That's something new and pretty Orwelian : computerized score of "political correctness" made similar
for FICO score and based on data about you in social media.
Notable quotes:
"... Among the things that will hurt a citizen's score are posting political opinions without prior
permission, or posting information that the regime does not like, such as about the Tiananmen Square
massacre that the government carried out to hold on to power, or the Shanghai stock market collapse.
..."
"... "Imagine the social pressure against disobedience or dissent that this will create." ..."
"... "very ambitious in scope, including scrutinizing individual behavior and what books people
read. It's Amazon's consumer tracking with an Orwellian political twist." ..."
"... "Coming soon to a New World Order near you: social credit! Earn points by behaving like the
government wants you to behave! Get penalized if you don't act like a doubleplusgood citizen! What could
be more fun?" ..."
"... Applying for a passport? Buy my book and learn how to boost your patriotism score by 400 points
in 6 months! We can even give you a spambot to do the work for you! ..."
"... At this point, any good developer can write a program that reads Twitter/Facebook/Renren/WeChat
feeds, gives the posts to IBM's Watson (or some simpler algorithm), and have the program spit out a
score. And this program would take at most a month to make. I know, I write similar stuff ;) ..."
"... What scares me is how the initial assumptions that go into querying data can give you radically
different results at the end, and these intelligence agencies do not exactly explain what methods they
are using to determine who is a 'bad guy.' ..."
"... Patriot Points. ..."
"... The article has taken some real, some proposed and some imaginary credit tracking programs
and smushed them into one 'terrifying', freedom-destroying blob. In other words, it's irresponsible
b.s. intended to make the Chinese government look even more diabolical and oppressive than our own.
..."
"... The underlying cultural truth, though, is that Chinese are willing to cooperate with – and
trust – their government much more than we are. They've always respected and looked up to their national
leaders and expected those leaders to actually lead – morally and practically. It works for them, as
we see. ..."
"... Digital will end up being our worse nightmare and our undoing. It is the Perfect tool for the
crazed sociopaths around us and the insane psychopaths that want to control our every breath (literally).
..."
"... The social networks are piped right into governments security complex. ..."
As if further proof were needed Orwell's dystopia is now upon us, China has now gamified obedience
to the State. Though that is every bit as creepily terrifying as it sounds, citizens may still choose
whether or not they wish to opt-in - that is, until the program becomes compulsory in 2020. "Going
under the innocuous name of 'Sesame Credit,' China has created a score for how good a citizen you
are," explains Extra Credits' video about the program. "The owners of China's largest social networks
have partnered with the government to create something akin to the U.S. credit score - but, instead
of measuring how regularly you pay your bills, it measures how obediently you follow the party line."
Zheping Huang, a reporter for Quartz, chronicled his own experience with the social control
tool in October,
saying that
"in the past few weeks I began to notice a mysterious new trend. Numbers were popping up
on my social media feeds as my friends and strangers on Weibo [the Chinese equivalent to Twitter]
and WeChat began to share their 'Sesame Credit scores.' The score is created by Ant Financial,
an Alibaba-affiliated company that also runs Alipay, China's popular third-party payment app with
over 350 million users. Ant Financial claims that it evaluates one's purchasing and spending habits
in order to derive a figure that shows how creditworthy someone is."
"The government wants to build a platform that leverages things like big data, mobile internet,
and cloud computing to measure and evaluate different levels of people's lives in order to create
a gamified nudging for people to behave better."
While Sesame Credit's roll-out in January has been downplayed by many, the American Civil Liberties
Union, among
others,
urges caution, saying:
"The system is run by two companies, Alibaba and Tencent, which run all the social networks
in China and therefore have access to a vast amount of data about people's social ties and activities
and what they say. In addition to measuring your ability to pay, as in the United States, the
scores serve as a measure of political compliance.
Among the things that will hurt a citizen's score are posting political opinions without
prior permission, or posting information that the regime does not like, such as about the Tiananmen
Square massacre that the government carried out to hold on to power, or the Shanghai stock market
collapse. It will hurt your score not only if you do these things, but if any of your
friends do them."
And, in what appears likely the goal of the entire program, added, "Imagine the social
pressure against disobedience or dissent that this will create."
Social pressure, of course, can be highly effective given the right circumstances. China seems
to have found exactly that in the intricate linking of people's scores to their contacts,
which can be seen publicly by anyone - and then upping the ante through score-based incentives and
rewards. Rick Falkvinge
pointed out a startling comparison:
"The KGB and the Stasi's method of preventing dissent from taking hold was to plant so-called
agents provocateurs in the general population, people who tried to make people agree with dissent,
but who actually were arresting them as soon as they agreed with such dissent. As a result, nobody
would dare agree that the government did anything bad, and this was very effective in preventing
any large-scale resistance from taking hold. The Chinese way here is much more subtle, but probably
more effective still."
As Creemers
described to Dutch news outlet, de Volkskrant,
"With the help of the latest internet technologies, the government wants to exercise individual
surveillance. The Chinese aim […] is clearly an attempt to create a new citizen."
Chinese internet specialist at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Johan Lagerkvist,
said the system is
"very ambitious in scope, including scrutinizing individual behavior and what books people
read. It's Amazon's consumer tracking with an Orwellian political twist."
James Corbett has been tracking the implementation of Sesame Credit for some time. Introducing
the ubiquitous tracking system for a
recent episode of the Corbett Report, he mused:
"Coming soon to a New World Order near you: social credit! Earn points by behaving like
the government wants you to behave! Get penalized if you don't act like a doubleplusgood citizen!
What could be more fun?"
Indeed, because mandatory enrollment in Sesame Credit is still a few years away, its true
effectiveness won't be measurable for some time. But even a reporter's usual wariness appears
knocked off-kilter, as Zheping Huang summarized his personal experience,
"Even if my crappy credit score doesn't mean much now, it's in my best interest I suppose
to make sure it doesn't go too low."
And that, of course, is precisely why gamifying State obedience is so terrifying.
Cornfedbloodstool
We just have FICO scores in the US, that measures how obidient you are to the banks, the true
rulers of the country.
ToSoft4Truth
And Facebook 'Likes'. Can't get laid without the Likes, man.
CAPT DRAKE
It is already here. There is a thing called an "NSA Score", based on your habits, contacts,
and email/posts. Fortunately, porn surfing, even addiction, is not a negative. Only anti state
stuff counts, and no, most of the posts on ZH don't count as they are seen as venting and not
actionable intel.
knukles
I love Big Brother...
Miffed Microbiologist
"The children and adults, including his own parents, tiptoe nervously around him, constantly
telling him how everything he does is "good," since displeasing him can get them wished away into
a mystical "cornfield", an unknown place, from which there is no return. At one point, a dog is
heard barking angrily. Anthony thinks the dog is "bad" and doesn't "like [him] at all," and wishes
it into the cornfield. His father and mother are horrified, but they dare not show it."
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
Miffed
Old Poor Richard
You beat me to it on FICO score. If you're off the grid, out of the electronic money system
or not paying sufficient fealty to banksters, you are NOT being obedient to the state.
NoDebt
I'm as off the grid as you can get and still live a middle class lifestyle with electricity
and a cell phone. I assure you they still score me and I'm usually over 800. I don't use credit
much these days but what I use says nothing but "pays as agreed".
Now, if you start to factor in the "slightly to the right of the John Burke Society" shit I
post on ZH I'd be down around -500.
thats it, in the communist version of facebook you can vote on gov post's, ie you can like
them.
Government needs you to pay taxes
Cmon its China, where numbers are faked everyday. Ya think this number will be any different?
And even if its effective in China, when the US .govbots roll this out, how effective can it be
when US .gov employees 'at the wheel'?
The US .gov can fuck ANYTHING up.
roisaber
It will be funny to see who gets a low citizen loyalty oath score for unpredictable reasons,
or from hacks, and their increasing radicalization as their honest efforts to try to get themselves
back into good standing only makes them register as more anti-social.
techpriest
The other question is, how many services are going to pop up to help you boost your score,
just like there are books, guides, and services for your credit score currently?
"Applying for a passport? Buy my book and learn how to boost your patriotism score by 400
points in 6 months! We can even give you a spambot to do the work for you!"
SgtShaftoe
China doesn't have enough enforcers to control the population. They will lose control. That
is only a matter of time. They may be able to delay the inevitable for a while but eventually
reality will arrive. Keep pushing that volatility into the tail and see what happens. When it
goes, it will blow your fucking socks off.
Tick tock motherfuckers, and that goes for the US as well...
tarabel
That is the (evil) genius of this scheme. It is collectively enforced by the proletarians themselves.
If you do anti-social things, that will reflect badly on your friends and family so they will
excoriate you and, if necessary, shun you until you get with the program. Really, it's just a
crowd-sourced Communist Block Warden program gone digital.
I don't worry about the Chinese. They're fooked any which way you slice it. But China invents
nothing, merely imitates. So where did they get this idea from, hmmm?
techpriest
At this point, any good developer can write a program that reads Twitter/Facebook/Renren/WeChat
feeds, gives the posts to IBM's Watson (or some simpler algorithm), and have the program spit
out a score. And this program would take at most a month to make. I know, I write similar stuff
;)
With that in mind, what would you be able to accomplish with a team of 40-50 developers and
several months? What scares me is how the initial assumptions that go into querying data can
give you radically different results at the end, and these intelligence agencies do not exactly
explain what methods they are using to determine who is a 'bad guy.'
cherry picker
"I have nothing to hide"
Well, the bozos who coined the above term, have fun. You think keeping up with mortgage, car
payments, Obama Care, taxes, raising kids and keeping a spouse happy is stressful, wait til .gov
does a 'test' on you.
Me, I'm not worried. I'm a non conformist, live in the boonies and am too old. I tell my children
and grandchildren they need to get rid of this 'evil eye' government encroachment.
They think I am crazy now, but I think they may be coming around.
techpriest
I would love to turn that "You shouldn't be afraid if you have nothing to hide" around by pointing
out that the Fed shouldn't be afraid of an audit if they have nothing to hide.
Amish Hacker
Patriot Points.
Bopper09
Is this not what assface is? (facebook for people plugged in). I admit I went on it for the
simple fact I couldn't find anything better for talking to my Russian fiance. But even a year
before she got here, I said fuck it. Tried cancelling, but if you click a link that has something
to do with facebook, your profile becomes active again. Fucking criminals. I left a computer for
3 weeks (not that I haven't done that before. TRY IT, no cell phone or computer for ONE WEEK.
Take vacation days and see what's important in your life. Seriously, I've never owned a cell phone.
Where I work I don't need one. Cell phones do not 'save your life'.
Consuelo
Interesting the references to FB, especially when one considers who's at the head and his position
on censorship. Then again, what happened in Mao's China descended from the likes of Trotsky, so
it kinda sorta follows...
Gantal
The article has taken some real, some proposed and some imaginary credit tracking programs
and smushed them into one 'terrifying', freedom-destroying blob. In other words, it's irresponsible
b.s. intended to make the Chinese government look even more diabolical and oppressive than our
own.
The underlying cultural truth, though, is that Chinese are willing to cooperate with –
and trust – their government much more than we are. They've always respected and looked up to
their national leaders and expected those leaders to actually lead – morally and practically.
It works for them, as we see.
The underlying lie is that the Chinese government needs to repress its people. It doesn't.
Anyone purporting to be China 'experts' like Messrs. Lagerkvist and Creemers, should know that
China's government is the most popular, most trusted government on earth.
Digital will end up being our worse nightmare and our undoing. It is the "Perfect" tool
for the crazed sociopaths around us and the insane psychopaths that want to control our every
breath (literally).
Sure, it's cool, you can play games and other useless crap but even a blind man could
see how governments are going to be useing it. The social networks are piped right into governments
security complex. Wouldn't surprise me if everything we post even here on ZH is stored on
some digital crap machine somewhere.
For sure it's on ZH servers and thus available to any Tom, Dick or Harry LEO. I myself am very
close to going dark. This stuff isn't laughable anymore. It's getting DEADLY serious.
Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Complaints of a Cover-Up
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CHRISTOPHER DREW and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
U.S. soldiers accused Afghan police and Navy SEALs of abusing detainees. But the SEAL command
opted against a court-martial and cleared its men of wrongdoing.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Too much training to send to jail.
While E-4 Bergdahl does in captivity what several hundred officers did in Hanoi and gets life!
Still, two interesting-and vexing-issues for the technology industry, and for the politicians
who regulate it, emerged in the debate. The first came up in John Kasich's response to Trump's proposal.
"Wolf, there is a big problem-it's called encryption," he said. "We need to be able to penetrate
these people when they are involved in these plots and these plans. And we have to give the local
authorities the ability to penetrate, to disrupt. That's what we need to do. Encryption is a major
problem, and Congress has got to deal with this, and so does the President, to keep us safe."
The central question is whether American technology companies should offer the U.S. government,
whether the N.S.A. or the F.B.I., backdoor access to their devices or servers. The most important
companies here are Apple and Google, which, in the fall of 2014, began offering
strong encryption on the newer versions of Android and iOS phones. If you keep your passcode
secret, the government will be unable to, for instance, scroll through your contacts list, even if
it has a warrant. This has, naturally, made the government angry. The most thorough report on the
subject is
a position paper put out last month by Cyrus Vance, Jr., Manhattan's district attorney. In the
previous year, Vance wrote, his office had been "unable to execute approximately 111 search warrants
for smartphones because those devices were running iOS 8. The cases to which those devices related
include homicide, attempted murder, sexual abuse of a child, sex trafficking, assault, and robbery."
The solution isn't easy. Apple and Google implemented their new encryption standards after Edward
Snowden
revealed how the government had compromised their systems. They want to protect their customers-a
government back door could become a hacker's back door, too-and they also want to protect their business
models. If the N.S.A. can comb through iPhones, how many do you think Apple will be able to sell
in China? In the debate, Carly Fiorina bragged about how, when she ran Hewlett-Packard, she stopped
a truckload of equipment and had it "escorted into N.S.A. headquarters." Does that make you more
or less eager to buy an OfficeJet Pro?
The second hard issue that came up indirectly in the debate-and, more specifically,
in recent comments by Hillary Clinton-is how aggressive American companies such as Facebook,
Twitter, and Google (with YouTube) should be in combatting the use of their platforms by ISIS.
Again, there's no simple answer. You can't ban, say, everyone who tweets the hashtag #ISIS, because
then you'd have to
ban this guy. The algorithms are difficult to write, and the issues are difficult to balance.
Companies have to consider their business interests, their legal obligations to and cultural affinities
for free speech, and their moral obligations to oppose an organization that seeks to destroy the
country in which they were built-and also
kill their C.E.O.s.
Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Complaints of a Cover-Up
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CHRISTOPHER DREW and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
U.S. soldiers accused Afghan police and Navy SEALs of abusing detainees. But the SEAL command
opted against a court-martial and cleared its men of wrongdoing.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Too much training to send to jail.
While E-4 Bergdahl does in captivity what several hundred officers did in Hanoi and gets life!
Navy SEALs, a Beating Death and Complaints of a Cover-Up
By NICHOLAS KULISH, CHRISTOPHER DREW and MATTHEW ROSENBERG
U.S. soldiers accused Afghan police and Navy SEALs of abusing detainees. But the SEAL command
opted against a court-martial and cleared its men of wrongdoing.
ilsm said in reply to anne...
Too much training to send to jail.
While E-4 Bergdahl does in captivity what several hundred officers did in Hanoi and gets life!
Still, two interesting-and vexing-issues for the technology industry, and for the politicians
who regulate it, emerged in the debate. The first came up in John Kasich's response to Trump's proposal.
"Wolf, there is a big problem-it's called encryption," he said. "We need to be able to penetrate
these people when they are involved in these plots and these plans. And we have to give the local
authorities the ability to penetrate, to disrupt. That's what we need to do. Encryption is a major
problem, and Congress has got to deal with this, and so does the President, to keep us safe."
The central question is whether American technology companies should offer the U.S. government,
whether the N.S.A. or the F.B.I., backdoor access to their devices or servers. The most important
companies here are Apple and Google, which, in the fall of 2014, began offering
strong encryption on the newer versions of Android and iOS phones. If you keep your passcode
secret, the government will be unable to, for instance, scroll through your contacts list, even if
it has a warrant. This has, naturally, made the government angry. The most thorough report on the
subject is
a position paper put out last month by Cyrus Vance, Jr., Manhattan's district attorney. In the
previous year, Vance wrote, his office had been "unable to execute approximately 111 search warrants
for smartphones because those devices were running iOS 8. The cases to which those devices related
include homicide, attempted murder, sexual abuse of a child, sex trafficking, assault, and robbery."
The solution isn't easy. Apple and Google implemented their new encryption standards after Edward
Snowden
revealed how the government had compromised their systems. They want to protect their customers-a
government back door could become a hacker's back door, too-and they also want to protect their business
models. If the N.S.A. can comb through iPhones, how many do you think Apple will be able to sell
in China? In the debate, Carly Fiorina bragged about how, when she ran Hewlett-Packard, she stopped
a truckload of equipment and had it "escorted into N.S.A. headquarters." Does that make you more
or less eager to buy an OfficeJet Pro?
The second hard issue that came up indirectly in the debate-and, more specifically,
in recent comments by Hillary Clinton-is how aggressive American companies such as Facebook,
Twitter, and Google (with YouTube) should be in combatting the use of their platforms by ISIS.
Again, there's no simple answer. You can't ban, say, everyone who tweets the hashtag #ISIS, because
then you'd have to
ban this guy. The algorithms are difficult to write, and the issues are difficult to balance.
Companies have to consider their business interests, their legal obligations to and cultural affinities
for free speech, and their moral obligations to oppose an organization that seeks to destroy the
country in which they were built-and also
kill their C.E.O.s.
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the
U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 7.4 percent ** of what
the U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the
U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
(I see my comment on military spending here created a bit of confusion. I was looking at the
U.S. share of the commitment, 0.25 percent of its GDP and comparing it to the roughly 4.0 percent
of GDP it spends on the military. That comes to 6 percent. I was not referring to the whole $100
billion.)
Defense spending was 60.3% of federal government consumption and investment in July through
September 2015.
(Billions of dollars)
$738.3 / $1,224.4 = 60.3%
Defense spending was 23.1% of all government consumption and investment in July through
September 2015.
$738.3 / $3,200.4 = 23.1%
Defense spending was 4.1% of Gross Domestic Product in July through September 2015.
$738.3 / $18,064.7 = 4.1%
djb said in reply to djb...
oh never mind I get it
.25 % is 6 percent of the percent us spends on military
the 40 trillion is the gdp of all the countries
got it
anne said in reply to djb...
"I get it:
.25 % is 6 percent of the percent US spends on military."
So .25 percent of United States GDP for climate change assistance to poor countries is 6 percent
of the amount the US spends on the military.
.0025 x $18,064.7 billion GDP = $45.16 billion on climate change
$45.16 billion on climate change / $738.3 billion on the military = 0.61 or 6.1 percent of
military spending
anne said in reply to anne...
United States climate change assistance to poor countries will be .25 percent of GDP or 6% of
US military spending.
anne said in reply to anne...
What the United States commitment to climate change assistance for poor countries means is spending
about $45.2 billion yearly or .25 percent of GDP. Whether the President can convince Congress
to spend the $45 billion yearly will now have to be answered.
anne said in reply to djb...
"I get it:
.25 % is 6 percent of the [amount] US spends on military."
In Paris Talks, Rich Countries Pledged 0.25 Percent of GDP to Help Poor Countries
In case you were wondering about the importance of a $100 billion a year, * non-binding commitment,
it's roughly 0.25 percent of rich country's $40 trillion annual GDP (about 6 percent of what the
U.S. spends on the military). This counts the U.S., European Union, Japan, Canada, and Australia
as rich countries. If China is included in that list, the commitment would be less than 0.2 percent
of GDP.
(I see my comment on military spending here created a bit of confusion. I was looking at the
U.S. share of the commitment, 0.25 percent of its GDP and comparing it to the roughly 4.0 percent
of GDP it spends on the military. ** That comes to 6 percent. I was not referring to the whole
$100 billion.)
Richard Stallman has never been...er...shy about
sharing his opinions, particularly when it comes to software that doesn't adhere to his vision. This
time around he has written an opinion column for The Guardian that takes on Microsoft Windows, Apple's
OS X and even Amazon's Kindle e-reader.
Richard Stallman on malware for The Guardian:
Malware is the name for a program designed to mistreat its users. Viruses typically are malicious,
but software products and software preinstalled in products can also be malicious – and often
are, when not free/libre.
Developers today shamelessly mistreat users; when caught, they claim that fine print in EULAs
(end user licence agreements) makes it ethical. (That might, at most, make it lawful, which is
different.) So many cases of proprietary malware have been reported, that we must consider any
proprietary program suspect and dangerous. In the 21st century, proprietary software is computing
for suckers.
Windows snoops on users, shackles users and, on mobiles, censors apps; it also has a universal
back door that allows Microsoft to remotely impose software changes. Microsoft sabotages Windows
users by showing security holes to the NSA before fixing them.
Apple systems are malware too: MacOS snoops and shackles; iOS snoops, shackles, censors apps
and has a back door. Even Android contains malware in a nonfree component: a back door for remote
forcible installation or deinstallation of any app.
Amazon's Kindle e-reader reports what page of what book is being read, plus all notes and underlining
the user enters; it shackles the user against sharing or even freely giving away or lending the
book, and has an Orwellian back door for erasing books.
As you might imagine, Stallman's commentary drew a lot of responses from readers of The Guardian:
JohnnyHooper: "The Android operating system is basically spyware, mining
your personal information, contacts, whereabouts, search activity, media preferences, photos,
email, texts, chat, shopping, calls, etc so Google can onsell it to advertisers. Nice one,
Google, you creep."
Ece301: "What the free software movement needs is more than just the
scare stories about 'capability' - without reliable examples of this stuff causing real-world
problems for real people such detail-free articles as this are going to affect nothing.
I'm quite willing to make the sacrifice of google, apple, the NSA etc. knowing exactly
where I am if it means my phone can give me directions to my hotel in this strange city.
Likewise if I want the capability to erase my phone should I lose it, I understand that
that means apple etc. can probably get at that function too.
Limiting_Factor: "Or for people who don't want to mess about with command
lines and like to have commercially supported software that works. Which is about 99% of
the home computer using population. You lost, Richard. Get over it."
CosmicTrigger: "Selling customers the illusion of security and then
leaving a great gaping hole in it for the government to snoop in return for a bit of a tax
break is absolutely reprehensible."
Liam01: "This guy is as extreme as the director of the NSA , just at
the other end of the spectrum. I'd be more inclined to listen if he showed a hint of nuance,
or didn't open with an egoistic claim of "invented free software"."
AlanWatson: "My Kindle doesn't report anything, because I never turn
the WiFi on. Just sideload content from wherever I want to buy it (or download if there
is no copyright), format conversion is trivial, and for the minor inconvenience of having
to use a USB cable I'm free of Amazon's lock-in, snooping and remote wipes. Simple."
Rod: "Here's my crazy prediction: Stallman's diatribes will continue
to have zero measurable impact on adoption rates of Free software. Time to try a different
approach, Richey."
Quicknstraight: "Not all snooping is bad for you. If it enhances your
experience, say, by providing you with a better playlist or recommendations for things you
like doing, what's the big deal?
Consumers don't have it every which way. You either accept a degree of data collection
in return for a more enjoyable user experience, or accept that no data collection means
you'll have to search out everything for yourself.
The average user prefers the easier option and has no interest in having to dig away
through loads of crap to find what they want.
They key question should be what happens to data that is mined about users, not whether
mining such data is bad per se."
Bob Rich: "As an author, I LIKE the idea that if a person buys a copy
of my book, that copy cannot be freely distributed to others. With a paper book, that means
that the original owner no longer has access to it. With an electronic book, "giving" or
"lending" means duplicating, and that's stealing my work. The same is true for other creators:
musicians, artists, photographers."
Mouse: "Stallman's a hero and we wouldn't have the level of (low-cost)
technology all we enjoy today without him. I remember reading an article by him years ago
and he said that the only laptop he'd use was the Lemote Yeeloong because it was the only
system that was 100% open, even down to the BIOS - he was specifically paranoid about how
government agencies might modify proprietary code for their own ends - and at the time I
thought "Jeez, he's a bit of a paranoid fruitcake", but post-Snowden he's been proven to
be right about what the security services get up."
Richard Stallman has never been...er...shy about
sharing his opinions, particularly when it comes to software that doesn't adhere to his vision. This
time around he has written an opinion column for The Guardian that takes on Microsoft Windows, Apple's
OS X and even Amazon's Kindle e-reader.
Richard Stallman on malware for The Guardian:
Malware is the name for a program designed to mistreat its users. Viruses typically are malicious,
but software products and software preinstalled in products can also be malicious – and often
are, when not free/libre.
Developers today shamelessly mistreat users; when caught, they claim that fine print in EULAs
(end user licence agreements) makes it ethical. (That might, at most, make it lawful, which is
different.) So many cases of proprietary malware have been reported, that we must consider any
proprietary program suspect and dangerous. In the 21st century, proprietary software is computing
for suckers.
Windows snoops on users, shackles users and, on mobiles, censors apps; it also has a universal
back door that allows Microsoft to remotely impose software changes. Microsoft sabotages Windows
users by showing security holes to the NSA before fixing them.
Apple systems are malware too: MacOS snoops and shackles; iOS snoops, shackles, censors apps
and has a back door. Even Android contains malware in a nonfree component: a back door for remote
forcible installation or deinstallation of any app.
Amazon's Kindle e-reader reports what page of what book is being read, plus all notes and underlining
the user enters; it shackles the user against sharing or even freely giving away or lending the
book, and has an Orwellian back door for erasing books.
As you might imagine, Stallman's commentary drew a lot of responses from readers of The Guardian:
JohnnyHooper: "The Android operating system is basically spyware, mining
your personal information, contacts, whereabouts, search activity, media preferences, photos,
email, texts, chat, shopping, calls, etc so Google can onsell it to advertisers. Nice one,
Google, you creep."
Ece301: "What the free software movement needs is more than just the
scare stories about 'capability' - without reliable examples of this stuff causing real-world
problems for real people such detail-free articles as this are going to affect nothing.
I'm quite willing to make the sacrifice of google, apple, the NSA etc. knowing exactly
where I am if it means my phone can give me directions to my hotel in this strange city.
Likewise if I want the capability to erase my phone should I lose it, I understand that
that means apple etc. can probably get at that function too.
Limiting_Factor: "Or for people who don't want to mess about with command
lines and like to have commercially supported software that works. Which is about 99% of
the home computer using population. You lost, Richard. Get over it."
CosmicTrigger: "Selling customers the illusion of security and then
leaving a great gaping hole in it for the government to snoop in return for a bit of a tax
break is absolutely reprehensible."
Liam01: "This guy is as extreme as the director of the NSA , just at
the other end of the spectrum. I'd be more inclined to listen if he showed a hint of nuance,
or didn't open with an egoistic claim of "invented free software"."
AlanWatson: "My Kindle doesn't report anything, because I never turn
the WiFi on. Just sideload content from wherever I want to buy it (or download if there
is no copyright), format conversion is trivial, and for the minor inconvenience of having
to use a USB cable I'm free of Amazon's lock-in, snooping and remote wipes. Simple."
Rod: "Here's my crazy prediction: Stallman's diatribes will continue
to have zero measurable impact on adoption rates of Free software. Time to try a different
approach, Richey."
Quicknstraight: "Not all snooping is bad for you. If it enhances your
experience, say, by providing you with a better playlist or recommendations for things you
like doing, what's the big deal?
Consumers don't have it every which way. You either accept a degree of data collection
in return for a more enjoyable user experience, or accept that no data collection means
you'll have to search out everything for yourself.
The average user prefers the easier option and has no interest in having to dig away
through loads of crap to find what they want.
They key question should be what happens to data that is mined about users, not whether
mining such data is bad per se."
Bob Rich: "As an author, I LIKE the idea that if a person buys a copy
of my book, that copy cannot be freely distributed to others. With a paper book, that means
that the original owner no longer has access to it. With an electronic book, "giving" or
"lending" means duplicating, and that's stealing my work. The same is true for other creators:
musicians, artists, photographers."
Mouse: "Stallman's a hero and we wouldn't have the level of (low-cost)
technology all we enjoy today without him. I remember reading an article by him years ago
and he said that the only laptop he'd use was the Lemote Yeeloong because it was the only
system that was 100% open, even down to the BIOS - he was specifically paranoid about how
government agencies might modify proprietary code for their own ends - and at the time I
thought "Jeez, he's a bit of a paranoid fruitcake", but post-Snowden he's been proven to
be right about what the security services get up."
Here's an article about the phenomenon called "Rebranding
Fascism" (although the term "left-wing fascism is not used): http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v23n4/rebranding_fascism.html The basic concept is that neo-fascist groups (who
are extreme right-wing) disguise themselves as leftists,
e.g., they say they are anti-zionist when they are anti-semitic.
I'm a first-time contributor to Wiki and felt it important
to greatly revise this article, because, in its previous
incarnation, it reduced the term "left-wing fascism" to an
epithet. In fact the term is widely used in a literature,
some from the left and some from the right, that is critical
of absolutist a tendencies in some movements that identify
themselves with the Left. The term is properly an epithet
only if it lumps large segments of the left together as
"fascist." OTherwise, it's a use...
There was an article in one of the Mexico City dailies today, written in response to the
shootings in San Bernardino, that cited some numbers that were news to me:
1) The United States is the #1 small arms manufacturer in the world
2) 83% of small arms manufactured in the world are manufactured in the United States
3) The US's closest competitor is Russia, which manufactures 11% of the world's small arms
4) Small arms are the US's third largest export product, surpassed only by aircraft and agricultural
products
5) The US market itself consumes 15 million small arms per year, and there are 300 million
small arms currently in the posession of US private citizens
6) Saudi Arabia, however, is by far and away the largest small arms consumer in the world,
and purchases 33.1% of all small arms produced in the world
7) Saudi Arabia then re-distributes these small arms to its allies in Syria, Lybia, etc.
8) So far in 2015, there have been 351 "mass shootings" in the United States in which 447 persons
have been killed and another 290 wounded
9) The world's leading human rights organizations never speak of the bloodbath ocurring around
the world due to the proliferation of small arms, much less the United Nations Security Council.
10) Both the United States and Russia seem quite content to keep any talk of small arms proliferation
off the agenda.
War tends to perpetuate itself. As soon as one brute gets killed, another takes his place; when the
new guy falls, another materializes.
Consider Richard Nixon's intensification of the American war on Cambodia. In hopes of maintaining
an advantage over the Communists as he withdrew American troops from Southeast Asia, Nixon ravaged
Vietnam's western neighbor with approximately
500,000 tons
of bombs between 1969 and 1973. But instead of destroying the Communist menace, these attempts
to buttress Nguyen Van Thieu's South Vietnamese government and then Lon Nol's Cambodian government
only transformed it. The bombings led many of Nixon's early targets to desert the eastern
region of the country in favor of Cambodia's interior where they organized with the Khmer Rouge.
As a CIA official noted in 1973, the Khmer Rouge started to
"us[e] damage
caused by B-52 strikes as the main theme of their propaganda." By appealing to Cambodians who were
affected by the bombing raids, this brutal Communist organization, a peripheral batch of 10,000 fighters
in 1969, had expanded by 1973 into a formidable army with 20 times as many members. Two years later,
they seized control of Phnom Penh and murdered more than
one million of their compatriots in a grisly
genocide.
The following decade, when war erupted between the forces of Iran's Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, the United States hedged its bets by providing military assistance to
both
governments as they slaughtered
hundreds of thousands
of people. But when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, ousted the emir, and ultimately assassinated about
1,000 Kuwaitis, the
United States turned on its former ally with an incursion that directly killed
3,500 innocent Iraqis and suffocated
100,000
others through the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure. The US also maintained an embargo against
Iraq throughout the 1990s, a program that contributed to the deaths of
500,000
Iraqis and that UN Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Dennis Halliday deemed "genocidal"
when he explained his 1998 resignation.
The newly restored Kuwaiti government, for its part, retaliated against minority groups for their
suspected "collaboration" with the Iraqi occupiers. The government threw Palestinians out of schools,
fired its Palestinian employees, and threatened thousands with "arbitrary
arrest, torture, rape, and murder." Beyond that, Kuwait interdicted the reentry of more than
150,000 Palestinians and tens of thousands of
Bedoons who had evacuatedKuwait when the tyrant Saddam took over. Thus, years of American maneuvering to achieve peace
and security – by playing Iran and Iraq off of each other, by privileging Kuwaiti authoritarians
over Iraqi authoritarians, by killing tens of thousands of innocent people who got in the way – failed.
The chase continues today as the United States targets the savage "Islamic State," another monster
that the West inadvertently
helped create by assisting foreign militants. History suggests that this war against Islamism,
if taken to its logical extreme, will prove to be an endless game of whack-a-mole. Yes, our government
can assassinate some terrorists; what it cannot do is stop aggrieved
civilian victims of Western bombings from replacing the dead by
becoming terrorists
themselves. Furthermore, even if ISIS disappeared tomorrow, there would still exist soldiers – in
Al-Qaeda, for instance – prepared to fill the void. That will remain true no matter how many bombs
the West drops, no matter how many weapons it tenders to foreign militias, no matter how many authoritarian
governments it buttresses in pursuit of "national security."
So, what are we to do when foreign antagonists, whatever the source of their discontent, urge
people to attack us? We should abandon the Sisyphean task of eradicating anti-American sentiments
abroad and invest in security at home. Gathering foreign intelligence is important when it allows
us to strengthen our defenses here, but bombing people in Iraq and Syria, enabling the Saudi
murder of
Yemenis, and deploying troops to
Cameroon are futile steps when enemy organizations can constantly replenish their supply of fighters
by propagandizing among natives who deplore Western intervention.
This understanding, though underappreciated in contemporary American government, reflects a noble
American tradition. John Quincy Adams, for his part, loved an America that "goes not abroad in
search of monsters to destroy." Decades later, Jeannette Rankin doubted the benefits of American
interventionism, contending that "you can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake."
Martin Luther King Jr. warned that "violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem:
it merely creates new and more complicated ones." These leaders adamantly rejected an American politics
of unending aggressive war. It is time for us to do the same.
Tommy Raskin is a contributor to the Good Men Project and Foreign Policy in Focus.
"... You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks say about this incident. ..."
"... Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../ ..."
"... Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. ..."
"... According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day. ..."
"... ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless - maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards. ..."
"... "Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their way and rarely tackled them directly." ..."
"... Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is. ..."
"... His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well. ..."
"... Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists), fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists. ..."
"... Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine. ..."
"... Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago? ..."
"... Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS. ..."
"... Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders. ..."
"... All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it. ..."
"... It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is the jihadist's biggest ally. ..."
"... Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey, and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime. ..."
"... Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing the jihadist to train on its territory. ..."
"... The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS. ..."
"... The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil. ..."
"... Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine. ..."
"... I wonder if the leaders of NATO were involved in anyway at all??? ..."
"... And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international law. ..."
"... In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this. ..."
"... The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set us free ..."
"... 'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.' ..."
"... Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime. ..."
"... "Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July." ..."
"... By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey. ..."
"... Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth. ..."
"... Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing - but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting... ..."
"... Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not. Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high. ..."
"... So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!! ..."
"... Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf. A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications". ..."
"... Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think. ..."
"... "the US could potentially extract a lot out of it " ..."
"... And even if something is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal. You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all. ..."
"... Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. ..."
"... From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and strengthened the Russian hand. ..."
"... Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad. ..."
"... Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests. ..."
"... Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad. ..."
"... Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned. ..."
"... Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian Turkoman who are defending their land. One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing? ..."
"... That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists) won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations. ..."
"... "Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (Ł6.6m) per week to the terror group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client." ..."
"... Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding fleet of oil tankers... ..."
The relationship hinted at by Russian leader after warplane was shot down is a complex one, and includes links between senior
Isis figures and Turkish officials
Wirplit 24 Nov 2015 20:43
Turkey under Erdogan is turning out to be a real problem for the West. Supporting Isis and other jihadist groups and attacking
the Kurds. Maybe now the Russians will support the PKK. Tragedy for the liberal Turks that Erdogan won
Phil Atkinson moreblingplease 24 Nov 2015 19:57
The evidence is out there if you want to look for it. Erdogan's son runs a shipping company that transports - guess what? Oil.
Alexander Marne 24 Nov 2015 19:53
It is an obvious attempt of Turkey trying to make the European+American+Christian Civilization wage war against Russia with
the NATO war pact argument. NATO at these times is the perfect ingredient needed for a Christian Winter, having Christian Nations
disobey the whims of a secular NATO alliance that has everything bus dissolved since the Iron Curtain fell. We all know the radical
Muslims and their cousins are our enemy now, not the Soviet WARSAW pact which NATO was created to defend against. NATO members
that go to war against Russia would risk internal revolution lead by the Majority Christian Population that has grown evermore
dissatisfied of their Frankenstein Secular Ethic governments and sellout leadership.
hfakos Fiddle 24 Nov 2015 19:51
No Russian gas pipeline and, thus transit fees, to Hungary either. Germany shut down SouthStream, only to sign a deal with
evil Putin to double the capacity of NorthStream. Who wouldn't love an EU like that? We are all equal, but Germany and Western
Europe are more equal than others.
Phil Atkinson -> marph70 24 Nov 2015 19:50
Agreed. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is a misnomer, given its current membership (28 countries). NATO was formed
by 12 countries in 1949 and today, is a tool for encirclement of Russia.
yianni 24 Nov 2015 19:47
You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace
is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek
airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks
say about this incident.
somethingbrite -> KevinKeegansYfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:46
I think we can probably ask that chap in his semi in Coventry where ISIS plan to attack next...the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights is it? The man seems to have a hotline to Raqqa and every other ISIS held territory.
That said....the Guardian doesn't appear to have quoted him for a week or so....
Have they been unable to reach him since Paris?
Is he on the run? Hiding out in Belgium maybe?
SystemD 24 Nov 2015 19:40
I listened to Ashdown on Today yesterday. His comments about links between Gulf states and the Tories were extremely interesting
and unexpected. The same questions should be asked regarding Turkey. Why has the report about the funding of jihadism in the UK
not been published?
Phil Atkinson -> GemmaBlueSkySeas 24 Nov 2015 19:38
Would Turkey have shot down the SU-24 if Turkey wasn't a NATO member? Think on it.
camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:31
Yeah right, that's the western propaganda machine for you. They were saying the same thing last year ... Only misguided minds
believe such nonsense!
Neutronstar7 -> Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 19:31
Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../
I cannot believe it, but I feel ashamed of my own country and all the other western governments and our proxy's involved in
this vile conspiracy. Blow us up, we deserve it.
WankSalad 24 Nov 2015 19:30
All of this should just make us more furious about the Paris attacks.
The attackers; ISIS, are quite literally being armed, supported and facilitated by our "friends and allies" Turkey, Saudi Arabia
and Qatar.
Meanwhile Turkey directs it's fire at the Kurds - a group of moderate Muslims and secularists who have only ever wanted independent
statehood - whom we are supposed to be helping fight ISIS.
Saudi Arabia has also been quite clearly the source of most of the extremist Islamism that has repeatedly attacked our civil
societies. They have funded and set up Islamist mosques all throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
Are we really getting good value out of our relationships with these nations?
^Our leaders refuse to say any of this openly. It's infuriating. Sooner or later something has to give.
Omniscience -> James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:30
How can a dictator, who took over from his father (a dictator) be called a legitimate government ? Even by a Russian...
hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:28
Sounds like everyday Western duplicity. Car bombs and suicide bombers are fine as long as they only target Damascus. But when
the people the West has nurtured attack Paris, the world ends.
camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:27
You're such a feeble minded person! At least Puting didn't sell $hitloads of arms to Saudi Arabia enabling them to support
and nurture Isis. Look in the mirror once in a while, will ya ...
camerashy 24 Nov 2015 19:19
There's nothing to worry about here ... Putin is one cool customer, he'll have his revenge when time is right, and it'll be
nothing like a Cameroneasque thoughtless, hurried, knee jerk reaction. Turkey on its own wouldn't dare do anything like they've
done, they're just being manipulated by NATO warmongers who are desperate to justify their existence.
DrKropotkin 24 Nov 2015 19:17
Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. But he has strayed very
far from the path of sanity and I think NATO will soon start looking for ways to get rid of him.
According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There
was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available
on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do
it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks
about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day.
ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive
prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been
stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless
- maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards.
KevinKeegans -> Yfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:17
"Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their
way and rarely tackled them directly."
So people in the Guardian are in contact with "senior" members of Isis? Was it a meeting over tea and scones? Perhaps you could
stop being their mouthpiece and ask them which public area they intend to blow up next. After that you could give the authorities
their contact details so that they can solve this issue quickly. That would be most helpful. Of course you might lose a couple
of years worth of potential headlines.
moria50 -> Rubear13 24 Nov 2015 19:14
ISIS started back in 2009.Jordan has a Centcom underground training centre, and 2,000 US special Forces came to train them.Gen
Dempsey oversaw this training camp.
Jordanian special forces were instructors along with the US.
James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:10
Four years of providing money, transport, training, air and artillery cover against legitimate Syrian government forces to
terrorists and Guardian asks this question? Turkey = #1 supporter of Islamic terrorism. Open your damn eyes.
hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:09
Given that ISIS was created with significant Western help, why would Putin do anything about it? He finally acted when the
head-choppers got totally out of control and started to threaten Russia too. The downing of the Russian airliner, the several
failed terror attacks in France, and the Paris massacre should have opened your eyes.
NATO has an abysmal foreign policy record. In a mere decade they managed to turn Europe into a place where one has to fear
going to the Christmas market. Well done, "winners" of the Cold War.
pdutchman -> PMWIPN 24 Nov 2015 19:07
Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in
favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is.
His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack
the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well.
Once you see what is going on and what the results are, you have to consider the possibility Europe is threatened by fundamentalists,
also inside Turkey and Turkish government.
Just read the political program of grand vizier Davutoğlu, or the speeches of Erdoğan on the glorious pas of the Ottoman empire
when he visits former territory.
His vision is one of a regional Islamic state run by Turkey, that would be a superpower.
He detests western democracy and 'European' western humanitarian values and has not made a secret of this. He is a convinced
islamist and his support for ISIS and Al Nusra has sadly enough been very successful.
elvis99 -> tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 19:06
I agree. Its all about the oil.
Not only that there is a huge fracking industry at risk. It costs approx. $80 a barrel to produce and it selling approx.$50 at
present. They are running at a loss as most finance for these enterprises were secured when it was $120 a barrel. Yellen could
not afford to raise interest rates as it would crush a fossil fuel industry within the USA. Get the war machine moving though
and watch the price climb and save that profit margin
hfakos -> kohamase 24 Nov 2015 19:01
It's mostly the Western establishment, not the people. Hungary is not the West but we are in the EU and unfortunately NATO
as well, and the vast majority of the population supports Russia on this imho. Russia made the mistake of trusting the West under
Yeltsin. What you have to understand, and Putin has got it I think, is that Western Europe has a paranoid obsession to bring Russia
to its knees. It's been like this for centuries, just think about how many times the civilized West has invaded your country.
And old habits die hard. They prefer head-choppers and acid-throwers to having a mutually beneficial civilized relationship with
Russia. But you are not alone, Eastern Europe, although formally in the EU, is also looked down upon by the West.
ID9793630 24 Nov 2015 19:01
It's possible Erdogan is rattled at the possibility that the Russians might be about to pull off a secretive realignment of
external participants against ISIS - the possibility of unstated coordination between American, Russian and French armed actions
in the air and on the ground, with various local allies - and this incident shooting down the jet, created for the cameras, is
also intended to overturn that potential applecart.
underbussen -> DenisOgur 24 Nov 2015 19:00
Yeah, so what then, countries violate others airspace all the time - we don't see them downing each others aircraft do we?
Maybe sometimes it happens, this is action by Turkey is outrageous, and very, very aggressive. Turkey will pay, one way or the
other, lets see if that gas price goes up and now might they fare should they loose it?
Angelis Dania 24 Nov 2015 18:55
"The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on
Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely
to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers."
Assad's allies enabled and supported ISIS? Such an embarrassing thing to say.
"Assad, who had, until his brutal response to pro-democracy demonstrations in 2011, been a friend of the Turkish president,
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. "After that he became an enemy," said one western official. "Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after
the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where we are today."
Armed infiltrators in the protest groups fired first at police according to numerous eyewitnesses. How poor a journalist do
you have to be to continue to write articles on the basis of widely debunked allegations? Lol, "Erdoğan tried to mentor President
Bashar Al-Assad". What on Earth would motivate you to even quote that? Like an inferiority-complex ridden backwards terrorist
supporter like Erdoğan can approach the sagacity and popularity of Dr. Bashar Al-Assad.
MelRoy coolGran 24 Nov 2015 18:55
He did use his spy power to find out the source of Isis funding and was told the funding was coming from Saudi Arabia, Qatar
and Turkey.
hfakos Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:53
Because we, our governments that is, are not serious about tackling Islamist extremism. Scoring points against Russia is still
the main motivation of the West. This strategy had a low cost for the West in 1980s far-away Afghanistan. But Syria is in our
neighborhood and the world has become much more open. The yanks can still play this nasty game without repercussions, because
they are an island protected by two oceans. But it's a mystery to me why Europeans are stupid enough to favor the nearby chaos
of the head-choppers to secular regimes. ME oil and gas could be replaced to a large extent by Russia, but this again would go
against the paranoid Western desire to see that crumble. So you see France, the UK, and the US bombing ISIS with one hand and
giving it money through Saudi and Qatar with the other. It's insanity.
The problem is, nobody else is able to say it, because the Obama and Cameron administrations are up to their necks in it. They
knew that Turkey was responsible for the gas attacks on civilians in Syria. They know (who doesn't?) that the Turks are killing
the people who are fighting terrorists inside Syria. They know that the money, the weapons and the foreign fighters are being
funnelled into Syria through Turkey, with the Turkish government's not just knowledge, but cooperation and even facilitation.
They can't say it, because over and over again they have bald-faced lied to the public. They can't say that the "good guys"
in the fight against Isil are not just the Kurds, but the Iranians, Hezbollah, Assad and the Russians - our supposed "enemies",
and the "bad guys" are the ones we are sending all the money and munitions to - our supposed "allies".
tr1ck5t3r northsylvania 24 Nov 2015 18:41
Oil.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Without oil, the Western economies would crash, we are so dependent on it, but the US military are the biggest dependents.
the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national
consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.
Take away the oil and you will see the US military industrial complex die on its knees.
salfraser 24 Nov 2015 18:40
It would be as well to understand the ultimate motives of the current day Saladin. Look what was said in May this year.
27th. May 2015 : President Erdogan And The Prime Minister Of The Turkey Dovotogolu Just Made This Declaration To The Entire Islamic
World:
'We Will Gather Together Kurds And Arabs, And All Of The Muslim World, And Invade Jerusalem, And Create A One World Islamic Empire'
By Allah's will, Jerusalem belongs to the Kurds, the Turks, the Arabs, and to all Muslims. And as our forefathers fought side
by side at Gallipoli, and just as our forefathers went together to liberate Jerusalem with Saladin, we will march together on
the same path [to liberate Jerusalem]."
Erdogan and Dovutoglu at their speech in which they spoke of the revival of the Ottoman Empire and the conquest of Jerusalem
The amazing speeches by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu were given at the inauguration
ceremony at the country's 55th airport in Yuksekova district of southeastern border province of Hakkari, in which they made an
entire declaration to the Islamic world, on their desire to conquer Jerusalem and form a universal Islamic empire.
Looks like our American friends are about to create yet another conflict of interest!
Rubear13 Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 18:39
ISIS was created in 2013-2014 and proclaimed itself chalifate after taking much territory in 2014. During this year russian
had a lot of problems with crisis, civil war and ~2-3 millions of refugeers from Ukraine. And he did much. Both in terms of weapons
and policy.
By the way, Assad was actually winning war during 2012-2013 before creation of ISIS in Iraq.
RudolphS 24 Nov 2015 18:37
So the jet flew allegedly for 17 seconds in Turkish airspace. As Channel 4 News' international editor Lindsey Hilsum accurately
asked today 'How come a Turkish TV crew was in the right place, filming in the right direction as a Russian plane was shot down?
Lucky? Or tipped off?'
R. Ben Madison -> leonzos 24 Nov 2015 18:35
I suspect that Erdoğan switched sides when the West began to look like it was going to impose 'regime change' on Syria and
wanted to be on the winning side. It took a herculean, bipartisan effort here in the US to keep Obama from obtaining Congressional
support for a war on Syria. At the time, I (and many others) condemned the normally warmongering Republicans for tying the president's
hands purely out of hypocritical spite, but the Democrats were against it too and the whole effort collapsed.
Having taken an early lead in the "get rid of Assad" race, Erdoğan seems to have had the rug pulled out from under him. Sorry
for the mixed metaphor.
johnmichaelmcdermott -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:33
How about evidence such as an article from the notorious 'troofer' site, The Jerusalem Post, quoting that other infamous conspiracy
site, The Wall Street Journal?
"Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where
we are today."
Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists),
fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco
in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists.
tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 18:25
Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son
joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine.
Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers
parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6oHbrF8ADs
Theres a pattern here.
Likewise Russia have released their version of events regarding the shot down jets route, claiming it didnt enter Turkish airspace.
Whats interesting is this Russian data was released at 8pm UK time, and yet the British press are still running with the rhetoric
from this morning, where at 4am UK time a Russia jet was shot down according to Reuters..
So it would seem the UK press are sitting on this latest inconvenient news, perhaps trying to come up with a way to spin it
or waiting for the UK Govt to advise how to spin it if its even to be mentioned so the Govt looks innocent in the eyes of the
electorate.
Whilst the availability of data from Turkey was very quickly made available, perhaps it was fabricated and released too quickly
in order to maintain momentum with todays news agenda?
All the while GCHQ and NSA sock puppets & other Nato countries flood various media outlets comments sections to drown out critical
analysis.
I wonder if I'll be approached by more US and UK military personal "unofficially" whilst out walking the dog in Thetford forest,
and be spoken to?
Its interesting watching the news from other countries, certainly watching Russia Today and their spin is interesting.
I can only conclude there will be another massive financial crisis coming for one or more countries, so in order to divert
the masses a war is needed, as wars always boost economies.
Hyperion6 -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:24
Sensible people would realise that only one of ISIS and Assad can be brought to the negotiating table. Sensible people would
realise that Turkey is playing the same duplicitous game that Pakistan played, namely supporting the most despicable fundamentalists
while being an 'ally' of the West.
Frodo baggins -> Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:24
Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly
they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose
of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS.
Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and
balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders.
Jan Burton 24 Nov 2015 18:23
Cut the bullshit.
Turkey is little more than an ISIS and al Qaeda support base, and now they're even providing an Air Force.
Get these scumbags out of NATO now
kohamase 24 Nov 2015 18:19
I don't understand you western guys. Am Russian and not a big fun of Putin but in this situation Russia fights terrorists ,
same people who organized massacre in Paris . Why , why shoot them down??? What is the meaning of this ? We can disagree on many
questions but we should agree on One : ISIS must GO !!! If you don't want to do it then at list don't stand on our way cleaning
up the mess you've created!!!
Tiberius2 24 Nov 2015 18:17
Crystal clear, the Turks are profiteering from stolen oil, the whole Turkish establishment is involved on this corrupted trade
namely : border guards, police and the military, all of them being involved, plus business men with political connections .
ISIS get also weapons and training, Jihadist from the world over, gets red carpet treatment and supply with passports.
The Jihadist can travel unmolested, to and from Syria via Turkey in order to carry out atrocities like Paris and Tunisia.
The West looks the other way to this situation and try to ignore it ,until it gets hit in the hearth, like Paris.
fantas1sta -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:17
Oh, I do think Russia was wrong to send troops into Crimea, but I also think the west was wrong to back the coup against Ukraine's
democratically elected government. NATO gambled that they could interfere in Ukraine and lost, now they know that Putin is difficult
to intimidate and that Russia defends its sphere of influence like the US defends its own. All powers are hypocrites, such is
the nature of their global interests, but Turkey are both hypocrites and cowards, shooting down a plane and then hiding their
heads under Uncle Sam's sweater.
grish2 Tommy Thrillbigger 24 Nov 2015 18:16
Majority of people in Europe support the Russians. The governments are making excuses for the turks. And the turks are with
the head choppers.
theoldmanfromusa -> ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:15
You have a strange opinion of the situation. The major problem is that the ruling classes (politicians, imams, etc.) use the
most inflammatory rhetoric to stir up the population (most of it) that is not intellectual and/or clever. These intellectual/clever
types can then make obscene profits from their rabble rousing.
Apollonian 24 Nov 2015 18:12
All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his
sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it.
It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS
fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is
the jihadist's biggest ally.
Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:11
If we are really serious about tackling Islamic extremists, then why is it that we are allied those states directly aiding
them? Cameron is demanding the right to bomb Syria, while at the same time he's grovelling to the Saudis, crawling to the Gulf
States and defending Erdogan. Hammond nearly bust a blood vessel when Skinner said what everyone knows. The whole thing is an
utter sham, you have to wonder if ISIS and the other extremist groups aren't actually hugely convenient for some.
ElDanielfire -> Canuckistan 24 Nov 2015 18:05
Yes the Saudi's created ISIS. but the west helped build them up thinking they were something else because the west kept their
fingers in their ears because they had a gard -on for yet anotehr regime change in the middle east, despite none of the previous
ones (Afghan, Iraq, Libya) having worked and become hell for the citixens of those countries. Also the west always let Saudi and
Qutar get awya with anything, even if they fund groups who attack western citizens. It's tragic.
hfakos 24 Nov 2015 18:04
Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey,
and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers
and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime.
Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before
entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few
years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing
the jihadist to train on its territory.
But Western Europe is complicit too. With all the spying reported by Snowden how is it impossible to prevent thousands of European
citizens from traveling to Turkey and onward to Syria and getting radicalized? It is obvious that we have turned a blind eye to
the jihadi tourism. Funny that only after the Paris attacks did Hollande and co. start to take this constant flow of Europeans
into Syria seriously.
NATO says, two minutes after this incident, that Turkey is right and its airspace has been violated. But all powerful NATO
countries cannot track the returning jihadists and the mastermind of the Paris attacks has just been reported to have mingled
with Paris policemen after the Bataclan massacre. And one guy is still on the run. The first chickens have come home to roost
and there will be more to follow. The West has been playing with fire and will get burned. This is a much more global world with
open borders than what we had in the 1980s, when NATO was supporting the Bin Ladens and Gulbudding Hekmatyars in Afghanistan.
These jihadists will cause more havoc in Europe for certain. And Russia is more right again than NATO, when it comes to jihadists
in Syria.
ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:04
Turkey's territorial expansionist ambitions have backfired, just as the ambitions of their Islamism has. The emperor has no
clothes and yet it's difficult to deal with this maniac Erdog effendy who is pushing Turkey towards chaos internally and internationally...
A country which has intellectuals and clever people has fallen under the power of a group of thugs, the story of the region.
i_pray thinkorswim 24 Nov 2015 18:03
One actually feels sorry for Putin. He is bound by a Treaty he signed along time ago with Assad. He is doing what he is obliged
to do under that Treaty and at
the same time he is helping to destroy ISIS.
Then he is attacked up by Turkey a member of NATO, who are supposedly also committed to destroying ISIS .
If I were Putin, I would just walk away and leave the West to sort the mess out . I am sure that Russia feels that it has already
lost too many lives.
Wehadonebutitbroke -> Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 18:00
Erm, yes. The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are
fighting ISIS.
The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been
crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands
have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil.
Many of the 'moderate' rebels are Al Qaeda by another name or Al Qaeda affiliates. The Turkmen are Al Qaeda affiliates. The
line between Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria is vague and has been crossed both ways on numerous occasions.
Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting
Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do
by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine.
And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and
that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international
law.
Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 17:56
Dudes, Turkey is losing some valuable oil supply due to Russia's 'indiscriminate' bombing of ISIS oil-field territory.
Turkey has some real-politik collateral in the form of 'refugees' to mainland Europe. So Turkey, politically, is in a strong
position - EU is shoving money towards them.
Will NATO stand behind Turkey's real-politik?
twosocks 24 Nov 2015 17:54
Just watched the videos and listened to the turkish warnings. The SU24 appears to have been heading south as requested by the
turks and in syria when it was hit. It also looks like the turks entered Syrian airspace before they fired on the Russians - just
like the 1000+ times they have entered greek airspace in the last year, including one time with 8 planes at the same time.
In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading
towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally
the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians
without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what
a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this.
Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 17:54
The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight
to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set
us free
rumelian -> kmw2402 24 Nov 2015 17:49
YES, and the lesson for the West should be: Please stop supporting Erdogan and his fellow islamists. Watching events for a
decade and praising the relentless efforts of a single party and it's (now former) leader to suppress secular Turks and eroding
the pillars of the secular Turkish Republic, in the name of stability in the region, you actually create much instability and
threat, both for the region, and for Europe. Squeeze down these so called "moderate" islamists, and with real pro-European Turks
taking lead again, you will not have unexpected and complicated acts from Turkey .
thorella -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 17:48
'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.'
Totally logical
jaybee2 24 Nov 2015 17:46
Well said Pres Putin and hats off to Denis Skinner in parliament!
Turkey is a disgrace and should be booted out of NATO.
It bombs the Kurds fighting lsis barbarians, buys oil from lsis, protects anti Assad terrorists from the Syrian army, helps
finance various 'moderate' terrorists as to its shame does this Tory government!
As the 'heir to Blair' Cameron is drooling at the thought of joining in on the bloodlust!
Thank you Mr Skinner, and Hammond, what a silly man!
MatthewH1 24 Nov 2015 17:46
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?
Yes.
Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime.
quaidesbrumes 24 Nov 2015 17:43
Guardian reports:
"Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having
been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July."
By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian
jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey.
Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be
scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth.
lisbon_calling 24 Nov 2015 17:43
The answer to the question in the title is absolutely clear after reading the very informative text.
Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure
and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing
- but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting...
MrMeinung DavidJayB 24 Nov 2015 17:38
Turkish fighters are violating Greek airspace habitually since decades. And not for mere seconds. The Greeks intercept them
but do not shoot them down. The Greeks have brought all kinds of electronic documentation to both NATO and EU - no result.
It is ironic that Turkey of all nations is raising such arguments.
This action is inexcusable and the barbarity that followed (by all information) - the execution of the pilot/pilots - by Turkish
friendly fighters, even more so.
LordJimbo -> CommieWealth 24 Nov 2015 17:38
Countries are operating on the basis of their national interests, Assad and Kurds represent threats to Turkey, Russia wants
Assad to remain and sees IS and rebel groups (some of whom are reportedly backed by Turkey) as threats, so we see a classic clash
of national interests in an already complicated region of the world, topped off by a brutal civil war that has cost the lives
of over 200,000 and seen one of the worst humanitarian crises since WWII. The very definition of a perfect political and military
storm. I suspect the Russian position will eventually win out in Syria especially now that Hollande wants IS targeted by a 'grand
coalition'. For Turkey the major headache has to be the Kurds who will get arms, training and are winning huge amounts of territory.
powercat123 24 Nov 2015 17:36
Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not.
Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and
the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very
aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high.
ManxApe 24 Nov 2015 17:36
Which Turkish businessmen did they strike deals with? Specifically which Turkish businessman's shipping company had their oil
tankers bombed the other day by Russia? Is this businessman actually a very close relative of Erdoğan? A clue perhaps?Allegedly
the shipping company is BMZ.
196thInfantry -> Artur Conka 24 Nov 2015 17:35
The Russian plane was never in Turkish airspace. ATC systems have recorders that record voice communications, radar tracks
and controller actions all synchronized. You can be sure that the Turks will not release the raw recorded data.
aLLaguz 24 Nov 2015 17:32
So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!!
This is the long awaited war for the Syria-Turkey border, a border that must be closed. Whether for stop jihadists joining ISIS
or to stop oil sales.
No fly-zone in northern Syria ?! The only affected parties with this is Assad allies and it is the same reason.... the Syria-Turkey
border. For Assad, It is a key region, Kurds must be stopped to reach the Mediterranean sea, the border must be closed to stop
jihadists or rebels to join the fight, to stop the oil sales of ISIS, etc, etc, etc.
Russia will fight for the control of the border whether NATO like it or not. Once it is Russian, Kurds will be pushed back.
Cecile_Trib -> penguinbird 24 Nov 2015 17:32
Turkey must learn to stop invading Greece airspace. Or you think it's OK for them as a member of NATO to do that? Or will you
say it's OK for Greece to down a couple of Turkish jets?
"In the first month of 2014 alone, Turkish aircraft allegedly violated Greek airspace 1,017 times, Gurcan reports."
Ha ha, your post is bordering on...no is, sheer arrogance and complete ignorance.The Russian planes are defined as entering
"an area of our interest".Which is really vague and is really international airspace.Both the US and UK do the same but more often.Moreover
Russia is being surrounded by NATO firepower,missile systems and US paid for coups!
NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 17:31
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'? Yes
Turkey are directly linked to Al Qaeda as is Saudi Arabia yet they are our allies in the never ending war against terrorism,
a war it seems we forgot about when the terrorists became repackaged as freedom fighters. Many of us have been warning that this
would inevitably lead us to become victims of the Jihadists but Cameron would not listen, he has a mania to get rid of Assad and
has been prepared to get into bed with some of the nastiest people in the world. A New take on the Nasty party.
Turkey 'let Isil cross border to attack Kobane': as it happened
Today's early morning, a group of five cars, loaded with 30-35 of Isil elements, wearing the clothes and raising the flag
of the FSA [Free Syrian Army rebels] has undertaken a suicide attack.
The nationalist Southern Front, which includes US-trained fighters, has confirmed that it is taking part in the fight for
Daraa, alongside the powerful Islamist groups Ahrar al-Sham and the Al Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra.
BigNowitzki -> BeatonTheDonis 24 Nov 2015 17:29
Turkish government giving military support to ethnic Turks in a neighbouring country = good.
Russian government giving military support to ethnic Russians in a neighbouring country = bad.
Good point. I imagine the Putinbots will try and rationalise it away via cognitive dissonance, or some other bogus reason.
As I said, Russia's position would be much stronger had they not invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. They were warned....
MaxBoson 24 Nov 2015 17:26
Thanks to the author for pointing out the role Turkey has played in the rise of ISIS, and its instrumentalization of the conflict
in Syria for its own ends. Taking this, and Turkey's support for the Turkmen rebels-or terrorists, or freedom fighters, depending
on which alliance one is supporting-into account, it is pretty obvious that the main reason why Turkey shot down the Russian planes
was that they were bombing Turkmen targets in what Turkey has the cheek to call a no-fly zone, not because their wings were in
its airspace for a few milliseconds.
deathbydemocracy 24 Nov 2015 17:23
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?
Answer below.
Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend"
and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces
raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf.
A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish
officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications".
That would be a 'Yes'.
Of course Turkey has a right to defend it's borders. In this case though, their borders were not under attack. The Russian
plane strayed into Turkish air space for just a few seconds, and it was clearly not part of an attack force against Turkey. The
correct move would have been to complain about the Russians, not shoot them down.
robitsme -> BillyBitter 24 Nov 2015 17:23
Most states would show some restraint under the tinderbox circumstances. Erdogan is either completely insane, or he is playing
a game, he as an agenda to provoke Russia in some way
rumelian -> JaneThomas 24 Nov 2015 17:21
You are right. Erdogan with his "conservative" comerades is rapidly and relentlessly ruining the the pillars of the secular
Turkey for more than a decade, and for much of this time he was actively aided by the Western powers, frequently praized and portrayed
as a "moderate" islamist and a reliable partner. The more power he gained, the more he showed his real nature.
Dreaming of becoming a "leader" of the muslim world (in the Middle East), countless times he showed his sympathy towards the
fellow "islamists" in the whole region. USA and Western European leaders, still assume that Erdogan is better option than anyone
else in Turkey, providing stability and a "buffer zone" to Europe, they ignore the fact, that Turkey was indeed a reliable partner
for decades, when ruled by secular governments ,backed by a secular army, but now that's not the case. Western governments now
don't know how to deal with it. When you look at the photos of the current Turkish ministers, and their wives (almost all are
headscarved) you realize that they had nothing in common with millions of Turkish people who embraced Western lifestyle and customs.
Ataturk has created a secular nation, suppressed these islamists almost a century ago for good, knowing their true nature, but
now Turkey needs a new Ataturk-style leader to eradicate this pestilence. Until then, Turkey will not be a stable and reliable
partner in the Middlle East.
Darook523 24 Nov 2015 17:20
Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from
allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think.
vr13vr -> WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:19
"the US could potentially extract a lot out of it "
It could but at the end of the day, can't and won't. The US is not going to split NATO so it will have to offer its support
for Turkey. Nor can Europeans do much as they have this "refugees" problem to which Turkey hold the key. And even if something
is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal.
You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all.
PaniscusTroglodytes -> MrConservative2015 24 Nov 2015 17:18
NATO has had no legitimate purpose for 25 years now. Will this finally give the nudge to wind it up? One can but hope.
Yarkob -> Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:17
The first reports said it was a Turkish F-16 with an AA missile. Some reports are still saying that. Damage limitation or diversion
by Erdogan? The 10th Brigade Turkmen that Debka said carried out the attack are aligned with the US. That conveniently shifts
the blame from Turkey back to the US by proxy. Back stabbing going on. Julius Ceasar shit going down I reckon
vgnych 24 Nov 2015 17:10
It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates. Syria
and Asad has been just a dry run of the concept.
Putin must be seeing it very clear at this point.
Yarkob Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:07
Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva
Conventions.
LordJimbo 24 Nov 2015 17:06
From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant
Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength
and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and
strengthened the Russian hand.
Gideon Mayre 24 Nov 2015 17:05
Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent
so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy
on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and
the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad.
Michael Cameron 24 Nov 2015 17:05
Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath
of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course
proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests.
The idea they're an imminent threat and immediate concern of Cameron and co suddenly hoves into view as hogwash on stilts.
Their grandstanding over bombing ISIS while at once supporting their biggest enabler (Can anyone doubt Turkey's laissez-faire
stance?) makes sense as an admission of complete powerlessness to resolve an issue above his pay grade i.e. taking on Putin. The
extent to which all of these actors are clueless is terrifying. Foreign policy operations as fitful and faltering as anything
this side of the Christmas board game.
fantas1sta 24 Nov 2015 17:04
Turkey has been looking for reasons to invade Syria for a long time:
"The reason why worse incidents have not taken place in the past regarding Syria is the cool-headedness of Turkey," Erdoğan
said. "Nobody should doubt that we made our best efforts to avoid this latest incident. But everyone should respect the right
of Turkey to defend its borders."
The arrogance of this man is beyond belief, as Al Jazeera reported that the plane, believed to be a Russian-made Sukhoi Su-24,
crashed in Syrian territory in Latakia's Yamadi village and NOT in Turkish Airspace. What I love about this statement is the "cool-headedness
of Turkey".
What about the headless act of supporting ISIS, and what about the fact that Turkey has some of the worst crackdown of journalist
and freedom of speech of any country. Far worse then China.
I truly don't understand how Nato and Turkey's allies support its actions, especially the US. Could someone please explain.
WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:03
Turkey is kinda fucked now, the US could potentially extract a lot out of it in return for 'protection'... For instance stop
murdering Kurds or cut off all ISIS links, hell maybe even both. There's no way Erdoğan can play Putin as the counterbalance card
now.
arkob 24 Nov 2015 17:02
Methinks the wheels are falling off the Syrian project and there is a scramble for the door and people are getting stabbed
in the back all over the shop.
Look at the leaks over the last few weeks implicating the US DoD, Turkey, France and soon the UK, now Obama is telling us his
intel assessments were "tainted" *cough*
Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit
permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association
everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group
backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad.
More to come in the next few days, I reckon.
Branislav Stosic 24 Nov 2015 17:01
Cards can definitely be open to see :who wisely silent is on the terrorists side( read USA) and who is really against. There
wont be some of the current uncertainties and media acting in this struggle. I hope that at least the European countries together
wake up their unhealthy slumber after the terrorist actions in the neighborhood and together, not only in words ,start to put
out the source of the fire and of terrorism in which some cunning players constantly topping oil on the fire.
madtoothbrush -> QueenElizabeth 24 Nov 2015 17:00
It's a well known fact that Turkey purchases oil from ISIS occupied territory. Not to mention they bomb Kurds that are fighting
ISIS.
Vizier 24 Nov 2015 16:56
Perhaps Russia would like to provide air cover to the Kurds who are under murderous assault by Turkey in their own country.
Carving about 20% off Turkey would be a good start.
Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 16:55
Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in
Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about
having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned.
NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 16:55
By then, Isis had become a dominant presence in parts of north and east Syria.
This is the problem, Turkey is in a struggle with Iran and the Kurds. Assad is seen as the enemy because he is closer to Iran.
It should be remembered that the Turks see the Kurds as biggest the threat and ISIS as an ally and that the U.S. not Russia
has been arming the Kurds. It looks as if the Turks also want to send a message to the US and Europe, a message via air to air
missile.
The issue has highlighted the widening gulf between Turkey and its Western allies, who have frequently questioned
why Turkey, a NATO member with a large military and well-regarded intelligence service, is not doing more to address the jihadist
threat.
In recent testimony in Washington before Congress, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, was asked
if he was optimistic that Turkey would do more in the fight against the Islamic State.
"No, I'm not," Mr. Clapper said in an unusually blunt public criticism. "I think Turkey has other priorities and
other interests."
Georwell -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:54
nop, just an pair of fighters patrolling the zone 24/7 , since the radars told them the russians daily pattern on bombing the
terrorists, AND an green-card to kill a russian plane on first occasion, even if that mind to (again) enter on syrian air space,
for the matter. Fact is, the russian pilots do not believe the turks will really open fire - now they know - in the hard way;
Was that an planed ambush ? I bet was.
Was a war crime to execute on mid-air the pilots descending on parachute ? Yes it was. Was a war crime to assault the body
of the dead pilot ? (are several pictures on the net showing the pilot body stripped and pieces of flesh missing) - yes, was another
war crime. All on the line of liver-eaters and "moderate" terrorists.
Maybe when those animals will target another EU capital the peoples will realize who its the true enemy here. For (to many..)
bigots here the tragedy on Paris was not enough to bring them the the real picture.
Aneel Amdani -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:50
Russia did coordinate with other coalition members of US so I suppose Turkey should have been aware of this. F-16 should have
bene in air and giving 10 warnings is utter nonsense. Russia has said no warning was given and their plane was in Syria territory.
Turkey has a rule of engagement that their territory and threat are well in 5 km of Syria itself. So they take it as a threat.
Turkey has gone nuts. they have first increased terrorism and now officially become the Air Force of SIIS. or more, they should
have shown a response to Russians for busting more than 1000 oil tnakers that supply cheap oil to Turkey.
rumelian -> jonsid 24 Nov 2015 16:49
Surely, Russia will respond to that incident. I supposed it was not at all expected by Russians, and they will figure out a
strategy on what kind of response it will be. I think too, that consequences for Turkey could be serious . But maybe it is a destiny
for a country where almost half of the population votes for the corrupt, backward islamists, and their megalomaniac leader.
copyniated 24 Nov 2015 16:48
Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian
Turkoman who are defending their land.
One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing?
HuggieBear -> Mindmodic 24 Nov 2015 16:47
"I get the impression that a greater proportion of people in the US are blinded by patriotism" - patriotism would actually
require disengaging with the mediaeval oil monarchies of the Middle East and butting out of the world's hot spots. Something Pat
Buchanan has advocated for aged.
Aneel Amdani 24 Nov 2015 16:44
the residents of France and Belgium should ask their governments why did they let it to happen in the first place. ISIS was
created by West and funded extensively by the Saudis, Turley and Qatar. US is not a kid that after spending more than a 100 billion
on intelligence and CIA networks globally, never knew ISIS was getting rich. And now so when everyone knows Turkey buys cheap
Oil from ISIS, why aren't they being sectioned or why individuals donating funds to these terrorists being sanctioned.
US is very prompt in going and sanctioning nations that are not with them, but they never sanction dictators like the kings
and presidents that support terrorism. the blood of those who died in Paris and those all along since the war in Iraq are all
to be blamed on these war hawks in west. If even now Paris cannot ask questions on their governments involvement in destabilizing
Libya now, then I guess they will again see Paris happen again. West should be stopped from using the name of terrorism and a
Muslim Jihad for their own strategic gains.
jmNZ -> earthboy 24 Nov 2015 16:38
That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the
Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists)
won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And
al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations.
fantas1sta Roger -> Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:36
Turkey has spent a lot of time and money to cultivate an image of itself as a modern, secular, democratic state - it is none
of those. It's an ally of the US like Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US, it's a marriage of convenience, nothing else. The US
knows that both countries fund terrorists, but they need some kind of presence in that region. The Turks and Saudis need a customer
for their oil and someone to run to when they need their autocratic regimes propped up.
Roger Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:29
Turkey buys ISIL oil.
Turkey helps foreign terrorists to get to ISIL.
Turkey attacks Kurds fighting ISIL.
Turkey facilitates the route of people including terrorists into Europe.
Turkey is run by a megalomaniac.
Turkey got into NATO as a US/CIA anti -Russian (USSR) puppet.
What the sort of corrupt people like Hammond think of their people, fools. Of course Turkey is on the 'wrong side'.
fantas1sta -> MaryMagdalane 24 Nov 2015 16:29
There's no reason for the US to directly antagonize one of the few countries in the world that has a military strong enough
to enact its policy goals without the backing of another power - see Crimea. Why would Obama order a Russian plane to be shot
down and then call for de-escalation?
Erm on balance, yes. Empirically, provably more repugnant. Russia hasn't killed well over a million civilians since 2001, nor
laid waste to an entire region, causing untold misery and suffering, screwing allies and enemies alike and helping (both by accident
and design) the rise of ISIS. I'm no fan of Putin, and let's be honest, there's no nice people at that level in politics, but
the US is far and away ahead of Russia on the dick-ometer these last 20-30 years.
Budovski Ximples 24 Nov 2015 16:23
Yes, of course he's right. What's wrong is that its taken journalists this long to even dare to look at the relationship between
Turkey and Islamic State. Or specifically, Erdogan and Islamic State.
Turkey has been directly dealing with various terrorist groups in Syria, supplying weapons, fighters, intelligence and arms
as well as buying massive amounts of oil from ISIS refineries (which Russia just pulverized).
They have left their borders open, allowing terrorists to go in and out of Syria as they please.
Their claims to be fighting ISIS are a joke. In their first week of 'fighting ISIS' they did 350 strikes on the Kurds and literally
1 on ISIS.
The terrorist attack by ISIS, aimed at Erdogans opponents, was timed so perfectly to help Sultan Erdogan get elected that I'd
go as far as suspect direct Turkish intelligence involvement.
Bonnemort 24 Nov 2015 16:21
Turkey are complicit in terrorism, but then so are the Gulf States/Saudis/US and UK. They're just a bit closer and their hands
a bit bloodier. Putin is correct,
Just think, only two years ago Cameron wanted us to join the Syrian civil war on ISIS' side.
And also think - Cameron and Boris Johnson want Turkey to be a full EU member as soon as possible.
Roger Hudson -> Samir Rai 24 Nov 2015 16:21
Turkey was let (pulled) into NATO during the cold war just so US missiles and spy bases could get up on the USSR border. Turkey
was run by a military junta at that time.
Same old CIA/US nonsense.
Turkey should be kicked out of NATO and never be allowed near the EU.
photosymbiosis -> kahaal 24 Nov 2015 16:04
Ah, the oil smuggling route to Turkey runs right through a zone controlled by these 'moderates' - perhaps middlemen is a better
word? - and so you can't really cut off the flow of oil out of ISIS areas without bombing those convoys even if they are under
the temporary protection of "moderates" - so it looks like Turkish oil smugglers and their customers (Bilal Erdogan's shipping
company? commodities brokers? other countries in the region?) are working hand in hand with ISIS and the moderates to deliver
some $10 million a week to ISIS - and that's how terrorists in Brussels can establish safe houses, purchase weapons and explosives
on the black market, and stage attacks - isn't it?
Alexander Hagen 24 Nov 2015 16:02
That is interesting that Erdogan and Assad were on good terms previously. That is hard to fathom. I cannot imagine two people
with more differing world views. I did not meet a single Turk while travelling through Turkey that had a kind word about Erdogan,
so elevating him to a higher level (mentor) might require some qualification. Though it is true the Turkish economy grew enormously
under Erdogan, "The lights of free expression are going out one by one" - paraphrasing Churchill.
cop1nghagen 24 Nov 2015 16:01
"Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (Ł6.6m) per week to the terror
group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client."
Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically
through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding
fleet of oil tankers...
photosymbiosis 24 Nov 2015 16:01
Would anyone be surprised to find that the accomplices of ISIS in Turkey - i.e. the oil smugglers who operate with the full
knowledge of the Turkish government - are also transferring cash on behalf of ISIS to their 'recruiters and activists' (aka: 'terrorists')
in places like London, Paris, Brussels, etc.?
The lure of oil profits make relationships with terrorists very attractive, it seems - kind of like how Royal Dutch Shell and
Standard Oil kept selling oil to the Nazi U-boat fleet right up to 1942, when the US Congress finally passed the Trading With
The Enemy Act.
Konstantin Murakhtin, a navigator who was rescued in a joint operation by Syrian and Russian commandos, told Russian media: "There
were no warnings, either by radio or visually. There was no contact whatsoever."
He also denied entering Turkish airspace. "I could see perfectly on the map and on the ground where the border was and where we
were. There was no danger of entering Turkey," he said.
The apparent hardening of both countries' versions of events came as Russian warplanes carried out heavy raids in Syria's northern
Latakia province, where the plane came down. Tuesday's incident – the first time a Nato member state has shot down a Russian warplane
since the Korean war – risks provoking a clash over the ongoing conflict in Syria, where Russia has intervened to prop up the regime
of Bashar al-Assad.
... ... ...
Later, in a telephone call with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, Lavrov said Turkey's actions were a "gross violation" of
an agreement between Moscow and Washington on air space safety over Syria. The state department said Kerry called for calm and more
dialogue between Turkish and Russian officials.
... ... ...
Russian officials made it clear that despite the fury the reaction would be measured. There is no talk of a military response,
and no suggestion that diplomatic relations could be cut or the Turkish ambassador expelled from Moscow. However, the tone of relations
between the two countries is likely to change dramatically.
... ... ...
A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, hit out at the US state department official Mark Toner, who said the
Turkmen fighters who shot the Russian airman as he parachuted to the ground could have been acting in self defence. "Remember these
words, remember them forever. I will never forget them, I promise," Zakharova wrote on Facebook.
"... Recently, Moscow's rapprochement with the Syrian Kurds, the PYD, only added to the huge complexity of the situation. ..."
"... any solution of the Syrian conflict will be based on a precondition that the US and Russia put aside their differences, ..."
"... At least one good thing has come from all of this. At least it took Putin to be the first leader to openly say exactly what turkey actually is. A despicable, Islamist supporting vile wolf in Sheep's clothing. ..."
"... well , just think for a second .... all the image - they were shooting him while he was in the air , shouting "Allah Akbar " then they showed a photo with dead pilot , being proud of that ..... Those ppl are the "hope" for a Syria post-Assad....don't you feel that something is wrong here ? ..."
"... Also as soon as the noble Turkman started shooting at the pilot and navigator once they'd bailed out of the plane they showed themselves to be the terrorists they are. Playing "no prisoners" against Russia. ..."
"... At the G20 Antalya summit of Nov 15, Putin embarrassed Obama publicly showing satellite pictures of ridiculously long tanker lines waiting for weeks to load oil from ISIS, as the coalition spared them any trouble. "I've shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil," said Putin. ..."
"... So there you have it. For 15 months, the US didn't touch the oil trade that financed ISIS affairs, until Russia shamed them into it. Then, the mightiest army in the world bombs 400 trucks, while Russia destroys 1000. Then Russia provides videos of its airstrikes, while the US doesn't, and PBS is caught passing off Russian evidence as American. ..."
"... Of course Turkey did not need to down this jet: well planned and a clear provocation to start the propaganda war against Russia which actually wants to stop this war before a transition without a pre-planned (US) outcome. ..."
"... With Saudi and Turkish support for ISIS , just who have they bothered saving and sending out into Europe amongst their name taking and slaughters ? Wahabists? How many cells set up now globally? ..."
"... The turkmen are illegally staging war. Russia is the only country legally in Syria. That's why CIA, Saudi, Turk, Israel etc etc etc operate clandestine. But they all enjoy bombing hotheads. A pity so many of them think their brands of religion or old stories from centuries ago of enemies have any bearing today. Or perhaps they just believe rich mens newspapers and media too much. Maybe all their educations and futures were lost by gangsters that were funded and protected and given country ownership for oil and now forces clean up their centuries long mess for newer deals. ..."
"... I thought Russia was INVITED by the Syrian Gov. to assist them in eradicating ALL rebel factions including a bunch of Turkmen rebels funded by Erdogan. No others operating in Syria are legitimate. Any cowards shouting Allah uakbar and killing POWs should be eradicated ..."
"... According to the BBC the Turkmen fight with Al Nusra. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34910389 UN Resolution 2249 calls not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups. ..."
"... I also know Turkey has been "laundering" ISIS oil from Syria and Iraq to the tune of $2 million/day. ..."
"... Well, a US Air Force has now also suggested that the Turkish shooting down of the Russian had to have been a pre-planned provocation. Also US officials have said it cannot be confirmed that the Russian jet incurred into Turkish territory. And of course there is the testimony of the Russian pilot. ..."
"... What ethnic cleansing??? Assad has a multi sect and multi ethnic government. Meanwhile western and Turkish backed jihadist have openly said they will massacre every last Kurd,Christian,Alawi and Druze in the country. ..."
"... Shooting down the Russian plane was Turkey's way of flexing its muscles. The murder of the pilot in the parashoot was a cowardly act. These are the people the US are backing. They can be added to Obama's list of most favored and join the ranks of the Saudis who behead and crucify protesters ..."
"... Erdogan is playing both NATO and Russia for fools. Trying to create a wedge and sabotage the restoration of stability in Syria. ..."
"... It is all a giant make-believe. They are only using ISIS as a pretext to occupy and breakup Syria. And Western populations swallow all these lies without blinking and feel victimized by refugees. ..."
"... Now, I'd bet that Putin has no plans to exacerbate the current situation by shooting down any Turkish jets out of revenge for yesterday's incident. But it will be unsettling for Turkish flyboys and their bosses to know that a good chunk of their a airspace is totally vulnerable and they fly there only because Russia lets them. ..."
"... it's astonishing how many of the Putin hating NATObots from the Ukrainian-themed CIF threads turn out to be ISIS supporters. ..."
"... indeed, with the "stench" of US grand mufti all over them.. How far do you think Obama will bow on his next visit to Saudi. ..."
"... Yup the FT estimated before the Russians got involved that ISIS were producing between 30,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil a day. You would need over 2000 full size road tankers just to move one days output. Now its fair to assume after filling up it takes more than a day before it gets back to the pump. Surprisingly the US has neither noticed all these tankers and even more surprisingly the oil tanks and installations. ..."
"... The whole regime change plan is hanging in the balance and every day Russia solidifies Assad's position. If this continues for even another month it will be virtually impossible for the Western alliance to demand the departure of Assad. ..."
"... Their bargaining position is diminishing by the day and it is great to watch. Also good to read that the Russians have been pounding the shi*e out of those Turkmen areas. Expect those silly buggers to be slaughtered whilst Erdogan and the Turks watch on helplessly. If they even try anything inside the Syrian border now the Russians will annihilate them. ..."
"... Erdogan's reaction to Syria shooting down a Turkish jet in 2012. "Erdogan criticized Syria harshly on Tuesday for shooting down the Turkish fighter jet, saying: "Even if the plane was in their airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack." "It was clear that this plane was not an aggressive plane. Still it was shot down," the corrupt ISIS supporting scumbag said" ..."
The nervousness displayed by the AKP administration, in Ankara, has a lot to do with Turkey's Syria policy being in ever-growing
disarray, and its failure to set priorities to help resolve the conflict. As the Syrian quagmire deepened, old anti-Kurdish fixations
in Ankara came to the surface, and clashed with the priorities of its allies, centred on Isis. Ankara's blocking moves against the
only combat force on ground, the PKK-YPG axis, has impeded the fight against jihadists, and its constant redrawing of red-lines (Kurds,
Turkmens, no-fly zone, Assad gone etc) may have been frustrating the White House, but does not seem to affect Moscow. Recently,
Moscow's rapprochement with the Syrian Kurds, the PYD, only added to the huge complexity of the situation.
In the recent G20 summit, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was once more keen to underline that "terror has no religion and there
should be no our terrorist and your terrorist"
... ... ...
So, the tension now rises between one determined and one undecided, conflicted player – one lucid on strategy, the other lacking
it. If any, the lesson to be drawn from this showdown is this: any solution of the Syrian conflict will be based on a precondition
that the US and Russia put aside their differences, agree in principle on the future of the region, build a joint intelligence
gathering and coordinated battle scheme against jihadists, and demand utter clarity of the positions of their myopic, egocentric
allies. Unless they do so, more complications, and risks beyond turf wars will be knocking at the door
Eugenios -> André De Koning 25 Nov 2015 23:24
Assad is targeted because it is a necessary prelude to an attack on Iran. Pepe Escobar called that long ago. What is sought
is a Syria in the imperialist orbit or in chaos.
Attack on Iran by whom--you ask? Actually several in cahoots, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, et al.
A brief search on the internet shows many items referring to Turkish support for IS.
Now the SAA with Russian support is on the border dealing with the jihadist Turkmen, Turkey's duplicity is in danger of being
revealed .
Hence the impotent rage and desperate pleas for support to its other US coalition partners and the strange reluctance of the
complicit western MSM to fully reveal the lies and double standards of the western allies in this foul business.
Only the other day a US TV program was trying to con its viewers that the US was bombing ISIS oil trucks, with video from a
Russian airstrike.
At least one good thing has come from all of this. At least it took Putin to be the first leader to openly say exactly
what turkey actually is. A despicable, Islamist supporting vile wolf in Sheep's clothing. Who else was buying ISIS oil....the
tooth fairy ? Never in my life did I think I'd be defending the red team yet here I am.
AtelierEclatPekin -> murati 25 Nov 2015 23:06
well , just think for a second .... all the image - they were shooting him while he was in the air , shouting "Allah Akbar
" then they showed a photo with dead pilot , being proud of that ..... Those ppl are the "hope" for a Syria post-Assad....don't
you feel that something is wrong here ?
Shankman -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 23:02
He was awfully quick to accept Turkey's version of events.
As for his Nobel "Peace" Prize, Alfred Nobel is probably still turning in his grave.
Lyigushka -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 23:02
Of course Turkey supports ISIS and has done for all its existence as part of an opposition to its main enemies, Assad and the
Kurds.
.....and the censors are out again.....SHAME on you Guardian.
I say again.....MSM now referring to "Turkmen" like they are cuddly toys FFS
They are head chopping....moon howling....islamo-terrorists.
Russia has the right idea....kill the lot them
ianhassall -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 22:56
Also as soon as the noble Turkman started shooting at the pilot and navigator once they'd bailed out of the plane they
showed themselves to be the terrorists they are. Playing "no prisoners" against Russia.
And as for the US - they can bomb a Medicin sans Frontiers field hospital in Afghanistan for 37 minutes and the best excuse
they come out with is "the plane's email stopped working, it didn't know where the target was, they didn't know where they were,
so they just attacked something that looked like". So much for US military's navigation abilities.
NikLot -> LordMurphy 25 Nov 2015 22:44
Dear Lord, where did I defend it?!! How do you read that?!!! Of course it is appalling!!!
I wanted to point out that the 'good terrorist' Turkmen militia or whoever else did it would have done the same to NATO
pilots and that the story should be explored from that angle too. Statement by Turkey's PM today, if true, confirms my concern:
"Davutoglu told his party's lawmakers on Wednesday that Turkey didn't know the nationality of the plane that was brought
down on Tuesday until Moscow announced it was Russian."
ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 22:38
Its amazing that NATO have been bombing ISIS for 2 years and did very little to halt its progress.
Russia's been doing it for a month and have bombed ISIS, the military supplies NATO have been giving ISIS, and the illegal
oil racket that Turkey's been running with ISIS - all at a fraction of the cost that's going into supporting ISIS and other Syrian
terrorist groups.
I can see why Turkey's upset. Also anyone who thinks Turkey shot down this plane without the approval of NATO and Obama is
kidding themselves. Obama has blood up to his armpits with what's been going on in Syria, despite his Peace Prize credentials.
luella zarf -> ArundelXVI 25 Nov 2015 22:28
OK I did some research and I was somewhat wrong, Russia did initiate the bombing of the oil delivery system, but at the G20
summit. This is the actual chronology:
At the G20 Antalya summit of Nov 15, Putin embarrassed Obama publicly showing satellite pictures of ridiculously long tanker
lines waiting for weeks to load oil from ISIS, as the coalition spared them any trouble. "I've shown our colleagues photos taken
from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil," said Putin.
The next day, on Nov 16, the US bombed a truck assembly for the first time in the history of the coalition and then claimed
to have hit 116 oil tankers. In the meantime, Russia carried on its own airstrike campaign, destroying more than 1,000 tankers
and a refinery in a period of just five days, and posting video footage of the airstrikes.
Because the US never made available any recordings, on Nov 19 PBS used footage of Russian fighter jets bombing an oil storage
facility and passed it off as evidence of the US hits. The Moon of Alabama website was the first to notice. On Nov 23, a second
American air raid claimed to have destroyed 283 oil tankers.
So there you have it. For 15 months, the US didn't touch the oil trade that financed ISIS affairs, until Russia shamed
them into it. Then, the mightiest army in the world bombs 400 trucks, while Russia destroys 1000. Then Russia provides videos
of its airstrikes, while the US doesn't, and PBS is caught passing off Russian evidence as American.
idkak -> John Smith 25 Nov 2015 22:17
Currently 18 aircraft are patrolling the area on a daily basis, they must have misread the memo.... Downing a Turkish plane
over Turkish soil, or attacking a NATO aircraft on mission in Syria within the alliance that is currently bombing ISIS or other
terrorist variants... won't be favorable for Russia or their forces in Syria. Even without NATO, Turkey has a very large military
and the location we are talking about is about 2-5 minutes to bomb, and 1-2 minutes to intercept.. so the attack would be about
the same level of strategic stupidity as attacking Russia from the Ukraine.
André De Koning -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 22:16
How naive: downing a jet who fights al-Nusra. Of course Turkey has supported terrorist there for a long time and left the border
between Turkey and Syria porous, so the proxy war can be fought against Assad (just one man (?) always features in the multi-factorial
warfare, which is easy on the ears of simpletons). There were already plans in 1957 and more modern ones in the US to ruin Syria
and take the land and resources and use it for the oil pipelines from Saudi to Turkey (Assad did not sign off in 2009, so war
was bound to happen).
André De Koning 25 Nov 2015 22:11
Imagine a US fighter being shot down? From the beginning of the war Russia and Syria said there were not just peaceful demonstrators,
but people who were shooting and grew into ISIS and Al-Nusra and al-Qaeda. This did not fit the western propaganda and the Divide
and Ruin policy (title of Dan Glazebrook's recent book of articles) which is that Syria was a on the Ruin-map for a long time.
Turkey's Erdogan is intellectually an Islamist and together with Saudi they and the terrorists are fighting this proxy war the
US can hardly afford.
In 7 weeks Russia destroyed more of ISIS infrastructure and oil tankers than the US did in a year (the superpower has managed
to make ISIS increase seven-fold). The only objective is one man: Assad and the ruin of Syria to be 'rebuilt' (plundered) by western
investments and domination of the entire region of the Middle East. The rest is lies to prop up propaganda and doing as if they
bring democracy (like the West does in Saudi?! the biggest friend and weapons buyer. Just like Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, which
did not play ball, it will be destroyed by the West. It gets harder with Russia actually wishing to stop the proxy war: Syria
itself deciding what their future will be? No way as far as US and UK are concerned (and the weak EU following with their businessmen
contingent to reap the benefits). Absolutely disgusting that the people have to suffer it.
Of course Turkey did not need to down this jet: well planned and a clear provocation to start the propaganda war against
Russia which actually wants to stop this war before a transition without a pre-planned (US) outcome.
EightEyedSpy -> Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 21:59
Meanwhile, Turkey just gave the Russians a no-fly zone--against Turks.
Not true - unless Russia intends to breach the resolution unanimously passed by the UN Security Council authorising all member
nations to fight against ISIS on territory controlled by ISIS in Syria.
Pursuant to the Security Council resolution, which Russia voted for, all member nations have the legal right to use Syrian
airspace and traverse Syrian territory for the purpose of fighting ISIS in Syria.
If Russia attempts to impose a no-fly zone against Turkey in Syria, Russia will violate the Security Council resolution ...
btt1943 25 Nov 2015 21:59
Forget about whether Russian jet has infiltrated Turkey's airspace or not as claimed by one and denied by other, the bottom
line is Turkey has been wanting to play a big and decisive role in Syrian conflict and ISIS's rise. Ankara does not wish to see
Russian's growing influence and intervention in the messy region.
Jimmi Cbreeze -> Normin 25 Nov 2015 21:49
With Saudi and Turkish support for ISIS , just who have they bothered saving and sending out into Europe amongst their
name taking and slaughters ? Wahabists? How many cells set up now globally?
Jimmi Cbreeze EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 21:17
The turkmen are illegally staging war. Russia is the only country legally in Syria. That's why CIA, Saudi, Turk, Israel
etc etc etc operate clandestine. But they all enjoy bombing hotheads. A pity so many of them think their brands of religion or
old stories from centuries ago of enemies have any bearing today. Or perhaps they just believe rich mens newspapers and media
too much. Maybe all their educations and futures were lost by gangsters that were funded and protected and given country ownership
for oil and now forces clean up their centuries long mess for newer deals.
And then you have the Murdochs and the Rothchilds and the arms industries.
Because where the people are'nt divided by cunning for profit, they are too lunatic and gangster minded to live in peace with
each other anyway.
The whole matter is a multi joint taskforce of opportunism. And wealth is going for broke stamping and taking as much corporate
ground as possible worldwide.
What chance is there of calling peace? Where and when are all these lunatics going to live in peace and constructively? How
would they with half the the globe shitstirring and funding trouble amongst them for profit and gain?
Turkey has attacked Russia on Syrian soil and Russia is the only country legally at arms in Syria. Makes you wonder that Turkey
does'nt like Turkmen or consider them a problem. That they provoke getting them wiped out of Syria. How could Assad or anyone
govern getting undermined from a dozen directions.
Who knows, the place is a mess. It's no use preaching peace inside the turmoil. It has to come from outside and above. But
it appears with this lot-what peace ever.
Bosula trandq 25 Nov 2015 21:07
Since you can't or don't bother to actually read the Guardian or other papers you probably missed that UN Resolution 2249 calls
not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups in Syria. The Syrian Free Army is linked with
these groups, particularly Al Nusra.
Now you have learned something.
Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 21:04
It seems more likely than not that the Russians will make an effort to capture and try the moderate terrorists who shot the
Russian pilot parachuting. It is a war crime after all. The old Soviets would have dispensed with such niceties as trials, but
the RF is more legalistic. Nicely enough the moderate terrorists identified themselves on video, don't you know?
There may also be several legal cases brought against Erdogan and Turkey.
Meanwhile, Turkey just gave the Russians a no-fly zone--against Turks.
ozhellene -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 20:57
I thought Russia was INVITED by the Syrian Gov. to assist them in eradicating ALL rebel factions including a bunch of Turkmen
rebels funded by Erdogan. No others operating in Syria are legitimate. Any cowards shouting Allah uakbar and killing POWs should
be eradicated
luella zarf -> ArundelXVI 25 Nov 2015 20:54
US air strikes destroys 283 oil tankers used for smuggling to fund terror group. You were saying? I don't know why some people
around here just feel free to make things up.
Give us a break. The US hit ISIS oil tanks 6 full days after Russia released footage which showed its fighter jets targeting
200 oil trucks and a refinery. In 15 months of bombing ISIS, there were no American airstrikes on oil tanks until Russia came
along and showed them how it's done. Even PBS pointed out when reporting the attack "For the first time, the US is attacking oil
delivery trucks."
ozhellene 25 Nov 2015 20:35
will this be a "turkey shoot"? Big mistake Mr Erdogan! You just condemned you Turkmen buddies to be bombed by the Russian bears.
Turkey will never avoid the Kurdish finally taking back their rightful lands, stolen during the Ottoman rule.
Never forget that Kurds make up a lot of your population.....waiting for the right moment...
WalterCronkiteBot 25 Nov 2015 20:32
According to the BBC the Turkmen fight with Al Nusra.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34910389
UN Resolution 2249 calls not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups.
They might not be explicitly AQ affiliated or Al Nusra itself but they share similar doctrines and fight together. Attacking
them may not be by the word of the resolution but its certainly in the spirit of it.
ianhassall -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 20:13
Whether I think the Turkman should be wiped out is generally irrelevent.
I just know in the past 24 hours I've seen Turkey shoot down a Russian plane over Syria to defend the Turkmen. I also saw the
Turkmen shooting at 2 Russian pilots why they attempted to parachute to safety, and one was killed. And I've seen the Turkmen
fire a Saudi Arabia-supplied TOW missile at a Russian rescue helicopter, destroying it and killing two pilots.
I also know Turkey has been "laundering" ISIS oil from Syria and Iraq to the tune of $2 million/day.
You reap what you sow.
nnedjo 25 Nov 2015 19:49
In the recent G20 summit, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was once more keen to underline that "terror has no religion and there
should be no our terrorist and your terrorist".
Yes, just when Erdogan says this, he thinks only on the Kurds, and wonder why the rest of the world considers the Kurds as
freedom fighters, and only Turkey considers them as [its] terrorists.
However, the main message of this article is correct. In order to achieve peace in the Middle East, first the rest of the world
must come to terms. The divisions in the world, inherited from the times of the Cold War were reflected also on the Islamic world,
and so deepened or even provoked a new sectarian Sunni-Shia divisions and conflicts. So although it's "a chronic disease", it
is fallen now into an acute phase in Syria and Iraq. And the urgency of the case requires that really has to come to some deal,
primarily between the US and Russia, that it could reach the end of the civil war in Syria, but also in Iraq, because it's all
inter-connected. Otherwise, this problem will become even more complicated and prolonged, with unforeseeable consequences.
Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 19:58
Well, a US Air Force has now also suggested that the Turkish shooting down of the Russian had to have been a pre-planned
provocation. Also US officials have said it cannot be confirmed that the Russian jet incurred into Turkish territory. And of course
there is the testimony of the Russian pilot. No doubt the Guardian will be covering these points, yes?
ianhassall -> EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 19:47
Yes, I know. Why shouldn't Turkey defend terrorits and shoot down a Russian jet while its flying missions in Syria and not
incur any wrath.
Russians have been fighting Islamic extremists for a bit longer than the West, who have generally only ever funded or armed
them. I'd believe Putin 99 times out of a 100 before I'd believe Obama once.
illbthr22 -> EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 19:21
What ethnic cleansing??? Assad has a multi sect and multi ethnic government. Meanwhile western and Turkish backed jihadist
have openly said they will massacre every last Kurd,Christian,Alawi and Druze in the country.
Andrew Nichols -> Jeremn 25 Nov 2015 19:14
We don't have a clear, clear understanding of everything that happened today, okay? I've said that and I can keep saying it
all day. We're still trying to determine what happened. It's easy to rush to judgments and to make proclamations and declarations
after an incident like this.
Which is exactly what the US did - by supporting Turkeys side of the story. Dont you wish the journalist would point this out?
Cecile_Trib -> Spiffey 25 Nov 2015 19:12
Turkmen terrorists backed by Turkey (now from the air) are there not to fight with Assad but to wipe out Kurds in this region
- Edorgan's sweet dream to get the political weight back.
Amazing how Russia attacking the ISIS oil operation can suddenly embarrass the Yanks into doing the obvious. Why didn't they
do it before? If ISIS and their FSA buddies loses they can't get rid of Assad for Bibi, simples. The good old FSA, chanting Jihad
and carrying white on black Al Qaeda flags. We have an interesting idea of what "moderate" is. Then again Blair was a moderate
and he.... ummm....errrr....oops!
luella zarf -> TheOutsider79 25 Nov 2015 18:38
are France the only honest brokers in all of this, the only ones actually doing what they say they are doing - targeting
ISIS
No, of course not. It's all spin. France, which was Syria's colonial master, is hoping to regain some of its former influence.
ISIS is just a pretext, and they really have no incentive of destroying their only justification for being there in the first
place.
When France launched its first airstrikes in Sep, Reuters wrote: "Paris has become alarmed by the possibility of France being
sidelined in negotiations to reach a political solution in Syria. A French diplomatic source said Paris needed to be one of the
"hitters" in Syria - those taking direct military action - to legitimately take part in any negotiations for a political solution
to the conflict."
This is why they are participating - to get a seat at the table when the great powers break up Syria and hand out land rights
for pipelines to big oil.
SallyWa -> HHeLiBe 25 Nov 2015 18:46
Turkey has no interest in the peaceful settlement to the conflict in Syria that world powers are negotiating. As it gets desperate,
Turkey will attempt to bring focus back on the Assad regime and reverse the losses it has made both in Syria and geopolitically.
SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:45
Really? I guess I'll have to take your word for that.
Really. That's sort of your issue, not mine.
Do you have any links to support your claims about these lost ISIS territories?
Although there has been a war of words between Greece and Turkey, with Turkey charging the Greeks with invading its air space,
Turkey has yet to fire on a Greek plane. The turkmen are considered "moderates, and the US arm them to fight the Assad government.
Shooting down the Russian plane was Turkey's way of flexing its muscles. The murder of the pilot in the parashoot was a cowardly
act. These are the people the US are backing. They can be added to Obama's list of most favored and join the ranks of the Saudis
who behead and crucify protesters, one upmanship over ISIS gruesome beheadings, and of course there is alSiSi, who executes
all opposition. Petroshenko, wants to freeze the people of Crimea, and has over 6500 Ukrainian deaths notched on his belt since
Nuland and Obama gave him the keys to Kiev.
Turkey feels feisty right now, but he obviously isn't aware of the talk coming from Washington about dividing up Syria among
four leaders like they did to Berlin.
Turkey will have no part to play, and the US really wants to keep Russia out of the picture. They blame Assad for ISIS but
the vacuum left by the US and the coalition left in Iraq is what gave birth to ISIS. Easy to depose governments, and then let
chaos reign. Since Obama keeps bringing up the right of a sovereign nation to protect its borders, he should realize that the
Syrian government never invited the US onto its soil. The Turkmen through their actions have shown they are terrorists, and Russia
will treat them accordingly.
HHeLiBe 25 Nov 2015 18:32
Erdogan is playing both NATO and Russia for fools. Trying to create a wedge and sabotage the restoration of stability in
Syria.
Branko Dodig 25 Nov 2015 18:26
The Russian plane was shot over Syrian airspace. Even if it had strayed over Turkish airspace, it was not shot down there.
Basically, an act of revenge for bombing their "rebel" buddies.
SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:24
It is "Turkey screwed up and overreacted". Not confusing at all.
SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:23
Sorry, but I'm not Russian and also where have you been - Russia has been fighting ISIS in Syria better than US/coalition,
though US/coalition did it like for a whole year.The result is that ISIS lost territories which it gained under US's "watch".
centerline 25 Nov 2015 18:12
Since the G20 meeting, Russia has photographed and destroyed the Turkish/ISIS oil convoys.
In the day or so since Turkey shot down the Russian plane in defence of al Qaeda, Russia has for the first time attacked a
Turkish logistics convoy to ISIS and al Qaeda right at the main border crossing to Allepo. A number of trucks destroyed and 7
killed in that operation. turkey will pay dearly in the days to come, without Russia ever having to move into Turkish territory.
Any Turks running errands for AQ and ISIS within Syria will now be an endangered species. Or more to the point they will simply
be eradicated like the vermin they are.
luella zarf -> TonyBlunt 25 Nov 2015 18:10
What a joke.
In one year of bombing, August 2014-July 2015, the coalition conducted 44,000 airstrikes in Syria-Iraq and killed 15,000 ISIS
fighters, which comes at 3 sorties per terrorist!
It is all a giant make-believe. They are only using ISIS as a pretext to occupy and breakup Syria. And Western populations
swallow all these lies without blinking and feel victimized by refugees.
pfox33 25 Nov 2015 17:49
The US and Israel were totally freaking when Russia first considered selling Iran S-300 systems, even though they're defensive.
It would have taken the feasibility of bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure to an unknown place. Russia sold these systems to
select customers, like China. The S-400 is not for sale. Any search of Youtube will explain why.
When the S-400 is set up around Latakia they will effectively own the surrounding skies for 400 miles in every direction. That
extends well into Turkey.
Now, I'd bet that Putin has no plans to exacerbate the current situation by shooting down any Turkish jets out of revenge
for yesterday's incident. But it will be unsettling for Turkish flyboys and their bosses to know that a good chunk of their a
airspace is totally vulnerable and they fly there only because Russia lets them.
So maybe the Turks pissed in the pickles. This little problem is keeping the Nato nabobs up at night. They haven't said a fucking
word.
Geraldine Baxter -> SallyWa 25 Nov 2015 17:47
it's astonishing how many of the Putin hating NATObots from the Ukrainian-themed CIF threads turn out to be ISIS supporters.
indeed, with the "stench" of US grand mufti all over them.. How far do you think Obama will bow on his next visit to Saudi.
Liesandstats -> luella zarf 25 Nov 2015 17:47
Yup the FT estimated before the Russians got involved that ISIS were producing between 30,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil
a day. You would need over 2000 full size road tankers just to move one days output. Now its fair to assume after filling up it
takes more than a day before it gets back to the pump. Surprisingly the US has neither noticed all these tankers and even more
surprisingly the oil tanks and installations.
jonsid 25 Nov 2015 17:33
An article about Syria is now infested with Banderites. They need to worry more about their own long-time disaster of a country
instead of stalking every article mentioning Russia.
Anette Mor 25 Nov 2015 17:29
Russians spent all this time signing the rules of engagement and recognition of each other air crafts over Syria with the US,
only to be shot by Turkey. Does NATO even exist as a unit other than in the headquarter offices? They constantly refer to the
terms which could allegedly force then to support each other in case of external threat, while clearly they will fuck each other
on technicalities for years before doing anything practically viable. Russia waste their time talking to NATO, instead had to
bribe Turkey separately into a workable local deal. I am sure Turkey got just the same conclusion after wasting time in NATO talks.
Corruption and complicity eaten away common sense in western politician and military heads. They only think how weak or strong
they would look imitating one or another decision.
aretheymyfeet -> psygone 25 Nov 2015 17:22
Hilarious, checkmate Putin? The only reason the Turks took this drastic action is because the Western alliance has lost the
initiative in Syria and they are desperately trying to goad Russia into overreacting. But, as we have seen time and again from
the Russians (Lavrov is an incredibly impressive Statesman) that they are cool headed, and restrained.
The whole regime change plan is hanging in the balance and every day Russia solidifies Assad's position. If this continues
for even another month it will be virtually impossible for the Western alliance to demand the departure of Assad.
Their bargaining position is diminishing by the day and it is great to watch. Also good to read that the Russians have
been pounding the shi*e out of those Turkmen areas. Expect those silly buggers to be slaughtered whilst Erdogan and the Turks
watch on helplessly. If they even try anything inside the Syrian border now the Russians will annihilate them. I'd say if
anything, the Turks have strengthened the Russians providing them with the perfect excuse to close the Syrian air space to "unfriendly"
forces. Check.
thatshowitgoes 25 Nov 2015 16:56
Erdogan's reaction to Syria shooting down a Turkish jet in 2012. "Erdogan criticized Syria harshly on Tuesday for shooting
down the Turkish fighter jet, saying: "Even if the plane was in their airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack."
"It was clear that this plane was not an aggressive plane. Still it was shot down," the corrupt ISIS supporting scumbag said"
SallyWa -> psygone 25 Nov 2015 16:56
means he's politically impotent, militarily boxed in a corner and incompetent for self-inflicting
You know you just described Obama and all his policies in a nutshell.
Bob Nassh -> keepithuman 25 Nov 2015 16:54
I believe there's conditions within the NATO treaty that prevent them from defending another member nation providing the conflict
was instigated by war crimes committed by the member nation.
The US doesn't bomb ISIS, only pretends it does. Actually nobody bombs ISIS there except Russia.
Only between August 2014 and July 2015 the coalition aircraft have flown nearly 44,000 sorties, according to USNews, and Airwars
said the strikes have killed more than 15,000 Islamic State militants during this period.
So they needed 3 sorties per terrorist! I have no idea how they manage to be this ineffective unless a) they are world's worst
airforce b) it's all make-believe. My money is on option b).
Yury Kobyzev -> Valois1588 25 Nov 2015 16:41
Now fact - turkey government is on ISIS side. Its simplifies situation. Russia now quite free to clean the Turkey border from
interface with ISIS. It's half a job in fight.
I don't see why Russia can be damaged by so stupid current west policy. I think that clever part of west will change policy
towards Russia in near future and will find there friends as it was during ww2. You can repeat mantra Pu... tin as I use Ooom
... but is he of your level?
Chummy15 25 Nov 2015 16:30
Turkey has made it pretty clear where its primary loyalties lie, with ISIS and the other anti-Assad elements. It was a foolish
move shooting down the Russian plane which clearly was no threat to the security of Turkey whether or not it had violated Turkish
airspace, something that happen around the world regularly. It adds a further dimension to an already complicated war
"... You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks say about this incident. ..."
"... Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../ ..."
"... Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. ..."
"... According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day. ..."
"... ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless - maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards. ..."
"... "Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their way and rarely tackled them directly." ..."
"... Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is. ..."
"... His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well. ..."
"... Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists), fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists. ..."
"... Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine. ..."
"... Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago? ..."
"... Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS. ..."
"... Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders. ..."
"... All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it. ..."
"... It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is the jihadist's biggest ally. ..."
"... Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey, and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime. ..."
"... Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing the jihadist to train on its territory. ..."
"... The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS. ..."
"... The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil. ..."
"... Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine. ..."
"... I wonder if the leaders of NATO were involved in anyway at all??? ..."
"... And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international law. ..."
"... In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this. ..."
"... The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set us free ..."
"... 'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.' ..."
"... Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime. ..."
"... "Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July." ..."
"... By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey. ..."
"... Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth. ..."
"... Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing - but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting... ..."
"... Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not. Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high. ..."
"... So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!! ..."
"... Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend" and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf. A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications". ..."
"... Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think. ..."
"... "the US could potentially extract a lot out of it " ..."
"... And even if something is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal. You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all. ..."
"... Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. ..."
"... From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and strengthened the Russian hand. ..."
"... Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad. ..."
"... Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests. ..."
"... Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad. ..."
"... Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned. ..."
"... Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian Turkoman who are defending their land. One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing? ..."
"... That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists) won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations. ..."
"... "Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (Ł6.6m) per week to the terror group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client." ..."
"... Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding fleet of oil tankers... ..."
The relationship hinted at by Russian leader after warplane was shot down is a complex one, and includes links between senior
Isis figures and Turkish officials
Wirplit 24 Nov 2015 20:43
Turkey under Erdogan is turning out to be a real problem for the West. Supporting Isis and other jihadist groups and attacking
the Kurds. Maybe now the Russians will support the PKK. Tragedy for the liberal Turks that Erdogan won
Phil Atkinson moreblingplease 24 Nov 2015 19:57
The evidence is out there if you want to look for it. Erdogan's son runs a shipping company that transports - guess what? Oil.
Alexander Marne 24 Nov 2015 19:53
It is an obvious attempt of Turkey trying to make the European+American+Christian Civilization wage war against Russia with
the NATO war pact argument. NATO at these times is the perfect ingredient needed for a Christian Winter, having Christian Nations
disobey the whims of a secular NATO alliance that has everything bus dissolved since the Iron Curtain fell. We all know the radical
Muslims and their cousins are our enemy now, not the Soviet WARSAW pact which NATO was created to defend against. NATO members
that go to war against Russia would risk internal revolution lead by the Majority Christian Population that has grown evermore
dissatisfied of their Frankenstein Secular Ethic governments and sellout leadership.
hfakos Fiddle 24 Nov 2015 19:51
No Russian gas pipeline and, thus transit fees, to Hungary either. Germany shut down SouthStream, only to sign a deal with
evil Putin to double the capacity of NorthStream. Who wouldn't love an EU like that? We are all equal, but Germany and Western
Europe are more equal than others.
Phil Atkinson -> marph70 24 Nov 2015 19:50
Agreed. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is a misnomer, given its current membership (28 countries). NATO was formed
by 12 countries in 1949 and today, is a tool for encirclement of Russia.
yianni 24 Nov 2015 19:47
You have to laugh when you hear Erdogan and that puppy he's got for a Prime Minister solemnly saying that their airspace
is sacrosanct and that they would never do the same to another sovereign nation. Yet, every week or so Turkish jets violate Greek
airspace over the Aegean. And their jets don't stay for 30 seconds either. Personally I wouldn't believe anything that the Turks
say about this incident.
somethingbrite -> KevinKeegansYfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:46
I think we can probably ask that chap in his semi in Coventry where ISIS plan to attack next...the Syrian Observatory for Human
Rights is it? The man seems to have a hotline to Raqqa and every other ISIS held territory.
That said....the Guardian doesn't appear to have quoted him for a week or so....
Have they been unable to reach him since Paris?
Is he on the run? Hiding out in Belgium maybe?
SystemD 24 Nov 2015 19:40
I listened to Ashdown on Today yesterday. His comments about links between Gulf states and the Tories were extremely interesting
and unexpected. The same questions should be asked regarding Turkey. Why has the report about the funding of jihadism in the UK
not been published?
Phil Atkinson -> GemmaBlueSkySeas 24 Nov 2015 19:38
Would Turkey have shot down the SU-24 if Turkey wasn't a NATO member? Think on it.
camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:31
Yeah right, that's the western propaganda machine for you. They were saying the same thing last year ... Only misguided minds
believe such nonsense!
Neutronstar7 -> Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 19:31
Bravo. Pumping out endless western propaganda for the moronic. The Americans and NATO are the biggest warmongers in history:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/.../turkey-has-destroyed.../
I cannot believe it, but I feel ashamed of my own country and all the other western governments and our proxy's involved in
this vile conspiracy. Blow us up, we deserve it.
WankSalad 24 Nov 2015 19:30
All of this should just make us more furious about the Paris attacks.
The attackers; ISIS, are quite literally being armed, supported and facilitated by our "friends and allies" Turkey, Saudi Arabia
and Qatar.
Meanwhile Turkey directs it's fire at the Kurds - a group of moderate Muslims and secularists who have only ever wanted independent
statehood - whom we are supposed to be helping fight ISIS.
Saudi Arabia has also been quite clearly the source of most of the extremist Islamism that has repeatedly attacked our civil
societies. They have funded and set up Islamist mosques all throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
Are we really getting good value out of our relationships with these nations?
^Our leaders refuse to say any of this openly. It's infuriating. Sooner or later something has to give.
Omniscience -> James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:30
How can a dictator, who took over from his father (a dictator) be called a legitimate government ? Even by a Russian...
hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:28
Sounds like everyday Western duplicity. Car bombs and suicide bombers are fine as long as they only target Damascus. But when
the people the West has nurtured attack Paris, the world ends.
camerashy -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:27
You're such a feeble minded person! At least Puting didn't sell $hitloads of arms to Saudi Arabia enabling them to support
and nurture Isis. Look in the mirror once in a while, will ya ...
camerashy 24 Nov 2015 19:19
There's nothing to worry about here ... Putin is one cool customer, he'll have his revenge when time is right, and it'll be
nothing like a Cameroneasque thoughtless, hurried, knee jerk reaction. Turkey on its own wouldn't dare do anything like they've
done, they're just being manipulated by NATO warmongers who are desperate to justify their existence.
DrKropotkin 24 Nov 2015 19:17
Erdogan is a bad guy, who receives western political cover due to Turkey's NATO membership. But he has strayed very
far from the path of sanity and I think NATO will soon start looking for ways to get rid of him.
According to Seymour Hersch it was Turkey that was behind the Ghouta gas attack (well it certainly wasn't Assad). There
was also a plan to attack a Turkish shrine inside Syria to be used as a pretext for a full invasion. The video clip is available
on youtube. In the recording you can hear the defence minister and the head of intelligence discussing the plan, agreeing to do
it, even though they don't like the idea, while lamenting the fact that everything is politics in modern Turkey. Nobody ever talks
about this. Erdogan's response to this was to shut down Youtube for a day.
ISIS fighters move in and out of Turkey with ease, receive medical treatment there and selling their oil at very competitive
prices to people close to the Erdogan regime. Because NATO have gone along with Turkey in the "Assad must go" mantra they've been
stuck covering up for his antics. But shooting down a Russian jet that clearly wasn't threatening Turkey was extremely reckless
- maybe regime change in Ankara may be on the cards.
KevinKeegans -> Yfronts 24 Nov 2015 19:17
"Over the past two years several senior Isis members have told the Guardian that Turkey preferred to stay out of their
way and rarely tackled them directly."
So people in the Guardian are in contact with "senior" members of Isis? Was it a meeting over tea and scones? Perhaps you could
stop being their mouthpiece and ask them which public area they intend to blow up next. After that you could give the authorities
their contact details so that they can solve this issue quickly. That would be most helpful. Of course you might lose a couple
of years worth of potential headlines.
moria50 -> Rubear13 24 Nov 2015 19:14
ISIS started back in 2009.Jordan has a Centcom underground training centre, and 2,000 US special Forces came to train them.Gen
Dempsey oversaw this training camp.
Jordanian special forces were instructors along with the US.
James Brown 24 Nov 2015 19:10
Four years of providing money, transport, training, air and artillery cover against legitimate Syrian government forces to
terrorists and Guardian asks this question? Turkey = #1 supporter of Islamic terrorism. Open your damn eyes.
hfakos -> Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 19:09
Given that ISIS was created with significant Western help, why would Putin do anything about it? He finally acted when the
head-choppers got totally out of control and started to threaten Russia too. The downing of the Russian airliner, the several
failed terror attacks in France, and the Paris massacre should have opened your eyes.
NATO has an abysmal foreign policy record. In a mere decade they managed to turn Europe into a place where one has to fear
going to the Christmas market. Well done, "winners" of the Cold War.
pdutchman -> PMWIPN 24 Nov 2015 19:07
Martin Chulov is certainly not biased in his reporting in favour of Russia or against Turkey. He has reported mostly in
favour of the rebels in Syria and only recently realised what the outcome of all this is.
His facts about the ISIS-Turkish connection are not imagination presented against reason. Isis i.e. was free to attack
the Kurds inside Turkey and the government did nothing to stop them, even when they knew about them very well.
Once you see what is going on and what the results are, you have to consider the possibility Europe is threatened by fundamentalists,
also inside Turkey and Turkish government.
Just read the political program of grand vizier Davutoğlu, or the speeches of Erdoğan on the glorious pas of the Ottoman empire
when he visits former territory.
His vision is one of a regional Islamic state run by Turkey, that would be a superpower.
He detests western democracy and 'European' western humanitarian values and has not made a secret of this. He is a convinced
islamist and his support for ISIS and Al Nusra has sadly enough been very successful.
elvis99 -> tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 19:06
I agree. Its all about the oil.
Not only that there is a huge fracking industry at risk. It costs approx. $80 a barrel to produce and it selling approx.$50 at
present. They are running at a loss as most finance for these enterprises were secured when it was $120 a barrel. Yellen could
not afford to raise interest rates as it would crush a fossil fuel industry within the USA. Get the war machine moving though
and watch the price climb and save that profit margin
hfakos -> kohamase 24 Nov 2015 19:01
It's mostly the Western establishment, not the people. Hungary is not the West but we are in the EU and unfortunately NATO
as well, and the vast majority of the population supports Russia on this imho. Russia made the mistake of trusting the West under
Yeltsin. What you have to understand, and Putin has got it I think, is that Western Europe has a paranoid obsession to bring Russia
to its knees. It's been like this for centuries, just think about how many times the civilized West has invaded your country.
And old habits die hard. They prefer head-choppers and acid-throwers to having a mutually beneficial civilized relationship with
Russia. But you are not alone, Eastern Europe, although formally in the EU, is also looked down upon by the West.
ID9793630 24 Nov 2015 19:01
It's possible Erdogan is rattled at the possibility that the Russians might be about to pull off a secretive realignment of
external participants against ISIS - the possibility of unstated coordination between American, Russian and French armed actions
in the air and on the ground, with various local allies - and this incident shooting down the jet, created for the cameras, is
also intended to overturn that potential applecart.
underbussen -> DenisOgur 24 Nov 2015 19:00
Yeah, so what then, countries violate others airspace all the time - we don't see them downing each others aircraft do we?
Maybe sometimes it happens, this is action by Turkey is outrageous, and very, very aggressive. Turkey will pay, one way or the
other, lets see if that gas price goes up and now might they fare should they loose it?
Angelis Dania 24 Nov 2015 18:55
"The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on
Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely
to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers."
Assad's allies enabled and supported ISIS? Such an embarrassing thing to say.
"Assad, who had, until his brutal response to pro-democracy demonstrations in 2011, been a friend of the Turkish president,
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. "After that he became an enemy," said one western official. "Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after
the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where we are today."
Armed infiltrators in the protest groups fired first at police according to numerous eyewitnesses. How poor a journalist do
you have to be to continue to write articles on the basis of widely debunked allegations? Lol, "Erdoğan tried to mentor President
Bashar Al-Assad". What on Earth would motivate you to even quote that? Like an inferiority-complex ridden backwards terrorist
supporter like Erdoğan can approach the sagacity and popularity of Dr. Bashar Al-Assad.
MelRoy coolGran 24 Nov 2015 18:55
He did use his spy power to find out the source of Isis funding and was told the funding was coming from Saudi Arabia, Qatar
and Turkey.
hfakos Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:53
Because we, our governments that is, are not serious about tackling Islamist extremism. Scoring points against Russia is still
the main motivation of the West. This strategy had a low cost for the West in 1980s far-away Afghanistan. But Syria is in our
neighborhood and the world has become much more open. The yanks can still play this nasty game without repercussions, because
they are an island protected by two oceans. But it's a mystery to me why Europeans are stupid enough to favor the nearby chaos
of the head-choppers to secular regimes. ME oil and gas could be replaced to a large extent by Russia, but this again would go
against the paranoid Western desire to see that crumble. So you see France, the UK, and the US bombing ISIS with one hand and
giving it money through Saudi and Qatar with the other. It's insanity.
The problem is, nobody else is able to say it, because the Obama and Cameron administrations are up to their necks in it. They
knew that Turkey was responsible for the gas attacks on civilians in Syria. They know (who doesn't?) that the Turks are killing
the people who are fighting terrorists inside Syria. They know that the money, the weapons and the foreign fighters are being
funnelled into Syria through Turkey, with the Turkish government's not just knowledge, but cooperation and even facilitation.
They can't say it, because over and over again they have bald-faced lied to the public. They can't say that the "good guys"
in the fight against Isil are not just the Kurds, but the Iranians, Hezbollah, Assad and the Russians - our supposed "enemies",
and the "bad guys" are the ones we are sending all the money and munitions to - our supposed "allies".
tr1ck5t3r northsylvania 24 Nov 2015 18:41
Oil.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Without oil, the Western economies would crash, we are so dependent on it, but the US military are the biggest dependents.
the Pentagon might consume as much as 340,000 barrels (14 million gallons) every day. This is greater than the total national
consumption of Sweden or Switzerland.
Take away the oil and you will see the US military industrial complex die on its knees.
salfraser 24 Nov 2015 18:40
It would be as well to understand the ultimate motives of the current day Saladin. Look what was said in May this year.
27th. May 2015 : President Erdogan And The Prime Minister Of The Turkey Dovotogolu Just Made This Declaration To The Entire Islamic
World:
'We Will Gather Together Kurds And Arabs, And All Of The Muslim World, And Invade Jerusalem, And Create A One World Islamic Empire'
By Allah's will, Jerusalem belongs to the Kurds, the Turks, the Arabs, and to all Muslims. And as our forefathers fought side
by side at Gallipoli, and just as our forefathers went together to liberate Jerusalem with Saladin, we will march together on
the same path [to liberate Jerusalem]."
Erdogan and Dovutoglu at their speech in which they spoke of the revival of the Ottoman Empire and the conquest of Jerusalem
The amazing speeches by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu were given at the inauguration
ceremony at the country's 55th airport in Yuksekova district of southeastern border province of Hakkari, in which they made an
entire declaration to the Islamic world, on their desire to conquer Jerusalem and form a universal Islamic empire.
Looks like our American friends are about to create yet another conflict of interest!
Rubear13 Omniscience 24 Nov 2015 18:39
ISIS was created in 2013-2014 and proclaimed itself chalifate after taking much territory in 2014. During this year russian
had a lot of problems with crisis, civil war and ~2-3 millions of refugeers from Ukraine. And he did much. Both in terms of weapons
and policy.
By the way, Assad was actually winning war during 2012-2013 before creation of ISIS in Iraq.
RudolphS 24 Nov 2015 18:37
So the jet flew allegedly for 17 seconds in Turkish airspace. As Channel 4 News' international editor Lindsey Hilsum accurately
asked today 'How come a Turkish TV crew was in the right place, filming in the right direction as a Russian plane was shot down?
Lucky? Or tipped off?'
R. Ben Madison -> leonzos 24 Nov 2015 18:35
I suspect that Erdoğan switched sides when the West began to look like it was going to impose 'regime change' on Syria and
wanted to be on the winning side. It took a herculean, bipartisan effort here in the US to keep Obama from obtaining Congressional
support for a war on Syria. At the time, I (and many others) condemned the normally warmongering Republicans for tying the president's
hands purely out of hypocritical spite, but the Democrats were against it too and the whole effort collapsed.
Having taken an early lead in the "get rid of Assad" race, Erdoğan seems to have had the rug pulled out from under him. Sorry
for the mixed metaphor.
johnmichaelmcdermott -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:33
How about evidence such as an article from the notorious 'troofer' site, The Jerusalem Post, quoting that other infamous conspiracy
site, The Wall Street Journal?
"Erdoğan had tried to mentor Assad. But after the crackdown [on demonstrations] he felt insulted by him. And we are where
we are today."
Believing that Erdogan, whose country's human rights record is pretty unenviable (in particular with regard to journalists),
fell out with Assad because he was appalled by the latter's repression is like believing that Mussolini's decision to aid Franco
in the Spanish Civil War was largely motivated by his horror at the bad behaviour of Spanish Anarchists and Communists.
tr1ck5t3r 24 Nov 2015 18:25
Turkey is a conduit, the Turkish presidents son is buying the oil from ISIS, just like US Vice President Joe Bidens son
joined the board of Ukraines largest Gas producer after Nato expanded into the Ukraine.
Was the downing of the jet by Turkey a tit for tat exercise as Russia destroyed some of the hundreds of lorry oil tankers
parked up in ISIS territory heading for Turkey 6 days ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6oHbrF8ADs
Theres a pattern here.
Likewise Russia have released their version of events regarding the shot down jets route, claiming it didnt enter Turkish airspace.
Whats interesting is this Russian data was released at 8pm UK time, and yet the British press are still running with the rhetoric
from this morning, where at 4am UK time a Russia jet was shot down according to Reuters..
So it would seem the UK press are sitting on this latest inconvenient news, perhaps trying to come up with a way to spin it
or waiting for the UK Govt to advise how to spin it if its even to be mentioned so the Govt looks innocent in the eyes of the
electorate.
Whilst the availability of data from Turkey was very quickly made available, perhaps it was fabricated and released too quickly
in order to maintain momentum with todays news agenda?
All the while GCHQ and NSA sock puppets & other Nato countries flood various media outlets comments sections to drown out critical
analysis.
I wonder if I'll be approached by more US and UK military personal "unofficially" whilst out walking the dog in Thetford forest,
and be spoken to?
Its interesting watching the news from other countries, certainly watching Russia Today and their spin is interesting.
I can only conclude there will be another massive financial crisis coming for one or more countries, so in order to divert
the masses a war is needed, as wars always boost economies.
Hyperion6 -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:24
Sensible people would realise that only one of ISIS and Assad can be brought to the negotiating table. Sensible people would
realise that Turkey is playing the same duplicitous game that Pakistan played, namely supporting the most despicable fundamentalists
while being an 'ally' of the West.
Frodo baggins -> Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:24
Al Qaeda was created and used by the usa to do terror on Russia. No reason tho think things have changed, when clearly
they have not. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, all have fallen....more to come. There is no "wondering" at all about the orogon an dpurpose
of the ISIS when they admit they are al qaeda re packaged ...When the US admits al qaeda has melded into the ISIS.
Terrorists in the middle east are a western supported geo-political tool to allow us to bomb, invade, destabilizen and
balkanize soverign nations who refuse globalist ideology and orders.
Jan Burton 24 Nov 2015 18:23
Cut the bullshit.
Turkey is little more than an ISIS and al Qaeda support base, and now they're even providing an Air Force.
Get these scumbags out of NATO now
kohamase 24 Nov 2015 18:19
I don't understand you western guys. Am Russian and not a big fun of Putin but in this situation Russia fights terrorists ,
same people who organized massacre in Paris . Why , why shoot them down??? What is the meaning of this ? We can disagree on many
questions but we should agree on One : ISIS must GO !!! If you don't want to do it then at list don't stand on our way cleaning
up the mess you've created!!!
Tiberius2 24 Nov 2015 18:17
Crystal clear, the Turks are profiteering from stolen oil, the whole Turkish establishment is involved on this corrupted trade
namely : border guards, police and the military, all of them being involved, plus business men with political connections .
ISIS get also weapons and training, Jihadist from the world over, gets red carpet treatment and supply with passports.
The Jihadist can travel unmolested, to and from Syria via Turkey in order to carry out atrocities like Paris and Tunisia.
The West looks the other way to this situation and try to ignore it ,until it gets hit in the hearth, like Paris.
fantas1sta -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 18:17
Oh, I do think Russia was wrong to send troops into Crimea, but I also think the west was wrong to back the coup against Ukraine's
democratically elected government. NATO gambled that they could interfere in Ukraine and lost, now they know that Putin is difficult
to intimidate and that Russia defends its sphere of influence like the US defends its own. All powers are hypocrites, such is
the nature of their global interests, but Turkey are both hypocrites and cowards, shooting down a plane and then hiding their
heads under Uncle Sam's sweater.
grish2 Tommy Thrillbigger 24 Nov 2015 18:16
Majority of people in Europe support the Russians. The governments are making excuses for the turks. And the turks are with
the head choppers.
theoldmanfromusa -> ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:15
You have a strange opinion of the situation. The major problem is that the ruling classes (politicians, imams, etc.) use the
most inflammatory rhetoric to stir up the population (most of it) that is not intellectual and/or clever. These intellectual/clever
types can then make obscene profits from their rabble rousing.
Apollonian 24 Nov 2015 18:12
All a bit too convenient with the film crew at the ready. Clearly Erdogan is looking to further his agenda and set his
sights on expanding Turkey's borders and it looks as though he's using NATO's protection to do it.
It's ironic that NATO affords Turkey so much protection given that Turkey funds ISIS, it trades with them, it allows IS
fighters free travel across Turkish borders and it also fights IS enemies for them - the Kurds. Outside of the Gulf, Turkey is
the jihadist's biggest ally.
Gaudd80 24 Nov 2015 18:11
If we are really serious about tackling Islamic extremists, then why is it that we are allied those states directly aiding
them? Cameron is demanding the right to bomb Syria, while at the same time he's grovelling to the Saudis, crawling to the Gulf
States and defending Erdogan. Hammond nearly bust a blood vessel when Skinner said what everyone knows. The whole thing is an
utter sham, you have to wonder if ISIS and the other extremist groups aren't actually hugely convenient for some.
ElDanielfire -> Canuckistan 24 Nov 2015 18:05
Yes the Saudi's created ISIS. but the west helped build them up thinking they were something else because the west kept their
fingers in their ears because they had a gard -on for yet anotehr regime change in the middle east, despite none of the previous
ones (Afghan, Iraq, Libya) having worked and become hell for the citixens of those countries. Also the west always let Saudi and
Qutar get awya with anything, even if they fund groups who attack western citizens. It's tragic.
hfakos 24 Nov 2015 18:04
Well, at least we have seen that those K-36 ejection seats do work; they have reportedly never failed. Of course Turkey,
and Western Europe for that matter, has been playing a double game. Just like in Afghanistan in the 1980s, they prefer the acid-throwers
and head-choppers to a Russian-backed secular regime.
Even the Western MSM has openly reported about and from the staging areas in Turkey, where the jihadists gather before
entering Syria. The US-lead "coalition" is now boasting about bombing ISIL oil convoys, but where has it been for the past few
years? Everybody with a single functioning grey cell knows that Turkey is involved in the ISIS oil smuggling business and allowing
the jihadist to train on its territory.
But Western Europe is complicit too. With all the spying reported by Snowden how is it impossible to prevent thousands of European
citizens from traveling to Turkey and onward to Syria and getting radicalized? It is obvious that we have turned a blind eye to
the jihadi tourism. Funny that only after the Paris attacks did Hollande and co. start to take this constant flow of Europeans
into Syria seriously.
NATO says, two minutes after this incident, that Turkey is right and its airspace has been violated. But all powerful NATO
countries cannot track the returning jihadists and the mastermind of the Paris attacks has just been reported to have mingled
with Paris policemen after the Bataclan massacre. And one guy is still on the run. The first chickens have come home to roost
and there will be more to follow. The West has been playing with fire and will get burned. This is a much more global world with
open borders than what we had in the 1980s, when NATO was supporting the Bin Ladens and Gulbudding Hekmatyars in Afghanistan.
These jihadists will cause more havoc in Europe for certain. And Russia is more right again than NATO, when it comes to jihadists
in Syria.
ID9309755 24 Nov 2015 18:04
Turkey's territorial expansionist ambitions have backfired, just as the ambitions of their Islamism has. The emperor has no
clothes and yet it's difficult to deal with this maniac Erdog effendy who is pushing Turkey towards chaos internally and internationally...
A country which has intellectuals and clever people has fallen under the power of a group of thugs, the story of the region.
i_pray thinkorswim 24 Nov 2015 18:03
One actually feels sorry for Putin. He is bound by a Treaty he signed along time ago with Assad. He is doing what he is obliged
to do under that Treaty and at
the same time he is helping to destroy ISIS.
Then he is attacked up by Turkey a member of NATO, who are supposedly also committed to destroying ISIS .
If I were Putin, I would just walk away and leave the West to sort the mess out . I am sure that Russia feels that it has already
lost too many lives.
Wehadonebutitbroke -> Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 18:00
Erm, yes. The Turkmen who Turkey is protecting have been attacking Kurds. The Turks have been bombing the Kurds, who are
fighting ISIS.
The Turks have been buying ISIS' oil and giving other funding. Weapons funded by Gulf States have almost certainly been
crossing the Turkish border for ISIS. It is suspected the Turkey has been providing a safe haven for ISIS fighters. Tens of thousands
have crossed Turkeys borders to join rebel groups, the chances that some of them have not joined ISIS is nil.
Many of the 'moderate' rebels are Al Qaeda by another name or Al Qaeda affiliates. The Turkmen are Al Qaeda affiliates. The
line between Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria is vague and has been crossed both ways on numerous occasions.
Lest anyone forget, Al Qaeda are themselves have orchestrated huge scale terrorist attacks. But becausing they are fighting
Assad in Syria, who is hated by the Gulf States, Turkey and Israel, unquestioned or criticised almost regardless what they do
by the West allies of the West, apparently Al Qaeda are now fine.
And - does this lend weight to those who have shown that ISIS is a result of the Libyan, Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and
that they are mercenaries who have formed an insurgency within Syria for a regime change? A war crime, definitely against international
law.
Roland Paterson-Jones 24 Nov 2015 17:56
Dudes, Turkey is losing some valuable oil supply due to Russia's 'indiscriminate' bombing of ISIS oil-field territory.
Turkey has some real-politik collateral in the form of 'refugees' to mainland Europe. So Turkey, politically, is in a strong
position - EU is shoving money towards them.
Will NATO stand behind Turkey's real-politik?
twosocks 24 Nov 2015 17:54
Just watched the videos and listened to the turkish warnings. The SU24 appears to have been heading south as requested by the
turks and in syria when it was hit. It also looks like the turks entered Syrian airspace before they fired on the Russians - just
like the 1000+ times they have entered greek airspace in the last year, including one time with 8 planes at the same time.
In the warnings at no point do the turks actually say the russians are in turkish airspace, just that they are heading
towards it; they also do not threaten to fire upon the Russians like the RAF do over here when they issue a warning. Normally
the defending plane would come alongside the transgressor to escort them out the airspace, here they just just shoot at the russians
without issuing a warning. It also appears that there just so happened to be a tv crew there perfectly poised to film it - what
a coincidence. There is no way we are getting dragged into a war over this.
Adrian Rides 24 Nov 2015 17:54
The whole rotten scam is coming undone. No one believes the mainstream media any more. I skip the articles and go straight
to the comments. That's where you find out what's really going on. Thank you for all the insightful comments. The truth will set
us free
rumelian -> kmw2402 24 Nov 2015 17:49
YES, and the lesson for the West should be: Please stop supporting Erdogan and his fellow islamists. Watching events for a
decade and praising the relentless efforts of a single party and it's (now former) leader to suppress secular Turks and eroding
the pillars of the secular Turkish Republic, in the name of stability in the region, you actually create much instability and
threat, both for the region, and for Europe. Squeeze down these so called "moderate" islamists, and with real pro-European Turks
taking lead again, you will not have unexpected and complicated acts from Turkey .
thorella -> BigNowitzki 24 Nov 2015 17:48
'It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates.'
Totally logical
jaybee2 24 Nov 2015 17:46
Well said Pres Putin and hats off to Denis Skinner in parliament!
Turkey is a disgrace and should be booted out of NATO.
