of all the other stuff the US could have demanded
their allies should do as well as the USA that they haven't done because it would have caused
extreme autof/kery, sic banning the sale of airliners, engines, electronics etc. Russia could
simply have pulled its titanium supply. Guess who's share prices would tank first and all the
consequences?
As we have pointed out here before, while the US is exhorting u-Rope to 'take on for the
team,' mega-corps (though weakening) like GE has arrange full localization of its turbine
(power/mineral extraction) business with a local Russian partner. Yes. GE, Microsoft and
others told the White House to f/k off. Not in public.
What we see is salami slicing sanctions (SSS) where the west adds small slices here and
there that do add up, the latest being on suppling microelectronics to the Russian aviation
industry. This is to hobble Russia's investment in its current rebuilding of its civil
airliner industry or what's left of it. These sanction are a dick move precisely because they
are easy and get support from both american political parties.
We have also covered on this blog many times before, cutting Russia off from the Joy of
Sex West, they've cut their own markets off (retail/food produce etc.) which Russia
has in turn finally massively self-invested for domestic products and also up market
equivalents. That's cost u-Rope billions not only in lost sales, but in future sales share
that will not return to where it once was.
So, cutting off western microelectronics for aircraft looks even more weak p*ss
considering Russia's state strategic program of Russianizing its aircraft programs despite
the obvious up front cost. Russia was doing this anyway because it was obvious which way the
wind was blowing. Either they get on with it or they will be forced to do it.
The west is running out of any meaningful sanctions they can enact without causing futher
blowback. How stupid is that? It's the product of thirty years of 'Do Something'
policy however dumb or short sighted because the West has to be seen to do something. The
concept of Leave it Alone has never crossed their minds. It really is an ad dick tion!
😉 Just don't expect to finding them in a self-help group admitting to all the nasty
s/t they've done and as part of their step program, reaching out and apologizing for any of
it. Neither them nor their media supporting hamsters.
On the eve of the election, for example, Politico published a fawning
profile of Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, who is laying the groundwork to become
speaker of the House in a future Republican majority. An ideological mirror of her father, she
and her cohort long for a restoration of the early 2000s Bushite foreign policy of
globe-trotting regime change and democratic nation building administered by a national security
state in Washington D.C.
Their cause, however, is as infertile as their past efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is
because despite his poor record, Donald Trump has created a permanent and growing disconnect
between the War Party and the GOP.
There is no need to sugarcoat how Donald Trump has squandered four years of opportunity in
foreign policy. His promises to bring the troops home have not materialized and remain
"promises" to be kept at a permanently delayed date. He has intensified U.S. interference in
Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and Venezuela. He's overseen the continued deterioration of relations
with Russia, while leaving North Korea at the diplomatic altar. And he's brought the United
States and Iran into a first exchange of direct, open conflict.
A big-picture assessment, however, requires not looking at how Trump failed to bring what
restrainers wanted, but how he succeeded in destroying what they needed gone.
Trump's election caused the departure of the most loathsome of the war peddlers -- including
Bill Kristol, David Frum, Jamie Kirchick, Steve Schmidt, and Max Boot -- from Republican ranks.
United under the banner of "Never Trump," for four years they used every inch of column space,
every CNN interview, and a small fortune to cleave off a portion of the Republican base that
they believed would be happy to return to the world of 2006.
The result? Exit polls show Trump winning 93 percent of the Republican vote, a higher
percentage than he won in 2016. As an election post-mortem summarized,
Never Trump hawks "basically do not exist anywhere outside of the Washington Beltway or cable
news green rooms -- and after tonight's results, we shouldn't have to see them on TV or even
see their tweets ever again."
That the average American has the same respect for the War Party's minions as they have for
a tobacco executive should come as no surprise.
Polling continually shows a supermajority of Americans ready and eager to withdraw from
Iraq and Afghanistan. That includes 77 percent of Republicans, 40 percent of whom want to
decrease military engagement with the rest of the world as well. These voters are a vanguard
that will stop any future Bushite ascendance, whether from Nikki Haley or the spawn of Dick
Cheney.
Slowly, Republican members of Congress are beginning to reflect the wishes of their voters.
One year ago this month, I wrote about the
emerging cadre of antiwar conservatives in the House of Representatives. While most broke
under pressure to support Trump's escalation with Iran, not all did. It's a more active and
vocal Republican contingent than has existed for decades and it's growing fast. Following
Tuesday's results, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming will join Rand Paul and Mike Lee in the U.S.
Senate, while Nancy Mace of South Carolina will lock arms with Representatives Thomas Massie
and Matt Gaetz. Both women are vetted and proven war skeptics who are determined to challenge
Liz Cheney at every turn.
Beyond government, the creative destruction brought by the Trump presidency in conservative
circles has given a new lease on life to restrainers long excluded from the Beltway's
incestuous institutions. That includes the continued ascension of publications like The
American Conservative , which has become a wheelhouse for the
most important foreign policy conversations happening on the right; Tucker Carlson, whose
program has become the highest rated in cable news history, no doubt aided by his antiwar
opening monologues; the Quincy Institute, which is dragging other think tanks kicking and
screaming into dialogues about shifting U.S. positioning overseas; and activist organizations
like BringOurTroopsHome.US , a
collection of right-of-center veterans who are lobbying to end the country's unconstitutional
wars.
The American empire was formed over the course of a century, and currently encompasses over
850 overseas military bases. Hundreds of billions of dollars are exchanged every year through
facets of the military-industrial complex, while thousands of very powerful people make their
cushy salaries off the current imperialistic system (and will fight tooth and nail to keep it
that way).
One election was never going to change that. Donald Trump was never going to be a miracle
worker. But he's kicked in the door and let us in, even if we wish he'd tidied up better before
he left.
We have principled leaders in government. We have the infrastructure. And most importantly,
we have the voters. Liz Cheney and her misbegotten hangers-on may not realize it yet, but their
heyday has long past. It's our party now and we're going to bring America home.
Hunter DeRensis is the communications director of BringOurTroopsHome.US and a regular
contributor to The American Conservative . Follow him on Twitter
@HunterDeRensis.
Stephen Wertheim's Tomorrow, The World examines a shift in elite U.S.
foreign-policy thinking that took place in mid-1940. Why in that moment, a year and a half
before the Japanese attacks on the Philippines, Hawaii, and other outposts, did it become
popular in foreign-policy circles to advocate for US military domination of the globe?
In school text book mythology, the United States was full of revoltingly backward
creatures called isolationists at the time of World War I and right up through December 1941,
after which the rational adult internationalists took command (or we'd all be speaking German
and suffering through the rigged elections of fascistic yahoos, unlike this evening).
In fact, the term "isolationist" wasn't cooked up until the mid-1930s and then only as a
misleading insult to be applied to people who wished for the US government to engage with the
world in any number of ways from treaties to trade that didn't include militarism.
Anti-isolationism was and is a means of ridiculously pretending that "doing something" means
waging war, supporting NATO, and promoting the "responsibility to protect," while anything
else means "doing nothing."
There were distinctions in the 1920s between those who favored the League of Nations and
World Court and those who didn't. But neither group favored coating the planet with US
military bases, or extending even the most vicious conception of the Monroe Doctrine to the
other hemisphere, or replacing the League of Nations with an institution that would falsely
appear to establish global governance while actually facilitating US domination. Pre-1940
internationalists were, in fact, imperfect US nationalists. They, as Wertheim writes, "had
the capacity to see the United States as a potential aggressor requiring restraint." Some,
indeed, didn't need the word "potential" there.
What changed? There was the rise of fascism and communism. There was the notion that the
League of Nations had failed. There was the serious failure of disarmament efforts. There was
the belief that whatever came out of WWII would be dramatically different. In September 1939,
the Council on Foreign Relations began making plans to shape the postwar (yet permawar)
world. The Roosevelt White House into 1940 was planning for a postwar world that held a
balance of power with the Nazis. Ideas of disarmament, at least for others, were still very
much a part of the thinking. "Weapons dealer to the world" was not a title that it was ever
suggested that the United States strive for.
Wertheim sees a turning point in the German conquest of France. Change came swiftly in
May-June, 1940. Congress funded the creation of the world's biggest navy and instituted a
draft. Contrary to popular mythology, and propaganda pushed by President Roosevelt, nobody
feared a Nazi invasion of the Americas. Nor was the United States dragged kicking and
screaming into its moral responsibility to wage global permawar by the atrocious domestic
policies of the Nazis or any mission to rescue potential victims from Nazi genocide. Rather,
US foreign policy elites feared the impact on global trade and relations of a world
containing a Nazi power. Roosevelt began talking about a world in which the United States
dominated only one hemisphere as imprisonment.
The United States needed to dominate the globe in order to exist in the sort of global
order it wanted. And the only global order it wanted was one it dominated. Did US planners
become aware of this need as they watched events in Europe? Or did they become aware of its
possibility as they watched the US government build weapons and the US president acquire new
imperial bases? Probably some of each. Wertheim is right to call our attention to the fact
that US officials didn't talk about militarily dominating the whole globe prior to 1940, but
was there ever a time they talked about dominating anything less than what they had the
weapons and troops to handle? Certainly the voices had not all been monolithic, and there was
always an anti-imperialist tradition, but did it ever give much back to those it had
dispossessed until after WWII when airplanes and radios developed a new sort of empire (and
some colonies were made states but others more or less liberated)?
The US government and its advisers didn't just discover that they could rule the world and
that they needed to rule the world, but also that -- in the words of General George V.
Strong, chief of the Army's War Plans Division -- Germany had demonstrated the "tremendous
advantage of the offense over the defense." The proper defensive war was an aggressive war,
and an acceptable goal of that was what Henry Luce called living space and Hitler called
Lebensraum . US elites came to believe that only through war could they engage in
proper trade and relations. One can treat this as a rational observation based on the growth
of fascism, although some of the same people making the observation had fascistic tendencies,
the problem with Germany seems to have existed for them only once it had invaded other
nations that were not Russia, and there is little doubt that had the United States lived
sustainably, locally, egalitarianly, contentedly, and with respect for all humanity, it could
not have observed a need for permawar in the world around it -- much less gone on observing
it for 75 years.
In early 1941, a US political scientist named Harold Vinacke asked, "When the United
States has its thousands of airplanes, its mass army, properly mechanized, and its two-ocean
navy, what are they to be used for?" Officials have been asking the same right up through
Madeline Albright and Donald Trump, with the answer generally being found to be as
self-evident as other patriotic "truths." By summertime 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill had
announced the future organization of the world in the Atlantic Charter.
If hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue, there remained some virtue in US
society and its conception of foreign policy at the time of WWII, because a major focus of
postwar planners was how to sell global domination to the US public (and incidentally the
world, and perhaps most importantly themselves) as being something other than what it was.
The answer, of course, was the United Nations (along with the World Bank, etc.).
Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles described the design of the United Nations thus: "what
we required was a sop for the smaller states: some organization in which they could be
represented and made to feel themselves participants." In Roosevelt's words before the
creation of the U.N., all nations but four, in a future global organization, would merely
"blow off steam."
Roosevelt also proposed that the existence of such a phony organization would allow it to
declare war instead of the US Congress, meaning that a US president would be able to launch
wars at will -- something like what we've seen for the past 75 years with NATO occasionally
having filled in for a malfunctioning United Nations.
Roosevelt believed that the United States signed up for global policeman when it defeated
Hitler. Neither Roosevelt nor Wertheim mentions that the Soviet Union did 80% of defeating
Hitler, after having done about 0% of creating him.
But surely the job of world cop can be resigned, no matter how one got into it. The
question now is how. The financial and bureaucratic and media and campaign-corruption
interests all work against dismantling the permawar military, just as does the ideology of
anti-"isolationism." But it certainly cannot hurt to be aware of the dishonesty in the
ideology and of the fact that it was not always with us.
Western hypocrisy revealed 10 years after the event in today's Independent:
"Tony Blair and Iraq: The damning evidence" . And they go on and on about those wicked,
evil Russians and their tyrannical leader causing death and destruction Syria by their
"support" of the Assad government whilst the West arms the "freedom fighters" there.
Neoconservatives are flocking to the Biden campaign. The DC braintrust that believes in
using US military power to aid Israel in the Middle East has jumped parties before– to
Clinton in '92, and back to Bush in 2000– and now they're hopping aisles to support
Biden, with Bill Kristol leading the way.
Last night on an official Biden campaign webinar led by "Jewish Americans for Biden", and
moderated by Ann Lewis of Democratic Majority for Israel, two prominent neocon Republicans
endorsed Biden, primarily because of Trump's character posing a danger to democracy. But both
neocons emphasized that Biden would be more willing to use force in the Middle East and
reassured Jewish viewers that Biden will seek to depoliticize Israel support, won't
necessarily return to the Iran deal and will surround himself with advisers who support
Israel and believe in American military intervention.
Eliot Cohen, a Bush aide and academic , echoed
the fear that Israel is being politicized. "A lot of Jews made a big mistake by taking
something I was in favor of, moving the embassy to Jerusalem and obsessing about that," he
said. But there was huge political risk in that: if the United States is internally divided,
at war with itself, and "Israel has become a partisan issue, which it should never ever be .
That's not in Israel's longterm security interest."
Biden will reverse that trend by appointing strong supporters of Israel, Cohen said.
"Joe Biden has a long record as a friend of Israel. I think we're both quite familiar
with the kinds of people who will go into a Biden administration and I think we feel very
comfortable that they will have a deep and abiding concern for Israel which is not going to
go away."
Edelman also said that Trump has created many "dangers" in the region by not being
aggressive:
"By withdrawing or threatening to withdraw US forces, by repeatedly not replying or
dealing with Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf or against Saudi oil infrastructure,
he's created a sort of vacuum that is being filled in Libya by Russia and by Turkey "
Biden will work with allies and be ready to use U.S. military in the region– or as
Edelman said, "to play."
"The region is a mess," Edelman said. "And yet the president continually says he wants the
U.S. to withdraw from the region. The reality is that the withdrawal of US power form the
region has helped create this morass of threats."
He cited three war zones in which the U.S. or proxies' bombing is essential to U.S.
security, Libya, Yemen and Syria.
In Syria, "The Trump administration pulled out and said, we don't want to play here,"
Edelman said.
"Other forces are going to fill the vacuum created by the absence of US leadership and
they won't be benign forces," Edelman said. Iran, Russia, or Turkey will come in and create a
"vortex of instability that can potentially come back to haunt us" -- with terrorist attacks
or the disruption of energy markets.
Cohen and Edelman opposed Obama's Iran deal, and both predicted that Biden will be hawkish
on Iran.
In other words, Trump has failed the Israel Lobby because he has tried to pull our US forces
from the Middle East and, although he has laid down sanctions against Iran, he has not gone to
war. Of course, these are the people who promoted the ongoing disaster of the Iraq war. They
are probably right that Russia and Turkey would benefit from US pulling out completely
(Libya??), but where are legitimate US interests in all this? Trump ran on ending Middle East
wars and getting out of the region–the original reason the neocons jumped ship (in
addition to fears of a nascent Orange Hitler). Despite being president he has been unable to do
so. He has been strongly
opposed by the foreign policy establishment and the Pentagon -- a testament to the extent
to which the US security establishment is Israel-occupied territory.
Lurking in the background of the attitudes of Cohen and Edelman is the idea that Biden would
tame the forces on the left that have been so critical of Israel in recent years. With Biden
they get it all: Strongly pro-Israel even to the point of initiating a war with Iran, taming
the anti-Israel voices on the left (Kamala Harris with her Jewish husband s not among them),
and perhaps a Senate led by Israel operative Chuck Schumer. Meanwhile the Republican Party
would default to the Chamber of Commerce and the remaining neocons, and the hope of a
nationally competitive GOP, much less a truly populist GOP, would die. Bill Kristol loves the
prospect of a long-term Democrat domination.
And of course, all of these bellicose proposals are cloaked in a veneer of "Jewish values"
-- not so ironic if one assumes, as is certainly the case, that promoting war for specifically
Jewish interests is indeed a Jewish value.
Cohen spoke about Jewish values. He and his family belong to an orthodox synagogue and
have raised four children with a religious education. "I've tried to live my life by Jewish
values. One thing that's very important for Jewish Republicans. Obviously the issue of Israel
is important, it's the only Jewish state, it's important to look after it and for it to
thrive, but what is our approach to politics?" Jews don't believe that you Render unto God
the things that are God and render unto Caesar the thing that are Caesar's and therefore not
take issue with a politician's character "so long as they do what we want them to do." He
said, "That's not the Jewish way." In the Book of Samuel, the king engages "in despicable
behavior," and the prophet storms into his bedroom. "We believe that character matters." And
this election is about character.
Okay, Trump is not a saint. But given that Biden is up to his eyeballs in scandal doesn't
bother Cohen at all -- despite overwhelming documentation. So we are not supposed to care that
the Biden family raked in millions by using Biden's influence to alter US foreign policy or
that China could easily blackmail him into doing their bidding on trade and military issues. So
in the end, it's really about what Cohen, Edelman, Kristol, et al. think is good for Israel
(Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot jumped the GOP ship even before Trump was elected). Again, count
me unsurprised.
And of course, the other thing is that neocons have always been on the left
within the Republican Party. One might say they have attempted to not only make Israel a
bi-partisan issue (their first priority) but also promoting the liberal/left social agenda,
such as replacement-level non-White immigration, as a bipartisan issue -- both values strongly
promoted by the mainstream Jewish community. They jumped ship mainly because Trump was
promising to undo the liberal/left social agenda as well as disengage from foreign wars and US
occupation of the Middle East. During the 2016 campaign, some of the strongest denunciations of
Trump came from neocons ("
Jewish Fear and Loathing of Donald Trump: Neocon Angst about a Fascist America" ).
If you haven't seen it, Carlson's interview with Bobulinski is damning, and the documents he
refers to have been thoroughly authenticated.
Trump has been dealing with jews all of his life and knows what they are like. This is a
double-edged sword for jews as he is wise to their dishonest criminality and double-dealing
and is able to work around their machinations and dishonesty.
This s why (some) jews hate him. If he wanted to, he could expose them for what they truly
are
To Trump's credit, he has his own security detail interspersed within his Secret Service
protection team making possible harm or actions against him difficult if not impossible. A
good thing
I truly believe that Jews are the strongest assets Satan has. They are constantly forcing
us super-stupid Gentiles into wars for Israel. We have Gentile-American soldiers (Jews don't
serve) facing off against my white Christian brothers, mainly to be a counter-balance to
Iranian forces in the country who are battling U.S.-backed terrorists. Jews hate Russians
because they are white Christians and they actually hate us white-Christians in America, too.
(For now, we are simply useful idiots for them.) It is time that we Gentiles wake up and kick
every single last Jew out of this country before the Jews get us all killed!
DJT has done a good job of separating the J wheat from the chaff so to speak.
Unfortunately, it's the chaff that seems to have all the power money and influence. For
now.
Who paid for all this peace in the Middle East?
American tax money was used to
De-stabilize Iraq
De-stabilize Libya
De-stabilize Syria
Only Iran is left as a major power in the Middle East.
Let's get the draft going to get our brave boys and girls(and LGBTQ) fighting to maintain
peace in the Middle East.
We ALL need to give until we can give no more.
Maybe draft exemptions for the Ivy League, someone has to tell us what to do.
Jewish promoted Critical Race Theory believes and teaches that systemic racism is the main
reason why blacks commit criminal acts. Therefore the response to the disparity between White
and Black crime is to alter the standards, i.e., change White expections of the Black
community. Because to say to Black Americans that they must alter their behavior to meet the
current standards is racist.
Samuel Krasner, the Jewish DA in Philadelphia, is aboard with this. He decriminalised
shoplifting in his jurisdiction. And we now have shoplifters walking out of stores with
armfuls of stolen goods whilst smiling in the cameras and saying, 'I can't be
prosecuted.'
Then there is this unbelievable piece of BS legislation from Virginia: "Virginia
legislature passes bill preventing cops from stopping cars with no headlights, brake lights,
etc."
When Virginia state legislator who sponsored the bill, Patrick Hope, was asked about this
by a reporter from The Daily Press he responded by saying he didn't know that police were no
longer allowed to stop vehicles for not having their lights illuminated.
Patrick Hope sponsored a bill without actually knowing what was in it! If you think at
this stage that Patrick Hope is a hopeless idiot he gets worse.
When the importance of working brake lights on vehicles was mentioned to Hope he said:
"The brake lights -- I'm not concerned about that as a safety issue -- but I can certainly
see how headlights could be of concern ."
A Virginia state legislator is dumb enough to believe that brake lights have no importance
whatsoever to road safety in his state.
The modern United States? You couldn't f ** king make it up! By the way, who are the
majority people driving defective cars in Virginia? Blacks and other newly arrived
minorities, of course.
Would the local authorities in any part of Israel decriminalise shoplifting for a minority
demographic in their area? Not likely. How about Samuel Krasner, would he recommend that
crime be legalised for minorities in the state of Israel? No, he wouldn't. He's not stupid.
He would not do anything that would destroy his native country.
Would an utter idiot like Hope be allowed to introduce insane life endangering legislation
in Israel? No, his Jew financial backers would not allow that.
But, Trump or no Trump, all this is coming to your local area of America very soon.
It's amazing. It's astounding. A cursory look shows there are Jews behind every act of
destruction against White America and its founding culture.
The Jews are driving the de-educating of American youth, they've staffed 90% of the media
with lying, immoral and shameless journalists and installed unintelligent and easily
corruptible politicians in both US political parties.
As we see with Hope, the Jews have made possible state legislators who are so stupid that
they are probably suffering from mental health issues. What's very sad is that there's hardly
a peep from the great American public against them.
The Jews who first suggested making anti-semitism a crime in the West actually said to
their comtemperies at the time that it was just a "pipe dream." They never actually thought
in their wildest dreams that Western people and politicians would accept the lie that
anti-Jewishness was systemic in the West and needed laws to counteract it.
But, unbelievably for them, they easily got their anti-Semitism legislation enacted. And
then, enboldened, they drove ahead with Holocaust denial and all the other BS.
Now, as we see with the headlights, brake lights and the decriminalising of shoplifting
for Blacks, the Jews have become viciously emboldened. They've learned that European
provenanced Whites will accept any and all Bull S ** t that is thrown at them.
Shame on all Americans for sitting idly by whilst the tiny Jew demographic urines on all
that your forefathers built and fought for.
If your descents are Islamist slaves policed by Blacks in the latter half of this century
(all ruled from on-high by the Jews) they'll deserve it. They'll deserve it because their
fathers and grandfathers were idle and lazy cowards who sat on their butts while the great
inheritance which they were bequeathed was pulled out from under them.
BTW: Who had secured a vantage point in New York in September 2001 from which to watch the
planes fly into the buildings? And who then danced and cheered energetically as the planes
hit the buildings and killed 2,977 people?
Surely, you might think, it was Arabic Islamists, or Pakistanis, or some other race of
Muslims.
You'd be wrong if you thought this.
The correct answer is "five Israelis". Yes, it was five Jews who danced and sang as 2,977
Americans were murdered in cold blood.
@Lot el. Cursed with the loss of thousands of American lives resulting from such actions.
Cursed with the loss of tens of thousand of non-American lives from such actions. All this
for a shitty little country with which America doesn't even have a defence treaty.
Our Steadfast Ally ? The USS Liberty, Jonathan Pollard and the Israeli selling of American
defence technology to China immediately spring to mind. There is no defence treaty between
America and Israel. Israel is not America's ally. Rather it is a parasite on the American
body politic. Either Americans rip the parasite off their body, or it will eventually kill
America.
The Biden campaign has worked tirelessly over the past year to channel the image of Joe
Biden as a "serious person," particularly on foreign policy matters. Biden, according to this
narrative
, is an elder statesman who grasps the intricacies of international politics. Trump, by
contrast, is
presented as an inept bull in a china shop who only speaks
the language of "fire and fury." Only Biden, we are told, can bring back stability around the
globe.
Don't believe a word of it.
This carefully curated image of Joe Biden's strategic acumen and geopolitical foresight is
at odds by the former vice president's own stated views and policy track record. His statements
about a variety of countries suggest that they are based less on a strategic view of world
affairs than snap judgments.
Consider Korea. At the Third Presidential Debate on October 22, Trump touted the benefits of
having "good relations" with foreign leaders like North Korea's Kim Jong Un. Biden responded by
invoking Hitler: "We had a good relationship with Hitler before he, in fact, invaded Europe,
the rest of Europe. Come on. The reason he would not meet with President Obama is because
President Obama said, 'We're going to talk about denuclearization. We're not going to
legitimize you and we're going to continue to push stronger and stronger sanctions on you.'
That's why he wouldn't meet with us." It should go without saying that likening Kim Jong Un to
Adolf Hitler is not only wildly inflammatory but also contributes nothing to our policy
understanding of either figure. The second part of Biden's statement is even more dangerous,
reflecting a failed commitment to old Washington orthodoxy at a time when a growing number of
North Korea experts are quite correctly warning that a blanket insistence on
denuclearization as a precondition for peace talks is futile and counterproductive.
Biden extended a similarly brash stance toward America's friends. At a recent Philadelphia
town hall event, Biden-- who has incessantly lectured Trump on the perils of spurning America's
longstanding allies-- all but
consigned two key US partners into a new Axis of Evil: "And NATO is in the risk of
beginning to crack because they don't doubt -- they doubt our -- whether we're there. You see
what's happened in everything from Belarus to Poland to Hungary, and the rise of totalitarian
regimes in the world, and as well, this president embraces all the thugs in the world." It
bears repeating that Hungary and Poland -- which have both had
legitimate and competitive elections within the past several years-- are not only members of
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but are among the two biggest military contributors to
NATO's collective security arrangement. Biden's comments are even more tone-deaf in light of
data showing that Poland and Hungary consistently rank among the most pro-American EU
member states. This unprompted attack has already prompted vigorous
rebuke from the government in Budapest, needlessly harming relations between a NATO ally
and prospective President-elect before they began.
Nor does Biden fare better on matters of grand strategy. At a political event in Iowa City,
the former Vice-President dismissed the bipartisan consensus that Beijing poses potential
economic and security threats to the United States. "China is going to eat our lunch? Come on,
man I mean, you know, they're not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They're not competition for
us," he said. Biden's reasoning? Chinese society is too divided, and the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP) too corrupt, to mount a credible challenge to the United States: "They can't even
figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea
and the mountains in the east, I mean the west.. they can't figure out how they're going to
deal with the corruption that exists within the system."
In point of fact, serious
ethnic cleavages and rampant corruption have not prevented China from aggressively
expanding its geo-economic influence across every continent. From shoring up Venezuela's
embattled Nicolás Maduro with mercenaries and billions of dollars to systematically
undercutting
Washington's economic and political
reach in Africa, the CCP is actively challenging US interests across the world. This isn't
to say that those challenges are unmanageable with fresh and forward-looking strategies, but to
deny their existence only serves to compound their growing threat.
Biden's comments unsurprisingly drew the ire of politicians from as diverse a cast as
Mitt
Romney and Bernie Sanders . With the
2020 presidential election looming large on the horizon, Biden jettisoned his position for an
entirely new set of talking points. By the summer of 2019, Biden was
arguing that Trump is the one who is blind to the Chinese threat: "While Trump is attacking
our friends, China is pressing its advantage all over the world you bet I'm worried about China
-- if we keep following Trump's path." He labeled China as a "competitor" at a September 18 CNN
town hall in 2020, and again during a 60 minutes interview last week.
It is unclear what prompted Biden's change of heart, other than perhaps the electoral optics
of being seen as soft on China at a time when millions of Chinese Uighur muslims are being
ethnically cleansed in hundreds of internment camps strewn across China's northwest.
Biden's abrupt, pre-election
transformation into a China hawk has hardly been accompanied by concrete solutions for
managing Sino-American competition. Instead, he continues to tout the old chestnuts of
Washington's inept bipartisan China policies: targeted sanctions for human rights abuses,
multilateral action to stem China's "illegal and unfair trade practices," and more robust
enforcement of intellectual property laws. These generic prescriptions are premised on the
decades-old neoliberal article of faith that closer engagement with international institutions
will inevitably bring China into the fold of liberal-democratic nations.
But a rising China remains a secondary concern for the Democratic candidate, whose go-to
campaign trail foreign policy topic remains the Russia menace. Beginning with the Obama
administration's support for regime change in Ukraine during the 2014 Maidan revolution, Biden
has distinguished himself as one of the foremost advocates for a bellicose approach toward
Russia. Biden's conceit stems from a peculiar, but unfortunately popular, understanding of
Russian president Vladimir Putin's true motives: "The Cold War was based on a conflict of two
profoundly different ideological notions of how the world should function. This is just
basically about a kleptocracy protecting itself I think there's a basic decision that they
cannot compete against a unified West. I think that is Putin's judgment. And so everything he
can do to dismantle the post-World War II liberal world order, including NATO and the EU, I
think, is viewed as in their immediate self-interest,"
said Biden during a 2018 Council on Foreign Relations appearance.
In Biden's view, Putin, an authoritarian kleptocrat fearful of losing his iron grip over
Russia, is on a mission to divide and destroy NATO and the EU because he knows he can't compete
against a united west. Thus, concludes Biden, the thrust of Washington's Russia policy should
be to " impose
meaningful costs " on Moscow for its vast and ever-growing list of transgressions against
the free world. Predictably, these "meaningful costs" amount to more of the same: targeted
sanctions, stationing NATO troops ever closer to Russia's borders, corralling NATO into a
united front against Russia's global assault on democracy, and lobbying for the NATO accession
of post-Soviet states like Georgia and Ukraine.
