In addition to the albatross around his neck in the form of John Bolton, the neocons managed to squeeze Elliott Abrams into
Trump Administration. So now it really looks like Bush II administration. And Trump himself looks like a regular
neocon, not that different from Obama or Bush II. Elliot Abrams was the key architect of Iraq war, no more, no less
(Elliott Abrams - Wikipedia):
Elliott Abrams (born January 24, 1948) is an American diplomat and lawyer who has served in foreign policy positions for
Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump. Abrams is considered to be a neoconservative.[2] He is currently a
senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.[3] On January 25, 2019, he was appointed as Special
Representative for Venezuela.[4][5]
He is best known[6][7] for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, which led to his
conviction in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress. He was later pardoned by George
H.W. Bush. During George W. Bush's first term, he served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the
National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. At the start of Bush's second term, Abrams was promoted to be
his Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy, in charge of promoting Bush's strategy of "advancing
democracy abroad." In the Bush administration, Abrams was a key architect behind the Iraq War.
If this is not a complete betrayal of his voters on the part of Trump, I do not know what is. All his election rethoric about
ending forign wars now looks like a blatant scam. Looks like there are no decent diplomats/ bureaucrats willing to work (and risk their careers) with Trump...
"Frankly, American officials resemble nothing so much as a gang of drunken sailors standing on a street corner, leering and
shouting rude things to every person passing. "
If successful, Venezuela will be regime change number 68 since WWII: looks like the USA is hell-bent to remain an empire
and remains incapable of adapting to new circumstances and will continue to manipulate countries, using criminal methods because
Uncle Sam is convinced that he is above the law.
Hawk Elliot Abrams, reborn as a U.S. envoy, is at the spear point of recent aggressive moves
in Venezuela. US Special Representative for Venezuela Elliot Abrams addresses the Atlantic
Council on the future of Venezuela in Washington, DC, on April 25, 2019. (Photo credit NICHOLAS
KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
Called the "neocon zombie" by officials at the State Department, Abrams is known as an
operator who doesn't let anything stand in his way. He has a long history of pursuing
disastrous policies in government.
"Everything Abrams is doing now is the same thing he was doing during the Reagan
administration. He's very adept at manipulating the levers of power without a lot of
oversight," a former senior official at the State Department told The American
Conservative. The official added that Abrams is "singularly focused" on pursuing regime
change in Venezuela.
A little background on Abrams: when he served as Reagan's assistant secretary of state for
human rights, he concealed a
massacre of a thousand men, women, and children by U.S.-funded death squads in El Salvador.
He was also involved in the Iran Contra scandal, helping to secure covert funding for Contra
rebels in Nicaragua in violation of laws passed by Congress. In 1991, he pled guilty to
lying to Congress about the America's role in those two fiascos -- twice.
But then-president George H.W. Bush pardoned Abrams. He went on to support "measures to
scuttle the Latin American peace process launched by the Costa Rican president, Óscar
Arias" and use "the agency's money to unseat the Sandinistas in Nicaragua's 1990 general
elections," according
to Brian D'Haeseleer.
Under President George W. Bush, Abrams promoted regime change in Iraq.
Abrams was initially blocked from joining the Trump administration on account of a Never
Trump op-ed he'd penned. But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo succeeded in bringing him onboard
last year, despite his history of support for disastrous regime change policies.
It's no surprise that with Abrams at the helm, U.S. rhetoric and actions towards Venezuela
are constantly "escalating," Dr. Alejandro Velasco, associate professor of Modern Latin America
at New York University, said an interview with TAC.
In just the last month, Washington has placed bounties on the heads of President
Nicolás Maduro and a dozen current and former Venezuelan officials. The U.S. also
deployed the largest fleet ever to the Southern Hemisphere.
Meanwhile, Abrams announced the " Democratic
Transition Framework for Venezuela ," which calls on Maduro's government to embrace a
power-sharing deal. The plan doesn't explain how Venezuelan leaders with bounties on their
heads are supposed to come to the table and negotiate with Juan Guaido, whom the U.S.
recognizes as Venezuela's legitimate leader. Abrams has also said that the U.S. does not
support a coup.
A few days after recommending a power-sharing arrangement, and 18 years after the U.S.
backed a putsch against Hugo Chavez, Abrams
warned that if Maduro resisted the organization of a "transitional government," his
departure would be far more "dangerous and abrupt." To many, Abrams'
aggressive rhetoric against Maduro made it sound like the U.S. was "effectively threatening
him with another assassination attempt," like the one Washington had "tacitly
supported" in 2018.
Two weeks after Abrams' warning, Operation Gideon began. Jordan Goudreau, an American
citizen, former Green Beret, and three-time Bronze Star recipient for bravery in Iraq and
Afghanistan, along with Javier Nieto, a retired Venezuelan military captain, posted a video
from an undisclosed location saying they had launched an attack that was meant to begin a
rebellion that would lead to Maduro's arrest and the installation of Juan Guaido.
In a public relations coup for Maduro, the plot was quickly foiled. Given that American
citizens were involved and have produced a contract allegedly signed by Guaido,
the incident has severely harmed the reputations of both the U.S. and the Venezuelan
opposition.
Both President Trump and Pompeo have denied that the U.S. had any "direct" involvement with
Goudreau's plot.
However, the Trump administration has given billions of dollars from USAID to Venezuela, and
that money is largely untraceable due to concerns about outing supporters of Guaido.
"With all the cash and arms sloshing around in Venezuela," it is not hard to imagine how
U.S. funding could inadvertently wind up supporting something like this, said Velasco.
There are other signs that the U.S. may have been more involved in the plot than they are
saying publicly.
For one, American mercenaries don't carry passports identifying themselves as American nor
do they return to the U.S. where they can be brought up on charges for their work, said Sean
McFate, professor of war and strategy at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and
the National Defense University.
In order to sell weapons or training to another nation, it is necessary to receive
permission from the State Department. It's unclear whether Goudreau and his band did so. But
Goudreau's social media posts look like a pretty "clear cut" violation of the International
Convention Against the Recruitment, Financing and Training of Mercenaries and the U.S.
International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) said Peter Singer, a senior fellow at New
America.
We know that months before the fated coup, the CIA met with Goudreau in Jamaica and
allegedly warned him off the project. According to the AP, Goudreau is now under
investigation for arms trafficking . Members of Congress have asked the State Department
what they knew of Goudreau's plans. Given the illegal nature of the supposedly unauthorized
project, it's very strange that the ringleader is at present in Florida, talking to the press
and posting on social media.
Besides that warning, it seems no one in government tried to stop this calamitous
operation.
And it's not just regime change. Last year, Abrams
advocated granting special immigration status for the 70,000 Venezuelans residing illegally
in the U.S. as a way to "pressure Maduro" even though Trump ran on the promise to severely
limit the number of people granted Temporary Protected Status.
It was in pursuit of special status for Venezuelans that Abrams showed himself to be
"incredibly pompous, bull-headed, and willing to destroy anyone who opposes him, in a personal
way, including by trashing their reputations in the media," another senior State Department
official told TAC. Abrams is not above hiding policy options he doesn't like and
offering only those he favors to Pompeo to present to Trump, sources said.
Abrams ultimately prevailed and Venezuelans received refugee status from the Trump
administration, despite the fact that it betrayed Trump's campaign promises.
According to Velasco, there are some people in the administration who believe that
Venezuelans are the "new Cubans" -- that they will become a solid, loyal Republican vote in the
swing state of Florida if they're granted special status. They also believe that Venezuelan
expats want to see the U.S. remove Maduro. There are "many Cold Warriors" who believe all it
will take is a "little push" for Venezuelans to rise up and take out Maduro, said Velasco.
The State Department did not respond to a request for comment on whether Abrams is pursuing
a military confrontation in Venezuela.
"Cold Warrior" beliefs are dangerous. While "Operation Gideon" was especially clownish, had
it been more sophisticated, it could have easily sparked a world war. The Russians, Iranians,
and Chinese are all operating in Venezuela.
That specter is even more concerning now that Russia's Foreign Minister Lavrov has
said that Russian special
services are on standby to help Venezuela's investigation of the mercenaries. about the
author Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security reporter.
Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She is
the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about General George Patton in World War II, and
her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill , UK Spectator , and elsewhere.
Boland is a graduate from Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
@BBatDC .
"... A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades," Carlson said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it." ..."
"... Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals in the region -- a central part of his 2020 reelection bid . ..."
"... The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien, Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protιgι who soaked up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? -- regime change. ..."
"... The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle. ..."
"... the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant of the Oval Office. ..."
"... The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outrι. ..."
"... But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen stated , "Creative destruction is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day." ..."
"... Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the movement. ..."
"... And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian, and Iraq Warera figures like David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser, the Bolton protιgι Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't care less if they negotiate," he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review , rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is a myth." ..."
"... One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away" from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has popped up to warn Trump against trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000. ..."
"... Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world ..."
"... At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad. ..."
There was a time not so long ago, before President Donald Trump's surprise decision early this year to liquidate the Iranian commander
Qassem Soleimani, when it appeared that America's neoconservatives were floundering. The president was itching to withdraw U.S. forces
from Afghanistan. He was staging exuberant photo-ops with a beaming Kim Jong Un. He was reportedly willing to hold talks with the
president of Iran, while clearly preferring trade wars to hot ones.
Indeed, this past summer, Trump's anti-interventionist supporters in the conservative media were riding high. When he refrained
from attacking Iran in June after it shot down an American drone, Fox News host Tucker Carlson
declared , "Donald Trump was elected president precisely to keep us out of disaster like war with Iran." Carlson went on to condemn
the hawks in Trump's Cabinet and their allies, who he claimed were egging the president on -- familiar names to anyone who has followed
the decades-long neoconservative project of aggressively using military force to topple unfriendly regimes and project American power
over the globe. "So how did we get so close to starting [a war]?"
he asked. "One of [the hawks'] key allies is the national security adviser of the United States. John Bolton is an old friend
of Bill Kristol's. Together they helped plan the Iraq War."
By the time Trump met with Kim in late June, becoming the first sitting president to set foot on North Korean soil, Bolton was
on the outs. Carlson was on the president's North Korean junket, while Trump's national security adviser was in Mongolia. "John Bolton
is absolutely a hawk,"
Trump
told NBC in June. "If it was up to him, he'd take on the whole world at one time, OK?" In September, Bolton was fired.
The standard-bearer of the Republican Party had made clear his distaste for the neocons' belligerent approach to global affairs,
much to the neocons' own entitled chagrin. As recently as December, Bolton, now outside the tent pissing in, was hammering Trump
for "bluffing" through an announcement that the administration wanted North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. "The
idea that we are somehow exerting maximum pressure on North Korea is just unfortunately not true,"
Bolton told Axios . Then Trump ordered the drone
strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were
reversed, with Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former
CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's
"decisive action." It was Carlson
who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with Iran for decades,"
Carlson said . "They
still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
Neoconservatism as a foreign policy ideology has been badly discredited over the last two decades, thanks to the debacles
in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the
national conversation. It now appears that Trump intends to make Soleimani's killing -- which has nearly drawn the U.S. into yet
another conflict in the Middle East and, in typical neoconservative fashion, ended up backfiring and undercutting American goals
in the region -- a central part of his
2020 reelection bid
.
The anti-interventionist right is freaking out. Writing in American Greatness, Matthew Boose
declared , "[T]he Trump movement, which was generated out of opposition to the foreign policy blob and its endless wars, was
revealed this week to have been co-opted to a great extent by neoconservatives seeking regime change." James Antle, the editor of
The American Conservative, a publication founded in 2002 to oppose the Iraq War,
asked , "Did
Trump betray the anti-war right?"
In the blinding flash of one drone strike, neoconservatism was easily able to reinsert itself in the national conversation.
Their concerns are not unmerited. The neocons are starting to realize that Trump's presidency, at least when it comes to foreign
policy, is no less vulnerable to hijacking than those of previous Republican presidents, including the administrations of Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush. The leading hawks inside and outside the administration shaping its approach to Iran include Robert O'Brien,
Bolton's disciple and successor as national security adviser; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; Special Representative for Iran Brian
Hook; Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies; David Wurmser, a former adviser to Bolton; and Senators
Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton. Perhaps no one better exemplifies the neocon ethos better than Cotton, a Kristol protιgι who soaked
up the teachings of the political philosopher Leo Strauss while studying at Harvard. Others who have been baying for conflict with
Iran include Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor who is now Trump's personal lawyer and partner in Ukrainian crime. In
June 2018, Giuliani went to Paris to address the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose parent organization is the Iranian
opposition group Mujahedin-e-Khalq, or MeK. Giuliani, who has been on the payroll of the MeK for years, demanded -- what else? --
regime change.
The fresh charge into battle of what Sidney Blumenthal once aptly referred to as an ideological light brigade brings to mind
Hobbes's observation in Leviathan : "All men that are ambitious of military command are inclined to continue the causes of
war; and to stir up trouble and sedition; for there is no honor military but by war; nor any such hope to mend an ill game, as by
causing a new shuffle." The neocons, it appears, have caused a new shuffle.
Donald Trump has not dragged us into war with Iran (yet). But the killing of Soleimani revealed that the neocon military-intellectual
complex is very much still intact, with the ability to spring back to life from a state of suspended animation in an instant. Its
hawkish tendencies remain widely prevalent not only in the Republican Party but also in the media, the think-tank universe, and in
the liberal-hawk precincts of the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, the influence and reach of the anti-war right remains nascent; even
if this contingent has popular support, it doesn't enjoy much backing in Washington beyond the mood swings of the mercurial occupant
of the Oval Office.
But there was a time when the neoconservative coalition was not so entrenched -- and what has turned out to be its provisional
state of exile lends some critical insight into how it managed to hang around respectable policymaking circles in recent years, and
how it may continue to shape American foreign policy for the foreseeable future. When the neoconservatives came on the scene in the
late 1960s, the Republican old guard viewed them as interlopers. The neocons, former Trotskyists turned liberals who broke with the
Democratic Party over its perceived weakness on the Cold War, stormed the citadel of Republican ideology by emphasizing the relationship
between ideas and political reality. Irving Kristol, one of the original neoconservatives,
mused in 1985 that " what communists call the theoretical organs always end up through a filtering process influencing a lot
of people who don't even know they're being influenced. In the end, ideas rule the world because even interests are defined by ideas."
At pivotal moments in modern American foreign policy, the neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies
that might once have seemed outrι. Jeane Kirkpatrick's seminal 1979 essay in Commentary, "Dictatorships and Double Standards,"
essentially set forth the lineaments of the Reagan doctrine. She assailed Jimmy Carter for attacking friendly authoritarian leaders
such as the shah of Iran and Nicaragua's Anastasio Somoza. She contended that authoritarian regimes might molt into democracies,
while totalitarian regimes would remain impregnable to outside influence, American or otherwise. Ronald Reagan read the essay and
liked it. He named Kirkpatrick his ambassador to the United Nations, where she became the most influential neocon of the era for
her denunciations of Arab regimes and defenses of Israel. Her tenure was also defined by the notion that it was perfectly acceptable
for America to cozy up to noxious regimes, from apartheid South Africa to the shah's Iran, as part of the greater mission to oppose
the red menace.
The neocons supplied the patina of intellectual legitimacy for policies that might once have seemed outrι.
There was always tension between Reagan's affinity for authoritarian regimes and his hard-line opposition to Communist ones. His
sunny persona never quite gelled with Kirkpatrick's more gelid view that communism was an immutable force, and in 1982, in a major
speech to the British Parliament at Westminster emphasizing the power of democracy and free speech, he declared his intent to end
the Cold War on American terms. As Reagan's second term progressed and democracy and free speech actually took hold in the waning
days of the Soviet Union, many hawks declared that it was all a sham. Indeed, not a few neocons were livid, claiming that Reagan
was appeasing the Soviet Union. But after the USSR collapsed, they retroactively blessed him as the anti-Communist warrior par excellence
and the model for the future. The right was now a font of happy talk about the dawn of a new age of liberty based on free-market
economics and American firepower.
The fall of communism, in other words, set the stage for a new neoconservative paradigm. Francis Fukuyama's The End of History
appeared a decade after Kirkpatrick's essay in Commentary and just before the Berlin Wall was breached on November 9,
1989. Here was a sharp break with the saturnine, realpolitik approach that Kirkpatrick had championed. Irving Kristol regarded it
as hopelessly utopian -- "I don't believe a word of it," he wrote in a response to Fukuyama. But a younger generation of neocons,
led by Irving's son, Bill Kristol, and Robert Kagan, embraced it. Fukuyama argued that Western, liberal democracy, far from being
menaced, was now the destination point of the train of world history. With communism vanquished, the neocons, bearing the good word
from Fukuyama, formulated a new goal: democracy promotion, by force if necessary, as a way to hasten history and secure the global
order with the U.S. at its head. The first Gulf War in 1991, precipitated by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, tested the neocons'
resolve and led to a break in the GOP -- one that would presage the rise of Donald Trump. For decades, Patrick Buchanan had been
regularly inveighing against what he came to call the neocon "
amen corner" in and around the
Washington centers of power, including A.M. Rosenthal and Charles Krauthammer, both of whom endorsed the '91 Gulf War. The neocons
were frustrated by the measured approach taken by George H.W. Bush. He refused to crow about the fall of the Berlin Wall and kicked
the Iraqis out of Kuwait but declined to invade Iraq and "finish the job," as his hawkish critics would later put it. Buchanan then
ran for the presidency in 1992 on an America First platform, reviving a paleoconservative tradition that would partly inform Trump's
dark horse run in 2016.
But it was the neoconservatives, not the paleocons, who amassed influence in the 1990s and took over the GOP's foreign policy
wing. Veteran neocons like Michael Ledeen were joined by a younger generation of journalists and policymakers that included Robert
Kagan, Bill Kristol (who founded The Weekly Standard in 1994), Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas J. Feith. The neocons consistently
pushed for a hard line against Iraq and Iran. In his 1996 book, Freedom Betrayed, for example, Ledeen, an expert on Italian
fascism, declared that the right, rather than the left, should adhere to the revolutionary tradition of toppling dictatorships. In
his 2002 book, The War Against the Terror Masters, Ledeen
stated , "Creative destruction
is our middle name. We tear down the old order every day."
We all know the painful consequences of the neocons' obsession with creative destruction. In his second inaugural address, three
and a half years after 9/11, George W. Bush cemented
neoconservative ideology into presidential doctrine: "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of
democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." The neocons'
hubris had already turned into nemesis in Iraq, paving the way for an anti-war candidate in Barack Obama.
But it was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell. He announced
his Buchananesque policy of "America First" in a speech at Washington's Mayflower Hotel in 2016, signaling that he would not adhere
to the long-standing Reaganite principles that had animated the party establishment.
The pooh-bahs of the GOP openly declared their disdain and revulsion for Trump, leading directly to the rise of the Never Trump
movement, which was dominated by neocons. The Never Trumpers ended up functioning as an informal blacklist for Trump once he became
president. Elliott Abrams, for example, who was being touted for deputy secretary of state in February 2017, was rejected when Steve
Bannon alerted Trump to his earlier heresies (though he later reemerged, in January 2019, as Trump's special envoy to Venezuela,
where he has pushed for regime change). Not a few other members of the Republican foreign policy establishment suffered similar fates.
Kristol's The Weekly Standard, which had held the neoconservative line through the Bush years and beyond , folded
in 2018. Even the office building that used to house the American Enterprise Institute and the Standard, on the corner of
17th and M streets in Washington, has been torn down, leaving an empty, boarded-up site whose symbolism speaks for itself.
Still, a number of neocons, including David Frum, Max Boot, Anne Applebaum, Jennifer Rubin, and Kristol himself, have continued
to condemn Trump vociferously for his thuggish instincts at home and abroad. They are not seeking high-profile government careers
in the Trump administration and so have been able to reinvent themselves as domestic regime-change advocates, something they have
done quite skillfully. In fact, their writings are more pungent now that they have been liberated from the costive confines of the
movement.
It was Trump -- by virtue of running as a Republican -- who appeared to sound neoconservatism's death knell.
But other neocons -- the ones who want to wield positions of influence and might -- have, more often than not, been able to hold
their noses. Stephen Wertheim, writing in The New York Review of Books, has perceptively dubbed this faction the anti-globalist
neocons. Led by John Bolton, they believe Trump performed a godsend by elevating the term globalism "from a marginal slur
to the central foil of American foreign policy and Republican politics,"
Wertheim argued . The U.S. need not
bother with pesky multilateral institutions or international agreements or the entire postwar order, for that matter -- it's now
America's way or the highway.
And so, urged on by Mike Pompeo, a staunch evangelical Christian,
and Iraq Warera figures like
David Wurmser , Trump is apparently prepared to target Iran for destruction. In a tweet, he dismissed his national security adviser,
the Bolton protιgι Robert O'Brien, for declaring that the strike against Soleimani would force Iran to negotiate: "Actually, I couldn't
care less if they negotiate,"
he said . "Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and 'don't kill your protesters.'" Neocons have been quick to recognize
the new, more belligerent Trump -- and the potential maneuvering room he's now created for their movement. Jonathan S. Tobin, a former
editor at Commentary and a contributor to National Review ,
rejoiced in Haaretz that "the neo-isolationist wing of the GOP, for which Carlson is a spokesperson, is losing the struggle
for control of Trump's foreign policy." Tobin, however, added an important caveat: "When it comes to Iran, Trump needs no prodding
from the likes of Bolton to act like a neoconservative. Just as important, the entire notion of anyone -- be it Carlson, former White
House senior advisor Steve Bannon, or any cabinet official like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- being able to control Trump is
a myth."