It bombs the Kurds fighting lsis barbarians, buys oil from lsis, protects anti Assad terrorists from the Syrian army, helps
finance various 'moderate' terrorists as to its shame does this Tory government!
As the 'heir to Blair' Cameron is drooling at the thought of joining in on the bloodlust!
Thank you Mr Skinner, and Hammond, what a silly man!
MatthewH1 24 Nov 2015 17:46
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?
Yes.
Oh, and the "rebels" shooting the pilots as they made their descent is a war crime.
quaidesbrumes 24 Nov 2015 17:43
Guardian reports:
"Turkey said one of its US-made F-16 fighters fired on the Russian plane when it entered Turkish airspace after having
been warned on its approach to the Turkish border through a 13-mile no-fly zone inside Syria it had declared in July."
By what right does Turkey declare a 13 mile no fly zone inside Syria? This is clearly grounds for believing that the Russian
jet was in fact shot down over Syria and not Turkey.
Turkey has overplayed its hand and Erdogan's strategy and tactics in respect of Syria are now in tatters. NATO will be
scrambling to put the frighteners on Erdogan who is clearly a loose cannon and totally out of his depth.
lisbon_calling 24 Nov 2015 17:43
The answer to the question in the title is absolutely clear after reading the very informative text.
Quite interestingly, yesterday, Russians claimed that in the past two previous days they have made 472 attacks on oil infrastructure
and oil-trucks controlled by ISIS, which is obviously the right thing to do if you want to derange their sources of financing
- but, apparently, the 'training partners' of ISIS are reacting...
MrMeinung DavidJayB 24 Nov 2015 17:38
Turkish fighters are violating Greek airspace habitually since decades. And not for mere seconds. The Greeks intercept them
but do not shoot them down. The Greeks have brought all kinds of electronic documentation to both NATO and EU - no result.
It is ironic that Turkey of all nations is raising such arguments.
This action is inexcusable and the barbarity that followed (by all information) - the execution of the pilot/pilots - by Turkish
friendly fighters, even more so.
LordJimbo -> CommieWealth 24 Nov 2015 17:38
Countries are operating on the basis of their national interests, Assad and Kurds represent threats to Turkey, Russia wants
Assad to remain and sees IS and rebel groups (some of whom are reportedly backed by Turkey) as threats, so we see a classic clash
of national interests in an already complicated region of the world, topped off by a brutal civil war that has cost the lives
of over 200,000 and seen one of the worst humanitarian crises since WWII. The very definition of a perfect political and military
storm. I suspect the Russian position will eventually win out in Syria especially now that Hollande wants IS targeted by a 'grand
coalition'. For Turkey the major headache has to be the Kurds who will get arms, training and are winning huge amounts of territory.
powercat123 24 Nov 2015 17:36
Russia was invited into support Assad by Syrias leader whether we or Nato like it or not. Turkey France and US were not.
Turkeys Air force will have to watch itself now as I suspect Russia will deploy fighter aircraft to protect there bombers and
the Kurds. As for the original question I think Putin may be right and Turks do have a foot in both camps. Nato should be very
aware of the consequences of playing the whose to blame game when the stakes are so high.
ManxApe 24 Nov 2015 17:36
Which Turkish businessmen did they strike deals with? Specifically which Turkish businessman's shipping company had their oil
tankers bombed the other day by Russia? Is this businessman actually a very close relative of Erdoğan? A clue perhaps?Allegedly
the shipping company is BMZ.
196thInfantry -> Artur Conka 24 Nov 2015 17:35
The Russian plane was never in Turkish airspace. ATC systems have recorders that record voice communications, radar tracks
and controller actions all synchronized. You can be sure that the Turks will not release the raw recorded data.
aLLaguz 24 Nov 2015 17:32
So, Turkey downs a Russian bomber and immediately runs to its daddies ?!?! C'mon! What a joke!!
This is the long awaited war for the Syria-Turkey border, a border that must be closed. Whether for stop jihadists joining ISIS
or to stop oil sales.
No fly-zone in northern Syria ?! The only affected parties with this is Assad allies and it is the same reason.... the Syria-Turkey
border. For Assad, It is a key region, Kurds must be stopped to reach the Mediterranean sea, the border must be closed to stop
jihadists or rebels to join the fight, to stop the oil sales of ISIS, etc, etc, etc.
Russia will fight for the control of the border whether NATO like it or not. Once it is Russian, Kurds will be pushed back.
Cecile_Trib -> penguinbird 24 Nov 2015 17:32
Turkey must learn to stop invading Greece airspace. Or you think it's OK for them as a member of NATO to do that? Or will you
say it's OK for Greece to down a couple of Turkish jets?
"In the first month of 2014 alone, Turkish aircraft allegedly violated Greek airspace 1,017 times, Gurcan reports."
Ha ha, your post is bordering on...no is, sheer arrogance and complete ignorance.The Russian planes are defined as entering
"an area of our interest".Which is really vague and is really international airspace.Both the US and UK do the same but more often.Moreover
Russia is being surrounded by NATO firepower,missile systems and US paid for coups!
NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 17:31
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'? Yes
Turkey are directly linked to Al Qaeda as is Saudi Arabia yet they are our allies in the never ending war against terrorism,
a war it seems we forgot about when the terrorists became repackaged as freedom fighters. Many of us have been warning that this
would inevitably lead us to become victims of the Jihadists but Cameron would not listen, he has a mania to get rid of Assad and
has been prepared to get into bed with some of the nastiest people in the world. A New take on the Nasty party.
Turkey 'let Isil cross border to attack Kobane': as it happened
Today's early morning, a group of five cars, loaded with 30-35 of Isil elements, wearing the clothes and raising the flag
of the FSA [Free Syrian Army rebels] has undertaken a suicide attack.
The nationalist Southern Front, which includes US-trained fighters, has confirmed that it is taking part in the fight for
Daraa, alongside the powerful Islamist groups Ahrar al-Sham and the Al Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra.
BigNowitzki -> BeatonTheDonis 24 Nov 2015 17:29
Turkish government giving military support to ethnic Turks in a neighbouring country = good.
Russian government giving military support to ethnic Russians in a neighbouring country = bad.
Good point. I imagine the Putinbots will try and rationalise it away via cognitive dissonance, or some other bogus reason.
As I said, Russia's position would be much stronger had they not invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. They were warned....
MaxBoson 24 Nov 2015 17:26
Thanks to the author for pointing out the role Turkey has played in the rise of ISIS, and its instrumentalization of the conflict
in Syria for its own ends. Taking this, and Turkey's support for the Turkmen rebels-or terrorists, or freedom fighters, depending
on which alliance one is supporting-into account, it is pretty obvious that the main reason why Turkey shot down the Russian planes
was that they were bombing Turkmen targets in what Turkey has the cheek to call a no-fly zone, not because their wings were in
its airspace for a few milliseconds.
deathbydemocracy 24 Nov 2015 17:23
Is Vladimir Putin right to label Turkey 'accomplices of terrorists'?
Answer below.
Concerns continued to grow in intelligence circles that the links eclipsed the mantra that "my enemy's enemy is my friend"
and could no longer be explained away as an alliance of convenience. Those fears grew in May this year after a US special forces
raid in eastern Syria, which killed the Isis official responsible for the oil trade, Abu Sayyaf.
A trawl through Sayyaf's compound uncovered hard drives that detailed connections between senior Isis figures and some Turkish
officials. Missives were sent to Washington and London warning that the discovery had "urgent policy implications".
That would be a 'Yes'.
Of course Turkey has a right to defend it's borders. In this case though, their borders were not under attack. The Russian
plane strayed into Turkish air space for just a few seconds, and it was clearly not part of an attack force against Turkey. The
correct move would have been to complain about the Russians, not shoot them down.
robitsme -> BillyBitter 24 Nov 2015 17:23
Most states would show some restraint under the tinderbox circumstances. Erdogan is either completely insane, or he is playing
a game, he as an agenda to provoke Russia in some way
rumelian -> JaneThomas 24 Nov 2015 17:21
You are right. Erdogan with his "conservative" comerades is rapidly and relentlessly ruining the the pillars of the secular
Turkey for more than a decade, and for much of this time he was actively aided by the Western powers, frequently praized and portrayed
as a "moderate" islamist and a reliable partner. The more power he gained, the more he showed his real nature.
Dreaming of becoming a "leader" of the muslim world (in the Middle East), countless times he showed his sympathy towards the
fellow "islamists" in the whole region. USA and Western European leaders, still assume that Erdogan is better option than anyone
else in Turkey, providing stability and a "buffer zone" to Europe, they ignore the fact, that Turkey was indeed a reliable partner
for decades, when ruled by secular governments ,backed by a secular army, but now that's not the case. Western governments now
don't know how to deal with it. When you look at the photos of the current Turkish ministers, and their wives (almost all are
headscarved) you realize that they had nothing in common with millions of Turkish people who embraced Western lifestyle and customs.
Ataturk has created a secular nation, suppressed these islamists almost a century ago for good, knowing their true nature, but
now Turkey needs a new Ataturk-style leader to eradicate this pestilence. Until then, Turkey will not be a stable and reliable
partner in the Middlle East.
Darook523 24 Nov 2015 17:20
Payback for the Russians bombing ISIS oil convoys? Would Turkey shoot down a Russian air force jet without the nod from
allies? Situation getting very dangerous I would think.
vr13vr -> WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:19
"the US could potentially extract a lot out of it "
It could but at the end of the day, can't and won't. The US is not going to split NATO so it will have to offer its support
for Turkey. Nor can Europeans do much as they have this "refugees" problem to which Turkey hold the key. And even if something
is extracted in return, at the end of the day, NATO and the US will be defacto protecting the islamists, which is Turkey's goal.
You can say NATO and the US are fucked now because they will have to do what they didn't want to do at all.
PaniscusTroglodytes -> MrConservative2015 24 Nov 2015 17:18
NATO has had no legitimate purpose for 25 years now. Will this finally give the nudge to wind it up? One can but hope.
Yarkob -> Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:17
The first reports said it was a Turkish F-16 with an AA missile. Some reports are still saying that. Damage limitation or diversion
by Erdogan? The 10th Brigade Turkmen that Debka said carried out the attack are aligned with the US. That conveniently shifts
the blame from Turkey back to the US by proxy. Back stabbing going on. Julius Ceasar shit going down I reckon
vgnych 24 Nov 2015 17:10
It is in West's interest that ISIS would spill into Russia one day and do the dirty job there for US and its associates. Syria
and Asad has been just a dry run of the concept.
Putin must be seeing it very clear at this point.
Yarkob Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 17:07
Attacking people parachuting from an aircraft in distress is a war crime under Protocol I in addition to the 1949 Geneva
Conventions.
LordJimbo 24 Nov 2015 17:06
From a Russian perspective the opening paragraphs of article speak for themselves. Russian entry into the 'game' meant
Turkey became a second category power in a region they have sought to dominate, the strike is a sign of weakness and not strength
and whoever sanctioned it (done so quickly you'd wonder if Ankara was aware) is an amateur player because it weakened Turkey and
strengthened the Russian hand.
Gideon Mayre 24 Nov 2015 17:05
Of course Putin is right but he only tells part of the story. The main accomplice of terrorists and other non-existent
so called "moderate" head-choppers is the United States, and Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel are merely facilitating this policy
on behalf of the US and in accordance to their independent regional pursuits, that converge however on the removal of Assad and
the use of ISIS as a proxy army to remove Assad.
Michael Cameron 24 Nov 2015 17:05
Events like today's become a useful window on an otherwise murky, indecipherable geopolitics. In the fraught aftermath
of the Paris attacks, we should do our best to see ISIS for what they are and have always been: the entree to the main course
proxy war between Russia and Western allied interests.
The idea they're an imminent threat and immediate concern of Cameron and co suddenly hoves into view as hogwash on stilts.
Their grandstanding over bombing ISIS while at once supporting their biggest enabler (Can anyone doubt Turkey's laissez-faire
stance?) makes sense as an admission of complete powerlessness to resolve an issue above his pay grade i.e. taking on Putin. The
extent to which all of these actors are clueless is terrifying. Foreign policy operations as fitful and faltering as anything
this side of the Christmas board game.
fantas1sta 24 Nov 2015 17:04
Turkey has been looking for reasons to invade Syria for a long time:
"The reason why worse incidents have not taken place in the past regarding Syria is the cool-headedness of Turkey," Erdoğan
said. "Nobody should doubt that we made our best efforts to avoid this latest incident. But everyone should respect the right
of Turkey to defend its borders."
The arrogance of this man is beyond belief, as Al Jazeera reported that the plane, believed to be a Russian-made Sukhoi Su-24,
crashed in Syrian territory in Latakia's Yamadi village and NOT in Turkish Airspace. What I love about this statement is the "cool-headedness
of Turkey".
What about the headless act of supporting ISIS, and what about the fact that Turkey has some of the worst crackdown of journalist
and freedom of speech of any country. Far worse then China.
I truly don't understand how Nato and Turkey's allies support its actions, especially the US. Could someone please explain.
WarlockScott 24 Nov 2015 17:03
Turkey is kinda fucked now, the US could potentially extract a lot out of it in return for 'protection'... For instance stop
murdering Kurds or cut off all ISIS links, hell maybe even both. There's no way Erdoğan can play Putin as the counterbalance card
now.
arkob 24 Nov 2015 17:02
Methinks the wheels are falling off the Syrian project and there is a scramble for the door and people are getting stabbed
in the back all over the shop.
Look at the leaks over the last few weeks implicating the US DoD, Turkey, France and soon the UK, now Obama is telling us his
intel assessments were "tainted" *cough*
Today a Russian plane goes down and first of all it's Turkey's fault, but Turkey wouldn't have done that without explicit
permission to do so from either NATO or the US, but then a few hours later as it all looks really bad for Turkey (and by association
everyone else in the "coalition") it turns out to have been Turkmen, but which ones? There's two factions, one is a "rebel" group
backed by the US, the other is a "terrorist" group (aligned with "ISIS") and backed by the US. They are both fighting Assad.
More to come in the next few days, I reckon.
Branislav Stosic 24 Nov 2015 17:01
Cards can definitely be open to see :who wisely silent is on the terrorists side( read USA) and who is really against. There
wont be some of the current uncertainties and media acting in this struggle. I hope that at least the European countries together
wake up their unhealthy slumber after the terrorist actions in the neighborhood and together, not only in words ,start to put
out the source of the fire and of terrorism in which some cunning players constantly topping oil on the fire.
madtoothbrush -> QueenElizabeth 24 Nov 2015 17:00
It's a well known fact that Turkey purchases oil from ISIS occupied territory. Not to mention they bomb Kurds that are fighting
ISIS.
Vizier 24 Nov 2015 16:56
Perhaps Russia would like to provide air cover to the Kurds who are under murderous assault by Turkey in their own country.
Carving about 20% off Turkey would be a good start.
Gglloowwiinngg 24 Nov 2015 16:55
Senator John McCain can be thankful the North Vietnamese were not as bad as these Turkmen Turks. "Turkmen militiamen in
Syria claimed to have shot the pilots as they descended on parachutes from the stricken Su-24 bomber." What the Turkmen brag about
having done is something neither the North Vietnamese nor the actual Nazis would have condoned.
NezPerce 24 Nov 2015 16:55
By then, Isis had become a dominant presence in parts of north and east Syria.
This is the problem, Turkey is in a struggle with Iran and the Kurds. Assad is seen as the enemy because he is closer to Iran.
It should be remembered that the Turks see the Kurds as biggest the threat and ISIS as an ally and that the U.S. not Russia
has been arming the Kurds. It looks as if the Turks also want to send a message to the US and Europe, a message via air to air
missile.
The issue has highlighted the widening gulf between Turkey and its Western allies, who have frequently questioned
why Turkey, a NATO member with a large military and well-regarded intelligence service, is not doing more to address the jihadist
threat.
In recent testimony in Washington before Congress, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, was asked
if he was optimistic that Turkey would do more in the fight against the Islamic State.
"No, I'm not," Mr. Clapper said in an unusually blunt public criticism. "I think Turkey has other priorities and
other interests."
Georwell -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:54
nop, just an pair of fighters patrolling the zone 24/7 , since the radars told them the russians daily pattern on bombing the
terrorists, AND an green-card to kill a russian plane on first occasion, even if that mind to (again) enter on syrian air space,
for the matter. Fact is, the russian pilots do not believe the turks will really open fire - now they know - in the hard way;
Was that an planed ambush ? I bet was.
Was a war crime to execute on mid-air the pilots descending on parachute ? Yes it was. Was a war crime to assault the body
of the dead pilot ? (are several pictures on the net showing the pilot body stripped and pieces of flesh missing) - yes, was another
war crime. All on the line of liver-eaters and "moderate" terrorists.
Maybe when those animals will target another EU capital the peoples will realize who its the true enemy here. For (to many..)
bigots here the tragedy on Paris was not enough to bring them the the real picture.
Aneel Amdani -> musterfritz 24 Nov 2015 16:50
Russia did coordinate with other coalition members of US so I suppose Turkey should have been aware of this. F-16 should have
bene in air and giving 10 warnings is utter nonsense. Russia has said no warning was given and their plane was in Syria territory.
Turkey has a rule of engagement that their territory and threat are well in 5 km of Syria itself. So they take it as a threat.
Turkey has gone nuts. they have first increased terrorism and now officially become the Air Force of SIIS. or more, they should
have shown a response to Russians for busting more than 1000 oil tnakers that supply cheap oil to Turkey.
rumelian -> jonsid 24 Nov 2015 16:49
Surely, Russia will respond to that incident. I supposed it was not at all expected by Russians, and they will figure out a
strategy on what kind of response it will be. I think too, that consequences for Turkey could be serious . But maybe it is a destiny
for a country where almost half of the population votes for the corrupt, backward islamists, and their megalomaniac leader.
copyniated 24 Nov 2015 16:48
Let's assume that this lying ISIS loving terrorist, Erdogan, is speaking the truth. He says Russia has been attacking Syrian
Turkoman who are defending their land.
One should ask this blood-thirsty ape this question: What then are Kurdish people in Turkey doing?
HuggieBear -> Mindmodic 24 Nov 2015 16:47
"I get the impression that a greater proportion of people in the US are blinded by patriotism" - patriotism would actually
require disengaging with the mediaeval oil monarchies of the Middle East and butting out of the world's hot spots. Something Pat
Buchanan has advocated for aged.
Aneel Amdani 24 Nov 2015 16:44
the residents of France and Belgium should ask their governments why did they let it to happen in the first place. ISIS was
created by West and funded extensively by the Saudis, Turley and Qatar. US is not a kid that after spending more than a 100 billion
on intelligence and CIA networks globally, never knew ISIS was getting rich. And now so when everyone knows Turkey buys cheap
Oil from ISIS, why aren't they being sectioned or why individuals donating funds to these terrorists being sanctioned.
US is very prompt in going and sanctioning nations that are not with them, but they never sanction dictators like the kings
and presidents that support terrorism. the blood of those who died in Paris and those all along since the war in Iraq are all
to be blamed on these war hawks in west. If even now Paris cannot ask questions on their governments involvement in destabilizing
Libya now, then I guess they will again see Paris happen again. West should be stopped from using the name of terrorism and a
Muslim Jihad for their own strategic gains.
jmNZ -> earthboy 24 Nov 2015 16:38
That's the whole problem. The banksters and corporations that run the US have too much to lose in Saudi Arabia and the
Persian gulf. And they want that pipeline from the Gulf to the Levant but Syria (with its secular ruler, hated by the jihadists)
won't play ball with the banksters. Hence, with American corporations' blessing, Turkey and Arabia loose the Daesh on them . And
al-Qeada and al-Nusra and all the other "moderate" rebels supplied with modern weapons by American arms corporations.
fantas1sta Roger -> Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:36
Turkey has spent a lot of time and money to cultivate an image of itself as a modern, secular, democratic state - it is none
of those. It's an ally of the US like Saudi Arabia is an ally of the US, it's a marriage of convenience, nothing else. The US
knows that both countries fund terrorists, but they need some kind of presence in that region. The Turks and Saudis need a customer
for their oil and someone to run to when they need their autocratic regimes propped up.
Roger Hudson 24 Nov 2015 16:29
Turkey buys ISIL oil.
Turkey helps foreign terrorists to get to ISIL.
Turkey attacks Kurds fighting ISIL.
Turkey facilitates the route of people including terrorists into Europe.
Turkey is run by a megalomaniac.
Turkey got into NATO as a US/CIA anti -Russian (USSR) puppet.
What the sort of corrupt people like Hammond think of their people, fools. Of course Turkey is on the 'wrong side'.
fantas1sta -> MaryMagdalane 24 Nov 2015 16:29
There's no reason for the US to directly antagonize one of the few countries in the world that has a military strong enough
to enact its policy goals without the backing of another power - see Crimea. Why would Obama order a Russian plane to be shot
down and then call for de-escalation?
Erm on balance, yes. Empirically, provably more repugnant. Russia hasn't killed well over a million civilians since 2001, nor
laid waste to an entire region, causing untold misery and suffering, screwing allies and enemies alike and helping (both by accident
and design) the rise of ISIS. I'm no fan of Putin, and let's be honest, there's no nice people at that level in politics, but
the US is far and away ahead of Russia on the dick-ometer these last 20-30 years.
Budovski Ximples 24 Nov 2015 16:23
Yes, of course he's right. What's wrong is that its taken journalists this long to even dare to look at the relationship between
Turkey and Islamic State. Or specifically, Erdogan and Islamic State.
Turkey has been directly dealing with various terrorist groups in Syria, supplying weapons, fighters, intelligence and arms
as well as buying massive amounts of oil from ISIS refineries (which Russia just pulverized).
They have left their borders open, allowing terrorists to go in and out of Syria as they please.
Their claims to be fighting ISIS are a joke. In their first week of 'fighting ISIS' they did 350 strikes on the Kurds and literally
1 on ISIS.
The terrorist attack by ISIS, aimed at Erdogans opponents, was timed so perfectly to help Sultan Erdogan get elected that I'd
go as far as suspect direct Turkish intelligence involvement.
Bonnemort 24 Nov 2015 16:21
Turkey are complicit in terrorism, but then so are the Gulf States/Saudis/US and UK. They're just a bit closer and their hands
a bit bloodier. Putin is correct,
Just think, only two years ago Cameron wanted us to join the Syrian civil war on ISIS' side.
And also think - Cameron and Boris Johnson want Turkey to be a full EU member as soon as possible.
Roger Hudson -> Samir Rai 24 Nov 2015 16:21
Turkey was let (pulled) into NATO during the cold war just so US missiles and spy bases could get up on the USSR border. Turkey
was run by a military junta at that time.
Same old CIA/US nonsense.
Turkey should be kicked out of NATO and never be allowed near the EU.
photosymbiosis -> kahaal 24 Nov 2015 16:04
Ah, the oil smuggling route to Turkey runs right through a zone controlled by these 'moderates' - perhaps middlemen is a better
word? - and so you can't really cut off the flow of oil out of ISIS areas without bombing those convoys even if they are under
the temporary protection of "moderates" - so it looks like Turkish oil smugglers and their customers (Bilal Erdogan's shipping
company? commodities brokers? other countries in the region?) are working hand in hand with ISIS and the moderates to deliver
some $10 million a week to ISIS - and that's how terrorists in Brussels can establish safe houses, purchase weapons and explosives
on the black market, and stage attacks - isn't it?
Alexander Hagen 24 Nov 2015 16:02
That is interesting that Erdogan and Assad were on good terms previously. That is hard to fathom. I cannot imagine two people
with more differing world views. I did not meet a single Turk while travelling through Turkey that had a kind word about Erdogan,
so elevating him to a higher level (mentor) might require some qualification. Though it is true the Turkish economy grew enormously
under Erdogan, "The lights of free expression are going out one by one" - paraphrasing Churchill.
cop1nghagen 24 Nov 2015 16:01
"Turkish businessmen struck lucrative deals with Isis oil smugglers, adding at least $10m (Ł6.6m) per week to the terror
group's coffers, and replacing the Syrian regime as its main client."
Why doesn't The Guardian grow a pair and investigate the role of Turkish President Erdogan in this illegal oil trade, specifically
through his son Bilal Erdogan, whose shipping company (jointly owned with two of Erdogan's brothers) BMZ Group has a rapidly expanding
fleet of oil tankers...
photosymbiosis 24 Nov 2015 16:01
Would anyone be surprised to find that the accomplices of ISIS in Turkey - i.e. the oil smugglers who operate with the full
knowledge of the Turkish government - are also transferring cash on behalf of ISIS to their 'recruiters and activists' (aka: 'terrorists')
in places like London, Paris, Brussels, etc.?
The lure of oil profits make relationships with terrorists very attractive, it seems - kind of like how Royal Dutch Shell and
Standard Oil kept selling oil to the Nazi U-boat fleet right up to 1942, when the US Congress finally passed the Trading With
The Enemy Act.
Konstantin Murakhtin, a navigator who was rescued in a joint operation by Syrian and Russian commandos, told Russian media: "There
were no warnings, either by radio or visually. There was no contact whatsoever."
He also denied entering Turkish airspace. "I could see perfectly on the map and on the ground where the border was and where we
were. There was no danger of entering Turkey," he said.
The apparent hardening of both countries' versions of events came as Russian warplanes carried out heavy raids in Syria's northern
Latakia province, where the plane came down. Tuesday's incident – the first time a Nato member state has shot down a Russian warplane
since the Korean war – risks provoking a clash over the ongoing conflict in Syria, where Russia has intervened to prop up the regime
of Bashar al-Assad.
... ... ...
Later, in a telephone call with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, Lavrov said Turkey's actions were a "gross violation" of
an agreement between Moscow and Washington on air space safety over Syria. The state department said Kerry called for calm and more
dialogue between Turkish and Russian officials.
... ... ...
Russian officials made it clear that despite the fury the reaction would be measured. There is no talk of a military response,
and no suggestion that diplomatic relations could be cut or the Turkish ambassador expelled from Moscow. However, the tone of relations
between the two countries is likely to change dramatically.
... ... ...
A Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, hit out at the US state department official Mark Toner, who said the
Turkmen fighters who shot the Russian airman as he parachuted to the ground could have been acting in self defence. "Remember these
words, remember them forever. I will never forget them, I promise," Zakharova wrote on Facebook.
"... Recently, Moscow's rapprochement with the Syrian Kurds, the PYD, only added to the huge complexity of the situation. ..."
"... any solution of the Syrian conflict will be based on a precondition that the US and Russia put aside their differences, ..."
"... At least one good thing has come from all of this. At least it took Putin to be the first leader to openly say exactly what turkey actually is. A despicable, Islamist supporting vile wolf in Sheep's clothing. ..."
"... well , just think for a second .... all the image - they were shooting him while he was in the air , shouting "Allah Akbar " then they showed a photo with dead pilot , being proud of that ..... Those ppl are the "hope" for a Syria post-Assad....don't you feel that something is wrong here ? ..."
"... Also as soon as the noble Turkman started shooting at the pilot and navigator once they'd bailed out of the plane they showed themselves to be the terrorists they are. Playing "no prisoners" against Russia. ..."
"... At the G20 Antalya summit of Nov 15, Putin embarrassed Obama publicly showing satellite pictures of ridiculously long tanker lines waiting for weeks to load oil from ISIS, as the coalition spared them any trouble. "I've shown our colleagues photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil," said Putin. ..."
"... So there you have it. For 15 months, the US didn't touch the oil trade that financed ISIS affairs, until Russia shamed them into it. Then, the mightiest army in the world bombs 400 trucks, while Russia destroys 1000. Then Russia provides videos of its airstrikes, while the US doesn't, and PBS is caught passing off Russian evidence as American. ..."
"... Of course Turkey did not need to down this jet: well planned and a clear provocation to start the propaganda war against Russia which actually wants to stop this war before a transition without a pre-planned (US) outcome. ..."
"... With Saudi and Turkish support for ISIS , just who have they bothered saving and sending out into Europe amongst their name taking and slaughters ? Wahabists? How many cells set up now globally? ..."
"... The turkmen are illegally staging war. Russia is the only country legally in Syria. That's why CIA, Saudi, Turk, Israel etc etc etc operate clandestine. But they all enjoy bombing hotheads. A pity so many of them think their brands of religion or old stories from centuries ago of enemies have any bearing today. Or perhaps they just believe rich mens newspapers and media too much. Maybe all their educations and futures were lost by gangsters that were funded and protected and given country ownership for oil and now forces clean up their centuries long mess for newer deals. ..."
"... I thought Russia was INVITED by the Syrian Gov. to assist them in eradicating ALL rebel factions including a bunch of Turkmen rebels funded by Erdogan. No others operating in Syria are legitimate. Any cowards shouting Allah uakbar and killing POWs should be eradicated ..."
"... According to the BBC the Turkmen fight with Al Nusra. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34910389 UN Resolution 2249 calls not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups. ..."
"... I also know Turkey has been "laundering" ISIS oil from Syria and Iraq to the tune of $2 million/day. ..."
"... Well, a US Air Force has now also suggested that the Turkish shooting down of the Russian had to have been a pre-planned provocation. Also US officials have said it cannot be confirmed that the Russian jet incurred into Turkish territory. And of course there is the testimony of the Russian pilot. ..."
"... What ethnic cleansing??? Assad has a multi sect and multi ethnic government. Meanwhile western and Turkish backed jihadist have openly said they will massacre every last Kurd,Christian,Alawi and Druze in the country. ..."
"... Shooting down the Russian plane was Turkey's way of flexing its muscles. The murder of the pilot in the parashoot was a cowardly act. These are the people the US are backing. They can be added to Obama's list of most favored and join the ranks of the Saudis who behead and crucify protesters ..."
"... Erdogan is playing both NATO and Russia for fools. Trying to create a wedge and sabotage the restoration of stability in Syria. ..."
"... It is all a giant make-believe. They are only using ISIS as a pretext to occupy and breakup Syria. And Western populations swallow all these lies without blinking and feel victimized by refugees. ..."
"... Now, I'd bet that Putin has no plans to exacerbate the current situation by shooting down any Turkish jets out of revenge for yesterday's incident. But it will be unsettling for Turkish flyboys and their bosses to know that a good chunk of their a airspace is totally vulnerable and they fly there only because Russia lets them. ..."
"... it's astonishing how many of the Putin hating NATObots from the Ukrainian-themed CIF threads turn out to be ISIS supporters. ..."
"... indeed, with the "stench" of US grand mufti all over them.. How far do you think Obama will bow on his next visit to Saudi. ..."
"... Yup the FT estimated before the Russians got involved that ISIS were producing between 30,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil a day. You would need over 2000 full size road tankers just to move one days output. Now its fair to assume after filling up it takes more than a day before it gets back to the pump. Surprisingly the US has neither noticed all these tankers and even more surprisingly the oil tanks and installations. ..."
"... The whole regime change plan is hanging in the balance and every day Russia solidifies Assad's position. If this continues for even another month it will be virtually impossible for the Western alliance to demand the departure of Assad. ..."
"... Their bargaining position is diminishing by the day and it is great to watch. Also good to read that the Russians have been pounding the shi*e out of those Turkmen areas. Expect those silly buggers to be slaughtered whilst Erdogan and the Turks watch on helplessly. If they even try anything inside the Syrian border now the Russians will annihilate them. ..."
"... Erdogan's reaction to Syria shooting down a Turkish jet in 2012. "Erdogan criticized Syria harshly on Tuesday for shooting down the Turkish fighter jet, saying: "Even if the plane was in their airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack." "It was clear that this plane was not an aggressive plane. Still it was shot down," the corrupt ISIS supporting scumbag said" ..."
The nervousness displayed by the AKP administration, in Ankara, has a lot to do with Turkey's Syria policy being in ever-growing
disarray, and its failure to set priorities to help resolve the conflict. As the Syrian quagmire deepened, old anti-Kurdish fixations
in Ankara came to the surface, and clashed with the priorities of its allies, centred on Isis. Ankara's blocking moves against the
only combat force on ground, the PKK-YPG axis, has impeded the fight against jihadists, and its constant redrawing of red-lines (Kurds,
Turkmens, no-fly zone, Assad gone etc) may have been frustrating the White House, but does not seem to affect Moscow. Recently,
Moscow's rapprochement with the Syrian Kurds, the PYD, only added to the huge complexity of the situation.
In the recent G20 summit, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was once more keen to underline that "terror has no religion and there
should be no our terrorist and your terrorist"
... ... ...
So, the tension now rises between one determined and one undecided, conflicted player – one lucid on strategy, the other lacking
it. If any, the lesson to be drawn from this showdown is this: any solution of the Syrian conflict will be based on a precondition
that the US and Russia put aside their differences, agree in principle on the future of the region, build a joint intelligence
gathering and coordinated battle scheme against jihadists, and demand utter clarity of the positions of their myopic, egocentric
allies. Unless they do so, more complications, and risks beyond turf wars will be knocking at the door
Eugenios -> André De Koning 25 Nov 2015 23:24
Assad is targeted because it is a necessary prelude to an attack on Iran. Pepe Escobar called that long ago. What is sought
is a Syria in the imperialist orbit or in chaos.
Attack on Iran by whom--you ask? Actually several in cahoots, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, et al.
A brief search on the internet shows many items referring to Turkish support for IS.
Now the SAA with Russian support is on the border dealing with the jihadist Turkmen, Turkey's duplicity is in danger of being
revealed .
Hence the impotent rage and desperate pleas for support to its other US coalition partners and the strange reluctance of the
complicit western MSM to fully reveal the lies and double standards of the western allies in this foul business.
Only the other day a US TV program was trying to con its viewers that the US was bombing ISIS oil trucks, with video from a
Russian airstrike.
At least one good thing has come from all of this. At least it took Putin to be the first leader to openly say exactly
what turkey actually is. A despicable, Islamist supporting vile wolf in Sheep's clothing. Who else was buying ISIS oil....the
tooth fairy ? Never in my life did I think I'd be defending the red team yet here I am.
AtelierEclatPekin -> murati 25 Nov 2015 23:06
well , just think for a second .... all the image - they were shooting him while he was in the air , shouting "Allah Akbar
" then they showed a photo with dead pilot , being proud of that ..... Those ppl are the "hope" for a Syria post-Assad....don't
you feel that something is wrong here ?
Shankman -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 23:02
He was awfully quick to accept Turkey's version of events.
As for his Nobel "Peace" Prize, Alfred Nobel is probably still turning in his grave.
Lyigushka -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 23:02
Of course Turkey supports ISIS and has done for all its existence as part of an opposition to its main enemies, Assad and the
Kurds.
.....and the censors are out again.....SHAME on you Guardian.
I say again.....MSM now referring to "Turkmen" like they are cuddly toys FFS
They are head chopping....moon howling....islamo-terrorists.
Russia has the right idea....kill the lot them
ianhassall -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 22:56
Also as soon as the noble Turkman started shooting at the pilot and navigator once they'd bailed out of the plane they
showed themselves to be the terrorists they are. Playing "no prisoners" against Russia.
And as for the US - they can bomb a Medicin sans Frontiers field hospital in Afghanistan for 37 minutes and the best excuse
they come out with is "the plane's email stopped working, it didn't know where the target was, they didn't know where they were,
so they just attacked something that looked like". So much for US military's navigation abilities.
NikLot -> LordMurphy 25 Nov 2015 22:44
Dear Lord, where did I defend it?!! How do you read that?!!! Of course it is appalling!!!
I wanted to point out that the 'good terrorist' Turkmen militia or whoever else did it would have done the same to NATO
pilots and that the story should be explored from that angle too. Statement by Turkey's PM today, if true, confirms my concern:
"Davutoglu told his party's lawmakers on Wednesday that Turkey didn't know the nationality of the plane that was brought
down on Tuesday until Moscow announced it was Russian."
ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 22:38
Its amazing that NATO have been bombing ISIS for 2 years and did very little to halt its progress.
Russia's been doing it for a month and have bombed ISIS, the military supplies NATO have been giving ISIS, and the illegal
oil racket that Turkey's been running with ISIS - all at a fraction of the cost that's going into supporting ISIS and other Syrian
terrorist groups.
I can see why Turkey's upset. Also anyone who thinks Turkey shot down this plane without the approval of NATO and Obama is
kidding themselves. Obama has blood up to his armpits with what's been going on in Syria, despite his Peace Prize credentials.
luella zarf -> ArundelXVI 25 Nov 2015 22:28
OK I did some research and I was somewhat wrong, Russia did initiate the bombing of the oil delivery system, but at the G20
summit. This is the actual chronology:
At the G20 Antalya summit of Nov 15, Putin embarrassed Obama publicly showing satellite pictures of ridiculously long tanker
lines waiting for weeks to load oil from ISIS, as the coalition spared them any trouble. "I've shown our colleagues photos taken
from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil," said Putin.
The next day, on Nov 16, the US bombed a truck assembly for the first time in the history of the coalition and then claimed
to have hit 116 oil tankers. In the meantime, Russia carried on its own airstrike campaign, destroying more than 1,000 tankers
and a refinery in a period of just five days, and posting video footage of the airstrikes.
Because the US never made available any recordings, on Nov 19 PBS used footage of Russian fighter jets bombing an oil storage
facility and passed it off as evidence of the US hits. The Moon of Alabama website was the first to notice. On Nov 23, a second
American air raid claimed to have destroyed 283 oil tankers.
So there you have it. For 15 months, the US didn't touch the oil trade that financed ISIS affairs, until Russia shamed
them into it. Then, the mightiest army in the world bombs 400 trucks, while Russia destroys 1000. Then Russia provides videos
of its airstrikes, while the US doesn't, and PBS is caught passing off Russian evidence as American.
idkak -> John Smith 25 Nov 2015 22:17
Currently 18 aircraft are patrolling the area on a daily basis, they must have misread the memo.... Downing a Turkish plane
over Turkish soil, or attacking a NATO aircraft on mission in Syria within the alliance that is currently bombing ISIS or other
terrorist variants... won't be favorable for Russia or their forces in Syria. Even without NATO, Turkey has a very large military
and the location we are talking about is about 2-5 minutes to bomb, and 1-2 minutes to intercept.. so the attack would be about
the same level of strategic stupidity as attacking Russia from the Ukraine.
André De Koning -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 22:16
How naive: downing a jet who fights al-Nusra. Of course Turkey has supported terrorist there for a long time and left the border
between Turkey and Syria porous, so the proxy war can be fought against Assad (just one man (?) always features in the multi-factorial
warfare, which is easy on the ears of simpletons). There were already plans in 1957 and more modern ones in the US to ruin Syria
and take the land and resources and use it for the oil pipelines from Saudi to Turkey (Assad did not sign off in 2009, so war
was bound to happen).
André De Koning 25 Nov 2015 22:11
Imagine a US fighter being shot down? From the beginning of the war Russia and Syria said there were not just peaceful demonstrators,
but people who were shooting and grew into ISIS and Al-Nusra and al-Qaeda. This did not fit the western propaganda and the Divide
and Ruin policy (title of Dan Glazebrook's recent book of articles) which is that Syria was a on the Ruin-map for a long time.
Turkey's Erdogan is intellectually an Islamist and together with Saudi they and the terrorists are fighting this proxy war the
US can hardly afford.
In 7 weeks Russia destroyed more of ISIS infrastructure and oil tankers than the US did in a year (the superpower has managed
to make ISIS increase seven-fold). The only objective is one man: Assad and the ruin of Syria to be 'rebuilt' (plundered) by western
investments and domination of the entire region of the Middle East. The rest is lies to prop up propaganda and doing as if they
bring democracy (like the West does in Saudi?! the biggest friend and weapons buyer. Just like Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq, which
did not play ball, it will be destroyed by the West. It gets harder with Russia actually wishing to stop the proxy war: Syria
itself deciding what their future will be? No way as far as US and UK are concerned (and the weak EU following with their businessmen
contingent to reap the benefits). Absolutely disgusting that the people have to suffer it.
Of course Turkey did not need to down this jet: well planned and a clear provocation to start the propaganda war against
Russia which actually wants to stop this war before a transition without a pre-planned (US) outcome.
EightEyedSpy -> Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 21:59
Meanwhile, Turkey just gave the Russians a no-fly zone--against Turks.
Not true - unless Russia intends to breach the resolution unanimously passed by the UN Security Council authorising all member
nations to fight against ISIS on territory controlled by ISIS in Syria.
Pursuant to the Security Council resolution, which Russia voted for, all member nations have the legal right to use Syrian
airspace and traverse Syrian territory for the purpose of fighting ISIS in Syria.
If Russia attempts to impose a no-fly zone against Turkey in Syria, Russia will violate the Security Council resolution ...
btt1943 25 Nov 2015 21:59
Forget about whether Russian jet has infiltrated Turkey's airspace or not as claimed by one and denied by other, the bottom
line is Turkey has been wanting to play a big and decisive role in Syrian conflict and ISIS's rise. Ankara does not wish to see
Russian's growing influence and intervention in the messy region.
Jimmi Cbreeze -> Normin 25 Nov 2015 21:49
With Saudi and Turkish support for ISIS , just who have they bothered saving and sending out into Europe amongst their
name taking and slaughters ? Wahabists? How many cells set up now globally?
Jimmi Cbreeze EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 21:17
The turkmen are illegally staging war. Russia is the only country legally in Syria. That's why CIA, Saudi, Turk, Israel
etc etc etc operate clandestine. But they all enjoy bombing hotheads. A pity so many of them think their brands of religion or
old stories from centuries ago of enemies have any bearing today. Or perhaps they just believe rich mens newspapers and media
too much. Maybe all their educations and futures were lost by gangsters that were funded and protected and given country ownership
for oil and now forces clean up their centuries long mess for newer deals.
And then you have the Murdochs and the Rothchilds and the arms industries.
Because where the people are'nt divided by cunning for profit, they are too lunatic and gangster minded to live in peace with
each other anyway.
The whole matter is a multi joint taskforce of opportunism. And wealth is going for broke stamping and taking as much corporate
ground as possible worldwide.
What chance is there of calling peace? Where and when are all these lunatics going to live in peace and constructively? How
would they with half the the globe shitstirring and funding trouble amongst them for profit and gain?
Turkey has attacked Russia on Syrian soil and Russia is the only country legally at arms in Syria. Makes you wonder that Turkey
does'nt like Turkmen or consider them a problem. That they provoke getting them wiped out of Syria. How could Assad or anyone
govern getting undermined from a dozen directions.
Who knows, the place is a mess. It's no use preaching peace inside the turmoil. It has to come from outside and above. But
it appears with this lot-what peace ever.
Bosula trandq 25 Nov 2015 21:07
Since you can't or don't bother to actually read the Guardian or other papers you probably missed that UN Resolution 2249 calls
not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups in Syria. The Syrian Free Army is linked with
these groups, particularly Al Nusra.
Now you have learned something.
Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 21:04
It seems more likely than not that the Russians will make an effort to capture and try the moderate terrorists who shot the
Russian pilot parachuting. It is a war crime after all. The old Soviets would have dispensed with such niceties as trials, but
the RF is more legalistic. Nicely enough the moderate terrorists identified themselves on video, don't you know?
There may also be several legal cases brought against Erdogan and Turkey.
Meanwhile, Turkey just gave the Russians a no-fly zone--against Turks.
ozhellene -> trandq 25 Nov 2015 20:57
I thought Russia was INVITED by the Syrian Gov. to assist them in eradicating ALL rebel factions including a bunch of Turkmen
rebels funded by Erdogan. No others operating in Syria are legitimate. Any cowards shouting Allah uakbar and killing POWs should
be eradicated
luella zarf -> ArundelXVI 25 Nov 2015 20:54
US air strikes destroys 283 oil tankers used for smuggling to fund terror group. You were saying? I don't know why some people
around here just feel free to make things up.
Give us a break. The US hit ISIS oil tanks 6 full days after Russia released footage which showed its fighter jets targeting
200 oil trucks and a refinery. In 15 months of bombing ISIS, there were no American airstrikes on oil tanks until Russia came
along and showed them how it's done. Even PBS pointed out when reporting the attack "For the first time, the US is attacking oil
delivery trucks."
ozhellene 25 Nov 2015 20:35
will this be a "turkey shoot"? Big mistake Mr Erdogan! You just condemned you Turkmen buddies to be bombed by the Russian bears.
Turkey will never avoid the Kurdish finally taking back their rightful lands, stolen during the Ottoman rule.
Never forget that Kurds make up a lot of your population.....waiting for the right moment...
WalterCronkiteBot 25 Nov 2015 20:32
According to the BBC the Turkmen fight with Al Nusra.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34910389
UN Resolution 2249 calls not only for action against IS but also Al Nusra and other AQ associated groups.
They might not be explicitly AQ affiliated or Al Nusra itself but they share similar doctrines and fight together. Attacking
them may not be by the word of the resolution but its certainly in the spirit of it.
ianhassall -> ianhassall 25 Nov 2015 20:13
Whether I think the Turkman should be wiped out is generally irrelevent.
I just know in the past 24 hours I've seen Turkey shoot down a Russian plane over Syria to defend the Turkmen. I also saw the
Turkmen shooting at 2 Russian pilots why they attempted to parachute to safety, and one was killed. And I've seen the Turkmen
fire a Saudi Arabia-supplied TOW missile at a Russian rescue helicopter, destroying it and killing two pilots.
I also know Turkey has been "laundering" ISIS oil from Syria and Iraq to the tune of $2 million/day.
You reap what you sow.
nnedjo 25 Nov 2015 19:49
In the recent G20 summit, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was once more keen to underline that "terror has no religion and there
should be no our terrorist and your terrorist".
Yes, just when Erdogan says this, he thinks only on the Kurds, and wonder why the rest of the world considers the Kurds as
freedom fighters, and only Turkey considers them as [its] terrorists.
However, the main message of this article is correct. In order to achieve peace in the Middle East, first the rest of the world
must come to terms. The divisions in the world, inherited from the times of the Cold War were reflected also on the Islamic world,
and so deepened or even provoked a new sectarian Sunni-Shia divisions and conflicts. So although it's "a chronic disease", it
is fallen now into an acute phase in Syria and Iraq. And the urgency of the case requires that really has to come to some deal,
primarily between the US and Russia, that it could reach the end of the civil war in Syria, but also in Iraq, because it's all
inter-connected. Otherwise, this problem will become even more complicated and prolonged, with unforeseeable consequences.
Eugenios 25 Nov 2015 19:58
Well, a US Air Force has now also suggested that the Turkish shooting down of the Russian had to have been a pre-planned
provocation. Also US officials have said it cannot be confirmed that the Russian jet incurred into Turkish territory. And of course
there is the testimony of the Russian pilot. No doubt the Guardian will be covering these points, yes?
ianhassall -> EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 19:47
Yes, I know. Why shouldn't Turkey defend terrorits and shoot down a Russian jet while its flying missions in Syria and not
incur any wrath.
Russians have been fighting Islamic extremists for a bit longer than the West, who have generally only ever funded or armed
them. I'd believe Putin 99 times out of a 100 before I'd believe Obama once.
illbthr22 -> EightEyedSpy 25 Nov 2015 19:21
What ethnic cleansing??? Assad has a multi sect and multi ethnic government. Meanwhile western and Turkish backed jihadist
have openly said they will massacre every last Kurd,Christian,Alawi and Druze in the country.
Andrew Nichols -> Jeremn 25 Nov 2015 19:14
We don't have a clear, clear understanding of everything that happened today, okay? I've said that and I can keep saying it
all day. We're still trying to determine what happened. It's easy to rush to judgments and to make proclamations and declarations
after an incident like this.
Which is exactly what the US did - by supporting Turkeys side of the story. Dont you wish the journalist would point this out?
Cecile_Trib -> Spiffey 25 Nov 2015 19:12
Turkmen terrorists backed by Turkey (now from the air) are there not to fight with Assad but to wipe out Kurds in this region
- Edorgan's sweet dream to get the political weight back.
Amazing how Russia attacking the ISIS oil operation can suddenly embarrass the Yanks into doing the obvious. Why didn't they
do it before? If ISIS and their FSA buddies loses they can't get rid of Assad for Bibi, simples. The good old FSA, chanting Jihad
and carrying white on black Al Qaeda flags. We have an interesting idea of what "moderate" is. Then again Blair was a moderate
and he.... ummm....errrr....oops!
luella zarf -> TheOutsider79 25 Nov 2015 18:38
are France the only honest brokers in all of this, the only ones actually doing what they say they are doing - targeting
ISIS
No, of course not. It's all spin. France, which was Syria's colonial master, is hoping to regain some of its former influence.
ISIS is just a pretext, and they really have no incentive of destroying their only justification for being there in the first
place.
When France launched its first airstrikes in Sep, Reuters wrote: "Paris has become alarmed by the possibility of France being
sidelined in negotiations to reach a political solution in Syria. A French diplomatic source said Paris needed to be one of the
"hitters" in Syria - those taking direct military action - to legitimately take part in any negotiations for a political solution
to the conflict."
This is why they are participating - to get a seat at the table when the great powers break up Syria and hand out land rights
for pipelines to big oil.
SallyWa -> HHeLiBe 25 Nov 2015 18:46
Turkey has no interest in the peaceful settlement to the conflict in Syria that world powers are negotiating. As it gets desperate,
Turkey will attempt to bring focus back on the Assad regime and reverse the losses it has made both in Syria and geopolitically.
SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:45
Really? I guess I'll have to take your word for that.
Really. That's sort of your issue, not mine.
Do you have any links to support your claims about these lost ISIS territories?
Although there has been a war of words between Greece and Turkey, with Turkey charging the Greeks with invading its air space,
Turkey has yet to fire on a Greek plane. The turkmen are considered "moderates, and the US arm them to fight the Assad government.
Shooting down the Russian plane was Turkey's way of flexing its muscles. The murder of the pilot in the parashoot was a cowardly
act. These are the people the US are backing. They can be added to Obama's list of most favored and join the ranks of the Saudis
who behead and crucify protesters, one upmanship over ISIS gruesome beheadings, and of course there is alSiSi, who executes
all opposition. Petroshenko, wants to freeze the people of Crimea, and has over 6500 Ukrainian deaths notched on his belt since
Nuland and Obama gave him the keys to Kiev.
Turkey feels feisty right now, but he obviously isn't aware of the talk coming from Washington about dividing up Syria among
four leaders like they did to Berlin.
Turkey will have no part to play, and the US really wants to keep Russia out of the picture. They blame Assad for ISIS but
the vacuum left by the US and the coalition left in Iraq is what gave birth to ISIS. Easy to depose governments, and then let
chaos reign. Since Obama keeps bringing up the right of a sovereign nation to protect its borders, he should realize that the
Syrian government never invited the US onto its soil. The Turkmen through their actions have shown they are terrorists, and Russia
will treat them accordingly.
HHeLiBe 25 Nov 2015 18:32
Erdogan is playing both NATO and Russia for fools. Trying to create a wedge and sabotage the restoration of stability in
Syria.
Branko Dodig 25 Nov 2015 18:26
The Russian plane was shot over Syrian airspace. Even if it had strayed over Turkish airspace, it was not shot down there.
Basically, an act of revenge for bombing their "rebel" buddies.
SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:24
It is "Turkey screwed up and overreacted". Not confusing at all.
SallyWa -> FelixFeline 25 Nov 2015 18:23
Sorry, but I'm not Russian and also where have you been - Russia has been fighting ISIS in Syria better than US/coalition,
though US/coalition did it like for a whole year.The result is that ISIS lost territories which it gained under US's "watch".
centerline 25 Nov 2015 18:12
Since the G20 meeting, Russia has photographed and destroyed the Turkish/ISIS oil convoys.
In the day or so since Turkey shot down the Russian plane in defence of al Qaeda, Russia has for the first time attacked a
Turkish logistics convoy to ISIS and al Qaeda right at the main border crossing to Allepo. A number of trucks destroyed and 7
killed in that operation. turkey will pay dearly in the days to come, without Russia ever having to move into Turkish territory.
Any Turks running errands for AQ and ISIS within Syria will now be an endangered species. Or more to the point they will simply
be eradicated like the vermin they are.
luella zarf -> TonyBlunt 25 Nov 2015 18:10
What a joke.
In one year of bombing, August 2014-July 2015, the coalition conducted 44,000 airstrikes in Syria-Iraq and killed 15,000 ISIS
fighters, which comes at 3 sorties per terrorist!
It is all a giant make-believe. They are only using ISIS as a pretext to occupy and breakup Syria. And Western populations
swallow all these lies without blinking and feel victimized by refugees.
pfox33 25 Nov 2015 17:49
The US and Israel were totally freaking when Russia first considered selling Iran S-300 systems, even though they're defensive.
It would have taken the feasibility of bombing Iran's nuclear infrastructure to an unknown place. Russia sold these systems to
select customers, like China. The S-400 is not for sale. Any search of Youtube will explain why.
When the S-400 is set up around Latakia they will effectively own the surrounding skies for 400 miles in every direction. That
extends well into Turkey.
Now, I'd bet that Putin has no plans to exacerbate the current situation by shooting down any Turkish jets out of revenge
for yesterday's incident. But it will be unsettling for Turkish flyboys and their bosses to know that a good chunk of their a
airspace is totally vulnerable and they fly there only because Russia lets them.
So maybe the Turks pissed in the pickles. This little problem is keeping the Nato nabobs up at night. They haven't said a fucking
word.
Geraldine Baxter -> SallyWa 25 Nov 2015 17:47
it's astonishing how many of the Putin hating NATObots from the Ukrainian-themed CIF threads turn out to be ISIS supporters.
indeed, with the "stench" of US grand mufti all over them.. How far do you think Obama will bow on his next visit to Saudi.
Liesandstats -> luella zarf 25 Nov 2015 17:47
Yup the FT estimated before the Russians got involved that ISIS were producing between 30,000 and 40,000 barrels of oil
a day. You would need over 2000 full size road tankers just to move one days output. Now its fair to assume after filling up it
takes more than a day before it gets back to the pump. Surprisingly the US has neither noticed all these tankers and even more
surprisingly the oil tanks and installations.
jonsid 25 Nov 2015 17:33
An article about Syria is now infested with Banderites. They need to worry more about their own long-time disaster of a country
instead of stalking every article mentioning Russia.
Anette Mor 25 Nov 2015 17:29
Russians spent all this time signing the rules of engagement and recognition of each other air crafts over Syria with the US,
only to be shot by Turkey. Does NATO even exist as a unit other than in the headquarter offices? They constantly refer to the
terms which could allegedly force then to support each other in case of external threat, while clearly they will fuck each other
on technicalities for years before doing anything practically viable. Russia waste their time talking to NATO, instead had to
bribe Turkey separately into a workable local deal. I am sure Turkey got just the same conclusion after wasting time in NATO talks.
Corruption and complicity eaten away common sense in western politician and military heads. They only think how weak or strong
they would look imitating one or another decision.
aretheymyfeet -> psygone 25 Nov 2015 17:22
Hilarious, checkmate Putin? The only reason the Turks took this drastic action is because the Western alliance has lost the
initiative in Syria and they are desperately trying to goad Russia into overreacting. But, as we have seen time and again from
the Russians (Lavrov is an incredibly impressive Statesman) that they are cool headed, and restrained.
The whole regime change plan is hanging in the balance and every day Russia solidifies Assad's position. If this continues
for even another month it will be virtually impossible for the Western alliance to demand the departure of Assad.
Their bargaining position is diminishing by the day and it is great to watch. Also good to read that the Russians have
been pounding the shi*e out of those Turkmen areas. Expect those silly buggers to be slaughtered whilst Erdogan and the Turks
watch on helplessly. If they even try anything inside the Syrian border now the Russians will annihilate them. I'd say if
anything, the Turks have strengthened the Russians providing them with the perfect excuse to close the Syrian air space to "unfriendly"
forces. Check.
thatshowitgoes 25 Nov 2015 16:56
Erdogan's reaction to Syria shooting down a Turkish jet in 2012. "Erdogan criticized Syria harshly on Tuesday for shooting
down the Turkish fighter jet, saying: "Even if the plane was in their airspace for a few seconds, that is no excuse to attack."
"It was clear that this plane was not an aggressive plane. Still it was shot down," the corrupt ISIS supporting scumbag said"
SallyWa -> psygone 25 Nov 2015 16:56
means he's politically impotent, militarily boxed in a corner and incompetent for self-inflicting
You know you just described Obama and all his policies in a nutshell.
Bob Nassh -> keepithuman 25 Nov 2015 16:54
I believe there's conditions within the NATO treaty that prevent them from defending another member nation providing the conflict
was instigated by war crimes committed by the member nation.
The US doesn't bomb ISIS, only pretends it does. Actually nobody bombs ISIS there except Russia.
Only between August 2014 and July 2015 the coalition aircraft have flown nearly 44,000 sorties, according to USNews, and Airwars
said the strikes have killed more than 15,000 Islamic State militants during this period.
So they needed 3 sorties per terrorist! I have no idea how they manage to be this ineffective unless a) they are world's worst
airforce b) it's all make-believe. My money is on option b).
Yury Kobyzev -> Valois1588 25 Nov 2015 16:41
Now fact - turkey government is on ISIS side. Its simplifies situation. Russia now quite free to clean the Turkey border from
interface with ISIS. It's half a job in fight.
I don't see why Russia can be damaged by so stupid current west policy. I think that clever part of west will change policy
towards Russia in near future and will find there friends as it was during ww2. You can repeat mantra Pu... tin as I use Ooom
... but is he of your level?
Chummy15 25 Nov 2015 16:30
Turkey has made it pretty clear where its primary loyalties lie, with ISIS and the other anti-Assad elements. It was a foolish
move shooting down the Russian plane which clearly was no threat to the security of Turkey whether or not it had violated Turkish
airspace, something that happen around the world regularly. It adds a further dimension to an already complicated war
"... Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast. ..."
"... The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers. ..."
"... Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month. ..."
"... One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries, so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism. ..."
Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters
to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown
into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast.
The influx has offered fertile ground
to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis.
Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers.
From midway through 2012, when jihadis started to travel to Syria, their presence was apparent at all points of
the journey to the border. At Istanbul airport, in the southern cities of Hatay and Gaziantep – both of which were staging
points – and in the border villages.
Foreigners on their way to fight remained fixtures on these routes until late in 2014 when, after continued pressure from
the EU states and the US, coordinated efforts were made to turn them back.
Lavrov cancels planned visit to Turkey
No great surprise this, but Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has cancelled a planned visit to Turkey.
Lavrov was due to visit Ankara on Wednesday for bilateral talks. Turkish officials had insited it would go ahead as planned.
Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the
threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month.
One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt
after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries,
so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism.
(That's it from me. I'm handling the live blog over to Mark Tran).
Shaun Walker
...Writing on Twitter Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament's international relations committee, said: "Ankara
clearly did not weigh the consequences of its hostile acts for Turkey's interests and economy. The consequences will be very serious."
Here's video of Putin's response to the downing of the Russia jet:
"The loss today is a stab in the back, carried out by the accomplices of terrorists. I can't describe it in any other way."
"Our aircraft was downed over the territory of Syria, using air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16. It fell on the Syrian
territory 4km from Turkey."
"Neither our pilots nor our jet threatened the territory of Turkey."
"Today's tragic event will have significant consequences, including for Russia-Turkish relations ... Instead of immediately
getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this
incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."
"Do they want to make Nato serve ISIS? ... We hope that the international community will find the strength to come together
and fight against the common evil."
Summary
... ... ...
Russia's president Vladimir Putin has warned Turkey of 'serious consequences' after a Russia fighter jet was shot down close
to Turkey's border with Syria. Putin described the incident as a "stab in the back" and accused Turkey of siding with Islamic
State militants in Syria.
"... "The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he emphasizes. ..."
"... "As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves," Cartalucci notes. ..."
Geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci draws attention to the fact that over the recent weeks Russian
and Syrian forces have been steadily gaining ground in Syria, retaking territory from ISIL and
al-Qaeda.
"The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has even begun approaching the Euphrates River east of
Aleppo, which would effectively cut off ISIS [ISIL] from its supply lines leading out of Turkish
territory," Cartalucci narrates in his latest article for New Eastern Outlook.
He explains that from there, Syrian troops with Russian air support would move north, into the
very "safe zone" which Washington and Ankara have planned to carve out of Syria. Cartalucci points
out that the "safe zone" includes a northern Syria area stretching from Jarabulus to Afrin and
Al-Dana.
If Syrian troops establish their control over this zone, the Western plan of taking
and holding the territory (with the prospect of further Balkanization of the region) would fall
apart at the seams. In light of this, the regime change project, harbored by the West since the
very beginning of the Syrian unrest, would be "indefinitely suspended," Cartalucci underscores.
"The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and
Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he
emphasizes.
"As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves,"
Cartalucci notes.
According to the geopolitical analyst, Russia's best choice now is to continue winning this
war, eventually taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor. By fortifying this area Russian and Syrian
forces would prevent NATO from invading Syria, at the same time cutting off the ISIL and al-Nusra
Front supply route from Turkey.
Russo-Syrian victory would have far-reaching consequences for the region as a whole. "With
Syria secured, an alternative arc of influence will exist within the Middle East, one that will
inevitably work against Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes' efforts in Yemen, and in a wider
sense, begin the irreversible eviction of Western hegemony from the region," Cartalucci
underscores.
"... "We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours." ..."
A government official said: "In line with the military rules of engagement, the Turkish authorities
repeatedly warned an unidentified aircraft that they were 15km or less away from the border. The
aircraft didn't heed the warnings and proceeded to fly over Turkey. The Turkish air forces responded
by downing the aircraft.
More on this topic: Turkey caught between aiding Turkmen and economic dependence on Russia
"This isn't an action against any specific country: our F-16s took necessary steps to defend Turkey's
sovereign territory."
The Turkish UN ambassador, Halit Cevik, told the UN Security Council in a letter that two planes
had flow a mile into Turkey for 17 seconds. "Following the violation, plane 1 left Turkish national
airspace. Plane 2 was fired at while in Turkish national airspace by Turkish F-16s performing air
combat patrolling in the area," he wrote.
... ... ...
Putin said there would be "serious consequences" for Russia-Turkish relations.
"We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what
happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as
we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident,
as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."
"... Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast. ..."
"... The influx has offered fertile ground to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis. Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers. ..."
"... Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month. ..."
"... One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries, so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism. ..."
Turkey's international airports have also been busy. Many, if not most, of the estimated 15,000-20,000 foreign fighters
to have joined the Islamic State (Isis) have first flown
into Istanbul or Adana, or arrived by ferry along its Mediterranean coast.
The influx has offered fertile ground
to allies of Assad who, well before a Turkish jet shot down a Russian fighter on Tuesday, had enabled, or even supported Isis.
Vladimir Putin's reference to Turkey as "accomplices of terrorists" is likely to resonate even among some of Ankara's backers.
From midway through 2012, when jihadis started to travel to Syria, their presence was apparent at all points of
the journey to the border. At Istanbul airport, in the southern cities of Hatay and Gaziantep – both of which were staging
points – and in the border villages.
Foreigners on their way to fight remained fixtures on these routes until late in 2014 when, after continued pressure from
the EU states and the US, coordinated efforts were made to turn them back.
Lavrov cancels planned visit to Turkey
No great surprise this, but Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has cancelled a planned visit to Turkey.
Lavrov was due to visit Ankara on Wednesday for bilateral talks. Turkish officials had insited it would go ahead as planned.
Lavrov, speaking to reporters in the southern Russian city of Sochi, advised Russians not to visit Turkey and said the
threat of terrorism there was the no less than in Egypt, where a bomb attack brought down a Russian passenger plane last month.
One of the possible retaliatory measures Russia could take would be ban flights to Turkey, as Moscow did with Egypt
after the Metrojet bombing over Sinai last month, writes Shaun Walker. There are dozens of flights a day between the two countries,
so such a move would undoubtedly seriously affect trade and tourism.
(That's it from me. I'm handling the live blog over to Mark Tran).
Shaun Walker
...Writing on Twitter Alexei Pushkov, the head of the Russian parliament's international relations committee, said: "Ankara
clearly did not weigh the consequences of its hostile acts for Turkey's interests and economy. The consequences will be very serious."
Here's video of Putin's response to the downing of the Russia jet:
"The loss today is a stab in the back, carried out by the accomplices of terrorists. I can't describe it in any other way."
"Our aircraft was downed over the territory of Syria, using air-to-air missile from a Turkish F-16. It fell on the Syrian
territory 4km from Turkey."
"Neither our pilots nor our jet threatened the territory of Turkey."
"Today's tragic event will have significant consequences, including for Russia-Turkish relations ... Instead of immediately
getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this
incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."
"Do they want to make Nato serve ISIS? ... We hope that the international community will find the strength to come together
and fight against the common evil."
Summary
... ... ...
Russia's president Vladimir Putin has warned Turkey of 'serious consequences' after a Russia fighter jet was shot down close
to Turkey's border with Syria. Putin described the incident as a "stab in the back" and accused Turkey of siding with Islamic
State militants in Syria.
"... "The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he emphasizes. ..."
"... "As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves," Cartalucci notes. ..."
Geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci draws attention to the fact that over the recent weeks Russian
and Syrian forces have been steadily gaining ground in Syria, retaking territory from ISIL and
al-Qaeda.
"The Syrian Arab Army (SAA) has even begun approaching the Euphrates River east of
Aleppo, which would effectively cut off ISIS [ISIL] from its supply lines leading out of Turkish
territory," Cartalucci narrates in his latest article for New Eastern Outlook.
He explains that from there, Syrian troops with Russian air support would move north, into the
very "safe zone" which Washington and Ankara have planned to carve out of Syria. Cartalucci points
out that the "safe zone" includes a northern Syria area stretching from Jarabulus to Afrin and
Al-Dana.
If Syrian troops establish their control over this zone, the Western plan of taking
and holding the territory (with the prospect of further Balkanization of the region) would fall
apart at the seams. In light of this, the regime change project, harbored by the West since the
very beginning of the Syrian unrest, would be "indefinitely suspended," Cartalucci underscores.
"The endgame is at hand, and only the most desperate measures can hope to prevent Russia and
Syria from finally securing Syria's borders. Turkey's provocation is just such a measure," he
emphasizes.
"As in the game of chess, a player often seeks to provoke their opponent into a series of moves,"
Cartalucci notes.
According to the geopolitical analyst, Russia's best choice now is to continue winning this
war, eventually taking the Jarabulus-Afrin corridor. By fortifying this area Russian and Syrian
forces would prevent NATO from invading Syria, at the same time cutting off the ISIL and al-Nusra
Front supply route from Turkey.
Russo-Syrian victory would have far-reaching consequences for the region as a whole. "With
Syria secured, an alternative arc of influence will exist within the Middle East, one that will
inevitably work against Saudi and other Persian Gulf regimes' efforts in Yemen, and in a wider
sense, begin the irreversible eviction of Western hegemony from the region," Cartalucci
underscores.
"... "We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident, as if we shot down their plane and not they ours." ..."
A government official said: "In line with the military rules of engagement, the Turkish authorities
repeatedly warned an unidentified aircraft that they were 15km or less away from the border. The
aircraft didn't heed the warnings and proceeded to fly over Turkey. The Turkish air forces responded
by downing the aircraft.
More on this topic: Turkey caught between aiding Turkmen and economic dependence on Russia
"This isn't an action against any specific country: our F-16s took necessary steps to defend Turkey's
sovereign territory."
The Turkish UN ambassador, Halit Cevik, told the UN Security Council in a letter that two planes
had flow a mile into Turkey for 17 seconds. "Following the violation, plane 1 left Turkish national
airspace. Plane 2 was fired at while in Turkish national airspace by Turkish F-16s performing air
combat patrolling in the area," he wrote.
... ... ...
Putin said there would be "serious consequences" for Russia-Turkish relations.
"We have always treated Turkey as a friendly state. I don't know who was interested in what
happened today, certainly not us. And instead of immediately getting in contact with us, as far as
we know, the Turkish side immediately turned to their partners from Nato to discuss this incident,
as if we shot down their plane and not they ours."
"It's past time for the West, and above all for the United States as the West's primary military
power, to consider trying something different.
Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead of
attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself..."
Notable quotes:
"... Today, notwithstanding the Obama administration's continuing appetite for military piddling - air strikes, commando raids, and advisory missions - few Americans retain any appetite for undertaking further large-scale hostilities in the Islamic world. ..."
"... In proposing to pour yet more fuel on that fire, Hollande demonstrates a crippling absence of imagination, one that has characterized recent Western statesmanship more generally when it comes to the Islamic world. There, simply trying harder won't suffice as a basis of policy. ..."
"... Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect itself from the violence emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect, but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost than is gained by engaging in futile, open-ended armed conflicts. Rather than vainly attempting to police or control, this revised strategy should seek to contain. .. ..."
French President Francois Hollande's response to Friday's vicious terrorist attacks, now attributed
to ISIS, was immediate and uncompromising. "We are going to lead a war which will be pitiless," he
vowed.
Whether France itself possesses the will or the capacity to undertake such a war is another matter.
So too is the question of whether further war can provide a remedy to the problem at hand: widespread
disorder roiling much of the Greater Middle East and periodically spilling into the outside world.
It's not as if the outside world hasn't already given pitiless war a try. The Soviet Union spent
all of the 1980s attempting to pacify Afghanistan and succeeded only in killing a million or so Afghans
while creating an incubator for Islamic radicalism. Beginning in 2003, the United States attempted
something similar in Iraq and ended up producing similarly destabilizing results. By the time US
troops withdrew in 2011, something like 200,000 Iraqis had died, most of the them civilians. Today
Iraq teeters on the brink of disintegration.
Perhaps if the Russians had tried harder or the Americans had stayed longer they might have achieved
a more favorable outcome. Yet that qualifies as a theoretical possibility at best. Years of fighting
in Afghanistan exhausted the Soviet Union and contributed directly to its subsequent collapse. Years
of fighting in Iraq used up whatever "Let's roll!" combativeness Americans may have entertained in
the wake of 9/11.
Today, notwithstanding the Obama administration's continuing appetite for military piddling
- air strikes, commando raids, and advisory missions - few Americans retain any appetite for undertaking
further large-scale hostilities in the Islamic world. Fewer still will sign up to follow President
Hollande in undertaking any new crusade. Their reluctance to do so is understandable and appropriate.
It's difficult to imagine the nihilism, and contempt for humanity, that could motivate such cold-blooded
rage.
The fact is that United States and its European allies, to include France, face a perplexing strategic
conundrum. Collectively they find themselves locked in a protracted conflict with Islamic radicalism,
with ISIS but one manifestation of a much larger phenomenon. Prospects for negotiating an end to
that conflict anytime soon appear to be nil. Alas, so too do prospects of winning it.
In this conflict, the West generally appears to enjoy the advantage of clear-cut military superiority.
By almost any measure, we are stronger than our adversaries. Our arsenals are bigger, our weapons
more sophisticated, our generals better educated in the art of war, our fighters better trained at
waging it.
Yet most of this has proven to be irrelevant. Time and again the actual employment of that ostensibly
superior military might has produced results other than those intended or anticipated. Even where
armed intervention has achieved a semblance of tactical success - the ousting of some unsavory dictator,
for example - it has yielded neither reconciliation nor willing submission nor even sullen compliance.
Instead, intervention typically serves to aggravate, inciting further resistance. Rather than putting
out the fires of radicalism, we end up feeding them.
In proposing to pour yet more fuel on that fire, Hollande demonstrates a crippling absence
of imagination, one that has characterized recent Western statesmanship more generally when it comes
to the Islamic world. There, simply trying harder won't suffice as a basis of policy.
It's past time for the West, and above all for the United States as the West's primary military
power, to consider trying something different.
Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead
of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect
itself from the violence emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect,
but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost than is gained by engaging in futile,
open-ended armed conflicts. Rather than vainly attempting to police or control, this revised strategy
should seek to contain. ...
Fred C. Dobbs ->Fred C. Dobbs...
'Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead
of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect
itself from the violence emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect,
but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost...'
The question remains: Is it possible to do this?
Granted, the Mediterranean Sea is an insufficient barrier.
'Rather than assuming an offensive posture, the West should revert to a defensive one. Instead
of attempting to impose its will on the Greater Middle East, it should erect barriers to protect
itself from the violence emanating from that quarter. Such barriers will necessarily be imperfect,
but they will produce greater security at a more affordable cost...'
The question remains: Is
it possible to do this?
Granted, the Mediterranean Sea is an insufficient barrier.
[ My understanding is that such a barrier is only possible to maintain when there are working
governments in countries through the Middle East. Destroying the governments of Iraq and Libya
proved disastrous strategic mistakes, destroying the government of Syria would be another such
mistake but we have been determined to do just that. Yemen, the same.
Iraq was a strategic disaster but we learned nothing and went after Libya and now Syria and
Yemen. ]
ISIS is doing a lot of boosting now. Osama bin Laden was doing a lot of past late in 2001. What
ever happened to that guy? Pissing off both the French and the Russians by killing 100s of their
citizens is a good way to get yourself killed.
In after Snowden world, is this a testament that most smartphone users are idiots, or what ?
Notable quotes:
"... The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago. ..."
Facebook is so far defying concerns about its spending habits - a criticism that has at times
also plagued Amazon and Alphabet's Google - because the social network is on a short list of tech
companies that make money from the wealth of mobile visitors to its smartphone app and website.
The company said mobile advertising in the third quarter accounted for a colossal 78 percent
of its ad revenue, up from 66 percent a year ago.
... ... ...
Revenue was also bolstered by Facebook increasing the number of ads it showed users over the
past year, said David Wehner, the company's chief financial officer. And video advertising, a
growth area for Facebook, is on the rise: More than eight billion video views happen on the
social network every day, the company said.
Hand in hand with the increased advertising is more users to view the promotions. The number of
daily active users of Facebook exceeded one billion for the first time in the quarter, up 17
percent from a year earlier, with monthly active mobile users up 23 percent, to 1.4 billion.
... ... ...
Beyond the properties it owns, Facebook is dabbling in partnerships with media companies that
could prove lucrative in the future. In May, the company debuted a feature called Instant
Articles with a handful of publishers, including The New York Times, which lets users read
articles from directly inside the Facebook app without being directed to a web browser.
Mozilla made a bit of a splash this week with
the announcement of its updated "private mode" in Firefox, but it's worth spelling out exactly
why: Firefox's enhanced privacy mode blocks web trackers.
Users familiar with Chrome's "Incognito Mode" may assume that's what it does as well, but it doesn't.
It's no fault of Google or the Chromium Project if someone misunderstands the degree of protection.
The company is clear
in its FAQ: all Incognito Mode does is keep your browsing out of the browser's history.
'We think that when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over
the data you share on the web.'
Firefox's new "Private Mode" one-ups user protection here by automatically blocking web trackers.
Nick Nguyen, Vice President for Product at Mozilla, says in the video announcement, "We think that
when you launch private browsing you're telling us that you want more control over the data you share
on the web." That sounds right. In fact, most people probably think private modes provide more safety
than they do.
Firefox has been working to educate web users about the prevalence of trackers for a long time.
In 2012,
it introduced Collusion to help users visualize just how many spying eyes were in the background
of their browsing (a tool now
known by the milquetoast name 'Lightbeam') and how they follow you around.
Privacy nuts might be thinking, "Hey, isn't the new Private Mode basically doing what the
Ghostery add-on/extension does already? It
looks that way. Ghostery was not immediately available for comment on this story. This reporter started
using Ghostery in earnest in the last few weeks, and while it does bust the odd page, overall, it
makes the web much faster. As Mr. Nguyen says in the video, Firefox's new mode should do the roughly
the same.
The best way to update Firefox is within the 'About Firefox' dialogue. Open it and let it check
for updates (if it doesn't say version 42.0 or higher, the browser doesn't have it). On Macs, find
"About Firefox" under the "Firefox" tab in the menu bar. On a PC, find it in the hamburger menu in
the upper right.
Competition in the browser battles keeps improving the functionality of the web. When Chrome first
came along, Firefox had become incredibly bloated.
Notice of what's new in 'Private Mode' when opened in Firefox, after updating. (Screenshot: Firefox)
Then, Chrome popularized the notion of incognito browsing, back when the main privacy concern
was that our roommate would look at our browsing history to see how often we were visiting Harry
Potter fansites (shout out to stand-up comic, Ophira Eisenberg, for that one).
As the web itself has become bloated with spyware, incorporating tracker blocking directly into
the structure of the
world's second most popular browser is a strong incentive for web managers to be more judicious
about the stuff they load up in the background of websites.
Don't forget, though, that even with trackers blocked, determined sites can probably identify
visitors and they can definitely profile,
using browser fingerprinting. If you really want to hide, use
Tor. If you're mega paranoid, try
the Tails OS.
Federal law enforcement began planning to use license plate readers in 2009 to track cars that
visited gun shows against cars that crossed the border into Mexico, according
to notes from a
meeting between United States and Mexican law enforcement, released on Wikileaks. The notes
were taken by Marko Papic, then of Stratfor, a
company that describes itself as a publisher of geopolitical intelligence.
License plate readers are becoming a standard tool for local and national law enforcement
across the country. In 2013, the ACLU showed that
state and local law enforcement were widely
documenting drivers' movements.
Ars Technica looked at license plate data collected in Oakland. In January, the
ACLU described documents
attained from the Drug Enforcement Agency under the Freedom of Information Act that showed
that agency has been working closely with state and local law enforcement. Many of the findings
in these latter documents corroborate some of the insights provided by the 2009 meeting notes on
Wikileaks.
Wikileaks began publishing these emails in February 2012, as the "Global
Intelligence Files," as the Observer
previously reported. The documents have to be read with some caution. These were reportedly
attained by hackers in December 2011. A Stratfor spokesperson declined to comment on the leaked
emails, referring the Observer instead to
its 2012 statement, which says, "Some of the emails may be forged or altered to include
inaccuracies; some may be authentic. We will not validate either."
While it's hard to imagine that such a giant trove could be completely fabricated, there is
also no way to know whether or not some of it was tampered with. That said, details about federal
license plate reader programs largely square with subsequent findings about the surveillance
systems.
The meeting appears to have been primarily concerned with arms control, but related matters,
such as illegal drug traffic and the Zetas, come up as well. The focus of the meeting appears to
be information sharing among the various authorities, from both countries. Among other
initiatives, the notes describe the origins of a sophisticated national system of automobile
surveillance.
Here are some findings on law enforcement technology, with an emphasis on tracking
automobiles:
The program wasn't fully live in 2009. The notes read, "Mr. 147 asked
about the License Plate Reader program and Mr. 983 from DEA responded that they were still in
the testing phase but that once completed the database would be available for use
by everyone." However,
an email found by the ACLU from 2010 said that the DEA was sharing information with local
law enforcement as of May 2009. (People at the meeting are largely referred to by numbers
throughout the notes)
Gun shows. The officials in the meeting suspect that a lot of guns that
reach Mexico come from American gun shows. The Ambassador from Mexico is cited as believing
that shows were the main source of firearms coming into his country. The ATF then says that
investigating gun shows is "touchy."
Cross-referencing. Despite the sensitivity, the ATF hoped to be able to
identify vehicles that visited gun shows and then crossed the border. The notes read, "[Mr.
192] noted that they would do the check once they came into Mexico. Mr. 009 stated part of the
new ways that are being looked at is incorporating that type of information into license plate
readers for local law enforcement. He added that DEA is going to provide more and more license
plate readers especially southbound." This last point squares with ACLU's finding, which found
a 2010 document that said the DEA had 41 readers set up in southern border states.
ATF and the NRA. Apparently law enforcement checks in with the gun rights
advocates. Mr. 123 is identified as an ATF employee in the hacked email. In a conversation
about the federal government's gun tracking system, eTrace, the notes attribute to him the
following, "He added that they are in constant communication with Mr. Templeton who has
the Cross Roads of the West Gun Show as well as NRA attorneys and that there had been no
complaints on how things were moving." Bob Templeton is shown as the President of the National
Association of Arms Shows
on this op-ed and runs the gun show mentioned, according to its site.
Other data. The notes also indicate that the ATF was working on ways to
identify people who bought more guns at gun shows than their income should allow. It also
indicated that the United States' gun tracking system was being translated into Spanish, so
that Mexican authorities could check guns against American records.
The notes themselves are not dated, but the email containing them is dated September 4, 2009.
It provides no names, but it cites people from the Mexican Embassy, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco
and Firerearms, DEA, Department of Homeland Security, the FBI and others. The only person named
is Marko Papic, who identifies himself
in this hacked
email. Stephen Meiners circulated
Mr. Papic's notes from the summit's morning and afternoon session in one email.
"... This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously for those listening to hear. ..."
"... "If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have ..."
"... To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. ..."
When it was revealed in 2013 that the NSA and its UK equivalent, GCHQ, routinely spied on the
German government, artists Mathias Jud and Christoph Wachter came up with a plan.
They installed a series of antennas on the roof of the Swiss Embassy in Berlin and another giant
antenna on the roof of the Academy of Arts, which is located exactly between the listening posts
of the NSA and GCHQ. This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously
for those listening to hear.
"If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have to listen to what we
are saying," Mr. Jud said in a TED Talk on the subject that was filmed at TED Global London in September
and uploaded onto Ted.com today.
This was perfectly legal, and they named the project "Can You Hear Me?"
To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. One message read, "This is the NSA. In God we trust.
In all others we track!!!!!" Another said, "Agents, what twisted story of yourself will you tell
your grandchildren?" One particularly humorous message jokingly pleaded, "@NSA My neighbors are noisy.
Please send a drone strike."
Watch the full talk here for more trolling messages and details about the project:
"... This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously for those listening to hear. ..."
"... "If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have ..."
"... To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. ..."
When it was revealed in 2013 that the NSA and its UK equivalent, GCHQ, routinely spied on the
German government, artists Mathias Jud and Christoph Wachter came up with a plan.
They installed a series of antennas on the roof of the Swiss Embassy in Berlin and another giant
antenna on the roof of the Academy of Arts, which is located exactly between the listening posts
of the NSA and GCHQ. This created an open communication network, meaning that with the use of any wifi-enabled device, anyone could send anything (text messages, voice calls, photos and files) anonymously
for those listening to hear.
"If people are spying on us, it stands to reason that they have to listen to what we
are saying," Mr. Jud said in a TED Talk on the subject that was filmed at TED Global London in September
and uploaded onto Ted.com today.
This was perfectly legal, and they named the project "Can You Hear Me?"
To no surprise, there was a ton of trolling. One message read, "This is the NSA. In God we trust.
In all others we track!!!!!" Another said, "Agents, what twisted story of yourself will you tell
your grandchildren?" One particularly humorous message jokingly pleaded, "@NSA My neighbors are noisy.
Please send a drone strike."
Watch the full talk here for more trolling messages and details about the project:
Just typing your correspondence on disconnected from internet computer and pointing it on
connected via USB printer is enough. Or better writing letter using regular pen.
The most secure and, at the same time, usable, method of creating, sharing and storing information
is to write it up on a manual typewriter and store it in a locked filing cabinet
If the CIA's Director John Brennan
can't keep his emails private, who can? Sadly, the fact that email and instant messaging are
far more convenient than communicating via papers in envelopes or by actually talking on the phone,
or (God forbid) face to face, these technologies are far more insecure. Could it be that the old
ways protected both secrecy and privacy far better than what we have now?
The men and women in the United States government assigned to protect our nation's most important
secrets have good reason to quote Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet who proclaimed, "The typewriter is
holy." For that matter so are pens, pencils, carbon paper and ordinary paper. In the digital age
privacy as we once knew it, is dead, not just for ordinary citizens, but for government officials
including, apparently, the head of the CIA-not to mention our former Secretary of State. Neither
the NSA nor the U.S. military have been able to keep their secrets from being exposed by the likes
of WikiLeaks or Edward Snowden.
... ... ...
Given America's failures to protect our own secret information, one hopes and wishes that the
U.S. is as successful at stealing information from our potential foes as they are at stealing from
us.
In the private sector, hackers steal information from countless companies, ranging from Target
to Ashley Madison. The banks rarely let on how badly or how often they are victimized by cybercrime,
but rumor has it that it is significant. At least for now, the incentives for making and selling
effective cyber security systems are nowhere near as powerful as the incentives for building systems
that can steal secret or private information from individuals, as well as from corporations and governments.
In the digital age, privacy is gone.
Increasingly, organizations and individuals are rediscovering the virtues of paper. Non-digital
media are simply invulnerable to hacking. Stealing information from a typewriter is harder than stealing
it from a word processor, computer or server. A physical file with sheets of paper covered in words
written either by hand or by typewriter is a safer place to store confidential information than any
electronic data storage system yet devised.
"... The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the website domains that UK internet users visit. ..."
"... It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not what article they read. ..."
"... Information about the sites you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison – the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement to know. ..."
"... In using a VPN you are placing all your trust in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history in the same way an ISP would. ..."
"... One way to prevent an accurate profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that. ..."
Critics call it a revived snooper's charter, because the government wants police and spies to
be given access to the web browsing history of everyone in Britain.
However, Theresa May
says her measures would require internet companies to store data about customers that amount to "simply
the modern equivalent of an itemised phone bill".
Who is right? And is there anything you can do to make your communications more secure?
What exactly is the government after?
The government is attempting to push into law the ability for law enforcement agencies to
be able to look at 12 months of what they are calling "internet connection records", limited to the
website domains that UK internet users visit.
This is the log of websites that you visit through your internet service provider (ISP), commonly
called internet browsing history, and is different from the history stored by your internet browser,
such as Microsoft's Edge, Apple's Safari or Google's Chrome.
It does not cover specific pages: so police and spies will not be able to access that level
of detail. That means they would know that a person has spent time on the Guardian website, but not
what article they read.
Clearing your browser history or using private or incognito browsing modes do nothing to affect
your browsing history stored by the ISP.
What will they be able to learn about my internet activity?
Information about the sites
you visit can be very revealing. The data would show if a person has regularly visited Ashley Madison
– the website that helped facilitate extramarital affairs. A visit to an Alcoholics Anonymous website
or an abortion advice service could reveal far more than you would like the government or law enforcement
to know.
The logged internet activity is also likely to reveal who a person banks with, the social
media they use, whether they have considered travelling (eg by visiting an airline homepage) and
a range of information that could in turn link to other sources of personal information.
Who will store my web browsing data?
The onus is on
ISPs – the companies that
users pay to provide access to the internet – to store the browsing history of its customers for
12 months. That includes fixed line broadband providers, such as BT, TalkTalk, Sky and Virgin, but
also mobile phone providers such as EE, O2, Three and Vodafone.
... ... ...
Don't ISPs already store this data?
They already store a limited amount of data on customer communications for a minimum of
one year and have done for some time, governed by the EU's data retention directive. That data can
be accessed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (Ripa).
The new bill will enshrine the storage of browsing history and access to that data in law.
Can people hide their internet browsing history?
There are a few ways to prevent the collection
of your browsing history data, but each way is a compromise.
The most obvious way is the use of virtual private networks (VPNs). They channel your data from
your computer through your ISP to a third-party service before immersing on the internet. In doing
so they can obfuscate your data from your ISP and therefore the government's collection of browsing
history.
Companies routinely use VPNs to secure connections to services when off-site such as home workers.
Various companies such as HotspotShield
offer both free or paid-for VPN services to users.
Using the Tor browser, freely available
from the Tor project, is another way to hide what you're doing from your ISP and takes things
a stage further. It allows users to connect directly to a network of computers that route your traffic
by bouncing it around other computers connected to Tor before emerging on the open internet.
Your ISP will see that you are connected to Tor, but not what you are doing with it. But not everybody
has the technical skills to be comfortable using Tor.
Is there any downside to using a VPN?
In using a VPN you are placing all your trust
in the company that operates the VPN to both secure your data and repel third parties from intercepting
your connection. A VPN based in the UK may also be required to keep a log of your browsing history
in the same way an ISP would.
The speed of your internet connection is also limited by the VPN. Most free services are slow,
some paid-for services are faster.
Tor also risks users having their data intercepted, either at the point of exit from the Tor network
to the open internet or along the path. This is technically tricky, however. Because your internet
traffic is bounced between computers before reaching you, Tor can be particularly slow.
Can I protest-browse to show I'm unhappy with the new law?
One way to prevent an accurate
profile of your browsing history from being built could be to visit random sites. Visiting nine random
domains for every website you actually want to visit would increase the amount of data that your
ISP has to store tenfold. But not everybody has the patience for that.
At some point it will be very difficult to store that much data, should everyone begin doing so.
"... Snowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration - yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage. ..."
"... The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them." ..."
Snowden revealed some outrageous practices and constitutional abuses and the Obama administration
- yes the same one that has not managed to bring a single criminal charge against a single senior
banker - wants to charge Snowden with espionage.
It bears repeating; US Bankers committed literally hundreds of thousands of serious felonies
and *not one* was ever charged by the Justice Dept. under Obama's two terms.
Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very serious
crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should face them."
Well, either you believe serious crimes should be prosecuted or you don't.
Pick one.
But to try and be selective about it all just makes one something of a tyrant. Wielding
power when and how it suits one's aims instead of equally is pretty much the definition of tyranny
(which includes "the unreasonable or arbitrary use of power")
However, the EU has decided to drop all criminal charges against Snowden showing that the US
is losing legitimacy across the globe by the day.
The European parliament voted to lift criminal charges against American whistle-blower Edward
Snowden on Thursday.
In an incredibly close vote, EU MEPs said he should be granted protection as a "human rights
defender" in a move that was celebrated as a "chance to move forward" by Mr Snowden from Russia.
This seems both right and significant. Significant because the US power structure must
be seething. It means that the EU is moving away form the US on important matters, and that's
significant too. Right because Snowden revealed deeply illegal and unconstitutional
practices that, for the record, went waaaaAAaaay beyond the so-called 'meta-data phone records'
issue.
And why shouldn't the EU begin to carve their own path? Their interests and the US's
are wildly different at this point in history, especially considering the refugee crisis that
was largely initiated by US meddling and warmongering in the Middle East.
At this point, I would say that the US has lost all legitimacy on the subject of equal application
of the laws, and cannot be trusted when it comes to manufacturing "evidence" that is used to invade,
provoke or stoke a conflict somewhere.
The US is now the Yahoo! of countries; cheerleading our own self-described excellence and superiority
at everything when the facts on the ground say something completely different.
Quercus bicolor
cmartenson wrote:
Recently the White House spokesman said "The fact is that Mr Snowden committed very
serious crimes, and the US government and the Department of Justice believe that he should
face them."
And this "serious crime" was committed by Snowden because he saw it as the only viable path
to revealing a systematic pattern of crimes by none other than our own federal government that
are so serious that they threaten the basic founding principles on which our REPUBLIC was
founded.
lambertad
Truth is treason
You know how the old saying goes "truth is treason in the empire of lies". I'm a staunch
libertarian, but I wasn't always that way. Before that I spent most of my 20's in Special
Operations wanting to 'kill bad guys who attacked us' on 9/11. It wasn't until my last
deployment that I got ahold of Dr. Ron Paul's books and dug through them and realized his
viewpoint suddenly made much more sense than anyone else's. Not only did it make much more
sense, but it was based on Natural Law and the founding principals of our country.
A lot has been made of the fact that Snowden contributed money to Dr. Paul's 2008
presidential campaign and that this was an obvious tell that he was really an undercover
(insert whatever words the media used - traitor, anarchist, russian spy, etc.). The part that
I find troubling is the fact that Snowden revealed to the world that we are all being watched,
probably not in real time, but if they ever want to review the 'tapes' they can see what we do
essentially every minute of every day. That's BIG news to get out to the citizenry. If you've
got access to that kind of data, you don't want that getting out, but here's the kicker - Very
few in this country today even care. Nothing in this country has changed that I'm aware of.
GCHQ still spies on us and passes the info to the NSA. The NSA still spys on everyone and the
Brits and passes the info to GCHQ. Austrialia and NZ and Canda still spy on whoever and pass
the info on to whoever wants it. It's craziness.
At the same time, as Chris and others have pointed out, we're bombing people (ISIS/Al Nusra/AQ)
we supported ('moderate rebels) before we bombed them (AQ) after we bombed Sadaam and invaded
Iraq. Someone please tell me the strategy other than the "7 countries in 5 years plan". Yup,
sounds a lot like Yahoo!.
I'm looking forward to Christmas this year because I get to spend 5 days with my wife's
family again. My father-in-law is a smart man, but thinks the government is still all powerful
and has everything under control. It should make some interesting conversations and debating.
Thanks for the article Adam, interesting parallel between TPTB and Yahoo!.
Neocon Wolf Blitzer against Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
Notable quotes:
"... This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol Ive heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress. ..."
"... Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFKs assassination because he was a threat to national security, a new book has claimed. ..."
"... Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well ..."
"... Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5] ..."
"... She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens. ..."
"... fighting against Islamic extremists. ..."
"... What the CIA, et alia, ..."
"... Islamic extremist groups, ..."
"... terrorism, ..."
"... uccessfulness ..."
"... insanities. ..."
"... AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION ..."
"... "Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism. ..."
"... Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal. ..."
One point we've been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes
in Syria is that The Kremlin's move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin's
open "invitation" to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively
let the cat out of the proverbial bag.
That is, it simply wasn't possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with
the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater
threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don't necessarily want to see Sunni
extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.
Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount
of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would
be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving
jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips,
and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the
narrative.
Well, it hasn't worked.
With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon
and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
is out calling Washington's effort to oust Assad both "counterproductive" and "illegal."
In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists
who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the
government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."
This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol I've heard
in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress.
Paveway IV
"...Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists
are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to
them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."..."
Oh, then you're saying that that's future PRESIDENT Gabbard...
Sergeiab
Damn, you might be right. Look: see the public opinion is totally shifting (Easy when you have
access to all the comments of all medias, including the moderated ones). Find someone among the
democrats who voice it. Give her/him "random" media exposure (she was on Bill Maher few days ago)
"Sudden rise of an outsider". She's a soldier/veteran/surfer 32yo. "Incredible American story".
And at some point, she says she's transgender. Instant POTUS. That fits. That fits the "change/let's
do something wild for once" that everybody's craving for (Trump). And it can't be random that
a dissident voice is given media exposure. And she's beyond democrat/gop... That's a lot.
She left out Mossad, mI6, Saudis, Turkey and how many other zionist controlled CUNTries.
Dick Buttkiss
"Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists."
Backing terrorist? How about being terrorists?
dot_bust
I agree. Good point.
I'd like to add that President John F. Kennedy issued an NSAM forbidding the CIA from conducting
an further paramilitary operations and turned those operations over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In the op-ed, Truman said that the CIA had begun making policy instead of simply analyzing
data. He also emphasized his discomfort with the idea of the Agency participating in cloak-and-dagger
operations.
SWRichmond
Thanks for the link. Truman says:
I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent
directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest
character, patriotism and integrity-and I assume this is true of all those who continue in
charge.
Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFK's assassination because he was a 'threat
to national security', a new book has claimed.
Bay of Pigs
Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles
was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well. People forget he was dumped after
the Bay of Pigs fiasco with JFK saying at the time that he would "splinter the CIA into a thousand
pieces and scatter it to the winds".
Author David Talbot interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.
Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the
United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5]
In 2004, when Tulsi's fellow soldiers from the 29th Brigade were called to war in Iraq, Tulsi
volunteered to join them. She didn't need to put her life on the line. She could have stayed in
the State House of Representatives, but in her heart, she felt it was more important to stand
in solidarity with her fellow soldiers than to climb the political ladder.
Her two deployments to the war-torn and dangerous Middle East revealed both Tulsi's natural
inclination to self-less service and her ability to perform well in situations demanding confidence,
courage, and the ability to perform well as a member of a team. The same maturity and character
that served Tulsi well in the Middle East makes her exceptionally effective in the political world.
Freddie
These banksters wars like all wars are total shit but I like her.
She is half Samoan and was a Catholic but became a Hindu.
She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham
and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens.
While I agreed with your overview, WTFRLY, at the 1:25 mark I think she is seriously
mistaken about the priority being fighting against Islamic extremists.
The real enemy of the American People has been the international bankers, who have almost totally
captured control over the government of the USA, through POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS.
Her basic opinion regarding
9/11 deliberately ignores that
9/11 was an inside job, false flag attack, which was aided and abetted by the Deep State Shadow
Government. Everything that the USA has been doing has been actually carrying out the international
bankers' agenda. The countries targeted for regime change were obstacles to the consolidation
of the globalized hegemony of the international bankers, who are the best organized gangsters,
the banksters, that have already captured control over all NATO governments, as is painfully obvious
to anyone who thinks critically about how and why those governments ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately
controlled banks.
What the CIA, et alia, having been doing, since the overthrow of the government
of Iran back in 1953, has been creating "Islamic extremist groups,"
as the responses of the various Islamic countries having been controlled by the European invasions,
and later American invasions, which were always directed at capturing control over the development
of the natural resources, through maintaining the control over the monetary systems through which
that was done.
The whole of human history has been the exponential growth of social pyramid systems based
upon being able to back up lies with violence, becoming more sophisticated and integrated systems
of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which have become globalized systems of electronic
money frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs. There is indeed a serious risk
of NATO countries, already almost totally controlled by the international bankers, getting into
conflicts with the national interests of various countries which no longer are so easy for the
banksters to continue to control.
The banksters have been pushing through their agenda of wars based on deceits, in order to
back up their debt slavery systems, and those were primarily the reasons for the series of regime
changes, which appear to have stalled with respect to Syria. That Russia has decided that it is
geopolitically able, along with the propaganda cover of fighting "terrorism," to step
in with significant military support of the Syrian regime is indeed in severe conflict with the
agenda of the international banksters, who are collectively a group of trillionaire mass murderers.
Human history has become the excessive successfulness of the application
of the methods of organized crime to control governments, through the vicious spirals of POLITICAL
FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, to develop to the point of runaway criminal insanities.
While the Congresswoman above provided more penetrating analysis than one is used to be presented
on the mainstream mass media, and she did that fairly well, she still is presenting the political
problems only on very superficial levels ...
She is an example of integrity standing up for what is right. I see many people of heart doing
the same as this unfolds. We are supposed to support the "Underdog" Remember?
Her father is of Samoan/European heritage and is a practicing Catholic who is a
lector at his church, but also enjoys practicing mantra meditation, including kirtan.[7] Her
mother is of Euro-American descent and a practicing Hindu.[7] Tulsi fully embracedHinduism
as a teenage
At 5 minutes in to video, Wolf B. mentions that Tulsi is a combat veteran.
She is also on Senate Arms services committee.
Blitzer was born in Augsburg, Germany] the son of Cesia Blitzer (née Zylberfuden),
a homemaker, and David Blitzer, a home builder. His parents were Jewish refugees from O?wi?cim,
Poland, and Holocaust survivors… While at Johns Hopkins, Blitzer studied abroad at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, where he learned Hebrew.
Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the
same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal.
"Things that are being said right now about Assad, were said about Ghadaffi.., they were
said about Saddam Hussein, by those who were advocating for the U.S. to intervene, to
go overthrow those regimes and dictators. The fact is, if that happens here in Syria,….far
worse situation, persecution of religious minorities and Christians."
Who advocated to start ME wars? Wolf then puts words in her mouth, suggesting that Hezbollah
and Russians are doing the U.S. a favor.
To give Wolf full credit, he doesn't explode when Tulsi mentions persecution of the Christians,
as said Christians MUST be his enemy and color Wolf's wordview, given his parents refugee history.
Oh the web we weave, when we intend to deceive.
rejected
Well, she managed to get in the meme "We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11". They push that
meme every chance they get.
The spooks at the CIA know how to push propaganda. She will get all kinds of credibility appearing
to oppose the spooks and very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized
and grow stronger.
ebear
"....very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger."
I beg to differ. That seed was already planted. Why are we supporting the people who
attacked us? - keeps it nice and simple. Turns the entire narrative against them.
One dragon at a time.
Omega_Man
not a good interview for zio Wolfe ...
I didn't like this girl before, but starting to like her.
She needs a security team... to protect her from the US Gov... no joke
Sheldon Wolin RIP -- Wolin's
Politics and Vision, which
remains to this day the single best book on Western political theory
Notable quotes:
"... In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also even
about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate and utilize
in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling. ..."
"... Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined as the
leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the sense that the
people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. ..."
"... democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind of case for an
economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being a kind of constant
threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for. ..."
"... Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom, mores, political
values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy. And
it's that–that's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want a political
order subservient to the needs of the economy. ..."
I was a freshman at Princeton. It was the fall of 1985. I signed up to take a course called "Modern
Political Theory." It was scheduled for Mondays and Wednesdays at 9 am. I had no idea what I was
doing. I stumbled into class, and there was a man with white hair and a trim white beard, lecturing
on Machiavelli. I was transfixed.
There was just one problem: I was-still am-most definitely not a morning person. Even though the
lectures were riveting, I had to fight my tendency to fall asleep. Even worse, I had to fight my
tendency to sleep in.
So I started-- drinking coffee. I'd show up for class fully caffeinated. And proceeded to work
my way through the canon-Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, along with some texts you don't often
get in intro theory courses (the Putney Debates, Montesquieu's Persian Letters, and for a
last hurrah: Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations)-under the guidance of one of the great readers
of the twentieth century.
More than anything else, that's what Sheldon Wolin was: a reader of texts. He approached The
Prince as if it were a novel, identifying its narrative voice, analyzing the literary construction
of the characters who populated the text (new prince, customary prince, centaur, the people), examining
the structural tensions in the narrative (How does a Machiavellian adviser advise a non-Machiavellian
prince?), and so on. It was exhilarating.
And then after class I'd head straight for Firestone Library; read whatever we were reading that
week in class; follow along, chapter by chapter, with Wolin's Politics and Vision,which remains to this day the single best book on Western political theory that I know of
(even though lots of the texts we were talking about in class don't appear there, or appear there
with very different interpretations from the ones Wolin was offering in class: the man never
stood still, intellectually); and get my second cup of coffee.
This is all a long wind-up to the fact that this morning, my friend Antonio Vazquez-Arroyo, sent
me a
two-part interview that
Chris Hedges conducted with Wolin, who's living out in Salem, Oregon now. From his Wikipedia
page, I gather that Wolin's 92. He looks exactly the same as he did in 1985. And sounds the same.
Though it seems from the video as if he may now be losing his sight. Which is devastating when I
think about the opening passages of Politics and Vision, about how vision is so critical to
the political theorist and the practice of theoria.
Anyway, here he is, talking to Hedges about his thesis of "inverted totalitarianism":
In classic totalitarianism, thinking here now about the Nazis and the fascists, and also
even about the communists, the economy is viewed as a tool which the powers that be manipulate
and utilize in accordance with what they conceive to be the political requirements of ruling.
And they will take whatever steps are needed in the economy in order to ensure the long-run sustainability
of the political order. In other words, the sort of arrows of political power flow from top to
bottom.
Now, in inverted totalitarianism, the imagery is that of a populace which is enshrined
as the leadership group but which in fact doesn't rule, but which is turned upside down in the
sense that the people are enshrined at the top but don't rule. And minority rule is usually
treated as something to be abhorred but is in fact what we have. And it's the problem has to do,
I think, with the historical relationship between political orders and economic orders. And
democracy, I think, from the beginning never quite managed to make the kind of case for an
economic order that would sustain and help to develop democracy rather than being a kind of constant
threat to the egalitarianism and popular rule that democracy stands for.
… ... ...
Capitalism is destructive because it has to eliminate the kind of custom, mores, political
values, even institutions that present any kind of credible threat to the autonomy of the economy.
And it's that–that's where the battle lies. Capitalism wants an autonomous economy. They want
a political order subservient to the needs of the economy. And their notion of an economy,
while it's broadly based in the sense of a capitalism in which there can be relatively free entrance
and property is relatively widely dispersed it's also a capitalism which, in the last analysis,
is [as] elitist as any aristocratic system ever was.
Have a listen and a watch. Part 1 and then Part 2.
Pt 1-8 Hedges & Wolin Can Capitalism and Democracy Coexist
There is a strong evidence to suggest that representative democracy is not compatible with deep
economic inequality. As a recent study found, "politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness
of the economic elite." However, it was not always that way: In the past, left parties represented the
poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1& of earners. As FDR
warned, "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob."
Notable quotes:
"... politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite ..."
"... In the past, left parties represented the poor, the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners, Jimenez reports. ..."
"... politician's bias toward the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average ..."
"... the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure a decent standard of living. ..."
"... What f*cking democracy in the land of the free? Its a fascist, police state run by a troika of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks. ..."
"... The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies, and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals the true wielders of power in the United States. ..."
"... The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media. -- William Colby, former CIA Director ..."
"... Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed, both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions, it is a valid observation. ..."
In recent years, several academic researchers have argued that rising inequality erodes
democracy. But the lack of international data has made it difficult to show whether inequality
in fact exacerbates the apparent lack of political responsiveness to popular sentiment. Even scholars
concerned about economic inequality, such as sociologist
Lane Kenworthy,
often hesitate to argue that economic inequality might bleed into the political sphere. New cross-national
research, however, suggests that higher inequality does indeed limit political representation.
In
a 2014 study on political representation, political scientists Jan Rosset, Nathalie Giger
and Julian Bernauer concluded, "In economically more unequal societies, the party
system represents the preferences of relatively poor citizens worse than in more equal societies." Similarly, political scientists Michael Donnelly and Zoe Lefkofridi
found in a working paper that in Europe, "Changes in overall attitudes toward redistribution
have very little effect on redistributive policies. Changes in socio-cultural policies are driven
largely by change in the attitudes of the affluent, and only weakly (if at all) by the middle
class or poor."They find that when the people get what they want, it's typically because
their views correspond with the affluent, rather than policymakers directly responding to their
concerns.
In another study of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, researcher
Pablo Torija Jimenez looked at data in 24 countries over 30 years. He examined how different governmental
structures influence happiness across income groups and
found that today
"politicians in OECD countries maximize the happiness of the economic elite."
However, it was not always that way:In the past, left parties represented the poor,
the center and the middle class. Now all the parties benefit the richest 1 percent of earners,
Jimenez reports.
In a recent working
paper, political scientist Larry Bartels finds the effect of politician's bias toward
the rich has reduced real social spending per capita by 28 percent on average. Studying
23 OECD countries, Bartels finds that the rich are more likely to oppose spending increases, support
budget cuts and reject promoting the welfare state - the idea that the government should ensure
a decent standard of living.
JustObserving
What f*cking democracy in the land of the free? It's a fascist, police state run by a troika
of the MIC, Wall Street and Spooks.
JustObserving
Who rules America?
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T,
Verizon and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide
the military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these
state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of
the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called
"Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
Snowden's documents revealed that the NSA spies on everyone:
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition"
any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government."
It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White
House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate
(members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme
Court)."
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary
American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House
itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." --
William Colby, former CIA Director
LetThemEatRand
Paul Craig Roberts had a great take on this a while back. He pointed out that unions
used to have significant political influence because of their financial resources. Democrats
by and large sought their backing, and had to toe the line. Now, not so much. So, he observed,
both parties began seeking out contributions from the same oligarchs. Even if you hate unions,
it is a valid observation.
LetThemEatRand
I get your point and I'm not your downvote, but in my view the MSM has hijacked the issue of "inequality." The real issue is the oligarch class that has more wealth than half the country. We were a successful, functioning society when we had a middle class. There were rich people, poor people, and a whole lot in between. And it's the whole lot in between that matters. The minimum wage is a distraction. The two big issues are loss of manufacturing base and offshoring in general, and financialization of the economy (in large part due to Fed policy).
LetThemEatRand
...A big part of the "inequality" discussion is equal application of law. I recall when
TARP was floated during the W administration, the public of all persuasions was against it.
Congress passed it anyway, because of Too Big to Fail. TBTF should not be a liberal or
conservative issue. Likewise, the idea that no bankers went to jail is an issue of
"inequality." The laws do not apply equally to bankers. And the same with Lois Lerner. She
intentionally sent the IRS to harass political groups based upon ideology. She got off scott
free. Inequality again.
MASTER OF UNIVERSE
Inequality does not undermine democracy because democracy does not really exist. Faux
democracy is actually Totalitarianism under the guise of 'democracy'. In brief, democracy is
just a word that has been neutered, and bastardized too many times to count as anything real,
or imagined.
They should name a new ice cream DEMOCRACY just for FUN.
"... a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever. ..."
"... Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll help our security. ..."
"... They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didnt you hear somebody got killed on Walking Dead? Whos got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill? ..."
"... Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. Were sliding down the slippery slope. ..."
"... On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined version of the security bill to become law. ..."
This is the state of such legislation in this country, where
lawmakers wanted to do something but, by passing Cisa, just decided to cede more power to the NSA
Under the vague guise of "cybersecurity", the Senate voted on Tuesday to pass the Cybersecurity
Information Sharing Act (Cisa), a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our
privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information
to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever.
Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it'll
help our security.
eminijunkie 28 Oct 2015 17:34
Being competent requires work. Actual work.
You can't honestly say you expected them to do actual work, now can you?
david wright 28 Oct 2015 13:44
'The Senate, ignorant on cybersecurity, just passed a bill about it anyway '
The newsworthy event would be the Senate's passage of anything, on the basis of knowledge or
serious reflection, rather than $-funded ignorance. The country this pas few decades has been
long on policy-based evidence as a basis for law, rather than evidence-based policy. Get what
our funders require, shall be the whole of the law.
Kyllein -> MacKellerann 28 Oct 2015 16:49
Come ON! You are expecting COMPETENCE from Congress?
Wake up and smell the bacon; these people work on policy, not intelligence.
VWFeature -> lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 13:37
Bravo!
"...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction,
should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the
concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do
apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants,
and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of
designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." -- Daniel Webster, June 1, 1837
"If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and
Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general
nature, in spite of individual exceptions." -- Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
lostinbago -> KhepryQuixote 28 Oct 2015 12:09
We became the enemy when the people started attacking the Military Industrial Corporate complex
and trying to regain our republic from the oligarchs.
lostinbago 28 Oct 2015 12:07
Congress: Where Catch 22 melds with Alice in Wonderland
Phil429 28 Oct 2015 11:44
we now have another law on the books that carves a hole in our privacy laws, contains
vague language that can be interpreted any which way, and that has provisions inserted into
it specifically to prevent us from finding out how they're using it.
They were counting on nobody paying much attention. Didn't you hear somebody got killed
on Walking Dead? Who's got time to talk about boring nonsense like a Congressional bill?
guardianfan2000 28 Oct 2015 08:53
This vote just showed the true colors of the U. S. Government,...that being a total disregard
for all individuals' privacy rights.
newbieveryday 28 Oct 2015 02:11
Inverse totalitarianism. Read Sheldon Wolin. We're sliding down the slippery slope.
Who's going to be der erster Fuehrer? David Koch?
Triumphant George -> alastriona 27 Oct 2015 18:55
From elsewhere:
On Tuesday afternoon, the Senate voted 74 to 21 to pass a version of CISA that roughly
mirrors legislation passed in the House earlier this year, paving the way for some combined
version of the security bill to become law.
CISA still faces some hurdles to becoming law. Congressional leaders will need to resolve
remaining differences between the bills passed in the Senate and the House.
President Obama could also still veto CISA, though that's unlikely: The White House endorsed
the bill in August, an about-face from an earlier attempt at cybersecurity information sharing
legislation known as CISPA that the White House shut down with a veto threat in 2013.
--"CISA Security Bill Passes Senate With Privacy Flaws Unfixed", Wired
"... There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough. ..."
"... It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will. China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000% since 2002. ..."
"... China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing. ..."
"... If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy. ..."
"... Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English, World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands. ..."
"... They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are insurmountable. ..."
"... Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting. ..."
"... The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. ..."
"... Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder. ..."
"... I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London. ..."
"... i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights ..."
"... LOL European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF The EU is a silly clown at the US court What are you talking about? ..."
"... To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their 'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite with their non-interference mantra. ..."
"... The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or both. ..."
"... You can have democracy with a long memory see periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory). ..."
"... If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small head start it got during the 90's for doing so. ..."
"... It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their biding was always self defeating. ..."
"... We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the reverse. ..."
"... Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet; combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe, as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world. ..."
The problem is how do you define civilization? The urban centres were in the Middle East, and
long pre-date China. 6,000 years ago, the world's largest towns and cities were in the Balkans
- the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture. Because of the conventions of nomenclature, they don't count
as a civilization. This raises the question, when does a culture become a civilization? There
are certainly well attested archaeological cultures in China going back a long way, but there
are equally ancient cultures in Europe. Should we then say that Europe has 4,000 or 5,000 or more
years of civilization?
Good records for Chinese history go back about 3,000 years. Anything before that becomes archaeological
rather than historical, based on artifacts rather than records. References to different dynasties
don't help - there are no records comparable to Near Eastern king lists, or the Sumerian or Hittite
royal archives. China set up the Three Kingdoms Project to try to find the 'missing' 2,000 years
of Chinese history - i.e. the history that they claim to have, but have no direct evidence. They
didn't find it.
Adetheshades 23 Oct 2015 22:52
There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling
that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough.
They
obviously know more than the average Guardian reader, and apparently don't feel their cash
is safe. This causes problems of its own, when they start splashing this cash in the UK property
market, causing further price escalation if any were needed.
There isn't much we can do about the size and wealth of China.
It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will.
China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head
only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that
isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000%
since 2002.
At what point will we drop French from the school curriculum in favour of Mandarin is the question.
To say Beijings influence is growing is a lovely little piece of understatement.
Adamnuisance 23 Oct 2015 21:22
China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia
is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing.
Being
passive aggressive and claiming to be 'unique' are their real specialties. I have little doubt
that China will become even more powerful with time... I just hope their backwards politics improves
with their economy.
Thruns 23 Oct 2015 20:44
The first long game was Mao's coup.
The second long game was the great leap forward.
The third long game was the cultural revolution.
The fourth long game was to adopt the west's capitalism and sell the west its own technology.
At last the "communist" Chinese seem to have found a winner.
tufsoft Maharaja -> Brovinda Singh 23 Oct 2015 20:30
If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion
of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't
put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy.
nothell -> Laurence Johnson 23 Oct 2015 20:16
Your comment about the British Empire must be tongue in cheek.
Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of
Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English,
World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands.
Anything but peaceful and anything but fair. Europe had the past, let Asia have the future.
slightlynumb -> theoldmanfromusa 23 Oct 2015 20:10
They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There
is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are
insurmountable.
Rasengruen 23 Oct 2015 20:05
All of this presents well-known dilemmas for Europeans, such as how to balance human rights
and economic interests.
Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights
against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting.
philby87 23 Oct 2015 18:50
public opinion in France, which had been shocked by an outbreak of violent repression
in Tibet
The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and
mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. A good example
is Japan which is twice larger than France, but never lectures its neighbors about what they should
and shouldn't do. Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder.
skepticaleye -> midaregami 23 Oct 2015 18:04
The Yue state was populated mostly by the members of the Yue people who were not Han. The South
China wasn't completely sinicized well into the second millennium CE. Yunnan wasn't incorporated
into China until the Mongols conquered Dali in the 13th century, and the Ming dynasty eradicated
the Mongols' resistance there in the 14th century.
PeterBederell -> Daniel S 23 Oct 2015 17:54
I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to
its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose
customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to
allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London.
Europe often has to agree to these indignities because it needs access to the US market and to
keep the US sweet. But with a strong China, it can use the threat of following China in some way
the US doesn't like as a bargaining chip, like joining China's Development Bank, which put the
US in a huff recently.
Chriswr -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 17:54
What we in the West call human rights are creations of the Enlightenment and only about 300 years old. As a modern Westerner I am, of course, a big supporter of them. But let's not pretend they are part of some age-old tradition.
sor2007 -> impartial12 23 Oct 2015 17:48
i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights
ApfelD 23 Oct 2015 17:42
China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well ahead of Europe – and it uses that historical depth to indicate it will never take lessons on democracy.
LOL
European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF
The EU is a silly clown at the US court
What are you talking about?
HoolyK BabylonianSheDevil03 23 Oct 2015 17:34
To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their
'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite
with their non-interference mantra. When the Chinese see the following:
1. the West preaches democracy and human rights
2. is evangelical about it and spreads it by hook or crook into the Middle East
3. this causes regimes to be changed and instability to spread
4. the chaos causes a massive refugee crisis, washing these poor huddled masses onto the
shores of Europe
5. the human rights preached by the West demands that the the refugees receive help
6. the native population is slowly being displaced
7. native population is further screwed, with austerity, financial crisis and now said Syrian
refugees
8. Fascist and Nazis parties are elected into office, civil strife ensues
Now, what do you think the Chinese, who ABHOR chaos, think about democracy and human rights
??
PeterBederell 23 Oct 2015 16:47
The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use
its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do
this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is
unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play
one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or
both.
HoolyK -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 16:30
Anatolia is inhabited by Turks from Central Asia who settled in the 11th century,
Iraq/Syria was overrun by Muslims in the 7th century. China is still Han Chinese, as it was
5000 years ago.
'human rights' really? then do you support the human rights of tens of thousands of refugees
from Syria to settle in Britain and Europe then? I ask this awkward question only because I
know the Chinese will ask ....
dev_null 23 Oct 2015 16:23
China deploys a long-term strategy in part because it has a very long memory, and in
part because its ruling elite needn't bother too much about electoral constraints.
The two are not mutially exclusive. You can have democracy with a long memory see
periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory).
China's longest 'strategy' was to leverage its currency artificially lower than it should be
in order to net export so many manufactured goods. Nothing else.
If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It
is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack
labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden
unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small
head start it got during the 90's for doing so.
Eurozone = Dystopia
China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well
ahead of Europe
No sorry europe contained many advanced cultures going back just as far. This is
incompetent journalism. China was not 'china' it was many kingdoms and cultures 4000 years
ago, as was Europe at the time. Fallacy of decomposition.
MeandYou -> weka69 23 Oct 2015 16:11
It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self
destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and
export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending
their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their
biding was always self defeating.
We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop
in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed
through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the
reverse. We gave China all in a plate hence the speed neck speed China has risen. The
Consumerism society the political class created they were stupid enough to forget people still
need money to buy cheap goods. Consumerism does not run on empty purse.
wintpu 23 Oct 2015 15:57
You are preaching a China Containment strategy:
[1] This is racist viciousness, colonial mentality, or white supremacist conspiracy, believing
that containment is your moral right. You seem to be wallowing still in the stiff upper lipped
notions that you are the betters versus the east. Colonialism is over and still you cling to
the notion that the EU should get together and try to destroy China's social system because it
is different from yours. Your records on human rights, governance and effectiveness are all
droopy examples to be object lessons rather than role models for emulation by developing
countries. Your opium war denials [simply by not mentioning it] give you very little high
ground to hector China and the Chinese people.
[2] Recent Behavior. Putting aside your opium war robbery, your behavior in the run up to 1997
Hong Kong hand back shows your greedy sneakiness. Chris Patten infamously tried to throw a
monkey wrench into an agreed-upon process by trying to steal the Hong Kong treasury, then
planting the seeds of British wannabees. You passed a special law to deny the 1.36 million
Hong Kong residents who had become British Citizens was one of the most shameful racist acts
of your colonial record. Cameron is now bending over backwards post haste in order to
side-step the long long memory of the Chinese people.
[3] Crying about getting other EU nations to do aiding and abetting of your vendetta against a
rising China? Trying to reduce and contain China does you no good. So it is a simple case of
mendacity. But you forget that the Germans have already gone to China honestly and co-operated
since the time of Helmut Kohl and the CPC has not forgotten their loyal friends. Today most
CPC leaders drive Audis. There is no turning Germany away from their key position in
Chinatrade to become enemies of China because of your self-serving wishes. Even now, France
has jumped in on the nuclear niche to present you with a package you cannot refuse.
samohio 23 Oct 2015 15:51
Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the
plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet;
combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central
government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the
other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe
keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe,
as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world.
that's pretty superficial coverage. Capabilities of smartphone mike are pretty limited and by
design it is try to suppress external noise. If your phone is in the case microphone will not pick up much. Same for camera. Only your
GPS location is available. If phone is switched off then even this is not reality available.
I think the whole ability to listen from the pocket is overblown. There is too much noice to make
this practical on the current level of development of technology. At the same time I think
just metadata are enough to feel that you are the constant surveillance.
Notable quotes:
"... the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot. ..."
"... According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from WeMeantWell.com . ..."
You are a tool of the state, according to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.
The NSA in the U.S.,
and its equivalent in the UK, GCHQ, are taking control of your phone not just to spy on you as needed,
but also to use your device as a way to spy on others around you. You are a walking microphone, camera
and GPS for spies.
Snowden, in a BBC interview,
explained that for the most part intelligence agencies are not really looking to monitor your
private phone communications per se. They are actually taking over full control of the phone to take
photos or record ongoing conversations within earshot.
According to Snowden, the UK's spy agency, the Government Communications Headquarters, uses
NSA technology to develop software tools to control almost anyone's smartphone. He notes that all
it takes is sending an encrypted text message to get into virtually any smartphone. Moreover, the
message will not be seen by the user, making it almost impossible to stop the attack.
GCHQ calls these smartphone hacking tools the "Smurf
Suite." The suite includes:
"Dreamy Smurf" is the power management tool that turns your phone on and off with you knowing.
"Nosey Smurf" is the hot mic tool. "For example," Snowden said, "if the phone is in your
pocket, NSA/GCHQ can turn the microphone on and listen to everything that's going on around you,
even if your phone is switched off because they've got the other tools for turning it on.
"Tracker Smurf" is a geolocation tool which allows spies to follow you with a greater precision
than you would get from the typical triangulation of cellphone towers.
"Paranoid Smurf" is a defensive mechanism designed to make the other tools installed on
the phone undetectable.
Snowden said the NSA has spent close to $1 billion to develop these smartphone hacking programs.
"... There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough. ..."
"... It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will. China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000% since 2002. ..."
"... China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing. ..."
"... If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy. ..."
"... Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English, World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands. ..."
"... They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are insurmountable. ..."
"... Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting. ..."
"... The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. ..."
"... Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder. ..."
"... I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London. ..."
"... i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights ..."
"... LOL European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF The EU is a silly clown at the US court What are you talking about? ..."
"... To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their 'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite with their non-interference mantra. ..."
"... The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or both. ..."
"... You can have democracy with a long memory see periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory). ..."
"... If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small head start it got during the 90's for doing so. ..."
"... It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their biding was always self defeating. ..."
"... We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the reverse. ..."
"... Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet; combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe, as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world. ..."
The problem is how do you define civilization? The urban centres were in the Middle East, and
long pre-date China. 6,000 years ago, the world's largest towns and cities were in the Balkans
- the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture. Because of the conventions of nomenclature, they don't count
as a civilization. This raises the question, when does a culture become a civilization? There
are certainly well attested archaeological cultures in China going back a long way, but there
are equally ancient cultures in Europe. Should we then say that Europe has 4,000 or 5,000 or more
years of civilization?
Good records for Chinese history go back about 3,000 years. Anything before that becomes archaeological
rather than historical, based on artifacts rather than records. References to different dynasties
don't help - there are no records comparable to Near Eastern king lists, or the Sumerian or Hittite
royal archives. China set up the Three Kingdoms Project to try to find the 'missing' 2,000 years
of Chinese history - i.e. the history that they claim to have, but have no direct evidence. They
didn't find it.
Adetheshades 23 Oct 2015 22:52
There is a lot that is positive about China's transformation. However, it is quite telling
that many of China's new rich cant get their money out of the country quickly enough.
They
obviously know more than the average Guardian reader, and apparently don't feel their cash
is safe. This causes problems of its own, when they start splashing this cash in the UK property
market, causing further price escalation if any were needed.
There isn't much we can do about the size and wealth of China.
It isn't so much a case of whether the UK will become a province, I suspect the whole world will.
China is close to the GDP of the USA and will overtake it in about 18 months, with GDP per head
only about $8k. If Chinese GDP per head even doubles, it's economy will at least double, and that
isn't taking into account population growth. China's economy has already grown by about 1000%
since 2002.
At what point will we drop French from the school curriculum in favour of Mandarin is the question.
To say Beijings influence is growing is a lovely little piece of understatement.
Adamnuisance 23 Oct 2015 21:22
China is a very fascinating place with a very fascinating history... But this misguided sinophilia
is exasperating. Half the time the Chinese government doesn't even know what it's doing.
Being
passive aggressive and claiming to be 'unique' are their real specialties. I have little doubt
that China will become even more powerful with time... I just hope their backwards politics improves
with their economy.
Thruns 23 Oct 2015 20:44
The first long game was Mao's coup.
The second long game was the great leap forward.
The third long game was the cultural revolution.
The fourth long game was to adopt the west's capitalism and sell the west its own technology.
At last the "communist" Chinese seem to have found a winner.
tufsoft Maharaja -> Brovinda Singh 23 Oct 2015 20:30
If you talk to Chinese people in private most of them take a pretty dim view of the invasion
of Iraq and western interventionist foreign policy in general. Their government, however, don't
put out grand press releases about it because that's not the way the Chinese do foreign diplomacy.
nothell -> Laurence Johnson 23 Oct 2015 20:16
Your comment about the British Empire must be tongue in cheek.
Gunboat diplomacy, opium wars, putting down mutinies in India and elsewhere, black hole of
Calcutta,thrashing the native language out of the Maori and Aborigines-forcing them to speak English,
World War One and World War Two, suez, the Falklands.
Anything but peaceful and anything but fair. Europe had the past, let Asia have the future.
slightlynumb -> theoldmanfromusa 23 Oct 2015 20:10
They will have to reject US inspired economic voodoo if they are to ever prosper again. There
is little to no chance of a federal state. The cultural, language and political differences are
insurmountable.
Rasengruen 23 Oct 2015 20:05
All of this presents well-known dilemmas for Europeans, such as how to balance human rights
and economic interests.
Stopped reading at that point, author is obviously a neoliberal rent-a-mouth. If it's rights
against interests there's nothing to balance, to suggest otherwise is agenda setting.
philby87 23 Oct 2015 18:50
public opinion in France, which had been shocked by an outbreak of violent repression
in Tibet
The public opinion in France should remember about Frances' real place in the world, and
mind its own business avoiding poking its long nose in other peoples' affaires. A good example
is Japan which is twice larger than France, but never lectures its neighbors about what they should
and shouldn't do. Bonapartism is an old French mental disorder.
skepticaleye -> midaregami 23 Oct 2015 18:04
The Yue state was populated mostly by the members of the Yue people who were not Han. The South
China wasn't completely sinicized well into the second millennium CE. Yunnan wasn't incorporated
into China until the Mongols conquered Dali in the 13th century, and the Ming dynasty eradicated
the Mongols' resistance there in the 14th century.
PeterBederell -> Daniel S 23 Oct 2015 17:54
I didn't say the US completely controlled Europe, I just said that the US can bend Europe to
its will in certain circumstances. For example it currently forces European banks to disclose
customer information to the US Treasury and it is trying to get European countries to agree to
allow US border control in European airports, so that the US can question UK citizens in London.
Europe often has to agree to these indignities because it needs access to the US market and to
keep the US sweet. But with a strong China, it can use the threat of following China in some way
the US doesn't like as a bargaining chip, like joining China's Development Bank, which put the
US in a huff recently.
Chriswr -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 17:54
What we in the West call human rights are creations of the Enlightenment and only about 300 years old. As a modern Westerner I am, of course, a big supporter of them. But let's not pretend they are part of some age-old tradition.
sor2007 -> impartial12 23 Oct 2015 17:48
i want to see a chinese century, at least the chinese wont invade other countries with the excuse of democracy or human rights
ApfelD 23 Oct 2015 17:42
China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well ahead of Europe – and it uses that historical depth to indicate it will never take lessons on democracy.
LOL
European democracy was born in Greece which is now under the full control of ECB and IMF
The EU is a silly clown at the US court
What are you talking about?
HoolyK BabylonianSheDevil03 23 Oct 2015 17:34
To be fair to the Chinese, at least they're not evangelical about spreading their
'Authoritarianism with Chinese Characteristics' now are they? In fact, it's quite the opposite
with their non-interference mantra. When the Chinese see the following:
1. the West preaches democracy and human rights
2. is evangelical about it and spreads it by hook or crook into the Middle East
3. this causes regimes to be changed and instability to spread
4. the chaos causes a massive refugee crisis, washing these poor huddled masses onto the
shores of Europe
5. the human rights preached by the West demands that the the refugees receive help
6. the native population is slowly being displaced
7. native population is further screwed, with austerity, financial crisis and now said Syrian
refugees
8. Fascist and Nazis parties are elected into office, civil strife ensues
Now, what do you think the Chinese, who ABHOR chaos, think about democracy and human rights
??
PeterBederell 23 Oct 2015 16:47
The rise of China is largely a good thing for Europe. The US will not hesitate to use
its power to bend Europe to its will where necessary (and who can blame it, all countries do
this when they can) and the cultural and political diversity of Europe means the EU is
unlikely to rival the US or China anytime soon. But the rise of China allows Europe to play
one great power off against the other to resist bullying and extract concessions from one or
both.
HoolyK -> AdamStrange 23 Oct 2015 16:30
Anatolia is inhabited by Turks from Central Asia who settled in the 11th century,
Iraq/Syria was overrun by Muslims in the 7th century. China is still Han Chinese, as it was
5000 years ago.
'human rights' really? then do you support the human rights of tens of thousands of refugees
from Syria to settle in Britain and Europe then? I ask this awkward question only because I
know the Chinese will ask ....
dev_null 23 Oct 2015 16:23
China deploys a long-term strategy in part because it has a very long memory, and in
part because its ruling elite needn't bother too much about electoral constraints.
The two are not mutially exclusive. You can have democracy with a long memory see
periods before 1970's (neoliberalisation requires a small memory).
China's longest 'strategy' was to leverage its currency artificially lower than it should be
in order to net export so many manufactured goods. Nothing else.
If Europe continues to have a long term strategy the 'long-term' has not started yet. It
is currently in the process of internal devaluation and the morons in charge happily attack
labor conditions which weakens spending which further degrades potential GDP increases hidden
unemployment and stagnation. Germany did this first and now continues to leverage the small
head start it got during the 90's for doing so.
Eurozone = Dystopia
China can rightly point out that it was already a civilisation 4,000 years ago – well
ahead of Europe
No sorry europe contained many advanced cultures going back just as far. This is
incompetent journalism. China was not 'china' it was many kingdoms and cultures 4000 years
ago, as was Europe at the time. Fallacy of decomposition.
MeandYou -> weka69 23 Oct 2015 16:11
It has nothing to do with that reasoning. It was always predicted the West will self
destruct. Inventing Globalisation and then closed down places of work for its citizen and
export them la, la lands benefiting very few people, the beneficiaries who end up sending
their monies to tax havens un-taxed and sponsoring some selected people to power to do their
biding was always self defeating.
We gave China our jobs and cheap technologies that have taken us centuries to develop
in of getting cheap goods. As a result China did not have to pass through the phases we passed
through in our early industrial age when Machines were more expensive than humans before the
reverse. We gave China all in a plate hence the speed neck speed China has risen. The
Consumerism society the political class created they were stupid enough to forget people still
need money to buy cheap goods. Consumerism does not run on empty purse.
wintpu 23 Oct 2015 15:57
You are preaching a China Containment strategy:
[1] This is racist viciousness, colonial mentality, or white supremacist conspiracy, believing
that containment is your moral right. You seem to be wallowing still in the stiff upper lipped
notions that you are the betters versus the east. Colonialism is over and still you cling to
the notion that the EU should get together and try to destroy China's social system because it
is different from yours. Your records on human rights, governance and effectiveness are all
droopy examples to be object lessons rather than role models for emulation by developing
countries. Your opium war denials [simply by not mentioning it] give you very little high
ground to hector China and the Chinese people.
[2] Recent Behavior. Putting aside your opium war robbery, your behavior in the run up to 1997
Hong Kong hand back shows your greedy sneakiness. Chris Patten infamously tried to throw a
monkey wrench into an agreed-upon process by trying to steal the Hong Kong treasury, then
planting the seeds of British wannabees. You passed a special law to deny the 1.36 million
Hong Kong residents who had become British Citizens was one of the most shameful racist acts
of your colonial record. Cameron is now bending over backwards post haste in order to
side-step the long long memory of the Chinese people.
[3] Crying about getting other EU nations to do aiding and abetting of your vendetta against a
rising China? Trying to reduce and contain China does you no good. So it is a simple case of
mendacity. But you forget that the Germans have already gone to China honestly and co-operated
since the time of Helmut Kohl and the CPC has not forgotten their loyal friends. Today most
CPC leaders drive Audis. There is no turning Germany away from their key position in
Chinatrade to become enemies of China because of your self-serving wishes. Even now, France
has jumped in on the nuclear niche to present you with a package you cannot refuse.
samohio 23 Oct 2015 15:51
Who speaks for Europe? No-one is the answer. It is the single largest economy on the
plant. Biggest exporter on the planet. Arguably the richest middle class on the planet;
combined, possibly the biggest defense budget on the planet, and all this with a central
government driving foreign policy, defense, economic strategy, monetary policy, nor any of the
other institutions of a Federal State. China knows this, the Americans know this; and Europe
keeps getting treated as the "child" on the international scene. It's too bad, because Europe,
as a whole, has many wonderful positives to contribute to the world.
I just love Prof. Bacevic. Nobody has more credit then him on the subject. Not only for his
unmatched scholarship and laser sharp words, but moreover for the unimaginable personal loss.
He is my hero!!!!
Boogie Knight 1 year ago
How many sons did the NeoCon-Gang sacrifice in their instigated Wars in foreign lands....?
Not one. Bacevich lost his son who was fighting in Iraq in 2007 - for what?!
Yet the NeoCon warcriminals Billy Cristol, Wolfowitz and/or Elliott Abrams are all still
highly respected people that the US media/political elite loves to consult - in 2014!
An excellent explanation of the key postulates of Neoconservatism.
Notable quotes:
"... We need to reexamine what it means to be free. A moral reorientation of the country
as Carter suggested in 1979. Bacevich says it isnt ever going to happen. ..."
We need to reexamine what it means to be free. A moral reorientation of the country
as Carter suggested in 1979. Bacevich says it isn't ever going to happen.
"... A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11
attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies – the FBI, CIA, NSA,
Defense Department and Homeland Security – "are all engaged in intelligence activities on
US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the
democratic principles and values of our Nation." ..."
"... Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm
criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations.
When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken
overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need
to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have
resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals. ..."
"... "enhanced interrogation" ..."
"... Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to
be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting
mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care. ..."
"... "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008." ..."
"... The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document,
though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials
from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual. ..."
US government 'engaged' in spying activities on US soil
A 2007 draft position paper on the role of the intelligence community in the wake of the 9/11
attacks shows that Brennan was already aware that numerous federal agencies – the FBI, CIA, NSA,
Defense Department and Homeland Security – "are all engaged in intelligence activities on
US soil." He said these activities "must be consistent with our laws and reflect the
democratic principles and values of our Nation."
Brennan added that the president and Congress need "clear mandates" and "firm
criteria" to determine what limits need to be placed on domestic intelligence operations.
When it comes to situations beyond US borders, Brennan said sometimes action must be taken
overseas "to address real and emerging threats to our interests," and that they may need
to be done "under the cover of secrecy." He argued that many covert CIA actions have
resulted in "major contributions" to US policy goals.
Debate over torture restrictions
WikiLeaks published two documents related to the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation"
techniques, though notably neither was written by Brennan.
One was written by then-Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri), vice chairman on the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence, which outlined a proposal to limit the CIA's torture techniques without
restricting the development of new techniques complying with the law.
The document suggests listing the types of techniques that the CIA is barred from using instead
of restricting the agency to only those explicitly listed in the Army Field Manual.
Some of the techniques Bond suggested that Congress ban included: forcing the detainee to
be naked; forcing them to perform sexual acts; waterboarding; inducing hypothermia; conducting
mock executions; and depriving detainees of food, water, or medical care.
Bond's suggestions get a bill
The final document appears to show Bond's suggestions making their way into a legislative
proposal titled "Limitations on Interrogation Techniques Act of 2008."
The bill prohibited the use of many of the same techniques listed in the previous document,
though it was not passed. Ultimately, President Obama issued an executive order banning officials
from using techniques not in the Army Field Manual.
"... With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff
should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form. ..."
"... This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing
its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting
to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them its all
great fun. ..."
"... Lets be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial
to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic.
It is unAmerican. ..."
"... It would be funny if it wasnt for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for
the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan. ..."
"... Ive said it before and Ill say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny.
So let us be grateful for John Brennan. ..."
With a properly run service provider, neither the helpdesk drones nor the admin staff
should be able to see any user's password, which should be safely stored in an encrypted form.
AmyInNH -> NigelSafeton 21 Oct 2015 11:59
You seriously underestimate the technical incompetence of the federal government. They buy
on basis of quantity of big blue arrows, shown on marketing slideware.
Laudig 21 Oct 2015 05:31
This is great. This man is a serial perjurer to Congress. Which does eff-all about being lied
to [they lie to everyone and so don't take offense at being lied to] and now he's hacked by a
13 year-old who, until a few weeks ago was protected by the The Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act of 1998.
Well done, CIA or whatever you are.
So your well constructed career gets collapsed by someone who is still in short pants. The
Age of Secrets is over now.
Stieve 21 Oct 2015 02:54
Er, why has no-one mentioned, why has there been no press coverage, why has not a single presidential
candidate been asked to comment on the fact that The USA has been the victim of a military coup?
All pretence of government oversight has been dropped. The NSA, CIA and most likely every other
arm of the "intelligence service" have simply taken over the elected government, ripped up The
Constitution and transformed The US into a police state. Seven thousand people disappeared in
Chigaco? Exactly why have there not been massive arrests of these Stasi? Or riots on the streets?
Exactly why has there not been an emergency session of The Senate or Congress to find out why
Chicago is being run like an Eastern Bloc dictatorship? Exactly why are police departments been
given military hardware designed to be used by an occupying army?
I'll tell you exactly why.
Because The US actually has been taken over
Glenn J. Hill 21 Oct 2015 01:28
LOL, the Head of the CIA put sensitive info on an personal AOL ACCOUNT !!!!! What an total
idiot. Just proves the " Peter Principle", that one gets promoted to one`s point of incompetent!
Can he be fired ? Locked up for gross stupidity ?? Will he come hunting for me, to take me out
for pointing out his asinine stupidity ??