Though certainly punitive in their effect, it is unclear what concrete strategic goals these
policies are meant to accomplish. After six years of crescendoing sanctions and international
measures aimed at isolating Moscow geopolitically, Russia is no closer to pro-western regime
change; if anything, the economic pain from sanctions has only stoked anti-western sentiment
and further consolidated the Russian masses behind Putin's government. Nor did the Obama-Biden
administration's punitive measures induce any significant changes in the Kremlin's behavior,
partly because the sanctions arrayed against Russia are so rigid and exhaustive that the
Kremlin has long since
abandoned any hope they will ever be lifted.
If nothing else, Biden's recent foreign policy statements are par for the course of his
four-decade long political career-- one that has long been characterized by intermittent
attempts to seize short-term political advantages by rewriting his own policy history. Since
the beginning of the 2020 election, for example, Biden has consistently portrayed himself as an
avowed opponent of the Iraq War. "From the moment Shock and Awe started," said Biden at a
Democratic Presidential Debate in 2019, "from that moment, I was opposed to the effort." But,
as numerous fact-checkers have noted , Biden was not at
all opposed to "the effort." In fact, he repeatedly endorsed the invasion of Iraq from 2003
through 2004, even chiding some skeptical Democrats for not being sufficiently supportive of
the war effort. Biden's volte-face only came in 2005, coinciding
with his newly revealed intention to explore a presidential run. By then, opposition to the
Iraq war was no longer a particularly novel political opinion to hold.
Biden's track record hardly paints the portrait of a sophisticated statesman or "serious"
foreign policy thinker. What emerges instead is the familiar portrait of an old party stalwart
who will say anything, sign on to any position, to seize an advantage in that moment. What so
many commentators and journalists have graciously dismissed as his countless '
gaffes ' is really a reflection of a tired and outdated worldview.
* * *
Mark Episkopos is the new national security reporter for the National Interest.
The 2020 presidential election is here. Americans are turning out in record numbers to
vote, with pre-election
voting surpassing two-thirds of the number of all ballots cast in 2016 . The country is
divided, and the two major-party candidates are presented as starkly different options. But
one thing Donald Trump and Joe Biden have in common is their admiration for the US empire,
and both candidates have plans to keep the war machine chugging along.
Comparing the foreign policy of a second Trump term to a new Biden administration is
tough. There are certain areas where Trump is marginally better, and there are areas where a
Biden administration could be better.
Afghanistan is one place where Trump seems superior to Biden. Although
Trump dropped a record number of bombs on Afghanistan in 2018 and 2019 , the US-Taliban
peace deal signed in February paved the way for a complete US withdrawal by Spring 2021. The
timing of the withdrawal means Trump could reverse the plan after being elected for a second
term, but he seems committed to ending this one war. Biden, on the other hand, said
in an interview with Stars and
Stripes in September that he cannot promise a full withdrawal from Afghanistan and
that he favors keeping a small troop presence in the country.
Biden said the same for Syria and Iraq in the Stripes interview, two other
countries Trump has said he would like to get out of. Regarding Syria, Trump failed miserably
to follow through on a withdrawal and decided to
stay in the country to "secure" the oil . Besides the criminality of occupying a
sovereign country to steal its resources, the small US occupation force risks confrontation
with Russia. With Syrian President Bashar al-Assad being a favorite enemy of the Democratic
establishment, it's possible the number of US troops in the Syria could increase under a
Biden administration.
In Iraq, the US recently announced its plan to draw down troops from 5,200 to
3,000 . Trump says
he wants a full withdrawal from the country , where US troops are no longer welcome since
the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani. Iraq's parliament voted
unanimously to expel US troops after Trump's enormous provocation towards Iran that
brought the region to the brink of a major new war. Trump's Iran policy clashes with his
desire to withdraw from Iraq. It's likely the Iran hawks driving the "maximum pressure"
campaign would not want to give up bases in Iraq, which could serve as a launchpad for
attacks against Iran.
Iran is one area where Biden could be much better than Trump. The "maximum pressure"
campaign against the Islamic Republic has been disastrous and shows no sign of waning. Biden
has said he would work
with Iran to restore the 2015 Iran nuclear deal , a foreign policy achievement of the
Obama administration.
Recent comments from Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) suggest Biden will face pressure from
both Republicans and Democrats to try to make a tougher deal with Iran. Menendez said Biden
should seek an agreement that further restricts Iran's nuclear and military capabilities,
something Tehran would never agree to before sanctions relief. Biden will also face pressure
from Israel to be tough on Iran.
Some believe Biden is
the most pro-Israel presidential nominee ever from either side of the aisle. President
Trump has arguably been the most pro-Israel president of all time, recognizing Jerusalem as
the country's capital, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, changing US
policy to no longer consider Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal,
and the so-called "Vision for Peace" that would essentially formalize apartheid rule over
Palestinians.
Biden says he opposes Israeli annexation of the West Bank, but there's no reason to
believe he would reverse any of Trump's policies, like moving the US embassy to Jerusalem,
something Biden said he would not change . As far annexation, the Israelis have decided
to hold off on annexing portions of the West Bank allocated to them in Trump's plan and are
going back to the slower, more politically palatable form of annexation,
through settlements , something Biden would probably not interfere with.
Perhaps the worst stain on the Trump administration is the war in Yemen. President Trump
chose to continue this genocidal
war in April 2019,
when he vetoed a war powers resolution passed by Congress that called for an end to US
military involvement in Yemen. The president did it again in July 2019, when he
vetoed three separate resolutions that would have banned US arms sales to Saudi Arabia.
Experts agree , if the US cuts off support for the Saudis in Yemen, the war would quickly
come to an end.
Joe Biden has repeatedly said he would end US support for the war in Yemen. "Under a
Biden-Harris administration, we will reassess our relationship with the Kingdom, end US
support for Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, and make sure America does not check its values at
the door to sell arms or buy oil," the former vice president
said in a statement on the anniversary of Jamal Khashosggi's death.
President Trump also significantly
escalated the war against al-Qaeda in Yemen and carried out more ground and air
operations in the country than the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama
combined. Trump also broke records in Somalia. The first seven
months of 2020 saw more US airstrikes on the African country than under Bush and Obama
combined. With virtually no opposition in Washington to the drone war against al-Shabab in
Somalia, the Biden administration would likely continue the campaign.
There's no telling which candidate would be worse on Russia and China. Despite every
liberal news outlet saying otherwise, President Trump has been
extremely hawkish on Russia . One area where Biden outshines Trump with respect to Moscow
is arms control treaties. The Trump administration has withdrawn
from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty , which banned medium-range missiles,
and the Open
Skies Treaty , which allowed unarmed aerial surveillance between its signatories.
In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, the Trump administration's hawkish China policies
have been thrown into hyper-drive. The US has increased its military presence in the
Indo-Pacific, frequently
sending warships into the South China Sea and flying
spy planes near China's coast . Although they got bogged down in the Middle East, the
Obama administration started the "pivot to Asia," and a Biden administration would likely
continue boosting the US military presence in the region.
One of the Trump administration's most embarrassing failures is its Venezuela policy,
which Trump appointed washed up neocon Elliot Abrams to run. Since January 2019, the US has
recognized Juan Guaido as the president of Venezuela, despite Nicolas Maduro still holding
power in Caracas.
Guaido's coup attempts were utter failures , and the crippling economic sanctions on the
country have done nothing
but made the civilian population suffer . Democrats criticize Trump for his Venezuela
policy, not for the harm it does to the people, but because it failed to
depose Maduro .
Another disgraceful thing about the Trump administration is the attempt to prosecute
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for exposing US war crimes. On the campaign trail in 2016,
Trump praised WikiLeaks for exposing corruption in the DNC. After Assange was arrested in the
UK, Trump said
he knew "nothing" about WikiLeaks .
The British judge presiding over Assange's extradition case is expected to make a decision
in January 2021. This author has little faith that Joe Biden would drop the charges against
Assange since he has previously
likened the WikiLeaks founder to a "hi-tech terrorist." It's clear Biden does not
consider Assange to be a journalist.
Unfortunately, the issues listed above are far down on the list of priorities for
Americans today. Throughout the pandemic, the civil unrest, and the antics surrounding the
election, the drones have continued to buzz, the bombs continued to fall, and the sanctions
continued to strangle economies. While these crimes committed by the empire are just
background noise to the subjects living within the 50 states, they are absolutely everything
to the people affected.
It's tough to blame Americans for their lack of awareness of their country's murderous
foreign policy. The corporate press ignores the atrocities going on overseas and amplifies
the skirmishes on the streets of the US between people with opposing political views. It's
easy to keep people unaware of the mass-murder funded by their tax dollars on the other side
of the world while they are fighting with each other.
The lack of concern over US foreign policy was put on stark display by the two
presidential debates. The two men auditioning to control the military of the largest empire
in the history of the world didn't even have to tell the voters what they plan to do with it.
The best the candidates could muster up was some tough talk on Russia and China, and Biden
criticized one of the few good things Trump did in his term – meeting with North
Korea's Kim Jong-un.
For these reasons, it is more important than ever for independent media outlets like
Antiwar.com to continue to shine a light on the crimes of the empire, even when so few care.
We can guarantee that no matter who wins on Tuesday, we will cover their foreign policy
critically. And if by some freak chance Libertarian Party candidate Jo Jorgensen wins, we
will not rest until she fulfills her plan to withdraw US troops from every foreign
country.
While our staff might celebrate Trump's declarations to bring the troops home and is
hopeful Biden would end the war in Yemen, we are under no illusions. The major-party options
this year are this: An incumbent president who campaigned on ending "endless war" but has
only escalated them or a lifelong politician who led the charge in the Senate to give George
W Bush his invasion of Iraq and now lies about
it . Antiwar.com needs your help to cover the interventionist foreign policy of whichever
candidate wins on Tuesday. Consider
making a donation today , and spread the word. Tell your friends and family about us and
help make Washington's imperialist wars part of the national conversation.
Dave DeCamp is the assistant news editor of Antiwar.com and is based in Richmond, VA.
Follow him on Twitter @decampdave .
Congress and White House work together to reward the Jewish state PHILIP GIRALDI NOVEMBER 3, 2020 1,300 WORDS
92
COMMENTS REPLY
The U.S. election will end today, more or less, and we Americans will suffer another four
years of putting up with serial nonsense out of a White House and Congress that could care less
about us no matter who is elected. Whether the party where everything changes or the party
where everything remains the same wins the inevitable result will be further aggrandizement of
authoritarian power combined with increased distancing of government from the people who are
ruled.
Amidst all the gloom, however, there is one great success story. That is the tale of how
Israel and its friends in politics and financial circles have been able to screw every possible
advantage out of both major parties simultaneously and apparently effortlessly. Israel might be
the true undisputed winner in the 2020 election even though it was not on the ballot and was
hardly mentioned at all during the campaign.
Jewish billionaires with close ties to Israel have been courted by the two major parties,
both to come up with contributions and to urge their friends in the oligarch club and media to
also respond favorably. The Democrats'
largest single donor is entertainment mogul Haim Saban while the Republicans rely on casino
multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson. It is estimated that 60% of the political contributions for
the Democrats comes from Jewish sources and Saban is the single largest contributor. He is also
an Israeli holding dual citizenship. Adelson, who may also hold dual citizenship and is married
to an Israeli, is the major supporter of the Republicans, having coughed up more than $100
million in recent elections.
Both Saban and Adelson have not been shy about supporting Israel as their first priority.
Saban is on record as supporting Joe Biden "because of his track record on supporting Israel
and its alliance with the United States." Adelson, who was drafted into the U.S. Army in the
1950s, has said that he would much rather have served in the Israel Defense Force. Saban and
Adelson are joined in their love fest with Israel by a number of Israel-firsters in Congress
and the Administration, all eager to shower unlimited political support, money and weapons on
the Jewish state.
In the latest manifestation of noblesse oblige, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
stopped off in Israel last week to present his counterparts with a significant bit of
assistance, all funded by the American taxpayer, of course. According to sources in Washington
and Jerusalem, the U.S. "will grant Israel direct access to highly classified satellites such
as the missile detection birds known as SBIRS and ensure Israel gets critical defense platforms
in a very short time by using production slots planned for the U.S armed forces." Israel will
also be given "deeper access to the core avionic systems" of the new F-35 fighter that it has
been obtaining from Washington.
The claimed rationale for the upgrade is the Congressionally mandated requirement for the
U.S. to maintain Israel's "qualitative military edge" in light of the impending sale of the
F-35 to Arab states that have recently established diplomatic relations with Israel. At the
time, Israeli sources were suggesting that the Jewish state
might need $8 billion in new military
hardware upgrades to maintain its advantage over its neighbors. It is presumed that the
American taxpayer will foot the bill, even though there is a serious financial crisis going on
in the U.S.
The satellite detection system operates from aerial platforms that are deployed on
helicopters. The astute reader will notice that no U.S. security interest is involved in the
latest giveaway to Israel. On the contrary, Israel will be receiving material from "production
slots planned for the U.S. armed forces," reducing America's own ability to detect incoming
missiles. And there will also be considerable damage to American defense interests in that
Israel will inevitably steal the advanced F-35 technology that they will be given access to,
re-engineer it for their own defense industries and sell it to clients in Asia, Africa, and
Latin America. They have
done so before , selling U.S. developed missile technology to China.
Congress is also doing its bit. A bill, the so-called "U.S.-Israel Common Defense
Authorization Act," is making its way through the House of Representatives and will authorize
the provision of U.S. manufactured
bunker buster bombs to Israel. As the bombs would only be useful in Israel's neighborhood
to bomb hardened sites in Iran, the message being sent is obvious. The Massive Ordnance
Penetrator weighs 30,000 pounds and is capable of destroying targets located deep underground.
Oddly, Israel doesn't have a plane capable of carrying that weight so the presumption is that
the White House will also have to provide the bomber. The bill is co-sponsored by two leading
Israel firsters in Congress Democrat Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Republican Brian Mast of
Florida.
Israel is also
seeking an upgrade of some of its other fighter aircraft. It reportedly has approached the
Pentagon seeking to buy the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a single-seat, twin-engine,
all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft that was originally developed for the United
States Air Force (USAF). Its stealth capability, top speed, maneuverability combined with
advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon systems, makes it the best air superiority fighter
in the world.
Unfortunately for Israel, the F-22 is not currently available and is only operated by the
USAF. Current U.S. federal law prohibits the export of the plane to anyone to protect its top
secret advanced stealth technology as well as a number of advances in weaponry and situational
awareness. But if deference to Israel's wishes is anything to go by, one might safely bet that
the Jewish state will have received approval to acquire the plane by inauguration day in
January. And it is a safe bet that Israeli defense contractors will have reverse engineered the
stealth and other features soon thereafter.
The U.S. government has been pandering to Israel in other ways,
to include labeling , and sanctioning, prominent human rights groups that have criticized
the Jewish state as anti-Semitic. It has also strengthened existing sanctions
against Iranian financial institutions , reportedly in an attempt to make it more difficult
for a President Biden to reinstate the suspended Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)
that sought to monitor the Iranian nuclear program. The sanctions come on top of other moves to
destroy the Iranian economy, to include " that the U.S., along with Israel, has in recent
months carried out sabotage attacks inside Iran, destroying power plants, aluminum and chemical
factories, a medical clinic and 7 ships at the port of Bushehr "
Other recent developments favoring Israel include Congress's legislating Israeli government
veto authority over U.S. sales of weapons to any other Middle Eastern nation. The bill is
called "Guaranteeing Israel's QME [Qualitative Military Edge] Act of 2020" (H.R. 8494). There
has also been the
expansion by Executive Order of U.S. funded illegal West Bank Jewish settlements' science
development projects that will eventually compete with American companies.
In truth, the United States has become Israel's bitch and there is hardly a politician or
journalist who has the courage to say so. Congress and the media have been so corrupted by
money emanating from the Israeli lobby that they cannot do enough to satisfy America's rulers
in Jerusalem. And for those who do not succumb to the money there is always intimidation,
career-ending weaponized accusations of holocaust-denial and anti-Semitism. It is all designed
to produce one result: whoever wins in American elections doesn't matter as long as Israel gets
what it wants. And it almost always gets what it wants.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,
address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected] .
' The sanctions come on top of other moves to destroy the Iranian economy, to include "
that the U.S., along with Israel, has in recent months carried out sabotage attacks inside
Iran, destroying power plants, aluminum and chemical factories, a medical clinic and 7 ships
at the port of Bushehr "
Good fucking question. I for one am sick of this shit ..claims made, no sources revealed
we are supposed to take these claims on "faith" ..akin to a religion.
I can tell you this. If I was Iran I'd be working day and fucking night to get a nuke the
neocon, liberalcon warmongers have made it clear as soon as it's convenient, invasion and
destroy Iran
Like Neo when he is first released from the matrix and in the construct "I want out, let
me out" .of this insanity, the mask shit included.
He also just assumes Jewish trickery, and not the obvious fact that Israel is like
Medicare and Social Security and NASA: popular with politicians because it is popular with
the public.
Israel, as Phil's commie friends put it, is our "settler-colonial" daughter state. And
nothing is too good for our girl!
I have been reading articles that go back as far as 1967 and the U.S.S. Liberty incident
in which it was implied by many writers that the U.S. was Israel's bitch. It's not as if this
thought is new, as even Admiral Thomas Moorer having stated he never knew a U.S. president
who could stand up to Israel. If all of this is true, it's pathetic as well.
Is it possible that the USA will curtail her defence power for the sake of Israel? What
will be the benefit of the USA if it amplifies Israeli Defence at the cost of US defence?
Dr. Phil, your article is truly very precise, penetrating and embarrassing to our
political class.
I can see that the American public is already all stirred up and will not take this
slouched in front of their TV sets watching the game any longer.
The MAGA's are sure to march on the White House and oust our leaders Kushner / Ivanka. The
BLM/ANTIFA's are sure to demonstrate again and ransack Congress and oust the Pelosi
Democrats.
Hilarious, LOL
I decided not to hold my breath waiting for any public reaction.
We Americans at the bottom of the money pyramid prefer to fight and name call each other
and not look upwards.
That's why America needs a revolution culminating in a complete regime change. Civil war
already appears to be on the horizon, ugly things will Bev happening, but it will
unfortunately be necessary to change the world for the better. And other countries, France,
Germany and Britain may follow.
A Democrat of New Jersey and a Republican of Florida sponsoring a bill to benefit Israel
let's just forget the Jewish angle in all these charades and call it bipartisan.
Do we need to have sources on these issues?
Haven't you learn by now, that any stone you pick, you will find a Jew hiding under?
Few days ago, with all this Bobulinski/Joe Biden/Hunter family crap I said to my wife.
Honey something is missing from the whole story.
She ask. What is missing?
I said. The Jew
And two days ago .voila!
The Yaacov(s) Apelbaum(s) have everything to see https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/
I always thought we were England's "bitch". Fought 2 world wars to stop them from having
to learn German and have continued to use our military to support their business interests
throughout the world. It can even be argued that our support for Israel is based on our
subservience to the British Crown since Israel itself is a British project. Anyway, there is
no major political leader in the US who hasn't said he is a staunch supporter of Israel. That
isn't going to change.
The way Trump has bent over and offered his rear to the Jewish lobby and Israel is
embarrassing. The USA should help and support Israel, but not at the blatant expense of
raping its own citizens.
However, one can't blame Israel for taking advantage of the corruption and weakness in the
USA, and also its amazingly dumb voting public. Who wouldn't want another country(USA) to pay
for their military(Israel) and also use the USA to fight, pay, and die for Israel?
White nationalists blame the Jewish lobby for much of the problems in America, but at the
same time they lovingly Asskiss Trump and his horrid son-in-law, who would sell out America
to Israel without any hesitation. This is first-class stupidity.
Biden may say he is a Zionist, but he has never shown the full-on, total sellout Trump has
done in putting Jewish interests always before American interests. Trump and his horrid
son-in-law have literally allowed Israel to rape America's ass everyday since he has been
POTUS.
A vote for Trump is a vote for the Jewish lobby to keep on raping America's ass thru
"bendover" Trump for the next 4 years.
Strangely here in Australia, chairman Morrison was going to put three and a half million
dollars to be matched by his hopefully newly elected Qld premier, into constructing a Jewish
holocaust museum. One can only wonder why in Qld, Australia of all places and in the 21st
century, we would need to have a Jewish propaganda business setup. Paid for by the poor old
taxpayer of course.
What follows? A museum dedicated to the twenty million dead Russians. Maybe one for the
hundreds of thousands of slaughtered Iraqi muslims. Or one in remembrance to the millions of
lives lost to the covid19 holocaust of 2020.
Sadly it seems like this Jewish rot is spreading quicker than the virus through our
societies.
The US and the Rothschild neocolony in Palestine are part of the same conglomerate. Simon
Bolivar was warning us that the US would enslave the Americas in the name of "freedom" a
years before the Monroe Doctrine became a thing, so it didn't exactly become what it is after
the Ziocorporate neocolony came to exist. How nice that the goals of the founding fathers and
the Ziocorporate world order came to intertwine so conveniently since so early on.
Have the Ziocorporate contractors and entities profited from selling tech and weapons to
the Ziosalafi former British colonies in the Middle East and from the petrodollar?
Transfering all that technology, spanning everything from nuclear weapons to cybersecurity
and AI, is the way to ensure that mafia conglomerate's primacy there and everywhere.
Jews of Europe and North Africa could've been Haavara'd to the US after WW2 but that would
have limited and complicated business opportunities for the American overclass to globalise
the Monroe Doctrine. Rome wasn't built in a day after all.
@Rich and while
we are about it you never broke the German enigma code, we did, whatever your lying Hollywood
garbage tells you. So maybe, if you end up in a war we will sell you stuff from the sidelines
until we get dragged into it ourselves and then we will see how grateful you are. As I said
earlier, save it for the French.
WW1, on the other hand was a stalemate until the Americans joined (late as always) and
after you had made huge profits, mainly at our expense. So we weren't exactly in danger then
either.
So no, you are not our bitches, both of our nations are bitches of the international
bankers.
Philip! You used the word bitch. For a faceless nobody like me that's fine but for you Mr.
Giraldi, the 'spears tip' and highly respected member of the 'beware of Zion' movement that's
even better. (Grin)
That kikenvermin Gottheimer unfortunately happens to be my congressman. He's in a close
election so lets hope he loses even though his opponent is all too aware of the power of the
CABAL. I pray for even worse endings for this slug, Jay -sus forgive me.
PS. If the Zionists get 'Bunker Buster' bombs they will need the platforms to carry them,
so the U.S. Government (us) will have to give them B 2 bombers. Insane!
The zionists were the biggest winners in 1913, when they fastened their FED and IRS on
America and since that time zionists and since 1948 Israel has been the winner and America
the loser, as the zionists have raped America.
The biggest example of this was the Israel and zionist in the ZUS attack on the WTC which
was blamed on the Arabs and gave the kabal the excuse to destroy the middle east.
You didn't really think the Zionists were going to give up control of the president to
China did you? A honeypot operation is something all intel agencies do but Israel snagged
Bill Clinton and hundreds of others.
Funny thing is the rank and file of the Jewish community is 90% registered Democrat and
wanted Hillary and now Joe but their "elites" and "leadership" care as much about their
opinion as any other groups' elites and leaders. ZERO. George Carlin was correct: "There's a
big club and you and I aren't in it".
Palm Beach County school board members voted unanimously Monday to rescind their
reinstatement of Spanish River High School Principal William Latson.
He was originally fired last year after telling a student's parent that "he can't say the
Holocaust is a factual, historical event."
The community was outraged by his comments, and the board's decision to rehire him after
an administrative law judge ruled he shouldn't have been fired.
Board member Barbara McQuinn says Latson opened the door to denying the atrocity of the
Holocaust.
=============
Sadly for you, Lot, it turns out Giraldi does have evidence for his claim: see his
response to my post.
Isn't it nice that that we clarified that?
You're a bright young gentleman, Lot -- but in Israel, you're trying to defend the
indefensible.
No matter what your intellectual resources or how much energy you expend, it can never
work. It's like trying to prove two and two make five. You may well be a mathematical prodigy
-- you still won't be able to do it.
You're wrong: logically, factually, morally. That's the way it is. It can never
change.
In truth, the United States has become Israel's bitch
Beautifully stated, Phil!
Right on tripping bro! The US should be Iran's shiite bitch as it was under Barak Hussein
Ubama. Uber Bama where you dumb whites will bump heads on carpets as you submit.
Years ago, before he was VP, I saw Biden give a speech on C-SPAN in which he said, "I am
a Zionist." I thought, "Note to self: never vote for him."
90% of Politicians are Zionists. You will NOT have a career in politics unless you are a
Zionist. If you judge by what someone says it is fatal .judge by words, actions and results.
Do the later and you will be convinced whomever the new President is .is corrupt and a
liar.
The most disgusting thing to me or should I say the most RETARDED thing to me is that
America SACRIFICES OUR TROOPS to build a Greater Israel, while America and the rest of
traditionally White nations in Europe take in primitive Muslims who are literally raping
Europeans and slaughtering them on the streets. So we bomb Arab nations for Israel, have to
MAKE ISRAEL GREAT AGAIN, get rid of (((their Muzzie problem))), and then import the
"refugees" to lands that are responsible for bombing them or killing their relatives, family
members, friends, etc. Does this sound like a recipe for DESTROYING THE WEST to you? It is a
LOSE LOSE for Whitey most definitely, and a win somewhat for the Muslim invaders who are
acquiring free housing, breeding at a rate where they will soon become the majority in places
like London, maybe even in Stockholm IF we don't put a stop to this insanity. WE are DEMANDED
to hate Muslims/Arabs when it comes to fighting Israel's Wars in the Middle East but then WE,
White people that is, are DEMANDED by our Jewish overlords to love being infested with hordes
of these same people being brought into our nations. Yes, we are to love people who rape OUR
women, live off OUR blood, sweat, and tears for FREE, take over positions of power like
becoming a mayor in the largest city in Europe, etc.
NEWS FLASH: How many Whites are in the world? How many Jews are in the world? Money and
political clout only works against you when you allow it to, when you have the numbers, you
decide, learn that. Whitey, you better wake up while you still are a diminishing majority in
your own nations.
I'll end with this one. We have all seen the commercial about sending money to Israel for
the endless "holocaust victims," my gawd, when is the last "holocaust victim" going to
finally die of old age, but now (((they))) have a commercial encouraging people to send money
to elderly Jews in Israel who are dealing with (((Covid-19.))) My lawd, do (((these people)))
have no shame. America is currently sending A MINIMUM OF 3.8 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR TO THIS
TINY NATION, AND HERE (((THEY))) ARE STILL BEGGING FOR MORE, THIS TIME, USING THE TEAR
JERKING TECHNIQUE of showing poor, frail, bent elderly people who desperately need YOUR
shekels against the Jew Flu.
What are you going to sell used tanks? Thats like selling coal to newcastle, the only
thing we make anymore is bombs and you fellows dont make anything but obscene profits for
international banking types. You wont be dragged into to war you will be thrown in with the
rest of the nato poodles. Sad state of affairs.
@Jiminy
Strangely here in Australia, chairman Morrison was going to put three and a half million
dollars to be matched by his hopefully newly elected Qld premier, into constructing a Jewish
holocaust museum. One can only wonder why in Qld, Australia of all places and in the 21st
century, we would need to have a Jewish propaganda business setup. Paid for by the poor old
taxpayer of course.
"They" have done the same in South Africa. Modern Jewish holocaust museum in Cape Town while
native Africans sleep in the surrounding park lawns and benches. Hollowcaust Propaganda is big
"free money" business.
Everyone keeps on talking about the election. I just can't be bothered to care.
I do care about politics in the sense that I care, as anyone else does, about the
distribution of power in the United States and the extent to which American ideas can spread to
the rest of the world. These issues, like Israel, are not voted upon.
That's a bit different than "politics", a local American ritual in which normies select a
random point within the pre-packaged spectrum of political correctness and pick a candidate
based on where they live and what's considered socially acceptable in that locale They then
rationalize their decision based on the perception of the candidate's personality and/or some
generality like "I oppose racism".
Its truly masterful to create a system where any potential criticism or pushback you may
face is made illegal under defamation laws enforced by an Institution – you control. The
Jewish 'attack' (and I think it is fair to say, we are under attack from a highly ruthless,
very clever enemy playing completely by its own rules) appears to be on several fronts
–
1)Political lobbying / Political positioning / Positions in Justice System / Other
Government Positions
This has effectively given a foreign power a vice like grip on our politics, law, culture,
industry and banking system/financial markets. They are able to create and control a narrative
to enforce beneficial ideologies whilst simultaneously censoring any threats through fact and
data suppression. Its a communist dream come true. The worst thing is, they make us grateful
and willing participants, its the definition of evil genius!
What scares me is we what we don't know about Jewish Power -the clandestine activities to
gain more political leverage and power.
Trying to educate people on this subject (made easier by articles like this)is very
difficult. Would we be comfortable with allowing moslems or hindus the same influence in our
governments in terms of sheer number of positions and access to policy creation/change or
military funding etc Probably not but that's becasue nobody does it better than the Jews. Your
absolutely right – Israel always gets what it wants.
@Clyde sh
President" became the cover headline for a 2011 article in New York Magazine). In that same CJN
article, another Democratic activist, Newton Minow, told CJN that Obama "is very much at home
with Jewish people, their values and interests," while Rabbi Arnold Wolf of KAM Isaiah Israel
Congregation in Chicago, of blessed memory, said Obama is "embedded in the Jewish world."