In other words, whether the neocons themselves are occupying top positions in the Trump administration is almost irrelevant. The
ideology itself has reemerged to a degree that even Trump himself seems hard pressed to resist it -- if he even wants to.
How were the neocons able to influence another Republican presidency, one that was ostensibly dedicated to curbing their sway?
One reason is institutional. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Hudson Institute, and AEI have all been sounding the
tocsin about Iran for decades. Once upon a time, the neocons were outliers. Now they're the new establishment, exerting a kind of
gravitational pull on debate, pulling politicians and a variety of news organizations into their orbit. The Hudson Institute, for
example, recently held an event with former Iranian Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who exhorted Iran's Revolutionary Guard to "peel away"
from the mullahs and endorsed the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign. The event was hosted by Michael Doran, a
former senior director on George W. Bush's National Security Council and a senior fellow at the institute, who
wrote in
The New York Times on January 3, "The United States has no choice, if it seeks to stay in the Middle East, but to check
Iran's military power on the ground." Then there's Jamie M. Fly, a former staffer to Senator Marco Rubio who was appointed this past
August to head Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; he previously co-authored an essay in Foreign Affairs contending that it isn't enough to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities: "If the United States seriously considers military action,
it would be better to plan an operation that not only strikes the nuclear program but aims to destabilize the regime, potentially
resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis once and for all."
Meanwhile, Wolfowitz, also writing in the Times , has
popped up to warn Trump against
trying to leave Syria: "To paraphrase Trotsky's aphorism about war, you may not be interested in the Middle East, but the Middle
East is interested in you." With the "both-sides" ethos that prevails in the mainstream media, neocon ideas are just as good as any
others for National Public Radio or The Washington Post, whose editorial page, incidentally, championed the Iraq War
and has been imbued with a neocon, or at least liberal-hawk, tinge ever since Fred Hiatt took it over in 2000.
But there are plenty of institutions in Washington, and neoconservatism's seemingly inescapable influence cannot be chalked up
to the swamp alone. Some etiolated form of what might be called Ledeenism lingered on before taking on new life at the outset of
the Trump administration. Trump's overt animus toward Muslims, for example, meant that figures such as Frank Gaffney, who opposed
arms-control treaties with Moscow as a member of the Reagan administration and resigned in protest of the 1987 Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces Treaty, achieved a new prominence. During the Obama administration, Gaffney, the head of the Center for Security Policy,
claimed that the Muslim Brotherhood had infiltrated the White House and National Security Agency.
Above all, Trump hired Michael Flynn as his first national security adviser. Flynn was the co-author with Ledeen of a
creepy tract called Field of Fight, in which they demanded a crusade against the Muslim world: "We're in a world
war against a messianic mass movement of evil people." It was one of many signs that Trump was susceptible to ideas of a civilizational
battle against
"Islamo-fascism,"
which Norman Podhoretz and other neocons argued, in the wake of 9/11, would lead to World War III. In their millenarian ardor
and inflexible support for Israel, the neocons find themselves in a position precisely cognate to evangelical Christians -- both
groups of true believers trying to enact their vision through an apostate. But perhaps the neoconservatives' greatest strength lies
in the realm of ideas that Irving Kristol identified more than three decades ago. The neocons remain the winners of that battle,
not because their policies have made the world or the U.S. more secure, but by default -- because there are so few genuinely alternative
ideas that are championed with equal zeal. The foreign policy discussion surrounding Soleimani's killing -- which accelerated Iran's
nuclear weapons program, diminished America's influence in the Middle East, and entrenched Iran's theocratic regime -- has largely
occurred on a spectrum of the neocons' making. It is a discussion that accepts premises of the beneficence of American military might
and hegemony -- Hobbes's "ill game" -- and naturally bends the universe toward more war.
At a minimum, the traditional Republican hard-line foreign policy approach has now fused with neoconservatism so that the
two are virtually indistinguishable. At a maximum, neoconservatism shapes the dominant foreign policy worldview in Washington, which
is why Democrats were falling over themselves to assure voters that Soleimani -- a "bad guy" -- had it coming. Any objections that
his killing might boomerang back on the U.S. are met with cries from the right that Democrats are siding with the enemy. This truly
is a policy of "maximum pressure" at home and abroad.
As Trump takes an extreme hard line against Iran, the neoconservatives may ultimately get their long-held wish of a war with the
ayatollahs. When it ends in a fresh disaster, they can always argue that it only failed because it wasn't prosecuted vigorously enough
-- and the shuffle will begin again.
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of The National Interest and the author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons.
@ JacobHeilbrunn
Looks like the world order established after WWIII crumbed with the USSR and now it is again the law if jungles with the US as the
biggest predator.
Notable quotes:
"... The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet. ..."
"... Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence, not democracy ..."
"... A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism" (meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest. ..."
"... For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.) to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness. ..."
"... Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II. ..."
"... Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards. ..."
"... Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations' International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity." ..."
"... This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago, and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer. ..."
"... England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank." ..."
"... But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium. ..."
"... On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas, this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions attack on Europe ..."
"... The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above. In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945. ..."
"... By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands. ..."
"... It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably witness the caravans and refugees across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either. ..."
"... But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3 billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid. ..."
"... It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. ..."
"... Anticipating just such a double-cross, President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe. ..."
"... It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence. ..."
"... Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs, but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and settle for being a dominant minority. ..."
"... Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change. ..."
"... Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms". Interesting times. ..."
"... Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. ..."
"... To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles. ..."
"... Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet again. Nothing to see here, actually. ..."
"... So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change. ..."
"... Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. ..."
"... I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. ..."
"... If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington neocons as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be" to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing. ..."
"... In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3. ..."
"... Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble." ..."
"... He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas. ..."
"... The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run. ..."
"... Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics" on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners. ..."
"... Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence. There will be fierce competition to fill the gap. ..."
"... On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top. I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect. ..."
"... Former US ambassador, Chas Freeman, gets to the nub of the problem. "The US preference for governance by elected and appointed officials, uncontaminated by experience in statecraft and diplomacy, or knowledge of geography, history and foreign affairs" https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_882041135&feature=iv&src_vid=Ge1ozuXN7iI&v=gkf2MQdqz-o ..."
"... Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT. ..."
"... The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy. ..."
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected, thanks to the very same Neocons
who gave the world the Iraq, Syria and the dirty wars in Latin America. Just as the Vietnam War drove the United States off gold
by 1971, its sponsorship and funding of violent regime change wars against Venezuela and Syria and threatening other countries
with sanctions if they do not join this crusade is now driving European and other nations to create their alternative financial
institutions.
This break has been building for quite some time, and was bound to occur. But who would have thought that Donald Trump would become
the catalytic agent? No left-wing party, no socialist, anarchist or foreign nationalist leader anywhere in the world could have achieved
what he is doing to break up the American Empire. The Deep State is reacting with shock at how this right-wing real estate grifter
has been able to drive other countries to defend themselves by dismantling the U.S.-centered world order. To rub it in, he is using
Bush and Reagan-era Neocon arsonists, John Bolton and now Elliott Abrams, to fan the flames in Venezuela. It is almost like a black
political comedy. The world of international diplomacy is being turned inside-out. A world where there is no longer even a pretense
that we might adhere to international norms, let alone laws or treaties.
The Neocons who Trump has appointed are accomplishing what seemed unthinkable not long ago: Driving China and Russia together
the great nightmare of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They also are driving Germany and other European countries into
the Eurasian orbit, the "Heartland" nightmare of Halford Mackinder a century ago.
The root cause is clear: After the crescendo of pretenses and deceptions over Iraq, Libya and Syria, along with our absolution
of the lawless regime of Saudi Arabia, foreign political leaders are coming to recognize what world-wide public opinion polls reported
even before the Iraq/Iran-Contra boys turned their attention to the world's largest oil reserves in Venezuela: The United States
is now the greatest threat to peace on the planet.
Calling the U.S. coup being sponsored in Venezuela a defense of democracy reveals the Doublethink underlying U.S. foreign
policy. It defines "democracy" to mean supporting U.S. foreign policy, pursuing neoliberal privatization of public infrastructure,
dismantling government regulation and following the direction of U.S.-dominated global institutions, from the IMF and World Bank
to NATO. For decades, the resulting foreign wars, domestic austerity programs and military interventions have brought more violence,
not democracy.
In the Devil's Dictionary that U.S. diplomats are taught to use as their "Elements of Style" guidelines for Doublethink, a "democratic"
country is one that follows U.S. leadership and opens its economy to U.S. investment, and IMF- and World Bank-sponsored privatization.
The Ukraine is deemed democratic, along with Saudi Arabia, Israel and other countries that act as U.S. financial and military protectorates
and are willing to treat America's enemies are theirs too.
A point had to come where this policy collided with the self-interest of other nations, finally breaking through the public
relations rhetoric of empire. Other countries are proceeding to de-dollarize and replace what U.S. diplomacy calls "internationalism"
(meaning U.S. nationalism imposed on the rest of the world) with their own national self-interest.
This trajectory could be seen 50 years ago (I described it in Super Imperialism [1972] and Global Fracture [1978].) It had to
happen. But nobody thought that the end would come in quite the way that is happening. History has turned into comedy, or at least
irony as its dialectical path unfolds.
For the past half-century, U.S. strategists, the State Department and National Endowment for Democracy (NED) worried that
opposition to U.S. financial imperialism would come from left-wing parties. It therefore spent enormous resources manipulating parties
that called themselves socialist (Tony Blair's British Labour Party, France's Socialist Party, Germany's Social Democrats, etc.)
to adopt neoliberal policies that were the diametric opposite to what social democracy meant a century ago. But U.S. political planners
and Great Wurlitzer organists neglected the right wing, imagining that it would instinctively support U.S. thuggishness.
The reality is that right-wing parties want to get elected, and a populist nationalism is today's road to election victory in
Europe and other countries just as it was for Donald Trump in 2016.
Trump's agenda may really be to break up the American Empire, using the old Uncle Sucker isolationist rhetoric of half a century
ago. He certainly is going for the Empire's most vital organs. But it he a witting anti-American agent? He might as well be but
it would be a false mental leap to use "quo bono" to assume that he is a witting agent.
After all, if no U.S. contractor, supplier, labor union or bank will deal with him, would Vladimir Putin, China or Iran be any
more naοve? Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible
to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal
to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II.
Dismantling International Law and Its Courts
Any international system of control requires the rule of law. It may be a morally lawless exercise of ruthless power imposing
predatory exploitation, but it is still The Law. And it needs courts to apply it (backed by police power to enforce it and punish
violators).
Here's the first legal contradiction in U.S. global diplomacy: The United States always has resisted letting any other country
have any voice in U.S. domestic policies, law-making or diplomacy. That is what makes America "the exceptional nation." But for seventy
years its diplomats have pretended that its superior judgment promoted a peaceful world (as the Roman Empire claimed to be), which
let other countries share in prosperity and rising living standards.
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their equity
share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy. Without such power, the United States would not join
any international organization. Yet at the same time, it depicted its nationalism as protecting globalization and internationalism.
It was all a euphemism for what really was unilateral U.S. decision-making.
Inevitably, U.S. nationalism had to break up the mirage of One World internationalism, and with it any thought of an international
court. Without veto power over the judges, the U.S. never accepted the authority of any court, in particular the United Nations'
International Court in The Hague. Recently that court undertook an investigation into U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan, from its torture
policies to bombing of civilian targets such as hospitals, weddings and infrastructure. "That investigation ultimately found 'a reasonable
basis to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity."
[1]
Donald Trump's National Security Adviser John Bolton erupted in fury, warning in September that: "The United States will use any
means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court," adding that
the UN International Court must not be so bold as to investigate "Israel or other U.S. allies."
That prompted a senior judge, Christoph Flόgge from Germany, to resign in protest. Indeed, Bolton told the court to keep out of
any affairs involving the United States, promising to ban the Court's "judges and prosecutors from entering the United States." As
Bolton spelled out the U.S. threat: "We will sanction their funds in the U.S. financial system, and we will prosecute them in the
U.S. criminal system. We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We
will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us."
What this meant, the German judge spelled out was that: "If these judges ever interfere in the domestic concerns of the U.S. or
investigate an American citizen, [Bolton] said the American government would do all it could to ensure that these judges would no
longer be allowed to travel to the United States and that they would perhaps even be criminally prosecuted."
The original inspiration of the Court to use the Nuremburg laws that were applied against German Nazis to bring similar prosecution
against any country or officials found guilty of committing war crimes had already fallen into disuse with the failure to indict
the authors of the Chilean coup, Iran-Contra or the U.S. invasion of Iraq for war crimes.
Dismantling Dollar Hegemony from the IMF to SWIFT
Of all areas of global power politics today, international finance and foreign investment have become the key flashpoint. International
monetary reserves were supposed to be the most sacrosanct, and international debt enforcement closely associated.
Central banks have long held their gold and other monetary reserves in the United States and London. Back in 1945 this seemed
reasonable, because the New York Federal Reserve Bank (in whose basement foreign central bank gold was kept) was militarily safe,
and because the London Gold Pool was the vehicle by which the U.S. Treasury kept the dollar "as good as gold" at $35 an ounce. Foreign
reserves over and above gold were kept in the form of U.S. Treasury securities, to be bought and sold on the New York and London
foreign-exchange markets to stabilize exchange rates. Most foreign loans to governments were denominated in U.S. dollars, so Wall
Street banks were normally name as paying agents.
That was the case with Iran under the Shah, whom the United States had installed after sponsoring the 1953 coup against Mohammed
Mosaddegh when he sought to nationalize Anglo-Iranian Oil (now British Petroleum) or at least tax it. After the Shah was overthrown,
the Khomeini regime asked its paying agent, the Chase Manhattan bank, to use its deposits to pay its bondholders. At the direction
of the U.S. Government Chase refused to do so. U.S. courts then declared Iran to be in default, and froze all its assets in the United
States and anywhere else they were able.
This showed that international finance was an arm of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon. But that was a generation ago,
and only recently did foreign countries begin to feel queasy about leaving their gold holdings in the United States, where they might
be grabbed at will to punish any country that might act in ways that U.S. diplomacy found offensive. So last year, Germany finally
got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. U.S. officials pretended to feel shocked at the insult
that it might do to a civilized Christian country what it had done to Iran, and Germany agreed to slow down the transfer.
But then came Venezuela. Desperate to spend its gold reserves to provide imports for its economy devastated by U.S. sanctions
a crisis that U.S. diplomats blame on "socialism," not on U.S. political attempts to "make the economy scream" (as Nixon officials
said of Chile under Salvador Allende) Venezuela directed the Bank of England to transfer some of its $11 billion in gold held in
its vaults and those of other central banks in December 2018. This was just like a bank depositor would expect a bank to pay a check
that the depositor had written.
England refused to honor the official request, following the direction of Bolton and U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo.
As Bloomberg reported: "The U.S. officials are trying to steer Venezuela's overseas assets to [Chicago Boy Juan] Guaido to help bolster
his chances of effectively taking control of the government. The $1.2 billion of gold is a big chunk of the $8 billion in foreign
reserves held by the Venezuelan central bank."
Turkey seemed to be a likely destination, prompting Bolton and Pompeo to warn it to desist from helping Venezuela, threatening
sanctions against it or any other country helping Venezuela cope with its economic crisis. As for the Bank of England and other European
countries, the Bloomberg report concluded: "Central bank officials in Caracas have been ordered to no longer try contacting the Bank
of England. These central bankers have been told that Bank of England staffers will not respond to them."
This led to rumors that Venezuela was selling 20 tons of gold via a Russian Boeing 777 some $840 million. The money probably
would have ended up paying Russian and Chinese bondholders as well as buying food to relieve the local famine.
[4] Russia denied this report, but Reuters has confirmed is that Venezuela has sold 3 tons of a planned 29 tones of gold to the
United Arab Emirates, with another 15 tones are to be shipped on Friday, February 1.
[5] The U.S. Senate's Batista-Cuban hardliner Rubio accused this of being "theft," as if feeding the people to alleviate the
U.S.-sponsored crisis was a crime against U.S. diplomatic leverage.
If there is any country that U.S. diplomats hate more than a recalcitrant Latin American country, it is Iran. President Trump's
breaking of the 2015 nuclear agreements negotiated by European and Obama Administration diplomats has escalated to the point of threatening
Germany and other European countries with punitive sanctions if they do not also break the agreements they have signed. Coming on
top of U.S. opposition to German and other European importing of Russian gas, the U.S. threat finally prompted Europe to find a way
to defend itself.
Imperial threats are no longer military. No country (including Russia or China) can mount a military invasion of another major
country. Since the Vietnam Era, the only kind of war a democratically elected country can wage is atomic, or at least heavy bombing
such as the United States has inflicted on Iraq, Libya and Syria. But now, cyber warfare has become a way of pulling out the
connections of any economy. And the major cyber connections are financial money-transfer ones, headed by SWIFT, the acronym for the
Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, which is centered in Belgium.
Russia and China have already moved to create a shadow bank-transfer system in case the United States unplugs them from SWIFT.
But now, European countries have come to realize that threats by Bolton and Pompeo may lead to heavy fines and asset grabs if they
seek to continue trading with Iran as called for in the treaties they have negotiated.
On January 31 the dam broke with the announcement that Europe had created its own bypass payments system for use with Iran
and other countries targeted by U.S. diplomats. Germany, France and even the U.S. poodle Britain joined to create INSTEX -- Instrument
in Support of Trade Exchanges. The promise is that this will be used only for "humanitarian" aid to save Iran from a U.S.-sponsored
Venezuela-type devastation. But in view of increasingly passionate U.S. opposition to the Nord Stream pipeline to carry Russian gas,
this alternative bank clearing system will be ready and able to become operative if the United States tries to direct a sanctions
attack on Europe.
I have just returned from Germany and seen a remarkable split between that nation's industrialists and their political leadership.
For years, major companies have seen Russia as a natural market, a complementary economy needing to modernize its manufacturing and
able to supply Europe with natural gas and other raw materials. America's New Cold War stance is trying to block this commercial
complementarity. Warning Europe against "dependence" on low-price Russian gas, it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United
States (via port facilities that do not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required). President Trump also is insisting that NATO
members spend a full 2 percent of their GDP on arms preferably bought from the United States, not from German or French merchants
of death.
The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above.
In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability to
bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945.
The World Bank, for instance, traditionally has been headed by a U.S. Secretary of Defense. Its steady policy since its inception
is to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves. That is
why its loans are only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive. By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food
blackmail sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S. diplomatic demands.
It is worthwhile to note that our global imposition of the mythical "efficiencies" of forcing Latin American countries to
become plantations for export crops like coffee and bananas rather than growing their own wheat and corn has failed catastrophically
to deliver better lives, especially for those living in Central America. The "spread" between the export crops and cheaper food imports
from the U.S. that was supposed to materialize for countries following our playbook failed miserably witness the caravans and refugees
across Mexico. Of course, our backing of the most brutal military dictators and crime lords has not helped either.
Likewise, the IMF has been forced to admit that its basic guidelines were fictitious from the beginning. A central core has been
to enforce payment of official inter-government debt by withholding IMF credit from countries under default. This rule was instituted
at a time when most official inter-government debt was owed to the United States. But a few years ago Ukraine defaulted on $3
billion owed to Russia. The IMF said, in effect, that Ukraine and other countries did not have to pay Russia or any other country
deemed to be acting too independently of the United States. The IMF has been extending credit to the bottomless it of Ukrainian corruption
to encourage its anti-Russian policy rather than standing up for the principle that inter-government debts must be paid.
It is as if the IMF now operates out of a small room in the basement of the Pentagon in Washington. Europe has taken
notice that its own international monetary trade and financial linkages are in danger of attracting U.S. anger. This became clear
last autumn at the funeral for George H. W. Bush, when the EU's diplomat found himself downgraded to the end of the list to be called
to his seat. He was told that the U.S. no longer considers the EU an entity in good standing. In December, "Mike Pompeo gave a speech
on Europe in Brussels -- his first, and eagerly awaited -- in which he extolled the virtues of nationalism, criticised multilateralism
and the EU, and said that "international bodies" which constrain national sovereignty "must be reformed or eliminated."
[5]
Most of the above events have made the news in just one day, January 31, 2019. The conjunction of U.S. moves on so many fronts,
against Venezuela, Iran and Europe (not to mention China and the trade threats and moves against Huawei also erupting today) looks
like this will be a year of global fracture.
It is not all President Trump's doing, of course. We see the Democratic Party showing the same colors. Instead of applauding democracy
when foreign countries do not elect a leader approved by U.S. diplomats (whether it is Allende or Maduro), they've let the mask fall
and shown themselves to be the leading New Cold War imperialists. It's now out in the open. They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era
Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're
our bastards."
Where is the left in all this? That is the question with which I opened this article. How remarkable it is that it is only right-wing
parties, Alternative for Deutschland (AFD), or Marine le Pen's French nationalists and those of other countries that are opposing
NATO militarization and seeking to revive trade and economic links with the rest of Eurasia.
The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed observer like
me. It took a colossal level of arrogance, short-sightedness and lawlessness to hasten its decline -- something that only crazed
Neocons like John Bolton, Elliot Abrams and Mike Pompeo could deliver for Donald Trump.
[2] Patricia Laya, Ethan Bronner and Tim Ross,
"Maduro Stymied in Bid to Pull $1.2 Billion of Gold From U.K.," Bloomberg, January 25, 2019. Anticipating just such a double-cross,
President Chavez acted already in 2011 to repatriate 160 tons of gold to Caracas from the United States and Europe.