Fnert Pleeble -> Robert Lewis 20 Oct 2015 23:42
Congressmen are self motivating. They want the gravy train to continue. The carrot is plenty
big, no need for the stick.
Buckworm 20 Oct 2015 21:51
Those old, tired, incompetent, ignorant, trolls are asking for more and more access to citizens
data based on the assumption that they can catch a terrorist or another type of psycho before
they act out on something. Don't they realize that so far, after 15 years of violating the citizen's
constitutional rights, they HAVE NEVER CAUGHT not even ONE single person under their illegal surveillance.
This is the problem: they think that terrorists are as stupid as they are, and that they will
be sending tons of un-encrypted information online- and that sooner or later they will intercept
that data and prevent a crime. How many times have they done so? Z E RO . They haven't realized
that terrorists and hackers are waaaaayyy ahead of them and their ways of communicating are already
beyond the old-fashioned government-hacked internet. I mean, only a terrorist as stupid as a government
employee would think of ever sending something sensitive through electronic communications of
any kind - but the government trolls still believe that they do or that sooner or later they will!!
How super-beyond-stupid is that? Congress??
Don't even talk about that putrid grotesque political farce - completely manipulated by the
super-rich and heated up by the typical white-trash delusional trailer park troll aka as the "tea
party". We've had many killing in the homeland after 9/11 - not even one of them stopped by the
"mega-surveillance" - and thousands committed by irresponsible and crooked cops - and this will
continue until America Unites and fight for their constitutional rights. That will happen as soon
as their priority is not getting the latest iPhone with minimal improvement, spends endless hours
playing candy crush,stand in long lines to buy pot, get drunk every evening and weekends, and
cancel their subscription to home-delivered heroin and cocaine. So don't hold your breath on that
one.
Wait until one of those 13-yr old gets a hold of nuclear codes, electric grid codes, water
supply or other important service code - the old government farts will scream and denounce that
they could have prevented that if they had had more surveillance tools - but that is as false
as the $3 dollar bills they claim to have in their wallets. They cannot see any further from their
incompetence and ignorance.
Robert Lewis -> Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 18:38
Did the FSB cook data so the US would invade Iraq and kill 1,000,000 civilians?
yusowong 20 Oct 2015 18:20
This is a turf war between bureaucrats who are born incompetent. The NSA has been increasing
its share of budgetary largesse while the CIA and other security units have each been fighting
to keep up. Politicians, being bureaucrats themselves, engage in the turf war. To them it's all
great fun.
Triumphant -> George Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 14:41
Are you saying that because you aren't in a concentration camp, everything's pretty good? That's
a pretty low bar to set.
Most people probably didn't vote for your current leader. To compare, in the UK, only 37% of the
popular vote went for the current government. And once you leader is voted in, they pretty much
do as they please. Fortunately, there are checks and balances which are supposed to prevent things
getting out of control. Unfortunately, bills like the cybersecurity bill are intend to circumvent
these things.
Let's be clear: it is very hard to see how blanket surveillance of American citizens is beneficial
to American citizens. It tips over the power balance between government and citizen - it is undemocratic.
It is unAmerican.
Red Ryder -> daniel1948 20 Oct 2015 14:16
The whole freakin government is totally incompetent when it comes to computers and the hacking
going on around this planet. Hillary needs to answer for this email scandal but currently she
is making jokes about it as if nothing happened. She has no clue when she tried to delete her
emails. Doesn't the government know that this stuff is backed up on many computers and then stored
it a tape vault somewhere. Hiding emails is a joke today.
mancfrank 20 Oct 2015 13:27
It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that the kid will most likely regret this for
the rest of his life and nothing will change for Government or Brennan.
Giants1925 20 Oct 2015 12:53
I still don't understand why Russia is allowed to have the FSB but the US is forbidden from
having the CIA Who makes these rules again? Because frankly I'm tired of the world being run
by popular opinion.
bcarey 20 Oct 2015 12:33
The bill is so bad that the major tech companies like Google and Amazon all came out
against it last week, despite the fact that it would give them broad immunity for sharing
this information with the government.
The usual show... "We're totally against it, but it's okay."
Donald Mintz 20 Oct 2015 12:02
I've said it before and I'll say it again: incompetence is the main bulwark against tyranny.
So let us be grateful for John Brennan.
I just love Prof. Bacevic. Nobody has more credit then him on the subject. Not only for his
unmatched scholarship and laser sharp words, but moreover for the unimaginable personal loss.
He is my hero!!!!
Boogie Knight 1 year ago
How many sons did the NeoCon-Gang sacrifice in their instigated Wars in foreign lands....?
Not one. Bacevich lost his son who was fighting in Iraq in 2007 - for what?!
Yet the NeoCon warcriminals Billy Cristol, Wolfowitz and/or Elliott Abrams are all still
highly respected people that the US media/political elite loves to consult - in 2014!
A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail,
YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC,
and the U.K.'s Channel 4.
…A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail,
YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC,
and the U.K.'s Channel 4…
###
And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably
keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.
I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled Russian
trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged data
from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources', i.e. the
usual bollox.
May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.)
just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up
service?!
…The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums…
…Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains,
because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are
required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each
search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen…
…When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that
the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."
The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight
greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for
data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about
Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance….
#####
It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain
privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way
to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the
Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so,
the US used British pilots and Canberras.
Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards and
make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not. What people can do to protect themselves is a)
don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag); b) just don't do or say
obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life; c) use encryption such
as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.; d) don't write about
what not to do on the Internet as I have just done!
;)
The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending
on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your
life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to
send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas
territories, but it is total control.
If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then
the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".
Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window in
an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!
This should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence
services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago.
Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the
make up of the committee has changed a bit.
What it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited
info from the security services.
And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor administration and continued
under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.
It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will
be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially,
We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed a great deal more than
just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting information on everyone.
As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered online so that government
spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined that citizens shall have
no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything you do and listening
to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in case, and slip embarrassing
revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into your telephone conversations.
Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that
is private, except maybe for
Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if
they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government
bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU)
from the
NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.
A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the
Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that
the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight
to the NSA. You can't believe anyone any more.
"... The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. ..."
"... But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular (not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately be described as quasi-facist, ..."
"... I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree? ..."
"... Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit of either the West or Russia. ..."
Dear, you refer to "one blonde said!". On some vague feelings, assumptions... Enough speculation about Crimea, please! Let's
stick to facts! Crimea 80% of the population - Russian. Not only Pro-Russian, and ethnic Russians. Russia does not need were the
little green men of Crimea! But for drunk and scared of the Ukrainian military in the Crimea, for the Wahhabis, who through the
streets went to the cars with black flags for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, importing explosives and suitable for shooting on the streets,
probably Yes. Crimea was similar to the Autonomous Republic, until authonomy has destroyed by abandoning the Constitution. It
was abolished by the President! Crimea held a referendum for secession from Ukraine long before the coup in Ukrainein 2014 .
Note that the Americans tried to seize Crimea under the guise of NATO exercises! Was absolutely illegal attempt to build an
American military base in Crimea for the U.S. Navy landed the Marines on may 26, 2006, of which the citizens of Crimea dishonorably
discharged. And during the state coup in Ukraine in the Black Sea suddenly a us warship.
In Debaltsevo the Ukrainian neo-Nazis fought with men that were deprived of the government, the President, sovereignty, language,
external management is introduced, destroyed the economy. Take away the right to life. Whose wives, parents and children every
day are killed by shells from anti-aircraft weapons in schools, hospitals, shops, bus stops, fill up with planes of white phosphorus,
the water is shut off and the light stopped issuing wages and pensions, imposed humanitarian blockade.
To fight with desperate men, defending their home, or engage in rape and looting among the civilian population, where the majority
of the elderly, women, children - different things.
Sarah7 -> Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:58
One more thing:
Actually, the first photograph accompanying this piece by Shaun Walker shows Poroshenko looking particularly angry and miserable
-- if looks could kill, Merkel would be in big trouble!
That said, in the same photo, Putin appears calm, sanguine, and in a very 'positive mood' compared to his counterparts. Go
figure.
Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:49
Moscow and Kiev in 'positive mood' over talks to end east Ukraine conflict
If you look at the photographs that accompany the following piece, Poroshenko does not appear to be in a 'positive mood'
over the recent meeting of the Normandy Four, and Merkel looks like she is going to spit nails. Perhaps this explains their
dour faces:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the first time publically accepted the fact that Crimea doesn't belong to Ukraine and
that the peninsula will stay as part of Russia, Alexei Pushkov, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma,
said on his Twitter account, according to Gazeta.ru. (Emphasis added)
"Important: After a meeting in Paris, Merkel for the first time admitted that Crimea won't return to Ukraine. That means
the crisis is only about the east of the country," Pushkov wrote. (Emphasis added)
The Normandy Four talks on Ukraine reconciliation concluded in Paris on Friday.
The leaders of the Normandy Quartet countries managed to agree on the procedure of the withdrawal of heavy weapons in eastern
Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday.
"We were able to agree on the withdrawal of heavy weapons," Merkel said following the Normandy Four talks in Paris. "There
is hope for progress. We are moving toward each other."
On the whole, the results of Friday's Normandy Four talks in Paris set a positive tone, Angela Merkel said, adding that
she was satisfied with what the participants achieved during the meeting.
The Normandy Four are planning to meet for a followup in November, presumably to keep Poroshenko in compliance and moving head
with the implementation of Minsk II.
PS -- It was the evil Putin wot done it!
HollyOldDog -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 18:55
The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. This mess is for
Ukraine alone to sort out and Mikheil Saakashvilli is not the man for the job - his corruption runs far to deep for any action
that is more than cosmetic.
BMWAlbert -> Елена Соловьева 3 Oct 2015 18:38
IDK the number of Russian nationals in the Donbas forces, something between 1-10K as a rough guess, these are not formal formations
(some are organized at the battalion level as all-Russian units, just an observation from the Russian language news coverage of
the closing of Debaltsevo earlier this year, e.g. so called "Khan" battalion, this is just televised news, but there must be more
than one such unit, hence the estimate-there are enough weapons captures from UAF in the earlier battles also to arm a small army
in Donbas, but this does not rule-out direct supplies (I would imagine something low-key and NOT the big white convoys), this
would be the natural minimal level of support I would infer/expect in this case and seems a fair inference. I am not replicating
mindless statements from ATO leaders, and remember that Rada twice tried
Crimea was an autonomous region in UA and with rights to hold a referendum under the early 2014 UA Constitution and an earlier
legal attempt in 1993 was surprised, also that RU had large forces already legally stationed in Crimea/Krim according to the Kharkov
treaty and that in some cases, civic authority, Sebastopol by the RU naval command being a case in point-a continuation of old
practices. My sense from personal friends is that among the young, and old generally, the pro-RU sentiment in Krim is strong (incl.
one girl with whom I have lost contact, who works there in what is now RU, due to current conditions).
But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular
(not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately
be described as quasi-facist, this includes well-educated people, ibcl. in one case (a blonde) the desire to 'exterminate'
the Russians-but I would not count the opinions in Donbas as only those enduring the bombardments, there are also many refugees,
many in RU itself of course, whose opinions vary from those expressed sometimes here with all due respect, so yes it is complicated.
HollyOldDog -> William Snowden 3 Oct 2015 18:13
Putin wants Ukraine to succeed but the only way it can do this is for the Ukrainian citizens to take over its government and
boot out the Self-serving Oligarchs. The Oligarchs have their place in Ukraine but that is to stay out from forming Government
decisions and confine their endeavors to modernizing and improving the infrastructure of Ukraine Industrial base which would improve
the finance and conditions for all of Ukrainian citizens. It's going to be a difficult road but Russia and the EU can help, though
clinging on to the influences of the USA would surely be a retrograde step.
Елена Соловьева -> BMWAlbert 3 Oct 2015 18:07
What's so complicated? The war is real or not! Evidence of finding the 200 000 Russian soldiers in Lugansk and Donbass, or
have or not! Crimea after the collapse of the USSR was a disputed territory, which Ukraine annexed unilaterally, without considering
the opinion of the Russian Federation and, more IMPORTANTLY, against the wishes of the citizens of the Crimean Republic, which,
actually, was constitutional and presidential, while Ukraine did not destroy this status! It is Ukraine annexed the Crimean Republic,
and the Russian city Sevastopol, which is in the Republic even geographically not part of, Mr. specialist on Ukraine! Demarcation
implies the absence of territorial disputes. And, by the way! Another monstrous stupidity of your media! Poor Ukraine after the
coup d'état, followed by the external management of the country by the EU and the US are terrorized by the evil Russian, because
it is weak and has no nuclear weapons because of the Treaty of non-aggression from the Russian Federation? Really? Ukraine did
not pay its portion of external debt of the USSR and the Russian Empire, therefore, is not the successor,and cannot claim to nuclear
power status! Ukraine is a priori not have a right to this weapon, because it was not the owner initially, as the successor! The
coup in Kiev was held under the slogan "Cut all Russians!", which in Ukraine 2 years ago, it was a few million, and that is what
they are doing throughout the Ukraine, especially in Eastern Ukraine and was planning to do in Crimea. The burning of people in
Odessa - a vivid example.
Beckow -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 17:11
You cannot survey people in the middle of a civil conflict on how much they like or dislike what is described as the "enemy".
It simply cannot be done, the numbers are meaningless.
Look at Ukraine's economy and you will see the future of this conflict. The living standards are down so low that all else
will become meaningless - people actually care about their incomes and living standard.
Your slogans about "illegal", "privileged sphere" are not what any of this is about, they are not what people in Ukraine think
about or what matters to them. But if you insist on slogans, there is one simple answer: Kosovo. West bombed Serbia, killing about
a thousand civilians, to force Albanian separation in Kosovo. All talk about "international law" is kind of meaningless after
that.
Informed17 -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 15:53
I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a
year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square
kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we
should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree?
Manolo Torres -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 15:49
I have condemned the actions of the Russian government in chechnya many times, if you are going to speak about anyones hypocrisy,
you should at least know with whom are you talking.
Manolo Torres
9 Sep 2014 09:42
0 Recommend
Look, I already replied, I wasn´t careful with my question. Of course the Russians have committed many abuses, namely the war
in Chechnya. I also explained the differences between that war and the wars by US/NATO that have simply no justification on
grounds of self defense.
My concern with human life was shown by my condemnation of every violent act: the massacre in Odessa, the airstrikes and shelling
that killed thousands in Ukraine, the war in Iraq and Syria, the war in Chechnya or the neo-nazi movement inside Russia (as
we were discussing yesterday before you started shouting and got overwhelmed by the numbers I showed you).
As for the Ukrainians I don´t you are as stupid as to blame Putin for the Ukrainian governments shelling of residential areas.
And perhaps you know that there is an investigation for MH17.
i am not like you Rob, I am not a fanatic and I only make judgements when I think I know the facts. You are just shouting and
looking every time more ridiculous.
A good start for you would be to say that you stand corrected for the Amnesty report. Do it, I have done it, feels good.
Can I do anything else for you?
Laurence Johnson -> gimmeshoes 3 Oct 2015 14:15
Poroshenko is in a bit of a legal quagmire as his government has not at any stage controlled the entire nation and its borders
at any time. His current claim on Eastern Ukraine in legal terms is more a wish list than a legal document of fact.
His only path is partition to legalise his government to govern what they have today, or to negotiate the handing over of East
Ukraine to his governments control in order that he can legitimately govern the entire nation and its borders. An invasion of
East Ukraine is probably not going to work legally, or on a more practical basis.
Informed17 -> Worried9876 3 Oct 2015 14:10
This is too categorical. Chocolate man wants anything that allows him to keep cashing in on his "president" title. The only
thing that's unacceptable to him is if his masters try to prevent his thievery. Then he is likely to become angry and unpredictable.
Might even remember about Ukraine, although that's highly unlikely.
elias_ 3 Oct 2015 14:04
Looks to me like Putin wins. Crimea in the bag, the eastern regions stay in Ukraine with enough clout to prevent nato membership
and keep the nazis at bay. And stupid EU and US get to pay the bill for reconstruction. The sanctions hurt all sides but are forcing
much needed reforms in his country, he may even become a net exporter of food products instead of importing from the eu. He gets
a refund for the Mistrals and makes the poodle French look untrustworthy. Oh well, serves the sneaky bastards right (you know
who i mean "fuxx the eu").
Laurence Johnson -> Alexzero 3 Oct 2015 14:03
Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if
Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit
of either the West or Russia.
"... A Fascist is one who believes in a corporatist society. In other words, it is a political philosophy
embodying very strong central government, with the authority to move in decisive steps to accomplish
goals. It would be characterized by a unity of purpose, with more or less all the levels of the hierarchy
in unison, starting at the top and working down. It is a top-down government involving an alliance of
industry, military, media and a political party. ..."
"... It is interesting to note that at least two of the three Parties had origins as Socialist and
morphed into strong, Right Wing, authoritarian rules as a result largely of expediency. ..."
"... As soon as they took power, which they did partially through gangs and mobs, intimidation and
demonstrations and-in Mussolini's case an outright coup - they allied themselves with the biggest corporations
and the military general staff. In addition, even before taking complete power, they began to wrest
control of the media away from other political parties, and to use it for their own propaganda. ..."
"... Hitler's "Big Lie" basically blamed rampant inflation and lack of jobs on the Jews. He blamed
all their economic ills on the restraint of Germany by other nations and the presumed taking over of
German lands (which they themselves had only won through aggressive wars.) ..."
"... In a fascist system, the whole idea is to have an efficient method of getting things done.
If you want to build an "autobahn" you simply tell the transportation minister to get started. You control
everything at every level. It will go faster because it is for the good of all the people, so no one
will have the right to object or interfere. It is, Fascists would say, about efficiency, getting things
done for the people. ..."
"... You attack other countries so that they cannot attack you. You start wars (Iraq) to prevent
dangerous men from attacking you. It makes sense. Military efficiency in a Fascist state means that
if the top guy (President or Dictator) wants to be absolutely certain that no other country is superior,
he can build up the military industry and the military at any pace or at any cost. ..."
"... Everyone salutes and follows the lead from the top down ..."
"... In a Fascist state, policy is largely being written through a cooperative effort with the industries
involved, in this case the health care industry. The slow, ragged, messy and Democratic process involved
with our current health care reform process would never happen under a Fascist government. Whatever
the decision, there would be no appeal. If a million or fifty million were left out, because, let's
say, that the President needed more money for war machines that would be the decision- with no question
or appeal. ..."
"... Republicans, remember, have the complete support of Fox News, the Fox television Network, the
Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and any number of television stations around the country, plus
somewhere between 600 and 1600 radio stations ..."
"... The Neocons are out of power, but they are unrelenting in their efforts to control as much
of the political discourse as possible, no matter how damaging to society. They bring mobs and riff-raff
out, some with guns, trying to scare the average citizen. They send messages out over radio with lunatic
commentators, some who are not even allowed to visit other countries because of their hate speech…yet
we tolerate it. ..."
The word "Fascist" as with the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" are thrown around a lot by people
who have no idea what they mean. If you want to know what those terms really mean, find someone who
was in some branch of military counterintelligence, the CIA, the security section of the State Department,
Defense Intelligence, or in the FBI.
In all those areas, the first day of basic training involves comparative forms of government.
You can't spot a Communist if you don't know what a Communist is. You can't tell the difference between
a Communist and a Fascist unless you know the difference in the two systems. It is Intelligence,
and more specifically, Counterintelligence 101.
So, let's go right to Fascism. A Fascist is one who believes in a corporatist society. In
other words, it is a political philosophy embodying very strong central government, with the authority
to move in decisive steps to accomplish goals. It would be characterized by a unity of purpose, with
more or less all the levels of the hierarchy in unison, starting at the top and working down. It
is a top-down government involving an alliance of industry, military, media and a political party.
Because Fascism has been associated with the 1930s German Nazis, the Italian Fascists under Mussolini
and the Falangists, under the Spanish Dictator, Francisco Franco, the term "Fascist" has taken on
a sinister meaning. Not fewer than 10 million direct deaths resulting from the rule of these three
may have something to do with it. On the other hand, philosophies don't kill people; people kill
people.
It is interesting to note that at least two of the three Parties had origins as Socialist
and morphed into strong, Right Wing, authoritarian rules as a result largely of expediency.
It is also interesting to note that all three were not only intimately connected to the largest industrial
corporations, but as soon as possible with the military leadership. While Fascism as a political
philosophy is not innately evil, given the results, it is worth noting how things turned out.
Both the German and the Italian Fascist parties were also both revolutionary and conservative
at the same time. Both Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini were aggressive, anarchic leaders. Both
served time in jail. Both served in the enlisted ranks with the military in war. Both used that experience
to organize mobs of thugs to agitate against an established government, not for a more democratic
regime, but for a more authoritarian one. You can begin to see some similarities with contemporary
political activities.
As soon as they took power, which they did partially through gangs and mobs, intimidation
and demonstrations and-in Mussolini's case an outright coup - they allied themselves with the biggest
corporations and the military general staff. In addition, even before taking complete power, they
began to wrest control of the media away from other political parties, and to use it for their own
propaganda.
Once they had control of the radio and newspapers, which were then the prominent sources of information,
they could begin to broadcast their messages. Hitler's "Big Lie" basically blamed rampant inflation
and lack of jobs on the Jews. He blamed all their economic ills on the restraint of Germany by other
nations and the presumed taking over of German lands (which they themselves had only won through
aggressive wars.)
But let's for a minute assume that we know nothing about Fascism except that it exists. We have
a group, here in America that believes in a corporatist political philosophy. What would that look
like? If it were a true Fascist organization, they would ally themselves with big corporations, like
the health care industry, oil and mining, pharmaceuticals, media corporations and the military-industrial
complex.
They would try to control the message, particularly in radio and television. They would become
as closely allied with the top military brass as possible, offering them a seat at the table in the
running of the economy. Retired Generals would be assured of positions involved with military hardware
and strategic planning.
And what about the people? In a fascist system, the whole idea is to have an efficient method
of getting things done. If you want to build an "autobahn" you simply tell the transportation minister
to get started. You control everything at every level. It will go faster because it is for the good
of all the people, so no one will have the right to object or interfere. It is, Fascists would say,
about efficiency, getting things done for the people.
Defense is about protecting the people. You attack other countries so that they cannot attack
you. You start wars (Iraq) to prevent dangerous men from attacking you. It makes sense. Military
efficiency in a Fascist state means that if the top guy (President or Dictator) wants to be absolutely
certain that no other country is superior, he can build up the military industry and the military
at any pace or at any cost.
In a Fascist state the idea is to have one set of rules, coming from the top down. No one votes
as an individual, only as a part of the group that is assigned a task. It is corporate, total-totalitarian.
So, if you decide that a national health care program is not right for the country, you all vote
against it in a totally militaristic way. Everyone salutes and follows the lead from the top
down. The only problem is when you do not have a strong leader.
The Democrats, for example, want to farm decisions out to others, let the opposition have their
input. It slows the process. A Fascist health care program would be one decided upon by the President,
discussed and worked out with the corporations, mandated to his staffs and enacted without any discussion
or public debate in a matter of a few months.
In a Fascist state, policy is largely being written through a cooperative effort with the
industries involved, in this case the health care industry. The slow, ragged, messy and Democratic
process involved with our current health care reform process would never happen under a Fascist government.
Whatever the decision, there would be no appeal. If a million or fifty million were left out, because,
let's say, that the President needed more money for war machines that would be the decision- with
no question or appeal.
So, if you want efficiency, you not only should you look to the Republicans, but you may have
no choice. The Republicans, remember, have the complete support of Fox News, the Fox television
Network, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and any number of television stations around
the country, plus somewhere between 600 and 1600 radio stations on which literally 9 out of
10 commentators are paid by those network owners to be Conservative (Neoconservative Republican.)
They have expanded to very large numbers of web site bases, delivering whatever type of information
they want, truth, lies, anything in between… accusations without proof…Socialist, Communist, government
takeover of this or that…no need to be truthful. It is all propaganda.
Just as Herr Goebbels and Mussolini did in the 1930s-and except in the Communist counties and
a few Latin American dictatorships there hasn't been anything to speak of similar to this in the
Western advanced societies since then-the unchallenged message of the Right Wing goes out. The radio
commentators today get their message from the top, from the Republican Party. Fox News Channel internal
memos have shown that they literally decide what policies the Republican Party wished to champion,
and then they attack rather than merely delivering the news.
So do we need to be civil about it-about these lies? Is it important to challenge people, like
these Right Wing commentators who tell you that your current health care is sufficient? It is good
for corporations, for health care insurance companies. But is it good for you not to be sure you
can get health insurance? So if they tell you that something is a government takeover and it is not,
so you vote against health care or you respond to a poll in a way that is against your own best interests…do
you need to be civil about being lied to? You shouldn't be lied to by media. You need the truth,
the facts, to make decisions.
It is a pretty simple answer. Should you be civil to people who lie to you and urge you to buy
something that turns out to hurt you, or your family, or cause you to lose your job, or kill your
sister, brother, neighbor? If I lie to you and say it is safe to swim across the channel and you
are attacked by sharks that I knew were there…should you not care? This is what is happening, right
now…today. In the consumer products market, we call that fraud and companies can be criminally liable.
So let's describe what a Fascist government or a political party attempting to introduce a Fascist
government would look like and see if either or any of our political parties fits that description:
Allies with big corporations, planning strategy together, interchangeable.
Works to have control of the political process at all levels, starting with the top down.
Does not cooperate with and actually tries to undermine other political parties.
Uses mobs and demonstrations, and attempts to make individuals working in other parties afraid
of violent reactions.
Advocates ownership of weapons as a fear factor to intimidate others. (Wayne La Pierre…"the
people with the guns make the rules.")
Decides what is best for all citizens based on what corporations want.
Uses "big lie" propaganda technique, of top-down distributed propaganda message for each issue.
Allies with military on most issues, with ultra-aggressive military posture.
Total control of the political process is the ultimate goal.
If any of this seems familiar to you, then you see something "Fascist" in the current political
process. Of course, one thing that wasn't mentioned. Fascists always need someone to stigmatize.
In Germany, it was the Jews. In Italy it was the Socialists. In Spain it was the Communists. It seems
clear that, in this country it is the Democrats.
The Neocons are out of power, but they are unrelenting in their efforts to control as much
of the political discourse as possible, no matter how damaging to society. They bring mobs and riff-raff
out, some with guns, trying to scare the average citizen. They send messages out over radio with
lunatic commentators, some who are not even allowed to visit other countries because of their hate
speech…yet we tolerate it.
We even allow asininely preposterous lies from a possibly psychotic television commentator…to
be used to stoke the race-hatred of many tea party members, and thugs against a distinguished African-American
President who won 54% of the vote, the largest since Ronald Reagan and who also won the Nobel Peace
Prize.
The case is pretty clear. The Neoconservative Republicans are headed for Fascism if they are not
there already. The latest round of insults, threats, lies, window breakings all contribute to the
evidence. Sooner or later this totalitarian attitude will either be denounced or will have serious
responses. One thing is sure, with the problems facing our country, we cannot afford the kind of
anarchist attacks as were exhibited in the bombing of a Federal building in Oklahoma City or the
flying of an aircraft into a building housing an IRS office.
This radical, violent, arrogant Fascist attitude has to stop. The first step in preventing this
kind of political outcome is to identify and react to Fascism when it appears. Neoconservative Republicanism
is Fascism. Republicans must return to sanity or be treated as a very dangerous and radical political
party.
Mike // Mar 30, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I agree with everything you say, except for the statement that the fascists have chosen the
Democrats as a focus for hate. They have chosen everyone who is not a fascist republican, and
esp. the 'middle to the left', which they label 'liberal'.
It is frightening to see the second party of a two party system turn fascist in the United
States. Anyone who says it isn't so, isn't paying attention. What is even more frightening is
the level of ignorance that must exist for people to believe those fascists. When you watch
that certain mentally mal-adjusted on Fox and see him ramble on incoherently for an hour while
he spews lies and distortions, any thinking individual has to ask him/her self "What moron
would fall for this drivel?" But they do.
It is truly frightening, and it is easy to see how people like Hitler manage to rise to power,
when people wilfully shut off any reasoning skills they ever had.
"... after the 2004 Olympics, the Greek government
discovered that
an
unknown attacker had hacked into Vodafone's "lawful intercept" system, the phone company's mechanism
of wiretapping phone calls. The attacker
spied
on phone calls of the president, other Greek politicians and journalists before it was discovered. ..."
"... all this happened after the US spy agency cooperated with Greek law enforcement to
keep an eye on potential terrorist attacks for the Olympics. Instead of packing up their surveillance
gear, they covertly pointed it towards the Greek government and its people. But that's not all: according
to Snowden documents that Bamford cited, this is a common tactic of the NSA. They often attack the
"lawful intercept" systems in other countries to spy on government and citizens
without
their knowledge: ..."
"... It's the exact nightmare scenario security experts have warned about when it comes to backdoors:
they are not only available to those that operate them "legally", but also to those who can hack
into them to spy without anyone's knowledge. If the NSA can do it, so can China, Russia and a host
of other malicious actors. ..."
Revelations about the hack that allowed Greek politicians to be spied on in 2004 come at a
time when the White House is set to announce its encryption policy
Just as it seems the White House is
close to finally announcing its policy on encryption - the FBI
has been pushing for tech companies like Apple and Google to insert backdoors into their phones
so the US government can always access users' data -= new Snowden revelations and an investigation
by a legendary journalist show exactly why the FBI's plans are so dangerous.
One of the biggest arguments against mandating backdoors in encryption is the fact that, even
if you trust the United States government never to abuse that power (and who does?), other criminal
hackers and foreign governments will be able to exploit the backdoor to use it themselves. A backdoor
is an inherent vulnerability that other actors will attempt to find and try to use it for their own
nefarious purposes as soon as they know it exists, putting all of our cybersecurity at risk.
In
a
meticulous investigation, longtime NSA reporter James Bamford
reported
at the Intercept Tuesday that the NSA was behind the notorious "Athens Affair". In surveillance
circles, the Athens Affair is stuff of legend: after the 2004 Olympics, the Greek government
discovered that
an
unknown attacker had hacked into Vodafone's "lawful intercept" system, the phone company's mechanism
of wiretapping phone calls. The attacker
spied
on phone calls of the president, other Greek politicians and journalists before it was discovered.
According to
Bamford's
story, all this happened after the US spy agency cooperated with Greek law enforcement to
keep an eye on potential terrorist attacks for the Olympics. Instead of packing up their surveillance
gear, they covertly pointed it towards the Greek government and its people. But that's not all: according
to Snowden documents that Bamford cited, this is a common tactic of the NSA. They often attack the
"lawful intercept" systems in other countries to spy on government and citizens
without
their knowledge:
Exploiting the weaknesses associated with lawful intercept programs was a common trick for NSA.
According to a previously unreleased top-secret PowerPoint presentation from 2012, titled "Exploiting
Foreign Lawful Intercept Roundtable", the agency's "countries of interest" for this work included,
at that time, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt and others. The presentation also notes that NSA had about
60 "Fingerprints" - ways to identify data - from telecom companies and industry groups that develop
lawful intercept systems, including Ericsson, as well as Motorola, Nokia and Siemens.
It's the exact nightmare scenario security experts have warned about when it comes to backdoors:
they are not only available to those that operate them "legally", but also to those who can hack
into them to spy without anyone's knowledge. If the NSA can do it, so can China, Russia and a host
of other malicious actors.
... ... ...
Disclosure: Trevor Timm works for Freedom of the Press Foundation, which is one of the many
civil liberties organizations to have called on the White House to support strong encryption.
TDM MCL -> LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 21:21
You are getting very warm near the real reasons why the government does not want your to have
full privacy....encryption (of a certain type, not your usual off the shelf type mind you), is
the threat that all power greedy controlling tyrant governments phreak out about....they tell
you it's about national security...
if you don't find the contradiction in that line of thinking...you are not thinking carefully.
which is precisely what the elites desire..you ! no thinking...do what you are told..get in
line..work hard...don't ask questions...
this is the world powers at work...and the minions of narrow minded geeks that support them
in exchange for unbelievable amounts of money, influence and true freedom...it's ironic, really..that
the world's smartest people have to steal your power from you, in order to have any themselves.
but it is what makes the current regimes' clock ticking.
TDM MCL -> Ehsan Tabari 30 Sep 2015 21:16
only by the most self favored moralistic nationalist bigotry can one assume that a "certain"
kind of government can pull off mass surveillance "responsibly"!
and apparently, the USA would have you believe there is some significant difference in how
well they perform the freedom robbing than their comrades..
I call them both tyrants..how bout them apples?!
TDM MCL -> ACJB 30 Sep 2015 21:12
what makes you believe that ALL NON-TRIVIAL communications are not being surveilled in real
time at this moment, now?
If any entity of any significance is communicating, it is surely being tracked... this isn't some conspiratorial thinking either...
The vast reach and capacity for surveillance infrastructure is many time more then necessary to
capture all real time communications. The most important significant communications are in fact
the target...
Mom sending her sister a recipe on her aol account never registers....the "machine"...listens
specifically.. it is far more intelligent and directed than most people understand.
But it also has the capacity to target just about anything..and that is the danger... What happens to the newsie or the everyday fella that takes note of something very disturbing...illegal
even..or morally objectionable?
Remember why the tor network was designed for...mostly to allow people that could not talk
freely to do so..in warzones..or where their discussions would bring grave danger to them and
others....
Tor was hacked and it a dead animal to privacy for over 6 years now...don't use it, unless
you want to the information to be used against you...
There are very few private venues anymore...the world has gone to shit
TDM MCL -> Crashman55 30 Sep 2015 20:58
It happens more often than most people understand.
If you want to get a reality test of this, here is how you too can verify that the spy agencies
are very prevalent in every day communications.
btw: this simple type of test, is best applies using several of the off the shelf encryption
programs ...in this way, you get verification of what snowden and many others have acknowledged
for quite some time.
a. create a secure email ...join a secure vpn..use encrypted off the shelf s/w for your message.
b. send "someone" that you know ..that you call first ...that wants to play along...and within
the email message...write some off the wall content about terrorism...bombs...etc..use all the
sorted "key words"..it's easy to locate a list...google is your friend. Just make sure they understand
that the purpose of the test to to verify that security exists..you will find..it doesn't...
c. it is best that your "friend" be localed outside of the us...middle east ...or russia...or
china...ukraine...gernamny.,.,..etc..you get the idea.
d. repeat, rinse and wash using all the garden variety of the shelf security...PGP...GPG...CRYPTZONE...SYMANTEC...HPSECURE...ETC..ETC...DO
ANY AND ALL OF THEM THAT YOU LIKE TO TEST. Fire them out like a shotgun...if you can enlist the
help of hundreds to chain the mail along, even better.
When the agencies contact you...and they will depending on how authentic you have decided to
mask your traffic and how authentic they consider your email content exchange merited inspection...you
will discover what anyone who has actually used encyption in a real world way has come to understand...
if you are using typical commercially available encryption..there is NO privacy.
meaning it is not simple possible to crack..but easily...
Zhubajie1284 GoldMoney 30 Sep 2015 20:29
Facebook and Twitter were banned in China after someone posted a bunch of gruesome photos from
some rioting in Xinjiang. It looked to me, as an outsider, that someone was trying to provoke
anti-Muslim rioting elsewhere in China. It would be reasonable for Chinese security people to
suspect the CIA or some other US agency famous for destabilizing foreign governments. The US had
already announced it's strategic pivot towards Asia, which can easily be interpreted as a declaration
of Cold War on China.
I don't know the whole truth of the incident, but people in PR China have good reason to be
suspicious.
now, what is the risk...you may be harassed..but unless I am missing some new law, none of
this type of testing is unlawful...
for real world security that works...similar kinds of penetration tests are used as above....
hey you can even honey pot a public network if you wanted to....you know just to prove to yourself
there is no such thing as secrecy achieved by using a public library or a "shared" computer.
note: one of the first indications that you are being surveilled, is that there will a subtle
but noted performance hit on your machine..if you attach a security gateway with logging, even
better...or a high end hardware firewall-gateway, that sniffs...
watch also for some very interesting emails to hit all of your "other" accounts.
if you do this, I can predict at least the following:
your machine will take a hit...
you will get notified most likely by the FBI, via your isp.
if you do this on your smartphone and that is linked to other accounts..you can guarantee to have
spread malware abundantly to all other accounts linked.
if the FBI asks that you reveal the content of emails...ask them to show you first...and grin
very large when you say that...if it's a low end non-tech....force them to gain a warrant...and
contact your lawyer...
is it a waste of time for law enforcement to show their hand in how intimately they have backended
encyption..? or is worth it to you to understand that it is common..and secret..and very broad...
that time when making things better is waning...and narrowing..if you aren't willing to take
a stand and object and posit your own resistance to overreaching spying..then the awful dreadful
future that awaits you, is just as much your own fault.
that is where I land on the issue.
for the issue, now...not later!
take a stand!
TDM MCL martinusher 30 Sep 2015 20:27
the real issue with the "legal tacK' wrt to halting the fed from building backdoors or mandating
them, is the reality that most of the high level secret business of spy agencies DEFY any law.
As is the case with most software and hardware corporations..there is massive financial and intelligence
capitol that depends on building backdoors in secret..sharing them with the government simply
provides "cover"...
the real threat of all of this of course is the very reason why the constitution was written
and preoccupied with protecting freedom and liberty...eventually, abuses from a tyranny government
or fascist state comes into power.
some say we have already passes that threshold...given the broad "known" abuses of the 300+
secret spy agencies and the secret laws that not only authorize them but threaten companies who
do not comply...you really can't deny the fact that the target is you and me. And sometimes, although,
seemingly unproven, some existential external terror organization.
I've long since held that a formal security arrangement can implemented by ISP's where ALL
internet traffic is routed...and where the most inteligent and efficient means to shut down malware
and other activities that are unlawful and harmful...
I has never been seriously considered or even suggested by the government .....you have to
serious be suspicious why that has never been considered...
perhaps too much intelligent security programs, would put all of the security industry and
fear agencies out of business...What else would they do with their time...
I have zero faith in the US government to do the right thing anymore..they have been vacant
at their core responsibility to protect its citizens. They have built a wall of mistrust by their
abuses.
to the technologically talented, what this all means is that the US government has created
a niche market that is growing ever larger...and that is to establish highly secure networks for
end users. It also happens to make them appear to be criminals.
Imagine that...a software engineer who is actually doing the business of protecting a persons
right to privacy...immediately falls into the long list of persons of interest!
the government has parted company with its responsibilities..and has created a adversarial
rife with the people of its own country...I give it less than 10 years before the people perform
their own arab spring...it really is going to get very bad in this country.
beelzebob 30 Sep 2015 17:34
This is all very interesting from a certain standpoint. 21 CFR Part 11 requires all drug companies,
and other companies doing business before the FDA to take reasonable steps to ensure the security
of all of their data to guarantee that the data are not tampered with. If the FBI and CIA are
inserting backdoors into electronic communications devices, defined broadly to include everything
from telephones to the Internet, there is no reasonable way to ensure that unauthorized parties
can not use these devices to alter drug company data. Thus, it appears that drug companies, and
their employees, contractors and suppliers, can not use the internet or anything connected to
the internet as part of their FDA regulated operations.
kenalexruss 30 Sep 2015 14:02
Data is big business and ironically, only serves big business. The US government couldn't tell
it's head from its ass regarding the stuff, but the data is critical for corporations. Since corporations
are people and dictate government policy and are also the primary government interest, there will
be back doors. Apple, google, microsoft, et.al. are ALL big business and they don't want you knowing
how they really feel about it, so they feign objections. It's all about money, as usual.
martinusher 30 Sep 2015 13:23
There was an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times yesterday that suggested that adding backdoors
or otherwise hacking into people's computers was a violation of the 3rd Amendment.
Quite apart from that never making it past the Roberts court (although it might be worth trying)
I daresay proponents of universal surveillance will argue that businesses aren't covered by this
so hacking into servers &tc. is OK.
Government agencies do appear to be out of control. Its not the snooping so much as their general
ineffectiveness when it comes to crime and the Internet -- you can get your identity stolen, your
back account hacked and so on and they shrug as if to say "What's this got to do with us?". The
seem to be only interested in a very narrow range of political activities.
Phil429 30 Sep 2015 12:14
Coming out strongly against such a mandate [to eliminate everyone's security] would be huge
on multiple fronts for the Obama administration: it would send a strong message for human rights
around the world, it would make it much harder for other governments to demand backdoors from
US tech companies and it would also strengthen the US economy.
Only if you assume some connection between the administration's stated policies and its actions.
GoldMoney -> RoughSleeper 30 Sep 2015 12:05
I don't care about mass surveillance, because I have nothing to hide! I have nothing to
hide, so I have nothing to fear, those that are trying to hide private lives, must have something
to fear"....Signed GCHQ/MI5/Police/Council troll
haha - I loved that post, so true!
GoldMoney -> koichan 30 Sep 2015 11:49
The TSA travel locks for use in air travel have a backdoor and now can be opened by pretty
much anyone in the world now. Now imagine the same thing applying to bank transactions, credit/debit
card payments and so on...
Very good point.
By having backdoors you compromise the entire security of the system and make it vulnerable
to attackers in general.
Snowden deserves the Nobel peace prize if you ask me....
While we are on the topic - lets take back the prize from Obama....
GoldMoney -> LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 11:39
If people don't trust the security of encryption then there is no point in using it.
Exactly right.
I think the internet as we know it will break down in the future as countries will not trust
foreign technology companies colluding with their home intelligence agencies.
Its already happening in China - most western technology companies like FB, Twitter, etc. are
banned there for fear they could be used by the US to spy on Chinese citizens or to orchestrate
a "Chinese Spring" there....
Crashman55 30 Sep 2015 11:13
You can go online and get the source codes off of several excellent encryption websites, and
then develop your own. My brother and I did this, and we were sending our weekly NFL football
picks back and forth each week. We stopped after the FBI came to my brother's place of business,
after a couple months, and questioned him. When my brother asked how they able to even look at
our emails, they said they had a computer program in place that kicked out encrypted emails. After
being threatened with arrest at his job in front of everyone, he showed them the unencrypted versions.
They said that our silliness had wasted valuable FBI time and resources. If you don't think
Big Brother is watching...
Peter Dragonas -> Ehsan Tabari 30 Sep 2015 10:25
Why do you think the anti-American Muslim Community and others, call us TERRORISTS? OUR COMPASS
is as faulty as ????????. The world situation is a mirror of Grandiose Individuals who look down
on reality. Reality is an obstruction to their neediness for attracting attention and control.
Peter Dragonas 30 Sep 2015 10:19
Another major "foundation section" removed from our Country's integrity. Sick, paranoia, similar
to the "J. EDGAR HOOVER ERA & CONTINUATION THROUGH HIS LEGACY FUNDS TO THIS DAY". Could this be
true, I could think the "The Athens Affair" predates the elements that brought down Greece, in
favor of pushing Turkey to becoming the American doorway into Asia & the Middle East. Just a theory.
Yet, where there is smoke, something is cooking, which requires political FIRE.
RoughSleeper 30 Sep 2015 08:50
I don't care about mass surveillance, because I have nothing to hide! I have nothing to hide,
so I have nothing to fear, those that are trying to hide private lives, must have something to
fear"....Signed GCHQ/MI5/Police/Council troll
I don't care about State cameras recording everyone out, because I don't go out. I don't care
about those that do.
I don't care about State cameras recording wives, girlfriends, children, because I don't have
any. I don't care about those that do.
I don't care about the right to privacy because I have nothing of any value to hide. I don't
care about those that have.
I don't care about freedom of speech because I have nothing of any value to say. I don't care
about those that have.
I don't care about freedom of the press because I have nothing of any value to write. I don't
care about those that have.
I don't care about freedom of thought, because I have no thoughts of any value. I don't care
about those that have.
I don't care about the right to privacy of intellectual property, because I have no intelligence
of any value. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about the right to privacy of bank details, because I have nothing of any value
in my bank account. I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about the right to privacy of love letters, because I have no love of any value.
I don't care about those that have.
I don't care about the rights of HR activists, because I don't contribute anything to HRs.
I don't care about those that do.
I don't care about society, community, future, because I don't contribute anything to them.
I don't care about those that do.
I don't care about the right to privacy of my vote, because we have no democracy of any value
anyway. I don't care about countries that have.
I don't care about Gypsies, Blacks, Jews, Invalids, Unions, socialists, Untermensch, because
I am not one. I don't care about those that are.
I only care about me, here & now! It's look after number one, as the Tories tell us.
koichan 30 Sep 2015 08:39
For the less technically minded, heres another example of whats wrong with government backdoors:
The TSA travel locks for use in air travel have a backdoor and now can be opened by pretty
much anyone in the world now. Now imagine the same thing applying to bank transactions, credit/debit
card payments and so on...
LePloumesCleau 30 Sep 2015 08:10
I would only ever trust open source encryption software. I don't trust the "encryption" built
into Windows or Apple software at all.
If people don't trust the security of encryption then there is no point in using it.
"... The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. ..."
"... But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular (not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately be described as quasi-facist, ..."
"... I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree? ..."
"... Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit of either the West or Russia. ..."
Dear, you refer to "one blonde said!". On some vague feelings, assumptions... Enough speculation about Crimea, please! Let's
stick to facts! Crimea 80% of the population - Russian. Not only Pro-Russian, and ethnic Russians. Russia does not need were the
little green men of Crimea! But for drunk and scared of the Ukrainian military in the Crimea, for the Wahhabis, who through the
streets went to the cars with black flags for Ukrainian neo-Nazis, importing explosives and suitable for shooting on the streets,
probably Yes. Crimea was similar to the Autonomous Republic, until authonomy has destroyed by abandoning the Constitution. It
was abolished by the President! Crimea held a referendum for secession from Ukraine long before the coup in Ukrainein 2014 .
Note that the Americans tried to seize Crimea under the guise of NATO exercises! Was absolutely illegal attempt to build an
American military base in Crimea for the U.S. Navy landed the Marines on may 26, 2006, of which the citizens of Crimea dishonorably
discharged. And during the state coup in Ukraine in the Black Sea suddenly a us warship.
In Debaltsevo the Ukrainian neo-Nazis fought with men that were deprived of the government, the President, sovereignty, language,
external management is introduced, destroyed the economy. Take away the right to life. Whose wives, parents and children every
day are killed by shells from anti-aircraft weapons in schools, hospitals, shops, bus stops, fill up with planes of white phosphorus,
the water is shut off and the light stopped issuing wages and pensions, imposed humanitarian blockade.
To fight with desperate men, defending their home, or engage in rape and looting among the civilian population, where the majority
of the elderly, women, children - different things.
Sarah7 -> Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:58
One more thing:
Actually, the first photograph accompanying this piece by Shaun Walker shows Poroshenko looking particularly angry and miserable
-- if looks could kill, Merkel would be in big trouble!
That said, in the same photo, Putin appears calm, sanguine, and in a very 'positive mood' compared to his counterparts. Go
figure.
Sarah7 3 Oct 2015 19:49
Moscow and Kiev in 'positive mood' over talks to end east Ukraine conflict
If you look at the photographs that accompany the following piece, Poroshenko does not appear to be in a 'positive mood'
over the recent meeting of the Normandy Four, and Merkel looks like she is going to spit nails. Perhaps this explains their
dour faces:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel for the first time publically accepted the fact that Crimea doesn't belong to Ukraine and
that the peninsula will stay as part of Russia, Alexei Pushkov, head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma,
said on his Twitter account, according to Gazeta.ru. (Emphasis added)
"Important: After a meeting in Paris, Merkel for the first time admitted that Crimea won't return to Ukraine. That means
the crisis is only about the east of the country," Pushkov wrote. (Emphasis added)
The Normandy Four talks on Ukraine reconciliation concluded in Paris on Friday.
The leaders of the Normandy Quartet countries managed to agree on the procedure of the withdrawal of heavy weapons in eastern
Ukraine, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Friday.
"We were able to agree on the withdrawal of heavy weapons," Merkel said following the Normandy Four talks in Paris. "There
is hope for progress. We are moving toward each other."
On the whole, the results of Friday's Normandy Four talks in Paris set a positive tone, Angela Merkel said, adding that
she was satisfied with what the participants achieved during the meeting.
The Normandy Four are planning to meet for a followup in November, presumably to keep Poroshenko in compliance and moving head
with the implementation of Minsk II.
PS -- It was the evil Putin wot done it!
HollyOldDog -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 18:55
The EU cannot do anything about Ukraine Right Sector radicals and its other nutters in the Mafia. This mess is for
Ukraine alone to sort out and Mikheil Saakashvilli is not the man for the job - his corruption runs far to deep for any action
that is more than cosmetic.
BMWAlbert -> Елена Соловьева 3 Oct 2015 18:38
IDK the number of Russian nationals in the Donbas forces, something between 1-10K as a rough guess, these are not formal formations
(some are organized at the battalion level as all-Russian units, just an observation from the Russian language news coverage of
the closing of Debaltsevo earlier this year, e.g. so called "Khan" battalion, this is just televised news, but there must be more
than one such unit, hence the estimate-there are enough weapons captures from UAF in the earlier battles also to arm a small army
in Donbas, but this does not rule-out direct supplies (I would imagine something low-key and NOT the big white convoys), this
would be the natural minimal level of support I would infer/expect in this case and seems a fair inference. I am not replicating
mindless statements from ATO leaders, and remember that Rada twice tried
Crimea was an autonomous region in UA and with rights to hold a referendum under the early 2014 UA Constitution and an earlier
legal attempt in 1993 was surprised, also that RU had large forces already legally stationed in Crimea/Krim according to the Kharkov
treaty and that in some cases, civic authority, Sebastopol by the RU naval command being a case in point-a continuation of old
practices. My sense from personal friends is that among the young, and old generally, the pro-RU sentiment in Krim is strong (incl.
one girl with whom I have lost contact, who works there in what is now RU, due to current conditions).
But the Donbas situation is more mixed, however, even before the trouble in 2014, what I DID encounter in Kiev in particular
(not so much Galycnya) was a regard of the SE UA citizens as second-class citizens, as well as attitudes that could be accurately
be described as quasi-facist, this includes well-educated people, ibcl. in one case (a blonde) the desire to 'exterminate'
the Russians-but I would not count the opinions in Donbas as only those enduring the bombardments, there are also many refugees,
many in RU itself of course, whose opinions vary from those expressed sometimes here with all due respect, so yes it is complicated.
HollyOldDog -> William Snowden 3 Oct 2015 18:13
Putin wants Ukraine to succeed but the only way it can do this is for the Ukrainian citizens to take over its government and
boot out the Self-serving Oligarchs. The Oligarchs have their place in Ukraine but that is to stay out from forming Government
decisions and confine their endeavors to modernizing and improving the infrastructure of Ukraine Industrial base which would improve
the finance and conditions for all of Ukrainian citizens. It's going to be a difficult road but Russia and the EU can help, though
clinging on to the influences of the USA would surely be a retrograde step.
Елена Соловьева -> BMWAlbert 3 Oct 2015 18:07
What's so complicated? The war is real or not! Evidence of finding the 200 000 Russian soldiers in Lugansk and Donbass, or
have or not! Crimea after the collapse of the USSR was a disputed territory, which Ukraine annexed unilaterally, without considering
the opinion of the Russian Federation and, more IMPORTANTLY, against the wishes of the citizens of the Crimean Republic, which,
actually, was constitutional and presidential, while Ukraine did not destroy this status! It is Ukraine annexed the Crimean Republic,
and the Russian city Sevastopol, which is in the Republic even geographically not part of, Mr. specialist on Ukraine! Demarcation
implies the absence of territorial disputes. And, by the way! Another monstrous stupidity of your media! Poor Ukraine after the
coup d'état, followed by the external management of the country by the EU and the US are terrorized by the evil Russian, because
it is weak and has no nuclear weapons because of the Treaty of non-aggression from the Russian Federation? Really? Ukraine did
not pay its portion of external debt of the USSR and the Russian Empire, therefore, is not the successor,and cannot claim to nuclear
power status! Ukraine is a priori not have a right to this weapon, because it was not the owner initially, as the successor! The
coup in Kiev was held under the slogan "Cut all Russians!", which in Ukraine 2 years ago, it was a few million, and that is what
they are doing throughout the Ukraine, especially in Eastern Ukraine and was planning to do in Crimea. The burning of people in
Odessa - a vivid example.
Beckow -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 17:11
You cannot survey people in the middle of a civil conflict on how much they like or dislike what is described as the "enemy".
It simply cannot be done, the numbers are meaningless.
Look at Ukraine's economy and you will see the future of this conflict. The living standards are down so low that all else
will become meaningless - people actually care about their incomes and living standard.
Your slogans about "illegal", "privileged sphere" are not what any of this is about, they are not what people in Ukraine think
about or what matters to them. But if you insist on slogans, there is one simple answer: Kosovo. West bombed Serbia, killing about
a thousand civilians, to force Albanian separation in Kosovo. All talk about "international law" is kind of meaningless after
that.
Informed17 -> Laurence Johnson 3 Oct 2015 15:53
I wonder why you call Western airstrikes "tactical". The coalition launched >7,000 military aircraft sorties in over a
year, apparently carefully "missing" ISIS targets, killing on average ~0.4 terrorist per sortie and freeing up as much as 15 square
kilometers of territory from ISIS. As you can easily imagine, a lot of people made huge amounts of money in the process. So we
should call this a resounding success, on par with $10 billion no-bid Halliburton contract in Iraq. Wouldn't you agree?
Manolo Torres -> Bart Looren de Jong 3 Oct 2015 15:49
I have condemned the actions of the Russian government in chechnya many times, if you are going to speak about anyones hypocrisy,
you should at least know with whom are you talking.
Manolo Torres
9 Sep 2014 09:42
0 Recommend
Look, I already replied, I wasn´t careful with my question. Of course the Russians have committed many abuses, namely the war
in Chechnya. I also explained the differences between that war and the wars by US/NATO that have simply no justification on
grounds of self defense.
My concern with human life was shown by my condemnation of every violent act: the massacre in Odessa, the airstrikes and shelling
that killed thousands in Ukraine, the war in Iraq and Syria, the war in Chechnya or the neo-nazi movement inside Russia (as
we were discussing yesterday before you started shouting and got overwhelmed by the numbers I showed you).
As for the Ukrainians I don´t you are as stupid as to blame Putin for the Ukrainian governments shelling of residential areas.
And perhaps you know that there is an investigation for MH17.
i am not like you Rob, I am not a fanatic and I only make judgements when I think I know the facts. You are just shouting and
looking every time more ridiculous.
A good start for you would be to say that you stand corrected for the Amnesty report. Do it, I have done it, feels good.
Can I do anything else for you?
Laurence Johnson -> gimmeshoes 3 Oct 2015 14:15
Poroshenko is in a bit of a legal quagmire as his government has not at any stage controlled the entire nation and its borders
at any time. His current claim on Eastern Ukraine in legal terms is more a wish list than a legal document of fact.
His only path is partition to legalise his government to govern what they have today, or to negotiate the handing over of East
Ukraine to his governments control in order that he can legitimately govern the entire nation and its borders. An invasion of
East Ukraine is probably not going to work legally, or on a more practical basis.
Informed17 -> Worried9876 3 Oct 2015 14:10
This is too categorical. Chocolate man wants anything that allows him to keep cashing in on his "president" title. The only
thing that's unacceptable to him is if his masters try to prevent his thievery. Then he is likely to become angry and unpredictable.
Might even remember about Ukraine, although that's highly unlikely.
elias_ 3 Oct 2015 14:04
Looks to me like Putin wins. Crimea in the bag, the eastern regions stay in Ukraine with enough clout to prevent nato membership
and keep the nazis at bay. And stupid EU and US get to pay the bill for reconstruction. The sanctions hurt all sides but are forcing
much needed reforms in his country, he may even become a net exporter of food products instead of importing from the eu. He gets
a refund for the Mistrals and makes the poodle French look untrustworthy. Oh well, serves the sneaky bastards right (you know
who i mean "fuxx the eu").
Laurence Johnson -> Alexzero 3 Oct 2015 14:03
Does it really matter if they have ? We know the West has been involved so it would be pretty much par for the course if
Russia was involved. The main thing is Ukraine becomes a peaceful nation for the benefit of its citizens, not for the benefit
of either the West or Russia.
"... A Fascist is one who believes in a corporatist society. In other words, it is a political philosophy
embodying very strong central government, with the authority to move in decisive steps to accomplish
goals. It would be characterized by a unity of purpose, with more or less all the levels of the hierarchy
in unison, starting at the top and working down. It is a top-down government involving an alliance of
industry, military, media and a political party. ..."
"... It is interesting to note that at least two of the three Parties had origins as Socialist and
morphed into strong, Right Wing, authoritarian rules as a result largely of expediency. ..."
"... As soon as they took power, which they did partially through gangs and mobs, intimidation and
demonstrations and-in Mussolini's case an outright coup - they allied themselves with the biggest corporations
and the military general staff. In addition, even before taking complete power, they began to wrest
control of the media away from other political parties, and to use it for their own propaganda. ..."
"... Hitler's "Big Lie" basically blamed rampant inflation and lack of jobs on the Jews. He blamed
all their economic ills on the restraint of Germany by other nations and the presumed taking over of
German lands (which they themselves had only won through aggressive wars.) ..."
"... In a fascist system, the whole idea is to have an efficient method of getting things done.
If you want to build an "autobahn" you simply tell the transportation minister to get started. You control
everything at every level. It will go faster because it is for the good of all the people, so no one
will have the right to object or interfere. It is, Fascists would say, about efficiency, getting things
done for the people. ..."
"... You attack other countries so that they cannot attack you. You start wars (Iraq) to prevent
dangerous men from attacking you. It makes sense. Military efficiency in a Fascist state means that
if the top guy (President or Dictator) wants to be absolutely certain that no other country is superior,
he can build up the military industry and the military at any pace or at any cost. ..."
"... Everyone salutes and follows the lead from the top down ..."
"... In a Fascist state, policy is largely being written through a cooperative effort with the industries
involved, in this case the health care industry. The slow, ragged, messy and Democratic process involved
with our current health care reform process would never happen under a Fascist government. Whatever
the decision, there would be no appeal. If a million or fifty million were left out, because, let's
say, that the President needed more money for war machines that would be the decision- with no question
or appeal. ..."
"... Republicans, remember, have the complete support of Fox News, the Fox television Network, the
Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and any number of television stations around the country, plus
somewhere between 600 and 1600 radio stations ..."
"... The Neocons are out of power, but they are unrelenting in their efforts to control as much
of the political discourse as possible, no matter how damaging to society. They bring mobs and riff-raff
out, some with guns, trying to scare the average citizen. They send messages out over radio with lunatic
commentators, some who are not even allowed to visit other countries because of their hate speech…yet
we tolerate it. ..."
The word "Fascist" as with the terms "Socialist" and "Communist" are thrown around a lot by people
who have no idea what they mean. If you want to know what those terms really mean, find someone who
was in some branch of military counterintelligence, the CIA, the security section of the State Department,
Defense Intelligence, or in the FBI.
In all those areas, the first day of basic training involves comparative forms of government.
You can't spot a Communist if you don't know what a Communist is. You can't tell the difference between
a Communist and a Fascist unless you know the difference in the two systems. It is Intelligence,
and more specifically, Counterintelligence 101.
So, let's go right to Fascism. A Fascist is one who believes in a corporatist society. In
other words, it is a political philosophy embodying very strong central government, with the authority
to move in decisive steps to accomplish goals. It would be characterized by a unity of purpose, with
more or less all the levels of the hierarchy in unison, starting at the top and working down. It
is a top-down government involving an alliance of industry, military, media and a political party.
Because Fascism has been associated with the 1930s German Nazis, the Italian Fascists under Mussolini
and the Falangists, under the Spanish Dictator, Francisco Franco, the term "Fascist" has taken on
a sinister meaning. Not fewer than 10 million direct deaths resulting from the rule of these three
may have something to do with it. On the other hand, philosophies don't kill people; people kill
people.
It is interesting to note that at least two of the three Parties had origins as Socialist
and morphed into strong, Right Wing, authoritarian rules as a result largely of expediency.
It is also interesting to note that all three were not only intimately connected to the largest industrial
corporations, but as soon as possible with the military leadership. While Fascism as a political
philosophy is not innately evil, given the results, it is worth noting how things turned out.
Both the German and the Italian Fascist parties were also both revolutionary and conservative
at the same time. Both Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini were aggressive, anarchic leaders. Both
served time in jail. Both served in the enlisted ranks with the military in war. Both used that experience
to organize mobs of thugs to agitate against an established government, not for a more democratic
regime, but for a more authoritarian one. You can begin to see some similarities with contemporary
political activities.
As soon as they took power, which they did partially through gangs and mobs, intimidation
and demonstrations and-in Mussolini's case an outright coup - they allied themselves with the biggest
corporations and the military general staff. In addition, even before taking complete power, they
began to wrest control of the media away from other political parties, and to use it for their own
propaganda.
Once they had control of the radio and newspapers, which were then the prominent sources of information,
they could begin to broadcast their messages. Hitler's "Big Lie" basically blamed rampant inflation
and lack of jobs on the Jews. He blamed all their economic ills on the restraint of Germany by other
nations and the presumed taking over of German lands (which they themselves had only won through
aggressive wars.)
But let's for a minute assume that we know nothing about Fascism except that it exists. We have
a group, here in America that believes in a corporatist political philosophy. What would that look
like? If it were a true Fascist organization, they would ally themselves with big corporations, like
the health care industry, oil and mining, pharmaceuticals, media corporations and the military-industrial
complex.
They would try to control the message, particularly in radio and television. They would become
as closely allied with the top military brass as possible, offering them a seat at the table in the
running of the economy. Retired Generals would be assured of positions involved with military hardware
and strategic planning.
And what about the people? In a fascist system, the whole idea is to have an efficient method
of getting things done. If you want to build an "autobahn" you simply tell the transportation minister
to get started. You control everything at every level. It will go faster because it is for the good
of all the people, so no one will have the right to object or interfere. It is, Fascists would say,
about efficiency, getting things done for the people.
Defense is about protecting the people. You attack other countries so that they cannot attack
you. You start wars (Iraq) to prevent dangerous men from attacking you. It makes sense. Military
efficiency in a Fascist state means that if the top guy (President or Dictator) wants to be absolutely
certain that no other country is superior, he can build up the military industry and the military
at any pace or at any cost.
In a Fascist state the idea is to have one set of rules, coming from the top down. No one votes
as an individual, only as a part of the group that is assigned a task. It is corporate, total-totalitarian.
So, if you decide that a national health care program is not right for the country, you all vote
against it in a totally militaristic way. Everyone salutes and follows the lead from the top
down. The only problem is when you do not have a strong leader.
The Democrats, for example, want to farm decisions out to others, let the opposition have their
input. It slows the process. A Fascist health care program would be one decided upon by the President,
discussed and worked out with the corporations, mandated to his staffs and enacted without any discussion
or public debate in a matter of a few months.
In a Fascist state, policy is largely being written through a cooperative effort with the
industries involved, in this case the health care industry. The slow, ragged, messy and Democratic
process involved with our current health care reform process would never happen under a Fascist government.
Whatever the decision, there would be no appeal. If a million or fifty million were left out, because,
let's say, that the President needed more money for war machines that would be the decision- with
no question or appeal.
So, if you want efficiency, you not only should you look to the Republicans, but you may have
no choice. The Republicans, remember, have the complete support of Fox News, the Fox television
Network, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and any number of television stations around
the country, plus somewhere between 600 and 1600 radio stations on which literally 9 out of
10 commentators are paid by those network owners to be Conservative (Neoconservative Republican.)
They have expanded to very large numbers of web site bases, delivering whatever type of information
they want, truth, lies, anything in between… accusations without proof…Socialist, Communist, government
takeover of this or that…no need to be truthful. It is all propaganda.
Just as Herr Goebbels and Mussolini did in the 1930s-and except in the Communist counties and
a few Latin American dictatorships there hasn't been anything to speak of similar to this in the
Western advanced societies since then-the unchallenged message of the Right Wing goes out. The radio
commentators today get their message from the top, from the Republican Party. Fox News Channel internal
memos have shown that they literally decide what policies the Republican Party wished to champion,
and then they attack rather than merely delivering the news.
So do we need to be civil about it-about these lies? Is it important to challenge people, like
these Right Wing commentators who tell you that your current health care is sufficient? It is good
for corporations, for health care insurance companies. But is it good for you not to be sure you
can get health insurance? So if they tell you that something is a government takeover and it is not,
so you vote against health care or you respond to a poll in a way that is against your own best interests…do
you need to be civil about being lied to? You shouldn't be lied to by media. You need the truth,
the facts, to make decisions.
It is a pretty simple answer. Should you be civil to people who lie to you and urge you to buy
something that turns out to hurt you, or your family, or cause you to lose your job, or kill your
sister, brother, neighbor? If I lie to you and say it is safe to swim across the channel and you
are attacked by sharks that I knew were there…should you not care? This is what is happening, right
now…today. In the consumer products market, we call that fraud and companies can be criminally liable.
So let's describe what a Fascist government or a political party attempting to introduce a Fascist
government would look like and see if either or any of our political parties fits that description:
Allies with big corporations, planning strategy together, interchangeable.
Works to have control of the political process at all levels, starting with the top down.
Does not cooperate with and actually tries to undermine other political parties.
Uses mobs and demonstrations, and attempts to make individuals working in other parties afraid
of violent reactions.
Advocates ownership of weapons as a fear factor to intimidate others. (Wayne La Pierre…"the
people with the guns make the rules.")
Decides what is best for all citizens based on what corporations want.
Uses "big lie" propaganda technique, of top-down distributed propaganda message for each issue.
Allies with military on most issues, with ultra-aggressive military posture.
Total control of the political process is the ultimate goal.
If any of this seems familiar to you, then you see something "Fascist" in the current political
process. Of course, one thing that wasn't mentioned. Fascists always need someone to stigmatize.
In Germany, it was the Jews. In Italy it was the Socialists. In Spain it was the Communists. It seems
clear that, in this country it is the Democrats.
The Neocons are out of power, but they are unrelenting in their efforts to control as much
of the political discourse as possible, no matter how damaging to society. They bring mobs and riff-raff
out, some with guns, trying to scare the average citizen. They send messages out over radio with
lunatic commentators, some who are not even allowed to visit other countries because of their hate
speech…yet we tolerate it.
We even allow asininely preposterous lies from a possibly psychotic television commentator…to
be used to stoke the race-hatred of many tea party members, and thugs against a distinguished African-American
President who won 54% of the vote, the largest since Ronald Reagan and who also won the Nobel Peace
Prize.
The case is pretty clear. The Neoconservative Republicans are headed for Fascism if they are not
there already. The latest round of insults, threats, lies, window breakings all contribute to the
evidence. Sooner or later this totalitarian attitude will either be denounced or will have serious
responses. One thing is sure, with the problems facing our country, we cannot afford the kind of
anarchist attacks as were exhibited in the bombing of a Federal building in Oklahoma City or the
flying of an aircraft into a building housing an IRS office.
This radical, violent, arrogant Fascist attitude has to stop. The first step in preventing this
kind of political outcome is to identify and react to Fascism when it appears. Neoconservative Republicanism
is Fascism. Republicans must return to sanity or be treated as a very dangerous and radical political
party.
Mike // Mar 30, 2010 at 12:01 pm
I agree with everything you say, except for the statement that the fascists have chosen the
Democrats as a focus for hate. They have chosen everyone who is not a fascist republican, and
esp. the 'middle to the left', which they label 'liberal'.
It is frightening to see the second party of a two party system turn fascist in the United
States. Anyone who says it isn't so, isn't paying attention. What is even more frightening is
the level of ignorance that must exist for people to believe those fascists. When you watch
that certain mentally mal-adjusted on Fox and see him ramble on incoherently for an hour while
he spews lies and distortions, any thinking individual has to ask him/her self "What moron
would fall for this drivel?" But they do.
It is truly frightening, and it is easy to see how people like Hitler manage to rise to power,
when people wilfully shut off any reasoning skills they ever had.
At fist I thought that Twaddleradar, member since
Aug 9, 2015A is a new NATObot. It it looks like he is a regular Russophob... Still amazingly prolific spamming the whole discussion.
It's definitly not enough for him to state his point of view and voice objection. Such commenting incontinence is very disruptive in
Web forums.
Notable quotes:
"... WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow your daily dose of bullshit. ..."
"... The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. ..."
"... Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much. ..."
Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This old chestnut again... Evidence please of this sweeping claim?
No mention of Putin drafting the Minsk agreement, this is what happened. Then presenting it as a road map for a resolution
to the Ukrainian Civil war? As I recall it was Merkell and Holland who rushed to Moscow in February to meet with Putin and thrash
out a solution which was then presented to Poroshenko.
As the USA is now in an election cycle and with the Syrian War on Isis takes centre stage with Russian involvement, it looks
like the their sock puppet, Petro Poroshenko has been hung out to dry. Finally being told to get back in his box... for now, probably
as no more funds via the IMF will be directed into this proxi-conflict if it continues (well they were breaking their own rules
giving Ukraine money when it's at war with itself).
Finally, this made me smile...
It has been a busy diplomatic week for Putin, who has not been a frequent guest in western capitals over the past year
Actually Putin has had a very busy diplomatic year building international partnerships across Asia and the BRIC's, Trade agreements
with China and Saudi Arabian investment into Russia. The Silk Route project and much more. It seems to me some of the Graun's
journalists should get out more, like Putin has been doing!
PrinceEdward -> Twaddleradar 2 Oct 2015 21:12
Meanwhile every Ukrainian male is so full of patriotism, there is no need for a 5 draft rounds in Ukraine because they're flooding
with so many volunteers, they turn them away. Stories of parents paying $1000 to get their kids out of the draft, or countless
thousands of 20-something Ukrainians running away to Russia and Poland to get student visas, is just propaganda.
MrJohnsonJr 2 Oct 2015 21:07
Ukraine has a fucking nerve to require a diplomatic effort to have it explained to them what a murderous losers the turned
out to be and that another of their "revolutions" brought nothing but a major waste of human life and EU and Russian taxpayer
money.
KriticalThinkingUK 2 Oct 2015 20:39
Its great isnt it what can be achieved when Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine get together for serious negotiations. Just
like in Minsk 1 and 2 when the same group first established peace in Ukraine, behind the backs of the USA and UK who were pointedly
not invited to those talks either.
What is the key to this progress? Simple. Dont invite the rightwing cold war loonies to attend. Keep them out at all costs.
That is to say exclude from all talks USA, UK, NATO, Poland and the rest of the crazy warmongers who have worked so hard to encourage
conflict.
If these negotiations are successful expect further progress over the next decade in other spheres between Germany and Russia.
In fact objectively by all measures it is in the long term interests, both economic and political, for these two major European
powers to co-operate as natural trading partners....the US warmongers worst nightmare!
Interesting times................
Mazuka 2 Oct 2015 20:35
" Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after
a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow
your daily dose of bullshit.
NotYetGivenUp -> HHeLiBe 2 Oct 2015 19:18
You confuse Crimea, which voted for secession after Russian forces ensured Kiev military didn't engae in anti-secessionist
reprisals (as stated by Putin), with East Ukraine, in which Kiev generals admitted they were fighting Donbass forces, not Russian
forces.
The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. But any honest appraisal of the facts on
the ground, through observation of events as they happened, show that the rejection of the Kievan coup was by the people of Donbass,
and is a popular rejection, not the nonsense Russian invasion peddled by the media in the west.
Mr Russian 2 Oct 2015 19:13
The compromise plan would involve the Ukrainian parliament passing a law stating these elections were indeed legal, but
they would be organised by the rebels.
Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much.
At fist I thought that Twaddleradar, member since
Aug 9, 2015A is a new NATObot. It it looks like he is a regular Russophob... Still amazingly prolific spamming the whole discussion.
It's definitly not enough for him to state his point of view and voice objection. Such commenting incontinence is very disruptive in
Web forums.
Notable quotes:
"... WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow your daily dose of bullshit. ..."
"... The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. ..."
"... Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much. ..."
Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This old chestnut again... Evidence please of this sweeping claim?
No mention of Putin drafting the Minsk agreement, this is what happened. Then presenting it as a road map for a resolution
to the Ukrainian Civil war? As I recall it was Merkell and Holland who rushed to Moscow in February to meet with Putin and thrash
out a solution which was then presented to Poroshenko.
As the USA is now in an election cycle and with the Syrian War on Isis takes centre stage with Russian involvement, it looks
like the their sock puppet, Petro Poroshenko has been hung out to dry. Finally being told to get back in his box... for now, probably
as no more funds via the IMF will be directed into this proxi-conflict if it continues (well they were breaking their own rules
giving Ukraine money when it's at war with itself).
Finally, this made me smile...
It has been a busy diplomatic week for Putin, who has not been a frequent guest in western capitals over the past year
Actually Putin has had a very busy diplomatic year building international partnerships across Asia and the BRIC's, Trade agreements
with China and Saudi Arabian investment into Russia. The Silk Route project and much more. It seems to me some of the Graun's
journalists should get out more, like Putin has been doing!
PrinceEdward -> Twaddleradar 2 Oct 2015 21:12
Meanwhile every Ukrainian male is so full of patriotism, there is no need for a 5 draft rounds in Ukraine because they're flooding
with so many volunteers, they turn them away. Stories of parents paying $1000 to get their kids out of the draft, or countless
thousands of 20-something Ukrainians running away to Russia and Poland to get student visas, is just propaganda.
MrJohnsonJr 2 Oct 2015 21:07
Ukraine has a fucking nerve to require a diplomatic effort to have it explained to them what a murderous losers the turned
out to be and that another of their "revolutions" brought nothing but a major waste of human life and EU and Russian taxpayer
money.
KriticalThinkingUK 2 Oct 2015 20:39
Its great isnt it what can be achieved when Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine get together for serious negotiations. Just
like in Minsk 1 and 2 when the same group first established peace in Ukraine, behind the backs of the USA and UK who were pointedly
not invited to those talks either.
What is the key to this progress? Simple. Dont invite the rightwing cold war loonies to attend. Keep them out at all costs.
That is to say exclude from all talks USA, UK, NATO, Poland and the rest of the crazy warmongers who have worked so hard to encourage
conflict.
If these negotiations are successful expect further progress over the next decade in other spheres between Germany and Russia.
In fact objectively by all measures it is in the long term interests, both economic and political, for these two major European
powers to co-operate as natural trading partners....the US warmongers worst nightmare!
Interesting times................
Mazuka 2 Oct 2015 20:35
" Russia has denied military involvement in the conflict despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary."
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!?!? After 2 weeks in syria you have loads of satellite pictures of the Russian base/troops, but after
a year + in Ukraine all your evidence is taken from social media posts? Good thing more and more people are refusing to swallow
your daily dose of bullshit.
NotYetGivenUp -> HHeLiBe 2 Oct 2015 19:18
You confuse Crimea, which voted for secession after Russian forces ensured Kiev military didn't engae in anti-secessionist
reprisals (as stated by Putin), with East Ukraine, in which Kiev generals admitted they were fighting Donbass forces, not Russian
forces.
The pretense that this was a Russian invasion is exactly that, a pretense. But any honest appraisal of the facts on
the ground, through observation of events as they happened, show that the rejection of the Kievan coup was by the people of Donbass,
and is a popular rejection, not the nonsense Russian invasion peddled by the media in the west.
Mr Russian 2 Oct 2015 19:13
The compromise plan would involve the Ukrainian parliament passing a law stating these elections were indeed legal, but
they would be organised by the rebels.
Something tells that it's easy to say but hard to implement. Far right powers in Ukraine would resist such a law very much.
"... I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled
Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged
data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources',
i.e. the usual bollox. ..."
"... …The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums… ..."
"... Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards
and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not. ..."
"... The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. ..."
"... Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window
in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei! ..."
A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube,
Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the
U.K.'s Channel 4.
…A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail,
YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC,
and the U.K.'s Channel 4…
###
And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably
keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.
I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled
Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged
data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources',
i.e. the usual bollox.
May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.)
just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up
service?!
…The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums…
…Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains,
because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are
required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each
search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen…
…When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that
the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."
The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight
greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for
data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about
Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance….
#####
It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain
privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way
to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the
Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so,
the US used British pilots and Canberras.
Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards
and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not.
What people can do to protect themselves is
don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag);
just don't do or say obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life;
use encryption such as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.;
don't write about what not to do on the Internet as I have just done!
;)
The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending
on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your
life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to
send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas
territories, but it is total control.
If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then
the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".
Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window
in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!
This should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence
services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago. Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes
man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the make up of the committee has changed a bit.
What it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited
info from the security services. And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor
administration and continued under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.
It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will
be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially. The cat is, again, out of the bag!
We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed
a great deal more than just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting
information on everyone. As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered
online so that government spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined
that citizens shall have no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything
you do and listening to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in
case, and slip embarrassing revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into
your telephone conversations.
Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that
is private, except maybe for
Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if
they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government
bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU)
from the
NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.
A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the
Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that
the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight
to the NSA.
"... I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled
Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged
data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources',
i.e. the usual bollox. ..."
"... …The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums… ..."
"... Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards
and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not. ..."
"... The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. ..."
"... Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window
in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei! ..."
A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail, YouTube,
Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC, and the
U.K.'s Channel 4.
…A top-secret GCHQ document from March 2009 reveals the agency has targeted a range of popular
websites as part of an effort to covertly collect cookies on a massive scale. It shows a sample
search in which the agency was extracting data from cookies containing information about people's
visits to the adult website YouPorn, search engines Yahoo and Google, and the Reuters news website.
Other websites listed as "sources" of cookies in the 2009 document (see below) are Hotmail,
YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, WordPress, Amazon, and sites operated by the broadcasters CNN, BBC,
and the U.K.'s Channel 4…
###
And I bet the Guardian too as it is 'the world's most widely read new site'. They probably
keep automatic tabs on this site considering how it has grown over the last couple of years.
I do wonder though, with all those stories about those thousands of Kremlin controlled
Russian trolls on British news websites, whether some of this comes from carefully massaged
data from GCHQ through third parties to the Pork Pie News Networks via 'unnamed sources',
i.e. the usual bollox.
May I suggest to fellow commenters here, if at any point you loose your smart phone (etc.)
just call GCHQ and they'll tell you where you left it. I wonder if they provide a data back up
service?!
…The agency operates a bewildering array of other eavesdropping systems, each serving its
own specific purpose and designated a unique code name, such as: …and INFINITE MONKEYS, which
analyzes data about the usage of online bulletin boards and forums…
…Authorization is "not needed for individuals in the U.K.," another GCHQ document explains,
because metadata has been judged "less intrusive than communications content." All the spies are
required to do to mine the metadata troves is write a short "justification" or "reason" for each
search they conduct and then click a button on their computer screen…
…When compared to surveillance rules in place in the U.S., GCHQ notes in one document that
the U.K. has "a light oversight regime."
The more lax British spying regulations are reflected in secret internal rules that highlight
greater restrictions on how NSA databases can be accessed. The NSA's troves can be searched for
data on British citizens, one document states, but they cannot be mined for information about
Americans or other citizens from countries in the Five Eyes alliance….
#####
It's just what is expected from the junior in the US/UK relationship. For the UK to retain
privileged access to the US' global spy network, it needs to give the US what it wants, a way
to circumvent the US' own laws. Dial back to when Gary Powers & his U-2 were shot down over the
Soviet Union. All subsequent overflights by US manned and operated aircraft were prohibited, so,
the US used British pilots and Canberras.
Once you understand the relationship and the goals that they have, you can work backwards
and make fairly good conclusions about what tools would be required and used to get to those conclusions
and try not think whether they are legal or not.
What people can do to protect themselves is
don't change most of your digital habits (as this would raise a flag);
just don't do or say obvious things that you wouldn't do in real life in your digital life;
use encryption such as PGP for email and products using perfect forward secrecy for chat/etc.;
don't write about what not to do on the Internet as I have just done!
;)
The most disturbing thing about it all is that it puts us one step away from a totalitarian
system. All that is required is a political decision. All the tools are in place and depending
on how much information they have actually kept they can dip in to it at any time throughout your
life as a rich source of blackmail, probably via third parties. It's not exactly threatening to
send you to a concentration camp (or disappeared to one of Britain's (and others) many small overseas
territories, but it is total control.
If the European economy completely crashes and mass instability ensues (or whatever), then
the politicians will be told, or even ask, "What tools do we have to control this?".
Forget about 'checks and balances' – they're the first thing to be thrown out of the window
in an emergency. Arbeit macht frei!
This should be a massive story as the parliamentary security committee gave the intelligence
services a 'clean bill of health' not so long ago. Since then, they've lost intelligence 'yes
man' Malcolm Rifkind to an expenses scandal so the make up of the committee has changed a bit.
What it does show is that we cannot even trust the gatekeepers (above) who are give very limited
info from the security services. And let us not forget the dates that this occurred under a Labor
administration and continued under a Conservative-Liberal Democrat and now a Conservative one.
It will be interesting to see if this story gains any traction, though I suspect that it will
be much bigger outside of the UK, at least initially. The cat is, again, out of the bag!
We can thank Edward Snowden for that; the NSA spying scandal revealed
a great deal more than just the information the CIA is snooping on your phone calls and collecting
information on everyone. As the second reference relates, the CIA also diverted laptops ordered
online so that government spyware could be installed on them. Intelligence agencies are determined
that citizens shall have no privacy whatsoever. You might as well assume they are watching everything
you do and listening to everything you say. Give the window the finger at random times just in
case, and slip embarrassing revelations on the sexual proclivities of intelligence agents into
your telephone conversations.
Canada's Blackberry was once safe, but GCHQ broke that. So now there is no smartphone that
is private, except maybe for
Russia's YotaPhone. Probably not that either, though, since it is sold in the USA, and if
they couldn't break into the phone they would just hack the carrier. And the Canadian government
bought all of its Secure Telephone Units (STU)
from the
NSA, so say no more about the "security" of those.
A few companies, like Silent Circle, pitch a privacy phone like the
Blackphone, but it originates in the USA and everyone's paranoia has become so acute that
the instant suspicion is they are telling you it is more private just because it is wired straight
to the NSA.
Ars Technica reports that a Federal court in Pennsylvania ruled Wednesday that the Fifth Amendment
protects from compelled disclosure the
passwords that two insider-trading suspects used on their mobile phones. In this case,
the SEC is investigating two former Capital One data analysts who allegedly used insider information
associated with their jobs to trade stocks-in this case, a $150,000 investment allegedly turned
into $2.8 million. Regulators suspect the mobile devices are holding evidence of insider trading
and demanded that the two turn over their passcodes.However, ruled the court , "Since the
passcodes to Defendants' work-issued smartphones are not corporate records, the act of producing
their personal passcodes is testimonial in nature and Defendants properly invoke their fifth Amendment
privilege. A"
"... Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations
should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators. ..."
Drop the random number generator method that is already venerable now.
Go for an encryption key of length > data length instead so each data bit is uniquely encrypted
by a unique key bit.
Break one bit has no bearing on breaking any other bit.
For the NSA comes the headache under such an encryption method a 10 letter statement can be
any other 10 letter statement from different keys.
Now it gets interesting "I love you" is from one encryption key whilst another key says "I
hate you".
Now each message generated if asked for the key you provide one of an infinite number of keys
where the the key you give is for the message you wish them to see provided it makes sense any
evidence used through a prosecution on this is only ever circumstantial evidence
and quite easily refuted questioning only the key being used.
Bullshit. Encryption works. Even if the NSA had some back-door in a particular encryption algorithm,
or weakened a random number generator (Microsoft, cough), the NSA does not have the processing
power to decrypt everything.
Snowden has stated as much, I've seen the same thing in .mil circles during my time there.
Using decent encryption works. It's far easier to attack the people directly with social engineering
than crack decent encryption.
What type of encryption is being discussed? I've notice very few actually understand
how encryption works. When public/private key encyption is used only the public key is ever
available to the counterparty and can be freely published. The secret key is kept on your
machine only and never shared. Both parties/computers use the others public key to encrypt
the plaintext and only the person with the unique secret key on both ends can read it. Authentication
is also facile: You simply sign using the secret key. Only your public key can decrypt
the signature so anyone intercepting and attempting to change your message cannot do so (spoofing
impossible). Unbreakable and requires no secure key exchange like like two way keys such
as AES, for example. This is what happens on https sites where key pairs are generated by
both parties and the secret keys are never exchanged or shared-new key pairs are generated each
visit. Intercepting the encrypted message is useless since the secret key remains physically
in your possesion. That's why the NSA and any government hates this algorithm. Make
the key at least 2048 bits long and you'll need more time than the age of universe to crack it
by brute force with the entire computing power of every machine on earth. Even 256 bits
is sufficient to protect against anyone before they die.
information is power and access to information is big business. the taxpayer pays the bills
for the gathering, hell, the individual "user" of the technology pays for the surveillance and
data collection themselves. we are paying to have our privacy sold to corporations. get that,
it is freakin' brilliant! and the "officials" sell the access for personal gain. the corporations
love to eat it all up and reward the loyal local success story dupes, pimps and prestitutes. everyone
is on stage 24/7 and no one is the wiser in the field of cultural normalcy bias, mind control
and entertaining with the Jones's. soft control moving into hard up confiscation, then incarceration.
wonderfully yokel deterioration impersonating culture and civilization, what many call government,
but i take exception to every term and wonder wtf.
The NSA works for corporations and they need to break into peoples stuff to steal from them
as well as to steal from other corporations. There is a war going on but it is much larger than
a war on nations or citizens of bankster occupied nations.
E.R.N.I.E. - the electronic random number indicator equipment was used with British Premium
Bonds in the 1950s. A chip based on digital counting of thermal noise must be easy to make. Getting
the keys to thye other party just involves handing over a chip. 16Gigabytes or so miniSD should
be good for enough emails to wear out a thousand or more keyboards.
It just needs to be made into a product and sold for cash.
Open source encryption software may or may not be trivial, but it sure isn't easy to use for
folks who aren't experts in encryption.
Write your own encryption. Use AES - freely available. Exchange keys verbally, face to face,
or use One Time Pads (once only!!). If you didn't write, don't trust it.
Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations
should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators.
If you don't know what you're doing and are very very careful and exacting in running a OTP system
(One time pad) you will be fucked. That's why they aren't typically used except in very small use
cases. They're hard to run properly.
Anyone claiming to have an encryption product for a computer based on a one time pad is full of
shit. Cough, Unseen.is, cough. It's a glorified Cesar cypher and the NSA will have your shit in 2.5
seconds or less.
Good encryption works. Snowden stated that fact. Don't use shitty encryption, unless you want
everyone to know what you're doing.
There's plenty of open source projects out there based on good encryption, twofish, serpent, AES,
or ideally a combination of multiple algorithms. Truecrypt is still alive and has been forked with
a project based in Switzerland. I think that's still a good option.
I wouldn't use MS bitlocker or PGP unless you trust symantec or microsoft with your life. Personally
I wouldn't trust those companies with a pack of cigarettes, and I don't even smoke.
Writing your own encryption is a recipe for disaster. Only peer-reviewed algorithms and implementations
should ever be used. They must also use reliable random number generators.
I read the original note to mean you use a peer reviewed algorithm, but write the code yourself.
Or, at least review it well. Some open source code tends to be a bit tangled. Checkout
Sendmail and its support for X.400 and other old mail protocols, as well as a convoluted configuration
setup. At some point, with code with that much historical baggage and convoluted setup
becomes impossible to really check all possible configurations for sanity or safety.
If you believe that the simpler the code the safer it is, code it yourself.
Power grab by the NSA (deep state) basically saying that they don't trust the hand that feeds
it. So why should we? What level of classification would this entail? Are we then supposed to trust
the NSA? Civil War 2.0.???
It really starts with asymmetry of power. If some agency or person has a asymmetric level of power
against you and lack of accountability, you should be concerned about them.
That's a much easier test case vs enemy/friend and far more reliable.
Pope Francis' address to Congress was almost certainly not what John Boehner, Mitch McConnell,
and other congressional leaders had in mind when they invited the pope to speak.
It probably wasn't what they were all thinking about during the last standing ovations. But here
was Pope Francis, revered as the People's Pope, calling out war profiteers and demanding an end to
the arms trade. Just as simple and as powerful as that.
... ... ...
"Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in
the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world," the pope said. Then he asked
the critical question: "Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering
on individuals and society?"
He answered it himself: "Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply
for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and
culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade."
Stop the arms trade. What a simple, clear call.
That means the ending things like the
$60 billion arms deal
the US made a few years back with Saudi Arabia, where those weapons are, in the pope's words, "inflicting
untold suffering on individuals and society," especially in Syria and Yemen. It means ending things
like the
$45 billion in new military aid – mostly in the form of advanced new weapons – the Israeli government
has requested from Washington between now and 2028. It means ending the provision of new arms to
scores of unaccountable militias in Syria, where
even the White House admits a nonmilitary solution is needed. And it means ending things like
the $1.1 billion in
arms sales the United States has made to Mexico this year alone.
And, of course, it means no longer diverting
at least 54 cents of every discretionary taxpayer dollar in the federal budget to the US military.
Actually, members of Congress – so many of whom rely on
huge campaign donations
from arms manufacturers, and so many of whom refuse to vote against military procurement because
often just a few dozen jobs connected to it might be in their district – really should have expected
the pope to say exactly what he did.
It was only last May, after all, that Pope Francis told a group of schoolchildren visiting the
Vatican that the arms trade is the "industry
of death." When a kid asked why so many powerful people don't want peace, the pope answered simply,
"because they live off wars!" Francis explained how people become rich by producing and selling weapons.
"And this is why so many people do not want peace. They make more money with the war!"
The pope's speech to Congress was quite extraordinary on a number of fronts.
... ... ...
Phyllis Bennis is a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and author of the forthcoming
Understanding ISIS and the New Global War on Terror: A Primer. Manuel Perez-Rocha is an associate
fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. Reprinted with permission from
Foreign Policy In Focus.
"... How can the U.S. say cyber hacking must stop when we know very well that they have been
cyber spying and hacking for years, Snowden spilt the beans on that issue, big brother raising
his head again. ..."
"...
..."
"... I see a contradiction here that you critcize for not warring with Xi/China and then
bemoaning the obviously damaging costs of what looks like perpetual wars. ..."
"... In the main, Obama has not slipped out of his arrogant school master's tone and role, but
we keep hearing he does it to please the American electorate. If the NSA in Germany (Bad
Aibling) is allowed to sniff out commercial secrets on German computers (an issue for over 10
years, it's only the spinlessness of the elites that keep allowing that) then surely it's all
'open platform'. I only read German and English well enough to ascertain what's what in the
spying game, so I can only refer to Germany. Maybe we get some Spanish, Italian, French etc
reading people to tell us if sniffing out Germany's company secrets is unique, probably not.
..."
"... Nice little bit of spin here. It gives the impression that the US is telling the PRC
what to do when the reality is this is part of the previous and current five year plan. ..."
"... This looks a bit odd to me. Is he saying that Snowden forged the ten thousand records
detailing US cyber spying on fifty countries or is he asking for Chinas assurance that the CCP
are not sponsoring the attacks. In any case...I Obamas full of shit. ..."
"... the US has offered no proof that China hacked American
records, while the world knows that the worse hacker on the planet is the US as shown via the
Snowden documents - we even hack our allies. You know, there is a saying about glass houses
and throwing stones. ..."
"... Its a fallacy that you can separate business spying and state secrets spying. If there
is going to be war, it will be all out, no sacred cows. Don't expect an agreement to leave
space satellites out for example. People are still living in this utopia that a war can happen
somewhere else and life will go on as normal. For China, the war will be for its own existence
and there will be no holds barred. Look at the Vietnam war for example and you will see how
much the Vietnamese sacrificed for that ultimate victory. So I believe that a more
comprehensive framework is required for the assured future for both nations. ..."
"... Every year the same blame the Chinese happens. US agencies will always fabricate
foreign threat so annual budgets can be increased $$$. The fiscal year ends in Sept. "My dept.
needs more taxpayer funding, the Chinese and Russians are attacking!" ..."
"... In the name of "National Security" anything goes (except sabotage in peace time), so long
as it is not used for "competitive advantage". Nice to have a mutually approved set of labels
to continue doing what both sides have always been doing. ..."
They call it 'American directness'. In fact it's gross bad manners but thats how the Empire
of the Exceptionals sees itself.
A John Wayne mindset and a Lex Luthor worldview. Being dismantled with astonishing ease by the
PRC.
Eugenios -> SuperBBird 25 Sep 2015 23:58
The Chinese Communists are humanists itself compared to the brutality of the US.
Just compare prison populations, for examine. The US has more people in prison both
proportionately and absolutely than all of China.
HollyOldDog -> TheEqlaowaizer 25 Sep 2015 21:30
Looks like the wise words of the Pope has not penetrated the 'brains' American State
Department or its President, if all that Obama can say is to threaten sanctions against
another country. Is the BRICS alternative bank such a worry to the Americans as their first
thoughts are bullying tactics.
ID240947 25 Sep 2015 21:22
How can the U.S. say cyber hacking must stop when we know very well that they have been
cyber spying and hacking for years, Snowden spilt the beans on that issue, big brother raising
his head again.
JoeCorr -> goatrider 25 Sep 2015 21:08
Take all that cheap junk
Cheap junk? Its 2015 can you even just try to keep up. We're buying Chinese flat screens
the size of billboards and China leads the world in home appliances. BYD and Shanghai Auto
sales are expanding at warp speed. I could go on but thats enough.
The US and Europe made the same stupid jibes at Japan before they decimated our electrics,
shipbuilding, auto manufacturing and every single electronics company outside military
patronage.
Its not China whos at fault here. It's people like you with your head so deeply wedged in the
sand your shitting pebbles.
JoeCorr 25 Sep 2015 21:01
My daughter drew speech balloons on this photo and mages it to the fridge.
Obama is saying. " Sanctions are still on the table". Xi is saying. " Poor thing. Allah
will look after you"
Which I thought kinda perceptive for a 13 year old.
HauptmannGurski -> Sam3456 25 Sep 2015 20:46
I see a contradiction here that you critcize for not warring with Xi/China and then
bemoaning the obviously damaging costs of what looks like perpetual wars. Never mind, we
all get emotional in these troubled times and find ourselves in contraction with ourselves.
In the main, Obama has not slipped out of his arrogant school master's tone and role, but
we keep hearing he does it to please the American electorate. If the NSA in Germany (Bad
Aibling) is allowed to sniff out commercial secrets on German computers (an issue for over 10
years, it's only the spinlessness of the elites that keep allowing that) then surely it's all
'open platform'. I only read German and English well enough to ascertain what's what in the
spying game, so I can only refer to Germany. Maybe we get some Spanish, Italian, French etc
reading people to tell us if sniffing out Germany's company secrets is unique, probably not.
(PS: if we think that the perpetual wars are too costly, in the sense that the populations
miss out more and more, then we ought to keep an eye on the US job figures. There's a view out
there that it's been US arms sales under Obama which underpin the 'recovery'. The Nobel Peace
prize committee would take the prize back now, I gues, but that's not in the rules.)
goatrider 25 Sep 2015 20:37
How is America going to sanction a country that produces a majority of the items sold in
America? Take all that cheap junk off the shelves of box stores and the American people will
revolt----they are addicted consumers of cheap junk and fast food.
JoeCorr -> vr13vr 25 Sep 2015 20:15
Whom exactly did we fire, prosecute or whatever else after all those NSA revelations?
Bradley Manning. Aaron Swartz driven to Suicide having never broken a single law. Snowden
driven to exile. There are many others.
JoeCorr 25 Sep 2015 20:00
News of this deal, first revealed on Thursday, was followed up before...
Nice little bit of spin here. It gives the impression that the US is telling the PRC
what to do when the reality is this is part of the previous and current five year plan.
The 'sanctions' are another interesting bit of spin. How would you enforce sanctions against
almost a quarter of the worlds population when they are your most reliable customer and
literally thousands of American companies have invested and relocated there.
what I am hoping that President Xi will show me is that we are not sponsoring these
activities and that … we take it seriously and will cooperate to enforce the law."
This looks a bit odd to me. Is he saying that Snowden forged the ten thousand records
detailing US cyber spying on fifty countries or is he asking for Chinas assurance that the CCP
are not sponsoring the attacks. In any case...I Obamas full of shit.
Erazmo 25 Sep 2015 19:12
The US has no class and is a paper tiger. First, no one in the administration met President
Xi when arrived on American soil. This is an insult to the Chinese and shows no class on the
part of the Obama administration. Sure, the Pope was here at the same time but I don't
understand why some schedules couldn't have been changed a little to accommodate the visit the
leader of the world's most populous country. Second, the US continues to accuse and scold
China as if they were a kid. Yet, the US has offered no proof that China hacked American
records, while the world knows that the worse hacker on the planet is the US as shown via the
Snowden documents - we even hack our allies. You know, there is a saying about glass houses
and throwing stones.
Chin Koon Siang 25 Sep 2015 19:05
Its a fallacy that you can separate business spying and state secrets spying. If there
is going to be war, it will be all out, no sacred cows. Don't expect an agreement to leave
space satellites out for example. People are still living in this utopia that a war can happen
somewhere else and life will go on as normal. For China, the war will be for its own existence
and there will be no holds barred. Look at the Vietnam war for example and you will see how
much the Vietnamese sacrificed for that ultimate victory. So I believe that a more
comprehensive framework is required for the assured future for both nations.
vr13vr -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:42
Whom exactly did we fire, prosecute or whatever else after all those NSA revelations?
vr13vr 25 Sep 2015 18:40
Obama never stops surprising with his manners. Or actually a lack of such. He just made an
agreement with a leader of another country, a large and powerful country mind you. And right
away he publicly expresses a doubt whether the other party intends to carry the agreements.
Basically calling his counterpart a liar for no good reason. And as a cheap bully, inserts
more threats of more sanctions. Sure, the president of the other country had more class, he
stayed there and smiled friendly, but with such arrogant display of disrespect and bullying,
nobody would ever take Obama serious. And nobody should.
shawshank -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:24
Grasping at straws? Xi is not Hitler. Also, Snowden already exposed that the US was spying
on China.
Book_of_Life -> CitizenCarrier 25 Sep 2015 18:10
"Acts of war"
USA are worlds biggest warmongers instigators including false flags and regime changes covert
activity black ops
you better check yourself before you wreck yourself
cause i'm bad for your health, i come real stealth
droppin bombs on ya moms
So chikity-check yo self before you wreck yo self
Come on and check yo self before you wrikity-wreck yourself
Lrgjohnson -> canbeanybody 25 Sep 2015 18:00
Every year the same blame the Chinese happens. US agencies will always fabricate
foreign threat so annual budgets can be increased $$$. The fiscal year ends in Sept. "My dept.
needs more taxpayer funding, the Chinese and Russians are attacking!"
It is plain silly and ridiculous to pin blame of the so-called theft of finger prints of
American 5.6 millions employees.
Those rubbish finger prints have zero value to anyone other than those who are at position to
manipulate, modify or even fabricate them.
In any case why should a technological so advanced American system need to keep the finger
prints of their own employees? Is it impossible for American government to keep the finger
prints of own employees safe?
peternh 25 Sep 2015 15:57
"President Xi indicated to me that with 1.3 billion people he can't guarantee the
behaviour of every single person on Chinese soil."
Although that is, in fact, what his government is entirely dedicated to attempting to do,
by controlling all education, all media, what may and may not be said publicly, and
controlling everything that happens on the Internet inside the Great Firewall.
Utter hypocrisy.
bujinin 25 Sep 2015 15:24
Analysis:
In the name of "National Security" anything goes (except sabotage in peace time), so long
as it is not used for "competitive advantage". Nice to have a mutually approved set of labels
to continue doing what both sides have always been doing.
Sam3456 25 Sep 2015 15:24
Another useless summit with a lame duck President who achieved the Nobel Peace Prize for
being an ineffectual player on the world stage and propagating constant war for the profit of
his corporate puppet masters.
The witch-burning craze would be best suited as yet another unwritten chapter in Mackay's "Extraordinary
Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".
If both men and women were charged and tried for this imaginary crime driven by baseless superstition,
a narrative proposing it was really an ancient war on women is logically absurd - and therefore also
a baseless superstition.
We could lump it all together and I do agree that the context is important, but it is much easier
to see why members of new religions were targeted than peasants being accused of being witches.
I
find the theory fascinating because it does provide a possible explanation for something that does
not really fit the usual "threat to power/otherness" explanations. I don't know if the theory is
correct but I find it intriguing, especially after reading the Sonia Mitralias article yesterday.
Not having read the book, is there any mention of c (ergot) in relation to witch hunts?
I first heard of this thesis in my college botany class. The theory seems controversial even though
there's archaeological evidence of rye cultivation as far north as Scandinavia by 500 AD.
If memory serves, the Salem witch saga was defined by topographical elevation e.g. poor down the
hill, the soggy bottom, elites up the hill, w/ poor consuming the lesser status rye whilst the elites
consumed wheat.
Its not hard to imagine the elites with their religious "self awarded" superiority complex, that
any, straying from the narrative would just reinforce the aforementioned mental attitude. As such
any remediation would be authoritatively administered by the elites as they owned the code [arbiters
of religious interpretation].
Skippy…. the old NC post on that provincial French town would make a great book end to this post,
by Lambert imo….
Two other noteworthy aspects of he witch hunts: one, they were an attempt by the Catholic Church
to destroy non-Church authorities; and two, they were an attempt by physicians (nobles) to destroy
alternate sources of medical care.
Thus, the targets were frequently midwives and herbalists.
(It's also worth noting that the court physicians had no scientific basis for their treatments
- that was shoehorned in later. So the traditional healers were, and remained for centuries, to the
extent they and their methods survived, the better choice for health care, particularly for childbirth.)
"Primitive accumulation is the term that Marx uses in Capital vol.1, to characterize the historical
process upon which the development of capitalist relations was premised. It is a useful term, for
it provides a common denominator through which we can conceptualize the changes that the advent of
capitalism produced in economic and social relations. But its importance lies, above all in the fact
that primitive accumulation is treated by Marx as a foundational process, revealing the structural
conditions for the existence of capitalist society."
Marx seemed to seek the determinants of capitalism's genetic process in the logic of the preceding
mode of production–in the economic structure of feudal society. But is such a description an explanation
for the transition from feudal to capitalistic society?
Doesn't Marx's explanation of the origins of capitalism seems to presuppose capitalism itself?
Doesn't Marx's use of only economic variables lead into a blind alley in terms of understanding
the origins of capitalism?
Shouldn't the collapsing Left finally take a serious look at cultural and political explanations
for the origins of capitalism?
What about a cultural explanation in which the creation and role of nationalism in 16th century
England provided a key competitive individual motivating factor among its citizens– as a possible
cause of capitalism? What about the emergence of the autonomous city as a primary political cause
of capitalism? Was capitalism born in Catholic, urban Italy at the end of the Middle Ages?
Why has the search for explanations of the origins of capitalism, only in the economic sphere,
come to occupy such a central place in our thinking?
I think this analysis is off the mark and probably a convolution of an array of underlying variable
and functions.
It's as if the author says z = g(x); when in fact x = f(z,t,u and v).
To conclude that z relies on x is a distortion of the underlying phenomenological structure and
also distorts the agency by which z, t, u and v correspond to z.
one item that is quite significant to note, and perhaps is one of the underlying variables, is
the urgency by which authorities demanded "confessions' by witches, which in and of itself was sometimes
enough to ameliorate punishment.
The other underlying variable is the reality of paranormal phenomenon. We think witchcraft is
a doddering myth invented by overly imaginative minds, but the reality is quite other than that.
Relating "capitalism" to persecution of witches on the basis of their femaleness lacks all precision.
The Roman empire was capitalist but accepted paganism. Our current culture would view persecution
on the basis of witchcraft as daftminded lunacy. yet pagan cultures in Africa do so even today.
The book author throws up an interesting cloud of ideas but doesn't seem capable of credible navigation,
based simply on the summary offered here. I suspect it has to do less with capitalism and femaleness
in particular and more, in general, in terms of threats posed by alternative consciousness structures
to the dominant structure of social organization (inclusive of economics, theology, eshatology, etc.)
These would be the z, t, u and v of the underlying f-function. It's seen the world over in varying
guises, but the underlying variables manifest in different costumes, in varying degrees of malision.
The problem of witches depends on the history of individual countries and also on religious orthodoxies,
Catholic as well as Calvinist and Lutheran.
As is often the case, Italy is contradictory and somewhat of an exception. Yet the exceptions
are regional. The peasants on the Peninsula ruled by Naples were treated differently from northern
Italians. Venice was an exception.
The process of liberation seems to have begun earlier in Italy than the Black Death. While doing
research about Bologna, I ran across this:
"Liber Paradisus The Liber Paradisus (Heaven Book) is a law text promulgated in 1256 by the Comune of Bologna which
proclaimed the abolition of slavery and the release of serfs (servi della gleba)."
So you have emancipation and the development of an idea of human rights a hundred years before
the Black Death. But the source was a social war and a desire for higher wages.
Throughout Italy, too, the Inquisition and its treatment of witches was highly uneven. I happen
to have studied the benandanti, who didn't consider themselves witches, but had visions and myterious
rituals. Some were healers. The Franciscans who investigated them were considered lousy Inquisitors
(not tough enough) and the results are highly ambiguous. See Carlo Ginzburg's works, and see the
work of Italian scholars who found even more ambiguities. Many of the benandanti in trouble were
men–and the women and men reported the same mystical experiences, many of which are astounding and
rather beautiful. Reports of benandanti extend into the early 1800s.
Piero Camporesi also wrote about the economic status of Italian peasants, the rituals of their
year (which didn't always coincide with Catholic orthodoxy), and the strength of ancient pagan customs.
I realize that your point is witchcraft as a kind of collision with the growth of the state and
"modern" markets. Yet I'd encourage you to consider Italy as a counterexample. On the other hand,
fragmented Italy was the most highly developed economy in Europe during most of the middle ages and
up to roughly 1550, so the markets may have developed (capitalistically as well as by state intervention,
especially in Venice) more slowly, more peculiarly, and less disruptively. There are peasant revolts
in Italian history, but not regions in flames and years and years of scorched-earth actions against
rebellious peasants.
Enlightening observations regarding the premeditated, planned and organized use of witch-hunts
by the elite of that period as a vehicle of social control. I was surprised at the level of elite
information and coordination in what I had previously viewed as a very primitive era of considerable
physical isolation. The events discussed here suggest there was a fairly high level of communication
and organization among and by the elite.
However, I would question to what extent the extreme 14th century depopulation of Europe and Britain
caused by the great plague pandemics, the Great Famine, wars and weather would have led to similar
elite initiatives, regardless of the transition to capitalism.
Appears to share some common threads with events and behaviors which have occurred in our own
time – from those mentioned in the article to the McCarthy hearings of the 1950s, the Powell memorandum
of 1971 and related subsequent behavior, including the forms of "primitive accumulation" cited that
led to the 2008 financial collapse.
Thank you for the review of Silvia Federici's book, Lambert, and your related observations. Seems
worthwhile reading.
There was at least one man in the Salem witch trials who did save his wife. At the preliminary
hearing he cursed the judges for allowing her to be imprisoned, saying God would surely punish them.
When she was bound over for trial anyway, he broke her out of jail and fled with her to New York.
Would that all of us men had that kind of courage and resourcefulness. Sadly most of us don't.
Judging by the amount of comments on articles about
Russia I see on the Guardian website , it seems to me that it holds more importance over
others in being targeted. Is this true ? If so why ?
Which western news outlets do you believe the Kremlin is most interested in targeting with
its campaign ?
Yes, of course the Guardian is a prominent target. Mostly because others British papers are
not so popular in Russia. Stories from the Guardian are translated on daily basis, and foreign
correspondents are well known, especially among Moscow's liberal intelligentsia.
Can we learn anything about Russian foreign policy?
This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate
Alderbaran, 08 September 2015 7:07am
A question: Do you think that by watching trends in coordinated comments, you can gain
insights into what is sometimes a very hard to judge Russian foreign policy?
You might understand what is trending right now, but you can't predict the next one.
Russian foreign policy is notorious for sudden turns, and trolls would be told afterwards, not
in advance.
They are not spin-doctors, close to the Kremlin, Putin or his advisers. They are given very
simple directives by people who have no real access to the Kremlin decision-makers.
Judging by the amount of comments on articles about
Russia I see on the Guardian website , it seems to me that it holds more importance over
others in being targeted. Is this true ? If so why ?
Which western news outlets do you believe the Kremlin is most interested in targeting with
its campaign ?
Yes, of course the Guardian is a prominent target. Mostly because others British papers are
not so popular in Russia. Stories from the Guardian are translated on daily basis, and foreign
correspondents are well known, especially among Moscow's liberal intelligentsia.
Can we learn anything about Russian foreign policy?
This comment has been chosen by Guardian staff because it contributes to the debate
Alderbaran, 08 September 2015 7:07am
A question: Do you think that by watching trends in coordinated comments, you can gain
insights into what is sometimes a very hard to judge Russian foreign policy?
You might understand what is trending right now, but you can't predict the next one.
Russian foreign policy is notorious for sudden turns, and trolls would be told afterwards, not
in advance.
They are not spin-doctors, close to the Kremlin, Putin or his advisers. They are given very
simple directives by people who have no real access to the Kremlin decision-makers.
Guardianista with their classic British elite hypocrisy did not put this news on the front page...
Real number of casualties is unclear. Initially five killed officer were reported by Ukrainian
authorities. According to the Ukrainian National Guard about 50 officers sustained injuries.
Note how those neoliberal stooges report the grenade attack on police defending Parliament
Building (clearly a terrorist act) which as attack on Parliament is worse then Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris: "A Reuters TV cameraman at the scene said several police officers
were knocked off their feet by a grenade explosion."
A Ukrainian national guardsman has died and many more have been injured in clashes with nationalist
protesters outside parliament in Kiev, the interior minister said.
A Reuters TV cameraman at the scene said several police officers were knocked off their feet by
a grenade explosion. Two officers were treated for wounds at the scene and there were pools of blood
on the street, the cameraman said.
Clashes had erupted outside parliament in Kiev on Monday as politicians gave initial approval
to constitutional changes granting more autonomy to pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine.
The western-backed constitutional reforms are required under the terms of a peace deal signed
in February, which called for Kiev to implement "decentralisation" by the end of this year. But critics
have branded the reforms "un-Ukrainian".
A total of 265 politicians voted in favour of the reforms at a stormy session of parliament, with
protests both inside and outside the buidling.
Dozens of demonstrators scuffled with police, Agence France-Presse journalists said. Protesters
fired at least one grenade that sent up a cloud of black smoke outside the building. Teargas was
used by both sides, an AFP correspondent said.
An adviser for the interior minister, Arsen Avakov, said one person had died. "A soldier from
the National Guard has died of a gunshot wound in the heart," the adviser, Anton Gerashchenko, said.
"Apart from using grenades, the provocateurs were using firearms, fired secretly."
The controversial reforms have been sought by Kiev's western allies, who see them as a way of
trying to end the armed conflict in the east that has claimed more than 6,800 lives over the past
16 months.
The bill has sparked heated debate in Ukraine where opponents see it as an attempt to legalise
the de facto rebel control of part of Ukraine's territory.
The reform bill grants more powers to regional and local politicians, including in the eastern
areas currently under rebel control.
But contrary to separatists' expectations, it does not definitively hand the largely industrial
eastern region the semi-autonomous status that the insurgents are seeking.
According to the text of the draft legislation, the region's status needs to be defined by a separate
law.
Kiev and the west accuse Russia of backing the rebels militarily and deploying its troops to the
conflict zone, claims that President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin have repeatedly denied.
A group of Ukrainian politicians had earlier on Monday disrupted the parliament to block the vote
on the constitutional reforms, which they condemned as "anti-Ukrainian" and "pro-Vladimir Putin".
Politicians from the Radical party – part of the pro-western coalition behind President Petro
Poroshenko – had also blockaded the speaker's rostrum in an attempt to halt the crucial session.
Members of the extreme-right Pravy Sektor group blocked traffic outside the parliament, while
several hundred activists from the nationalist party Svoboda rallied outside the building against
the western-backed reform.
At the weekend, Poroshenko met politicians from the pro-presidential coalition who oppose the
reform in an attempt to persuade them to change their minds.
"...He added that he doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast
numbers of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it."
The first UN privacy chief has said the world needs a Geneva convention style law for the
internet to safeguard data and combat the threat of massive clandestine digital surveillance.
Speaking to the Guardian weeks after his appointment as the UN special rapporteur on privacy,
Joseph Cannataci described British surveillance oversight as being "a joke", and said the
situation is worse than anything George Orwell could have foreseen.
He added that he doesn't use Facebook or Twitter, and said it was regrettable that vast numbers
of people sign away their digital rights without thinking about it.
"Some people were complaining because they couldn't find me on Facebook. They couldn't find me
on Twitter. But since I believe in privacy, I've never felt the need for it," Cannataci, a
professor of technology law at University of Groningen in the Netherlands and head of the
department of Information Policy & Governance at the University of Malta, said.
... ... ...
But for Cannataci – well-known for having a mind of his own – it is not America but Britain
that he singles out as having the weakest oversight in the western world: "That is precisely one
of the problems we have to tackle. That if your oversight mechanism's a joke, and a rather bad
joke at its citizens' expense, for how long can you laugh it off as a joke?"
He said proper oversight is the only way of progressing, and hopes more people will think about
and vote for privacy in the UK. "And that is where the political process comes in," he said,
"because can you laugh off the economy and the National Health Service? Not in the UK election,
if you want to survive."
The appointment of a UN special rapporteur on privacy is seen as hugely important because it
elevates the right to privacy in the digital age to that of other human rights. As the first
person in the job, the investigator will be able to set the standard for the digital right to
privacy, deciding how far to push governments that want to conduct surveillance for security
reasons, and corporations who mine us for our personal data.
Mario_Marceau 26 Aug 2015 07:27
At the time of writing this comment, there are only 155 other comments. This is a very
important article. A crucial one. Nobody's reading. It is as though nobody gives a damn
anymore*. (Taylor Swift just opens her mouth and thousands of comments fill the pages.)
People have very clearly become numb to the idea of privacy mining. By this I mean everyone
knows that their privacy is being eradicated, we all despise the idea, but somehow, very few
get involved and are taking steps to prevent it from going further or, dare I hope, roll it
back!
After the revelations by Edward Snowden (a very important apex for TheGuardian), one would
expect the entire western world to be up in arms about unlawful government surveillance and
big corporation scooping our privacy away. Yet big brother and major corporations have been
able to perform 'damage control' with surgical precision, going as fas as manipulating or
intimidating the press, therefore keeping their precious status quo on the issue and keeping
people across entire nations hostage and on a very tight leash.
I hope Mr Cannataci is taking or will take into account the fact that the *people have
seemingly given up while in fact they are worried but don't know what to do anymore and feel
utterly helpless. I strongly believe this aspect of the whole fiasco on privacy constitute
perhaps the most important cog in the gear of online positive changes when it comes to taking
back our rights.
guardianfan2000 26 Aug 2015 00:55
British oversight of GCHQ surveillance is non-existent. If you live or work in Britain your
privacy is wholly violated on everything you do. Pervasive snooping.
luella zarf syenka 25 Aug 2015 23:54
Ultimately it may be necessary for anyone desiring real privacy to learn to code and build
his or her own encryption.
Also if anyone desires protection from abusive police officers it might be necessary to set up
a private army.
If you desire to avoid being poisoned by Monsanto it might be necessary to purchase giant
farms and grow your own food: corn, wheat, rice, avocados, melons, carrots, pigs, cattle,
tilapia, hazelnuts... and make cheese and butter!
And ultimately, for those of us desiring to avoid being cooked up by the fossil industry and
its minions, it might be necessary to acquire another planet, which we could call Absurdistan.
newschats4 Barbacana 25 Aug 2015 18:00
The Toshiba laptop - the least expensive model I could find as a replacement - came with
windows 8. I am trying to use the internet without getting hooked on all the expensive
come-ons, the confusing and even contradictory offers, amenities, protection programs (some of
which are scams) and other services, that unless you are in the business, most people don't
seem to know much about how they all work or what is really reliable or necessary. I don't
know how many times sites have tried to change my home page or provide a new tool bar to
control what I'm doing, just because I responded to a "free offer" like solitaire games. Ads
are enough pay off for those offers aren't they? Being electronically shanghaied is a step too
far. I even unchecked the box to opt out of the tool bar but got it anyway. Now I have to try
to figure out how to remove it again.
The personal computer business is the capital city of artificial obsolescence and quackery. it
is also highly addictive even for people who don't really need it for business. But having an
email address is almost as necessary now as having a phone number or even a home address. The
situation offered by most suppliers of equipment and even the providers is "take it or leave
it". But the internet is driving out the older print media (a subscription to a physical
newspaper is so much more expensive) and is becoming a requirement of classrooms at all
levels, so "take it or leave it" isn't good enough. For an industry intent on dominating all
aspects of life, "take it or leave it" can't be tolerated forever. I have tried at times to
read the policies I have to accept or not use the product and all the protection is one-sided:
the industries aren't liable for one damned thing: they could destroy your computer and you
couldn't do anything about it. But it isn't an honest choice if the user, having purchased the
product, has only the option to accept with no other provisions allowed, except refusal. You
can shop for all sorts of alternatives for access and protection but the sheep still have to
buy from the wolves to use any of them.
Statutes governing "mail fraud", as it is called in the US, should apply to dubious scams that
occur on the internet. The internet is very nearly a world wide public utility and as such
should be very heavily regulated as one. It is barely regulated at all and the industry seems
to be the only effective voice with regulators like the FCC.
You can't be spied on legally on the telephone system, or with the public mails, but
apparently anyone can do it with the internet as long as they know how to do it and know how
to go undetected.
BTW - I followed that link and saw no price mentioned.
FreedomAboveSecurity -> newschats4 25 Aug 2015 15:02
Not to mention that you had to agree to access to your computer by Microsoft before
activating Windows 8. The agreement states that they can shut down your laptop anytime they
find malicious files...indefinitely. You don't really own your computer under this agreement
or any of the programs you paid for in purchase. There is a clause about third party access,
too. One questions if the agreement provides backdoor authority. I returned both laptops with
8 on them. Oh...and you promised to connect to the net, preventing air-gapping as a privacy
tactic.
newschats4 25 Aug 2015 14:32
It is obvious that the consumer has little or no protection on the internet or even with
the manufacturers and providers. And even antivirus protection can, itself, be a form of
protection racket.
The internet is supported by industries that can make the problems they can then make even
more money on by claiming to solve them.
BTW - I have had a new laptop that I reluctantly purchased in January 2014 because I was
notified (and confirmed) that I had to get an updated program because windows XP was no longer
"supported". I wasn't getting updates anymore. But updates never said what they were doing or
why they were doing it. It is also very obvious that the personal computer works both ways. If
you can look "out", other can just as easily look in.
When I got the new laptop with windows 8, my first impression was it was glitzier but also
dumbed down. It was stuffed with apps for sale that I didn't want and I quickly removed. But
what really angers me about the come-ons is, updates have removed apps I did want and found
free online that someone doesn't want me to have. I had a free version of Google earth that I
downloaded easily but has since disappeared.
But now when I try to download the free version, the google earth site says that windows 7,
windows XP and one other are required but not windows 8. ?? I get an error message and am told
I have to download a site that will allow Google earth to keep a log of my hard drive so they
can determine why I get an error message.
I am sure that the execs at the top of the ladder know that the vast majority of internet
users are sheep to be shorn. But those corporate decision makers are also the only people in
key positions to know they can make the sheep pay for the razors that they will be shorn with.
And now the school systems are raising a new generation of sheep that won't be able to live
without the internet. They will feel helpless without it.
syenka -> Robert987 25 Aug 2015 12:44
Good point about the NSA and the GCHQ. However, neither of these outfits has magical powers
and really solid encryption can pretty effectively stymie their efforts to pry. The question
remains whether software purveyors can resist the government's insistence that there be a
backdoor built in to each program. Ultimately it may be necessary for anyone desiring real
privacy to learn to code and build his or her own encryption.
AdMelliorandum 25 Aug 2015 08:08
Better late than never…
Let's wish the United Nations first UN privacy chief, Mr. Cannataci, success in
"challenging the business model of companies that are "very often taking the data that you
never even knew they were taking"."
Likewise consider the ongoing investigation in Switzerland against Microsoft, as pertains
the alleged Windows 10 theft of client information and privacy violations.
See the corresponding article titled:
"Berne a lancé une procédure concernant Windows 10", (roughly translated as: "Berne has
launched a procedure concerning Windows 10"),
published on 24.08.15 on the "Le Tribune de Geneve" newspaper:
Excerpts from said article follow, translated using Google Translate:
"The federal policeman launched a clarification process on Windows 10 de Microsoft."
". . . infringement of privacy committed by Microsoft. He demanded the examination of several
issues related to the operating system of Windows 10."
"The computer program automatically captures and shares information from its users with
software vendors. They transmit them further, including for advertising."
"In Valais, the cantonal officer Sébastien Fanti had expressed his indignation at the
beginning."
"If Microsoft does not review its privacy policy, Windows 10 could be the subject of a
recommendation prohibiting the purchase" in the canton. . ."
wichdoctor 25 Aug 2015 02:32
I have been pointing these dangers out for over 20 years ever since the local authority
stuck CCTV around the town without any consultation. If these systems were only there to act
as spectators then the authorities should have no objection to slaving every camera to a
publicly viewable screen or even the web. Since they do object we have to suppose they are
using these things to spy on us.
Then there are the ANPR systems that allegedly log every vehicle journey between every town on
mainland UK. There is no trustworthy independent oversight on how the data is stored or used
just the usual "trust us we are the police".
Then there is the private stasi style database of the credit reference companies. No real
control over their compilation or use. Use extended from credit checking to being used in
employment references. Can even be used to track movements of a spouse by a vindictive ex.
DVLA? A long history of letting any gangster with a business card access to anyone's data.
Same with the electoral roll. Anyone wanting to avoid being tracked by someone bent on
violence such as an ex spouse or gangster can not safely exercise their right to vote.
I don't use social networking sites and until recently used an assumed name for voting. After
a career spent in IT specialising in data acquisition I'm well aware just how easy it is to
suck data a database using very basic tools. I hide my data as much as possible even though at
my stage in life I probably have little to fear from the state or even the bankers
WalterBMorgan 25 Aug 2015 01:11
In many respects we are the problem. As pointed out we give away our privacy too easily and
too cheaply. We accept massive CCTV intrusions because we fear crime unduly but don't wish to
pay for more police officers instead. We want free email, news, and entertainment if we can
get it so we end up with the KGB of the digital age following us about. We are bombarded with
advertising yet most of us don't fight back with ad blockers or protest the over intrusion of
billboard advertising. Government will spy on us and business will exploit us if we let them.
Both business and government can be good and necessary but we connive with their downsides
because it's cheaper.
JaitcH BritCol 24 Aug 2015 23:40
I live in an 'authoritarian' [state] and yet we enjoy more personal freedom that do people
in Australia, Canada, the UK and USA!
xxxsss MrPotto51 24 Aug 2015 17:16
Encryption is all well and good, but engaging in an encryption arms race with business and
governmental bodies is not going to end well; there is no point encrypting your emails if the
spies have backdoors in your OS or whatever.
We need to debate and then come to a truce, as well as clearly setting out what is
acceptable, and unacceptable, behaviour.
BritCol 24 Aug 2015 15:14
I agree entirely with this assessment, and especially how ominous surveillance has become
in the UK. When I grew up outside London it seemed to be the freest nation on Earth. We would
visit North America and found the city police to be gun-toting thugs (they still are) but
England has become the world's worst police state in surveillance techniques.
Not even Russia or China spies on its citizens as much.
Lafcadio1944 24 Aug 2015 14:06
Way too little way too late. Just think about the vast amount of personal data that is
already out there and the vast amount that is entered every minute. The dependence society and
business on the internet and the fact that the data on the internet is INDELIBLE!! Everything
having been collected by the NSA/GCHQ/BND etc could be accessed by hackers in the future who
could trust them to actually protect it. Even the super high tech super security company
Hacking Team which sells hacking and spying tools to governments and government agencies all
over the world (with no concern about who they are) was itself hacked. Given that and the fact
that the spyware and hacking techniques are becoming known by more and more people each day
how is an ordinary internet used to protect himself? - he can't. Look at the Ashly Madison
hack which was apparently done for purely personal petty grievances and adolescent morality.
This can only increase with all sorts of people hacking and releasing our data can only get
worse and the INDELIBLE data is always there to take.
We all thought the internet would be liberating and we have all enjoyed the movies, porn
social networking and the ability to make money on the internet but what has been created is a
huge monster which has become not our friend but our enemy.
well_jackson rationalistx 24 Aug 2015 13:59
"I doubt if George Orwell had the imagination to conceive of airliners being hijacked and
being flown into buildings, killing thousands."
I seem to recall George Bush saying a similar thing about his own government on countless
occasions following 9/11. The fact NORAD were carrying out mock exercises that same morning,
including this very scenario, seems lost on people.
As for the train shooting, it sounds like utter nonsense to me. This man well known to the
intelligence agencies but allowed to roam free gets stopped by Americans and Brits just as
hell is to be unleashed (I bet they were military or ex military weren't they? UK/US public
love a good hero army story).... smells like BS.
Besides, if these events tell us anything it's that surveillance never seems to work when
needed most (there are very limited videos of 7/7 bombers, the pentagon attack lacked video
evidence, virtually every nearby camera to the pont d'alma tunnel was not working as Diana
hurtled through to an untimely end, etc, etc)....
"Mass surveillance is not about protecting people; it is about social control.
The
shadow government is its own enterprise, and it rewards those who pay obesiance quite richly"
Here is the second segment of a fascinating five part interview about the deep state and the mechanics
of what some might call corporatism.
You may watch all five segments of this interview at The Real News
here. Note that they are listed in descending order on the site, so start from the bottom
up to see them in order.
Word of Tom Clancy's passing in October reached me at a local
gym. Peddling away on an elliptical trainer, I welcomed the distraction of this "breaking news" story as it swept across a bank of
video monitors suspended above the cardio machines. On cable networks and local stations, anchors were soon competing with one another
to help viewers grasp the story's significance. Winning the competition (and perhaps an audition with Fox News) was the young newsreader
who solemnly announced that "one of America's greatest writers" had just died at the relatively early age of sixty-six.
Of course, Tom Clancy qualifies as a great writer in the same sense that Texas senator Ted Cruz qualifies as a great orator. Both
satisfy a quantitative definition of eminence. Although political historians are unlikely to rank Cruz alongside Clay, Calhoun, and
Webster, his recent twenty-one-hour-long denunciation of Obamacare, delivered before a near-empty Senate chamber, demonstrated a
capacity for narcissistic logorrhea rare even by Washington standards.
So too with Clancy. Up in the literary Great Beyond, Faulkner and Hemingway won't be inviting him for drinks. Yet, as with Ted
Cruz, once Clancy got going there was no shutting him up. Following a slow start, the works of fiction and nonfiction that he wrote,
cowrote, or attached his moniker to numbered in the dozens. Some seventeen Clancy novels made it to the top of the <em">New York
Times bestseller list, starting with his breakthrough thriller The Hunt for Red October. A slew of titles written
by others appeared with his imprimatur. Thus, for example, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Choke Point or Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Blacklist Aftermath.
Tom Clancy qualifies as a great writer in the same sense that Texas senator Ted Cruz qualifies as a great orator.
Similarly, on those occasions when Clancy partnered with some retired U.S. four-star to craft the officer's memoirs, the result
was a tome "by" Tom Clancy "with" General So-and-So, the difference in font size signaling who was the bigger cheese. And then there
is Tom Clancy's Military Reference series, another product line in the realm of fictive nonfiction. Each title-Fighter Wing,
for example, or Armored Cav-promises a Clancy-led "guided tour" of what really goes on in the elite corners of the United
States military.
Clancy did for military pop-lit what Starbucks did for the preparation of caffeinated beverages: he launched a sprawling, massively
profitable industrial enterprise that simultaneously serves and cultivates an insatiable customer base. Whether the item consumed
provides much in terms of nourishment is utterly beside the point. That it tastes yummy going down more than suffices to keep customers
coming back.
If Clancy was a hack, as he surely was, he was a hack who possessed a remarkable talent for delivering what his fans craved. Nor
did the Tom Clancy brand confine itself to the written word. His oeuvre has provided ideal fodder for Hollywood too. Movie adaptations
chronicling the exploits of Jack Ryan, Clancy's principal protagonist, and starring the likes of Harrison Ford, Alec Baldwin, and
Ben Affleck, became blockbuster hits. Then there are the testosterone-laced videogames, carrying titles like Tom Clancy's Ghost
Recon: Future Soldier and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2.
Clancy-approved videogames captured the Pentagon's fancy. In 2007, Red Storm Entertainment, the gaming arm of Clancy's empire,
released America's Army: True Soldiers, advertised as an "Official U.S. Army Game." ("Created by Soldiers. Developed by
Gamers. Tested by Heroes.") The accompanying copy assures prospective purchasers/recruits that "combat action doesn't get any more
authentic than this":
Become one of America's bravest in this game developed in conjunction with the U.S. Army. See what it's like to live life as
an infantryman. Take on the role of a Rifleman, Grenadier, Automatic Rifleman, or Sniper. Develop skills including Valor, Marksmanship,
Stealth, and more.
Here profit and propaganda blend into a seamless package.
Did I mention Clancy-themed board games, music CDs, toys, and apparel? There is even a Clancy line of pseudo-military collectibles.
Among the items available for purchase is the Ghost Recon "Future Soldier"-your choice: statuette or stuffed toy.
Don't expect Clancy's departure to stem this tsunami of stuff. Although the founder himself may have left the scene, Clancy Inc.
gives every indication of carrying on. A new Clancy novel called Command Authority arrived in December. And a new Jack Ryan
movie, this one not based on previously published material, is in the works.
Yet to argue that Clancy's books and ancillary byproducts offer little in terms of lasting value is not to say that they have
lacked influence. Indeed, just the reverse is true. As a shaper of the zeitgeist, Tom Clancy may well rate as one of the most influential
creative entrepreneurs of the last several decades.
In whatever medium, Clancy's abiding theme is the never-ending struggle between good guys and bad guys. His bad guys tend to be
irredeemably bad. His good guys are invariably very, very good-Americans devoted to the cause of keeping their countrymen safe and
the world free. As good guys, they subscribe to old-fashioned virtues while making skillful use of the latest technology. Whether
garbed in battledress or trenchcoats, they are cool, professional, dedicated, resourceful, and exceedingly competent. These are,
of course, the very qualities that Americans today ascribe to those who actually serve in uniform or who inhabit the "black world,"
whether as CIA agents or members of highly specialized units such as Delta Force or SEAL Team Six.
What's worth recalling is that the prevailing view of America's warriors was not always so favorable. In the wake of Vietnam,
shortly before Clancy burst onto the scene, the books that sold and the scripts attracting Hollywood's attention told a different
story. Those inhabiting positions of responsibility in the United States military were either venal careerists or bunglers out of
their depth. Those on the front lines were victims or saps. When it came to military-themed accessories, the preferred logo was FTA.
Clancy was among the first to intuit that the antimilitary mood spawned by Vietnam represented an opportunity. The legions who
did not find Catch-22 particularly amusing, who
were more annoyed than entertained by M*A*S*H, and who classified Jane Fonda as a traitor were hungry to find someone to
validate their views-someone who still believed in the red, white, and blue and who still admired those fighting to defend it. Clancy
offered himself as that someone.
To be more accurate, Ronald Reagan had already offered himself as that someone. What Clancy did was seize the role of Reagan's
literary doppelgänger-what the Gipper might have become had he chosen writing instead of politics after ending his acting career.
Clancy's own career took off when President Reagan plugged Red October as "my kind of yarn." As well he might: Clancy
shared Reagan's worldview. His stories translated that worldview into something that seemed "real" and might actually become real
if you believed hard enough. Reagan was famous for transforming the imagined into the actual; despite never having left Hollywood
during World War II, he knew, for example, that he had personally witnessed the liberation of Nazi death camps. Similarly,
Clancy, who never served in the military, imagined a world of selfless patriots performing feats of derring-do to overcome evil-a
world that large numbers of Americans were certain had once existed. More to the point, it was a world they desperately wanted to
restore. Clancy, like Reagan, made that restoration seem eminently possible.
What Clancy did was seize the role of Reagan's literary doppelgänger.
Soon after Clancy's death, the Washington Post published an appreciation entitled "How Tom Clancy Made the Military Cool
Again," written by a couple of self-described Gen-Xer policy wonks. "Clancy's legacy lives on in the generations he introduced to
the military," they gushed, crediting Clancy with having "created a literary bridge across the civil-military divide." His "stories
helped the rest of society understand and imagine" the world of spooks and soldiers. Perhaps not surprisingly, those who served or
aspired to serve found those stories to be especially gratifying. Clancy depicted American soldiers and would-be soldiers precisely
as they wished to see themselves.
But any understanding gained by either soldiers or society,whether engaged in Patriot Games or fending off The Sum
of All Fears, was illusory, rooted in fantasies that sanitized war and conveyed a false sense of what military service really
entails. Instead of bridging the civil-military divide, Clancy papered it over, thereby perpetuating it. By extension, he contributed
in no small way to the conditions breeding the misguided and costly military adventurism that has become the signature of U.S. policy.
Clancy did prove to be a figure of consequence. Alas, almost all of those consequences have proven to be pernicious. And there's
no Jack Ryan anywhere in sight to come to our rescue.
Word of Tom Clancy's passing
in October reached me at a local gym. Peddling away on an elliptical trainer, I welcomed the distraction
of this "breaking news" story as it swept across a bank of video monitors suspended above the cardio
machines. On cable networks and local stations, anchors were soon competing with one another to help
viewers grasp the story's significance. Winning the competition (and perhaps an audition with Fox
News) was the young newsreader who solemnly announced that "one of America's greatest writers" had
just died at the relatively early age of sixty-six.
Of course, Tom Clancy qualifies as a great writer in the same sense that Texas senator Ted Cruz
qualifies as a great orator. Both satisfy a quantitative definition of eminence. Although political
historians are unlikely to rank Cruz alongside Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, his recent twenty-one-hour-long
denunciation of Obamacare, delivered before a near-empty Senate chamber, demonstrated a capacity
for narcissistic logorrhea rare even by Washington standards.
So too with Clancy. Up in the literary Great Beyond, Faulkner and Hemingway won't be inviting
him for drinks. Yet, as with Ted Cruz, once Clancy got going there was no shutting him up. Following
a slow start, the works of fiction and nonfiction that he wrote, cowrote, or attached his moniker
to numbered in the dozens. Some seventeen Clancy novels made it to the top of the <em">New York Times
bestseller list, starting with his breakthrough thriller The Hunt for Red October.
A slew of titles written by others appeared with his imprimatur. Thus, for example, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Choke
Point or Tom Clancy's
Splinter Cell: Blacklist Aftermath.
Tom Clancy qualifies as a great writer in the same sense that Texas senator Ted Cruz qualifies
as a great orator.
Similarly, on those occasions when Clancy partnered with some retired U.S. four-star to craft
the officer's memoirs, the result was a tome "by" Tom Clancy "with" General So-and-So, the difference
in font size signaling who was the bigger cheese. And then there is Tom Clancy's Military Reference
series, another product line in the realm of fictive nonfiction. Each title-Fighter Wing,
for example, or Armored Cav-promises a Clancy-led "guided tour" of what really goes on in
the elite corners of the United States military.
Clancy did for military pop-lit what Starbucks did for the preparation of caffeinated beverages:
he launched a sprawling, massively profitable industrial enterprise that simultaneously serves and
cultivates an insatiable customer base. Whether the item consumed provides much in terms of nourishment
is utterly beside the point. That it tastes yummy going down more than suffices to keep customers
coming back.
If Clancy was a hack, as he surely was, he was a hack who possessed a remarkable talent for delivering
what his fans craved. Nor did the Tom Clancy brand confine itself to the written word. His oeuvre
has provided ideal fodder for Hollywood too. Movie adaptations chronicling the exploits of Jack Ryan,
Clancy's principal protagonist, and starring the likes of Harrison Ford, Alec Baldwin, and Ben Affleck,
became blockbuster hits. Then there are the testosterone-laced videogames, carrying titles like
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Future Soldier and Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2.
Clancy-approved videogames captured the Pentagon's fancy. In 2007, Red Storm Entertainment, the
gaming arm of Clancy's empire, released America's Army: True Soldiers, advertised as an
"Official U.S. Army Game." ("Created by Soldiers. Developed by Gamers. Tested by Heroes.") The accompanying
copy assures prospective purchasers/recruits that "combat action doesn't get any more authentic than
this":
Become one of America's bravest in this game developed in conjunction with the U.S. Army. See
what it's like to live life as an infantryman. Take on the role of a Rifleman, Grenadier, Automatic
Rifleman, or Sniper. Develop skills including Valor, Marksmanship, Stealth, and more.
Here profit and propaganda blend into a seamless package.
Did I mention Clancy-themed board games, music CDs, toys, and apparel? There is even a Clancy
line of pseudo-military collectibles. Among the items available for purchase is the Ghost Recon
"Future Soldier"-your choice: statuette or stuffed toy.
Don't expect Clancy's departure to stem this tsunami of stuff. Although the founder himself may
have left the scene, Clancy Inc. gives every indication of carrying on. A new Clancy novel called
Command Authority arrived in December. And a new Jack Ryan movie, this one not based on
previously published material, is in the works.
Yet to argue that Clancy's books and ancillary byproducts offer little in terms of lasting value
is not to say that they have lacked influence. Indeed, just the reverse is true. As a shaper of the
zeitgeist, Tom Clancy may well rate as one of the most influential creative entrepreneurs of the
last several decades.
In whatever medium, Clancy's abiding theme is the never-ending struggle between good guys and
bad guys. His bad guys tend to be irredeemably bad. His good guys are invariably very, very good-Americans
devoted to the cause of keeping their countrymen safe and the world free. As good guys, they subscribe
to old-fashioned virtues while making skillful use of the latest technology. Whether garbed in battledress
or trenchcoats, they are cool, professional, dedicated, resourceful, and exceedingly competent. These
are, of course, the very qualities that Americans today ascribe to those who actually serve in uniform
or who inhabit the "black world," whether as CIA agents or members of highly specialized units such
as Delta Force or SEAL Team Six.