@MarkU
g-letter-documents-King-George-V-urged-foreign-secretary-justify-conflict-two-days-outbreak-First-World-War.html
In a time where mobilization was seen as an act of war, Germany was the last country to
mobilize for WWI.
Of course the evil Nahhhtzeees were just itching to invade the UK. http://www.tomatobubble.com/id763.html
He may have done the same to the UK as he had done to Germany – have full employment
and an increased standard of living, without the banks being involved. That just was not going
to happen. All wars are banker wars.
"Could care less about" drives me up the wall, too, as we split grammatical hairs
while Israel is right on the cusp of finally getting White America destroyed. This is it!
Thank God Trump put an end to all this Israel's bitch nonsense. Now we're a full blown whore
for
Tel Aviv and the world knows it. Trump gave "Cadillac Bebe" our pimp the key to the "White
House, America and the hearts of the American people". Yo Bebe when you're finished turn the
lights out.
As IF Joe " I Am A Zionist" Biden, and Barack Obama aka "The First Jewish President" were
any better. I voted for Trump, and I agree, he is no different than the rest when it comes to
Israel, but do you really want Joe The Zionist who will gladly step down and relinquish the
office to "Caramel" Harris in less than a year to run things.
Trump has been a disappointment but at least he is isn't OPENLY ANTI-WHITE and he bides us 4
more years.
The demsheviks suck even more Zionist cawk than the republiCANTS if that is possible.
Well to be fair, you did manage to sell us used destroyers which might have seemed equally
unlikely. But you are right, I was merely making a rhetorical point, and yes a very sad state
of affairs.
"If we're supposed to be so worried about "election disinformation" and foreign election
meddling, shouldn't we be concerned about a British multimillionaire -- with unexplained
connections to the CIA and the White House press corps, and public affiliation with other
institutions clearly hostile to Trump like the ADL -- carrying out massive information ops in
the lead-up to an election that he has publicly expressed an interest in influencing? Or should
we just pretend it's all okay because the press told us we're supposed to be laughing?"
Am I allowed to point out that if America is Israels slave, then surely America is Japan's
slave?
America keeps large troop forces in Japan to defend it. The Japanese save money and use it
to develop their industries which outcompete American industries.
To an alien, it would surely appear that somehow, Japan has managed to infiltrate the top
levels of the US government.
Likewise, America lost over 70,000 soldiers to defend Vietnam, and spent an untold amount
over several years, in a region far from America. An alien might think Vietnam had somehow
managed to enslave American leaders.
Or would our alien be missing crucial context, and is American policy consistent in all
these cases on based on principles, and not a question of being enslaved by foreign powers.
@Curmudgeon body
is going to argue about borrowing, unless they want to be called a traitor. I wonder how many
people could provide even a vaguely sensible account of the issues that started WW1?
He is a comedian primarily but I thought it was interesting and he provides some key
insights. It is also quite entertaining I thought, but humour is a very individual thing. You
sound as if you would know most of that stuff anyway but it is worth a watch even so.
How do you win this civil war? Sounds good, but I know way to may holy rollers that want
their rapture and Jew rule. I don't know a liberal who isn't a Zionist. So where will you get
the human numbers, and how do you get weapons?
Kinda old news. The Zionists have been ruling the US since they were rumored to have
assassinated JFK. Like him or not , he was the last president to say no to Israel. Well George
HW Bush did a soft no on West Bank settlements, but I believe he was the one to put us under
Noahide laws. Guess losing an election was the nice way to admonish him for being a partial
good goy.
Great piece this, confirming what we have already known for some decades: that we are
effectively a colony of Israel. And as colonies go, crucial decisions of the colonies are made
in the colonizers' metropolitan capitals, in this case, of Zionist Israel. What sets this
relationship apart from classical colonizer-colony ones, is that the colonizer is heavily
subsidized by its colony's taxes – in this case a blank check without the consent of the
tax payers. Moreover, in contrast to classic colonialism, America's total surrender to Jewish
power, means that any war of liberation from colonialism has been effectively neutralized long
before the first salvo has been fired. This mockery of a nation's "sovereignty" marks a
historic first in the annals of the so-called international relations and power dispensation
among sovereign nations. The Anglo-Zio Empire's takeover of American, and by extension Western
countries is now complete. And all without a single shot being fired. It is surrender and
capitulation in the absence of war. It has to be admitted that Jewish power has pulled off a
uniquely historic and non-violent colonial project – with the absolute complicity of the
colonized.
Biden is just a hologram who will vanish shortly. They'll keep "Five Dollar Kamala" on ice
till crypt keeper Joe exits at that time Miss Mudsville will start getting her orders from Mt.
Zion in keeping with American tradition.
You didn't fight 2 world wars, you came late to both and entered after everyone else did the
heavy lifting. In neither case did your national industry and infrastructure suffer any damage,
which allowed you to remain a rich country compared to devastated nations.
You deserve what Israel is doing to you for no other reason than that you are incapable of
understanding history and consider yourselves exceptional like all the other failed empires of
history.
The Israeli attack on U.S.S. LIBERTY was a criminal act. A commissioned vessel of the United
States Navy was attacked under conditions of flawless weather and calm seas. Earlier, Israeli
planes had flown reconnaissance over the ship. They knew damned well she was American.
Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN was right. Also, to his dying day, he believed the attack on
LIBERTY was deliberate.
@geokat62 hey have
gotten the US to do for them what AIPAC can only dream about.
How AIPAC would love to get America stations tens of thousands of troops in Israel and
commit to defending it so Israel can disband the IDF and build up its economy!
All Israel gets is a few billion thrown at it and guarantees about its "qualitative edge",
while Vietnam gets 70,000 Americans dying for it, and Japan gets an actual defense
commitment.
AIPAC are rank amateurs compared to the Japanese and Vietnamese, whose ability to infiltrate
and manipulate Ameeica to their advantage is awe inspiring.
@Colin Wright I
certainly hope Israel has enough agents/embedded computer viruses in Iran that it can "in a
period of months"
destroying power plants, aluminum and chemical factories, a medical clinic and 7 ships at
the port of Bushehr
But that strikes me as implausible, and your question indicates you may have agreed.
Not just "a power plant" and "a factory." Not just "damaged." But "destroyed" "power plant
s " plural and "aluminum and chemical factories." While a chemical plant could be a
small operation, aluminum mills are expensive and gigantic operations.
Of course, why does NuttyYahoo need a bodyguard when he's visiting Knesset West–er,
uh, the U.S. Congress? Surely he must know he's among friends?! . . .
' Not just "a power plant" and "a factory." Not just "damaged." But "destroyed" "power
plants" plural and "aluminum and chemical factories." While a chemical plant could be a small
operation, aluminum mills are expensive and gigantic operations.'
Nu? So what would an acceptable amount of aggression be?
Say, a couple of twin towers? How about something like the Liberty?
So lessee. Japan is 146,000 square miles. The territory assigned to the Jewish state in 1947
was maybe 6000 square miles. Let's say 7300 square miles -- just to simplify the math. Besides,
we can be afford to be generous Israel being such a valuable ally and all.
So you get one-twentieth the garrison Japan gets. That would be 3500 troops!
I wonder how many Americans are serving in the IDF right now? Maybe we can just reassign
them.
Then you could disarm and withdraw from your Manchukuos et al right away. why wait?
We have a deal!
maybe after ten years or so we'll let you establish a self-defense force.
Meantime in Yankee Land Defund the police depts, jewish led riots, lootings, BLMANTIFA
terrorism, and electoral FRAUD, cut Medicare payments, Lockdowns, WS bail outs, massive
layoffs, small business bankcrupcies, foreclosures, delapidated failed cities Detroit, St
Louis, Baltimore, decrepit national infrasestructure, massive illeteracy, rise of crime,
resurgence of 3th world diseases, urban blight, 5more wars in the MEast Iran, Syria, and
probably, open borders, H1A,Bs visas expansion, .Massive Chinese global expansion teh New Silk
Road, Venezuelas oil, Bolvias (lithium), while Israel enjoys a record economic growth, and
FISCAL surplus who is paying for that???
@Colin Wright
Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, and Europe in the Cold War.
I actually kind of feel like a sucker – we fought all our bloody wars ourselves while
somehow the devious Vietnamese and Japanese, South Koreans and Europeans, conned the Americans
to actually die for them, or be prepared to, in large numbers.
And hey, you guys claim America fights our wars anyways, so we might as well actually make
that a reality, as it is for so many other countries.
AIPAC is pretty pathetic come to think of it. We're getting the worst deal America has given
any of its liberal democratic allies.
@Orville H. Larson
g constitutionally valid currency as against their "Green Frog-Skin" Monopoly money printed and
owned by the bankster-owned "Federal" Reserve Bank.
According to a source I recently accessed, the Rothschilds may well have been behind the
assassinations of 6 previous presidents and an attempted hit on the greatest enemy of privately
owned central banks, Andrew Jackson.
The rotting/rotten bodies of both McCains and LBJ, should be disinterred and hanged by their
skeletal necks on the Capital Mall as examples (even post-mortem) of the fate of traitors to
the Republic and its sovereign power, WE THE PEOPLE.
"A bill, the so-called "U.S.-Israel Common Defense Authorization Act," is making its way
through the House of Representatives and will authorize the provision of U.S. manufactured
bunker buster bombs to Israel. As the bombs would only be useful in Israel's neighborhood to
bomb hardened sites in Iran, the message being sent is obvious. The Massive Ordnance Penetrator
weighs 30,000 pounds and is capable of destroying targets located deep underground. Oddly,
Israel doesn't have a plane capable of carrying that weight so the presumption is that the
White House will also have to provide the bomber. The bill is co-sponsored by two leading
Israel firsters in Congress Democrat Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Republican Brian Mast of
Florida."
The intriguing part about this is israel lacking a bomber capable of carrying the bomb. Will
the b-21 in development be capable of carrying these bombs? Can the b-2? I have not looked into
it, but as this type of bomb is dropped from high altitude, I believe, these low flying
"stealth" types would probably be unsuitable platforms. That leaves old b-52s and b-1s. Both of
these would require the israelis controlling the air space they are used in, as well as the AD
to have been neutralized.
Regarding target countries, I'm sure the israelis wouldn't limit their use to a war against
Iran, but would drop them on anyone. Especially Gazans. Doubtful the israelis would go to war
against Iran, since they have usa/nato available for that role. If one notices, the israelis
don't really fight wars any more, they have the colonials do that for them.
"It reportedly has approached the Pentagon seeking to buy the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, a
single-seat, twin-engine, all-weather stealth tactical fighter aircraft that was originally
developed for the United States Air Force (USAF). Its stealth capability, top speed,
maneuverability combined with advanced air-to-air and air-to-ground weapon systems, makes it
the best air superiority fighter in the world."
The f-22 is not "the best air superiority fighter in the world." That's pindo exceptionalism
mythology at work. Its capabilities were grossly exaggerated and its real measure is why the
aircraft was taken out of production early. Well before the scheduled full production run was
complete. Had this aircraft actually been what the propagandists claimed, it would still be in
production today, despite it's high cost. Also the f-22 is less up to date than the f-35, for
example, with regard to electronics.
It is too late to restart production, so any given to israel would be from the existing
stock. There are only about 180 of these built, about enough for 6-8 squadrons (?), any given
to israel would probably leave the usa with too few for its own, now minimal, requirements for
the plane. The few given to israel would not improve israel's military much, while require a
disproportionate effort of upkeep to their net worth.
On the other hand, maybe israel wants all the f-22s, while it awaits the u.s. 6th gen to be
developed (in something like 20 years ), and will leave its american colony with just the f-35.
I can see their likudite trump regime pushing that through.
"In truth, the United States has become Israel's bitch"
Yup. And under the trump regime the israelis this bitch services are the likudites, the
netanyahoos and even more bug-eyed extreme. Decent article, btw, on the israeli control of its
american colony.
' Admiral Thomas Moorer, USN was right. Also, to his dying day, he believed the attack on
LIBERTY was deliberate.'
There's also Dean Rusk, the US Secretary of State at the time:
' But I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation. Their sustained attack to
disable and sink Liberty precluded an assault by accident or some trigger-happy local
commander. Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations. I didn't
believe them then, and I don't believe them to this day. The attack was outrageous."'
How is it ok for a person of jewish heritage to make fun of slavs but not ok for people of
slavic heritage to make fun of jews? Cohen is now a "serious actor"with his role as the "hero"
mossad mole of the same name who inflitraited the syrian govt. (and got what he deserved for
it).
' I actually kind of feel like a sucker – we fought all our bloody wars ourselves
while somehow the devious Vietnamese and Japanese, South Koreans and Europeans, conned the
Americans to actually die for them, or be prepared to, in large numbers '
Only Aaron could transmogrify our having fought World War Two into having fought it 'for'
Japan. I'm not sure the Japanese are suitably appreciative. I mean, they're reasonably polite
about it and all, but
Anyway, Israel hasn't fought a war on her own since 1948. We've been over that.
Profiles In Courage Department. In March 2015 the visiting Izzy PM spoke before the
U.S.Congress. Of course, the speech ended with a raucous Standing Ovation in which the pols
competed with each other as to who could display the most ecstatic cheering possible. However,
jew spotters noticed one pol, Rand Paul, not clapping and cheering enthusiastically enough, and
took him to task in the kept media for displaying less than orgasmic approval of the visiting
Izzy PM. The courageous senator defended himself by loudly exclaiming to anyone who would
listen: "I have given him over 50 standing ovations".
"Nu? So what would an acceptable amount of aggression be?'
Like I said, I would be pleasantly surprised if PG's claim were true. But it is implausible
and its "source" is an un-sourced claim at a nutball website.
The Blob will dominate the USA foreign policy, no matter who wins.
Notable quotes:
"... I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what any Western source has to say about China. ..."
"... The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it. ..."
"... Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart. The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar ... ..."
"... Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I bet Harris is one as well. ..."
"... I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit. ..."
"... Election of president = false flag iperation. The purpose is to fund the private media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers. ..."
"... The rest of the world knows that the US is not agreement capable, it does not matter for Iran one bit what happens on November 3rd. ..."
"... I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it. ..."
"... The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work. The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now, unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era. ..."
"... The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction. ..."
"... Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab. Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will continue, the status quo is preserved..) ..."
"... That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident, clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason. ..."
"... To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there. Trump must be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was trying so hard. ..."
"... The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time. ..."
I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him to
some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much of a
stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working for him.
American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth
certificate.
I also agree that Trump might actually have the support needed for a landslide win, not
so much because of the vilification but because of the arson and looting imo. A lot of
Trump supporters are keeping their heads down atm (and who can blame them) However, now it
is my turn to make a prediction. I predict mass unrest on polling day. it is well accepted
that the majority of the Democrat voters (fraudulent or not) are going to vote by post.
Conversely most Trump supporters are likely to vote in person on the day (or try to at
least)
I expect a concerted attempt to disrupt the polls by people who know that it will
disproportionately affect the Trump vote. I expect violent clashes (with both sides trading
blame) and a result that will please nobody. The worms are not going back into the can.
if I am wrong then I will be big enough to say so on the first appropriate thread on
this site, fair enough?
Zhang Weiwei is the author of a very important book some may have heard about and
even read, The China Wave: Rise Of A Civilizational State, of which an open preview can
be read here. Also, the professor gave a talk at the German Schiller Institute related to
the above book and the BRI project, which can be read here.
I've commented several times that China's political-economic system is far
superior to the Parasitic Neoliberalism that's destroying the West. China's success
suggests very strongly that we listen and closely observe while not taking heed of what
any Western source has to say about China.
I just paused by their tavern to see what elixirs of despair or mirth they have on offer
today. Pour a strong drink comrades and scroll through the cellar. Always worth a
visit.
If Biden is not much different from Trump then why does "the blob" portray Trump as
the Beelzebub? Posted by: m | Nov 1 2020 6:01 utc | 112
Because he's the heel and none of the negative coverage they give him sticks, most often
on purpose. Don't mistake their serious tones and somber pronouncements for genuineness.
It's not. The executives and majority shareholders of the CIA/NSA infiltrated corporate
news media don't care whether Trump wins, and in fact often prefer it.
I am aware of the fact that corruption is rife in both parties. I saw the link to the
Biden bus incident, deplorable yes but hardly on the same scale as the massive rioting,
looting and intimidation of the BLM movement, they didn't actually burn down half the
neighborhood did they. Organized voting obstruction will largely be confined to swing
states for obvious reasons. I made my predictions, we will see.
Just to be clear, I don't even live in the US, I am British. If I did live in the US I
wouldn't vote for either party, I'm not a 'lesser of two evils' kind of guy. To be frank I
am viewing events in the US with considerable trepidation, I regard what happens in the US
as a window into the likely future of the UK and the rest of Europe. I fear that a nuclear
war may well occur sometime in the near future, quite possibly by accident owing to the
continual cutting of warning times, mainly by the US. A very powerful nuclear armed country
convulsed by civil unrest is a very dangerous entity, I fear the worst and so should we all
imo.
Anyway thank you for being polite and civilised and for including actual information
with your replies.
OT..I just read this translation from a Russian link...most agreeable as a counterpoise to
Exceptional Nation nuttiness:
"Construction of the industrial complex, where high-speed trains will be produced,
began in the Urals. In five years, Russia will have a domestic rolling stock for the VSM
- high-speed highways. Moreover, the level of localization of production is stated at
80%, which means additional orders for the Russian industry."
I do agree with you both that the anti-Trump hysteria has probably worked for him
to some extent but I really don't believe that is a four year long plan, it is too much
of a stretch to believe that the likes of Olbermannn and Schiff are consciously working
for him. American politics really is that toxic, remember the stuff about Obama's birth
certificate.
Those guys are just part of the polarization narrative tearing the country apart.
The hatred is real but there is acting involved, especially with Olbermann. These
commentators feel that this polarization narrative is giving the country what it wants and
it drives ratings. Schiff is just a first class liar ...
As far as Obama's birth certificate, since his mom was a CIA officer using the Ford
Foundation as cover during the murder of millions of leftists in Indonesia, I am sure she
took time out to make sure he was born on US soil. All that stuff about him growing up on
embassy row in Indonesia while the left was being slaughtered is carefully taken out of the
story. Not his fault but it was quite a slaughter of humans and we know her employer was
deeply involved. Going into the Indonesian villages to do studies. Really, studies and
observations. They used to call it SOG groups.
Obama was just put in the pipeline as one of their possible future candidates for
president. They have a stable of these people being mentored. Clinton was one as well. I
bet Harris is one as well.
I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable.
Possibly the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse
shit.
I think they hate the Trumper so much because he he was in some else's stable. Possibly
the controllers from campus in Tel Aviv. Different stable, same horse shit.
Because the FBI's evidence cleaner/tamperer division's mandate will be greatly expanded,
as will the powers of the Silicone Valley Tekkies to more comprehensively throttle public
free speech on electronic media, that the deep state's Invisible Hand disapproves of.
Trump is about controlled demolition of the empire NemesisCalling @ 5.
B summarized the style differences very well. But failed to mention the greater problem.
3 votes at polls every four years is not democracy<= no American is in charge of any
thing the USA does.
the layers in the global power stack (each nation state the same):
layer 1: global franchisor sets rules of play; establishes goals <=local nation
state franchisees must obtain to remain in power.
Layer 2: oligarch <= national (wall street beneficiaries who use their wealth to
conform national outcome consistent with global powers).
Layer 3: copyright y patent monopoly power constitute 90% of corporate Assets.
Layer 4: think tank and other private orgs
public<= layer 5: 527 elected government <= a tool to regulate members of
public
Layer 6: Intergov Bureaucracies limit and direct elected power to global goals.
public<= layer 7: the 340,000,000 members of the media regulated public
layer 8: stop and go economic system control
layer 9: media controls info environment & public narrative (many
techniques)
all layers but 5 and 7 are contained within an envelop of privately owned control
freaks.
Election of president = false flag iperation. The purpose is to fund the private
media with advertising revenue paid for by consumer taxpayers.
Article II and amendment 12 clearly deny American people any say in who is to be the P
and VP of the USA.
Agree with Nemesiscalling, since 1947, standing orders from Layer 1<= demo the
American excellence; deny superior economic power to average Americans . standing orders
<=homogenize the world and standardize its governance.
American lifestyle and quality of life is indifferent to who the media puts into the
white house.
by c1ue @ 26 said it best "Anyone against the "right" and "proper" Democrat sellouts to
pharma, tech and enviro must be rednecks. It is precisely this view that galvanized the
vote against HRC in 2016." the method used by the public layers is reflected here, it is
called divide and conquer.
B reviewed the elements and factors that maintain the division of the masses..
On the absence of a real left in the US ( is all right and more right..)and of a real
program which could include real changes that could make any difference in people´s
lives, on that what matters is political technology and communication based on demonizing
the other candidate which translates in deep polarizing of societies with unexpected
unknown consequences..
" If Trump were re-elected for another four years, it would be a real calamity and
armed conflicts could even break out by the most radical groups, so that the country
could be paralyzed "
"The ideological profile and policy of the United States is that of the president and,
each one, even if they are from the same party, has maintained quite different political
lines throughout history", says Rafael García, professor of International
Relations at the USC. For this reason, he affirms that, in North America, "there is no
strong party structure, but rather that the party acts as an electoral structure and it
is on the candidates of each moment that certain policies are formed."
DEMOCRATS VS. REPUBLICANS. So much so that, as the professor explains, "the
ideological configuration of the parties in the 20th century changed radically". On the
one hand, he alludes to the fact that the Democrat, "in historical terms, was the party
of the southern states, when they faced each other in the Civil War; racist states, which
lasted until the 1920s ". Precisely, the political scientist indicates that "it was
shortly before when the change took place, with the Roosevelt presidency, that he decided
to change the configuration of the Democratic party as a result of the crisis of 29".
On the other hand, the Republican party, he points out, "was that of the union, that
of the northern states, championed by Lincoln; the abolitionist party and that of the
blacks ". So how did these changes come about until today? Rafael García
points to "a consequence of the political strategies that the presidents embodied at
all times, not because there was an ideological line behind each party ."
TRY TO ASSIMILATE THE AMERICAN MODEL TO THE EUROPEAN. For Rafael García, the
Spaniards, when speaking of US politics, "make a mistake in translating our political
structures" to those there. In other words, "in Europe the duality between left and
right is widely assumed and we unconsciously transfer it to US policy." "That is a
complete error" , sentence.
And it is that there " there is neither right nor left, there is right and more
right ", affirms the professor. Which means that there does not exist and did not
exist a historical labor-union party as such. In fact, the transmutation that is usually
made from the democratic party to 'social democratic' is not correct . For
García, Biden embodies "a more moderate man than the crazy Trump, but that does
not mean that he has some kind of relationship with a left-wing thought ."
RIGHT AND RIGHT. "A multimillionaire gentleman, absolute representative of the
establishment" (referring to Biden), and "a traditional gentleman, more conservative"
(referring to Trump) ". "Although Biden is a Democrat, who perhaps holds stronger
principles and is hopeful, identifying him with the left is still a long way from
reality," he says. Therefore, it is denied that the Democrats are the American left
and the Republicans the right .
THE CAMPAIGN LACKS PROGRAMMATIC INTEREST. For the USC political scientist, the US
electoral campaign lacks interest: "It is absurd, it seems like a disqualification
competition in which a political or government program is not exposed ." And every
time Spain is also getting closer to that model of disputes.
"We are Americanized, in the sense that the weight of the parties is also
being diluted in Spain in favor of the candidatesThese advisers are responsible
for the growing division that is taking place in Western society ," he says.
THE GOVERNMENT IN THE HANDS OF POLITICAL ADVISORS. In Rafael García's opinion,
the decision margin "is shrinking", that is, "the autonomy capacity of governments to
make decisions is smaller, and they are conditioned ". So, what is the difference, in
practice, in management, between PP and PSOE? "Little thing, in the end, little thing,"
he asserts.
That is why " that little thing can not be said to the voter, but must be mobilized
with a degree of identification, unconditional adherence, so that it can be recognized in
a brand ." And what is this transformation of Spanish politics due to? The professor
is clear about it: " It is a translation of commercial marketing techniques to
politics." Thus, a marketing advisor must "build customer loyalty" and a political
advisor should build voter loyalty .
Now, if there are no significant differences between the two options, how to
achieve it? "Through a demonization of the opposite and the creation of a hostility that
is dangerous, because the divisions to which society is returning are irreconcilable
." In this way, García believes that " it is the work of political advisers
who, apart from the difficulties that exist in societies, which are many, polarize them
when it comes to building and mobilizing a faithful electorate, to the point that they
make no difference what the party says or what the leader says ".
In the United States, as evidenced by this expert, "it does not matter if Trump
does the atrocities he does, or if he said in the previous campaign that he could murder
a person on Fifth Avenue in New York without anything happening to him ." This,
transferred to the Spanish sphere, "assumes that the party can do any outrage: fraud,
embezzlement, illegal financing ...". "That is something we are seeing, whatever party it
is, but for the faithful voter it does not matter, because their party will continue to
be so and will continue to listen to the channel and read the newspaper that supports
it," he says.
THE ELECTORAL RESULT WILL BE EXTENDED OVER TIME. "I have no idea nor do I want to make
forecasts, but I consider that Trump is a calamity and that if he were there for four
more years it would be an absolute calamity ", says Professor García. However,
" there is a state of opinion that fears that the result of these elections will be
complicated and that there will be challenges, so that the end result will be a
diabolical process of recount, county-by-county challenges, repetitions in certain
districts. .. a real madness that can last several months ", he warns, something
that," with this polarization trail, it is not known how it could end. "
" I am referring to the outbreak of armed conflicts; These people have weapons,
radical groups, some of them crazy and who can shoot themselves in a demonstration, doing
outrages as part of the institutional paralysis in which the country can be plunged
", he asserts.
This is how people, like those at SST, who lied about the real difference amongst
Democrats and Republicans in real effective changes of policy, shouting to the four winds
that "the Communists are coming", when they are not, and this way spread hatred and
division amongst the US society as if there was no tomorrow so that to conserve their "tax
cut", could end witnessing the total destruction of the US, not only as "Empire" ( a
process already in march before Corona-fear and 2020 electoral process, a construct of
decades of lying the electorate for the greed of a minority...), but also as a nation
state. All these people who, holding privileged insider knowledege of the funtioning of the
state as former insiders, should be held accountable for their willing and conscious
participation in the build up of the social and economic disastaer to come....
Forecast at the end of the article posted and quoted above:
The future: Institutional paralysis
··· An institutional paralysis like the one that can come
after 3-N "could already occur in 2000, in the elections between George Bush Jr. and Al
Gore, but the latter accepted the results even though they were open to challenge, and
that it avoided institutional collapse".
··· However, "now it does not seem that either of the two
candidates is going to have a gesture of these characteristics, with which, if doubts
already appear, it will not only be in the State, but the final collapse may be extremely
long and with unimaginable consequences ", indicates Professor García. "It seems
to me that the United States has a terrible situation ahead ", he sentenced.
A scene of Game of Thrones which could summarize 2020 US election campaign, that it
was based on throwing dirty to each other....But who has the real "power", not the
"government"?:
@ Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 7:04 utc | 122
I understand the rationale behind Trump's policies. But my conclusion is exactly the
opposite: his attempt to stop the disintegration of the American Empire is accelerating the
disintegration of the American Empire, not averting it.
The key here is to understand that that's not how the American Empire should work.
The USA continues to deindustrialize at an accelerated pace under Trump; Wall Street was
never stronger than under Donald Trump; American debt was never higher. And now,
unemployment is as high as during the 1929 era.
The American Empire is the American Empire precisely because it doesn't need to
produce anything it needs except defense. It prints money in order to siphon wealth from
the rest of the world, enriching its economy while impoverishing the rest. That's the only
way the Empire can function - any other way will result in its destruction.
Trump's ideology will destroy the American Empire. It will collapse under a wave of
hyperinflation, skyrocketing unemployment, shortage of goods and collapsing economic
output.
The manufacturing sector saw 17,000 jobs added after four months of flat activity. This
followed a strong run of an average of 22,000 manufacturing jobs added every month in
2018 and 15,800 per month in 2017. Those gains followed two weak years that saw 7,000
manufacturing jobs lost in 2016 and only 5,800 per month added in 2015.
In the last 30 months of President Obama's term, manufacturing employment grew by
185,000 or 1.5%. In President Trump's first 30 months, manufacturers added 499,000 jobs,
expanding by 4.0%. In the same 30-month time span during the mature, post-recovery phase
of the business cycle, some 314,000 more manufacturing jobs were added under Trump than
under Obama, a 170% advantage
As Trump is going to win (provided the usual conditions pertain, fraud is not over the
normal levels, and the whole sh*t-story doesn't end up in the courts or fought out on the
streets, whereupon no reasoned predictions can be made), speculation about Biden as Prez.
is a waste of time.
The last part of the Pepe piece in b's post, which gives reasons to not vote Biden, my
take.:
Obama ran on Hopey-Changey and on his projected charm, actually glib con-man gab.
Worked wonderfully, imagine getting the Nobel Prize because you had a dead-beat Dad who was
from Kenya and you scored B+ for public speaking? Argh. (The real reason: killing will
continue, the status quo is preserved..)
Anyway, the ACA was a damp squib, it didn't solve anything, and depending on pov was in
effect a gift to Mega Insurance or was just 'lame' or as often, 'favored some over others'
etc.
Then the Financial Crisis hit. The Obama admin. didn't prevent it (one might argue they
couldn't not sure) and it didn't 'repair' as far as the ppl were concerned. Banks and Some
Big Cos were bailed out - millions of homeowners were tossed to the curb by Banks. Child
poverty, hunger, increased; wages weren't upped, health stats got worse No need to go on -
this provoked tremendous anger. The 2010 elections saw big R gains, 2014 they took the
Senate, iirc.