Well, if the StormTrumpers can tear down all the levers and institutions of international US dollar strength, perhaps they
can also tear down all the institutions of Corporate Globalonial Forced Free Trade. That itself may BE our escape . . . if there
are enough millions of Americans who have turned their regionalocal zones of habitation into economically and politically armor-plated
Transition Towns, Power-Down Zones, etc. People and places like that may be able to crawl up out of the rubble and grow and defend
little zones of semi-subsistence survival-economics.
If enough millions of Americans have created enough such zones, they might be able to link up with eachother to offer hope
of a movement to make America in general a semi-autarchik, semi-secluded and isolated National Survival Economy . . . . much smaller
than today, perhaps likelier to survive the various coming ecosystemic crash-cramdowns, and no longer interested in leading or
dominating a world that we would no longer have the power to lead or dominate.
We could put an end to American Exceptionalism. We could lay this burden down. We could become American Okayness Ordinarians.
Make America an okay place for ordinary Americans to live in.
If Populists, I assume that's what you mean by "Storm Troopers", offer me M4A and revitalized local economies, and deliver
them, they have my support and more power to them.
That's why Trump was elected, his promises, not yet delivered, were closer to that then the Democrats' promises. If the Democrats
promised those things and delivered, then they would have my support.
If the Democrats run a candidate, who has a no track record of delivering such things, we stay home on election day. Trump
can have it, because it won't be any worse.
I don't give a damn about "social issues." Economics, health care and avoiding WWIII are what motivates my votes, and I think
more and more people are going to vote the same way.
Good point about Populist versus StormTrumper. ( And by the way, I said StormTRUMper, not StormTROOper). I wasn't thinking
of the Populists. I was thinking of the neo-etc. vandals and arsonists who want us to invade Venezuela, leave the JCPOA with Iran,
etc. Those are the people who will finally drive the other-country governments into creating their own parallel payment systems,
etc.
And the midpoint of those efforts will leave wreckage and rubble for us to crawl up out of. But we will have a chance to crawl
up out of it.
My reason for voting for Trump was mainly to stop the Evil Clinton from getting elected and to reduce the chance of near immediate
thermonuclear war with Russia and to save the Assad regime in Syria from Clintonian overthrow and replacement with an Islamic
Emirate of Jihadistan.
Much of what will be attempted " in Trump's name" will be de-regulationism of all kinds delivered by the sorts of basic Republicans
selected for the various agencies and departments by Pence and Moore and the Koch Brothers. I doubt the Populist Voters wanted
the Koch-Pence agenda. But that was a risky tradeoff in return for keeping Clinton out of office.
The only Dems who would seek what you want are Sanders or maybe Gabbard or just barely Warren. The others would all be Clinton
or Obama all over again.
I couldn't really find any details about the new INSTEX system have you got any good links to brush up on? I know they made
an announcement yesterday but how long until the new payment system is operational?
arguably wouldn't it be better if for USD hegemony to be dismantled? A strong USD hurts US exports, subsidizes American consumption
(by making commodities cheaper in relative terms), makes international trade (aka a 8,000-mile+ supply chain) easier.
For the sake of the environment, you want less of all three. Though obviously I don't like the idea of expensive gasoline,
natural gas or tube socks either.
It would be good for Americans, but the wrong kind of Americans. For the Americans that would populate the Global Executive
Suite, a strong US$ means that the stipends they would pay would be worth more to the lackeys, and command more influence.
Dumping the industrial base really ruined things. America is now in a position where it can shout orders, and drop bombs,
but doesn't have the capacity to do anything helpful. They have to give up being what Toynbee called a creative minority, and
settle for being a dominant minority.
Having watched the 2016 election closely from afar, I was left with the impression that many of the swing voters who cast
their vote for Trump did so under the assumption that he would act as a catalyst for systemic change.
What this change would consist of, and how it would manifest, remained an open question. Would he pursue rapprochement with
Russia and pull troops out of the Middle East as he claimed to want to do during his 2016 campaign, would he doggedly pursue corruption
charges against Clinton and attempt to reform the FBI and CIA, or would he do both, neither, or something else entirely?
Now we know. He has ripped the already transparent mask of altruism off what is referred to as the U.S.-led liberal international
order and revealed its true nature for all to see, and has managed to do it in spite of the liberal international establishment
desperately trying to hold it in place in the hope of effecting a seamless post-Trump return to what they refer to as "norms".
Interesting times.
Exactly. He hasn't exactly lived up to advanced billing so far in all respects, but I suspect there's great deal of skulduggery
going on behind the scenes that has prevented that. Whether or not he ever had or has a coherent plan for the havoc he has
wrought, he has certainly been the agent for change many of us hoped he would be, in stark contrast to the criminal duopoly parties
who continue to oppose him, where the daily no news is always bad news all the same. To paraphrase the infamous Rummy, you
don't go to war with the change agent and policies you wished you had, you go to war with the ones you have. That might be the
best thing we can say about Trump after the historic dust of his administration finally settles.
Look on some bright sides. Here is just one bright side to look on. President Trump has delayed and denied the Clinton Plan
to topple Assad just long enough that Russia has been able to help Assad preserve legitimate government in most of Syria and defeat
the Clinton's-choice jihadis.
That is a positive good. Unless you are pro-jihadi.
Clinton wasn't going to "benefit the greater good" either, and a very strong argument, based on her past behavior, can be made
that she represented the greater threat. Given that the choice was between her and Trump, I think voters made the right decision.
Hudson's done us a service in pulling these threads together. I'd missed the threats against the ICC judges. One question:
is it possible for INSTEX-like arrangements to function secretly? What is to be gained by announcing them publicly and drawing
the expected attacks? Does that help sharpen conflicts, and to what end?
Maybe they're done in secret already who knows? The point of doing it publicly is to make a foreign-policy impact, in this
case withdrawing power from the US. It's a Declaration of Independence.
It certainly seems as though the 90 percent (plus) are an afterthought in this journey to who knows where? Like George C.Scott
said while playing Patton, "The whole world at economic war and I'm not part of it. God will not let this happen." Looks like
we're on the Brexit track (without the vote). The elite argue with themselves and we just sit and watch. It appears to me that
the elite just do not have the ability to contemplate things beyond their own narrow self interest. We are all deplorables now.
The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected
Is not supported by this (or really the rest of the article). The past tense here, for example, is unwarranted:
At the United Nations, U.S. diplomats insisted on veto power. At the World Bank and IMF they also made sure that their
equity share was large enough to give them veto power over any loan or other policy.
And this
So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. Germany agreed
to slow down the transfer.
Doesn't show Germany as breaking free at all, and worse it is followed by the pregnant
But then came Venezuela.
Yet we find out that Venezuela didn't managed to do what they wanted to do, the Europeans, the Turks, etc bent over yet
again. Nothing to see here, actually.
So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change.
"So what I'm saying is he didn't make his point. I wish it were true. But a bit of grumbling and (a tiny amount of) foot-dragging
by some pygmy leaders (Merkel) does not signal a global change."
I'm surprised more people aren't recognizing this. I read the article waiting in vain for some evidence of "the end of our
monetary imperialism" besides some 'grumbling and foot dragging' as you aptly put it. There was some glimmer of a buried lede
with INTEX, created to get around U.S. sanctions against Iran ─ hardly a 'dam-breaking'. Washington is on record as being annoyed.
Currency regime change can take decades, and small percentage differences are enormous because of the flows involved. USD
as reserve for 61% of global sovereigns versus 64% 15 years ago is a massive move. World bond market flows are 10X the size
of world stock market flows even though the price of the Dow and Facebook shares etc get all of the headlines.
And foreign exchange flows are 10-50X the flows of bond markets, they're currently on the order of $5 *trillion* per day. And
since forex is almost completely unregulated it's quite difficult to get the data and spot reserve currency trends. Oh, and buy
gold. It's the only currency that requires no counterparty and is no one's debt obligation.
That's not what Hudson claims in his swaggering final sentence:
"The end of our monetary imperialism, about which I first wrote in 1972 in Super Imperialism, stuns even an informed
observer like me."
Which is risible as not only did he fail to show anything of the kind, his opening sentence stated a completely different reality:
"The end of America's unchallenged global economic dominance has arrived sooner than expected" So if we hold him to his first
declaration, his evidence is feeble, as I mentioned. As a scholar, his hyperbole is untrustworthy.
No, gold is pretty enough lying on the bosom of a lady-friend but that's about its only usefulness in the real world.
Always bemusing that gold bugs never talk about gold being in a bubble . yet when it goes south of its purchase price speak
in tongues about ev'bal forces.
thanks Mr. Hudson. One has to wonder what has happened when the government (for decades) has been shown to be morally and otherwise
corrupt and self serving. It doesn't seem to bother anyone but the people, and precious few of them. Was it our financial and
legal bankruptcy that sent us over the cliff?
Indeed! It is to say the least encouraging to see Dr. Hudson return so forcefully to the theme of 'monetary imperialism'.
I discovered his Super Imperialism while looking for an explanation for the pending 2003 US invasion of Iraq. If you
haven't read it yet, move it to the top of your queue if you want to have any idea of how the world really works. You can
find any number of articles on his web site that return periodically to the theme of monetary imperialism. I remember one in particular
that described how the rest of the world was brought on board to help pay for its good old-fashioned military imperialism.
If it isn't clear to the rest of the world by now, it never will be. The US is incapable of changing on its own a corrupt
status quo dominated by a coalition of its military industrial complex, Wall Street bankers and fossil fuels industries. As long
as the world continues to chase the debt created on the keyboards of Wall Street banks and 'deficits don't matter' Washington
neocons as long as the world's 1% think they are getting 'richer' by adding more "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be"
to their portfolios, the global economy can never be put on a sustainable footing.
Until the US returns to the path of genuine wealth creation, it is past time for the rest of the world to go its own way with
its banking and financial institutions.
In other words, after 2 World Wars that produced the current world order, it is still in a state of insanity with the same
pretensions to superiority by the same people, to get number 3.
UK withholding Gold may start another Brexit? IE: funds/gold held by BOE for other countries in Africa, Asian, South America,
and the "stans" with start to depart, slowly at first, perhaps for Switzerland?
Where is the left in all this? Pretty much the same place as Michael Hudson, I'd say. Where is the US Democratic Party in all
this? Quite a different question, and quite a different answer. So far as I can see, the Democrats for years have bombed, invaded
and plundered other countries 'for their own good'. Republicans do it 'for the good of America', by which the ignoramuses mean
the USA. If you're on the receiving end, it doesn't make much difference.
Agreed! South America intervention and regime change, Syria ( Trump is pulling out), Iraq, Middle East meddling, all predate
Trump. Bush, Clinton and Obama have nothing to do with any of this.
" So last year, Germany finally got up the courage to ask that some of its gold be flown back to Germany. "
What proof is there that the gold is still there? Chances are it's notional. All Germany, Venezuela, or the others have is
an IOU and gold cannot be printed. Incidentally, this whole discussion means that gold is still money and the gold standard
still exists.
What makes you think that the gold in Fort Knox is still there? If I remember right, there was a Potemkin visit back in the
70s to assure everyone that the gold was still there but not since then. Wait, I tell a lie. There was another visit about two
years ago but look who was involved in that visit-
And I should mention that it was in the 90s that between 1.3 and 1.5 million 400 oz tungsten blanks were manufactured in the
US under Clinton. Since then gold-coated tungsten bars have turned up in places like Germany, China, Ethiopia, the UK, etc so
who is to say if those gold bars in Fort Knox are gold all the way through either. More on this at --
http://viewzone2.com/fakegoldx.html
It wasn't last year that Germany brought back its Gold. It has been ongoing since 2013, after some political and popular pressure
build up. They finished the transaction in 2017. According to an article in Handelblatt (but it was widely reported back then)
they brought back pretty much everything they had in Paris (347t), left what they had in London (perhaps they should have done
it in reverse) and took home another 300t from the NY Fed. That still leaves 1236t in NY. But half of their Gold (1710t) is now
in Frankfurt. That is 50% of the Bundesbanks holdings.
They made a point in saying that every bar was checked and weighed and presented some bars in Frankfurt. I guess they didn't
melt them for assaying, but I'd expect them to be smart enough to check the density.
Their reason to keep Gold in NY and London is to quickly buy USD in case of a crisis. That's pretty much a cold war plan, but
that's what they do right now.
Regarding Michal Hudsons piece, I enjoyed reading through this one. He tends to write ridiculously long articles and in the
last few years with less time and motivation at hand I've skipped most of his texts on NC as they just drag on.
When I'm truly fascinated I like well written, long articles but somehow he lost me at some point. But I noticed that some
long original articles in US magazines, probably research for a long time by the journalist, can just drag on for ever as well
I just tune out.
This is making sense. I would guess that tearing up the old system is totally deliberate. It wasn't working so well for us
because we had to practice too much social austerity, which we have tried to impose on the EU as well, just to stabilize "king
dollar" otherwise spread so thin it was a pending catastrophe.
Now we can get out from under being the reserve currency the currency that maintains its value by financial manipulation
and military bullying domestic deprivation. To replace this old power trip we are now going to mainline oil. The dollar will become
a true petro dollar because we are going to commandeer every oil resource not already nailed down.
When we partnered with SA in Aramco and the then petro dollar the dollar was only backed by our military. If we start monopolizing
oil, the actual commodity, the dollar will be an apex competitor currency without all the foreign military obligations which will
allow greater competitive advantages.
No? I'm looking at PdVSA, PEMEX and the new "Energy Hub for the Eastern Mediterranean" and other places not yet made public.
It looks like a power play to me, not a hapless goofball president at all.
So sand people with sociological attachment to the OT is a compelling argument based on antiquarian preferences with authoritarian
patriarchal tendencies for their non renewable resource . after I might add it was deemed a strategic concern after WWII .
Considering the broader geopolitical realities I would drain all the gold reserves to zero if it was on offer . here natives
have some shiny beads for allowing us to resource extract we call this a good trade you maximize your utility as I do mine .
Hay its like not having to run C-corp compounds with western 60s 70s esthetics and letting the locals play serf, blow back
pay back, and now the installed local chiefs can own the risk and refocus the attention away from the real antagonists.
Indeed. Thanks so much for this. Maybe the RICS will get serious now can no longer include Brazil with Bolsonaro. There needs
to be an alternate system or systems in place, and to see US Imperialism so so blatantly and bluntly by Trump admin
"US
gives Juan Guaido control over some Venezuelan assets" should sound sirens on every continent and especially in the developing
world. I too hope there will be fracture to the point of breakage. Countries of the world outside the US/EU/UK/Canada/Australia
confraternity must now unite to provide a permanent framework outside the control of imperial interests. The be clear, this must
not default to alternative forms of imperialism germinating by the likes of China.
" such criticism can't begin to take in the full scope of the damage the Trump White House is inflicting on the system of global
power Washington built and carefully maintained over those 70 years. Indeed, American leaders have been on top of the world for
so long that they no longer remember how they got there.
Few among Washington's foreign policy elite seem to fully grasp the complex system that made U.S. global power what it
now is, particularly its all-important geopolitical foundations. As Trump travels the globe, tweeting and trashing away, he's
inadvertently showing us the essential structure of that power, the same way a devastating wildfire leaves the steel beams of
a ruined building standing starkly above the smoking rubble."
I read something like this and I am like, some of these statements need to be qualified. Like: "Driving China and Russia together".
Like where's the proof? Is Xi playing telephone games more often now with Putin? I look at those two and all I see are two egocentric
people who might sometimes say the right things but in general do not like the share the spotlight. Let's say they get together
to face America and for some reason the later gets "defeated", it's not as if they'll kumbaya together into the night.
This website often points out the difficulties in implementing new banking IT initiatives. Ok, so Europe has a new "payment
system". Has it been tested thoroughly? I would expect a couple of weeks or even months of chaos if it's not been tested, and
if it's thorough that probably just means that it's in use right i.e. all the kinks have been worked out. In that case the transition
is already happening anyway. But then the next crisis arrives and then everyone would need their dollar swap lines again which
probably needs to cleared through SWIFT or something.
Anyway, does this all mean that one day we'll wake up and a slice of bacon is 50 bucks as opposed to the usual 1 dollar?
Driving Russia and China together is correct. I recall them signing a variety of economic and military agreement a few years
ago. It was covered in the media. You should at least google an issue before making silly comments. You might start with the report
of Russia and China signing 30 cooperation agreements three years ago. See
https://www.rbth.com/international/2016/06/27/russia-china-sign-30-cooperation-agreements_606505
. There are lots and lots of others.
He's draining the swamp in an unpredicted way, a swamp that's founded on the money interest. I don't care what NYT and
WaPo have to say, they are not reporting events but promoting agendas.
The financial elites are only concerned about shaping society as they see fit, side of self serving is just a historical
foot note, Trumps past indicates a strong preference for even more of the same through authoritarian memes or have some missed
the OT WH reference to dawg both choosing and then compelling him to run.
Whilst the far right factions fight over the rudder the only new game in town is AOC, Sanders, Warren, et al which Trumps supporters
hate with Ideological purity.
Highly doubt Trump is a "witting agent", most likely is that he is just as ignorant as he almost daily shows on twitter. On
US role in global affairs he says the same today as he did as a media celebrity in the late 80s. Simplistic household "logics"
on macroeconomics. If US have trade deficit it loses. Countries with surplus are the winners.
On a household level it fits, but there no "loser" household that in infinity can print money that the "winners" can accumulate
in exchange for their resources and fruits of labor.
One wonder what are Trumps idea of US being a winner in trade (surplus)? I.e. sending away their resources and fruits of labor
overseas in exchange for what? A pile of USD? That US in the first place created out of thin air. Or Chinese Yuan, Euros, Turkish
liras? Also fiat-money. Or does he think US trade surplus should be paid in gold?
When the US political and economic hegemony will unravel it will come "unexpected". Trump for sure are undermining it with
his megalomaniac ignorance. But not sure it's imminent.
Anyhow frightening, the US hegemony have its severe dark sides. But there is absolutely nothing better on the horizon, a crash
will throw the world in turmoil for decades or even a century. A lot of bad forces will see their chance to elevate their influence.
There will be fierce competition to fill the gap.
On could the insane economic model of EU/Germany being on top of global affairs, a horribly frightening thought. Misery and
austerity for all globally, a permanent recession. Probably not much better with the Chinese on top.
I'll take the USD hegemony any day compared to that prospect.
Michael Hudson, in Super Imperialism, went into how the US could just create the money to run a large trade deficit with the
rest of the world. It would get all these imports effectively for nothing, the US's exorbitant privilege. I tied this in with this graph from MMT.
The trade deficit required a large Government deficit to cover it and the US government could just create the money to cover
it.
Then ideological neoliberals came in wanting balanced budgets and not realising the Government deficit covered the trade deficit.
The US has been destabilising its own economy by reducing the Government deficit. Bill Clinton didn't realize a Government surplus is an indicator a financial crisis is about to hit. The last US Government surplus occurred in 1927 1930, they go hand-in-hand with financial crises.
Richard Koo shows the graph central bankers use and it's the flow of funds within the economy, which sums to zero (32-34 mins.).
The Government was running a surplus as the economy blew up in the early 1990s. It's the positive and negative, zero sum, nature of the monetary system. A big trade deficit needs a big Government deficit to cover it. A big trade deficit, with a balanced budget, drives the private sector into debt and blows up the economy.
It should be remembered Bill Clinton's early meeting with Rubin, where in he was informed that wages and productivity had diverged
Rubin did not blink an eye.
"Nearly a quarter million people were killed between 1962 and 1996 in Guatemala, 93 percent at the hands of pro-government forces.
The UN-backed Commission for Historical Clarification classified the massacre of Mayan Indians, treated by the military as a potential
constituency for guerrillas, as genocide, including the destruction of up to 90 percent of the Ixil-Mayan towns and the bombing
of those fleeing. In El Salvador, 988 of the 75,000 killed between 1980 and 1992 -- also overwhelmingly by pro-government forces
-- were massacred in the Morazán Department in the "El Mozote" case, whose prosecution is at risk.
Most of the victims were children, who were shot down, burned and raped en masse or hung upside down and bled from their throats.
Refuting claims by defendants that victims were combatants, the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team has stated: "We only found
marbles, toys, coins, cooking utensils, sandals and flip-flops next to their bodies." It was the largest single documented massacre
in modern Latin American history.
What the ruling class wants to be "forgotten" is the fact that their only response to the crisis of global capitalism is dictatorship,
war and barbarism."
There are always pick-and-shovel men like Abrams around to do the wet work – for their part, because they like it, and are contemptuous
of those who shrink from violence. But they are singularly useful for the reigning government, as well, since it has to sing soothing
songs of respect for human rights and pretend to view violence as repugnant and unnecessary. It would be, if the government had
forever to achieve its aims. But it usually has to bank on putting America in the place it wants it to be in four years. Sometimes
that means a bunch of people have to be eliminated, or else you run out of time.
People like Elliott Abrams are seldom kept around after the goals are won, though – too much danger they might develop loose
lips. So, often, something 'happens' to them. In this case, it couldn't 'happen' to a righter guy.
"... "Whether under your watch a genocide will take place and you will look the other way because American interests were being upheld is a fair question because the American people want to know that anytime we engage in a country that we think about what our actions could be and how we believe our values are being furthered," Omar said. ..."
"... After again downplaying her question, Abrams said "the entire thrust of American policy in Venezuela is to support the Venezuelan people's effort to restore democracy to their country." ..."