What's worth recalling is that the prevailing view of America's warriors was not always so favorable.
In the wake of Vietnam, shortly before Clancy burst onto the scene, the books that sold and the scripts
attracting Hollywood's attention told a different story. Those inhabiting positions of responsibility
in the United States military were either venal careerists or bunglers out of their depth. Those
on the front lines were victims or saps. When it came to military-themed accessories, the preferred
logo was FTA.
Clancy was among the first to intuit that the antimilitary mood spawned by Vietnam represented
an opportunity. The legions who did not find Catch-22 particularly
amusing, who were more annoyed than entertained by M*A*S*H, and who classified Jane Fonda
as a traitor were hungry to find someone to validate their views-someone who still believed in the
red, white, and blue and who still admired those fighting to defend it. Clancy offered himself as
that someone.
To be more accurate, Ronald Reagan had already offered himself as that someone. What Clancy did
was seize the role of Reagan's literary doppelgänger-what the Gipper might have become had he chosen
writing instead of politics after ending his acting career.
Clancy's own career took off when President Reagan plugged Red October as "my kind of
yarn." As well he might: Clancy shared Reagan's worldview. His stories translated that worldview
into something that seemed "real" and might actually become real if you believed hard enough. Reagan
was famous for transforming the imagined into the actual; despite never having left Hollywood during
World War II, he knew, for example, that he had personally witnessed the liberation of Nazi
death camps. Similarly, Clancy, who never served in the military, imagined a world of selfless patriots
performing feats of derring-do to overcome evil-a world that large numbers of Americans were certain
had once existed. More to the point, it was a world they desperately wanted to restore. Clancy, like
Reagan, made that restoration seem eminently possible.
What Clancy did was seize the role of Reagan's literary doppelgänger.
Soon after Clancy's death, the Washington Post published an appreciation entitled "How
Tom Clancy Made the Military Cool Again," written by a couple of self-described Gen-Xer policy wonks.
"Clancy's legacy lives on in the generations he introduced to the military," they gushed, crediting
Clancy with having "created a literary bridge across the civil-military divide." His "stories helped
the rest of society understand and imagine" the world of spooks and soldiers. Perhaps not surprisingly,
those who served or aspired to serve found those stories to be especially gratifying. Clancy depicted
American soldiers and would-be soldiers precisely as they wished to see themselves.
But any understanding gained by either soldiers or society,whether engaged in Patriot Games
or fending off The Sum of All Fears, was illusory, rooted in fantasies that sanitized
war and conveyed a false sense of what military service really entails. Instead of bridging the civil-military
divide, Clancy papered it over, thereby perpetuating it. By extension, he contributed in no small
way to the conditions breeding the misguided and costly military adventurism that has become the
signature of U.S. policy.
Clancy did prove to be a figure of consequence. Alas, almost all of those consequences have proven
to be pernicious. And there's no Jack Ryan anywhere in sight to come to our rescue.
And at some point, all empires crumble
on their own excess, stretched to the breaking point by over-extending a military industrial
complex with sophisticated equipment, hundreds of bases in as many countries, and never-ending wars
that wrack up mind boggling levels of debt. This cost has been magnified by the relationship it shares
with the money system, who have common owners and shareholders behind the scenes.
As the hidden costs of war and the enormity of the black budget swell to record levels,
the true total of its price comes in the form of the distortion it has caused in other dimensions of
life; the numbers have been so thoroughly fudged for so long now, as Wall Street banks offset
laundering activities and indulge in derivatives and quasi-official market rigging, the Federal Reserve
policy holds the noble lie together.
Seen from the proper angle, the
dollar is revealed to be a paper thin instrument of warfare, a ripple effect on the
people, a twisted illusion, a weaponized money now engaged in a covert economic warfare
that threatens their very livelihood.
The former Congressman and presidential candidate explained:
Almost all wars have been paid for through inflation… the practice always ends badly
as currency becomes debased leading to upward pressure on prices.
"Almost all wars, in a hundred years or so, have been paid for through inflation,
that is debasing the currency," he said, adding that this has been
going on "for hundreds, if not thousands of years."
"I don't know if we ever had a war paid though tax payers. The only thing where
they must have been literally paid for, was when they depended on the looting. They would
go in and take over a country, and they would loot and take their gold, and they would
pay for the war."
As inflation has debased the currency, other shady Wall Street tactics have driven
Americans into a corner, overwhelmed with debt, and gamed by rigged markets in which
Americans must make a living. The economic prosperity, adjusted for the kind of reality
that doesn't factor into government reports, can't match the costs of a military
industrial complex that has transformed society into a domestic police state, and slapped
Americans with the bill for their own enslavement.
Dr. Paul notes the mutual interest in keeping the lie going for as long as the public
can stand it… and as long as the gravy keeps rolling in:
They're going to continue to finance all these warmongering, and letting
the military industrial complex to make a lot of money, before it's admitted that it
doesn't work, and the whole system comes down because of the debt burden, which would be
unsustainable."
Unsustainable might be putting it lightly. The entire thing is in shambles from
the second the coyote looks down and sees that he's run out over a cliff.
Let's start with the geopolitical Big Bang you know nothing about, the one that occurred
just two weeks ago. Here are its results: from now on, any possible
future attack on Iran threatened by the Pentagon (in conjunction with NATO) would essentially
be an assault on the planning of an interlocking set of organizations -- the BRICS nations (Brazil,
Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization), the EEU
(Eurasian Economic Union), the AIIB (the new Chinese-founded Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank),
and the NDB (the BRICS' New Development Bank) -- whose acronyms you're unlikely to recognize either.
Still, they represent an emerging new order in Eurasia.
Tehran, Beijing, Moscow, Islamabad, and New Delhi have been actively establishing interlocking
security guarantees. They have been simultaneously calling the Atlanticist bluff when
it comes to the endless drumbeat of attention given to the flimsy meme of Iran's "nuclear weapons
program." And a few days before the Vienna nuclear negotiations finally culminated in an
agreement, all of this came together at a twin BRICS/SCO summit in Ufa, Russia -- a place you've
undoubtedly never heard of and a meeting that got next to no attention in the U.S.
And yet sooner or later, these developments will ensure that the War Party in Washington
and assorted neocons (as well as neoliberalcons) already breathing hard over the Iran deal will
sweat bullets as their narratives about how the world works crumble.
The Eurasian Silk Road
With the Vienna deal, whose interminable build-up I had the
dubious pleasure of following
closely, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and his diplomatic team have pulled the near-impossible
out of an extremely crumpled magician's hat: an agreement that might actually end sanctions against
their country from an asymmetric, largely manufactured conflict.
Think of that meeting in Ufa, the capital of Russia's Bashkortostan, as a preamble to the long-delayed
agreement in Vienna. It caught the new dynamics of the Eurasian continent and signaled the future
geopolitical Big Bangness of it all. At Ufa, from July 8th to 10th, the 7th BRICS summit and the
15th Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit overlapped just as a possible Vienna deal was devouring
one deadline after another.
Consider it a diplomatic masterstroke of Vladmir Putin's Russia to have merged
those two summits with an informal meeting of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Call it a soft
power declaration of war against Washington's imperial logic, one that would highlight the breadth
and depth of an evolving Sino-Russian strategic partnership. Putting all those heads of state
attending each of the meetings under one roof, Moscow offered a vision of an emerging, coordinated
geopolitical structure anchored in Eurasian integration. Thus, the importance of Iran: no matter
what happens post-Vienna, Iran will be a vital hub/node/crossroads in Eurasia for this new structure.
If you
read the declaration that came out of the BRICS summit, one detail should strike you: the
austerity-ridden European Union (EU) is barely mentioned. And that's not an oversight. From the
point of view of the leaders of key BRICS nations, they are offering a new approach to Eurasia,
the very opposite of the
language of
sanctions.
Here are just a few examples of the dizzying activity that took place at Ufa, all of it ignored
by the American mainstream media. In their meetings, President Putin, China's President Xi Jinping,
and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi worked in a practical way to
advance what is essentially a Chinese vision of a future Eurasia knit together by a series
of interlocking "new Silk Roads." Modi approved more Chinese investment in his country, while
Xi and Modi together pledged to work to solve the joint border issues that have dogged their countries
and, in at least one case, led to war.
The
NDB, the BRICS' response to the World Bank, was officially launched with $50 billion in start-up
capital. Focused on funding major infrastructure projects in the BRICS nations, it is capable
of accumulating as much as $400 billion in capital, according to its president, Kundapur Vaman
Kamath. Later, it plans to focus on funding such ventures in other developing nations across the
Global South -- all in their own currencies, which means bypassing the U.S. dollar. Given
its membership, the NDB's money will clearly be closely linked to the new Silk Roads. As Brazilian
Development Bank President Luciano Coutinho
stressed, in the near future it may also assist European non-EU member states like Serbia
and Macedonia. Think of this as the NDB's attempt to break a Brussels monopoly on Greater Europe.
Kamath even advanced the possibility of someday
aiding
in the reconstruction of Syria.
You won't be surprised to learn that both the new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
and the NDB are headquartered in China and will work to complement each other's efforts.
At the same time, Russia's foreign investment arm, the Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), signed a
memorandum of understanding with funds from other BRICS countries and so launched an informal
investment consortium in which China's Silk Road Fund and India's Infrastructure Development Finance
Company will be key partners.
Full Spectrum Transportation Dominance
On the ground level, this should be thought of as part of the New Great Game in Eurasia.
Its flip side is the Trans-Pacific Partnership in the Pacific and the Atlantic version of the
same, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, both of which Washington is trying to
advance to maintain U.S. global economic dominance. The question these conflicting plans raise
is how to integrate trade and commerce across that vast region. From the Chinese and Russian perspectives,
Eurasia is to be integrated via a complex network of superhighways, high-speed rail lines, ports,
airports, pipelines, and fiber optic cables. By land, sea, and air, the resulting New Silk Roads
are meant to create an economic version of the Pentagon's doctrine of "Full Spectrum Dominance"
-- a vision that already has Chinese corporate executives crisscrossing Eurasia sealing infrastructure
deals.
For Beijing -- back to a
7% growth rate in the second quarter of 2015 despite a recent near-panic on the country's
stock markets -- it makes perfect economic sense: as labor costs rise, production will be relocated
from the country's Eastern seaboard to its cheaper Western reaches, while the natural outlets
for the production of just about everything will be those parallel and interlocking "belts" of
the new Silk Roads.
Meanwhile, Russia is pushing to modernize and diversify its energy-exploitation-dependent economy.
Among other things, its leaders hope that the mix of those developing Silk Roads and the tying
together of the Eurasian Economic Union -- Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan
-- will translate into myriad transportation and construction projects for which the country's
industrial and engineering know-how will prove crucial.
As the EEU has begun establishing free trade zones with India, Iran, Vietnam, Egypt, and Latin
America's Mercosur bloc (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Venezuela), the initial stages
of this integration process already reach beyond Eurasia. Meanwhile, the SCO, which began as little
more than a security forum, is expanding and moving into the field of economic cooperation.
Its countries, especially four Central Asian "stans" (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and
Tajikistan) will rely ever more on the Chinese-driven Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)
and the NDB. At Ufa, India and Pakistan finalized an upgrading process in which they have moved
from observers to members of the SCO. This makes it an alternative G8.
In the meantime, when it comes to embattled Afghanistan, the BRICS nations and the SCO have
now called upon "the armed opposition to disarm, accept the Constitution of Afghanistan, and cut
ties with Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist organizations." Translation: within the framework
of Afghan national unity, the organization would accept the Taliban as part of a future government.
Their hopes, with the integration of the region in mind, would be for a future stable Afghanistan
able to absorb more Chinese, Russian, Indian, and Iranian investment, and the construction --
finally! -- of a long-planned, $10 billion, 1,420-kilometer-long Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India
(TAPI) gas pipeline that would benefit those energy-hungry new SCO members, Pakistan and India.
(They would each receive 42% of the gas, the remaining 16% going to Afghanistan.)
Central Asia is, at the moment, geographic ground zero for the convergence of the economic
urges of China, Russia, and India. It was no happenstance that, on his way to Ufa, Prime
Minister Modi stopped off in Central Asia. Like the Chinese leadership in Beijing, Moscow
looks forward (as a
recent document puts it) to the "interpenetration and integration of the EEU and the Silk
Road Economic Belt" into a "Greater Eurasia" and a "steady, developing, safe common neighborhood"
for both Russia and China.
And don't forget
Iran.
In early 2016, once economic sanctions are fully lifted, it is expected to join the SCO, turning
it into a G9. As its foreign minister, Javad Zarif, made clear recently to Russia's Channel 1
television, Tehran considers the two countries strategic partners. "Russia," he said, "has been
the most important participant in Iran's nuclear program and it will continue under the current
agreement to be Iran's major nuclear partner." The same will, he added, be true when it comes
to "oil and gas cooperation," given the shared interest of those two energy-rich nations in "maintaining
stability in global market prices."
Which sounds better, to "die for your government", or "give your life for your country"? The
first could be interpreted, after a mountain of bodies pile up, as a mistake. As something
that would seem to require scrutiny, admissions of having been wrong, of blame to be placed.
Dying for a government, or more precisely, dying for a select group of political figures at a certain
moment in time for very specific reasons, doesn't hide behind a fluttering flag quite as well as
"dying for country". Which is why we never hear it. War, in the mind of the Middle America
that still thinks on it, is shrouded in a sepia-toned composite of images and sounds, stories of
soldiers, duty to country, service, songs, movies, and myth that give politicians far more leverage
than they would otherwise have, when executing another war. No, "service to country" is the
emotional and moral narcotic we administer to ourselves, almost automatically, at the inception of
a new war. War is all wrapped up in our American Mythos so tight that it seems astonishing
that we haven't descended utterly into a pure American-style fascism. Maybe a few more 9/11-style
attacks and the transformation would be complete. 9/11 was an unparalleled opportunity for
the explosion of government growth, and as much as "war is the health of the State", so are foreign
attacks on the home State, attacks that can be perfectly molded so as to stoke the maximum amount
of nationalist rage from the citizens. Those attacks were a godsend for a government that had
been starved of an actual threat for far too long. And they took full advantage of the opportunity.
Fourteen years later, the Warfare State is petering out from the evaporating fumes of 9/11, and their
looking for a new fix.
But what of those who lied the country into igniting a regional dumpster fire after 9/11?
Once the war hysteria evaporates, where are What would it really take to hold any one politician
for a military disaster halfway around the world? It is blindingly obvious that there will
never be a reckoning for those who hustled us into the Iraq war. What about Libya? Syria?
How bad does it have to get for there to be something resembling accountability? War atrocities
seem to have become less of a chance for justice and lessons learned than as a new precedent that
the progenitors of the next war can point to when their war goes bad. And creators of war did
learn a few things from Iraq and Afghanistan. They learned that flag-draped coffins do focus
the attention of the citizenry. And drone strikes don't, really.
That hazy collage of feel-good nationalism is trotted out every election year, and every candidate
engages in it to one degree or another. Peace is a hard sell next to the belligerent effusions
of a Donald Trump. His crazed rantings against immigrants, his bizarre fantasies as to how
he would handle world leaders via telephone call, as well as his boorishness in general, has thousands
flocking to hear him speak. But what they're cheering is an avatar of a blood-soaked ideology,
one that cloaks itself in the native symbols and culture, breeding hate and intolerance, until the
bilious nationalism reaches just the right temperature and then boils over into lawless fascism.
As Jeffrey Tucker
points out,
Trump is nothing new. The graveyard of twentieth century tyrannies is a testament to just how
much death and destruction can be induced by a charismatic parasite bellowing the tenets of a flag-wrapped
tyranny. Most of what we hear coming from leaders today is fascism to a greater or lesser extent.
If what we mean by fascism to be a Religion of the State, a militant nationalism taken to its logical
conclusion, then every leader engages in it, because it ignites something primitive and sinister
in the minds of voters.
We understand war theoretically, and distantly, but what of those who are forced to carry out
the fever dreams of politicians? Blindly thanking veterans for their service, we feel a sense
of duty discharged, and never think to look more deeply into their traumas, or the scheme they were
tricked into executing. Military recruiters, the unscrupulous peddlers of military slavery,
are treated as a benign influence on young people today. Their pushy, overindulgent attitude
toward our 18-year olds should piss us off more than it does, since what they are conning the young
into is becoming the expendable plaything for the whims of the current Administration.
War is the pith of total government. The source of all its power, war and the threat of
war provide the excuse for every injustice, every outrage, every restriction of liberty or further
bilking of the citizen-hosts. As the Warfare State trots out the familiar sermons of threats
from abroad, potential greatness at home, and wars to be fought, one would do well to reflect that
war enriches the State at the expense of the rest of us. It consumes our lives, our liberty,
our wallets, and the future of our children and grandchildren. The current crop of candidates
who peddle military greatness are the enemy of peace and prosperity, and when they so openly declaim
their lust for war, we should frankly believe what they say. And after hearing them, we should
recognize the would-be tyrant in our midst, hawking hyper-militarism under the guise of national
greatness, and treat them like the vermin they clearly are.
Shane Smith lives in Norman, Oklahoma and writes for
Red Dirt Report.
Accusations that the NSA has listened in on Chancellor Merkel's conversations are not conducive
to positive German-US relations. Interestingly, the fact that the White House is saying that they
'are not' monitoring and 'will not' monitor Merkel, suggests that 'they have' monitored her in the
past. To be sure, as I noted yesterday, there are worthwhile reasons behind US intelligence collection
operations in Europe. Still, targeting the phone of a close ally (especially a head of state and
especially one as friendly as Merkel) is a dangerous gamble. It risks significant blowback in terms
of personally alienating a valued American friend. The NSA will have known this. Correspondingly,
I assume that Merkel was targeted for a short time and in pursuit of specific information. Perhaps
in regards to her position during a conference/financial negotiations (international meetings are
a playground for intelligence officers).
There's another point here; as Marc Ambinder (a top journalist on the NSA) notes, if Merkel was indeed
targeted, then why wasn't her position as an intelligence source more highly classified? Ambinder
hints at the larger truth. If she was monitored, Merkel was effectively a deep cover source. In that
regard, it's truly ridiculous that Snowden was able to gain access to such an operation. He was a
contractor, not the Director of the NSA. As I've argued before, the US Government has a serious problem
with its protection of its highly classified sources.
Of course, all of this raises the broader question as to what other information Snowden might have
given Greenwald. Does he have agents/officers details? The British certainly think so. Based on what's
happening at the moment, we must assume that Greenwald is upping the ante. This may signal how he'll
conduct himself at Omidyar's new media endeavor. Ultimately, this is what will most concern the US
Government - signal intelligence programs can be reconstructed. Humans cannot.
"...medical professionals lied and covered up their extensive involvement in post-9/11 torture.
" . "...Psychologists are not medical professionals. Why does the Guardian keep mistakenly referring
to them as such? This habitual error casts doubt on the credibility of this and related articles. " . "...the APA has a code of ethics, modelled after the Hippocratic oath. these psychologists violated
that code of ethics, and then the APA took steps to protect them, at the expense of their own ethical
code. that's the problem, independent of the guilt or innocence of the people tortured. " . "...One question here - what about the use of psychoactive / neuroleptic drugs in interrogation?
Was that used? I just ask because those few Gitmo detainees seen in public so far have that kind of
nodding dazed drooling expression of the lithium / tricyclic / SSRI victim of excessive drug treatment
- nodding, dazed, stumbling, etc? Have they been doing drug-based interrogation on top of the waterboarding?" . "...I don't want my life purchased by torture. I agree with those who don't believe that it
saves anyone, anyway, but come down to it? I'm radical. Don't want to live in a world in which torture
is"just n case" standard procedure. Sorry. Ends don't justify means. Appeal to self-interest here is
shabby and false." . "...The APA is currently lobbying the AMA (American Medical Association) and Congress to be
permitted to prescribe and dispense drugs used to treat psychological/psychiatric disorders. Unless
the APA outs every single one of these guys and kicks them out of APA permanently, yanks their licenses,
and gets rid of every member of their Association's Board of Governors who 'covered up' these ethical
breaches, no psychologist should be eligible for insurance reimbursement. Nothing happens until you
hit the pocketbooks of the whole community." . "...True psychologists are not physicians. However, there were a number of "real" physicians,
i.e. AMA accredited doctors, that worked at Guantanomo who monitored the health of torture victims and
alerted the interrogators that their subjects were close to death and they did two things: stopped the
torture and then treated the victims back beyond the verge of death. At that point the torturers could
resume their "interrogation". We know this was happening. So far these doctors names have not been revealed." . "...Stephen Behnke, has a Yale law degree and a psychology Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.
How ominous does that sound?"
The largest association of psychologists in the United States is on the brink of a crisis, the
Guardian has learned, after an independent review revealed that medical professionals lied and
covered up their extensive involvement in post-9/11 torture. The revelation, puncturing years
of denials, has already led to at least one leadership firing and creates the potential for loss
of licenses and even prosecutions.
For more than a decade, the American Psychological Association (APA) has maintained that a strict
code of ethics prohibits its more than 130,000 members to aid in the torture of detainees while simultaneously
permitting involvement in military and intelligence interrogations. The group has rejected media
reporting on psychologists' complicity in torture; suppressed internal dissent from anti-torture
doctors; cleared members of wrongdoing; and portrayed itself as a consistent ally against abuse.
Now, a voluminous independent review conducted by a former assistant US attorney, David Hoffman,
undermines the APA's denials in full – and vindicates the dissenters.
Sources with knowledge of the report and its consequences, who requested anonymity to discuss
the findings before public release, expected a wave of firings and resignations across the leadership
of an organization that Hoffman finds used its extensive institutional links to the CIA and US military
to facilitate abusive interrogations.
... ... ...
Substantial sections of the report focus on the APA ethics chief and describes Behnke's "behind-the-scenes
attempts to manipulate Council of Representatives actions in collusion with, and to remain aligned
with DoD" – a reference to the Department of Defense.
A University of Michigan-pedigreed psychologist, Behnke has held his position within the APA since
2000, and, according to sources, used it to stifle dissent. Hoffman's report found Behnke ghostwrote
statements opposing member motions to rebuke torture; was involved in voter irregularity on motion
passings; spiked ethics complaints; and took other actions to suppress complaints.
... ... ...
Behnke was hardly the only psychologist involved in the establishment and application of torture.
According to two landmark Senate reports, one from the armed services committee in 2009 and the other
from the intelligence committee in 2014, psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen were instrumental
in persuading the CIA to adopt stress positions, temperature and dietary manipulation, sleep deprivation
and waterboarding in interrogations. (Neither man is an APA member.)
Psychologists assigned to the CIA's office of medical services assisted abusive interrogations, which
the Guardian revealed in June appear to violate longstanding CIA rules against human experimentation.
Those tactics, save waterboarding, spread from the CIA to the military. Psychologists joined "behavioral
science consultation teams" that advised interrogations at Guantánamo Bay.
... ... ...
Yet the organization withstood all public criticism, until New York Times reporter James Risen
revealed, based in part on a hoard of emails from a deceased behavioral-science researcher named
Scott Gerwehr, the behind-the-scenes ties between psychologists from the APA and their influential
counterparts within the CIA and the Pentagon.
In 2002 – the critical year for the Bush administration's embrace of torture – the APA amended its
longstanding ethics rules to permit psychologists to follow a "governing legal authority" in the
event of a conflict between an order and the APA ethics code.
Without the change, Risen wrote in his 2014 book Pay Any Price, it was likely that psychologists
would have "taken the view that they were prevented by their own professional standards from involvement"
in interrogations, making it "far more difficult for the Justice Department to craft opinions that
provided the legal approvals needed for the CIA to go ahead with the interrogation tactics".
In 2004, after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal burst into public view, the emails detailed a private
meeting of APA officials with CIA and military psychologists to "provide input on how the APA should
deal with the growing furor", Risen wrote.
Ethics chief Behnke emailed: "I would like to emphasize that we will not advertise the meeting other
than this letter to the individual invitees, that we will not publish or otherwise make public the
names of attendees or the substance of our discussions, and that in the meeting we will neither assess
nor investigate the behavior of any specific individual or group."
Risen went on to report that six of the 10 psychologists on the seminal 2005 APA taskforce "had connections
with the defense or intelligence communities; one member was the chief psychologist for US Special
Forces". The subject of tremendous internal controversy, the APA ultimately rescinded the taskforce
report in 2013.
In October, the APA called Risen's account "largely based on innuendo and one-sided reporting".
Yet the next month the association announced it had asked Hoffman to investigate potential "collusion
with the Bush administration to promote, support or facilitate the use of 'enhanced' interrogation
techniques by the United States in the war on terror".
Throughout the controversy, the APA has preferred to treat criticism of its involvement in torture,
either from journalists or from human rights-minded psychologists, with dismissal. Its internal investigations
of the criticisms have typically ended up exonerating its members.
"A thorough review of these public materials and our standing policies will clearly demonstrate that
APA will not tolerate psychologist participation in torture," the APA communications chief, Rhea
Farberman, told the Guardian in January 2014, after the Guardian revealed that an APA inquiry declined
to pursue charges against a psychologist involved in the Guantánamo Bay torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani.
The psychologist, former US army reserve major John Leso, took part in a brutal interrogation of
Qahtani, the suspected intended 20th 9/11 hijacker, according to a leaked interrogation log and investigation
by the Senate armed services committee.
Interrogators extensively deprived Qahtani of sleep, forced him to perform what the log called "dog
tricks", inundated him with loud music for extended periods, and forcibly hydrated him intravenously
until he urinated on himself.
"The concern that APA's decision to close the matter against Dr John Leso will set a precedent against
disciplining members who participate in abusive interrogations is utterly unfounded," the APA's Farberman
told the Guardian in January 2014.
Apteryx05 10 Jul 2015 22:05
If these doctors are guilty as alleged, then why aren't Bush, Cheney and the rest of their
cabal of war criminals facing prosecution?
WatchEm 10 Jul 2015 22:04
Just the APA?? Of course elements of their APA membership are torturers - and they know this
only too well. Don't leave out 'psychologists' who are not APA members and get profitable government
contracts to develop 'better ways to torture'...
Add psychiatrists, 'government employees', mercenary profit centers aka 'contractors', police
officers with torture expertise, the alphabet soup of government agencies and purported humans
from the rank of major to general. The latter being directors and instigators of torture where
a number of them were promoted for their efficiency in the finer arts of torture.
At the lower echelons of torture are military cannon fodder who are often assigned blame and have
been known to be prosecuted. Just watch a few tapes of them speaking on camera and it's easy to
see thru them - ranging from just sad to being control freaks. They are what is known as the "few
bad apples" in the barrel full of bad apples.
There is no such thing as an old torturer... Add a few criminal retirees with long track records
of torture and experience of slaughtering men, women and children. They were pulled out of retirement
to show their expertise in the killing, torture and operating death squads - paid for by the US
taxpayer.
Never leave out US 'ambassadors' who magically appear like bees to a honeypot when torture is
in the air - e.g. Negropointe is an example of a US 'torture ambassador' with considerable experience
in the slaughtering, torture and particularly in the rapes of innocent people. His latest skill
set extends to being a diplomat for death squads.
In the Washington swamp there are the legal lemmings specialising in opinions of torture. All
legal opinions are, of course, simply to support the rear ends of policy makers on torture - and
their non-legal opinions violate the Convention against Torture and literally every human rights
and crimes against humanity treaty ever ratified by the USG.
At the top of the pack of cards are the policy makers - Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, the Black Widow
Pianist, Wolfowitz and other self-relevant sickos, plus circa 400-500 of their I'm-very-innocent
sycophants from almost every department of government. They will explain how torture is not torture
- despite a written policy on torture. Needless to say, the travel opportunities of this group
outside US jurisdiction is somewhat restricted.
Not unsurprisingly, US society is marinated in this vermin and some of them are pillars of society
- e.g. college deans et al. Dysfunctional, corrupt and criminal would be an understatement. In
most other nations with a real functioning justice system, most of this swamp with the vermin
of humanity would be in jail cells.
The APA? Hell they are just a segment of a torture regime...
How would we know if they've stopped doing it or not?
rfs2014 -> Slo27 10 Jul 2015 22:03
no, doctors are the worst. it's their job to help people. not so with lawyers.
dakaygees -> Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 22:02
Which US was able to correct it self by condemning torture? You must be living on another planet.
TheBBG 10 Jul 2015 22:01
The Americans need Tony Abbott and his far right wing Liberal-Fascist Party for salvation.
He will show them how to make it legal to torture and illegal to tell anyone about it, first or
second hand.
bobliv -> Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 22:00
Read the White Rabbit by Bruxe Marahall, just a variation on theme.
rfs2014 -> Lex Lozano 10 Jul 2015 22:00
by that logic, you should have no problem with terrorists capturing and torturing american
armed services personnel (whose main goal may be to kill as many terrorists as possible).
the geneva conventions are there for a reason - each side believes it's right, so we need some
basic standards by which to conduct ourselves in times of war. not torturing the other side is
a good place to start.
Athell -> William Brown 10 Jul 2015 21:58
Of course, any fascist surveillance state considers everyone a threat
Athell -> Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 21:57
Ha ha ha true - but I just think he was trying to compare the level of atrocities committed
by the nazis to the one committed by the US government since the Bush years - and perpetuated
by the Obama administration
Athell alverta 10 Jul 2015 21:55
Yeah, that bunch of criminals have evaded justice for many years.
Haynonnynonny 10 Jul 2015 21:55
In the history of humanity, all nations will torture, and fall from good character: only some,
unlike the US teeter there longer, stay there, or go so far off the deep end they end up like
Nazi Germany, or the Soviets. That the US was able to correct its self, and condemn the torture,
and move on, drives many mad.
tomjoadmcalister 10 Jul 2015 21:53
Psychologists are not medical professionals. Why does the Guardian keep mistakenly referring
to them as such? This habitual error casts doubt on the credibility of this and related articles.
en1gm4 -> MondoFundi 10 Jul 2015 21:53
Bingo. Democracy, rule of law etc is just a charade. In reality the rulers of today are no
different than those of years ago. We're just compliant because we have a little version of freedom.
So they keep us happy whilst they do what they want.
Maybe some time in the future justice will prevail but for now nothing is going to happen.
Haynonnynonny kowalli 10 Jul 2015 21:51
The Nazi never water boarded any one. If you get a chance, stop by your local library, and
get a history book.
alverta 10 Jul 2015 21:44
Start with Bush. Cheney, Rummie and Condi first... Add in Wolfie and all who are already signed
on to advise Jebbie.
Mansa Mahmoud gastinel1 10 Jul 2015 21:42
US foreign policy is dictated by US corporate interests. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal,
Germany (prior to WW1) were focused on colonization. Under the colonization model, the European
countries owned the colonized countries and extracted resources and cheap labor to support the
'Home' economy.
America (aside from Okinawa Japan, Phillipinnes, Guam) prefers not to maintain direct control.
Rather america installs puppets; the purpose of the puppets is to make it easy for american companies
to exploit the resources of the proxy (via puppets) controlled nations. During the cold war, the
USSR wasted resources in trying to finance and manage warsaw pact nations. The USSR did it (partially)
for ideological reasons. USA focused on maintaining proxy control and creating access to cheap
resources for american companies. That is the entire premise of globalization.. it enables an
american (by brand only) company to access cheap labor and provides said company with access to
a world of consumers.
Once you understand that fundamental concept, then american foreign policy makes absolute sense.
America is run for the benefit of the big dollar people; nothing less, nothing more. Read the
book "Confessions of a Hit Man".
kowalli 10 Jul 2015 21:39
nazi at the full face. USA are bunch of nazi
William Brown StuartBooth 10 Jul 2015 21:37
The U.S. Government considers its own citizens a threat. That's why they spy.
Brian Lippe 10 Jul 2015 21:37
Typical. They should start with Cheney if they're going to prosecute anyone and spread out
from there. He's still saying it was OK!
StuartBooth 10 Jul 2015 21:34
American Exceptionalism allows Americans carte blanch to commit any crime against foreigners.
Like standing on a cockroach.
Alistair73 10 Jul 2015 21:30
Lets not forget all the commie regimes... Stalin and Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, Kim Jong
Un and his daddy and grand daddy, and now Maduro in Venezuela, Castro in Cuba, Mugabe in Zimbabwe.
You would think the left would embrace state sanctioned torture since it has been relentlessly
practiced by all of its heroes.
camerashy 10 Jul 2015 21:24
Every god damn single one of these psychopaths must prosecuted and put behind bars! No apologies
should be accepted. They're nothing but human scum!
the APA has a code of ethics, modelled after the Hippocratic oath. these psychologists
violated that code of ethics, and then the APA took steps to protect them, at the expense of their
own ethical code. that's the problem, independent of the guilt or innocence of the people tortured.
gastinel1 -> Mansa Mahmoud 10 Jul 2015 21:21
I appreciate what you are saying, however US foreign policy adopted the theme of 'America First'
long before Bush and Cheney. This policy runs counter to its own stated values of freedom and
democracy because it necessitates ensuring compliance from other regimes to American capitalist
aspirations.
confettifoot -> libbyliberal 10 Jul 2015 21:19
It's a hard education. The best among us recoil; it breaks the heart and poisons everything,
knowing. That's the problem. It wasn't so long ago that the Nazis discovered the same - make it
so awful that no one can quite wrap their mind around it, so atrocious that it can't be discussed
at table, so ugly that passing the information feels like assault. Make it very expensive to resist,
make it life-wrecking - someone suggested that we stop paying taxes. That won't catch on. It's
not just America. The world is full of good Nazis, frowning silently into the middle distance.
We're all deploring like crazy in here. Who among is is actually doing something?
photosymbiosis 10 Jul 2015 21:13
One question here - what about the use of psychoactive / neuroleptic drugs in interrogation?
Was that used? I just ask because those few Gitmo detainees seen in public so far have that kind
of nodding dazed drooling expression of the lithium / tricyclic / SSRI victim of excessive drug
treatment - nodding, dazed, stumbling, etc? Have they been doing drug-based interrogation on top
of the waterboarding?
confettifoot -> Jake Wilson 10 Jul 2015 21:11
Pogo. You know. "I have seen the enemy...".
confettifoot -> pogomutt 10 Jul 2015 21:10
I don't want my life purchased by torture. I agree with those who don't believe that it
saves anyone, anyway, but come down to it? I'm radical. Don't want to live in a world in which
torture is"just n case" standard procedure. Sorry. Ends don't justify means. Appeal to self-interest
here is shabby and false.
fairandreasonabletoo 10 Jul 2015 21:06
The spirit of one Doctor Josef Mengele……….found its way to America with all the other NAZI
baggage….
It would seem?
gastinel1 10 Jul 2015 21:05
Its interesting isn't it, how governments justify torture. The Nazis were convinced that they
needed to weed out dissidents and spies by any means possible. When the Allies occupied Germany,
suspected Nazis were also given a very rough time. Those post war interrogators gained a lot of
'useful' experience and that has really formed the basis of postwar interrogation techniques -
human rights be damned.
gastinel1 10 Jul 2015 20:57
They could have saved themselves a bit of money by recruiting NCO's from the British Army who
served in Northern Ireland. They know all the techniques. To be fair to the UK Government, they
did apologise. But then again, why did the UK go back to doing it with the Americans? What values
did they say they are protecting?
CostaParkiMik -> Emily Pulane 10 Jul 2015 20:54
such sincerity ..... while forgetting that your lot were the illegal invading force operating
in the interests of corporations and zionist interests.... who had spent years degrading the public
infrastructure of a sovereign nations causing the deaths of many hundreds and thousands of women,
children the old and the sick.
libbyliberal 10 Jul 2015 20:52
In Jan. 2014 I attended a "World Can't Wait"-sponsored NYC forum on Gitmo and a screening of
"Doctors on the Dark Side" directed by psychologist Martha Davis.
Todd Pierce, who had been a Gitmo prisoner lawyer, said that our society expects professional
people to exhibit high ethical standards. This has not been the case and an alarming number has
colluded with the amoral Bush administration's torture program.
From the film I learned about the horrific tortures some ended by the Obama adm. and SOME NOT
at Gitmo!
Temperature extremes, sensory deprivation, 24 hour flourescent lighting, 24 hour sustained assaultive
noise, solitary confinement, riot squad attacks and punchouts with night sticks, sleep deprivation,
aggressive force feeding, genital mutilation, sexual degradation, threats to kill a prisoner's
family members, manipulation with drugs, stress positions, organ-damaging, bone-breaking sustained
shackling and suspension from vulnerable body parts, withholding of appropriate and timely medical
care, the infamous water boarding, etc. ETCETERA!!!
I also learned that having military personnel present motivated torturers to push torture to nth
degree. Emergency tracheotomies at times had to be conducted on prisoners who had been zealously
waterboarded. In spite of medical personnel present at least 100 prisoners were "inadvertently"
tortured to death. Medical personnel were then pressured to falsify death certificates to cover
up such mistakes.
UK's Andy Worthington spoke of not only the number of wrong place/wrong time innocent men rendered
and tortured but how Obama's promises of release and then betrayals is a spiritual torture that
has resulted in profound despair and even suicides. How the US Congress is heartless about Gitmo,
wanting to posture as tough on terror and Pentagon issues propaganda about recidivism rates to
back them up.
Worthington said Obama has decided to kill people with drones instead of use capture and imprisonment.
Once again, innocent lives are destroyed with this reckless program.
Debra Sweet of WCW said instead of trying to win foreign hearts and minds the US is instead traumatizing
and terrorizing foreign hearts and minds (and radicalizing them) with its draconian detention
and torture programs.
Torture begats false confessions which the Bush administration used to justify its war.
Mitchell and Jenner who reversed the SERE program and set up the advanced interrogation program
Worthington disclosed are now covered by a $5 million defense fund provided by CIA against attempts
at liability and accountability. Mitchell was the one who decided one prisoner be waterboarded
83 times!
creweman 10 Jul 2015 20:50
Who wants to bet that the maximum penalty imposed on any individual will be nothing more than
a slap on the wrist? The United States Of Hypocrisy will see to that.
CostaParkiMik Urgelt 10 Jul 2015 20:47
"....There are no such pressures on the FBI or the Attorney General to do their jobs and enforce
the law....."
I could imagine with white man, intellectual arrogance that they saw it as part of their "mission"
to maintain and spread all that's good and right about the American way and do away with threats
to that mission..... self righteous neo christian nazis.
F H Dar 10 Jul 2015 20:46
21st Centuries truly Savage State, which a 'special relationship' with Britain?
reto 10 Jul 2015 20:44
It's a little like the death penalty... I don't really care what they do to terrorists who
have carried out attacks and killed innocent people but do really hope they only do it to people
who are guilty. What is clear is that the guy who is actually torturing is crazy afterwards. As
for the APA... this organisation is so awash with group think and peudo-expertise I doubt they
have found out anything at all despite their many "experiments". Being a scientist requires a
minimum IQ. Look, if you actually can find out things using torture, why not have it in your arsenal
but experience after 9/11 (see Senate report), the last couple of hundred years and the inquisition
seems to suggest that it doesn't work well for most purposes. Names are just codes these days
and aren't that important anymore in a cell command structure.
BrianHarry 10 Jul 2015 20:24
If medical professionals were coerced into lying about torture after 9/11, it's not to hard
to imagine that the N.I.S.T. report(the official explanation of what happened on 9/11) is also
a lie.
The question is, "Who in government, CIA, FBI, etc, found it necessary to coerce these people
into lying"? And Why?
PamelaKatz JohnML2015 10 Jul 2015 20:15
The APA is currently lobbying the AMA (American Medical Association) and Congress to be
permitted to prescribe and dispense drugs used to treat psychological/psychiatric disorders. Unless
the APA outs every single one of these guys and kicks them out of APA permanently, yanks their
licenses, and gets rid of every member of their Association's Board of Governors who 'covered
up' these ethical breaches, no psychologist should be eligible for insurance reimbursement. Nothing
happens until you hit the pocketbooks of the whole community.
1cjcarpenter 10 Jul 2015 20:14
In my opinion the APA and its members lost the majority of their credibility well before any
CIA involvement. The 1995 Little Rascals day care trials, for a start, showed a degree of irresponsibility
that I would have labeled criminal.
pogomutt 10 Jul 2015 20:13
"Community standards" What a fucking joke. The American Psychological Association came out
with a position paper only a few years back that classified the rape of children by homosexuals
as an "orientation". It's TRUE, Guardian! Live with it!
ID5175635 FancyFootwork 10 Jul 2015 20:00
A bit overboard, don't you think? APA is an organization. Some in that organization may be
guilty of wrongdoing. The vast majority of APA members are psychologists who work in schools,
workplaces, universities, for NASA, the DOD, and other workplaces and have no relationship with
torture in any manner.
Michael Williams 10 Jul 2015 20:00
Right. Blame the doctors. Not the people giving the orders.
When Bush hangs, then we can worry about the doctors.
Barry_Seal franzbonsema 10 Jul 2015 19:57
They have domestic assassination squads and NSA surveillance teams to deal with any prosecutors
who get any funny ideas which might threaten "national security"
Barry_Seal 10 Jul 2015 19:52
The CIA is absolutely untouchable. They are the law and they are the true government of the
USA. They cannot and will not be prosecuted for anything. This is not because they never do anything
illegal; it is because they are the government agency tasked with doing that which is illegal.
This is the true reason why the CIA must necessarily be so secretive - nearly everything they
become involved with is a grave legal and moral crime.
Angelaaaa Brucetopher 10 Jul 2015 19:51
Probably because alcohol, drugs and so-called "truth serums" don't actually deliver the truth.
They just lower inhibitions. As anyone who has listened to chemically-enhanced stream-of-consciousness
rambling will gather. You may get some truth (Grandma smells ... ) but probably no razor-sharp
insights.
Of course, torture doesn't deliver the truth either. Just for other reasons.
The point that no one in power ever wants to acknowledge is that the most reliable way to get
the truth is from someone who really wants to deliver it.
Bankhead 10 Jul 2015 19:50
Is it correct to refer to psychologists as part of the medical community? The writer perhaps
should distinguish between Psychiatrists (medical doctors) and Psychologists (PhDs). As I recall,
the Psychiatric professional association(s) were demonstrably against participation in military
interrogation during the period in question.
Denial, however, is a term familiar to both professions. There is an irony on display here, and
not a small amount of hubris.
Haggala Jeffrey_Harrison 10 Jul 2015 19:40
When the Americans were accused of torture after the world saw the Abu Ghraib images, the American
administration to let themselves off the hook just redefined the terminology.
And that is what humanity does to allow itself to make the same mistakes of the past, it changes
the definition unconsciously mostly but in the Abu Ghraib situation that was a conscious change.
And still GTMO is in operation where there are still untried prisoners being interrogated, where
we may wonder is the beast we fight actually the image in the mirror
Angelaaaa synchronicfusion 10 Jul 2015 19:39
No. It's a fairly straightforward definition of the difference between a psychologist and a
psychiatrist - the terms are not interchangeable.
The difference is important because psychologists want desperately to be acknowledged as "doctors"
(Mengele notwithstanding) - rather than expensive crackpots for the chattering classes. To that
end, their organisations adopt similar ethical commitments. However, unlike psychiatrists, joining
these organisations is voluntary. And even if they kick out a member, that psychologist can still
hang out a shingle and continue counselling, regardless of whether s/he is guilty of government-sanctioned
torture, sleeping with patients or just really bad at the job.
Psychiatrists however, as doctors, can be stripped of the right to practice if they are proven
to be incompetent or unethical.
ro2124 Will D 10 Jul 2015 19:34
Indeed if it was some African dictator Mr Yankee would be screaming for justice!
Still guess we should not be surprised after all the illegal wars, torture, lies, illegal gathering
of information by the NSA and the way their police forces are behaving at the moment gunning down
unarmed people like there was no tomorrow.
The Yanks have absolutely no credibility left whatsoever !!
But, hell when someone exposes the truth like Mr Snowden then they fall over themselves and
scream about justice, etc what a bunch of damn hypocrites!
FancyFootwork 10 Jul 2015 19:30
Finally, those righteous and morally upright men and women, who for a very long time cried
foul very loudly will feel vindicated that an upcoming report by an investigator, who was personally
chosen by the brass of the APA is slated to point fingers at the organization, its leadership
and members.
The report will blast a bombshell, which will be seriously consequential to the livelihood, reputation
and possibly freedom of many in the APA, which includes the elite brass, who where involved with
the Bush Administration by schooling, aiding and abetting its its principal torturing institution:
The CIA
Now the APA will forever be decidedly linked with Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Who can forget the
image of the imprisoned man at Abu Ghraib, kneeling on the floor, hands tied and been stared at
eye level by a barking German Shepherd, which looked ready to bite and sever his head from his
body. The horror displayed by the man was unsettling. How about the image of a hooded person in
a black robe, arms spread, standing to look like enduring crucifixion? And the APA will also be
forever lined with the term WATERBOARDING.
This is an institution that was entrusted to use the science of psychology to safeguard the mental
and psychological health of Americans. Instead, it used its knowledge and power to do to engage
in morally and ethically reprehensible acts of torture.
No doubt, the anticipated report will provide tremendous moral and political boost to those, who
endured years of humiliation, rebuke, ridicule and even threats to their livelihood for opposing
torture in all its forms. They will come back swinging with a swagger, aiming and hoping for a
grand slam. My hope is that, once the necessary number of APA heads are bashed, the momentum will
shift to go after Bush Administration officials Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz,
the former president himself and many other big fish, or small minnows that were involved in the
CIA torture program.
Now, that will be quiet an event bigger in scale to the impeachment of former President Nixon,
who by comparison committed far lesser reprehensible act than George W Bush and cohorts
Ali Kerrouzi 10 Jul 2015 19:27
And then they wander why USA is hated all over the world, Bush's administration is partly responsible
what's happening in Iraq now and Syria, Bush & Blair made our world more dangerous created more
terrorism they get away with it in this life but they will have to answer God on the judgment
day for the blood on their hand, the torture, millions of refugees
IntoOblivion 10 Jul 2015 19:26
Better late than never. Many of us already knew what "enhanced interrogation techniques" really
meant, an euphemism for terrorism. And that "responsible and humane medical practices" were never
compatible with "EIT".
That doesn't mean that the ones who ordered the torture are not the ones we should really blame
and that should face justice. But doctors were also aware of what they were doing.
Bklynite53 10 Jul 2015 19:23
Why do they always go after the bottom feeders first. Time to start at the top and that means
the commander-in - chief.
talenttruth Juan Olmo (MOSAICOS COQUI') 10 Jul 2015 19:19
I HOPE that this is satire. If so, funny. If not . . .
The "war" against terrorism is an INVENTED FANTASY LIE, by the U.S. military industrial complex,
to waste American's money, even beyond the 53% of our ENTIRE national budget going to Eternal
War (and huge eternal profits for the criminals behind the "war industry".)
Yes there are insane "terrorists." And they have insane, sociopathic leaders and lost, borderline
personality "followers." But the American response (all for PROFITS) is to turn everything into
a fear/fear/fear 24/7 "War."
The Republicans are the paid representative of the Eternal War Profits machine.
Having the APA support Bush, or any other criminal who kills hundreds of thousands of people,
just to further enrich themselves, is despicable. And Yichen Hu is partly right, Bush, Cheney,
Halliburton's entire board and a host of other criminals should have been prosecuted for war crimes
years ago.
Theodore Svedberg Laudig 10 Jul 2015 18:58
True psychologists are not physicians. However, there were a number of "real" physicians,
i.e. AMA accredited doctors, that worked at Guantanomo who monitored the health of torture victims
and alerted the interrogators that their subjects were close to death and they did two things:
stopped the torture and then treated the victims back beyond the verge of death. At that point
the torturers could resume their "interrogation". We know this was happening. So far these doctors
names have not been revealed.
If the APA is now cleaning house on their torturer enablers maybe it is about time for the AMA
to start looking into the "real" doctors that were part of this system.
ro2124 Brucetopher 10 Jul 2015 18:57
>Why do elaborate, horrendously painful, cruel and vicious actions need >to be undertaken
No doubt some are sadists and enjoy it and as any real interrogator knows, evidence under torture
is mostly useless. If someone wired up my dangly bits to the mains, I am sure I would confess
anything from eating babies for breakfast to being the best mate of Osama Bin Liner!
and the Yanks still insist on lecturing the rest of us about morals and the "Land of the Free"
and all the other bullshit they like to spout ...but slowly we are seeing what a bunch of hypocrite
F**** they really are!
Littlemissv norecovery 10 Jul 2015 18:51
Here is a comment from JCDavis with some important information:
Russ Tice revealed that the NSA was spying on Obama as early as 2004 at the behest of Dick Cheney,
who had already convinced the NSA's director Hayden to break the law and spy on everyone with
power.
It can't be any coincidence that President Obama went (or was sent) to Bill "Cheney is the
best Republican" Kristol to get his foreign policy validated, and Kristol congratulated him on
it, calling him a "born-again neocon."
And it is no coincidence that Obama has the Cheney protegee Victoria Nuland in his administration,
right in the center of his new cold war with Russia. And no coincidence that she is the wife of
neocon Robert Kagan, who with Bill Kristol founded PNAC. PNAC counts neocon Paul Wolfowitz as
a member, who saw Russia as our main obstacle to world empire.
It's a nest of neocons running Obama as a puppet and pushing us into a confrontation with Russia
while smashing all the Russian allies according to the Wolfowitz doctrine.
Littlemissv -> marydole 10 Jul 2015 18:46
the US and it's partners in crime turn around and say "gee how come all these folks got radicalised
and are out to kill us"?
Everyone should watch Amy Goodman's terrific interview with the 89-year-old, and very wise Lifton.
gtggtg -> IanCPurdie 10 Jul 2015 18:29
"I think you will find the USA has exempted itself from international law, ..."
Yes, and they should be called on it, relentlessly. Law is not law, only tyranny, if one can exempt
oneself from it.
When a Spanish court took on Pinochet and by extension his US partners, this scared the shit out
of powerful people here in the US, much more than has been let on. File charges against the bastards;
demand their appearance; when they refuse to show up, try them in absentia; if found guilty, arrest
them should they ever touch foot in that jurisdiction or wherever there is recognized procedures
for extradition. Keep doing it again and again and again. Eventually it will have an effect, although
it may seem hopeless now.
Regrettably true. The problem began with the notion that putting pharma into bed with academics
would generate miracles, a delusion shared by many neocon governments.
confettifoot Longasyourarm 10 Jul 2015 18:19
No - I read the link. "Learned helplessness" is a thing that's been around since Pavlov, and
is helpful in compassionately understanding depression. It wasn't developed for the military,
and you've taken Seligman's comments wildly out of context. I HATE these bastards, want them out
of the profession - Seligman is very much a pacifist, well-known good guy, actually well out of
the medicalized model, against coercion, opponent to bad stuff in the profession and that's why
I was shocked.
If you have real source that he was hushing up whistleblowers show me and I'll loathe him,
but it would be extraordinarily out of character. Be careful with people's reputations.
frazzerr 10 Jul 2015 18:18
This is great don't get me wrong, they deserve to be jailed and for a considerably long time,
but who oversaw all of the torture and sometimes the torture of innocent people?
He is also responsible for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as a direct reaction to the 9/11
bombing when neither Iraq or Afghanistan had any connections with Al-Qaeda.
I'll never forget his comment, "'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George
go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George,
go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."
When is George W. Bush going to tried for his war crimes?
redpill 10 Jul 2015 18:02
US torture doctors could face charges after report alleges post-9/11 'collusion'
"an independent review revealed that medical professionals lied and covered up their
extensive involvement in post-9/11 torture. The revelation, puncturing years of denials, creates
the potential for leadership firings, loss of licenses and even prosecutions."
The very sad part of this is that they were involved in even a slightest way in torture, not
that they might lose their jobs or prosecuted.They fully deserve to lose their jobs at the very
least.
They are expected to be caring professionals. Obviously not always so, and they've let down most
of their colleagues so very badly, as the majority of them really do care.
KDHymes Pete Street 10 Jul 2015 18:01
Your last paragraph pretty much reveals your true point of view. Know any women in the military?
Bet they'd appreciate your words so much.
You know what? We could argue all day about whether any of this was justified, and as others have
pointed out, your argument is irrelevant because all of it is illegal under both US and international
law. But let's stick with something you might understand: it does not work. Period. Coerced confessions
lead to bad decisions by those who use the information. How's things going for the US and Europe
in the Middle East? Did any of these crimes make a single thing better?
Please enlighten us as to what difference torture made for us. And you'll have to do better than
citing the same discredited cases over and over again. EVERY TIME the government has claimed to
receive useful intel from torture, it has been disproved by those actually in the know. If they
have evidence that is valid, they would surely be presenting it. But no, they don't have that,
because there isn't any, so the only things they can do is lie and hope the first media report
out-shouts the correction.
These people are very very stupid. NGIC is right up the road from me. They continue to have amazing
smug confidence about their work. And yet their work has consistently been poor and misleading.
Same goes for Homeland Security, the CIA, and the NSA. Every time we actually get a look at the
details, it's obvious they don't know what they are doing at all, they're just spending their
budgets, and sometimes indulging their sadism and racist paranoia.
But this has been the case all along with bloated intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Look
at the FBI in the 60s and 70s. It's criminal, but it's also frankly laughable. There's a culture
that builds up of certainty and self-reinforced ideology, and it becomes incapable of thought.
It's worse now, because so much of the intelligence gathering is done from a desk. They know very
little, but pretend they know so much. All that tech and all that spying can't make you smart.
And we're all paying the very high price in dollars and military lives for their willful ignorance.
confettifoot marydole 10 Jul 2015 17:55
That's correct. And we all become good Nazis insofar as we tolerate it - but the average citizen
has very little power against uber-powerful institutions like those that perform these abominations
with our tax dollars. It's an outrage not only against the direct victims, but against every decent
American and the conscience of this country.
IGiveTheWatchToYou 10 Jul 2015 17:52
"Sections of a previously classified CIA document,
made public by the Guardian, empower the agency's director to "approve, modify,
or disapprove all proposals pertaining to human subject research". The leeway provides the director,
who has never in the agency's history been a medical doctor, with significant influence over limitations
the US government sets to preserve safe, humane and ethical procedures on people."
I assume there's a tranche of records waiting to be discovered from US black sites around the
world detailing various unspeakable illegal human experimentation projects with subjects rendered,
I mean kidnapped from a war zone, by the military.
KDHymes Longasyourarm 10 Jul 2015 17:49
Here's an alum who heartily agrees with you. I've watched this pseudo-science play havoc with
family members, generating income and label after label, while ignoring crimes. I worked as a
residential social worker in Ohio for 7 years, with people who were placed in group homes and
apartments after the Athens Mental Health Center was closed. Several were simply slightly eccentric
people whose families had committed them for the sin of inconvenience, or in one case for daring
to stand up to sexual abuse. The "care" was a scandalous mixture of polypharmacology and hideous
punishments. Yeah, it was a while ago, but these folks are still alive, and the "doctors" who
signed off on all of it have never been held accountable, never even been forced to apologize
to them. And these days what we seem to have in the US is, like everything else, multi-tiered
according to class and ethnicity and income. Being weird while poor is a shooting offense. Being
an abusive sociopath while rich gets you a label and a suspended sentence, with the help of well
paid "expert witnesses."
There is no integrity, no real science, behind any of it. Partly this results from the ongoing
fantasy that human behavior can be reduced to chemicals and imaging. But a lot of it has to do
with the profit motive and attendant careerism, with the pharmaceutical industry and the psychotherapeutic
industries smiling hand in hand on the way to the bank.
aardivark 10 Jul 2015 17:49
Stephen Behnke, has a Yale law degree and a psychology Ph.D. from the University of Michigan.
How ominous does that sound?
Mike Casey 10 Jul 2015 17:48
As these build, more and more people will be implicated. The APA, being a private organization
can be held accountable more easily than can government officials. Hopefully this will lead to
prosecution of decision makers within the government. We the people need to make our leaders accountable!
You make me sick to my stomach. Just a few bad apples? Right. Torture is illegal under US law
and our treaty obligations. For the military to conduct it, everybody from the CinC down to the
individual torturer knew that. That's not a few nor were they rogue individuals acting on their
own as you imply. This was systematic abuse of human beings deliberately conducted by the United
States Government aided and abetted by Psychologists. They are scum and should be a total embarrassment
to their profession although transparently the "profession" doesn't see it that way.
Contrary to your assertions, torture was not practiced nor condoned by the US military in the
past and individual service members who tortured, even in the heat of battle, were punished. We
also convicted foreigners who perpetrated the things that these psychologists did of war crimes
after WWII. But never fear! I'm sure Egypt or Libya has an open slot for you in their system.
The leading scumbag in the above story is illustrated in the link. He was instrumental in hiding
and excusing the links between the corrupt APA and the CIA These greedy psychologist parasites
are not physicians, everyone should realize, even though they make No attempt to clear the confusion
that they are medical doctors.
The abject debasement of their own professional standards owes much to this Martin Seligman
who was president of the APA and tried to squelch the whistleblowers.
He should be jailed and tortured by those who have suffered from the application of his crackpot
theories, which he developed by giving electric shocks to dogs. The poor excuse for a university
department that is psychology at Penn should be closed.
TaiChiMinh Pete Street 10 Jul 2015 17:35
Sorry for posting this twice, it was meant as a response to the apologist for US crimes, Pete
Street:
>> The context of this historical period justifies torture not involving death or permanent physical
injury, in order to protect national security at home and abroad. This context we call wartime.
Actually, the UN treaty (signed by the US in 1988 and ratified by the US in 1994) - Convention
against Torture and Other Inhuman and Degrading Acts - specifically rejects the case you are trying
to make, which makes you an apologist for crimes:
"2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal
political stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture."
Nor does US law make an exception for wartime: "18 U.S. Code § 2340A - Torture
(a) Offense.- Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results
to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned
for any term of years or for life. . . .
(c) Conspiracy.- A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject
to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense,
the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy."
Throw the book at them - and the people up to W who designed this criminal enterprise.
Maybe you can come up with an rectal destruction exception? Keep, er, probing . . .
Gegenbeispiel 10 Jul 2015 17:35
Is there way for the International Criminal Court in the Hague to issue arrest warrants against
these people? The US would not, of course, recognise them but it would keep them out of international
professional conferences and make them afraid to ever travel outside the US.
DerekCurrie richy1 10 Jul 2015 16:43
richy: I warned you that 'the masses' aren't prepared to face the treasonous nightmare.
Don't feel bad.
Meanwhile, the proven evidence of the enablement of 9/11 by the Bush League continues to
collect. Hiding from it and hating on it won't change the facts. No looniness or anti-Semite
bad attitude is required to read what really went on that day and thereafter. No clap trap. No
Holocaust denial. No anything denial. Just the facts. Sorry about that.
drew4439 10 Jul 2015 16:41
Witch hunt.. Where are Cheyney, Rumsfeld and Pearl in all this..
MiltonWiltmellow 10 Jul 2015 16:25
In 2004, after the Abu Ghraib torture scandal burst into public view, the emails
detailed a private meeting of APA officials with CIA and military psychologists to "provide
input on how the APA should deal with the growing furor", Risen wrote.
The word "collusion" comes to mind.
Perhaps "criminal conspiracy."
Kudos to those APA members/agitators who forced a reckoning.
As long as the CIA (DoJ) isn't setting up Behnke et al as scapegoats to distract from the
institutional criminality of the Bush administration, this is a great report. One doesn't need
the ethics of the APA to read and understand the Constitutional prohibition against "cruel and
unusual punishment."
Finally a reckoning appears on the horizon.
I hope it isn't a mirage.
These people attacked and harmed America as surely as the terrorists. Their self-proclaimed
virtue and patriotism aren't relevant. (For instance, by their actions, they allow members of
ISIS to argue their atrocities are reprisals.)
Let's see the DoJ and FBI perform their actual duties rather than interdicting terror plots
which they imagine, instigate, finance and then -- with much publicity -- discover and
prevent.
DerekCurrie 10 Jul 2015 16:17
This minor revelation about 9/11 is nothing compared to the Bush League's involvement in
enabling that day and lying their way into the Iraq War, as per the plans of both the Israeli
government and their pawn in the USA: PNAC, Project for the New American Century, run by the
Neo-Con-Jobs. So much of this is out for anyone to read and prove to themselves at least a
critical part of what really happened that day and thereafter. But the masses still aren't
prepared to face that treasonous nightmare.
But if you want to get started!
Here's where scientists and engineers are collecting proven data about the actual 9/11 events.
You won't enjoy it:
I'm almost positive Mitchell and Jessen were members of the APA when they were designing
and selling torture campaigns a decade ago. IIRC, at the time they were vocally supported by
the then-president who also had ties to some of the companies that were monetizing
interrogation techniques.
No longer being members seems irrelevant to the actions the APA has taken over the years
defending the behavior of these two specifically - and the consistent APA defenses of these
practices in general.
John Smith 10 Jul 2015 16:14
OK, this mind come across as a bit cold, but human rights aside, what most amazes me about
this whole sad affair is that the APA didn't brief the US government about what value of intel
can be gained from torture.
Torture has been found to be excellent in extracting confessions: the subject, once deprived
of all hope and having to rely on their torturer for all emotional support and empathy, will
confess to anything. Even shooting Kennedy.
As a means of securing reliable, actual info, it's worse than useless. Subjects will give
answers to please their captors, and avoid pain.
This is widely known. If the APA didn't pass this advice on, they are actually complicit in
undermining the safety and effectiveness of the US intelligence gathering organisations.
The APA would appear to have been caught up in both a blood lust for terrorists, and root and
branch stupidity. What a mess.
sampson01 10 Jul 2015 16:13
The APA chose to be a rubber stamp for the govt, and allow for its members to be there to
reaserch what the boundries were separating 'enhanced interrogation' and torture. Thus using
human subjects being exposed to enhanced interrogation in an experiment to assess if it was in
fact torture. One of the architects of this program (though hadn't renewed his APA membership)
has admitted (proudly on Fox News) that he personally water boarded a prisoner during an
interagation session.
"...So, to recap: corrupt German companies bribed corrupt Greek politicians to buy German weapons.
And then a German chancellor presses for austerity on the Greek people to pay back the loans they took
out (with Germans banks) at massive interest, for the weapons they bought off them in the first place.
"
"...Debt and war are constant partners."
"...And the reason the USA dominated the world after WW2 was they had stayed out of both wars
for the first 2 years and made fortunes lending and selling arms to Britain (and some to the Axis).
It was the Jewish moneylenders of the Middle Ages who financed the various internal European wars, created
the first banks, and along with a Scot formed the Bank of England."
omewhere in a Greek jail, the former defence minister, Akis Tsochatzopoulos, watches the financial
crisis unfold. I wonder how partly responsible he feels? In 2013, Akis (as he is popularly known)
went down for 20 years, finally succumbing to the waves of financial scandal to which his name had
long been associated. For alongside the lavish spending, the houses and the dodgy tax returns, there
was bribery, and it was the €8m appreciation he received from the German arms dealer, Ferrostaal,
for the Greek government's purchase of Type 214 submarines, that sent him to prison.
There is this idea that the Greeks got themselves into this current mess because they paid themselves
too much for doing too little. Well, maybe. But it's not the complete picture. For the Greeks also
got themselves into debt for the oldest reason in the book – one might even argue, for the very reason
that public debt itself was first invented – to raise and support an army. The state's need for quick
money to raise an army is how industrial-scale money lending comes into business (in the face of
the church's historic opposition to usury). Indeed, in the west, one might even stretch to say that
large-scale public debt began as a way to finance military intervention in the Middle East – ie the
crusades. And just as rescuing Jerusalem from the Turks was the justification for massive military
spending in the middle ages, so the fear of Turkey has been the reason given for recent Greek spending.
Along with German subs, the Greeks have bought French frigates, US F16s and German Leopard 2 tanks.
In the 1980s, for example, the Greeks spent an average of 6.2% of their GDP on defence compared with
a European average of 2.9%. In the years following their EU entry, the Greeks were the world's fourth-highest
spenders on conventional weaponry.
So, to recap: corrupt German companies bribed corrupt Greek politicians to buy German weapons.
And then a German chancellor presses for austerity on the Greek people to pay back the loans
they took out (with Germans banks) at massive interest, for the weapons they bought off them in the
first place. Is this an unfair characterisation? A bit. It wasn't just Germany. And there were
many other factors at play in the escalation of Greek debt. But the postwar difference between the
Germans and the Greeks is not the tired stereotype that the former are hardworking and the latter
are lazy, but rather that, among other things, the Germans have, for obvious reasons, been restricted
in their military spending. And they have benefited massively from that.
Debt and war are constant partners. "The global financial crisis was due, at least in part,
to the war," wrote Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, calculating the cost of the US
intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, pre-financial crash, to have been $3tn. Indeed, it was only
this year, back in March, that the UK taxpayer finally paid off the money we borrowed to fight the
first world war. "This is a moment for Britain to be proud of," said George Osborne, as he paid the
final instalment of Ł1.9bn. Really?
The phrase "military-industrial complex" is one of those cliches of 70s leftwing radicalism, but
it was Dwight D Eisenhower, a five-star general no less, who warned against its creeping power in
his final speech as president. "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large
arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even
spiritual – is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the federal government … we
must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved;
so is the very structure of our society." Ike was right.
Speaking to reporters in Washington on Tuesday, Yiannis Bournous, the head of international
affairs for Greece's ruling Syriza party, heartily endorsed defense cuts as a way to meet
the fiscal targets of Greece's international creditors.
"We already proposed a 200 million euro cut in the defense budget," Bournous said at
an event hosted by the Center for Economic Policy and Research and the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation,
referring to cuts in Syriza's most recent proposal to its creditors. "We are willing to
make it even bigger -- it is a pleasure for us."
If the report is correct, ideology is playing just as much of a role as arithmetic in
preventing a resolution. The IMF's refusal to consider a plan that would lessen pension
cuts is consistent with itshistorically neoliberal political philosophy.
Giftedbutlazee 3 Jul 2015 11:52
we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military–industrial complex.
Still as relevant now, 54 years after Eisenhower said it.
BritCol 3 Jul 2015 11:39
And the reason the USA dominated the world after WW2 was they had stayed out of both wars
for the first 2 years and made fortunes lending and selling arms to Britain (and some to the Axis).
It was the Jewish moneylenders of the Middle Ages who financed the various internal European wars,
created the first banks, and along with a Scot formed the Bank of England.
The moral? War makes money for profiteers, and puts those of us not killed or displaced in
debt for generations. Yet we morons keep waving flags every time a prime minister wants to send
us into another conflict.
barry1947brewster 3 Jul 2015 11:39
28 May 2014 The Royal United Services Institute estimated that since the Berlin Wall fell the
UK has spent Ł35 billion on wars. Now it is suggested that we bomb IS in Syria. Instead of printing
"Paid for by the Taxpayer" on medicines provided by the NHS we should have a daily costing of
our expenditure on bombs etc used in anger.
real tic 3 Jul 2015 11:23
Finally someone at Graun looks at this obvious contradiction present in the Greek governments
opposition to cut in defense spending (when they apparently accept cuts to pensions, healthcare
and other social services)! Well done Giles, but what's wrong with your colleagues in CIF, or
even in the glass bubbled editorial offices? Why has it taken so long to examine this aspect of
Greek debt?
Defense expenditure is also one reason some actors in creditor nations are content to keep
Greece in debt, even as far as to see its debts deepen, as long as it keeps on buying. while within
Greece, nationalism within the military has long been a way of containing far right tendencies.
It is notable but unsurprising that the current Minister of Defense in Greece is a far right
politician, allied to Tsipiras in the Syriza coalition.
Pollik 3 Jul 2015 11:03
"Throughout history, debt and war have been constant partners"
"...Neoliberal politicians are well-paid traitors to their own countries and peoples - how much
empathy can be expected of them for anyone else?"
"...When I see expressions like "hard-working" and "sustainable", I stop reading. It is as Orwell
said: ready made plastic expressions rushing in to smother all possibility of an original individual
thought. All this dolt needed to include were "inclusive", "sensitive", "globalised", "aspirational",
"stakeholders", and he would be done."
"...You are quite right about Golden Dawn but I don't think the Troika actually care about
that so much. Its beyond obvious that the Troika care nothing for the Greek population and I think they
would be content with a fascist dictatorship as long as it signs up to austerity."
"...That would not be a bad thing, but I don't think the Euro is seen as an error or a mistake
at all. As Germany has discovered, it is an extremely useful tool in assuring the triumph of greed:
keeping populations poor, unemployed and fearful, so they are more willing to accept the lash of the
markets and agree to bank bailouts, low wages, a diminished social safety-net, trade treaties, etc.,
etc."
The possibility of a Greek exit from the eurozone has never been more likely. We shouldn't be
under any illusions – this would be a catastrophe for Greece's eurozone creditors, the Greek state
and the European Union.
Like it or not, we are all in this together. If we continue on our current trajectory, everyone
stands to lose from what now resembles a reckless, self-destructive standoff. The Greek economy is
on the verge of complete collapse. This would not only be devastating for the people of Greece, it
will guarantee that creditors never see their money again. We must remember that Germany has lent
approximately €80bn. This is an astonishing figure, close to a quarter of Greece's budget for 2016.
Yet the sad irony is, the longer the current impasse continues, the greater pressure Angela Merkel
will face within her own party to reject any solution that is accepted by the Greek government.
But much more is at stake than euros. The world will consider a "Grexit" as a devastating blow
for EU monetary cooperation and the European project. A destabilising Grexit will only be welcomed
by the likes of China, Russia and those who are most threatened by a strong, united European Union.
If Greece is to stay within the eurozone, we need to secure a massive de-escalation of the tensions,
rhetoric and threats from both sides – and fast. It is time for Greece's finance minister Yanis Varoufakis
and the political leaders of the eurozone to come to their senses and bring this crisis back from
the brink.
Prodisestab -> HolyInsurgent 3 Jul 2015 18:26
Neoliberal politicians are well-paid traitors to their own countries and peoples - how
much empathy can be expected of them for anyone else?
Agreed to a good extent. However, when the discussions broke off Friday night, the two sides
were very close regarding the measures that were needed. I believe that they were off by 60 million
euros only. Their differences were mostly about the types of measures to be taken with the Greek
government wanting more taxes on businesses and the creditors wanting more to be paid by ordinary
people. The problem that I have and that a lot of observers have with that is the fact that the
Greek government did compromize quite a lot while the creditors refused to budge from their inflexible
position despite the fact that implementation of their policies during the last five years has
put the country into a depression. A basic premise of "negotiation" is that both sides make compromises
in order to arrive at a mutually beneficial solution. In this case the creditors demonstrated
total lack of flexibility, which clearly indicates alterior motives at least on the part of some
of the creditors. In Germany they have fed their people with all the hate against "lazy Greeks"
etc that clearly shows up in these messages and in that sense they have themselves created a very
negative environment. I believe that about 90% or so of all the loans that have been given to
Greece went back to the creditors. Greece is not looking for handouts here. This must be understood.
This is a debt crisis that has been mishandled and that has span out of control as a result.
Economic terrorism is not justified under any conditions and particularly within the EZ.
LiveitOut 3 Jul 2015 21:45
When I see expressions like "hard-working" and "sustainable", I stop reading.
It is as Orwell said: ready made plastic expressions rushing in to smother all possibility of
an original individual thought.
All this dolt needed to include were "inclusive", "sensitive", "globalised", "aspirational", "stakeholders",
and he would be done.
How odd all this stuff about hardworking families when we are all being screwed to kingdom come
by hard whoring banking gangsters who have never done a second of useful work in their effing
lives --
The Greek economy is on the verge of complete collapse. This would not only be devastating
for the people of Greece, it will guarantee that creditors never see their money again.
The debt has been known to be unpayable for a long time. It has nothing to do with current events
in Greece. It should have been written off.
No one believes anything Alexis Tsipras says anymore, and this is why a yes vote on Sunday
is crucial. But it's also clear eurozone leaders have made mistakes with Greece.
But despite their nonsenses the latter group somehow, mysteriously, retain credibility. It was
not the antics of Tsiparis that brought about this mess but the behaviour of his 'credible' opponents.
Greece and its creditors agree a three-month window to develop a long-term reform programme
combined with an investment package to turn Greece's ailing economy around.
Now you are getting close to the Syriza position.
Let us use this crisis to deliver real, sustainable change by drawing up a settlement in
the next three months in which the Greek state, its government and its administration are paying
back the debts, instead of forcing hard-working citizens to pay the bill.
Is that before or after the twenty-year moratorium on debt implied by the IMF?
From the burning embers of two world wars, we have created a single market with free movement
of people, goods, services and capital.
And the freedom to avoid taxes.
PaleMan -> jonbryce 3 Jul 2015 12:59
You are quite right about Golden Dawn but I don't think the Troika actually care about
that so much.
Its beyond obvious that the Troika care nothing for the Greek population and I think they would
be content with a fascist dictatorship as long as it signs up to austerity.
Danny Sheahan 3 Jul 2015 12:59
No one believes the ECB or the EU leadership anymore.
If they were serious about the Euro as a strong functional currency this mess would not be
so big.
They would not have had to flush out private German and French bad debt in the 2nd bailout
by putting it on the tax payer, or those countries would have had to step in to hep their banks
and political careers would have been over.
The ECB has become a political football and it cannot maintain stability in its currency region.
It is a failed central bank.
Vilos_Cohaagen 3 Jul 2015 12:58
"The Greek economy is on the verge of complete collapse. This would not only be devastating
for the people of Greece, it will guarantee that creditors never see their money again."
The problem is that there's no scenario where the creditors do get paid back. So, why (for
a start) "lend" them 60 billion more Euros? Wiping the debt completely out just means that the
Greeks can start accumulating new "debt" they'll have no intention to re-pay and will be defaulting
on a few years down the line.
BusinessWriter 3 Jul 2015 12:52
it will guarantee that creditors never see their money again.
Crazy - this Guy actually thinks the creditors have any chance of seeing their money again
- what planet is he on.
As for his idea that the Greek state (or any state for that matter that doesn't control its own
currency) can pay of its debt independent of the taxpaying public - it's deluded nonsense.
Where is the Greek state supposed to get the billions of euro from? The only source of revenue
it has is taxes or selling assets that it holds on behalf of the citizens of Greece.
Equally, the idea that the clientelist state is somehow a separate thing to the majority of
the Greek people is nonsense. So many of them are either employed by the state or in professions
protected from competition by the state or in companies that only serve the state. Identifying
anyone who doesn't benefit in some way from the current clientelist state would be like looking
for an ATM in Athens with cash in it on Monday morning.
This Guy is just another symptom of the problem - he offers no sustainable solution - and what
he does offer is incoherent and too late.
fullgrill -> elliot2511 3 Jul 2015 12:51
That would not be a bad thing, but I don't think the Euro is seen as an error or a mistake
at all. As Germany has discovered, it is an extremely useful tool in assuring the triumph of greed:
keeping populations poor, unemployed and fearful, so they are more willing to accept the lash
of the markets and agree to bank bailouts, low wages, a diminished social safety-net, trade treaties,
etc., etc.
whichone 3 Jul 2015 12:50
"Syriza's game is up. No one believes anything Alexis Tsipras says anymore"
well 1) it looks like 50% of the Greeks believe him
2) The IMF (and Merkel in leaked notes) have acknowledged that the debt is unsustainable even
if Greece accept all conditions imposed by the Troika.
Varoufakis has been saying this since the start. So lets no longer pretend that this is all
about getting the money back or that Greece wants to avoid its responsibility to its creditors
: again will say Varoufakis has said the Greek government does not want to do this. The point
is he and many other knowledgeable people (not politicians) know that it can not be paid back
, but with the conditions in place to allow the economy to start to grow then Greece has a chance
to pay some of it back. This is about bringing a Government to heel. I wish the Guardian , having
continually reported on this crisis and knows what has been said allows a contributor to use the
paper as propaganda.
And I hope that all those people who purposely said that a 'NO' vote means a no to Greece in
the Euro and EU after a 'NO' result and surprise surprise Greece is still in the Euro, get thrown
to the Wolves.
The same is goes with the comments about Varoufakis playing Game theory. He denied this basically
saying that those who say this obviously don't know the first thing about Game Theory.
badluc TheSighingDutchman 3 Jul 2015 12:48
Genuine question: correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the electorates of Germany, Netherlands,
Finland etc been consistently fed by most of their politicians (and newspapers) a completely mistaken
"morality tale" about what the root causes of the problems are, blaming inefficient and corrupt
governments who borrowed too much, without mentioning either the reckless lenders (mainly German,
French, Dutch etc banks), were silent about the shifting of the burden of bad lending from the
banks to the EU taxpayers (did they ever acknowledge that clearly?!?), describing the solution
as a punitive austerity which would somehow bring moribund economies back from the abyss, etc?
Politicians have a duty to be frank and sincere with their electorate, sharing with them all the
relevant data they have on a given problem. If they have been feeding them misguided rhetoric,
they have only themselves to blame if the chickens now come home to roost. In other words, if
the electorate would now revolt against the inevitable, don't the politicians of those countries
who have most strongly supported and advocated austerity have only themselves to blame?
SouthSeas 3 Jul 2015 12:48
Germany has lent 80bn to Greece to pay back loans from German banks
RudolphS 3 Jul 2015 12:47
While Verhofstadt calls for a cooling-off period he at the same time claims 'Syriza's game
is up' and is urging the Greek people to vote 'yes' next sunday. With the latter he shows his
true colours as just another Brussels eurocrat, and is only fuelling debate instead of cooling-off.
Dear Mr. Verhofstadt, why the hell do you think the Greek voted en masse for a party like Syriza?
Because they are sick and tired of people like you.
And yes, there much more at stake than a debt. Putin must be watching this whole spectacle
with total bewilderment how the EU is crippling itself from the inside.
Rainborough 3 Jul 2015 12:47
Anyone who is in danger of being impressed by conservative politician Guy Verhofstadt's perspective
on Greek problems might like to bear in mknd that among his numerous other highly lucrative financial
interests is his position on the board of the multi-billion Belgian investment company Sofina,
whose interests include a stake in the highly controversial planned privatization of the Thessaloniki
water utility.
hatewarmongers OscarD 3 Jul 2015 12:46
The neoliberal elite don't
SHappens 3 Jul 2015 12:17
In a democracy people can chose their fate by voting or through referendum. That's the way
it goes but not in Europe where referendum are seen as a danger to the establishment. Tsipras,
as soon as he came to power through a democratic vote was seen as a danger. He was ostracized
and considered a pariah, Greece became a pariah state and they can as well die from hunger.
The EU, and institutions have behaved like the little bullies they are, just like they did
with Switzerland after the vote on immigration, they threat, blackmail everyone who dare think
different.
For the sake of democracy, the Greeks have to vote no, there is no other decent alternatives
especially after all the bashing and disrespect they have been under. Nobody in EU and US (since
they have their say in european affairs) want to see Greece walking away, nor Russia or China
for that matter. But Tsipras had the opportunity to see where his real allies stand, and it is
not within Europe. He might not forget this in the future.
mfederighi 3 Jul 2015 12:09
You are entirely right in suggesting that the only sustainable solution is a far-reaching reform
programme for the Greek state and the reek economy. However, when you say that:
Greece's people must be at the centre of such a settlement. They did not cause this crisis
and remain the victims of successive Greek governments, who have protected vested interests
and the Greek clientelist system at their expense.
You seem to think that vested interest and the reek clientelist system are distinct from the
Greek people. There is, I am afraid, a substantial overlap - that is, quite a few people benefit
from clientelism and are part of vested interests. Not recognising this is disingenuous.
After all, corrupt and inefficient governments have been elected again and again - by whom?
jimmywalter 3 Jul 2015 12:06
The Banks solution is no solution - it means poverty and no taxes to pay to repay. The Banks
want a Treaty of Versailles. We all know of a certain Austrian that rose up to end the German
economic collapse. We all know how that ended. I don't want that again. People revolt over economics.
Spain, Italy, and Greece have huge numbers of unemployeed who did nothing to create this crisis.
The Banks did. Who should pay? Anyway, leave the Euro, stay in the EU!
"...As U.S.-operated drones rain down Hellfire (missiles) on brown-skinned folks not named Smith,
Jones or Thomas, you have to grasp that this too will change. How long can that technology remain under
the exclusive control and purview of the US military "intelligence"?! Maybe a decade, at most? Then
what shall those military death figures look like? . During the post-Berlin Wall "peace dividend" era, our country has spent infinitely more blood, treasure
and prestige on advancing our ability to kill, destroy and incarcerate lives than we have in saving
and improving lives. IMHO, it is nearly inevitable that this misspent era will come home to roost in
unpredictable ways over the next 20-30 years. We can always pivot and change course, but that may have
little or no bearing on what others will do."
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and
lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I
have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation
into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility
in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.
9 Responses to "Global Deaths in Conflict Since the Year 1400"
Saw much of the "Apocalypse WWI" show on The American Heroes Channel recently. 10 million soldiers
killed, 20 million wounded. And then there was the major flu influenza which killed another 30
million in 1918 around the world.
RiverboatGambler: The Thirty Year's War ended in 1648. My guess is that everyone was so disgusted
with the war and its effects that it took a while to work up steam for the next fight. Until fairly
late in the 20th century you'd hear Germans say that something in miserable shape "was just something
the Swedes left." The war was ended when Queen Christina in Sweden decided it had gone on long
enough. She later abdicated and retired to the Vatican, probably concerned for her sole.
World Wars I and II were pretty horrific. The Europeans were pretty damned sick of war by 1945.
The whole EU, political and economic flow from the European revulsion with those two wars.
Dear Riverboat Gambler: You might want to pull out a magnifying glass because the military
deaths are climbing sharply and that's with the latest, greatest (pretty incredible really) medical
advances saving lives that would have been lost just a decade ago. Between that and the apparent
secular nature of these trends seem to fly squarely in the face of your rose-colored perspective.
Care to expound?
Note that the web site that this chart comes from has many other interesting charts Here is
a link to the root of the site: http://ourworldindata.org/
It provides the charts bundled into a set of presentations. Including ones looking at longer term
issues of violet death rates and the like.
Nuclear weapons, the easy way to destroy far away enemies, has been avoided because the various
costs are so very high.
Large scale conventional bombing suffers from inefficiency and bad optics.
Targeted drone assualts make killing foreigners efficient and inexpensive. For example, one
human in the Western world kills one or more specific humans in the not-Western world from across
the globe using radio controlled weapons. No radiation, no flattened obstetricians, increasing
efficiency, and falling cost of technology.
In combination with recent federalization of decision making power, particularly domestic spying
and the non-criminalization of the US government killing its own wayward overseas citizens, I
see a wonderous new era on the horizon.
@nokidding: Your thoughts on the deterrent power associated with nuclear weapons assumes a
fairly rational world populated with fairly rational homo sapien actors. Sounds like science-fiction
to my eyes and ears. I'd welcome you to conduct a 5-10 minute foray using Google or DuckDuckGo
on the topic of nuclear near-misses, accidents, live (untriggered) nuclear warheads falling from
military aircraft, and take your thesis for another spin.
As U.S.-operated drones rain down Hellfire (missiles) on brown-skinned folks not named Smith,
Jones or Thomas, you have to grasp that this too will change. How long can that technology remain
under the exclusive control and purview of the US military "intelligence"?! Maybe a decade, at
most? Then what shall those military death figures look like?
During the post-Berlin Wall "peace dividend" era, our country has spent infinitely more blood,
treasure and prestige on advancing our ability to kill, destroy and incarcerate lives than we
have in saving and improving lives. IMHO, it is nearly inevitable that this misspent era will
come home to roost in unpredictable ways over the next 20-30 years. We can always pivot and change
course, but that may have little or no bearing on what others will do.
Washington has been leading a policy of economic espionage against France for more than a decade
by intercepting communications of the Finance minister and all corporate contracts valued at more
than $200 million, according to a new WikiLeaks report.
The revelations come in line with the ongoing
publications of top secret documents from the US surveillance operations against France, dubbed by
the whistleblowing site "Espionnage
Élysée."
The Monday publications consist of seven top secret documents which detail the American National
Security Agency's (NSA) economic espionage operations against Paris.
According to the WikiLeaks report, "NSA has been tasked with obtaining intelligence on all
aspects of the French economy, from government policy, diplomacy, banking and participation in international
bodies to infrastructural development, business practices and trade activities."
The documents allegedly show that Washington has started spying on the French economic sector
as early as 2002. WikiLeaks said that some documents were authorized for sharing with NSA's Anglophone
partners – the so-called "Five Eyes" group – Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the UK.
The report strongly suggests that the UK has also benefited from the US economic espionage activities
against France.
"The United States not only uses the results of this spying itself, but swaps these intercepts
with the United Kingdom. Do French citizens deserve to know that their country is being taken to
the cleaners by the spies of supposedly allied countries? Mais oui!" said WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange in a statement on Monday.
The documents published on Monday also reveal US spying on the conversations and communications
the French Finance Minister, a French Senator, officials within the Treasury and Economic Policy
Directorate, the French ambassador to the US, and officials with "direct responsibility for EU trade
policy."
The leaked NSA documents reveal internal French deliberation and policy on the World Trade Organization,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the G7 and the G20, the 2013 French budget, the decline
of the automotive industry in France, and the involvement of French companies in the Oil for Food
program in Iraq during the 1990s, the report said.
"The US has been conducting economic espionage against France for more than a decade. Not
only has it spied on the French Finance Minister, it has ordered the interception of every French
company contract or negotiation valued at more than $200 million," said Assange.
"That covers not only all of France's major companies, from BNP Paribas, AXA and Credit
Agricole to Peugeot and Renault, Total and Orange, but it also affects the major French farming
associations. $200 million is roughly 3,000 French jobs. Hundreds of such contracts are signed
every year."
On June 23, WikiLeaks announced a plan to reveal a new collection of reports and documents on
the NSA, concerning its alleged interception of communications within the French government over
the last ten years.
In the first tranche of leaked documents WikiLeaks claimed that NSA targeted high-level officials
in Paris including French presidents Francois Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac, as well
as cabinet ministers and the French Ambassador to the US.
Despite the tapping claims made by WikiLeaks, US President Barack Obama has assured his French
counterpart Francois Hollande that Washington hasn't been spying on Paris top officials.
Hollande, on his part, released a statement saying that the spying is "unacceptable" and "France
will not tolerate it."
It's not the first time that the NSA has been revealed to be spying on European leaders. According
to documents leaked by Edward Snowden and published at the end of 2013 the US intelligence agency
had previously targeted the phone of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The tapping scandal is
believed to have created a rift between Washington and Berlin.
The US collects the information through spy operations regardless of its sensitivity, as it has
the ability to do so, Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst told RT.
"It's hard to be surprised by any revelations of this kind," he said. "The snooping
is conducted because it's possible to conduct it. In a new way we have a technical collection
on steroids. The President of the US said that just because we can collect this material, doesn't
mean we should. The thing has a momentum, an inertia of its own. Since about ten years ago it
has become possible to collect everything, and that's precisely what we're doing."
Deeper down the rabbit hole of US-backed color revolutions.
by Tony Cartalucci
Believe it or not, the US State Department's
mission statement actually says
the following:
"Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping
to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states
that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within
the international system."
A far and treasonous cry
from the original purpose of the State Department - which was to maintain communications and
formal relations with foreign countries - and a radical departure from historical norms that have
defined foreign ministries throughout the world, it could just as well now be called the "Department
of Imperial Expansion." Because indeed, that is its primary purpose now, the expansion of Anglo-American
corporate hegemony worldwide under the guise of "democracy" and "human rights."
That a US government department should state its goal as to build a world of "well-governed states"
within the "international system" betrays not only America's sovereignty but the sovereignty of all
nations entangled by this offensive mission statement and its execution.
Image: While the US State Department's mission statement sounds benign or even progressive,
when the term "international system" or "world order" is used, it is referring to a concept commonly
referred to by the actual policy makers that hand politicians their talking points, that involves
modern day empire. Kagan's quote came from
a 1997
policy paper describing a policy to contain China with.
....
The illegitimacy of the current US State Department fits in well with the overall Constitution-circumventing
empire that the American Republic has degenerated into. The current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,
gives a daily affirmation of this illegitimacy every time she bellies up to the podium to make a
statement.
Recently she issued a dangerously
irresponsible "warning" to Venezuela and Bolivia regarding their stately relations with Iran.
While America has the right to mediate its own associations with foreign nations, one is confounded
trying to understand what gives America the right to dictate such associations to other sovereign
nations. Of course, the self-declared imperial mandate the US State Department bestowed upon itself
brings such "warnings" into perspective with the realization that the globalists view no nation as
sovereign and all nations beholden to their unipolar "international system."
It's hard to deny the US State Department is not behind the
"color revolutions" sweeping the world when the Secretary of
State herself phones in during the
youth movement confabs
her department sponsors on
a yearly basis.
If only the US State Department's meddling was confined to hubris-filled statements given behind
podiums attempting to fulfill outlandish mission statements, we could all rest easier. However, the
US State Department actively bolsters its meddling rhetoric with very real measures. The centerpiece
of this meddling is the vast and ever-expanding network being built to recruit, train, and support
various "color revolutions" worldwide. While the corporate owned media attempts to portray the various
revolutions consuming Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and now Northern Africa and the Middle East
as indigenous, spontaneous, and organic, the reality is that these protesters represent what may
be considered a "fifth-branch" of US power projection.
CANVAS: Freedom House,
IRI, Soros funded Serbian color revolution
college behind the Orange, Rose, Tunisian, Burmese, and Egyptian protests
and has trained protesters from 50 other countries.
As with the army and CIA that fulfilled this role before, the US State Department's "fifth-branch"
runs a recruiting and coordinating center known as the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM). Hardly
a secretive operation, its website,
Movements.org proudly lists
the details of its annual summits which began in 2008 and featured astro-turf cannon fodder from
Venezuela to Iran, and even the April 6 Youth Movement from Egypt. The summits, activities, and coordination
AYM provides is but a nexus. Other training arms include the US created and funded
CANVAS
of Serbia, which in turn trained color-coup leaders from the
Ukraine and Georgia, to
Tunisia and Egypt, including the previously mentioned
April 6
Movement. There is also the
Albert Einstein Institute which produced the very curriculum and techniques employed by CANVAS.
As
previously noted, these organizations are now retroactively trying to obfuscate their connections
to the State Department and the Fortune 500 corporations that use them to achieve their goals of
expansion overseas. CANVAS has renamed and moved their list of supporters and partners while AYM
has oafishly changed their "partnerships" to "past partnerships."
Before
& After: Oafish attempts to downplay US State Department's extra-legal
meddling and subterfuge in foreign affairs. Other attempts are
covered here.
It should be noted that while George Soros is portrayed as being "left," and the overall function
of these pro-democracy, pro-human rights organizations appears to be "left-leaning," a
vast number of notorious "Neo-Cons" also constitute the commanding ranks and determine the overall
agenda of this color revolution army.
Then there are legislative acts of Congress that overtly fund the subversive objectives of the
US State Department. In support of regime change in Iran, the
Iran
Freedom and Support Act was passed in 2006. More recently in 2011, to see the US-staged color
revolution in Egypt through to the end,
money was
appropriated to "support" favored Egyptian opposition groups ahead of national elections.
Then of course there is the State Department's propaganda machines. While organizations like NED
and Freedom House produce volumes of talking points in support for their various on-going operations,
the specific outlets currently used by the State Department fall under the
Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG). They include Voice of America,
Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia,
Alhurra, and
Radio Sawa. Interestingly enough,
the current Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton sits on the board of governors herself, along side a shameful collection
of representatives from the Fortune 500, the corporate owned media, and various agencies within the
US government.
Hillary Clinton: color revolutionary field marshal & propagandist,
two current roles that defy her duties as Secretary of State in any
rational sense or interpretation.
Getting back to Hillary Clinton's illegitimate threat
regarding Venezuela's associations with Iran, no one should be surprised to find out an extensive
effort to foment a color revolution to oust Hugo Chavez has been long underway by AYM, Freedom House,
NED, and the rest of this "fifth-branch" of globalist power projection. In fact, Hugo Chavez had
already weathered an attempted military coup overtly orchestrated by the United States under Bush
in 2002.
Upon digging into the characters behind Chavez' ousting in 2002, it
appears that this documentary sorely understates US involvement.
The same forces of corporatism, privatization, and free-trade that led the 2002 coup against Chavez
are trying to gain ground once again. Under the leadership of Harvard trained globalist minion
Leopoldo Lopez, witless youth are taking the place of 2002's generals and tank columns in an
attempt to match globalist minion
Mohamed ElBaradei's success in Egypt.
Unsurprisingly, the US State Department's AYM is pro-Venezuelan
opposition, and
describes in great detail their campaign to "educate" the youth and get them politically active.
Dismayed by Chavez' moves to consolidate his power and strangely repulsed by his "rule by decree,"
-something that Washington itself has set the standard for-
AYM laments over the difficulties their meddling "civil society" faces.
Chavez' government recognized the US State Department's meddling recently in regards to a
student hunger strike and the US's insistence that the Inter-American Human Rights Commission
be allowed to "inspect" alleged violations under the Chavez government. Venezuelan Foreign Minister
Nicolás Maduro even went as far as saying, "It looks like they (U.S.) want to start a virtual Egypt."
The
"Fifth-Branch" Invasion: Click for larger image.
Understanding this "fifth-branch" invasion of astro-turf cannon fodder and the role it is playing
in overturning foreign governments and despoiling nation sovereignty on a global scale is an essential
step in ceasing the Anglo-American imperial machine. And of course, as always,
boycotting
and replacing the corporations behind the creation and expansion of these color-revolutions hinders
not only the spread of their empire overseas, but releases the stranglehold of dominion they possess
at home in the United States. Perhaps then the US State Department can once again go back to representing
the American Republic and its people to the rest of the world as a responsible nation that respects
real human rights and sovereignty both at home and abroad.
Editor's Note: This article has been edited and updated October 26, 2012.
Looks like there was no US war or color revolution Senator McCain did not like. Doe he tries to
position himself to the right of Dick Cheney ;-), I like his statement that "might does not make
right":
"...We face the reality of a challenge that many assumed was resigned to the history books: a
strong, militarily capable state that is hostile to our interests and our values and seeks to
overturn the rules-based international order that American leaders of both parties have sought to
maintain since World War II. Among the core principles of that order is the conviction that
might does not make right, that the strong should not be allowed to dominate the weak and that wars
of aggression should be relegated to the bloody past. "
What a bloody hypocrite he is... He probably forgot Vietnam, Chili, Nicaragua, Panama,
Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria military adventures due to old age senility. And it was actually
State Department and personally Victoria Nuland of "nulnadgate (aka F*ck EU") fame, who was the key
instigator of civil war in Ukraine. So this is a classic "The pot calling the kettle
black" situation.
Last weekend, I traveled with Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to eastern
Ukraine to meet with the courageous men and women fighting there for their country's freedom and
future. I arrived on a solemn day as Ukrainian volunteers grieved the loss of two young comrades
killed by Russian artillery the day before. They had lost another comrade a few days before that,
and four more the previous week. Their message to me was clear: The cease-fire with Russia is fiction,
and U.S. assistance is vital to deterring further Russian aggression.
Along the front lines, separatist forces backed by Russia violate the cease-fire every day with
heavy artillery barrages and tank attacks. Gunbattles are a daily routine, and communities at the
front bear the brunt of constant sniper fire and nightly skirmishes.
Yet while these low-level cease-fire violations have occurred regularly since the Minsk agreement
was signed in February, Ukrainian battalion commanders said the number of Grad rocket strikes and
incidents of intense artillery shelling are increasing. Their reports suggest that the separatists
have moved their heavy weapons and equipment back to the front lines hoping to escalate the situation.
So far, Ukrainian armed forces supported by volunteer battalions have been able to hold their ground,
and they have done so largely without the support of Ukrainian artillery and tanks that have been
pulled back from the front as stipulated by the Minsk agreement. How long can we expect these brave
Ukrainians to abide by an agreement that Russia has clearly ignored?
It is time that the United States and our European allies recognize the failure of the Minsk agreement
and respond with more than empty rhetoric. Ukraine's leaders describe Russian President Vladimir
Putin's strategy as a game of "Pac-Man" - taking bite after bite out of Ukraine in small enough portions
that it does not trigger a large-scale international response. But at this point it should be clear
to all that Putin does not want a diplomatic solution to the conflict. He wants to dominate Ukraine,
along with Russia's other neighbors.
No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War. But we must recognize that we are confronting
a Russian ruler who seeks exactly that. It is time for U.S. strategy to adjust to the reality of
a revanchist Russia with a modernized military that is willing to use force not as a last resort,
but as a primary tool to achieve its neo-imperial objectives. We must do more to deter Russia by
increasing the military costs of its aggression, starting with the immediate provision of the defensive
weapons and other assistance the Ukrainians desperately need.
President Obama has wrongly argued that providing Ukraine with the assistance and equipment it
needs to defend itself would only provoke Russia. Putin needed no provocation to invade Ukraine and
annex Crimea. Rather, it is the weakness of the collective U.S. and European response that provokes
the very aggression we seek to avoid. Of course, there is no military solution in Ukraine, but there
is a clear military dimension to achieving a political solution. If Ukrainians are given the assistance
they need and the military cost is raised for the Russian forces that have invaded their country,
Putin will be forced to determine how long he can sustain a war he tells his people is not happening.
I urge anyone who sees Ukraine's fight against a more advanced Russian military as hopeless to
travel to meet those fighting and dying to protect their homeland. These men and women have not backed
down, and they will continue to fight for their country with or without the U.S. support they need
and deserve.
During my trip, the Ukrainians never asked for the United States to send troops to do their fighting.
Ukrainians only hope that the United States will once again open the arsenal of democracy that has
allowed free people to defend themselves so many times before.
How we respond to Putin's brazen aggression will have repercussions far beyond Ukraine. We face
the reality of a challenge that many assumed was resigned to the history books: a strong, militarily
capable state that is hostile to our interests and our values and seeks to overturn the rules-based
international order that American leaders of both parties have sought to maintain since World War
II. Among the core principles of that order is the conviction that might does not make right, that
the strong should not be allowed to dominate the weak and that wars of aggression should be relegated
to the bloody past.
Around the world, friend and foe alike are watching to see whether the United States will once
again summon its power and influence to defend the international system that has kept the peace for
decades. We must not fail this test.
With intra-Europe relations hitting a new all-time low; and, having already been busted spying
on Merkel, Obama got caught with his hand in Hollande's cookie jar this week, the following exultation
from one of Germany's top politicians will hardly help Washington-Brussells relations.
As Russia Insider notes, Oskar Lafontaine is a major force in German politics so it caught people's
attention when he excoriated Ash Carter and Victoria Nuland on his Facebook page yesterday...
"Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering
US imperialism... F*ck US imperialism!"
Here is the Facebook post (in German):
Lafontaine has been an outsized figure in German politics since the mid-70s.
He was chairman of the SPD (one of Germany's two main parties) for four years, the SPD's candidate
for chancellor in 1990, minister of finance for two years, and then chairman of the Left party in
the 2000s. He is married to Sarah Wagenknecht, political heavyweight, who is currently co-chairman
of Left party.
Lafontaine's outburst came a day after his wife, Sarah Wagenknecht, blasted Merkel's Russia
policy in an interview on RT.
Here is the full translation of the post:
"The US 'Defense' secretary, i.e., war minister is in Berlin. He called on Europe
to counter Russian 'aggression'. But in fact, it is US aggression which Europeans should
be opposing.
"The Grandmaster of US diplomacy, George Kennan described the eastward expansion of NATO as
the biggest US foreign policy mistake since WW2, because it will lead to a new cold war.
"The US diplomat Victoria Nuland said we have spent $5 billion to destabilize the Ukraine.
They stoke the flames ever higher, and Europe pays for it with lower trade and lost jobs.
"Nuland says 'F*ck the EU'. We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering
US imperialism.
"F*ck US imperialism!"
* * *
When he comes out swinging this way, you know something is changing.
* * *
America - making friends and influencing people for 238 years...
remain calm
I see the CIA creating a little muslim terrorism in Europe to teach them the meaning of respect.
To date, the USSA adventurism in the Ukraine has hurt Germany financially and politically,
with more losses to follow.
Instead of integrating more closely with Russia, and becoming a key part of the New Silk Road,
Germany is blocked by the USSA, against her better interests. The USSA is creating a new berlin
style wall of lies and propaganda between Russia and Germany claiming that Russia plans to invade
the baltics, poland, moldova, blah, blah, blah.
Fortunately, most Germans are not anti intellectuals, and see through the lies, unlike the
average american shlub (30% of whom cannot name the current VP but know all of the names of the
Kardashians). Eventually, Merkel will get the boot, and be replaced by a more businesslike leader.
Not Too Important
30% is pretty generous, don't you think? More like 3%.
Even an aborigine in the middle of Africa with a cell phone knows more about the world than
97% of Americans.
Tall Tom
Fuck American Imperialism?
Actually it is GERMAN Imperialism over the nation states of Europe, using the European Union
as a subterfuge, is that which needs be quashed.
Fuck GERMAN Imperialism and the European Union as it serves as a tool for the advancement of
Germany's Imperialistic ambitions..
saveandsound
Oscar Lafontaine is member of the party "The Left". He used to be member of the "Social Democratic
Party of Germany".
Both parties are of rather marginal significance, since Merkel's CDU rules them all. ;-)
Anyway, "the Left" has been opposing US Imperialism ever since, so there is not much new to
see here.
that won't help and no more false flags will help either. The latest poll showed that only
19% of Germans would fight Russians in case Russia attacked any NATO country. I repeat: if Russia
attacked first. You can wonder, what would be the percentage of them willing to fight Russia just
for the sake of Ukraine. Close to zero, I think. The USA overstepped all boundaries, when it began
pushing EU countries into a military conflict with Russia. Continental Europeans are not Anglo-Saxons,
they think differently. They will bow down to any USA pressure, except for a military conflict
with Russia! Thats a big no no. Many of them still remember (especially Germans), what it was
like to fight wild-spirited Russians, who never surrender no matter what. These constant talks
about "Russian agression" by the USA politicians make Germans feel like a cornered animal with
nothing to loose. Such animal cannot be subdued anymore, when your existence and life is so directly
threatened, you bite. Or another example: try to force your slave to step on a rattlesnake. He
may be forced to do many things, but this time he will turn against you. I already said it before:
no war against Russia and Europe is possible, because even if the USA somehow forces us to any
such war, huge amounts of people will be so angry that they will flee to the side of Russia. We
are already discussing this openly. This is already happening in Ukraine. Already 10 000 Ukranian
soldiers defected to the other side (to fight Kiev), plus one Ukrainian general, some members
of the Ukranian intelligence service and about one and half million Ukrainians fled to Russia
to avoid draft. I saw a video where three entire units of soldiers sent from Kiev to Donetsk (with
tanks) changed side, threw out Ukrainian flags and put on Russian flags on their tanks under loud
cheers from the brave people of Donbass. There are certain very natural limits to what you
can force people to do, which bankers do not seem to understand. Yes, you can send many people
to war, but they simply will not fight, unless you give them something to fight for. For example
Hitler gave people something to fight for. But all bankers give us is chaos, no strong leader,
no ideology strong enough....I think they hoped that Putin would invade Ukraine and that would
be the reason for war (they provoked Hitler in a similar way). However, Putin is no Hitler, he
is way too intelligent to play these silly games. And it is impossible to repeat exactly what
was once so successful, because times change, people are different....you cant win with using
old outdated strategies over and over. That is why all empires fall in the end. They get stuck
in using the same tricks over and over, until they stop working. Even the old color revolutions
are not as efficient now as they were in the past and the same goes for those silly false flags.
cherry picker
He is absolutely correct. US is surrounded by two oceans and the North and South neighbor have
no intentions of invading the USA, so can anyone explain this war time nuclear, wmd, too many
carriers and so forth military and paranoia.
Can't uncle Sam keep his huge nose out of everyone's business?
Can't America just enjoy what is theirs and leave others alone?
Who needs a CIA except for Nazi types.
Fuck Nuland is a good start.
Albertarocks
And the neighbors to the north and south are non-too-pleased with the USA either. We know WTF
the USA is doing, although more and more are waking up to the fact that the USA is only being
used as the war branch of the banking mafia. Because of this we hold nothing against American
people.
In fact, up north we now probably feel more kinship with "the people" of the USA more than
ever before. Because we are learning how all this works. It is the global banking monsters and
the fascist corporations, the military industrial complex that is in bed with the fucking bankers.
It is those assholes who are causing every damned war in the world... not "the USA" as such. Putin
is a saint by comparison... not to mention the only sane leader of a superpower left on earth.
He is admirable, even from this side of the pond.
Mexicans might present a problem, I don't know. Mexicans never bother Canadians so we just
don't seem to have an opinion. Canadians are pretty calm, but fuck when we get mad there can be
one hell of a bar fight. I don't know how all this works out but it isn't going in the right direction.
I think 98% of Canadians would agree with Mr. Lafontaine. US Imperialism has got to come to an
end. Or the world will. And by "US", I mean "banker".
We need need an EU foreign policy that stops warmongering US imperialism... F*ck US imperialism!"
You know what the problem is?
It's not particularly the US, though they are the biggest players at the moment. It's the result
of the end of the Cold War.
Ever since WW2 the power blocs both had a big military and supporting intelligence service.
When the Berlin Wall came down, the Russians collapsed theirs. The West did not. And ever since
then it has been looking for a job. That's the reason we have had so much disruption. When your
major arm of government is a multi-trillion dollar armed forces, every problem looks like an excuse
for a war.
It is the imperialism of the Anglo-Zionist cabal which has hijacked the American treasury and
military.
Neocons, Interventionist "realists" and other assorted militarist scum.
Their control of the MSM is sound {they even acquired VICE News as that got too popular, and
Orwellized it, beginning with the Zionist sent to fake stories out of Ukraine}...
but not the internet. As younger people grow up, post comments and articles, this cleft between
the pre-internet and internet informed grows more and more obvious.
I'm sure I'm not the only one that expects aggressive moves against intent content.
We've seen some attacks on free speech already in the Fast Track bill - but it will take time
to really see how bad the TPP itself is in practice.
But it does seem clear that .gov is hoping to make an end run around various Constitutional
niceties by "treaty."
and no - treaties do not and can not over-ride the Constitution. Only amendment, not treaty,
can change the constitution.
... and while the US forces the other NATO members to apply more sanctions to Russia, US hypocrisy
rears its ugly head by 'allowing' products from sanctioned Russia that would benefit them ...
check this out
As someone who actually lives in Germany i can tell you that Lafontaine is an absolute has-been
and he plays no role in German politics, nor has he for years. His influence came to an end when
Schroeder kicked him out of his government over 15 years ago. To claim he is a heavyweight is
simply dead wrong.
Wagenknecht does play a certain role, but the Left is a pure protest party full of fundamentalist
hardline social democrats and former East German communists. The Left has no say on federal government
matters such as foreign policy. This post is pure alarmism.
Wild E Coyote
Actually US and Soviet Union both went bankrupt by Cold War.
Soviet Union accepted their fate.
USA still refuse to accept theirs.
Renfield
Upvoted, but I think technically it was Vietnam that bankrupted the US.
Then again, you could argue that it was the First World War, or the 1929 market crash -- although
its bankruptcy wasn't admitted until 1933.
Deeper down the rabbit hole of US-backed color revolutions.
by Tony Cartalucci
Believe it or not, the US State Department's
mission statement actually says
the following:
"Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping
to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states
that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within
the international system."
A far and treasonous cry
from the original purpose of the State Department - which was to maintain communications and
formal relations with foreign countries - and a radical departure from historical norms that have
defined foreign ministries throughout the world, it could just as well now be called the "Department
of Imperial Expansion." Because indeed, that is its primary purpose now, the expansion of Anglo-American
corporate hegemony worldwide under the guise of "democracy" and "human rights."
That a US government department should state its goal as to build a world of "well-governed states"
within the "international system" betrays not only America's sovereignty but the sovereignty of all
nations entangled by this offensive mission statement and its execution.
Image: While the US State Department's mission statement sounds benign or even progressive,
when the term "international system" or "world order" is used, it is referring to a concept commonly
referred to by the actual policy makers that hand politicians their talking points, that involves
modern day empire. Kagan's quote came from
a 1997
policy paper describing a policy to contain China with.
....
The illegitimacy of the current US State Department fits in well with the overall Constitution-circumventing
empire that the American Republic has degenerated into. The current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,
gives a daily affirmation of this illegitimacy every time she bellies up to the podium to make a
statement.
Recently she issued a dangerously
irresponsible "warning" to Venezuela and Bolivia regarding their stately relations with Iran.
While America has the right to mediate its own associations with foreign nations, one is confounded
trying to understand what gives America the right to dictate such associations to other sovereign
nations. Of course, the self-declared imperial mandate the US State Department bestowed upon itself
brings such "warnings" into perspective with the realization that the globalists view no nation as
sovereign and all nations beholden to their unipolar "international system."
It's hard to deny the US State Department is not behind the
"color revolutions" sweeping the world when the Secretary of
State herself phones in during the
youth movement confabs
her department sponsors on
a yearly basis.
If only the US State Department's meddling was confined to hubris-filled statements given behind
podiums attempting to fulfill outlandish mission statements, we could all rest easier. However, the
US State Department actively bolsters its meddling rhetoric with very real measures. The centerpiece
of this meddling is the vast and ever-expanding network being built to recruit, train, and support
various "color revolutions" worldwide. While the corporate owned media attempts to portray the various
revolutions consuming Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, and now Northern Africa and the Middle East
as indigenous, spontaneous, and organic, the reality is that these protesters represent what may
be considered a "fifth-branch" of US power projection.
CANVAS: Freedom House,
IRI, Soros funded Serbian color revolution
college behind the Orange, Rose, Tunisian, Burmese, and Egyptian protests
and has trained protesters from 50 other countries.
As with the army and CIA that fulfilled this role before, the US State Department's "fifth-branch"
runs a recruiting and coordinating center known as the Alliance of Youth Movements (AYM). Hardly
a secretive operation, its website,
Movements.org proudly lists
the details of its annual summits which began in 2008 and featured astro-turf cannon fodder from
Venezuela to Iran, and even the April 6 Youth Movement from Egypt. The summits, activities, and coordination
AYM provides is but a nexus. Other training arms include the US created and funded
CANVAS
of Serbia, which in turn trained color-coup leaders from the
Ukraine and Georgia, to
Tunisia and Egypt, including the previously mentioned
April 6
Movement. There is also the
Albert Einstein Institute which produced the very curriculum and techniques employed by CANVAS.
As
previously noted, these organizations are now retroactively trying to obfuscate their connections
to the State Department and the Fortune 500 corporations that use them to achieve their goals of
expansion overseas. CANVAS has renamed and moved their list of supporters and partners while AYM
has oafishly changed their "partnerships" to "past partnerships."
Before
& After: Oafish attempts to downplay US State Department's extra-legal
meddling and subterfuge in foreign affairs. Other attempts are
covered here.
It should be noted that while George Soros is portrayed as being "left," and the overall function
of these pro-democracy, pro-human rights organizations appears to be "left-leaning," a
vast number of notorious "Neo-Cons" also constitute the commanding ranks and determine the overall
agenda of this color revolution army.
Then there are legislative acts of Congress that overtly fund the subversive objectives of the
US State Department. In support of regime change in Iran, the
Iran
Freedom and Support Act was passed in 2006. More recently in 2011, to see the US-staged color
revolution in Egypt through to the end,
money was
appropriated to "support" favored Egyptian opposition groups ahead of national elections.
Then of course there is the State Department's propaganda machines. While organizations like NED
and Freedom House produce volumes of talking points in support for their various on-going operations,
the specific outlets currently used by the State Department fall under the
Broadcasting Board of Governors
(BBG). They include Voice of America,
Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia,
Alhurra, and
Radio Sawa. Interestingly enough,
the current Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton sits on the board of governors herself, along side a shameful collection
of representatives from the Fortune 500, the corporate owned media, and various agencies within the
US government.
Hillary Clinton: color revolutionary field marshal & propagandist,
two current roles that defy her duties as Secretary of State in any
rational sense or interpretation.
Getting back to Hillary Clinton's illegitimate threat
regarding Venezuela's associations with Iran, no one should be surprised to find out an extensive
effort to foment a color revolution to oust Hugo Chavez has been long underway by AYM, Freedom House,
NED, and the rest of this "fifth-branch" of globalist power projection. In fact, Hugo Chavez had
already weathered an attempted military coup overtly orchestrated by the United States under Bush
in 2002.
Upon digging into the characters behind Chavez' ousting in 2002, it
appears that this documentary sorely understates US involvement.
The same forces of corporatism, privatization, and free-trade that led the 2002 coup against Chavez
are trying to gain ground once again. Under the leadership of Harvard trained globalist minion
Leopoldo Lopez, witless youth are taking the place of 2002's generals and tank columns in an
attempt to match globalist minion
Mohamed ElBaradei's success in Egypt.
Unsurprisingly, the US State Department's AYM is pro-Venezuelan
opposition, and
describes in great detail their campaign to "educate" the youth and get them politically active.
Dismayed by Chavez' moves to consolidate his power and strangely repulsed by his "rule by decree,"
-something that Washington itself has set the standard for-
AYM laments over the difficulties their meddling "civil society" faces.
Chavez' government recognized the US State Department's meddling recently in regards to a
student hunger strike and the US's insistence that the Inter-American Human Rights Commission
be allowed to "inspect" alleged violations under the Chavez government. Venezuelan Foreign Minister
Nicolás Maduro even went as far as saying, "It looks like they (U.S.) want to start a virtual Egypt."
The
"Fifth-Branch" Invasion: Click for larger image.
Understanding this "fifth-branch" invasion of astro-turf cannon fodder and the role it is playing
in overturning foreign governments and despoiling nation sovereignty on a global scale is an essential
step in ceasing the Anglo-American imperial machine. And of course, as always,
boycotting
and replacing the corporations behind the creation and expansion of these color-revolutions hinders
not only the spread of their empire overseas, but releases the stranglehold of dominion they possess
at home in the United States. Perhaps then the US State Department can once again go back to representing
the American Republic and its people to the rest of the world as a responsible nation that respects
real human rights and sovereignty both at home and abroad.
Editor's Note: This article has been edited and updated October 26, 2012.
"...Let's just call it what it is. Mind rape." . "...'The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the less possible will it become
to have reasonable online discussions.' Which is the exact purpose of trolling, ever since the
internet became an alternate way of communication to gain awareness about issues TPTB/MSM would prefer
to bury, hide, distort, confuse, manipulate, lie, detract, deflect, digress, warp or deviate. GCHQ/NSA/Mossad
et al have elevated trolling to a professional level, with special budgets and official programs attached
to MILINT and foreign offices working 24/7 to advance their plans and take advantage of people's ignorance
and naivete about the internet world. It's the hasbara operatives multiplied exponentially to perpetuate
ignorance and confusion among the masses. " . "...It is unlikely that the British GHCQ is the only secret service using these tactics. Other government
as well as private interests can be assumed to use similar means. . To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" is exactly what
Internet trolls are doing in the comment sections of blogs and news sites. Usually though on a smaller
scale than the GHCQ and alike. The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the
less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions." . "...In the paranoid world of the web it is a badge of honor to claim you are being targeted
by the PTB. Sites that don't pose much threat to the status quo feel left out and have to create hidden
enemies so anyone who resists the dogma and groupthink must be branded as paid trolls. "
Glenn Greenwald atThe Intercept provides
new
material from the Snowden stash.
The British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
includes a "Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group" which "provides most of GCHQ's cyber
effects and online HUMINT capability. It currently lies at the leading edge of cyber influence practice
and expertise." In 2011 the JTRIG had 120 people on its staff.
Here are some of its methods, used in support of British policies like for regime change in Syria
and Zimbabwe:
All of JTRIG's operations are conducted using cyber technology. Staff described a range of methods/techniques
that have been used to-date for conducting effects operations. These included:
Setting up Facebook groups, forums, blogs and Twitter accounts that encourage and monitor
discussion on a topic (to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt)
Establishing online aliases/personalities who support the communications or messages in
YouTube videos, Facebook groups, forums, blogs etc
Establishing online aliases/personalities who support other aliases
Sending spoof e-mails and text messages from a fake person or mimicking a real person (to
discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deceive, deter, delay or disrupt)
Providing spoof online resources such as magazines and books that provide inaccurate information
(to disrupt, delay, deceive, discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter or denigrate/degrade)
Providing online access to uncensored material (to disrupt)
Sending instant messages to specific individuals giving them instructions for accessing
uncensored websites
Setting up spoof trade sites (or sellers) that may take a customer's money and/or send
customers degraded or spoof products (to deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive,
discredit, dissuade or deter)
Interrupting (i.e., filtering, deleting, creating or modifying) communications between
real customers and traders (to deny, disrupt, delay, deceive, dissuade or deter)
Taking over control of online websites (to deny, disrupt, discredit or delay)
Denial of telephone and computer service (to deny, delay or disrupt)
Hosting targets' online communications/websites for collecting SIGINT (to disrupt, delay,
deter or deny)
Contacting host websites asking them to remove material (to deny, disrupt, delay, dissuade
or deter)
It is unlikely that the British GHCQ is the only secret service using these tactics. Other government
as well as private interests can be assumed to use similar means.
To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" is exactly
what Internet trolls are doing in the comment sections of blogs and news sites. Usually though on
a smaller scale than the GHCQ and alike. The more these services grow and their methods proliferate
the less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions.
Fortunately, much of what they do is so ham-fisted and amateurish that only the gullible are
gulled (which pretty much explains why ALL of the patsies convicted in ter'rism frame-ups are
dimwits or cretins). Those pathetic cut & paste YouTube clips of NATO's "rebels" in Syria, swinging
briefly from behind some cover and firing (in a frenzy) at unseen targets or empty streets are
beyond ludicrous on many levels.
I'm unaware of any school of firearms use and techniques which encourages the firing of a weapon
merely because the bearer has plenty of spare ammo.
Lone Wolf | Jun 22, 2015 12:58:23 PM | 3
@b
The more these services grow and their methods proliferate the less possible will it
become to have reasonable online discussions.
Which is the exact purpose of trolling, ever since the internet became an alternate way of
communication to gain awareness about issues TPTB/MSM would prefer to bury, hide, distort, confuse,
manipulate, lie, detract, deflect, digress, warp or deviate. GCHQ/NSA/Mossad et al have elevated
trolling to a professional level, with special budgets and official programs attached to MILINT
and foreign offices working 24/7 to advance their plans and take advantage of people's ignorance
and naivete about the internet world. It's the hasbara operatives multiplied exponentially to
perpetuate ignorance and confusion among the masses.
Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 22, 2015 1:23:26 PM | 4
And don't forget that US/UK/NATO's Imperial Ambitions are rooted in greed and cowardice. Cowards
can never successfully project courage and resolve. Their over-compensation for ingrained cultural
short-comings always shows through.
NATO, for example, has yet to appoint a "Leader" whose demeanor doesn't resemble the un-charismatic
behaviour of a 6th Form Prefect at a Girl's College.
Watching these sissies strutting around their (private) stage, pretending to be Tough Guys
is funnier than Laurel & Hardy + the Three Stooges.
And the sincerity ... Tony Bliar where are you?
harry law | Jun 22, 2015 1:25:40 PM | 5
I still think it is possible to have online discussions, I agree with Hoarsewhisperer thinking
political types cannot be influenced [to any significant degree] by trolls. The only way they
can win is if you forget this golden rule "Never argue with stupid people trolls, they will
drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
― Mark Twain
And talking about hasbara, there is a petition requesting a billion dollars for "putting
lipstick on the pig" as a poster accurately described it above. No matter how much money zionazis
allow for hasbara trolls, a zionazi pig will always be a zionazi pig (my apologies to the animal
kingdom for the comparison.)
(...)Readers will recall that I have criticized the abysmal performance of Israeli public
diplomacy (PD) and its failure to present its case assertively and articulately to the world.
To recap briefly
I likened the effects of this failure to those of the HIV virus that destroys the nation's
immune system, leaving it unable to resist any outside pressures no matter how outlandish or outrageous.
Given the gravity of the threat, I prescribed that, as prime minister, my first order of business
would be to assign adequate resources to address the dangers precipitated by this failure.
To this end I stipulated that up to $1 billion should be allotted for the war on the
PD front, and demonstrated that this sum was eminently within Israel's ability to raise, comprising
less than 0.5 percent of GDP and under 1 percent of the state budget(...)
To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" communications
on the internet is the cyber equivalent of the US/UK's 'real world' policy of death, devastation
and destruction in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen and 'austerity' at home
in the US/UK/EU.
The 5-eyes and their European vassals, under control of the 5-eyed 5th column comprising the
government of the EU, are the largest single source of negativity on earth.
And their fantastically expensive pursuit of all these openly negative outcomes has come at
the cost of actually addressing any of our world's myriad real problems. Grillions in defense
of the perceived interests of the 1%, not a cent for the interests of the planet and humanity.
Wow! It's as if no one ever heard of psyops before, not to mention Cointelpro. The only new
wrinkle, though certainly worth noting, is that computers are now targeted. But seriously, who
really believed the imperialists would *not* be doing shit like this?
ToivoS | Jun 23, 2015 1:50:22 AM | 21
Possibly relevant to b's current topic is the comments sections at Russia Today. Those comments
have always looked to me as a real snake pit. There has always been some very ugly antisemitic
comments there. I noticed in the last week that their stories on crime in America have been deluged
with some of the worst white racist- antiblack comments. I kept wondering -- why would stories
in the Russian press attract such virulent anti (American) black comments? It seems the most likely
reason is that some outside agency is trying to discredit RT by showing only American racist read
it.
Almand | Jun 23, 2015 2:04:04 AM | 22
@TovioS
To be fair, a lot of real American nutjobs do frequent the RT comment section, since in the good
old USA, RT is treated as an "alternative" news source akin to Alex Jones' "Prison Planet". And
there is still a ton of ugly, virulent racism in the comments section of the New York Times, WaPo,
Fox News (especially)... they just seem to have bigger vocabularies.
It seems the most likely reason is that some outside agency is trying to discredit RT by showing
only American racist read it.
You got it. While this topic is about UK and their spies trying to disrupt, deceive, discredit,
etc. etc., but US and Israel are doing it for longer and on much greater scale. They took
manipulation of masses to such level (mass and social media, (mis)education, misusing science,
etc), that even Goebbels could only have dreamed about it.
Speaking of social media, there were reports in recent years of US having ten of thousands
employees focusing exclusively on social media. Each using software which helps to maintain x10
unique poster profiles. I think b' wrote about it as well. Therefore just US has 100.000+ of daily
"posters" all around the World, trying to push US agenda. Who knows what is total number of Western
propaganda trolls, and I bet the number is ever increasing.
This is surely going to render a lot of the new media ineffective in terms of obtaining fast
and accurate information. How the hell are we going to stop these bastards?
lysias | Jun 23, 2015 11:03:31 AM | 33
Let us remember that it was Obama staffer and adviser Cass Sunstein (Samantha
Power's husband) who advised "cognitive infiltration" of the Internet by the government.
Wayoutwest | Jun 23, 2015 11:50:46 AM | 35
In the paranoid world of the web it is a badge of honor to claim you are
being targeted by the PTB. Sites that don't pose much threat to the status quo feel left out and
have to create hidden enemies so anyone who resists the dogma and groupthink must be branded as
paid trolls.
I've witnessed a number of apparent operatives exposed on other blogs and they are usually easy
to identify but some are clever and they rarely return once they see people are watching and know
the difference between disagreement and deception.
Inconsistency. This may seem counter-intuitive, but they argue in the here-and-now,
against some other, usually only one, fact(s) / opinion / general trend from the past half hour.
In this way they sometimes contradict themselves or mix things up, or use arguments that couldn't
co-exist.
Impersonality. One more, counter-intuitive (specially as a common tactic is ad hominems,
insults, etc. to disrupt no matter what.) They are not involved in the discussion and probably
doing something else at the same time. This also means they don't answer questions (or only
rarely), don't quote sources (much), never agree with any another poster, and never raise issues
or ask genuine questions. (Any questions usually contain a pre-supposition, such as 'did
the captain beat his wife today?')
Persistence. An ordinary person appalled and frightened by crazed conspiracy theorists
tends to check out quickly.
Ad hominems bis. Brow-beating, authority card (sometimes some fake expertise is pulled
in, like being a pilot, worked in finance), because there is nothing other left to do…
Posting during the same time each day, posting a similar amount of posts / words. Acceptable
sentence structure and OK spelling with a flat, pedestrian, vocabulary. It is paid work, after
all, quite similar to 'customer service for the complaints'…(and note the cuteness of all words
beginning with D…lame…)
Being male and aged around 20+ - 36, maybe 40, that is presenting a persona in that
age range. Men are still much more respected than women on the intertubes, and afaik women are
asked to adopt a male persona and be 'aggressive' (Paul pilot, not Paula florist..)
I don't think all this is too effective, except in the sense of polarisation, getting ppl to
hysterically takes sides, create divisions, and so on. As a propaganda tool it is pretty much
a failure. The pay is low (no nos. does anyone know?)… For now there is no Union of 'trolls',
as they are supposed to act sub rosa.
:) They should get together (from all sides) and set up a troll Union as 'propaganda agents'
and apply for membership in the ITUC!
Glenn Greenwald atThe Intercept
provides
new
material from the Snowden stash.
The British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ)
includes a "Joint Threat Research and Intelligence Group" which "provides most of GCHQ's cyber
effects and online HUMINT capability. It currently lies at the leading edge of cyber influence practice
and expertise." In 2011 the JTRIG had 120 people on its staff.
Here are some of its methods, used in support of British policies like for regime change in Syria
and Zimbabwe:
All of JTRIG's operations are conducted using cyber technology. Staff described a range of methods/techniques
that have been used to-date for conducting effects operations. These included:
Setting up Facebook groups, forums, blogs and Twitter accounts that encourage and monitor
discussion on a topic (to discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter, delay or disrupt)
Establishing online aliases/personalities who support the communications or messages in
YouTube videos, Facebook groups, forums, blogs etc
Establishing online aliases/personalities who support other aliases
Sending spoof e-mails and text messages from a fake person or mimicking a real person (to
discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deceive, deter, delay or disrupt)
Providing spoof online resources such as magazines and books that provide inaccurate information
(to disrupt, delay, deceive, discredit, promote distrust, dissuade, deter or denigrate/degrade)
Providing online access to uncensored material (to disrupt)
Sending instant messages to specific individuals giving them instructions for accessing
uncensored websites
Setting up spoof trade sites (or sellers) that may take a customer's money and/or send
customers degraded or spoof products (to deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive,
discredit, dissuade or deter)
Interrupting (i.e., filtering, deleting, creating or modifying) communications between
real customers and traders (to deny, disrupt, delay, deceive, dissuade or deter)
Taking over control of online websites (to deny, disrupt, discredit or delay)
Denial of telephone and computer service (to deny, delay or disrupt)
Hosting targets' online communications/websites for collecting SIGINT (to disrupt, delay,
deter or deny)
Contacting host websites asking them to remove material (to deny, disrupt, delay, dissuade
or deter)
It is unlikely that the British GHCQ is the only secret service using these tactics. Other government
as well as private interests can be assumed to use similar means.
To "deny, disrupt, degrade/denigrate, delay, deceive, discredit, dissuade or deter" is exactly
what Internet trolls are doing in the comment sections of blogs and news sites. Usually though on
a smaller scale than the GHCQ and alike. The more these services grow and their methods proliferate
the less possible will it become to have reasonable online discussions.
"..."It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and
they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn't it?" he said to applause."
At rally of young people in Turin, Francis issues his toughest condemnation to date of the
weapons industry, criticizing investors as well as workers
People who manufacture weapons or invest in weapons industries are hypocrites if they call themselves
Christian, Pope Francis said on Sunday.
Duplicity is the currency of today ... they say one thing and do another --
-- Pope Francis
Francis issued his toughest condemnation to date of the weapons industry at a rally of thousands
of young people at the end of the first day of his trip to the Italian city of Turin. "If you trust only men you have lost," he told the young people in a long commentary about war,
trust and politics, after putting aside his prepared address.
"It makes me think of ... people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and
they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit of distrust, doesn't it?" he said to applause.
He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying "duplicity is the currency of
today ... they say one thing and do another."
Francis also built on comments he has made in the past about events during the first and second
world wars. He spoke of the "tragedy of the Shoah", using the Hebrew term for the Holocaust.
"The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration
camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn't they bomb (the
railway lines)?"
Discussing the first world war, he spoke of "the great tragedy of Armenia", but did not use the
word "genocide". Francis sparked a diplomatic row in April, calling the massacre of up to 1.5 million
Armenians 100 years ago "the first genocide of the 20th century", prompting Turkey to recall its
ambassador to the Vatican.
"...Why should Americans have their pretty little heads bothered with such unpleasantries? Just leave
"national security" to us, U.S. officials say, and we'll do whatever is necessary to "keep you safe"
from all those scary creatures out there who want to come and get you and take you away. Oh, and
be sure to keep all those trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flooding into our "defense" coffers."
... Ever since 9/11, the American people have operated under the quaint notion that all the violence
that the Pentagon and the CIA have been inflicting on people in foreign nations has an adverse effect
only over there. The idea has been that as long as all the death, torture, assassinations, bombings,
shootings, and mayhem were in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and elsewhere, Americans could
go pleasantly on with their lives, going to work, church, and fun sporting events where everyone
could praise and pray for the troops for "defending our freedoms" and "keeping us safe."
Through it all, the national-security state, with the cooperation of the mainstream media, has
done its best to immunize Americans from all the violence, death, and mayhem that they've been wreaking
on people over there.
Don't show the American people photographs of wedding parties in which brides and grooms and
flower girls have been blown to bits by a U.S. bomb or missile.
Hide those torture records at Abu Ghraib. Lock them away in a secret vault forever.
Destroy those torture videos and redact that torture report.
And above all, don't even think of keeping count of the dead in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Anything and everything to keep the American people from having to confront, assimilate, and process
the ongoing culture of violence that the national-security state has brought to people in other parts
of the world.
Why should Americans have their pretty little heads bothered with such unpleasantries? Just leave
"national security" to us, U.S. officials say, and we'll do whatever is necessary to "keep you safe"
from all those scary creatures out there who want to come and get you and take you away. Oh, and
be sure to keep all those trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars flooding into our "defense" coffers.
As an aside, have you ever noticed that Switzerland, which is one of the most armed societies
in the world, is not besieged by a "war on terrorism" and by gun massacres? I wonder if it has anything
to do with the fact that the Swiss government isn't involved in an ongoing crusade to violently remake
the world in its image.
Ask any American whether all that death and destruction at the hands of the military and the CIA
is necessary, and he's likely to say, "Well, of course it is. People all over the world hate us for
our freedom and values. We've got to kill them over there before they come over here to kill us.
The war on terrorism goes on forever. I'm a patriot! Praise the troops!"
The thought that the entire scheme of ongoing violence is just one great big racket just doesn't
even occur to them. That's what a mindset of deference to authority does to people.
All that ongoing violence that has formed the foundation of America's governmental structure since
the totalitarian structure known as the national-security state came into existence after World War
II is at the core of the national sickness to which Rand Paul alludes.
And so is the extreme deference to authority paid to the national-security establishment by all
too many Americans who have converted the Pentagon and the CIA into their god - one who can do no
wrong as it stomps around the world killing, torturing, bombing, shooting, invading, maiming, and
occupying, all in the name of "national security," a ridiculous term if there ever was one, a term
not even found in the U.S. Constitution.
As I have long written, the national-security establishment has warped and perverted the values,
morals, and principles of the American people. This totalitarian structure that was grafted onto
our governmental system after World War II to oppose America's World War II partner and ally the
Soviet Union has stultified the consciences of the American people, causing them to subordinate themselves
to the will and judgment of the military (including the NSA) and the CIA and, of course, to surrender
their fundamental God-given rights to liberty and privacy in the quest to be "kept safe" from whoever
happens to be the official enemy of the day.
The discomforting fact is that the American people have not been spared the horrific consequences
of the ongoing culture of violence that the U.S. national-security establishment has brought to foreign
lands. The ongoing culture of violence that forms the foundation of the national security state -
killing untold numbers of people on a perpetual basis - has been a rotting and corrosive cancer that
has been destroying America from within and that continues to do so.
It's that ongoing culture of violence that brings out the crazies and the loonies, who see nothing
wrong with killing people for no good reason at all. In ordinary societies, the crazies and the loonies
usually just stay below the radar screen and live out their lives in a fairly abnormal but peaceful
manner. But in dysfunctional societies, such as ones where the government is based on killing, torturing,
maiming, and destroying people on a constant basis, the crazies and the loonies come onto the radar
screen and commit their crazy and loony acts of violence.
"...Torture is and has been illegal in the US, so no new law is needed. Prosecute to the full
extent anyone who authorized, implemented or has or is covering up these grave crimes. Starting at the
Very Top on down. Now. " . "...Obama appears to see as his primary goal greasing the skids of American decline. Washington
has lost all credibility as presiding over a democracy governed by the rule of law, what with this two-tiered
justice system. Celebrate the betrayers of the constitution and punish those who blow the whistle on
them. While it's five years old, Alfred McCoy's article on the US decline was cited twice last week,
reminding me of how hard-hitting McCoy's argument is. It can be found at
TomDispatch" . "...The routine use of torture by Savak may well have contributed heavily to the failure of
the Shah, particularly considering that these people were probably concentrated in the cities where
most of the action took place."
Torture architects are television pundits and given enormous book contracts while Guantanamo detainees
still can't discuss what happened to them
GUANTANAMO
Prisoners haven't been allowed to talk about what happened to them here. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty
Wednesday 17 June 2015 07.15 EDT Last modified on Wednesday 17 June 2015 13.35 EDT
Torture is and has been illegal in the US, so no new law is needed. Prosecute to the full
extent anyone who authorized, implemented or has or is covering up these grave crimes. Starting at
the Very Top on down. Now.
CraigSummers, 17 Jun 2015 16:16)
The evidence that torture doesn't work is overwhelming.
The president's oath is to obey the law, the constitution, not to "keep Americans safe." Torture
is illegal for good and proper reasons. It cannot be used and, if used, must be prosecuted and
punished.
It is immaterial if it "works" ... this is not Dirty Harry or Jack Bauer; this is real governance:
a govt of laws, not men.
bloggod 17 Jun 2015 16:07
"The only reason a host of current and former CIA officials aren't already in jail is because
of cowardice on the Obama administration," says Timm
________
An emphatic collusion of many more complicit parties would seem to suggest the world is not
run by Obama...
ID8667623 17 Jun 2015 15:30
Obama appears to see as his primary goal greasing the skids of American decline. Washington
has lost all credibility as presiding over a democracy governed by the rule of law, what with
this two-tiered justice system. Celebrate the betrayers of the constitution and punish those who
blow the whistle on them.
While it's five years old, Alfred McCoy's article on the US decline was cited twice last week,
reminding me of how hard-hitting McCoy's argument is. It can be found at TomDispatch:
I, being a US citizen, feel that it is up to us to stand up to US imperialism.
Until we, in the US, stand up and say "Enough", this country will continue it's attack upon the
world.
Wake up America --
PS. You see that the war has come home... just look at the military armament being used by
the police. And, we need to stand up all together! Please, Mr. Policeman, don't shoot us. Protect
us against the 1%.
JimHorn 17 Jun 2015 11:20
In the run up to the Iranian Revolution, I worked with an Iranian woman in a restaurant. She
wore the same short sleeve blouse as the others, and her skirt was only an inch or two longer.
Her husband was a grad student at the university. Obviously thoroughly westernized. I took the
opportunity to ask an actual Iranian about the events that were happening in her homeland.
She told me that her brother, a student, had been picked up and tortured by Savak, the Shah's
secret police. She said
"No one in my family, my father, my brothers, my uncles, my cousins, - will support
the Shah. We hate Khomeini, but we also hate the Shah. We will let Khomeini overthrow the Shah
and then we will overthrow Khomeini."
These were people who should have been on the side of the westernizing Shah but sat on the
sidelines. Some reports say that Savak may have treated up to 100,000 people like this woman's
brother. Allowing for ten adult relatives per victim, we get a million westernized Iranians. The
population at the time was about 30 million. The routine use of torture by Savak may well
have contributed heavily to the failure of the Shah, particularly considering that these people
were probably concentrated in the cities where most of the action took place.
Note that Savak, sadly, trained by our CIA, was intent on preventing a communist takeover and
concentrated on those who wished to westernize government as well as the economy. They utterly
failed to deal with the threat from religious conservatives.
The government has an obligation to respond to the Sunday Times report that MI6 has been
forced to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries
The Sunday Times produced what at first sight looked like a startling news story: Russia and China
had gained access to the cache of top-secret documents leaked by former NSA contractor turned whistleblower
Edward Snowden.
Not only that, but as a result, Britain's overseas intelligence agency, the Secret Intelligence
Service, better known as MI6, had been forced "to pull agents out of live operations in hostile countries".
These are serious allegations and, as such, the government has an obligation to respond openly.
The story is based on sources including "senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and
the security services". The BBC said it had also also been briefed anonymously by a senior government
official.
Anonymous sources are an unavoidable part of reporting, but neither Downing Street nor the Home Office
should be allowed to hide behind anonymity in this case.
1. Is it true that Russia and China have gained access to Snowden's top-secret documents? If
so, where is the evidence?
Which cache of documents is the UK government talking about? Snowden has said he handed tens of thousands
of leaked documents over to journalists he met in Hong Kong, and that he has not had them in his
possession since. Have Russia and China managed to access documents held by one of the journalists
or their companies?
In addition, if agents had to be moved, why? Which Snowden documents allegedly compromised them
to the extent they had to be forcibly removed from post?
2. Why have the White House and the US intelligence agencies not raised this?
Snowden is wanted by the US on charges under the Espionage Act. The White House, the US intelligence
agencies and especially some members of Congress have been desperate to blacken Snowden's reputation.
They have gone through his personal life and failed to come up with a single damaging detail.
If the UK were to have evidence that Russia and China had managed to penetrate his document cache
or that agents had been forced to move, London would have shared this with Washington. The White
House would have happily briefed this openly, as would any number of Republican – and even Democratic
– members of Congress close to the security services. They would not have stinted. It would have
been a full-blown press conference.