(Who cared about foreign parts like Ukraine, Syria? is what I'm saying.)
That Trump would win in 2016 was obvious as soon as he became a candidate. He was
the cartoon contrast of Obomber - white, fat, orange, tall, R vs. D, outspoken, strident,
clumsy (vs. the smooth-talking con), opinionated, stupid, and outrageous in a way. Click
bait and viewer bait for the MSM - but not for no reason.
DT's electoral promises were both opportunistic and more profound: like fire-brand
preachers of old, Build The Wall - MAGA - i.e. pledging a return to the past (see, again
the opposite of Barry, who hoped for the future) -- Stop the wars, undo past mistakes (Dems
don't run on anti-war..!), and, most important:
Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but criminals in positions
of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl, part of them.
Imho, Trump's record (null or abysmal or whatever depending on pov) is not enough for
rejecting him in favor of loathed "failed" policies of the past - Clinton gang, Biden a
part of it, Obama, etc. (By US voters I mean.)
but see Kiza 8, gottlieb 63, dave 72, Jack, others, >> no difference.
...Bringing the supply chain back to the US and re-industrialising the US isn't going to
happen overnight or even in a couple of quarters. Just like the process to de-industrialise
didn't happen overnight. But that the process has started, it is undeniable, and will only
pick up pace when he wins a second term.
4 new Trafalgar polls came out for 10/29: Arizona, Nevada, Florida and Michigan. Trump
expanded his lead on Biden in Florida and Michigan vs. Trafalgar's earlier October
polls:
FL from +2.3% Trump to +2.7%
MI from +0.6% Trump to +2.5%
Trump did worse in Nevada and AZ: AZ from +4% Trump to +2.5%.
Nevada polled +2.3% Biden
Once again: the question is if Trump outperforms vs. MSM polls. If he repeats anywhere
near his 2016 - he will win.
Trump can only win again if the establishment/deep state is once again exceptionally
overconfident and asleep in the control room. They have numerous ways of swinging the
election at the last hour, from pre-hacked Diebold paperless voting machines to hanging
chads to simply having their operatives scattered around the nation throw ballots away and
fabricate the tallies. Oddly enough this extreme carelessness is still possible. The
establishment/deep state have not yet come to terms with what caused their plans to blow up
in 2016 and really do seriously believe that Russia had something to do with it, even
though they have no idea what Russia might have actually done to wreck their expected
electoral blowout by Clinton. They also think that part of the problem was that Trump
wasn't vilified harshly enough (they wanted the election to at least appear competitive),
and they think they have that covered this time around. It could be that the over-the-top
hysteria from the TDS victims has them overestimating the anti-Trump sentiment, though.
Still, the establishment/deep state screwing up exactly the same way twice in a row
doesn't seem likely. Even so, their profound incompetence continues to astonish, so maybe
we will once again get treated to the delightful spectacle of crowds of middle class faux
left dilettante snowflakes melting down.
It not hard to see why big pharma despises Trump. They stand to lose a lot of
money. My health stock investment has almost doubled during Trump's tenure.
vk @158 - Not acreage - but based (until Andrew Jackson, hardly any principled person's
prez) on PROPERTY VALUE. JUST as in the good ol' UK. Yep - despite NPR folks believing
otherwise (clealry never visited a history book) - the aristo controlled (in what way
really different?) Britain was actually a "democracy":, and was so from Magna Carta on...
Of course it was a, how to say, constrained, constricted "democracy," but then so was the
original one in Athens. Those who count as THE Demos - always been a matter for property
holder concern... So in GB - male, 21 and over and owning a property of a taxable (always
this, huh) value of a certain sum. Ensured that the hoi polloi males over 21 couldn't vote
- and for the exact same reasons, I do not doubt, as the intentions behind the Electoral
College construct by those less than admirable FFs. Gotta prevent the vast masses of the
population - the great unwashed, "the bewildered herd" in Hamilton's verbiage I do believe
- from having the ability to grab (well, they knew all about blood-letting theft of land,
after all, didn't they?) that sacred "property." (Sacred, surely 'cos owned by the
equivalent of the Murican aristos.)
@Down South #159
It shouldn't be surprising. Actual doctors and nurses are, by and large, really great
people. They don't want to turn away anyone.
The poorest in America can't afford health care - even the middle class can't really as
testified to by the millions of bankruptcies caused by medical expenses. Hospitals thus
were losing large sums of profit treating people who simply could not pay.
Obamacare threw many (not all) of those people onto health insurance company plans by
having the government pay the health insurance premium and then having the existing health
insurance customers pay via increased premiums - all this on top of the ongoing health care
profiteering. That's why Obamacare should really have been called "No Health Insurance
Company or Hospital Left Behind".
The existence of Obamacare also distracts people from the real problem: actual
affordable health care - which every other nation in the world except the US has, entirely
due to national health care.
I've posted this before - I will post it again.
In 2006, I left the semiconductor software industry on my own because I disagreed with
management decisions to outsource all jobs to India rather than change their fundamentally
flawed business model. Semiconductor software companies are the only part of the design
chain that charges by software license rather than per part made - this was great in the
early days of semiconductors but is a disaster when the industry consolidates to 5 large
multinational but US based companies.
In 2007, I experienced a retinal detachment right after my COBRA ended. I paid $35,000
in cash to get that fixed - including a 5 hour total elapsed journey through a hospital
which included a 1 hour surgical room occupancy and 1 hour of recovery time. In the door at
6:30 am and waiting for a taxi at 12:30 pm. The UCSF doctor that attended to me (and did a
great job to be clear) said his fee out of all that was $1200.
The following year, some cells stirred loose by the corrective surgery landed on my
now-attached retina and started reproducing. Instead of coughing up another $35K (or more),
I chose to fly to Australia, consult with the best eye doctor recommended by the Royal
Opthalmological Society of Australia and New Zealand.
That doctor's office was literally a light year more advanced than UCSF - supposedly one of
the premier teaching hospitals in the US. I pay him AU$5000 - US$4000 at the time, plus
another AU$800 for the hospital visit. The Sydney Eye Hospital gave me the choice of
staying a 2nd night (I stayed 1 night because I was at the end of the queue for the day, as
a foreigner), for free, including meals and medications administered on site.
I paid literally 1/7th the price in AU vs. the US - an Australia is not a 3rd world
country. The doctor got paid 3.5x in absolute terms. The service I received was immensely
better. Even including travel costs: flight plus 2 weeks in AU (which I was vacationing),
the overall cost was still 1/5th of my US experience.
That opened my eyes (literally) to just how fucked up the US system is.
@Don Bacon #165
Stock price doesn't bear any short term correlation with profits.
Just look at Tesla, Uber and what not.
Health care sector profits have increased disproportionately since Obamacare:
CFR report on health insurance company profits
Since ACA implementation on January 1, 2014, health insurance stocks outperformed the
S&P 500 by 106 percent.
You're right. The early liberals - specially from the American South - loved to compare
themselves with the Athenian Republic. The rationale is that the existence of slaves
enabled them to enjoy unparalleled freedom. Black slaves were frequently compared with
helots when the problem of slave revolts appeared (with the pro-abolitionists evoking the
figure of Spartacus). The South considered itself freer than the North in the USA - it was
only after their destruction in 1865 that the tide turned and the North became,
retrospectively, the paragon of liberal freedom.
In Europe, England was considered the ultimate free nation. Even American liberals
(including Benjamin Franklin) built up their legitimacy on being of English stock
(Anglo-Saxon race). With time, liberals begun to legitimize their hegemony with a worldwide
racial hierarchy - hence the definition of American democracy as Herrenvolk Democracy
("Master race democracy").
And yes, the original liberals considered the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as their birth
date - not the French Revolution of 1789 (which they condemned as illiberal, or "radical").
The founders of neoliberalism (Hayek, Mises, etc. etc.) put 1870 as the apex of liberalism,
which they tried to revive.
Escobar writes: "In contrast, two near-certain redeeming features would be the return of
the US to the JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal, which was Obama-Biden's only foreign policy
achievement"
Anyone who actually thinks this is either ignorant or moronic. Biden will absolutely
require Iran to limit their ballistic missiles before "rejoining" that then-altered deal.
Iran will never let this happen. Thus the deal is essentially dead [as far as US
involvement goes, which the other parties should ignore]. MOA notes this as well.
I don't know why though MOA refers to Escobar at all here though. The ignorance
demonstrated in the above quote should be enough to disqualify such a person from any
discussion about Biden, Iran, etc. and to also ignore anything else such a person claims.
You might as well quote a schizophrenic you meet down by the river for his take on Iran and
the JCPOA. Might as well learn sign language and ask the chimps at your local zoo what they
think about it.
You are not the only American who is doing it. They have even developed a term for it -
medical tourism:
With rising healthcare costs in the US and the rise of health tourism destinations that
offer quality and affordable healthcare perked up by a beautiful travel experience,
Americans are scampering to book appointments with healthcare providers far away from
home. Yearly, millions of patients travel from countries lacking healthcare
infrastructure or less advanced in a particular area of medical care to countries that
provide highly-specialized medical care.
Noirette @161: " Drain the Swamp. The Deplorables are not ordinary ppl, but
criminals in positions of power. By putting this forward, Trump became a mirror of the ppl,
part of them."
True enough, and as even the bunny claims, this was part of the act. But those who think
Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a better explanation
for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap themselves with public
exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of huge value to the elites
because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to them.
Keep in mind that one of the most important (if not the most important) aspects
of US presidential elections is the "electoral mandate" . Far more important than
specific campaign promises is the general tone of the campaign. If a winning candidate had
campaigned on ending wars, bringing jobs back from abroad, and fighting corruption in
government, this isn't just an indication that the public wants something done about these
issues. First and foremost it forces an acknowledgement that these are indeed major issues
that the public wants to be part of the national discourse that the capitalist mass media
tries to control. Allowing these issues to become part of the national discourse is
diametrically opposed to the interests of the power elites. They do not want these issues
to even be discussed, much less addressed by the state.
So why would they intentionally force these issues into the forefront of national
discourse? That is, after all, what Trump's victory did, despite the establishment's best
efforts to distract with "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Racism, sexism and
pussy-grabbing, oh my!" . These issues were already smoldering below the surface due to
Sanders' campaign, so why would the elites want them fanned into flames?
Answer: They didn't. As much as the issues that the winner campaigns on getting elevated
in priority by the "electoral mandate" , the loser's issues get diminished. Trump
was supposed to lose, and lose bigly, and in the process the things he campaigned on were
supposed to be crushed down to objects of ridicule by the corporate mass media. Trump's
resounding defeat was supposed to signal that Americans rejected Trump's "conspiracy
theories" about some fictitious "deep state" that only existed in Trump's
imagination, burying the suspicions that the election fraud committed against Sanders
aroused. Trump being ignominiously trounced was supposed to allow the mass media to say
that Americans unequivocally voiced their opposition to ending war and their support for
intervention in Syria, clearing the way for Clinton's "no fly zone" . Trump being
utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the
"deplorables" , convincing them with finality that there will never again be
good-paying blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics, while at the same
time crippling their resistance to the social engineering of "identity politics" ;
social engineering that I should point out is even more ill-conceived and incompetently
executed than the 737MAX MCAS system.
Trump was supposed to lose and take those issues with him to the dustbin of history.
It is important to understand this point because it clarifies who our enemies really are
and helps us to understand how they view the world.
Ancient Athens excluded from power slaves and resident foreigners (metics). Also women in
the families of male citizens, although one could argue that they had virtual
representation through the male citizens in their families. So also for the children in
citizens' families, although they would have full rights once they reached adulthood. The
adult male citizens who had full political rights were about 20 percent of the population
of Attica.
And even the poorest citizens had much more political power than average citizens of
today's so-called democracies have today. They could attend and vote in the Assembly, they
could be chosen by lot to serve in such bodies as the Council and juries, and to serve in
most offices. And for doing all these things there was pay, so that poor citizens had
particular motivation to participate, which they did. Just read Aristophanes. No wonder
most rich Athenians hated the system.
Again, you are mistaken. I am getting tired of correcting you.FoxNews drug their heels
when it came to supporting DJT in 2015 until it was clear that the majority of
conservatives actually wanted DJT as their candidate.
It was at that point that business-smartz kicked in and they had to acknowledge that
they must throw their weight behind the Trump ticket lest they prove themselves the
faux-conservative Rinos they actually were/are.
Business 101, my friend. You wanna keep the advert. revenue coming in, you produce
content your audience actually agrees with.
TBH and AFAIK Tucker Carlson is still the only truly sane conservative on FOx news. The
rest, including Hannity, don't neccessarily mind the endless wars so long as the public
endorses them. They are chameleons without an ethical lodestar guiding their
commentary.
Trump being utterly humiliated in the polls was supposed to decisively demoralize the
"deplorables", convincing them with finality that there will never again be good-paying
blue collar jobs and that they are just disposable relics,
_____________________________________________
The problem is you think the oligarchs are every bit as stupid as you are. It would be
nice if they were, but unfortunately they're not.
First of all lets examine who are these deplorables who you imagine were set up by the
oligarchs to be crushed and demoralized by running Trump as their candidate.
The deplorables are:
-The Americans that own the guns
-The Bible thumping American jihadist
-The Americans that sign up for the police and military and in those rolls operate the
states weaponry
-The Americans who believe the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of
tyrants
I could go on but all you have to do is tune into the corporate mass media that caters
to the deplorables to find out who they are and what they are being sold.
But Mr Gruff is just too stupid to figure out why in the world the oligarchs might want
to not antagonize that segment of the population.
The oligarchs would have to have lost their frikken minds to hire trump for the purpose
of giving the deplorables a big "fuck you" as you imagine. The oligarchs are well aware
that they already gave a big fat finger to the deplorables when they engineered the
election of Obama (not to mention the 40 preceding years of marginalizing that segment of
the population) and just maybe it was time to pacify that segment of the population that
was growing larger and a bit restless.
But those who think Trump's upset victory in 2016 was part of the plan need to offer up a
better explanation for why those criminals in positions of power would want to kneecap
themselves with public exposure. The rationale has to be extraordinarily critical and of
huge value to the elites because that price of exposure has been monumentally damaging to
them.
Amen!!! I don't think that people who forward that narrative fully understand
how damaging this exposure has been to them.
By being exposed they have been shown to exist . This is super critical! No more
is talk of the deep state relegated to the lunatic fringe where they can be easily derided
as "conspiracy theorists"
Whether Trump can drain the swamp or not is to be seen but what is not in dispute is
that they exist.
Posted by: Down South | Nov 1 2020 18:31 utc |
181 How can the blob "return" when they never really left?
To pretend that Trump is some special Peacemaker, trying oh so hard to overcome deep
state resistance to rolling back empire, is Trumpism. Escobar is always there. Trump must
be understood as a leading creature of the swamp himself. Trying so hard just as Obama was
trying so hard.
The relative scores settled terribly are more a matter of opportunity than ruthless
efficiency. Though it is true that "success" requires dialing it back a bit, and having the
likes of Bolton around is a way of ensuring either that nothing gets done, or we all end up
ashes. Trump managed to axe Bolton on time, that time.
It's avoidance of those lower probability mega catastrophes that is the principle reason
of voting trump out with regards to foreign policy. And there are other reasons.
You'd think that voting Republican would be an easy decision if you work on Wall Street,
especially given the lower taxes and the removal of burdensome regulations. But Democrats have
entangled themselves so deeply in the web of Wall Street, that the industry is now leaning to
the left, according to a new report from
Reuters .
The Center for Responsive Politics took a look at how the industry, and its employees, break
down for the 2020 election cycle.
It has been obvious that Democratic candidate Joe Biden has been outpacing President Trump
when it comes to fundraising, and this is also true of "winning cash from the banking
industry," Reuters notes.
Biden's campaign has been the beneficiary of $3 million from commercial banks, compared to
the $1.4 million Trump has raised. This is a far skew from 2012, where Mitt Romney was able to
raise $5.5 million from commercial banks, while Barack Obama only raised $2 million. In 2012,
Wall Street banks were among the top five contributors to Romney' campaign.
In 2020, campaign contributions to congressional races from Wall Street banks are about
even. Republicans have raised $14 million while Democrats have brought in $13.6 million. About
four years ago, Republicans pulled in $18.9 million, which was about twice as much as the
Democrats raised. In 2012, Republicans raised about 61% of total bank donations.
Interestingly enough, when Biden and Trump are removed from the equation, the highest
recipient from Wall Street is none other than Bernie Sanders, who has raised $831,096. Sanders
often tops contributions in many industries due to his grassroots following.
When you remove the employees from the equation and only look at how the bank's political
arms donate, the picture turns more Republican-friendly.
House of Representatives lawmaker Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri, one of the senior
Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee, which is key for the banking industry,
tops the list, hauling in $226,000. Next up is Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, the top
Republican on that panel, with $185,500 in cash from bank political committees.
The top 20 recipients of bank political funds comprise 14 Republicans and six Democrats.
Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, a senior member of the House banking panel,
received the most among Democrats, with $140,000.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The shift in data shows that while Wall Street's top brass may still understand the value of
Republican leadership, bank employees themselves may overwhelmingly favor
progressives.
ay_arrow
tonye , 3 hours ago
It's obvious. Wall Street is part of the Deep State...
Le SoJ16 , 3 hours ago
How can you hate capitalism and work for a Wall Street bank?
tonye , 3 hours ago
Because Wall Street is no longer capitalist.
Main Street is capitalist, they create the GNP.
Wall Street is a casino owned by globalists and bankers. They don't create much
anymore.
Macho Latte , 2 hours ago
It has nothing to do with ideology. The Biden is FOR SALE!
Any questions?
Lord Raglan , 2 hours ago
It is because the majority of Wall Street are Jewish and **** overwhelmingly support
Democrats.
David Horowitz has said that 80% of the donations to the Democrat Party come from
****.
KashNCarry , 2 hours ago
What a bunch of ****. Wall St. elites are in it up to their necks casting their lot with
the globalists who want total control NOW. Trump is the only thing in their way....
artvandalai , 3 hours ago
Wall street people don't know much about the real economy. They also know little, nor do
they care about, the real problems faced by business people who have to work everyday to
overcome the policies put in place by liberals.
They do understand finance however. But all that requires is the ability to push paper
around all day.
But let them vote for the Libotards and have them watch Elizabeth Warren take charge of
the US Senate Financial Institutions and Consumer Protection Committee. They'll be jumping
out of windows.
FauxReal , 3 hours ago
Wall Street favors free money?
sun tzu , 1 hour ago
Wall Street wants bailouts. 0bozo gave them a yuge bailout
American2 , 2 hours ago
Based on the massively coordinated MSM suppression of the Biden corruption scandal, now I
know why these folks back Biden.
CosmoJoe , 2 hours ago
Democrats as the party of the big banks,
bgundr , 2 hours ago
Of course banksters favor policies that make the average person a slave with less
agency
Homie , 2 hours ago
Especially if you like the endless bailouts, give-aways, and freedom from those pesky
rules limiting the Squid's diet
You'd think that voting Republican would be an easy decision if you work on Wall Street,
especially given the lower taxes and the removal of burdensome regulations.
mtl4 , 2 hours ago
The shift in data shows that while Wall Street's top brass may still understand the
value of Republican leadership, bank employees themselves may overwhelmingly favor
progressives.
The banks are big on corruption and that's one poll the Dems are definitely leading by a
longshot.......thick as thieves.
tunetopper , 2 hours ago
Wall St youngsters dont realize their job is to whore themselves out as much as possible
to the few remaining classes of folk they dont already have accounts with. The few
Millennials and Gen Xers that have enough capital saved up are their target market. Ever
since the take-down of Bear Stearns and Lehman, and the exit of many others from their
Private Client Groups- the Whorewolves of Wall St are very busy pretending to be Progs and
Libs.
And like this post says: " who really cares, they all live in NY, NJ and CT which are
guaranteed Dem states anyway"
So in essence- they have nothing to lose while pretending to be a Prog/Lib. in order to ge
the clients money.
radar99 , 36 minutes ago
I arrived to wall st in 2010. My female boss at a large investment bank hated me from the
moment I criticized Obama. I was and still am absolutely amazed you can work on wall st and
be a democrat
moneybots , 59 minutes ago
"The shift in data shows that while Wall Street's top brass may still understand the value
of Republican leadership, bank employees themselves may overwhelmingly favor
progressives."
So 50 Cent alone went Trump after finding out NYC's top tax rate would be 62% under
Biden?
Flynt2142ahh , 1 hour ago
also known as MBNA Joe Biden friends, you mean the privatize profits but liberalize losses
crowd that always looks for gubment money to bail out failures - Shocking !
invention13 , 1 hour ago
Wall St. just knows Biden is someone you can do business with.
Loser Face , 1 hour ago
Wall Street leans towards anyone who passes laws that benefit Wall Street.
Obamaroid Ointment , 1 hour ago
The Wally Street crowd has always been a bunch Globalist Mercedes Marxists and Limousine
Liberals, this article is ancient history.
Sound of the Suburbs , 2 hours ago
US politicians haven't got a clue what's really going on and got duped by the banker's
shell game.
When you don't know what real wealth creation is, or how banks work, you fall for the
banker's shell game.
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy towards a financial
crisis.
On a BBC documentary, comparing 1929 to 2008, it said the last time US bankers made as
much money as they did before 2008 was in the 1920s.
Bankers make the most money when they are driving your economy into a financial
crisis.
Money and debt come into existence together and disappear together like matter and
anti-matter.
The money flows into the economy making it boom.
The debt builds up in the financial system leading to a financial crisis.
Banks – What is the idea?
The idea is that banks lend into business and industry to increase the productive capacity
of the economy.
Business and industry don't have to wait until they have the money to expand. They can
borrow the money and use it to expand today, and then pay that money back in the future.
The economy can then grow more rapidly than it would without banks.
Debt grows with GDP and there are no problems.
The banks create money and use it to create real wealth.
Caliphate Connie and the Headbangers , 2 hours ago
The banks and corporations of America have been welfare queens since 2008. Regardless of
who wins, they will be the beneficiaries of moar US-style corporate welfare socialism.
Victory_Rossi , 3 hours ago
Wall Street loves globalism and hates the entire ethos of "America First". They're people
with dodgy loyalties and grand self-interests.
FreemonSandlewould , 3 hours ago
What a surprise. The Banking Cartel faction of the Jish Control Grid sent Trotsky and
company to Russia to implement the Bolshevik revolution. Should I be surprised they lean
left?
Well I guess not. But they are at base amoral - that is to say with out moral philosophy.
Their real motto is "Whatever gets the job done".
"... Same principle with speaking engagements. Nobody in the corporate world seriously believed that listening to a speech from Hillary Clinton was worth $200,000 - especially when she sometimes kept getting these gigs at the same company every few months: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/every-hillary-and-bill-clinton-speech-2013-fees ..."
"... Furthermore, the book sales conduit adds an extra degree of separation between the ultimate source of the money and the recipient of the money. Somebody who wants to buy a politician could for example donate money to an NGO that does "political education" and buys political books to distribute to people, and that NGO buys the copies of the corrupt politician's book in bulk. ..."
Learned here on SST that a lot of the huge book contracts given to swampies are a form of
money laundering. I have long tried to figure out how the publishing companies could afford to
pay yuudge advances for ghost written books in a country where so few people read much of
anything any longer. Simple answer! Big money people order yuudge numbers of books in advance
so that the publisher is assured a profit.
I think it was the previous mayor of Baltimore who got a multi-million dollar windfall
from her best-selling children's book. I wonder how many kids actually read it.
Lots of trucks out with their flags here, people are becoming optimistic here in South
Florida, feels almost normal here.
Trump taking New York would be the ultimate, lets hope. I'm looking forward to watching
CNN's Wolf Blitzer on election night, it's been 4 years for me and CNN. I just want to see
him squirm.
it looks a lot less like corruption when a politician receives money because he wrote an
"inspiring book" that seemingly sells lots of copies than when he receives money outright for
political favors.
Furthermore, the book sales conduit adds an extra degree of separation between the
ultimate source of the money and the recipient of the money. Somebody who wants to buy a
politician could for example donate money to an NGO that does "political education" and buys
political books to distribute to people, and that NGO buys the copies of the corrupt
politician's book in bulk.
Interesting question about book deals. Certainly it could be a channel to hide the names
of donors, which would seem the only rational reason to do so. I would guess the lecture
circuit a more appropriate way to do that. If I'm going to part with that much I'd at least
want a song for their dinner out of it.
The 10 biggest book deals have a mixture of celebrities, I can't imagine anyone wanting to
slip Bruce Springsteen $10 million under the table so it appears the publishers do make money
on these deals, counter-intuitive though it be.
Book writing can be far more lucrative than I ever thought possible. James Patterson got
150 million for a 17 book series. I would say he earned it although I've never read any of
his stuff. Michelle Obama's first book sold over 10 million copies and netted her at least 65
million in a deal for both her and Barrack's memoirs.
Ken Follett got 50 million for his trilogy.
Bill Clinton got 15 million for his book while George W. Bush only got 7 million for
his.
Hillary got 14 million for hers. Springsteen got 10 million for his autobiography.
Even Pope Jan Pavel II made a cool 8.5 million for his memoirs back in 1994. There are an
awful lot of 7 figure book advances out there.
Another phenomenon in the book world is the mass purchase of books by organizations. For
example the RNC bought $100K worth of Don Trump Jr's book and more than $400K worth of Sean
Hannity's latest. I'm sure the RNC is not alone in this practice.
"... There is no fool like an old American fool. Like Joe Biden, for instance. In the last presidential "debate" he called Xi Jinping and Putin "thugs." What does this tell you about the state of American diplomacy? ..."
I'm not even a US American but I recall deep my embarrassment when watching the vulgar
Hillary Clinton handling herself in the presence of Sergey Lavrov – around the time of
the excruciating "reset" event.
And today you guys have Pompeo for Christ sake! How can you stand the shame – where
do you get these people?
There is no fool like an old American fool. Like Joe Biden, for instance. In the last
presidential "debate" he called Xi Jinping and Putin "thugs." What does this tell you about
the state of American diplomacy?
Sure, Joe is trying to win cheap political points by catering to the abysmally ignorant
and savagely russophobic average American voters. But at what political cost to the country
he represents! And what exactly does this old American fool want to do when he says that
Russia and China will "pay a price."
What can America do to the world's supreme military power (Russia) and to the world's
supreme economic power (China)? Particularly now that these two superpowers are working
together.
How senile and stupid has Biden become! He stopped developing intellectually about 50
years ago. And now he never will.
The senility may be new but joe biden has always been stupid. One of the only people on
the planet that can stick both of his feet in his mouth at the same time.
Tramp was essentially the President from military industrial complex and Israel lobby. So he was not played. That's naive. He
followed the instructions.
On March 20, 2018, President
Donald Trump
sat beside Saudi crown prince Muhammed bin Salman at the White House and lifted a giant map that said
Saudi weapons purchases would support jobs in "key" states -- including Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida and Ohio, all
of which were crucial to Trump's
2016 election victory
.
"Saudi Arabia has been a very great friend and a big purchaser of
equipment but if you look, in terms of dollars, $3 billion, $533 million, $525 million -- that's peanuts for you. You
should have increased it," Trump
said
to the prince, who was (and still is) overseeing a military campaign in Yemen that has deployed U.S. weaponry to commit
scores
of alleged war crimes.
Trump has used his job as commander-in-chief to be America's arms-dealer-in-chief
in a way no other president has since Dwight Eisenhower, as he prepared to leave the presidency, warned in early 1961
of the military-industrial complex's political influence. Trump's posture makes sense personally ― this is a man who
regularly
fantasizes
about violence, usually toward foreigners ― and he and his advisers see it as politically useful, too. The president
has repeatedly appeared at weapons production facilities in swing states,
promoted
the head of Lockheed Martin using White House resources, appointed defense industry employees to top government jobs
in an unprecedented way and expanded the Pentagon's budget to near-historic highs ― a guarantee of future income for
companies like Lockheed and Boeing.
Trump is "on steroids in terms of promoting arms sales for his own
political benefit," said William Hartung, a scholar at the Center for International Policy who has tracked the defense
industry for decades. "It's a targeted strategy to get benefits from workers in key states."
In courting the billion-dollar industry, Trump has trampled on moral
considerations about how buyers like the Saudis misuse American weapons, ethical concerns about conflicts of interest
and even part of his own political message, the deceptive
claim
that he is a peace candidate. He justifies his policy by citing job growth, but data from
Hartung
,
a prominent analyst, shows he exaggerates the impact. And Trump has made clear that a major motivation for his defense
strategy is the possible electoral benefit it could have.
Next month's election
will show if the bargain was worth it. As of now, it looks like Trump's bet didn't pay off
― for him, at least. Campaign contribution records, analysts in swing states and polls suggest arms dealers have given
the president no significant political boost. The defense contractors, meanwhile, are expected to
continue
getting richer, as they have in a dramatic
way
under Trump.
Playing Corporate Favorites
Trump has thrice chosen the person who decides how the Defense Department
spends its gigantic budget. Each time, he has tapped someone from a business that wants those Pentagon dollars. Mark
Esper, the current defense secretary, worked for Raytheon; his predecessor, Pat Shanahan, for Boeing; and Trump's first
appointee, Jim Mattis, for General Dynamics, which reappointed him to its board soon after he left the administration.
Of the senior officials serving under Esper, almost half have connections
to military contractors,
per
the Project on Government Oversight. The administration is now rapidly trying to fill more Pentagon jobs under the guidance
of a former Trump campaign worker, Foreign Policy magazine recently
revealed
― prioritizing political reasons and loyalty to Trump in choosing people who could help craft policy even under a
Joe Biden
presidency.