As assistant secretary of state during the Reagan administration, Abrams was involved in a
secret arms deal in which the U.S. sought to trade missiles and other weapons to Iran and use
the funds to support right-wing paramilitaries known as the "contras," who were seeking to
topple a leftist government in Nicaragua. In a 1991 plea agreement with an independent
commission tasked with probing the scandal -- which became known as the Iran-Contra affair --
Abrams admitted to lying to members of Congress about the clandestine deal. In 1992, he and
other Reagan administration officials embroiled in the scandal were pardoned by former
President George H. W. Bush.
Omar also pressed Abrams about his role in shaping an interventionist American foreign
policy in other Latin American countries during his first stints at the State Department.
During the Cold War, the U.S. supported various violent coups in Latin America, including some
against democratically-elected governments.
The freshman Democrat asked Abrams about a remark he made in 1993, when he called the Reagan
administration's record in El Salvador a "fabulous achievement." Between 1979 and 1992, the
U.S. backed a right-wing military government in El Salvador during a civil war against leftist
guerrillas that resulted in the deaths of more than 75,000 people, according to the Center for Justice and
Accountability , an international human rights group.
Omar specifically cited the massacre of hundreds of civilians by the American-trained El
Salvadoran army at the El Mazote village in 1981.
"Yes or no, do you think that massacre was a 'fabulous achievement' that happened under our
watch," she asked.
"That is a ridiculous question," Abrams responded, again accusing Omar of crafting a
"personal attack."
Omar continued her questioning, asking Abrams if he would be in favor of the U.S. supporting
armed groups in Venezuela that participate in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide
if he believed it would serve America's interests. Abrams refused to answer the specific
question, saying it was not a "real" question.
"Whether under your watch a genocide will take place and you will look the other way because
American interests were being upheld is a fair question because the American people want to
know that anytime we engage in a country that we think about what our actions could be and how
we believe our values are being furthered," Omar said.
But Maduro and other leftist leaders in the region, including in Bolivia and Cuba, have
accused the American government of trying to stage a coup in Venezuela. Standing alongside
diplomats from Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, Nicaragua and Iran, Venezuela's foreign
minister Jorge Arreaza told CBS News' Pamela Falk Thursday that Maduro's government has formed
a coalition to oppose interference in his country's affairs.
After again downplaying her question, Abrams said "the entire thrust of American policy in
Venezuela is to support the Venezuelan people's effort to restore democracy to their
country."
In her final question, Omar asked Abrams whether American foreign policy prioritized
upholding human rights and protecting people against genocide.
"That is always the position of the United States," he replied.
BRAVO OMAR ..2 nd time in my life I have seen balls in congress.
Venezuela Envoy Elliott Abrams Lose His Cool During Tense Exchange With Rep. Ilhan
Omar
Watch the video at link
"Mr. Abrams, in 1991 you pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from
Congress regarding your involvement in the Iran-Contra affair, for which you were later
pardoned by president George H.W. Bush," began Omar. "I fail to understand why members of
this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be
truthful."
"If I could respond to that " interjected Abrams.
"It was not a question," shot back Omar.
After a brief exchange in which Abrams protested "It was not right!" Omar cut Abrams off,
saying "Thank you for your participation."
Dismal economic performance of Venezuelan economy and impoverishment of population created perfect environment for the color revolution...
Notable quotes:
"... But after a single phone call from from US Vice President Mike Pence, Guaidσ proclaimed himself president of Venezuela. Anointed as the leader of his country by Washington, a previously unknown political bottom-dweller was vaulted onto the international stage as the US-selected leader of the nation with the world's largest oil reserves. ..."
"... CANVAS is a spinoff of Otpor, a Serbian protest group founded by Srdja Popovic in 1998 at the University of Belgrade. Otpor, which means "resistance" in Serbian, was the student group that gained international fame -- and Hollywood-level promotion -- by mobilizing the protests that eventually toppled Slobodan Milosevic. ..."
Juan Guaidσ is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as a champion
of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.
Before the fateful day of January 22, fewer
than one in five Venezuelans had heard of Juan Guaidσ. Only a few months ago, the 35-year-old was an obscure character in a politically
marginal far-right group closely associated with gruesome acts of street violence. Even in his own party, Guaidσ had been a mid-level
figure in the opposition-dominated National Assembly, which is now held under contempt according to Venezuela's constitution.
But after a single phone call from from US Vice President Mike Pence, Guaidσ proclaimed himself president of Venezuela. Anointed
as the leader of his country by Washington, a previously unknown political bottom-dweller was vaulted onto the international stage
as the US-selected leader of the nation with the world's largest oil reserves.
Echoing the Washington consensus, the New York Times editorial board
hailed Guaidσ as a "credible
rival" to Maduro with a "refreshing style and vision of taking the country forward." The Bloomberg News editorial board
applauded
him for seeking "restoration of democracy" and the Wall Street Journal
declared him "a new democratic leader."
Meanwhile, Canada, numerous European nations, Israel, and the bloc of right-wing Latin American governments known as the Lima Group
recognized Guaidσ as the legitimate leader of Venezuela.
While Guaidσ seemed to have materialized out of nowhere, he was, in fact, the product of more than a decade of assiduous grooming
by the US government's elite regime change factories. Alongside a cadre of right-wing student activists, Guaidσ was cultivated to
undermine Venezuela's socialist-oriented government, destabilize the country, and one day seize power. Though he has been a minor
figure in Venezuelan politics, he had spent years quietly demonstrated his worthiness in Washington's halls of power.
"Juan Guaidσ is a character that has been created for this circumstance," Marco Teruggi, an Argentinian sociologist and leading
chronicler of Venezuelan politics, told The Grayzone . "It's the logic
of a laboratory Guaidσ is like a mixture of several elements that create a character who, in all honesty, oscillates between
laughable and worrying."
Diego Sequera, a Venezuelan journalist and writer for the investigative outlet Misiσn Verdad, agreed: "Guaidσ is more popular
outside Venezuela than inside, especially in the elite Ivy League and Washington circles," Sequera remarked to The Grayzone, "He's
a known character there, is predictably right-wing, and is considered loyal to the program."
While Guaidσ is today sold as the face of democratic restoration, he spent his career in the most violent faction of Venezuela's
most radical opposition party, positioning himself at the forefront of one destabilization campaign after another. His party has
been widely discredited inside Venezuela, and is held partly responsible for fragmenting a badly weakened opposition.
"'These radical leaders have no more than 20 percent in opinion polls,"
wrote Luis Vicente Leσn, Venezuela's leading pollster. According to Leσn, Guaidσ's party remains isolated because the majority
of the population "does not want war. 'What they want is a solution.'"
But this is precisely why he Guaidσ was selected by Washington: He is not expected to lead Venezuela toward democracy, but to
collapse a country that for the past two decades has been a bulwark of resistance to US hegemony. His unlikely rise signals the culmination
of a two decades-long project to destroy a robust socialist experiment.
Targeting the "troika of tyranny"
Since the 1998 election of Hugo Chαvez, the United States has fought to restore control over Venezuela and is vast oil reserves.
Chαvez's socialist programs may have redistributed the country's wealth and helped lift millions out of poverty, but they also earned
him a target on his back.
In 2002, Venezuela's right-wing opposition briefly ousted Chαvez with US support and recognition, before the military restored
his presidency following a mass popular mobilization. Throughout the administrations of US Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama,
Chαvez survived numerous assassination plots, before succumbing to cancer in 2013. His successor, Nicolas Maduro, has
survived
three attempts on his life.
The Trump administration immediately elevated Venezuela to the top of Washington's regime change target list, branding it the
leader of a
"troika of tyranny." Last year, Trump's national security team
attempted
to recruit members of the military brass to mount a military junta, but that effort failed.
According to the Venezuelan government, the US was also involved in a plot, codenamed Operation Constitution, to capture Maduro
at the Miraflores presidential palace; and another, called
Operation Armageddon , to assassinate him at a military parade in July 2017. Just over a year later, exiled opposition leaders
tried and failed to kill Maduro with drone bombs during
a military parade in Caracas.
More than a decade before these intrigues, a group of right-wing opposition students were hand-selected and groomed by an elite
US-funded regime change training academy to topple Venezuela's government and restore the neoliberal order.
Training from the "'export-a-revolution' group that sowed the seeds for a NUMBER of color revolutions"
On October 5, 2005, with Chαvez's popularity at its peak and his government planning sweeping socialist programs, five Venezuelan
"student leaders" arrived in Belgrade,
Serbia to begin training for an insurrection.
The students had arrived from Venezuela courtesy of the Center for Applied Non-Violent Action and Strategies, or CANVAS. This
group is
funded largely through the
National Endowment for Democracy , a CIA cut-out that functions as the US government's main arm of promoting regime change; and
offshoots like the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. According
to leaked internal emails
from Stratfor, an intelligence firm known as the "
shadow CIA ,"
CANVAS "may have also received CIA funding and training during the 1999/2000 anti-Milosevic struggle."
CANVAS is a spinoff of Otpor, a Serbian protest group founded by
Srdja Popovic in 1998 at the University of Belgrade.
Otpor, which means "resistance" in Serbian, was the student group that gained international fame -- and Hollywood-level
promotion -- by mobilizing the protests that eventually toppled Slobodan
Milosevic.
This small cell of regime change specialists was operating according to the theories of the late Gene Sharp, the so-called "Clausewitz
of non-violent struggle." Sharp had worked with a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst, Col.
Robert Helvey , to conceive a strategic blueprint that
weaponized protest as a form of hybrid warfare, aiming it at states that resisted Washington's unipolar domination.
Otpor at the 1998 MTV Europe Music Awards
Otpor was supported by the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and Sharp's Albert Einstein Institute. Sinisa Sikman, one
of Otpor's main trainers, once
said the group even received
direct CIA funding.
According to a
leaked email
from a Stratfor staffer, after running Milosevic out of power, "the kids who ran OTPOR grew up, got suits and designed CANVAS
or in other words a 'export-a-revolution' group that sowed the seeds for a NUMBER of color revolutions. They are still hooked into
U.S. funding and basically go around the world trying to topple dictators and autocratic governments (ones that U.S. does not like
;)."
Stratfor revealed that CANVAS "turned its attention to Venezuela" in 2005, after training opposition movements that led pro-NATO
regime change operations across Eastern Europe.
While monitoring the CANVAS training program, Stratfor outlined its insurrectionist agenda in strikingly blunt language: "Success
is by no means guaranteed, and student movements are only at the beginning of what could be a years-long effort to trigger a revolution
in Venezuela, but the trainers themselves are the people who cut their teeth on the 'Butcher of the Balkans.' They've got mad skills.
When you see students at five Venezuelan universities hold simultaneous demonstrations, you will know that the training is over and
the real work has begun."
Birthing the "Generation 2007" regime change cadre
The "real work" began two years later, in 2007, when Guaidσ graduated from Andrιs Bello Catholic University of Caracas. He moved
to Washington, DC to enroll in the Governance and Political Management
Program at George Washington University, under the tutelage of Venezuelan economist Luis Enrique Berrizbeitia, one of the top
Latin American neoliberal economists. Berrizbeitia is a
former executive director of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) who spent more than a decade working in the Venezuelan energy sector, under the old oligarchic regime that was
ousted by Chαvez.
That year, Guaidσ helped lead anti-government rallies after the Venezuelan government
declined to to renew the license of Radio Caracas Televisiσn
(RCTV). This privately owned station played a leading role in the 2002 coup against Hugo Chαvez. RCTV helped mobilize anti-government
demonstrators, falsified information blaming government supporters for acts of violence carried out by opposition members, and banned
pro-government reporting amid the coup. The role of RCTV and other oligarch-owned stations in driving the failed coup attempt was
chronicled in the acclaimed documentary The Revolution Will Not
Be Televised .
That same year, the students claimed credit for stymying Chavez's constitutional referendum for a "21st century socialism" that
promised "to set the legal framework for the political and
social reorganization of the country, giving direct power to organized communities as a prerequisite for the development of a new
economic system."
From the protests around RCTV and the referendum, a specialized cadre of US-backed class of regime change activists was born.
They called themselves "Generation 2007."
The Stratfor and CANVAS trainers of this cell identified Guaidσ's ally a street organizer named Yon Goicoechea as a "key factor"
in defeating the constitutional referendum. The following year, Goicochea was
rewarded for his efforts with the Cato Institute's
Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty, along with a $500,000 prize, which he promptly invested into building his own Liberty
First (Primero Justicia) political network.
Friedman, of course, was the godfather of the notorious neoliberal Chicago Boys who were imported into Chile by dictatorial junta
leader Augusto Pinochet to implement policies of radical "shock doctrine"-style fiscal austerity. And the Cato Institute is the libertarian
Washington DC-based think tank founded by the Koch Brothers, two top Republican Party donors who have become
aggressive supporters of the right-wing across Latin America.
Wikileaks published a 2007 email from American
ambassador to Venezuela William Brownfield sent to the State Department, National Security Council and Department of Defense Southern
Command praising "Generation of '07" for having "forced the Venezuelan president, accustomed to setting the political agenda, to
(over)react." Among the "emerging leaders" Brownfield identified were Freddy Guevara and Yon Goicoechea. He applauded the latter
figure as "one of the students' most articulate defenders of civil liberties."
Flush with cash from libertarian oligarchs and US government soft power outfits, the radical Venezuelan cadre took their Otpor
tactics to the streets, along with a
version of the group's
logo, as seen below:
"Galvanizing public unrest to take advantage of the situation and spin it against Chavez"
In 2009, the Generation 2007 youth activists
staged their most provocative demonstration yet, dropping their pants on public roads and aping the outrageous guerrilla theater
tactics outlined by Gene Sharp in his regime change manuals. The protesters had mobilized against the arrest of an ally from another
newfangled youth group called JAVU. This far-right group "gathered funds from a variety of US government sources, which allowed it
to gain notoriety quickly as the hardline wing of opposition street movements," according to academic George Ciccariello-Maher's
book, "Building the Commune."
While video of the protest is not available, many Venezuelans have
identified Guaidσ as one of its key participants.
While the allegation is unconfirmed, it is certainly plausible; the bare-buttocks protesters were members of the Generation 2007
inner core that Guaidσ belonged to, and were clad in their trademark Resistencia! Venezuela t-shirts, as seen below:
That year, Guaidσ exposed himself to the public in another way, founding a political party to capture the anti-Chavez energy his
Generation 2007 had cultivated. Called Popular Will, it was led by
Leopoldo Lσpez , a Princeton-educated right-wing firebrand
heavily involved in National Endowment for Democracy programs and elected as the mayor of a district in Caracas that was one of the
wealthiest in the country. Lopez was a portrait of Venezuelan aristocracy, directly descended from his country's first president.
He was also the first cousin of
Thor Halvorssen , founder of the US-based Human Rights Foundation that functions as a de facto publicity shop for US-backed anti-government
activists in countries targeted by Washington for regime change.
Though Lopez's interests aligned neatly with Washington's, US
diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks highlighted the
fanatical tendencies that would ultimately lead to Popular Will's marginalization. One cable identified Lopez as "a divisive figure
within the opposition often described as arrogant, vindictive, and power-hungry." Others highlighted his obsession with street confrontations
and his "uncompromising approach" as a source of tension with other opposition leaders who prioritized unity and participation in
the country's democratic institutions.
By 2010, Popular Will and its foreign backers moved to exploit the worst drought to hit Venezuela in decades. Massive electricity
shortages had struck the country due the dearth of water, which was needed to power hydroelectric plants. A global economic recession
and declining oil prices compounded the crisis, driving public discontentment.
Stratfor and CANVAS key advisors of Guaidσ and his anti-government cadre devised a shockingly cynical
plan to drive a dagger through the heart of
the Bolivarian revolution. The scheme hinged on a 70% collapse of the country's electrical system by as early as April 2010.
"This could be the watershed event, as there is little that Chavez can do to protect the poor from the failure of that system,"
the Stratfor internal memo declared. "This would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition
group could ever hope to generate. At that point in time, an opposition group would be best served to take advantage of the situation
and spin it against Chavez and towards their needs."
By this point, the Venezuelan opposition was receiving a staggering $40-50 million a year from US government organizations like
USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, according to
a report by the Spanish think tank, the FRIDE Institute. It also had massive wealth to draw on from its own accounts, which were
mostly outside the country.
While the scenario envisioned by Statfor did not come to fruition, the Popular Will party activists and their allies cast aside
any pretense of non-violence and joined a radical plan to destabilize the country.
Towards violent destabilization
In November, 2010, according to emails obtained
by Venezuelan security services and presented by former Justice Minister Miguel Rodrνguez Torres, Guaidσ, Goicoechea, and several
other student activists attended a secret five-day training at the Fiesta Mexicana hotel in Mexico City. The sessions were run by
Otpor, the Belgrade-based regime change trainers backed by the US government. The meeting had
reportedly received the blessing of Otto Reich, a fanatically anti-Castro Cuban exile working in George W. Bush's Department
of State, and the right-wing former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.
At the Fiesta Mexicana hotel, the emails stated, Guaidσ and his fellow activists hatched a plan to overthrow President Hugo Chavez
by generating chaos through protracted spasms of street violence.
Three petroleum industry figureheads Gustavo Torrar, Eligio Cedeρo and Pedro Burelli allegedly covered the $52,000 tab to
hold the meeting. Torrar is a self-described "human rights activist" and "intellectual" whose younger brother Reynaldo Tovar Arroyo
is the representative in Venezuela of the private Mexican oil and gas company Petroquimica del Golfo, which holds a contract with
the Venezuelan state.
Cedeρo, for his part, is a fugitive Venezuelan businessman who claimed asylum in the United States, and Pedro Burelli a former
JP Morgan executive and the former director of Venezuela's national oil company, Petroleum of Venezuela (PDVSA). He left PDVSA in
1998 as Hugo Chavez took power and is on the advisory
committee of Georgetown University's Latin America Leadership Program.
Burelli insisted that the emails detailing his participation had been
fabricated and
even hired a private investigator to prove it. The investigator
declared that Google's records showed the emails
alleged to be his were never transmitted.
Yet today Burelli makes no secret of his desire to see Venezuela's current president, Nicolαs Maduro, deposed and even dragged
through the streets and sodomized with a bayonet, as Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi was by NATO-backed militiamen.
The alleged Fiesta Mexicana plot flowed into another destabilization plan revealed in a
series of documents produced by the Venezuelan government. In May 2014, Caracas released documents detailing an assassination
plot against President Nicolαs Maduro. The leaks identified the Miami-based Maria Corina Machado as a leader of the scheme. A hardliner
with a penchant for extreme rhetoric, Machado has functioned as an international liaison for the opposition,
visiting President George W. Bush in 2005.
"I think it is time to gather efforts; make the necessary calls, and obtain financing to annihilate Maduro and the rest will fall
apart," Machado wrote in an email to former Venezuelan diplomat Diego Arria in 2014.
In
another email , Machado claimed that the violent plot had the blessing of US Ambassador to Colombia, Kevin Whitaker. "I have
already made up my mind and this fight will continue until this regime is overthrown and we deliver to our friends in the world.
If I went to San Cristobal and exposed myself before the OAS, I fear nothing. Kevin Whitaker has already reconfirmed his support
and he pointed out the new steps. We have a checkbook stronger than the regime's to break the international security ring."
Guaidσ heads to the barricades
That February, student demonstrators acting as shock troops for the exiled oligarchy erected violent barricades across the country,
turning opposition-controlled quarters into
violent fortresses known as guarimbas . While international media portrayed the upheaval as a spontaneous protest against
Maduro's iron-fisted rule, there was ample evidence that Popular Will was orchestrating the show.
"None of the protesters at the universities wore their university t-shirts, they all wore Popular Will or Justice First t-shirts,"
a guarimba participant said at the time. "They might
have been student groups, but the student councils are affiliated to the political opposition parties and they are accountable to
them."
Asked who the ringleaders were, the guarimba participant said, "Well if I am totally honest, those guys are legislators
now."
Around 43 were killed during the 2014 guarimbas . Three years later, they erupted again, causing mass destruction of public
infrastructure, the murder of government supporters, and the
deaths of 126 people, many of whom were Chavistas. In several
cases, supporters of the government were burned alive by armed gangs.
Guaidσ was directly involved in the 2014 guarimbas . In fact, he tweeted video showing himself clad in a helmet and gas
mask, surrounded by masked and armed elements that had shut down a highway that were engaging in a violent clash with the police.
Alluding to his participation in Generation 2007, he proclaimed, "I remember in 2007, we proclaimed, 'Students!' Now, we shout, 'Resistance!
Resistance!'"
Guaidσ has deleted the tweet, demonstrating apparent concern for his image as a champion of democracy.
On February 12, 2014, during the height of that year's guarimbas , Guaidσ joined Lopez on stage at a rally of Popular Will
and Justice First. During a lengthy diatribe against the government, Lopez
urged the crowd to march to the office of Attorney General Luisa Ortega Diaz. Soon after, Diaz's office came under attack by armed
gangs who attempted to burn it to the ground. She denounced what she called "planned and premeditated violence."
In an televised appearance in 2016, Guaidσ
dismissed deaths resulting from guayas a guarimba tactic involving stretching steel wire across a roadway in
order to injure or kill motorcyclists as a "myth." His comments whitewashed a deadly tactic that had
killed unarmed civilians like Santiago Pedroza and
decapitated a
man named Elvis Durαn, among many others.
This callous disregard for human life would define his Popular Will party in the eyes of much of the public, including many opponents
of Maduro.
Cracking down on Popular Will
As violence and political polarization escalated across the country, the government began to act against the Popular Will leaders
who helped stoke it.
Freddy Guevara, the National Assembly Vice-President and second in command of Popular Will, was a principal leader in the 2017
street riots. Facing a trial for his role in the violence, Guevara
took shelter in the Chilean embassy, where he remains.