Related: UK under pressure to respond to latest Edward Snowden claims
The debate in the US has become more grownup in recent months, with fewer scare stories and more
interest in introducing reforms that will redress the balance between security and privacy, but there
are still many in Congress and the intelligence agencies seeking vengeance.
3. Why have these claims emerged now?
Most the allegations have been made before in some form, only to fall apart when scrutinised. These
include that Snowden was a Chinese spy and, when he ended up in Moscow, that he was a Russian spy
or was at least cooperating with them. The US claimed 56 plots had been disrupted as a result of
surveillance, but under pressure acknowledged this was untrue.
The claim about agents being moved was first made in the UK 18 months ago, along with allegations
that Snowden had helped terrorists evade surveillance and, as a result, had blood on his hands. Both
the US and UK have since acknowledged no one has been harmed.
So why now? One explanation is that it is partly in response to Thursday's publication of David Anderson's
373-page report on surveillance. David Cameron asked the QC to conduct an independent review and
there is much in it for the government and intelligence services to like, primarily about retaining
bulk data.
Anderson is scathing, however, about the existing legal framework for surveillance, describing
it as intolerable and undemocratic, and he has proposed that the authority to approve surveillance
warrants be transferred from the foreign and home secretaries to the judiciary.
His proposal, along with another surveillance report out next month from the Royal United Services
Institute, mean that there will be continued debate in the UK. There are also European court rulings
pending. Web users' increasing use of encryption is another live issue. Above all else though, there
is the backlash by internet giants such as Google, which appear to be less prepared to cooperate
with the intelligence agencies, at least not those in the UK.
The issue is not going away and the Sunday Times story may reflect a cack-handed attempt by some
within the British security apparatus to try to take control of the narrative.
4. Why is the Foreign Office not mentioned as a source?
It seems like a pedantic point, but one that could offer an insight into the manoeuvring inside
the higher reaches of government. The Foreign Office is repsonsible for MI6, but the Home Office
is quoted in the story. Is it that the Home Office and individuals within the department rather than
the Foreign Office are most exercised about the potential transfer of surveillance warrant approval
from the home secretary, the proposed scrapping of existing legislation covering surveillance and
other potential reforms?
5. What about the debatable assertions and at least one totally inaccurate point in the Sunday
Times piece?
The Sunday Times says Snowden "fled to seek protection from Vladimir Putin, the Russian president,
after mounting one of the largest leaks in US history". In fact he fled Hong Kong bound for Latin
America, via Moscow and Cuba. The US revoked his passport, providing Russia with an excuse to hold
him in transit.
The Sunday Times says it is not clear whether Russia and China stole Snowden's data or "whether he
voluntarily handed over his secret documents in order to remain at liberty in Hong Kong and Moscow".
The latter is not possible if, as Snowden says, he gave all the documents to journalists in Hong
Kong in June 2013.
The Sunday Times also reports that "David Miranda, the boyfriend of Guardian journalist Glenn
Greenwald, was seized at Heathrow in 2013 in possession of 58,000 'highly-classified' intelligence
documents after visiting Snowden in Moscow".
This is inaccurate. Miranda had in fact been in Berlin seeing the film-maker Laura Poitras, not in
Moscow visiting Snowden. It is not a small point.
The claim about Miranda having been in Moscow first appeared in the Daily Mail in September under
the headline "An intelligence expert's devastating verdict: Leaks by Edward Snowden and the Guardian
have put British hostages in even greater peril". It was written by Professor Anthony Glees, the
director of the centre for security and intelligence studies at the University of Buckingham, and
has never been corrected. Maybe the Sunday Times can do better.
Following what are now daily reports of evil Russian hackers penetrating AES-encrypted
firewalls at the IRS, and just as evil Chinese hackers
penetrating "Einstein 3" in the biggest US hack in history which has allegedly exposed every
single federal
worker's social security number to shadowy forces in Beijing, the message to Americans is clear:
be very afraid, because the "evil hackers" are coming, and your friendly, gargantuan, neighborhood
US government (which is clearly here to help you) will get even bigger to respond appropriately.
But don't let any (cyber) crisis go to waste: the porous US security firewall is so bad, Goldman
is now pitching cybersecurity stocks in the latest weekly David Kostin sermon. To wit:
The meteoric rise in cybersecurity incidents involving hacking and data breaches has shined
a spotlight on this rapidly growing industry within the Tech sector. Cyberwar and cybercrime are
two of the defining geopolitical and business challenges of our time. New revelations occur daily
about compromised financial, personal, and national security records. Perpetrators range from
global superpowers to rogue nation-states, from foreign crime syndicates to petty local criminals,
and from social disrupters to teenage hackers. No government, firm, or person is immune from the
risk.
Because if you can't profit from conventional war, cyberwar will do just as nicely, and as a result
Goldman says "investors seeking to benefit from increased security spending should focus
on the ISE Cyber Security Index (HXR)."
The HXR index has outperformed S&P 500 by 19pp YTD (22% vs. 3%). Since 2011, the total return
of the index is 123pp higher than the S&P 500 (207% vs. 84%). The relative outperformance of cybersecurity
stocks versus S&P 500 matches the surge in the number of exposed records (see Exhibit 2).
Goldman further notes that "the frequency and seriousness of cyberattacks skyrocketed during 2014.
Last year 3,014 data breach incidents occurred worldwide exposing 1.1 billion records,
with 97% related to either hacking (83%) or fraud (14%). Both incidents and exposed records jumped
by 25% during the last year. The US accounted for 50% of total global incidents and exposed
records. Businesses accounted for 53% of all reported incidents followed by government entities
at 16%. Exhibit 1 contains a list of selected recent high-profile cyberattacks."
It is almost as if the US is doing everything in its power to make life for hackers that much
easier, or alternatively to make Goldman's long HXR hit its target in the shortest possible time.
Or perhaps the US is merely giving the impression of a massive onslaught of cyberattacks,
one which may well be staged by the biggest cybersecurity infringer, and false flag organizer of
them all, the National Security Administration in conjunction with the CIA
We won't know, however just to make sure that the fear level spread by the Department of "Developed
Market" Fear hits panic level promptly, overnight the UK's Sunday Times reported
via Reuters, "citing unnamed officials at the office of British Prime Minister David Cameron,
the Home Office (interior ministry) and security services" that Britain has pulled out agents
from live operations in "hostile countries" after Russia and China cracked top-secret information
contained in files leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
MI6 building in London.
It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files,
but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted and
even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom
corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue to
turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic.
British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Snowden had done a huge amount of damage to the
West's ability to protect its citizens. "As to the specific allegations this morning, we never
comment on operational intelligence matters so I'm not going to talk about what we have or haven't
done in order to mitigate the effect of the Snowden revelations, but nobody should be in any doubt
that Edward Snowden has caused immense damage," he told Sky News.
Reading a little further reveals that in the modern world having your spies exposed merely lead
to invitations for coffee and chocolates.
An official at Cameron's office was quoted, however, as saying that there was "no evidence
of anyone being harmed." A spokeswoman at Cameron's office declined to comment when contacted
by Reuters.
So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them,
nor harmed them in any way. How cultured.
Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building:
A British intelligence source said Snowden had done "incalculable damage". "In some cases the
agencies have been forced to intervene and lift their agents from operations to stop them being
identified and killed," the source was quoted as saying.
Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where
the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big debate
on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate.
The revelations about the impact of Snowden on intelligence operations comes days after Britain's
terrorism law watchdog said the rules governing the security services' abilities to spy on the
public needed to be overhauled. Conservative lawmaker and former minister Andrew Mitchell said
the timing of the report was "no accident".
"There is a big debate going on," he told BBC radio. "We are going to have legislation
bought back to parliament (...) about the way in which individual liberty and privacy is invaded
in the interest of collective national security.
"That's a debate we certainly need to have."
Cameron has promised a swathe of new security measures, including more powers to monitor
Briton's communications and online activity in what critics have dubbed a "snoopers' charter".
And because Britain's terrorism laws reviewer David Anderson said on Thursday the current system
was "undemocratic, unnecessary and - in the long run - intolerable" and called for new safeguards,
including judges not ministers approving warrants for intrusive surveillance, saying there needed
to be a compelling case for any extensions of powers, this is precisely why now
was the right time for some more "anonymously-sourced" anti-liberty propaganda.
So between the IRS and the OPM hacks, not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches
shown on the top chart, allegedly almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not
only how much US citizens make, spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal
worker, the two "isolated" nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself.
If this was even remotely true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both
nations.
All in all, for me the Sunday Times story raises more questions than it answers, and more importantly
it contains some pretty dubious claims, contradictions, and inaccuracies. The most astonishing
thing about it is the total lack of scepticism it shows for these grand government assertions,
made behind a veil of anonymity. This sort of credulous regurgitation of government statements
is antithetical to good journalism.
James_Cole
The sunday times has already deleted one of the claims in the article (without an editors note)
because it was so easily proved wrong. Whenever governments are dropping anonymous rumours without
any evidence into the media you know they're up to some serious bullshit elsewhere as well, good
coverage by zh.
MonetaryApostate
Fact A: The government robbed Social Security... (There's nothing left!)
Supposed Fact B: Hackers compromised Social Security Numbers of Officials...
suteibu
Just to be clear, Snowden is not a traitor to the people of the US (or EU).
However, it is perfectly appropriate for the governments and shadow governments of those nations
to consider him a traitor to their interests.
One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter.
Renfield
<<The New Axis of Evul.>>
Which is drastically stepping up its propaganda effort to justify aggressively attacking the
rest of the world, in an effort to start WW3 and see who makes it out of the bunkers.
Fuck this evil New World Order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNHOUrYFj70
It took a long time to build and set in place, and it sure as hell isn't going to be easy taking
it down. They couldn't be any clearer that they have their hand poised over the nuke button, just
looking for any excuse to use it. I think they know they've lost, so they've resorted to intimidate
the rest of the world into supporting the status quo, by showing just how desperate they are and
how far they are willing to go. The USUK government, and its puppet governments in Europe, Canada,
Australia, and Japan -- are completely insane. Ukraine is acting out just who these people are.
They would rather destroy the whole world than not dominate everyone else. The 'West' is run by
sociopaths.
<<It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files,
but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted
and even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom
corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue
to turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic...
So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them,
nor harmed them in any way. How cultured. Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building...
Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where
the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big
debate on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate... So between the IRS and the OPM hacks,
not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches shown on the top chart, allegedly
almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not only how much US citizens make,
spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal worker, the two "isolated"
nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself. If this was even remotely
true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both nations.>
Bighorn_100b
USA always looks for a patsy.
Bravo, Tyler. This is truth very clearly written. It is incredible how the onslaught of propaganda
is turning into deluge. I'm glad you have the integrity to call it what it is. Propaganda is also
an assault on journalism.
This is the very opposite of journalism. Ponder how dumb someone has to be at this point to read
an anonymous government accusation, made with zero evidence, and accept it as true.
(greenwald rants mostly about media sock puppets with this)
HowdyDoody
And the US SFM86 files contained details of British spies? Consider this bullshitish.
foghorn leghorn
Goldman is looking to make a fast buck off the stupid uninformed public trying to cash in
on totalitarianism. If Goldman is running this pump and dump I suggest waiting till the price
looks like a hockey stick. As soon as it starts to cave in short the hell out of it but only
for one day. Government Sacks is the most crooked bank in the history of the whole entire
world from the past up till now. In case you are wondering about the Fed well Gioldman Sachs
runs the joint.
talisman
"Snowden encryption"???
Just more US Snowden-bashing propaganda.
You mean US has not tightened up its encryption since Snowden's whistleblowing two years ago??
Shame -- ! !....
Snowden information likely had nothing to do with the latest hacks, but the blame goes on--
Blaming Snowden a lot simpler than figuring out how to solve the basic problem
of overwhelming US Homeland Security incompetence
The other day, Eugene Kaspersky noted:
"We discovered an advanced attack on our own internal networks. It was complex,
stealthy, it exploded several zero-day vulnerabilities, and we're quite confident that
there's a nation state behind it."
The firm dubbed this attack Duqu 2.0, named after a specific series of malware called Duqu,
considered to be related to the Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran in 2011.
It is, of course, now well-known that Stuxnet originated as a Israel/US venture; however
this time it would appear that CIA/Mossad may have got a bit overconfident and shot themselves
in the foot when they inserted very advanced spyware into Kaspersky's system…
Kaspersky is not just some simple-minded backward nation state; rather they are the
unquestioned world leader in advanced cybersecurity systems, so when they found this malware
in their own system, of course they figured it out, and of course got a bit pissed-so, since
they are in the business of providing advanced cybersecurity to various nations---they very
legitimately passed on the critical encryption information to their clients, and it is not at
all inconceivable that some of the clients decided to take the system for a spin and see what
it could do….
And, of course, a bit later at the opportune moment after they let the cat out of the bag,
to rub a bit of salt in the wound Kaspersky mentioned: "And the attackers are now back to the
drawing board since we exposed their platform to the whole IT security industry. "They've now
lost a very expensive technologically-advanced framework they'd been developing for years,"
Am I still the only one that sees this whole Snowden thing as a CIA ruse?
My favorite is the strategic "leaking" out of information as needed by a Jewish reporter
working for a noiZ-media outlet. I have even read Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide, and I'm
still not buying it.
I'm not buying any of it, but then I'd prefer to not ask for a "refund."
My personal opinion is that the CIA, in their ongoing battle with the Pentagon, penetrated the
NSA, then tapped a photogenic young man in their mitts to serve as the "poster boy" for the
ensuing "leaks." Once they have the attention of the sheeple, they can then claim anything, as
any NSA defense will not be believed.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
"They lie about everything. Why would they lie about this?"
Christ Lucifer
Either Snowden read the play for some decade to come and took the key pieces of info with
him that he keeps secret but those pieces of intel currently allow him to access and control
all covert govt surveillance including that adapted due to being compromised, there maybe some
grains of truth in this in a cyber dependant organization created in an incorrectly perceived
superiority complex. Or maybe his name is synonymous with modern spying, the geek who made
good for the people, and his credibility is used to market a large amount of information
releases for public digestion. A figurehead if you will. Not to say that some years on, the
shockwaves from his actions reverberating around the planet coincide in specific places as
various imperatives are displaced by the dissolution of the foundation he cracked, while the
public are still only really concerned about their dick pics, which apparently women do not
enjoy so much anyway.
Promoted as a storm in a teacup by those who suffer to the transparency he gave, but it is
the woodchips the show the direction of the wind, not the great lumps of timber, and when the
standing trees fall it is the woodchips that have shown the truth, such is the way that key
figures move the static behemoths of overstated self importance ignorant to the world they
create. The hemorrhage has been contained but for some reason it continues to bleed out at a
steady rate, slowly washing the veil from the eyes who suffer the belief of attaining
prosperity or power through subjecting themselves to the will of others.
He's good, but was he that good? What else is playing in his favour, or the favour of his
identity?
Following what are now daily reports of evil Russian hackers penetrating AES-encrypted
firewalls at the IRS, and just as evil Chinese hackers
penetrating "Einstein 3" in the biggest US hack in history which has allegedly exposed every
single federal
worker's social security number to shadowy forces in Beijing, the message to Americans is clear:
be very afraid, because the "evil hackers" are coming, and your friendly, gargantuan, neighborhood
US government (which is clearly here to help you) will get even bigger to respond appropriately.
But don't let any (cyber) crisis go to waste: the porous US security firewall is so bad, Goldman
is now pitching cybersecurity stocks in the latest weekly David Kostin sermon. To wit:
The meteoric rise in cybersecurity incidents involving hacking and data breaches has shined
a spotlight on this rapidly growing industry within the Tech sector. Cyberwar and cybercrime are
two of the defining geopolitical and business challenges of our time. New revelations occur daily
about compromised financial, personal, and national security records. Perpetrators range from
global superpowers to rogue nation-states, from foreign crime syndicates to petty local criminals,
and from social disrupters to teenage hackers. No government, firm, or person is immune from the
risk.
Because if you can't profit from conventional war, cyberwar will do just as nicely, and as a result
Goldman says "investors seeking to benefit from increased security spending should focus
on the ISE Cyber Security Index (HXR)."
The HXR index has outperformed S&P 500 by 19pp YTD (22% vs. 3%). Since 2011, the total return
of the index is 123pp higher than the S&P 500 (207% vs. 84%). The relative outperformance of cybersecurity
stocks versus S&P 500 matches the surge in the number of exposed records (see Exhibit 2).
Goldman further notes that "the frequency and seriousness of cyberattacks skyrocketed during 2014.
Last year 3,014 data breach incidents occurred worldwide exposing 1.1 billion records,
with 97% related to either hacking (83%) or fraud (14%). Both incidents and exposed records jumped
by 25% during the last year. The US accounted for 50% of total global incidents and exposed
records. Businesses accounted for 53% of all reported incidents followed by government entities
at 16%. Exhibit 1 contains a list of selected recent high-profile cyberattacks."
It is almost as if the US is doing everything in its power to make life for hackers that much
easier, or alternatively to make Goldman's long HXR hit its target in the shortest possible time.
Or perhaps the US is merely giving the impression of a massive onslaught of cyberattacks,
one which may well be staged by the biggest cybersecurity infringer, and false flag organizer of
them all, the National Security Administration in conjunction with the CIA
We won't know, however just to make sure that the fear level spread by the Department of "Developed
Market" Fear hits panic level promptly, overnight the UK's Sunday Times reported
via Reuters, "citing unnamed officials at the office of British Prime Minister David Cameron,
the Home Office (interior ministry) and security services" that Britain has pulled out agents
from live operations in "hostile countries" after Russia and China cracked top-secret information
contained in files leaked by former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
MI6 building in London.
It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files,
but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted and
even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom
corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue to
turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic.
British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Snowden had done a huge amount of damage to the
West's ability to protect its citizens. "As to the specific allegations this morning, we never
comment on operational intelligence matters so I'm not going to talk about what we have or haven't
done in order to mitigate the effect of the Snowden revelations, but nobody should be in any doubt
that Edward Snowden has caused immense damage," he told Sky News.
Reading a little further reveals that in the modern world having your spies exposed merely lead
to invitations for coffee and chocolates.
An official at Cameron's office was quoted, however, as saying that there was "no evidence
of anyone being harmed." A spokeswoman at Cameron's office declined to comment when contacted
by Reuters.
So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them,
nor harmed them in any way. How cultured.
Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building:
A British intelligence source said Snowden had done "incalculable damage". "In some cases the
agencies have been forced to intervene and lift their agents from operations to stop them being
identified and killed," the source was quoted as saying.
Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where
the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big debate
on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate.
The revelations about the impact of Snowden on intelligence operations comes days after Britain's
terrorism law watchdog said the rules governing the security services' abilities to spy on the
public needed to be overhauled. Conservative lawmaker and former minister Andrew Mitchell said
the timing of the report was "no accident".
"There is a big debate going on," he told BBC radio. "We are going to have legislation
bought back to parliament (...) about the way in which individual liberty and privacy is invaded
in the interest of collective national security.
"That's a debate we certainly need to have."
Cameron has promised a swathe of new security measures, including more powers to monitor
Briton's communications and online activity in what critics have dubbed a "snoopers' charter".
And because Britain's terrorism laws reviewer David Anderson said on Thursday the current system
was "undemocratic, unnecessary and - in the long run - intolerable" and called for new safeguards,
including judges not ministers approving warrants for intrusive surveillance, saying there needed
to be a compelling case for any extensions of powers, this is precisely why now
was the right time for some more "anonymously-sourced" anti-liberty propaganda.
So between the IRS and the OPM hacks, not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches
shown on the top chart, allegedly almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not
only how much US citizens make, spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal
worker, the two "isolated" nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself.
If this was even remotely true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both
nations.
All in all, for me the Sunday Times story raises more questions than it answers, and more importantly
it contains some pretty dubious claims, contradictions, and inaccuracies. The most astonishing
thing about it is the total lack of scepticism it shows for these grand government assertions,
made behind a veil of anonymity. This sort of credulous regurgitation of government statements
is antithetical to good journalism.
James_Cole
The sunday times has already deleted one of the claims in the article (without an editors note)
because it was so easily proved wrong. Whenever governments are dropping anonymous rumours without
any evidence into the media you know they're up to some serious bullshit elsewhere as well, good
coverage by zh.
MonetaryApostate
Fact A: The government robbed Social Security... (There's nothing left!)
Supposed Fact B: Hackers compromised Social Security Numbers of Officials...
suteibu
Just to be clear, Snowden is not a traitor to the people of the US (or EU).
However, it is perfectly appropriate for the governments and shadow governments of those nations
to consider him a traitor to their interests.
One man's traitor is another man's freedom fighter.
Renfield
<<The New Axis of Evul.>>
Which is drastically stepping up its propaganda effort to justify aggressively attacking the
rest of the world, in an effort to start WW3 and see who makes it out of the bunkers.
Fuck this evil New World Order.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNHOUrYFj70
It took a long time to build and set in place, and it sure as hell isn't going to be easy taking
it down. They couldn't be any clearer that they have their hand poised over the nuke button, just
looking for any excuse to use it. I think they know they've lost, so they've resorted to intimidate
the rest of the world into supporting the status quo, by showing just how desperate they are and
how far they are willing to go. The USUK government, and its puppet governments in Europe, Canada,
Australia, and Japan -- are completely insane. Ukraine is acting out just who these people are.
They would rather destroy the whole world than not dominate everyone else. The 'West' is run by
sociopaths.
<<It is unclear how the unknown source at MI6 learned that Russia has hacked the Snowden files,
but what is clear is that after the US admitted Snowden's whistleblowing in fact was warranted
and even led to the halt of NSA spying on US citizens (replaced since with spying by private telecom
corporations not subject to FOIA requests courtesy of the US Freedom Act), it was long overdue
to turn up the PR heat on Snowden, who is seen increasingly as a hero on both sides of the Atlantic...
So Russia and China knew the identities and locations of UK spies but they neither arrested them,
nor harmed them in any way. How cultured. Meanwhile, the soundbite propganda keeps building...
Needless to say, the timing of this latest "report" is no coincidence. Just like in the US where
the NSA seemingly just lost a big battle to the Fourth Amendment, so the UK is poised for a big
debate on the manufactured "liberty vs security" debate... So between the IRS and the OPM hacks,
not to mention the countless other US hacks and data breaches shown on the top chart, allegedly
almost exclusively by Russia and China, which have revealed not only how much US citizens make,
spend and save, but the SSN, work and mental history of every Federal worker, the two "isolated"
nations now know as much if not more about the US than the US itself. If this was even remotely
true, then the US would long ago have been in a state of war with both nations.>
Bighorn_100b
USA always looks for a patsy.
Bravo, Tyler. This is truth very clearly written. It is incredible how the onslaught of propaganda
is turning into deluge. I'm glad you have the integrity to call it what it is. Propaganda is also
an assault on journalism.
This is the very opposite of journalism. Ponder how dumb someone has to be at this point to read
an anonymous government accusation, made with zero evidence, and accept it as true.
(greenwald rants mostly about media sock puppets with this)
HowdyDoody
And the US SFM86 files contained details of British spies? Consider this bullshitish.
foghorn leghorn
Goldman is looking to make a fast buck off the stupid uninformed public trying to cash in
on totalitarianism. If Goldman is running this pump and dump I suggest waiting till the price
looks like a hockey stick. As soon as it starts to cave in short the hell out of it but only
for one day. Government Sacks is the most crooked bank in the history of the whole entire
world from the past up till now. In case you are wondering about the Fed well Gioldman Sachs
runs the joint.
talisman
"Snowden encryption"???
Just more US Snowden-bashing propaganda.
You mean US has not tightened up its encryption since Snowden's whistleblowing two years ago??
Shame -- ! !....
Snowden information likely had nothing to do with the latest hacks, but the blame goes on--
Blaming Snowden a lot simpler than figuring out how to solve the basic problem
of overwhelming US Homeland Security incompetence
The other day, Eugene Kaspersky noted:
"We discovered an advanced attack on our own internal networks. It was complex,
stealthy, it exploded several zero-day vulnerabilities, and we're quite confident that
there's a nation state behind it."
The firm dubbed this attack Duqu 2.0, named after a specific series of malware called Duqu,
considered to be related to the Stuxnet attack that targeted Iran in 2011.
It is, of course, now well-known that Stuxnet originated as a Israel/US venture; however
this time it would appear that CIA/Mossad may have got a bit overconfident and shot themselves
in the foot when they inserted very advanced spyware into Kaspersky's system…
Kaspersky is not just some simple-minded backward nation state; rather they are the
unquestioned world leader in advanced cybersecurity systems, so when they found this malware
in their own system, of course they figured it out, and of course got a bit pissed-so, since
they are in the business of providing advanced cybersecurity to various nations---they very
legitimately passed on the critical encryption information to their clients, and it is not at
all inconceivable that some of the clients decided to take the system for a spin and see what
it could do….
And, of course, a bit later at the opportune moment after they let the cat out of the bag,
to rub a bit of salt in the wound Kaspersky mentioned: "And the attackers are now back to the
drawing board since we exposed their platform to the whole IT security industry. "They've now
lost a very expensive technologically-advanced framework they'd been developing for years,"
Am I still the only one that sees this whole Snowden thing as a CIA ruse?
My favorite is the strategic "leaking" out of information as needed by a Jewish reporter
working for a noiZ-media outlet. I have even read Greenwald's book, No Place to Hide, and I'm
still not buying it.
I'm not buying any of it, but then I'd prefer to not ask for a "refund."
My personal opinion is that the CIA, in their ongoing battle with the Pentagon, penetrated the
NSA, then tapped a photogenic young man in their mitts to serve as the "poster boy" for the
ensuing "leaks." Once they have the attention of the sheeple, they can then claim anything, as
any NSA defense will not be believed.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission..
"They lie about everything. Why would they lie about this?"
Christ Lucifer
Either Snowden read the play for some decade to come and took the key pieces of info with
him that he keeps secret but those pieces of intel currently allow him to access and control
all covert govt surveillance including that adapted due to being compromised, there maybe some
grains of truth in this in a cyber dependant organization created in an incorrectly perceived
superiority complex. Or maybe his name is synonymous with modern spying, the geek who made
good for the people, and his credibility is used to market a large amount of information
releases for public digestion. A figurehead if you will. Not to say that some years on, the
shockwaves from his actions reverberating around the planet coincide in specific places as
various imperatives are displaced by the dissolution of the foundation he cracked, while the
public are still only really concerned about their dick pics, which apparently women do not
enjoy so much anyway.
Promoted as a storm in a teacup by those who suffer to the transparency he gave, but it is
the woodchips the show the direction of the wind, not the great lumps of timber, and when the
standing trees fall it is the woodchips that have shown the truth, such is the way that key
figures move the static behemoths of overstated self importance ignorant to the world they
create. The hemorrhage has been contained but for some reason it continues to bleed out at a
steady rate, slowly washing the veil from the eyes who suffer the belief of attaining
prosperity or power through subjecting themselves to the will of others.
He's good, but was he that good? What else is playing in his favour, or the favour of his
identity?
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists,"
Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed
by a judge just like the constitution says."
"... With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory. ..."
"... "I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government, unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it." ..."
"... Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized". ..."
"... By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in. ..."
"... politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens. ..."
"... Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands. ..."
"... "This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws." ..."
Rand Paul indicated his intention on Friday to filibuster a surveillance reform bill that he considers insufficient, as privacy
advocates felt momentum to tear the heart out of the Bush-era Patriot Act as its Snowden-era expiration date approaches.
With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and
Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory.
... ... ...
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists,"
Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed
by a judge just like the constitution says."
... ... ...
"Right now we're having a little bit of a war in Washington," Paul said at the rally on Friday. "It's me versus some of the rest
of them – or a lot of the rest of them."
... ... ...
In the middle is a bill that fell three votes shy of a 60-vote threshold. The USA Freedom Act, supported by Obama, junks the NSA's
bulk collection of US phone records in exchange for extending the lifespan of the Patriot Act's controversial FBI powers.
While McConnell, Obama and many Freedom Act supporters describe those powers as crucial, a recent Justice Department report said
the expiring "business records" provision has not led to "any major case developments". Another power set to expire, the "roving
wiretap" provision, has been linked to abuse in declassified documents; and the third, the "lone wolf" provision, has never been
used, the FBI confirmed to the Guardian.
... ... ...
The White House has long backed passage of the USA Freedom Act, calling it the only available mechanism to save the Patriot Act
powers ahead of expiration now that the House has recessed until Monday.
Obama on Friday chastised what he said were "a handful of Senators" standing in the way of passing the USA Freedom Act, who he
alleged risked creating an intelligence lapse.
James Clapper, the director of national intelligence whom Paul has criticized for lying to Congress about surveillance, issued
a rare plea to pass a bill he has reluctantly embraced in order to retain Patriot Act powers.
"At this late date, prompt passage of the USA Freedom Act by the Senate is the best way to minimize any possible disruption of
our ability to protect the American people," Clapper said on Friday.
At the Beacon Drive-in diner in Spartanburg, Paul chastised proponents of the Patriot Act for arguing the law would prevent another
9/11. "Bull!" a woman in the crowd exclaimed, as others groaned at the national security excuse cited by more hawkish lawmakers.
"I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government,
unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it."
Multiple polls released this month have found overwhelming public antipathy for government surveillance.
Still, it remains unclear if the USA Freedom Act has the votes to pass. Senate rules permit Paul to effectively block debate on
the bill until expiration. Few who are watching the debate closely felt on Friday that they knew how Sunday's dramatic session would
resolve.
But privacy groups, sensing the prospect of losing one of their most reviled post-9/11 laws, were not in a mood to compromise
on Friday.
"Better to let the Patriot Act sunset and reboot the conversation with a more fulsome debate," said Anthony Romero, the executive
director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
He opposes indefinite detention in the NDAA, he opposes TPP and the fast track. He opposes the militarization of local police.
He opposes the secrecy of the Federal Reserve. He opposes unwarranted civil asset forfeiture. He opposes no-knock home searches.
He opposes the failed drug war. He opposes war without congressional approval. What is it about him you don't like?
Trenton Pierce -> masscraft 30 May 2015 21:14
Then line up behind Rand. He polls the best against Hilary. The era of big government Republican is over. Realize that or get
ready for your Democrat rule.
Vintage59 -> Nedward Marbletoe 30 May 2015 16:20
The machine would chew him up and spit him out and he's smart enough to know that.
ripogenus 30 May 2015 07:47
Just listened to NPR's On the Media. They did a special podcast just on the patriot act and the consequences if it expires.
Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized".
seasonedsenior 29 May 2015 22:20
New technology is beginning to equal the playing field somewhat whether it be video of police misconduct or blocking out Congress
from 10,000 websites to stop NSA spying. This part of technology is a real positive. There are too many secrets in our democracy-light
that should be exposed for the greater good. There is too much concentrated power that needs to be opened up. I am happy to see
these changes happening. Keep up the good work.
AmyInNH cswanson420 29 May 2015 22:12
By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in.
Viet Nguyen -> cswanson420 29 May 2015 17:44
politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens.
Best examples? Retarded laws that discriminate against gay people in states like Indiana. When major corporations such as Wal-Mart
and Apple, who only cares about money, condemn such retarded laws with potential boycotts, their political lackeys quickly follow
in line.
I am waiting for another multinational corporation to declare the NSA process detrimental to businesses, and see how many former
government supporters of the NSA do a complete 180 degree stance flip.
EdChamp -> elaine layabout 29 May 2015 17:22
Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands.
Congratulations! You win the award of the day for that one gleaming guardian comment that truly made me smile.
Repent House 29 May 2015 16:13
"This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking
your access until you end mass surveillance laws."
This is so freekin awesome... mess with the bull you get the horns as I always say!
They seem to under estimate the strength, knowledge, tenacity, of the "AMERICAN PEOPLE" This is what we need to do on a wider scale for a number of things wrong!
Awesome!
...Politicians and editors look for opportunities to step up its campaign for the accession to
NATO, and in the spring of 2016, the parliament is expected to approve a host-country agreements
that make it easier for NATO to with Swedish permission to use our territory as a base for
military activities, "including the attack", "in peace, emergencies, crisis and conflict or
international tensions".
Everything appears to be – and sold – as a speedy response to Russian aggression. Sweden and
other countries are prepared after the end of the cold war in the belief that European peace was
secured. But the president saw in our kindness as a weakness and took the opportunity to obtain
tear up a security order that has prevailed for decades.
The story goes is repeated again and again every day in our media. Vladimir Putin, with the
annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine have shown "that he does not
respect the European order that had been in place since the second world war and statutes that
borders cannot be changed by force", writes, for example, the Daily News, in an editorial on
January 12.
Such an argument is a deliberate memory gap. MSM presstitutes push the button "forget" and
suddenly a decade of war in the former Yugoslavia erased from the public consciousness.
We can argue about reasons and circumstances of intervention, but it is undeniable that the
USA, NATO and EU countries intervened using military force to redraw the map of the Balkans. The
leadership in Moscow has thus set a precedent to cite. Putin reiterates at the conflicts with
Georgia and Ukraine, word-for-word the reasons the western powers claimed for the bombing of
Serbia and the recognition of cessation of Kosovo.
But the right to put himself above the principles of the inviolability of borders and
non-interference in other countries ' internal affairs is in our official propaganda worldview a
privilege reserved for the "international community", which is in reality the United States and
its entourage of small and medium-sized European satellites. International law applies to all
other states, but not for the United States, NATO and the EU.
NATO expanded in 1999 their mutual defense obligations to include global dangers
such as terrorism and the "disruption of the flow of vital resources", and in 2003, the EU
adopted its first security strategy, inspired by the Bush doctrine on the right to preventive war
against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction: "With the new threats the first line of
defense will often be abroad ... We need to develop a strategic culture that fosters early,
rapid, and when necessary, robust intervention."
It was the doctrine of the first line of defense – not the dreams of peace, who guided the
Swedish defense military industrial complex. Territorial defense was abandoned at the end of the
1990s, literally send to the junkyard. What was left was prestigious military projects in
industry and the individual units of professional soldiers trained for NATO operations in foreign
countries. The restructuring was led by a consulting firm from the united states, closely tied to
the Pentagon, the NSA and the CIA The armed forces would prepare for "global action -
especially in the continents of the world in which Sweden has a vital economic and/or political
interests," the consultants wrote in a secret report.
"Sweden's role as a regional power in the Baltic sea changed from neutrality to leadership",
was said. Now for some reason "koalitionskrigföring and Sweden's ability to operate in
collaboration with organizations such as NATO ... get a new and greater significance". This was
written in 1998, long before the war in Ukraine.
When the U.S. interest in the Arctic and the north flank, now rising to the fore the plans.
Sweden becomes a bridgehead in the quest to penetrate back to Russia. Gotland will again be
anchored, Russian submarines tops the news and B-52 bombers taking over the sky.
The major powers have never hesitated to tramp the UN-principles, but with the doctrine of the
preventive intervention there is nothing left of the respect of all the member states'
sovereignty. If NATO considers itself have the right to place a first line of defense in
Afghanistan or Libya, then does not Russia the same rights in Ukraine?
The Russian leadership will see in the western privilege for preemptive interventions a
precedent. Europe is sinking into a black hole that draws misfortune of countries and people.
Several politicians, editors, and the military now proclaim that that we should jump in, leave
the last of the neutrality and comply with NATO going directly into the black hole. Multiyear
efforts of dragging the country into the the alliance, shall result in the membership.
We should do the opposite. Pull us out. Keep us away. Say yes to the exclusion.
It reduces the risk that our own government or the foreign power will drag us into the war.
But not only that. Swedish neutrality is also an opening for the people in eastern Europe who are
looking for a rescue out of the tug-of-war between the Russian oil and gas barons, domestic
oligarchs and western financial oligarchs.
Being outside zone of US protectorate, we can jointly deal with the social issues.
More can be read about the NATO mutual försvarsförpliktelser in "The Alliance's Strategic
Concept, Approved by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North
Atlantic Council in Washington, D. C., 990424".
The text was written in 1998 is available in the "SAIC: Perspective Study Dominant? Awareness
2020", Final Report, September 2, 1998, For The Swedish High Command, p. 5, 7
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists,"
Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed
by a judge just like the constitution says."
"... With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory. ..."
"... "I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government, unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it." ..."
"... Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized". ..."
"... By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in. ..."
"... politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens. ..."
"... Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands. ..."
"... "This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking your access until you end mass surveillance laws." ..."
Rand Paul indicated his intention on Friday to filibuster a surveillance reform bill that he considers insufficient, as privacy
advocates felt momentum to tear the heart out of the Bush-era Patriot Act as its Snowden-era expiration date approaches.
With controversial provisions of the Patriot Act scheduled to run out at midnight on Sunday, Paul, the Kentucky senator and
Republican presidential hopeful, fielded questions about how he intended to win privacy campaigners a long hoped-for victory.
... ... ...
"By collecting all of your records, we're wasting so much money, so much time, and the haystack's so large we can't find the terrorists,"
Paul said. "I'm for looking at all of the terrorists' records – I just want their name on the warrant and I just want it to be signed
by a judge just like the constitution says."
... ... ...
"Right now we're having a little bit of a war in Washington," Paul said at the rally on Friday. "It's me versus some of the rest
of them – or a lot of the rest of them."
... ... ...
In the middle is a bill that fell three votes shy of a 60-vote threshold. The USA Freedom Act, supported by Obama, junks the NSA's
bulk collection of US phone records in exchange for extending the lifespan of the Patriot Act's controversial FBI powers.
While McConnell, Obama and many Freedom Act supporters describe those powers as crucial, a recent Justice Department report said
the expiring "business records" provision has not led to "any major case developments". Another power set to expire, the "roving
wiretap" provision, has been linked to abuse in declassified documents; and the third, the "lone wolf" provision, has never been
used, the FBI confirmed to the Guardian.
... ... ...
The White House has long backed passage of the USA Freedom Act, calling it the only available mechanism to save the Patriot Act
powers ahead of expiration now that the House has recessed until Monday.
Obama on Friday chastised what he said were "a handful of Senators" standing in the way of passing the USA Freedom Act, who he
alleged risked creating an intelligence lapse.
James Clapper, the director of national intelligence whom Paul has criticized for lying to Congress about surveillance, issued
a rare plea to pass a bill he has reluctantly embraced in order to retain Patriot Act powers.
"At this late date, prompt passage of the USA Freedom Act by the Senate is the best way to minimize any possible disruption of
our ability to protect the American people," Clapper said on Friday.
At the Beacon Drive-in diner in Spartanburg, Paul chastised proponents of the Patriot Act for arguing the law would prevent another
9/11. "Bull!" a woman in the crowd exclaimed, as others groaned at the national security excuse cited by more hawkish lawmakers.
"I think a lot of people in America agree with me," Paul said, "that your phone records should not be collected by your government,
unless they suspect you of a crime and unless they call a judge and unless a warrant has your name on it."
Multiple polls released this month have found overwhelming public antipathy for government surveillance.
Still, it remains unclear if the USA Freedom Act has the votes to pass. Senate rules permit Paul to effectively block debate on
the bill until expiration. Few who are watching the debate closely felt on Friday that they knew how Sunday's dramatic session would
resolve.
But privacy groups, sensing the prospect of losing one of their most reviled post-9/11 laws, were not in a mood to compromise
on Friday.
"Better to let the Patriot Act sunset and reboot the conversation with a more fulsome debate," said Anthony Romero, the executive
director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
He opposes indefinite detention in the NDAA, he opposes TPP and the fast track. He opposes the militarization of local police.
He opposes the secrecy of the Federal Reserve. He opposes unwarranted civil asset forfeiture. He opposes no-knock home searches.
He opposes the failed drug war. He opposes war without congressional approval. What is it about him you don't like?
Trenton Pierce -> masscraft 30 May 2015 21:14
Then line up behind Rand. He polls the best against Hilary. The era of big government Republican is over. Realize that or get
ready for your Democrat rule.
Vintage59 -> Nedward Marbletoe 30 May 2015 16:20
The machine would chew him up and spit him out and he's smart enough to know that.
ripogenus 30 May 2015 07:47
Just listened to NPR's On the Media. They did a special podcast just on the patriot act and the consequences if it expires.
Apparently the real problem is Executive Order 12333, under which almost all of the mass surveillance is "authorized".
seasonedsenior 29 May 2015 22:20
New technology is beginning to equal the playing field somewhat whether it be video of police misconduct or blocking out Congress
from 10,000 websites to stop NSA spying. This part of technology is a real positive. There are too many secrets in our democracy-light
that should be exposed for the greater good. There is too much concentrated power that needs to be opened up. I am happy to see
these changes happening. Keep up the good work.
AmyInNH cswanson420 29 May 2015 22:12
By the time someone is a party candidate, they've already been bought off. National write-in.
Viet Nguyen -> cswanson420 29 May 2015 17:44
politicians listen to corporations and shareholders. What corporations dictate, their political lapdogs obediently listens.
Best examples? Retarded laws that discriminate against gay people in states like Indiana. When major corporations such as Wal-Mart
and Apple, who only cares about money, condemn such retarded laws with potential boycotts, their political lackeys quickly follow
in line.
I am waiting for another multinational corporation to declare the NSA process detrimental to businesses, and see how many former
government supporters of the NSA do a complete 180 degree stance flip.
EdChamp -> elaine layabout 29 May 2015 17:22
Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands.
Congratulations! You win the award of the day for that one gleaming guardian comment that truly made me smile.
Repent House 29 May 2015 16:13
"This is a blackout," read the site to which computers from congressional IP addresses were redirected. "We are blocking
your access until you end mass surveillance laws."
This is so freekin awesome... mess with the bull you get the horns as I always say!
They seem to under estimate the strength, knowledge, tenacity, of the "AMERICAN PEOPLE" This is what we need to do on a wider scale for a number of things wrong!
Awesome!
...Politicians and editors look for opportunities to step up its campaign for the accession to
NATO, and in the spring of 2016, the parliament is expected to approve a host-country agreements
that make it easier for NATO to with Swedish permission to use our territory as a base for
military activities, "including the attack", "in peace, emergencies, crisis and conflict or
international tensions".
Everything appears to be – and sold – as a speedy response to Russian aggression. Sweden and
other countries are prepared after the end of the cold war in the belief that European peace was
secured. But the president saw in our kindness as a weakness and took the opportunity to obtain
tear up a security order that has prevailed for decades.
The story goes is repeated again and again every day in our media. Vladimir Putin, with the
annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine have shown "that he does not
respect the European order that had been in place since the second world war and statutes that
borders cannot be changed by force", writes, for example, the Daily News, in an editorial on
January 12.
Such an argument is a deliberate memory gap. MSM presstitutes push the button "forget" and
suddenly a decade of war in the former Yugoslavia erased from the public consciousness.
We can argue about reasons and circumstances of intervention, but it is undeniable that the
USA, NATO and EU countries intervened using military force to redraw the map of the Balkans. The
leadership in Moscow has thus set a precedent to cite. Putin reiterates at the conflicts with
Georgia and Ukraine, word-for-word the reasons the western powers claimed for the bombing of
Serbia and the recognition of cessation of Kosovo.
But the right to put himself above the principles of the inviolability of borders and
non-interference in other countries ' internal affairs is in our official propaganda worldview a
privilege reserved for the "international community", which is in reality the United States and
its entourage of small and medium-sized European satellites. International law applies to all
other states, but not for the United States, NATO and the EU.
NATO expanded in 1999 their mutual defense obligations to include global dangers
such as terrorism and the "disruption of the flow of vital resources", and in 2003, the EU
adopted its first security strategy, inspired by the Bush doctrine on the right to preventive war
against terrorism and weapons of mass destruction: "With the new threats the first line of
defense will often be abroad ... We need to develop a strategic culture that fosters early,
rapid, and when necessary, robust intervention."
It was the doctrine of the first line of defense – not the dreams of peace, who guided the
Swedish defense military industrial complex. Territorial defense was abandoned at the end of the
1990s, literally send to the junkyard. What was left was prestigious military projects in
industry and the individual units of professional soldiers trained for NATO operations in foreign
countries. The restructuring was led by a consulting firm from the united states, closely tied to
the Pentagon, the NSA and the CIA The armed forces would prepare for "global action -
especially in the continents of the world in which Sweden has a vital economic and/or political
interests," the consultants wrote in a secret report.
"Sweden's role as a regional power in the Baltic sea changed from neutrality to leadership",
was said. Now for some reason "koalitionskrigföring and Sweden's ability to operate in
collaboration with organizations such as NATO ... get a new and greater significance". This was
written in 1998, long before the war in Ukraine.
When the U.S. interest in the Arctic and the north flank, now rising to the fore the plans.
Sweden becomes a bridgehead in the quest to penetrate back to Russia. Gotland will again be
anchored, Russian submarines tops the news and B-52 bombers taking over the sky.
The major powers have never hesitated to tramp the UN-principles, but with the doctrine of the
preventive intervention there is nothing left of the respect of all the member states'
sovereignty. If NATO considers itself have the right to place a first line of defense in
Afghanistan or Libya, then does not Russia the same rights in Ukraine?
The Russian leadership will see in the western privilege for preemptive interventions a
precedent. Europe is sinking into a black hole that draws misfortune of countries and people.
Several politicians, editors, and the military now proclaim that that we should jump in, leave
the last of the neutrality and comply with NATO going directly into the black hole. Multiyear
efforts of dragging the country into the the alliance, shall result in the membership.
We should do the opposite. Pull us out. Keep us away. Say yes to the exclusion.
It reduces the risk that our own government or the foreign power will drag us into the war.
But not only that. Swedish neutrality is also an opening for the people in eastern Europe who are
looking for a rescue out of the tug-of-war between the Russian oil and gas barons, domestic
oligarchs and western financial oligarchs.
Being outside zone of US protectorate, we can jointly deal with the social issues.
More can be read about the NATO mutual försvarsförpliktelser in "The Alliance's Strategic
Concept, Approved by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North
Atlantic Council in Washington, D. C., 990424".
The text was written in 1998 is available in the "SAIC: Perspective Study Dominant? Awareness
2020", Final Report, September 2, 1998, For The Swedish High Command, p. 5, 7
[May 28, 2015] Ukraine financial catastrophe of 2014 2015
Notable quotes:
"... According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day. ..."
"... So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty". ..."
"... "What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services, and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education. If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute poverty," ..."
"... Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012, according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day. ..."
According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food
less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined
in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day.
So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend
an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty".
"What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services,
and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education.
If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute
poverty," stressed Shipko.
According to the Deputy, the minimum wage in Ukraine at the current exchange rate of the national
Bank should be approximately 3750 UAH - the only way the Ukrainians will be able at least get requred
$5 a day.
Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012,
according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day.
Ukrainian women do not want to bear children through insecurity and inability to pay for the hospital
and diaper.
[May 28, 2015] Ukraine financial catastrophe of 2014 2015
Notable quotes:
"... According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day. ..."
"... So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty". ..."
"... "What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services, and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education. If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute poverty," ..."
"... Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012, according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day. ..."
According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food
less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined
in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day.
So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend
an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty".
"What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services,
and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education.
If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute
poverty," stressed Shipko.
According to the Deputy, the minimum wage in Ukraine at the current exchange rate of the national
Bank should be approximately 3750 UAH - the only way the Ukrainians will be able at least get requred
$5 a day.
Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012,
according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day.
Ukrainian women do not want to bear children through insecurity and inability to pay for the hospital
and diaper.
The West scored major geopolitical victory against Russia: As Paul said (see below): "My limited
knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not?
That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake."
Poor Ukrainian citizen. Poor Ukrainian pensioners existing on a $1 a day or less (with exchange
rate around 26.5 hrivna per dollar, pension around 900 hrivna is around $1 per day. Some pensioners
get less then that ( miserable 1500 hrivna per month considered to be "decent" pension and monthly salary
4000 hrivna is a "good" salary by Ukrainian standards).
The last thing EU wants is an additional stream of refugees from Ukraine escaping miserable salaries
and lack of decently paying jobs and pressure of Ukrainian migrant workers on unqualified job market
positions.... So far the main hit for this was not in Western but in Russian job market, but that may
change. At the same time making the Ukraine enemy of Russia is a definitive geopolitical victory, achieved
with relatively modest financial infusions (USA estimate is 5 billions, the EU is probably a half of
that) and indirect support of Western Ukrainian nationalists.
One year ago there was a hope the Donetsk problem will be solved. Now in 2016 this civil war entered
the third year -- Kiev government can't squash unrecognized Donetsk Republic with military force and
it does not want to switch to federal state to accommodate their pretty modest demands: initially use
of Russian language and reverse of "creeping cultural colonization" of this region by Western Ukraine.
Initially the official language question was the one of the most important and Kiev Provisional government
rejected Canadian variant of using the same language as its powerful, dominant neighbor and unleashed
a civil war (with full blessing of the USA, which pursue "divide and conquer strategy in this region
from the moment of dissolution of the USSR). Now after so much bloodshed the positions are hardened...
Imagine that the Quebec nationalists came to power in Canada by French supported and financed coup,
and instantly outlawed the English language for official usage and in schools and universities.
Notable quotes:
"... If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved? ..."
"... That has surely been largely achieved. ..."
"... That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR. ..."
"... Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. ..."
"... They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. ..."
"... I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond. ..."
"... If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat. ..."
"... Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained. ..."
"... It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia. ..."
"... True, but again a very short term achievement. ..."
"... NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible ..."
"... The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either. ..."
"... [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term. ..."
"... Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. ..."
"... All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment. ..."
"... As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical. ..."
"... To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done. ..."
"... No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. ..."
"... As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it. ..."
"... If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. ..."
"... I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. ..."
"... As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does. ..."
"... Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially. ..."
"... The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar. ..."
"... And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage? ..."
"... Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies. ..."
"... NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage. ..."
"... I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. ..."
"... NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was. ..."
"... My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake. ..."
"... My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do. ..."
"... The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth. ..."
"... There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children ..."
"... Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg. ..."
"... To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. ..."
"... Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there. ..."
"... Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays. ..."
"... I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN. ..."
"... Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia ..."
"... The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles. ..."
"... This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'? ..."
The premise that the West must be losing is a bit simplistic. If you made a list of perhaps
ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been
achieved?
For example, one goal was to destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that
were oriented towards Russia. That has surely been largely achieved.
Another goal was to radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. That has largely
happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into
the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR.
Another goal was to stress the Russian military with having to respond to too many problems
in a short period of time, which may be relevant if and when the West hits on several fronts
at once.
Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western
corporations is about to begin. Doubt Russia can stop that.
Not denying that Putin and his circle have survived, and that the Russian economy is in better
shape than most expected, but we should try to think long and hard about the pros and cons of
the Kremlin's approaches.
They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. Approximately
zero soft power in a place that it should have been straightforward to create.
People have been writing novels and articles for a long time about how the West could gin up
a war in the Ukraine to start an attack on Russia or otherwise break the establishment in Moscow.
It was fairly obvious.
I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it
very hard for Russia to respond.
Kiev would start a major offensive against Donetsk and Lugansk.
Transdnistria is currently blockaded by Moldova and Ukraine with no food supplies allowed
to pass. Moldovan military operation might follow and Russia would be mostly unable to respond
by other means than missile strikes against Moldova – which Russia under extremely cautious
Putin would never do.
Azerbaijan would launch an offensive against Armenia in Nagarno-Karabakh. Russia lacks
common border with Armenia so Russia's options would again be limited.
Albanian proxies, supported and trained by the West, would start military and terrorist
attacks against Macedonian authorities.
NATO would start to bomb Syrian military and capital to oust and kill Assad.
Georgia might start another military operation against South Ossetia in parallel with others
if it thinks Russia is too preoccupied to respond.
NATO-funded and -trained Islamic militants would attack authorities in Central Asian countries
like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either
capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with
conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major
geopolitical defeat.
Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability
is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago,
and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained.
The Moldovan army is not capable of defeating Transdnistria by itself, so victory would
require NATO troops to join in the attack. And if it comes to the point where NATO is willing
to directly assault Russian forces, then there's no reason to hold back anyway.
The West plays the short game, so initially it may look
like they have achieved much, much like their foreign policy successes at first, which then turn
out to be disasters with the West reduced to firefighting.
1:..destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented
towards Russia.This has not succeeded. It has without doubt caused problems and will
affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some
products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production
of components to Russia.
2: ..radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia.True, but again
a very short term achievement. Food on plates and jobs don't grow on trees. What we do have
is the ones in the middle who gravitated to the traditional Russophobes, aka swing voters,
but things are only going to get worse in the Ukraine and the Nazi junta cannot deliver. Those
swing voter will swing the other way, not a Russia love in, but a pragmatic middle ground. That
is where they started.
3: Another goal was to stress the Russian military..What evidence is there of
this? Apart from quite a number of massive snap military exercises that Russia has pulled off
and impressed even the Russo-skeptic military crowd at RUSI and other MIX fronts, it is quite
efficient to fly 50 year old Tu-95 bombers around Europe wearing out expensive western military
equipment that will need to be replaced much sooner now than later. All those austerity plans
that call for holding off on major defense spending in Europe are messed up. Money going in to
weapons is money going away from jobs and the economy. Ukraine's rocket cooperation with Brazil
is dead (now switched to Russia) and also with other partners. So far the US has not actively
banned commercial satellites from being launched from Russian rockets, but the US cannot get its
billion dollar spy sats in to space without Russian rocket engines. No-one has yet pulled the
plug
NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible.
It's one thing to scream and shout, its another to drop their trousers. It is quite the paper
tiger. The USAF is set to rapidly shrink according to their own admission. The F-35 is designed
to replace 5 aircraft – hubris or what? The F-15, F16, AV-8B, A-10 & the F-18. It's a pig of an
aircraft that will perform those missions worse, in most cases, than those designed in the late
1960s early 1970s. The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to
make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either.
4:the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations
is about to begin. [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable,
but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than
just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium
to long term.
This is exactly what almost happened to Russia and then look how things turned out. Ukraine
is of course a different case and the West will certainly try and manage it to their advantage,
but it won't work if it is not for sustained profit. Either way it is the West to whom the
Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. This is long before we throw
any legal questions in to the mix. Whoever is in power now will pay the political price in future
sooner or later. All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right
moment.
As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit
harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as
much as possible, only intervening when critical.
Part of the problem with western politics and the Pork Pie News Networks of the last 25 years
is the we must do something now mentality. Let's put it this way, you go in to hospital
for a non-critical undiagnosed condition. Would you a) want to have the tests done and the best
course of action chosen with your consent, or b) panic & be rushed to the operating theater so
that they can just have a look around?
To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative.
If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must
be done.
In short, as it is written on the cover of the good book, DON'T PANIC!
No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has
played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. The
science of mind manipulation has made great progress over the last century. It is a big mistake
to just deal on an oligarchic level. Ukrainians have a legitimate gripe that their country is
insanely corrupt and they can easily blame Moscow. That being the case, measures needed to be
taken. And not creating any semblance of a pro-Russian political or intellectual class was similarly
stupid.
As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to
your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just
smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the
Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop
a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the
Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it.
If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems
on the periphery as possible. Could be Georgia; could be Central Asia; could be Transnistria.
What would be your advice to those in US think tanks who are trying to keep domination of the
world? What would be a good strategy? And, for what it is worth, I wouldn't take the problems
with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. That
is where all the money and technology have gone for the last 30 years. Do you really think the
US would struggle to get to the Moon now and did it in 1969? Be serious – all technology is tremendously
better today.
As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia
occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last
a lot longer than the Ukraine does.
Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's
where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the
US to over-extend itself politically & financially.
The US want to do more but it can't
do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to
give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move
of some oil trading out of the US dollar.
And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created?
For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will
bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the
West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem
on their plate they can't quite manage?
I have no doubt that the US has been trying to tie up Russia, but it is just more frenetic
than before, the main planks of NATO enlargement (and weakening) resolved, but the rest has gone
a bit wrong. The West is growing increasingly desperate and is trying all sorts of things to undermine
Russia, but it could be much, much worse from a sanctions point of view. Level heads in the West
understand that trying to pull the rug out completely from under Russia is a massive risk and
one they are very careful in making.
As for their wonder-weapons, the US cannot afford enough of them or make them cheap enough
for their allies to buy in sufficient numbers. It is much easier and cheaper to upgrade the sensors
and missiles on a SAM system than to design and bring to production standard a brand new wonder-weapon.
The old days of easily blinding air-defenses are almost over when you can have a lot of cheap
distributed sensors providing the information, passively & actively. The countermeasure is a lot
cheaper.
In al, Money Money Money – and every passing day the US has less to leverage and has to spread
it far and wide:
Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment,
and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away,
that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago,
that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies.
NATO has
not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit,
but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm
in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much
of anything but manage.
I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and
a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern
borders. The part that NATO is having trouble with is getting Russia to destroy it, so that
it will be in the minds of Ukrainians for generations who did this to them.
NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know
how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians
what a failure the promise of western largesse was.
That's all reasonable, though it is hard to believe that there isn't a lot more than just some
black earth to expropriate.
My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do
blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made
a mistake.
That's true enough, and it appears there has always been a certain amount of hostility to Russia
west of the Dneipr, so they perhaps did not need too much coaxing. My main point in rubbing
the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early
days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do.
The country it said it would confidently bat aside in its confident stroll to victory has not
only weathered western attempts to crush its economy and put in place safeguards which will hurt
western business opportunities in future, it has strengthened a powerful alliance with Asia and
garnered considerable international sympathy, which implies increased hostility toward the west.
Meanwhile, the country the west bragged it would snatch from Russia's orbit and make a model of
a prosperous western democracy is miserable, poor and angry.
The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally
this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond
lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with
plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs
in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth.
There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve
a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. Many such opportunities
rely on western interests taking over Ukrainian businesses and asset-stripping them like crazy;
however, the main buyer in many cases would be Russia, which has no interest in making western
businesses rich, or other western buyers who would have to take over and run a Ukrainian business
in a very uncertain environment in which its biggest market is Russia.
A copypaste from Auslander (formelry of MPnet), originally from Saker's blog:
"This is not the first time such atrocities [the mutilated rebel prisoner] have happened
in this conflict and it will not be the last.
The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains
of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building
on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right
sector called their own during the maidan debacle.
The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll
there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children.
I know the official death toll and I know the real death toll. We also lost a friend in that
atrocity, not in the building but at the far end of the square, beaten to death because he
was walking home from work at the wrong place and the wrong time. Why was he beaten to death?
He had a speech impediment and when he got nervous he literally could not talk. Since he could
not say 'salo yucrane' 5 right sector boys beat him to death in broad daylight.
Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned
to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed
in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were
too few to defend the berg.
The killings of innocents and not so innocents have been ongoing since the beginning and
well before the beginning of the conflict that let to what is now Novorossiya. One can not
morally justify killing all the UAF because of the acts of a relative few, but you can rest
assured that documentations are being kept for all who can be identified as committing either
individual or mass atrocities.
To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who
when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands
of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay
for their crimes. Do you think all those 'people' who commit atrocities and then post
photos of the atrocities and openly brag about them on social media will walk away unscathed?
Again, no hardly. Do you think we don't know who was and is abducting young women and even
girl children for their use and then killed and discarded them like less than animals? They
are known.
I can go on for reams but you get the idea. These are crimes being committed by a relative
few of UAF, and for the record anyone fighting for Ukraine against Novorossiya is a member
of UAF, their military unit does not matter. In the end justice will be done, by the law and
with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice,
like revenge, is a dish best served cold.
As for those few of you who are still aghast at the total and deafening silence from USEU
over these ongoing atrocities and crimes, I urge you to forget any chance of anything being
said about we untermenschen being slaughtered by those civilized denizens of USEU. It is not
going to happen so stop complaining about it. Never forget, never forgive, always remember,
but don't complain, it's useless."
Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment
because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine
and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there.
Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited
to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And
it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev
or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays.
He says "In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible.
Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold."
I do believe various people involved in Odessa have disappeared – or turned up. Dead. Some have
had to go to ground. Some have "died" under unbelievable circumstances, but their new name will
probably still have the same face. The biggest obstacle will be all this wearing of masks, but
with more recent atrocities, where they are garrisoned in the cities for months, they'd be known
anyway..
The spirit of Novorossiya will be expanding (not yet). Things may slowly go back towards normal.
But fully normal it can never be, while murderers and torturers walk free by the hundreds. It
is going to be a very long headache for Ukraine.
I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that
hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged,
but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought
the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather
than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register
on those who get all their news from CNN.
Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other
who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate
proof that Tupak is alive
in Serbia
The election of Poland's new president spells
big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just
recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who
forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200
thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles.
Of course J Hawk's take is probably on the money. J.Hawk's Comment:
Not so fast. I'm not so sure that Duda wants to do any of the things described above. One
of the major reasons Duda won is the defection of the rural voters, whose average income declined
by 14% in 2014 in large measure due to Russian food embargo. Since Duda knows on which side
his bread is buttered (no pun intended), deep down he also realizes the importance of that
embargo lifting. His UPA criticism may well be only an excuse, a pretext to allow himself to
maneuver out of his election campaign pro-Ukraine position while saving face. Because, ultimately,
what is the likelihood that the Rada will actually pass a law that "de-heroizes" UPA to a sufficient
degree? And even if it does, will Bandera monuments start disappearing from Lvov and other
parts of Western Ukraine?
This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk
the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective
in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the
preservation of ill-gotten capital!'?
The West scored major geopolitical victory against Russia: As Paul said (see below): "My limited
knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not?
That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake."
Poor Ukrainian citizen. Poor Ukrainian pensioners existing on a $1 a day or less (with exchange
rate around 26.5 hrivna per dollar, pension around 900 hrivna is around $1 per day. Some pensioners
get less then that ( miserable 1500 hrivna per month considered to be "decent" pension and monthly salary
4000 hrivna is a "good" salary by Ukrainian standards).
The last thing EU wants is an additional stream of refugees from Ukraine escaping miserable salaries
and lack of decently paying jobs and pressure of Ukrainian migrant workers on unqualified job market
positions.... So far the main hit for this was not in Western but in Russian job market, but that may
change. At the same time making the Ukraine enemy of Russia is a definitive geopolitical victory, achieved
with relatively modest financial infusions (USA estimate is 5 billions, the EU is probably a half of
that) and indirect support of Western Ukrainian nationalists.
One year ago there was a hope the Donetsk problem will be solved. Now in 2016 this civil war entered
the third year -- Kiev government can't squash unrecognized Donetsk Republic with military force and
it does not want to switch to federal state to accommodate their pretty modest demands: initially use
of Russian language and reverse of "creeping cultural colonization" of this region by Western Ukraine.
Initially the official language question was the one of the most important and Kiev Provisional government
rejected Canadian variant of using the same language as its powerful, dominant neighbor and unleashed
a civil war (with full blessing of the USA, which pursue "divide and conquer strategy in this region
from the moment of dissolution of the USSR). Now after so much bloodshed the positions are hardened...
Imagine that the Quebec nationalists came to power in Canada by French supported and financed coup,
and instantly outlawed the English language for official usage and in schools and universities.
Notable quotes:
"... If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved? ..."
"... That has surely been largely achieved. ..."
"... That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR. ..."
"... Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. ..."
"... They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. ..."
"... I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond. ..."
"... If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat. ..."
"... Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained. ..."
"... It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia. ..."
"... True, but again a very short term achievement. ..."
"... NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible ..."
"... The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either. ..."
"... [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term. ..."
"... Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. ..."
"... All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment. ..."
"... As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical. ..."
"... To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done. ..."
"... No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. ..."
"... As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it. ..."
"... If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. ..."
"... I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. ..."
"... As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does. ..."
"... Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially. ..."
"... The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar. ..."
"... And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage? ..."
"... Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies. ..."
"... NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage. ..."
"... I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. ..."
"... NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was. ..."
"... My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake. ..."
"... My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do. ..."
"... The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth. ..."
"... There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children ..."
"... Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg. ..."
"... To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. ..."
"... Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there. ..."
"... Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays. ..."
"... I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN. ..."
"... Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia ..."
"... The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles. ..."
"... This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'? ..."
The premise that the West must be losing is a bit simplistic. If you made a list of perhaps
ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been
achieved?
For example, one goal was to destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that
were oriented towards Russia. That has surely been largely achieved.
Another goal was to radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. That has largely
happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into
the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR.
Another goal was to stress the Russian military with having to respond to too many problems
in a short period of time, which may be relevant if and when the West hits on several fronts
at once.
Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western
corporations is about to begin. Doubt Russia can stop that.
Not denying that Putin and his circle have survived, and that the Russian economy is in better
shape than most expected, but we should try to think long and hard about the pros and cons of
the Kremlin's approaches.
They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. Approximately
zero soft power in a place that it should have been straightforward to create.
People have been writing novels and articles for a long time about how the West could gin up
a war in the Ukraine to start an attack on Russia or otherwise break the establishment in Moscow.
It was fairly obvious.
I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it
very hard for Russia to respond.
Kiev would start a major offensive against Donetsk and Lugansk.
Transdnistria is currently blockaded by Moldova and Ukraine with no food supplies allowed
to pass. Moldovan military operation might follow and Russia would be mostly unable to respond
by other means than missile strikes against Moldova – which Russia under extremely cautious
Putin would never do.
Azerbaijan would launch an offensive against Armenia in Nagarno-Karabakh. Russia lacks
common border with Armenia so Russia's options would again be limited.
Albanian proxies, supported and trained by the West, would start military and terrorist
attacks against Macedonian authorities.
NATO would start to bomb Syrian military and capital to oust and kill Assad.
Georgia might start another military operation against South Ossetia in parallel with others
if it thinks Russia is too preoccupied to respond.
NATO-funded and -trained Islamic militants would attack authorities in Central Asian countries
like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either
capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with
conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major
geopolitical defeat.
Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability
is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago,
and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained.
The Moldovan army is not capable of defeating Transdnistria by itself, so victory would
require NATO troops to join in the attack. And if it comes to the point where NATO is willing
to directly assault Russian forces, then there's no reason to hold back anyway.
The West plays the short game, so initially it may look
like they have achieved much, much like their foreign policy successes at first, which then turn
out to be disasters with the West reduced to firefighting.
1:..destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented
towards Russia.This has not succeeded. It has without doubt caused problems and will
affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some
products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production
of components to Russia.
2: ..radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia.True, but again
a very short term achievement. Food on plates and jobs don't grow on trees. What we do have
is the ones in the middle who gravitated to the traditional Russophobes, aka swing voters,
but things are only going to get worse in the Ukraine and the Nazi junta cannot deliver. Those
swing voter will swing the other way, not a Russia love in, but a pragmatic middle ground. That
is where they started.
3: Another goal was to stress the Russian military..What evidence is there of
this? Apart from quite a number of massive snap military exercises that Russia has pulled off
and impressed even the Russo-skeptic military crowd at RUSI and other MIX fronts, it is quite
efficient to fly 50 year old Tu-95 bombers around Europe wearing out expensive western military
equipment that will need to be replaced much sooner now than later. All those austerity plans
that call for holding off on major defense spending in Europe are messed up. Money going in to
weapons is money going away from jobs and the economy. Ukraine's rocket cooperation with Brazil
is dead (now switched to Russia) and also with other partners. So far the US has not actively
banned commercial satellites from being launched from Russian rockets, but the US cannot get its
billion dollar spy sats in to space without Russian rocket engines. No-one has yet pulled the
plug
NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible.
It's one thing to scream and shout, its another to drop their trousers. It is quite the paper
tiger. The USAF is set to rapidly shrink according to their own admission. The F-35 is designed
to replace 5 aircraft – hubris or what? The F-15, F16, AV-8B, A-10 & the F-18. It's a pig of an
aircraft that will perform those missions worse, in most cases, than those designed in the late
1960s early 1970s. The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to
make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either.
4:the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations
is about to begin. [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable,
but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than
just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium
to long term.
This is exactly what almost happened to Russia and then look how things turned out. Ukraine
is of course a different case and the West will certainly try and manage it to their advantage,
but it won't work if it is not for sustained profit. Either way it is the West to whom the
Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. This is long before we throw
any legal questions in to the mix. Whoever is in power now will pay the political price in future
sooner or later. All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right
moment.
As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit
harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as
much as possible, only intervening when critical.
Part of the problem with western politics and the Pork Pie News Networks of the last 25 years
is the we must do something now mentality. Let's put it this way, you go in to hospital
for a non-critical undiagnosed condition. Would you a) want to have the tests done and the best
course of action chosen with your consent, or b) panic & be rushed to the operating theater so
that they can just have a look around?
To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative.
If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must
be done.
In short, as it is written on the cover of the good book, DON'T PANIC!
No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has
played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. The
science of mind manipulation has made great progress over the last century. It is a big mistake
to just deal on an oligarchic level. Ukrainians have a legitimate gripe that their country is
insanely corrupt and they can easily blame Moscow. That being the case, measures needed to be
taken. And not creating any semblance of a pro-Russian political or intellectual class was similarly
stupid.
As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to
your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just
smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the
Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop
a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the
Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it.
If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems
on the periphery as possible. Could be Georgia; could be Central Asia; could be Transnistria.
What would be your advice to those in US think tanks who are trying to keep domination of the
world? What would be a good strategy? And, for what it is worth, I wouldn't take the problems
with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. That
is where all the money and technology have gone for the last 30 years. Do you really think the
US would struggle to get to the Moon now and did it in 1969? Be serious – all technology is tremendously
better today.
As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia
occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last
a lot longer than the Ukraine does.
Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's
where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the
US to over-extend itself politically & financially.
The US want to do more but it can't
do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to
give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move
of some oil trading out of the US dollar.
And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created?
For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will
bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the
West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem
on their plate they can't quite manage?
I have no doubt that the US has been trying to tie up Russia, but it is just more frenetic
than before, the main planks of NATO enlargement (and weakening) resolved, but the rest has gone
a bit wrong. The West is growing increasingly desperate and is trying all sorts of things to undermine
Russia, but it could be much, much worse from a sanctions point of view. Level heads in the West
understand that trying to pull the rug out completely from under Russia is a massive risk and
one they are very careful in making.
As for their wonder-weapons, the US cannot afford enough of them or make them cheap enough
for their allies to buy in sufficient numbers. It is much easier and cheaper to upgrade the sensors
and missiles on a SAM system than to design and bring to production standard a brand new wonder-weapon.
The old days of easily blinding air-defenses are almost over when you can have a lot of cheap
distributed sensors providing the information, passively & actively. The countermeasure is a lot
cheaper.
In al, Money Money Money – and every passing day the US has less to leverage and has to spread
it far and wide:
Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment,
and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away,
that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago,
that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies.
NATO has
not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit,
but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm
in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much
of anything but manage.
I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and
a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern
borders. The part that NATO is having trouble with is getting Russia to destroy it, so that
it will be in the minds of Ukrainians for generations who did this to them.
NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know
how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians
what a failure the promise of western largesse was.
That's all reasonable, though it is hard to believe that there isn't a lot more than just some
black earth to expropriate.
My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do
blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made
a mistake.
That's true enough, and it appears there has always been a certain amount of hostility to Russia
west of the Dneipr, so they perhaps did not need too much coaxing. My main point in rubbing
the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early
days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do.
The country it said it would confidently bat aside in its confident stroll to victory has not
only weathered western attempts to crush its economy and put in place safeguards which will hurt
western business opportunities in future, it has strengthened a powerful alliance with Asia and
garnered considerable international sympathy, which implies increased hostility toward the west.
Meanwhile, the country the west bragged it would snatch from Russia's orbit and make a model of
a prosperous western democracy is miserable, poor and angry.
The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally
this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond
lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with
plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs
in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth.
There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve
a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. Many such opportunities
rely on western interests taking over Ukrainian businesses and asset-stripping them like crazy;
however, the main buyer in many cases would be Russia, which has no interest in making western
businesses rich, or other western buyers who would have to take over and run a Ukrainian business
in a very uncertain environment in which its biggest market is Russia.
A copypaste from Auslander (formelry of MPnet), originally from Saker's blog:
"This is not the first time such atrocities [the mutilated rebel prisoner] have happened
in this conflict and it will not be the last.
The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains
of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building
on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right
sector called their own during the maidan debacle.
The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll
there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children.
I know the official death toll and I know the real death toll. We also lost a friend in that
atrocity, not in the building but at the far end of the square, beaten to death because he
was walking home from work at the wrong place and the wrong time. Why was he beaten to death?
He had a speech impediment and when he got nervous he literally could not talk. Since he could
not say 'salo yucrane' 5 right sector boys beat him to death in broad daylight.
Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned
to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed
in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were
too few to defend the berg.
The killings of innocents and not so innocents have been ongoing since the beginning and
well before the beginning of the conflict that let to what is now Novorossiya. One can not
morally justify killing all the UAF because of the acts of a relative few, but you can rest
assured that documentations are being kept for all who can be identified as committing either
individual or mass atrocities.
To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who
when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands
of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay
for their crimes. Do you think all those 'people' who commit atrocities and then post
photos of the atrocities and openly brag about them on social media will walk away unscathed?
Again, no hardly. Do you think we don't know who was and is abducting young women and even
girl children for their use and then killed and discarded them like less than animals? They
are known.
I can go on for reams but you get the idea. These are crimes being committed by a relative
few of UAF, and for the record anyone fighting for Ukraine against Novorossiya is a member
of UAF, their military unit does not matter. In the end justice will be done, by the law and
with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice,
like revenge, is a dish best served cold.
As for those few of you who are still aghast at the total and deafening silence from USEU
over these ongoing atrocities and crimes, I urge you to forget any chance of anything being
said about we untermenschen being slaughtered by those civilized denizens of USEU. It is not
going to happen so stop complaining about it. Never forget, never forgive, always remember,
but don't complain, it's useless."
Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment
because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine
and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there.
Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited
to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And
it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev
or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays.
He says "In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible.
Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold."
I do believe various people involved in Odessa have disappeared – or turned up. Dead. Some have
had to go to ground. Some have "died" under unbelievable circumstances, but their new name will
probably still have the same face. The biggest obstacle will be all this wearing of masks, but
with more recent atrocities, where they are garrisoned in the cities for months, they'd be known
anyway..
The spirit of Novorossiya will be expanding (not yet). Things may slowly go back towards normal.
But fully normal it can never be, while murderers and torturers walk free by the hundreds. It
is going to be a very long headache for Ukraine.
I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that
hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged,
but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought
the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather
than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register
on those who get all their news from CNN.
Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other
who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate
proof that Tupak is alive
in Serbia
The election of Poland's new president spells
big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just
recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who
forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200
thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles.
Of course J Hawk's take is probably on the money. J.Hawk's Comment:
Not so fast. I'm not so sure that Duda wants to do any of the things described above. One
of the major reasons Duda won is the defection of the rural voters, whose average income declined
by 14% in 2014 in large measure due to Russian food embargo. Since Duda knows on which side
his bread is buttered (no pun intended), deep down he also realizes the importance of that
embargo lifting. His UPA criticism may well be only an excuse, a pretext to allow himself to
maneuver out of his election campaign pro-Ukraine position while saving face. Because, ultimately,
what is the likelihood that the Rada will actually pass a law that "de-heroizes" UPA to a sufficient
degree? And even if it does, will Bandera monuments start disappearing from Lvov and other
parts of Western Ukraine?
This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk
the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective
in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the
preservation of ill-gotten capital!'?
"... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit
to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on
the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in
the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known
as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given
the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly
complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize
them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even
less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine
is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with
scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
... ... ...
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly
voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict
is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive
"within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.
... ... ...
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's)
preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely,
that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities
to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no
agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple,
undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick
in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous
military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass
- despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between
two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war
that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.
Igor
Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist
of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian
army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple
things...
Imba > Igor
Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West,
while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring
articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
Please respect him ;)
Dima Lauri > Imba
I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin
troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.
folktruther
a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event
of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq.
Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe,
especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese
bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.
One way of looking at the federal government is that part of it is permanent and another part
of it is transient. The transient government comprises those elected officials and political appointees
who change when administrations change.
There are exceptions (like Bob Gates staying on at Defense), but presidents work hard to fill
as many positions as the law allows with folks beholden, loyal and like-minded. After all, elections
matter and these political appointees reflect that constitutional process.
There are limits, of course, some in law because of 19th-century civil service reforms and others
out of practical considerations. In early 2009 President Obama changed out Mike McConnell as director
of national intelligence and me as
CIA
director, but he personally intervened to keep
Steve Kappes on as deputy
CIA
director at Langley. And, as per tradition, he made no other changes in the intelligence community.
Both permanent and transient elements contribute to the policy process. The permanent government
brings with it fact-based expertise and experience, both of which are virtues unless they become
so dominant as to foster stagnation. The transient folks bring a political legitimacy along with
a vision and energy for change that stimulates progress unless they become so obsessive that it fosters
recklessness.
There is a clear tension, but the tension can be creative. With ambiguous information and split
counsel, presidents can be bold without being reckless, informed without being captured by expertise,
as happened in both 2011's Abbottabad raid and 2007's Iraq surge.
... ... ...
• Gen. Michael Hayden is a former director of the
CIA and the National Security Agency. He can be reached at [email protected].
Now in its seventh year, it might be good to take a look at some key decisions of the Obama administration
through the lens of this distinction. It could be especially illuminating since this president is
known to keep his own counsel and his administration has earned a reputation as being insular and
controlling at the expense of Cabinet officials (who more tend to represent the views of the permanent
government).
Out of the gate, two days after the inauguration, the president promised to empty Guantanamo within
a year. I was still in government at the time and we all supported the concept of reducing the prisoner
population. We already had released hundreds. But IF WE HAD BEEN ASKED, we would have pushed back
on the 12-month timeline as creating pressure to make bad decisions on releases - which the permanent
government was duty-bound to oppose, as it has and as it continues to try to do.
There may have been some of that same dynamic at work five years later with the Bergdahl swap
for five Taliban leaders from Guantanamo. The political imperatives to clean up the Afghan battlefield
(no man left behind) before the administration's self-imposed clock ran out and to reduce the population
at Guantanamo led to an incredibly awkward Rose Garden ceremony with the Bergdahl family, administration
characterizations that a deserter had served with "honor and distinction," and a new precedent of
negotiating with terrorists that the permanent government would have to live with.
The administration routinely has shown itself to be fond of timelines, the better (I suppose)
to enforce and police the implementation of decisions. Hence, withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan
were on the clock rather than being conditions-based, the approach that would have been supported
by the permanent government. Playing to the shot clock led to near disaster in Iraq (and a return
of U.S. forces) and threatened to do the same in Afghanistan until withdrawals of troops were pushed
to the right.
In Libya the president decided to go to war (although he later overruled DOD and directed it not
be called a war to avoid triggering the War Powers Act) to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi, a decision
opposed by some National Security Council members. It took seven months, but Gadhafi was killed,
his government destroyed, local tribes empowered and Libya descended into chaos.
Despite accurate predictions that - absent massive post-Gadhafi attention and involvement (and
maybe even with it) - Libya would become a failed state, "leading from behind" ensured that not even
the heroic efforts of a murdered American ambassador could forestall a terrorist arms depot and safe
haven.
The ambassador was killed, by the way, despite repeated requests for increased security within
the permanent government that went nowhere with an administration set on "normalizing" its diplomatic
footprint in Libya and then later trying to exonerate itself with a story that "the video made them
do it." I know of no one currently or previously in the permanent government who thought that Ambassador
Susan E. Rice's Sunday morning talking points could stand for very long.
The permanent government has been posting alarms elsewhere. Former Defense Intelligence Agency
Director Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn has made it clear that at least his corner of the American intelligence
community did not believe that al Qaeda was on the run, that the tide of war was receding or that
the Islamic State was the "JV team."
Back when the Syrian battlefield was more malleable and limited force could still achieve something,
the president rejected counsel coming from his intelligence and security communities to act. Acting
even then was a risky course and success was not guaranteed, but it's hard to imagine a scenario
worse than the one in which we find ourselves now, with a terrorist state the size of Belgium straddling
the ancient trade routes of the Middle East.
None of the conservatives running for president want to be associated with the last Republican
president - not even his brother (for whom stepping away is rather complicated). After all, George
W. Bush left office with an approval rating hovering in the low 30s, and his grandest project was
the gigantic catastrophe of the Iraq War, which we're still dealing with and still debating. If you're
a Republican right now you're no doubt wishing we could talk about something else, but failing that,
you'd like the issue framed in a particular way: The war was an honest mistake, nobody lied to the
public, and anything bad that's happening now is Barack Obama's fault.
For the moment I want to focus on the part about the lies. I've found over the years that conservatives
who supported the war get particularly angry at the assertion that Bush lied us into war. No, they'll
insist, it wasn't his fault: There was mistaken intelligence, he took that intelligence in good faith,
and presented what he believed to be true at the time. It's the George Costanza
defense: It's not
a lie if you believe it.
Here's the problem, though. It might be possible, with some incredibly narrow definition
of the word "lie," to say that Bush told only a few outright lies on Iraq. Most of what he said in
order to sell the public on the war could be said to have some basis in something somebody thought
or something somebody alleged (Bush was slightly more careful than Dick Cheney, who lied without
hesitation or remorse). But if we reduce the question of Bush's guilt and responsibility to how many
lies we can count, we miss the bigger picture.
What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive,
sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much
time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed
a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials
on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President
Bush himself. But the theory on which the White House operated was that whether or not you could
fool all of the people some of the time, you could certainly scare them out of their wits. That's
what was truly diabolical about their campaign.
And it was a campaign. In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the
White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen
Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq
in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House
press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with
Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration
in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the
administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble
up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others
would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or
someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.
And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack
the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons, and who knows how many Americans
would perish. When you actually spell it out like that it sounds almost comical, but that was the
Bush administration's assertion, repeated hundreds upon hundreds of time to a public still skittish
in the wake of September 11. (Remember, the campaign for the war began less than a year after the
September 11 attacks.)
Sometimes this message was imparted with specific false claims, sometimes with dark insinuation,
and sometimes with speculation about the horrors to come ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a
mushroom cloud," said Bush and others when asked about the thinness of much of their evidence). Yet
the conclusion was always the same: The only alternative to invading Iraq was waiting around to be
killed. I could pick out any of a thousand quotes, but here's just one, from a radio address Bush
gave on September 28, 2002:
The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to
make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack
in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime has long-standing and continuing
ties to terrorist groups, and there are al Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This regime is seeking
a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.
What wasn't utterly false in that statement was disingenuous at best. But if there was anything
that marked the campaign, it was its certainty. There was seldom any doubt expressed or admitted,
seldom any hint that the information we had was incomplete, speculative, and the matter of fevered
debate amongst intelligence officials. But that's what was going on beneath the administration's
sales job.
The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe
today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration
picked out the parts that they wanted - supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter
- and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear.
This is one of the many sins for which Bush and those who supported him ought to spend a lifetime
atoning. He looked out at the American public and decided that the way to get what he wanted was
to terrify them. If he could convince them that any day now their children would die a horrible death,
that they and everything they knew would be turned to radioactive ash, and that the only chance of
averting this fate was to say yes to him, then he could have his war. Lies were of no less value
than truth, so long as they both created enough fear.
"... is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to global security. ..."
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit
to it the day after showed that to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on
the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic artillery fire could be heard in
the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known
as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given
the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable. Many bitterly
complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize
them as a whole by grouping the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even
less of an appetite for a way back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine
is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding Russian involvement were met with
scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
... ... ...
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly
voted to supply Kiev with lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict
is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects Kiev to launch a new major offensive
"within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long haul.
... ... ...
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's)
preferred policy choice is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely,
that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow increase the number of Russian fatalities
to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no
agency on the part of the rebel fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple,
undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via sanctions or via a significant uptick
in military casualties - to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the indigenous
military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass
- despite repeated protestations from Kiev's representatives in Washington - is a civil war between
two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of their country. It is a civil war
that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
James Carden is a contributing editor for The National Interest.
Igor
Wow! Who is allowed to publish this article in the Western free press? Who allowed the journalist
of National Interest go to Moscow and to Donetsk!? And what about the story about invisible Russian
army? :-))) James Carden is real hero! :-))) Western press need 1 year for understanding of simple
things...
Imba > Igor
Psst, don't scare them with your sarcasm. I'm sure author feels like a pioneer on Wild West,
while writing such articles. You can scare him away and we will have to read again dull and boring
articles about invasions, annexation, tattered economy, moscovites eating hedgehogs and so on.
Please respect him ;)
Dima Lauri > Imba
I am sure authors who does not accept the version of Washington will be soon labeled by "Putin
troll", "Payed KGB agent", "Drunk/Stupid" or whatever verbal distortion.
folktruther
a good article for a change. the Ukraine coup engineered by Washington was the worst event
of Obama's administration, and may perhaps turn out to be worse that Bush jr's invasion of Iraq.
Washington simply wants a war, cold or hot, to disconnect Europe from Russia. hopefully Europe,
especially Germany and france, will rebel against Washington policy like they did the Chinese
bank, averting a war among nuclear powers. but the issue is currently in doubt.
"If we're training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up
as soldiers, when are they going to pick up the mentality
of soldiers? If you look at the police department, their creed is to protect and to serve.
A soldier's mission is to engage his enemy in close combat and kill him. Do we want police officers
to have that mentality? Of course not."
- Arthur Rizer, former civilian police officer and member
of the military
Talk about poor timing. Then again, perhaps it's brilliant timing.
Obama also indicated that less heavy-duty equipment (armored vehicles, tactical vehicles, riot
gear and specialized firearms and ammunition) will reportedly be
subject to more regulations such as local government approval, and police being required to undergo
more training and collect data on the equipment's use. Perhaps hoping to sweeten the deal, the Obama
administration is also offering $163 million in taxpayer-funded grants to "incentivize
police departments to adopt the report's recommendations."
distributed equipment designed for use on the battlefield to local police departments,
provided private grants to communities to incentivize SWAT team raids,
redefined "community policing" to reflect aggressive police tactics and funding a nationwide
COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program that has contributed to dramatic rise in SWAT
teams,
encouraged the distribution of DHS anti-terror grants and the growth of "contractors that
now cater to police agencies looking to cash DHS checks in exchange for battle-grade gear,"
ramped up the use of military-style raids to crack down on immigration laws and target "medical
marijuana growers, shops, and dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug,"
defended as "reasonable" aggressive, militaristic police tactics in cases where police raided
a guitar shop in defense of an obscure environmental law, raided a home looking for a woman who
had defaulted on her student loans, and terrorized young children during a raid on the wrong house
based on a mistaken license plate,
and ushered in an era of outright highway robbery in which asset forfeiture laws have been
used to swindle Americans out of cash, cars, houses, or other property that government agents
can "accuse" of being connected to a crime.
It remains to be seen whether this overture on Obama's part, coming in the midst of heightened
tensions between the nation's police forces and the populace they're supposed to protect, opens the
door to actual reform or is merely a political gambit to appease the masses all the while further
acclimating
the populace to life in a police state.
Certainly, on its face, it does nothing to ease the misery of the police state that has been foisted
upon us. In fact, Obama's belated gesture of concern does little to roll back the
deadly menace of overzealous police agencies corrupted by money, power and institutional immunity.
And it certainly fails to recognize the
terrible toll that has been inflicted on our communities, our fragile ecosystem of a democracy,
and our freedoms as a result of the government's determination to bring the war home.
It's a safe bet that our little worlds will be no safer following Obama's pronouncement and the
release of his
"Task Force on 21st Century Policing" report. In fact, there is a very good chance that life
in the American police state will become even more perilous.
Among the report's 50-page list of recommendations is a call for more police officer boots on
the ground, training for police "on the importance of de-escalation of force," and "positive
non-enforcement activities" in high-crime communities to promote trust in the police such as
sending an ice cream truck across the city.
Curiously, nowhere in the entire 120-page report is there a mention of the Fourth Amendment, which demands
that the government respect citizen privacy and bodily integrity. The Constitution is referenced
once, in the Appendix, in relation to Obama's authority as president. And while the word "constitutional"
is used 15 times within the body of the report, its use provides little assurance that the Obama
administration actually understands the clear prohibitions against government overreach as enshrined
in the U.S. Constitution.
For instance, in the section of the report on the use of technology and social media, the report
notes: "Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement
duties, the legal framework
(warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data obtained from cell
phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent, or respond to
crime."
Translation: as I document in my book
Battlefield
America: The War on the American People, the new face of policing in America is
about to shift from waging its war on the American people using primarily the weapons of the battlefield
to the evermore-sophisticated technology of the battlefield where government surveillance of our
everyday activities will be even more invasive.
This emphasis on technology, surveillance and social media is nothing new. In much the same way
the federal government used taxpayer-funded grants to "gift" local police agencies with military
weapons and equipment, it is also funding the distribution of technology aimed at making it easier
for police to monitor, track and spy on Americans. For instance, license plate readers, stingray
devices and fusion centers are all
funded by grants from the DHS.
Funding for drones at the state and local levels also comes from the federal government, which
in turn accesses the data acquired by the drones for its own uses.
If you're noticing a pattern here, it is one in which the federal government is not merely transforming
local police agencies into extensions of itself but is in fact federalizing them, turning them into
a national police force that answers not to "we the people" but to the Commander in Chief. Yet the
American police force is not supposed to be a branch of the military, nor is it a private security
force for the reigning political faction. It is supposed to be an aggregation of the countless local
civilian units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every
American community.
So where does that leave us?
There's certainly no harm in embarking on a
national dialogue
on the dangers of militarized police, but if that's all it amounts to-words that sound good on paper
and in the press but do little to actually respect our rights and restore our freedoms-then we're
just playing at politics with no intention of actually bringing about reform.
Despite the Obama Administration's lofty claims of wanting to "ensure that
public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence
of justice," this is the reality we must contend with right now:
Americans still have no real protection against police abuse. Americans
still have no right to self-defense in the face of SWAT teams mistakenly crashing through
our doors, or police officers who
shoot faster than they can reason. Americans are still
no longer innocent until
proven guilty. Americans still don't have a right to private property.
Americans are still
powerless in the face of militarized police.
Americans still don't have a
right to
bodily integrity.
Americans still don't have a right to the
expectation of privacy.
Americans are still being acclimated to a police
state through the steady use and sight of military drills domestically, a heavy militarized police
presence in public places and in the schools, and a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign aimed
at reassuring the public that the police are our "friends." And to top it all off, Americans
still can't rely on the courts, Congress or the White House to mete out justice when
our rights are violated by police.
To sum it all up: the problems we're grappling with have been building
for more than 40 years. They're not going to go away overnight, and they certainly will
not be resolved by a report that instructs the police to simply adopt different tactics to accomplish
the same results-i.e., maintain the government's power, control and wealth at all costs.
This is the sad reality of life in the American police state.
"If we're training cops as soldiers, giving them equipment like soldiers, dressing them up
as soldiers, when are they going to pick up the mentality
of soldiers? If you look at the police department, their creed is to protect and to serve.
A soldier's mission is to engage his enemy in close combat and kill him. Do we want police officers
to have that mentality? Of course not."
- Arthur Rizer, former civilian police officer and member
of the military
Talk about poor timing. Then again, perhaps it's brilliant timing.
Obama also indicated that less heavy-duty equipment (armored vehicles, tactical vehicles, riot
gear and specialized firearms and ammunition) will reportedly be
subject to more regulations such as local government approval, and police being required to undergo
more training and collect data on the equipment's use. Perhaps hoping to sweeten the deal, the Obama
administration is also offering $163 million in taxpayer-funded grants to "incentivize
police departments to adopt the report's recommendations."
distributed equipment designed for use on the battlefield to local police departments,
provided private grants to communities to incentivize SWAT team raids,
redefined "community policing" to reflect aggressive police tactics and funding a nationwide
COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program that has contributed to dramatic rise in SWAT
teams,
encouraged the distribution of DHS anti-terror grants and the growth of "contractors that
now cater to police agencies looking to cash DHS checks in exchange for battle-grade gear,"
ramped up the use of military-style raids to crack down on immigration laws and target "medical
marijuana growers, shops, and dispensaries in states that have legalized the drug,"
defended as "reasonable" aggressive, militaristic police tactics in cases where police raided
a guitar shop in defense of an obscure environmental law, raided a home looking for a woman who
had defaulted on her student loans, and terrorized young children during a raid on the wrong house
based on a mistaken license plate,
and ushered in an era of outright highway robbery in which asset forfeiture laws have been
used to swindle Americans out of cash, cars, houses, or other property that government agents
can "accuse" of being connected to a crime.
It remains to be seen whether this overture on Obama's part, coming in the midst of heightened
tensions between the nation's police forces and the populace they're supposed to protect, opens the
door to actual reform or is merely a political gambit to appease the masses all the while further
acclimating
the populace to life in a police state.
Certainly, on its face, it does nothing to ease the misery of the police state that has been foisted
upon us. In fact, Obama's belated gesture of concern does little to roll back the
deadly menace of overzealous police agencies corrupted by money, power and institutional immunity.
And it certainly fails to recognize the
terrible toll that has been inflicted on our communities, our fragile ecosystem of a democracy,
and our freedoms as a result of the government's determination to bring the war home.
It's a safe bet that our little worlds will be no safer following Obama's pronouncement and the
release of his
"Task Force on 21st Century Policing" report. In fact, there is a very good chance that life
in the American police state will become even more perilous.
Among the report's 50-page list of recommendations is a call for more police officer boots on
the ground, training for police "on the importance of de-escalation of force," and "positive
non-enforcement activities" in high-crime communities to promote trust in the police such as
sending an ice cream truck across the city.
Curiously, nowhere in the entire 120-page report is there a mention of the Fourth Amendment, which demands
that the government respect citizen privacy and bodily integrity. The Constitution is referenced
once, in the Appendix, in relation to Obama's authority as president. And while the word "constitutional"
is used 15 times within the body of the report, its use provides little assurance that the Obama
administration actually understands the clear prohibitions against government overreach as enshrined
in the U.S. Constitution.
For instance, in the section of the report on the use of technology and social media, the report
notes: "Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement
duties, the legal framework
(warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data obtained from cell
phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent, or respond to
crime."
Translation: as I document in my book
Battlefield
America: The War on the American People, the new face of policing in America is
about to shift from waging its war on the American people using primarily the weapons of the battlefield
to the evermore-sophisticated technology of the battlefield where government surveillance of our
everyday activities will be even more invasive.
This emphasis on technology, surveillance and social media is nothing new. In much the same way
the federal government used taxpayer-funded grants to "gift" local police agencies with military
weapons and equipment, it is also funding the distribution of technology aimed at making it easier
for police to monitor, track and spy on Americans. For instance, license plate readers, stingray
devices and fusion centers are all
funded by grants from the DHS.
Funding for drones at the state and local levels also comes from the federal government, which
in turn accesses the data acquired by the drones for its own uses.
If you're noticing a pattern here, it is one in which the federal government is not merely transforming
local police agencies into extensions of itself but is in fact federalizing them, turning them into
a national police force that answers not to "we the people" but to the Commander in Chief. Yet the
American police force is not supposed to be a branch of the military, nor is it a private security
force for the reigning political faction. It is supposed to be an aggregation of the countless local
civilian units that exist for a sole purpose: to serve and protect the citizens of each and every
American community.
So where does that leave us?
There's certainly no harm in embarking on a
national dialogue
on the dangers of militarized police, but if that's all it amounts to-words that sound good on paper
and in the press but do little to actually respect our rights and restore our freedoms-then we're
just playing at politics with no intention of actually bringing about reform.
Despite the Obama Administration's lofty claims of wanting to "ensure that
public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence
of justice," this is the reality we must contend with right now:
Americans still have no real protection against police abuse. Americans
still have no right to self-defense in the face of SWAT teams mistakenly crashing through
our doors, or police officers who
shoot faster than they can reason. Americans are still
no longer innocent until
proven guilty. Americans still don't have a right to private property.
Americans are still
powerless in the face of militarized police.
Americans still don't have a
right to
bodily integrity.
Americans still don't have a right to the
expectation of privacy.
Americans are still being acclimated to a police
state through the steady use and sight of military drills domestically, a heavy militarized police
presence in public places and in the schools, and a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign aimed
at reassuring the public that the police are our "friends." And to top it all off, Americans
still can't rely on the courts, Congress or the White House to mete out justice when
our rights are violated by police.
To sum it all up: the problems we're grappling with have been building
for more than 40 years. They're not going to go away overnight, and they certainly will
not be resolved by a report that instructs the police to simply adopt different tactics to accomplish
the same results-i.e., maintain the government's power, control and wealth at all costs.
This is the sad reality of life in the American police state.
Two separate reviews of The Fourth Star, a new book by David Cloud and Greg Jaffee, touch
on a theme that has fascinated me since I wrote a dissertation on the subject.
"The Fourth Star" paints wonderfully dramatic portraits of the four senior officers highlighted
here, but at its heart it's a story about bureaucracy. As an institution, the United States Army
has much more in common with, say, a giant corporation like General Motors than with a professional
sports team like the New York Giants. You can't cut players who don't perform, and it's hard to
fire your head coach. Like General Motors, the Army changes very slowly, and once it does, it's
hard to turn it around again.
Actually, it's arguably easier to "cut" bad soldiers than bad football players nowadays, since
the latter often have huge signing bonuses and hold teams hostage in a salary cap era. But,
otherwise, Filkins is right. While the military is relatively efficient, it's not only a bureaucracy
but the very thing bureaucracy was modeled after. Which makes it amusing when conservatives
simultaneously rant about the inefficiency of bureaucracy while extolling the virtues of military
efficiency. (The military, along with their brethren in the intelligence community and foreign
service, does tend to be more motivated and obedient to orders from above than your average bureaucracy.)
One of the most trenchant discussions of these wrong "lessons learned" post-Vietnam is General
David Petraeus'
PhD dissertation,
which the review of The Fourth Star mentions tangentially. While Petraeus might have
"irritated many of his fellow officers on his way up," he also identified an important bureaucratic
reality, noting it in his dissertation: any serving officer who writes a PhD dissertation critical
of the US Army as an institution and publishes it as a book will not rise to the ranks
of the general officer corps. Petraeus, of course, heeded his own advice, as his dissertation
remained safely tucked away in the Princeton library (until the age of scanning and posting to
the Internet; h/t to Paula Broadwell for sharing the link). He was able to continue his upward
trajectory, unlike such recent soldier-scholars as
Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) John Nagl,
whose Oxford DPhil became Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, arguably a self-inflicted
career wound as an Army officer because of its coherent, incisive critique of the Army's failures
as a learning organization.
Brigadier General H.R.
McMaster, however, is the exception that proves the rule, because it was only
the patronage of General Petraeus that made him a general officer after twice being passed
over for promotion from colonel to brigadier general. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty
was the oft-cited, seldom-read mantra of senior officers in the last decade and appeared to be
part of the hold-up for his advancement. Further compounding the delay, his successful counterinsurgency
campaign as the commander of an armored cavalry regiment in Tall Afar made his conventionally-minded
brigade commander peers look bad (or at least that's one interpretation of how it was viewed within
the Army).
How a bureaucracy without lateral entry promotes and selects its leaders is a vital issue with
implications measured in decades, dollars, and lives. I look forward to reading how Cloud and
Jaffe capture this dynamic in the US Army today.
One could argue McMaster exemplifies, rather than serving as an exception, to the rule. Generally,
being passed over - let alone twice - for promotion pretty much indicates that you're done.
Certainly as a prospective general officer. Conversely - and I don't claim to have any
inside scoop here - Nagl certainly seemed to be an officer on a fast track who left the Army voluntarily
to 1) so his family could settle down and 2) to take advantage of a flood of opportunities to apply
his expertise in the think tank arena. It seemingly proved a wise choice, as he soon
wound up as president of CNAS.
It is impossible to
overstate the magnitude of the warfare-state revolution that transformed the federal government and
American society after World War II. The roots of America's foreign-policy crises today,
along with the massive infringements on civil liberties and privacy and the federal government's
program of secret indefinite incarceration, torture, assassination, and extra-judicial executions
can all be traced to the grafting of a national-security apparatus onto America's federal governmental
system in the 1940s.
Certainly, the seeds for what happened in the post-WWII era were sown prior to that time, specifically
in the move toward empire, which, interestingly enough, occurred during the same period of time that
Progressives were inducing Americans to abandon their system of economic liberty and free markets
in favor of socialism and interventionism in the form of a welfare state and regulated economy.
I'm referring to the year 1898, when the U.S. government intervened in the Spanish American War,
with the ostensible aim of helping the Cuban and Filipino people win their independence. It was a
false and fraudulent intervention, one that was actually designed to place Cuba and the Philippines
under the control of the U.S. government. The result was a brutal war in the Philippines between
U.S. forces and the Filipino people, along with a never-ending obsession to control Cuba, one that
would ending up becoming a central focus of the national-security state.
A national-security state and an empire certainly weren't among the founding principles
of the United States. In fact, the revolution in 1776 was against an empire that the British
colonists in America no longer wanted to be part of. They were sick and tired of the endless wars
and ever-increasing taxes, regulations, and oppression that come with empire and overgrown military
establishments.
In fact, there was a deep antipathy toward standing armies among the Founding Fathers.
The words of James Madison, the father of the Constitution, reflect the mindset of our American ancestors:
A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions
to liberty.The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments
of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt
was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved
the people.
What about foreign interventionism? The speech that John Quincy Adams delivered to Congress on
the 4th of July, 1821, entitled "In Search of Monsters to Destroy," expressed the sentiments of our
predecessors. Adams pointed out that there were lots of bad things in the world, things like tyranny,
oppression, famines, and the like. He said though that America would not send troops to slay these
monsters. Instead, America would build a model society of freedom right here at home for the people
of the world. In fact, if America ever became a military empire that would engage in foreign
interventionism, Adams predicted, it would fundamentally change the character of American society,
one that would look more like a society under dictatorial rule.
That's not to say that 19th-century America was a libertarian paradise with respect to warfare,
any more than it was a libertarian paradise in general, as I pointed out in my article "America's
Welfare-State Revolution." But the fact is that there was no overgrown military establishment, no
CIA, no NSA, no conscription, no foreign interventionism, and no foreign aid (and no income tax,
IRS, Federal Reserve, and fiat money to fund such things).
There was a basic military force but in relative terms it wasn't very large. There were also wars,
such as the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the Mexican War, and many military skirmishes, but with
the exception of the Civil War, the casualties were relatively low, especially compared with such
foreign wars as World War I and World War II.
Moreover, it was an established practice to demobilize after each war.That
is, a permanent war machine and perpetual war were not built into the system. War and military interventionism
were the exception, not the rule.
That all changed with the embrace of a national-security establishment after World War II.
In his Farewell Address in 1961, President Eisenhower observed that the national-security state -
or what he called the military-industrial complex - constituted an entirely new way of life for the
American people, one that entailed what amounted to a new, permanent warfare-state branch of the
federal government, consisting of an overgrown military establishment, a CIA, and an NSA, along with
an army of private-sector contractors and subcontractors who were feeding at the public trough on
a permanent basis.
Most significantly, Ike pointed out that this national-security apparatus constituted
a grave threat to the liberties and democratic processes of the American people.
This revolutionary transformation was justified in the name of "national security," which
have become the two most important words in the American lexicon, notwithstanding the fact
that no one has ever been able to define the term. The warfare-state revolution would be characterized
by an endless array of threats to national security, beginning with communism and communists, the
Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and others, and later morphing into Saddam Hussein,
terrorism, terrorists, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan,
the Taliban, and even the Muslims.
In the process, Adams proved right. By grafting a totalitarian-like structure onto America's
federal governmental system, the United States began displaying the characteristics of a dictatorial
society.
Assassination, torture, rendition, secret prisons, medical experiments on unsuspecting Americans,
the hiring of Nazis, indefinite detention, partnerships with criminal organizations and foreign dictators,
coups, sanctions, embargoes, invasions, undeclared wars, wars of aggression, and extra-judicial executions.
When any of those types of things occurred in the 19th century, they were considered exceptions to
the system. Now they have become permanent parts of the system.
And look at the results of this gigantic warfare-state transformation: ever-increasing
infringements on liberty and privacy, ever-increasing spending, debt, and taxes, and ever-increasing
anger and hatred toward our country. Yes, all the things that characterized the British
Empire that British colonists revolted against in 1776. How's that for irony?
Meanwhile, like the welfare state, modern-day Americans continue to remain convinced that
their system of government has never changed in a fundamental way. They continue to play
like their governmental system is founded on the same constitutional principles as when the country
was founded. It is a supreme act of self-deception.
The truth is that America has now had two different governmental systems: One without a national-security
apparatus and one with it. It seems to me that it's a no-brainer as to who was right and
which system was better in terms of freedom, privacy, peace, prosperity, and harmony.
Thin_Ice
This! You should see the faces on people when I try to explain to them that we're not supposed
to have an ever present military. They call me unpatriotic and a hater of our verterans. WTF?!?!
I try explaining to them we shouldn't have "veterans", that many of the conflicts they were part
of should never have happened. Still, I'm the bad guy despite the fact that the country's ideals
have drifted so far off course. I'm reluctantly getting more and more used to the deer in the
headlights response from people, which is sad.
El Vaquero
Calm down, don't get angry, and use the Socratic method with them. The cognitive dissonance
will still fight back, but ask them about why we were in Vietnam and Iraq. Lead them to the conclusion
that those wars never should have been fought. Unplugging from the matrix is very, very difficult
and very, very uncomfortable. You want them to understand your point of view so that it is much
harder for them to condemn you for it. You are dealing with deeply ingrained cultural values that
they have never questioned.
And be nice to the troops. Most of them were duped into believing that they were doing good.
You want them to turn on their masters if their masters turn on us.
q99x2
There is no America. There's parts of the globe that are labeled United States but the Banks
and Corporations have more money and power than nations. They control the land mass that people
refer to as America. They control the military that wears American uniforms and they control the
nuclear weapons that used to be American weapons. That is why nuclear weapons can be removed from
the US without prosecution or military intervention. Deal with it bitchez.
Chupacabra-322
The biggest dilemma facing today's younger Generation is the lack of a point of reference.
911 & other False Flag / PsyOp's have diluted their minds full of lies & deception.
A former KGB Agent interviewed by G. Edward Griffen explained that for a propaganda campaign
to be truly effective it has to cross over generations or be "Generational."
We"re well into the second decade of the biggest PsyOp ever conducted over the masses on a
Global Scale, 911. The Social Engineers / Revisionists have been very busy rewriting history.
"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the future controls the past."
-George Orwell.
Fun Facts
The mightiest nation on earth is run exclusively for the benefit of the mightiest banks on
earth.
Too big to fail, too big to bail, too big to jail.
The politico are the puppet class.
The people [at the very bottom of the pyramid] are the serf class with no money, no voice,
no power.
All as intended. Follow the money. Read the protocols for more detail.
Pitiful
If it were so easy. Unfortunately there are people who want control, for who knows what reason.
I always wondered myself why anyone would want more than they need but I have never been able
to come up with a clear answer that makes any logical sense. I can give a prime example: I had
a friend in college who was very wealthy and frugal, so frugal they went to a community college
with me. He was always telling me he needed more money (he already had an eight figure stash)
and one day I asked him why he needed more. The only response he could come up with was: Becuase
I want it. Again, I asked what for and he couldn't ever come up with a reasonable explanation
other than he wanted it. I don't know about anyone else here but I can say for sure that if I
was able to scrounge seven figures in my savings, I would be done saving with no need for any
more. But I'm a simple, realistic person and I would expect that my children (not that I will
ever have any) pave their own road like I did and I would leave nothing for them or anyone else
and expect them to do the same. My money will all be spent and recycled back into the economy
when I'm gone. There is no use for it after death. I'm a firm believer that if you can't survive
on your own, you don't deserve to survive at all. The animals have already figured this out and
humans knew it at one point to. Leave the weak to die or be dragged down with them.
If I ever had the opportunity to ask one of the banksters who has some "end-game" plan for
power and control over others I would only have one question: How is that going to improve your
life and why would you do that anyway? You already have everything you could possibly need for
the next 100 generations of your family. What is the fucking point?
TacticalZen
We are Rome and will follow their pattern of decline, although vastly accelerated given our
modern communications and banking.
Herdee
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, a former Treasury Official in Ronald Reagan's Administration puts it
pretty bluntly in what he's telling Americans.Americans reading this need to wake up to what a
right wing neo-fascist government is doing to their society.
All religious Americans especially need to pay heed to his insights.It's no joke,it's what's
happening right now.Can evil be defeated?The founding fathers warned you about it.
Amish Hacker
The MIC will always need a credible boogeyman to justify its existence. For years this role
was played by the Soviet Union. We were told to be afraid of commies in Moscow, in the State Department,
in Hollywood, and under every bed. Then, suddenly, came the end of Ivan, and the MIC was threatened
with irrelevance, even dissolution. We the People were beginning to wonder aloud about a "peace
dividend." Obviously, this could not be allowed.
The MIC solution was to replace the Soviet menace with the terrorist menace. Really, you
have to admire the psychopathic brilliance of this move, since terrorism is a conceptual boogeyman
that will never expire or be deposed. Multiple, ongoing wars are now our new normal, and saddest
of all, we seem to be getting used to it.
Jack Burton
This post somehow brings to mind a High School Class Reunion I attented 5 years ago.
We are all old enough now to have been set in our careers for 30 years. So when you talk to people
you can get a good insight into how they all made their livings after High School. My town School
was small, my class was 145 students.
What amazed me was what we all ended up talking about. It was the Military. Because as Americans
THIS was the common bond we men share. Over half of the men there were veterans, me included,
but even more than that, there was our lives after military service, and those who went direct
to college. The college kids grew up and from those I talked to, there we many who work for the
big defense industries in the Minneapolis Metro Area. Plus we had students who went west and worked
for giant defense industries out there. Our conversations revolved around missiles, torpedoes,
radars, air craft and high explosives. I met a class mate who designed the explosives for Bunker
Busters and other High Energy weapons. One class mate helped build the guidance for the type of
torpedoes my ship used. One class mate knew the type of detection gear I operated in the Navy,
as his father designed much of it. On and On it went.
By the end of the night, it seems half of our class was employed in military design and construction,
the other half of average guys were all vets. Yes, Middle America, out where I live, is a totally
militarized entity. It really hit home when you talk to a group you have known all your life.
Monetas
If we ever had an Empire .... it was a Moral Empire .... and it needs to be regained,
improved and expanded .... it's called American Exceptionalism .... and I'm not impressed with
the pretenders to our throne .... nor their bootlicking lackeys .... a bunch of chickens ....
cackling in the Barnyard of Life !
Errors and Lies, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: Surprise! It turns out that there's
something to be said for having the brother of a failed president make his own run for the White
House. Thanks to Jeb Bush, we may finally have the frank discussion of the Iraq invasion we should
have had a decade ago
The Iraq war wasn't an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence
that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war.
The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at
that. We were, in a fundamental sense, lied into war.
This was, in short, a war the White House wanted, and all of the supposed mistakes that, as
Jeb puts it, "were made" by someone unnamed actually flowed from this underlying desire.
Now, you can understand why many political and media figures would prefer not to talk about
any of this. Some of them may have fallen for the obvious lies, which doesn't say much about their
judgment. More, I suspect, were complicit: they realized that the official case for war was a
pretext, but had their own reasons for wanting a war, or, alternatively, allowed themselves to
be intimidated into going along.
On top of these personal motives, our news media in general have a hard time coping with
policy dishonesty. Reporters are reluctant to call politicians on their lies, even when these
involve mundane issues like budget numbers, for fear of seeming partisan. In fact, the bigger
the lie, the clearer it is that major political figures are engaged in outright fraud, the more
hesitant the reporting. And it doesn't get much bigger - indeed, more or less criminal - than
lying America into war.
But truth matters, and not just because those who refuse to learn from history are doomed in
some general sense to repeat it. The campaign of lies that took us into Iraq was recent enough
that it's still important to hold the guilty individuals accountable. Never mind Jeb Bush's verbal
stumbles. Think, instead, about his foreign-policy team, led by people who were directly involved
in concocting a false case for war.
So let's get the Iraq story right. Yes, from a national point of view the invasion was a mistake.
But (with apologies to Talleyrand)
it was worse than a mistake, it was a crime.
pgl said
George W. Bush and Dick Cheney knew all along what the real deal in Iraq was when they
went in. General Zinni knew too and he said this would be a disaster. Bush pretends he listened
to his generals. Really> Zinni warned us not to go in back in 2002. So yea - Jeb and his advisers
would have invaded knowing what we know today as they knew all of this back then. But hey - it
worked to get Bush-Cheney reelected in 2004!
ilsm said in reply to pgl
Most of the generals (I was in the business of buying) saw Iraq as business development,
a fine little war to get the budgets up.
It has been fine at getting the budgets up.
The GOP move to raise the pentagon limits over the sequestration depends on more crazed
activity in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. While rattling the saber at Russia over the CIA's mistake
in Kiev. Since 2003 I tried to (really retire, I was double dipping) retire twice both times my
phone rings with more "work" at great compensation.
mulp said in reply to pgl
We the People who vote in all elections voted to invade Iraq in 2002.
The declaration of war
if Bush wants it was voted on before the 2002 november election. Almost five hundred members of
Congress were subject to being popular referendum on that vote and on their votes for job killing
tax cuts.
Republicans won on the basis of their wars and job killing tax cuts, and Democrats lost 2 Senate
seats and 8 House seats.
We the People who vote in all elections love the free lunch economics and politics of the neoconservative
Republican party.
It is neoconservative because conservatives decided to merge the hatred of taxes with the "spend"
of liberal "tax and spend". Redefine American Exceptionalism and now you have free lunch tax cuts
that pay for more spending on entitlements and wars that generate a profit.
We the People who vote in all elections seem to be in the "you can fool some of the people
all the time" They are the free lunch economic conservatives who believe that sacrifice is what
happens to other people. If they suffer, its the fault of liberals. But they know that they can
gain disproportionate power by being We the People who vote in every election.
Opponents are those who vote only for dictator every 4 years, without realizing that neoconservatives
call the president dictator to rally their faithful to vote in every damn election.
The verdict on the Iraq mistake was rendered November 2002, not in 2004, and the verdict was
We the People who care about the US voted to support the stupid Iraq war. Those who opposed the
war did not give a damn and did not vote in 2002, believing the power is in the dictator.
DrDick said in reply to mulp
What do you mean, "we", Kimosabe? I have never voted for a Republican and have opposed ever war
or military intervention war since Vietnam. A large number of people did so, but those who did
not and vocally opposed it share none of the blame.
cawley said in reply to DrDick
Ditto.
Plus many of the people who did vote, did so on the basis of lies.
PK is absolutely correct that shrub, et al, knew that it was a lie. Even though many of us
that followed the AUMF and stove piping closely knew that a lot of it was fabricated, for John
Q Public depending on network news it was all "he said, she said", suitcase dirty bombs and crop
dusters spreading anthrax.
When the electorate is being intentionally mislead by the Administration - from the President,
down - and the news media, it's a little disingenuous to drop all the blame on the voters.
Julio said in reply to DrDick
Not the blame, perhaps, but some of the responsibility.
We live in a representative republic. These things are done in our collective name.
pgl said in reply to mulp
Yea - did we vote to train wreck Social Security in 2004? Don't think so. BTW - I did vote in
2002 for people who were opposed to the war.
ilsm said
Jeb was caught speaking in the open things he was supposed to say only in closed sessions with
war profiteer PAC's and other exploiters of the 90%.aff. He's already made a Mitten gaff.
PNAC
is alive and well, undercover in the GOP.
They want to keep Iraq whole, but the Saudi royals do not want Iraq run by Shiites who are
67% of the population. hey need to resurrect Saddam!T
ISIS goes nowhere without Sunni support, Ramadi falling is example.
W and PNAC were invading Iraq for the money, oil was the least corrupt motive, the most corrupt
is the trillions squandered since 2003. Trillions that were taken away from US productivity and
kill social security.
The matter of US casualties is another grave sin .
mulp said in reply to ilsm
We the People who vote in all elections have the power, not PNAC.
ilsm said in reply to mulp
"We the MISLEAD People who vote,"
Faux News, we the mislead, aggravated to hate those people and misbelieve war mongering experts.
JohnH said
Twenty-twenty hindsight is often pretty good. But it's hard to understand what prompted Krugman
to write this piece now. Maybe he's trying the "get" Jeb (a positive.) Or maybe he's trying to
help clear a space for Hillary to "get it," a decade too late, and offer her excuses and mea culpas.
In any case, the last thing we need is another President with such poor judgement.
What's particularly
disturbing about the Iraq experience is that almost no lessons have been learned, other than perhaps
it's better to use drones instead of boots on the ground for fighting pointless and futile foreign
wars. Pelosi won a mandate in 2006 to end the war but never challenged Bush on it. Harry Reid
even held "surge" hearings on 9-11-2007, the best day possible to garner support for yet more
war.
What kept USA from attacking Iran was not Democrats in Congress or public opposition. Rather,
it was a report issued by US intelligence services, a consensus opinion that Iran had no nuclear
program. They had learned lessons from being manipulated on Iraq intelligence and wanted restore
their credibility.
Moreover, the Iraq experience in no way prevented Obama from pursuing the destruction and resulting
chaos in Afghanistan or Libya, or from thwarting self-determination with coups in Haiti, Honduras,
and Paraguay.
What Krugman is missing here is the urgent need for opinion leaders to exercise critical thinking
and judgement before these tragedies occur. By 2007, Bush was known to be a notorious liar. Nonetheless,
few questioned his intention to attack Iran, even with the consensus report of the intelligence
services that destroyed the pretexts for it.
By January, 2003 I had compiled enough evidence of Bush's phony intelligence to come out publicly
against the war, much to the dismay and horror of most people, including my bosses. All it took
was looking for the right information and connecting the dots. My point here is not to be self
congratulatory, but to show that it can be done.
What really needs discussion now is how to get American people to see through the stream
of BS emanating from Washington and their megaphones in the news media and to use their powers
of critical thinking and judgement and to preserve their personal integrity by acting to stop
stupid wars and promote the common good. That could start at Ivy League schools like the Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, where Krugman teaches.
pgl said in reply to JohnH
I guess you are the most ignorant person ever. Krugman was against this stupid war in 2002. And
cover for Hillary who voted to support Bush for whatever reasoning she now gives.
Krugman is
not leading Hillary campaign. But you still have a perfect record - for getting everything wrong.
pgl said in reply to JohnH
I guess the Google Master classes taught for Chicken Hawks like you are designed to filter out
anything that does not support the Chicken Hawk agenda. Krugman was called the Shrill One back
in 2002 for his tirades against Bush Cheney. But maybe you don't know this as you are: (1) stupid;
and (2) trained by the Bush-Cheney Chicken Hawk school of neo-McCarthyism.
Say hello to Scooter Libby for us!
JohnH said in reply to pgl
You insist on my misinterpreting my point: more important than debating Iraq is to make sure that
we don't allow ourselves to be misled again. Pulling out the long knives on Iraq means nothing
if no lessons are learned about the folly of most wars. And so far none have been learned, at
least in the Obama administration. One of the most important places for this to happen is at the
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, which would be more aptly named the
Wilson School for Warmongers.
pgl said in reply to JohnH
"By January, 2003 I had compiled enough evidence of Bush's phony intelligence to come out
publicly against the war, much to the dismay and horror of most people, including my bosses.
All it took was looking for the right information and connecting the dots. My point here is
not to be self congratulatory, but to show that it can be done."
Your bosses? Who gave you a job? A lot of people had tons of evidence to come out against the
war by then. One was General Anthony Zinni whose opposition to the planned invasion was made loud
and clear.
Why don't you share with us a link to the evidence you made public? That's right - I'm calling
you on this as you have lied so many times before. But please prove me wrong on this one.
JohnH said in reply to pgl
One piece that confirmed my thinking was a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
Memorandum. It was published on Common Dreams. The link is no longer available but its message
is summarized but not quoted verbatim at many other sources.
Second Piece: "In October 1998,
just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq [actually, they were withdrawn],
the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 [2002] declaration: "There are no indications
that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear
material of any practical significance," IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report
to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan. (.http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020927-500715.htm.).
pgl said in reply to JohnH
There was tons of the counter information. A lot of it was put up by people like Paul Krugman.
No one paying attention in early 2003 believed a word from Bush or Cheney.
don said
My own take - an important cause of the war was the fact that one of Saddam's minions tried to
kill W's father after he had left office. It was pretty obvious to me that the war was brought
on by pretexts, and especially that any ties to 9-11 were spurious. (I recall especially a snippet
from a broadcast by a British news agency, which I overheard as I was walking around the ellipse
across from the White House. The announcer was saying "
and our polls indicate that the
strategy appears to be working 80% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved
in the events of 9/11 ") Colin Powell, to his credit, was such a poor liar that it was blatantly
obvious. From accounts I read of Saddam's behavior as the invasion became imminent, I am reminded
of a scene in Robocop, where Saddam would be in the position of the hapless employee who is asked
to pick up a gun and threaten a prototype robot cop, which then malfunctions (not that Saddam
has any pity coming). Yet Hillary voted for the war.
The disconnect between truth and news seems to have grown during and since W's time, or perhaps
it is just things I noticed. Bush shirks Vietnam, yet the issue goes against veteran Kerry (who
is attacked by the 'swift boats' propaganda). Repeal of the 'death tax' gets popular support.
Despite almost $4 trillion in official reserves, China is not, and has never been a currency manipulator
JohnH said in reply to don
Kerry left everything he learned in Vietnam on the altar of political opportunism. Now he's
just another member of the committee of warmongers running foreign policy
pgl said in reply to JohnH
You could not carry Kerry's shoes when he in the navy. You can't carry them now. Stick to what
you know - shilling for right wing liars like Cameron.
Robert Hill said
I wonder what the USA and UK arms industry would do if world peace were suddenly to break
out.
After World War II, the United States military gradually came into a position of overwhelming
dominance in the world. Military spending in the United States far outpaces that of other countries,
with their world share of military expenditures at 41% in 2011, followed by Russia and China with
only eight and four percent respectively (SIPRI 2012). This has been the case since the Second World
War and has been justified in different ways over time. The arguments for continued military dominance
have ranged from "long-term economic gains" at the start of the war (Shoup and Murray 1977, cited
in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 45) to Soviet containment during the Cold War, "a broader responsibility of
global militarism" since the 1980s (Ryan 1991, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 73), and most recently
the need to protect citizens against Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist attacks. Nevertheless,
there has been consistent concern that powerful groups in military, political, and corporate positions,
profiteering from conflict and sharing interests in intensifying defense expenditure, have become
the primary actors for making and administering U.S. foreign policy. Today the scope of the defense
industry is now much bigger than legitimate security needs justify (see, for example, Moskos 1974,
Mintz 1985, Waddell 2001 and Hossein-zadeh 2006).
This analysis argues that expansion of the U.S. military establishment from the 1940s onward
was initially a means to an end in the process of stabilizing the world economy and serving national
security interests, but -- over time -- became an end in itself, serving the interests of an elite
group that uses the projection of power as a way to justify the continued expansion of military spending.
This essay is divided into two sections: the first focuses on the origins of America's military-industrial
complex, beginning with a definition of the elite group that the complex comprises. Next, by focusing
on the period in which the foundation for the complex was laid – the Second World War – it is argued
that the complex arose unintentionally in some ways, although important characteristics of it were
visible from the start. Third, military Keynesianism, often used to defend high military budgets
once the complex was in place, will be discussed and refuted. The second section focuses on the most
important argument in favor of high military budgets today: the need to protect American citizens
from the global threat of terrorism. It is argued that public perceptions of the causes of terrorism
are incorrect, yet have been gladly utilized and fostered by the American military-industrial complex
to justify an ineffective global war.
The Evolving Military-Industrial Complex in the United States
What distinguishes the "power elite" that constitutes the military-industrial complex from
other powerful groups in American society who also seek advancement of their own interests, is that
this is not a ruling class based solely on the ownership of property (Mills 1956, cited in Moskos
1974: 499-500). Rather, it is a coalition of civilian agencies that formally shape military policy
(such as the Senate and the CIA), military institutions, private firms, research institutions and
think tanks – all centered on and linked to the Pentagon (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 13). As a result of
power arising from the occupancy in top bureaucratic positions as well as from capital ownership,
the interests of the ruling elite go beyond the mere accumulation of wealth and include desires to
maintain themselves in power and to press for specific forms of public policy. Their most important
common interest is intensifying defense expenditure. War profiteering in itself is not new – wars
have always been fought at least in part for economic gains. Today's military-industrial complex
is different in that it treats war as a business: the ruling elite's
goal of having a large military establishment is not to expand the nation's wealth, but "to appropriate
the lion's share of existing wealth for the military establishment" (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 90).
As a consequence, decisions on defense allocation, arms production and military operations are motivated
by desires for profit and personal power, not necessarily by security requirements.
This is not to say that expansion of the military budget has always been an 'end' for a powerful
group of elites, but in fact was initially a means to serve other ends. The first big expansion of
the military establishment took place in the early years of the Second World War, when the U.S. had
legitimate concerns for its own national security due to such events as the attack on Pearl Harbor,
and feared the war would negatively impact foreign trade. Military expansion is a logical result
of the former concern, as it is a means to preserve physical security. However, it is closely linked
to the latter concern, too. The Council on Foreign Relations, one of the nation's most influential
think foreign policy think-tanks, advised the U.S. government that it needed free access to markets
and raw materials in all regions outside of continental Europe for economic self-sufficiency. To
this end, the U.S. advocated globalization and open economic cooperation through multilateralism.
At the time, the crisis of the '30s and the war had made the concept of the free market highly unpopular.
This made "military supremacy for the U.S. within the non-German world" a complementary requirement
to ensure all countries within the "U.S.-led, non-German Grand Area," including Japan, would accept
American conditions (Shoup and Murray 1977, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 45). In short, military
spending was not yet an end in itself, it was the combined result of needing to increase power in
the face of security challenges and wanting to restore trust in and stabilize the global capitalist
system.
Key characteristics of the current military-industrial complex, however, were already present
when the objectives of U.S. foreign policy during World War II were drafted. As Hossein-zadeh points
out, a brief look at the social status and class composition of the Council on Foreign Relations,
which consisted of wealthy, influential people with ties to major industrial corporations and politicians,
shows that a ruling class shaped major government policies "operating through the institutional umbrella
of the Council, and providing intellectual justification for major foreign policy overhauls" (2006:
41). The military-industrial complex in its present form might not have been in place then or have
been created intentionally, but clearly there already was a power elite based on more than capital
ownership, and strong ties between the military, political, and corporate spheres.
After World War II, the Cold War stabilized U.S. foreign policy for over forty years1. With its
demise, a "vacuum in the organizing principles of national government" had emerged (Waddell 2001:
133). Even if unintended, the military-industrial complex was well in place by now, and suggestions
to curtail the military budget were met with fierce opposition. However, cutting back on non-military
public expenditures while an expensive military establishment is preserved proved harder to justify
with the loss of the perceived Soviet threat. An argument in favor of military spending that has
been used consistently is that it boosts economic growth (Dreze 2000: 180). Mintz, for instance,
notes that the military-industrial complex is seen by many to have "considerable influence on levels
of employment, … the profitability of arms manufacture and the scope of exports" (1983: 124).
The view that large military spending is an effective means of demand stimulation and job creation,
and hence of economic growth, is called military Keynesianism. Keynes' (non-military) theory holds
that in times of inadequate purchasing power, the (non-military) private sector becomes wary of expansion,
and so the government should spend money in order to boost the stagnant economy by stimulating demand.
Since expansion of the military industry is a government investment, it could have the desired economic
effects in times of recession. However, it is important to keep in mind that Keynes argues for little
government spending in times of high employment and sufficient demand. Military Keynesianists seem
to ignore this fact completely and have argued for high government expenditures even during the Golden
Age after World War II – and in no other sector than the military-industrial one. This can only be
explained by the fact that it is a constantly shrinking number of people experiencing the economic
benefits of high military spending (Waddell 2001: 135). The same people tend to switch positions
between the Pentagon, its prime contractors and lobbying think tanks supporting those contractors,
meaning that military spending is no longer an economic stimulus for the entire nation. Instead,
it has become a redistributive mechanism of national resources in favor of the wealthy (Hossein-zadeh
2006: 226).
Cashing In on the War on Terror
What gets lots in the debate over the economic consequences of military spending is the effect
it has on international stability. An old principle asserts that military threats are essential in
preventing wars from occurring (Dreze 2000: 1178), but an overly extended military establishment
means actual military operations are necessary from time to time to 'prove' the necessity of the
army. And indeed, militarists have found that the most effective manner of convincing the American
public of the need of a large military establishment is the constant 'discovery' of external threats.
The threat currently most emphasized by the U.S. is global terrorism. We argue that while some fears
of Islamic fundamentalism are justified, most are not; and that the threat of terrorism is not logically
followed by higher military investment.
The U.S. is not being fair in its assessment of the Arab threat. Public discourse today implies
that Islam is inherently more rigid and anti-modern than other religions. Huntington famously predicted
that most major conflicts would be between Muslims and non-Muslims, as "Islam has bloody borders"
(1993: 12). In 1990, historian Bernard Lewis described a "surge of hatred" rising from the Islamic
world that "becomes a rejection of Western civilisation as such" (cited in Coll 2012). Richard Perle,
American neoconservative militarist and advisor to Israel's Likud Party, proposes a strategy
of "de-contextualization" to explain acts of terrorism and violent resistance to occupation,
arguing that we must stop trying to understand the territorial, geopolitical and historical reasons
that some groups turn to fundamentalism; instead, reasons for the violence of such groups must be
sought in the Islamic way of thinking (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 101).
Religious fundamentalism, however, is universal: it arises in response to modernity and secularism,
both of which tend to weaken or threaten religious traditions. John Voll points out that by the early
1990s, "violent militancy was clearly manifest among Hindu fundamentalists, Buddhists in Sri Lanka,
Jewish fundamentalists in Israel and others elsewhere" (1994, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 110-11).
As one scholar points out, if the Bosnians, the Palestinians and the Kashmiris are asked about their
borders they would say that, respectively, Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are the ones that have
bloody borders (Ahmed 2002: 29). Yet statements like the ones by Huntington, Lewis and Perle cited
above single out Islam as the most dangerous potential enemy of the West. They all interpret the
militancy of Islamic fundamentalism as being somehow directly caused by distinctive Islamic doctrines
and traditions (Voll 1994, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 111) and attribute terrorist attacks to "pathological
problems of the Muslim mind" (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 101). In doing so, they posit a characteristic
supposedly shared by Muslims from Indonesia through Iran to Senegal, that makes conflict with the
West inevitable.
An incorrect assessment of the roots of terrorism does not justify the extent to which the U.S.
expanded its military activity after 2001; nor does it explain why it continues to fight an ineffective
war. As Peńa points out, a larger military would not have prevented the tragedy of 9/11, and it will
not prevent future terrorist actions (2001, cited in Snider 2004). Terrorism, much like the war that
is fought against it, is a means of pursuing objectives, not an actor. It cannot be stopped by military
action as fighting does nothing to address the issues that terrorists feel can only be resolved violently;
if anything, this is more likely to lead to a vicious cycle of constantly growing military budgets
and an ever higher number of terrorist attacks. As one author put it: "the moral crusade to end terrorism
can only begin with a realistic assessment of its cause" (Snider 2004). So far, the global war on
terror has done little to eradicate terrorism.
On the contrary, it seems the threat of an attack is now bigger: the number of terrorist attacks
worldwide has increased from just over 1800 in 2001, to a staggering five-thousand ten years later
(START 2012). The question that arises, then, is why successive U.S. administrations have found it
so difficult to accept that perhaps their assessment of the causes of terrorism is incorrect; that
perhaps, the policies built on their premises are not effective, but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy,
leading to a vicious cycle of constantly expanding military activities and an increasing number of
individuals who believe their grievances cannot be settled non-violently. This has everything to
do with the never-ending need for militarism: 9/11 was approached by the U.S. as an opportunity
for aggression. The attacks, however heinous, were approached by the government not as crimes (which
would require criminal prosecution and law enforcement), but as a personal attack against Americans
(Hossein-zadeh 2006: 91). With the views expressed by Huntington, Lewis and Perle widespread among
the American public already, pre-emptive war and military expansion was easily justifiable to Americans.
After all, how would dialogue help if the Muslim mind is pathologically troubled? An American citizen
might cringe at the idea, but it is true: the 9/11 tragedy "came from heaven to an administration
determined to ramp up military budgets" (Johnson 2004: 64).
Conclusion
This essay has sought to argue that the U.S. military-industrial complex was the unintentional
result of both a desire to stabilize the global capitalist system and to protect national security
interests, but that military spending is now closely linked to the personal interests of a small,
influential group of elites. In the first section, it was illustrated that the context of the
Second World War made increased military expenditures a necessary means to other ends, although the
power elite that would eventually come to benefit from these expenditures was already in place.
Once in place, this power elite has constantly needed to justify the disproportionate allocation
of national resources to the military establishment. Emphasizing the economic benefits of military
investment by drawing on Keynesian theory is a way of doing so, but military Keynesianists seem to
give a one-sided account of the theory, one that suits their interests.
The second section focused on the global war on terror, arguing that the U.S. is capitalizing
on public fears which are based on an incorrect assessment of the causes of terrorism. The war on
terror has done little to eradicate terrorism, but as long as the public continues believing it is
a necessary war, the U.S. military-industrial complex will continue using it as an opportunity to
keep military budgets high.
References
Ahmed, A. (2002) 'Ibn Khaldun's understanding of civilizations and the dilemmas of Islam and
the West today', Middle East Journal, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 20-45
Coll, S. (2012) 'Days of Rage', The New Yorker, 1 October. [Online] Available at
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/01/121001taco_talk_coll (accessed 7 January 2013)
Dreze, J. (2000) 'Militarism, development and democracy', Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 35, No. 14, pp. 1171-1183
Hossein-zadeh, I. (2006). The political economy of U.S. militarism. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan
Huntington, S. P. (1993) 'The Clash of Civilizations?' in The Council on Foreign Relations,
ed. 1996, Samuel P. Huntington's the clash of civilizations: the debate, New York: Council
on Foreign Relations, pp. 1-26
Johnson, C. (2004) The sorrows of empire: militarism, secrecy, and the end of the republic.
New York: Henry Holt and Company
Mintz, A. (1985) 'The military-industrial complex: American concepts and Israeli realities',
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 623-639
Moskos, C. (1974) 'The concept of the military-industrial complex: radical critique or liberal
bogey?', Social Problems, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 498-512
SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) (2012) Military spending and
armament: the 15 major spender countries in 2011 (table). Solna: SIPRI. Available at http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/milex_15
(accessed 4 January 2013)
Snider, B. (2004) 'Manufacturing terrorism', antiwar.com, 14 June. [Online]
Available at http://antiwar.com/blog/2004/06/14/manufacturing-terrorism/ (accessed 6 January 2013)
START (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism). (2012)
Incidents over time. Maryland: Global Terrorism Database. [Data file] Available at http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?region=
(accessed 7 January 2013)
Waddell, B. (2001) 'Limiting national interventionism in the United States: the warfare-welfare
state as a restrictive government paradigm', Capital and class, Vol. 74, pp. 109-140
1.) The U.S. did have to rethink the expenses of their policies during the crisis of the '70s,
when expanding on both warfare and welfare became too expensive. Allocating taxpayers' money to the
military had become harder to justify for several reasons; by this time, however, the military-industrial
complex was well in place. Beneficiaries of militarism succeeded in maintaining high military budgets,
mainly by exaggerating the 'Soviet threat' (such as in the now-discredited Team B report by the Committee
on the Present Danger). This was clearly a way of defining the elite group's interests in terms of
national interests and is relevant to the topic, but it is not within the scope of the essay to discuss
this in detail.
Two separate reviews of The Fourth Star, a new book by David Cloud and Greg Jaffee, touch
on a theme that has fascinated me since I wrote a dissertation on the subject.
"The Fourth Star" paints wonderfully dramatic portraits of the four senior officers highlighted
here, but at its heart it's a story about bureaucracy. As an institution, the United States Army
has much more in common with, say, a giant corporation like General Motors than with a professional
sports team like the New York Giants. You can't cut players who don't perform, and it's hard to
fire your head coach. Like General Motors, the Army changes very slowly, and once it does, it's
hard to turn it around again.
Actually, it's arguably easier to "cut" bad soldiers than bad football players nowadays, since
the latter often have huge signing bonuses and hold teams hostage in a salary cap era. But,
otherwise, Filkins is right. While the military is relatively efficient, it's not only a bureaucracy
but the very thing bureaucracy was modeled after. Which makes it amusing when conservatives
simultaneously rant about the inefficiency of bureaucracy while extolling the virtues of military
efficiency. (The military, along with their brethren in the intelligence community and foreign
service, does tend to be more motivated and obedient to orders from above than your average bureaucracy.)
One of the most trenchant discussions of these wrong "lessons learned" post-Vietnam is General
David Petraeus'
PhD dissertation,
which the review of The Fourth Star mentions tangentially. While Petraeus might have
"irritated many of his fellow officers on his way up," he also identified an important bureaucratic
reality, noting it in his dissertation: any serving officer who writes a PhD dissertation critical
of the US Army as an institution and publishes it as a book will not rise to the ranks
of the general officer corps. Petraeus, of course, heeded his own advice, as his dissertation
remained safely tucked away in the Princeton library (until the age of scanning and posting to
the Internet; h/t to Paula Broadwell for sharing the link). He was able to continue his upward
trajectory, unlike such recent soldier-scholars as
Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) John Nagl,
whose Oxford DPhil became Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, arguably a self-inflicted
career wound as an Army officer because of its coherent, incisive critique of the Army's failures
as a learning organization.
Brigadier General H.R.
McMaster, however, is the exception that proves the rule, because it was only
the patronage of General Petraeus that made him a general officer after twice being passed
over for promotion from colonel to brigadier general. McMaster's Dereliction of Duty
was the oft-cited, seldom-read mantra of senior officers in the last decade and appeared to be
part of the hold-up for his advancement. Further compounding the delay, his successful counterinsurgency
campaign as the commander of an armored cavalry regiment in Tall Afar made his conventionally-minded
brigade commander peers look bad (or at least that's one interpretation of how it was viewed within
the Army).