Such personnel choices are hugely important for defense companies'
profit margins and risk creating corruption or the impression of it. Watchdog groups argue Trump's handling of the hiring
process is more evidence that lawmakers and future presidents must institute rules to limit the reach of military contractors
and other special interests.
"Given the hundreds of conflicts of interest flouting the rule of
law in the
Trump administration
, certainly these issues have gotten that much more attention and are that much more salient
now than they were four years ago," said Aaron Scherb, the director of legislative affairs at Common Cause, a nonpartisan
good-government group.
The theoretical dangers of Trump's approach became a reality last
year, when a former employee for the weapons producer Raytheon used his job at the State Department to advocate for a
rare emergency declaration allowing the Saudis and their partner the United Arab Emirates to buy $8 billion in arms ―
including $2 billion in Raytheon products ― despite congressional objections. As other department employees warned that
Saudi Arabia was defying U.S. pressure to behave less brutally in Yemen, former lobbyist Charles Faulkner led a unit
that urged Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo
to give the kingdom more weapons. Pompeo
pushed
out Faulkner soon afterward, and earlier this year, the State Department's inspector general
criticized
the process behind the emergency declaration for the arms.
MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
Red
Crescent medics walk next to bags containing the bodies of victims of Saudi-linked airstrikes on a Houthi detention center
in Yemen on Sept. 1, 2019. The Saudis military campaign in Yemen has relied on U.S. weaponry to commit scores of alleged
war crimes.
Even Trump administration officials not clearly connected to the
defense industry have shown an interest in moves that benefit it. In 2017, White House economic advisor Peter Navarro
pressured
Republican lawmakers to permit exports to Saudi Arabia and Jared
Kushner, the president's counselor and son-in-law, personally
spoke
with Lockheed Martin's chief to iron out a sale to the kingdom, The New York Times found.
Subscribe to the Politics email.
From Washington to the campaign trail, get the latest politics news.
When Congress gave the Pentagon $1 billion to develop medical supplies
as part of this year's
coronavirus
relief package, most of the money went to defense contractors for projects like jet engine parts instead,
a Washington Post investigation
showed
.
https://schema.org/WPAdBlock
"It's a very close relationship and there's no kind of sense that
they're supposed to be regulating these people," Hartung said. "It's more like they're allies, standing shoulder to shoulder."
Seeking Payback
In June 2019, Lockheed Martin announced that it would close a facility
that manufactures helicopters in Coatesville, Pennsylvania, and employs more than 450 people. Days later, Trump tweeted
that he had asked the company's then-chief executive, Marillyn Hewson, to keep the plant open. And by July 10, Lockheed
said
it would do so ― attributing the decision to Trump.
The president has frequently claimed credit for jobs in the defense
industry, highlighting the impact on manufacturing in swing states rather than employees like Washington lobbyists, whose
numbers have also
grown
as he has expanded the Pentagon's budget. Lockheed has helped him in his messaging: In one instance in Wisconsin, Hewson
announced
she was adding at least 45 new positions at a plant directly after Trump spoke there, saying his tax cuts for corporations
made that possible.
Trump is pursuing a strategy that the arms industry uses to insulate
itself from political criticism. "They've reached their tentacles into every state and many congressional districts,"
Scherb of Common Cause said. That makes it hard for elected officials to question their operations or Pentagon spending
generally without looking like they are harming their local economy.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, a Democrat who represents Coatesville,
welcomed
Lockheed's change of course, though she warned, "This decision is a temporary reprieve. I am concerned that Lockheed
Martin and [its subsidiary] Sikorsky are playing politics with the livelihoods of people in my community."
The political benefit for Trump, though, remains in question, given
that as president he has a broad set of responsibilities and is judged in different ways.
"Do I think it's important to keep jobs? Absolutely," said Marcel
Groen, a former Pennsylvania Democratic party chair. "And I think we need to thank the congresswoman and thank the president
for it. But it doesn't change my views and I don't think it changes most people's in terms of the state of the nation."
With polls showing that Trump's disastrous response to the
health pandemic
dominates voters' thoughts and Biden sustaining a lead
in surveys of most swing states
, his argument on defense industry jobs seems like a minor factor in this election.
Hartung of the Center for International Policy drew a parallel to
President George H.W. Bush, who during his 1992 reelection campaign promoted plans for Taiwan and Saudi Arabia to purchase
fighter jets produced in Missouri and Texas. Bush
announced
the
decisions
at events at the General Dynamics facility in Fort Worth, Texas, and the McDonnell Douglas plant in St. Louis that made
the planes. That November, as Bill Clinton defeated him, he lost Missouri by the highest
margin
of any Republican in almost 30 years and won Texas by a slimmer
margin
than had become the norm for a GOP presidential candidate.
MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
President
Donald Trump greets then-Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson at the Derco Aerospace Inc. plant in Milwaukee on July 12,
2019. Trump does not appear to be winning his political bet that increased defense spending would help his political
fortunes.
Checking The Receipts
The defense industry can't control whether voters buy Trump's arguments
about his relationship with it. But it could, if it wanted to, try to help him politically in a more direct way: by donating
to his reelection campaign and allied efforts.
Yet arms manufacturers aren't reciprocating Trump's affection. A
HuffPost review of Federal Election Commission records showed that top figures and groups at major industry organizations
like the National Defense Industrial Association and the Aerospace Industries Association and at Lockheed, Trump's favorite
defense firm, are donating this cycle much as they normally do: giving to both sides of the political aisle, with a slight
preference to the party currently wielding the most power, which for now is Republicans. (The few notable exceptions
include the chairman of the NDIA's board, Arnold Punaro, who has given more than $58,000 to Trump and others in the GOP.)
Data from the Center for Responsive Politics
shows
that's the case for contributions from the next three biggest groups of defense industry donors after Lockheed's employees.
https://schema.org/WPAdBlock
One smaller defense company, AshBritt Environmental, did
donate
$500,000 to a political action committee supporting Trump ― prompting a complaint from the Campaign Legal Center, which
noted that businesses that take federal dollars are not allowed to make campaign contributions. Its founder
told
ProPublica he meant to make a personal donation.
For weapons producers, backing both parties makes sense. The military
budget will have increased 29% under Trump by the end of the current fiscal year,
per
the White House Office of Management and Budget. Biden has
said
he doesn't see cuts as "inevitable" if he is elected, and his circle of advisers includes many from the national security
world who have worked closely with ― and in many cases worked for ― the defense industry.
And arms manufacturers are "busy pursuing their own interests" in
other ways, like trying to get a piece of additional government stimulus legislation, Hartung said ― an effort that's
underway as the Pentagon's inspector general
investigates
how defense contractors got so much of the first coronavirus relief package.
Meanwhile, defense contractors continue to have an outsize effect
on the way policies are designed in Washington through less political means. A recent report from the Center for International
Policy found that such companies have given at least $1 billion to the nation's most influential think tanks since 2014
― potentially spending taxpayer money to influence public opinion. They have also found less obvious ways to maintain
support from powerful people, like running the databases that many congressional offices use to connect with constituents,
Scherb of Common Cause said.
"This goes into a much bigger systemic issue about big money in politics
and the role of corporations versus the role of Americans," Scherb said.
Given its reach, the defense industry has little reason to appear
overtly partisan. Instead, it's projecting confidence despite the generally dreary state of the global economy: Boeing
CEO Dave Calhoun
has said
he expects similar approaches from either winner of the election,
arguing even greater Democratic control and the rise of less conventional lawmakers isn't a huge concern.
In short, whoever is in the White House, arms dealers tend to do
just fine.
Is this 50 former Intel officials or 50 former national security parasites? Real Intel
officials should keep quite after retirement. National security parasites go to politics and
lobbying. One telling sign that a particular parson is a "national security parasite" is his
desire to play "Russian card"
From comments: "Did the 50 former intelligence officials find the Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction yet?"
Hours before Politico
reported the existence of a letter signed by '50 former senior intelligence officials' who say
the Hunter Biden laptop scandal "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information
operation" - providing "no new evidence," while they remain "deeply suspicious that the Russian
government played a significant role in this case," Tucker Carlson obliterated their (literal)
conspiracy theory .
According to the Fox News host, he's seen 'nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop ,' adding " No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information ."
" This is not a Russian hoax. We are not speculating ."
TUCKER: "This afternoon, we received nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop. No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information. This is not a
Russian hoax. We are not speculating." pic.twitter.com/cl2ktdmdVc
Meanwhile, the Delaware computer repair shop owner who believes Hunter dropped off three
MacBook Pros for data recovery has a signed work order bearing Hunter's signature . When
compared to the signature on a document in his paternity suit, while one looks more formal than
the other, they are a match.
Going back to the '50 former senior intelligence officials' and their latest Russia
fixation, one has to wonder - do they think Putin was able to compromise Biden's
former business associate , Bevan Cooney, who gave investigative journalist Peter Schweizer
his gmail password - revealing that Hunter and his partners were engaged in an
influence-peddling operation for rich Chinese who wanted access to the Obama
administration?
Did Putin further hack Joe Biden in 2011 to make him take a meeting with a Chinese
delegation with ties to the CCP - arranged by Hunter's group, two years they secured a massive
investment of Chinese money?
The implications boggle the mind.
Here's the clarifying sentences from the '50 former senior intelligence officials' that
exposes the utter farce of it all:
While the letter's signatories presented no new evidence , they said their national
security experience had made them "deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a
significant role in this case" and cited several elements of the story that suggested the
Kremlin's hand at work.
"If we are right," they added, "this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in
this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this."
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
And then there's the fact that no one from the Biden campaign has yet to deny any of the
'facts' in the emails. lay_arrow jin187 , 2 hours ago
Totally ridiculous. This ******** beating around the bush for both sides pisses me off.
Dump all the laptop contents on Wikileaks if it's real. Let the people sort it out. If you
say it's not real, prove it. If Biden wants me to believe it's not real, then stand behind a
podium, and say clear as day into a pile of cameras that's it's all a forgery, and that
you've done nothing wrong.
Instead we have Giuliani swearing he has a smoking gun, but as far as I can tell he's just
pointing his finger underneath his shirt. Biden on the other hand, keep using weasel words to
imply it's fake, but never denies it outright. It's almost like he's trying to hedge his bet
that no one will manage to prove it's real before he gets into office, and makes it
disappear.
Roacheforque , 7 hours ago
To play the "Russian Card" yet again should be beyond embarrassing. An insult to the
intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80. And so it's harmful to the left wingnut
derangeables. Like Assad's chemical weapons and Saddam's WMDs, it is now code for pure
********. Not even code, just more like a signal.
A signal that say's "guilty as charged - we got nothin' but lies and BS over here".
East Indian , 4 hours ago
An insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80.
They know their supporters wont find this insulting.
Kayman , 4 hours ago
@vulvishka.
538 ? North Korea has better propaganda.
Don't forget to go all in, like you did with Hillary.
Antedeluvian , 2 hours ago
Unfortunately, some very bright people are sucked into the conspiracy theory. I know one.
Very bright lawyer. She says, "I still think there is substantive evidence of Russian
collusion." I can point to a sky criss-crossed with chemtrails (when you see these
"contrails" crossing at the same altitude, this is one sure clue these are not from regular
passenger jet traffic) and she refuses to look up. She KNOWS I am an idiot (a PhD scientist
idiot at that) because I get news and analysis on the web from sites that just want to sell
me tee shirts and coffee mugs (well, she is partly right there!) whereas she gets her news
from MSNBC, a venerable and trustworthy news source.
4DegreesOfSeparation , 6 hours ago
More Than 50 Former Intel Officials Say Hunter Biden Smear Smells Like Russia
"If we are right," the group wrote in a letter, "this is Russia trying to influence how
Americans vote."
DescendantofthePatriots , 7 hours ago
That ****, James Clapper, signed his name at the top of this list.
Known liar, saboteur, and sneak.
The cognitive dissonance in our country is astounding. The fact that they would take these
people's opinion over hard fact is astounding.
No wonder why we're sliding down the steep, slippery slope.
strych10 , 8 hours ago
So... let me get this straight.
50, that's 10 times five, fifty former intelligence officials are going with a convoluted
narrative about a ludicrously complicated Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign
involving planted laptops and at least half a dozen patsies when the two words "crack
cocaine" explain the entire thing?
I'm not sure what's more terrifying; That these people think everyone else is dumb enough
to believe this or that they're actually retired intelligence officials
.
Who the actual **** is running this ****show? The bastard child of Barney Fife and
Inspector Clouseau?
Seriously, "Pink Panther Disinformation Operation" is more believable at this point.
Someone Else , 9 hours ago
This needs to get out, because a FAVORITE method of the Deep State, Democrats and the
media (but I repeat myself) is to parade some sort of a stupid letter with a bunch of
signature hoping to look impressive but that really don't mean a damn thing.
Notre Dame graduates against the Supreme Court nominee, Intelligence agents alleging
collusion, former State Department operatives against Trump. Its grandstanding that has been
overdone.
moneybots , 8 hours ago
The letter by 50 former intelligence officials is itself, disinformation.
otschelnik , 8 hours ago
Remember when Weiner's attorney turned over Huma's home laptop to SDNY/FBI with all of
Shillary's emails, and the FBI sat on it for a month and then Comey deep sixed them without
even looking at them?
So now the FBI subpeona'd Hunter's laptop and burried it? Deja vu all over again.
enough of this , 8 hours ago
The FBI and DOJ constantly hide behind self-serving excuses to refuse the release of
documents and, when forced to do so, they release heavily redacted files. They offer up the
usual pretexts to fend off public disclosure such as: the information you seek cannot be
disclosed because it involves an ongoing investigation, or the information you seek involves
national security, or our methods and sources will be jeopardized if the information you seek
is divulged to the public. But it seems the ones who would be most harmed by public
disclosure are the corrupt FBI and DOJ officials themselves
Cobra Commander , 7 hours ago
A short 4 years ago the FBI and CIA were all concerned about "Kompromat" the Ruskies might
have on Candidate Trump; concerned enough to spy on his campaign and open a
counter-intelligence operation.
There are troves of Kompromat material, actual emails and video, on Joe, Hunter, and the
whole Biden family; not made-up DNC-funded dossiers claiming a Russian consulate in
Miami.
Now when it's Candidate Biden, everyone be all like, "Meh."
Cobra!
The Fonz...before shark jump , 5 hours ago
we gotta listen to the 50 former intelligence agents...you know the ones that had lone
superpower status in the early 90s and then pissed it all away with 9/11 and infinity wars in
middle east hahahahah ok buddy lol... histories D students....
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 7 hours ago
Signed by James Clapper and John Brennan;
You mean, the 2 Bozos who under the threat of perjury said there was NO evidence of
Russian Collusion and the Trump campaign................. and 2 hours later called Trump
'Putin's puppet' on CNN.............
We all like to have our worldview affirmed by a corroborating voice, even if that, too, is
an opinion. This, for me, was like lying back in a hot bath.
I have said as far back as I can remember, during Pompeo's tenure as Giant Blasphemous
Cream Puff of State, that the damage he was doing to the relationship between America and her
allies was significant and perhaps irreparable. The article, if accurate, reveals a China
which is quite a bit like Russia in its official treatment of minorities – subordinate
ethnicities are recognized as distinct societies if their population meets a reasonable
threshold, and where an ethnic population is regionally dominant, an autonomous government is
established to facilitate local governance by people of the same ethnic background.
I was not aware that during the term of China's one-child policy – a dreadful time
which led to the abortion or other more-horrible disposals of unwanted baby girls –
mothers among ethnic minorities were permitted two or even three children.
The article is obviously written in defense of China, but the authors seem to have
substantiated their claims satisfactorily where such material is offered. Unsubstantiated
opinion is often a close match with those offered by commenters on this forum.
George Koo linked to a Youtube video of Mike Pompeous and the Croatian Prime Minister
Andrej Plenkovic at a press conference in Dubrovnik. Watch how Plenkovic deals with
Pompeosity!
I swear I saw the Pompous One deflate considerably after Plenkovic's speech about China's
BRI initiative. Good thing the wind was up and active otherwise the smell would have been
horrific and everyone would have been knocked unconscious.
Fight it all you want, but there's nothing you can do. "The emails are Russian" is going to
be the official dominant narrative in mainstream political discourse, and there's nothing you
can do to stop it. Resistance is futile.
Like the Russian hacking narrative, the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, the Russian
bounties in Afghanistan narrative, and any other evidence-free framing of events that
simultaneously advances pre-planned cold war agendas, is politically convenient for the
Democratic party and generates clicks and ratings, the narrative that the New York Post
publication of Hunter Biden's emails is a Russian operation is going to be hammered and
hammered and hammered until it becomes the mainstream consensus. This will happen regardless of
facts and evidence, up to and including rock solid evidence that Hunter Biden's emails were not
published as a result of a Russian operation.
This is happening. It's following the same formula all the other fact-free Russia hysteria
narratives have followed. The same media tour by pundits and political operatives saying with
no evidence but very assertive voices that Russia is most certainly behind this occurrence and
we should all be very upset about it.
"To me, this is just classic textbook Soviet Russian tradecraft at work," Russiagate founder
and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper is heard assuring CNN's audience .
"Joe Biden – and all of us – SHOULD be furious that media outlets are spreading
what is very likely Russian propaganda," begins and eight-part thread by Democratic Senator
Chris Murphy, who claims the emails are "Kremlin constructed anti-Biden propaganda."
"It's not really surprising at all, this was always the play, but still kind of
head-spinning to watch all the players from 2016 run exactly the same hack-leak-smear op in
2020. Even with everyone knowing exactly what's happening this time," tweets MSNBC's Chris
Hayes.
"How are you all circling the wagons instead of being embarrassed for peddling Russian ops
18 days before the election. It's not enough that you all haven't learned from your atrocious
handling of 2016 -- you are doubling down," Democratic Party think tanker Neera Tanden
tweeted in admonishment of
journalists who dare to report on or ask questions about the emails.
Virtually the entirety of the Democratic Party-aligned political/media class has streamlined
this narrative of Russian influence into the American consciousness with very little inertia,
despite the fact that neither Joe nor Hunter Biden has disputed the authenticity of the emails
and despite a complete absence of evidence for Russian involvement in their publication.
This is surely the first time, at least in recent memory, that we have ever seen such a
broad consensus within the mass media that it is the civic duty of news reporters to try and
influence the outcome of a presidential general election by withholding negative news coverage
for one candidate. There was a lot of fascinated hatred for Trump in 2016, but people still
reported on Hillary Clinton's various scandals and didn't attack one another for doing so. In
2020 that has changed, and mainstream news reporters have now largely coalesced along the
doctrine that they must avoid any reporting which might be detrimental to the Biden
campaign.
"Dem Party hacks (and many of their media allies) genuinely believe it's immoral to report
on or even discuss stories that reflect poorly on Biden. In reality, it's the responsibility of
journalists to ignore their vapid whining and ask about newsworthy stories, even about Biden,"
tweeted The Intercept 's Glenn
Greenwald recently.
"You don't even have to think the Hunter Biden materials constitute some kind of
earth-shattering story to be absolutely repulsed at the authoritarian propaganda offensive
being waged to discredit them -- primarily by journalists who behave like compliant little
trained robots ," tweeted journalist Michael
Tracey.
Last month The Spectator 's Stephen L Miller described how the consensus
formed among the mainstream press since Clinton's 2016 loss that it is their moral duty to
be uncritical of Trump's opponent.
"For almost four years now, journalists have shamed their colleagues and themselves over
what I will call the 'but her emails' dilemma," Miller writes. "Those who reported dutifully on
the ill-timed federal investigation into Hillary Clinton's private server and spillage of
classified information have been cast out and shunted away from the journalist cool kids'
table. Focusing so much on what was, at the time, a considerable scandal, has been written off
by many in the media as a blunder. They believe their friends and colleagues helped put Trump
in the White House by focusing on a nothing-burger of a Clinton scandal when they should have
been highlighting Trump's foibles. It's an error no journalist wants to repeat."
So "the emails are Russian" narrative serves the interests of political convenience,
partisan media ratings, and the national security state's pre-planned agenda to continue
escalating against Russia as part of its
slow motion third world war against nations which refuse to bow to US dictates, and you've
got essentially no critical mainstream news coverage putting the brakes on any of it. This
means this narrative is going to become mainstream orthodoxy and treated as an established
fact, despite the fact that there is no actual, tangible evidence for it.
Joe Biden could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and the mainstream
press would crucify any journalist who so much as tweeted about it. Very
little journalism is going into vetting and challenging him, and a great deal of the energy
that would normally be doing so is going into ensuring that he slides right into the White
House.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
If the mainstream news really existed to tell you the truth about what's going on, everyone
would know about every questionable decision that Joe Biden has ever made, Russiagate would
never have happened, we'd all be acutely aware of the fact that powerful forces are pushing us
into increasingly aggressive confrontations with two nuclear-armed nations, and Trump would be
grilled about
Yemen in every press conference.
But the mainstream news does not exist to tell you the truth about the world. The mainstream
news exists to advance the interests of its wealthy owners and the status quo upon which they
have built their kingdoms. That's why it's
so very, very important that we find ways to break away from it and share information with
each other that isn't tainted by corrupt and powerful interests.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack , which will get you an email
notification for everything I publish. My work is
entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around,
liking me on Facebook
, following my antics on Twitter ,
throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise ,
buying my books Rogue Nation:
Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . For more info on who I am, where I stand, and
what I'm trying to do with this platform,
click here . Everyone, racist platforms excluded,
has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else
I've written) in any way they like free of charge.
Esper's speech demonstrates a confluence of policies, ideas, and funds that permeate
through the system, and are by no means unique to a single service, think tank, or
contractor.
First, Esper consistently situated his future expansion plans in a need to adapt to "an
era of great power competition." CNAS is one of the think tanks leading the charge in
highlighting the threat from Beijing.
They also received at least $8,946,000 from 2014-2019 from the U.S. government and
defense contractors, including over $7 million from defense contractors like Northrop
Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Huntington Ingalls, General Dynamics, and Boeing who would stand
to make billions if the 500-ship fleet were enacted.
It's all about the money. Foreign and domestic policy is always all about the money,
either directly or indirectly. Of course, the ultimate goal is power - or more precisely, the
ultimate goal is relief of the fear of death, which drives every single human's every action,
and only power can do that, and in this world only money can give you power (or so the
chimpanzees believe.)
I draw your attention to the irrefutable fact that Mr. Cohen said that the Buk missile, which
brought down Malaysian Flight 370 over the skies of Donbas, was the Ukraine government "playing
with its new toys and made a big mistake." -- and I draw your attention to the irrefutable fact
that Mr. Cohen said that the Buk missile, which brought down Malaysian Flight 370 over the skies
of Donbas, was the Ukraine government "playing with its new toys and made a big mistake."
He was a real giant in comparison with intellectual scum like Fiona Hill, Michael McFaul and other neocons.
Notable quotes:
"... I tried to explain to American friends what was happening, but quickly realized that ultimately, even friends believe what they read in the newspapers, and the newspapers were pushing the Washington line. Except for Steve Cohen. Steve was the only major figure in America who insisted on remembering the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who, like my family members, distrusted and hated the new Kiev government. He spoke of neo-Nazi paramilitiaries who fought for the US-backed government committing war crimes against civilians in eastern Ukraine. He spoke the truth, regardless of how unwieldy it was. ..."
"... There's a lot to say about Steve. He was extraordinarily kind, never forgetting that in geopolitics, the ones who have the most to lose aren't strategists but everyday individuals impacted by policy. He was a consummate teacher, insisting on giving mentees the skills to navigate the world, a real proponent of the Teach a man to fish philosophy. He had facets and stories and memories; he lived life with empathy and gusto. ..."
"... Steve's insistence on speaking the truth about Ukraine and US-Russia relations drew all sorts of attention. America was hurtling toward a new cold war with Russia, and Steve well, from the perspective of Washington's foreign policy establishment, Steve was fucking up the narrative. Steve talked about inconvenient things, things like US-backed war criminals and America's own meddling in Russian affairs; in the process, he himself had become inconvenient. ..."
"... After all, this wasn't some random blogger. This was one of America's foremost Russia experts, a tenured professor at Princeton and New York University, someone who didn't just write about history but had dinner with it, had briefed US presidents, and was friends with legends like Mikhail Gorbachev. Steve had clout earned from decades of brilliant work; by 2014, he was using that clout to throw a wrench in the think tank world. ..."
"... It was something far colder, more sustained, something that ironically the Soviets did to dissidents: a relentless crusade to render the target untouchable, a leper without a platform. The barrage of articles and diatribes hurled at Steve in the national press painted him as not just a dissenter but a supporter of dictators and murderers. It was a vicious, prolonged assault carried out by think tank toadies, the kind of people who win races by kneecapping the competition. ..."
"... I'd often talk with Steve after a new hatchet job or smear on national television. Of course, the attacks were hurtful -- the only way to not be affected was to not care, and Steve cared. But I also noticed he was remarkably free of bitterness. Every time I thought he'd snap, he'd return the next day to write, discuss, keep fighting. ..."
"... It took me a couple of years to understand that what kept Steve going was faith in his beloved institutions. He believed in academia, in scholarship, in discourse, debate, and civility. He believed in the capacity of everyday people to explore and engage with their world, he believed in Russia, and he always believed in America. He believed in these things far more than he believed in the power of today's warmongers. ..."
"... In 1967 Noam Chomsky wrote an article in the NY Review entitled "the Responsibility of Intellectuals" the first sentence ran like this: "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.". Stephen Cohen did precisely that when all the parrots and pundits were lined up against him. ..."
"... Always I was skeptical of prevailing scholarly interpretive trends on the Soviet experience that were echoed by colleagues claiming expertise on the subject. Cohen provided the foundation for my skepticism and invigorated my lectures on American foreign policy. ..."
"... Once Cohen plied his knowledge against the hysterical narrative that culminated in 4 years of frothing neo-McCarthyism (by the freakin' "left," no less), we were no longer gonna see him on the PBS newshour any more likely than we would and will see chris hedges, chomsky, or margaret kimberly. ..."
"... His book War With Russia? was an oasis of counter-narrative when I picked it up. Losing voices like his is immeasurable as we hurtle toward total war with Russia and/or China, both of whom are finally, naturally, and perfectly predictably beginning to draw a line in the sand. ..."
I first reached out to Stephen Cohen because I was losing my mind.
In the spring of 2014, a war broke out in my homeland of Ukraine. It was a horrific war in a
bitterly divided nation, which turned eastern Ukraine into a bombed-out wasteland. But that's
not how it was portrayed in America. Because millions of eastern Ukrainians were against the
US-backed government, their opinions were inconvenient for the West. Washington needed a clean
story about Ukraine fighting the Kremlin; as a result, US media avoided reporting about the
"wrong" half of the country. Twenty-plus million people were written out of the narrative, as
if they never existed.
I tried to explain to American friends what was happening, but quickly realized that
ultimately, even friends believe what they read in the newspapers, and the newspapers were
pushing the Washington line. Except for Steve Cohen. Steve was the only major figure in America
who insisted on remembering the Russian-speaking Ukrainians who, like my family members,
distrusted and hated the new Kiev government. He spoke of neo-Nazi paramilitiaries who fought
for the US-backed government committing war crimes against civilians in eastern Ukraine. He
spoke the truth, regardless of how unwieldy it was.
And so I e-mailed him, asking for guidance as I began my own writing career. Of course,
there were many who clamored for Steve's time, but I had an advantage over others. Steve and I
were both night owls, real night owls, the kind who have afternoon tea at three am. It
was then, when the east coast was sleeping, that he became my mentor and friend.
There's a lot to say about Steve. He was extraordinarily kind, never forgetting that in
geopolitics, the ones who have the most to lose aren't strategists but everyday individuals
impacted by policy. He was a consummate teacher, insisting on giving mentees the skills to
navigate the world, a real proponent of the Teach a man to fish philosophy. He had
facets and stories and memories; he lived life with empathy and gusto.
But one thing Steve taught me is to stick to my strengths, and truth be told, there are
others who can describe his life better than I. I'll stick to what I learned during our
conversations at three in the morning, which is that, above all else, Stephen F. Cohen was a
man of faith.
Steve's insistence on speaking the truth about Ukraine and US-Russia relations drew all
sorts of attention. America was hurtling toward a new cold war with Russia, and Steve well,
from the perspective of Washington's foreign policy establishment, Steve was fucking up the
narrative. Steve talked about inconvenient things, things like US-backed war criminals and
America's own meddling in Russian affairs; in the process, he himself had become
inconvenient.
After all, this wasn't some random blogger. This was one of America's foremost Russia
experts, a tenured professor at Princeton and New York University, someone who didn't just
write about history but had dinner with it, had briefed US presidents, and was friends with
legends like Mikhail Gorbachev. Steve had clout earned from decades of brilliant work; by 2014,
he was using that clout to throw a wrench in the think tank world.
The DC apparatchiks couldn't discredit Steve's credentials or track record -- he'd predicted
events in Ukraine and elsewhere years before they occurred. They couldn't intimidate him --
he'd faced far worse threats, like the KGB. Instead, they set out to turn him into an
America-hating, Putin-loving pariah.
This went beyond an ad hominem campaign. It was something far colder, more sustained,
something that ironically the Soviets did to dissidents: a relentless crusade to render the
target untouchable, a leper without a platform. The barrage of articles and diatribes hurled at
Steve in the national press painted him as not just a dissenter but a supporter of dictators
and murderers. It was a vicious, prolonged assault carried out by think tank toadies, the kind
of people who win races by kneecapping the competition.