Lester Toledo, a Popular Will legislator from the state of Zulia, was wanted by Venezuelan government in September 2016 on charges
of financing terrorism and plotting assassinations. The plans
were said to be made with former Colombian President Αlavaro Uribe. Toledo escaped Venezuela and went on several speaking tours with
Human Rights Watch, the US government-backed Freedom House, the Spanish Congress and European Parliament.
Carlos Graffe, another Otpor-trained Generation 2007 member who led Popular Will, was
arrested in July 2017. According to police, he was in possession of a bag filled with nails, C4 explosives and a detonator. He
was released on December 27, 2017.
Leopoldo Lopez, the longtime Popular Will leader, is today under house arrest, accused of a key role in deaths of 13 people during
the guarimbas in 2014. Amnesty International
lauded Lopez as a "prisoner of conscience" and slammed his transfer from prison to house as "not good enough." Meanwhile, family
members of guarimba victims introduced a petition for
more charges against Lopez.
Yon Goicoechea, the Koch Brothers posterboy and US-backed founder of Justice First, was arrested in 2016 by security forces who
claimed they found
found a kilo of explosives in his vehicle. In a New York Times
op-ed , Goicoechea protested
the charges as "trumped-up" and claimed he had been imprisoned simply for his "dream of a democratic society, free of Communism."
He was
freed in November 2017.
David Smolansky, also a member of the original Otpor-trained Generation 2007, became Venezuela's youngest-ever mayor when he was
elected in 2013 in the affluent suburb of El Hatillo. But he was stripped of his position and sentenced to 15 months in prison by
the Supreme Court after it found him culpable of stirring the violent guarimbas .
Facing arrest, Smolansky shaved his beard, donned sunglasses and
slipped into Brazil disguised as a priest with
a bible in hand and rosary around his neck. He now lives in Washington, DC, where he was hand picked by Secretary of the Organization
of American States Luis Almagro to lead the working group on the Venezuelan migrant and refugee crisis.
This July 26, Smolansky held what he called a "cordial reunion" with Elliot Abrams, the convicted Iran-Contra felon
installed by Trump
as special US envoy to Venezuela. Abrams is notorious for overseeing the US covert policy of arming right-wing death squads during
the 1980's in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. His lead role in the Venezuelan coup has stoked fears that another blood-drenched
proxy war might be on the way.
Four days earlier, Machado rumbled another violent threat against Maduro,
declaring that if he "wants to save his
life, he should understand that his time is up."
A pawn in their game
The collapse of Popular Will under the weight of the violent campaign of destabilization it ran alienated large sectors of the
public and wound much of its leadership up in exile or in custody. Guaidσ had remained a relatively minor figure, having spent most
of his nine-year career in the National Assembly as an alternate deputy. Hailing from one of Venezuela's least populous states, Guaidσ
came in second place during the 2015 parliamentary elections, winning just 26% of votes cast in order to secure his place in the
National Assembly. Indeed, his bottom may have been better known than his face.
Guaidσ is known as the president of the opposition-dominated National Assembly, but he was never elected to the position. The
four opposition parties that comprised the Assembly's Democratic Unity Table had decided to establish a rotating presidency. Popular
Will's turn was on the way, but its founder, Lopez, was under house arrest. Meanwhile, his second-in-charge, Guevara, had taken refuge
in the Chilean embassy. A figure named Juan Andrιs Mejνa would have been next in line but reasons that are only now clear, Juan Guaido
was selected.
"There is a class reasoning that explains Guaidσ's rise," Sequera, the Venezuelan analyst, observed. "Mejνa is high class, studied
at one of the most expensive private universities in Venezuela, and could not be easily marketed to the public the way Guaidσ could.
For one, Guaidσ has common mestizo features like most Venezuelans do, and seems like more like a man of the people. Also,
he had not been overexposed in the media, so he could be built up into pretty much anything."
In December 2018, Guaidσ sneaked across the border and junketed to Washington, Colombia and Brazil to coordinate the plan to hold
mass demonstrations during the inauguration of President Maduro. The night before Maduro's swearing-in ceremony, both Vice President
Mike Pence and Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland called Guaidσ to affirm their support.
A week later, Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Rick Scott and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart all lawmakers from the Florida base of the right-wing
Cuban exile lobby joined President Trump and Vice President Pence at the White House. At their request, Trump
agreed that if Guaidσ declared himself president, he would back him.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met personally withGuaidσ on January 10, according to the Wall Street Journal. However, Pompeo
could not pronounce Guaidσ's name when he mentioned him in a press briefing on January 25, referring to him as "Juan Guido."
By January 11, Guaidσ's Wikipedia page had been
edited 37 times, highlighting the struggle to
shape the image of a previously anonymous figure who was now a tableau for Washington's regime change ambitions. In the end, editorial
oversight of his page was handed over to Wikipedia's elite council of "librarians," who pronounced him the "contested" president
of Venezuela.
Guaidσ might have been an obscure figure, but his combination of radicalism and opportunism satisfied Washington's needs. "That
internal piece was missing," a Trump administration
said of Guaidσ. "He was the piece we needed for our strategy to be coherent and complete."
"For the first time," Brownfield, the former American ambassador to Venezuela,
gushed to the
New York Times, "you have an opposition leader who is clearly signaling to the armed forces and to law enforcement that he wants
to keep them on the side of the angels and with the good guys."
But Guaidσ's Popular Will party formed the shock troops of the guarimbas that caused the deaths of police officers and
common citizens alike. He had even boasted of his own participation in street riots. And now, to win the hearts and minds of the
military and police, Guaido had to erase this blood-soaked history.
On January 21, a day before the coup began in earnest, Guaidσ's wife delivered a
video address calling on the military
to rise up against Maduro. Her performance was wooden and uninspiring, underscoring the her husband's limited political prospects.
At a press conference before supporters four days later, Guaidσ
announced his solution to the crisis: "Authorize a humanitarian
intervention!"
While he waits on direct assistance, Guaidσ remains what he has always been a pet project of cynical outside forces. "It doesn't
matter if he crashes and burns after all these misadventures," Sequera said of the coup figurehead. "To the Americans, he is expendable."
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling
Republican Gomorrah
, Goliath ,
The Fifty One Day War , and
The Management of Savagery . He has
produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including
Killing Gaza . Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic
light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.
Dan Cohen Dan Cohen is a journalist and filmmaker.
He has produced widely distributed video reports and print dispatches from across Israel-Palestine. Dan is a correspondent at RT
America and tweets at @ DanCohen3000 .
http://www.dancohenmedia.com/
@Tyrion 2 good, as Venezuela "resists" America." This is complete nonsense. "Doing
things" is corrupt" ? Thus, doing nothing is "good ? I mean, WHAT ? Venezuela is not "good",
per se, except that in this particular case of international relations its largely
innocent . The US has unilaterally decided that the election loser is the election
winner
( Clinton actually "won" in 2016; she's the real president).
US sanctions, threats & striving for a civil war is not just "doing something"
–but doing something wrong (but then, who gives a fuck for international law ?
Who respects sovereignty ?)
What a despicable ideology makes people think like that? It is cloying and maudlin and
resentful.
US sanctions, threats & striving for a civil war is not just "doing something"
–but doing something wrong (but then, who gives a fuck for international law ? Who
respects sovereignty ?
Sovereignty is exercised by the legitimate government. Maduro is not the legitimate head
of the Venezuelan government. Expecting him to step down or at least call a proper
Presidential election is respecting this.
We can argue about that, but pearl clutching appeals to "but America is competent so
America is bad" are gross.
@Tyrion 2 Your mindless postmodernism is astonishing. So you think that facts don' t
matter and you haven't noticed that people are commenting facts based on what is happening,
what different acteurs have done? If you have no idea about Venezuela, why don't you read
what Mark Weisbrot or Max Blumenthal and others have written about the theme recently?
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The United States will continue to use all measures available to stop
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's revenue streams, National Security Advisor John Bolton
said in a statement on Friday.
"The US will continue to use all tools to separate Maduro [and] his cronies from money that
rightfully belongs to the people of Venezuela", Bolton said via Twitter. "Those who continue to
plunder the resources of Venezuela & stand against its people will not be forgotten".
He also called on Russia and other nations to recognise Juan Guaido as Venezuelan
President.
Bolton added that countries and companies buying Venezuelan oil must take steps to ensure
that President Nicolas Maduro and his government cannot access and divert the payments for
their own use. In late January, the United States blocked all assets of Venezuela's state
energy giant PDVSA in its jurisdiction and imposed a ban on deals with the company. US Treasury
Secretary Steven Mnuchin explained the United States was taking care of the PDVSA in the
interests of the Venezuelan people and also protecting its own market.
On January 23, opposition leader Juan Guaido proclaimed himself interim president of
Venezuela after the opposition-controlled National Assembly claimed Maduro has usurped power.
The United States and some of its allies have recognised Guaido as interim
president.
Russia, China, Mexico and several other countries have said they recognise Maduro
as Venezuela's only legitimate president.
Maduro has accused the United States of orchestrating a coup and informed the US of his
decision to sever diplomatic relations. Washington, however, has refused to withdraw its
diplomatic mission personnel from the Latin American country.
"... The US State Department announced last month that Washington froze some $7 billion in assets belonging to Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA in order to make some of that money available to Guaido and his team. ..."
"... Maduro, after launching a signature-gathering campaign against alleged US interference, has repeatedly stressed his sentiment that the main objective behind Washington's interest in the political outcome in Venezuela is the nation's oil reserves, said to the largest in the world. ..."
The US intelligence community is directly communicating with members of Venezuela's military
in attempts to convince them to abandon beleaguered President Nicolas Maduro while also
considering additional sanctions to ramp up the pressure, a senior White House official
divulged to Reuters. Despite the fact that only a few senior officers have to date abandoned
Maduro, the Trump administration expects additional military personnel to jump ship.
In late January, Juan Guaido, the head of the opposition-led National Assembly, proclaimed
himself the South American nation's interim president, in a move swiftly recognized by the US
and a handful of other countries.
"We believe these to be those first couple pebbles before we start really seeing bigger
rocks rolling down the hill," the unnamed White House official speaking on a condition of
anonymity, told Reuters. "We're still having conversations with members of the former Maduro
regime, with military members, although those conversations are very, very limited."
The unnamed official did not provide additional details regarding what form motivation was
being offered to top military officials to gain their support, according to Reuters.
Many members of the Venezuelan military remain loyal to Maduro, mostly in fear of being
targeted by the embattled leader. To convince those on-the-fence members to abandon Maduro, the
US must offer something that makes a turncoat move worthwhile, noted Eric Farnsworth, vice
president of the Council of the Americas think tank in Washington.
"It depends on what they're offering," Farnsworth told Reuters. "Are there incentives built
into these contacts that will at least cause people to question their loyalty to the
regime?"
A few European nations have joined the Trump administration in its support of Guaido as the
interim president, although those nations professing political support have not taken the
additional step of backing US sanctions on Venezuela's state-owned oil giant PDVSA as well as
other restrictions on financial transactions imposed by Washington.
The US State Department announced last month that Washington froze some $7 billion in
assets belonging to Venezuelan state-owned oil company PDVSA in order to make some of that
money available to Guaido and his team.
According to the US official who spoke anonymously to Reuters, the Trump administration is
also considering imposing sanctions on Cuban military and intelligence officials who are
thought to be assisting Maduro.
Maduro, after launching a signature-gathering campaign against alleged US interference,
has repeatedly stressed his sentiment that the main objective behind Washington's interest in
the political outcome in Venezuela is the nation's oil reserves, said to the largest in the
world.
It looks like a specialist on illegal transferee of weapons is needed to make the color revolution a success...
Notable quotes:
"... Elliott Abrams got a new high level job last month, Special Envoy on Venezuela. Within weeks, the United States recognized a new President of Venezuela while the elected Venezuelan President is still in office. Chatter and rumor from the White House suggests that military intervention is possible. The "new" recognized-by- the-US-President of Venezuela is a veteran of color revolution type regime change, groomed for service with the help of the snakelike National Endowment for Democracy (NED). ..."
It's a sad fact that the full and unconditional
pardon given by President George H.W. Bush to Elliott Abrams (a member of the second
generation neo-conservative royalty by way of marriage to the daughter of neo-con co-creator,
Midge Decter), protected him from disbarment and possible prison. Abrams, who pled guilty to
the crime of lying to Congress in the investigation of the Iran-Contra, embraced the plea
option reportedly in order to avoid heavier charges from the office of then independent
counsel, Lawrence E. Walsh, prosecutor in the Iran-Contra cases. Bush is gone, Walsh is gone,
but Mr. Bush's Attorney General William Barr is – surprise – now Attorney General
of the United States.
What that portends for future regime change adventures remains to be seen, but the
historical record is ominous.
In 1992, when Bush issued the Iran-Contra pardons on the eve of his leaving office after
losing reelection to President Bill Clinton, William Barr fully supported the pardons.
Presidential pardons are, after all, Constitutional. But, Lawrence Walsh said at the time,
reported NPR, "It demonstrates that powerful people with powerful allies can commit serious
crimes in high office, deliberately abusing the public trust without consequences."
Now the Iran-Contra era neo-cons and the Dick Cheney/Iraq Invasion 2003 era neo-cons are
marching back into the institution of the Presidency.
Elliott Abrams got a new high level job last month, Special Envoy on Venezuela. Within
weeks, the United States recognized a new President of Venezuela while the elected Venezuelan
President is still in office. Chatter and rumor from the White House suggests that military
intervention is possible. The "new" recognized-by- the-US-President of Venezuela is a veteran
of color revolution type regime change, groomed for service with the help of the snakelike
National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
Regime change, putting in questionable, if not nefarious new leaders, seems to be Abrams'
delight: Nicaragua, Iraq while a government official. Many others in his dreams.
In 1986, even before the Iran-Contra debacle was revealed, as Assistant Secretary of State
for Inter-American Affairs, Elliott Abrams told Congress that Nicaraguan "Contras" involved in
drug running didn't have the okay from Contra leaders. It was just underlings. This, while
Abrams and company were busy doing end-runs around the Boland Amendment and other Congressional
actions that barred military supplies to the Contras. Even Khomeini's Iran was not off limits
in getting money for the Nicaraguan fight.
In another time and place, i.e., Saudi Arabia, present day, where regime change in Syria was
a high priority, we've heard excuses similar to those made by Elliott Abrams about the Contras,
about the responsibility for the killing and butchering of the corpse of Saudi journalist Jamal
Khashoggi, and about the financing and arming of ISIS and Al Nusra terrorists by Saudi Arabia
in Syria. Deja vu.
With more neo-cons in the Administration, the trajectory is more wasted blood and
treasure.
"... Recently, Guaido addressed both Russia and China, trying to convince them that a change in government would actually be in their economic interests. "What most suits Russia and China is a change of government," he said. "Maduro does not protect Venezuela, he doesn't protect anyone's investments, and he is not a good deal for those countries." ..."
"... But despite these power projection ploys, Russia's real capabilities to influence the outcome of the crisis seem limited. After a new US oil embargo against PDVSA was announced last week, Maduro's regime was cut off from its main source of revenue. Analysts say that the fate of Venezuela now rests in the hands of the military – on whether, and how long, it will remain loyal to Maduro. ..."
As of 2017, Russia controlled 13% of Venezuela's crude exports, Reuters
reported . According to some experts, Rosneft has been taking advantage of Venezuela's
difficulties to secure deals which will be profitable in the long term.
The Kremlin's point man for Venezuela is Igor Sechin, CEO of Russian state-owned company
Rosneft and a close Putin ally, who has made frequent visits to Caracas in recent years.
Rosneft has provided $6 billion in loans to PDVSA, which is repaying them with oil. Rosneft has
also gained a share of ownership in five of Venezuela's petroleum projects, while playing a
middleman role in global markets, selling Venezuelan oil on to customers worldwide.
However, Russia's investments in Venezuela look far from lucrative. In 2017 the two
countries agreed to restructure Venezuela's debt, amounting to over $3 billion, by shifting the
repayment terms to 2027.
The beleaguered country's economy is on the verge of collapse and the oil sector, which
accounts for over 90% of national export revenues, has not been spared. Last year, oil
production dropped by 37% compared with 2017. So, Maduro has been struggling to pay back the
loans and last year, Sechin had to fly to Caracas to negotiate with the Venezuelan leader over
delayed oil supplies.
Russia's concern about a collapse in Venezuela's economy is tangible. A delegation of
high-ranking Russian officials flew to Caracas in October to advise the government on how to
overcome the crisis. With the country in a state of turmoil, Russia's Deputy Minister of
Finance Sergei Storchak
said he expects Venezuela to struggle to repay its debt, and the next $100 million tranche
is due next month.
... ... ...
Recently, Guaido addressed both Russia and China, trying to convince them that a change in
government would actually be in their economic interests. "What most suits Russia and China is
a change of government," he said. "Maduro does not protect Venezuela, he doesn't protect
anyone's investments, and he is not a good deal for those countries."
But Russia's switch of sides is highly unlikely at this point, for economic interests are
not the only factor involved.
Russian bridgehead
As Krutikhin pointed out, supporting Maduro is a matter of principle for Russia. Betraying
Maduro at this point would make the Kremlin look weak in front of its domestic audience.
Also, Russia's support for the Maduro regime is based on geopolitics. Together, with
Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba, Maduro's regime is a key Russian ally on the American continent.
This alliance is essentially a Cold War legacy, dating back to when the Kremlin actively
supported anti-US governments in Latin America, such as Fidel Castro's Cuba and the Sandinista
regime in Nicaragua.
Today, Putin's Russia is defying the US-led world order by supporting leaders such as
Syria's Bashar Assad and Maduro's Venezuela, even though, in the case of the latter, that comes
with substantial economic costs.
In return, Venezuela has been taking Russia's side in international disputes. One example
came after the brief Russo-Georgian conflict in 2008. Venezuela was among the few states
recognizing the Russia-backed breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
On the strategic front, Russia has been granting Venezuela multi-billion dollar loans to buy
Russian heavy weaponry, such as Sukhoi fighter jets, T-72 tanks and S-300 air defense
systems.
In return, Maduro has been offering Russia a platform to showcase its military power right
in the US backyard. In late 2018, Russian TU-160 strategic bombers – which are capable of
carrying nuclear weapons – flew to Caracas for joint exercises. That provided proof of
Russia's global reach in a region a long way from its traditional area of influence.
According to Reuters, Russian military contractors arrived recently in Caracas to protect
Maduro from a possible violent coup. The mercenaries reportedly belong to the secretive private
military company "Wagner," which has been defending Russian interests in both Syria and Eastern
Ukraine. The Kremlin, however, denied these claims.
But despite these power projection ploys, Russia's real capabilities to influence the
outcome of the crisis seem limited. After a new US oil embargo against PDVSA was announced last
week, Maduro's regime was cut off from its main source of revenue. Analysts say that the fate
of Venezuela now rests in the hands of the military – on whether, and how long, it will
remain loyal to Maduro.
For Russia, a best-case scenario looks unlikely.
If Guaido's revolution succeeds, Russia will lose a major ally in the region. If Maduro
manages to hold on to power, the Kremlin will preserve its geopolitical foothold, but at a
hefty economic price.
The problem for the USA military intervention is whether the Venezuelan resistance can make
it a second Iraq?
Notable quotes:
"... It is stupid and dangerous for Guaido to be talking about U.S. military intervention, and in doing so he is almost certainly making it more difficult to resolve the crisis in Venezuela peacefully. ..."
"... Floating the idea of a foreign invasion for any reason gives the top military commanders an added incentive to stick with Maduro and resist attempts to depose him, and they already have several reasons to remain on his side. ..."
"... An all-or-nothing approach to the crisis is likely to lead to escalation, and so far that has been the only kind of approach that the Trump administration knows how to do. Military intervention would be the absolute worst form that approach could take, and Congress and the public need to oppose any moves by this administration in that direction. ..."
Venezuela's self-proclaimed acting president Juan Guaido refused to rule out on Friday the
possibility of authorizing United States intervention to help force President Nicolas Maduro
from power and alleviate a humanitarian crisis.
National Assembly leader Guaido told AFP he would do "everything that is necessary to save
human lives," acknowledging that US intervention is "a very controversial subject."
It is stupid and dangerous for Guaido to be talking about U.S. military intervention,
and in doing so he is almost certainly making it more difficult to resolve the crisis in
Venezuela peacefully. The military's support for Maduro remains the largest and most
significant obstacle to the opposition's claim to power. Floating the idea of a foreign
invasion for any reason gives the top military commanders an added incentive to stick with
Maduro and resist attempts to depose him, and they already have
several reasons to remain on his side.
U.S. military intervention in Venezuela must not happen, and members of Congress should make
clear that it is not an option. Rep. Ro Khanna responded to Guaido's statements earlier
today:
Attacking Venezuela would be a costly and unnecessary war for the U.S., but more than that
it would be a calamity for the people of Venezuela, whose country would be plunged into even
worse conditions for the duration of the conflict. The U.S. needs to be willing to consider
some sort of compromise solution, whether it is a power-sharing arrangement or negotiations
that lead to the holding of early elections. An all-or-nothing approach to the crisis is
likely to lead to escalation, and so far that has been the only kind of approach that the Trump
administration knows how to do. Military intervention would be the absolute worst form that
approach could take, and Congress and the public need to oppose any moves by this
administration in that direction.
From oil to infrastructure, why China has plenty to lose from political turmoil in
Venezuela
Caracas needs Chinese loans and investment in various sectors, but the relationship
offers mutual benefits
Instability and a struggling economy in the South American country have already cost
Beijing dearly
As Venezuela's biggest creditor, China is bound to be affected by the outcome.