How a bureaucracy without lateral entry promotes and selects its leaders is a vital issue with
implications measured in decades, dollars, and lives. I look forward to reading how Cloud and
Jaffe capture this dynamic in the US Army today.
One could argue McMaster exemplifies, rather than serving as an exception, to the rule. Generally,
being passed over - let alone twice - for promotion pretty much indicates that you're done.
Certainly as a prospective general officer. Conversely - and I don't claim to have any
inside scoop here - Nagl certainly seemed to be an officer on a fast track who left the Army voluntarily
to 1) so his family could settle down and 2) to take advantage of a flood of opportunities to apply
his expertise in the think tank arena. It seemingly proved a wise choice, as he soon
wound up as president of CNAS.
After World War II, the United States military gradually came into a position of overwhelming
dominance in the world. Military spending in the United States far outpaces that of other countries,
with their world share of military expenditures at 41% in 2011, followed by Russia and China with
only eight and four percent respectively (SIPRI 2012). This has been the case since the Second World
War and has been justified in different ways over time. The arguments for continued military dominance
have ranged from "long-term economic gains" at the start of the war (Shoup and Murray 1977, cited
in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 45) to Soviet containment during the Cold War, "a broader responsibility of
global militarism" since the 1980s (Ryan 1991, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 73), and most recently
the need to protect citizens against Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist attacks. Nevertheless,
there has been consistent concern that powerful groups in military, political, and corporate positions,
profiteering from conflict and sharing interests in intensifying defense expenditure, have become
the primary actors for making and administering U.S. foreign policy. Today the scope of the defense
industry is now much bigger than legitimate security needs justify (see, for example, Moskos 1974,
Mintz 1985, Waddell 2001 and Hossein-zadeh 2006).
This analysis argues that expansion of the U.S. military establishment from the 1940s onward
was initially a means to an end in the process of stabilizing the world economy and serving national
security interests, but -- over time -- became an end in itself, serving the interests of an elite
group that uses the projection of power as a way to justify the continued expansion of military spending.
This essay is divided into two sections: the first focuses on the origins of America's military-industrial
complex, beginning with a definition of the elite group that the complex comprises. Next, by focusing
on the period in which the foundation for the complex was laid – the Second World War – it is argued
that the complex arose unintentionally in some ways, although important characteristics of it were
visible from the start. Third, military Keynesianism, often used to defend high military budgets
once the complex was in place, will be discussed and refuted. The second section focuses on the most
important argument in favor of high military budgets today: the need to protect American citizens
from the global threat of terrorism. It is argued that public perceptions of the causes of terrorism
are incorrect, yet have been gladly utilized and fostered by the American military-industrial complex
to justify an ineffective global war.
The Evolving Military-Industrial Complex in the United States
What distinguishes the "power elite" that constitutes the military-industrial complex from
other powerful groups in American society who also seek advancement of their own interests, is that
this is not a ruling class based solely on the ownership of property (Mills 1956, cited in Moskos
1974: 499-500). Rather, it is a coalition of civilian agencies that formally shape military policy
(such as the Senate and the CIA), military institutions, private firms, research institutions and
think tanks – all centered on and linked to the Pentagon (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 13). As a result of
power arising from the occupancy in top bureaucratic positions as well as from capital ownership,
the interests of the ruling elite go beyond the mere accumulation of wealth and include desires to
maintain themselves in power and to press for specific forms of public policy. Their most important
common interest is intensifying defense expenditure. War profiteering in itself is not new – wars
have always been fought at least in part for economic gains. Today's military-industrial complex
is different in that it treats war as a business: the ruling elite's
goal of having a large military establishment is not to expand the nation's wealth, but "to appropriate
the lion's share of existing wealth for the military establishment" (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 90).
As a consequence, decisions on defense allocation, arms production and military operations are motivated
by desires for profit and personal power, not necessarily by security requirements.
This is not to say that expansion of the military budget has always been an 'end' for a powerful
group of elites, but in fact was initially a means to serve other ends. The first big expansion of
the military establishment took place in the early years of the Second World War, when the U.S. had
legitimate concerns for its own national security due to such events as the attack on Pearl Harbor,
and feared the war would negatively impact foreign trade. Military expansion is a logical result
of the former concern, as it is a means to preserve physical security. However, it is closely linked
to the latter concern, too. The Council on Foreign Relations, one of the nation's most influential
think foreign policy think-tanks, advised the U.S. government that it needed free access to markets
and raw materials in all regions outside of continental Europe for economic self-sufficiency. To
this end, the U.S. advocated globalization and open economic cooperation through multilateralism.
At the time, the crisis of the '30s and the war had made the concept of the free market highly unpopular.
This made "military supremacy for the U.S. within the non-German world" a complementary requirement
to ensure all countries within the "U.S.-led, non-German Grand Area," including Japan, would accept
American conditions (Shoup and Murray 1977, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 45). In short, military
spending was not yet an end in itself, it was the combined result of needing to increase power in
the face of security challenges and wanting to restore trust in and stabilize the global capitalist
system.
Key characteristics of the current military-industrial complex, however, were already present
when the objectives of U.S. foreign policy during World War II were drafted. As Hossein-zadeh points
out, a brief look at the social status and class composition of the Council on Foreign Relations,
which consisted of wealthy, influential people with ties to major industrial corporations and politicians,
shows that a ruling class shaped major government policies "operating through the institutional umbrella
of the Council, and providing intellectual justification for major foreign policy overhauls" (2006:
41). The military-industrial complex in its present form might not have been in place then or have
been created intentionally, but clearly there already was a power elite based on more than capital
ownership, and strong ties between the military, political, and corporate spheres.
After World War II, the Cold War stabilized U.S. foreign policy for over forty years1. With its
demise, a "vacuum in the organizing principles of national government" had emerged (Waddell 2001:
133). Even if unintended, the military-industrial complex was well in place by now, and suggestions
to curtail the military budget were met with fierce opposition. However, cutting back on non-military
public expenditures while an expensive military establishment is preserved proved harder to justify
with the loss of the perceived Soviet threat. An argument in favor of military spending that has
been used consistently is that it boosts economic growth (Dreze 2000: 180). Mintz, for instance,
notes that the military-industrial complex is seen by many to have "considerable influence on levels
of employment, … the profitability of arms manufacture and the scope of exports" (1983: 124).
The view that large military spending is an effective means of demand stimulation and job creation,
and hence of economic growth, is called military Keynesianism. Keynes' (non-military) theory holds
that in times of inadequate purchasing power, the (non-military) private sector becomes wary of expansion,
and so the government should spend money in order to boost the stagnant economy by stimulating demand.
Since expansion of the military industry is a government investment, it could have the desired economic
effects in times of recession. However, it is important to keep in mind that Keynes argues for little
government spending in times of high employment and sufficient demand. Military Keynesianists seem
to ignore this fact completely and have argued for high government expenditures even during the Golden
Age after World War II – and in no other sector than the military-industrial one. This can only be
explained by the fact that it is a constantly shrinking number of people experiencing the economic
benefits of high military spending (Waddell 2001: 135). The same people tend to switch positions
between the Pentagon, its prime contractors and lobbying think tanks supporting those contractors,
meaning that military spending is no longer an economic stimulus for the entire nation. Instead,
it has become a redistributive mechanism of national resources in favor of the wealthy (Hossein-zadeh
2006: 226).
Cashing In on the War on Terror
What gets lots in the debate over the economic consequences of military spending is the effect
it has on international stability. An old principle asserts that military threats are essential in
preventing wars from occurring (Dreze 2000: 1178), but an overly extended military establishment
means actual military operations are necessary from time to time to 'prove' the necessity of the
army. And indeed, militarists have found that the most effective manner of convincing the American
public of the need of a large military establishment is the constant 'discovery' of external threats.
The threat currently most emphasized by the U.S. is global terrorism. We argue that while some fears
of Islamic fundamentalism are justified, most are not; and that the threat of terrorism is not logically
followed by higher military investment.
The U.S. is not being fair in its assessment of the Arab threat. Public discourse today implies
that Islam is inherently more rigid and anti-modern than other religions. Huntington famously predicted
that most major conflicts would be between Muslims and non-Muslims, as "Islam has bloody borders"
(1993: 12). In 1990, historian Bernard Lewis described a "surge of hatred" rising from the Islamic
world that "becomes a rejection of Western civilisation as such" (cited in Coll 2012). Richard Perle,
American neoconservative militarist and advisor to Israel's Likud Party, proposes a strategy
of "de-contextualization" to explain acts of terrorism and violent resistance to occupation,
arguing that we must stop trying to understand the territorial, geopolitical and historical reasons
that some groups turn to fundamentalism; instead, reasons for the violence of such groups must be
sought in the Islamic way of thinking (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 101).
Religious fundamentalism, however, is universal: it arises in response to modernity and secularism,
both of which tend to weaken or threaten religious traditions. John Voll points out that by the early
1990s, "violent militancy was clearly manifest among Hindu fundamentalists, Buddhists in Sri Lanka,
Jewish fundamentalists in Israel and others elsewhere" (1994, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 110-11).
As one scholar points out, if the Bosnians, the Palestinians and the Kashmiris are asked about their
borders they would say that, respectively, Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism are the ones that have
bloody borders (Ahmed 2002: 29). Yet statements like the ones by Huntington, Lewis and Perle cited
above single out Islam as the most dangerous potential enemy of the West. They all interpret the
militancy of Islamic fundamentalism as being somehow directly caused by distinctive Islamic doctrines
and traditions (Voll 1994, cited in Hossein-zadeh 2006: 111) and attribute terrorist attacks to "pathological
problems of the Muslim mind" (Hossein-zadeh 2006: 101). In doing so, they posit a characteristic
supposedly shared by Muslims from Indonesia through Iran to Senegal, that makes conflict with the
West inevitable.
An incorrect assessment of the roots of terrorism does not justify the extent to which the U.S.
expanded its military activity after 2001; nor does it explain why it continues to fight an ineffective
war. As Peńa points out, a larger military would not have prevented the tragedy of 9/11, and it will
not prevent future terrorist actions (2001, cited in Snider 2004). Terrorism, much like the war that
is fought against it, is a means of pursuing objectives, not an actor. It cannot be stopped by military
action as fighting does nothing to address the issues that terrorists feel can only be resolved violently;
if anything, this is more likely to lead to a vicious cycle of constantly growing military budgets
and an ever higher number of terrorist attacks. As one author put it: "the moral crusade to end terrorism
can only begin with a realistic assessment of its cause" (Snider 2004). So far, the global war on
terror has done little to eradicate terrorism.
On the contrary, it seems the threat of an attack is now bigger: the number of terrorist attacks
worldwide has increased from just over 1800 in 2001, to a staggering five-thousand ten years later
(START 2012). The question that arises, then, is why successive U.S. administrations have found it
so difficult to accept that perhaps their assessment of the causes of terrorism is incorrect; that
perhaps, the policies built on their premises are not effective, but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy,
leading to a vicious cycle of constantly expanding military activities and an increasing number of
individuals who believe their grievances cannot be settled non-violently. This has everything to
do with the never-ending need for militarism: 9/11 was approached by the U.S. as an opportunity
for aggression. The attacks, however heinous, were approached by the government not as crimes (which
would require criminal prosecution and law enforcement), but as a personal attack against Americans
(Hossein-zadeh 2006: 91). With the views expressed by Huntington, Lewis and Perle widespread among
the American public already, pre-emptive war and military expansion was easily justifiable to Americans.
After all, how would dialogue help if the Muslim mind is pathologically troubled? An American citizen
might cringe at the idea, but it is true: the 9/11 tragedy "came from heaven to an administration
determined to ramp up military budgets" (Johnson 2004: 64).
Conclusion
This essay has sought to argue that the U.S. military-industrial complex was the unintentional
result of both a desire to stabilize the global capitalist system and to protect national security
interests, but that military spending is now closely linked to the personal interests of a small,
influential group of elites. In the first section, it was illustrated that the context of the
Second World War made increased military expenditures a necessary means to other ends, although the
power elite that would eventually come to benefit from these expenditures was already in place.
Once in place, this power elite has constantly needed to justify the disproportionate allocation
of national resources to the military establishment. Emphasizing the economic benefits of military
investment by drawing on Keynesian theory is a way of doing so, but military Keynesianists seem to
give a one-sided account of the theory, one that suits their interests.
The second section focused on the global war on terror, arguing that the U.S. is capitalizing
on public fears which are based on an incorrect assessment of the causes of terrorism. The war on
terror has done little to eradicate terrorism, but as long as the public continues believing it is
a necessary war, the U.S. military-industrial complex will continue using it as an opportunity to
keep military budgets high.
References
Ahmed, A. (2002) 'Ibn Khaldun's understanding of civilizations and the dilemmas of Islam and
the West today', Middle East Journal, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 20-45
Coll, S. (2012) 'Days of Rage', The New Yorker, 1 October. [Online] Available at
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/01/121001taco_talk_coll (accessed 7 January 2013)
Dreze, J. (2000) 'Militarism, development and democracy', Economic and Political Weekly,
Vol. 35, No. 14, pp. 1171-1183
Hossein-zadeh, I. (2006). The political economy of U.S. militarism. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan
Huntington, S. P. (1993) 'The Clash of Civilizations?' in The Council on Foreign Relations,
ed. 1996, Samuel P. Huntington's the clash of civilizations: the debate, New York: Council
on Foreign Relations, pp. 1-26
Johnson, C. (2004) The sorrows of empire: militarism, secrecy, and the end of the republic.
New York: Henry Holt and Company
Mintz, A. (1985) 'The military-industrial complex: American concepts and Israeli realities',
The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 623-639
Moskos, C. (1974) 'The concept of the military-industrial complex: radical critique or liberal
bogey?', Social Problems, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 498-512
SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) (2012) Military spending and
armament: the 15 major spender countries in 2011 (table). Solna: SIPRI. Available at http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/milex_15
(accessed 4 January 2013)
Snider, B. (2004) 'Manufacturing terrorism', antiwar.com, 14 June. [Online]
Available at http://antiwar.com/blog/2004/06/14/manufacturing-terrorism/ (accessed 6 January 2013)
START (National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism). (2012)
Incidents over time. Maryland: Global Terrorism Database. [Data file] Available at http://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?region=
(accessed 7 January 2013)
Waddell, B. (2001) 'Limiting national interventionism in the United States: the warfare-welfare
state as a restrictive government paradigm', Capital and class, Vol. 74, pp. 109-140
1.) The U.S. did have to rethink the expenses of their policies during the crisis of the '70s,
when expanding on both warfare and welfare became too expensive. Allocating taxpayers' money to the
military had become harder to justify for several reasons; by this time, however, the military-industrial
complex was well in place. Beneficiaries of militarism succeeded in maintaining high military budgets,
mainly by exaggerating the 'Soviet threat' (such as in the now-discredited Team B report by the Committee
on the Present Danger). This was clearly a way of defining the elite group's interests in terms of
national interests and is relevant to the topic, but it is not within the scope of the essay to discuss
this in detail.
On Friday the House passed a massive National Defense Authorization for 2016 that will guarantee
US involvement in more wars and overseas interventions for years to come. The Republican majority
resorted to trickery to evade the meager spending limitations imposed by the 2011 budget control
act – limitations that did not, as often reported, cut military spending but only slowed its growth.
But not even slower growth is enough when you have an empire to maintain worldwide, so the House
majority slipped into the military spending bill an extra $89 billion for an emergency war fund.
Such "emergency" spending is not addressed in the growth caps placed on the military under the 2011
budget control act. It is a loophole filled by Congress with Fed-printed money.
Ironically, a good deal of this "emergency" money will go to President Obama's war on ISIS even
though neither the House nor the Senate has debated – let alone authorized – that war! Although House
leadership allowed 135 amendments to the defense bill – with many on minor issues like regulations
on fire hoses – an effort by a small group of Representatives to introduce an amendment to debate
the current US war in Iraq and Syria was rejected.
While squashing debate on ongoing but unauthorized wars, the bill also pushed the administration
toward new conflicts. Despite the president's unwise decision to send hundreds of US military trainers
to Ukraine, a move that threatens the current shaky ceasefire, Congress wants even more US involvement
in Ukraine's internal affairs. The military spending bill included $300 million to directly arm the
Ukrainian government even as Ukrainian leaders threaten to again attack the breakaway regions in
the east. Does Congress really think US-supplied weapons killing ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine
is a good idea?
The defense authorization bill also seeks to send yet more weapons into Iraq. This time the House
wants to send weapons directly to the Kurds in northern Iraq without the approval of the Iraqi government.
Although these weapons are supposed to be used to fight ISIS, we know from too many prior examples
that they often find their way into the hands of the very people we are fighting. Also, arming an
ethnic group seeking to break away from Baghdad and form a new state is an unwise infringement of
the sovereignty of Iraq. It is one thing to endorse the idea of secession as a way to reduce the
possibility of violence, but it is quite something else to arm one side and implicitly back its demands.
While the neocons keep pushing the lie that the military budget is shrinking under the Obama Administration,
the opposite is true. As the CATO Institute pointed out recently, President George W. Bush's average
defense budget was $601 billion, while during the Obama administration the average has been $687
billion. This bill is just another example of this unhealthy trend.
Next year's military spending plan keeps the US on track toward destruction of its economy at
home while provoking new resentment over US interventionism overseas. It is a recipe for disaster.
Let's hope for either a presidential veto, or that on final passage Congress rejects this bad bill.
YAVORIV, Ukraine - The exercise, one of the most fundamental in the military handbook, came off
without a hitch. A soldier carrying a length of rope and a grappling hook ran to within 20 feet or
so of a coil of concertina wire and stopped.
For a moment, he twirled the rope in his hands like a lasso, then threw the hook over the wire,
and tugged hard, testing for explosives.
When nothing happened he signaled two comrades, who ran up and started snipping the wire with
cutters.
Although this was a typical training exercise for raw recruits in an elemental soldierly skill,
there was nothing typical about the scene. Far from enlistees, these soldiers were regulars in the
Ukrainian National Guard, presumably battle-hardened after months on the front lines in eastern
Ukraine. And the trainer was an American military instructor, drilling troops for battle with
the United States' former Cold War foe, Russia, and Russian-backed separatists.
... ... ...
The training included simulations of a suspect's detention. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The
New York Times
The course on cutting wire is one of 63 classes of remedial military instruction being provided
by 300
United States Army trainers in three consecutive two-month courses.
Here in western
Ukraine, they are far from the fighting, and their job is to instill some basic military know-how
in Ukrainian soldiers, who the trainers have discovered are woefully unprepared. The largely unschooled
troops are learning such basic skills as how to use an encrypted walkie-talkie; how to break open
a door with a sledgehammer and a crowbar; and how to drag a wounded colleague across a field while
holding a rifle at the ready.
... ... ...
The United States is also providing advanced courses for military professionals known as forward
observers - the ones who call in targets - to improve the accuracy of artillery fire, making it more
lethal for the enemy and less so for civilians.
Photo
The training also included simulations of a home raid. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York
Times
Oleksandr I. Leshchenko, the deputy director for training in the National Guard, was somewhat
skeptical about the value of the training, saying that "99 percent" of the men in the course had
already been in combat.
... ... ...
American officers described the course work as equivalent to the latter months of basic training
in the United States. The courses will train 705 Ukrainian soldiers at a cost of $19 million over
six months. The Ukrainian National Guard is rotating from the front what units it can spare for the
training. American instructors intend to recommend top performers to serve as trainers within other
Ukrainian units, and in this way spread the instruction more broadly.
"... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
"... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
"... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
"... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
"... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
"... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
"... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
"... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
"... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
"... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating
openly in Ukraine.
Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think
about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.
At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American
media not saying much about it. Two facts.
Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.
One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President
Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama
said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."
Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly
what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless
or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?
The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.
The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of
the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are
getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.
And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started
arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.
In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring,
if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot
of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.
Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil.
There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an
American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.
"According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three
Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication
reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."
This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in
each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when
referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.
Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting
military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this
paragraph. Speechless.
It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty
of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than
"National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly
put it at the time.
The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it
always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950.
(Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)
Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched
to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.
I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave
these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.
Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become
the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of
intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)
To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day
of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be
"modest" in every mention.
The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces
Near Ukraine, U.S. Says."
Read the thing here.
The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how
many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story.
This is what we mean by aggression these days.
In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that
300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it,
there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation,
a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.
At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint
in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever
number on the border in question.
The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the
Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.
In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.
Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not
in American media. Not a word in the Times.
The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who
can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture
in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving
idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.
These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these
extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official
ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla
and the colonels.
The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament
have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker
named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will
neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."
Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic,
rights-trampling regime that does what it says.
And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.
* * *
I end this week's column with a tribute.
A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the
Times' Marlise Simons is
here.
Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this
one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over
many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew
in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.
Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the
file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was
not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all
scholars are intellectuals.
Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last,
"The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.
Farewell from a friend, Bill.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from
1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and
has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter,
@thefloutist.More Patrick L. Smith.
"... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
"... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
"... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
"... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
"... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
"... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
"... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary
of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent
anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.
Though designed to isolate Russia because it
had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir
Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening
ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.
Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing
a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated
– largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.
Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian
alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous
insult to the Russian people.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's
historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.
But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World
War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad
in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would
have been much more difficult if not impossible.
Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a
New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled
sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.
For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian
tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled
away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).
This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule.
From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to
demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.
That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all
the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make
the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."
Distorting the History
So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed,
about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed
coup in declaring there was no coup.
The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted
phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February
2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late
2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it
truly was the most blatant coup in history."
Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup – and the
threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding
conflict.
For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea."
Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin
said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.'
He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing
the region."
So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred
on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO
would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.
Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored
by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the
putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval
base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014,
they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn't care.
Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had
been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why
the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."
You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it.
Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.
The Sole Indispensable Country
Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's
dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant
concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked
by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.
That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept.
11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical
weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship
with President Obama is marked by growing trust."
Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous
to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich
and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when
we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing
a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before
it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."
The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence
will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt –
and breaking the back – of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need
anyone's help to win World War II.
President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s,
which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message,
a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
YAVORIV, Ukraine - The exercise, one of the most fundamental in the military handbook, came off
without a hitch. A soldier carrying a length of rope and a grappling hook ran to within 20 feet or
so of a coil of concertina wire and stopped.
For a moment, he twirled the rope in his hands like a lasso, then threw the hook over the wire,
and tugged hard, testing for explosives.
When nothing happened he signaled two comrades, who ran up and started snipping the wire with
cutters.
Although this was a typical training exercise for raw recruits in an elemental soldierly skill,
there was nothing typical about the scene. Far from enlistees, these soldiers were regulars in the
Ukrainian National Guard, presumably battle-hardened after months on the front lines in eastern
Ukraine. And the trainer was an American military instructor, drilling troops for battle with
the United States' former Cold War foe, Russia, and Russian-backed separatists.
... ... ...
The training included simulations of a suspect's detention. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The
New York Times
The course on cutting wire is one of 63 classes of remedial military instruction being provided
by 300
United States Army trainers in three consecutive two-month courses.
Here in western
Ukraine, they are far from the fighting, and their job is to instill some basic military know-how
in Ukrainian soldiers, who the trainers have discovered are woefully unprepared. The largely unschooled
troops are learning such basic skills as how to use an encrypted walkie-talkie; how to break open
a door with a sledgehammer and a crowbar; and how to drag a wounded colleague across a field while
holding a rifle at the ready.
... ... ...
The United States is also providing advanced courses for military professionals known as forward
observers - the ones who call in targets - to improve the accuracy of artillery fire, making it more
lethal for the enemy and less so for civilians.
Photo
The training also included simulations of a home raid. Credit Brendan Hoffman for The New York
Times
Oleksandr I. Leshchenko, the deputy director for training in the National Guard, was somewhat
skeptical about the value of the training, saying that "99 percent" of the men in the course had
already been in combat.
... ... ...
American officers described the course work as equivalent to the latter months of basic training
in the United States. The courses will train 705 Ukrainian soldiers at a cost of $19 million over
six months. The Ukrainian National Guard is rotating from the front what units it can spare for the
training. American instructors intend to recommend top performers to serve as trainers within other
Ukrainian units, and in this way spread the instruction more broadly.
"... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
"... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
"... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
"... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
"... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
"... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
"... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
"... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
"... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
"... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating
openly in Ukraine.
Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think
about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.
At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American
media not saying much about it. Two facts.
Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.
One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President
Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama
said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."
Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly
what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless
or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?
The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.
The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of
the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are
getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.
And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started
arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.
In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring,
if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot
of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.
Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil.
There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an
American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.
"According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three
Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication
reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."
This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in
each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when
referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.
Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting
military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this
paragraph. Speechless.
It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty
of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than
"National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly
put it at the time.
The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it
always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950.
(Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)
Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched
to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.
I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave
these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.
Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become
the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of
intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)
To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day
of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be
"modest" in every mention.
The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces
Near Ukraine, U.S. Says."
Read the thing here.
The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how
many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story.
This is what we mean by aggression these days.
In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that
300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it,
there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation,
a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.
At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint
in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever
number on the border in question.
The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the
Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.
In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.
Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not
in American media. Not a word in the Times.
The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who
can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture
in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving
idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.
These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these
extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official
ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla
and the colonels.
The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament
have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker
named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will
neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."
Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic,
rights-trampling regime that does what it says.
And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.
* * *
I end this week's column with a tribute.
A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the
Times' Marlise Simons is
here.
Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this
one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over
many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew
in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.
Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the
file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was
not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all
scholars are intellectuals.
Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last,
"The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.
Farewell from a friend, Bill.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from
1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and
has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter,
@thefloutist.More Patrick L. Smith.
"... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
"... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
"... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
"... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
"... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
"... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
"... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary
of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent
anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.
Though designed to isolate Russia because it
had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir
Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening
ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.
Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing
a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated
– largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.
Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian
alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous
insult to the Russian people.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's
historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.
But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World
War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad
in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would
have been much more difficult if not impossible.
Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a
New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled
sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.
For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian
tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled
away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).
This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule.
From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to
demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.
That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all
the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make
the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."
Distorting the History
So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed,
about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed
coup in declaring there was no coup.
The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted
phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February
2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late
2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it
truly was the most blatant coup in history."
Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup – and the
threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding
conflict.
For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea."
Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin
said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.'
He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing
the region."
So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred
on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO
would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.
Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored
by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the
putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval
base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014,
they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn't care.
Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had
been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why
the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."
You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it.
Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.
The Sole Indispensable Country
Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's
dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant
concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked
by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.
That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept.
11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical
weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship
with President Obama is marked by growing trust."
Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous
to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich
and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when
we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing
a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before
it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."
The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence
will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt –
and breaking the back – of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need
anyone's help to win World War II.
President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s,
which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message,
a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
Such an elaborate dance around facts. From comments: "It is so depressing when there is far more
information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue
the traditions of her predecessor." This is one event about which there is quite a lot of information
to see how Guardian presstitutes try to bent the truth. See
Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014
Notable quotes:
"... In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain) that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys. However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership" the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with. ..."
"... Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war. ..."
"... There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad, but true. ..."
"... Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. ..."
"... Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city' liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass". ..."
"... I remember the British army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. ..."
The emergency calls became increasingly desperate. "When are you coming? It's already burning
and there are people inside," a woman told the fire brigade dispatcher. Minutes later, callers started
describing how people were jumping from the upper floors. "Have you lost your minds?" one man asked,
his voice breaking. "There are women and children in the building!" another man yelled.
In one of
the most deadly episodes in Ukraine's turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and
hundreds injured on 2 May last year in the Black Sea port of Odessa.
Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia
activists were barricaded in.
VengefulRevenant -> AlfredHerring 1 May 2015 17:24
The victims are the ones who were raped, shot or burned to death in the massacre.
The perpetrators are those protected by the NATO-backed regime which has failed to investigate
the massacre.
The apologists are the NATO-aligned media who blame the victims or assign blame equally to
the killers and the dead along the lines of, 'There was heroism and cruelty on both sides.'
normankirk -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 16:52
Well isn't it wonderful to hear a diversity of views expressed on Russian TV. When all we hear
is how all media is controlled by the Kremlin
Kaiama Danram 1 May 2015 16:48
So the dead Ukrainian children and women are Kremlin goons too?
How simple your life must be to allow you to make such simplistic conclusions.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 16:46
Some nice whitewashing. Now it's fault of the victims and the heroism of the perpetrators,
there hasn't been and there will be no investigation and the word massacre is no longer used.
For those of you who still argue it was not a massacre but some mysterious suicide by 48 people
who set themselves afire, here is footage again.
Take a look at some of the pretty revealing moments:
23 min mark - Ukrainians are entering the building, there was no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
While in the building, Ukrainians were slaughtering people. And it wasn't a fight. Half of
the victims were middle-aged. At least 10 of them - women.
31min - 33min - the victims who got out have their faces and hands disfigured while the rest
of their bodies don't have the same injuries. That's what happens if someone splashes fuel over
someone's face and light it up. There are pictures of victims with only their heads and hands
burned.
33min - 35min - there were women among those trying to find safety in the building. Some of
them are middle-aged. They were not fighters, as the article would imply.
36min- 37min - Ukrainians were inside the building, setting it on fire and killing those whom
they could find, a young woman in this specific frame.
46min - a person was bludgeoned to death. The room doesn't have marks of fire but the blood
is splattered all over the room.
48min-50min - the same story, Ukrainians were slaughtering their victims.
1h:00min - Ukrainians are entering the building again, this time from the make shift scaffolding.
Any attempt to pretend there was a fight rather than a massacre is crazy. Any suggestion that
somehow people inside were setting themselves on fire is ludicrous in light of evidence that the
Ukis were inside the building. And the fact that Kiev doesn't even see it as murder makes me just
angry.
AbsolutelyFapulous -> PlatonKuzin 1 May 2015 16:43
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil.
Donno why you are commenting here. You even don't seem to be able to read a map.
BorninUkraine -> RonBuckley 1 May 2015 16:25
In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain)
that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys.
However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership"
the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with.
Current Ukrainian "leaders" keep stealing everything they can, including financial and material
aid from the West. What else is new?
MaoChengJi -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 16:03
Yeah. I'm convinced that they should've sent paratroopers and take Kiev right the next day
after the coup d'etat; stop this whole unholy mess right then and there. That really would've
saved tens of thousands of lives - if not millions, seeing how this thing seems to escalate, leading
us to a nuclear war.
Putin is a pussy, Medvedev got it right in Georgia in 2008. Well, frankly Medvedev is a pussy
too. He should've taken Tbilisi, and put Saakashvili on trial.
To teach the bastards a lesson.
Instead, now we hear every day 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', 'Russia will not fight Ukraine',
and the murdering Nazi bastards get bolder and bolder. What's the point of having all that military
hardware if you're afraid to use it. They Yanks would've taken control of the place months ago,
look at Grenada.
RonBuckley -> BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 15:52
Well said, man. Yes, Ukrainian politics have always been divisive, stupid, thievery and corrupt.
That said they had neither brains nor money for a coup. So Ukraine should thank certain external
powers for the deep shit it is in now.
PlatonKuzin -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:31
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil. That's the point. And the state of Ukraine
is a temporary occupier of the Russian soil. So people living in Odessa don't have to go to Russian.
They are right at their home. This is the state of Ukraine that has stayed on our Russian land
for 23 years now. It's time for the quasi-state of Ukraine to leave.
BorninUkraine -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:16
I was born in Lvov in Western Ukraine, I grew up in Lugansk in the East, I have friends and
relatives all over, and I know exactly what is going on in Ukraine.
Ukraine in 1991 was extremely heterogenous. In the area West of Carpatian mountains people
speak Hungarian, Romanian, and Rusine (a form of old Russian, spoken in Kievan Rus).
Galichina and Volynia in the West speak several dialects of Ukrainian. Many in Central Ukraine
speak what is considered literary Ukrainian. In the South and East (historic Novorossia) and in
Kharkov region (historic Slobozhanschina) the majority speaks "surgik", a mix of pidgin-Ukrainian
and pidgin-Russian. Finally, in Crimea people speak Russian, Tatar, and very few speak Ukrainian.
Crimea voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum and got a chance to run away in 2014, when Ukraine
committed suicide.
If the leaders of Ukraine had any brains and loved their country, they would have followed
the example of Switzerland and Singapore, having many official languages. However, all Ukrainian
rulers from day one were thieves and idiots. They made Ukrainian the only official language and
pushed it everywhere, so that while you could get school education in several languages, all colleges
operated only in Ukrainian, putting people who spoke other languages at a disadvantage.
That idiotic policy started this whole mess, which with a bit of US money, prodding, and now
arms became a civil war. Not to mention that Galichina is the place that fought against Russia
in WWI (as part of Austro-Hungarian empire, siding with Kaiser) and WWII (siding with Hitler).
They supplied the troops that under Hitler's command murdered thousands of civilians in Ukraine,
Poland, Belarus, and Slovakia. Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina,
who are considered heroes by current puppets in Kiev, voluntarily served Hitler.
80% of Ukrainian population hates these Bandera worshippers, so when external forces push them
to power, it creates trouble. Personally I hate them for giving a bad name to everything Ukrainian.
BorninUkraine -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:10
Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians
there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.
Or is saying things explicitly beyond your pay grade?
RonBuckley -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:06
To Odessa Kiev sent a few hundred pro-Nazi thugs - 42 died.
To Donetsk and Luhansk Kiev sent a few thousand pro-Nazi thugs plus the entire Ukrainian army
- 6000 died.
Get it now?
Goodthanx -> Anette Mor 1 May 2015 15:04
For me it was the silence... You are right! Seeing what i was seeing, with no commentry to
convince me either way.. How could the worlds media be so silent?
Then with MH, it was the complete opposite!! Immediately and with no investigation, MSM could
not shut up about who they thought was responsible!!
Both fail the logic test miserably. But try explaining common sense to those that haven't any.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:48
Those protesters were Ukrainian Pro Federalists! Not one Russian amongst them!
Anette Mor -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 14:46
Good for you. It is impossible to hide truth with current state of technology. Only not showning.
Any life reporting give the footage adding facts one by one and crwating a true picture eventually.
Even this rather bias article contributes to true story because the lie in it sticks out of logic
for anybody we is able to think for themselves.
PlatonKuzin -> ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:42
Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting
the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war.
Anette Mor -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 14:41
It is poinless to try to install fear in these people. Need to look at the history of people's
wars in Russia. Since 17 century they were able to resist occupation and unwanted rulers by people
war. There wpuld not be a win against Napoleon and Hitler without people rising and forming resistance.
Same in Odessa now. Just a matter of time.
BunglyPete -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:35
The explanation is very simple. Right Sector had free reign to terrorise pro Russians, so he
took action. Kiev choose not to punish Right Sector both then and now. He said this in the same
interview you constantly reference.
Now can you explain why you think it is acceptable for Right Sector to terrorise the Donbass?
If Strelkov wasnt allowed to defend them, who was?
Anette Mor -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 14:34
Not sure why you call them pro-Russians. Odessa is multi-national city. These who were massacred
are simply local people who disagreed with the violent coup which put to power by the west. Does
it make them "pro-russian" and justify thier killing? Surely these who want own country to be
coverned by own elected officials could not be pro- another country. If they trust Russian government
care for them more then thier own coup, that only says how bad the coup rule is.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:24
Forget about the Russian government. The idea is justice for the victims and punishment for
the perpetrators. Is it the ambition of the UN to be percieved as bias as so called Russuan investigators
would be?
Kaiama -> truk10 1 May 2015 14:22
FFS there are enough links and analysis to demonstrate that pro-Kiev forces inflicted a massacre
of civilians here. I don't see any pro-Ukraine links to additional information but an overwhelming
deluge of links supporting the unvoiced version of events.
ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:18
Our western media have really become mirror images of the fascist governments they support.
By publishing such whitewashing attempts as this, they only enable more such behavior in the future,
behavior that leads to the deaths of more innocents, more civilians whose only desire is to live
in freedom and peace.
Kaiama 1 May 2015 14:13
It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the
article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:09
What kind of a teenage girl carries in their backpack petrol, empty bottles, rags and whatever
else is required to make Molotov cocktails? What a coincidence... there is a group of them!!
As for Right Sector? Chartered buses transported Right Sector militia which arrived early in the
day. These were the people communicating with police from the start.
MaoChengJi -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 13:51
Speaking of the media... I've been reading this Odessa news website: http://timer-odessa.net/
, and it has been relatively informative (as much as Ukro-sites can be, these days). And today
suddenly it's gone dark: "there is no Web site at this address".
Does anyone know if it's gone for good? I really hope those who were running it are safe...
Jean-François Guilbo -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:51
So you didn't watch the video link in my comment did you?
If you just take this article for granted to know on which side the Odessa police was, you won't
learn much on what happened...
Seems like the officier on the picture would have been recognised as a colonel from Odessa police,
watch this link:
And from these two links, these armed guys not afraid to shoot from the crowd, could have been
agents provocateur...
BorninUkraine -> IrishFred 1 May 2015 13:47
Are you saying that Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina never
existed? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above did not serve Hitler voluntarily? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above are not guilty of mass murder and other crimes against humanity?
If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying that people who are murdering their opponents, politicians and journalists,
are not Nazis? If so, please state it explicitly.
As to Crimea, if you knew any history, you'd know that it was illegally annexed by Ukraine
in 1991. Here is history 101, not necessarily for you, but for those who actually want to know
the truth.
Russia deployed its troops in Crimea, and nobody was killed there. Russia failed to send its
troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children,
elderly, and disabled veterans.
As many Ukrainians joke now, "Crimeans are traitors: they ran away without us".
Your next argument?
Jeff1000 -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 13:45
Don't display callous and willful ignorance and call it even-handedness. The Guardian's "credible"
account offers no sources, agrees with none of the available pictorial or video evidence and is
rampant apologism.
I posted videos - including raw CCTV footage of the starting of the fire, further up the page.
BunglyPete -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:40
I saw that guy's post it was fantastic, very well sourced and thorough. The comments on here
were a different kettle of fish entirely back then.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:39
The attempt to re-package this event as some awful conglomeration of circumstances spurred
on by the cruelty of fate is sickening. We reduce the death of at least 50 people down so that
calling it a "massacre" becomes needlessly emotive. We casually refer to the pro-Ukrainians as
"football fans" to make it seem innocent - when Ukrainian football fans known as "Ultras" are
famours for 2 things: Being neo-Nazis, and being violent thugs.
Look at this video especially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAEcceedzCU
It's really very simple - candid videos at the time made it clear.
1. Pro-Russian groups were attacked by Ukrainian "ultras". They sought shelter in the Trade
Union building.
2. The building was set on fire when the Ultras threw molotovs through the windows. The doors
were barred.
3. People attempting to climb out of the windows were shot at, if they jumped they were beaten
as they lay on the ground.
4. Ukrainian nationalists deliberately blockaded the streets to inhibit the progress of ambulances
and fire engines.
Only a week after The Odessa Massacre an american CiFer, ex-marine, has gathered links, sieved
through hours and hours of video - he, practically, has done what the journos were supposed to
do, - to prove the Guardian, BBC and the rest were trying hard to whitewash the atrocity. Check
his posts: Additional proof that the BBC and the mainstream Western press lied when they said
both sides threw the molotov's.
I looked for 5 hours searching for one video that showed anyone in the building throwing a
molotov cocktail as the BBC first reported and the rest of the MSM went along with. I could not
find a single one. They claimed a person named Sergei (what are the odds of that) told them a
person threw the molotov inside the building and didn't realize the window was closed. This is
absolutely ludicrous and an example of the pathetic reporting that passes for "news" these days.
I did find the video of the third floor fire starting. It is at the following link and runs
consecutively. You'll notice at exactly the 2 minute mark the camera zooms in on the window where
the fire begins. You'll also notice that at the 2:02 mark you see an additional molotov cocktail
just miss the window. This is strong evidence that the window was being targeted by individuals
on the ground. Prior to this fire starting there is no other fire on the third floor, therefore
this is most likely the cause of the third floor fire and lends credence to the fact that the
violent youth below burned those people alive.
And not just "Russian state-owned media" - also most of the Russian privately owned media,
and most of the world media (and even some of the western media).
I believe I saw a chinadaily calling it Kristallnacht.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:16
Russian state-owned media characterised the day's events as a "massacre" planned by "fascists"
in Kiev, a narrative that has gained widespread traction.
Mostly because it's a pretty fitting description of what happened.
Its not hard truk. Those red armbands that the so called pro Russian provocatores wore? Are
actually the same red armbands Right sector militia was wearing during the most violent Maidan
clashes. You can identify some of the same protagonists wearing the same armband in both Odesaa
and Maidan!
vr13vr -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:07
Idiot. Nobody is laughing. Especially when 50 people died. Look at this video and see how Ukrainians
entered the supposedly "heavily defended" building. You will see them operating inside, you will
see them existing the building after it started burning from inside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg
Look at 23 min mark - they are entering the building with no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
Yes, Ukrainians overrun the building, including the roof. The photographs suggest that people
in the building where set afire while still alive.
You must be an idiot to say someone is laughing at this.
castorsia -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:02
No. They burned them. Check the photographic evidence.
PlatonKuzin -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:58
Armored vehicles and special riot forces were brought today in Odessa to prevent possible unrest
there.
WHYNOPASSWORD12 -> Havingalavrov 1 May 2015 12:56
Plenty of witnesses point out that these were pro-ukraine provacateurs sent up to stir up trouble.
They are wearing the same red armbands worn by a group who started the skirmishes earlier in the
town centre. They were part of the group bussed-in under the guise of football supporters.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 12:55
Hi turk10,
I understand your confusion. Luckily, Mr. Christof Lehmann investigated it all for you. Seek and
ye shall find. Use google.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:50
Sure, Kiev views burning alive almost 50 people as a "victory." They even allowed to install
fear in the city. Since then the city is totally subdued, people would be afraid to even discuss
the events or think of any peaceful opposition as they are aware of the potential response from
Kiev's supporters.
Nice job Guardian trying to whitewash the events and justify the cold blooded murder by some
street fights elsewhere in the city, events that were taking place all over the country those
days.
Jeremn -> oleteo 1 May 2015 12:40
No greater cynics than western politicians, who certainly don't mourn this heavenly half-hundred,
or come to lay flowers at the scene of their death.
No greater cynic than the Czech envoy, Bartuska, who said:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men.
If they [independence supporters] are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were
simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side
of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
ID5868758 1 May 2015 12:18
Another despicable attempt to paint a false equivalency, to assign blame for this massacre,
for their own deaths, on those who perished. Take the Molotov cocktail throwing, for instance.
I watched the videos of those Molotov cocktails being made, pretty little pro-Ukrainian girls
sitting on the ground with their assembly line all set up, smiling as they made those instruments
of death and handed them out, now just where did those supplies come from, who thought to bring
bottles and rags and fuel to an event if it was innocent in nature?
And where would those innocent victims chased inside the building get Molotov cocktails to
throw from inside the building, when they were interested only in escaping the smoke and flames,
saving their own lives? The narrative doesn't match the evidence, but neither does it pass the
smell test, pretty SOP for western media reporting on Ukraine.
StillHaveLinkYouHate -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:56
The difference is that Nazis want to murder people for the accident of how they were born.
Extreme natinalists will want to murder anybody who does not behave in the perverted way they
feel a patriot should.
That is the difference. Praviy sektor are nazis, incidentally.
It makes the point already made below in this comment thread:
I invite people to imagine how the British media would have reported this massacre if roles
had been reversed and if it had been Maidan supporters who were burnt alive in the Trade Union
building with an anti Maidan crowd filmed throwing Molotov cocktails into the building whilst
baying for blood outside.
Indeed.
GreatCthulhu -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 11:45
Many of them not locals.
I thought the article was pretty clear that everyone on both sides were local. I speak, of
course s an Irish man who doesn't regard hating Russians/ people who identify with Russia who
aren't Russians but live nearby as a default position before beginning any debate.
There are a small minority of Irish people, living in the Republic (I am not referring to the
northern Unionist Community here), who identify with Britain often to the point that they express
regret that Ireland ever left the UK. I don't agree with them, but I would not set them on fire
in a building. For that matter, it is ARGUABLE (I am not saying whether that argument is right
or wrong- just that you could put forward the thesis) that the N.I state-let is something of an
Irish Donbass. No justification for Ireland shelling the crap out of it though... at all... that
sort of stuff is kind of regarded as savagery here these days.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:43
Hi turk10,
what's wrong with calling them 'nazis'? The guardian piece identifies them as "extreme nationalists",
and isn't it the same thing as 'neo-nazis' or 'nazis'?
Is there some nuance I'm missing here? What would you call them?
BorninUkraine -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:38
So you object to calling a spade a spade? Typical pro-US position in Ukrainian crisis. What
do you call the insignia of, for example, Azov battalion (see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion ). If that's not Nazi insignia, I don't know what
is.
I am simply saying that those who organized Odessa massacre, then Mariupol massacre, then fueled
the war in Donbass, including Poroshenko, Turchinov, Yats, etc, are Nazis.
The simple reason for that conclusion is, as the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, if
it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck". If you prefer Christian version
of the same thing, see Mathew 7:16 "you will know them by their fruits".
To sum it up, if someone behaves like a Nazi, s/he is a Nazi. Is this clear enough?
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 11:28
A pro-Russia activist aims a pistol at supporters of the Kiev government during clashes
in the streets of Odessa, 2 May 2014.
How do we know that the guy is pro-Russian? Does the picture show what he is aiming at? Does
he have a sign on his forehead burned in saying "I am pro-Russian and I am going to shoot that
pro-Ukrainian bastard"? No, he does not. We are expected to assume that because the caption says
so - but captions to pictures aren't evidence. Anybody can put any caption to any picture, and
it's been done many a time.
The head of the local pro-Ukraine Maidan self-defence group, Dmitry Gumenyuk, recalled the
effect of the homemade grenades. . . they threw a grenade and it exploded under his bullet-proof
vest and four nails entered his lungs," he said.
Such peaceful people - going for a nice in the park walk in bullet-proof vests. They were going
to destroy that camp and not on the agreement with the activists in that camp, as Guardian states
(complete BS) but violently, which they did. Even if they were attacked, what did women in the
camp have to do with it?
Come on, people, even in the face of such a tragedy, is it so absolutely necessary to hush up
the truth all the time?
BorninUkraine -> caliento 1 May 2015 11:24
There is a Ukrainian joke. Russians ask:
- If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
- We aren't that stupid, there are Russian troops there.
- But you say there are Russian troops in Donbass?
- That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
castorsia 1 May 2015 11:21
The Guardian continues to misrepresent the Odesa massacre by reporting claims by the official
Ukrainian investigation and the Odesa governor created May 2 group that the deadly fire started
when both sided were throwing Molotov cocktails. The videos and other evidence showing that the
fire started after the Molotov cocktails and tires were thrown by the attackers are deliberately
omitted.
Open question to you all: What would be in the headlines if scores of "Pro-Ukrainian activists
" were being burned, hacked, mauled, shot and raperd to death by Donetsk rebels or their supporters?
BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 11:20
There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad,
but true.
In this article Howard Amos pretends that he believes that both sides were to blame for the
mass murder of anti-fascists by pro-Maidan thugs in Odessa on May 2, 2014. That's like saying
that both the Nazis and the inmates of concentration camps were equally guilty.
This lie is so outrageous, and so far from reality, that it does not even deserve an argument.
The readers who want to know the truth can do Google search using "Odessa massacre 2014" and read
for themselves.
The lie that the Guardian repeats after Kyiv "government" looks even less plausible now, as
Odessa massacre was followed by the massacre of civilians by Nazi thugs in Mariupol a few days
later (change Odessa to Mariupol in your Google search), and the murder of thousands of civilians
in Donbass, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans, by the Ukrainian army and
Nazi battalions.
I grew up in the USSR, but I have never read a lie so obvious and outrageous in the Soviet
media. Congratulations on a new low!
coffeegirl aussiereader4 1 May 2015 11:11
Sounds like you know little about what happened in Odessa.
The best compilation of any available material was done on May 8, 2014 by our fellow CiFer
US ex-marine griffin alabama:
You like to cite Strelkov, don't you, when it suits your purpose? If he is such an authority
for you, why don't you cite everything he says? Among other things, he said that Maidan was not
a popular uprising but a pure decoration for the coup organized by the right wing groups and funded
by oligarchs together with the foreign agents? You can watch this here
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/must-watch-strelkov-vs-starikov-debate.html
greatwhitehunter caliento 1 May 2015 11:08
you would no if you followed events the idea of peace keepers was supported by Russia, the
separatists and a good many other countries right from the start of the conflict . It was not
however supported by the kiev government or the US. Peace keepers were offered to Ukraine right
up until 4 days before the Minsk agreement.
Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. There belated cries for
peace keepers only came after getting an a*& kicking.
kiev signed the minsk agreement which requires them to deal with the issues peace keepers would
be a way out for them. Usa by their actions does not support the Minsk agreement.
Poroshenko,s idea of peace keepers was a few kiev friendly states to send weapons and troups
to bolster their ranks.
An offer was made via the UN security council for a peace keeping force that included china
and new zealand and poroshenko stated that ukraine didn't needed china and new Zealand's help,
as it turned out they did.
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 10:54
Oh Guardian, Guardian. Both are to blame, heroism on both sides - in short, they burned themselves.
We've heard that before. But then the article goes on and tells you that the movement they for
some reason call "pro-Russian", although its not pro-Russia as much as it's anti-fascist, is essentially
eliminated, with all leaders in jail or in exile. In contrast,
None of the pro-Ukraine activists have been put on trial
Kind of tells you what actually happened, doesn't it?
Activists from both sides admit that the port city remains divided into two approximately
matched camps
No, they aren't matched. The Odessa residents are mostly anti-Maidan. The city is flooded with
newcomers from the western Ukraine, and they the main supporters of Kiev. Otherwise, why would
Kiev deploy half of the army to Odessa before the May holidays?
Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city'
liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass".
So much for "matched camps". Of course, if you put everybody of the opposing view in jail of
kill them, you can sort of achieve a "match".
Elena Hodgson 1 May 2015 10:50
This was a massacre. Period.
Hanwell123 1 May 2015 10:48
Ukraine is a gangster state where if activists aren't arrested then they are shot; 6 prominent
figures shot this year alone. No arrests. It's supported to the hilt by the EU who shell out enormous
sums to keep it from bankruptcy.
nnedjo 1 May 2015 08:42
This is the news from the Ukraine crisis Media Center:
Odesa, April 27, 2015 – Vitaly Kozhukhar, coordinator of the Self-Defense of Odesa, Varvara
Chernoivanenko, a spokesman for the Right Sector of Odesa held a briefing on the topic: "May
2 this year in Odesa. How a single headquarters of the patriotic forces preparing to hold a
day of mourning for those killed in the city"...
Varvara Chernoivanenko said that for all patriots of Ukraine is important that May 2 was peaceful
day. Patriotic forces create patrols that will keep order in the area of Cathedral Square,
which will host a memorial meeting for all those, who died on 2 May. They will make every effort
to ensure peace and order. Already, the city has operational headquarters of the patriotic
forces. Their representatives will stop all provocations. At the same time, according to Varvara
Chernoivanenko, on their part will not be any aggression.
Thus, the "patriotic forces", which I suppose are responsible for burning people alive in the
building of Trade Unions in Odessa, will now protect those who survived and who should hold the
memorial service for their relatives and friends, victims of Odessa massacre. The only question
is, from whom they should protect them?
I mean, this lady from the Right Sector boasts that they organized patrols of its members all
over the city. Well, you can bet that in these patrols will be at least some, if not all of those
who threw Molotov cocktails at the building of trade unions, and beaten with clubs or even shot
at those who tried to escape from the fire. Because, as this article shows, none of them has even
been charged, let alone be convicted of that crime.
So, can we then conclude that the executioners of the victims of the Odessa massacre will now
provide protection to those who mourn the victims, which is a paradox of its kind.
And how these patrols of "patriotic forces" operating in reality, you can watch in this video,
which was filmed during the visit of Poroshenko in Odessa, on the day of the celebration of liberation
of the city in WWII, 10 April. At the beginning of the film, the guys from "Patriotic patrol"
argue with a group of anti-fascists, demanding that they reject one of their flag. And then at
one point (0:31 of the video), one of these guys from patrol says:
"Didn't burn enough of you, eh?"
MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 07:45
Ah, of course: both sides are to blame, because before the massacre an extreme nationalist
militant died, under circumstanced unknown (shot in self-defense, perhaps? who knows).
Nice.
a pro-Ukraine member of the extreme nationalist organisation
Even nicer: 'pro-Ukraine extreme nationalist'. Pro-Ukraine? Which kind of Ukraine?
I find that one of the most misleading elements in these west-interpreted stories is "pro-Russian"
and "pro-Ukrainian" labels.
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav
Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men.
If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death,
or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything
will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to
be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.
6i9vern 1 May 2015 07:43
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav
Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed
men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to
death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road,
everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to
be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.
Vladimir Makarenko Celtiberico 1 May 2015 06:20
They took it from Odessa being a symbol of Black Sea and a while ago a Russian poet said: Chernoe
More - Vor na Vore.
Black Sea - a thief by thief.
normankirk 1 May 2015 06:14
This is a shameless attempt to whitewash a massacre.There is plenty of evidence on you tube
Every one has cell phones which can record events as they unfold. This is why the American police
can no longer get away with murder. The European parliament held a hearing in Brussels to hear
the Odessa survivors. there was a concerted effort from Maidan activists from Kiev to shut down
the survivors testimony. A Europarliament deputy from the Czech republic Miroslav said "This is
simply shocking. this is an evidence of fascism not being disappeared from European countries.He
blamed Parubiy, co founder of far right Svoboda party and Kolomoisky, paymaster of neo nazi militia
for the massacre at Odessa. All this is recorded. Ignorance can no longer be a defence
ID075732 1 May 2015 05:53
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following, famous text by Pastor Martin Niemoller
about the cowardice of intellectuals following the Nazis':
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
It's time for the MSM to realise that the same is happening Ukraine - for which the Odessa
massacre is a warning. It's time they stopped playing intellectual games to prop up what is a
fascist regime in Kiev.
BunglyPete 1 May 2015 05:48
Just in case those involved in the production of this article do read or hear of these comments..
Do you not realise we have Google and Youtube now? You can verify anything within a few keystrokes.
You do not need to rely on the evil Russian media, you can watch the eyewitness videos yourself.
I mean this seriously, if you are going to attempt to prove something then at least realise
that you will need to go to more lengths to do so. In the context of the greater 'propaganda war',
articles like this are nonsensical, as you merely serve to discredit yourself, and encourage people
to move to alternative media sources.
If you want to discredit the Russian narrative then discredit it, don't write things that discredit
your own narrative.
You don't need to bill me for this advice it comes for free.
SHappens 1 May 2015 04:30
Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to
cover up high-level complicity.
At the beginning of the unrest, the most virulent reaction came from supporters of Ukrainian
football clubs. But they were soon joined by a well-organized gang of self-defense that came in
a column of about 100 people dressed in military fatigues and relatively well equipped.
Members of the Ukrainian security forces withdrew from the scene allowing the rightwing radicals
to block the exits and firebomb the building forcing many to jump from open windows to the pavement
below where they died on impact. The few who survived the fall were savagely beaten with clubs
and chains by the nearly 300 extremist thugs who had gathered on the street.
Street fighting thugs don't typically waste their time barricading exits unless it is part
of a plan, a plan to create a big-enough incident to change the narrative of what is going on
in the country. None of the victims of the tragedy were armed.
This isn't the first time the US has tried to pull something like this off. In 2006, the Bush
administration used a similar tactic in Iraq. That's when Samarra's Golden Dome Mosque was blown
up in an effort to change the public's perception of the conflict from an armed struggle against
foreign occupation into a civil war.
So who authorized the attack on Odessa's Trade Unions House? Could it be that the Ukrainian
Security Services were supervised by some external mercenaries just like the Oluja blitzkrieg
in Croatia back in 1995 when the Croatian National Guard was then supervised and managed by MPRI,
an US SMP based in Virginia? Because in Kiev, dozens of specialists from the US CIA and FBI were
advising the Ukrainian government helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set
up a functioning security structure. (report, AFP).
Whatever and if ever an inquiry succeeds, fact is that the government in Kiev bears direct
responsibility, and is complicit in these criminal activities for they allowed extremists and
radicals to burn unarmed people alive.
warehouse_guy 1 May 2015 04:30
Tatyana Gerasimova also says the case is getting killed off in court, put that on your headline.
alpykog 1 May 2015 04:30
Nothing unusual about police, army and terrorists working together. I remember the British
army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through
Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. Try not to feel "holier than thou" when
you read this stuff.
ID075732 1 May 2015 04:23
Rumours swirl of a higher death toll, the use of poisonous gas and the body of a pregnant
woman garrotted by pro-Ukraine fanatics.
Clearly the author has not watched the footage filmed inside the building after the massacre
- this was no "swirling rumour". Clearly the footage wasn't faked either. It showed may murdered
victims with burns to their heads and arms with bodies and clothes unscorched, not caused by the
actual fire.
Also those that have studied the many videos available of the unfolding events saw a much more
an orchestrated attack on the Trade Union building with fires breaking out in rooms further away
from the seat of the original fire. Also two masked figures on the roof before the fire started
in the building.
Reports that the exits were blocked and a number of masked pro-Ukrainians were inside the building
not just on the roof, don't figure in this report.
ploughmanlunch 1 May 2015 03:41
'While many pro-Ukraine activists helped the rescue effort, others punched, kicked and beat
those who fled the burning building. "There was blood and water all over the courtyard," said
Elena, who escaped via a fireman's ladder. "They were shouting 'on your knees, on your knees'."
This sums up, in my opinion, the whole sordid mess that is present Ukraine.
The majority of ordinary Ukrainians living under the authority of Kiev will broadly agree with
their Government, but are civilised and are probably horrified by the violence perpetrated by
both sides in the war.
Unfortunately, however, there is a significant minority of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists
that readily resort to violence and intimidation and revile Russian speaking 'separatists' in
the Donbas ( and elsewhere ).
Even more unfortunately, the fanatical far right have a disproportionate influence in the Kiev
Parliament and even the Government; a fact conveniently overlooked by the incredibly indulgent
Western powers. The present Kiev regime is blatantly anti-democratic and lacks any humanitarian
concern for the desperate plight of citizens still living in Donbas, ( unpaid pensions, economic
and humanitarian blockade ).
This crisis still has a long way to go, and I believe has not yet reached it's nadir. A brighter
future for all the people of Ukraine will require unbiased and honest involvement of the great
powers, East and West.
Geo kosmopolitenko 1 May 2015 03:22
Some spin doctors in Washington would sarcastically smile if they ever read this sadly tragic
article.
Kiselev 1 May 2015 03:20
Symbol of separated Ukrainian society...
Whatever western Ukrainians told us.
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by
Andrew Bacevich
Oxford, 270 pp, Ł16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4
A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies
are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet,
as Andrew Bacevich points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United States itself
is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:
at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The scepticism about arms and armies that informed the original
Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives
alike, became enamoured with military might.
The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued in utter disregard of any
consequences that might ensue.
The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German
militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes
close to a betrayal of the military and the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American
variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and widely differing motives:
The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent
on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals
fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed
by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined
their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military
power as the apparent answer to any number of problems.
Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle
East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans
as also being those of the US. And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight
Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.
The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their
own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorises defence
spending on weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen
in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary
to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international
tension.
That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict which might ruin the international
economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees
had to override the objections of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before
the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah, and so naturally have a more
relaxed attitude.
To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the Iraq war one has to look for deeper
explanations. They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief
in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest
of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because they are spreading 'freedom'. Also
of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development
of an aesthetic that sees war as waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry,
painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania in militarist quarters. The amazing
Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator, not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory
had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of
talk restricted to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic establishment
were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically unlimited.'
Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. Take Bacevich on the popular
novelist Tom Clancy:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with heavily armed and implacably
determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single
fact: the men and women of America's uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats.
The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honour, extraordinary technological aptitude and sheer decency
of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one
reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are
uniformly competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.' Indeed, in the contract
that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess. They reflect a belief – genuine
or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum: the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline
and sacrifice, and explicitly or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy
civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign affairs commentator of the
ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people. They are so much better than the country … they are
fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister pedigree in modern history.
In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see his past generalship alone as
qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president
was a general and throughout the 19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength
of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed military have real power over policy-making,
even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking
guy on the planet', but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the
president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler
and Stalin.
Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction,
for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most
non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings
out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians
of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd
than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.
Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is a real and living force. This cuts
two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratisation
has had a disastrous effect on the party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic
language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies in the US – has been all too
successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand, the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the
heart of civic nationalism places certain limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible
for the US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik. This has been demonstrated
recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov tyranny in Uzbekistan.
The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much of American culture and the equally
widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied
their stated admiration for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed services,
then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich notes,
having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude, Friedman in the course of
a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits. His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of
the opportunity to indulge, ever so briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things.
Nothing has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique, reassuring encounter
with an alien world.
Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security
to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest
of society.
This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course new. It characterised most of
British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today, the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant
that, appearances to the contrary, British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority,
small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but
it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America.
Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying overwhelming technological superiority,
American military power is actually quite limited. As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock
over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni
Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland
China.
In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where it has been for several decades.
Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military
detests, and which politicians are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack
on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire several steps closer. Recognising
this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service
– something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years
to do so.
Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from empire and towards genuine national security.
It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals
would seem nothing short of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.
They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force, except where a solid international
consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution
but shamefully surrendered in recent years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and
a decision that the military should focus on the defence of the nation, not the projection of US power. As a means of keeping military
expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten
countries, just as in the 19th century the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an
index of the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.
This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity of its author. Colonel Bacevich's
views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell
in the conflict's bleak latter stages … long after an odour of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated
to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.
Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the outside world, so the Cold War in
Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military. For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s
and 1980s, defending the West from possible Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing',
was 'the American soldier's true and honourable calling'.
In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic conservative, and intensely
patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and still situates himself culturally on the right:
As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the Clinton years, my relationship
with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable one … But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism,
embodied in the Bush administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering foreign
policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound moral controversies: these do not qualify
as authentically conservative values.
On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical left: it is the mainstream itself,
the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives, who define the problem … The Republican and Democratic
Parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results.
Bacevich, in other words, is sceptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration with a Democrat one would
lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as
thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.
Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in which it has been sacrificed, and
its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep
private concern of senior officers that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never
before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed military that has characterised
the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds
from which they are drawn. For if the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some
of its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on the old idea of the citizen
soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind
the military more closely into American society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only
at the start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.
Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a revolutionary and highly unlikely
transformation of American mass culture, any political party that wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment
to the defence of the country. The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents,
and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened the US. The left needs to heed
Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative. It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the
respectable aspects of military culture. The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged
the threats facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed by military force.
And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity
for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.
In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting moments took place at a
Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin
of hundreds, how many US soldiers had died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration
had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly, unceasingly, to win the next election.
The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity
to employ a focused strategy.
Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania, soldiers and veterans of the
army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship
with its military to the old limited, rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against
the Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed the military desperately
on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.
For his first 40 years, Andrew Bacevich lived the conventional life of an army officer. In the military world where success depended
on conformity, he followed the rules and "took comfort in orthodoxy…[finding] assurance in conventional wisdom." Comfort, that is,
until he had a chance to peer behind the Iron Curtain, and was shocked to find East Germany more third-world shambles than first-rate
threat.
That experience, combined with the introspection that followed his subsequent retirement from the army, led Bacevich to
reevaluate the relationship between truth and power. After having taken his superiors at their word for decades, he slowly came to
understand "that authentic truth is never simple and that any version of truth handed down from on high…is inherently suspect. The
exercise of power necessarily involves manipulation and is antithetical to candor."
Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War
is Bacevich's fourth book on the subject of American exercise of power. This time, he takes up the question of the political calculations
that have produced the basic tenets of American foreign policy since the beginning of the Cold War, examining how and why they came
to exist and to survive all challenges to their supremacy.
Bacevich describes two components that define U.S. foreign policy. The first is what he dubs the "American credo," which calls
on "the United States - and the United States alone - to lead save, liberate, and ultimately transform the world." Second is what
he calls the "sacred trinity," which requires that the United States "maintain a global military presence, to configure
its forces for global power projections, and to counter existing or anticipated threats by relying on a policy of global
interventionism."
These rules, Bacevich argues, are no longer vital to the existence of the United States, and have led to actions that threaten
to break the army and bankrupt the treasury. Rather, they are kept in place by individuals who derive personal benefit from their
continuance. Bacevich does not hesitate to blame a Washington class that "clings to its credo and trinity not out of necessity, but
out of parochial self-interest laced with inertia."
This is a theme that runs throughout the book: that those who make the rules also benefit from them, and thus their demands should
always be regarded skeptically.
While abstaining from questioning the patriotism of past leaders, Bacevich is not reluctant to point out how many policies that
were later widely embraced were originally trumpeted by ambitious men who had as much to gain personally by their acceptance as did
the country: General Curtis LeMay, who built a massive nuclear arsenal as head of Strategic Air Command; Allen Dulles, who backed
coups across the globe as CIA director; and General Maxwell Taylor, who rode the idea of "flexible response" from retirement to the
position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The story of foreign policy, then, is not so much different than any government bureaucracy through which vast sums of money flow,
and is driven as much by officials jockeying for status than by genuine concern for policy outcomes. Whether in disputes between
the Army and the Air Force or the Pentagon and the White House, and whether over money or over purpose, different sectors of the
national security establishment propose and promote new doctrines that necessitate increasing their budgets and enhancing their importance.
But Bacevich is not content to only blame leaders. In contrast to George Washington's ideal of the citizen who would consider
it his duty to actively serve his country, Bacevich finds today's Americans "greedy and gullible," pursuing personal gain in the
stead of collective benefit. Any solution, he argues, must come from an awakened people who demand change from the people they put
in office.
As for what that change should look like, Bacevich proposes a new credo and trinity. As a new mission statement, he offers: "America's
purpose is to be America, striving to fulfill the aspirations expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as
reinterpreted with the passage of time and in light of hard-earned experience."
As a new trinity, he suggests that "the purpose of the U.S, military is not to combat evil or remake the world but to defend the
United States and its most vital interests…the primary duty station of the American soldier is in America…consistent with the Just
War tradition, the United States should employ force only as a last resort and only in self defense."
Bacevich writes in the short, clipped style with which he also speaks, presumably a legacy of his West Point education and decades
in the military. His style allows for easy comprehension and neat packaging of his ideas, and readers will not get bogged down in
flowery language.
Parts of Bacevich's thinking require further scrutiny and remind readers of his self-identification as a conservative (lowercase
"c"). Economically, he is no fan of stimulus spending, and socially he places blame on individual failings and personal flaws, choosing
not to mention an unequal economic system that leaves tens of millions of Americans with barely the resources to take care of their
families, much less have time to be informed and active citizens.
In fact, the emphasis throughout the book is on the fact that expansionism, at this particular moment, is not wrong but impossible.
Bacevich is, after all, a realist when it comes to international relations theory, and though he happens to agree with liberal anti-imperials
on many issues, it is often for different reasons.
However, debates over theory can wait for when the republic is in less immediate peril. This is the second work Bacevich has published
under the auspices of the American Empire Project, a book series documenting America's imperial adventures and their disastrous consequences.
The contribution of conservative authors to this task is vital. They remind us that opposition to imperialism is hardly just a liberal
cause, and in fact for much of American history was actually a rallying point for conservatives across the country.
Washington Rules is valuable for putting in print what those inside the military establishment don't dare admit: that,
even aside from moral concerns, U.S. international strategy is neither successful nor sustainable and maintained more by lies than
by actual results. Bacevich can truly be said to be a realist in that he understand that leaders, when faced with the choice of admitting
failure or lying, will almost always choose the latter.
Andrew Feldman is an intern with Foreign Policy In Focus.
Such an elaborate dance around facts. From comments: "It is so depressing when there is far more
information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue
the traditions of her predecessor." This is one event about which there is quite a lot of information
to see how Guardian presstitutes try to bent the truth. See
Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014
Notable quotes:
"... In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain) that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys. However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership" the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with. ..."
"... Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war. ..."
"... There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad, but true. ..."
"... Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. ..."
"... Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city' liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass". ..."
"... I remember the British army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. ..."
The emergency calls became increasingly desperate. "When are you coming? It's already burning
and there are people inside," a woman told the fire brigade dispatcher. Minutes later, callers started
describing how people were jumping from the upper floors. "Have you lost your minds?" one man asked,
his voice breaking. "There are women and children in the building!" another man yelled.
In one of
the most deadly episodes in Ukraine's turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and
hundreds injured on 2 May last year in the Black Sea port of Odessa.
Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia
activists were barricaded in.
VengefulRevenant -> AlfredHerring 1 May 2015 17:24
The victims are the ones who were raped, shot or burned to death in the massacre.
The perpetrators are those protected by the NATO-backed regime which has failed to investigate
the massacre.
The apologists are the NATO-aligned media who blame the victims or assign blame equally to
the killers and the dead along the lines of, 'There was heroism and cruelty on both sides.'
normankirk -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 16:52
Well isn't it wonderful to hear a diversity of views expressed on Russian TV. When all we hear
is how all media is controlled by the Kremlin
Kaiama Danram 1 May 2015 16:48
So the dead Ukrainian children and women are Kremlin goons too?
How simple your life must be to allow you to make such simplistic conclusions.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 16:46
Some nice whitewashing. Now it's fault of the victims and the heroism of the perpetrators,
there hasn't been and there will be no investigation and the word massacre is no longer used.
For those of you who still argue it was not a massacre but some mysterious suicide by 48 people
who set themselves afire, here is footage again.
Take a look at some of the pretty revealing moments:
23 min mark - Ukrainians are entering the building, there was no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
While in the building, Ukrainians were slaughtering people. And it wasn't a fight. Half of
the victims were middle-aged. At least 10 of them - women.
31min - 33min - the victims who got out have their faces and hands disfigured while the rest
of their bodies don't have the same injuries. That's what happens if someone splashes fuel over
someone's face and light it up. There are pictures of victims with only their heads and hands
burned.
33min - 35min - there were women among those trying to find safety in the building. Some of
them are middle-aged. They were not fighters, as the article would imply.
36min- 37min - Ukrainians were inside the building, setting it on fire and killing those whom
they could find, a young woman in this specific frame.
46min - a person was bludgeoned to death. The room doesn't have marks of fire but the blood
is splattered all over the room.
48min-50min - the same story, Ukrainians were slaughtering their victims.
1h:00min - Ukrainians are entering the building again, this time from the make shift scaffolding.
Any attempt to pretend there was a fight rather than a massacre is crazy. Any suggestion that
somehow people inside were setting themselves on fire is ludicrous in light of evidence that the
Ukis were inside the building. And the fact that Kiev doesn't even see it as murder makes me just
angry.
AbsolutelyFapulous -> PlatonKuzin 1 May 2015 16:43
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil.
Donno why you are commenting here. You even don't seem to be able to read a map.
BorninUkraine -> RonBuckley 1 May 2015 16:25
In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain)
that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys.
However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership"
the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with.
Current Ukrainian "leaders" keep stealing everything they can, including financial and material
aid from the West. What else is new?
MaoChengJi -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 16:03
Yeah. I'm convinced that they should've sent paratroopers and take Kiev right the next day
after the coup d'etat; stop this whole unholy mess right then and there. That really would've
saved tens of thousands of lives - if not millions, seeing how this thing seems to escalate, leading
us to a nuclear war.
Putin is a pussy, Medvedev got it right in Georgia in 2008. Well, frankly Medvedev is a pussy
too. He should've taken Tbilisi, and put Saakashvili on trial.
To teach the bastards a lesson.
Instead, now we hear every day 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', 'Russia will not fight Ukraine',
and the murdering Nazi bastards get bolder and bolder. What's the point of having all that military
hardware if you're afraid to use it. They Yanks would've taken control of the place months ago,
look at Grenada.
RonBuckley -> BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 15:52
Well said, man. Yes, Ukrainian politics have always been divisive, stupid, thievery and corrupt.
That said they had neither brains nor money for a coup. So Ukraine should thank certain external
powers for the deep shit it is in now.
PlatonKuzin -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:31
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil. That's the point. And the state of Ukraine
is a temporary occupier of the Russian soil. So people living in Odessa don't have to go to Russian.
They are right at their home. This is the state of Ukraine that has stayed on our Russian land
for 23 years now. It's time for the quasi-state of Ukraine to leave.
BorninUkraine -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:16
I was born in Lvov in Western Ukraine, I grew up in Lugansk in the East, I have friends and
relatives all over, and I know exactly what is going on in Ukraine.
Ukraine in 1991 was extremely heterogenous. In the area West of Carpatian mountains people
speak Hungarian, Romanian, and Rusine (a form of old Russian, spoken in Kievan Rus).
Galichina and Volynia in the West speak several dialects of Ukrainian. Many in Central Ukraine
speak what is considered literary Ukrainian. In the South and East (historic Novorossia) and in
Kharkov region (historic Slobozhanschina) the majority speaks "surgik", a mix of pidgin-Ukrainian
and pidgin-Russian. Finally, in Crimea people speak Russian, Tatar, and very few speak Ukrainian.
Crimea voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum and got a chance to run away in 2014, when Ukraine
committed suicide.
If the leaders of Ukraine had any brains and loved their country, they would have followed
the example of Switzerland and Singapore, having many official languages. However, all Ukrainian
rulers from day one were thieves and idiots. They made Ukrainian the only official language and
pushed it everywhere, so that while you could get school education in several languages, all colleges
operated only in Ukrainian, putting people who spoke other languages at a disadvantage.
That idiotic policy started this whole mess, which with a bit of US money, prodding, and now
arms became a civil war. Not to mention that Galichina is the place that fought against Russia
in WWI (as part of Austro-Hungarian empire, siding with Kaiser) and WWII (siding with Hitler).
They supplied the troops that under Hitler's command murdered thousands of civilians in Ukraine,
Poland, Belarus, and Slovakia. Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina,
who are considered heroes by current puppets in Kiev, voluntarily served Hitler.
80% of Ukrainian population hates these Bandera worshippers, so when external forces push them
to power, it creates trouble. Personally I hate them for giving a bad name to everything Ukrainian.
BorninUkraine -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:10
Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians
there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.
Or is saying things explicitly beyond your pay grade?
RonBuckley -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:06
To Odessa Kiev sent a few hundred pro-Nazi thugs - 42 died.
To Donetsk and Luhansk Kiev sent a few thousand pro-Nazi thugs plus the entire Ukrainian army
- 6000 died.
Get it now?
Goodthanx -> Anette Mor 1 May 2015 15:04
For me it was the silence... You are right! Seeing what i was seeing, with no commentry to
convince me either way.. How could the worlds media be so silent?
Then with MH, it was the complete opposite!! Immediately and with no investigation, MSM could
not shut up about who they thought was responsible!!
Both fail the logic test miserably. But try explaining common sense to those that haven't any.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:48
Those protesters were Ukrainian Pro Federalists! Not one Russian amongst them!
Anette Mor -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 14:46
Good for you. It is impossible to hide truth with current state of technology. Only not showning.
Any life reporting give the footage adding facts one by one and crwating a true picture eventually.
Even this rather bias article contributes to true story because the lie in it sticks out of logic
for anybody we is able to think for themselves.
PlatonKuzin -> ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:42
Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting
the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war.
Anette Mor -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 14:41
It is poinless to try to install fear in these people. Need to look at the history of people's
wars in Russia. Since 17 century they were able to resist occupation and unwanted rulers by people
war. There wpuld not be a win against Napoleon and Hitler without people rising and forming resistance.
Same in Odessa now. Just a matter of time.
BunglyPete -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:35
The explanation is very simple. Right Sector had free reign to terrorise pro Russians, so he
took action. Kiev choose not to punish Right Sector both then and now. He said this in the same
interview you constantly reference.
Now can you explain why you think it is acceptable for Right Sector to terrorise the Donbass?
If Strelkov wasnt allowed to defend them, who was?
Anette Mor -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 14:34
Not sure why you call them pro-Russians. Odessa is multi-national city. These who were massacred
are simply local people who disagreed with the violent coup which put to power by the west. Does
it make them "pro-russian" and justify thier killing? Surely these who want own country to be
coverned by own elected officials could not be pro- another country. If they trust Russian government
care for them more then thier own coup, that only says how bad the coup rule is.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:24
Forget about the Russian government. The idea is justice for the victims and punishment for
the perpetrators. Is it the ambition of the UN to be percieved as bias as so called Russuan investigators
would be?
Kaiama -> truk10 1 May 2015 14:22
FFS there are enough links and analysis to demonstrate that pro-Kiev forces inflicted a massacre
of civilians here. I don't see any pro-Ukraine links to additional information but an overwhelming
deluge of links supporting the unvoiced version of events.
ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:18
Our western media have really become mirror images of the fascist governments they support.
By publishing such whitewashing attempts as this, they only enable more such behavior in the future,
behavior that leads to the deaths of more innocents, more civilians whose only desire is to live
in freedom and peace.
Kaiama 1 May 2015 14:13
It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the
article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:09
What kind of a teenage girl carries in their backpack petrol, empty bottles, rags and whatever
else is required to make Molotov cocktails? What a coincidence... there is a group of them!!
As for Right Sector? Chartered buses transported Right Sector militia which arrived early in the
day. These were the people communicating with police from the start.
MaoChengJi -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 13:51
Speaking of the media... I've been reading this Odessa news website: http://timer-odessa.net/
, and it has been relatively informative (as much as Ukro-sites can be, these days). And today
suddenly it's gone dark: "there is no Web site at this address".
Does anyone know if it's gone for good? I really hope those who were running it are safe...
Jean-François Guilbo -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:51
So you didn't watch the video link in my comment did you?
If you just take this article for granted to know on which side the Odessa police was, you won't
learn much on what happened...
Seems like the officier on the picture would have been recognised as a colonel from Odessa police,
watch this link:
And from these two links, these armed guys not afraid to shoot from the crowd, could have been
agents provocateur...
BorninUkraine -> IrishFred 1 May 2015 13:47
Are you saying that Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina never
existed? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above did not serve Hitler voluntarily? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above are not guilty of mass murder and other crimes against humanity?
If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying that people who are murdering their opponents, politicians and journalists,
are not Nazis? If so, please state it explicitly.
As to Crimea, if you knew any history, you'd know that it was illegally annexed by Ukraine
in 1991. Here is history 101, not necessarily for you, but for those who actually want to know
the truth.
Russia deployed its troops in Crimea, and nobody was killed there. Russia failed to send its
troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children,
elderly, and disabled veterans.
As many Ukrainians joke now, "Crimeans are traitors: they ran away without us".
Your next argument?
Jeff1000 -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 13:45
Don't display callous and willful ignorance and call it even-handedness. The Guardian's "credible"
account offers no sources, agrees with none of the available pictorial or video evidence and is
rampant apologism.
I posted videos - including raw CCTV footage of the starting of the fire, further up the page.
BunglyPete -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:40
I saw that guy's post it was fantastic, very well sourced and thorough. The comments on here
were a different kettle of fish entirely back then.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:39
The attempt to re-package this event as some awful conglomeration of circumstances spurred
on by the cruelty of fate is sickening. We reduce the death of at least 50 people down so that
calling it a "massacre" becomes needlessly emotive. We casually refer to the pro-Ukrainians as
"football fans" to make it seem innocent - when Ukrainian football fans known as "Ultras" are
famours for 2 things: Being neo-Nazis, and being violent thugs.
Look at this video especially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAEcceedzCU
It's really very simple - candid videos at the time made it clear.
1. Pro-Russian groups were attacked by Ukrainian "ultras". They sought shelter in the Trade
Union building.
2. The building was set on fire when the Ultras threw molotovs through the windows. The doors
were barred.
3. People attempting to climb out of the windows were shot at, if they jumped they were beaten
as they lay on the ground.
4. Ukrainian nationalists deliberately blockaded the streets to inhibit the progress of ambulances
and fire engines.
Only a week after The Odessa Massacre an american CiFer, ex-marine, has gathered links, sieved
through hours and hours of video - he, practically, has done what the journos were supposed to
do, - to prove the Guardian, BBC and the rest were trying hard to whitewash the atrocity. Check
his posts: Additional proof that the BBC and the mainstream Western press lied when they said
both sides threw the molotov's.
I looked for 5 hours searching for one video that showed anyone in the building throwing a
molotov cocktail as the BBC first reported and the rest of the MSM went along with. I could not
find a single one. They claimed a person named Sergei (what are the odds of that) told them a
person threw the molotov inside the building and didn't realize the window was closed. This is
absolutely ludicrous and an example of the pathetic reporting that passes for "news" these days.
I did find the video of the third floor fire starting. It is at the following link and runs
consecutively. You'll notice at exactly the 2 minute mark the camera zooms in on the window where
the fire begins. You'll also notice that at the 2:02 mark you see an additional molotov cocktail
just miss the window. This is strong evidence that the window was being targeted by individuals
on the ground. Prior to this fire starting there is no other fire on the third floor, therefore
this is most likely the cause of the third floor fire and lends credence to the fact that the
violent youth below burned those people alive.
And not just "Russian state-owned media" - also most of the Russian privately owned media,
and most of the world media (and even some of the western media).
I believe I saw a chinadaily calling it Kristallnacht.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:16
Russian state-owned media characterised the day's events as a "massacre" planned by "fascists"
in Kiev, a narrative that has gained widespread traction.
Mostly because it's a pretty fitting description of what happened.
Its not hard truk. Those red armbands that the so called pro Russian provocatores wore? Are
actually the same red armbands Right sector militia was wearing during the most violent Maidan
clashes. You can identify some of the same protagonists wearing the same armband in both Odesaa
and Maidan!
vr13vr -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:07
Idiot. Nobody is laughing. Especially when 50 people died. Look at this video and see how Ukrainians
entered the supposedly "heavily defended" building. You will see them operating inside, you will
see them existing the building after it started burning from inside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg
Look at 23 min mark - they are entering the building with no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
Yes, Ukrainians overrun the building, including the roof. The photographs suggest that people
in the building where set afire while still alive.
You must be an idiot to say someone is laughing at this.
castorsia -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:02
No. They burned them. Check the photographic evidence.
PlatonKuzin -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:58
Armored vehicles and special riot forces were brought today in Odessa to prevent possible unrest
there.
WHYNOPASSWORD12 -> Havingalavrov 1 May 2015 12:56
Plenty of witnesses point out that these were pro-ukraine provacateurs sent up to stir up trouble.
They are wearing the same red armbands worn by a group who started the skirmishes earlier in the
town centre. They were part of the group bussed-in under the guise of football supporters.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 12:55
Hi turk10,
I understand your confusion. Luckily, Mr. Christof Lehmann investigated it all for you. Seek and
ye shall find. Use google.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:50
Sure, Kiev views burning alive almost 50 people as a "victory." They even allowed to install
fear in the city. Since then the city is totally subdued, people would be afraid to even discuss
the events or think of any peaceful opposition as they are aware of the potential response from
Kiev's supporters.
Nice job Guardian trying to whitewash the events and justify the cold blooded murder by some
street fights elsewhere in the city, events that were taking place all over the country those
days.
Jeremn -> oleteo 1 May 2015 12:40
No greater cynics than western politicians, who certainly don't mourn this heavenly half-hundred,
or come to lay flowers at the scene of their death.
No greater cynic than the Czech envoy, Bartuska, who said:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men.
If they [independence supporters] are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were
simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side
of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
ID5868758 1 May 2015 12:18
Another despicable attempt to paint a false equivalency, to assign blame for this massacre,
for their own deaths, on those who perished. Take the Molotov cocktail throwing, for instance.
I watched the videos of those Molotov cocktails being made, pretty little pro-Ukrainian girls
sitting on the ground with their assembly line all set up, smiling as they made those instruments
of death and handed them out, now just where did those supplies come from, who thought to bring
bottles and rags and fuel to an event if it was innocent in nature?
And where would those innocent victims chased inside the building get Molotov cocktails to
throw from inside the building, when they were interested only in escaping the smoke and flames,
saving their own lives? The narrative doesn't match the evidence, but neither does it pass the
smell test, pretty SOP for western media reporting on Ukraine.
StillHaveLinkYouHate -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:56
The difference is that Nazis want to murder people for the accident of how they were born.
Extreme natinalists will want to murder anybody who does not behave in the perverted way they
feel a patriot should.
That is the difference. Praviy sektor are nazis, incidentally.
It makes the point already made below in this comment thread:
I invite people to imagine how the British media would have reported this massacre if roles
had been reversed and if it had been Maidan supporters who were burnt alive in the Trade Union
building with an anti Maidan crowd filmed throwing Molotov cocktails into the building whilst
baying for blood outside.
Indeed.
GreatCthulhu -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 11:45
Many of them not locals.
I thought the article was pretty clear that everyone on both sides were local. I speak, of
course s an Irish man who doesn't regard hating Russians/ people who identify with Russia who
aren't Russians but live nearby as a default position before beginning any debate.
There are a small minority of Irish people, living in the Republic (I am not referring to the
northern Unionist Community here), who identify with Britain often to the point that they express
regret that Ireland ever left the UK. I don't agree with them, but I would not set them on fire
in a building. For that matter, it is ARGUABLE (I am not saying whether that argument is right
or wrong- just that you could put forward the thesis) that the N.I state-let is something of an
Irish Donbass. No justification for Ireland shelling the crap out of it though... at all... that
sort of stuff is kind of regarded as savagery here these days.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:43
Hi turk10,
what's wrong with calling them 'nazis'? The guardian piece identifies them as "extreme nationalists",
and isn't it the same thing as 'neo-nazis' or 'nazis'?
Is there some nuance I'm missing here? What would you call them?
BorninUkraine -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:38
So you object to calling a spade a spade? Typical pro-US position in Ukrainian crisis. What
do you call the insignia of, for example, Azov battalion (see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion ). If that's not Nazi insignia, I don't know what
is.
I am simply saying that those who organized Odessa massacre, then Mariupol massacre, then fueled
the war in Donbass, including Poroshenko, Turchinov, Yats, etc, are Nazis.
The simple reason for that conclusion is, as the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, if
it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck". If you prefer Christian version
of the same thing, see Mathew 7:16 "you will know them by their fruits".
To sum it up, if someone behaves like a Nazi, s/he is a Nazi. Is this clear enough?
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 11:28
A pro-Russia activist aims a pistol at supporters of the Kiev government during clashes
in the streets of Odessa, 2 May 2014.
How do we know that the guy is pro-Russian? Does the picture show what he is aiming at? Does
he have a sign on his forehead burned in saying "I am pro-Russian and I am going to shoot that
pro-Ukrainian bastard"? No, he does not. We are expected to assume that because the caption says
so - but captions to pictures aren't evidence. Anybody can put any caption to any picture, and
it's been done many a time.
The head of the local pro-Ukraine Maidan self-defence group, Dmitry Gumenyuk, recalled the
effect of the homemade grenades. . . they threw a grenade and it exploded under his bullet-proof
vest and four nails entered his lungs," he said.
Such peaceful people - going for a nice in the park walk in bullet-proof vests. They were going
to destroy that camp and not on the agreement with the activists in that camp, as Guardian states
(complete BS) but violently, which they did. Even if they were attacked, what did women in the
camp have to do with it?
Come on, people, even in the face of such a tragedy, is it so absolutely necessary to hush up
the truth all the time?
BorninUkraine -> caliento 1 May 2015 11:24
There is a Ukrainian joke. Russians ask:
- If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
- We aren't that stupid, there are Russian troops there.
- But you say there are Russian troops in Donbass?
- That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
castorsia 1 May 2015 11:21
The Guardian continues to misrepresent the Odesa massacre by reporting claims by the official
Ukrainian investigation and the Odesa governor created May 2 group that the deadly fire started
when both sided were throwing Molotov cocktails. The videos and other evidence showing that the
fire started after the Molotov cocktails and tires were thrown by the attackers are deliberately
omitted.
Open question to you all: What would be in the headlines if scores of "Pro-Ukrainian activists
" were being burned, hacked, mauled, shot and raperd to death by Donetsk rebels or their supporters?
BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 11:20
There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad,
but true.
In this article Howard Amos pretends that he believes that both sides were to blame for the
mass murder of anti-fascists by pro-Maidan thugs in Odessa on May 2, 2014. That's like saying
that both the Nazis and the inmates of concentration camps were equally guilty.
This lie is so outrageous, and so far from reality, that it does not even deserve an argument.
The readers who want to know the truth can do Google search using "Odessa massacre 2014" and read
for themselves.
The lie that the Guardian repeats after Kyiv "government" looks even less plausible now, as
Odessa massacre was followed by the massacre of civilians by Nazi thugs in Mariupol a few days
later (change Odessa to Mariupol in your Google search), and the murder of thousands of civilians
in Donbass, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans, by the Ukrainian army and
Nazi battalions.
I grew up in the USSR, but I have never read a lie so obvious and outrageous in the Soviet
media. Congratulations on a new low!
coffeegirl aussiereader4 1 May 2015 11:11
Sounds like you know little about what happened in Odessa.
The best compilation of any available material was done on May 8, 2014 by our fellow CiFer
US ex-marine griffin alabama:
You like to cite Strelkov, don't you, when it suits your purpose? If he is such an authority
for you, why don't you cite everything he says? Among other things, he said that Maidan was not
a popular uprising but a pure decoration for the coup organized by the right wing groups and funded
by oligarchs together with the foreign agents? You can watch this here
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/must-watch-strelkov-vs-starikov-debate.html
greatwhitehunter caliento 1 May 2015 11:08
you would no if you followed events the idea of peace keepers was supported by Russia, the
separatists and a good many other countries right from the start of the conflict . It was not
however supported by the kiev government or the US. Peace keepers were offered to Ukraine right
up until 4 days before the Minsk agreement.
Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. There belated cries for
peace keepers only came after getting an a*& kicking.
kiev signed the minsk agreement which requires them to deal with the issues peace keepers would
be a way out for them. Usa by their actions does not support the Minsk agreement.
Poroshenko,s idea of peace keepers was a few kiev friendly states to send weapons and troups
to bolster their ranks.
An offer was made via the UN security council for a peace keeping force that included china
and new zealand and poroshenko stated that ukraine didn't needed china and new Zealand's help,
as it turned out they did.
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 10:54
Oh Guardian, Guardian. Both are to blame, heroism on both sides - in short, they burned themselves.
We've heard that before. But then the article goes on and tells you that the movement they for
some reason call "pro-Russian", although its not pro-Russia as much as it's anti-fascist, is essentially
eliminated, with all leaders in jail or in exile. In contrast,
None of the pro-Ukraine activists have been put on trial
Kind of tells you what actually happened, doesn't it?
Activists from both sides admit that the port city remains divided into two approximately
matched camps
No, they aren't matched. The Odessa residents are mostly anti-Maidan. The city is flooded with
newcomers from the western Ukraine, and they the main supporters of Kiev. Otherwise, why would
Kiev deploy half of the army to Odessa before the May holidays?
Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city'
liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass".
So much for "matched camps". Of course, if you put everybody of the opposing view in jail of
kill them, you can sort of achieve a "match".
Elena Hodgson 1 May 2015 10:50
This was a massacre. Period.
Hanwell123 1 May 2015 10:48
Ukraine is a gangster state where if activists aren't arrested then they are shot; 6 prominent
figures shot this year alone. No arrests. It's supported to the hilt by the EU who shell out enormous
sums to keep it from bankruptcy.
nnedjo 1 May 2015 08:42
This is the news from the Ukraine crisis Media Center:
Odesa, April 27, 2015 – Vitaly Kozhukhar, coordinator of the Self-Defense of Odesa, Varvara
Chernoivanenko, a spokesman for the Right Sector of Odesa held a briefing on the topic: "May
2 this year in Odesa. How a single headquarters of the patriotic forces preparing to hold a
day of mourning for those killed in the city"...
Varvara Chernoivanenko said that for all patriots of Ukraine is important that May 2 was peaceful
day. Patriotic forces create patrols that will keep order in the area of Cathedral Square,
which will host a memorial meeting for all those, who died on 2 May. They will make every effort
to ensure peace and order. Already, the city has operational headquarters of the patriotic
forces. Their representatives will stop all provocations. At the same time, according to Varvara
Chernoivanenko, on their part will not be any aggression.
Thus, the "patriotic forces", which I suppose are responsible for burning people alive in the
building of Trade Unions in Odessa, will now protect those who survived and who should hold the
memorial service for their relatives and friends, victims of Odessa massacre. The only question
is, from whom they should protect them?
I mean, this lady from the Right Sector boasts that they organized patrols of its members all
over the city. Well, you can bet that in these patrols will be at least some, if not all of those
who threw Molotov cocktails at the building of trade unions, and beaten with clubs or even shot
at those who tried to escape from the fire. Because, as this article shows, none of them has even
been charged, let alone be convicted of that crime.
So, can we then conclude that the executioners of the victims of the Odessa massacre will now
provide protection to those who mourn the victims, which is a paradox of its kind.
And how these patrols of "patriotic forces" operating in reality, you can watch in this video,
which was filmed during the visit of Poroshenko in Odessa, on the day of the celebration of liberation
of the city in WWII, 10 April. At the beginning of the film, the guys from "Patriotic patrol"
argue with a group of anti-fascists, demanding that they reject one of their flag. And then at
one point (0:31 of the video), one of these guys from patrol says:
"Didn't burn enough of you, eh?"
MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 07:45
Ah, of course: both sides are to blame, because before the massacre an extreme nationalist
militant died, under circumstanced unknown (shot in self-defense, perhaps? who knows).
Nice.
a pro-Ukraine member of the extreme nationalist organisation
Even nicer: 'pro-Ukraine extreme nationalist'. Pro-Ukraine? Which kind of Ukraine?
I find that one of the most misleading elements in these west-interpreted stories is "pro-Russian"
and "pro-Ukrainian" labels.
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav
Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men.
If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death,
or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything
will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to
be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.
6i9vern 1 May 2015 07:43
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav
Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed
men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to
death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road,
everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to
be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.
Vladimir Makarenko Celtiberico 1 May 2015 06:20
They took it from Odessa being a symbol of Black Sea and a while ago a Russian poet said: Chernoe
More - Vor na Vore.
Black Sea - a thief by thief.
normankirk 1 May 2015 06:14
This is a shameless attempt to whitewash a massacre.There is plenty of evidence on you tube
Every one has cell phones which can record events as they unfold. This is why the American police
can no longer get away with murder. The European parliament held a hearing in Brussels to hear
the Odessa survivors. there was a concerted effort from Maidan activists from Kiev to shut down
the survivors testimony. A Europarliament deputy from the Czech republic Miroslav said "This is
simply shocking. this is an evidence of fascism not being disappeared from European countries.He
blamed Parubiy, co founder of far right Svoboda party and Kolomoisky, paymaster of neo nazi militia
for the massacre at Odessa. All this is recorded. Ignorance can no longer be a defence
ID075732 1 May 2015 05:53
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following, famous text by Pastor Martin Niemoller
about the cowardice of intellectuals following the Nazis':
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
It's time for the MSM to realise that the same is happening Ukraine - for which the Odessa
massacre is a warning. It's time they stopped playing intellectual games to prop up what is a
fascist regime in Kiev.
BunglyPete 1 May 2015 05:48
Just in case those involved in the production of this article do read or hear of these comments..
Do you not realise we have Google and Youtube now? You can verify anything within a few keystrokes.
You do not need to rely on the evil Russian media, you can watch the eyewitness videos yourself.
I mean this seriously, if you are going to attempt to prove something then at least realise
that you will need to go to more lengths to do so. In the context of the greater 'propaganda war',
articles like this are nonsensical, as you merely serve to discredit yourself, and encourage people
to move to alternative media sources.
If you want to discredit the Russian narrative then discredit it, don't write things that discredit
your own narrative.
You don't need to bill me for this advice it comes for free.
SHappens 1 May 2015 04:30
Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to
cover up high-level complicity.
At the beginning of the unrest, the most virulent reaction came from supporters of Ukrainian
football clubs. But they were soon joined by a well-organized gang of self-defense that came in
a column of about 100 people dressed in military fatigues and relatively well equipped.
Members of the Ukrainian security forces withdrew from the scene allowing the rightwing radicals
to block the exits and firebomb the building forcing many to jump from open windows to the pavement
below where they died on impact. The few who survived the fall were savagely beaten with clubs
and chains by the nearly 300 extremist thugs who had gathered on the street.
Street fighting thugs don't typically waste their time barricading exits unless it is part
of a plan, a plan to create a big-enough incident to change the narrative of what is going on
in the country. None of the victims of the tragedy were armed.
This isn't the first time the US has tried to pull something like this off. In 2006, the Bush
administration used a similar tactic in Iraq. That's when Samarra's Golden Dome Mosque was blown
up in an effort to change the public's perception of the conflict from an armed struggle against
foreign occupation into a civil war.
So who authorized the attack on Odessa's Trade Unions House? Could it be that the Ukrainian
Security Services were supervised by some external mercenaries just like the Oluja blitzkrieg
in Croatia back in 1995 when the Croatian National Guard was then supervised and managed by MPRI,
an US SMP based in Virginia? Because in Kiev, dozens of specialists from the US CIA and FBI were
advising the Ukrainian government helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set
up a functioning security structure. (report, AFP).
Whatever and if ever an inquiry succeeds, fact is that the government in Kiev bears direct
responsibility, and is complicit in these criminal activities for they allowed extremists and
radicals to burn unarmed people alive.
warehouse_guy 1 May 2015 04:30
Tatyana Gerasimova also says the case is getting killed off in court, put that on your headline.
alpykog 1 May 2015 04:30
Nothing unusual about police, army and terrorists working together. I remember the British
army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through
Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. Try not to feel "holier than thou" when
you read this stuff.
ID075732 1 May 2015 04:23
Rumours swirl of a higher death toll, the use of poisonous gas and the body of a pregnant
woman garrotted by pro-Ukraine fanatics.
Clearly the author has not watched the footage filmed inside the building after the massacre
- this was no "swirling rumour". Clearly the footage wasn't faked either. It showed may murdered
victims with burns to their heads and arms with bodies and clothes unscorched, not caused by the
actual fire.
Also those that have studied the many videos available of the unfolding events saw a much more
an orchestrated attack on the Trade Union building with fires breaking out in rooms further away
from the seat of the original fire. Also two masked figures on the roof before the fire started
in the building.
Reports that the exits were blocked and a number of masked pro-Ukrainians were inside the building
not just on the roof, don't figure in this report.
ploughmanlunch 1 May 2015 03:41
'While many pro-Ukraine activists helped the rescue effort, others punched, kicked and beat
those who fled the burning building. "There was blood and water all over the courtyard," said
Elena, who escaped via a fireman's ladder. "They were shouting 'on your knees, on your knees'."
This sums up, in my opinion, the whole sordid mess that is present Ukraine.
The majority of ordinary Ukrainians living under the authority of Kiev will broadly agree with
their Government, but are civilised and are probably horrified by the violence perpetrated by
both sides in the war.
Unfortunately, however, there is a significant minority of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists
that readily resort to violence and intimidation and revile Russian speaking 'separatists' in
the Donbas ( and elsewhere ).
Even more unfortunately, the fanatical far right have a disproportionate influence in the Kiev
Parliament and even the Government; a fact conveniently overlooked by the incredibly indulgent
Western powers. The present Kiev regime is blatantly anti-democratic and lacks any humanitarian
concern for the desperate plight of citizens still living in Donbas, ( unpaid pensions, economic
and humanitarian blockade ).
This crisis still has a long way to go, and I believe has not yet reached it's nadir. A brighter
future for all the people of Ukraine will require unbiased and honest involvement of the great
powers, East and West.
Geo kosmopolitenko 1 May 2015 03:22
Some spin doctors in Washington would sarcastically smile if they ever read this sadly tragic
article.
Kiselev 1 May 2015 03:20
Symbol of separated Ukrainian society...
Whatever western Ukrainians told us.
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by
Andrew Bacevich
Oxford, 270 pp, Ł16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4
A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle
East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually
settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich points out in
one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United States itself
is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:
at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The scepticism about arms
and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment
from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured
with military might.
The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued
in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.
The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest,
in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted kaiser,
that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and
the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American variant
is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and widely
differing motives:
The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little
in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military
officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence
at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed
by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of
a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors
of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent
answer to any number of problems.
Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring
American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary
success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. And
let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight
Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.
The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military
power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage also ensure the
support of much of the Congress, which often authorises defence spending on weapons systems the Pentagon
doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and congressmen in whose
home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in the media and among the public,
it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to
the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.
That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict
which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and
no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections
of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before
the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah,
and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.
To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the
Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism embodied
in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity
of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the
world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because they are
spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed American
noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as waged by
the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry, painlessly
victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania in militarist
quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator, not
a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel
and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted
to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic
establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically
unlimited.'
Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism.
Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with
heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans
have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's
uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats.
The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honour, extraordinary technological
aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to
enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans
are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly
competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.'
Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated
that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess.
They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum:
the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly
or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy
civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign
affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people.
They are so much better than the country … they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister
pedigree in modern history.
In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see
his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading
liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the
19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength
of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed
military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have
regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet',
but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld
and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls
Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.
Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring
contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and
the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many
American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich
brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous
with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point
of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to
Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.
Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is
a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals
in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratisation has had a disastrous effect on the
party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic
language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies
in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand,
the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain
limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the
US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik.
This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov
tyranny in Uzbekistan.
The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much
of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses
alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration
for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed
services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich
notes,
having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude,
Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits.
His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so
briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing
has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique,
reassuring encounter with an alien world.
Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve,
Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many
respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.
This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course
new. It characterised most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today,
the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary,
British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority,
small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries
in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North
America.
Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying
overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As Iraq
– and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot
suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the
Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is coming to
seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.
In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where
it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration
of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians
are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack
on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire
several steps closer. Recognising this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering
citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot
approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years
to do so.
Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from empire
and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking now
dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short of
revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.
They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force,
except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress
of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent
years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a
decision that the military should focus on the defence of the nation, not the projection of US power.
As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests
pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century
the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of
the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.
This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity
of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were
profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter
stages … long after an odour of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is
dedicated to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.
Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the
outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military.
For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible
Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American
soldier's true and honourable calling'.
In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic
conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and
still situates himself culturally on the right:
As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the
Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable
one … But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush
administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering
foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound
moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.
On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical
left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives,
who define the problem … The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical,
but they produce nearly identical results.
Bacevich, in other words, is sceptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration
with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances
are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.
Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in
which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who
have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers
that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never
before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed
military that has characterised the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers
in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if
the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of
its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on
the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and
values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American
society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the
start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.
Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a
revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that
wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defence of the country.
The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents,
and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened
the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative.
It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture.
The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats
facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed
by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military
ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.
In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting
moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another
warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had
died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration
had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly,
unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says
a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy.
Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania,
soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to
curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited,
rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the
Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed
the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.
For his first 40 years, Andrew Bacevich lived the conventional life of an army officer. In the military
world where success depended on conformity, he followed the rules and "took comfort in orthodoxy…[finding]
assurance in conventional wisdom." Comfort, that is, until he had a chance to peer behind the Iron
Curtain, and was shocked to find East Germany more third-world shambles than first-rate threat.
That experience, combined with the introspection that followed his subsequent retirement from the
army, led Bacevich to reevaluate the relationship between truth and power. After having taken his
superiors at their word for decades, he slowly came to understand "that authentic truth is never
simple and that any version of truth handed down from on high…is inherently suspect. The exercise
of power necessarily involves manipulation and is antithetical to candor."
Washington Rules:
America's Path to Permanent War is Bacevich's fourth book on the subject of American exercise
of power. This time, he takes up the question of the political calculations that have produced the
basic tenets of American foreign policy since the beginning of the Cold War, examining how and why
they came to exist and to survive all challenges to their supremacy.
Bacevich describes two components that define U.S. foreign policy. The first is what he dubs the
"American credo," which calls on "the United States - and the United States alone - to lead save,
liberate, and ultimately transform the world." Second is what he calls the "sacred trinity," which
requires that the United States "maintain a global military presence, to configure its forces
for global power projections, and to counter existing or anticipated threats by relying
on a policy of global interventionism."
These rules, Bacevich argues, are no longer vital to the existence of the United States, and have
led to actions that threaten to break the army and bankrupt the treasury. Rather, they are kept in
place by individuals who derive personal benefit from their continuance. Bacevich does not hesitate
to blame a Washington class that "clings to its credo and trinity not out of necessity, but out of
parochial self-interest laced with inertia."
This is a theme that runs throughout the book: that those who make the rules also benefit from
them, and thus their demands should always be regarded skeptically.
While abstaining from questioning the patriotism of past leaders, Bacevich is not reluctant to
point out how many policies that were later widely embraced were originally trumpeted by ambitious
men who had as much to gain personally by their acceptance as did the country: General Curtis LeMay,
who built a massive nuclear arsenal as head of Strategic Air Command; Allen Dulles, who backed coups
across the globe as CIA director; and General Maxwell Taylor, who rode the idea of "flexible response"
from retirement to the position of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The story of foreign policy, then, is not so much different than any government bureaucracy through
which vast sums of money flow, and is driven as much by officials jockeying for status than by genuine
concern for policy outcomes. Whether in disputes between the Army and the Air Force or the Pentagon
and the White House, and whether over money or over purpose, different sectors of the national security
establishment propose and promote new doctrines that necessitate increasing their budgets and enhancing
their importance.
But Bacevich is not content to only blame leaders. In contrast to George Washington's ideal of
the citizen who would consider it his duty to actively serve his country, Bacevich finds today's
Americans "greedy and gullible," pursuing personal gain in the stead of collective benefit. Any solution,
he argues, must come from an awakened people who demand change from the people they put in office.
As for what that change should look like, Bacevich proposes a new credo and trinity. As a new
mission statement, he offers: "America's purpose is to be America, striving to fulfill the aspirations
expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as reinterpreted with the passage
of time and in light of hard-earned experience."
As a new trinity, he suggests that "the purpose of the U.S, military is not to combat evil or
remake the world but to defend the United States and its most vital interests…the primary duty station
of the American soldier is in America…consistent with the Just War tradition, the United States should
employ force only as a last resort and only in self defense."
Bacevich writes in the short, clipped style with which he also speaks, presumably a legacy of
his West Point education and decades in the military. His style allows for easy comprehension and
neat packaging of his ideas, and readers will not get bogged down in flowery language.
Parts of Bacevich's thinking require further scrutiny and remind readers of his self-identification
as a conservative (lowercase "c"). Economically, he is no fan of stimulus spending, and socially
he places blame on individual failings and personal flaws, choosing not to mention an unequal economic
system that leaves tens of millions of Americans with barely the resources to take care of their
families, much less have time to be informed and active citizens.
In fact, the emphasis throughout the book is on the fact that expansionism, at this particular
moment, is not wrong but impossible. Bacevich is, after all, a realist when it comes to international
relations theory, and though he happens to agree with liberal anti-imperials on many issues, it is
often for different reasons.
However, debates over theory can wait for when the republic is in less immediate peril. This is
the second work Bacevich has published under the auspices of the American Empire Project, a book
series documenting America's imperial adventures and their disastrous consequences. The contribution
of conservative authors to this task is vital. They remind us that opposition to imperialism is hardly
just a liberal cause, and in fact for much of American history was actually a rallying point for
conservatives across the country.
Washington Rules is valuable for putting in print what those inside the military establishment
don't dare admit: that, even aside from moral concerns, U.S. international strategy is neither successful
nor sustainable and maintained more by lies than by actual results. Bacevich can truly be said to
be a realist in that he understand that leaders, when faced with the choice of admitting failure
or lying, will almost always choose the latter.
Andrew Feldman is an intern with Foreign Policy In Focus.
According to MIC theorists, prolonged international conflict after World War II produced high levels of military expenditure,
creating powerful domestic interest groups that required a Cold War ideology to safeguard their power and prestige with in the state's
political and economic structure. These interest groups, which arose among the military services, corporations, high government officials,
members of Congress, labor unions, scientists and scholars, and defense societies (private organizations that combine industrialists,
financiers, and business people involved in weapons production, acquisition, and the like and members of the armed forces), came
to occupy powerful positions with in the state. They became mutually supportive, and, on defense-related matters, their influence
exceeded that of any existing countervailing coalitions or interests. Theorists differed over whether civilians or the military dominated
a MIC or whether they shared power. But most agreed that civilians could match and even surpass those in uniform in their dedication
to military creeds. Most scholars pointed out that MIC operations constituted military Keynesianism, a means of stimulating the economy;
others went further, proposing defense spending as an industrial policy, albeit a limited and economically distorting one. Some critics
of vast and continued spending on the armed forces worried that military professionalism was under-mined by focusing inordinate attention
on institutional growth and the advancement of careers instead of defending the nation.
Since most MIC theorists regarded Cold War ideology as either false or exaggerated, they maintained that its adherents either
deliberately engaged in deception in order to further their own interests or falsely believed themselves to be acting in broader
public or national interests-or some combination of the two. Whatever the case, proponents of arms without end, so-called hawks,
served to perpetuate Cold War ideological strains. The close connection between the MIC and U.S. Cold War ideology not with standing,
some MIC theorists maintained that capitalism had no monopoly on defense and war complexes. The former Soviet Union, they argued,
had its own complex, and the U.S. and Soviet MICs interacted to perpetuate a mutually advantageous but in fact enormously dangerous
and ultimately destructive state of heightened competition.
Opponents of MIC
In 1947, Hanson W. Baldwin, the hawkish military correspondent of this newspaper, warned that the demands of preparing America
for a possible war would "wrench and distort and twist the body politic and the body economic . . . prior to war." He wondered whether
America could confront the Soviet Union "without becoming a 'garrison state' and destroying the very qualities and virtues and principles
we originally set about to save."
It is that same dread of a martial America that drives Andrew J. Bacevich today. Bacevich forcefully denounces the militarization
that he says has already become a routine, unremarked-upon part of our daily lives - and will only get worse as America fights on
in Afghanistan and beyond. He rips into what he calls a postwar American dogma "so deeply embedded in the American collective consciousness
as to have all but disappeared from view." "Washington Rules" is a tough-minded, bracing and intelligent polemic against some
60 years of American militarism.
This outrage at a warlike America has special bite coming from Bacevich. No critic of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could have
brighter conservative credentials. He is a blunt-talking Midwesterner, a West Point graduate who served for 23 years in the United
States Army, a Vietnam veteran who retired as a colonel, and a sometime contributor to National Review. "By temperament and upbringing,
I had always taken comfort in orthodoxy," he writes. But George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003, Bacevich says, "pushed
me fully into opposition. Claims that once seemed elementary - above all, claims relating to the essentially benign purposes of American
power - now appeared preposterous."
From Harry S. Truman's presidency to today, Bacevich argues, Americans have trumpeted the credo that they alone must "lead, save,
liberate and ultimately transform the world." That crusading mission is implemented by what Bacevich caustically calls "the sacred
trinity": "U.S. military power, the Pentagon's global footprint and an American penchant for intervention." This threatening
posture might have made some sense in 1945, he says, but it is catastrophic today. It relegates America to "a condition of permanent
national security crisis."
Bacevich has two main targets in his sights.
The first are the commissars of the national security establishment, who perpetuate these "Washington rules" of global dominance.
By Washington, he means not just the federal government, but also a host of satraps who gain power, cash or prestige from this
perpetual state of emergency: defense contractors, corporations, big banks, interest groups, think tanks, universities, television
networks and The New York Times. He complains that an unthinking Washington consensus on global belligerence is just as strong
among mainstream Democrats as among mainstream Republicans. Those who step outside this monolithic view, like Dennis Kucinich
or Ron Paul, are quickly dismissed as crackpots, Bacevich says. This leaves no serious checks or balances against the overweening
national security state.
Bacevich's second target is the sleepwalking American public. He says that they notice foreign policy only in the depths of
a disaster that, like Vietnam or Iraq, is too colossal to ignore. As he puts it, "The citizens of the United States have essentially
forfeited any capacity to ask first-order questions about the fundamentals of national security policy."
Bacevich is singularly withering on American public willingness to ignore those who do their fighting for them. He warns of "the
evisceration of civic culture that results when a small praetorian guard shoulders the burden of waging perpetual war, while the
great majority of citizens purport to revere its members, even as they ignore or profit from their service." Here he has a particular
right to be heard: on May 13, 2007, his son Andrew J. Bacevich Jr., an Army first lieutenant, was killed on combat patrol in Iraq.
Bacevich does not discuss his tragic loss here, but wrote devastatingly about it at the time in The Washington Post: "Memorial Day
orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless. Don't believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's
life: I've been handed the check."
Bacevich is less interested in foreign policy here (he offers only cursory remarks about the objectives and capabilities of countries
like China, Russia, North Korea and Iran) than in the way he thinks militarism has corrupted America. In his acid account of
the inexorable growth of the national security state, he emphasizes not presidents, who come and go, but the architects of the system
that envelops them: Allen W. Dulles, who built up the C.I.A., and Curtis E. LeMay, who did the same for the Strategic Air Command.
Both of them, Bacevich says, would get memorials on the Mall in Washington if we were honest about how the capital really works.
The mandarins thrived under John F. Kennedy, whose administration "was fixating on Fidel Castro with the same feverish intensity
as the Bush administration exactly 40 years later was to fixate on Saddam Hussein - and with as little strategic logic." The Washington
consensualists were thrown badly off balance by defeat in Vietnam but, Bacevich says, soon regained their stride under Ronald Reagan
and Bill Clinton - setting the stage for George W. Bush. Barack Obama campaigned on change and getting out of Iraq, but when it comes
to the war in Afghanistan or military budgets, he is, Bacevich insists, just another cat's-paw for the Washington establishment:
"Obama would not challenge the tradition that Curtis LeMay and Allen Dulles had done so much to erect."
Bacevich sometimes overdoes the high dudgeon. He writes, "The folly and hubris of the policy makers who heedlessly thrust the
nation into an ill-defined and open-ended 'global war on terror' without the foggiest notion of what victory would look like, how
it would be won and what it might cost approached standards hitherto achieved only by slightly mad German warlords." Which slightly
mad German warlords exactly? Bacevich, an erudite historian, could mean some princelings or perhaps Kaiser Wilhelm II, but the standard
reading will be Hitler.
And he underplays some of the ways in which Americans have resisted militarism. The all-volunteer force, for all its deep
inequities, is a testament to American horror at conscription. He never mentions Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the great New York
senator who fought government secrecy and quixotically tried to abolish the C.I.A. after the end of the cold war. Although Bacevich
admires Dwight D. Eisenhower for his farewell address warning against the forces of the "military-industrial complex," he slams
Eisenhower for enabling those same forces as president. Yet the political scientist Aaron L. Friedberg and other scholars credit
Eisenhower for resisting demands for huge boosts in defense spending.
Bacevich, in his own populist way, sees himself as updating a tradition - from George Washington and John Quincy Adams to J. William
Fulbright and Martin Luther King Jr. - that calls on America to exemplify freedom but not actively to spread it. It isn't every American's
tradition (and it offers pretty cold comfort to Poles, Rwandans and Congolese), but it's one that's necessary to keep the country
from going off the rails. As foreign policy debates in the run-up to the November elections degenerate into Muslim-bashing bombast,
the country is lucky to have a fierce, smart peacemonger like Bacevich.
WASHINGTON RULES, America's Path to Permanent War By Andrew J. Bacevich 286 pp. Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company. $25
According to MIC theorists, prolonged international conflict after World War II produced high
levels of military expenditure, creating powerful domestic interest groups that required a Cold War
ideology to safeguard their power and prestige with in the state's political and economic structure.
These interest groups, which arose among the military services, corporations, high government officials,
members of Congress, labor unions, scientists and scholars, and defense societies (private organizations
that combine industrialists, financiers, and business people involved in weapons production, acquisition,
and the like and members of the armed forces), came to occupy powerful positions with in the state.
They became mutually supportive, and, on defense-related matters, their influence exceeded that of
any existing countervailing coalitions or interests. Theorists differed over whether civilians or
the military dominated a MIC or whether they shared power. But most agreed that civilians could match
and even surpass those in uniform in their dedication to military creeds. Most scholars pointed out
that MIC operations constituted military Keynesianism, a means of stimulating the economy; others
went further, proposing defense spending as an industrial policy, albeit a limited and economically
distorting one. Some critics of vast and continued spending on the armed forces worried that military
professionalism was under-mined by focusing inordinate attention on institutional growth and the
advancement of careers instead of defending the nation.
Since most MIC theorists regarded Cold War ideology as either false or exaggerated, they maintained
that its adherents either deliberately engaged in deception in order to further their own interests
or falsely believed themselves to be acting in broader public or national interests-or some combination
of the two. Whatever the case, proponents of arms without end, so-called hawks, served to perpetuate
Cold War ideological strains. The close connection between the MIC and U.S. Cold War ideology not
with standing, some MIC theorists maintained that capitalism had no monopoly on defense and war complexes.
The former Soviet Union, they argued, had its own complex, and the U.S. and Soviet MICs interacted
to perpetuate a mutually advantageous but in fact enormously dangerous and ultimately destructive
state of heightened competition.
Opponents of MIC
In 1947, Hanson W. Baldwin, the hawkish military correspondent of this newspaper, warned that
the demands of preparing America for a possible war would "wrench and distort and twist the body
politic and the body economic . . . prior to war." He wondered whether America could confront the
Soviet Union "without becoming a 'garrison state' and destroying the very qualities and virtues and
principles we originally set about to save."
It is that same dread of a martial America that drives Andrew J. Bacevich today. Bacevich forcefully
denounces the militarization that he says has already become a routine, unremarked-upon part of our
daily lives - and will only get worse as America fights on in Afghanistan and beyond. He rips into
what he calls a postwar American dogma "so deeply embedded in the American collective consciousness
as to have all but disappeared from view." "Washington Rules" is a tough-minded, bracing and
intelligent polemic against some 60 years of American militarism.
This outrage at a warlike America has special bite coming from Bacevich. No critic of the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan could have brighter conservative credentials. He is a blunt-talking Midwesterner,
a West Point graduate who served for 23 years in the United States Army, a Vietnam veteran who retired
as a colonel, and a sometime contributor to National Review. "By temperament and upbringing, I had
always taken comfort in orthodoxy," he writes. But George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003,
Bacevich says, "pushed me fully into opposition. Claims that once seemed elementary - above all,
claims relating to the essentially benign purposes of American power - now appeared preposterous."
From Harry S. Truman's presidency to today, Bacevich argues, Americans have trumpeted the credo
that they alone must "lead, save, liberate and ultimately transform the world." That crusading
mission is implemented by what Bacevich caustically calls "the sacred trinity": "U.S. military power,
the Pentagon's global footprint and an American penchant for intervention." This threatening
posture might have made some sense in 1945, he says, but it is catastrophic today. It relegates America
to "a condition of permanent national security crisis."
Bacevich has two main targets in his sights.
The first are the commissars of the national security establishment, who perpetuate these
"Washington rules" of global dominance. By Washington, he means not just the federal government,
but also a host of satraps who gain power, cash or prestige from this perpetual state of emergency:
defense contractors, corporations, big banks, interest groups, think tanks, universities, television
networks and The New York Times. He complains that an unthinking Washington consensus on global
belligerence is just as strong among mainstream Democrats as among mainstream Republicans. Those
who step outside this monolithic view, like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, are quickly dismissed
as crackpots, Bacevich says. This leaves no serious checks or balances against the overweening
national security state.
Bacevich's second target is the sleepwalking American public. He says that they notice foreign
policy only in the depths of a disaster that, like Vietnam or Iraq, is too colossal to ignore.
As he puts it, "The citizens of the United States have essentially forfeited any capacity to ask
first-order questions about the fundamentals of national security policy."
Bacevich is singularly withering on American public willingness to ignore those who do their fighting
for them. He warns of "the evisceration of civic culture that results when a small praetorian guard
shoulders the burden of waging perpetual war, while the great majority of citizens purport to revere
its members, even as they ignore or profit from their service." Here he has a particular right to
be heard: on May 13, 2007, his son Andrew J. Bacevich Jr., an Army first lieutenant, was killed on
combat patrol in Iraq. Bacevich does not discuss his tragic loss here, but wrote devastatingly about
it at the time in The Washington Post: "Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless.
Don't believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's life: I've been handed
the check."
Bacevich is less interested in foreign policy here (he offers only cursory remarks about the objectives
and capabilities of countries like China, Russia, North Korea and Iran) than in the way he thinks
militarism has corrupted America. In his acid account of the inexorable growth of the national
security state, he emphasizes not presidents, who come and go, but the architects of the system that
envelops them: Allen W. Dulles, who built up the C.I.A., and Curtis E. LeMay, who did the same for
the Strategic Air Command. Both of them, Bacevich says, would get memorials on the Mall in Washington
if we were honest about how the capital really works.
The mandarins thrived under John F. Kennedy, whose administration "was fixating on Fidel Castro
with the same feverish intensity as the Bush administration exactly 40 years later was to fixate
on Saddam Hussein - and with as little strategic logic." The Washington consensualists were thrown
badly off balance by defeat in Vietnam but, Bacevich says, soon regained their stride under Ronald
Reagan and Bill Clinton - setting the stage for George W. Bush. Barack Obama campaigned on change
and getting out of Iraq, but when it comes to the war in Afghanistan or military budgets, he is,
Bacevich insists, just another cat's-paw for the Washington establishment: "Obama would not challenge
the tradition that Curtis LeMay and Allen Dulles had done so much to erect."
Bacevich sometimes overdoes the high dudgeon. He writes, "The folly and hubris of the policy makers
who heedlessly thrust the nation into an ill-defined and open-ended 'global war on terror' without
the foggiest notion of what victory would look like, how it would be won and what it might cost approached
standards hitherto achieved only by slightly mad German warlords." Which slightly mad German warlords
exactly? Bacevich, an erudite historian, could mean some princelings or perhaps Kaiser Wilhelm II,
but the standard reading will be Hitler.
And he underplays some of the ways in which Americans have resisted militarism. The all-volunteer
force, for all its deep inequities, is a testament to American horror at conscription. He never
mentions Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the great New York senator who fought government secrecy and quixotically
tried to abolish the C.I.A. after the end of the cold war. Although Bacevich admires Dwight D. Eisenhower
for his farewell address warning against the forces of the "military-industrial complex," he slams
Eisenhower for enabling those same forces as president. Yet the political scientist Aaron L. Friedberg
and other scholars credit Eisenhower for resisting demands for huge boosts in defense spending.
Bacevich, in his own populist way, sees himself as updating a tradition - from George Washington
and John Quincy Adams to J. William Fulbright and Martin Luther King Jr. - that calls on America
to exemplify freedom but not actively to spread it. It isn't every American's tradition (and it offers
pretty cold comfort to Poles, Rwandans and Congolese), but it's one that's necessary to keep the
country from going off the rails. As foreign policy debates in the run-up to the November elections
degenerate into Muslim-bashing bombast, the country is lucky to have a fierce, smart peacemonger
like Bacevich.
WASHINGTON RULES, America's Path to Permanent War By Andrew J. Bacevich 286 pp. Metropolitan Books/Henry
Holt & Company. $25
Andrew Bacevich has a wonderful essay, in the form of an open letter to Paul Wolfowitz,
in the
current Harper's. You have to subscribe to read it -- but, hey, you should be
subscribing
to any publication whose work you value. This essay isolates the particular role Wolfowitz had in
the cast of characters that led us to war. As a reminder, they included:
Dick Cheney, who was becoming a comic-book churl by this stage of his public life;
Colin Powell, the loyal soldier, staffer, and diplomat whose "Powell Doctrine" and
entire life's work stood in opposition to the kind of war that he, with misguided loyalty, was
to play so central a role in selling;
Tony Blair, the crucial ally who added rhetorical polish and international resolve
to the case for war;
Donald Rumsfeld, with his breezy contempt for those who said the effort would be
difficult or long;
Paul Bremer, whose sudden, thoughtless dismantling of the Iraqi army proved so disastrous;
Condoleezza Rice, miscast in her role as White House national-security advisor;
George Tenet, the long-time staffer who cooperated with the "slam-dunk!" intelligence
assessment despite serious disagreement within the CIA;
and of course George W. Bush himself, whose combination of limited knowledge and
strong desire to be "decisive" made him so vulnerable to the argument that the "real" response
to the 9/11 attacks should be invading a country that had nothing to do with them.
But Paul Wolfowitz was in a category of his own because he was the one who provided the
highest-concept rationale for the war. As James Galbraith of the University of Texas has put it,
"Wolfowitz is the real-life version of Halberstam's caricature of McNamara" [in
The Best and
the Brightest].
Bacevich's version of this assessment is to lay out as respectfully as possible the strategic duty
that Wolfowitz thought the U.S. would fulfill by invading Iraq. Back before the war began, I did
a much more limited version of this assessment
as an
Atlantic article. As Bacevich puts it now, Wolfowitz was extending precepts from
his one-time mentor,
Albert
Wohlstetter, toward a model of how the United States could maximize stability for itself and
others.
As with the best argumentative essays, Bacevich takes on Wolfowitz in a strong rather than an oversimplified
version of his world-view. You have to read the whole thing to get the effect, but here is a brief
sample (within fair-use limits):
With the passing of the Cold War, global hegemony seemed America's for the taking. What others
saw as an option you, Paul, saw as something much more: an obligation that the nation needed
to seize, for its own good as well as for the world's....
Although none of the hijackers were Iraqi, within days of 9/11 you were promoting military
action against Iraq. Critics have chalked this up to your supposed obsession with Saddam. The
criticism is misplaced. The scale of your ambitions was vastly greater.
In an instant, you grasped that the attacks provided a fresh opportunity to implement Wohlstetter's
Precepts, and Iraq offered a made-to-order venue....In Iraq the United States would demonstrate
the efficacy of preventive war.... The urgency of invading Iraq stemmed from the need to validate
that doctrine before the window of opportunity closed.
Bacevich explains much more about the Wohlstetter / Wolfowitz grand view. And then he poses the
challenge that he says Wolfowitz should now meet:
One of the questions emerging from the Iraq debacle must be this one: Why did liberation at
gunpoint yield results that differed so radically from what the war's advocates had expected?
Or, to sharpen the point, How did preventive war undertaken by ostensibly the strongest military
in history produce a cataclysm?
Not one of your colleagues from the Bush Administration possesses the necessary combination
of honesty, courage, and wit to answer these questions. If you don't believe me, please sample
the tediously self-exculpatory memoirs penned by (or on behalf of) Bush himself, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Rice, Tenet, Bremer, Feith, and a small squad of eminently forgettable generals...
What would Albert [Wohlstetter] do? I never met the man (he died in 1997), but my guess is
that he wouldn't flinch from taking on these questions, even if the answers threatened to contradict
his own long-held beliefs. Neither should you, Paul. To be sure, whatever you might choose to
say, you'll be vilified, as Robert McNamara was vilified when he broke his long silence and
admitted that he'd been "wrong, terribly wrong" about Vietnam. But help us learn the lessons
of Iraq so that we might extract from it something of value in return for all the sacrifices
made there. Forgive me for saying so, but you owe it to your country.
Anyone who knows Andrew Bacevich's story will understand the edge behind his final sentence.
But you don't have to know that to respect the challenge he lays down. I hope Paul Wolfowitz will
at some point rise to it.
For another very valuable assessment of who was right and wrong, when, please see
John Judis's piece in
The New Republic.
I have been meaning to write to you for some time, and the tenth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war provides as good
an occasion as any to do so. Distracted by other, more recent eruptions of violence, the country has all but forgotten the war. But
I won't and I expect you can't, although our reasons for remembering may differ.
Twenty years ago, you became dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and hired me as a minor staff
functionary. I never thanked you properly. I needed that job. Included in the benefits package was the chance to hobnob with luminaries
who gathered at SAIS every few weeks to join Zbigniew Brzezinski for an off-the-record discussion of foreign policy. From five years
of listening to these insiders pontificate, I drew one conclusion: people said to be smart - the ones with fancy résumés who get
their op-eds published in the New York Times and appear on TV - really aren't. They excel mostly in recycling bromides.
When it came to sustenance, the sandwiches were superior to the chitchat.
You were an exception, however. You had a knack for framing things creatively. No matter how daunting the problem, you contrived
a solution. More important, you grasped the big picture. Here, it was apparent, lay your métier. As Saul Bellow wrote of Philip Gorman,
your fictionalized double, in Ravelstein, you possessed an aptitude for "Great Politics." Where others saw complications,
you discerned connections. Where others saw constraints, you found possibilities for action.
Truthfully, I wouldn't give you especially high marks as dean. You were, of course, dutiful and never less than kind to students.
Yet you seemed to find presiding over SAIS more bothersome than it was fulfilling. Given all that running the place entails - raising
money, catering to various constituencies, managing a cantankerous and self-important faculty - I'm not sure I blame you. SAIS prepares
people to exercise power. That's why the school exists. Yet you wielded less clout than at any time during your previous two decades
of government service.
So at Zbig's luncheons, when you riffed on some policy issue - the crisis in the Balkans, the threat posed by North Korean nukes,
the latest provocations of Saddam Hussein - it was a treat to watch you become so animated. What turned you on was playing the game.
Being at SAIS was riding the bench.
Even during the 1990s, those who disliked your views tagged you as a neoconservative. But the label never quite fit.
You were at most a fellow traveler. You never really signed on with the PR firm of Podhoretz, Kristol, and Kagan. Your approach to
policy analysis owed more to Wohlstetter Inc. - a firm less interested in ideology than in power and its employment.
I didn't understand this at the time, but I've come to appreciate the extent to which your thinking mirrors that of the nuclear
strategist Albert Wohlstetter. Your friend Richard Perle put the matter succinctly: "Paul thinks the way Albert thinks." Wohlstetter,
the quintessential "defense intellectual," had been your graduate-school mentor. You became, in effect, his agent, devoted to converting
his principles into actual policy. This, in a sense, was your life's work.
I have been meaning to write to you for some time, and the tenth anniversary of the beginning
of the Iraq war provides as good an occasion as any to do so. Distracted by other, more recent eruptions
of violence, the country has all but forgotten the war. But I won't and I expect you can't, although
our reasons for remembering may differ.
Twenty years ago, you became dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies
and hired me as a minor staff functionary. I never thanked you properly. I needed that job. Included
in the benefits package was the chance to hobnob with luminaries who gathered at SAIS every few weeks
to join Zbigniew Brzezinski for an off-the-record discussion of foreign policy. From five years of
listening to these insiders pontificate, I drew one conclusion: people said to be smart - the ones
with fancy résumés who get their op-eds published in the New York Times and appear on TV
- really aren't. They excel mostly in recycling bromides. When it came to sustenance, the sandwiches
were superior to the chitchat.
You were an exception, however. You had a knack for framing things creatively. No matter how daunting
the problem, you contrived a solution. More important, you grasped the big picture. Here, it was
apparent, lay your métier. As Saul Bellow wrote of Philip Gorman, your fictionalized double, in
Ravelstein, you possessed an aptitude for "Great Politics." Where others saw complications,
you discerned connections. Where others saw constraints, you found possibilities for action.
Truthfully, I wouldn't give you especially high marks as dean. You were, of course, dutiful and
never less than kind to students. Yet you seemed to find presiding over SAIS more bothersome than
it was fulfilling. Given all that running the place entails - raising money, catering to various
constituencies, managing a cantankerous and self-important faculty - I'm not sure I blame you. SAIS
prepares people to exercise power. That's why the school exists. Yet you wielded less clout than
at any time during your previous two decades of government service.
So at Zbig's luncheons, when you riffed on some policy issue - the crisis in the Balkans, the
threat posed by North Korean nukes, the latest provocations of Saddam Hussein - it was a treat to
watch you become so animated. What turned you on was playing the game. Being at SAIS was riding the
bench.
Even during the 1990s, those who disliked your views tagged you as a neoconservative.
But the label never quite fit. You were at most a fellow traveler. You never really signed on with
the PR firm of Podhoretz, Kristol, and Kagan. Your approach to policy analysis owed more to Wohlstetter
Inc. - a firm less interested in ideology than in power and its employment.
I didn't understand this at the time, but I've come to appreciate the extent to which your thinking
mirrors that of the nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter. Your friend Richard Perle put the matter
succinctly: "Paul thinks the way Albert thinks." Wohlstetter, the quintessential "defense intellectual,"
had been your graduate-school mentor. You became, in effect, his agent, devoted to converting his
principles into actual policy. This, in a sense, was your life's work.
"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit
from it."
George Orwell
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which
the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
There is certainly a long established difference between a just war, a defensive war, and a war of
adventure or aggression. No one understand this better than those who suffer loss in fighting them.
Like quite a few people I found myself asking, 'Why the Ukraine? Why the sudden push there, risking
conflict with Russia on their own doorstep?' Why are we suddenly risking all to support what was
clearly an extra-legal coup d'état?'
It is telling perhaps that one of the first things that happened after the coup d'état
is that all of the Ukraine's gold was on a flight to New York, for the safekeeping by those same
people who have managed to misplace a good portion of the German people's gold. It is the most transportable
and fungible store of wealth, where the transfer of less portable assets by computerized digits may
lag.
Follow the money...
GlobalResearch
Ukraine: The Corporate Annexation 'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits'
by JP Sottile
As the US and EU apply sanctions on Russia over its annexation' of Crimea, JP
Sottile reveals the corporate annexation of Ukraine. For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, there's a
gold mine of profits to be made from agri-business and energy exploitation.
The potential here for agriculture / agribusiness is amazing production here could double
Ukraine's agriculture could be a real gold mine.
On 12th January 2014, a reported 50,000 "pro-Western" Ukrainians descended upon Kiev's Independence
Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning
of the end of Yanukovych's four year-long government.
That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for US agribusiness titan Cargill.
Business confidence never faltered
Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal
with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future
to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine's UkrLandFarming...
"War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit
from it."
George Orwell
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable,
surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which
the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
There is certainly a long established difference between a just war, a defensive war, and a war of
adventure or aggression. No one understand this better than those who suffer loss in fighting them.
Like quite a few people I found myself asking, 'Why the Ukraine? Why the sudden push there, risking
conflict with Russia on their own doorstep?' Why are we suddenly risking all to support what was
clearly an extra-legal coup d'état?'
It is telling perhaps that one of the first things that happened after the coup d'état
is that all of the Ukraine's gold was on a flight to New York, for the safekeeping by those same
people who have managed to misplace a good portion of the German people's gold. It is the most transportable
and fungible store of wealth, where the transfer of less portable assets by computerized digits may
lag.
Follow the money...
GlobalResearch
Ukraine: The Corporate Annexation 'For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, It's a Gold Mine of Profits'
by JP Sottile
As the US and EU apply sanctions on Russia over its annexation' of Crimea, JP
Sottile reveals the corporate annexation of Ukraine. For Cargill, Chevron, Monsanto, there's a
gold mine of profits to be made from agri-business and energy exploitation.
The potential here for agriculture / agribusiness is amazing production here could double
Ukraine's agriculture could be a real gold mine.
On 12th January 2014, a reported 50,000 "pro-Western" Ukrainians descended upon Kiev's Independence
Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych.
Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning
of the end of Yanukovych's four year-long government.
That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for US agribusiness titan Cargill.
Business confidence never faltered
Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal
with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future
to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine's UkrLandFarming...
"... The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment. ..."
"... I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan. ..."
Ukraine will be a consolidated fascist state without an economy. Right. It was mentioned elsewhere
that the only thing keeping the regime in power is the war. It sure isn't the economy. But eventually
the economic decline will break the bubble.
The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were
expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association
agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment.
So this ridiculous delusion is going to break down. But delusions are very resilient things.
I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan.
In a sense it already is with various oligarchs controlling bits of territory and sort of cooperating
in Kiev. Elections are not much more than a Afghan Jirga.
Still, it is interesting to see Russia
play the long game, the latest being a $285 three month gas contract with Kiev. When the Ukraine
finally implodes, Russia can clearly point out how it could have pulled the plug at any time it
wanted but it didn't because it has the best interests of its closest neighbor in mind. It also
sets a benchmark for all the promises from the EU and US to be compared to, the latter far more
likely to creatively reinterpret supposedly solid agreements than Russia especially if Kiev doesn't
sing from the same hymnbook 200%. It is also a warning to Berlin and the EU – we pull the plug
and it's all yours baby!
Yes, the people of Ukraine will never stand for this ridiculous substitution – a goose-stepping
Nazi police state in place of the cushy streets-paved-with-gold paradise they were led to expect
in exchange for their support for Maidan and the coup. They would probably put up with anything
if it meant widespread prosperity, but they are indisputably much worse off now than they were
prior to The Great Ukrainian Leap Forward and the trend is remorselessly downward for at least
another year – even the IMF
forecasts a considerably worse contraction of a further 10% rather than the 6% it forecast
earlier. And that's with the most lipstick The New Atlanticist – a relentlessly pro-western publication
whose current headlines include Wesley Clark's prediction of a Russian Spring offensive, the manifestly
ridiculous contention that "Putin's war against Ukraine" has had the effect of uniting Ukrainians,
and Russia's paranoid fantasies about the west representing a threat are all in its head – can
put on it. Moreover, there is likely to be zero growth in 2016 as well. That assessment probably
assumes certain realities that do not now exist, such as Kiev bringing the east back under its
thumb, rather than it slipping further from its control and perhaps even expanding its territory.
"... The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment. ..."
"... I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan. ..."
Ukraine will be a consolidated fascist state without an economy. Right. It was mentioned elsewhere
that the only thing keeping the regime in power is the war. It sure isn't the economy. But eventually
the economic decline will break the bubble.
The vast majority of the Maidan supporters were
expecting some sort of welfare bonanza "when they joined the EU" after signing the association
agreement. Instead they are experiencing impoverishment.
So this ridiculous delusion is going to break down. But delusions are very resilient things.
I think there is a fair chance it will be the equivalent of an european Afghanistan.