I'd often talk with Steve after a new hatchet job or smear on national television. Of
course, the attacks were hurtful -- the only way to not be affected was to not care, and Steve
cared. But I also noticed he was remarkably free of bitterness. Every time I thought he'd snap,
he'd return the next day to write, discuss, keep fighting.
It took me a couple of years to understand that what kept Steve going was faith in his
beloved institutions. He believed in academia, in scholarship, in discourse, debate, and
civility. He believed in the capacity of everyday people to explore and engage with their
world, he believed in Russia, and he always believed in America. He believed in these things
far more than he believed in the power of today's warmongers.
Steve liked movies and would often end a lecture with a movie reference to drive home the
thesis. When I think of him, I think of the ending of The Shawshank Redemption , the
line about Andy Dufresne crawling through filth and coming out clean on the other side. Steve
didn't live in a movie; I can't claim he emerged unscathed. What he did was come through
without bitterness or cynicism. He refused to turn away from the ugliness, but he didn't allow
it to blind him to beauty. He walked with grace. And he lost neither his convictions nor his
faith.
Lev
Golinkin Lev Golinkin is the author of A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka,
Amazon's Debut of the Month, a Barnes & Noble's Discover Great New Writers program
selection, and winner of the Premio Salerno Libro d'Europa. Golinkin, a graduate of Boston
College, came to the US as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkov (now
called Kharkiv) in 1990. His writing on the Ukraine crisis, Russia, the far right, and
immigrant and refugee identity has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los
Angeles Times, CNN, The Boston Globe, Politico Europe, and Time (online), among other venues;
he has been interviewed by MSNBC, NPR, ABC Radio, WSJ Live and HuffPost Live.
Pierre Guerlain says: October 1, 2020 at 12:42 pm
In 1967 Noam Chomsky wrote an article in the NY Review entitled "the Responsibility of
Intellectuals" the first sentence ran like this: "IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of intellectuals
to speak the truth and to expose lies.". Stephen Cohen did precisely that when all the
parrots and pundits were lined up against him. He was a Mensch. History will bear him
the historian out.
Valera Bochkarev says to Lance Haley: October 1, 2020 at 11:09 am
Hmm, who's the apologist here ?
If the Ukraine is SO sovereign how is it I did not see any outrage in your diatribe
against 'Toria, Pyatt and the rest orchestrating the Maidan putsch or the $5Billion US spent
on softening up the ukraine for the regime change ?
I believe in numbers, as in the number of military bases any given country has surrounding
the ones it wants to subvert, in the amount of money allocated to vilify and eventually bring
down the "unwanted" regimes and the quantity and 'quality' of sanctions imposed against those
regimes; and the sum of all of the above perpetrated against humanity in the past 75 or so
years.
Your vapid drivel, Mr Haley, evaporates almost without a trace once seen with those
parameters in mind.
Numbers don't lie.
Michael Batinski says: September 30, 2020 at 5:48 pm
Let me add from the perspective of an American historian who taught for forty years in a
midwestern university. From the start I depended on William Appleman Williams to keep
perspective and to counter prevailing interpretive trends.
Always I was skeptical of
prevailing scholarly interpretive trends on the Soviet experience that were echoed by
colleagues claiming expertise on the subject. Cohen provided the foundation for my skepticism
and invigorated my lectures on American foreign policy.
I will always be thankful.
Michael Batinski
Tim Ashby says: September 30, 2020 at 2:37 pm
The smothering agitprop in America trumps even Goebbels and co. with its beautifully
dressed overton window and first-amendment-free-press bullshit.
Once Cohen plied his knowledge against the hysterical narrative that culminated in 4 years
of frothing neo-McCarthyism (by the freakin' "left," no less), we were no longer gonna see
him on the PBS newshour any more likely than we would and will see chris hedges, chomsky, or
margaret kimberly.
Let's face it, we were lucky to win the editorial fight to even give him
space in the Nation.
His book War With Russia? was an oasis of counter-narrative when I picked it up. Losing
voices like his is immeasurable as we hurtle toward total war with Russia and/or China, both
of whom are finally, naturally, and perfectly predictably beginning to draw a line in the
sand.
During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties -- three Republicans and three
Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush's side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with
President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.
I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates
of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.
No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is
elected as our 45th president.
Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief.
I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president -- keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only
unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.
I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In
these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her
mind if presented with a compelling argument.
I also saw the secretary's commitment to our nation's security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead
in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country
is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision
of all -- whether to put young American women and men in harm's way.
Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important
colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was
a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.
I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid
by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, "Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner."
In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits
he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.
These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions
based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness
to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.
The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump's character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging
our national security.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual
and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities by complimenting
him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.
Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded
two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American,
interests -- endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia's annexation of Crimea and giving a green light
to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Mr. Trump has also undermined security with his call for barring Muslims from entering the country. This position, which so clearly
contradicts the foundational values of our nation, plays into the hands of the jihadist narrative that our fight against terrorism
is a war between religions.
In fact, many Muslim Americans play critical roles in protecting our country, including the man, whom I cannot identify, who ran
the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorism Center for nearly a decade and who I believe is most responsible for keeping America safe since the
Sept. 11 attacks.
My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing
now. Our nation will be much safer with Hillary Clinton as president.
Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.
"... Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding, from what they said to where they said it. ..."
"Western government-funded intelligence cutouts trained Syrian opposition leaders,
planted stories in media outlets from BBC to Al Jazeera, and ran a cadre of journalists. A
trove of leaked documents exposes the propaganda network."
"Leaked documents show how UK government contractors developed an advanced infrastructure of
propaganda to stimulate support in the West for Syria's political and armed opposition.
Virtually every aspect of the Syrian opposition was cultivated and marketed by Western
government-backed public relations firms, from their political narratives to their branding,
from what they said to where they said it.
The leaked files reveal how Western intelligence cutouts played the media like a fiddle,
carefully crafting English- and Arabic-language media coverage of the war on Syria to churn out
a constant stream of pro-opposition coverage.
US and European contractors trained and advised Syrian opposition leaders at all levels,
from young media activists to the heads of the parallel government-in-exile . These firms also
organized interviews for Syrian opposition leaders on mainstream outlets such as BBC and the
UK's Channel 4.
More than half of the stringers used by Al Jazeera in Syria were trained in a joint US-UK
government program called Basma, which produced hundreds of Syrian opposition media
activists.
Western government PR firms not only influenced the way the media covered Syria, but as the
leaked documents reveal, they produced their own propagandistic pseudo-news for broadcast on
major TV networks in the Middle East, including BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and Orient
TV .
These UK-funded firms functioned as full-time PR flacks for the extremist-dominated Syrian
armed opposition. One contractor, called InCoStrat, said it was in constant contact with a
network of more than 1,600 international journalists and "influencers," and used them to push
pro-opposition talking points.
Another Western government contractor, ARK, crafted a strategy to "re-brand" Syria's
Salafi-jihadist armed opposition by "softening its image ." ARK boasted that it provided
opposition propaganda that "aired almost every day on" major Arabic-language TV networks."
"The Western contractor ARK was a central force in launching the White Helmets operation.
The leaked documents show ARK ran the Twitter and Facebook pages of Syria Civil Defense,
known more commonly as the White Helmets.
ARK also facilitated communications between the White Helmets and The Syria
Campaign , a PR firm run out of London and New York that helped popularize the White
Helmets in the United States.
It was apparently "following subsequent discussions with ARK and the teams" that The Syria
Campaign "selected civil defence to front its campaign to keep Syria in the news," the firm
wrote in a report for the UK Foreign Office." thegreyzone
--------------
Using really basic intelligence analytic tools; Occam's Razor, Walks like a duck,
Smileyesque back azimuth's, etc. it has been clear that the UK government has been deeply
involved in sponsoring and influencing the Syrian/ jihadi opposition in that miserable country.
The wide spread British Old Boys network of aspirants to the tradition of imperial manipulation
has been visible just below the surface if you had eyes to look and a brain to think.
A lot of the money for this folly came right out of USAID.
I object to the line in the article that they "played the media like a fiddle" - as it
implies the mainstream media is a victim as opposed to willing accomplice.
The American public very strongly told Obama they didn't want another invasion and war in
the middle east (red lines or not) so rather ineffective propaganda.
Moreover, I suspect that given the US public inattention to overseas events that do not
involve much US blood (in places they can not find on a map). Today's mess would be where
more or less the same if the entire IO had never happened - though maybe with less cynicism
of US/UK gov'ts and media.
OTH, it is curious how well the British Old Boys network (and US) aligns with Israeli
interests (and runs counter to US or British interests). Maybe grayzone will investigate that
(impressive) IO campaign. I think a small country in the middle east played US and UK elites
like a fiddle.
I've only given this article a cursory reading so far and it is clear that the Brits are
going balls to the wall on the PSYOPS/perception management front. This campaign flows
naturally from the strong material support for the Syrian "moderate rebels" provided by the
US, the Brits and probably others for years. We may still be blowing up IS jihadis, but we're
also supporting our own brand of jihadis around Al-Tanf, giving free hand to Erdogan's
jihadis along the Turkish-Syrian border and doing our best to stymie R+6 efforts to crush the
remaining jihadis and unite Syria.
The article focuses on the contractors role in PSYOP. I'm not sure if it mentions the
British government's role in this. The GCHQ's Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group
(JTRIG) probably manages most of those contractors. The British Army also has the 77th
Brigade. This brigade's slogan is: "behavioural change is our unique selling point". Gordon
MacMillan, a reserve officer with the 77th Brigade, is now Twitter's head of editorial
operations for the Middle East.
The 77th was formed in 2015 and subsumed the 15th Psychological Operations Group which was
headed by Steve Tathan, who went on to head the defence division of SCL, the now defunct
parent of Cambridge Analytica. I'm sure the 77th is capable of managing some of those
contractors, as well. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few of contractors were also
reservists in the 77th.
I bet we're not letting the Brits have all the fun. The CIA Special Activities Center
(formerly SAD) includes the Political Action Group for PSYOP, economic warfare and
cyberwarfare. That dovetails nicely with what CENTCOM is doing in Syria. I knew some of those
guys a while back. I remember scaring them with some of my own anarchist hacker rantings when
I was penetrating those hackers.
Our Army has fours PSYOP groups brigade-sized), two active and 2 reserve. I would think
they have advanced their methodology since I took the course at Bragg. For a few years, they
were called military information support operations (MISO) groups rather than PSYOP groups.
They have since reverted to their PSYOP name although their activities are referred to as
MISO. I don't know what the difference is.
There is no such small country as you describe in the Near East.
There is an self-disciplined proxy force masquerading as a state which is mostly funded by
the United States to further the religious policies of the WASP Culture Continent.
It is no accident that in this context, the names of US and UK occur often in the same
sentences; one declared a crusade to wrestle control of Plastine from Muslims, and the otber
one carried out that crusade and escalated it.
That is also the reason that US cannot end the war over Palestine or leave Islamdom
(Oil, Geostrategic considerations, arms sales, Realpolitik are just pseudo-rationications
to obscure the real war.)
"WASP Culture" is into golfing, not crusading. Erik Prince and the religious
fundamentalists, maybe, but they don't drive US policy.
Russia and/or Chinese dominion over Eurasia cannot be permitted. Their means to achieve
that would be less ethical, not that the US or UK have been prince among men and salts of the
earth, as noted in the article.
The US has tried in vain to win over hearts and minds. It has been a mostly noble effort
to bring countries like Iraq and Afghanistan into the 21st century, but it was always more of
a losing game. The problem lies too much in Islam and tribal rivalries.
@Realist
d on him and tried to remove him from office. This is actually the greatest political scandal
in American history, yet nothing will be done about it. The magic negro will never face any
consequences and he and his ugly wife will remain free to race bait for another 30 years
unimpeded.
Trump and the GOP allowed the covid hoax to wreck the economy and allowed massive riots to
go on for many months. They allow the left to run wild while whites live under
anarcho-tyranny.
If Trump wins, which is likely, he will just go right back to blabbing about how much he
loves blacks and mexicans and gays and you will never hear another word about white
people.
@restless94110
p> Obama fired many upper level military and replaced them with leftist cucks.
Besides Trump not getting rid of people he should have gotten rid of, he hired a shitload
of scum, neocons, Goldman alums, etc., people who were obviously not going to promote his
America First agenda.
From the looks of it he never intended to make good on any of his promises.
And as Ann Coulter says, immigration is really the only thing that matters. Trump didn't
deport the 30 million illegals that don't belong here. He didn't do anything about birthright
citizenship, E-verify, etc.
We still face the very same demographic disaster as before.
I don't think anyone was actually trying to remove him from office (they could've added
his war crimes and violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to the
impeachment charges if they were serious about removing him). Most likely it's all
political theater to fool the people who need and/or want to be fooled.
This is a charade designed by the Deep State to distract any thought that both
parties are just two sides to the Deep State coin.
@Robert
Dolan did get rid of some military, he clearly didn't get rid of the right people.
You seem to think it's easy. It's not obviously.
I like Ann, but she is hysterical. Yet that is ok in a journalist/editorialist. Her
function is to keep pushing. And she is doing that.
But Trump is moving at his own speed based on his own instincts. Meaning it might be
faster for some, slower for others. Coulter is not able to understand that. But she does not
have to. I still read her. And then I analyze her as a person in fear that the wall won't be
built.
Looks to me like Ann is wrong. It's just not happening quickly enough for her.
Selfishness may be exalted as the root and branch of capitalism, but it doesn't make you
look good to the party on the receiving end or those whose sympathy he earns. For that, you
need a government prepared to do four things, which each have separate dictums based on study,
theorization, and experience. Coercion: Force is illegitimate only if you can't sell it.
Persuasion: How do I market thee? Let me count the ways. Bargaining: If you won't scratch my
back, then how about a piece of the pie? Indoctrination: Because I said so. (And paid for the
semantics.)
Predatory capitalism is the control and expropriation of land, labor, and natural resources
by a foreign government via coercion, persuasion, bargaining, and indoctrination.
At the coercive stage, we can expect military and/or police intervention to repress the
subject populace. The persuasive stage will be marked by clientelism, in which a small
percentage of the populace will be rewarded for loyalty, often serving as the capitalists'
administrators, tax collectors, and enforcers. At the bargaining stage, efforts will be made to
include the populace, or a certain percentage of it, in the country's ruling system, and this
is usually marked by steps toward democratic (or, more often, autocratic) governance.
At the fourth stage, the populace is educated by capitalists, such that they continue to
maintain a relationship of dependency.
The Predatory Debt Link
In many cases, post-colonial states were forced to assume the debts of their colonizers. And
where they did not, they were encouraged to become in debt to the West via loans that were
issued through international institutions to ensure they did not fall prey to communism or
pursue other economic policies that were inimical to the West. Debt is the tie that binds
nation states to the geostrategic and economic interests of the West.
As such, the Cold War era was a time of easy credit, luring postcolonial states to undertake
the construction of useless monoliths and monuments, and to even expropriate such loans through
corruption and despotism, thereby making these independent rulers as predatory as colonizers.
While some countries were wiser than others and did use the funds for infrastructural
improvements, these were also things that benefited the West and particularly Western
contractors. In his controversial work Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins reveals
that he was a consultant for an American firm (MAIN), whose job was to ensure that states
became indebted beyond their means so they would remain loyal to their creditors, buying them
votes within United Nations organizations, among other things.
Predatory capitalists demand export-orientations as the means to generate foreign currency
with which to pay back debt. In the process, the state must privatize and drastically slash or
eliminate any domestic subsidies which are aimed at helping native industry compete in the
marketplace. Domestic consumption and imports must be radically contained, as shown by the
exchange rate policies recommended by the IMF. The costs of obtaining domestic capital will be
pushed beyond the reach of most native producers, while wages must be depressed to an absolute
bare minimum. In short, the country's land, labor, and natural resources must be sold at
bargain basement prices in order to make these goods competitive, in what one author has called
"a spiraling race to the bottom," as countries producing predominantly the same goods engage in
cutthroat competition whose benefactor is the West.
Under these circumstances, foreign investment is encouraged, but this, too, represents a
loaded situation for countries that open their markets to financial liberalization.
If you have ever wondered why Syrian jihadists, or so-called 'moderate opposition', got
support from the woke liberal West, a recent leak by Anonymous reveals it's because Western
governments funded this propaganda.
In the end, it is the sheer childishness of the propaganda which amazes me most, not that
our rulers lie about other countries – I have always known that. But somehow there was a
kernel of truth around which the web of lies was spun, for example about life in the old Soviet
Union.
I began to realise the scope of Western ability to literally invent the most baseless lies
only in the run-up to the Iraq War in 2003, and only because I knew more about Iraq than any
politician in Britain or America and ten times more than the average made-up telly-dolly
chuntering through their auto-cued war propaganda. The women presenters weren't any better.
This all came flooding back to me when I received an email from Anonymous earlier this week
and then read Ben Norton's excellent analysis of it all in The GrayZone.
If anyone ever wondered how the hordes of head-chopping throat-cutting heart-eating
gay-murdering women-hating 'Jihadists' of the Syrian War ever managed to get a fair press in a
'woke' liberal West that gets hot under the lace collar about JK Rowling novels, the answers
are all in
the Anonymous leak . The principle answer is that you, the taxpayer, paid for it.
That's right. The blizzard of 'White Helmets' (who made it right up to the Oscars to thank
everyone who'd helped them except those that had helped them the most), "chemical-weapons
attacks" and all the paraphernalia of a newly "moderate opposition" in Syria – was all
paid for by YOU. Millions of pounds of British taxpayers' money was revealed to have been spent
secretly on UK support for the throat-cutting coalition of chaos, which for a decade massacred
its way across Syria wearing a snow-white Western beard of respectability.
It would appear that while the US (or rather its milk-cows in the Gulf) was paying for the
lethal-weapons, perfidious Albion was doing what it does best – lying through its teeth
whilst making those being lied to, pay for the privilege. Now that – thanks to the leaks
– we know this, it should put us on guard for the next one. Yet somehow it doesn't, at
least not for the purveyors of the news.
The Lazarus-like resurrection (and photo-shoot) of Russia's opposition figure and Western
darling Alexey Navalny after yet another alleged Novichok (believed to be 5-8 times more toxic
than VX nerve agent) attack without so much as a tracheostomy to show for it is swallowed whole
in yet another anti-Russian public relations offensive.
Grown sane men call my television show to talk about 'concentration camps' in China in
which, we are told, "a million Uighur Muslims" are being held and forcibly sterilised. This is
despite the allegations being largely based on studies backed by the American government and
statements by Western media favourite, German researcher Adrian Zenz. Zenz, who is part of the
Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a US-backed advocacy group,
believes that he is "led by God" on his "mission" against China. Meanwhile, according to China's
official statistics the Uighur population in Xinjiang province increased by over 25 percent
between 2010 and 2018, while the Han Chinese rose by only two percent.
The lying industry may be the only sector of the Western economies still in full production.
No need for furlough or bounce-back loans. The lie-machines never still. No smoke is usually
detected from their chimneys, but inside, their pants are well and truly on fire.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
It is difficult to teach old chickenhawk a new tricks. Looks like she is a real "national
security parasite" and will stay is this role till the bitter end.
"America's world management, NATO, the European Union and the construction of establishments and
alliances the US constructed after World War II have taken a hit." took hit because of the crisis of neoliberalism
not so much because of Russia resistance to the USA neoliberal domination and unwillingness to became a vassal state a la EU
states, Japan and GB.
Her hostile remark confirms grave mistake of allowing immigrants to occupy high position in the US foreign policy hierarchy.
They bring with themselves "ancient hatred"
Only a blind (or a highly indoctrinated/brainwashed) person is unable to see where all these neocon policies are leading...
Notable quotes:
"... America's world management, NATO, the European Union and the construction of establishments and alliances the US constructed after World War II have taken a hit ..."
"... "They lost the entire US political class ..."
Fiona Hill, the National Security Council's senior director for European and Russian affairs
till 2019, says divisions are rising inside the Kremlin over the knowledge of persevering with
a "dirty tricks" marketing campaign that's had combined outcomes and will now face diminishing
returns.
On the one hand, Russia's 2016 affect operations succeeded past the Kremlin's wildest goals.
The US-dominated, unipolar world that Putin has lengthy railed in opposition to is now not.
America's world management, NATO, the European Union and the construction of establishments and
alliances the US constructed after World War II have taken a hit. "On that ledger, wow, yes,
basically over-fulfilled the plan," mentioned Hill.
At the identical time, getting caught in the act of making an attempt to sabotage US
democracy has proved pricey. "They lost the entire US political class and politicized ties so that the whole future of
US-Russia relations now depends on who wins in November," she mentioned.
Probably counting on the desperate vanity and ego of Trump with the looming election to not
shorten the length of the leash on Pompass. Pompass must also have noticed that Trump is
willing to shove the homeland into civil war in order to claim victory, so maybe Pompass
finally has the latitude to slake his bloodthirstiness.
Since I'm wondering down the path of speculation, a bit further into the murk. If there is
one thing that characterizes the US today from the highest to the low, it is corruption. I
submit that this corruption finds its zenith in the military, and especially the procurement
train: any engagement with a near-peer (or the coalition/bloc we're talking about here,) and
the rot and corruption will collapse this empire in upon itself. I've had this suspicion for
some time, and believe if the going got rough the collapse would come rather quickly and
completely.
Following a long line of very arrogant american imperial "negotiators", mr oblivion
billingslea used standard "negotiating" techniques like
(a) accusing the other side of crimes Americans have committed first and forever, eg,
extreme lying, bad faith argumentation, military aggression, foreign government security
breaching, assassination and poisoning [as in american presidents and independent thinkers],
and of course, electoral cheating;
(b) putting the opponent in the "negotiation process" on the defensive or back foot by
stating false news allegations amplified by the media controlled by the american empire;
(c) offering nothing useful or commitable to be done by the empire, and yet
"magnanimously" demanding the moon as opponents' concessions, eg, russian, iranian and
chinese nuclear weapons limits, but not for nato's development and deployment, and; (d) after
making impossible demands, the imperials accuse the opponents of hostility and unwillingness
to "negotiate".
The russians can skillfully agree by stating that they only require the americans to
reduce their nukes to 320 pieces like china, and in less than five years.
This is why it is very important for sovereign nations to read the guidebook, called the
"idiot's guide on running the american empire", and developing deep and lasting
solutions.
As for the other american imperial military "advantages", eg, constellation of
"aggression" satellites, andrei forgot to mention that these can be shot or burned down in
minutes easily by russia, china and even iran, as these stations cannot hide or run away in
earth orbits.
Replenishment of weapons and military supplies after 3 months is rather doomed as the
cheap, mass production and manufacturing facilities do not exist. Which must be re-created
somehow but now
American lands are the targets. Much, Much Different Than WW2 !!
And of course, russia can always nuke down the USA and its vassal countries, and thus
permanently ruin their economies for a decade or more, they don't know how to run defense --
this was always the fatal weakness of all bullies - if they'll have enough time to "learn
it"... let's see... I doubt this.
Let's see americans try to start and conduct a nuclear war after too many spy, internet
and gps satellites are shot down. Russia can even do this today using conventional
explosives, and the world will be shocked how helpless the american military and economy can
be made even without using russian nukes.
There are countries still immune to the numerous american imperial diseases that are
already documented daily in zerohedge postings. The better countries still have lots of
parents telling their kids to study and work hard so they can have better lives than their
ancestors.
In oregon and california, they teach unemployable kids to burn something or somebody
sometime before dinner.
CdVision • 11 hours ago
I was about to say that what now comes out of the US & Trump's mouth in particular, is
Orwellian. But that credits it with too much gravitas. The true comparison is Alice in
Wonderland:
"Words mean whatever I want them to mean".
Reminiscence of the Future.. ( http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2020/09/russia-steals-everything.html)
Russia "Steals Everything" !! (Not just China, oops... ???!!!!)
And Jesus Christ was an American and was born in Kalamazoo, MI. It is a well-known fact. So
Donald Trump, evidently briefed by his "utterly competent and crushingly precise aids", knows
now that too! !!! LOL
> US President Donald Trump claims that Russia developed hypersonic weapons after
allegedly stealing information from the United States.
> According to him, "Russia received this information from the Obama administration,"
Moscow "stole this information." Trump said that "Russia received this information and then
created" the rocket, reports TASS.
> "We have such advanced weapons that President Xi, Putin and everyone else will envy
us. They do not know what we have, but they know that it is something that no one has ever
heard of. "
->We are the foremost and always number one. Everything is invented only by us, the
rest can only either steal, or be gifted with our developments for good behavior. This
situation is eternal, unchanging, everyone lags behind American Tikhalogii at least 50 years
(the time frame was chosen so that even a 20-year-old would lose heart, "what's the point of
trying to catch up, it won't work anyway, in my lifetime"). It was, is, and will be, this is
the natural course of events.
All this is delivered in the format of the classic Sunday sermon of the American
provincial Protestant church, coding the parishioners for further deeds and actions. And it
worked effectively, creating in some basalt confidence "we are better because we are better",
in others - "I don't mind anything for joining this radiant success, I'm ready for anything,
I'll go for any hardships and crimes, if only There".
Only now it worked. In a situation where the frequency of pronouncing such mantras is more
and more, emotions are invested in them too, but in fact everyone understands that this is
what autohypnosis does not work.
The poor have stolen from the United States, if you look at it, literally everything. And
5G and the superweapon of the gods. Moreover, a pearl with a characteristic handwriting is
not copy / paste, but move / paste, you bastards. Therefore, the United States does not even
have any traces of developments left - the guys just sit in an empty room, shrug their hands,
"here we have a farm of mechanical killer dolls, with the faces of Mickey Mouse overexposed,
and now look - traces of bast shoes and candy wrappers from "Korkunov" only, ah-ah-ah, well,
something like that, ah. "
At the same time, there are no cases of sabotage, espionage - whole projects were simply
developed, developed, brought to a working product, and then the hob - and that's it, and
disappeared. And this became noticeable only after years. And all the persons involved are
like "wow, wow."
Psychiatric crazy fool of the head, no less.
But due to the fact that all of the above theses are driven very tightly into the template
for the perception of the world, both those who voiced these theses and the listeners are
satisfied.
Because the post-American post-hegemonic world is not terrible because in some ratings
another country will be higher there, and Detroit will never be rebuilt "as it was". It is
scary because it is not clear how to live for people who had no support in the form of global
goals, faith, philosophy of life, and all this was replaced by narcissism on the basis of
"successful success is my second self".
This means that the moment when this issue has to be resolved must be delayed to the last.
Leaving the whole topic on the plane "we were offended, we are offended, we were dishonest,
which means we have the right to any action" is not a bad move.
It's a pity that it doesn't really affect the essence of what is happening.
"... Before this new outbreak, Beijing had been virus-free for nearly 60 days, meaning there were no local viruses and that this new pathogen was definitely an import (or an American export). On June 19, China's CDC experts, after intensive investigations of the Xinfadi market, announced what they termed "a groundbreaking virus tracing discovery", which was that the strain of the new virus in Beijing was the same as that in much of Europe – but much older than those in Europe, and "had been around for quite some time" – and that can mean only that it came from the US because that was the source of all the original varieties many months ago. [4] https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1192146.shtml ..."
"... For a long time, Russia had only a few infections, rising steadily by only five or ten per day, then suddenly it exploded, rising by 5,000, then 10,000 and 20,000 per day. Virus outbreaks don't normally manifest that way. The normal process upon an outbreak is a rapid acceleration in the number of infections until it peaks, as happened with all other countries. ..."
"... And on June 20, 2020, the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) revealed that they had discovered that COVID-19 was present in water samples dating back to mid-December of 2019 ..."
"... And it wasn't only Italy. Dutch researchers discovered COVID-19 RNA in a wastewater plant in the Utrecht, Netherlands, city of Amersfoort. French scientists detected "high concentrations" of COVID-19 RNA in samples of sewage water from greater Paris that were obtained before Paris first recorded any deaths. ..."
"... The Irish Mirror reported on June 19 that "many countries are beginning to use wastewater sampling to track the spread of the disease", scientists claiming these detections were "consistent with evidence emerging in other countries" that COVID-19 was circulating around the world long before China reported its first cases ..."
"... Covid's here to stay – irrespective of the fact that it has never and will never satisfy Koch's Postulates. Why? Two reasons. First, because it has proved itself to be a highly effective means of controlling first world populations. Second, because now that it's been rolled out, it'll be impossible to roll it back without waking up the normies. You don't turn off the gas before the frog's been boiled. ..."
"... The Chinese analyzed the new outbreak and determined the genome was that of a strain that existed only in the US & Europe, but not heretofore in China. The Chinese have identified many different strains of this virus, seven or more. ..."
"... This covid19 with its growing number of strains seems likely to have escaped from a lab and it is most probably a product of US ingenuity, with cleverly engineered gain of function, but to leap to the conclusion that the US has deployed this bioweapon against China and Russia goes too far. Why would the US target its own population in the process? ..."
From the date of the initial outbreak in Wuhan I watched carefully on a daily basis the
dispersion and progression of the coronavirus in China and then abroad, collecting as much data
as were available on each location. By late May of 2020, China had been infection-free for many
weeks, the concern turning to the identification and quarantine of imported cases. At the same
time, the US became once again 'the leader of the world', this time in virus infections and
deaths, producing 20,000 to 30,000 new cases and around 1,000 deaths per day. At the time,
American hostility toward China's success in stopping the virus was palpable, with many nasty
media articles and White House accusations about China's false statistics and blaming China for
"spreading the virus" to the US. CNN stated, "Chinese state media has repeatedly touted
China's effective measures in containing the virus as the number of infections and deaths
surged abroad, contrasting its success with the failures of Western governments, especially the
United States." [1]
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/15/asia/coronavirus-...x.html Clearly there was much
surprise and bitterness at China's success and America's failure, this coated in a sticky layer
of resentment based partly on a justified suspicion that the Chinese were not overly distressed
at the Americans enjoying the fruits of their own labor.