Here are some of the Chinese investments that have already hit trouble in Venezuela:
Oil-for-loan deals
The last loan Maduro got from China was one of US$5 billion in September 2017. This was in
addition to US$65 billion loaned by China to Caracas over the past decade, which the South
American nation has been repaying in oil shipments.
Several state-owned Chinese oil corporations have bought stakes in or entered joint
ventures with Venezuelan counterparts.
But after the escalating political chaos, it was reported last week by Reuters that
PetroChina planned to drop Petroleos de Venezuela as a partner in a planned US$10 billion oil
refinery and petrochemical project in southern China.
China has provided more than US$100 billion in loan commitments to Latin American
countries and firms since 2005. This would mean China's loans to Venezuela accounted for well
over half of its loans to South America.
China, as the biggest oil importer in the world, is receiving 240,000 barrels of oil a day
– mostly as debt repayment – from Venezuela, which has the world's biggest oil
reserves.
Latin America's high-speed railway
Even before the current chaos over the presidential race, Venezuela's economy had long
been hampered by its political instability. This led to the abandonment in 2016 of a
Chinese-backed high-speed rail project that had cost US$7.5 billion.
The 462km Tinaco-Anaco line was intended to become part of South America's first
high-speed rail route and carry 5 million passengers and 9.8 million tonnes of cargo a
year.
Beijing-backed China Railway Engineering Corporation had a stake of 40 per cent in the
project, with Venezuela holding the rest, and construction began in 2009.
But it fell behind schedule and was abandoned by the Chinese state company in 2015,
according to an Associated Press report. By 2016, the construction sites and factories had
been ransacked for power generators, computers, metals, ceramics and other materials.
Mining opportunities
In 2017, China agreed to help diversify Venezuela's oil-dependent economy by developing
its mining sector. A US$400 million joint venture was established between the Corporacion
Venezolana de Mineria, Chinese firms CAMCE and Yankuang Group, and Colombia's Inter-American
Coal to boost Venezuela's coal mining and port operations.
CAMCE, a construction engineering affiliate of state-owned China National Machinery
Industry Corporation, and Yankuang, a Shandong-based coal company, have also promised to
invest US$180 million to develop the country's nickel industry.
No progress has been reported from the project so far, but other mining projects in the
country have been hindered.
Baoji Oilfield Machinery Company suspended its activities in Venezuela in 2015 following a
series of political protests. In March 2016, a gang gunned down 17 miners in an area of the
Orinoco Mining Arc site that was licensed to Yankuang.
Everything is as usual. Old American slogan: Do you have oil? We are going to you to teach
you democracy (that is, we will rob, but democratically). And after that, Americans sincerely
wonder why the rest of the world (except for Israel and Saudi Arabia) "loves" them so
much.
The USA has no interest in other communist regimes of the world that have no gold or oil.
Seems to me the MO is obvious. The use of the outdated MSM planting lies is also worth noting
because it's not even on the fringe of expansion or acceptance, it's dying a slow death.
The old American way of invading a country because it has oil and, coincidentally, is
experiencing a "humanitarian crisis" while using corrupt MSM outlets is so friggin'
old.......
I went to Venezuela to drink some beer. I find that it's pointless to try to tell the
truth about Venezuela to most Americans. People say that, because I went to a small town
instead of Caracas, I couldn't possibly know the 'real' situation.
Zorov description of Caracas is a giant Potemkin Village. The refugees flooding into
Columbia and Brazil are just actors hired by CIA to make Maduro look bad. Sounds like
paradise!
Gresham's Law is reversed in the socialist paradise and good money drives the bad from
circulation? Right. Got it. If this trolling reporter actually believes that, I have some
Continentals for him. I'll print them up to order.
I start to think that I don't feel sorry for Maduro at all. He really corrupted en
entire country with such generous handouts. And they willingly take, but no one says "thank
you," just that they want more and more.
Sounds familiar, I see this **** in the US and the left is setting up it's constituents to
starve and suffer.
Our Air France flight was grounded in Paris for 5 hours; no one wants to land in
Venezuela in the middle of the night, due to the "dangerous criminal situation."
So what would you call the situation in Paris, exactly? Mayberry? And this is precisely
why journalistic bias works better than anything else when it comes to exposing the kind of
stupidity that rivals what existed during the Dark Age. They call themselves out, shout "Hey!
I'm a moron!", and then we all laugh.
I don't know what ZH has gone but on the fake news this morning the experts were telling
me Maduro was stopping humanitarian aid sent from the US at the border.
This is the same thing that happens to anybody that questions Trump. Doing that means they
support Honest Hill'rey or is a "libtard". Without knowing much at all about Maduro, US
intervention in Venezuela is somthing I do not support at all and the maverick outside is
POTUS. So right or wrong I blame him.
This is the personal view of the correspondent on today's life of Caracas.
Translated by Scott
Day one...
Our Air France flight was grounded in Paris for 5 hours; no one wants to land in Venezuela
in the middle of the night, due to the "dangerous criminal situation." The airliner is half
empty, the passengers, judging by nervous conversations, are only Venezuelans. A taxi driver,
while leaving the airport, locks the doors, and sweetly warns that after dark, bandits scatter
spikes on the roads and rob the stranded cars. "Oh, don't worry, Amigo, I have an old car. They
are not interested in old, cars." That's where you understand why Caracas is ranked first in
the ranking of the most dangerous cities in the world. It's too late for supper, but I at least
want to exchange my US dollars for Venezuelan bolivars. I ask my cab driver. He violently
shakes his head:
"No, no, no. I do not mess with such things, it's illegal!"
"Whatever," I laugh at him.
"Tomorrow, someone will take the dollars, maybe even with my hands torn off." I was
wrong
The following morning, no one at the hotel wants to look at my dollars.
The hotel employee tells me to go to one of the official "exchange stores" but honestly
adds: "only Americans, or complete jerks go there."
In Venezuela, the official dollar exchange rate is 200 bolivars, and the "black market"
exchange rate is 2,715. And if you exchange your currency in a bank, then according to this
calculation, a bottle of ordinary water will cost 330 rubles, and a modest lunch in an
inexpensive cafe -- 7,000 rubles per person. Judging by the stories on the Internet, in
Venezuelan people should simply kill each other for dollars, but this is not the case.
There is also other things different from perception. On western news, it is shown that
demonstrators fight with police daily, tens killed, hundreds wounded, the sea of blood. But in
Caracas, all is quiet. In an afternoon, people are sitting in cafes and idly sipping rum with
ice, while maintenance crews sweep the streets. It turns out that the world 's leading TV new
sources (including CNN and the BBC) show some fantasy film about Venezuela. "Demonstrations?"
yawns Alejandro, a street vendor selling corn. "Well, Saturday there will be one, sort of. On
one end of the city will be a rally of opposition supporters, and on the other, Maduro
supporters. The police keep them separate to prevent fights."
Amazing.
You browse the Internet, you turn on the TV, and you see the revolution, the people dying on
streets to overthrow the "evil dictator Maduro." And you come here, and nobody cares.
Then it got even better. Never in my life have I had so many adventures while trying to
exchange one currency for another. The country has a problem with cash money, long queues
waiting for the ATM, and even the street dealers of "currency" have no "efectivo," as they call
cash. I wander inside a jewelry store and ask if they want some "green." The answer is "No."
Everyone acts like law-abiding citizens. I am told that police recently started arresting
people for private exchange, that's why people don't want to associate. One owner of the
jewelry store almost agrees.
"What do you have? Dollars? No, I won't take that."
"Why now?"
"I take only the Euros dollar, man, is the currency of the aggressor, they try to tell us
how to live!"
Damn it! I have money in my pocket, and I can't even buy lunch! Finally, a certain woman,
nursing a baby in a workplace, very reluctantly agrees to exchange 2,200 bolivars for a "buck."
I want to curse her out, but I have to live somehow. Bolivars seem like a beautiful,
unattainable currency, which hides all the benefits of the world, that's why they are so hard
to get. I'm nodding in agreement. The woman calls somewhere, and asks to wait. After 15 minutes
she tells me that "there is a problem." Of course, money is not to be found. Her man couldn't
withdraw them from the ATM, everywhere the ATMs are on a strict daily rate.
"President Maduro is fighting for the strengthening of the national currency," explained
the nursing mother. "We all use our cards to pay for everything."
I don't know how it works, but yesterday an exchange rate was 3,200 bolívars for 1
dollar, and today the "bucks" fell to 2,700. I have started to realize that in the very next
few days I'll starve to death with dollars in my pocket. A unique fate, perhaps, that has never
happen in history.
In the next kiosk cash for gold place I am offered a plastic debit card loaded with local
money, and then I would try my luck withdrawing bills from neighboring ATMs. "Or, maybe not, if
you're not lucky." Well, of course. By the way, an attempt to buy a SIM card for the phone also
fails. They don't sell them to foreigners, you need a Venezuelan ID card. Yes, and I have
nothing to pay for it. The feeling is that the dollar is a gift that no one wants. Sadly, I
walk by stores. People come out of there with packages of eggs, bread, packs of butter. The
range is not like in Moscow, of course, but again, if you believe the news on TV, Venezuela is
suffering from a terrible famine, supermarkets are empty, and people are fighting each other
for food. Nothing like that. There are queues, but not kilometers long. In general, television
stations in the United States and Europe (and ours too) created their own Venezuela, drawn like
a terrible cartoon. I walk into a cafe at random.
"Will you accept dollars for lunch?" I ask hopelessly.
"Yes, at the rate of "black market" they whispered to me.
"But the change will also be in dollars... sorry, no bolivars at all...we've been hunting
for them ourselves for weeks."
My first day in Venezuela is over. How unusual. I've been here for 24 hours, and I've not
held a Bolivian bill in my hand. Oh, but there will be more...
Day two...
60 liters of gasoline here cost five cents, and a basket of basic food products - 50 rubles
(about 90 cents).
"The gas station," my driver reaches into his purse and takes out a banknote of 2 Bolivar.
The exchange rate of the Venezuelan currency changes every day, and today it is 2,580 bolivars
per one dollar. In Russian money, that is 10 cents. "We must now fill a full tank," says the
taxi driver. 60 liters of gasoline cost 1 bolívar, but we give the 2 bolivars bill,
because there is no 1 bolivar bill. I can't believe that is a full tank of fuel costs FIVE
CENTS?
"And how much can you even fill at this price?"
"Once a day for every citizen. And it's enough for me."
All the way to the center city, the driver scolds President Maduro, and tells me how much he
loves America, and how it will be good when the "guy with mustache" is finally overthrow by the
Americans.
I start to think that I don't feel sorry for Maduro at all. He really corrupted en entire
country with such generous handouts. And they willingly take, but no one says "thank you," just
that they want more and more.
On the street there is a long line into a "social supermarket," a place you can buy 400
types of goods at the solid low prices. These shops were established by the late President Hugo
Chavez "to fight inflation and protect the poor." The stores are funded by the Venezuelan
government. The buyer comes with a passport, gets a number, and waits in line until they are
allowed to enter and buy a certain set of products. The selection isn't very impressive, only
the essentials: chicken, bananas, pineapples, sausages, milk. A box of these food items costs
of equivalent of 50 rubles. CNN and the BBC show videos of Venezuelans wrapped in rolls of
toilet paper and sadly wandering across the border with Colombia. The toilet paper is found in
absolutely every store, and without any problems. I am once again simply amazed: Western TV
news is something from Hollywood, they are not reporting but making fantasy blockbusters. On
the BBC website I read that hungry Venezuelan children after school go to take a look at the
street vendors cooking meat. I've been all over the town. Restaurants, cafes, eateries, during
the lunch hour are crowded, and people look well-dressed. The mass hunger, the Western media
paints for us, doesn't exist in reality.
I take a few pictures inside the supermarket, and I am immediately approached by the workers
or "Maduro followers."
"It's forbidden to take pictures here."
"Is this a military facility?"
"Leave or we'll call the police."
"Listen, everywhere on TV they tell us that there is hunger in Venezuela. I want to prove
that the reality is different."
"We are not interested, we just work here: leave immediately!"
I started to understand perfectly well why Nicolas Maduro lost the information war. Hugo
Chavez was often praised even in private conversations, but even Chavez supporters find little
positive to say about Maduro. When people protested against Hugo's endless nominations as the
head of state, he used to meet them with the open arms, smiling and saying : "Guys, what's the
problem? I'm your President, I love you, let's sit down and talk!" Maduro doesn't have this
image of being one of the guys. He is not able to communicate with the public, and his
assistants, like the employees of the social store, can only push and ban and threaten with the
police.
On the streets, provincial farmers sell fruits and vegetables: mango, tomatoes, cucumbers.
All about the same price of 25 rubles per kilogram. Here, a dozen eggs from street vendors is
4,800 bolivars or about 130 rubles, and that is not cheap . During the peak of oil prices, when
a barrel of oil was sold for $150, Venezuela lived on the principle of a rich fool. To develop
domestic production? No, what is that nonsense? We can buy every triviality abroad. Even the
managers of the oil production weren't local, they hired specialists from Europe, and paid them
a lot of money. Food imports into the country reached 95 percent. And now the situation is not
too different. When I order my meal in a cafe (incidentally, still paying in dollars, all
attempts to change dollars to bolivars failed), I get excellent pork. "Where is it from?" "From
Colombia." "And chicken?" "From Brazil, that's why it's so expensive." Even flour for bread
comes from neighboring Guyana. Chavez and his successor Maduro wanted to be "people's
presidents," handing out money left and right. But then oil prices collapsed, food shortages
began, and people rebelled. People demand as before: cheap food in supermarkets, gasoline for
nothing, and they don't want to hear anything more or less.
"Chavez was a great guy!" says a fan of the former president, 75-year-old Raul Romero,
dressed in a red "chavist" shirt.
"Maduro is nothing like him! There is speculators on the streets, he does nothing. In his
time, Chavez arrested the dealers raising food prices, closed their shops, confiscated land
from landowners, and gave it to the people. We need a firm hand, a real dictatorship!"
In the TV world, Maduro is portrayed as a dictator and executioner, although in Venezuela,
he is openly scolded for being meek; they draw cartoon of him, and insult him as much as they
can. But who cares about the truth? Much more colorful to show the suffering for the toilet
paper.
Day three...
"I got robbed by a COP for my phone. I'm talking on the cell phone outside, he walks over
to me, pokes in my side with his gun. "Give me your mobile." I don't understand immediately,
and automatically continue the conversation. He cocks his gun, and says, "Kill." I give him
my phone. It's still good, I love being robbed by cops. They are not bandits from the
"Barrios," the poor neighborhoods in the mountains, who can shoot you first and then rummage
your corpse's pockets. I'm lucky, I've lived in Venezuela for 27 years and this was the first
time I was "hop-stopped." A lot of people get robbed every year.
I am talking to Mikhail, a citizen of Russia living in Venezuela since the beginning of the
nineties. He helps me move around Caracas and instructs me on how to visit the local slums.
"You don't have protection? Oh, who would doubt that. Then leave your watch, phone, and camera
at the hotel. Take some money for a taxi, you also have to have some cash in case you get
ambushed, otherwise they might get offended and kill you. Sometimes, people get shot in an arm
and a leg, that survivable." After such a nice story, I still go to the "Barrios." It is there
that the supporters of President Nicolas Maduro mainly live. According to CNN and BBC,
impoverished people in Venezuela are revolting against the government. Nothing can be further
from the truth; it's a wealthy middle class that goes to demonstrate. Maduro is applauded in
poor neighborhoods, because the President gives their residents free food sets enough for a
month and gives free (!) apartments. Formally, they belong to the state, but people live in
them for generations.
"I will cut a throat for the President," a heavily-tattooed man smiles menacingly, and
introduces himself as Emilio.
"Who else would give me food and a 'roof ' for free? He is our father and benefactor."
Maduro deliberately does not touch such people, which is why crime in Caracas gushes over
the edge. I am advised not to stop on the street to look at anything, but just to keep going,
otherwise bandits will have time to look closely at me. That's why they have constant robberies
on the streets, plus the police and the national guard can easily take away your favorite
things. No one can be happy about all these. "I love Russians," told me the businessman Carlos
while conversing over coffee near the Plaza de Bolivar.
" But you'd better send Maduro economic advisers. Teach him a lesson! He doesn't know
anything about economy. He has one recipe for everything, to give more money to the poor,
more free apartments, free food, free gasoline, to build a full communism here. But with
this, sorry, any state would collapse ."
The opposition rally in the Western part of Caracas is huge, at least 100 thousand people
gathered. The protesters are friendly to me, Russia here is respected. It is not considered an
enemy. Zero aggression at all and then I wonder about what I see on CNN, videos of the
opposition being rolled into a pancake by tanks. The police keep the neutrality, it disappears
from the streets, to not give a cause to provocateurs. People are happily waving flying in the
sky military helicopter. Many-in t-shirts with the American flag, a man passes by, holding a
hand-written poster with the altered slogan of Donald Trump -"Make Venezuela great again."
"Do you love the U.S.?"
"Yes, adore it!"
"I remember you already had a pro-American President in 1993, Carlos Andrés
Pérez. He sharply raised the price of gasoline, 80% of the goods were imported, he
drove the republic into billions of IMF debts. People went to demonstrations, and
Pérez drowned them in blood, killing 2,000 people then he fled to America."
The man freezes, with his mouth open. Finally, he gets the gift of speech back.
"I hope this time the pro-American President will be different."
"Are you sure?"
"Sorry, I have nothing to say."
Asking the girl from the opposition how she feels about the US:
"The US is our neighbor, let them change the power here." "In countries where the US changed power like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, hundreds of
thousands people were killed. Are you ready for this?"
Again, she pauses and sighs.
"No, no, no. We are not Africa or Asia. All will go peacefully. Venezuelans will not kill
each other."
Where the opinions splits is the question of whether the free gasoline and free food
packages will remain with an American-instilled government. Many are sincerely sure that the
"freebies" will remain under a new president. How else? The minority that recognizes that state
gifts will be canceled say that they at least "we will be free." As I said, the protesters are
mostly well-dressed, well-off people. By the way, the leader of the opposition, Juan Guido,
also has no real economic program promising to "quadruple the oil production." No one thinks
that after that price will fall four times. In short, I get a feeling that neither the
President, nor the opposition, know anything about the economy in Venezuela.
The demonstrations in support of Maduro take place at the other end of the city, to prevent
the opponents from fighting.
"You Americans are insolent!" screamed an old woman in a red t-shirt rushing towards
me. "Bastards! You should be hanged on a first tree! Cheers to socialism!"
"I'm Russian, grandma."
The old lady recoils.
"Sorry, please." "Don't get that upset, senora."
Many people gathered here are joyful, dancing and singing. A soldier stands in front of me and doesn't allow me to take any pictures. Not just me, but
also other passers-by.
"You can't take pictures here." "Says who?" "President Maduro."
No, Maduro is definitely doing everything he can to be disliked. Those gathering here are
poor, blue-collared workers and farmers from the suburbs. I am interested , honestly, were you
brought here on the busses? "Yes, he did!" says one grandfather, proudly displaying a portrait
of Che Guevara.
"But I would walk here for Maduro! It's a lie that we were paid to be here."
Other people applaud him happily. I shake hands. "Russians are welcome! Venezuela loves you,
you're home."
The day of rallies is over. The maintenance crews came to the sidewalk, strewn with plastic
bottles, crumpled packs of cigarettes, and other debris left after by a cloud. At the entrance
of an old house, old people drink coffee.
"They say that today some general has defected to the side of the opposition," says one of
them. "Some significant person." "What's this guy's name?" "Who knows?"
It is all moving same pieces of capitalistic BS around. Basic imperialistic struggle among
former hegemon who is going down due to stupidity and bad choices and newly rising hopefuls.
Once USA is safely put out and hopefully down, new great powers will suck lesser powers
dry probably by smarter and less aggressive means but nevertheless.
Souverenity is being used as a tool now, but truly sovereign can be only few great powers
in capitalistic world and Venezuela will never be sovereign.
Sacker as usually lacks imagination to go beyond his narrow views. He is also
contradictory.
Fighting the only successful socialist state in the world which was the only one capable
to put his anglozios in place yet defending this pathetic entity pretending to be
socialist.
If it is socialist how come all those oligarchs and their base is still around to keep
creating troubles? They should have gotten rid off long time ago and their all assets and
capitals nationalized for common good.
Regarding USA I have never had any illusions about this entity. Not even in 80s. All those
birth Mark's were there from the start. As with every old person they turned into marasm at
certain age.
Venezuela has claimed to have unveiled a mass conspiracy involving military personnel
and politicians trying to unseat the country's government by force, as well as plans of
potential U.S. military action.
Venezuelan Communications Minister Jorge Rodriguez has alleged that Julio Borges, an
opposition politician and former head of the National Assembly, was behind both a failed
2014 coup and an assassination attempt last August against Venezuelan President
Nicolás Maduro. The information was allegedly gathered by confessions from
recently-arrested Colonel Oswaldo García, who was behind another unsuccessful
conspiracy to unseat Maduro last year and was seen confessing on video during Thursday's
conference.
I am not so sure the Pinochet would be able to overthrow Allende government so early without
CIA support and infiltration (people, money, intelligence)
Notable quotes:
"... what more do you to see or hear or read before you believe that US had been hyper -focused and heavily engaged and entirely illegally to destroy Valenzuela independence form crony capitalism? ..."
@mike k I try to separate the effects of US aggression from that effects of the
Venezuelan governments own failures.
I agree with what another commentator pointed out. US influence in Latin America is often
overestimated. In my opinion by both the "left" who see it as cause of most problems and the
"right" who tend to see it positive.