In a sense it already is with various oligarchs controlling bits of territory and sort of cooperating
in Kiev. Elections are not much more than a Afghan Jirga.
Still, it is interesting to see Russia
play the long game, the latest being a $285 three month gas contract with Kiev. When the Ukraine
finally implodes, Russia can clearly point out how it could have pulled the plug at any time it
wanted but it didn't because it has the best interests of its closest neighbor in mind. It also
sets a benchmark for all the promises from the EU and US to be compared to, the latter far more
likely to creatively reinterpret supposedly solid agreements than Russia especially if Kiev doesn't
sing from the same hymnbook 200%. It is also a warning to Berlin and the EU – we pull the plug
and it's all yours baby!
Yes, the people of Ukraine will never stand for this ridiculous substitution – a goose-stepping
Nazi police state in place of the cushy streets-paved-with-gold paradise they were led to expect
in exchange for their support for Maidan and the coup. They would probably put up with anything
if it meant widespread prosperity, but they are indisputably much worse off now than they were
prior to The Great Ukrainian Leap Forward and the trend is remorselessly downward for at least
another year – even the IMF
forecasts a considerably worse contraction of a further 10% rather than the 6% it forecast
earlier. And that's with the most lipstick The New Atlanticist – a relentlessly pro-western publication
whose current headlines include Wesley Clark's prediction of a Russian Spring offensive, the manifestly
ridiculous contention that "Putin's war against Ukraine" has had the effect of uniting Ukrainians,
and Russia's paranoid fantasies about the west representing a threat are all in its head – can
put on it. Moreover, there is likely to be zero growth in 2016 as well. That assessment probably
assumes certain realities that do not now exist, such as Kiev bringing the east back under its
thumb, rather than it slipping further from its control and perhaps even expanding its territory.
About two and a half thousand Ukrainians surrounded the US embassy in Kiev on the first of April. People who disagree with
the appointment of foreigners to the Ukrainian government, as well as the intervention of the Americans and Europeans in the public
administration of the country, holding banners saying "We are not cattle!" And they made sounds imitating animals.
Besides the protesters braying and bleating, they were eating cabbage, which was distributed by the organizers of the protest.
They also kept two-meter carrots with the symbols of the European Union. By the end of the demonstration of dissent Kiev residents
pelted the US embassy with manure.
It is noteworthy that the video from the protest was removed from all the Ukrainian sites and users were blocked. Local journalists
hardly covered the event.
It seems as though the Yanks have revived the notion behind "The School of the Americas" era,
where American Special Forces operatives would train up various battalions of "security forces",
National Guard, "Presidential Guards", whatever, expressly to support Latin American fascistic
dictatorships and to keep their respective countries on-side in the "war against Communism" in
the Western Hemisphere.
So, today we have boatloads of Special Forces contingencies in the Middle East, in Africa,
in South Asia, and now in Eastern Europe or in the former States of the Soviet Union (Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, et al), all with the specific task of supporting autocrats and dictators
against their own respective peoples.
And the gullible US public is being sold this as "advancing the democratic agenda"...so blatant
and so pathetic. This to promote US "leadership", and to create proxy military forces to advance
US "strategic goals". Blowback, blowback, we don't see no steenkin' blowback!
Germany was both Protestant and Catholic. The Catholic Centre Party opposed the
Nazis; I believe you'll find the Lutheran state churches of northern Germany the most accepting
of their regime. Lutheran Scandinavia produced generous nos. of collaborators and volunteers for
the Waffen-SS "Viking" Division. Bulgaria and Romania both had collaborationist governments drawn
from local fascists.
en1c at 1
I think they plan on using brute force to keep power. There are several reports at Fort
Russ about about a purge and revamping at the SBU.
Nalivaychenko, its leader, says it's going to be schooled in the Banderaist/OUN school of
political repression. And here is a comprehensive
guide to their methods.
There is nothing good in store for Ukraine. I think during this year it will sustain a military
defeat and the disintegration of its army, another coup and the collapse of what is left of
its government agencies, all-out chaos, the total destruction of the economy and the start
of subsistence farming for survival.... Survivors will be set back a century in terms of living
standards and civilization. This is why foreign intervention to restore law and order to Ukraine
after the collapse of Project Ukraine will be inevitable.
I hope he's exaggerating about that century thing.
Eduard Basurin, the Deputy Commander in Chief of Donetsk Republic Defense, read out to journalists
excerpts of an intelligence obtained plan of Ukrainian special operation, which, in particular
designated "special mobile groups to assault key infrastructure objects and crowded places".
Basurin said that this plan "of a special operation in sector B has been approved by the Ukrainian
side and is being implemented". Therefore, the end of March intelligence about sending approximately
thirty five Ukrainian subversion-reconnaissance group to areas of Shirokino and Donetsk to arrange
provocations under disguise of combatants is confirmed.
According to the presented documents, the subversives were also tasked with liquidation of
Donetsk Republic leaders, spreading panic among locals, opening random mortar and small arms fire
from Donetsk and the airport toward settlement Peski, where positions of the Ukrainian forces
are installed.
jfl | Apr 2, 2015 4:27:24 AM | 13
@9
The purge going on in Western Ukraine may be the sign that they have given up on war with the
East ... that would have been their instruction from the CIA, in that case ... and are preparing
to internalize the war. I'm probably quoting J Hawk or K Rus. Everything is so wrong in Ukraine
... and getting daily wronger ... that they desperately need some overarching threat to 'keep
everyone's mind off the pain'. The poor, poor Ukrainians.
I don't think the author at Russia Insider meant that the collapse of the Ukraine would last
100 years, 'just' that the 'lifestyle' of the Ukrainians would be more similar to their lifestyle
100 years ago than to their 21st century fantasies. The ground is the place to build up from.
And slowly and thoughtfully, with an appreciation for what is real and what is not, is the way
to go.
It is not only the Ukrainians who will be in this position in the near future. I agree with
Mike Maloney@7 ... "how can all this not end up becoming globalized total war?"
ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 2, 2015 9:19:48 AM | 16
"US training" in practice seems more an economic outcome than a military one. Much like sourcing
the F35 - US training of indigenous troops presents limitless opportunities for kickbacks, theft,
and other means of securing payment for local warlords. Trainers have to be fed, housed, and protected
- all activities which generate income. Trainees have to be furnished equipment - which can be
stolen and sold. Training itself consumes resources: ammunition, food, etc which also can be stolen
and sold.
Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord
support.
"Council of Europe
report finds that official Ukrainian investigations into crimes committed during the Maidan protests
are a total shambles and are going nowhere."
Obama fully intends to get a war or at least threat of war started in the Ukraine between Russia
and NATO in order to boost the military-industrial complex and the US military budget.
The alleged
intent of the Ukraine crisis was to make Ukraine into a NATO base on Russia's borders. But Russia
will never stand for that. And it's not certain that everyone in the Beltway was ignorant of that.
These people can read the articles that pointed out that Russia would not stand for that.
But Russia didn't take the bait and invade Ukraine. Instead they merely supported the anti-Kiev
forces in the east.
So Obama has to up the ante. The only way to do that is to support the far-right neo-Nazi forces
in the Ukraine and get them to take over the government. This is because Russia will never accept
a Nazi-led Ukraine, either.
The goal is to force Russia to deal militarily directly with Ukraine, thus justifying a NATO
threat response, which will boost the Cold war and boost the US and EU military-industrial complex.
Never forget that Obama is owned and operated by his masters in Chicago who are both Israel-Firsters
and stock holders in the military-industrial complex.
@31,32
Looks like the Ukrainians are finally beginning to understand just how badly they have been played.
Maybe they will no longer stand for a Nazi-led Ukraine, either?
I mean ... how have they benefited at all from NAZI rule?
About two and a half thousand Ukrainians surrounded the US embassy in Kiev on the first of April. People who disagree with
the appointment of foreigners to the Ukrainian government, as well as the intervention of the Americans and Europeans in the public
administration of the country, holding banners saying "We are not cattle!" And they made sounds imitating animals.
Besides the protesters braying and bleating, they were eating cabbage, which was distributed by the organizers of the protest.
They also kept two-meter carrots with the symbols of the European Union. By the end of the demonstration of dissent Kiev residents
pelted the US embassy with manure.
It is noteworthy that the video from the protest was removed from all the Ukrainian sites and users were blocked. Local journalists
hardly covered the event.
It seems as though the Yanks have revived the notion behind "The School of the Americas" era,
where American Special Forces operatives would train up various battalions of "security forces",
National Guard, "Presidential Guards", whatever, expressly to support Latin American fascistic
dictatorships and to keep their respective countries on-side in the "war against Communism" in
the Western Hemisphere.
So, today we have boatloads of Special Forces contingencies in the Middle East, in Africa,
in South Asia, and now in Eastern Europe or in the former States of the Soviet Union (Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, et al), all with the specific task of supporting autocrats and dictators
against their own respective peoples.
And the gullible US public is being sold this as "advancing the democratic agenda"...so blatant
and so pathetic. This to promote US "leadership", and to create proxy military forces to advance
US "strategic goals". Blowback, blowback, we don't see no steenkin' blowback!
Germany was both Protestant and Catholic. The Catholic Centre Party opposed the
Nazis; I believe you'll find the Lutheran state churches of northern Germany the most accepting
of their regime. Lutheran Scandinavia produced generous nos. of collaborators and volunteers for
the Waffen-SS "Viking" Division. Bulgaria and Romania both had collaborationist governments drawn
from local fascists.
en1c at 1
I think they plan on using brute force to keep power. There are several reports at Fort
Russ about about a purge and revamping at the SBU.
Nalivaychenko, its leader, says it's going to be schooled in the Banderaist/OUN school of
political repression. And here is a comprehensive
guide to their methods.
There is nothing good in store for Ukraine. I think during this year it will sustain a military
defeat and the disintegration of its army, another coup and the collapse of what is left of
its government agencies, all-out chaos, the total destruction of the economy and the start
of subsistence farming for survival.... Survivors will be set back a century in terms of living
standards and civilization. This is why foreign intervention to restore law and order to Ukraine
after the collapse of Project Ukraine will be inevitable.
I hope he's exaggerating about that century thing.
Eduard Basurin, the Deputy Commander in Chief of Donetsk Republic Defense, read out to journalists
excerpts of an intelligence obtained plan of Ukrainian special operation, which, in particular
designated "special mobile groups to assault key infrastructure objects and crowded places".
Basurin said that this plan "of a special operation in sector B has been approved by the Ukrainian
side and is being implemented". Therefore, the end of March intelligence about sending approximately
thirty five Ukrainian subversion-reconnaissance group to areas of Shirokino and Donetsk to arrange
provocations under disguise of combatants is confirmed.
According to the presented documents, the subversives were also tasked with liquidation of
Donetsk Republic leaders, spreading panic among locals, opening random mortar and small arms fire
from Donetsk and the airport toward settlement Peski, where positions of the Ukrainian forces
are installed.
jfl | Apr 2, 2015 4:27:24 AM | 13
@9
The purge going on in Western Ukraine may be the sign that they have given up on war with the
East ... that would have been their instruction from the CIA, in that case ... and are preparing
to internalize the war. I'm probably quoting J Hawk or K Rus. Everything is so wrong in Ukraine
... and getting daily wronger ... that they desperately need some overarching threat to 'keep
everyone's mind off the pain'. The poor, poor Ukrainians.
I don't think the author at Russia Insider meant that the collapse of the Ukraine would last
100 years, 'just' that the 'lifestyle' of the Ukrainians would be more similar to their lifestyle
100 years ago than to their 21st century fantasies. The ground is the place to build up from.
And slowly and thoughtfully, with an appreciation for what is real and what is not, is the way
to go.
It is not only the Ukrainians who will be in this position in the near future. I agree with
Mike Maloney@7 ... "how can all this not end up becoming globalized total war?"
ǝn⇂ɔ | Apr 2, 2015 9:19:48 AM | 16
"US training" in practice seems more an economic outcome than a military one. Much like sourcing
the F35 - US training of indigenous troops presents limitless opportunities for kickbacks, theft,
and other means of securing payment for local warlords. Trainers have to be fed, housed, and protected
- all activities which generate income. Trainees have to be furnished equipment - which can be
stolen and sold. Training itself consumes resources: ammunition, food, etc which also can be stolen
and sold.
Enough baksheesh spread around this way, and you have built a nice local tier of warlord
support.
"Council of Europe
report finds that official Ukrainian investigations into crimes committed during the Maidan protests
are a total shambles and are going nowhere."
Obama fully intends to get a war or at least threat of war started in the Ukraine between Russia
and NATO in order to boost the military-industrial complex and the US military budget.
The alleged
intent of the Ukraine crisis was to make Ukraine into a NATO base on Russia's borders. But Russia
will never stand for that. And it's not certain that everyone in the Beltway was ignorant of that.
These people can read the articles that pointed out that Russia would not stand for that.
But Russia didn't take the bait and invade Ukraine. Instead they merely supported the anti-Kiev
forces in the east.
So Obama has to up the ante. The only way to do that is to support the far-right neo-Nazi forces
in the Ukraine and get them to take over the government. This is because Russia will never accept
a Nazi-led Ukraine, either.
The goal is to force Russia to deal militarily directly with Ukraine, thus justifying a NATO
threat response, which will boost the Cold war and boost the US and EU military-industrial complex.
Never forget that Obama is owned and operated by his masters in Chicago who are both Israel-Firsters
and stock holders in the military-industrial complex.
@31,32
Looks like the Ukrainians are finally beginning to understand just how badly they have been played.
Maybe they will no longer stand for a Nazi-led Ukraine, either?
I mean ... how have they benefited at all from NAZI rule?
It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference
in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where
the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk
ceasefire is rapidly
unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning
in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that
to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic
artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates
little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable.
Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping
the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way
back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding
Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved
would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the
Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting
with the regular units of the Russian army."
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with
lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects
Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long
haul.
The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which
he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander
said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its
fate,apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander
claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that
recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are
in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve
and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice
is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow
increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back
down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel
fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via
sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the
indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations
from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of
their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
It is very difficult to access the real situation in Donbass. there is a distinct Russian interference and the US interference
in the conflict, so it is better to be viewed as a proxy war between the US and Russia. Somewhat similar to Syrian conflict. Where
the Ukraine is just a victim of geopolitical games.
After spending several days in and around Donetsk last week, I found it hard to escape the conclusion that the second Minsk
ceasefire is rapidly
unraveling. Nearly continuous artillery shelling and machine-gun fire could be heard for the better part of Thursday morning
in the city's Oktyabrskaya neighborhood, not far from the airport, where fighting is said to have continued without surcease.
The OSCE reported that the main railway station in the city was shelled on March 25, and a visit to it the day after showed that
to be so. Rebel tanks could be seen participating in exercises on the rural outskirts of Donetsk on the 26th. The sound of sporadic
artillery fire could be heard in the city's centrally located Leninsky District well into the early hours of the 27th.
The mood among many in Donetsk-noncombatants as well as rebel fighters who comprise what is known as the Army of Novorossiya-indicates
little interest in a rapprochement with Kiev. This is, given the conditions of the city after nearly a full year of war, rather understandable.
Many bitterly complain of Kiev's chosen moniker for the military campaign it is waging against the separatist fighters,
the "Anti-Terrorist Operation." Ordinary citizens and combatants alike view it as an attempt to dehumanize them as a whole by grouping
the entire population of the region in with likes of ISIS.
Interactions with several rebel rank-and-files and a briefing from two rebel officers reveal even less of an appetite for a way
back into the Ukrainian fold. As one senior officer put it: "Ukraine is dead. It was killed on May 2 in Odessa." Questions regarding
Russian involvement were met with scoffs-though one did admit that "[their] Russian brothers" did provide food supplies to the area.
This is not to say Russia's support to the rebels is limited to nonlethal aid, just that it was quite obvious that all involved
would be loath to admit it. In any event, despite repeated accusations of Russian malfeasance by Washington and Brussels, even the
Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, admitted in late January that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting
with the regular units of the Russian army."
Interestingly, the rebels seem to have a similar mindset to those U.S. Congressmen who overwhelmingly voted to supply Kiev with
lethal military aid last week: that the remilitarization of the conflict is simply inevitable. One rebel commander said that he expects
Kiev to launch a new major offensive "within a week" and added, matter-of-factly: "We are ready." And ready, he claims, for the long
haul.
The separatist forces, according to this commander, are prepared to fight for the next five to seven years for "Russky Mir" (which
he defined as "Russian culture") to rid all Ukraine of what he called "Nazis" and "fascists." Pressed for details, the commander
said he did not wish to impose a "Russian world" on Ukraine, but rather that each province ought to hold a referendum to decide its
fate,apparently in a fashion similar to the referendum that was held in Crimea. The commander
claimed to have (but did not provide) intelligence showing that over $3 billion of the $5 billion tranche of IMF assistance that
recently went to Kiev is being used to shore up its military. In short, it quickly became blindingly clear that these people are
in no mood to settle; and the idea that Kiev will emerge victorious anytime soon after the twin military defeats it suffered at Debaltseve
and at the Donetsk airport-with or without American lethal aid-borders on the preposterous.
Yet it seems that the Washington establishment's (though, interestingly, it seems not the president's) preferred policy choice
is to send lethal aid to Kiev because it is believed, no doubt sincerely, that a supply of javelin anti-tank missiles will somehow
increase the number of Russian fatalities to such an extent that public opinion would turn against Putin-thereby forcing him to back
down.
This is nothing more than a fantasy dressed up as a strategy because it attributes little to no agency on the part of the rebel
fighters or, for that matter, the area's noncombatants. The simple, undeniable fact is that even if Russia was to be persuaded-via
sanctions or via a significant uptick in military casualties-to wash its hands of the region, there is almost no chance that the
indigenous military forces in the region would simply melt away. What is continuing to unfold in the Donbass-despite repeated protestations
from Kiev's representatives in Washington-is a civil war between two groups with diametrically opposed visions for the future of
their country. It is a civil war that also-given that each side has enormously powerful supporters-poses a genuinely grave risk to
global security.
"... Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power. ..."
"... The U.S. will now disguise its arms-to-Kiev program by laundering it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships: ..."
"... The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons. It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who do they think will believe them? ..."
"... Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about Ukraine are purely tactical. ..."
"... Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato. ..."
The U.S. is circumventing its own proclaimed policy of not delivering weapons to Ukraine and is
thereby, despite urgent misgivings from its European allies, increasing the chance of a wider catastrophic
war in Europe.
The Ukrainian coup president Poroshenko
went to an international arms exhibition in Dubai. There he met the U.S. chief military weapon
salesman.
ABU DHABI – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is expected to meet with U.S. defense companies
Tuesday during a major arms exhibition here even though the American government has not cleared
the firms to sell Kiev lethal weapons.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition executive is scheduled to meet with a Ukrainian delegation
Monday evening, however Poroshenko is not expected to be there. Kendall, in an interview, said
he will be bringing a message of support from the United States.
"I expect the conversation will be about their needs," Kendall told Defense One a few hours
before the meeting. "We're limited at this point in time in terms of what we're able to provide
them, but where we can be supportive, we want to be."
Poroshenko, urged on by his neocon U.S. sponsors, wants total war with Russia. Porosheko's deputy
foreign minister, currently on a visit in Canada,
relayed the message:
Ukraine's deputy foreign minister says he is preparing for "full-scale war" against Russia and
wants Canada to help by supplying lethal weapons and the training to use them.
Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world
must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power.
In the mind of these folks waging a "full-scale war" against a nuclear superpower like Russia
is nothing to be afraid of. These are truly lunatics.
Russia says that U.S. weapons delivered to Ukraine would create real trouble. They mean it. To
hint how Russia would counter such a move it just
offered a spiced up S-300 missile defense system to Iran:
Sergei Chemezov, chief executive of the Russian defense corporation Rostec, said Tehran is considering
its offer to sell an Antey-2500 anti-ballistic air defense system,
The Antey-2500 is a mobile surface-to-air missile system that offers enhanced combat capabilities,
including the destruction of aircraft and ballistic missiles at a range of about 1,500 miles,
according to its manufacturer, Almaz-Antey.
The system was developed from a less advanced version -- the 1980s-generation S-300V system
-- which has a 125-mile range. A 2007 contract to supply the S-300 system to Iran was canceled
in 2010, after the U.S. and Israel lobbied against it, ...
Such a system in Iran would, in case of a conflict, endanger every U.S. airplane in the Middle
East.
But that threat did not deter the U.S. As the U.S. arms dealer in Abu Dhabi said: "where we can
be supportive, we want to be". The U.S.
will now disguise
its arms-to-Kiev program by
laundering
it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships:
Christopher Miller @ChristopherJM
Poroshenko, UAE agree on "delivery of certain types of armaments and military hardware to #Ukraine."
The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons.
It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who
do they think will believe them?
This is again a dangerous escalation of the conflict in Ukraine by U.S. machinations. It comes
at the same moment that Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine meet in Paris to
push for faster
implementation of the Minsk 2 accord for a ceasefire and for a political solution of the civil war
in Ukraine:
On Monday spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Yevhen Perebyinis said that during their
Paris meeting, the foursome of foreign ministers will focus on the implementation of the Minsk
agreements and withdrawal of heavy artillery in Donbas.
The Ukrainian government has said that it will
not withdraw its artillery as long as there are still skirmishes around a few flashpoints along
the ceasefire line. In Shirokyne east of Mariupol the government aligned neo-nazi battalion Azov
continues to attack the federalists. The Ukrainian propaganda claims that the federalists plan an
immediate attack on Mariupol. That is nonsense and the federalist have denied any plans for further
fighting. Unlike the Ukrainian government the federalist started to
pull back their
artillery and will
continue to do so.
The Ukrainian government is breaking the Minsk 2 agreement by not pulling back its heavy artillery
from the ceasefire line. The U.S. is arming the Ukrainian army and will soon
train its volunteer neo-nazi "national guard" forces.
The major European powers, Germany, France and Russia, try to tame the conflict down. The U.S.
and its poodles in Kiev continue to poor oil into the fire. If the Europeans do not succeed in pushing
back against Washington the Ukraine with burn and Europe with it.
In Further Escalation U.S. Delivery Of Weapons To Kiev Will Be Laundered Through Abu Dhabi
Thanks for a very good summary of the whole guacamole.
Another reason not to withdraw the artillery, being also used by Kerry to crank up the "let's-give-weapons-to-Ukraine"
line, is the mopping of the Debaltsevo pocket, which Ukraine & Co. decided to ignore from the
beginning, to use it now as a justification not to fulfill Minsk 2.0. The false-flag attack in
Kharkov was a prelude of the up and coming internal repression, which will drown in torture, suffering
and blood the little resistance there is to the continuation of the war and the IV Mobilization.
Whoever said that foreign policy is only an extension of domestic policy?
I commented about a week ago that the ceasefire might hold if both sides in Ukraine pulled
back their artillery - unless Obama acted to sabotage it. Now he has done so - not withstanding
the withdrawal of federalist ordinance - by offering to rearm the gun-crazy fascists of the Ukrainian
gov't, with not even a fig leaf of "plausible deniability" to cover his assets.
Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about
Ukraine are purely tactical.
As for Poroshenko, he doubtless has a helicopter gassed and ready, and a nice little hidey
hole in Switzerland all prepared, and conveniently close to his billions. That's why he sent his
family out of the country, because when he has to get out - he has to get out fast.
shargash | Feb 24, 2015 12:29:18 PM | 4
Re: (2) IhaveLittleToAdd
Like most criminal organizations, the US tries to take very good care of its agents that do
what they're told and to be very brutal to those who don't. For examples of the former, check
out all the South American criminals living in Miami as well as the perhaps more relevant example
of Mikheil Saakashvili, who is strutting around Ukraine rather than being on trial in Georgia.
For examples of the latter, check out Noriega, Saddam, or Bin Ladin.
While I suspect Porky is wondering how he got himself into this mess, I don't think he has
much choice but to stick it out to the end. At least his family will be well taken care of.
sleepy | Feb 24, 2015 2:08:47 PM | 10
Re: IHaveLittleToAdd no. 2
Re: shargash no. 4
I have read recently in an article on another blog that in 2012 Poroshenko was being politically
groomed for his future role by Germany's Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung institute, a think-tank wing
of Merkel's Christian Democrats, as was Vitali Klitschko the present mayor of Kiev in 2011.
Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was
to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato.
"Ukraine will go to war in late March"--Zakharchenko
..."We are beginning the withdrawal of heavy equipment, while Ukraine is bringing it up from Kharkov
and Dnepropetrovsk. Seems to be there will be a provocation. Ukraine will go to war in late March
or Early April. Ukraine needs war," Zakharchenko said during a Monday briefing.
J.Hawk's Comment: ...Because, to my mind, there seems to be a pattern of Ukrainian conflict activity:
it is most likely to escalate when it just received foreign financial aid, and is the most likely
to seek peace just as it needs another tranche...
sid_finster | Feb 24, 2015 8:42:45 PM | 22
$350m is not going to buy you many US weapons, especially as Parashka's contract is for $2.4
billion, less delivery, middlemen, financing, etc..
The IMF is another source, but that money hasn't arrived yet, and there are a lot of conditions
attached. That's why the Fund is the lender of last resort.
Since arms are invariably sold subject to strict limits on resales, I suspect that either:
1. The sale is for domestic Ukrainian consumption, i.e Parashka's attempt to look like he is doing
something;
Or
2.The US is secretly financing the sale, directly or indirectly. Such financing may be in the
form of "we promise to aid your ISIS friends, or look the other way, if you 'sell' Ukraine these
weapons and take a lenient attitude regarding repayment."
Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 9:20:09 PM | 23
@Alberto@11
This is not because they disagree with his politics, but because Saakashvili is wanted on a
multitude of criminal charges.
"Criminal charges?" Bingo! He fits the credentials for the job as Porky's "adviser." In reality,
Saakashvili, a CIA crooked rat, is the CIA man in Ukraine, overseeing the entire anti-Russian
effort, weapons needs, false-flag operations, internal repression, Ukinazi death squads, intel
gathering and coordination, etc. Georgia's complaint to Ukraine was more of a wink to Saakashvili's
newly found job, a show for domestic consumption, otherwise, Interpol would be looking for him,
wouldn't it?
ProsperousPeace | Feb 24, 2015 9:37:53 PM | 24
Re: Isaakashvili sudden involvement with the "Ukrainian government": Kiev Snipers: Mystery
Solved
It was reported several weeks ago in Interpress News that four of the snipers in Kiev were
in fact Georgian nationals. The source for this story was Georgian General Tristan Tsitelashvili
(Titelashvili), who later confirmed this in an interview with Rossiya TV.
Tsitelashvili claimed that at least four of the snipers shooting at people in Maidan Square
were under the command of former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, who is doing his best
to destabilize his own country, and others if necessary, to find a way back into power.
Piotr Berman | Feb 24, 2015 11:28:51 PM | 25
How long did Saakashvili's war with Russia last? 48 hours? 72 hours? Good advisor to have.
Posted by: Crest | Feb 24, 2015 8:34:15 PM | 20
According to Wikipedia, the war started on Aug 8, minutes after midnight, and it definitely
lasted at least 4 days. On fifth day, Georgians left a key city, Gori, and Russians entered on
sixth day. On the other hand, the war was lost within 24 hours. The only chance of victory for
heavily outnumbered Georgia was to surprise the Russians and Ossetians and take control of the
only tunnel between South Ossetia and the Russian Federation (North Ossetia), which they did not.
Thus Russian could retake all territory gained by Georgia on day one within two days, rather than
a week. Georgia concentrated almost all forces against Ossetian, leaving the second border with
good roads, with Abkhasia, practically undefended. Thus the only way to score a victory lasting
more than one day was to risk loosing big majority of Georgian military in a cauldron -- Georgian
forces in Ossetian mountain valleys would have Russian forces behind them, as only police checkpoints
were delaying Russian advance from Abkhasia, (posting detours, issuing tickets for parking violations,
violation of weight limits on bridges for tanks etc.???).
As a history buff, I have hard time finding a strategic plan of equal stupidity. To give the
creator of that plan a key advising position seems suicidal. An anti-Russian Georgian owns a large
(??? impressive web site) newspaper in Kiev.
Demian | Feb 25, 2015 3:02:07 AM | 28
Foreign Affairs poll of experts about whether the US should arm Ukraine:
4 strongly agree
5 agree
0 are neutral [they're experts, after all]
8 disagree
10 strongly disagree
brian | Feb 26, 2015 4:59:48 AM | 52
You can read the whole article for free if you register. You get two free articles per month.
FA should be of interest to MoA readers.
@52 Thanks for the Galloway show. His al Mayadeen show has always been difficult for me to
find - and it is considerably better, I feel, than both Sputnik and Comment (which are fine shows
themselves).
"... Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power. ..."
"... The U.S. will now disguise its arms-to-Kiev program by laundering it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships: ..."
"... The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons. It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who do they think will believe them? ..."
"... Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about Ukraine are purely tactical. ..."
"... Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato. ..."
The U.S. is circumventing its own proclaimed policy of not delivering weapons to Ukraine and is
thereby, despite urgent misgivings from its European allies, increasing the chance of a wider catastrophic
war in Europe.
The Ukrainian coup president Poroshenko
went to an international arms exhibition in Dubai. There he met the U.S. chief military weapon
salesman.
ABU DHABI – Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is expected to meet with U.S. defense companies
Tuesday during a major arms exhibition here even though the American government has not cleared
the firms to sell Kiev lethal weapons.
Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisition executive is scheduled to meet with a Ukrainian delegation
Monday evening, however Poroshenko is not expected to be there. Kendall, in an interview, said
he will be bringing a message of support from the United States.
"I expect the conversation will be about their needs," Kendall told Defense One a few hours
before the meeting. "We're limited at this point in time in terms of what we're able to provide
them, but where we can be supportive, we want to be."
Poroshenko, urged on by his neocon U.S. sponsors, wants total war with Russia. Porosheko's deputy
foreign minister, currently on a visit in Canada,
relayed the message:
Ukraine's deputy foreign minister says he is preparing for "full-scale war" against Russia and
wants Canada to help by supplying lethal weapons and the training to use them.
Vadym Prystaiko, who until last fall was Ukraine's ambassador to Canada, says the world
must not be afraid of joining Ukraine in the fight against a nuclear power.
In the mind of these folks waging a "full-scale war" against a nuclear superpower like Russia
is nothing to be afraid of. These are truly lunatics.
Russia says that U.S. weapons delivered to Ukraine would create real trouble. They mean it. To
hint how Russia would counter such a move it just
offered a spiced up S-300 missile defense system to Iran:
Sergei Chemezov, chief executive of the Russian defense corporation Rostec, said Tehran is considering
its offer to sell an Antey-2500 anti-ballistic air defense system,
The Antey-2500 is a mobile surface-to-air missile system that offers enhanced combat capabilities,
including the destruction of aircraft and ballistic missiles at a range of about 1,500 miles,
according to its manufacturer, Almaz-Antey.
The system was developed from a less advanced version -- the 1980s-generation S-300V system
-- which has a 125-mile range. A 2007 contract to supply the S-300 system to Iran was canceled
in 2010, after the U.S. and Israel lobbied against it, ...
Such a system in Iran would, in case of a conflict, endanger every U.S. airplane in the Middle
East.
But that threat did not deter the U.S. As the U.S. arms dealer in Abu Dhabi said: "where we can
be supportive, we want to be". The U.S.
will now disguise
its arms-to-Kiev program by
laundering
it through its sponsored Middle East dictatorships:
Christopher Miller @ChristopherJM
Poroshenko, UAE agree on "delivery of certain types of armaments and military hardware to #Ukraine."
The United Arab Emirates is not known as arms producer. But it buys lots of U.S. weapons.
It will now forward those to Ukraine while the U.S. will claim that it does not arm Ukraine. Who
do they think will believe them?
This is again a dangerous escalation of the conflict in Ukraine by U.S. machinations. It comes
at the same moment that Russia, France, Germany and Ukraine meet in Paris to
push for faster
implementation of the Minsk 2 accord for a ceasefire and for a political solution of the civil war
in Ukraine:
On Monday spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry Yevhen Perebyinis said that during their
Paris meeting, the foursome of foreign ministers will focus on the implementation of the Minsk
agreements and withdrawal of heavy artillery in Donbas.
The Ukrainian government has said that it will
not withdraw its artillery as long as there are still skirmishes around a few flashpoints along
the ceasefire line. In Shirokyne east of Mariupol the government aligned neo-nazi battalion Azov
continues to attack the federalists. The Ukrainian propaganda claims that the federalists plan an
immediate attack on Mariupol. That is nonsense and the federalist have denied any plans for further
fighting. Unlike the Ukrainian government the federalist started to
pull back their
artillery and will
continue to do so.
The Ukrainian government is breaking the Minsk 2 agreement by not pulling back its heavy artillery
from the ceasefire line. The U.S. is arming the Ukrainian army and will soon
train its volunteer neo-nazi "national guard" forces.
The major European powers, Germany, France and Russia, try to tame the conflict down. The U.S.
and its poodles in Kiev continue to poor oil into the fire. If the Europeans do not succeed in pushing
back against Washington the Ukraine with burn and Europe with it.
In Further Escalation U.S. Delivery Of Weapons To Kiev Will Be Laundered Through Abu Dhabi
Thanks for a very good summary of the whole guacamole.
Another reason not to withdraw the artillery, being also used by Kerry to crank up the "let's-give-weapons-to-Ukraine"
line, is the mopping of the Debaltsevo pocket, which Ukraine & Co. decided to ignore from the
beginning, to use it now as a justification not to fulfill Minsk 2.0. The false-flag attack in
Kharkov was a prelude of the up and coming internal repression, which will drown in torture, suffering
and blood the little resistance there is to the continuation of the war and the IV Mobilization.
Whoever said that foreign policy is only an extension of domestic policy?
I commented about a week ago that the ceasefire might hold if both sides in Ukraine pulled
back their artillery - unless Obama acted to sabotage it. Now he has done so - not withstanding
the withdrawal of federalist ordinance - by offering to rearm the gun-crazy fascists of the Ukrainian
gov't, with not even a fig leaf of "plausible deniability" to cover his assets.
Not a peep from Merkel - her only disagreements with the Nobel Peace Prize winner about
Ukraine are purely tactical.
As for Poroshenko, he doubtless has a helicopter gassed and ready, and a nice little hidey
hole in Switzerland all prepared, and conveniently close to his billions. That's why he sent his
family out of the country, because when he has to get out - he has to get out fast.
shargash | Feb 24, 2015 12:29:18 PM | 4
Re: (2) IhaveLittleToAdd
Like most criminal organizations, the US tries to take very good care of its agents that do
what they're told and to be very brutal to those who don't. For examples of the former, check
out all the South American criminals living in Miami as well as the perhaps more relevant example
of Mikheil Saakashvili, who is strutting around Ukraine rather than being on trial in Georgia.
For examples of the latter, check out Noriega, Saddam, or Bin Ladin.
While I suspect Porky is wondering how he got himself into this mess, I don't think he has
much choice but to stick it out to the end. At least his family will be well taken care of.
sleepy | Feb 24, 2015 2:08:47 PM | 10
Re: IHaveLittleToAdd no. 2
Re: shargash no. 4
I have read recently in an article on another blog that in 2012 Poroshenko was being politically
groomed for his future role by Germany's Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung institute, a think-tank wing
of Merkel's Christian Democrats, as was Vitali Klitschko the present mayor of Kiev in 2011.
Basically, Germany was to spearhead the EU's expansion to Ukraine, while the US role was
to facilitate Ukraine's inclusion in Nato.
"Ukraine will go to war in late March"--Zakharchenko
..."We are beginning the withdrawal of heavy equipment, while Ukraine is bringing it up from Kharkov
and Dnepropetrovsk. Seems to be there will be a provocation. Ukraine will go to war in late March
or Early April. Ukraine needs war," Zakharchenko said during a Monday briefing.
J.Hawk's Comment: ...Because, to my mind, there seems to be a pattern of Ukrainian conflict activity:
it is most likely to escalate when it just received foreign financial aid, and is the most likely
to seek peace just as it needs another tranche...
sid_finster | Feb 24, 2015 8:42:45 PM | 22
$350m is not going to buy you many US weapons, especially as Parashka's contract is for $2.4
billion, less delivery, middlemen, financing, etc..
The IMF is another source, but that money hasn't arrived yet, and there are a lot of conditions
attached. That's why the Fund is the lender of last resort.
Since arms are invariably sold subject to strict limits on resales, I suspect that either:
1. The sale is for domestic Ukrainian consumption, i.e Parashka's attempt to look like he is doing
something;
Or
2.The US is secretly financing the sale, directly or indirectly. Such financing may be in the
form of "we promise to aid your ISIS friends, or look the other way, if you 'sell' Ukraine these
weapons and take a lenient attitude regarding repayment."
Lone Wolf | Feb 24, 2015 9:20:09 PM | 23
@Alberto@11
This is not because they disagree with his politics, but because Saakashvili is wanted on a
multitude of criminal charges.
"Criminal charges?" Bingo! He fits the credentials for the job as Porky's "adviser." In reality,
Saakashvili, a CIA crooked rat, is the CIA man in Ukraine, overseeing the entire anti-Russian
effort, weapons needs, false-flag operations, internal repression, Ukinazi death squads, intel
gathering and coordination, etc. Georgia's complaint to Ukraine was more of a wink to Saakashvili's
newly found job, a show for domestic consumption, otherwise, Interpol would be looking for him,
wouldn't it?
ProsperousPeace | Feb 24, 2015 9:37:53 PM | 24
Re: Isaakashvili sudden involvement with the "Ukrainian government": Kiev Snipers: Mystery
Solved
It was reported several weeks ago in Interpress News that four of the snipers in Kiev were
in fact Georgian nationals. The source for this story was Georgian General Tristan Tsitelashvili
(Titelashvili), who later confirmed this in an interview with Rossiya TV.
Tsitelashvili claimed that at least four of the snipers shooting at people in Maidan Square
were under the command of former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, who is doing his best
to destabilize his own country, and others if necessary, to find a way back into power.
Piotr Berman | Feb 24, 2015 11:28:51 PM | 25
How long did Saakashvili's war with Russia last? 48 hours? 72 hours? Good advisor to have.
Posted by: Crest | Feb 24, 2015 8:34:15 PM | 20
According to Wikipedia, the war started on Aug 8, minutes after midnight, and it definitely
lasted at least 4 days. On fifth day, Georgians left a key city, Gori, and Russians entered on
sixth day. On the other hand, the war was lost within 24 hours. The only chance of victory for
heavily outnumbered Georgia was to surprise the Russians and Ossetians and take control of the
only tunnel between South Ossetia and the Russian Federation (North Ossetia), which they did not.
Thus Russian could retake all territory gained by Georgia on day one within two days, rather than
a week. Georgia concentrated almost all forces against Ossetian, leaving the second border with
good roads, with Abkhasia, practically undefended. Thus the only way to score a victory lasting
more than one day was to risk loosing big majority of Georgian military in a cauldron -- Georgian
forces in Ossetian mountain valleys would have Russian forces behind them, as only police checkpoints
were delaying Russian advance from Abkhasia, (posting detours, issuing tickets for parking violations,
violation of weight limits on bridges for tanks etc.???).
As a history buff, I have hard time finding a strategic plan of equal stupidity. To give the
creator of that plan a key advising position seems suicidal. An anti-Russian Georgian owns a large
(??? impressive web site) newspaper in Kiev.
Demian | Feb 25, 2015 3:02:07 AM | 28
Foreign Affairs poll of experts about whether the US should arm Ukraine:
4 strongly agree
5 agree
0 are neutral [they're experts, after all]
8 disagree
10 strongly disagree
brian | Feb 26, 2015 4:59:48 AM | 52
You can read the whole article for free if you register. You get two free articles per month.
FA should be of interest to MoA readers.
@52 Thanks for the Galloway show. His al Mayadeen show has always been difficult for me to
find - and it is considerably better, I feel, than both Sputnik and Comment (which are fine shows
themselves).
"... It also requires an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power to the regions. ..."
"... the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all. ..."
"... "fateful geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence". ..."
"... Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign policy. ..."
"... Last year's "Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this. ..."
"... Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic alliance. ..."
"... Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts: the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters) or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows. ..."
"... A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against the true facts as they are available. ..."
"... I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the monists to impose their model by force on the south and east. ..."
"... There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army. ..."
"... As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge the MSM script. ..."
"... I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine. Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise Russian influence. ..."
When Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's prime minister, told a German TV station recently that the Soviet
Union invaded Germany, was this just blind ignorance? Or a kind of perverted wishful thinking? If
the USSR really was the aggressor in 1941, it would suit Yatsenyuk's narrative of current geopolitics
in which Russia is once again the only side that merits blame.
When Grzegorz Schetyna, Poland's deputy foreign minister, said Ukrainians liberated Auschwitz,
did he not know that the Red Army was a multinational force in which Ukrainians certainly played
a role but the bulk of the troops were Russian? Or was he looking for a new way to provoke the Kremlin?
Faced with these irresponsible distortions, and they are replicated in a hundred other prejudiced
comments about Russian behaviour from western politicians as well as their eastern European colleagues,
it is a relief to find a book on the Ukrainian conflict that is cool, balanced, and well sourced.
Richard Sakwa makes repeated criticisms of Russian tactics and strategy, but he avoids lazy Putin-bashing
and locates the origins of the Ukrainian conflict in a quarter-century of mistakes since the cold
war ended. In his view, three long-simmering crises have boiled over to produce the violence that
is engulfing eastern Ukraine.
The first is the tension between two different models of Ukrainian statehood.
One is what he calls the "monist" view, which asserts that the country is an autochthonous
cultural and political unity and that the challenge of independence since 1991 has been to strengthen
the Ukrainian language, repudiate the tsarist and Soviet imperial legacies, reduce the political
weight of Russian-speakers and move the country away from Russia towards "Europe".
The alternative "pluralist" view emphasises the different historical and cultural experiences
of Ukraine's various regions and argues that building a modern democratic post-Soviet Ukrainian
state is not just a matter of good governance and rule of law at the centre. It also requires
an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power
to the regions.
More than any other change of government in Kiev since 1991, the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych
last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders
were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all.
The second crisis arises from the internationalisation of the struggle inside Ukraine which turned
it into a geopolitical tug of war. Sakwa argues that this stems from the asymmetrical end of the
cold war which shut Russia out of the European alliance system. While Mikhail Gorbachev and millions
of other Russians saw the end of the cold war as a shared victory which might lead to the building
of a "common European home", most western leaders saw Russia as a defeated nation whose interests
could be brushed aside, and which must accept US hegemony in the new single-superpower world order
or face isolation. Instead of dismantling Nato, the cold-war alliance was strengthened and expanded
in spite of repeated warnings from western experts on Russia that this would create new tensions.
Long before Putin came to power, Yeltsin had urged the west not to move Nato eastwards.
Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation
and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine.
The hawks in the Clinton administration ignored all this, Bush abandoned the anti-ballistic missile
treaty and put rockets close to Russia's borders, and now a decade later, after Russia's angry reaction
to provocations in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine today, we have what Sakwa rightly calls a "fateful
geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".
The third crisis, also linked to the Nato issue, is the European Union's failure to stay true
to the conflict resolution imperative that had been its original impetus. After 1989 there was much
talk of the arrival of the "hour of Europe". Just as the need for Franco-German reconciliation inspired
the EU's foundation, many hoped the cold war's end would lead to a broader east-west reconciliation
across the old Iron Curtain. But the prospect of greater European independence worried key decision-makers
in Washington, and Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign
policy. From Bosnia in 1992 to Ukraine today, the last two decades have seen repeated occasions
where US officials pleaded, half-sincerely, for a greater European role in handling geopolitical
crises in Europe while simultaneously denigrating and sidelining Europe's efforts. Last year's
"Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this.
Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision
embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic
alliance.
Within the framework of these three crises, Sakwa gives the best analysis yet in book form of
events on the ground in eastern Ukraine as well as in Kiev, Washington, Brussels and Moscow. He covers
the disputes between the "resolvers" (who want a negotiated solution) and the "war party" in each
capital.
He describes the rows over sanctions that have split European leaders, and points out how Ukraine's
president, Petro Poroshenko, is under constant pressure from Nuland's favourite Ukrainian, the more
militant Yatsenyuk, to rely on military force.
As for Putin, Sakwa sees him not so much as the driver of the crisis but as a regulator of factional
interests and a temporiser who has to balance pressure from more rightwing Russian nationalists as
well as from the insurgents in Ukraine, who get weapons and help from Russia but are not the Kremlin's
puppets.
Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts:
the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults
on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last
February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters)
or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building
set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows.
The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders are
routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the west was
far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and Andropov
were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians.
Equally alarming, though not new, is the one-sided nature of western political, media and thinktank
coverage. The spectre of senator Joseph McCarthy stalks the stage, marginalising those who offer
a balanced analysis of why we have got to where we are and what compromises could save us. I hope
Sakwa's book does not itself become a victim, condemned as insufficiently anti-Russian to be reviewed.
• Jonathan Steele is a former Guardian Moscow correspondent, and author of Eternal Russia:
Yeltsin, Gorbachev and the Mirage of Democracy. To order Frontline Ukraine for Ł15.19 (RRP Ł18.99),
go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846
Susan O'neill -> Steve Ennever 25 Feb 2015 07:11
It must have because I remember that Moscow requested a special meeting of the UN security council
in accordance with a treaty in Geneva. This was an attempt to negate the need for intervention
in a foreign state by Russia (which would have delighted the US). Furthermore, both sides of the
horror were armed to the teeth. Some perspective would be nice.
Susan O'neill -> willpodmore 25 Feb 2015 06:47
A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against
the true facts as they are available.
Until Britain decides to distance itself from the US anti Russian thinking (that means criticism
of the McCarthy era) we will still be looking to root out "Reds under the beds" and routing anything(or
anyone) who might seem to be pro-Russian. Thanks for the contribution.
AenimaUK -> jezzam 25 Feb 2015 05:12
I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before this crisis started.
Yes, before the undemocratic, right-wing, NATO-backed coup, it was.
It is true that NATO is totally dominated by the US - but this is because they spend considerably
more on defence than the rest of NATO put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is
dominated by the US - this is entirely Europe's own choice and fault though.
So your alternative is that the EU up its defence spending to match the absurd permanent war-economy
levels of the US? And will the resources for that come from tax increases or public service cuts
to match the US? Wasn't the point about the end of the Cold War that it was supposed to be the
'end' of the 'war'? Of course, those in charge of the US military-industrial complex and their
chums in the DoD failed to get that memo (or rather, read it, decided it would threaten their
economic and geo-political imperialism, and shredded it).
willpodmore -> MiaPia2015 25 Feb 2015 04:24
Not true MiaPia - Leading scholars of Russian history have refuted the claim that the famine
was an act of genocide.
Terry Martin concluded, "The famine was not an intentional act of genocide specifically targeting
the Ukrainian nation." David Shearer noted, "Although the famine hit Ukraine hard, it was not,
as some historians argue, a purposefully genocidal policy against Ukrainians. no evidence has
surfaced to suggest that the famine was planned, and it affected broad segments of the Russian
and other non-Ukrainian populations both in Ukraine and in Russia." Diane Koenker and Ronald Bachman
agreed, "the documents included here or published elsewhere do not yet support the claim that
the famine was deliberately produced by confiscating the harvest, or that it was directed especially
against the peasants of Ukraine." Barbara Green also agreed, "Unlike the Holocaust, the Great
Famine was not an intentional act of genocide." Steven Katz commented, "What makes the Ukrainian
case non-genocidal, and what makes it different from the Holocaust, is the fact that the majority
of Ukrainian children survived and, still more, that they were permitted to survive." Adam Ulam
agreed too, writing, "Stalin and his closest collaborators had not willed the famine."
Tauger explained, "The evidence that I have published and other evidence, including recent Ukrainian
document collections, show that the famine developed out of a shortage and pervaded the Soviet
Union, and that the regime organized a massive program of rationing and relief in towns and in
villages, including in Ukraine, but simply did not have enough food. This is why the Soviet famine,
an immense crisis and tragedy of the Soviet economy, was not in the same category as the Nazis'
mass murders, which had no agricultural or other economic basis." He summed up, "Ukraine received
more in food supplies during the famine crisis than it exported to other republics. Soviet authorities
made substantial concessions to Ukraine in response to an undeniable natural disaster and transferred
resources from Russia to Ukraine for food relief and agricultural recovery."
Hans Blumenfeld pointed out that famine also struck the Russian regions of Lower Volga and
North Caucasus: "This disproves the 'fact' of anti-Ukrainian genocide parallel to Hitler's anti-semitic
holocaust. To anyone familiar with the Soviet Union's desperate manpower shortage in those years,
the notion that its rulers would deliberately reduce that scarce resource is absurd Up to the
1950s the most frequently quoted figure was two million [famine victims]. Only after it had been
established that Hitler's holocaust had claimed six million victims, did anti-Soviet propaganda
feel it necessary to top that figure by substituting the fantastic figure of seven to ten million
"
Ellman concluded, "What recent research has found in the archives is not a conscious policy
of genocide against Ukraine."
Vaska Tumir -> Vladimir Boronenko 24 Feb 2015 21:23
I beg to differ: there was nothing the matter with the Budapest Memorandum of Agreement of
1994 which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Unfortunately, in November 2013, the
EU decided to violate the terms of the Budapest Memo by presenting the then government of Ukraine
with an economic ultimatum (something expressly forbidden by Article 3 of that international document
several EU countries were signatories to).
Had the EU honoured the terms of the Budapest Memo and had it agreed to the trilateral economic
deliberations both Ukraine and Russia were asking for, nothing of the subsequent mess and the
slaughter Kiev's brought to Donbass would have happened.
The situation can still be rectified by recognizing the new Donetsk and Lugansk Republics as
parts of a federal state, along the lines of Switzerland, say, thus preserving Ukraine as a country.
Such a solution to the chaos NATO and the EU have brought about would be part of what Jonathan
Steele suggests by saying that "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant
de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine".
HollyOldDog Ecolophant 24 Feb 2015 17:44
America does not have a language of its own, it is more correctly called a Dialect of English.
HollyOldDog Dreikaiserbund 24 Feb 2015 17:33
Russian invasion? What invasion? It's just a myth created by the incompetent.
Colin Robinson 24 Feb 2015 17:04
I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian
statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the
monists to impose their model by force on the south and east.
If the terms "monist" and "pluralist" come to be used more widely in discussion about the conflict,
the world may begin to get more of a handle on what has been happening.
Kalkriese -> senya 24 Feb 2015 14:38
And you mean no-one on the US/Ukrainian side is not lying ?
There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo
Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army.
Putin is merely playing back by their rules and the fact he is successful in reclaiming Crimea
is the cause of all the sour grapes emanating from Kiev.
Kalkriese -> jezzam 24 Feb 2015 14:30
"His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow
scuppered by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow."
Are you really so naive ? Or just disingenuous ?
Kalkriese -> prostak 24 Feb 2015 14:26
"Russian troops have been proven many times"
Really? By whom ? Where?
Let's have some proof...
StopPretending -> MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 14:08
there was no 'Ukraine' state until Stalin created it. Perhaps that was the problem?
MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 13:31
Steele's analysis, and Sakwas book have one fatal flaw. The origins of this crisis did not
start in 1991 with the end of the cold war, but rather its end allowed tensions that had been
simmering since the Holodomor of the 1930s when millions of ethnic Ukrainians were starved to
death by Stalin in an orchestrated genocide that then allowed ethnic Russians to move into Ukrainian
territory. The desire to have an independent, Ukraine-speaking nation have always been there and
are no different from the desire of any other country. What we have now is almost an exact repeat
of what happened then.
Steve -> Ennever 22 Feb 2015 19:57
An interesting article indeed.
The Odessa massacre if nothing else was evidence of the MSM's bias on this subject.
50+ people being burnt alive for expressing their opinions seems a choice topic for our "je
suis charlie" fanatic press. And yet we heard.... crickets - because it didn't suit their "we
support Kiev" agenda.
But Odessa wasn't the only atrocity in May 2014. The victory parade in Mariupol, May 9th. The
National Guard arrive, possibly expecting a town full of Russian terrorists, but find civilians
celebrating, understandably irate at the intrusion of military hardware and troops, who then open
fire on them anyway.
Did this get reported in the west?
jezzam 22 Feb 2015 14:49
A serious commentator like Steele putting Russia's case is much needed. His comments about
Yatsenyuk do not add much that is new though. Yatsenyuk is very anti-Russian - this was already
known. His popularity has in fact been much boosted by anti- Russian feelings in Ukraine induced
by Putin's military agression. His party is now the largest in the Ukraine parliament.
Steele's discussion of the Monist and pluralist views is all very well, but he does not discuss
the kleptocratic view favoured by Putin and Yanukovych. The main cause of the revolution in Kiev
was not the conflict between Monist and pluralist views, but the massive corruption and subversion
of democracy in Ukraine, modelled on that of Russia. In Russia the ruling elite cream more than
30% of state income into their own pockets by corrupt practices. Yanukovych had established the
same system in Ukraine. He was also well on the way to corrupting the judiciary. He had already
locked up his main political opponent on a trumped up charge - again following the Putin model
of government.
Steeles's solution of "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status" sounds good. Is this
to be imposed on Ukraine though? What does it mean? I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before
this crisis started. They already had guarantees of their territorial integrity from Russia, the
US and UK as well. Fat lot of good that has done them.
His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow scuppered
by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow. It is true that NATO is totally dominated
by the US - but this is because they spend considerably more on defence than the rest of NATO
put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is dominated by the US - this is entirely
Europe's own choice and fault though.
As to Steele's claim that Putin is being demonised, insults between countries are not productive
and leaders should be treated with respect by other countries. However it is difficult to treat
with respect someone who does not keep his word and lies to your face, particularly when these
lies are so transparent. Brezhnev and Andropov never did this - at least not so blatantly.
tiojo 22 Feb 2015 12:50
"......that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".
Now if only the Guardian's current journalists would read this book we might get some decent
coverage of events in Ukraine and Russia.
Marilyn -> Justice 21 Feb 2015 22:37
My only argument would be the assessment of blame re the snipers - 3 studies have shown them
to be from 'the new coalition' and not old gov't, which is in line with the telephone call of
Catherine Ashton and Urmas Paet,
Standupwoman 21 Feb 2015 21:02
Excellent, balanced article, and I really have to buy this book. I only wonder why the Guardian
hasn't included this on its 'Ukraine' page for 19th February...
GuyCybershy -> sbmfc 21 Feb 2015 17:06
Especially in the US the public needs every issue distilled to good vs. evil. Anything more
complex and they will reject it. This is the result of decades of "divide and conquer" politics.
Vladimir Boronenko 21 Feb 2015 08:21
"Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant
de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine." No it wouldn't. It is
nothing but wishful thinking and delusion all over again. Ukraine had had that status already,
and only scrapped it in December by a constitutional Parliament vote exactly because it showed
its complete uselessness and impotence at the face of real-life threats. Just like the Budapest
Memorandum of 1994 guaranteeing security of Ukraine, with one of the guarantors attacking and
the other two looking on, although, if one was to stick to the letter of the Memo, of course,
they are not bound to be involved unless its a nuclear threat.
Johnlockett 20 Feb 2015 19:21
Excellent article. Very balance and very near to the truth. Thank you
John Lockett
Statingobvious 20 Feb 2015 14:28
An exceptionally unbiased piece where otherwise Russia and Putin bashing (& twisting of facts
& outright lying) is the rule.
mike42 20 Feb 2015 10:04
"The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders
are routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the
west was far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and
Andropov were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians."
Need more be said?
Dreikaiserbund Les Mills 20 Feb 2015 09:14
Challenging the 'MSM script' does not make you a Putinbot. Deriding anyone who supports Ukrainian
sovereignty, who is opposed to the Russian invasion and trumpeting Vladimir as a great and wise
leader - that is what makes you a Putinbot.
EnriqueFerro -> theshonny 19 Feb 2015 19:57
Thank you for the info on 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King. I'll look for it, because even
if it is pro-Putin, it is nonetheless interesting in order to check the rabid and massive anti-Putin
and Russia-hating disease spreading out there.
EnriqueFerro -> Mari5064 19 Feb 2015 19:53
Mari, I'm afraid you read too many tabloids.
EnriqueFerro 19 Feb 2015 19:51
This is an excellent book, of which I'm finishing its reading now; it can be read avidly, because
it says the truth, in a dispassionate and academic narrative, far from the typically stupid accounts
in the Western media and in the mouths of our gullible and ignorant politicians. Read it and learn
a lot about Ukraine, Russia, the EU, and the US/NATO.
Usually interesting books which don't follow the official record are not displayed in the mass
bookshops such as Floyds or Waterstones (to name two of the more serious in the UK). It is a way
of censorship, to make it difficult for the public to find critical stuff. I found a lone copy
well hidden in the history section at WS. A miracle! I took it quickly, and wonder if it was replaced!!!
Les Mills -> leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 19:34
As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge
the MSM script. Incidentally, I'm surprised that this article has only a handful of comments.
I came here via a link on Google news so I can only assume that the Guardian have it hidden away
on their site, which definitely fits the anti-Russian agenda.
leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 17:37
By far THE best analysis of what sounds like a most insightful book. The reviewer has done
us all a great service, since without it we would have never heard about the book from any other
"NATO-Western" source. Even worse, the author of the book would be accused of not being "real"
as is often the accusation when a comment appears that does not swallow Western propaganda line-hook-and-sinker.
John Hansen 19 Feb 2015 14:31
Jonathan Steele:
Superb analysis of a significant book.
:-)
theshonny 19 Feb 2015 13:15
Bought 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King a short while ago, and found it going so much pro-Putin
that it lost its impact. So now I hope for a more balanced account.
I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to
draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this
book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine.
Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise
Russian influence.
sbmfc 19 Feb 2015 07:31
I think the demonisation of Putin stems from the influence of Hollywood narratives in our societal
perception.
The idea of the villain is so commonplace that is widely assumed that anyone with a different
agenda to ones own is perceived to be attempting to working directly against our own personal
interests rather than in aid of their own different and completely independent interests.
Essentially everything has been so dumbed down that only a good/evil narrative can be comprehended
and the labels are only fit one way. The facts themselves are irrelevant.
AnyFictionalName 19 Feb 2015 05:50
When PM Yatsenyuk said:
I don't want Ukrainian youths (i.e. those who consider their native language to be Ukrainian
or Russian) to learn the Russian language, I want them to learn the English language.
Is that kind of racism, inferiority complex or just sheer stupidity?
"... It also requires an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power to the regions. ..."
"... the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all. ..."
"... "fateful geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence". ..."
"... Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign policy. ..."
"... Last year's "Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this. ..."
"... Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic alliance. ..."
"... Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts: the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters) or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows. ..."
"... A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against the true facts as they are available. ..."
"... I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the monists to impose their model by force on the south and east. ..."
"... There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army. ..."
"... As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge the MSM script. ..."
"... I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine. Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise Russian influence. ..."
When Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Ukraine's prime minister, told a German TV station recently that the Soviet
Union invaded Germany, was this just blind ignorance? Or a kind of perverted wishful thinking? If
the USSR really was the aggressor in 1941, it would suit Yatsenyuk's narrative of current geopolitics
in which Russia is once again the only side that merits blame.
When Grzegorz Schetyna, Poland's deputy foreign minister, said Ukrainians liberated Auschwitz,
did he not know that the Red Army was a multinational force in which Ukrainians certainly played
a role but the bulk of the troops were Russian? Or was he looking for a new way to provoke the Kremlin?
Faced with these irresponsible distortions, and they are replicated in a hundred other prejudiced
comments about Russian behaviour from western politicians as well as their eastern European colleagues,
it is a relief to find a book on the Ukrainian conflict that is cool, balanced, and well sourced.
Richard Sakwa makes repeated criticisms of Russian tactics and strategy, but he avoids lazy Putin-bashing
and locates the origins of the Ukrainian conflict in a quarter-century of mistakes since the cold
war ended. In his view, three long-simmering crises have boiled over to produce the violence that
is engulfing eastern Ukraine.
The first is the tension between two different models of Ukrainian statehood.
One is what he calls the "monist" view, which asserts that the country is an autochthonous
cultural and political unity and that the challenge of independence since 1991 has been to strengthen
the Ukrainian language, repudiate the tsarist and Soviet imperial legacies, reduce the political
weight of Russian-speakers and move the country away from Russia towards "Europe".
The alternative "pluralist" view emphasises the different historical and cultural experiences
of Ukraine's various regions and argues that building a modern democratic post-Soviet Ukrainian
state is not just a matter of good governance and rule of law at the centre. It also requires
an acceptance of bilingualism, mutual tolerance of different traditions, and devolution of power
to the regions.
More than any other change of government in Kiev since 1991, the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych
last year brought the triumph of the monist view, held most strongly in western Ukraine, whose leaders
were determined this time to ensure the winner takes all.
The second crisis arises from the internationalisation of the struggle inside Ukraine which turned
it into a geopolitical tug of war. Sakwa argues that this stems from the asymmetrical end of the
cold war which shut Russia out of the European alliance system. While Mikhail Gorbachev and millions
of other Russians saw the end of the cold war as a shared victory which might lead to the building
of a "common European home", most western leaders saw Russia as a defeated nation whose interests
could be brushed aside, and which must accept US hegemony in the new single-superpower world order
or face isolation. Instead of dismantling Nato, the cold-war alliance was strengthened and expanded
in spite of repeated warnings from western experts on Russia that this would create new tensions.
Long before Putin came to power, Yeltsin had urged the west not to move Nato eastwards.
Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation
and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine.
The hawks in the Clinton administration ignored all this, Bush abandoned the anti-ballistic missile
treaty and put rockets close to Russia's borders, and now a decade later, after Russia's angry reaction
to provocations in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine today, we have what Sakwa rightly calls a "fateful
geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".
The third crisis, also linked to the Nato issue, is the European Union's failure to stay true
to the conflict resolution imperative that had been its original impetus. After 1989 there was much
talk of the arrival of the "hour of Europe". Just as the need for Franco-German reconciliation inspired
the EU's foundation, many hoped the cold war's end would lead to a broader east-west reconciliation
across the old Iron Curtain. But the prospect of greater European independence worried key decision-makers
in Washington, and Nato's role has been, in part, to maintain US primacy over Europe's foreign
policy. From Bosnia in 1992 to Ukraine today, the last two decades have seen repeated occasions
where US officials pleaded, half-sincerely, for a greater European role in handling geopolitical
crises in Europe while simultaneously denigrating and sidelining Europe's efforts. Last year's
"Fuck the EU" comment by Victoria Nuland, Obama's neocon assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs, was the pithiest expression of this.
Sakwa writes with barely suppressed anger of Europe's failure, arguing that instead of a vision
embracing the whole continent, the EU has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic
alliance.
Within the framework of these three crises, Sakwa gives the best analysis yet in book form of
events on the ground in eastern Ukraine as well as in Kiev, Washington, Brussels and Moscow. He covers
the disputes between the "resolvers" (who want a negotiated solution) and the "war party" in each
capital.
He describes the rows over sanctions that have split European leaders, and points out how Ukraine's
president, Petro Poroshenko, is under constant pressure from Nuland's favourite Ukrainian, the more
militant Yatsenyuk, to rely on military force.
As for Putin, Sakwa sees him not so much as the driver of the crisis but as a regulator of factional
interests and a temporiser who has to balance pressure from more rightwing Russian nationalists as
well as from the insurgents in Ukraine, who get weapons and help from Russia but are not the Kremlin's
puppets.
Frontline Ukraine highlights several points that have become almost taboo in western accounts:
the civilian casualties in eastern Ukraine caused by Ukrainian army shelling, the physical assaults
on leftwing candidates in last year's election and the failure to complete investigations of last
February's sniper activity in Kiev (much of it thought to have been by anti-Yanukovych fighters)
or of the Odessa massacre in which dozens of anti-Kiev protesters were burnt alive in a building
set on fire by nationalists or clubbed to death when they jumped from windows.
The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders are
routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the west was
far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and Andropov
were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians.
Equally alarming, though not new, is the one-sided nature of western political, media and thinktank
coverage. The spectre of senator Joseph McCarthy stalks the stage, marginalising those who offer
a balanced analysis of why we have got to where we are and what compromises could save us. I hope
Sakwa's book does not itself become a victim, condemned as insufficiently anti-Russian to be reviewed.
• Jonathan Steele is a former Guardian Moscow correspondent, and author of Eternal Russia:
Yeltsin, Gorbachev and the Mirage of Democracy. To order Frontline Ukraine for Ł15.19 (RRP Ł18.99),
go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846
Susan O'neill -> Steve Ennever 25 Feb 2015 07:11
It must have because I remember that Moscow requested a special meeting of the UN security council
in accordance with a treaty in Geneva. This was an attempt to negate the need for intervention
in a foreign state by Russia (which would have delighted the US). Furthermore, both sides of the
horror were armed to the teeth. Some perspective would be nice.
Susan O'neill -> willpodmore 25 Feb 2015 06:47
A very well documented report and yet anti Russian thinking pervades relentlessly against
the true facts as they are available.
Until Britain decides to distance itself from the US anti Russian thinking (that means criticism
of the McCarthy era) we will still be looking to root out "Reds under the beds" and routing anything(or
anyone) who might seem to be pro-Russian. Thanks for the contribution.
AenimaUK -> jezzam 25 Feb 2015 05:12
I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before this crisis started.
Yes, before the undemocratic, right-wing, NATO-backed coup, it was.
It is true that NATO is totally dominated by the US - but this is because they spend considerably
more on defence than the rest of NATO put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is
dominated by the US - this is entirely Europe's own choice and fault though.
So your alternative is that the EU up its defence spending to match the absurd permanent war-economy
levels of the US? And will the resources for that come from tax increases or public service cuts
to match the US? Wasn't the point about the end of the Cold War that it was supposed to be the
'end' of the 'war'? Of course, those in charge of the US military-industrial complex and their
chums in the DoD failed to get that memo (or rather, read it, decided it would threaten their
economic and geo-political imperialism, and shredded it).
willpodmore -> MiaPia2015 25 Feb 2015 04:24
Not true MiaPia - Leading scholars of Russian history have refuted the claim that the famine
was an act of genocide.
Terry Martin concluded, "The famine was not an intentional act of genocide specifically targeting
the Ukrainian nation." David Shearer noted, "Although the famine hit Ukraine hard, it was not,
as some historians argue, a purposefully genocidal policy against Ukrainians. no evidence has
surfaced to suggest that the famine was planned, and it affected broad segments of the Russian
and other non-Ukrainian populations both in Ukraine and in Russia." Diane Koenker and Ronald Bachman
agreed, "the documents included here or published elsewhere do not yet support the claim that
the famine was deliberately produced by confiscating the harvest, or that it was directed especially
against the peasants of Ukraine." Barbara Green also agreed, "Unlike the Holocaust, the Great
Famine was not an intentional act of genocide." Steven Katz commented, "What makes the Ukrainian
case non-genocidal, and what makes it different from the Holocaust, is the fact that the majority
of Ukrainian children survived and, still more, that they were permitted to survive." Adam Ulam
agreed too, writing, "Stalin and his closest collaborators had not willed the famine."
Tauger explained, "The evidence that I have published and other evidence, including recent Ukrainian
document collections, show that the famine developed out of a shortage and pervaded the Soviet
Union, and that the regime organized a massive program of rationing and relief in towns and in
villages, including in Ukraine, but simply did not have enough food. This is why the Soviet famine,
an immense crisis and tragedy of the Soviet economy, was not in the same category as the Nazis'
mass murders, which had no agricultural or other economic basis." He summed up, "Ukraine received
more in food supplies during the famine crisis than it exported to other republics. Soviet authorities
made substantial concessions to Ukraine in response to an undeniable natural disaster and transferred
resources from Russia to Ukraine for food relief and agricultural recovery."
Hans Blumenfeld pointed out that famine also struck the Russian regions of Lower Volga and
North Caucasus: "This disproves the 'fact' of anti-Ukrainian genocide parallel to Hitler's anti-semitic
holocaust. To anyone familiar with the Soviet Union's desperate manpower shortage in those years,
the notion that its rulers would deliberately reduce that scarce resource is absurd Up to the
1950s the most frequently quoted figure was two million [famine victims]. Only after it had been
established that Hitler's holocaust had claimed six million victims, did anti-Soviet propaganda
feel it necessary to top that figure by substituting the fantastic figure of seven to ten million
"
Ellman concluded, "What recent research has found in the archives is not a conscious policy
of genocide against Ukraine."
Vaska Tumir -> Vladimir Boronenko 24 Feb 2015 21:23
I beg to differ: there was nothing the matter with the Budapest Memorandum of Agreement of
1994 which guaranteed the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Unfortunately, in November 2013, the
EU decided to violate the terms of the Budapest Memo by presenting the then government of Ukraine
with an economic ultimatum (something expressly forbidden by Article 3 of that international document
several EU countries were signatories to).
Had the EU honoured the terms of the Budapest Memo and had it agreed to the trilateral economic
deliberations both Ukraine and Russia were asking for, nothing of the subsequent mess and the
slaughter Kiev's brought to Donbass would have happened.
The situation can still be rectified by recognizing the new Donetsk and Lugansk Republics as
parts of a federal state, along the lines of Switzerland, say, thus preserving Ukraine as a country.
Such a solution to the chaos NATO and the EU have brought about would be part of what Jonathan
Steele suggests by saying that "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant
de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine".
HollyOldDog Ecolophant 24 Feb 2015 17:44
America does not have a language of its own, it is more correctly called a Dialect of English.
HollyOldDog Dreikaiserbund 24 Feb 2015 17:33
Russian invasion? What invasion? It's just a myth created by the incompetent.
Colin Robinson 24 Feb 2015 17:04
I'm impressed by what Sakwa says about the "monist" versus "pluralist" models of Ukrainian
statehood. Indeed the recent "anti terrorist operations" can be seen as failed attempts by the
monists to impose their model by force on the south and east.
If the terms "monist" and "pluralist" come to be used more widely in discussion about the conflict,
the world may begin to get more of a handle on what has been happening.
Kalkriese -> senya 24 Feb 2015 14:38
And you mean no-one on the US/Ukrainian side is not lying ?
There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington and Kiev about the true nature of the Neo
Nazis operating as regular units within the Ukrainian army.
Putin is merely playing back by their rules and the fact he is successful in reclaiming Crimea
is the cause of all the sour grapes emanating from Kiev.
Kalkriese -> jezzam 24 Feb 2015 14:30
"His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow
scuppered by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow."
Are you really so naive ? Or just disingenuous ?
Kalkriese -> prostak 24 Feb 2015 14:26
"Russian troops have been proven many times"
Really? By whom ? Where?
Let's have some proof...
StopPretending -> MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 14:08
there was no 'Ukraine' state until Stalin created it. Perhaps that was the problem?
MiaPia2015 24 Feb 2015 13:31
Steele's analysis, and Sakwas book have one fatal flaw. The origins of this crisis did not
start in 1991 with the end of the cold war, but rather its end allowed tensions that had been
simmering since the Holodomor of the 1930s when millions of ethnic Ukrainians were starved to
death by Stalin in an orchestrated genocide that then allowed ethnic Russians to move into Ukrainian
territory. The desire to have an independent, Ukraine-speaking nation have always been there and
are no different from the desire of any other country. What we have now is almost an exact repeat
of what happened then.
Steve -> Ennever 22 Feb 2015 19:57
An interesting article indeed.
The Odessa massacre if nothing else was evidence of the MSM's bias on this subject.
50+ people being burnt alive for expressing their opinions seems a choice topic for our "je
suis charlie" fanatic press. And yet we heard.... crickets - because it didn't suit their "we
support Kiev" agenda.
But Odessa wasn't the only atrocity in May 2014. The victory parade in Mariupol, May 9th. The
National Guard arrive, possibly expecting a town full of Russian terrorists, but find civilians
celebrating, understandably irate at the intrusion of military hardware and troops, who then open
fire on them anyway.
Did this get reported in the west?
jezzam 22 Feb 2015 14:49
A serious commentator like Steele putting Russia's case is much needed. His comments about
Yatsenyuk do not add much that is new though. Yatsenyuk is very anti-Russian - this was already
known. His popularity has in fact been much boosted by anti- Russian feelings in Ukraine induced
by Putin's military agression. His party is now the largest in the Ukraine parliament.
Steele's discussion of the Monist and pluralist views is all very well, but he does not discuss
the kleptocratic view favoured by Putin and Yanukovych. The main cause of the revolution in Kiev
was not the conflict between Monist and pluralist views, but the massive corruption and subversion
of democracy in Ukraine, modelled on that of Russia. In Russia the ruling elite cream more than
30% of state income into their own pockets by corrupt practices. Yanukovych had established the
same system in Ukraine. He was also well on the way to corrupting the judiciary. He had already
locked up his main political opponent on a trumped up charge - again following the Putin model
of government.
Steeles's solution of "a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status" sounds good. Is this
to be imposed on Ukraine though? What does it mean? I thought Ukraine was already unaligned before
this crisis started. They already had guarantees of their territorial integrity from Russia, the
US and UK as well. Fat lot of good that has done them.
His last thesis - that the east-west reconciliation between Europe and Russia was somehow scuppered
by the US and NATO is very hard to follow, or swallow. It is true that NATO is totally dominated
by the US - but this is because they spend considerably more on defence than the rest of NATO
put together. To this extent, European foreign policy is dominated by the US - this is entirely
Europe's own choice and fault though.
As to Steele's claim that Putin is being demonised, insults between countries are not productive
and leaders should be treated with respect by other countries. However it is difficult to treat
with respect someone who does not keep his word and lies to your face, particularly when these
lies are so transparent. Brezhnev and Andropov never did this - at least not so blatantly.
tiojo 22 Feb 2015 12:50
"......that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence".
Now if only the Guardian's current journalists would read this book we might get some decent
coverage of events in Ukraine and Russia.
Marilyn -> Justice 21 Feb 2015 22:37
My only argument would be the assessment of blame re the snipers - 3 studies have shown them
to be from 'the new coalition' and not old gov't, which is in line with the telephone call of
Catherine Ashton and Urmas Paet,
Standupwoman 21 Feb 2015 21:02
Excellent, balanced article, and I really have to buy this book. I only wonder why the Guardian
hasn't included this on its 'Ukraine' page for 19th February...
GuyCybershy -> sbmfc 21 Feb 2015 17:06
Especially in the US the public needs every issue distilled to good vs. evil. Anything more
complex and they will reject it. This is the result of decades of "divide and conquer" politics.
Vladimir Boronenko 21 Feb 2015 08:21
"Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally
negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant
de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine." No it wouldn't. It is
nothing but wishful thinking and delusion all over again. Ukraine had had that status already,
and only scrapped it in December by a constitutional Parliament vote exactly because it showed
its complete uselessness and impotence at the face of real-life threats. Just like the Budapest
Memorandum of 1994 guaranteeing security of Ukraine, with one of the guarantors attacking and
the other two looking on, although, if one was to stick to the letter of the Memo, of course,
they are not bound to be involved unless its a nuclear threat.
Johnlockett 20 Feb 2015 19:21
Excellent article. Very balance and very near to the truth. Thank you
John Lockett
Statingobvious 20 Feb 2015 14:28
An exceptionally unbiased piece where otherwise Russia and Putin bashing (& twisting of facts
& outright lying) is the rule.
mike42 20 Feb 2015 10:04
"The most disturbing novelty of the Ukrainian crisis is the way Putin and other Russian leaders
are routinely demonised. At the height of the cold war when the dispute between Moscow and the
west was far more dangerous, backed as it was by the danger of nuclear catastrophe, Brezhnev and
Andropov were never treated to such public insults by western commentators and politicians."
Need more be said?
Dreikaiserbund Les Mills 20 Feb 2015 09:14
Challenging the 'MSM script' does not make you a Putinbot. Deriding anyone who supports Ukrainian
sovereignty, who is opposed to the Russian invasion and trumpeting Vladimir as a great and wise
leader - that is what makes you a Putinbot.
EnriqueFerro -> theshonny 19 Feb 2015 19:57
Thank you for the info on 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King. I'll look for it, because even
if it is pro-Putin, it is nonetheless interesting in order to check the rabid and massive anti-Putin
and Russia-hating disease spreading out there.
EnriqueFerro -> Mari5064 19 Feb 2015 19:53
Mari, I'm afraid you read too many tabloids.
EnriqueFerro 19 Feb 2015 19:51
This is an excellent book, of which I'm finishing its reading now; it can be read avidly, because
it says the truth, in a dispassionate and academic narrative, far from the typically stupid accounts
in the Western media and in the mouths of our gullible and ignorant politicians. Read it and learn
a lot about Ukraine, Russia, the EU, and the US/NATO.
Usually interesting books which don't follow the official record are not displayed in the mass
bookshops such as Floyds or Waterstones (to name two of the more serious in the UK). It is a way
of censorship, to make it difficult for the public to find critical stuff. I found a lone copy
well hidden in the history section at WS. A miracle! I took it quickly, and wonder if it was replaced!!!
Les Mills -> leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 19:34
As in the endless accusations of being a "Putinbot" if you have the temerity to challenge
the MSM script. Incidentally, I'm surprised that this article has only a handful of comments.
I came here via a link on Google news so I can only assume that the Guardian have it hidden away
on their site, which definitely fits the anti-Russian agenda.
leafbinder 19 Feb 2015 17:37
By far THE best analysis of what sounds like a most insightful book. The reviewer has done
us all a great service, since without it we would have never heard about the book from any other
"NATO-Western" source. Even worse, the author of the book would be accused of not being "real"
as is often the accusation when a comment appears that does not swallow Western propaganda line-hook-and-sinker.
John Hansen 19 Feb 2015 14:31
Jonathan Steele:
Superb analysis of a significant book.
:-)
theshonny 19 Feb 2015 13:15
Bought 'The War Against Putin' by M.S. King a short while ago, and found it going so much pro-Putin
that it lost its impact. So now I hope for a more balanced account.
I have a strong suspicion that the demonising of Putin is at least in part a method to
draw attention away from US (and maybe Israeli) warmongering of the last decades, so I hope this
book will give a fairly balanced account of what's really taking place in Crimea and Ukraine.
Also I suspect that the CIA is, true to form, stirring up the Ukrainians so to destabilise
Russian influence.
sbmfc 19 Feb 2015 07:31
I think the demonisation of Putin stems from the influence of Hollywood narratives in our societal
perception.
The idea of the villain is so commonplace that is widely assumed that anyone with a different
agenda to ones own is perceived to be attempting to working directly against our own personal
interests rather than in aid of their own different and completely independent interests.
Essentially everything has been so dumbed down that only a good/evil narrative can be comprehended
and the labels are only fit one way. The facts themselves are irrelevant.
AnyFictionalName 19 Feb 2015 05:50
When PM Yatsenyuk said:
I don't want Ukrainian youths (i.e. those who consider their native language to be Ukrainian
or Russian) to learn the Russian language, I want them to learn the English language.
Is that kind of racism, inferiority complex or just sheer stupidity?
"We have to twist arms when countries don't do what we need them to"
and if arm twisting does not work we will murder your families, embargo food and medicine,
destroy your economy, lay waste to a generation of your children, and blacken your name for
all history.
He is truly a stinky turd in the cesspool that is Washington DC. But fear not, Hillary Clinton
will be a worthy successor and will out-stink, out-murder and out-destroy Obama.
Who in America can stop this madness? (rhetorical/trick question, no one can).
Warren, February 11, 2015 at 6:53 am
Ukraine President Poroshenko Threatens Martial Law: http://t.co/YiPgu0yPEY His main target:
rising dissent in western Ukraine.
- Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) February 11, 2015
The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the
operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military
incursion. Part of the reason for this is the fact that Kiev would have trouble securing a much-needed
support package from the International Monetary Fund if it was officially at war.
A series of gruesome videos, sometimes shown on Russian television, has increased the psychological
pressure on Ukrainians. One, released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the
faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them.
Shit! I must have missed that one!
"A friend of mine told me his friend was down there in the east and they ran into Chechens,
who sliced off all their testicles. There were about 100 of them, and the Chechens castrated the
lot of them. If I get called up, I think I'll go into hiding. I want a family and kids."
'Kin' hell!!!!!!!
karl1haushofer , February 10, 2015 at 11:21 pm
"It may have escaped your notice, but Putin and Moscow have been calling for a ceasefire
all along"
I have grown to hate the whole word of "ceasefire" during this war. A real ceasefire would
be great. But it is not going to happen until Kiev military is fully defeated!
Another bogus "ceasefire" in Minsk means the following:
1. Kiev gets to withdraw its men AND WEAPONS out of the Debaltsevo cauldron and the rebels
will not be allowed to stop it..
2. The rebels will not be able to give a big blow to the Kiev military by either annihilating
or at least capturing the most competent part of their military in Debaltsevo and their weapons.
3. The thousands of Kiev troops in Debaltsevo cauldron AND THEIR WEAPONS will be used in the future
against Novorossiya.
4. The shelling of civilians will continue as it was before. The "ceasefire" will not be applied
to Kiev side, only to rebels.
5. NATO will start the training and arming of Kiev troops. Next offensive will start next spring.
6. The morale of the rebels will take a bit hit. They will realize that their military efforts
and success is meaningless as they are not allowed win this war.
Moscow must not allow Kiev to withdraw its troops and weapons out of that cauldron in any circumstances.
That would be a treason against the troops that fought to create that cauldron. And that would
be a treason against the whole Novorossiya.
This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya.
Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military
defeat for Kiev.
marknesop, February 11, 2015 at 8:00 am
"This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya.
Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military
defeat for Kiev."
On the contrary, the war could continue for many years yet without either side firing a shot,
in much the same way the Georgian government never accepted the independence of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia and even designated a ministerial position for winning them back into the fold. Disagreement
over the borders within Ukraine will keep them out of NATO for the foreseeable future, while their
ruined economy will keep them out of the EU. A future government may mend its ties with Russia,
but if it does not, Ukraine is doomed to decades of poverty and a steady drain of its population
for better prospects. It can thank the west for that, and its own population's extremist element.
Once again, there is no reason for Putin to become "the most hated man in Novorossiya" if it
shakes out as you describe. The rebels must accept the deal on their own behalf, and it is not
for Putin to agree to anything; Russia is simply acting as a sort of guarantor, by being part
of the agreement but kind of like an honest broker, to ensure the western countries keep their
word.
I agree the Ukrainian forces should not be permitted to withdraw from Debalseve with their
weapons, after getting cauldroned for the second time due to their own stupidity, lack of tactical
knowledge and poor leadership. but i doubt that will happen, unless the rebels are idiot negotiators,
because Semenchenko's battalion had to leave their weapons behind when they were allowed out of
the southern cauldron, and it plainly did not teach the Ukies anything. Why would they be allowed
to keep their weapons this time? But even if they do not, weapons are not going to be a problem
to replace, and you know it.
"We have to twist arms when countries don't do what we need them to"
and if arm twisting does not work we will murder your families, embargo food and medicine,
destroy your economy, lay waste to a generation of your children, and blacken your name for
all history.
He is truly a stinky turd in the cesspool that is Washington DC. But fear not, Hillary Clinton
will be a worthy successor and will out-stink, out-murder and out-destroy Obama.
Who in America can stop this madness? (rhetorical/trick question, no one can).
Warren, February 11, 2015 at 6:53 am
Ukraine President Poroshenko Threatens Martial Law: http://t.co/YiPgu0yPEY His main target:
rising dissent in western Ukraine.
- Justin Raimondo (@JustinRaimondo) February 11, 2015
The government has avoided officially declaring a state of war, instead referring to the
operations in the east as an anti-terrorism operation, despite clear evidence of Russian military
incursion. Part of the reason for this is the fact that Kiev would have trouble securing a much-needed
support package from the International Monetary Fund if it was officially at war.
A series of gruesome videos, sometimes shown on Russian television, has increased the psychological
pressure on Ukrainians. One, released last month, showed a rebel commander waving a sword in the
faces of bloodied Ukrainian soldiers, slicing off their insignias and forcing the men to eat them.
Shit! I must have missed that one!
"A friend of mine told me his friend was down there in the east and they ran into Chechens,
who sliced off all their testicles. There were about 100 of them, and the Chechens castrated the
lot of them. If I get called up, I think I'll go into hiding. I want a family and kids."
'Kin' hell!!!!!!!
karl1haushofer , February 10, 2015 at 11:21 pm
"It may have escaped your notice, but Putin and Moscow have been calling for a ceasefire
all along"
I have grown to hate the whole word of "ceasefire" during this war. A real ceasefire would
be great. But it is not going to happen until Kiev military is fully defeated!
Another bogus "ceasefire" in Minsk means the following:
1. Kiev gets to withdraw its men AND WEAPONS out of the Debaltsevo cauldron and the rebels
will not be allowed to stop it..
2. The rebels will not be able to give a big blow to the Kiev military by either annihilating
or at least capturing the most competent part of their military in Debaltsevo and their weapons.
3. The thousands of Kiev troops in Debaltsevo cauldron AND THEIR WEAPONS will be used in the future
against Novorossiya.
4. The shelling of civilians will continue as it was before. The "ceasefire" will not be applied
to Kiev side, only to rebels.
5. NATO will start the training and arming of Kiev troops. Next offensive will start next spring.
6. The morale of the rebels will take a bit hit. They will realize that their military efforts
and success is meaningless as they are not allowed win this war.
Moscow must not allow Kiev to withdraw its troops and weapons out of that cauldron in any circumstances.
That would be a treason against the troops that fought to create that cauldron. And that would
be a treason against the whole Novorossiya.
This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya.
Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military
defeat for Kiev.
marknesop, February 11, 2015 at 8:00 am
"This war will not end until one side is fully defeated. It will be either Kiev or Novorossiya.
Annihilating or capturing the Kiev troops and weapons in Debaltsevo cauldron would be a big military
defeat for Kiev."
On the contrary, the war could continue for many years yet without either side firing a shot,
in much the same way the Georgian government never accepted the independence of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia and even designated a ministerial position for winning them back into the fold. Disagreement
over the borders within Ukraine will keep them out of NATO for the foreseeable future, while their
ruined economy will keep them out of the EU. A future government may mend its ties with Russia,
but if it does not, Ukraine is doomed to decades of poverty and a steady drain of its population
for better prospects. It can thank the west for that, and its own population's extremist element.
Once again, there is no reason for Putin to become "the most hated man in Novorossiya" if it
shakes out as you describe. The rebels must accept the deal on their own behalf, and it is not
for Putin to agree to anything; Russia is simply acting as a sort of guarantor, by being part
of the agreement but kind of like an honest broker, to ensure the western countries keep their
word.
I agree the Ukrainian forces should not be permitted to withdraw from Debalseve with their
weapons, after getting cauldroned for the second time due to their own stupidity, lack of tactical
knowledge and poor leadership. but i doubt that will happen, unless the rebels are idiot negotiators,
because Semenchenko's battalion had to leave their weapons behind when they were allowed out of
the southern cauldron, and it plainly did not teach the Ukies anything. Why would they be allowed
to keep their weapons this time? But even if they do not, weapons are not going to be a problem
to replace, and you know it.
"... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
"... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
"... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
"... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
"... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the
trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and
many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the
Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the
chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state
in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with
Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.
caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52
Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a
leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U.,
NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display
along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements?
More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another
threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground &
leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history
books on how not to be a "world leader".
Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12
And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the
guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the
population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have
only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.
Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and
fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by
negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the
fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.
Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama
about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support
fascist government Poroshenko.
EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin
Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one
side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it
should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be
easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known
before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a
much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that
you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.
What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who
have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they
tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't
happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith
negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.
Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the
Ukraine crisis
Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is.
People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving
whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.
Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53
As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!
This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at
Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the
trapped army may be NATO. !
Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the
Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked
civilian targets.
If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military
equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.
Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has
illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!
This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken
captive, what then?
Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland,
Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.
Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29
Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should
it Invade the Region
And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it
better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and
now here in Ukraine."
Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10
All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with
BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.
Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his
disarmed Berkut could not protect him.
As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're
deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much
today?
That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on
Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.
Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43
Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by
murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for
the junta.
From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed
optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in
'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.
Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable
inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while
their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.
National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and
frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless
abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.
But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their
likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against
Russia!
If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as
insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?
Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently
failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!
Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02
And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin
is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,
Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling
and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to
the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to
annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically
challenged folks still try and drag up)
Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57
"But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political
destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western
sponsored coup.....
EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45
amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in
deterring its continued military support for separatists.
I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I
am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far
enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous
American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is
modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question
is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?
You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the
sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second,
Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements
single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West
and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful
offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as
well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did
he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which,
I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.
Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an
agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications
that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will
happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an
unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.
Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30
Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is
lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether
European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the
streets en masse if they value their lives.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57
US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he
will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global
order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."
So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively
after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.
PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22
Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the
consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas...
It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.
The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the
accident.
"This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.
"Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well,
it's chaos, and they are barbarians."
Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.
The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to
shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial
Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on
his Facebook page.
According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because
they were shooting based on coordinates."
Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is
involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook
page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.
PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a
generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to
build up Ukraine.
One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in
this video).
Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort
peacefully containing and isolating Russia".
"... They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. ..."
"... Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically challenged folks still try and drag up) ..."
"... When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western sponsored coup..... ..."
"... Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass. ..."
"... One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in this video). Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia". ..."
Wrong. The EU and Americans started this when refusing Yanukovich more time to consider the
trade deal, and when encouraging the billionaires to send their thugs onto Maidan. Tsarev and
many others were aware that a coup was on the menu back in October 2013, when he spoke in the
Rada. The EU deal had the support of the billionaires, not least because it offered them the
chance to apply on a wider stage the skills they had acquired defrauding the Ukrainian state
in the 90s, whereas if Ukraine turned towards the Eurasian Union, they'd have to deal with
Putin, who if nothing else a reined in the billionaires.
caliento 10 Feb 2015 15:52
Wonder why Putin is welcomed by Turkey, Egypt, Hungary, Greece? It is called respect for a
leader who stands behind his position showing no fear. Obama, Merkel, Hollande, Cameron E.U.,
NATO have no respect. And why should they? Obama's "yellow line" is constantly on display
along with the rest of the misfits in Europe. More talks, more "signed" "peace" agreements?
More Russian lies? Is this group of misfits just "stuck on stupid"? Putin has uttered another
threat....that should be enough for the misfits to surrender & deny reality on the ground &
leave Ukraine abandoned once again. I taught Bush was bad but Obama is one for the history
books on how not to be a "world leader".
Yuriy11 -> TeeJayzed Addy 10 Feb 2015 13:12
And the ally of what Ukraine wish to be the USA? If America considers itself as the
guarantor of freedom, democracy and protection of human rights it should support the
population of Donbass and Lugansk. The population of these regions of Ukraine wished to have
only the rights which are written down in the country Constitution.
Instead of guaranteeing it these rights, the new management of Ukraine began to bomb and
fire at peace cities of Donetsk and Lugansk areas. Instead of solving all problems by
negotiations. Also Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and other steels openly to glorify Banderu - the
fascist, the military criminal. The youth has started to use nazi symbolics and nazi slogans.
Can be the USA wishes to become the ally of new fascists? Judging by statements, Obama
about desire to deliver to Ukraine the weapon, very similar, that it is going to support
fascist government Poroshenko.
EugeneGur 10 Feb 2015 10:46
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin
Why no concessions? Is that how negotiations are conducted, without any concessions on one
side, with all the concessions on the other? I understand this is the American style. But it
should be obvious by now to everybody with half a brain that Putin is not the type to be
easily intimidated. He can be negotiated with but not blackmailed. They should've also known
before they started this mess that Russia isn't Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia or even Vietnam but a
much bigger, nastier and better armed country. Germany, of all countries, should've known that
you don't want to piss Russia off, you really don't.
What I see in all these jerking movements is a bunch of very scared "world leaders" who
have no idea what to do next. They pushed and pushed without any regard for people they
tramped underfoot expecting Russia to fold any day and beg for mercy. When it didn't
happen and looks unlikely to happen, there is no plan B. And, of course, honest in good faith
negotiations with Russia are entirely out of the question. They just don't know what it means.
Angela Merkel and Barack Obama are under pressure to shore up western unity over the
Ukraine crisis
Who cares about your "unity"? We have a pretty good idea what kind of "unity" that is.
People are dying over there, and these bunch of cheating clowns are concerned with saving
whatever is left of their faces. Disgusting.
Albert_Jacka_VC 10 Feb 2015 08:53
As usual, the Russophobes don't get it. But they will!
This morning NAF scouts spotted NATO tanks inside the encirclement (cauldron) at
Debaltseve. According to their information the possibility is strong that up to 25% of the
trapped army may be NATO. !
Shell remnants marked clearly with US identifying numbers from 155mm shells, shot by the
Paladin artillery system have been recovered from areas the Ukrainian army have attacked
civilian targets.
If the NATO troops are there - (who else would be running the complicated military
equipment?) - Zackharchenko's people may display them to the world.
Everyone will see that the junta that brought us a non-existent Russian invasion has
illegitimate and illegal support from NATO's warmongers!
This explains both the US and EU fudging a new peace initiative. If NATO troops are taken
captive, what then?
Then they are, by Poro's own admission, war criminals. And their urgers (Kerry, Nuland,
Stoltenberg, Rasmussen, and the whole foul rabble, are war criminals too.
Елена Петрова 9 Feb 2015 21:29
Powerful Documentary on the People of Donbass and why NATO will be in a Tough Fight Should
it Invade the Region
And yet another says, "Who started it? Everyone knows who started this. How to put it
better? Everything started by America's hallooing. The same sh#t happened with Georgia, and
now here in Ukraine."
Albert_Jacka_VC -> jezzam 9 Feb 2015 21:10
All your info is wrong. Putin himself advocated Ukraine enter a trading arrangement with
BOTH Russia and the EU. The EU would have none of it.
Or rather, Nuland banned it. The EU had no say. We know what Nuland said.
The coup was a violent, murderous act, and Yanukovych fled after death threats, because his
disarmed Berkut could not protect him.
As to Putin's actions in Ukraine, you buy the spin in the Western press. that's why you're
deluded. Donetzkers fight to stay alive, against Kolomoisky's killers.
Ukraine is illegal, Nazi, and now defeated. Its currency crashed 15% yesterday. How much
today?
That is why the warmongers are flapping about. No other reason than that their war on
Russia via 'Ukraine' is a flop.
Albert_Jacka_VC -> david wright 9 Feb 2015 20:43
Ukraine is not a sovereign state. Ukraine is an illegal junta of Nazis who took power by
murder, and threatrs of murder. that is why even their Ukrainian citizens will not fight for
the junta.
From the Obama-Merkel Washington press conference; on Ukraine, Angela Merkel seemed
optimistic on the chances of 'diplomacy'. But President Obama seemed so determined in
'seeing-off' President Putin by any means; repeatedly, labelling him 'the aggressor'.
Does President Obama have a personal problem with President Putin?
Unfortunately, terrible historic armed conflicts arise for populations from intractable
inter-personal disagreements between their antagonistic national political leaders. But while
their personal safeties are secured, their populations are destroyed.
National leaders still can't see that nowadays wars generally have 'un-winnable' and
frustrating outcomes for even the best equipped militaries. Yet, with seeming careless
abandon, their inclinations to increase arms in wars remain unbridled.
But why did none of the correspondents at the Press conference press the leaders on their
likely expectations for Ukraine, Europe and the world if more arms are sent to Ukraine against
Russia!
If national political leaders would be victims of their sponsored wars, would they be as
insistent with such risky, futile and potentially increased destructive recipes?
Yet, the world still seems as impervious to politicians' handling of war crises!
Why can't it be more innovative to accept or devise better alternatives to the persistently
failed and disastrous politicians' bent for even more wars?!
Andrew Nichols -> Milton 9 Feb 2015 19:02
And as for those who say they believe that Crimea and Eastern Ukraine are all that Putin
is after, I suggest you look at Russia's interventions in Chechnya and Georgia/S.Ossetia,
Chechnya - Islamist insurgency like what Iraq is facing. S. Ossetia. - Georgian shelling
and invasion of this province designed to get NATO to help out. Instead the Russians deal to
the invaders. Sorry mate - your argument is as flaky as the hoary old one of Iran wanting to
annihilate Israel based on a mistranslated Ahmedinejad speech (which some historically
challenged folks still try and drag up)
Andrew Nichols Milton 9 Feb 2015 18:57
"But the west did not send troops or tanks into Ukraine. It didn't attempt political
destabilisation." When "destabilisation" looks like a western sponsored coup, quacks like a western
sponsored coup.....
EugeneGur 9 Feb 2015 18:45
amid growing US scepticism that European peace talks with Russia will succeed in
deterring its continued military support for separatists.
I am pretty sure that Russia supports the rebels militarily to a certain extent although I
am not sure how far that support goes. Most of Russia is convinced that it doesn't go far
enough. Considering that nobody has been able to prove anything (where are these marvelous
American satellites when you need them?), probably, Russian public is right, the support is
modest, so it's easy to hide. The West wants Russia to stop supporting the rebels. My question
is why would Russia do that? What's in it for Russia?
You will say the magic word "sanctions". First, Russia is not all that eager about the
sanctions to be lifted, because we know they are hurting Europe as much, if not more. Second,
Russia doesn't believe the West, and for a good reason. Putin organized the Minsk agreements
single-handedly and made the rebels accept it. It was a gift that Putin gave both to the West
and to Ukraine, because he convinced the rebel army to stop in the middle of a very successful
offensive. By doing so, he risked a lot of his political capital, since everybody in Russia as
well as in Donbass hated it and believed it was a mistake, which it turned out to be. What did
he get in return? Less than nothing - he got additional sanctions, additional demands, which,
I hope proved to him finally that the West is double-dealing and entirely untrustworthy.
Putin will be crucified in Russia if he is seen pushing the rebels to accept an
agreement against their interests. The bottom line is unless the West gives strong indications
that it is prepared to negotiate in good faith, the commodity it so far lacked, nothing will
happen. If the West waits much longer, the only subject for negotiations will be an
unconditional surrender of the Ukrainian army in Donbass.
Paul Easton 9 Feb 2015 18:30
Ok now we know what Obama wants. He says he doesn't want to arm Ukraine but as usual he is
lying because his new choice for War Secy is in favor. The remaining question is whether
European countries will go along with this insanity. European people had better take to the
streets en masse if they value their lives.
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
alsojusticeseeker 9 Feb 2015 17:57
US secretary of state John Kerry said in an interview aired on Sunday. "Hopefully he
will come to a point where he realises the damage he is doing is not just to the global
order, but he is doing enormous damage to Russia itself."
So, finally Kerry unveils that they are after ordinary people in Russia, not exclusively
after "Putin's close circle" and all that crap.
PeraIlic jezzam 9 Feb 2015 17:22
Perhaps if Russia really wants E. Ukraine it should be allowed to take it, with all the
consequences this entails, including the economic burden of rebuilding the areas...
It seems that these guys from Kiev have similar ideas as you.
The spokesman for Kiev's Anti-Terrorist Operation said that rebels were at fault for the
accident.
"This was caused by a dropped cigarette butt," Andrey Lysenko told the media on Monday.
"Accidents often happen in factories where no one is responsible for fire safety. Well,
it's chaos, and they are barbarians."
Not all pro-Kiev officials agreed.
The Ukrainian military deployed a Smerch (the BM-30 Tornado) multiple rocket system to
shell the area in the city, Boris Filatov, former deputy head of the industrial
Dnepropetrovsk Region and a member of the Ukrainian parliament (Verkhovna Rada), said on
his Facebook page.
According to Filatov, the men who fired the missiles "do not know what they hit because
they were shooting based on coordinates."
Earlier, Ukrainian far-right politician and paramilitary commander Dmitry Yarosh, who is
involved in the Kiev military action in southeastern Ukraine, confirmed on his Facebook
page that the explosion was caused by Ukrainian artillery.
PeraIlic 9 Feb 2015 17:13
Merkel is the stiffest opponent of supplying weapons, while holding firm against any
other concessions to Putin and calculating that the west may need to prepare for a
generational, long-haul effort peacefully containing and isolating Russia and seeking to
build up Ukraine.
One of the latest statements of Angela Merkel was: "We want to establish security in Europe with Russia, not against Russia" (0:20 in
this video).
Sorry, but to me it does not sound like preparation "for a generational, long-haul effort
peacefully containing and isolating Russia".
I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for
Vladimir Putin,
but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly
to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated
Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western
Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to
power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi
ideology.
For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of
Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection
should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured
for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn
one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.
As David Owen has pointed out (26
August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato,
threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a
diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report,
8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.
Tim Dyce, London
The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of
continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine.
Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use
an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy
within a unified
Ukraine. This is
something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to
let us do it.
Stephen Mennell, Dublin
David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report,
theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a
foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by
orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in
mediation.
I have no love for modern capitalist Russia, or for
Vladimir Putin,
but there are always two sides to a conflict. Regrettably, the Guardian gives credence mainly
to the anti-Putin version. In that narrative, the Russian leader is alleged to have violated
Ukraine's sovereignty, though no hard evidence is offered. For those who support western
Ukraine's criticism of Putin it is salutary to remember that the present government came to
power via a coup. Moreover, many of its supporters are self-confessed followers of Nazi
ideology.
For the Guardian, one of Putin's main transgressions has been the annexation of
Crimea. But this is dangerous ground for western critics of Putin, as a moment's reflection
should remind one that Israel routinely annexes Palestinian land but has never been censured
for its action. Turkey, which annexed northern Cyprus, has never been subjected to sanctions.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but it is morally shaky ground for western leaders to condemn
one country for annexation while condoning it by another power.
As David Owen has pointed out (26
August 2014), Russian leaders are understandably worried by the eastward march of Nato,
threatening its security. If we wish to avoid catastrophe in Europe the west must come to a
diplomatic agreement with Russia, however difficult that may be (Report,
8 February). The alternative is unthinkable.
Tim Dyce, London
The solution to Ukraine has been floated – and ignored – before. Treat Russia as part of
continental and cultural Europe. Field a joint EU peacekeeping force with Russia and Ukraine.
Fly all three flags. Enforce and police the Minsk agreement. Leave Crimea for another day. Use
an EU Marshall plan to rehabilitate eastern Ukraine. Recognise significant regional autonomy
within a unified
Ukraine. This is
something the UK should lead with France and Germany, rather than waiting for Washington to
let us do it.
Stephen Mennell, Dublin
David Cameron could play no part in the Moscow talks (Report,
theguardian.com, 7 January). Britain is a US puppet state, which for decades has not had a
foreign policy separate from that of the US. Since America precipitated the Ukraine crisis by
orchestrating the coup in Kiev, it would not be appropriate for Britain to play any part in
mediation.
"... Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed. ..."
"... Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded. ..."
"... The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50 thousand rather than 5 thousand. ..."
CIA and Americans caught in the cauldron, or whatever they're calling it? That's what some
on a German comment thread were saying today.
EugeneGur -> centerline 8 Feb 2015 23:44
Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled
in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate
to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed.
TuleCarbonari -> EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:31
What is special about the East? It is richer in natural resources than the West. Joe
Biden's son and other businessmen won't be able to operate in a politically volatile area. It
must be pacified somehow.
Bullybyte -> WiseOldManNo476 8 Feb 2015 23:43
There will be no war.
Earth to WiseOldManNo476. You obviously haven't noticed. There already IS a war; it is
about to escalate; and the UK will be involved in it right up to its neck.
The problem being a bully (the US) is that it becomes arrogant and expects its own way
all of the time, when someone pushes back, they fold. This isn't Iraq you know.
And who is pushing back? You?
Looks like the EU will be choosing the lesser of two evils.
Yes. Listen to the tough talk by Cameron. Look how the EU ratcheted up their sanctions on
Russia only a few days ago. The EU have already chosen the lesser of two reasons.
BTW, enjoy your collapsing petro dollar and associated hyper inflation coming your way
very soon.
And this will be happening when? After your kids have been killed?
KrasnoArmejac Roodan 8 Feb 2015 23:20
no roodan, we should not go to war. it is ukraines fight, not ours. but we should not treat
putin like he is a normal politician (or person for that matter). we should not have our
newspapers asking questions that have been answered a million times before, just so we could
be proud of our political corectness. you know those questions, right? questions like: are
those really russians that are fighting the ukranians? it's like answering the question: is
the sky blue? over and over and over again. we should not keep satellite images proving
russian tanks crossing the border classified, just so mister putin could have a face-saving
exit once this is all over with. because my dear roodan, contrary to what your mother (and all
mothers for that matter) told you: ignoring the bully will not make him stop punching you. it
will just make you a loser-for-life. if you don't trust me ask mister neville chamberlain and
his piece of paper
EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:13
the latest Franco-German peace initiative . . . was driven by the urgent desire to avoid
a new bloodbath in the besieged Ukrainian-held town of Debaltseve
Really? What is so special about Debaltsevo that makes the European leaders so concerned
about its fate? What sets it apart so decisively from Donetsk, Gorlovka, Krasnoarmeisk,
Shakhtursk, and a dozen of other Donbass towns that have been pounded by artillery fire for
months. Hundreds of civilians died, and the only response from our European friends was
deafening silence about the killings and loud accusations against Russia of everything and
anything.
I'll tell you what's special about Debaltsevo. A large number of Ukrainian troops
are trapped there, and unless something is done, there are likely end up dead. This means
another devastating defeat for the Ukrs, from which they are unlikely to recover. So, Merkel
and Hollande rushed (or were dispatched?) to the rescue of their little nazi Ukrainian
protegees. One cannot help but feel contempt for such European "leaders" and generally for
what Europe turned into under American patronage.
sbmfc 8 Feb 2015 10:22
Given the still unfolding disasters in Syria and Libya surely the policy of the west
attempting to pick a winner in a local conflict is completely discredited.
It may be the case that war in Europe suits the American agenda but the EU should only be
focused on a peaceful solution. Borders in Europe have always been fluid and it is impossible
to see the rebel areas now ever peacefully existing within Ukraine.
snowdogchampion -> Strummered 8 Feb 2015 10:17
there ARE English speaking troops that sound AMERICAN
Foreign fighters filmed on ground with Kiev army
not to mention the CIA agents ;-)
Kal El -> Eric Hoffmann 8 Feb 2015 10:13
And where is Kiev getting all its weapons etc from ? Their stuff was 20 year old USSR
stuff. Mothballed and rusting.
Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their
stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as
Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded.
NoBodiesFool 8 Feb 2015 10:12
If peace breaks out what will the poor weapons dealers and their bankster backers do?
Someone please think of the poor children of the weapons dealers and the banksters. Also,
think of the poor children of the fossil fuel cartels that all of this is really about. They
really don't have enough money and they so would like another Bugatti for New Year's. Please,
give war a chance - for the children.
Rialbynot 8 Feb 2015 10:12
When the German-speaking population in South Tyrol rebelled against Italian rule in the
late 1960s, the Italian government initially attempted to put down the rebellion using force.
However, a campaign of sabotage and bombings by German-speaking separatists led by the
SouthTyrolean Liberation Committee continued.
Finally, the issue was resolved in 1971, when a new treaty was signed and ratified by the
Austrian and Italian governments. It stipulated that disputes in South Tyrol would be
submitted for settlement to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and that the
province would receive greater autonomy within Italy. The new agreement proved broadly
satisfactory to the parties involved and the separatist tensions soon eased.
Europe has a blueprint for resolving the (far more deadly) East Ukraine crisis.
Asimpleguest -> CaptainBlunder 8 Feb 2015 10:09
strange - I read otherwise
''MOSCOW, December 10. /TASS/. Russian military led by Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the
Ground Forces Alexander Lentsov are providing assistance to the Ukrainian south-east conflict
sides in reaching compromise for deescalation of tension and troops' pullout, Chief of the
Russian General Staff General Valery Gerasimov said on Wednesday.
The mission was sent at the request of the Chief of the Ukrainian General Staff, Viktor
Muzhenko, said Gerasimov.''
snowdogchampion 8 Feb 2015 10:09
thanks god! mind that the US warmongers will not be part of the PEACE talks cause they want
WAR at our doorstep.. McCain & Co. must be p!ssed off.. hope Merkel's security has been
increased, you never know, there might be a CIA agent around
SHappens 8 Feb 2015 10:08
Merkel is due to meet Barack Obama, the US president, in Washington on Monday, in a bid
to synchronise US and western European positions on Ukraine ahead of the Minsk summit.
Or how to make a peaceful initiative go jeopardized. All Putin has to do is sit and wait.
And let them EU and US paddle.
Merkel feels they owe the East Ukrainians to stop the war they promoted and encouraged for
months but McCain says that these poor Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves. I suppose he is referring to the East Ukrainians, as they did not attack anybody in Kiev
and are indeed defending themselves from undiscriminated shelling from Kiev. Let's hope the Nobel prize will honor it.
Koninklijk 8 Feb 2015 10:08
Even if there is no further escalation, these repercussions are going to be felt in Europe
for a long time. We'll just have to hope nobody really wants a war in Europe, in the short or
long term.
Kal El 8 Feb 2015 10:05
The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50
thousand rather than 5 thousand.
Which when you think about is more of a truer number given that Ukraine is currently on its
4TH, yes 4TH mobilisation/conscription wave.
If the number of dead/injured is what Kiev claims, quite clearly they would NOT need all of
these mobilisations in the last year. The current mobilisation even includes women.
"... Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed. ..."
"... Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded. ..."
"... The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50 thousand rather than 5 thousand. ..."
CIA and Americans caught in the cauldron, or whatever they're calling it? That's what some
on a German comment thread were saying today.
EugeneGur -> centerline 8 Feb 2015 23:44
Oh yes. There is also an issue of mercenaries. It is said that the Ukrainian army encircled
in the Debaltsevo cauldron has Western mercenary units that Merkel and Hollande are desperate
to evacuate before the extent of the Western involvement in fully revealed.
TuleCarbonari -> EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:31
What is special about the East? It is richer in natural resources than the West. Joe
Biden's son and other businessmen won't be able to operate in a politically volatile area. It
must be pacified somehow.
Bullybyte -> WiseOldManNo476 8 Feb 2015 23:43
There will be no war.
Earth to WiseOldManNo476. You obviously haven't noticed. There already IS a war; it is
about to escalate; and the UK will be involved in it right up to its neck.
The problem being a bully (the US) is that it becomes arrogant and expects its own way
all of the time, when someone pushes back, they fold. This isn't Iraq you know.
And who is pushing back? You?
Looks like the EU will be choosing the lesser of two evils.
Yes. Listen to the tough talk by Cameron. Look how the EU ratcheted up their sanctions on
Russia only a few days ago. The EU have already chosen the lesser of two reasons.
BTW, enjoy your collapsing petro dollar and associated hyper inflation coming your way
very soon.
And this will be happening when? After your kids have been killed?
KrasnoArmejac Roodan 8 Feb 2015 23:20
no roodan, we should not go to war. it is ukraines fight, not ours. but we should not treat
putin like he is a normal politician (or person for that matter). we should not have our
newspapers asking questions that have been answered a million times before, just so we could
be proud of our political corectness. you know those questions, right? questions like: are
those really russians that are fighting the ukranians? it's like answering the question: is
the sky blue? over and over and over again. we should not keep satellite images proving
russian tanks crossing the border classified, just so mister putin could have a face-saving
exit once this is all over with. because my dear roodan, contrary to what your mother (and all
mothers for that matter) told you: ignoring the bully will not make him stop punching you. it
will just make you a loser-for-life. if you don't trust me ask mister neville chamberlain and
his piece of paper
EugeneGur 8 Feb 2015 23:13
the latest Franco-German peace initiative . . . was driven by the urgent desire to avoid
a new bloodbath in the besieged Ukrainian-held town of Debaltseve
Really? What is so special about Debaltsevo that makes the European leaders so concerned
about its fate? What sets it apart so decisively from Donetsk, Gorlovka, Krasnoarmeisk,
Shakhtursk, and a dozen of other Donbass towns that have been pounded by artillery fire for
months. Hundreds of civilians died, and the only response from our European friends was
deafening silence about the killings and loud accusations against Russia of everything and
anything.
I'll tell you what's special about Debaltsevo. A large number of Ukrainian troops
are trapped there, and unless something is done, there are likely end up dead. This means
another devastating defeat for the Ukrs, from which they are unlikely to recover. So, Merkel
and Hollande rushed (or were dispatched?) to the rescue of their little nazi Ukrainian
protegees. One cannot help but feel contempt for such European "leaders" and generally for
what Europe turned into under American patronage.
sbmfc 8 Feb 2015 10:22
Given the still unfolding disasters in Syria and Libya surely the policy of the west
attempting to pick a winner in a local conflict is completely discredited.
It may be the case that war in Europe suits the American agenda but the EU should only be
focused on a peaceful solution. Borders in Europe have always been fluid and it is impossible
to see the rebel areas now ever peacefully existing within Ukraine.
snowdogchampion -> Strummered 8 Feb 2015 10:17
there ARE English speaking troops that sound AMERICAN
Foreign fighters filmed on ground with Kiev army
not to mention the CIA agents ;-)
Kal El -> Eric Hoffmann 8 Feb 2015 10:13
And where is Kiev getting all its weapons etc from ? Their stuff was 20 year old USSR
stuff. Mothballed and rusting.
Lithuania has already admitted it's sending Kiev weapons. Poland likely as well given their
stance. And if anyone thinks the US is quietly sitting on the sidelines given stuff such as
Contragate in the past, they're almost certainly deluded.
NoBodiesFool 8 Feb 2015 10:12
If peace breaks out what will the poor weapons dealers and their bankster backers do?
Someone please think of the poor children of the weapons dealers and the banksters. Also,
think of the poor children of the fossil fuel cartels that all of this is really about. They
really don't have enough money and they so would like another Bugatti for New Year's. Please,
give war a chance - for the children.
Rialbynot 8 Feb 2015 10:12
When the German-speaking population in South Tyrol rebelled against Italian rule in the
late 1960s, the Italian government initially attempted to put down the rebellion using force.
However, a campaign of sabotage and bombings by German-speaking separatists led by the
SouthTyrolean Liberation Committee continued.
Finally, the issue was resolved in 1971, when a new treaty was signed and ratified by the
Austrian and Italian governments. It stipulated that disputes in South Tyrol would be
submitted for settlement to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and that the
province would receive greater autonomy within Italy. The new agreement proved broadly
satisfactory to the parties involved and the separatist tensions soon eased.
Europe has a blueprint for resolving the (far more deadly) East Ukraine crisis.
Asimpleguest -> CaptainBlunder 8 Feb 2015 10:09
strange - I read otherwise
''MOSCOW, December 10. /TASS/. Russian military led by Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the
Ground Forces Alexander Lentsov are providing assistance to the Ukrainian south-east conflict
sides in reaching compromise for deescalation of tension and troops' pullout, Chief of the
Russian General Staff General Valery Gerasimov said on Wednesday.
The mission was sent at the request of the Chief of the Ukrainian General Staff, Viktor
Muzhenko, said Gerasimov.''
snowdogchampion 8 Feb 2015 10:09
thanks god! mind that the US warmongers will not be part of the PEACE talks cause they want
WAR at our doorstep.. McCain & Co. must be p!ssed off.. hope Merkel's security has been
increased, you never know, there might be a CIA agent around
SHappens 8 Feb 2015 10:08
Merkel is due to meet Barack Obama, the US president, in Washington on Monday, in a bid
to synchronise US and western European positions on Ukraine ahead of the Minsk summit.
Or how to make a peaceful initiative go jeopardized. All Putin has to do is sit and wait.
And let them EU and US paddle.
Merkel feels they owe the East Ukrainians to stop the war they promoted and encouraged for
months but McCain says that these poor Ukrainians have the right to defend themselves. I suppose he is referring to the East Ukrainians, as they did not attack anybody in Kiev
and are indeed defending themselves from undiscriminated shelling from Kiev. Let's hope the Nobel prize will honor it.
Koninklijk 8 Feb 2015 10:08
Even if there is no further escalation, these repercussions are going to be felt in Europe
for a long time. We'll just have to hope nobody really wants a war in Europe, in the short or
long term.
Kal El 8 Feb 2015 10:05
The German intelligence service puts the number of dead in Ukraine at closer to 50
thousand rather than 5 thousand.
Which when you think about is more of a truer number given that Ukraine is currently on its
4TH, yes 4TH mobilisation/conscription wave.
If the number of dead/injured is what Kiev claims, quite clearly they would NOT need all of
these mobilisations in the last year. The current mobilisation even includes women.
You may as well bomb Moscow if you do that, because (as the article makes clear) to Putin
the two would be equivalent.
Why the F*** were Obama and Nato so keen to have more pieces on their pie... this really
bugs me. Ok, so Ukraine was not "neutral in the right way" and was under heavy Russian
influence. And so? It's on Russia's doorstep for f***'s sake! What do you expect!
If China masterminded a coup in Mexico with the aim of bringing the country into a defense
treaty with Beijing ... do you think that Washington would not do everything possible to stop
it?
jeeeeez
Amazon10 7 Feb 2015 11:43
What people seem to have forgotten is that Russia is NOT the Soviet Union but a free market
state that like all others and wants to protect it's own interests. It is confronted by
agressive NATO states that have encroached on territories that they agreed they would not.
In addition thay have a circle of nuclear based with missiles pointing at them. Ukraine,
which was a past soviet state but then became neutral after the fall of the Soviet Union.
However the US had other ideas as voiced by their representative to the EU Newland who
inadvertently had her plans for the Ukraine exposed. Their intended coup took place despite a
democratically elected being in place and a government was installed committed to Western
imperialism and expansion of NATO.
The population of the eastern region rejected this coup and it's nazi composition and found
that the only way they could resist the military forced brought upon them by Kiev and it's
western supporters was by fighting back. This is where we are at today. I am sure that Russia
have aided the east with military weapons and have accept over 1million refugees. There has
not been a single piece of evidence to show that Russian forces have involved on Ukraine soil.
The aggressive rhetoric from the West towards Russia make the likelihood of war real and could
have grave consequences for us all if we allow the real truth to be distorted in order to
bring this about. The leaders of Europe must be made aware that we will not let this happen
and that our constant aggression towards whoever we disagree with is not an excuse for war
dylan kerling -> Spockdem 7 Feb 2015 11:42
his post clearly implied it and if you've seen any of his other posts in other articles you
would realize he clearly does seem to look at this situation as a dichotomy of good vs evil,
west vs Russia.
When someone lists some atrocities while only referring to one side and completely ignoring
the fact that the other has done all of it only more frequently and with less of a reason I
would say he's excusing the west from it.
Lastly I'm not condoning Russia, I'm pointing out US hypocrisy and the fact that we still
hear all this talk of how Russia is doing all these terrible things from our political leaders
while completely white washing that we've done the very same time and time again.
If anyone is a shill is all of you that seem to think it's OK when the west does it but if
those evil Russians do anything oh boy are they in trouble.
LarsNil -> Ram2009 7 Feb 2015 11:41
"Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is identified in State Department documents as an
informant for the U.S. since 2006. The documents describe him as "[o]ur Ukraine (OU) insider
Petro Poroshenko." The State Department documents also report that Poroshenko is "tainted by
credible corruption allegations."
The most recent top official to join the Ukrainian government is Natalia A. Jaresko, a
long-time State Department official, who went to Ukraine after the U.S.-sponsored Orange
Revolution. Jaresko was made a Ukrainian citizen by the president on the same day he appointed
her finance minister. William Boardman reports further on Jaresko:
Natalie Jaresko, is an American citizen who managed a Ukrainian-based, U.S.-created hedge
fund that was charged with illegal insider trading. She also managed a CIA fund that supported
'pro-democracy' movements and laundered much of the $5 billion the U.S. spent supporting the
Maidan protests that led to the Kiev coup in February 2014. Jaresko is a big fan of austerity
for people in troubled economies."
September 9, 2014 The head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Gontareva during a
round table in Kiev, said: "200 FSB agents work on loosening the Ukrainian banking system and
the hryvnia" :)
February 5, 2015 "The reasons for the fall of the hryvnia - no," - said the Minister of
Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine Abramavičius.
February 4, 2015: $ 1/17 hryvnia, February 7, 2015 $ 1/26 hryvnia.
February 6, 2015 Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili on Ukrainian TV channel 24:
"spirit of the Ukrainian soldiers the best in the world. If you give them the necessary
knowledge, skills and weapons, they will be able to capture the whole of Russia "
Damn sclerosis. Apparently he forgot how as Russia routed the Georgian army for 4 days.
Let me remind you, this man was considered for the post of head of the Anti-Corruption
Committee of Ukraine. In Georgia, he declared a national search in. The Prosecutor's Office
indicted in absentia Saakashvili of abuse of power, embezzlement of budget funds, the attempt
to seize other people's property. The investigation is conducted from 25 October 2013, and
during this period were collected 80 volumes of evidence, questioned nearly 100 witnesses.
2013 Yatsenyuk in an interview with Ukrainian TV: "In the Ukrainian authorities are
amateurs!" Prime Ministers of Ukraine Azarov, Foreign exchange reserves of more than 22
billion dollars, the rate of $ 1 / 8.5 hryvnia.
Now Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, gold and currency reserves of $ 6 billion, the rate of $ 1/26
hryvnia.
Davos January 21, 2015 President of Ukraine Poroshenko: "In my country there are more than
9000 troops from the Russian Federation, 500 tanks, heavy artillery and armored vehicles."
Wow, it's strange that the separatists have not yet reached the border with Poland :)
February 7, 2015 security conference in Munich. Showing the passport of Russian citizens
and military tickets Poroshenko said: "What you still need more facts, evidence of the
presence of Russian troops in Ukraine?"
Ok, but the soldiers of the Russian Army during the service do not have passports, only
military ID. But of course when traveling to Ukraine they are given a complete set, in case of
capture. Ha ha ha :)
The Mayor Of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko. At a meeting with Ukrainian soldiers: "they Say that
there is no body armor, but it is physical protection. The main armor for each of you, is have
a mother, wife, children... Social standards - this is the armor. When everyone knows that if
something happens, his family will receive good compensation and will not have to beg" :)
Uh... good consolation for the soldiers...
You do not cast doubt on the adequacy of the new government of Ukraine? I think that these
clowns, already tired most of the Ukrainians.
cherryredguitar Yubin Underok 7 Feb 2015 11:16
Here is why: Russia has an army of online shills.
Of course, those nice trustworthy people at GCHQ and Langley wouldn't do stuff like that,
would they?
"... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
"... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
"... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
"... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is
in the interest of all affected:
The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and
foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.
"The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not
against it." Wise words.
Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00
NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled
when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its
geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not
Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in
the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy
is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security
Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure
of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter
and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," -
he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is
trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to"
throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the
recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."
According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain
its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last
quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its
dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21
Putin today:
"Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and
to preserve the unipolar world.
"War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our
development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order
led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he
can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best
interest, "- said the head of state.
"Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it,
wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the
same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"-
said Putin.
snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08
of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones
screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in
power...
centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14
international isolation
Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the
majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank)
A majority is over 50%.
centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10
Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund
raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07
The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a
buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up
Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.
Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American
money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.
Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04
I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on
blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them
with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty
man.
MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01
Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement.
According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent
line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer
zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This
is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article
being commented on.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56
I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying
anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who
simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have
endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join
the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.
If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one
man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the
idiot Obama.
centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56
Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is
dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)
You may as well bomb Moscow if you do that, because (as the article makes clear) to Putin
the two would be equivalent.
Why the F*** were Obama and Nato so keen to have more pieces on their pie... this really
bugs me. Ok, so Ukraine was not "neutral in the right way" and was under heavy Russian
influence. And so? It's on Russia's doorstep for f***'s sake! What do you expect!
If China masterminded a coup in Mexico with the aim of bringing the country into a defense
treaty with Beijing ... do you think that Washington would not do everything possible to stop
it?
jeeeeez
Amazon10 7 Feb 2015 11:43
What people seem to have forgotten is that Russia is NOT the Soviet Union but a free market
state that like all others and wants to protect it's own interests. It is confronted by
agressive NATO states that have encroached on territories that they agreed they would not.
In addition thay have a circle of nuclear based with missiles pointing at them. Ukraine,
which was a past soviet state but then became neutral after the fall of the Soviet Union.
However the US had other ideas as voiced by their representative to the EU Newland who
inadvertently had her plans for the Ukraine exposed. Their intended coup took place despite a
democratically elected being in place and a government was installed committed to Western
imperialism and expansion of NATO.
The population of the eastern region rejected this coup and it's nazi composition and found
that the only way they could resist the military forced brought upon them by Kiev and it's
western supporters was by fighting back. This is where we are at today. I am sure that Russia
have aided the east with military weapons and have accept over 1million refugees. There has
not been a single piece of evidence to show that Russian forces have involved on Ukraine soil.
The aggressive rhetoric from the West towards Russia make the likelihood of war real and could
have grave consequences for us all if we allow the real truth to be distorted in order to
bring this about. The leaders of Europe must be made aware that we will not let this happen
and that our constant aggression towards whoever we disagree with is not an excuse for war
dylan kerling -> Spockdem 7 Feb 2015 11:42
his post clearly implied it and if you've seen any of his other posts in other articles you
would realize he clearly does seem to look at this situation as a dichotomy of good vs evil,
west vs Russia.
When someone lists some atrocities while only referring to one side and completely ignoring
the fact that the other has done all of it only more frequently and with less of a reason I
would say he's excusing the west from it.
Lastly I'm not condoning Russia, I'm pointing out US hypocrisy and the fact that we still
hear all this talk of how Russia is doing all these terrible things from our political leaders
while completely white washing that we've done the very same time and time again.
If anyone is a shill is all of you that seem to think it's OK when the west does it but if
those evil Russians do anything oh boy are they in trouble.
LarsNil -> Ram2009 7 Feb 2015 11:41
"Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is identified in State Department documents as an
informant for the U.S. since 2006. The documents describe him as "[o]ur Ukraine (OU) insider
Petro Poroshenko." The State Department documents also report that Poroshenko is "tainted by
credible corruption allegations."
The most recent top official to join the Ukrainian government is Natalia A. Jaresko, a
long-time State Department official, who went to Ukraine after the U.S.-sponsored Orange
Revolution. Jaresko was made a Ukrainian citizen by the president on the same day he appointed
her finance minister. William Boardman reports further on Jaresko:
Natalie Jaresko, is an American citizen who managed a Ukrainian-based, U.S.-created hedge
fund that was charged with illegal insider trading. She also managed a CIA fund that supported
'pro-democracy' movements and laundered much of the $5 billion the U.S. spent supporting the
Maidan protests that led to the Kiev coup in February 2014. Jaresko is a big fan of austerity
for people in troubled economies."
September 9, 2014 The head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Gontareva during a
round table in Kiev, said: "200 FSB agents work on loosening the Ukrainian banking system and
the hryvnia" :)
February 5, 2015 "The reasons for the fall of the hryvnia - no," - said the Minister of
Economic Development and Trade of Ukraine Abramavičius.
February 4, 2015: $ 1/17 hryvnia, February 7, 2015 $ 1/26 hryvnia.
February 6, 2015 Former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili on Ukrainian TV channel 24:
"spirit of the Ukrainian soldiers the best in the world. If you give them the necessary
knowledge, skills and weapons, they will be able to capture the whole of Russia "
Damn sclerosis. Apparently he forgot how as Russia routed the Georgian army for 4 days.
Let me remind you, this man was considered for the post of head of the Anti-Corruption
Committee of Ukraine. In Georgia, he declared a national search in. The Prosecutor's Office
indicted in absentia Saakashvili of abuse of power, embezzlement of budget funds, the attempt
to seize other people's property. The investigation is conducted from 25 October 2013, and
during this period were collected 80 volumes of evidence, questioned nearly 100 witnesses.
2013 Yatsenyuk in an interview with Ukrainian TV: "In the Ukrainian authorities are
amateurs!" Prime Ministers of Ukraine Azarov, Foreign exchange reserves of more than 22
billion dollars, the rate of $ 1 / 8.5 hryvnia.
Now Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, gold and currency reserves of $ 6 billion, the rate of $ 1/26
hryvnia.
Davos January 21, 2015 President of Ukraine Poroshenko: "In my country there are more than
9000 troops from the Russian Federation, 500 tanks, heavy artillery and armored vehicles."
Wow, it's strange that the separatists have not yet reached the border with Poland :)
February 7, 2015 security conference in Munich. Showing the passport of Russian citizens
and military tickets Poroshenko said: "What you still need more facts, evidence of the
presence of Russian troops in Ukraine?"
Ok, but the soldiers of the Russian Army during the service do not have passports, only
military ID. But of course when traveling to Ukraine they are given a complete set, in case of
capture. Ha ha ha :)
The Mayor Of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko. At a meeting with Ukrainian soldiers: "they Say that
there is no body armor, but it is physical protection. The main armor for each of you, is have
a mother, wife, children... Social standards - this is the armor. When everyone knows that if
something happens, his family will receive good compensation and will not have to beg" :)
Uh... good consolation for the soldiers...
You do not cast doubt on the adequacy of the new government of Ukraine? I think that these
clowns, already tired most of the Ukrainians.
cherryredguitar Yubin Underok 7 Feb 2015 11:16
Here is why: Russia has an army of online shills.
Of course, those nice trustworthy people at GCHQ and Langley wouldn't do stuff like that,
would they?
"... Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and to preserve the unipolar world. ..."
"... there are really an attempt to keep our development by a variety of means, ..."
"... To stay in the belief that he can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best interest, "- said the head of state. ..."
"... If someone likes it, wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. ..."
To stop the spreading of this increasingly dangerous conflict, there is a solution, that is
in the interest of all affected:
The USA should butt out. It's that simple. This is a European 'problem' (instigated by and
foisted upon by the Americans) and will be solved by Europe and Europe alone.
"The German chancellor said she wanted to secure peace in Europe with Russia and not
against it." Wise words.
Paul Feeney Spiffey 7 Feb 2015 10:00
NATO is a One trick pony..and it's only one trick is War. NATO should have been dismantled
when the old Soviet Union broke up. Instead, it's been taken over by the USA to aid its
geopolitical S&P 500 agenda. If anyone should be in front of a War crime tribunal, it's not
Lavrov but Obama for 3000 Pakistani people DRONED or Bush & Blair for one million Iraq's in
the name of WMD's, if the 'Report' into it ever sees the light of day. International Diplomacy
is the answer to Ukraine not more WAR....
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:29
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, speaking on Saturday at the Munich Security
Conference, said that the actions of Washington and its allies have undermined the structure
of European security. "The construction of European security, which is based on the UN Charter
and the Helsinki principles, has long been undermined the actions of the US and its allies," -
he said. Russian Foreign Minister also stressed that in any difficult situation, Washington is
trying to accuse Moscow. "In every difficult situation our American colleagues are trying to"
throw a switch" to Russia", - he said. As an example of his words Lavrov led to "revive the
recent talks on a treaty on intermediate- and shorter-range missiles."
According to him, now there is a "culmination" of course conducted by the West to retain
its dominance in the world: "We believe that there is a culmination held during the last
quarter of a century the course of our Western colleagues to maintain any means of its
dominance in world affairs, to capture geopolitical space in Europe."
Regnom 7 Feb 2015 09:21
Putin today:
"Moscow is not satisfied with the attempts to restrain the development of Russia and
to preserve the unipolar world.
"War, thank God, is not happens. But there are really an attempt to keep our
development by a variety of means, there are an attempt to "freeze" the world order
led by one undisputed leader, who wants to stay as such. To stay in the belief that he
can do all, while others can be something that only permuted by him and only in his best
interest, "- said the head of state.
"Such a world order will never satisfied Russia," - he added. "If someone likes it,
wants to live in the condition of half occupation -- but we will not do this. At the
same time, we are not going to war with anyone and we are going to work with everyone"-
said Putin.
snowdogchampion -> snowdogchampion 7 Feb 2015 09:08
of course it is a mafia state no different than the US...but you guys are the ones
screaming your titties off about wonderful Yats is , you put the pusillanimous bastard in
power...
centerline Tepluken 7 Feb 2015 23:14
international isolation
Explain international. I know the US believes it is the centre of the universe but the
majority of people on earth do not agree. (I guess I should explain to a dumb as dogshit yank)
A majority is over 50%.
centerline hdc hadeze 7 Feb 2015 23:10
Schwarzenegger and Stallone are pretty tough blokes too. I see those flowers were fund
raising for the hard done by Israel so the could blast a few more UN schools.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 23:07
The Russians should connect via land to Crimea, push 100km past THAT, and THEN have a
buffer zone. That would allow a end to this. Anything less and the CIA will just ramp up
Ukrainian arms for a year or two until they have the means to attack again.
Ukraine and it's quasi-fascist nationalists cannot be trusted, emboldened by American
money, they REALLY cannot be trusted. I say that as a patriotic American.
Friend4you 7 Feb 2015 23:04
I agree with you John Smith , this war criminal John McCain is like Dracula , he lives on
blood , this sick man used to travel to Egypt and meet the Muslim Brotherhood , supply them
with money to destabilize Egypt . Wherever there are troubles you will find this blood thirsty
man.
MaxBoson Laurence Johnson 7 Feb 2015 23:01
Motivated by your post, I checked the Web and found a Wiki piece on the Minsk Agreement.
According a map there, the airport is smack dab on the red line designated as the "insurgent
line of control". Since the Ukrainian forces were supposed to remain outside a 15km buffer
zone, the question is why their attacks on the airport went unreported in Western media. This
is a really bizarre situation; comments are now a better source of information the article
being commented on.
John Smith 7 Feb 2015 22:56
I've had endless support pounding the New York Times every time it runs another lying
anti-Putin, anti-Russia op-ed. We have the usual large block of idiot American Neocons who
simply rise to any bait to throw hate at the supposed badguy Russian leader. But we also have
endless numbers of smart people who watched this mess go down, and know better than to join
the Neocon dopes in a let's-arm-Ukraine hatefest.
If one guy is the King of Neocon Idiots it's Sen John McCain. The old war criminal is a one
man disaster on foreign policy. Thank the mythical Christ the asshole was defeated by the
idiot Obama.
centerline Outfit17 7 Feb 2015 22:56
Democracy is good if it votes for the US. IF the majority vote against the US then that is
dictatorship. (democracy is defined as pro US voting)
Those who are responsible for soaking Donbass in blood will not stop. They need to be stopped by
force. Ukrainian citizens have become either consumable or brainwashed. And for Western Ukrainians,
the core supported of Yatsenyuk & Poroshenko clan (forme junta that now is integrated into Porosheko
government) the war is far from their territory. People are dying there in Debaltsevo and Uglegorsk,
Donetsk and Luhansk, while the military and mercenaries are trying to prove their side of the story
through shelling of infrastructure and killing citizens. Donbass meetings and referendums were a
result EuroMaidan, and emergence of separatst are direct result of absurd actions of the new
Ukrainian government, which turn their county into a death factory for the sake of enforcing on the
country Western Ukranian brand of nationalism. Those who are living in peace and whose relatives are
protected from conscption are demanding the continuation of the war the most loudly. They nurture
and inspire her, feeding infernal demons. They created a diabolical request to victims. and they got
them: woman, children, eldery, like in any civil war. But they now infected with their bloodthirsty
bacillus and can't stop. So people like Yatsenyuk and Turchinov need to be stopped first, removed
from this current position and sent to the Hague court before we can talk about peace. And let's
don;t forget that the blood of victims of Odessa massacre in also on them. We are talking about
repetion of civil war in Spain here with their 200 thousand victims. Looks like Europeans learned
nothing from two world war and as soon the the generation the fought the war is in graved a new war
is immediately started.
Notable quotes:
"... Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them. ..."
Laurence Johnson -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 15:51
There are two proxies in the West. Poroshenko is clearly the EU"s man in Ukraine, and
Yatsenyuk is very clearly the US's man in Ukraine.
Whatever Merkel and Hollande come up with for a peace plan, you can guarantee that
Yatsenyuk will derail it as soon as possible.
For Yats, only the supply of weapons, and many more billions of handouts and debt
forgiveness will do. In the world for Yats, the war must go on.
hodgeey nino45 6 Feb 2015 15:27
I think most people who write here are compassionate; there are few people who have not
been touched by tragedy and they learn to be both sympathetic and empathetic, but hesitate to
show it.
Having worked with Russians in Russia I can tell you we are not very different.
nino45 ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 15:19
Thank you for your concern, maybe I said it in a wrong way.. my English is not that good. I
wanted to express the feeling our elders here have when watching the news. Many people have
friends and relatives there, so it is very hard on them. I just wanted to say that ordinary
Russian people show compassion in many ways, well not writing comments here in English, but
calling their relatives and sending them packages...
JCDavis -> ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 14:45
If the US has advisors and a CIA office in Kiev they are there by invitation
It's the other way around. The CIA invited the present government -- traitors all -- to
join in their coup.
JCDavis -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:58
You are badly misreading the situation. Ukraine is pawn in a geopolitical struggle for
world empire. It will be sacrificed in an instant if it suits the purposes of any of these
people. Except Yats, the CIA's pick for the coup, a traitor who will be sacrificed in any
case. Who could trust such a person?
Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:48
Let them negogiate peace. Merkel wants peace, Hollande needs peace, Putin desperately is
seeking peace. Poroshenko is reasonable and negogiable. But imbecile Yatzenuk is
non-negogiable. Let us pray that tkhe talks end with peaceful project.
JCDavis -> harryphilby 6 Feb 2015 13:23
The Yanks don't do peace.
This is true. Obama is Cheney's blackmailed puppet, and Cheney was the only neocon in
Bush's criminal administration who actually wanted to fight Russia. He is quite mad, and he is
the most powerful man in the world. Bad combination.
Euphobia1 6 Feb 2015 13:21
One problem is the history of the Ukraine which except for very short periods has always
been part of Russia. Only an accident of fate made Ukraine a country and many of its citizens
feel Russian and still want to be part of Russia.
Russia never invaded the Ukraine because it didn't have to as it was Russia. It would be
like say East Anglia becoming a separate state in UK just because a politician who lived there
thought it might be nice and then finding itself a sovereign state. Khrushchev did this for
the Ukraine when he was the boss. Khrushchev never thought the Soviet Union would break up and
Ukraine become a separate country for only the second time in it's history.