But even then I had a sense of an apparition, a version of Dickens' 'ghost of coronavirus
past', accompanied by an uncomfortable feeling the Americans were sufficiently bitter (and
vicious) to deny the Chinese their apparently easy victory. My fear was that the Americans
would try to reseed China as they did Russia, and it would seem my fears were not unjustified.
The new virus that broke out at the Xinfadi market in Beijing was a different strain than any
previously existing in China, one that existed only in the US and Europe and could only have
been brought in from the outside. And once again at a seafood market with no identifiable
patient zero, no clear epidemiology (source and distribution) of a virus that did not exist in
China. It almost had to be deliberately seeded, the odds against being infinitesimally
small.
In terms of what I am calling COVID-20 (to differentiate it from the initial outbreak),
China may have been fortunate to detect and corral this new pathogen before it could spread.
The outbreak did expand to three other provinces but in single digits and the medical
authorities have taken extreme action to prevent further spread since this variety –
which again did not exist in China and had to be seeded from another country, appears to be
much more contagious than the original COVID-19. [2]
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1191598.shtml In response, Beijing has locked down
everything and sent a group of experts to guide the fight against this new potential epidemic,
so far with good success. Nucleic acid testing has been initiated on a massive scale, already
many millions of people tested, and all those in contact with the Xinfadi market being in
quarantine. Many residential compounds in the city strictly prohibit anyone from entering or
leaving, with residents having their temperatures checked and reported on a daily basis, and
their food and daily necessities delivered. [3]
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/asia/coronavirus-beij...x.html
Before this new outbreak, Beijing had been virus-free for nearly 60 days, meaning there were
no local viruses and that this new pathogen was definitely an import (or an American export).
On June 19, China's CDC experts, after intensive investigations of the Xinfadi market,
announced what they termed "a groundbreaking virus tracing discovery", which was that the
strain of the new virus in Beijing was the same as that in much of Europe – but much
older than those in Europe, and "had been around for quite some time" – and that can mean
only that it came from the US because that was the source of all the original varieties many
months ago. [4]
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1192146.shtml
The investigators said they obtained so many positive samples that the entire market was
"severely contaminated by the virus", but also that no one should form the conclusion that the
market was the origin merely because the outbreak took place there. More importantly, they also
said "Beijing's outbreak gives us the opportunity to re-examine our previous speculation that
the virus originated from wildlife", because unlike Wuhan, "the possibility of wildlife causing
Beijing's latest outbreak is slim." Their conclusion was that "an infected individual or object
contaminated with the virus entered the wet market, and the market only gave it an environment
to multiply". [3]
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/asia/coronavirus-beij...x.html The authorities have already
produced the genome sequence and are now establishing when and how the virus was likely
imported into China, and how long was the transmission chain. There is no question this
pathogen was brought into China "by people", the question being the identity of those people
and their purpose. [5]
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202006/15/WS5ee6b33d...9.html And, what better way to "teach
those smug Chinese a lesson" and attempt to derail China's rapid economic recovery.
Russia Re-seeded
There is something equally strange about the virus in Russia. For a long time, Russia had
only a few infections, rising steadily by only five or ten per day, then suddenly it exploded,
rising by 5,000, then 10,000 and 20,000 per day. Virus outbreaks don't normally manifest that
way. The normal process upon an outbreak is a rapid acceleration in the number of infections
until it peaks, as happened with all other countries.
But with Russia, the infections were
minor for a long time, steady at very low numbers, with all the indications of an unsuccessful
epidemic, and the Russian government took strict measures to control the spread. The US
government was clearly resentful at the failure of the virus to devastate Russia and the US
media bemoaned the fact that Russia's death rate was so low.
I would be very interested to see
the genome sequences from the first infections in January and February, and for those happening
in April and May. I haven't any definitive proof, but I am certain Russia, as China, was seeded
again with another variety for a second attempt.
Virus Distribution
But to return to our main point, it isn't necessary for us to determine the physical origin
of the virus. We know the virus originated in bats; that much is confirmed, but the more
important issue is the epidemiology, particularly the incidence and distribution. First of all,
for China and most other nations originally infected, there were so many multiple and
simultaneous sources that locating a patient zero was a hopeless task. Virus outbreaks, left to
their own natural devices, do not behave in this fashion, but begin with one person in a
tightly localised situation and provably spreading from that point. Equally distressing is that
we have the truly unprecedented "two waves" of worldwide infections. For this, let's review my
observations from an earlier article [6] COVID-19 – Two
Major 'Waves' of Global Infection;
https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/05/covid-19-two-...l.html and take a quick look at
those two waves of infections that circled the globe.
The First Wave simultaneously infected 25 nations within a few days centered on January 25.
One month later, the Second Wave simultaneously infected 85 nations within a few days centered
on February 25. A natural virus hasn't the ability to simultaneously (within three days) infect
85 different countries on all continents of the world. More peculiar is that these countries
were not all infected with the same variety of the virus, and that most reported simultaneous
outbreaks in multiple locations. Considering the above information in light of the basics of
virus transmission, the only theory that fits all the known facts is that these waves resulted
from many people leaving Fort Detrick on the same day carrying a pail of different live
viruses, because those multiple varieties at the time existed only in the US. It could not
possibly have resulted from air travel because that timing would have been scattered. When 85
countries experience a virus outbreak on virtually the same day, this can happen only with
human assistance. The Americans have steadfastly refused to address this point.
Experts on biological weapons are in unanimous agreement that eruptions in a human
population of a new and unusual pathogen in multiple locations simultaneously, with no clear
idea of source and cases with no proven links, is virtually prima facie evidence of a pathogen
deliberately released, since natural outbreaks can almost always be resolved to one location
and one patient zero. But with COVID-19 (or COVID-20), not one country out of 200 has been able
to do this.
It should be firmly noted that this new infection in Beijing is not a "second wave" as
termed by the Western media. This is an entirely new and different infection by a new virus and
totally unrelated to anything prior, a strain of a new and different virus that was
deliberately carried to Beijing and flooded in the Xinfadi Market. This infection is not
related to COVID-19 but is the seeding of yet another biological pathogen in China, making that
now seven different biological attacks on China in two years. And China has suffered others
similar. One of the most notable was the H1N1 virus that caused the 1918 flu pandemic –
and which was extinct for decades – but which suddenly appeared in 1977 in both China and
Russia causing a global pandemic, prompting immediate claims by the Americans that it "escaped
from a Chinese lab". But the only sensible explanation is that the H1N1 virus 'escaped' from
the Americans because there were persistent reports that the US military had found or saved
samples of the original 'Spanish Flu' virus and were attempting to re-activate it. There was
never a shred of evidence that either China or Russia had anything to do with this, and both
were taken entirely by surprise.
It is my view that the world needs to stop pretending that COVID-19 was an accident of
nature. Consider China's recent experience. In addition to SARS – which was indisputably
man-made, China has suffered repeated viral pandemics in the past two years. February 15, 2018:
H7N4 bird flu. June, 2018: H7N9 bird flu. August, 2018: outbreak of African swine flu. May 24,
2019: massive infestation of armyworms. December, 2019: COVID-19. January, 2020: A "highly
pathogenic" strain of bird flu. June, 2020: China is hit with COVID-20. Are we to tell
ourselves it was merely a run of bad luck that China was the only nation in the world to be hit
repeatedly with so many different biological pathogens in such a short time? And merely more
'bad luck' that China became the only country in the world that was domestically virus-free and
was suddenly hit again with a foreign strain in another wet market? This assumption is too
ridiculous to bother refuting.
It is unfortunate that so much of our information today comes to us in a passive receptance
from the mass media because one result is the loss of our ability to examine information
critically and use our minds to assess the presentation. As an example, it was very clever for
the Americans to use a wet market as a distribution point for a virus and for the media to give
this point massive air time, because we instinctively associate such markets with at least a
possibility of germs and bacteria and thus passively accept the claims as true without the
necessary evidence and thus avoid using our brains as intended. Our assessment of wet markets
as unsanitary may be correct, but common germs and bacteria are a very different thing from a
coronavirus that makes its home in bats and has no business being in a vegetable market. It
isn't important for our purposes to decide if COVID-19 was created in a lab; the important
point is that a coronavirus has no means of transportation from bat caves in Sichuan to a
market in Wuhan, nor the ability to mutate itself in such a way as to be energetically
contagious to humans, and much less the conscious intelligence to choose China's largest
passenger transportation hub as the distribution point and the Eve of the Chinese New Year as
the best time to attack. For these, the coronavirus required a helping 'black hand'.
The Noose Tightens on the US
There is almost daily an increase in the volume of evidence that COVID-19 was circulating in
the US far earlier than admitted, and serving as incriminating proof that the CDC's deliberate
(and threatening) forbidding of testing was to bury this evidence. The most recent example is
headlines in the US media on June 21, 2020, stating, "Over 40 mysterious respiratory deaths in
California could dramatically rewrite narrative of COVID-19" in the US. [7]
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1192389.shtml The LA Times reported on "a cluster
of mysterious respiratory deaths" beginning in December of 2019. The local news website
www.bakersfield.com stated this meant that COVID-19 was circulating in California "way
earlier than we knew". And let's not forget too quickly that Japanese tourists were infected in
Hawaii in September of 2019.
And on June 20, 2020, the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS) revealed that they had
discovered that COVID-19 was present in water samples dating back to mid-December of 2019. The
results were confirmed by two separate labs that used two entirely different testing methods,
and also showed that environmental wastewater from Milan, Turin and Bologna returned positive
traces of the virus dating back to December if not earlier. Apparently, the RNA from COVID-19
does not readily dissolve or disintegrate in water and polymerase chain reaction testing allows
scientists to identify the RNA after many months. [8]
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronaviru...23Q1J9 [9]
https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/global/ita...5a35e3
And it wasn't only Italy. Dutch researchers discovered COVID-19 RNA in a wastewater plant in
the Utrecht, Netherlands, city of Amersfoort. French scientists detected "high concentrations"
of COVID-19 RNA in samples of sewage water from greater Paris that were obtained before Paris
first recorded any deaths.Sputnik News reported in May that a Paris hospital confirmed
it had treated Amirouche Hammar, the country's first COVID-19 patient, on December 27, 2019
– one month before France's first announcement of infections and four days before the WHO
China bureau was informed of a "pneumonia of unknown etiology" on December 31. [10]
https://sputniknews.com/europe/202006191079667103-sc...break/
The Irish Mirror reported on June 19 that "many countries are beginning to use
wastewater sampling to track the spread of the disease", scientists claiming these detections
were "consistent with evidence emerging in other countries" that COVID-19 was circulating
around the world long before China reported its first cases, all of which would of necessity
have had to have originated in the US and transported around the world. It is now beginning to
appear that many countries were seeded at approximately the same time, perhaps in their water
distribution systems. Following these discoveries, the ISS told Reuters it intends to
launch a new study of the wastewater of Italian tourist resorts. I suspect other nations will
follow.
And it would seem the NYT, WSJ, WP, CNN, ABC, NBC, National Post, Globe & Mail ,
have no knowledge of this. The Chinese and Europeans know, but the Americans and Canadians
don't know because the owners of their major newspapers and TV networks don't want them to
know.
A Brief Update
If you look at the graph (courtesy of CNN ), you can see the European infection
pattern (in pink) and the American (in green). The Europeans followed China's protocols in
varying degrees, and thus with varying degrees of success. Europe's infections peaked at around
30,000 per day then descended to around 2,000 near the end of June, while the Americans, led by
a man who is living proof that democracy is the worst possible form of government, saw their
infections peak at the same level, slightly decrease, then revert to 30,000 infections and
around 1,000 deaths per day where they will now remain until the virus surges through the
entire population. Twenty-six states are already experiencing dramatic spikes reaching new
records each day, so Trump ordered the CDC to "stop testing" because it makes him look bad.
The next graphic is a list of the top ten nations for COVID-19 infections. Missing from this
picture is a comparison I want to make about leadership and competence, to say nothing of
intelligence. Shanghai is a city only two hours from Wuhan and, when the infections exploded,
had no warning and almost no time to prepare, but acted so quickly and decisively that the city
had only 26 infections and 7 deaths. Missing from the graphic is Canada, with a population very
similar to Shanghai, and who, with months to plan and prepare, had 101,000 infections and 8,400
deaths. Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau is also living proof of democracy's vast
failings.
The Americans elected a pathetic buffoon who lives in outer space, while the Canadians
elected a bullied child so painfully unintelligent and indecisive his wife would have to tell
him to call the fire department if his house were burning down. I would include here the
Brazilians who, with excessive assistance from the Americans, elected an arrogant sociopath who
said famously, "It's not my fault. What do you want me to do about it?"
In all three countries the leaderless pandemic results are the same, with infections and
deaths likely increasing until at least the end of the year. China, with a population of more
than 1.4 billion people, had about 80,000 infections and little more than 4,000 deaths, and
stopped the virus cold in about three months. But according to the NYT, WSJ, WP, and
Canada's terminally-obnoxious National Post , the "free-market capitalist" countries are
God's first choice while "socialist authoritarian" China should incur yet more sanctions for
all its mistakes.
Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior
executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export
business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai's Fudan University, presenting case
studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is
currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be
contacted at: [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
This flu like outbreak in July '19 in VA that killed two and sent 18 to the hospital in a
nursing home in Springfield, VA, should be fully investigate, it could explain the origin of
the virus:
Springfield, VA, where this nursing home was located, is about an hour south east of Ft.
Detrick, the bioweapons lab that was shut down by CDC at around the same time after it failed
a safety inspection in June, 2019.
To think the evil geniuses that would create such nasty pathogens would not have a whole
panoply of similar bugs to release would seem naive. I suspect the future strains will only
become more virulent, thus insuring a very complacent and fearful populace for unlimited
vaccinating, microchipping and contact tracing, all to the PTB's delight and profits. Not to
mention the ease with which the American populace will have their anger, fears and
frustrations twisted into hatred for all things Chinese. How convenient!
What is currently amusing is watching how deftly the Chinese government is dealing with
these assaults, both biological and economic, and how impotent and visibly frustrated the US
powerbrokers are with the efficiency and effectiveness of the Chinese responses.
If the Chinese continue to effectively fend off the future attacks, whether they be
biological or financial/trade, one can expect that these same evil geniuses, having been
frustrated over and over, will only continue their escalations. Expect the anti-China
rhetoric from the West's political puppets and the MSM to reach fever pitch just before
things turn 'hot' in the new cold war against Chinese ascendancy. Whether it will eventually
(or inevitably) go nuclear is the real $64,000 question that leaves many of us concerned
observers awake at night ..
So what we have here, if we accept the basic discourse of this highly interesting article, is
therefore likely the following:
China got hit by various "flu weapons" and "livestock diseases" over the last twenty
years, to keep the "dirty commies" from "getting too uppity", but, not counting SARS, only
became capable of keeping an accurate tally of the different jabs and pokes over the last
five years.
At some point, the Chinese government decided that enough is enough. Their think-tanks
recommended the following strategy as the only feasible one: the next time they get seeded,
the instantly pounce on the new pathogen, and blow it out of all proportion, causing a) the
whole world to panic, and b) the whole world to start paying attention to the issue of new
and old pathogens floating around.
In this sense, the "it's just the flu bro" people are correct, meaning that this is not
really some apocalyptic plague that justifies shutting down the world. But on the other hand,
it was used by Beijing as an example to point out that this crap is happening, and that they
know it's happening, and that this game can't be played like this anymore.
In effect they "pulled a Trump". Through their bombastic overreaction, they forced the
whole world to notice and discuss the issue they wanted noticed and discussed.
So from now on, the whole world -- except the Anglospherical powers completely taken over
by the GloboHomo alliance of corporations, deep state, and baizuo (and where the heritage
white demographic replacement has gone farthest) -- will also be super careful about these
things, and evidence will begin to accumulate through this "forced crowd-sourcing".
authorities have taken extreme action to prevent further spread since this variety
– which again did not exist in China and had to be seeded from another country,
appears to be much more contagious than the original COVID-19.[2] In response
( )
Many residential compounds in the city strictly prohibit anyone from entering or leaving,
with residents having their temperatures checked and reported on a daily basis, and their
food and daily necessities delivered.[3]
So this is how the new shamdemic of COVID-20 will cement and perfect the destruction of
freedom across the world?
We will have discussion on fictious body counts and false statistics here at UR for ever more
with COVID-20, -21, -22 and so on?
This pattern makes sense, because the victory over the populace who have given up their
freedom to lead anything that can be called a life worth living is just to great to be
allowed to be ephimeral.
The total destruction of freedom only makes sense, if there is a follow up until all the
deluded hoaxers who believe that their is a life beyond feeling sick kill themselves. Then it
will be lockdowns and quarantines for ever more and families will have online celebrations
when the newborns will get their masks sealed on their seventh day on earth, before they are
handed over to the overlords.
As for this authorities conclusions: It should be known by now that when you interpret
bogus data, above all when you do so with bad intentions, you will find any conclusions that
suite your purpose. Of course, COVID-19 has been found in older samples, as by now the
testing has been so well established that they can find it anywhere. Next, they will find it
in eghiptian mumies.
This author is a management consultant. He has done missinterpreting statistics for a living
and should know how to reasonably sell bad advice.
Covid's here to stay – irrespective of the fact that it has never and will never
satisfy Koch's Postulates.
Why? Two reasons. First, because it has proved itself to be a highly effective means of
controlling first world populations. Second, because now that it's been rolled out, it'll be
impossible to roll it back without waking up the normies. You don't turn off the gas before
the frog's been boiled.
Ditto the assault on 'white privilege'. Like Covid, it's only going to get worse –
not better.
Ten citations, and three are from "The Global Times", one from "China Daily", and one is an
article penned by the author himself. Impressive scholarship, Mr Romanoff, very impressive
scholarship.
Virus outbreaks don't normally manifest that way. The normal process upon an outbreak is
a rapid acceleration in the number of infections until it peaks
Occams Razor. It's a hoax or else the virus is violating the laws of Nature.
I would include here the Brazilians who, with excessive assistance from the Americans,
elected an arrogant sociopath who said famously, "It's not my fault. What do you want me to
do about it?"
In Brazil, the Supreme Court has decided that governors don't have to obey the federal
government on local health policies. So, it really makes no difference whether the President
is Mother Theresa or Jason Voorhees. It's true that Bolsonaro tries once in a while to enact
some federal regulations, but he seems to fail every time. It's odd that you don't know that
fact, seeing as in the U.S. I hear things are quite similar. As for Brazilian governors, they
oddly don't get the same international flak as Bolsonaro does, despite many of them being
suspected of using the pandemic as an opportunity for stealing.
This kind of inexactitude immediately throws the rest of the article under heavy
suspicion. When people start spewing words like 'sociopath', it is clear to me that they have
an agenda.
It is unfortunate that so much of our information today comes to us in a passive
receptance from the mass media because one result is the loss of our ability to examine
information critically and use our minds to assess the presentation. As an example, it was
very clever for the Americans to use a wet market as a distribution point for a virus and
for the media to give this point massive air time, because we instinctively associate such
markets with at least a possibility of germs and bacteria and thus passively accept the
claims as true without the necessary evidence and thus avoid using our brains as
intended.
Rewrite: "it is unfortunate that alternative media distill their take on the news, based
on data fed into the public domain. As much as MSM do. Garbage in, garbage out. Sorting
garbage, no avail. This article is just another layer of meaningless deft. If any statement
here is true, it would be by accident.
In that, of course, it follows the enforcing of the media rule: keep a grasp on the
surplus population by manipulating the frequency and number of tainted information. All data
in the public domain are probably useless by now. All data on Covid are willfully
manipulated. The author of course knows this, and his dump is intentional. The immediate
reason, middle class making a living, book pushing, bread-writing, self-promotion, retirement
gig, no more. Summer months in the media year, another step-in. Jewish by hazard?
We know the virus originated in bats; that much is confirmed
then it'd only be fair for you to inform us of your alternate explanation, giving
convincing proof [assuming you'd have some?]
FYI there exists a bat-coronavirus genetic sequence RaTG13 which agrees with 96.2% of
Covid-19, and an even closer match in RmYN02 at 93.3% agreement. Thesis: That someone took
RaTG13 [see 1st and 3rd parts in image below; the RaTG13 spike is so far a 'best fit'] and
force-evolved it by infecting cultures of human cells in an evolution-enabling environment,
collecting any 'survivors' then repeating this process [a possible proof being the Covid-19
attack disabling victims' sense of smell, indicating 'force-evolving' in cultures of human
nerve cells]. In addition, I've seen suggested, that infecting animals with some
human-similar traits [here, ferrets with ACE2, say] could have evolved the virus to attack
via ACE2 in humans. Then, there's the *unique* inclusion of RPPA in the Covid-19 spike, both
enabling infection and that with greatly enhanced pathogenicity [compared to SARS-1, say].
rgds PS An interesting extension to some ideas in the article, is that since the virus
infections have gone global, IF it was human-made [my best tip] THEN whoever made it [=
clearly rogue-state operatives] contributed to killing 100s of 1000s, *including their own
people* ! brrr
{The Americans elected a pathetic buffoon who lives in outer space,}
He may or may not be a pathetic buffoon*, but he is smart enough to parlay inherited
wealth to become a Billionaire, he is POTUS, he lives in the White House or Mar-a-Lago with a
model-wife, and will be remembered as such long after you are forgotten.
Aside from that, who would you have Americans elect? The Hildabeast?
But it's not too late: if enough Americans lose their minds and elect The DementiaMan, we
will be subjected to the non-buffoon experience of Hildabeast 2.0.
Biden will be a near complete vegetable in a year or two, and the chosen female radical
left, Antifa (sic) ** embracing VP will run the show. America as it was founded will be no
more.
_____________________
* Lookup Scott Adams' discussions on how Trump manipulates and influences.
Scott predicted way back that Trump would be POTUS.
Note: Scott is a trained hypnotist, and recognizes classic 'tells' of hypnosis in
Trump's seemingly "buffoonish" behaviour.
** Despite their cleverly chosen moniker, these violent thugs are the real Fascists: their
behaviour and tactics are an exact copy of Mussolini's Blackshirts.
Don't viruses mutate anyway? See science direct.com ~ covid in France in December. Also an acquaintance of
mine had a horrible virus in December in England.
The Chinese analyzed the new outbreak and determined the genome was that of a strain that
existed only in the US & Europe, but not heretofore in China. The Chinese have identified
many different strains of this virus, seven or more.
But the author goes on to say later in his diatribe: " This is an entirely new and
different infection by a new virus and totally unrelated to anything prior, a strain of a new
and different virus that was deliberately carried to Beijing and flooded in the Xinfadi
Market. "
This covid19 with its growing number of strains seems likely to have escaped from a lab
and it is most probably a product of US ingenuity, with cleverly engineered gain of function,
but to leap to the conclusion that the US has deployed this bioweapon against China and
Russia goes too far. Why would the US target its own population in the process?
If, as Ron Unz speculates, this virus is a botched attack on China and other enemies by
stupid people in a stupid administration that has had unanticipated blowback hitting the US,
then these same stupid perps would not launch another such aggression!
This notion of a secret biological aggression does not hold water, but the Chinese
probably appreciate Larry Romanoff's efforts.
Where have you been? The examples of massive cheating and common reckless are
decades long. The melamine-milk scandals and falling down buildings were not merely "one-off"
but a commonplace for the Chinese themselves.
I myself have examples of deal-breaking cheating that cost them bigger opportunities, and
shake my head. Yes, they can do world class, sometimes.
We will probably never know how much has been copied. It's been so pervasive at all
scales.
With borg like eavesdropping and acquisition systems gobbling everything up, 4x our
population, with our declining high quality population, we may yet see how much they can or
can't innovate.
They have a lot of stripped assets and resources now to command impoverished Americas'
hopes and attention, against prior experiences.
Even Chinese are skeptical of anything "Made In China". Last year, in a Canadian
Tire store I saw a Chinese couple. Hubby had selected an item for possible purchase. His wife
tore into him, speaking rapidly and scornfully in Chinese. I do not understand Chinese, but
didn't need to, as she repeatedly dropped in the English phrase "Made In China", in a
sarcastic tone of voice. Hubby put the item back on the shelf and they walked away. China is
a deeply cracked culture. My friend Meng(female), who was born in China and married to a
Chinese guy, put it to me bluntly: "In China, 90% of marriages are without love".
Here's a novel solution do nothing. It works for Belarus. Some 80-year-olds die and society
goes on as usual problem solved. Spoken by someone getting closer to 80.
Jun 22, 2020 CELEBRATED SCIENTIST: '80% NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO COVID"
Named the "most influential" brain scientist of our time, Dr. Karl Friston, made waves
when he published his study mapping the real susceptibility of contracting Coronavirus. His
results are staggering and challenge the rationale for a lockdown like no other.
Jun 15, 2020 The Collapse of the COVID-1984 Narrative
Now that the major institutions pushing the COVID panic are now admitting that the virus
is not an existential threat and the lockdowns were not necessary, what does this mean for
the future of the COVID-1984 police state and the ushering in of the new "biosecurity"
paradigm?
@Mustapha
Mond In any complex, highly planned operation such as you describe, where motives of such
depth and perception are necessary, there are going to have to be real persons with real
names. You can't go on saying that "evil geniuses" at Fort Deitrich or wherever engineered
and executed so deftly these multilayered "seedings" without getting orders or authorization
from someone we all know. Is it Trump, Pompeo, Hilary, Biden, Obama or Amy Semple McPherson?
It's like the Germans and the Holocaust. You'd have to have so many evil players with
superhuman capacity to hold onto their secret motives and actions that we still can't pin
them down. I don't think there are so many such people in our stupid federal government. Even
our brave and feared John Bolton, when he reveals himself, is just an oversensitive
weeny.
This article suffers from many fundamental misunderstandings of government weenies. Those
people in Northern Virginia who are "seeding" foreign nations with new strains of virus every
sixty days on some diabolically precise motivational dynamic live in boring suburbs and fix
awful chicken on their barbecues. They drink watery beer and watch "Wheel of Fortune". Give
me a break!
@Bombercommand
If they are Chinese travellers exploring Canada and Canadian culture it would be silly of
them to buy something made in China as though it was Canadian. Your reasoning does not hold
up.
@Emslander
Hannah Arendt noted the 'banality of evil' long ago. It's pretty common, sad to say.
The military is filled with 'ordinary' people who apparently have no qualms about
murdering anyone their 'superiors' point to and say, "Kill!" They are just following orders,
after all.
The number of 'evil players' is simply staggering, whether we want to admit it or not. And
yes, they DO drink watery beer and watch "Wheel of Fortune" and have bar-b-ques. John Wayne
Gacy comes to mind immediately. Who knows who our neighbors really are, deep down inside?
As for naming names, gosh, I seem to have lost my DARPA personnel directory of evil
geniuses, and my CIA directory of same as well.
(But as for who REALLY controls things and gives the orders, I think you may have nailed
it with Sister Aimee. And she was HOT in her day, and apparently knew how to have a good
time. Hallelujah, brother ..)
@Anon So the
"flu like outbreak" skipped Frederick, Maryland, the town Fort Detrick is located in to
strike Springfield, Virginia which is very close to Washington DC, as well as not striking
other communities between Frederick, Maryland and Springfield, Virginia including Washington
DC. I like how your brain works, you should be working at The Global Times or perhaps you
already are .
Considering that you've been targeting residential area, market places, wedding dinner,
mosques, churches, you've prolly vaporised 20-30M dogs and cats, those are the lucky
ones, many more were left maimed and paralyzed.
"I would include here the Brazilians who, with excessive assistance from the Americans,
elected an arrogant sociopath who said famously, "It's not my fault. What do you want me to
do about it?""
"In Brazil, the Supreme Court has decided that governors don't have to obey the federal
government on local health policies. So, it really makes no difference whether the President
is Mother Theresa or Jason Voorhees. It's true that Bolsonaro tries once in a while to enact
some federal regulations, but he seems to fail every time. It's odd that you don't know that
fact, seeing as in the U.S. I hear things are quite similar. As for Brazilian governors, they
oddly don't get the same international flak as Bolsonaro does, despite many of them being
suspected of using the pandemic as an opportunity for stealing."
"This kind of inexactitude immediately throws the rest of the article under heavy
suspicion. When people start spewing words like 'sociopath', it is clear to me that they have
an agenda."
.
I don't normally respond to rubbish, but readers might care to look at this one because
it's a classic of dishonest misrepresentation.
First, M. Cubas quotes from the article about Bolsonaro being a sociopath. He (or she, or
it) then turns the subject to Brazilian governors not having to obey the federal government.
Who cares? Where did that come from? Relevant to what?
Then, the author is chastised for "not knowing this fact", although we have no idea if he
does or doesn't know, because this was never discussed.
M. Cubas then converts the author's supposed 'lack of knowledge' of this irrelevant bit of
information, to claim that "This kind of inexactitude immediately throws the rest of the
article under heavy suspicion." That is to say that if I fail to mention the process for
deep-frying chicken in a conversation about bridge construction, you should assume I know
nothing about deep-frying chicken, and furthermore that my failure to mention deep-frying
chicken in a conversation about bridge construction should make you suspect everything I say.
You got that?
Then, the word sociopath is 'spewed', and anyone who uses that word must have an
'agenda'.