Certain groups in Latin America tend to ally with the US. But they do this so they can
easier to pursue their own interests. For example imho Pinochet would have successfully
overthrown Allende in Chile even without US support. Latin Americans aren't mindless puppets
that are controlled and played from Washington. Moscow or Beijing.
@EliteCommInc. I don't advocate and American (supposed you are American or British)
intervention in Venezuela. I merely wanted to point out that this article/interview one sided
and and therefore not better that the bullshit the Murdoch media and their likes are probably
spreading lately.
@Captain Willard A key to Chavez’s current weakness is the decline in
the electricity sector. There is the grave possibility that some 70 percent of the
country’s electricity grid could go dark as soon as April 2010. Water
levels at the Guris dam are dropping, and Chavez has been unable to reduce consumption
sufficiently to compensate for the deteriorating industry. This could be the watershed event,
as there is little that Chavez can do to protect the poor from the failure of that system.
This would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition
group could ever hope to generate. At that point in time, an opposition group would be best
served to take advantage of the situation and spin it against Chavez and towards their needs.
Alliances with the military could be critical because in such a situation of massive public
unrest and rejection of the presidency, malcontent sectors of the military will likely decide
to intervene, but only if they believe they have sufficient support. This has been the
pattern in the past three coup attempts. Where the military thought it had enough support,
there was a failure in the public to respond positively (or the public responded in the
negative), so the coup failed. --
The GiFiles,
Files released: 5543061
The GiFiles
Specified Search
@Matthias Eckert For example imho Pinochet would have successfully overthrown Allende in
Chile even without US support"
This is called softening of arguments and doubt and making room for possible exoneration
of US.
Tomorrow we will hear that Haiti's Aristides would have been forced by Haitian to board
plane and leave
Tomorrow we will know that Honduran president would have been anyways sent to the pasture
of retirement by some military without Clinton's ( Mrs this time ).
@Matthias Eckert 1 "Soldiers eat out of garbage cans & their families go hungry in
Venezuela while Maduro & friends live like kings & block humanitarian aid," Mr. Rubio
wrote. He then added: "The world would support the Armed Forces in #Venezuela if they decide
to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator."
2
In a speech in April, when he was still White House policy chief for Latin America, Mr.
Cruz issued a message to the Venezuelan military. Referring to Mr. Maduro as a "madman," Mr.
Cruz said all Venezuelans should "urge the military to respect the oath they took to perform
their functions. Honor your oath."
3
Roberta Jacobson, a former ambassador to Mexico who preceded Ms. Aponte as the top State
Department official for Latin America policy, said that while Washington has long regarded
the Venezuelan military as "widely corrupt, deeply involved in narcotics trafficking and very
unsavory," she saw merit in establishing a back channel with some of them
4. Mr. Tillerson raised the potential for a military coup.
"When things are so bad that the military leadership realizes that it just can't serve the
citizens anymore, they will manage a peaceful transition," he said.
what more do you to see or hear or read before you believe that US had been hyper
-focused and heavily engaged and entirely illegally to destroy Valenzuela independence form
crony capitalism?
Analyst Canthama agrees with Pepe (BTL SyrPer #286513):
The Saker has a nice article on Venezuela, few days old, but quite balanced on his
analysis, people could disagree with one or two things but in general quite to the point on
all fronts.
Though Colombia and Brazil border Venezuela on its West and South, any sort of military
invasion from those directions will first have to conquer nature.
So there are only two ways to remove Maduro:
1) US cruise missiles hitting hundreds of spots in Venezuela would be completely
unacceptable for any Latina America population, a violence that would cause the US to lose
support even its most vassal States.
In parallel, such violence would spark the return of the Colombian guerrilla, blowback will
be very bad and wide spread. Thus military intervention is not likely.
2) The second option is assassination of Maduro , and this is where some of
Venezuela's allies are trying to help, either with security guards, intel and direct
protection.
As in Syria, time is an ally for Venezuela, the Venezuela Government will become stronger
and diplomacy will take shape, There is a real danger though for a false flag, and this is in
fact what Bolton and Pompeo are preparing with Guaidó's supporters knowledge [as in
Syria].
Time is also important since the US regime and its dying fiat economy, 2019 will be a
tough year for the G7, meaning theses regimes will either have to create another massive QE
that will bring them down or start a big war, which the vast majority of their country
citizens will never support, see France with yellow vest, many more countries would see the
same -- even the US.
So, time is good friend to the Venezuela, they must push it as long as they can, and
things will be all right.
Pepe Escobar gives the global view; with Venezuela, Iran, Russia and China abandoning the
mythical petrodollar, Uncle $cam's fiat currency is heading for the dustbin of history:
https://thesaker.is/venezuela-lets-cut-to-the-chase/
"That is a signal to every country that has or may have difficulties with the US, [that
they had] better get their money out of England and out of London because it's not the safe
place as it once was," he said.
"One of the few things left for Britain is to be the financial center that London has been
for so long. And one of the ways you stay a financial center is if you don't play games with
other people's money," he said.
Listening to David Graeber in this interview there is no mention of declining energy
surpluses in the discussion of the economic paradigm of the coming future. No consideration
of the role of the labour of fossil fuels in the economy of the past two centuries.
It's amazing, the argument seems not to have reached them, such that it is doesn't even get a
look in. (Listen from 40 min mark, and you will hear a completely opposite view of what is to
come -- " We are not going to have the problem of how to deploy scarce resources, given an
only moderate level of productivity ").
https://novaramedia.com/2019/02/01/david-graeber-bullshit-jobs-direct-democracy-the-end-of-capitalism/
Fittingly, there is a fascinating section (52.min 30 sec onwards) exploring Graeber's new
book project about how much of the enlightenment thinking of pre-revolutionary France was
either a pilfering of, or a reaction to, the ideas of social organisation coming from
pre-European Americans.
The Graun seems to have been anti-Chavez from the get go. With a set of 'journalists' who
seem to jave made it their lifes work to reverse that democratic revolution. It is not easy
to find their biogs.
This whole business of "recognizing a president" not yet in power has a precedent: Rwanda.
When the bUgandan army invaded Rwanda (with US, Canadian, British and Belgian backing) in
1990 (1 October), or in propaganda terms, the RPA started its "liberation," the US moved its
embassy to Mulindi, and sent the bUgandan chief of intelligence from his IMET junket at Fort
Leavenworth, to take over in northern Rwanda. I refer to Paul Kagame.
International institutions also started to deal with Mulindi, rather than Kigali.
Accusations of genocide within a year
Loathsome though he is, Bolton is probably the only honest neocon around. In Iraq, while the
likes of Blair were banging on about 45 minutes, human rights and democracy etc, Bolton
always made it clear that is was simply a matter of US interests. AKA Oil. He has never
pretended to represent anything but rapacious US self interest.
Fair play. At least you know what you're getting with that tash.
Prior to being assigned to Latin America, Phillips was the Guardian's China correspondent for
five years or so. His task, which he diligently accomplished, was to produce a couple of
articles a week on "Why China Is No Good" . I don't think he ever once found anything
positive to say about the place.
As an individual he's a complete Jodrell, but there are few to compare with him in his
ability to relentlessly toe the Washington neocon line. You couldn't get a fag paper in
between him and Luke Harding. I wonder if he's paid for it, or whether it's just that
seductive sense of 'belonging' that comes from rubbing shoulders with really powerful
people .
Principally, the principles , better said the absence of statute & principle in Law,
behind mass surveillance, was what Snowden was desperate to highlight and that the public's
principal concern of the Guardian's hard drives, were the least of our problems, legally
speaking , coz' other copies existed already elsewhere, anyway
OFFG could always ask Glen Greenwald to explain why he ceased to 'copulate' with the
Guardian and maybe even 'intercept' an opinion or two from Snowden, whilst he's at it
intercepting. Indeed , a few extra nails in the Guardian's coffin , could be delivered quite
speedily & succinctly , with some professional journalistic exchange of Question &
Answer, with nail-gun loaded & mutual benefit would seem to be an all round obvious
win-win debate on matters of principle, legal permissions & submissions.
In some ways it is refreshing to have these power hungry narcissists in charge of the US as
they cannot seem to not blurt out their naked ambitions, which in this example ftom the ft
basically shows kidnap is an agreeable part of trade negotiation.
'Five days after a top executive of Huawei, the Chinese telecoms group, was arrested on a
US request in Canada, President Donald Trump said he was willing to intervene -- if it helped
secure "the largest trade deal ever made". The detention of Meng Wanzhou, one of China's best
known executives, was undoubtedly an incendiary step, escalating trade tensions with Beijing.
But presidential interference in the case would send entirely the wrong message about the US
justice system -- and about how the administration conducts international affairs.
The US and western allies have legitimate concerns about China's reputation for digital
espionage and theft of intellectual property. They agree a more robust stance is needed
towards Beijing. But arresting a star of Chinese business -- Ms Meng has been called China's
Sheryl Sandberg -- on a Canadian stopover en route to Mexico from Hong Kong is not the way to
persuade Beijing to change its behaviour.
Even if the Huawei chief financial officer was held on unrelated charges of violating US
sanctions on Iran, the move smacks of using individuals as pawns in negotiations. It is seen
in Beijing as Washington rewriting the rules of engagement. Such waywardness and
unpredictability from a country that used to portray itself as a pillar of the international
rules-based order will tempt China to respond in kind, leading to a downward spiral of
tit-for-tat behaviour. Indeed, the detention of a former Canadian diplomat, Michael Kovrig,
in Beijing looks worryingly like retaliation.
It may be necessary to take at face value Mr Trump's claims that he was unaware of the US
extradition application, and of the detention itself -- which occurred on the day he was
holding talks on a trade truce with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires. Had
he known, even Mr Trump seems unlikely to have been cynical enough not to mention the arrest
to Mr Xi. Presidential ignorance, however, offers little reassurance.
That Mr Trump would not be notified of such a sensitive case by his justice department
strengthens the impression of a dysfunctional administration, whose different arms pursue
their agendas with little co-ordination, if not in open competition. It strains credibility
that his recent presidential predecessors would have been left in the dark in similar
situations. The Huawei incident comes in the same week that John Kelly's departure as chief
of staff seemed to confirm the extent to which the Trump White House defies conventional
management.
The president's offer to do "whatever's good for this country" regarding Ms Meng's case
reflects a dealmaker's desire to put his talks with Mr Xi back on track, while extracting
whatever advantage he can. But it amounts, in effect, to saying he is holding the Huawei CFO
hostage as a trade negotiating chip. The situation carries echoes of the White House's
reversal in July of a seven-year executive ban on ZTE, the Chinese telecoms equipment maker,
on purchasing critical equipment from the US, in what appeared a tactical concession to
Beijing.
Presidential interference in Ms Meng's case would send a worse signal: that rule of law in
the US is a function of the whim of the chief executive, or that illegal behaviour can be up
for negotiation. It risks creating an impression that there is little difference between
America's judicial system and that of, say, Turkey -- or indeed China. The Huawei executive's
detention was damaging. It is, however, not for the White House, but for independent courts
in Canada and -- if Ms Meng is extradited -- the US to determine what happens next.'
It all depends on your acceptance of "legality" of American sanctions on Iran. I don't,
therefore American action against Ms Meng imo is political and nothing to do with the rule of
law. Mr Trump's opinions are irrelevant.
President Trump's comments and opinions as expressed on Twitter will become relevant in
Sabrina Meng's court case. Her legal defence could use Trump's opinions as evidence that her
arrest was politically motivated and therefore she should not be extradited.
Canadian PM Justin Bieber Trudeau sacked the Ambassador to China for saying this and
expressing other opinions, among them Canada's view as to whether the current (and new) US
sanctions on Iran are binding on Canada.
The hypocrisy of the MSM in all this is yet again. So blatant it is sickening. At the same
time as Yemen is being battered by bombs with the Wests names on them. Deliberately starved
to death. With Western MSM indifference. Not to even mention. All the other countries Western
powers have illegally devastated. The hand ringing over the plight of the Venezuelan people
under Maduro is suddenly more then they can all bare. Western sanctioning and deliberate
sabotage by the West against the country. Undermining any chance of peace. Don't get a peep
of a mention by the MSM.
Here we go again. Roll up roll up. This is the latest hypocritical propaganda media show.
Maduro is evil we must save his country from this evil. Saintly peace bringing Western
alliance must save Venezuela. All that's needed is a more pliant Western puppet or chaos and
civil war. Oil Opps sorry shh don't mention the oil. Does any one really buy into this
deranged demented narrative any more. For gods sake how many more times do we have to say. NO
NOT IN MY NAME.
$13 billion in Venezuelan assets have been stolen by Uncle Sam and his satraps over the past
few days. Why oh why oh why do countries and foreign individuals persist in keeping their
assets in the US/ UK??????. Billions were stolen from Libya in a few days in 2011. Where it
all went is one of life's big mysteries. Cameron even stole a boat load of Libyan currency
that had been printed in the UK.
A Parliamentary Committee has been set up to agitate for sanctions against China on behalf of
the "poor oppressed Uighurs" in China. Shedding buckets of tears over the lack of "yuman
rights." While supplying British sniper rifles to the Zionists to gun down Palestinian kids
with dum dum bullets and planes, cluster bombs and RAF advisors to slaughter kids in Yemen.
Trump imposed broader economic sanctions on Venezuela because;
*serious human rights abuses (by Maduro),
*antidemocratic actions, and,
*responsibility for the deepening humanitarian crisis. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf
So definitely nothing to do with the oil, or international relations between Venezuela and
other powers that neocons are at war with (wars being conducted in the media, financial
markets and on the ground) while the phony who preceeded Trump (Obama) claimed Venezeula
posed an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to US national security (which is a bit like
Tyson Fury saying he is frightened by a 90 year old woman who is blind and only has one
leg). https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/12885
Isn't there just one soul at the Guardian who will stand up for what is really happening
here (as in all other parts of the world where the US has harmed so many people because of
its insatiable pursuit of oil and power) -- just one?
I must admit I am not getting my hopes up -- while the Guardian excels at drawing
attention to Maduros failings they seem to be deaf, dumb and blind to the geopolitical
context in which Venezuela is doing its utmost to escape the tentacles of US-backed neocons
in their endless quest for violent regime change.
In general those in the know loath the MSM because of the role they play in backing the
gangsters.
"Our own fate as Latin American writers is linked to the need for profound social
transformations. To narrate is to give oneself: it seems obvious that literature, as an
effort to communicate fully, will continue to be blocked so long as misery and illiteracy
exist, and so long as the possessors of power continue to carry on with impunity their policy
of collective imbecilization through the mass media. (Open veins of Latin America -- Eduardo
Galeano)
Ingwe, I started reading the Counter Punch, agreed it was not _only_ the oil so what were the
other motives for U$ Grand Theft Larceny Fraud with Violence? Got as far as this:
"It should be remembered that the Obama Administration had imposed sanctions against
Moscow in March 2014 over the Russian annexation of Crimea, and later involvement in the
civil war in Eastern Ukraine."
Could not read follow that, because I remember no such things as Russian annexation of
Crimea (at least, not since Catherine the Great), nor do I remember a civil war in Eastern
Ukraine (though quite aware that the U$-imposed Jewish Junta with their neo-Nazi stormtroops
are continually shelling Russian-speaking Eastern Ukraine).
vexarb, pity you didn't bother to read further for, if you did, you'd get a rather more
serious analysis than "USA bad and after the oil; Russia good and bringing enlightenment to
the world" .
I think the reason some of us still look at the Graun is that we can't quite believe how
appalling it's got, especially when, like me, you're old enough to remember the old newspaper
from the time when it had some principles and a lot of good writing. It has the sickly
fascination of something you know is really bad for you, like Nutella or reality TV shows.
You end up wallowing in its sheer awfulness, unlike, say, the Mail and the Sun, which you
always know from the start are going to be barking mad and have no element of surprise.
It's pretty obvious Anthony. Because the Guardian, like the BBC and C4 News, presents itself
as and is widely regarded to be an authorititative, non-biased news source. Hence it is
hugely influential in forming opinion in the corridors of power and in educated society.
Opinion that allow bad things to happen and ends up impacting lives. That is reality
regardless of comments dismissing these news sources on the internet. And it is why it is
appropriate for offguardian and others to try and highlight and expose the dangerous lies and
omissions of these wide-reaching propagandists.
It's good for cricket: the best paper in Canada for cricket news. Also for cycling. Since I
first began to read the Manchester Guardian for Neville Cardus's famous writing on cricket, I
stick with it.
As for foreign affairs, once it has been told by the Foreign Office, who the current enemies
are it goes for them. Those who recall the 'good old days' when Latin America and the Middle
East, including Palestine got reasonable coverage which sometimes was very good indeed, ought
to bear in mind that, in those Cold War days, the main enemy was the Soviet Union and it was
necessary to be equivocal about liberation struggles. After all, 'we' were pretending to be
desperately sorry about the sufferings of the Russian people, and those of eastern Europe, so
it was necessary to tone down the imperialist message.
Now the Establishment is dead set on recovering Latin America in toto, banishing alien
(Chinese Russian) influences and consolidating its base in the western hemisphere.
Here comes the Atlantic Treaty Organisation ATO.
The oft-used cliche of the kid (not brain washed yet) saying out loud that the emperor has
no clothes amongst a crowd propagandized, hypnotized and incentivized not to see and not to
know truth from falsehood.
The role of the MSM it seems is to perpetrate this mass denial. Thanks to kids like Kit
and those that support sites such as this other kids are catching on. But, alas we are just
kids after all and the grown ups have the power to spank us for such blasphemy. It is a risk
we kids take to speak the truth we see. When you see and when you know remaining silent can
make you sick (despair, anhedonia, addiction etc.). I'll take my chances with the spanking
and say as loud as I can that the emperor is a fucking war-mongering liar and thief.
I have uploaded various things to DTube and Steemit This film from the Guardian is very
good and relevant to Venezuela its on Bit CHute and survives on Youtube for now.
Thank you Kit (and others) for starting up OffGuardian. Its a very precious place to vent,
and to read the very enlightened, highly informative, and at times profound comments of all
the other commenters here. Have made numerous comments about the situation in Venezuela on
other recent stories here, so not going to keep repeating myself. Regards the state of the
World: surreal and orwellian and just plain bonkers much of the time seems to be the case. At
least Bolton was honest in stating the bleedin obvious, which anyone with even one eye open
already knew. Thanks for your work.
Indeed. I came across Off Guardian not long ago and I'm highly impressed by the quality. A
site to vent -- yes but that's just a small part of it. What is it now -- 3,000 articles
published in just nearly 4 years?. A level of committment by its founders not matched in many
places elsewhere that I can see.
What I like about this is the quality and depth of the articles -- and the fact each
attracts a large number of readers commenting.
I've been looking around various sites lately. It seems to be a mixture of those which
produce good articles but don't seem to have the following -- or at least there's a lack of
reader participation. Or sites where the analysis is not so good but attract a large volume
of comments not necessarily of great quality.
Off G seems to have struck a really good balance which I think means it has more potential
to grow further and build on its success.
I wonder (maybe this has been done before) if Off G thought about organising an event to
celebrate its next birthday. Might be a good way to raise funds and further interest.
I am surprised that the Guardian even mentioned oil and Venezuela in the same story. Did they
also say it has lots of gold, coltron, and many other natural resources. Neoliberals just
can't stand seeing all those profits going to "waste on the serfs".
Very likely McCain. Fortunately though, he already croaked. There was never a regime change
or war he did not support, or demand. The sooner his warmongering Fascist buddies follow him,
the better for mankind. I can imagine what "Bomb. bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" would have
said about Venezuela. As I said before, Venezuela is venomous to those who want to destroy
it. For all American sheeple to understand: The Bucket stops here. Exactly here.
Bolton's casual mention of U.S. oil corporations going into Venezuela and controlling
operation of the nation's oil sector, as if it's already a "done deal", goes right along with
Pompeo's focused use of the term "former president Maduro" in the psychological operation
aspect of the fully-mapped out coup's full court press. Someone famously described the
U.S.-led coup in Ukraine of February 2014 as the most blatant, obvious coup ever, but
amazingly this one involving Venezuela has even surpassed Ukraine in insane illegal boldness.
USA Inc.'s use of criminal aggressive war as a business tactic since false flag 9/11
resulted in the self-destruction of American reputation in the Middle East and North Africa
region. For that reason the attack on the Venezuelan people for their oil was not surprising.
Who will stand for peace? People might think creatively and act to prevent any repeat of
senseless violence and horror as experienced by people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,
Ukraine and Yemen.
For the record, the "USA Inc.'s use of criminal aggressive war as a business tactic since
false flag 9/11 resulted in the self-destruction of American reputation " Globally.
Sorry to correct you, but no matter where I go, my first test of any persons intellect is
"What do you think happened to WTC 7 ?" and until you get that sorted , the USA is the
laughing stock of the 'brave new world' outside Government & MSM >>> Fact ,
clearly "you cannot be serious", nor the Guardian nor the BBC nor Die Zeit nor Swiss national
Television, nor Le Monde &&& and the whole damn network of partners in deep state
crimes against innocent people , to further corporate goals.
to even contemplate something in Venezuela is so absurd , when US Governance is so
infiltrated with Deep State Dictators & actors, bolstered by Hollywood >>> get
own house in order , before becoming guests elsewhere. This clearly applies to Britain &
France , as well, indeed all NATO partners.
Trump is gonna' have a real tough time with Xi, coz' you don't get to insult the Chinese
in public & arrest CFO's for extradition , without some form of comeback &
consequence and Chinese & Russian Military towards region Panama seems almost assured and
the USS Fitzgerald warning ? how quickly people forget the 7 dead ! from just a container
ship, lol connect the 9 Dot line -- -- --
The world does not want and never needed policing by the U$A, nor their methods of
financial control & strangulation with credit on a scale far greater than Ponzi himself.