When the Soviet Union collapsed the USA treated it so badly. Instead of embracing it when
it asked to join the EU Russia was rejected and the West has been encroaching on to it's
borders ever since. No wonder Russia is fearful. The USA likes to fight wars in other people's
countries. Good for business.
Russia is big powerful and proud country. Ukraine used to be the major part of it and many
living there may still want to be part of it too. The West should wake up and start seeking
solutions fast. War is not an answer.
Justthefactsman 6 Feb 2015 13:20
Anybody seen pictures that confirm that Russian Federation troops are in the Eastern
Ukraine ?
With todays satellite technology it is almost possible to recognise a packet of cigarettes,
how come we haven't seen any satellite images of these massive troop movements ?
What has happened about the inquiry that is supposed to be investigating the shooting down
of the Malayan airliner? Why is the progress not being reported.?
Shit, it those crafty nasty Russians who are holding up the investigation. How? By asking
to see the whole truth about the situation, and we wouldn't want to embarrass the coup
inheritors in Kiev by revealing the truth, would we ?
TrueCopy -> Eric Hoffmann 6 Feb 2015 13:17
Dude there is no military solution to the mess. The most effective forces on the ground on
the Ukraine regime side are Ukrainian "volunteer" paramilitary forces, who are coming from the
western part of Ukraine, no one is talking giving them weapons, although Poland has been
supporting them for a while. The Ukrainian army isn't going to fight any better no matter what
they get. The best thing US can provide them is satellite intelligence, that is already doing.
Russia isn't directly involved, but even if the invade Ukraine, there is not much we can do,
it is better to just cut a deal and move on.
JCDavis 6 Feb 2015 13:14
So Hollande and Merkel and threatening Putin with early membership of Ukraine in NATO,
completing Obama's new iron curtain earlier rather than later. Thus this stupid ploy will fail
and Congress will throw gas on the fire (boneheads that they are) and Russia will move in with
real troops and take all of southern Ukraine. This seems inevitable. Ukraine's goose was
cooked when Ukrainian traitors conspired with the CIA Only the carving up is not complete.
zchabj6 6 Feb 2015 13:13
It is in the US strategic interest to have a war on Russia's border indefinitely as they
already had a part in in Chechnya and Georgia. Georgia is now part of NATO so it worked quite
well for the US despite the unnecessary loss of life, not that any nation cares anymore it
seems.
It is not in the interest of Russia, Eurozone, EU or any European state .
Hence the Russian organized Minsk peace process and some belated EU help to make it happen
while the US considers prolonging the war through weapons transfers as they have done and
continue in Syria, another Iran/Russia ally.
Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is
aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them.
Those who are responsible for soaking Donbass in blood will not stop. They need to be stopped by
force. Ukrainian citizens have become either consumable or brainwashed. And for Western Ukrainians,
the core supported of Yatsenyuk & Poroshenko clan (forme junta that now is integrated into Porosheko
government) the war is far from their territory. People are dying there in Debaltsevo and Uglegorsk,
Donetsk and Luhansk, while the military and mercenaries are trying to prove their side of the story
through shelling of infrastructure and killing citizens. Donbass meetings and referendums were a
result EuroMaidan, and emergence of separatst are direct result of absurd actions of the new
Ukrainian government, which turn their county into a death factory for the sake of enforcing on the
country Western Ukranian brand of nationalism. Those who are living in peace and whose relatives are
protected from conscption are demanding the continuation of the war the most loudly. They nurture
and inspire her, feeding infernal demons. They created a diabolical request to victims. and they got
them: woman, children, eldery, like in any civil war. But they now infected with their bloodthirsty
bacillus and can't stop. So people like Yatsenyuk and Turchinov need to be stopped first, removed
from this current position and sent to the Hague court before we can talk about peace. And let's
don;t forget that the blood of victims of Odessa massacre in also on them. We are talking about
repetion of civil war in Spain here with their 200 thousand victims. Looks like Europeans learned
nothing from two world war and as soon the the generation the fought the war is in graved a new war
is immediately started.
Notable quotes:
"... Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them. ..."
Laurence Johnson -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 15:51
There are two proxies in the West. Poroshenko is clearly the EU"s man in Ukraine, and
Yatsenyuk is very clearly the US's man in Ukraine.
Whatever Merkel and Hollande come up with for a peace plan, you can guarantee that
Yatsenyuk will derail it as soon as possible.
For Yats, only the supply of weapons, and many more billions of handouts and debt
forgiveness will do. In the world for Yats, the war must go on.
hodgeey nino45 6 Feb 2015 15:27
I think most people who write here are compassionate; there are few people who have not
been touched by tragedy and they learn to be both sympathetic and empathetic, but hesitate to
show it.
Having worked with Russians in Russia I can tell you we are not very different.
nino45 ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 15:19
Thank you for your concern, maybe I said it in a wrong way.. my English is not that good. I
wanted to express the feeling our elders here have when watching the news. Many people have
friends and relatives there, so it is very hard on them. I just wanted to say that ordinary
Russian people show compassion in many ways, well not writing comments here in English, but
calling their relatives and sending them packages...
JCDavis -> ID1439675 6 Feb 2015 14:45
If the US has advisors and a CIA office in Kiev they are there by invitation
It's the other way around. The CIA invited the present government -- traitors all -- to
join in their coup.
JCDavis -> Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:58
You are badly misreading the situation. Ukraine is pawn in a geopolitical struggle for
world empire. It will be sacrificed in an instant if it suits the purposes of any of these
people. Except Yats, the CIA's pick for the coup, a traitor who will be sacrificed in any
case. Who could trust such a person?
Agatha_appears 6 Feb 2015 13:48
Let them negogiate peace. Merkel wants peace, Hollande needs peace, Putin desperately is
seeking peace. Poroshenko is reasonable and negogiable. But imbecile Yatzenuk is
non-negogiable. Let us pray that tkhe talks end with peaceful project.
JCDavis -> harryphilby 6 Feb 2015 13:23
The Yanks don't do peace.
This is true. Obama is Cheney's blackmailed puppet, and Cheney was the only neocon in
Bush's criminal administration who actually wanted to fight Russia. He is quite mad, and he is
the most powerful man in the world. Bad combination.
Euphobia1 6 Feb 2015 13:21
One problem is the history of the Ukraine which except for very short periods has always
been part of Russia. Only an accident of fate made Ukraine a country and many of its citizens
feel Russian and still want to be part of Russia.
Russia never invaded the Ukraine because it didn't have to as it was Russia. It would be
like say East Anglia becoming a separate state in UK just because a politician who lived there
thought it might be nice and then finding itself a sovereign state. Khrushchev did this for
the Ukraine when he was the boss. Khrushchev never thought the Soviet Union would break up and
Ukraine become a separate country for only the second time in it's history.
When the Soviet Union collapsed the USA treated it so badly. Instead of embracing it when
it asked to join the EU Russia was rejected and the West has been encroaching on to it's
borders ever since. No wonder Russia is fearful. The USA likes to fight wars in other people's
countries. Good for business.
Russia is big powerful and proud country. Ukraine used to be the major part of it and many
living there may still want to be part of it too. The West should wake up and start seeking
solutions fast. War is not an answer.
Justthefactsman 6 Feb 2015 13:20
Anybody seen pictures that confirm that Russian Federation troops are in the Eastern
Ukraine ?
With todays satellite technology it is almost possible to recognise a packet of cigarettes,
how come we haven't seen any satellite images of these massive troop movements ?
What has happened about the inquiry that is supposed to be investigating the shooting down
of the Malayan airliner? Why is the progress not being reported.?
Shit, it those crafty nasty Russians who are holding up the investigation. How? By asking
to see the whole truth about the situation, and we wouldn't want to embarrass the coup
inheritors in Kiev by revealing the truth, would we ?
TrueCopy -> Eric Hoffmann 6 Feb 2015 13:17
Dude there is no military solution to the mess. The most effective forces on the ground on
the Ukraine regime side are Ukrainian "volunteer" paramilitary forces, who are coming from the
western part of Ukraine, no one is talking giving them weapons, although Poland has been
supporting them for a while. The Ukrainian army isn't going to fight any better no matter what
they get. The best thing US can provide them is satellite intelligence, that is already doing.
Russia isn't directly involved, but even if the invade Ukraine, there is not much we can do,
it is better to just cut a deal and move on.
JCDavis 6 Feb 2015 13:14
So Hollande and Merkel and threatening Putin with early membership of Ukraine in NATO,
completing Obama's new iron curtain earlier rather than later. Thus this stupid ploy will fail
and Congress will throw gas on the fire (boneheads that they are) and Russia will move in with
real troops and take all of southern Ukraine. This seems inevitable. Ukraine's goose was
cooked when Ukrainian traitors conspired with the CIA Only the carving up is not complete.
zchabj6 6 Feb 2015 13:13
It is in the US strategic interest to have a war on Russia's border indefinitely as they
already had a part in in Chechnya and Georgia. Georgia is now part of NATO so it worked quite
well for the US despite the unnecessary loss of life, not that any nation cares anymore it
seems.
It is not in the interest of Russia, Eurozone, EU or any European state .
Hence the Russian organized Minsk peace process and some belated EU help to make it happen
while the US considers prolonging the war through weapons transfers as they have done and
continue in Syria, another Iran/Russia ally.
Seems the US is not happy at loosing year on year its percentage of global GDP and is
aggressively trying to protect its satrapies or even enlarge them.
"... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
"... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
"... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
"... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
"... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
"... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
"... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
"... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
"... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
"... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
"... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
"... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
"... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
"... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
"... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
"... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
"... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is
Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens,
has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest
income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce
resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and
imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.
You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.
thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15
I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly
horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing
the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,
AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13
The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the
petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.
The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few
years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to
find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.
Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to
expand.
Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong
and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.
Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11
General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding
from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those
billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.
NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09
I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem
incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle
Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the
Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to
that from the Cuban missile crisis.
nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07
The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of
NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still
struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy
was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US
policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the
security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world,
especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has
to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant
policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across
the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and
overall growth of the people of this planet.
desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04
I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also
of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.
Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03
Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is
Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and
Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to
form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or
remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into
their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population
of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.
Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01
laSaya said:
Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian
landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.
Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes,
livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their
places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because
their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?
Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way
forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko
not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.
angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!
Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace
talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to
pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that
cannot be won.
AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??
Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the
investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at
Russia, don't you think they would have used it?
glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50
courtesy of google translate:
Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a
battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a
crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving
the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of
combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without
causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal
actions.
In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their
application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar
actions, while not causing the death of soldier.
If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special
tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person
against whom he may apply such measures
suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38
suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America
He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!
cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36
While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see
them as idiots.
Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an
open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence
in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join
such an adventure.
AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40
CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they
report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.
Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.
Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any
sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement
can be made.
He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.
The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are
large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?
he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic
humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.
If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look
at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended
and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.
He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.
Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and
has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good
business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.
All this was simply because his ego was hurt.
It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash
by now.
If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.
KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57
Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on
Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What
possible benefit is that to you and me?
Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost
billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.
This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In
"Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and
everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the
"government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".
They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning
of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.
roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55
"We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's
territorial integrity."
That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a
similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the
situations analogous?
Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too
high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary
war.
I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked
flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift
their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the
bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on
Ukraine be strike no 3?
Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55
Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the
situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land
in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also
a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied
with Russia.
Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused
by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.
I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could
be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an
astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to
re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt
collector when he comes to your house.
I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a
virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious
problems to deal with.
Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54
Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually
spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their
conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency
reported here;
http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419
Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53
They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not
to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.
BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52
Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the
Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.
In regard to Georgia
The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely
orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.
Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in
Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home
almost overnight.
They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an
attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.
Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued
an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing
them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for
help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all
Georgians today".
During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black
soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and
Augusta.
In regard to the Crimea
The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy
made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in
the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the
Crimea.
Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the
Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine?
When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea
overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.
In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev
The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government,
under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department
Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"
However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as
she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the
existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian
Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against
the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev
using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.
Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.
ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45
"Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over
and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".
"... is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce resources, ..."
"... I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA, ..."
"... The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse. ..."
"... General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway. ..."
"... I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to that from the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
"... The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world, especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and overall growth of the people of this planet. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko not Yatzenyuk. Public votes. ..."
"... Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash?? ..."
"... CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where. ..."
"... The thing Rand missed was the "government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators". ..."
"... They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery. ..."
"... That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the situations analogous? ..."
"... I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. ..."
"... It does however look as if the Hawks want to re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt collector when he comes to your house. ..."
"... I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious problems to deal with. ..."
"... Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home almost overnight. ..."
"... The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government, under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!" ..."
"... Educate yourself please. This information is readily available. ..."
Better than being a russian proxy state, look how advanced America is
Advanced? A nation that can't, or won't, provide adequate healthcare for its own citizens,
has more than 40million living souls dependent on food stamps, that has the greatest
income-disparity on the planet, is the most wasteful abuser of the world's scarce
resources, trades the most weapons in the world, spends the most on war in the world, and
imprisons the highest proportion of its citizens of all the countries in the world.
You could be forgiven for not wanting to buy into all that.
thomas142 -> ID9187603 5 Feb 2015 20:15
I have been to Croatia and Serbia I was in Vukovar a few years ago. It was truly
horrendous. Yugoslavia was destabilized by the US government and that no one can deny. The UN had no chance against heavily armed Serbs and Croats to stop the chaos. US are doing
the same in Ukraine. Well it is not the USA people its the 0.00001% of the USA,
AlienLifeForce Dugan222 5 Feb 2015 20:13
The problem is the US depends on war to keep the USD going just like they need the
petrodollar, without them the USD will be like a drop of water in the desert.
The EU also has a similar problem, they need another country to leech off every few
years to keep the EURO going. The moment countries start to drop out or the EU fails to
find more victims to feed off, the EURO along with the EU will collapse.
Remember Germany relies very much on export, which is why the EU increasing pressure to
expand.
Merkel has not been looking her self recently, what with everything in Greece going wrong
and now Ukraine has gone to plan, things don't look too good for the USD and the EURO.
Caroline Louise Generalken 5 Feb 2015 20:11
General - the BBC is state-funded. Do you refuse to believe a word it says? But why is funding from a state less likely to produce balanced journalism than funding
from the five or six billionaires who own almost all the world's media? Especially when those
billionaires effectively control the state apparatus anyway.
NigelRG 5 Feb 2015 20:09
I'm not condoning Russia's recent actions, but the American people and politicians seem
incapable of "walking a mile in the other man's shoes". The USA has attempted to encircle
Russia with armed NATO members - what do you think our reaction would be if Mexico and the
Caribbean contained hostile troops and missiles aimed at us? I think we know the answer to
that from the Cuban missile crisis.
nadodi 5 Feb 2015 20:07
The fundamental question Is, what brought Ukraine into this mess? It is the expansion of
NATO to the backyards of Russia. It happened at a time when Russia was weak and was still
struggling to recover from the collapse of the Soviet system upon which their life and economy
was built. And what was the goal of the US to expand NATO to the doorsteps of Russia? The US
policy of domination of the world. It is this policy that poses the greatest danger to the
security of the world since the fall of the bipolar world in the early 90s. The world,
especially the Europe is facing a critical choice at this point of time in history. Europe has
to set itself free of the US bondage or stay a mute spectator to the aggressive and intolerant
policies of the conservative hard liners in the US, that would multiply the conflicts across
the globe. Today, these hard liners in the US pose the greatest threat to the stability and
overall growth of the people of this planet.
desconocido Dick Harrison 5 Feb 2015 20:04
I think it's a question of first or second language and also of cultural identity. And also
of course noticing that you are being shafted by west ukrainian nazis.
Davo3333 laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:03
Because the land they are living on has been Russian land for centuries. So Crimea is
Russian and should never have been part of Ukraine at all after the Soviet Union split up and
Eastern and Southern Ukraine are also Russian but the first step for those regions would be to
form new independent countries which could then decide whether they wished to rejoin Russia or
remain independent. The Ukrainians live in West Ukraine and it is them who should move into
their own areas and leave Eastern and Southern Ukraine alone. And another thing the population
of Russia has been increasing in the last few years , not decreasing as you have stated.
Soul_Side laSaya 5 Feb 2015 20:01
laSaya said:
Why don't those Russian speaker just hop in a bus and journey to Russia. The Russian
landmass is big enough to take those Russia lovers in.
Let me understand this point of view exactly, you think they should leave their homes,
livelihoods, their aged, disabled and infirm relatives too weak to travel, their land, their
places of birth, their local culture and local identity and just move somewhere else because
their neighbour seeks to dominate them? Would you?
Ethnic cleansing, though always popular with ultra-nationalists, is not the only way
forward. Let the people decide. Not Kerry, not Merkel, not Putin, not Hollande, not Poroshenko
not Yatzenyuk. Public votes.
angdavies 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Ahhh.. I love the smell of proxy war in the morning!
Just let Putin save some face. Any Ukrainian who loves her country should back any peace
talks up to the hilt, otherwise there'll be no Ukraine worth living in if the US starts to
pump in the weapons. That will kick-off full scale Russian nationalist jihadism - a war that
cannot be won.
AlienLifeForce -> Seriatim 5 Feb 2015 19:56
Absolutely. And when are we going to here the truth about that damn plane crash??
Strange you should ask, when I last looked, the US had decided that the findings of the
investigation should remain classified. If there was any evidence to point the finger at
Russia, don't you think they would have used it?
glit00 -> senya 5 Feb 2015 19:50
courtesy of google translate:
Commander (Chief) under the extraordinary period, including a state of martial law or a
battle, in order to arrest a soldier who commits an act that falls within the elements of a
crime related to disobedience, resistance or threats boss, violence, unauthorized leaving
the fighting positions and designated areas of deployment units (units) in the areas of
combat missions, shall have the right to apply measures of physical restraint without
causing damage to the health of military and special funds sufficient to stop illegal
actions.
In a battle commander (chief) can use weapons or give orders to subordinates of their
application, unless otherwise impossible to stop the unauthorized retreat or other similar
actions, while not causing the death of soldier.
If circumstances permit, the commander (chief) before use of physical effects, special
tools or weapons should give voice warning, shot up or by other means notify the person
against whom he may apply such measures
suzi 5 Feb 2015 19:38
suspicions that Putin is seeking to split Europe and America
He need hardly bother when the US itself is doing such a good job in that direction!
cycokan -> thomas142 5 Feb 2015 19:36
While I agree, that US foreign policy is often very, let's say, adventurous, I do not see
them as idiots.
Trying to force Germany or France and most, if not all other European countries into an
open war with Russia would be the end of NATO and the end of any American sphere of influence
in Europe, because, I can assure you, at least the German populace would simply never join
such an adventure.
AlienLifeForce Haynonnynonny 5 Feb 2015 19:40
CNN is a joke, it should be called "CORRUPTED NEWS NETWORK". The sort of trash they
report is what feeds all the Obama Drones, after all, they need their fuel from some where.
Putin thinks that by making Merkel and Hollande come to him, he is the greater man.
Putin did not make them come to him, Merkel and Hollande are going because if they have any
sense, they will try and repair relations between Europe and Russia as well when an agreement
can be made.
He has basically created this war because the people of Ukraine dared to reject him.
The US created the problems in Ukraine and if the people of Ukraine rejected Putin, why are
large numbers of them heading towards the Russian boarder?
he has disregarded everything from international law, human rights, human lives, basic
humanity including been the source to numerous war crimes and crimes towards humanity.
If anything this fits the description of the US more then Russia, especially when we look
at the last 20 - 30 years. Russia has done everything that was agreed when the cold war ended
and has since established good working relations world wide with out wars and conflicts.
He claims it was because Russia was threatened and needed protection. But Russia wasn't.
Again, Russia kept to the agreements made after the cold war ended, the US never did and
has continued to move NATO ever closer to the Russian boarders. How does this represent good
business relations from the west and why should Russia accept this to begin with.
All this was simply because his ego was hurt.
It is just as well Putin is not the sort of person you describe, because we would all be ash
by now.
If anything is "poor", its you with your lack of understanding and ignorance.
KauaiJohnnie sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:57
Of course if Putin did nothing there wouldn't be a conflict. But NATO was pushing on
Russia's borders in violation of the agreements made with Gorbachev 30 years ago. What
possible benefit is that to you and me?
Likewise, the deployment of Star Wars, which hasn't been shown to work but has cost
billions (and billions) in Europe is hardly for protection against Iranian missiles.
This is just to demonstrate the strength of the USA military. And for what purpose? In
"Atlas Shrugged" why did the government want to build a bigger bomb? To threaten anyone and
everyone who wouldn't bow to the government wishes. The thing Rand missed was the
"government" is run by the same 1% that she praises as the "job creators".
They are playing the same "game" that sociopathic kings have played since the beginning
of time. Why the "rest of us" allow ourselves to be governed by sociopaths remains a mystery.
roundthings 5 Feb 2015 13:55
"We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine's
territorial integrity."
That would be heading 180 degrees in the wrong direction. What if Russia had taken a
similar stand over the 'territorial integrity of Serbia' during the Kosovo affair? Aren't the
situations analogous?
Sure, Putin has been out of order. He deserves a smack. But the price of doing so is too
high. These politician boneheads are dragging us into a war - a stupid war, an unnecessary
war.
I'm more and more disappointed with Merkel. Her first strike was the panicked
flight out of nuclear. No 2 was not recognizing that, yes the Greeks need to be made to lift
their game, maybe take on a few of Schaeuble's tax collectors; but mindless squeezing of the
bloke on the Athenian street is in no-one's interest. Could her failure to see sense on
Ukraine be strike no 3?
Joe Bloggs 5 Feb 2015 13:55
Phew! I just like to say Not In My Name as it looks to me as if Hawks are milking the
situation for all it is worth so that they can have a go at Russia. As far as I know the land
in dispute is populated by Russian speakers who make up 95% of the population. There was also
a referendum which had a landslide result showing that almost everyone wanted to be allied
with Russia.
Of course the Hawks claimed that the result was invalid! IMHO it is really a problem caused
by boundary disputes that came about when the USSR ceased to exist.
I propose the same solution that was used by the British Raj in India in 1947, what could
be simpler? As to Russia compensating the Ukraine, allegedly Ukraine owes Russia an
astronomical amount in unpaid gas bills. It does however look as if the Hawks want to
re-arm Ukraine so that they don't have to pay! This is on a par with shooting the debt
collector when he comes to your house.
I am sorry to say that the antics of western politicians are starting to resemble a
virility contest and I would like this to cease forthwith as there are other far more serious
problems to deal with.
Spaceguy1 -> One sasha19 5 Feb 2015 13:54
Naah, Zerohedge is predominantly a financial blog. Plenty of their articles are actually
spot on. I use Zerohedge just as another source of information filtering out some of their
conspiracies. Besides the article in Zerohedge just copied what the Russian news agency
reported here;
http://tass.ru/en/russia/775419
Canajin -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:53
They should also return Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Samoa, and Hawaii to their people. Not
to mention Guam, Marianas, etc.
BradBenson -> Gene428 5 Feb 2015 13:52
Where do you get your information? We are the ones who have been constantly kicking the
Russian Bear in the ass. Here are the facts.
In regard to Georgia
The Georgian Invasion of the neutral provinces of Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely
orchestrated by the Bushies, while Putin was attending the previous Olympic Games in China.
Georgia had announced their withdrawal from the 'Coalition of the Billing' in
Afghanistan and the Bushies conveniently airlifted their entire combat contingent back home
almost overnight.
They were then immediately deployed to attack the neutral provinces. The whole thing was an
attempt to seize key Russian controlled oil pipelines from the Caucasus to the Black Sea.
Then, as now, Putin was forced to react to aggression on his borders. He flew home, issued
an ultimatum and then sent in the Russian Army to clean out the Georgian Invaders, chasing
them all the way back to Tbilisi until their CIA installed President begged the world for
help. Not surprisingly, none came, but John McCain was able to proudly proclaim, "We are all
Georgians today".
During the after battle clean-up, it was reported that there were a number of black
soldiers among the dead Georgians. Those Georgians were most likely from Atlanta, Resaca and
Augusta.
In regard to the Crimea
The presence of Russian ground forces and the only warm water ports for the Russian Navy
made the Crimea a de facto Russian Territory. When the illegal coup d'état was pulled off in
the Maidan, Putin and the Russian Military secured their bases on the Black Sea and in the
Crimea.
Why should the neo-Nazis in Kiev, or their CIA backed puppet-masters have thought that the
Russians would allow this territory to be illegally seized as was the rest of the Ukraine?
When coup d'état's occur, borders can change unexpectedly. The people of the Crimea
overwhelmingly support the presence of the Russians.
In regard to the coup d'état in Kiev
The US worked to stir up trouble for the democratically elected Ukrainian Government,
under Yushchenko, despite the wishes of its EU Partners. At the time, US State Department
Neo-Con Victoria Nuland was notoriously quoted as saying "F*ck the EU!"
However, during the rest of that famous 4 minute telephone call, Ms. Nuland was recorded as
she outlined who the US wanted in the new Ukrainian Government--the one that would replace the
existing government after it was overthrown. This happened despite the fact that Ukrainian
Elections for a new President were already scheduled roughly two months hence. Then, against
the wishes of its reluctant EU Partners, the US stage-managed the illegal coup d'état in Kiev
using neo-Nazis as their vanguard in the streets.
Educate yourself please. This information is readily available.
ID5868758 -> ID8787761 5 Feb 2015 13:45
"Russia invaded Georgia." A perfect example of a western lie, that has been repeated over
and over again, so many times that the lie has become the "truth".
Note the headline " Donetsk hit by shells as violence intensifies in Ukraine". No one is responsible for shelling. It was just hit.
Compare this with headlines about supposed "separatists" shellings.
At least three people were killed in a series of shellings in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on Wednesday that pro-Russian
separatists said were Uragan missiles fired by Ukrainian forces. Earlier, the Ukrainian military said two of its soldiers had been
killed and 18 wounded in fighting against pro-Russian separatists in the previous 24 hours
AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29
Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his
own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian
Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian
civil war is being waged.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are
fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been
participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups,"
meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual
citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says,
emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian
army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions
against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against
Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the
Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore
incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels,
restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news
reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public
officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.
If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire
career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false,
then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.
While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be
another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump
into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia
coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news
for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.
Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended
consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??
And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?
Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?
Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to
pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..
greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14
the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists
targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov
battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.
poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The
real civil war has yet to start.
PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13
i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a
spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further
bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians
I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and
miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.
EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12
I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is
intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and
do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a
decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.
Note the headline " Donetsk hit by shells as violence intensifies in Ukraine". No one is responsible for shelling. It was just hit.
Compare this with headlines about supposed "separatists" shellings.
At least three people were killed in a series of shellings in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk on Wednesday that pro-Russian
separatists said were Uragan missiles fired by Ukrainian forces. Earlier, the Ukrainian military said two of its soldiers had been
killed and 18 wounded in fighting against pro-Russian separatists in the previous 24 hours
AlienLifeForce -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 22:29
Ukrainian Government: "No Russian Troops Are Fighting Against Us"
Posted on January 30, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
Ukraine's top general is contradicting allegations by the Obama Administration and by his
own Ukrainian Government, by saying that no Russian troops are fighting against the Ukrainian
Government's forces in the formerly Ukrainian, but now separatist, area, where the Ukrainian
civil war is being waged.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens (and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are
fighting there, inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been
participating on the Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups,"
meaning fighters who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual
citizens" (as opposed to foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says,
emphatically, that the "Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian
army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's sanctions
against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the sanctions against
Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the regular units of the
Russian army" - i.e., against the Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is therefore
incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available channels,
restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and the news
reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted, as public
officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
Otherwise, Ukraine's top general should be fired, for asserting what he has just asserted.
If what General Muzhenko says is true, then he is a hero for having risked his entire
career by having gone public with this courageous statement. And, if what he says is false,
then he has no place heading Ukraine's military.
While there is no doubt about covert US military aid already going to Ukraine it'll be
another foolhardy step for Mr. Obama, or for the Republicans now in control, to overtly jump
into the Ukrainian mess. One 'unintended consequence' of raising such stakes would be Russia
coming out openly in support of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, which will be extremely bad news
for Israel and the US Jewish American lobby.
Did somebody say that Obama and the Republicans are regretting the 'unintended
consequences' in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya, in Syria, in Yemen ??
And they now want to open another front in Ukraine?
Where will the money for this yet another foolhardy endeavor come from ?
Ah, No..I forgot the news that Mr. Obama is setting up a brand new dollar printing press to
pay for his Ukraine adventure to-be..
greatwhitehunter -> EugeneGur 3 Feb 2015 21:14
the beating kiev took proir to the ceasefire was requested by poroshenko. The separatists
targeted the azov battalion . poroshenko new he couldnt have a ceasefire until the asov
battalion was taken down a peg or two. kiev is not a united force.
poroshenko is more likely to side with the east than the far right in the long term. The
real civil war has yet to start.
PeraIlic -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 20:13
i want russia to take their soldiers and weapons back from ukraine and stop invading a
spovreign country quite simple. then war will be over meanwhile you advocate further
bloodshed all the time with no regard for ukrainians
I think it's better Poroshenko to return his army to the west, where they came from, and
miners from Donbas that he left alone to dig coal as before.
EugeneGur -> Robert Looren de Jong 3 Feb 2015 19:12
I hope Russia did equip them enough to kick the Ukrs out of Donbass for good. It is
intolerable to watch day after day as unarmed people are deliberately targeted and killed and
do nothing. Finally, the Russian government came to its senses realizing that without a
decisive military victory by the Donbass fighters there won't be any peace in Ukraine.
So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand
Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that
reminds me Spanish civil war.
Notable quotes:
"... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of
state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on
Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48
The situation is far more complex than that.
it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked
Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.
IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48
Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing
cities killing civilians and destroying property.
What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58
Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn
their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to
explain with all those drones they have?
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29
There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very
interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there
has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government
was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web,
like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and
like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What
has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the
Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other
reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens
(and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there,
inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the
Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters
who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to
foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the
"Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's
sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the
sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the
regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the
Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is
therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available
channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and
the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted,
as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
AlienLifeForce
Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to
get Russia involved in conflict but failed.
"democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"
What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.
Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19
The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders
in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the
regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the
third, forth ones.
So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across
Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others
countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until
Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the
command of the Big 6.
LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57
"
The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
How long will it take you?
GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46
I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on
the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk
and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence,
violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked
to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less
than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has
restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East
Ukraine will be forever thankful.
So after killing several hundred thousand Iraqis the USA want to kill several hundred thousand
Ukrainians to further imperial ambitions of neocon elite... Now we have the situation that that
reminds me Spanish civil war.
Notable quotes:
"... it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in Ukraine. ..."
The recent upsurge in violence has alarmed Ukraine's western allies, with US secretary of
state John Kerry announcing plans to express his support for the nation during talks in Kiev on
Thursday with Poroshenko and prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.
fedupwiththeliesalso -> maninBATHTUB 2 Feb 2015 05:48
The situation is far more complex than that.
it would take far more than these two and a few russians to instigate a civil war in
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian government were never attacked by anyone in the east or russia. But it attacked
Easterners. To say this is a Russians instigated situation is untrue.
IvanMills 1 Feb 2015 22:48
Kiev launched a civil war against its citizens in the east. Kiev's military is bombing
cities killing civilians and destroying property.
What do the US and the EU have to do with another country's internal conflict.
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:58
Yes, its rediculous that thousands of civilians have been killed while the EU & US turn
their backs and blame Russia for an invasion they cant even prove. Must be hard for the US to
explain with all those drones they have?
AlienLifeForce Oskar Jaeger 1 Feb 2015 19:29
There is no doubt that the events that have taken place in Ukraine have been very
interesting, and like I have pointed out before, I have always been curious as to why there
has not been any real news coverage on the ground from the western media since the government
was overthrown. Because of this you end up looking for further information through the web,
like most sensible people do. I can honestly say I have followed this story from the start and
like I said, when you have interest in something, you want to know everything about it. What
has surprised me the most, is that I have not been able to find any evidence to support the
Russian invasion. Instaed I have found out about Tech Camp, Black Water and all the other
reasons you can think of that support the interest of the EU & US, very interesting.
The Chief of Staff of Ukraine's Armed Forces, General Viktor Muzhenko, is saying, in that
news-report, which is dated on Thursday January 29th, that the only Russian citizens who are
fighting in the contested region, are residents in that region, or of Ukraine, and also some
Russian citizens
(and this does not deny that perhaps some of other countries' citizens are fighting there,
inasmuch as American mercenaries have already been noted to have been participating on the
Ukrainian Government's side), who "are members of illegal armed groups," meaning fighters
who are not paid by any government, but instead are just "individual citizens" (as opposed to
foreign-government-paid ones). General Muzhenko also says, emphatically, that the
"Ukrainian army is not fighting with the regular units of the Russian army."
In other words: He is explicitly and clearly denying the very basis for the EU's
sanctions against Russia, and for the U.S.'s sanctions against Russia: all of the
sanctions against Russia are based on the falsehood that Ukraine is fighting against "the
regular units of the Russian army" - i.e., against the
Russian-Government-controlled-and-trained fighting forces.
The allegation to the effect that Ukraine is instead fighting against "regular units of the
Russian army" is the allegation that Vladimir Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine, and it is
the entire basis for the economic sanctions that are in force against Russia.
Those sanctions should therefore be immediately removed, with apology, and with
compensation being paid to all individuals who have been suffering them; and it is
therefore incumbent upon the Russian Government to pursue, through all legally available
channels, restitution, plus damages, against the perpetrators of that dangerous fraud - and
the news reports have already made clear precisely whom those persons are, who have asserted,
as public officials, what can only be considered to be major libel.
AlienLifeForce
Ukranian general admitted junta targeted purposely civilians and perfirmed genocide just to
get Russia involved in conflict but failed.
"democracy, justice, freedom of speech, increased happiness, health, prosperity"
What does America know of any of those things? They only apply if you can afford it.
Joao Silva 1 Feb 2015 17:19
The result that came out the ballots in Greece are a signal to the other opposition leaders
in Europe. A unanimous decision to sanction Russia over Ukraine turned out to change the
regime in Greece. Unanimous is stupidity. Spain is going to be the next. I have no bets on the
third, forth ones.
So it seems that to confront EU's hardness on Russia can change the mind of voters across
Europe. after all, it is only a USA/UK/France/Germany/Poland, Ukraine(Big 6) war. The others
countries will get nothing but losses on their fragile economies. But they had been, until
Greece's voters changed it, being like sheep heading to the slaughterhouse following the
command of the Big 6.
LinkMeyer maninBATHTUB 1 Feb 2015 15:57
"
The best weapon against a psychopath is to let them destroy themselves."
How long will it take you?
GardenShedFever Metronome151 1 Feb 2015 15:46
I have read this unsupported accusation against Russia many times, yet when the facts on
the ground are ascertained, it is Kiev that sent its tanks against its own people in Donetsk
and Luhansk. Those East Ukrainians, as Crimeans before them, rejected Kiev's violence,
violence fomented in Lviv, Kiev, and further afield, Brussels and Washington. They have looked
to Russia for help once the shells began to rain down on them. Russia's response has been less
than requested, but has halted at least some of Kiev's murderous rampage. At the least, it has
restricted Kiev's air support for its mercenerary brigades. For that, the people of East
Ukraine will be forever thankful.
It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From
comments:
"The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting
from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from
the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when
reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government'
as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
and
"Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research
it helps with facts"
Notable quotes:
"... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
"... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
"... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
"... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or
historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening
in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian
(and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's
disinformation handouts" ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Selected Skeptical Comments
vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he
realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure
from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be
talking about truce.
This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.
edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?
What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to
do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?
What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate
a civil war in Europe!
scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28
I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like
they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is
committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any
large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate
another country's borders, officially.
Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's
affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely
interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot
more convincing ten years ago than they do today.
ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28
The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased
reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the
propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for
example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the
Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current
or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a
journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is
happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for
The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and
Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07
Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single
American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the
lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind
when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is
greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become
a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.
Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill
each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build
the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev
Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.
BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are
reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to
make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.
GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06
I'm English, but I think you are American.
And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced
weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's
merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02
Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of
Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused,
assaulted, and disappeared.
There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup
that toppled Yanukovych.
HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00
Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The
shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57
Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine,
there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in
Kiev, nor do they want to.
Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US
geopolitical machinations.
When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what
was the US response?
"Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.
MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56
Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of
research it helps with facts
Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54
This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51
German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan
for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary
Victoria Nuland.
Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!
MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45
Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and
Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too
powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!
MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42
Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right,
I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.
Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41
The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the
fascists. All you need to know, everyone.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40
Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan
of democratic transional government.
Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on
Ukraine.
Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.
Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.
Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34
Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st
World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for
sure!
Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44
Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you
HAVE.
HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32
How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the
Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?
Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free"
article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes
only guns can stop guns",
It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they
cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big
money.
During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen
royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of
Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish
independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.
He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.
By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting
us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The
Willing?
As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":
"The men who build the planes and make the tanks
Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."
Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30
Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war
indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)
GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs"
from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons
are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they
expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however,
was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and
East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by
Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection
of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No
matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in
Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets,
and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for
declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is
irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.
And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at
last. The warmongers have their war.
Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they
organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are
working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help
bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe
is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more
insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?
AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08
So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine
it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession
If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co
Persona non grata -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for
crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they
want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements
form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting
nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
Notable quotes:
"... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries
of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting
the buffers.
Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....
This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO
funds.
Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54
Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete
confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that
they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)
Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53
"We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information
and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than
the BBC."
I couldn't stop laughing!
Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine
tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better,
Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the
best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes,
the need to confront Russia at all cost.
Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi
batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very
beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they
said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What
is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?
The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very
easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative
media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their
readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the
truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind
of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments,
very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again
this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the
least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!
Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their
statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are
trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is
gaining the field? All three?
halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52
And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail,
cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and
agents of influence in EU capitals"?
Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is
down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.
micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52
Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the
Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of
the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like
Guernica.
whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48
Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering
power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but
that of the US president himself.
So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?
RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46
Putin must be stopped.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.
Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be
stopped!!?
'' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months
from their general election.
Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of,
Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo
Nazis; thugs.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things
across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts
every monning.
But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate
corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon,
bite the bastards on the arse.
These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down
in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.
Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the
Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.
If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had
not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now.
This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.
And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.
We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO.
So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country
without a mandate from our Parliament?
herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44
The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government
that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed
this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.
In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the
eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.
There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the
mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen
with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.
The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and
BMWs.
Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44
As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already
died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we
forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that
weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.
When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their
throats - especially American 'democracy'.
rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43
"Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to
Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is
effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in
the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in
tears.
NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41
"German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been
right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth
going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."
Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed
any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after
all.
The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got
reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was
torn to shreds with that.
It does not make much sense to read or quote that article: a typical propaganda peace... From
comments:
"The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased reporting
from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the propaganda from
the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for example, when
reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the Kiev 'government'
as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
and
"Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US foreign office. Do a bit of research
it helps with facts"
Notable quotes:
"... Doesn't he realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure from the rebels. ..."
"... Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once? ..."
"... Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US geopolitical machinations. ..."
"... I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either. ..."
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current or
historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is happening
in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for The Guardian
(and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and Downing Street's
disinformation handouts" ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Selected Skeptical Comments
vr13vr 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Looks like Obama's goal is to maintain the conflict there indefinitely. Doesn't he
realize that the only time when Poroshenko talks about cease fire is when he is under pressure
from the rebels. If you give him more weapons, and if you embolden him, he will not be
talking about truce.
This conflict will just go on, and that's what Obama seems to prefer.
edwardrice peacefulmilitant 1 Feb 2015 22:29
Putin has ''pushed'' Obama? Couldn't Obama mind his own business for once?
What has a deeply corrupt bankrupt dysfunctional country 1000s of miles from the US got to
do with the Obama? Why should the US tax payer fund another foreign war?
What right does the US have to trample over the heads of 500 million Europeans and escalate
a civil war in Europe!
scruffythejanitor 1 Feb 2015 22:28
I really don't see much American enthusiasm to be involved in Ukraine- it seems more like
they can't extricate themselves from it. Nations seem to behave like nations. The US is
committed to supporting Europe and condemning russian aggression in annexing Ukraine, as any
large country would when one country violates another's sovereignty. You don't get to violate
another country's borders, officially.
Russia persistently cries foul whenever the US publicly interferes with another nation's
affairs, such as in Iraq, the presumption being that each country does not clandestinely
interfere in it's own way. The crocodile tears over US violations of sovereignty looked a lot
more convincing ten years ago than they do today.
ID1011951 1 Feb 2015 22:28
The Guardian, not alone among the western MSM, that has been incredibly biased in reporting
on what is happening in Ukraine. It would be reasonable to expect less blatantly biased
reporting from The Guardian, and it amazes me that day after day it faithfully repeats the
propaganda from the US etal as though it is fact-based news ... in many cases, especially, for
example, when reporting on the shelling of towns (e.g. Mariupol) it reports shelling by the
Kiev 'government' as being shelling by the Novorussians - why do this?
TG Asch, everybody's closet neoliberal and neocon, blah-piece today is simply warmongering
dressed-up as journalism - equating Putin to Milosevic simply illustrates his lack of current
or historical knowledge and understanding. Asch was and is in fact a propagandist, not a
journalist.
There is a wealth of much more accurate and nuanced information on what has and is
happening in the Ukraine available in the public domain. It seems that the people working for
The Guardian (and the BBC) are choosing to ignore this and stick to the White House's and
Downing Street's disinformation handouts ...
For The Guardian to be posting pieces advocating more war - as Asch does - is simply
irresponsible in the current circumstances, especially when it is impossible to find any
alternate views being given any space at all - not equal space, any space - by The Guardian.
Balance, Fairness, Judgment, Independence - these all seem to have gone out the window when it
comes to the Ukraine and The Guardian has placed itself on the side of the warmongers.
Why is the Guardian doing this?
Dugan222 1 Feb 2015 22:07
Great....my disgust is beyond words. In all the peace talks, there were not a single
American representative present. When comes to arming Ukraine, America is already taking the
lead and making unilateral decisions even without the EU consent. Yeah, leading from behind
when comes to peace. Taking a leadership role when comes to starting a war. America is
greatest. I guess Russia will do the same openly and officially. Ukrainian crisis will become
a proxy war for the West to bring back the Cold War.
Both the Russian backed separatists and American backed Ukrainians will murder and kill
each others...until a demarcation line is drawn somewhere in Kiev. Wondering who would build
the Kiev Wall first. The East, the Russian side, or the West, American side?? Ha...the Kiev
Wall.... Is not America's problem since the conflict is thousands of miles away.
BTW, Ukraine has been received arms through various Nato members already. And there are
reports of US mercenaries on the ground as well. Obviously, the Obama administration wants to
make it official. For Putin, he does not really need to make it official though.
GardenShedFever -> David Dalton Lytle Jr. 1 Feb 2015 22:06
I'm English, but I think you are American.
And film of weapons caches captured from the cyborgs that include brand new, advanced
weapons not issued to the Ukraine military (but, of course, the cyborgs are Kolomoisky's
merceneries, supported by McCain et al) demonstrates the US finger in the Kiev pie.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:02
Poroshenko was "elected" on the lowest turnout in Ukraine's history, with vast swathes of
Ukraine boycotting the election, opposition parties banned, opposition politicians abused,
assaulted, and disappeared.
There is no democracy in Ukraine. Its sovereignty disappeared with the US sponsored coup
that toppled Yanukovych.
HollyOldDog HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 22:00
Since when? The West Ukraine army never put into practice the last MINSK Agreement. The
shelling on East Ukraine never stopped.
GardenShedFever HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:57
Good enough to know that, with a boycott of elections in the south and east of Ukraine,
there is not even a semblance of democracy there, as the people are neither represented in
Kiev, nor do they want to.
Ukraine is a failed state. It has ceased to exist as anything but the frontline for US
geopolitical machinations.
When the EU made a last ditch agreement with Yanukovych, to introduce early elections, what
was the US response?
"Fuck the EU" said Victoria Nuland. That tells you all you need to know.
MediaWatchDog ID6674371 1 Feb 2015 21:56
Typical propaganda comment. In your opinion peace will not be reach until Russia bends over
to Uncle Sam and say yes sir no sir three bags full sir? I don't think it's in their nature.
Whole world knows current PM of Ukraine is appointed by US forigen office. Do a bit of
research it helps with facts
Parangaricurimicuaro 1 Feb 2015 21:54
This new development only shows how badly Kiev is losing.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:51
German Chancellor Angela Markels mobile phone is/was tapped by US president and her plan
for peaceful and democratic settlement of Ukraine was fu**ed by US forigen deputy secretary
Victoria Nuland.
Now CIA is in full command arming extremists, again!
MediaWatchDog -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:45
Scotland style referendum? Scaremongering and ganging up on voters by big businesses and
Westminster politicians? F that it will hard to keep Victoria Nuland types out, CIA is way too
powerful than Westminster. Why not have a proper referendum, not like Crimea or Scotland!
MediaWatchDog -> randomguyfromoz 1 Feb 2015 21:42
Ethic Russians don't want to be part of Russia in your opinion? You are probably right,
I am sure they don't want to be enslaved to the CIA either.
Zwoman48 1 Feb 2015 21:41
The U.S. instigated and supported the coup in Ukraine and is thinking of arming the
fascists. All you need to know, everyone.
MediaWatchDog 1 Feb 2015 21:40
Fact 1. Victoria Nuland topple old regime and appointed Yats as nations PM, fuc**d EU plan
of democratic transional government.
Fact 2. Since then head of CIA and other top level US officials have actively involved on
Ukraine.
Fact 3. Now they are considering providing weapons.
Thanks to the US Empire for successfully opening up new cold war at European borders.
Hoon -> Ai Ooi 1 Feb 2015 21:34
Someone has to pay for this. The UK had just finish paying USA for their debts from the 1st
World War! What about the 2nd? And now Ukrain! & Middle East. This will bankrupt the EU for
sure!
Zwoman48 HHeLiBe 1 Feb 2015 21:44
Bollocks! That's the absolute lie the western media wants you to swallow. Oh. I see you
HAVE.
HHeLiBe -> Kavi Mazumdar 1 Feb 2015 21:32
How about Pakistan invades Kashmir with special forces, causes so much disturbance all the
Indians flee for their lives, and then forces a referendum on those who remain?
Given that comments have prematurely been closed on yesterday's Guardian "Comment is Free"
article, in which a salesman masquerading as a journalist spins the line that "sometimes
only guns can stop guns",
It's worth reflecting that guns can stop gunners and civilians (see Martin Place), but they
cannot stop guns. Whether it's Tokyo or Dallas, Texas, guns, munitions and drones are big
money.
During the First World War the British government continued to pay Krupp's of Essen
royalties for some of their gun patents. It was probably insider traders linked to Krupp's of
Essen who dobbed in Sir Roger Casement's naive attempts to get German arms to Irish
independence fighters in order to try to avert the long-planned Imperial utility World War.
He was a bit like the David Kelly of his day, in that he got in the way of the machine.
By the way, on an unrelated matter, isn't all this noise about Russia and Putin distracting
us from the Chilcott Inquiry, and the roles of Bush, Cheney and Putin in the Coalition Of The
Willing?
As Don Henderson wrote in his song "Was War For Those Who Want It":
"The men who build the planes and make the tanks
Are neutral and get payment in Swiss francs
While the rich on both sides prosper the poor will kill the poor
Was war for those who want it, they would want an end to war."
Maria Meri 1 Feb 2015 21:30
Can anybody name one year after the 2nd WW whn the US hadn't been policing somewhr - war
indeed seems to form it's economic base (commies said this ages ago)
GardenShedFever 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Considering the weapons caches captured by the rebels after dislodging Ukraine's "cyborgs"
from Donetsk airport, the US has been arming Kiev's forces for some time. Advanced US weapons
are not routine equipment for the Ukraine military, are they?
It is no surprise the USA is clamouring to escalate this civil war. They began it, and they
expected a near bloodless coup, like the Orange Revolution. Their problem this time, however,
was they backed and funded far-right Ukrainian Nationalists who are despised in the South and
East, and although the Maidan protests had sympathy, the commandeering of those protests by
Right Sektor and Svoboda has alienated vast swathes of the Ukrainian populace. The rejection
of the Kiev coup was overt, and the coup leaders' response to that rejection horrifying. No
matter how much western media have tried to brush it under the carpet, the mass murder in
Odessa last May polarised opinion. Those with Russian sympathies realised they were targets,
and so the kick-back happened. In Donetsk and Luhansk, this mayterialised as mass support for
declarations of independence, in Kharkhiv more subtle, partisan resistance, but the fact is
irrefutable. Kiev only rules via terror.
And now that terror is to be overtly supported by Washington. Honesty, at least and at
last. The warmongers have their war.
Zogz 1 Feb 2015 21:21
Only a matte of time till the US arms Kiev. They have been itching to do it since they
organized the coup. The "military advisors" are already on the ground some suggest they are
working with the Kiev troops. Whist such war mongery is not unusal for the US, I cannot help
bu be suprised with EU reactions. Allowing the US to escalate tensions on the border of Europe
is foolhardy in the extreme. All it wll do is make Europe more dependent on the US, more
insecure, and more at risk. A win win for the US, but for Europe?
AstheticTheory 1 Feb 2015 21:08
So America has revealed its open secret: it intervened to secure the government in Ukraine
it wanted and now it is prepared to escalate its defence of its new possession
If west make Yats, Turchinov, Poroshenko, Kolomysky, Avakov and Co
Persona non grata -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in EU and USA and the USA annul green-card/citizenship for
crimes committed the war would stop in one day. They don't want to do that, so that means that they
want the continuation of the war. From comments: 'From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements
form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting
nervous about their gravy train hitting the buffers."
Notable quotes:
"... The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed ..."
From the increasingly hysterical pronouncements form Garton Ash, Bildt and other luminaries
of Post-Democratic Europe it seems they are getting nervous about their gravy train hitting
the buffers.
Grexit, Brexit, Spexit .....
This all spells trouble for people who live high on the hog off the largesse of EU NGO
funds.
Kyrin Bekuloff -> Lesia Menchynska 1 Feb 2015 16:54
Yeah, I actually understand both Russian and Ukrainian, and I can tell you with complete
confidence that the Ukrainian side is full of nutheads. The latest thing they claimed is that
they destroyed a Russian Armata tank. (yet they haven't even been built yet)
Miriam Bergholz 1 Feb 2015 16:53
"We need to counter this propaganda not with lies of our own but with reliable information
and a scrupulously presented array of different views. No one is better placed to do this than
the BBC."
I couldn't stop laughing!
Even better: "The US may have the best drones in the world, and Germany the best machine
tools, but Britain has the best international broadcaster." As in: the US kills better,
Germany makes the best machines (do you refer to guns or spades?), and the UK broadcast the
best news on what? Invasion of Iraq, Lybia, etc.etc. torture, Chilcot inquire? What? Oh yes,
the need to confront Russia at all cost.
Though I recorded the fact that the BBC actually at some point reported on the neo-nazi
batallion in East Ukraine, issue that Russian and other media did report from the very
beginning. I suppose that now that apparently the batallion have been dispersed, (though they
said that they will continue fighting) it will start (again) the demonization of Putin. What
is the move now? Convince us on the necessity to send NATO troops to replace them?
The corporate media have been competing in informing with half lies and half truth, very
easy to catch, so, how can you convince somebody? There is a lot of very good alternative
media in the US, Europe, and Asia. If established papers like the Guardian wants to keep their
readers should start doing what they are supposed to do: tell the truth but nothing but the
truth, and please not more crap about Putin, it is very boring, though I recognize it was kind
of funny the Independent telling that Putin is a psychopath. You should read the comments,
very enlightening. I asked whether they had the pressure from the government to start again
this crude demonization. The Guardian as well? It is a very good sync because there are at the
least four European news telling more or less the same with some different dramatics!
Anyway, why the stress? Is it because the results of the Greece election and some of their
statements regarding Russia? or it is that NATO really wants a war with Russia and you are
trying to convince us that it is a very good idea? Or is it that the alternative media is
gaining the field? All three?
halduell 1 Feb 2015 16:52
And again, who "has deployed heavy military equipment, energy-supply blackmail,
cyber-attack, propaganda by sophisticated, well-funded broadcasters, covert operations and
agents of influence in EU capitals"?
Through the looking glass here with a monstrous piece of yellow journalism in which up is
down, back is front and the phenomenon of projection is apparent in every sentence.
Rubbish, Mr Ash. Pure rubbish.
micktravis1968 1 Feb 2015 16:52
Btw I wonder if James Harding, the head of BBC News, is any relation to Luke Harding, the
Graun correspondent whose Kiev-Junta -friendly dispatches from East Ukraine are reminiscent of
the sort of reports the Volkischer Beobachter correspondents used to send from places like
Guernica.
whitja01 1 Feb 2015 16:48
Apparently, Obama just admitted on CNN to the US being involved in 'brokering
power-transition' in Ukraine, i.e. regime change. So now we have not only Nuland's word, but
that of the US president himself.
So who is the war-monger, TGA? Who is the greater danger to world peace, Russia or the US?
RoyRoger 1 Feb 2015 16:46
Putin must be stopped.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash !!!.
Why did we not hear you shout: Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton ''must be
stopped!!?
'' Must be stopped '' entering a sovereign democratic country that was less then 12 months
from their general election.
Why did we not hear you shout ''must be stopped'' from giving sustenance to a bunch of,
Kiev, Molotov cocktail throwing police murdering (39 dead and 139 injured) coup d' etat' neo
Nazis; thugs.
Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, blame, Putin, and the Russian people for all manner of things
across the world if you wish and the suggestion that, Putin, eats four babies for breakfasts
every monning.
But one thing I know; the blame for the troubles in, Ukraine, rests with the Corporate
corrupt White House and NATO. The Ukraine is their self-made crisis and it will, very soon,
bite the bastards on the arse.
These incompetent fuckers, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, will go down
in history as the creators of the biggest political and economical blunder in history.
Come on !!, Mr. Timothy Garton Ash, fess-up, you know in your heart that Putin and the
Russian people did not create the coup d' etat' in, Kiev.
If these five political imbeciles, Rasmussen, Nuland, Kerry, McCain, Hague and Ashton, had
not gone swanning around the, Maidan Square in, Kiev, we would't be in the mess we are now.
This is NATO's and the Corporate corrupt White House fucking political disaster.
And the bill is going to be dropped in the laps of the Europeans.
We must never forget: Ukraine is not part of the European Union nor is it a member of NATO.
So what the fuck are we doing sticking our fucking noses in a sovereign democratic country
without a mandate from our Parliament?
herditbefore 1 Feb 2015 16:44
The situation in the Ukraine is the same as was the case in Cyprus. There was a government
that wanted to take Cyprus into a union with Greece, the north mostly Turkish speakers opposed
this and Turkey stood by their kith and kin.
In the Ukraine there is a government which wants to go into a union with the EU and the
eastern ethnic Russians oppose this.
There as been a cease fire in Cyprus for about 40 years, not ideal but it does not stop the
mainly Greek Cypriots from joining the EU or getting on with life, the same thing could happen
with the eastern Ukraine if they think they will be happier outside of the EU let them.
The grass is not always better on the other side and living is not just about Mercedes and
BMWs.
Klashii 1 Feb 2015 16:44
As a direct result of the kind of garbage TGA is advocating here, millions have already
died in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere this century. And how could we
forget Vietnam in the last century when the US tried to bring 'democracy' to those that
weren't in the slightest bit interested in having it.
When will the West wake up and realize that not everyone wants 'democracy'shoved down their
throats - especially American 'democracy'.
rodmclaughlin 1 Feb 2015 16:43
"Ukraine urgently needs military support". Go to hell. For NATO to give military support to
Kiev would be a dangerous escalation. A cornered bear is a dangerous animal. The author is
effectively asking people in the NATO countries to risk their lives for Kiev. Interfering in
the nations located on the tank practice ground between Moscow and Berlin always ends in
tears.
NikLot 1 Feb 2015 16:41
"German chancellor Angela Merkel and foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have been
right to keep trying diplomacy, but even they concluded in mid-January that it wasn't worth
going to meet Putin in Kazakhstan."
Why should anyone care what Herr and Frau think on the subject!? They essentially torpedoed
any jaw-jaw, giving preference to the alternative - it is Ukrainian and Russian blood after
all.
The same country (Germany) caused Yugoslavia to be destroyed, the moment they got
reunited, with Britain and France staying shamefully quiet. The Helsinki final document was
torn to shreds with that.
Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes
sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since
the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic
independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.
Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby
Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue
(MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's
illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic
independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately
fired.
Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not
honor.
I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has
intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How
America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her
program a number of times.
My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character.
I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost
her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even
Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.
For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda
that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian
troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the
right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.
Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this
fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.
As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order
to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's
border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.
Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated
by Washington.
It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.
They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party
on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian
Troops into Crimea."
No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops
to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean
Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established
themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.
So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three
are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.
It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most
independent journalists can escape its influence.
What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia
for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column
dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?
The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production.
The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot
protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing
non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in
an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine
Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports:
"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych,
but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows
that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from
the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really
disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."
Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to
gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings
were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here:
http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/
What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate
government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in
southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians
have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's
help.
The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How
the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.
Gerald Celente calls the Western media "presstitutes," an ingenuous term that I often use. Presstitutes
sell themselves to Washington for access and government sources and to keep their jobs. Ever since
the corrupt Clinton regime permitted the concentration of the US media, there has been no journalistic
independence in the United States except for some Internet sites.
Glenn Greenwald points out the independence that RT, a Russian media organization, permits Abby
Martin who denounced Russia's alleged invasion of Ukraine, compared to the fates of Phil Donahue
(MSNBC) and Peter Arnett (NBC), both of whom were fired for expressing opposition to the Bush regime's
illegal attack on Iraq. The fact that Donahue had NBC's highest rated program did not give him journalistic
independence. Anyone who speaks the truth in the American print or TV media or on NPR is immediately
fired.
Russia's RT seems actually to believe and observe the values that Americans profess but do not
honor.
I agree with Greenwald. You can read his article here. Greenwald is entirely admirable. He has
intelligence, integrity, and courage. He is one of the brave to whom my just published book, How
America Was Lost, is dedicated. As for RT's Abby Martin, I admire her and have been a guest on her
program a number of times.
My criticism of Greenwald and Martin has nothing to do with their integrity or their character.
I doubt the claims that Abby Martin grandstanded on "Russia's invasion of Ukraine" in order to boost
her chances of moving into the more lucrative "mainstream media." My point is quite different. Even
Abby Martin and Greenwald, both of whom bring us much light, cannot fully escape Western propaganda.
For example, Martin's denunciation of Russia for "invading" Ukraine is based on Western propaganda
that Russia sent 16,000 troops to occupy Crimea. The fact of the matter is that those 16,000 Russian
troops have been in Crimea since the 1990s. Under the Russian-Ukrainian agreement, Russia has the
right to base 25,000 troops in Crimea.
Apparently, neither Abby Martin nor Glenn Greenwald, two intelligent and aware people, knew this
fact. Washington's propaganda is so pervasive that two of our best reporters were victimized by it.
As I have written several times in my columns, Washington organized the coup in Ukraine in order
to promote its world hegemony by capturing Ukraine for NATO and putting US missile bases on Russia's
border in order to degrade Russia's nuclear deterrent and force Russia to accept Washington's hegemony.
Russia has done nothing but respond in a very low-key way to a major strategic threat orchestrated
by Washington.
It is not only Martin and Greenwald who have fallen under Washington's propaganda.
They are joined by Patrick J. Buchanan. Pat's column calling on readers to "resist the war party
on Crimea" opens with Washington's propagandistic claim: "With Vladimir Putin's dispatch of Russian
Troops into Crimea."
No such dispatch has occurred. Putin has been granted authority by the Russian Duma to send troops
to Ukraine, but Putin has stated publicly that sending troops would be a last resort to protect Crimean
Russians from invasions by the ultra-nationalist neo-nazis who stole Washington's coup and established
themselves as the power in Kiev and western Ukraine.
So, here we have three of the smartest and most independent journalists of our time, and all three
are under the impression created by Western propaganda that Russia has invaded Ukraine.
It appears that the power of Washington's propaganda is so great that not even the best and most
independent journalists can escape its influence.
What chance does truth have when Abby Martin gets kudos from Glenn Greenwald for denouncing Russia
for an alleged "invasion" that has not taken place, and when independent Pat Buchanan opens his column
dissenting from the blame-Russia-crowd by accepting that an invasion has taken place?
The entire story that the presstitutes have told about the Ukraine is a propaganda production.
The presstitutes told us that the deposed president, Viktor Yanukovych, ordered snipers to shoot
protesters. On the basis of these false reports, Washington's stooges, who comprise the existing
non-government in Kiev, have issued arrest orders for Yanukovych and intend for him to be tried in
an international court. In an intercepted telephone call between EU foreign affairs minister Catherine
Ashton and Etonian foreign affairs minister Urmas Paet who had just returned from Kiev, Paet reports:
"There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych,
but it was somebody from the new coalition." Paet goes on to report that "all the evidence shows
that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from
the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides . . . and it's really
disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don't want to investigate what exactly happened."
Ashton, absorbed with EU plans to guide reforms in Ukraine and to prepare the way for the IMF to
gain control over economic policy, was not particularly pleased to hear Paet's report that the killings
were an orchestrated provocation. You can listen to the conversation between Paet and Ashton here:
http://rt.com/news/ashton-maidan-snipers-estonia-946/
What has happened in Ukraine is that Washington plotted against and overthrew an elected legitimate
government and then lost control to neo-nazis who are threatening the large Russian population in
southern and eastern Ukraine, provinces that formerly were part of Russia. These threatened Russians
have appealed for Russia's help, and just like the Russians in South Ossetia, they will receive Russia's
help.
The Obama regime and its presstitutes will continue to lie about everything.
Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal. His latest book The Failure of Laissez-Faire Capitalism. Roberts' How
the Economy Was Lost is now available from CounterPunch in electronic format.
Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has
intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk,
one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe
and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
Notable quotes:
"... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
"... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
"... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
"... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
"... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
"... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is
deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant
boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.
More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and
several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a
building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.
It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the
checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to
pass.
Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the
case for months. When Médecins sans Frontičres (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on
supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a
conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.
After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact
on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic
diseases; everything is affected.
... ... ...
Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56
More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to
the west to kill. More like the other way around.
Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04
Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not
responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships
that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.
And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.
Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57
What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you
sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.
Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07
And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It
happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33
Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by
hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).
Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26
Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that
virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west
except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser"
peoples to serve as cannon fodder.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14
Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have
resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out,
he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They
should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have
challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of
teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and
refugees.
The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of
Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those
actions. If it walks like a duck...
buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51
Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and
conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of
people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable
as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out
that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the
Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to
argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?
Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43
They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn
(with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's
corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing.
They are hiding behind Yats.
Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25
Until recently, I also thought as you.
But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.
Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.
Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)
EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58
You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the
more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.
I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite
interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough
to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass
powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.
However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have
needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have
happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I
say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire
Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.
To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic
identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of
like fanatics.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52
There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is
backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an
enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By
contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.
So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown,
they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.
The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko,
Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most
likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.
You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the
EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.
BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51
Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper
strength, NOT the real strength).
Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to
leave.
Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus
chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).
It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost
at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered)
to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not
take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the
PL govt. (Turch.).
Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have
had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA
needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12
What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?
When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The
country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and
social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they
have failed the ultimate test.
These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true
for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the
so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany
after 1918 and 1945.
Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this
generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this
national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their
country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.
Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like
Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans
after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for
themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace
and political stability.
That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but
repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their
maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02
You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men
are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post
writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.
Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people
in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a
year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your
statement of 9000 people is meaningless.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11
What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity
of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.
For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians
immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the
time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian
defections.
The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian
people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat,
and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.
At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and
frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian
military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these
troops?
What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many
suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize
the things that might happen.
But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05
Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is
destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by
the rebels.
Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000
wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own
people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire
villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.
For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation
in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.
All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of
reasonable people.
Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains
are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now
may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
Notable quotes:
"... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is
a right wing nazi supporting rally.
Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47
Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.
Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42
Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far
away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.
yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30
...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically
elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted
him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world,
it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.
yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17
"Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they
see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.
BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26
If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.
US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually
killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.
If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.
centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23
The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.
Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.
Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic
spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is
wholly constrained.
It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.
From the Pew Research Center:
Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and
say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the
U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .
For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum
was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/
I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having
been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?
Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57
And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?
Ukraine freedom support act.
Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language
broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda
Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in
the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?
I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them
about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.
Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.
jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46
And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.
New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin
And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new
Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?
Those brazen propagandists from Guardian now resort to postmodernism: "The fighting has
intensified dramatically since last week". In reality this is indiscriminate shelling of Donetsk,
one million city by Kiev army. Ukrainian army is shelling one million city in the center of Europe
and nobody in Western capitals gives a f*ck.
Notable quotes:
"... Until recently, I also thought as you. But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen. Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms. Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington) ..."
"... To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of like fanatics. ..."
"... It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the PL govt. (Turch.). ..."
"... The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a year ..."
"... The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat, and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats. ..."
"... Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000 wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices. ..."
The fighting has intensified dramatically since last week and the situation here is
deteriorating rapidly. In the past five days, there has been heavy fighting. We hear the constant
boom of shelling and crackle of shooting.
More than 70 houses are reported to have been damaged or destroyed in the last week, and
several hospitals have been damaged since the fighting began in the summer. In recent days, a
building of a psychiatric institution that we're supporting was destroyed by shelling.
It's getting more complicated to get into the areas caught in the conflict. Last week the
checkpoints to cross into the rebel-controlled areas were closed and no one has been allowed to
pass.
Medical supply lines have been cut and little medicine is getting through, as has been the
case for months. When Médecins sans Frontičres (MSF) started working here in May, we focused on
supplying hospitals on the frontline with kits to treat war injuries. Obviously, when you're in a
conflict zone, the frontline is where the people are being seriously injured and killed.
After months of stress on the health system, it is clear that the conflict is having an impact
on the whole population of the area. Basic healthcare, maternity care, treatment of chronic
diseases; everything is affected.
... ... ...
Mij Swerdna shakesomeaction 28 Jan 2015 18:56
More like Kiev won't let Donbas decide it's own destiny. It is not they who have gone to
the west to kill. More like the other way around.
Mij Swerdna alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 18:04
Everyone here is responsible for their own actions. The side you are against is not
responsible for what both sides do. People like you are devoid of compassion until hardships
that you regard with indifference are visited on you and yours.
And then it's people like you who cry and whine the loudest.
Mij Swerdna -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 17:57
What are talking about? They did those things at Maidan- but that was okay because you
sympathize with neo-Nazis. Hypocrite.
Mij Swerdna -> vr13vr 28 Jan 2015 16:07
And the Holodomor did not take place anywhere near the ones who go on about it the most. It
happened in eastern Ukraine and southern Russia.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:33
Your imagination seems to go to any lengths to make Russia a villain. You are motivated by
hatred (bigotry, the stupid kind).
Mij Swerdna -> firstgeordie 28 Jan 2015 15:26
Very bigoted of you. Actually, they are more apt to sacrifice. I wouldn't confuse that
virtue with a lack of respect for life because that very lack is more than rampant in the west
except that there is a growing tendency on the part of the west to arrange for "lesser"
peoples to serve as cannon fodder.
Mij Swerdna -> Pomario 28 Jan 2015 15:14
Not quite. What he was worried about was the massive propaganda blitz that would have
resulted if Russia had opted to honor the Donbas referendum and annexed it. As it turns out,
he needn't have. They were going to do what they were going to do to Russia regardless. They
should have saved Donbas because those incompetent cowards in the west would not have
challenged them militarily if they were part of Russia. There would be wailing and gnashing of
teeth to be sure- but no destroyed infrastructure and no thousands of dead civilians and
refugees.
The real aggressors in this conflict are the people who want to exterminate the people of
Donbas. I am judging by actions mind you, not the lawyer like gibberish used to justify those
actions. If it walks like a duck...
buttonbasher81 Robobenito 28 Jan 2015 14:51
Again you haven't actually stated what is meant by support, all you use are conjecture and
conspiracy by reffering back to bad things the US has done in the past. All the thousands of
people marching on the streets were all CIA operatives were they? Sounds about as believeable
as putins Russian soldiers being in the East of Ukraine on holiday to me. And don't trot out
that 5bn line, its been stated again and again that was spent over a number of years in the
Ukraine and moreover some of which would have gone to Yanukovychs Government. You going to
argue the US paid him to overthrow himself?
Mij Swerdna Jeremn 28 Jan 2015 08:43
They are inhuman. Kiev is ideologically driven by Lviv, Ternopil, Ivano-Frankivsk and Volyn
(with US blessing).These oblasts had the highest voter turnout and were solidly in Yat's
corner. The fact that the actual far right parties did not do well in elections means nothing.
They are hiding behind Yats.
Kolo07 -> EddieGrey1967USA 28 Jan 2015 04:25
Until recently, I also thought as you.
But recently it became known fact that it was the Maidan smokescreen.
Matter was not addressed in the Maidan. The question was decided in quiet rooms.
Maidan does not put pressure on decision-making. (This issue was resolved in Washington)
EddieGrey1967USA BMWAlbert 27 Jan 2015 21:58
You are probably correct about the numbers of troops involved in Crimea. Thanks for the
more accurate info. Still, your figures aren't too far out of line with mine.
I agree with your final comment about Donbas and a national unity government. It is quite
interesting to consider what might have followed if the Euromaidan crew had been smart enough
to reach out immediately to Donbass last February. Indeed, if they had included Donbass
powerbrokers from the early days, they might have held the country together.
However, to include Donbass powerbrokers in Euromaidan, the new government would have
needed to distance itself from the Galician ultranationalists. Do you think that could have
happened in theory? My guess is that it couldn't have happened, now that I think about it. I
say that because the Galicians were -- and continue to be -- a powerhouse behind the entire
Euromaidan revolt, in addition to shaping the government that followed.
To me, the conflict is all about the the Galicians wanting to eradicate Russian civic
identity. The Galicians have been like that from the start. In that respect, they are kind of
like fanatics.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 21:52
There's a big difference between Serbia and Ukraine, though. That's because the USA is
backing the nationalists in Kiev, essentially encouraging them to pursue the dream of an
enlarged Ukraine, or a Greater Ukraine (fighting war to keep colonies in Donbass, etc.). By
contrast, the USA was opposing Milosevic's efforts to create a Greater Serbia.
So, even after Yatsenyuk, Poroshenko, Lysenko, Parubiy, etc. are defeated and overthrown,
they will never face war crimes tribunals. That's because they will have American protection.
The only exception to this situation is if the Russians actually capture Yats, Poroshenko,
Parubiy etc. and charge them with war crimes. However I don't think this will happen. Most
likely Yats & Co will escape west before that ever happens.
You make a very interesting point about Ukraine being divided on the issue of joining the
EU and Russia. In that sense, post war Ukraine could resemble post-Milosevic Serbia. I agree.
BMWAlbert -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 19:51
Eddue, the Krim figures I have read state that there were 18,000 (maybe 2500 is paper
strength, NOT the real strength).
Of these 18K I believe about one third (circa 6000) stayed with UA army and were allowed to
leave.
Of the 12000 UA Army troops remaining, only half actually joined the RU Army. 6000 thus
chose a 'middle way'. That 12000 total may be aligned with the 13000 figure you cite (?).
It might be noted that the whole of the semi-autonomous province might not have been lost
at all had commanders of the UA Army reserve forces actually acted in March 2014 (as ordered)
to secure the isthmus. They did not move. It seems Russain Orthodox commanders did not
take well the Scientologist from Lviv (Yats) and the Baptist with strong connections with the
PL govt. (Turch.).
Different people have different views on which North American and EU countries might have
had influence over these important initial choices for PM and President at a time when UA
needed a national unity govt. NOT a single cabinet post was chosen from Donbas. Not smart.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 18:12
What will become of Ukraine, when this is all over?
When a nation is defeated in war, all of its people undergo psychological shock. The
country questions its self-worth, and it experiments with changes in politics, culture, and
social issues. Defeated nations do this as they come to terms with the realization that they
have failed the ultimate test.
These periods of anguished, inward self-reflection on a national scale are especially true
for countries that are defeated and conquered. We saw this in France after 1817, during the
so-called La Belle Epoque. Something similar happened in Prussia after 1806, and in Germany
after 1918 and 1945.
Ukraine will not only suffer defeat, but it may also lose its independence. How will this
generation of young Ukrainians -- the so called Euromaidan Generation -- react to this
national trauma? Everything that they have been raised to believe about themselves and their
country will have been proven to be false...mythological. Just one big lie.
Young Ukrainians, after this war, will totally lose respect for the leaders movements like
Euromaidan. These young people will question their own values and beliefs. Like the Germans
after 1945, Ukrainians, I think, will then work hard to create a new and honest society for
themselves. They will renounce ultranationalism, and they will advocate the virtues of peace
and political stability.
That is when Ukraine's true moment of glory will occur. Defeated, conquered...true....but
repentant, wise, and progressive. Ukrainians will then be celebrated worldwide for their
maturity and commitment to peace, just like the West Germans after 1945.
EddieGrey1967USA -> Oskar Jaeger 27 Jan 2015 18:02
You are wrong. The rebel army is large and strong, particularly since so many Donbass men
are now enlisting. Read yesterday's article in DB written by Kyiv Post
writer/hack/propagandist James Miller and his colleague, Michael Weiss. They confirm this.
Actually you're not getting it old boy. The Ukrainian army is attacking its own people
in the south east using indiscriminate shelling. The rebels have been defending for almost a
year. And you plucked that 9000 number from thin air. Without tangible evidence your
statement of 9000 people is meaningless.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:11
What surprises me especially is that Western news suppresses information about the severity
of Ukrainian military defeats. The Western media has been doing this from the very beginning.
For example, in Crimea last March, 13,000 Ukrainian troops defected to the Russians
immediately. That is out of a total of 25,000 Ukrainian soldiers stationed in Crimea at the
time. Only a few Western media sources reported the shocking truth about these Ukrainian
defections.
The reality is that most Ukrainians are not motivated to fight for Kiev. The Ukrainian
people want peace. Only the Galician ideologically driven hard cores are willing to do combat,
and their morale is falling fast because of their endless defeats.
At this point in time, I would imagine that the Galician troops must feel overawed and
frightened at the prospect of doing combat with the pro-Russian rebels. Does the Ukrainian
military even have medical psychiatric support to treat the combat trauma suffered by these
troops?
What will happen after the war, when these defeated and traumatized soldiers -- many
suffering from combat induced psychosis -- return home to Galicia? It's upsetting to realize
the things that might happen.
But Kiev started this war....the Donbass people didn't start it.
EddieGrey1967USA 27 Jan 2015 15:05
Ukraine is facing total disaster now, kind of like a sinking ship. It's economy is
destroyed, and it is losing a war so badly that all of Ukraine may eventually be conquered by
the rebels.
Ukrainian military casualties are roughly 3,500 killed in action, and another 9,000
wounded. That is shocking. Kiev is trying to hide the magnitude of the disaster from its own
people, but Ukrainian citizens are becoming aware of the horrible battle losses. Entire
villages in Ukraine are reportedly ignoring Kiev's draft notices.
For historicians, social scientists, and economists, Ukraine is a classic case of a nation
in defeat. The experts are observing Ukraine closely as it disintegrates.
All of this would have been avoided if only the Euromaidan government consisted of
reasonable people.
Guardian reprints RFE aka Radio F*ck Europe. Well done Guardian. Saves money. From comments: "Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains
are perched at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now
may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control."
Notable quotes:
"... as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space ..."
A pity I had to ask a Russian speaking friend to tell me the ist of it and he said there are cries for Bandeira... So it is
a right wing nazi supporting rally.
Walter Potocki 28 Jan 2015 19:47
Take a cooky from Nuland and march to eastern front, empire will give you a postmortem medal.
Sehome -> alpamysh 28 Jan 2015 19:42
Rubbish. The most dangerous squirrel-brains are perchjed at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and at the State Dept. building not far
away. It was they who inflamed the Kiev putsch and now may be wondering if the Pandora's box they opened is tough to control.
yataki -> yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:30
...and they are saying that Yanukovich was a 'dictator'. Oh, excuse me, no matter how corrupted he was, he was a democratically
elected president legally recognized by the international community. Even Vic Nuland admitted that. You people could have voted
him out of the office, but you preferred an armed coup. You can disagree with me, but to me and many people around the world,
it was clearly a violent coup led by the far-right. There was nothing heroic about it.
yataki 28 Jan 2015 19:17
"Check what you hear, doubt what you see."
I suggest these bright young people should first check what they hear from their own government, and seriously doubt what they
see. One should never stop checking and doubting his/her own government. There is nothing wrong about that.
Would be interested to see Russian students' answer to that sort of cheap propaganda.
BunglyPete 28 Jan 2015 18:26
If and when the truth behind this gets out the fallout could be massive.
US, EU and many top western officials on board, an entirely complicit media, and we are talking about actual nazis actually
killing civilians on the doorstep of actual Europe, and looking at war with Russia.
If if it gets enough attention this could cause a big impact across the globe. Interesting times.
centerline 28 Jan 2015 18:23
The video goes on to counter claims from Russian-state media that the Euromaidan protests in Kiev were a US funded coup.
Full Spectrum Dominance. Part of the US military doctrine.
Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic
spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is
wholly constrained.
It also accuses pro-Russian separatists of forcing many in Crimea "at gunpoint" to vote in favour of joining Russia.
From the Pew Research Center:
Crimean residents are almost universally positive toward Russia. At least nine-in-ten have confidence in Putin (93%) and
say Russia is playing a positive role in Crimea (92%). Confidence in Obama is almost negligible at 4%, and just 2% think the
U.S. is having a good influence on the way things are going on the Crimean peninsula. . . .
For their part, Crimeans seem content with their annexation by Russia. Overwhelming majorities say the March 16th referendum
was free and fair (91%) and that the government in Kyiv ought to recognize the results of the vote (88%).p> http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/despite-concerns-about-governance-ukrainians-want-to-remain-one-country/
I wonder what would make these western Ukrainian students think that about Crimea? Could it have something to do with having
been subjected to "rampant propaganda"?
Manolo Torres 28 Jan 2015 17:57
And from where did this students get this idea? Perhaps From their own ministry of truth?
Ukraine freedom support act.
Expanded Broadcasting in Former Soviet Republics:
Mandates the Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to submit a plan and cost estimate to increase Russian-language
broadcasting into countries of the former Soviet Union funded by the United States in order to counter Russian propaganda
Is it perhaps just another youtube video operation, produced by neoconservatives in the NED and the US State department?, in
the style of the "I am an Ukrainian?" Perhaps it was made by the same RFE/RL, whose origins we all know?
I wonder if this students would be as "receptive" as this citizens in Kiev, when a woman from Luhansk was trying to tell them
about her experience with airstrikes on June the 2nd.
Judge by yourselves, it seems to me that the Ukrainian students should be addressing themselves.
jonsid 28 Jan 2015 17:46
And the smearing starts. First shot by Radio Fuck Europe.
New Greek Government Has Deep, Long-Standing Ties With Russian Eurasianist Dugin
And these very attractive and innocent-looking students did this all on their own. Not a word of encouragement from the new
Ministry of Propaganda or whatever it's called in Kiev.
And how did the video reach the Guardian so quickly?
Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal
to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda
involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization,
or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for
mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
Notable quotes:
"... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was
supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when
it can be blamed on the rebels.
Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring
the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling
with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that
try to point of the media hypocrisy.
Looks like cold War Ii started and propaganda is in full swing. Propaganda is generally an appeal
to emotion, not intellect. There are four conditions for a message to be considered propaganda. Propaganda
involves the intention to persuade and deceive. Propaganda is sent on behalf of a state, organization,
or cause. It is distributed to a significant group of people. Finally, propaganda is a struggle for
mind of people (as the term brainwashing implies).
Notable quotes:
"... The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when it can be blamed on the rebels. ..."
Western MSM is having a field day over the Mariupol GRAD attack that killed civilians and was
supposedly done by the rebels. The MSM finds the shelling of civilians newsworthy only when
it can be blamed on the rebels.
Finnish MSM is in a full propaganda swing. They are ignoring
the shelling in Gorlovka that has killed many civilians but are reporting the Mariupol shelling
with big headlines. And they are once again censoring the user comments with a heavy hand that
try to point of the media hypocrisy.
"... Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport? ..."
"... You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles, *explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you? ..."
Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical
stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport?
After the fiasco of the Graun/BBC trumpeting Ukrainian's supposed victory just before they
were crushed at Ilovaisk you should have learned your lesson.
But, once again you have made yourselves look like idiots, and once again Russian and
Novorossiyan news sources have been proved to be accurate
Vermithrax -> ShermanPotter 23 Jan 2015 07:38
In my youth the USSR stood at the West German border with a 13-1 tank superiority. Then
they were a threat. Now they are hundreds of miles further east with a fraction of the forces
at their disposal. They are being used as a convenient bogeyman for policies that do not
benefit Europe one jot. They have all the oil and gas Europe needs without the fundamentalist
religion. In many ways now they are a natural ally, especially as the alternative is that
China will benefit from it.
I suppose there will always be some Grima Wormtongue's who think being America's fawning
client state is a good idea.
unclesmurf ijustwant2say 22 Jan 2015 17:32
Putin, is being attacked by the same mechanism that has been attacking governments around
the globe for the last seventy years. The one described here:
And of course the do not care *at all* about Putin. What they care about, is that how they
may get their hands on the huge natural resources of the vast slab of the planet called
Russia. You see, Putin, the bad guy, is keeping everything PUBLIC, with the earnings of
everything, oil, gas, weapons, going to the Russian state and nor to the bank accounts of very
few, insanely rich individuals.
But I assume you are ok with the UK privatizing British Aerospace, and having now to pay a
huge surcharge to the shareholders of QinetiQ. Simply to buy the *same* weapons, designed by
the *same* engineers and built by the *same* technicians. But No: "We HAVE to privatize it".
I also assume you are ok with the trains here in the UK being a complete ripoff, because
they are of course private, even if it is the government who pays for the track and even if it
they private rail companies are subsidized (as if the huge ticket prices were not sufficient)
by the Government, to the tune of BILLIONS annually.
But No: "We have to privatize it".
You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles,
*explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you?
thingreen -> edwardrice 22 Jan 2015 17:28
Interesting, though that working 'class' people make up bulk of soldiers is not exactly a
startling revelation in any war - if you looked at the casualty lists for our anti-terrorist
operations against the freedom fighters of PIRA you'd see a similar make up of people who I
suspect many here would consider as dupes and economic conscripts.
Simon311 Damocles59 23 Jan 2015 07:31
How are they "so-called" rebels?
It is clear these areas are beyond Kiev' s control and it is time to acknowledge this.
And If Abkhazia and Ossetia are "basket cases" why are they not asking to join the
wonderful nation of Georgia?
Simon311 Robert Looren de Jong 23 Jan 2015 07:29
Whatever it is clear that the people in these regions are not going to be reconciled to the
Kiev Government.
Time to recognise this and end the fighting.
wombat123 -> Custodis 23 Jan 2015 07:26
The people labeled "rebels" started off by refusing to recognize the leaders of the coup as
a lawful government, which in fact, they were not under the Ukrainian constitution. These
people included most of the police officers in eastern Ukraine. The killing started when the
supporters of the coup came east and attacked those refusing to accept the coup so the
fighting did not start with a rebellion as the term is normally understood.
It is perverse to label those who oppose the violent overthrow of lawful authority as
"rebels". It was clear that most people in the east thought the coup was a criminal act and
its leaders were not the lawful government. It is quite clear that it was the supporters of
the coup who are the aggressors and they came east and attacked people who did not accept the
coup as lawful.
Some of the first combat started when supporters of the coup started attacking police in
the east. Were the police officers "rebels" for opposing the armed overthrow of their
country's constitutional order and elected government? "Rebel" does not seem like an honest
term for someone in that situation.
DCarter -> Gaz0007 23 Jan 2015 07:06
The USSR collapsed largely because it's people, particularly in the non-Russian
republics, desired the same rights and freedoms as people in Western Europe and North
America...all of whom managed to maintain those freedoms throughout the Cold War by forming
a military alliance called NATO.
In retrospect though those freedoms were illusory, or at best transient, and all we did was
to trade domination by a party apparatus for domination by a corporate oligarchy. And it is in
those corporate interests that NATO now acts, not in the interests of the people if Eastern
Europe or Western Europe or even North America.
Solongmariane -> Spiffey 23 Jan 2015 07:01
DNR is getting experienced with the ceasefires from KIEV. It's just asking a time-out to
recuoerate losses, to send re-inforcements, and to get new weapons. It was so at 6 sept, and
19 dec. Not again, such time out.
SHappens 23 Jan 2015 06:42
The main pro-Russian rebel leader in eastern Ukraine says his troops are on the offensive
and he does not want truce talks with Kiev anymore.
At lest this has he merit to be clear. No more hypocrisy as Kiev never intended to respect
any ceasefire but used this time to regroup.
On the other hands, when you read this below, the dice are loaded and the US goals is war
against Russia whatever on the ground. This is a dialogue of the deaf.
---
"This tactic of avoiding questions about what the Ukrainian government is doing by pointing to
Russia is becoming increasingly obvious," the journalist said.
Here is an excerpt from the briefing:
Gayane Chichakyan: Do the actions of the Ukrainian government comply with the Minsk
agreement?
Jen Psaki: In general Russia has illegally – and Russian-backed separatists have illegally
– come into Ukraine, including Donetsk. Ukraine has a responsibility and an absolute right to
defend itself. We certainly expect both sides to abide by the Minsk agreements. We have not
seen that happen, we've seen a lot of talk, not a lot of backup from the Russian side.
GC: I am specifically asking about the actions of the Ukrainian government. Can you give a
more definitive answer, whether or not they comply with the Minsk agreements?
JP: You are not talking about a specific incident, I think I'll leave it at what I said.
GC: With the Minsk agreement, do they comply? You pass a judgment that Russia is not
complying with the agreement, can you assess whether Ukraine is complying?
JP: I listed a range of specific ways Russia is not complying.
GC: Under the agreement sides must avoid deploying and using heavy artillery. Isn't it what
the Ukrainian government is doing right now?
JP: First of all, let's start again with the fact that Russia has illegally intervened in
Ukraine and come into a country that was a sovereign country. So I am not sure that you are
proposing that a sovereign country doesn't have the right to defend themselves.
GC:I am asking specifically about the actions of the Ukrainian government, you are veering
off.
"... Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport? ..."
"... You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles, *explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you? ..."
Shaun, maybe you can explain why a few days ago the Graun/Observer printed nonsensical
stories about the Ukrainian army's victory at the S.S. Prokofiev airport?
After the fiasco of the Graun/BBC trumpeting Ukrainian's supposed victory just before they
were crushed at Ilovaisk you should have learned your lesson.
But, once again you have made yourselves look like idiots, and once again Russian and
Novorossiyan news sources have been proved to be accurate
Vermithrax -> ShermanPotter 23 Jan 2015 07:38
In my youth the USSR stood at the West German border with a 13-1 tank superiority. Then
they were a threat. Now they are hundreds of miles further east with a fraction of the forces
at their disposal. They are being used as a convenient bogeyman for policies that do not
benefit Europe one jot. They have all the oil and gas Europe needs without the fundamentalist
religion. In many ways now they are a natural ally, especially as the alternative is that
China will benefit from it.
I suppose there will always be some Grima Wormtongue's who think being America's fawning
client state is a good idea.
unclesmurf ijustwant2say 22 Jan 2015 17:32
Putin, is being attacked by the same mechanism that has been attacking governments around
the globe for the last seventy years. The one described here:
And of course the do not care *at all* about Putin. What they care about, is that how they
may get their hands on the huge natural resources of the vast slab of the planet called
Russia. You see, Putin, the bad guy, is keeping everything PUBLIC, with the earnings of
everything, oil, gas, weapons, going to the Russian state and nor to the bank accounts of very
few, insanely rich individuals.
But I assume you are ok with the UK privatizing British Aerospace, and having now to pay a
huge surcharge to the shareholders of QinetiQ. Simply to buy the *same* weapons, designed by
the *same* engineers and built by the *same* technicians. But No: "We HAVE to privatize it".
I also assume you are ok with the trains here in the UK being a complete ripoff, because
they are of course private, even if it is the government who pays for the track and even if it
they private rail companies are subsidized (as if the huge ticket prices were not sufficient)
by the Government, to the tune of BILLIONS annually.
But No: "We have to privatize it".
You never wondered why there are 300 articles on US/UK mainstream articles,
*explicitly* targeted to and titled after Putin, did you?
thingreen -> edwardrice 22 Jan 2015 17:28
Interesting, though that working 'class' people make up bulk of soldiers is not exactly a
startling revelation in any war - if you looked at the casualty lists for our anti-terrorist
operations against the freedom fighters of PIRA you'd see a similar make up of people who I
suspect many here would consider as dupes and economic conscripts.
Simon311 Damocles59 23 Jan 2015 07:31
How are they "so-called" rebels?
It is clear these areas are beyond Kiev' s control and it is time to acknowledge this.
And If Abkhazia and Ossetia are "basket cases" why are they not asking to join the
wonderful nation of Georgia?
Simon311 Robert Looren de Jong 23 Jan 2015 07:29
Whatever it is clear that the people in these regions are not going to be reconciled to the
Kiev Government.
Time to recognise this and end the fighting.
wombat123 -> Custodis 23 Jan 2015 07:26
The people labeled "rebels" started off by refusing to recognize the leaders of the coup as
a lawful government, which in fact, they were not under the Ukrainian constitution. These
people included most of the police officers in eastern Ukraine. The killing started when the
supporters of the coup came east and attacked those refusing to accept the coup so the
fighting did not start with a rebellion as the term is normally understood.
It is perverse to label those who oppose the violent overthrow of lawful authority as
"rebels". It was clear that most people in the east thought the coup was a criminal act and
its leaders were not the lawful government. It is quite clear that it was the supporters of
the coup who are the aggressors and they came east and attacked people who did not accept the
coup as lawful.
Some of the first combat started when supporters of the coup started attacking police in
the east. Were the police officers "rebels" for opposing the armed overthrow of their
country's constitutional order and elected government? "Rebel" does not seem like an honest
term for someone in that situation.
DCarter -> Gaz0007 23 Jan 2015 07:06
The USSR collapsed largely because it's people, particularly in the non-Russian
republics, desired the same rights and freedoms as people in Western Europe and North
America...all of whom managed to maintain those freedoms throughout the Cold War by forming
a military alliance called NATO.
In retrospect though those freedoms were illusory, or at best transient, and all we did was
to trade domination by a party apparatus for domination by a corporate oligarchy. And it is in
those corporate interests that NATO now acts, not in the interests of the people if Eastern
Europe or Western Europe or even North America.
Solongmariane -> Spiffey 23 Jan 2015 07:01
DNR is getting experienced with the ceasefires from KIEV. It's just asking a time-out to
recuoerate losses, to send re-inforcements, and to get new weapons. It was so at 6 sept, and
19 dec. Not again, such time out.
SHappens 23 Jan 2015 06:42
The main pro-Russian rebel leader in eastern Ukraine says his troops are on the offensive
and he does not want truce talks with Kiev anymore.
At lest this has he merit to be clear. No more hypocrisy as Kiev never intended to respect
any ceasefire but used this time to regroup.
On the other hands, when you read this below, the dice are loaded and the US goals is war
against Russia whatever on the ground. This is a dialogue of the deaf.
---
"This tactic of avoiding questions about what the Ukrainian government is doing by pointing to
Russia is becoming increasingly obvious," the journalist said.
Here is an excerpt from the briefing:
Gayane Chichakyan: Do the actions of the Ukrainian government comply with the Minsk
agreement?
Jen Psaki: In general Russia has illegally – and Russian-backed separatists have illegally
– come into Ukraine, including Donetsk. Ukraine has a responsibility and an absolute right to
defend itself. We certainly expect both sides to abide by the Minsk agreements. We have not
seen that happen, we've seen a lot of talk, not a lot of backup from the Russian side.
GC: I am specifically asking about the actions of the Ukrainian government. Can you give a
more definitive answer, whether or not they comply with the Minsk agreements?
JP: You are not talking about a specific incident, I think I'll leave it at what I said.
GC: With the Minsk agreement, do they comply? You pass a judgment that Russia is not
complying with the agreement, can you assess whether Ukraine is complying?
JP: I listed a range of specific ways Russia is not complying.
GC: Under the agreement sides must avoid deploying and using heavy artillery. Isn't it what
the Ukrainian government is doing right now?
JP: First of all, let's start again with the fact that Russia has illegally intervened in
Ukraine and come into a country that was a sovereign country. So I am not sure that you are
proposing that a sovereign country doesn't have the right to defend themselves.
GC:I am asking specifically about the actions of the Ukrainian government, you are veering
off.
"... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
"... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously
he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future
leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.
For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's
reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war.
After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of
Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.
Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57
That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war
party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow
"win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian
army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.
The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing
most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's
really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the
agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will
emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?
EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45
Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic
political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.
From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle --
to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.
EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38
Cargo 200 reports are all false?
They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same
statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000
Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that
not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively
identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that
could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything
I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers,
but that nobody denies.
Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34
Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC.
They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of
a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant
fascist gear, why worry?
Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The
National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching
behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people
wear is in the end less important that what they do.
The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the
riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the
shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this
should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS
insignia?
wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13
Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose
violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is
legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.
Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government
through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement
with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this
without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the
civil war but serious war crimes as well.
MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42
At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in
endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were
driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is
beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has
been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.
EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28
We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of
the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.
Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners
of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated
all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe
that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces
deployed.
At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more
than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts
that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and
associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing
some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.
A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will
not do.
Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12
I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view,
description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I
have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear
friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you
might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself
and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based
comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible
truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your
case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like
baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended
you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if
you provide some facts, I have not noticed
unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty
over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.
Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?
Here's one to try on
It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even
attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of
Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.
Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.
Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media
for Universities Project.
If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:
As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated
net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in
organized crime.
EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they
withdraw.
Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.
The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as
possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.
To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete
encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play
games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.
Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will
finally end this war.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48
The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took
blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th
brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost.
Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk
during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as
far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from
far range artillery.
Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015
Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and
maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!
EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns
stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a
happy ending!
That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about.
They'll lose their jobs if they do.
Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under
economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev
is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28
What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's
probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take
casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an
indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.
On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that
their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would
be a decisive victory for the rebels.
It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a
decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what
I really want to see).
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015
DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports
are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter
announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people
who are reasonably objective).
Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians
are being backed down at multiple points on the front.
ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19
What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the
innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you
seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time
for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is
pointless.
Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in
the political world towards actually caring about the people.
A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that
BOTH sides have played games.
Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it
power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong,
biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.
However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong
far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of
influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record
of backing the 'right' groups.
Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.
There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.
When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both
sides.
Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?
You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the
Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units -
under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?
Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any
chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe
Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting
through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when
it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle
eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even
though these cost far less to provide.
The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become,
for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all
citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural
sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).
This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev
changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes
corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is
not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we
can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic'
media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?
But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside
influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build
a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will
be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!
But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour,
nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this
potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.
Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not
changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price
is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a
humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop?
What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy
ending!
JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18
Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers ,
MH-17 , buss etc .
Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.
PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17
To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.
What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to
the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from
their airports, is not it?
Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The
artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up
operation, it is normal procedure in this war."
If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for
you.
Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17
No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...
But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other
positions.
Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk
I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that
Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever
been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that
wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse
to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup,
and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so?
Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their
freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is
that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and
the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.
graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in
Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside
Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in
Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based
on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.
For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?
"... DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people who are reasonably objective). ..."
"... "The artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up operation, it is normal procedure in this war." ..."
Putin wants Donbass to remain in Ukraine as a self-governing part of the country. Obviously
he's hoping to maximize Russian influence in Ukraine by operating through the Donbass's future
leaders. For Putin, such an arrangement will work like a Trojan Horse strategy.
For the obvious reasons, Kiev isn't happy with Putin's aims. That's understandable. What's
reprehensible about Kiev, however, is that it won't simply cut Donbass loose and end the war.
After all, we're talking about millions of people in east Ukraine who don't want to be part of
Ukraine anymore. Kiev has no good reason for fighting over this.
Kiev could solve two problems at once by allowing Ukraine to divided. Think about it.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 18:57
That could very well happen, but Poroshenko will be replaced by Yatsenyuk and the pro-war
party. Those ultranationalists and far rightists are the ones pressuring Poroshenko to somehow
"win" the war. Poroshenko's position becomes more and more insecure every time the Ukrainian
army's inferiority in combat is demonstrated.
The only light at the end of the tunnel here, I think, is that the pro-war party is drawing
most of its support from the far western provinces of Ukraine. That's the only region that's
really hyped up for war. I don't think the rest of Ukraine is really willing to tolerate the
agony of ongoing combat. So, when the far western provinces burn out on war, politicians will
emerge in Kiev who are ready for peace. But how long will it take to get to that point?
EdwardGreen1968 wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:45
Wombat: I agree with you completely. My greatest fear is that, because of domestic
political weakness, Poroshenko won't bite the bullet and make peace.
From there, Western foreign policy hawks will keep enabling Kiev to go back into battle --
to get destroyed again -- for no good reason.
EugeneGur -> sasha19 20 Jan 2015 18:38
Cargo 200 reports are all false?
They likely are. Some have been proven to be false. Most are repetitions of the same
statements from the same sources. Some of these reports claim that there are as many as 15,000
Russian soldiers fighting in Donbass. Have you ever asked yourself a question how come that
not a single one has ever been killed or captured to be shown to the world to be positively
identified as an active member of the Russian army? All we have is some unlabeled graves that
could belong to anybody, some unknown people making claims that cannot be verified. Everything
I've seen coming from Donbass shows that there are no Russian soldiers there only volunteers,
but that nobody denies.
Colin Robinson 20 Jan 2015 18:34
Use of SS insignia by the Azov Battalion is blatant enough to have been noticed by the BBC.
They are nazis, self-proclaimed... but after all (some say) they're just one little section of
a broader nationalist movement... If the majority of Kiev's enforcers do not wear such blatant
fascist gear, why worry?
Thing is, fascists have historically used a range of symbols, not all of German origin. The
National Front in Britain is a militant, ultra-nationalist movement with a history of marching
behind the Union Jack... While SS logos are a serious provocation in themselves, what people
wear is in the end less important that what they do.
The nationalistic movement currently dominant in Kiev has a record of lethal violence - the
riot police set alight by petrol bombs in Maidan, the mass lynching in Odessa on May 2, the
shooting of civilians from armoured vehicles in Mariupol on May 9... Maybe behaviour like this
should have been enough to set alarm bells ringing around the world, with or without SS
insignia?
wombat123 20 Jan 2015 18:13
Putin already chose peace. It is the leaders of the coup and their NATO backers who chose
violence and civil war instead of elections. As a consequence, there is no government that is
legitimate under Ukraine's constitution or in the eyes of all regions of the country.
Just as it was the NATO-backed leaders of the coup that overthrew the elected government
through violence and civil war, it is they who are massively violating the ceasefire agreement
with large scale shelling of civilians in eastern cities. They would not have done this
without a green light and support from NATO. NATO is not just supporting a renewal of the
civil war but serious war crimes as well.
MaxBoson -> moncur 20 Jan 2015 17:42
At the time the exodus took place, TV was full of pictures of highways filled with Serbs in
endless ten-wide columns fleeing Croatia. Some say they left out of fear, some that they were
driven out; regardless of the details, it boils down to an expulsion. In any event, it is
beyond dispute that the Serbs left and that there were around 300,000 of them. This event has
been called the largest ethnic-cleansing of the entire Balkan tragedy.
EugeneGur -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 17:28
We all wish for that but I am not sure it's realistic. At least, to stop the destruction of
the cities would be great. Gorlovka is devastated and Donetsk is in a bad shape.
Can you quote those articles, because other more compelling evidence like Russian prisoners
of war or Russian death soldiers (remember when we were told that the Ukranians obliterated
all those tanks?) in Ukraine simply doesn´t exist, and it is indeed very difficult to believe
that there has been none when there are supposed to be thousands of official Russian forces
deployed.
At the same time the Russian army is apparently a very though place to be, in 2000 more
than 1000 Russian soldiers died as "non combatants" , in 2007 around 450. I have my doubts
that, for example, the people that run the comittee of mothers of Russian soldiers, and
associations of that sort, that received huge amounts of money from US agencies, are not doing
some dirty work convincing the families that their sons were indeed killed in Ukraine.
A link to Khodorkovsky´s foundation, compiling a list from a dubious facebook group, will
not do.
Wu Bravo -> MarcelFromage 20 Jan 2015 17:12
I read from different sources, because I think herewith I might have a more objective view,
description from different perspectives and angles. And even by doing this I never state, I
have obtained the only and the very truth. Of course not. Education is the answer, my dear
friend. If you do a research, it is obligatory to look at different sources, even though you
might disagree with them. So do I, my dear, friend. I do not bother myself, I educate myself
and I am trying to be objective, thus relying on FACTS and not on bullshit and not fact-based
comments. I disagree with this article but I did not told that my opinion is the only possible
truth. However, in comparison to you, my remarks were fact based and to the point, in your
case your remarks may be treated as personnel but not fact-based and not to the point. like
baby: "may be you are right, but your haircut is awful :). Sorry my friend, if I have offended
you by this, it was never my intention, and I will be ready to discuss this issues with you if
you provide some facts, I have not noticed
unended 20 Jan 2015 17:11
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk, and making sure Ukraine's sovereignty
over its internationally recognised territory is not restored.
Am I reading the Wall Street Journal opinion page?
Here's one to try on
It takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Guardian propaganda, to even
attempt to deny that the US and EU have been deeply engaged in backing the rebel fascists of
Lviv, and making sure Ukraine's democracy is not restored.
Manolo Torres -> MarcelFromage, 20 Jan 2015
Of course, I always do. Here you have it, but next time try doing your own research.
Rinat Akhmetov Foundation for Development of Ukraine and the National University of
Kyiv-Mohyla Academy are pleased to announce the launch of the 2nd year of the Digital Media
for Universities Project.
If you go all the way down to that webpage you find:
As of April 2014, he was listed as the 101st richest man in the world with an estimated
net worth of US 11.6 billion.[5] T here have been claims Akhmetov has been involved in
organized crime.
EdwardGreen1968 -> EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015
There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they
withdraw.
Wow! That is dramatic. Where are you getting this info? Let's hope it's true.
The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as far away from the main cities as
possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from far range artillery.
To be honest, it would be much better for everyone if the rebels execute a complete
encirclement of the Ukrainian army. If that's accomplished, Kiev will not be able to play
games any longer with fake peace talks, lobbing shells at Donetsk civilians, etc.
Something decisive like Stalingrad or Dien Bin Phu. That's the kind of victory that will
finally end this war.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:48
The latest - the rebels are gaining pretty well along the entire front. In LPR, the took
blockpost 31 and attacking blockpost 29. There is a real possibility of encircling the 24th
brigade of the Ukrainian army unless they withdraw. In DPR, rebels took Peski near airpost.
Peski, together with Avdeevka, were the towns from which the Ukrainian army fired at Donetsk
during the entire period of so called "cease-fire". The idea is to push the Ukrainian army as
far away from the main cities as possible, so they wouldn't be able to fire at them even from
far range artillery.
Elena Hodgson -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015
Edward, people are dying! The sooner this war ends, the less civilians are killed and
maimed! Yats with his war speeches is a Rabid Rabbit!
EdwardGreen1968 -> ID6741142 20 Jan 2015
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns
stop? What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a
happy ending!
That's the reality that Western media reporters and editors are not allowed to talk about.
They'll lose their jobs if they do.
Either way, that horrifying outcome you describe will only happen if Moscow caves in under
economic pressure. Kiev can't get to that position militarily. Based on battlefield news, Kiev
is destined to lose every single battle, and very badly at that.
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015 16:28
What I meant is that the Ukrainian army is being forced back in combat, but that it's
probably succeeding in making an organized retreat. That means that the Ukrainians take
casualties, lose ground, but reestablish defensive lines slightly to the west. That is an
indecisive victory for the pro-Russian rebels.
On the other hand, if there were reports that the Ukrainian lines were broken, and that
their units were getting encircled (put in kettles) -- just like at Ilovaisk -- then it would
be a decisive victory for the rebels.
It's hard to tell what's really happening based on the reports. The good thing about a
decisive outcome -- if it ever happens -- is that it may lead directly to peace (which is what
I really want to see).
EdwardGreen1968 -> Kolobok07 20 Jan 2015
DNR reports can't be taken at face value, though. They're biased. To me, DNR reports
are only good if they are backed up by AP or Reuters info, or if they're associated by twitter
announcements from people near the battle zone who are known not to be trolls (i.e., people
who are reasonably objective).
Either way, the proliferation of data during these past few hours suggests the Ukrainians
are being backed down at multiple points on the front.
ID6741142 20 Jan 2015 16:19
What saddens me in reading so many threads is the real victims of this conflict, the
innocent citizens of East Ukraine are, with the odd exception, being ignored. Too many of you
seem to want to score political points, trading 'fact's' that none of you will even give time
for consideration since they are obviously propaganda, whichever 'side' you support. It is
pointless.
Yet people are dying and a lot more will unless the focus changes, not just on here but in
the political world towards actually caring about the people.
A couple of you deserve commendation as you have recognised this. Also you recognised that
BOTH sides have played games.
Russia does have a regime that has extreme views on many issues. It is willing to exert it
power to stop the growth of western influence on its doorstep. And it does have a strong,
biased propaganda machine - I know I have Russian friends living in Russia.
However the West did play a hand in the change of Gov't. It knew that there were strong
far-right groups involved in that overthrow & it knows they are exerting a higher level of
influence than they should in the current conflict. The West does not have a good track record
of backing the 'right' groups.
Meanwhile, people who did not want a war, die in their homes.
There is hypocrisy on BOTH sides.
When it is over there will almost certainly be war crimes that will come to light on both
sides.
Is that why the media is not as high a presence as might be expected?
You rant about the shelling as if that is the only weapon used against the citizens of the
Eastern Ukraine. What about the stopping of aid lorries from the west by the pro-Kiev units -
under the control of RW-nationalist leaders?
Hearts & Minds - that is what wins all civil conflicts, and more importantly underpins any
chance to repair the serious damage done to 'trust'. The people in the East will believe
Russia more because it is not shooting at them AND more importantly it's aid is getting
through. (Yes I know it convoys also have weapons etc hidden but we play those 'games too when
it suits.) The West is slow to learn this lesson. It has failed time and again in its middle
eastern, conflicts to get this right, it thinks guns not grain, missile not milk & water, even
though these cost far less to provide.
The ONLY solution, whatever anyone may say, is, as already stated, for Ukraine to become,
for the foreseeable future, a totally neutral state in which the rights of all
citizens/cultures are protected (not just Russian & other ethnic minorities but also cultural
sub groups (i.e. LGBT)).
This may not be what the ordinary Ukrainians want.Not the oligarchs who drove the Kiev
changes because they would make more money in the EU!, who rule in this corrupt country (yes
corrupt that has been part of he EU's demands to sort it out), What the people really want is
not as clear as some might think , and do they actually have the facts to work it out? If we
can't be sure about the value of being in the EU in GB, with our so called 'open/ democratic'
media what chance do the ordinary Ukrainians have?
But if getting the country working and people cared for is the true aim of all 'outside
influential states' then that 'sacrifice' is worth it to bring peace, and the chance to build
a balanced state and economy. It will NEED both Russian and EU/USA support otherwise it will
be almost impossible to achieve especially with the war damage to be sorted!
But while the politicians behave like too many of you on here, with partisan fervour,
nationalistic pride etc and blinkered bar room vision, then the people who live in this
potentially beautiful and culturally rich nation will continue to die.
Come on Guardian stop focusing on the politics - we have heard it all before & it is not
changing anybody's opinion. Be brave. Lead the field and get the world to know just what price
is being paid by the old and young, and agitate for the peace that must happen now, before a
humanitarian disaster overtakes it all, and not when nationalistic pride allows it to.
A final aside/ note: If, though it will not, the Kievan forces did 'win' the war on the
ground what do you think will happen to the people who are caught up in this? Do you think
that having been labelled 'terrorists' they will be allowed to sleep easy when the guns stop?
What will happen to the women as the invaders arrive? Wake up or this does not have a happy
ending!
JezNorth noshtgchq 20 Jan 2015 16:18
Could be dangerous , these loonies could start another masive false flag - Maidan snipers ,
MH-17 , buss etc .
Do you really think this helps your cause or just makes you come off as an crass insta-mod.
PeraIlic -> Expats10 20 Jan 2015 16:17
To fight from civilian areas when you have a choice is cowardice.
What kind of choice are you talking about when the Ukrainian army was practically came to
the suburbs of Lugansk and Donetsk. Almost until yesterday, they were bombing the cities from
their airports, is not it?
Ukrainian commander of the attack on Ilovaisk testified before the cameras, "The
artillery and aviation overwhelm the city with their shells, and then we're going to clean-up
operation, it is normal procedure in this war."
If you do not believe me, I can very easily find the URL address of the video, just for
you.
Kolobok07 -> EdwardGreen1968 20 Jan 2015 16:17
No, the Ukrainian army has resisted ...
But there are reports of the capture of 39 and 41 checkpoints and attack extended to other
positions.
Pesky and Avdeyevka not completely stripped from the Ukrainian military.
EugeneGur 20 Jan 2015 16:15
Indeed, it takes a twisted conspiratorial mindset, or brainwashing by Russian
propaganda, to even attempt to deny that Russia's armed forces have been deeply engaged in
backing the rebel separatists of Donetsk and Luhansk
I confess I have that twisted conspiratorial mindset - I do not for a second believe that
Russian army is involved in the Donbass fighting. Not only not a shed of evidence has ever
been produced, not a single soldiers captured (apart from those unfortunate 10 soldiers that
wandered into Ukraine and did not fire a single shot) or a body shown, nothing.
I do not doubt that Russia supports Donbass, and it should. These are our people that refuse
to recognized an illegal "government" imposed on them by foreign powers as a result of a coup,
and they appealed to Russia for help. Why shouldn't Russia help? Because the West says so?
Furthermore, these people came under attack by the Kiev junta and are fighting for their
freedom and their lives. The only fault I can find with the Russian government's behavior is
that it doesn't do enough. Nevertheless, they are winning. Junta miscalculated yet again, and
the only thing it is capable of is killing civilians.
graduated reduction in sanctions in return for Russian concessions and cooperation in
Ukraine and elsewhere has been set aside
Why should Russia give concessions in Ukraine and cooperate in killing our people in
Donbass? Why should Russia cooperate in supporting what it considers to be a government based
on nazi ideology in Ukraine? Give me one good reason.
For that matter, why should Europe do that? Feeling nostalgic about nazism?
From comments: "With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of
Russian soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and
extremely professional. "
I still don't see what Putin is getting out of his Novrossya rampage.
Bingo. He's getting nothing, and that's why he's so dovish and reluctant to commit. It's
just one of those instances where he can't ignore the fact that he's got a people to answer
to. We all want a free Novorossia and a Crimea that's reunited with the rest of us and forever
safe from Ukrainian petty imperialism.
We don't need Putin or the television to tell us that. On the contrary, it's because of the
Russian people that Putin, however hard he might try to be his usual neither-here-nor-there
self, can't afford to not have a bottom line in this.
Tom20000 Eye Spy 19 Jan 2015 19:45
I don't think you understand what free speech is. The guardian is a private organisation
with no obligation to show all comments.
Georgethedog 19 Jan 2015 19:52
"During a meeting with the president, Krivenko even handed Putin a list of about 100
soldiers killed in eastern Ukraine"
With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of Russian
soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and extremely
professional.
Good Luck Kiev Junta!
Vignola1964 -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:31
There is much I do not know about this and other conflicts taking place around the world at
the moment, but we can all feel the sinister hands behind the scenes, driving ordinary people
into hostilities. There are no innocents anywhere.
In my opinion, the 1% profit from the other 1% constantly at conflict at any one time. The
more the merrier as far as they are concerned. For me this is evil.
kowalli -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:16
It must be embarrassing for the general public.
??? general public just think why west can't give any real proof, but give us bunch of
lies. You really think that this 7 guys can do anything?
You didn't even tell us results of mh17 Boeing or why ukrainians are shelling civilians like
USA in Iraq.
West just copypasting what USA tell them and think that they are exceptional people.
RicardoFloresMagon -> vr13vr 19 Jan 2015 19:14
Whether the claims have any merit or not, just the existence of all those groups who
file petitions and challenge authorities suggests there is much more democracy in Russia
than it is in the US. I can't even imagine similar organizations in the US criticizing and
pressuring Obama's administration or questioning military commanders whether the death of
their sons in Iraq was justified.
InternationalANSWER
United for Peace and Justice
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Code Pink
Not in Our Name
GI Rights Network
and a few more...
... not to mention millions protested the war before it even started in every major city.
JanZamoyski -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:11
A nice leverage to control an escaped satellite state. Either by constant war which will
bleed Ukraine and damage it chances of joining EU / NATO or by planting an autonomous, hostile
region which MPs are going to paralyse the Ukrainian parliament. Like they need more fist
fights...
Christine Cannon -> Alexander Sokolov 19 Jan 2015 19:11
So why are these young boys killing their neighbors. what is in it for them. Death
psygone -> Vignola1964 19 Jan 2015 19:10
"UK observers" is a little bit different than "deployments of HM Special Forces"
Popeyes 19 Jan 2015 19:04
This is nothing more than a proxy war between the West and Russia, and as Russia supports
and arms Donbass, Washington has been supplying Kiev with weapons including stingers,
anti-tank missiles, anti-armor weapons and other heavy weapons, as are many NATO countries.
Poroschenko has just signed a decree that mobilizes up to 50,000 "healthy men and women"
aged 25 to 60 to the frontlines in Eastern Ukraine... just how does that sit with the E.U? The
U.S wanted a full scale war when this all started last year and it seems nothing has changed.
JanZamoyski -> cheburawka 19 Jan 2015 19:03
The same silly argument yet again. Kremlin isn't interested in occupying Ukraine. Putin is
too smart for that.
This isn't Chechnya with its 1 million population, but a much bigger country with 45
million population. Despite some sympathetic population, many Ukrainians would react with
hostilities to such occupation. This would mean long bloody and expensive conflict Putin
doesn't want to pay for.
Chechnya despite it size was hell for Russia and Putin who was PM during second Chechnyy
war realises Ukrainian occupation would be the end of him.
In the end in Chechnya Putin found some locals to fight his war for him and that's what
happened to some extent in Crimea and Donbass.
The overblown issue of ethnic Russian population being oppressed was a joke, but with some
external military help it doesn't matter now.
Thanks to 5000+ dead in this conflict is fuelling itself and all Putin has to do is feed the
flame with equipment, ammo and some "volunteers" if necessary.
FFS this "war" has been on for seven months now. Where do you think the rebels are getting
their money, ammo and vehicles from ? From babushkas donations and not existing pensions ?
This region needs regular humanitarian food conveys but somehow has never ending supply of
military vehicles and ammo. Stop trolling or open your eyes.
Anette Mor 19 Jan 2015 19:03
260 russian nationals secretly killed in east ukraine? Out of 5000? Totally looks like an
invasion to me. There are at least half a million with Russian passports permanently living or
visiting close family. Time to stop writing this useless none stories and start contributing
to finishing that war.
cherryredguitar -> False_Face 19 Jan 2015 19:42
You haven't got a bit of evidence that there is some sort of American conspiracy here.
I've got a documented American admission that they funded these Russian Soldiers Mothers
groups.
Now you may think that it's entirely a coincidence that the Russian Soldiers Mothers groups
are saying exactly what the Americans who fund them would want them to say, but some of us are
a tad more cynical, made that way by the lies of the warmongers.
tanyushka -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:39
Actually, Kiev was the first capital of Russia & the first royal dinasty, the Ruriks, lived
there & then moved to Moscow... once in Moscow came the time of Romanovs, but much later...
do you suggest Russia should also claim Kiev since it was its first capital?
Putin has only said he's going to seek re-election, which is perfectly legal... why
shouldn't he if he is a popular president? do you suggest Russia should change its
Constitution to please its enemies?
about economic ruin... well, that was Boris the drunkard, the favourite of the West, &
oligarchs like Khodorkovsky, Brezovsky, etc. Never Heard of the Wild, Wild East?
Putin brought order and control & the economy has been doing great so far... check your
info instead of repeating lies...
onu labu -> MacCosham 19 Jan 2015 19:39
Note that hundred of military personnel die every year in Russia from various causes.
noted.
Vignola1964 -> psygone 19 Jan 2015 19:38
It might not occur to you but special forces operatives tend to know potential adversaries
quite well. They know how they are trained, might even have worked alongside them. They are
professional. Hague was not. He should never alluded to any official or unofficial UK presence
in Maidan. The fact that he did was worse than poor form..it endangered those same observer's
lives. Were Hague to utter the words that would deny you your rejoinder to my point, even you
would question his sanity.
Eye Spy -> Robert Looren de Jong 19 Jan 2015 19:34
are you for real.
So the people of Crimea were all forced to go and vote at gunpoint and all these Russian
guns at the heads of the voters were airbrushed out of the images that were beamed into our
homes...well I never
that means that there were thousands of Crimeans who were shot and buried because they
decided to take the bullet....oh my gosh
that means when the Americans roll in to liberate the captive Crimean' they are going to be
met with flowers being thrown at their feet and they will discover mass graves....sounds like
Iraq.
You are fanciful but I can be just as inventive.
Scipio1 19 Jan 2015 19:34
I see the Guardian has published a photograph of the latest friend of freedom and democracy
- Yatsenuik - who was part of the corrupt Orange regime of Yuschenko and Tymoshenko,
2004-2010, and who also recently accused the USSR of invading Ukraine and Germany after 1941.
Does this mean something I wonder?
As for Russian troops being in eastern Ukraine, well this seems probable. However, this is
quite different from an invasion. An invasion would involve tens of thousands with air support
and taking of towns and large areas of land.
Clearly this has not and will not happen. Principally because no-one wants to take on a
basket case like Ukraine. Russian troops are probably present but this is to ensure that their
kith and kin in the Don Bas are not ethnically cleansed and murdered by Russophobic neo-Nazi
outfits like the Azov Battalion, the Aidar Battalion, Pravy Sector (whoops, I mean the
National Guard of course) whose multiple atrocities in the East have been blacked out by the
western media, even the trendy faux media like ....
It is difficult to work out exactly what the Kiev regime is trying to do in its anti-terror
operation. Obviously not trying to win hearts and minds in the east by systematic bombardment
and wiping out the infrastructure (very much in the style of the IDF - the hasbara doctrine).
One would have thought that the massive despoliation of the most productive region of the
Ukraine was against their national interests. It would have been a bit like the British during
their long war against the IRA shelling Cross Maglen or West Belfast.
But of course there is no genuine government in Ukraine, this insofar as Yatsenuik,
Poroshenko and Kolomoisky are simply carrying out the orders the US Ambassador in Kiev. The US
simply wants to keep the pot boiling and making maximum chaos of Russia's western borders.
Yes, the US will fight to every last Ukrainian.
Oh, and by the way there are plenty of foreign troops in West Ukraine, including Poles, US
advisers, international fascist and neo-Nazi groups like the above mentioned Azov Battalion.
And arms are also pouring in from NATO.
Did the EUSA-NATO juggernaut, in their relentless push eastwards, think they could prompt
yet another colour revolution in a country that had democratically voted in Yanukovich who
wanted to maintain a non-aligned status. Russian reaction was very predictable to what they
considered to be a massive provocation, and yet regime change was pursued a l'outrance by the
US and its vassal states in Europe. And of course the regime change in Ukraine was to be
followed by regime change in Russia.
So who exactly are the aggressors here? Who is the genuine threat to world peace? Well of
course it depends who you ask. But outside the Anglosphere the answer of the majority of the
world's population is resounding. The great rogue state is .....
kowalli 19 Jan 2015 19:33
Western guys are funny - they keep talking about anything, but when they are asked about
facts - they can give you anything except of more lies...
From comments: "With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of
Russian soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and
extremely professional. "
I still don't see what Putin is getting out of his Novrossya rampage.
Bingo. He's getting nothing, and that's why he's so dovish and reluctant to commit. It's
just one of those instances where he can't ignore the fact that he's got a people to answer
to. We all want a free Novorossia and a Crimea that's reunited with the rest of us and forever
safe from Ukrainian petty imperialism.
We don't need Putin or the television to tell us that. On the contrary, it's because of the
Russian people that Putin, however hard he might try to be his usual neither-here-nor-there
self, can't afford to not have a bottom line in this.
Tom20000 Eye Spy 19 Jan 2015 19:45
I don't think you understand what free speech is. The guardian is a private organisation
with no obligation to show all comments.
Georgethedog 19 Jan 2015 19:52
"During a meeting with the president, Krivenko even handed Putin a list of about 100
soldiers killed in eastern Ukraine"
With all the respect for the dead and their families, if this is the number of Russian
soldiers dead, damn good they are, I take my hat, what an army, almost invisible and extremely
professional.
Good Luck Kiev Junta!
Vignola1964 -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:31
There is much I do not know about this and other conflicts taking place around the world at
the moment, but we can all feel the sinister hands behind the scenes, driving ordinary people
into hostilities. There are no innocents anywhere.
In my opinion, the 1% profit from the other 1% constantly at conflict at any one time. The
more the merrier as far as they are concerned. For me this is evil.
kowalli -> Tom20000 19 Jan 2015 19:16
It must be embarrassing for the general public.
??? general public just think why west can't give any real proof, but give us bunch of
lies. You really think that this 7 guys can do anything?
You didn't even tell us results of mh17 Boeing or why ukrainians are shelling civilians like
USA in Iraq.
West just copypasting what USA tell them and think that they are exceptional people.
RicardoFloresMagon -> vr13vr 19 Jan 2015 19:14
Whether the claims have any merit or not, just the existence of all those groups who
file petitions and challenge authorities suggests there is much more democracy in Russia
than it is in the US. I can't even imagine similar organizations in the US criticizing and
pressuring Obama's administration or questioning military commanders whether the death of
their sons in Iraq was justified.
InternationalANSWER
United for Peace and Justice
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Code Pink
Not in Our Name
GI Rights Network
and a few more...
... not to mention millions protested the war before it even started in every major city.
JanZamoyski -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:11
A nice leverage to control an escaped satellite state. Either by constant war which will
bleed Ukraine and damage it chances of joining EU / NATO or by planting an autonomous, hostile
region which MPs are going to paralyse the Ukrainian parliament. Like they need more fist
fights...
Christine Cannon -> Alexander Sokolov 19 Jan 2015 19:11
So why are these young boys killing their neighbors. what is in it for them. Death
psygone -> Vignola1964 19 Jan 2015 19:10
"UK observers" is a little bit different than "deployments of HM Special Forces"
Popeyes 19 Jan 2015 19:04
This is nothing more than a proxy war between the West and Russia, and as Russia supports
and arms Donbass, Washington has been supplying Kiev with weapons including stingers,
anti-tank missiles, anti-armor weapons and other heavy weapons, as are many NATO countries.
Poroschenko has just signed a decree that mobilizes up to 50,000 "healthy men and women"
aged 25 to 60 to the frontlines in Eastern Ukraine... just how does that sit with the E.U? The
U.S wanted a full scale war when this all started last year and it seems nothing has changed.
JanZamoyski -> cheburawka 19 Jan 2015 19:03
The same silly argument yet again. Kremlin isn't interested in occupying Ukraine. Putin is
too smart for that.
This isn't Chechnya with its 1 million population, but a much bigger country with 45
million population. Despite some sympathetic population, many Ukrainians would react with
hostilities to such occupation. This would mean long bloody and expensive conflict Putin
doesn't want to pay for.
Chechnya despite it size was hell for Russia and Putin who was PM during second Chechnyy
war realises Ukrainian occupation would be the end of him.
In the end in Chechnya Putin found some locals to fight his war for him and that's what
happened to some extent in Crimea and Donbass.
The overblown issue of ethnic Russian population being oppressed was a joke, but with some
external military help it doesn't matter now.
Thanks to 5000+ dead in this conflict is fuelling itself and all Putin has to do is feed the
flame with equipment, ammo and some "volunteers" if necessary.
FFS this "war" has been on for seven months now. Where do you think the rebels are getting
their money, ammo and vehicles from ? From babushkas donations and not existing pensions ?
This region needs regular humanitarian food conveys but somehow has never ending supply of
military vehicles and ammo. Stop trolling or open your eyes.
Anette Mor 19 Jan 2015 19:03
260 russian nationals secretly killed in east ukraine? Out of 5000? Totally looks like an
invasion to me. There are at least half a million with Russian passports permanently living or
visiting close family. Time to stop writing this useless none stories and start contributing
to finishing that war.
cherryredguitar -> False_Face 19 Jan 2015 19:42
You haven't got a bit of evidence that there is some sort of American conspiracy here.
I've got a documented American admission that they funded these Russian Soldiers Mothers
groups.
Now you may think that it's entirely a coincidence that the Russian Soldiers Mothers groups
are saying exactly what the Americans who fund them would want them to say, but some of us are
a tad more cynical, made that way by the lies of the warmongers.
tanyushka -> iangio 19 Jan 2015 19:39
Actually, Kiev was the first capital of Russia & the first royal dinasty, the Ruriks, lived
there & then moved to Moscow... once in Moscow came the time of Romanovs, but much later...
do you suggest Russia should also claim Kiev since it was its first capital?
Putin has only said he's going to seek re-election, which is perfectly legal... why
shouldn't he if he is a popular president? do you suggest Russia should change its
Constitution to please its enemies?
about economic ruin... well, that was Boris the drunkard, the favourite of the West, &
oligarchs like Khodorkovsky, Brezovsky, etc. Never Heard of the Wild, Wild East?
Putin brought order and control & the economy has been doing great so far... check your
info instead of repeating lies...
onu labu -> MacCosham 19 Jan 2015 19:39
Note that hundred of military personnel die every year in Russia from various causes.
noted.
Vignola1964 -> psygone 19 Jan 2015 19:38
It might not occur to you but special forces operatives tend to know potential adversaries
quite well. They know how they are trained, might even have worked alongside them. They are
professional. Hague was not. He should never alluded to any official or unofficial UK presence
in Maidan. The fact that he did was worse than poor form..it endangered those same observer's
lives. Were Hague to utter the words that would deny you your rejoinder to my point, even you
would question his sanity.
Eye Spy -> Robert Looren de Jong 19 Jan 2015 19:34
are you for real.
So the people of Crimea were all forced to go and vote at gunpoint and all these Russian
guns at the heads of the voters were airbrushed out of the images that were beamed into our
homes...well I never
that means that there were thousands of Crimeans who were shot and buried because they
decided to take the bullet....oh my gosh
that means when the Americans roll in to liberate the captive Crimean' they are going to be
met with flowers being thrown at their feet and they will discover mass graves....sounds like
Iraq.
You are fanciful but I can be just as inventive.
Scipio1 19 Jan 2015 19:34
I see the Guardian has published a photograph of the latest friend of freedom and democracy
- Yatsenuik - who was part of the corrupt Orange regime of Yuschenko and Tymoshenko,
2004-2010, and who also recently accused the USSR of invading Ukraine and Germany after 1941.
Does this mean something I wonder?
As for Russian troops being in eastern Ukraine, well this seems probable. However, this is
quite different from an invasion. An invasion would involve tens of thousands with air support
and taking of towns and large areas of land.
Clearly this has not and will not happen. Principally because no-one wants to take on a
basket case like Ukraine. Russian troops are probably present but this is to ensure that their
kith and kin in the Don Bas are not ethnically cleansed and murdered by Russophobic neo-Nazi
outfits like the Azov Battalion, the Aidar Battalion, Pravy Sector (whoops, I mean the
National Guard of course) whose multiple atrocities in the East have been blacked out by the
western media, even the trendy faux media like ....
It is difficult to work out exactly what the Kiev regime is trying to do in its anti-terror
operation. Obviously not trying to win hearts and minds in the east by systematic bombardment
and wiping out the infrastructure (very much in the style of the IDF - the hasbara doctrine).
One would have thought that the massive despoliation of the most productive region of the
Ukraine was against their national interests. It would have been a bit like the British during
their long war against the IRA shelling Cross Maglen or West Belfast.
But of course there is no genuine government in Ukraine, this insofar as Yatsenuik,
Poroshenko and Kolomoisky are simply carrying out the orders the US Ambassador in Kiev. The US
simply wants to keep the pot boiling and making maximum chaos of Russia's western borders.
Yes, the US will fight to every last Ukrainian.
Oh, and by the way there are plenty of foreign troops in West Ukraine, including Poles, US
advisers, international fascist and neo-Nazi groups like the above mentioned Azov Battalion.
And arms are also pouring in from NATO.
Did the EUSA-NATO juggernaut, in their relentless push eastwards, think they could prompt
yet another colour revolution in a country that had democratically voted in Yanukovich who
wanted to maintain a non-aligned status. Russian reaction was very predictable to what they
considered to be a massive provocation, and yet regime change was pursued a l'outrance by the
US and its vassal states in Europe. And of course the regime change in Ukraine was to be
followed by regime change in Russia.
So who exactly are the aggressors here? Who is the genuine threat to world peace? Well of
course it depends who you ask. But outside the Anglosphere the answer of the majority of the
world's population is resounding. The great rogue state is .....
kowalli 19 Jan 2015 19:33
Western guys are funny - they keep talking about anything, but when they are asked about
facts - they can give you anything except of more lies...
There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In
June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling
Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors
are even imaginable.
But that was then - a previous regime.
On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the
exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern,
attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other
countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason
given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister
Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his
government.
Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For
Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets.
They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary
and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.
In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners
do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save
a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.
The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact
bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared.
In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money
from the European Bank and the IMF.
The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor
on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after
her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid
shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina
Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.
Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.
By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some
there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.
As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after
the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible
organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.
Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former
warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.
These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January
interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security
personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason
to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process.
He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them
with him if he dies.
Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December
after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our
eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza.
This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw
all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.
Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists
that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against
Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed
2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have
sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny.
We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"
Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after
the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.
There were times in Ukraine's recent history when even the country's military brass were kneeling before the U.S. Literally. In
June 2013, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Tefft received the saber of the Ukrainian Cossack in the city of Kherson from a kneeling
Ukrainian high-rank military official. Mr. Tefft nowadays is serving the country as an Ambassador to Russia where no such honors
are even imaginable.
But that was then - a previous regime.
On the surface, today's Ukraine is much more favorably disposed toward everything Western and everything American because of the
exciting wind of transformations that swept through the Ukrainian political landscape last year. Its political culture looks modern,
attractive, refined and European. For example, at the end of last year a new law was passed that allowed former citizens of other
countries to participate in Ukrainian politics and even the government, in case they denounce their former citizenships. The reason
given was the fight with notorious Ukrainian corruption. Apparently, in a country of more than 40 million people, Prime Minister
Arseny Yatsenyuk (called "Rabbit" by his citizens) couldn't find a dozen or so native-born yet not corrupt professionals for his
government.
Now three former foreigners-ex-American Natalia Yaresko (Minister for Finance), ex-Lithuanian Aivaras Abromavičius (Minister For
Economy and Trade) and ex-Georgian Alexander Kvitashvili (Minister for Public Health)-are firmly established in their new cabinets.
They are just the beginning. They gave up their U.S. and European passports with only two benefits in return: a $200-a-month salary
and the chance to build a prosperous new Ukraine.
In a strange twist of fate, the Ukrainian ministers during their meetings now have to speak hated Russian - former foreigners
do not speak Ukrainian well enough and locals do not speak English at the level necessary for complicated discussions on how to save
a Ukraine economy that is disappearing before their eyes.
The problems they are facing are overwhelming. The new minister for economy, Mr. Abromavičius, knows that the country is in fact
bankrupt. "To expect that we are going to produce real as opposed to declarative incentive programs is unrealistic," he declared.
In other words, the new Ukrainian budget is nothing but a piece of paper. But without this piece of paper there will be no new money
from the European Bank and the IMF.
The first steps he has taken so far are controversial.
On January 5, the new minister for economy appointed former Estonian Jaanika Merilo - a young dark-haired beauty-as his advisor
on foreign investments, improvement of business climate in Ukraine, coordination of international programs and so on. Directly after
her appointment, the young lady put online not her resume or a program for Ukrainian financial stabilization but a series of candid
shots that display her long legs, plump lips and prominent cleavage. In some shots, she places a knife to her lips a la Angelina
Jolie and sits on the chair a la Sharon Stone.
Ms. Merilo, too, forfeited her European passport in the hope of a better future for her new Motherland.
By law, double citizenship is not permitted for a Ukrainian governmental official, but, as often happens in Ukraine, for some
there is always another way around. The governor of Zaporozhe region, oligarch Igor Kolomoisky, for example, has three citizenships.
As exhilarating winds of change swept through the Ukrainian government, Western newspapers giddily reported the fact that after
the last elections for the first time in decades there would be no Communists in the Ukrainian Parliament. But that means all possible
organized opposition to the current president and prime minister is gone.
Instead, the new Rada has a big group of parliamentarians of very uncertain political loyalties and even dubious mental state-former
warlords and street activists who distinguished themselves during street fights and tire burnings.
These government rookies are sometimes turning to strange ways of self-promotion, now within the walls of the Parliament.
One new face in the Rada-leader of the Right Sector ultra-nationalist party and former warlord Dmytro Yarosh-admitted in a January
interview with Ukrainian TV that he caresses a real hand grenade in his pocket while inside the Rada. Because he is MP, the security
personnel has no right to check his pockets. They just ask if he has anything dangerous on his person and he says no. The reason
to have a hand grenade on his body is that there are too many enemies of Ukraine within the MP crowding him during the voting process.
He is not afraid, of course. But when the time comes, he will use this grenade and with a bit of luck he will take a lot of them
with him if he dies.
Ukrainian MPs Yuri Beryoza and Andrei Levus, also former warlords and members of radical parties, became notorious last December
after publicly applauding the terrorist attack in the Russian city of Grozny-an attack in which 14 policemen were killed. "On our
eastern borders our brothers are coming out from under Russia's power. It's normal. These are the allies of Ukraine," said Mr. Beryoza.
This is the same fellow who had earlier promised that the Ukrainian army would soon take Moscow. Andrei Levus proposed Russia withdraw
all of her "punishers" from the "People's Republic of Ichkeria" (i.e. Chechnya) immediately.
Another former warlord, former member of social-national party and today's Ukrainian MP Igor Mosiychuk said to the journalists
that Ukraine, "being in the state of war, must stimulate the opening of the second front in the Caucuses, in Middle Asia" against
Russia. In the scandalous video, which has been viewed
2.5 million times, he unloaded an assault rifle into the portrait of the Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov ranting, "Ramzan, you have
sent your dogs, traitors into our land. We have been killing them here and we will come after you. We will come after you to Grozny.
We will help our brothers to free Ichkeria from such dogs like you. Glory to Ukraine! Glory to the free Ichkeria!"
Despite this bravado, the personal security for all three MPs had to be increased-at high cost to the cash-starved country-after
the Chechen leader promised to bring them to justice in Russia for incitement of terrorism.
"... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?
PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35
That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent
responsible for its success or failure.
What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100%
responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???
For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which
is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:
Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
DPR and LPR leaders
Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36
Ł2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended
up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled,
then Ł3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere
near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!
HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26
The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their
citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.
Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59
You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All
infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply
than main Ukraine.
The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help
people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.
"... The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. ..."
I see the Guardian rhetoric has changed, as well as rhetoric of our usual guests from NSA.
Does that mean that Ukrainian government would finally get a push to end the war?
PeraIlic -> psygone, 8 Jan 2015 15:35
That's right - Putin's 12 point cease fire plan makes the Russians 100 percent
responsible for its success or failure.
What kind of twisted logic? One who has proposed a draft of the agreement, he is 100%
responsible for its fulfillment, and not those who have signed it???
For the fulfillment of any agreement are obliged all its signatories, it is old rule, which
is still in force, and always will be so. As a reminder, the protocol was signed in Minsk by:
Swiss diplomat and OSCE representative Heidi Tagliavini
Former president of Ukraine and Ukrainian representative Leonid Kuchma
Russian Ambassador to Ukraine and Russian representative Mikhail Zurabov
DPR and LPR leaders
Ralphinengland 9 Jan 2015 18:36
Ł2.13 million was given by the UK to ECHO (EU) & CERF (UN) - and who knows where THAT ended
up. Considering eastern Ukraine had a population of approx 8 million, less people who fled,
then Ł3.53 million for say 7 million people IF - I repeat IF - that money ever got anywhere
near the Donbas, is FIFTY pence per person!!!
HollyOldDog -> Dunscore 9 Jan 2015 16:26
The East Ukrainians won't get any sympathy from Cameron or Merkel as none of their
citizens are dying - only pieces on a chess board to them. They are a bloodless pair.
Anette Mor -> psygone 8 Jan 2015 11:59
You are joking. "Russian refusal or inability"? Donbas is still being bombed daily. All
infrastructure destroyed several times over. Yet they got better electricity and gas supply
than main Ukraine.
The war has to stop first for proper recovery to start. The war is on full blow. Help
people to survive is the only reasonable expectation for now.
The 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.
The NDB, the BRICS' response to the World Bank, was officially launched with $50 billion in start-up capital. Focused on funding major infrastructure projects in the BRICS nations, it is capable of accumulating as much as $400 billion in capital, according to its president, Kundapur Vaman Kamath. Later, it plans to focus on funding such ventures in other developing nations across the Global South -- all in their own currencies, which means bypassing the U.S. dollar. Given its membership, the NDB's money will clearly be closely linked to the new Silk Roads. As Brazilian Development Bank President Luciano Coutinho stressed, in the near future it may also assist European non-EU member states like Serbia and Macedonia. Think of this as the NDB's attempt to break a Brussels monopoly on Greater Europe. Kamath even advanced the possibility of someday aiding in the reconstruction of Syria.
Before & After: Oafish attempts to downplay US State Department's extra-legal
The "Fifth-Branch" Invasion: Click for larger image.