But, with Bolsonaro in Brazil, when the man offers no leadership, trivialises a pandemic,
takes no action to protect the population, watches more than one million citizens become
infected and more than 50,000 of them die, and then says, "It's not my fault. What do you
want me to do about it?", I think we have a sociopath on our hands.
This covid19 with its growing number of strains seems likely to have escaped from a lab
and it is most probably a product of US ingenuity, with cleverly engineered gain of
function, but to leap to the conclusion that the US has deployed this bioweapon against
China and Russia goes too far. Why would the US target its own population in the
process?
To answer the last bit 1st, the rogue-state operators did not expect USA to get bitten,
due to a) already having a mild form active there, and b) SARS-CoV-1 was largely contained in
Asia (84% of all deaths in Mainland China and Hong Kong).
Note that Forster found only a few occurrences of the A-strain, closest may have been 50km
SE of Wuhan; the overwhelming majority of Chinese infections being B-strain. Now a
new-to-China strain has somehow 'arrived' in Beijing (termed 'older' in headline article).
The people who 'built' the Covid-19 causing virus = SARS-CoV-2 know exactly what they've
done, and it is my thesis that when the PRRA insert was recognised in Wuhan, that was the
moment the Chinese knew they were under attack, and the rest of the chaos ensued. Any
alleging 'scam' must explain why Russia and Iran, say, play along. rgds
The banality of evil is often not known until revisionist historians are able to make
connections post facto. In the moment people do not have enough information to make informed
decisions.
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now,
and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality --
judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can
study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you,
will be left to just study what we do."
For example, during the French Revolution most of the participants had no idea of what a
Jacobian was.
Or, during the Bolshevik Revolution, most participants had no idea of who Kuhn and Loeb
was.
Or, before WW1 was the machinations of the Milner Group known?
Or, before WW2, the machinations of Zionists to get Balfour.
Or, how Focus group had gotten to Churchill with loans.
Why the evil? It is usually hidden string pullers who are afraid of losing their vaunted
position in ruling hierarchy. They may actually think they are doing good, because doing good
is defined as "what is good for me, or my in-group."
@Nikola
Zrinski The ADL and SPLC always raise funds by paying people, virtually all of them Jews,
to write or orate things like your comment. They then send the 'anti-Semitic' outburst to the
hordes of gullible Jews and white liberals and ask for money that is required to fight
anti-Semitism.
If we or the Chinese are going to stop this we're going to have to get rid of the
Jews. The Jews are the only people that profit from this. If this or one of their other
viruses kills one of your family then the Jews have directly killed your family.
A vast amount of the problems we have could be sewed up in very quick order if we got rid
of the Jews.
@mike99588
I'm not keen on a lot of stuff from China, but your comment lacks perspective.
What happened with the melamine milk scandal that killed 6 and damaged approximately 300k?
The perp was tried and executed. What has happened in the US with oxyContin which has caused
tens of thousands of deaths and ruined up to a million more? Nothing of consequence. The lead
paint in/on Marx toys? China – people responsible committed suicide knowing they would
be executed. US – Gee we didn't know, why would we test products to ensure they were
being made properly?
China today is where Japan was in the late 60s and Korea in the late 80s. Huge capacity
not so good quality. Japanese and Korean cars used to be crap, now they are the most
reliable. US cars used to be the most reliable, now they are crap. The same goes for
electronics and even washing machines today.
China will only get better, just as the Japanese and Koreans did. The orientals have a better
sense of "the whole" of the population benefiting. The US, and most of (((the West))) lost
that concept long ago.
With the 24/7 media circus coverage of Covid-19 I find it particularly interesting that
there is an obvious glaring omission of some extremely important facts relative to dealing with
a virus, especially one that is allegedly so virulent like this one. Yes, I read all about the
critical need to shelter in place, stay inside away from other people, wash your hands
constantly, avoid touching your eyes, nose or mouth, wear your face mask and by all means
observe social distancing if you MUST venture outside for food!
Then it's repeated ad infinitum that the ONLY hope we have of ever returning to a semblance
of normalcy is to have a vaccine to protect us! Then to add some drama to this narrative the
media highlights their death-o-meter scoreboard with the implied threat that you'll be next IF
you don't obey the rules as dictated by the "experts".
But what is assiduously avoided at all cost is any reference to our most potent defense
against any virus; our body's natural immune system. Try as I might I couldn't find anything
about this first line of defense on the World Health Organizations (WHO) website or Centers for
Disease Control (CDC) website. It's as if it doesn't exist and is completely irrelevant.
If these organizations were genuinely concerned about the health of citizens they would
obviously discuss the vital role a healthy immune system plays in protecting us from illnesses.
But since they don't its obvious some other motive is at work, at least to me, and I strongly
suspect to other critical thinkers as well.
We now know from the science and data that over 90% of the people exposed to Covid-19 have
no symptoms at all or at worst a mild cold. The flu vaccines we have are only effective 30% to
60% of the time and the bugs change regularly so a vaccine that worked OK last year may barely
work at all this year. Let's learn some more about our body's immune system.
Virus
protection without a vaccine
There is an enlightening article on Web MD titled: "How to use Your Immune System to Stay
Healthy". That's a pretty straight forward title now isn't it? Early on Bruce Polsky, MD,
interim chairman department of medicine and chief division of infectious disease at St.
Lukes-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York City says:
"We are endowed with a great immune system that has been designed evolutionarily to keep
us healthy."
The article goes on. . .
"The immune system is your body's natural defense system. It's an intricate network of
cells, tissues and organs that band together to defend your body against invaders. Those
invaders can include bacteria, viruses, parasites, even fungus, all with the potential to
make us sick. They are everywhere-in our homes, offices and backyards. . . "
The truth is no amount of social distancing, hand washing or face mask wearing is going to
eliminate our exposure to these various bugs. That's why we were created with this amazing
first line of natural defense.
Here's more from Web MD . . .
"The immune system can recognize millions of different antigens. And it can produce what
it needs to eradicate nearly all of them. When it's working properly, this elaborate defense
system can keep health problems ranging from cancer to the common cold at bay. . . "
Wow! That's pretty amazing stuff isn't it! According to Web MD a properly functioning immune
system can "keep health problems ranging from cancer to the common cold at bay." So why isn't
this "science" being included in all the other health recommendations we're being bombarded
with daily? It seems to me that any "expert" worth their salt would be talking about the
importance of a healthy immune system to stay healthy.
But there's more . . .
The Web MD article noted that failure to eat a healthy diet, sitting around not exercising,
not getting enough sleep and chronic stress can all lead to a compromised immune system. To
quote Dr. Polsky again:
". . . Lifestyle aspects are very, very important."
So if our lifestyle is very, very important to staying healthy as the good doctor says ask
yourself this question? Based on the Web M.D. article virtually all the results of the lockdown
serve to weaken our immune systems. The stress of unemployment, constant harping about
infections and rising death rates, lack of exercise and now a crack in our food distribution
system all are known to weaken the human immune system.
I also find it quite interesting that large groups of people can shop at Walmart, Home Depot
or other big box stores but they can't attend their local church even if it's a "drive through"
service?
Web M.D. says:
"Research shows that people with close friendships and strong support systems tend to be
healthier than those who lack such supports."
During times of crisis people need encouragement and their faith built up more than ever
before. Mandating people huddle in fear in their homes with constant media reports of
infections and death bombarding them continually is there any wonder peoples immune systems are
under severe stress?
Dangerous pathogens are captured in the wild and made deadlier in government biowarfare labs. Did that happen here?
There has been no scientific finding that the novel coronavirus was bioengineered, but its origins are not entirely clear. Deadly
pathogens discovered in the wild are sometimes studied in labs – and sometimes made more dangerous. That possibility, and other plausible
scenarios, have been incorrectly dismissed in remarks by some scientists and government officials, and in the coverage of most major
media outlets.
Regardless of the source of this pandemic, there is considerable documentation that a global biological arms race going on outside
of public view could produce even more deadly pandemics in the future.
While much of the media and political establishment have minimized the threat from such lab work, some hawks on the American right
like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark ., have singled out Chinese biodefense researchers as uniquely dangerous.
The current dynamics of the biological arms race have been driven by US government decisions that extend back decades. In December
2009, Reuters
reported that the Obama administration was refusing even to negotiate the possible monitoring of biological weapons.
Much of the left in the US now appears unwilling to scrutinize the origin of the pandemic – or the wider issue of biowarfare –
perhaps because portions of the anti-Chinese right have been so vocal in making unfounded allegations.
Governments that participate in such biological weapon research generally distinguish between "biowarfare" and "biodefense,"
as if to paint such "defense" programs as necessary. But this is rhetorical sleight-of-hand; the two concepts are largely indistinguishable.
"Biodefense" implies tacit biowarfare, breeding more dangerous pathogens for the alleged purpose of finding a way to fight
them. While this work appears to have succeeded in creating deadly and infectious agents, including deadlier flu strains, such "defense"
research is impotent in its ability to defend us from this pandemic.
The legal scholar who drafted the main US law on the subject, Francis Boyle, warned in his 2005 book "
Biowarfare and Terrorism " that an "illegal biological arms
race with potentially catastrophic consequences" was underway, largely driven by the US government.
For years,
many scientists have raised concerns regarding bioweapons/biodefense lab work, and specifically about the fact that huge increases
in funding have taken place since 9/11. This was especially true after the anthrax-by-mail attacks that killed five people in the
weeks after 9/11, which the FBI ultimately blamed on a US government biodefense scientist. A 2013 study found that biodefense funding
since 2001 had totaled at least $78 billion
, and more has surely been spent since then. This has led to a
proliferation of laboratories , scientists and new organisms,
effectively setting off a biological arms race.
Following the Ebola outbreak in west Africa in 2014, the US government
paused
funding for what are known as "gain-of-function" research on certain organisms. This work actually seeks to make deadly pathogens
deadlier, in some cases making pathogens airborne that previously were not. With little notice outside the field,
the pause on such research was lifted
in late 2017 .
During this pause, exceptions for funding were made for dangerous gain-of-function lab work. This included work jointly done by
US scientists from the University of North Carolina, Harvard and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This work – which had funding from
USAID and EcoHealth Alliance not originally acknowledged – was published in
2015 in Nature Medicine .
A different Nature Medicine article about the origin of the current pandemic, authored by five scientists and
published on March 17, has been touted by major media
outlet and some officials – including current National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins – as definitively disproving
a lab origin for the novel coronavirus. That journal article, titled "The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2," stated unequivocally: "Our
analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus." This is a subtly misleading
sentence. While the scientists state that there is no known laboratory "signature" in the SARS-Cov-2 RNA, their argument fails to
take account of other lab methods that could have created coronavirus mutations without leaving such a signature.
Indeed, there is also the question of conflict of interest in the Nature Medicine article. Some of the authors of that article,
as well as a February 2020
Lancet letter condemning
"conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin" – which seemed calculated to minimize outside scrutiny
of biodefense lab work – have troubling ties to the biodefense complex, as well as to the US government. Notably, neither of these
articles makes clear that a virus can have a natural origin and then be captured and studied in a controlled laboratory setting before
being let loose, either intentionally or accidentally – which is clearly a possibility in the case of the coronavirus.
Facts as "rumors"
This reporter raised questions about the subject at a news conference with a Center for Disease Control (CDC) representative
at the now-shuttered National Press Club on Feb. 11. I asked if it was a "complete coincidence" that the pandemic had started in
Wuhan, the only place in China with a declared biosafety level 4 (BSL4) laboratory. BSL4 laboratories have the most stringent safety
mechanisms, but handle the most deadly pathogens. As I mentioned, it was odd that the ostensible origin of the novel coronavirus
was bat caves in Yunnan province – more than 1,000 miles from Wuhan. I noted that "gain-of-function" lab work can results in more
deadly pathogens, and that major labs, including
some in the US, have had accidental releases .
CDC Principal Deputy Director Anne Schuchat said that based on the information she had seen, the virus was of "zoonotic origin."
She also stated, regarding gain-of-function lab work, that it is important to "protect researchers and their laboratory workers as
well as the community around them and that we use science for the benefit of people."
I followed up by asking whether an alleged natural origin did not preclude the possibility that this virus came through
a lab, since a lab could have acquired a bat virus and been working on it. Schuchat replied to the assembled journalists that "it
is very common for rumors to emerge that can take on life of their own," but did not directly answer the question. She noted that
in the 2014 Ebola outbreak some observers had pointed to nearby labs as the possible cause, claiming this "was a key rumor that had
to be overcome in order to help control the outbreak." She reiterated: "So based on everything that I know right now, I can tell
you the circumstances of the origin really look like animals-to-human. But your question, I heard."
This is no rumor. It's a fact: Labs work with dangerous pathogens. The US and China each have dual-use biowarfare/biodefense programs.
China has major facilities at Wuhan – a biosafety level 4 lab and a biosafety level 2 lab. There are leaks from labs. (See "
Preventing a Biological Arms Race ,"
MIT Press, 1990, edited by Susan Wright; also, a partial review in
Journal of International Law from October 1992.)
Much of the discussion of this deadly serious subject is marred with snark that avoids or dodges the "gain-of-function" question.
ABC
ran a story on March 27 titled "Sorry, Conspiracy Theorists. Study Concludes COVID-19 'Is Not a Laboratory Construct.'" That
story did not address the possibility that the virus could have been found in the wild, studied in a lab and then released.
On March 21, USA Today
published a piece headlined "Fact Check: Did the Coronavirus Originate In a Chinese Laboratory?" – and rated it "FALSE."
That USA Today story relied on the Washington Post, which published a widely cited article on
Feb. 17 headlined,
"Tom Cotton keeps repeating a coronavirus conspiracy theory that was already debunked." That article quoted public comments from
Rutgers University professor of chemical biology Richard Ebright, but out of context and only in part. Specifically, the story quoted
from Ebright's tweet that the coronavirus was not an "engineered bioweapon." In fact, his full quote included the clarification that
the virus could have " entered human population
through lab accident ." (An email requesting clarification sent to Post reporter Paulina Firozi was met with silence.)
Bioengineered ≠ From a lab
Other pieces in the Post since then (
some heavily sourced to
US government officials ) have conveyed Ebright's thinking, but it gets worse. In a private exchange, Ebright – who, again, has
said clearly that the novel coronavirus was not technically bioengineered using known coronavirus sequences – stated that other forms
of lab manipulation could have been responsible for the current pandemic. This runs counter to much reporting, which is perhaps too
scientifically illiterate to perceive the difference.
The genome sequence of SARS-CoV-2 has no signatures of human manipulation.
This rules out the kinds of gain-of-function (GoF) research that leave signatures of human manipulation in genome sequences
(e.g., use of recombinant DNA methods to construct chimeric viruses), but does not rule out kinds of GoF research that do not leave
signatures (e.g., serial passage in animals). [emphasis added]
Very easy to imagine the equivalent of the Fouchier's "10 passages in ferrets" with H5N1 influenza virus, but, in this case,
with 10 passages in non-human primates with bat coronavirus RaTG13 or bat coronavirus KP876546.
That last paragraph is very important. It refers to virologist Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, who performed
research on intentionally increasing rates of viral mutation rate by spreading a virus from one animal to another in a sequence.
The New York Times wrote about this in an
editorial in January 2012,
warning of "An Engineered Doomsday."
"Now scientists financed by the National Institutes of Health" have created a "virus that could kill tens or hundreds of millions
of people" if it escaped confinement, the Times wrote. The story continued:
Working with ferrets, the animal that is most like humans in responding to influenza, the researchers found that a mere five
genetic mutations allowed the virus to spread through the air from one ferret to another while maintaining its lethality. A separate
study at the University of Wisconsin, about which little is known publicly, produced a virus that is thought to be less virulent.
The word "engineering" in the New York Times headline is technically incorrect, since passing a virus through animals is
not "genetic engineering." This same distinction has hindered some from understanding the possible origins of the current pandemic.
Fouchier's flu work, in which an H5N1 virus was made more virulent by transmitting it repeatedly between individual ferrets, briefly
sent shockwaves through the media. "Locked up in the bowels of the medical faculty building here and accessible to only a handful
of scientists lies a man-made flu virus that could change world history if it were ever set free," wrote Science magazine
in 2011 in a
story
titled "Scientists Brace for Media Storm Around Controversial Flu Studies." It continues:
The virus is an H5N1 avian influenza strain that has been genetically altered and is now easily transmissible between ferrets,
the animals that most closely mimic the human response to flu. Scientists believe it's likely that the pathogen, if it emerged in
nature or were released, would trigger an influenza pandemic, quite possibly with many millions of deaths.
In a 17th floor office in the same building, virologist Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center calmly explains why his team
created what he says is "probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make" – and why he wants to publish a paper describing
how they did it. Fouchier is also bracing for a media storm. After he talked to ScienceInsider yesterday, he had an appointment
with an institutional press officer to chart a communication strategy.
Fouchier's paper is one of two studies that have triggered an intense debate about the limits of scientific freedom and that
could portend changes in the way U.S. researchers handle so-called dual-use research: studies that have a potential public health
benefit but could also be useful for nefarious purposes like biowarfare or bioterrorism.
Despite objections, Fouchier's article was published by Science
in June 2012 . Titled "Airborne Transmission
of Influenza A/H5N1 Virus Between Ferrets," it summarized how Fouchier's research team made the pathogen more virulent:
Highly pathogenic avian influenza A/H5N1 virus can cause morbidity and mortality in humans but thus far has not acquired the
ability to be transmitted by aerosol or respiratory droplet ("airborne transmission") between humans. To address the concern that
the virus could acquire this ability under natural conditions, we genetically modified A/H5N1 virus by site-directed mutagenesis
and subsequent serial passage in ferrets. The genetically modified A/H5N1 virus acquired mutations during passage in ferrets, ultimately
becoming airborne transmissible in ferrets.
In other words, Fouchier's research took a flu virus that did not exhibit airborne transmission, then infected a number
of ferrets until it mutated to the point that it was transmissible by air.
In that same year, 2012, a similar study by Yoshihiro
Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin was published in Nature :
Highly pathogenic avian H5N1 influenza A viruses occasionally infect humans, but currently do not transmit efficiently among
humans. Here we assess the molecular changes that would allow a virus to be transmissible among mammals. We identified a virus with
four mutations and the remaining seven gene segments from a 2009 pandemic H1N1 virus – that was capable of droplet transmission in
a ferret model.
Recent experiments that create novel, highly virulent and transmissible pathogens against which there is no human immunity
are unethical they impose a risk of accidental and deliberate release that, if it led to extensive spread of the new agent, could
cost many lives. While such a release is unlikely in a specific laboratory conducting research under strict biosafety procedures,
even a low likelihood should be taken seriously, given the scale of destruction if such an unlikely event were to occur. Furthermore,
the likelihood of risk is multiplied as the number of laboratories conducting such research increases around the globe.
Given this risk, ethical principles, such as those embodied in the
Nuremberg Code , dictate that such experiments would be
permissible only if they provide humanitarian benefits commensurate with the risk, and if these benefits cannot be achieved by less
risky means.
We argue that the two main benefits claimed for these experiments – improved vaccine design and improved interpretation of
surveillance – are unlikely to be achieved by the creation of potential pandemic pathogens (PPP), often termed "gain-of-function"
(GOF) experiments.
There may be a widespread notion that there is scientific consensus that the pandemic did not come out of a lab. But in fact many
of the most knowledgeable scientists in the field are notably silent. This includes Lipsitch at Harvard, Jonathan A. King at MIT
and many others.
Just last year, Lynn Klotz of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation wrote a
paper
in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists entitled "Human Error in High-biocontainment Labs: A Likely Pandemic Threat." Wrote
Klotz:
Incidents causing potential exposures to pathogens occur frequently in the high security laboratories often known by their
acronyms, BSL3 (Biosafety Level 3) and BSL4. Lab incidents that lead to undetected or unreported laboratory-acquired infections can
lead to the release of a disease into the community outside the lab; lab workers with such infections will leave work carrying the
pathogen with them. If the agent involved were a potential pandemic pathogen, such a community release could lead to a worldwide
pandemic with many fatalities. Of greatest concern is a release of a lab-created, mammalian-airborne-
transmissible, highly pathogenic avian influenza virus, such as the airborne-transmissible H5N1 viruses created in the laboratories
of Ron Fouchier in the Netherlands and Yoshihiro Kawaoka in Madison, Wisconsin.
"Crazy, dangerous"
Boyle, a professor of international
law at the University of Illinois , has condemned Fouchier, Kawaoka and others – including at least one of the authors of the
recent Nature Medicine article in the strongest terms, calling such work a "criminal enterprise." While Boyle has been embroiled
in numerous controversies, he's been especially dismissed by many on this issue. The "fact-checking" website
Snopes has described him as "a lawyer with
no formal training in virology" – without noting that he wrote the relevant U.S. law.
The law Boyle drafted states: "Whoever knowingly develops, produces, stockpiles, transfers, acquires, retains, or possesses any
biological agent, toxin, or delivery system for use as a weapon, or knowingly assists a foreign state or any organization to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both. There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction
over an offense under this section committed by or against a national of the United States."
Boyle also warned:
Russia and China have undoubtedly reached the same conclusions I have derived from the same open and public sources, and have
responded in kind. So what the world now witnesses is an all-out offensive biological warfare arms race among the major military
powers of the world: United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, inter alia.
We have reconstructed the Offensive Biological Warfare Industry that we had deployed in this county before its prohibition
by the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, described by Seymour Hersh in his groundbreaking expose "
Chemical
and Biological Warfare: America's Hidden Arsenal ." (1968)
Boyle now states that he has been "blackballed" in the media on this issue, despite his having written the relevant statute. The
group he worked with on the law, the Council for Responsible Genetics, went under several years ago, making Boyle's views against
"biodefense" even more marginal as government money for dual use work poured into the field and critics within the scientific community
have fallen silent. In turn, his denunciations have grown more sweeping.
In the 1990 book " Preventing a Biological
Arms Race ," scholar Susan Wright argued that current laws regarding bioweapons were insufficient, as there were "projects in
which offensive and defensive aspects can be distinguished only by claimed motive." Boyle notes, correctly, that current law he drafted
does not make an exception for "defensive" work, but only for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes."
While Boyle is particularly vociferous in his condemnations, he is not alone. There has been irregular, but occasional media attention
to this threat. The Guardian ran a piece in 2014, "
Scientists
condemn 'crazy, dangerous' creation of deadly airborne flu virus ," after Kawaoka created a life-threatening virus that "closely
resembles the 1918 Spanish flu strain that killed an estimated 50m people":
"The work they are doing is absolutely crazy. The whole thing is exceedingly dangerous," said Lord May, the former president
of the Royal Society and one time chief science adviser to the UK government. "Yes, there is a danger, but it's not arising from
the viruses out there in the animals, it's arising from the labs of grossly ambitious people."
Boyle's
charges
beginning early this year that the coronavirus was bioengineered – allegations recently mirrored by French virologist and
Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier – have not been corroborated by any publicly produced findings of any US scientist. Boyle even
charges that scientists like Ebright, who is at Rutgers, are compromised because the university got a
biosafety level
3 lab in 2017 – though Ebright is perhaps the most vocal eminent critic of this research, among US scientists. These and other
controversies aside, Boyle's concerns about the dangers of biowarfare are legitimate; indeed, Ebright shares them.
Some of the most vocal voices to discuss the origins of the novel coronavirus have been eager to minimize the dangers of lab work,
or have focused almost exclusively on "wet markets" or "exotic" animals as the likely cause.
The media celebrated Laurie Garrett, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author and former senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations,
when she declared on Twitter on March 3 (in a since-deleted tweet) that the origin of the pandemic was discovered: "It's pangolins.
#COVID19 Researchers studied lung tissue from 12 of the scaled mammals that were illegally trafficked in Asia and found #SARSCoV2
in 3. The animals were found in Guangxi, China. Another virus+ smuggled sample found in Guangzhou."
She was swiftly corrected by Ebright:
"Arrant nonsense. Did you even read the paper? Reported pangolin coronavirus is not SARS-CoV-2 and is not even particularly close
to SARS-CoV-2. Bat coronavirus RaTG13 is much closer to SARS-CoV-2 (96.2% identical) than reported pangolin coronavirus (92.4% identical)."
He added: "No reason to invoke pangolin as intermediate. When A is much closer than B to C, in the absence of additional data, there
is no rational basis to favor pathway A>B>C over pathway A>C." When someone asked what Garrett was saying, Ebright
responded : "She is saying she is scientifically
illiterate."
The following day, Garrett corrected herself (
without acknowledging Ebright ): "I blew
it on the #Pangolins paper, & then took a few hours break from Twitter. It did NOT prove the species = source of #SARSCoV2. There's
a torrent of critique now, deservedly denouncing me & my posting. A lot of the critique is super-informative so leaving it all up
4 while."
At least one Chinese government official has
responded to the allegation that the labs in Wuhan could be the source for the pandemic by alleging that perhaps the US is responsible
instead. In American mainstream media, that has been reflexively treated as even
more ridiculous
than the original allegation that the virus could have come from a lab.
Obviously the Chinese government's allegations should not be taken at face value, but neither should US government claims – especially
considering that US government labs were the apparent source for the
anthrax attacks in 2001 . Those attacks sent panic through
the US and shut down Congress, allowing the Bush administration to enact the
PATRIOT Act and ramp up the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, in October 2001, media darlings like
Richard Butler and
Andrew Sullivan propagandized for war
with Iraq because of the anthrax attacks. (Neither Iraq nor al-Qaida was involved.)
The 2001 anthrax attacks also provided much of the pretext for the surge in biolab spending since then, even though they apparently
originated in a US or U.S.-allied lab. Indeed, those attacks remain
shrouded in
mystery .
The US government has also come up with elaborate cover stories to distract from its bioweapons work. For instance, the US government
infamously claimed the 1953 death of Frank Olson, a scientist at Fort Detrick, Maryland, was an
LSD experiment gone wrong; it now appears to have been an execution to cover up for US biological warfare.
Regardless of the cause of the current pandemic, these biowarfare/biodefense labs need far more scrutiny. The call to shut them
down by Boyle and others needs to be clearly heard – and light must be shone on precisely what research is being conducted.
The secrecy of these labs may prevent us ever knowing with certainty the origins of the current pandemic. What we do know is this
kind of lab work comes with real dangers. One might make a comparison to climate change: We cannot attribute an individual hurricane
to man-made climate disruption, yet science tells us that human activity makes stronger hurricanes more likely. That brings us back
to the imperative to cease the kinds of activities that produce such dangers in the first place.
If that doesn't happen, the people of the planet will be at the mercy of the machinations and mistakes of state actors who are
playing with fire for their geopolitical interests.
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.
Pat Lang says: April 8, 2021 at 9:54 pm
Ishmael Zechariah says: April 8, 2021 at 10:50 pm
Walrus says: April 8, 2021 at 11:22 pm
Thomas says: April 9, 2021 at 8:08 pm
Andrei Martyanov says: April 9, 2021 at 12:42 am
Peter Reichard says: April 9, 2021 at 6:28 am
john kliss says: April 9, 2021 at 6:35 am
JohninMK says: April 9, 2021 at 7:09 am
BillWade says: April 9, 2021 at 7:51 am
jonst says: April 9, 2021 at 8:34 am
Yeah, Right says: April 9, 2021 at 7:58 pm
jon stanley says: April 10, 2021 at 9:49 am
Seamus Padraig says: April 9, 2021 at 8:38 am
Terence Reeves-Smyth says: April 9, 2021 at 12:52 pm
Some Dude says: April 9, 2021 at 9:11 am
Per/Norway says: April 9, 2021 at 5:39 pm
phodges says: April 9, 2021 at 6:42 pm
J says: April 9, 2021 at 10:20 am
Ed Lindgren says: April 9, 2021 at 11:57 am
Patrick Armstrong says: April 9, 2021 at 4:15 pm
Deap says: April 9, 2021 at 7:32 pm
Eol says: April 10, 2021 at 3:20 pm
English Outsider says: April 12, 2021 at 10:08 am
@Dwaine.Castle852 2 hours ago
READ MORE: With no sign of US returning to fold, Russia is preparing to withdraw from
'Open Skies' treaty - Foreign Ministry
Putin says American presence in Afghanistan is beneficial to Moscow's interests, rubbishes
claims of 'Russian bounties to Taliban'
Eric Zuesse
December 8, 2020 © Photo: REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
Victoria Nuland is shown greeting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in 2015. © Reuters
/ Mikhail Palinchak 9 Follow RT on 
US foreign aid agencies paid for Kiev street violence - ex-US agent Scott Rickard
FILE PHOTO. Victoria Nuland during her visit in Kiev, Ukraine. ©Serg Glovny / Global Look
Press 81 Follow RT on 
© Sputnik / Russian Foreign Ministry 22 Follow RT on 
When in Russia Get yourself a dose of Sputnik V, Foreign Ministry tells US envoy who asked
Santa for VACCINE
Trump won, regardless of the election outcome because Trumpism is here to stay
Joe Biden and MIchele Flournoy © Reuters / Jonathan Ernst and Yuri Gripas 705 1 Follow RT
on 
© REUTERS/Yara Nardi 128 1 Follow RT on 
Trump's Pentagon shuffle suggests either no more wars or just one with Iran
Print
Rudy Giuliani speaks to reporters in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 7, 2020 ©
Reuters / Eduardo Munoz 476 Follow RT on 
Trump was a symptom of American decline that Biden is unlikely to reverse
Caitlin Johnstone: Don't fool yourself, your Biden vote was not a 'vote against fascism'
MOHAMED AL-SAYAGHI / REUTERS
MANDEL NGAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