And as for WTC 7 , this made not only the USA a laughing stock in the minds of all
intelligent people, it dragged down & outed the very IN-credibility of every single
politician in the western world , who accepted the award winning WTC 7 TonyAndyPandy story
for CHILDREN !
it's time we got adults back into politics , coz' at present all we have, without
exception, is precisely what George Carlin described in 'a few cultural issues' "Garbage in
Garbage out" !
and we can be 100% sure that they are all GARBAGE, because they cannot even recognise a
controlled explosion, let alone cooking the history books >>> not even one !
The USA has YANKed all their strings, on behalf of Zion and corporate control >>>
fact, not one politician permitted to call a spade a spade or WTC 7 a controlled demolition
let alone MSM.
Long live the revolution & evolution of political conscience !
1. Switch payment for Venezuelan oil from yuan back to dollars.
2. Confiscate Chinese and Russian oil investments in Venezuela.
3. Privatise Venezuelan oil to Wall Street at knock down prices.
Or, as the Orange Baboon himself croaked like a two bit Mafia hood, "Grab the oil! Grab
the oil! Grab the oil!!"
This interview is a whitewash for the Venezuelan government. While I don't doubt that the
described sabotage and subversion orchestrated by the US the Chavistas are clearly
incompetent and corrupt.
They had 20 years to diversify the Venezuelan economy and failed completely. Instead of
decreasing the reliance on oil exports the increased it.
Most of what was left off the venezuelan agricultural sector got destroyed by handing it to
Chavez followers. Similar with almost all other economic sectors. Even the oil production is
much lower than it was in 1998 and this is not because of sanctions. They simply didn't
invest enough into replacing equipment that got worn out. They had 20 years to build
refineries for venezuelan oil in Venezuela, China or somewhere else out of US influence, they
didn't.
@Matthias Eckert Same goes for almost anything else. Why does Venezuela still have gold
deposited in the US and Britain? it's not like these never seized (not to say stole) foreign
assets before.
Just because the Chavistas are enemies of the American oligarchy doesn't mean the aren't
oligarchs themselves.
ps. That Anglo habit to start nationalities with a capital letter even when used as
adjective is an insult to logic
@Johnny Walker Read Natural resources get its value by the knowledge to create something
useful out of them. The economy is human activities, the way we create value by using our
knowledge and talents.
As Hudson say Chavez tried to create at mixed economy. Its not an easy task, something that
takes long time, e.g. raising the general educational level, infrastructure, health and so
on.
If Chavez and PSUV did approach this task good or bad I do not know.
As I understand are Venezuela a country riddled with enormous obstacles to achieve this. It
probably needs a high amount of social capital. Add on western hostility that third world
countries do this.
The prime example of success in fairly modern times are countries in Asia with national unity
and rather authoritarian government.
@Matthias Eckert "This interview is a whitewash for the Venezuelan government They had 20
years "
-- You are not a child, aren't you? How about the industrial base in the mighty US?
There is also the US infrastructure, the improvement of which requires some $4 trillion
"They" (the richest country in the world) had how many years?
Besides, the main point of the article is in a color graph showing % of votes /% of all
registered voters .
Look again at the graph, carefully. What are the numbers for Mr. Guaido? Have not we seen
enough of "democracy on the march" and other US-led "improvements" and "humanitarian
interventions" in Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine?
These pro-U.S. policies made Venezuela a typically polarized Latin American oligarchy.
Despite being nominally rich in oil revenue, its wealth was concentrated in the hands of a
pro-U.S. oligarchy that let its domestic development be steered by the World Bank and
IMF.
No amount of needle point proof can pop the balloon that is the collective brains of
Americans that have a CIA propaganda(via the media) myth inserted in their head that "it's
because of socialism!" Venezuela is in economic turmoil.
Other CIA created myths(that happen to work):
"They need democracy restored"
"They need our help"
"They have weapons of mass destruction"
"They harbor terrorists"
"They peddle fake news"
"They hack our elections"
Etc .
Collect your own, and trade them with your friends.
At least China and Russia can provide an alternative bank clearing mechanism to SWIFT,
so that Venezuela can bypass the U.S. financial system and keep its assets from being
grabbed at will by U.S. authorities or bondholders. And of course, they can provide
safe-keeping for however much of Venezuela's gold it can get back from New York and
London.
There's a good general rule here to keep independent country assets and financial
transactions away from the US – especially making them non- US dollar based.
This would confront U.S. financial strategists with a choice: if they continue to treat
the IMF, World Bank, ITO and NATO as extensions of increasingly aggressive U.S. foreign
policy, they will risk isolating the United States. Europe will have to choose whether to
remain a U.S. economic and military satellite, or to throw in its lot with Eurasia.
Europe would have to make this choice – and it looks like the European public is in
fact already starting to make it – which greatly troubles the US's elite European
collaborators.
Refusal of England and the U.S. to pay Venezuela means that other countries realize that
foreign official gold reserves can be held hostage to U.S. foreign policy, and even to
judgments by U.S. courts to award this gold to foreign creditors or to whoever might bring
a lawsuit under U.S. law against these countries.
True. Now is reflection time for any country that holds physical gold in New York or
London. Also time to think in general about reserves held in US dollars (Treasury bonds).
Being a Roman Catholic country, Venezuela might ask for papal support for a debt
write-down and an international institution to oversee the ability to pay by debtor
countries without imposing austerity, emigration, depopulation and forced privatization of
the public domain.
Whatever happens Venezuela is going to get austerity, but it could be a difficult self
respecting and self sufficient kind, excluding the US (the primary source of its problems)
and taking assistance from any friends that it may have.
Another Saker article that ignores the elephant in the room completely
Looking ahead, therefore, China, Russia, Iran and other countries need to set up a new
international court to adjudicate the coming diplomatic crisis and its financial and military
consequences. Such a court – and its associated international bank as an alternative to
the U.S.-controlled IMF and World Bank – needs a clear ideology to frame a set of
principles of nationhood and international rights with power to implement and enforce its
judgments.
A great idea but the world banks are NOT US controlled. They are run by the Rothschilds,
and until writers like Saker face up to this fact the problems will not be resolved.
Rothschild has to be dealt with, put out of business and closed down permanently.
What Mr Hudson's answers make clear is that Putin is increasingly bogged down in yet another
fight, a fight which Mr Hudson tacitly believes to be unwinnable.
@Michael Kenny Putin does not need to win, only impose more pain on the US than he
himself suffers. If Maduro stays in power, that is a big win for Russia and further proves
their ability to stand up the US of A.
Venezuela would prove Syria was not just luck but the start of a changing tide. If Guaido
eventually takes power, it will have costed the US much more now that Russia is there.
A couple old planes and 400 Russian special forces means that the US needed to put 5000
troops in Colombia.
When you stand up to a bully, you don't need to win, but to prove it's not worth going
after you in the future.
Which means that Maduro movement is isolated within is own continent.
Notable quotes:
"... Since there can be no intervention without the presence of force or threats of its use the actions taken and threats made against Venezuela constitute the crime of aggression under international law. ..."
"... The US and Canada are now threatening the use of armed force against Venezuela. John Bolton stated that all options are on the table and has even threatened Maduro with imprisonment in the US torture chambers of Guantanamo Bay. Britain has seized Venezuelan funds sitting in London banks, and the US and its flunkies are now trying to stop Venezuela and Turkey from dealing in Venezuelan gold, and, to add to their net, accuse them of sending the gold to Iran in violation of their illegal "sanctions." ..."
"... "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." ..."
"... "refrain from any threats or acts, direct or indirect, aimed at impairing the freedom, independence or integrity of any State, or at fomenting civil strife and subverting the will of the people in any state."' ..."
"... "1. No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned.' ..."
"... "2. No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of measures to coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no state shall organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed toward the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State." ..."
"... "refrain from armed intervention or the promotion or organization of subversion, terrorism or other indirect forms of intervention for the purpose of changing by violence the existing system in another State or interfering in civil strife in another State." ..."
"... "to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or to allow such acts to be operated from its territory." ..."
"... Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel " Beneath the Clouds . He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook." https://journal-neo.org/2019/02/04/the-lima-group-international-outlaws/ ..."
The covert and overt interventions taking place against Venezuela by the United States and
its allies are a form of aggression and a violation of the fundamental principles of the United
Nations Charter making the nations involved international outlaws.
The attempted coup against President Maduro of Venezuela may have failed so far but the
jackals that instigated it have not given up their objective of forcing the majority of
Venezuelans benefiting from the Bolivarian revolution begun by President Chavez, back to the
misery the revolution is trying to save them from. The United States and its allied governments
and media, working with American military and civilian intelligence services, are pumping out a
constant flow of propaganda about the start of affairs in Venezuela to mislead and manipulate
their own peoples so that they support their aggression and to undermine Venezuelans support
for their revolution.
We have seen this type of propaganda before, the fake stories about "human rights" abuses,
economic conditions, the cries of "democracy," the propaganda about an "authoritarian" leader,
a "tyrant," "dictator", all labels they have used before against leaders of nations that they
have later murdered; President Arbenz, Allende, Torrijos, Habyarimana, Milosevic, Hussein,
Ghaddafi are examples that come quickly to mind, so that the same threats against Maduro are
not just propaganda but direct physical threats.
We see the same pretexts for military aggression used and same euphemisms being employed,
the same cries for "humanitarian intervention," which we now know are nothing more than modern
echoes of Hitler's pretexts for the invasion of Czechoslovakia, to "save the oppressed
Germans."
We see the same smug lies and hypocrisy about the rule of law as they openly brag about
their violation of international law with every step they take and talk as if they are gods
ruling the world.
The United States is the principal actor in all this but it has beside it among other
flunkey nations, perhaps the worst of them all, Canada, which has been an enthusiastic partner
in crime of the United States since the end of the Second World War. We cannot forget its role
in the aggression against North Korea, the Soviet Union, China, its secret role in the American
aggression against Vietnam, against Iraq, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine,
Haiti, Iran, and the past several years Venezuela.
Canada will take the lead in the aggression against Venezuela on Monday February 4
th when it hosts a meeting in Ottawa of a group of international war crime
conspirators, known as The Lima Group, a group of Latin American and Caribbean lackeys of the
United States, including Mexico and Canada which was set up by the United States at a meeting
in Lima, Peru on August 8, 2017 with the express purpose of overthrowing President Maduro.
Canada's harridan of foreign affairs, Chrystia Freeland, stated to the press recently that
"Canada needs to play a leading role in the Lima Group because the crisis in Venezuela is
unfolding in Canada's global backyard. This is our neighbourhood. We have a direct interest in
what happens in our hemisphere."
"In Canada's global backyard?" It's astonishing to read it. Canada regards the globe as its
backyard? She manages to reveal a severe case of megalomania and insult the rest of the nations
of the world at the same time. Her statement that Venezuela "is our neighbourhood" is almost a
direct adoption of the American claim to hegemony and "interventionism" in the western
hemisphere as if Canada completely identifies itself with the United States, that is, in terms
of foreign policy, has completely merged with the United States.
But, by doing so, the Canadian elite show themselves to be the enemies of progress and
economic and social justice; shows them to be the antihuman reactionaries that they are. They
also make themselves world outlaws.
Freeland claims that the Lima Group meeting will "address the political and economic crisis
in Venezuela," yet it is Canada that, along with the United States that has created the very
crisis they are using as a pretext to attack President Maduro. It is they that have tried to
topple both him and Chavez through assassination plots, threatened military invasion and
economic warfare that has the sole purpose of disrupting the social and economic life of
Venezuela, of making life as miserable as possible in order to foment unrest while conspiring
with internal reactionary forces.
The Lima Group, began its dirty work in 2017 by issuing statements condemning the Bolivarian
revolution, claimed that there was a break down of law and order in Venezuela and attempted to
cancel the elections just held which gave President Maduro a solid majority of 68% of the votes
in what all international elections observers judged free and fair.
Following the election of Maduro all of these nations withdrew their ambassadors from
Venezuela. They did all this while claiming that their actions were taken "with full respect
for the norms of international law and the principle of nonintervention" when they are plainly
violating all norms of international law and the principle of non-intervention. They are also
violating the UN Charter that prohibits any nation or group of nations from taken action
outside the framework of the UN Security Council against any other nation.
The Ottawa meeting is in fact a meeting of criminal conspirators that are intent on
committing acts of aggression, the supreme war crime against a sovereign nation and people.
Intervention is generally prohibited under international law because it violates the concept of
independent state sovereignty. All nations have the right to govern themselves as they deem fit
and that no nation could rightfully interfere in the government of another. Since there can
be no intervention without the presence of force or threats of its use the actions taken and
threats made against Venezuela constitute the crime of aggression under international
law.
The US and Canada are now threatening the use of armed force against Venezuela. John
Bolton stated that all options are on the table and has even threatened Maduro with
imprisonment in the US torture chambers of Guantanamo Bay. Britain has seized Venezuelan funds
sitting in London banks, and the US and its flunkies are now trying to stop Venezuela and
Turkey from dealing in Venezuelan gold, and, to add to their net, accuse them of sending the
gold to Iran in violation of their illegal "sanctions."
The hypocrisy hits you in the face especially when some of the same nations in the Lima Gang
recognised as far bas as 1826 at the Congress of Panama the absolute prohibition of
intervention by states in each other's internal affairs. In attendance, were the states of
Columbia, Central America, Mexico, and Peru. Led by Simon Bolivar, the Congress declared its
determination to maintain "the sovereignty and independence of all and each of the confederated
powers of America against foreign subjection."
At the Seventh International Conference of American States held in Montevideo in 1933, The
Convention on Rights and Duties of States, issued at the conclusion of the conference, to which
the U.S. was a signatory, declared that "no state has the right to intervene in the internal or
external affairs of another." The legal position of the doctrine of nonintervention was
solidified three years later at Buenos Aires with the adoption of the Additional Protocol
Relative to Non-Intervention. This document declared "inadmissible the intervention of any of
the parties to the treaty, directly or indirectly, and for whatever reason, in the internal or
external affairs of any other of the Parties." The U.S. government agreed to this treaty
without reservation as well.
The United Nations has become the primary source of the rules of International behavior
since World War II. The principle of nonintervention between states is everywhere implicit in
the Charter of the United Nations. Article 1 of the U.N. Charter sets out the four purposes of
the organization, one of which is "to maintain international peace and security," a task which
includes the suppression of "threats to the peace," "acts of aggression" and "other breaches of
the peace." Another is "to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the
principle of equal rights and self-determination of people." Article 2(1) goes on to base the
organization on "the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members."Articles 2(3) and
2(4) require Member States to utilize peaceful means in the settlement of disputes and to
refrain from the use of force.
Article 2(4) states:
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Thus, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of the economic and political pressures and the
indirect subversion which is an integral part of covert action.
That covert action is forbidden under the law of the U.N. is supported
by the numerous resolutions passed by the General Assembly which assert the right to
national sovereignty and the principle of nonintervention in general, while specifically
condemning particular tactics used in covert action.
At the risk of tiring the reader, I think it is worthwhile to reiterate what the General
Assembly of the United Nations has stated over and again beginning with Resolution 290 (iv) in
1949. Referred to as the "Essentials of Peace"
Resolution, this enactment called upon every nation to "refrain from any threats or
acts, direct or indirect, aimed at impairing the freedom, independence or integrity of any
State, or at fomenting civil strife and subverting the will of the people in any
state."'
Resolution 1236(XII)passed in 1957, declared that "peaceful and tolerant relations among
States" should be based upon "respect for each other's sovereignty,equality and territorial
integrity and nonintervention in one another's internal affairs.'
The first General Assembly resolution specifically prohibiting covert action was Resolution
213 1(XX). Entitled the "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic
Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty," this resolution
was based on proposals made by the Soviet Union, nineteen Latin American States, and the United
Arab Republic, whose draft resolution
was co-sponsored by 26 other non-aligned countries. The declaration restated the aims and
purposes of the U.N. and noted the importance of recognizing State sovereignty and freedom to
self-determination in the current political atmosphere. The eighth preambular paragraph of
Resolution stated that, "direct intervention, subversion and all forms of indirect intervention
are contrary" to the principles of the U.N. and, "consequently,
constitute a violation of the Charter of the United Nations."' The operative portion of the
declaration consists of eight paragraphs, the first of which makes clear there can be no
"intervention as of right":
"1. No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason
whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. Consequently, armed
intervention and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality
of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned.'
In another paragraph the Resolution precisely defined the scope of its prohibition against
intervention, demonstrating the illicit status of covert activities:
"2. No State may use or encourage the use of economic, political or any other type of
measures to coerce another state in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise
of its sovereign rights or to secure from it advantages of any kind. Also, no state shall
organize, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities
directed toward the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil
strife in another State."
Resolution 2225(XXI) reaffirmed the principles and rules ex-pressed in Resolution 2131 (XX),
and urged "the immediate cessation of intervention,in any form whatever, in the domestic or
external affairs of States," and condemned "all forms of intervention . . . as a basic source
of danger to the cause of world peace."
Finally, the Resolution called upon all states to, "refrain from armed intervention or
the promotion or organization of subversion, terrorism or other indirect forms of intervention
for the purpose of changing by violence the existing system in another State or interfering in
civil strife in another State."
By Resolution 2625 (XXV), the General Assembly adopted the "Declaration on Principles of
International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations." The Declaration had its origins with the first meeting
of the Special Committee on the Principles of International Law held in 1964 in Mexico City.
This document asserted seven basic principles of international law, then elaborated how these
principles were to be realized. The seven principles embodied in the Declaration were: a) the
principle prohibiting the threat or use of force in international relations;b) the principle
requiring the peaceful settlement of disputes; c)the duty of nonintervention; d) the duty of
states to cooperate with each other; e) the principle of equal rights and self-determination of
all people;f) the principle of sovereign equality of states; and g) the good faith duty of
states to fulfill their obligations under the Charter.
In its discussion of the first principle – that states refrain from the threat or use
of force – the Declaration emphasizes the duty of each state "to refrain from organizing
or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands, including mercenaries, for
incursion into the territory of another state." In addition, the Declaration insists that every
state has a duty "to refrain from organizing, instigating, assisting or participating in
acts of civil strife or terrorist acts in another State or to allow such acts to be operated
from its territory."
I can go on listing other UN resolutions stating the same. Again and again the General
Assembly hammered home the importance of the principle of nonintervention as a central maxim of
international law.
Resolution 34/103 addressed the inadmissibility of the policy of "hegemonism" in
international relations and defined that term as the "manifestation of the policy of a State,
or a group of States, to control, dominate and subjugate, politically, economically,
ideologically or militarily, other States, peoples or regions of the world."' The
resolution,inter alia, called upon states to observe the principles of the Charter and the
principle of nonintervention. By this resolution it was declared that the General Assembly,
"Resolutely condemns policies of pressure and use or threat of use of force, direct or indirect
aggression,occupation and the growing practice of interference and intervention,overt or
covert, in the internal affairs of states."'
In 1981, the "Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the
Internal Affairs of States" was adopted by the General Assembly through Resolution 36/103. One
of the duties imposed upon states by the Declaration was: "The duty of a State to refrain from
armed intervention, subversion, military occupation or any other form of intervention and
interference,overt or covert, directed at another State or group of States, or any act of
military, political or economic interference in the internal affairs of another State,
including acts of reprisal involving the use of force.' In addition, the Declaration called
upon states to refrain from any action which seeks to disrupt the unity or to undermine or
subvert the political order of other States, training and equipping mercenaries or armed bands,
hostile propaganda, and the use of "external economic assistance" programs or "transnational
and multinational corporations under its jurisdiction and control as instruments of political
pressure and control."'
So, there you have it; the law. The world can see that the Lima Gang, who like to use the
phrase "the rule of law" in their diktats to others, are committing egregious crimes under
international law and together these crimes are components of the supreme war crime of
aggression. The Lima Group therefore is a group of international criminal conspirators and the
every individual involved is a war criminal. So when the Lima conspirators issue their press
statement after the Ottawa meeting, planning aggression against Venezuela, calling for the
overthrow, for the head of President Maduro and dressing it up in the usual language of the
aggressor, of "human rights" and "democracy" and their fake and illegal doctrine of
"responsibility to protect" it will not be issued by nations interested in peace or who have
respect for international law but by a gang of criminals, of international outlaws.
"... Interview conducted by The Saker with Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is ..."
"... . Cross-posted from Hudson's site . ..."
"... Maduro's defensive move is showing other countries the need to protect themselves from becoming "another Venezuela" by finding a new safe haven and paying agent for their gold, foreign exchange reserves and foreign debt financing, away from the dollar, sterling and euro areas. ..."
"... The Trump administration is destroying illusion more thoroughly than any anti-imperialist critic or economic rival could do! ..."
Interview conducted by The Saker with Michael Hudson, a
research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research
associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is J is for
Junk Economics . Cross-posted
from Hudson's site .
1. Could you summarize the state of Venezuela's economy when Chavez came to power?
Venezuela was an oil monoculture. Its export revenue was spent largely on importing food and
other necessities that it could have produced at home. Its trade was largely with the United
States. So despite its oil wealth, it ran up foreign debt.
From the outset, U.S. oil companies have feared that Venezuela might someday use its oil
revenues to benefit its overall population instead of letting the U.S. oil industry and its
local comprador aristocracy siphon off its wealth. So the oil industry – backed by U.S.
diplomacy – held Venezuela hostage in two ways.
First of all, oil refineries were not built in Venezuela, but in Trinidad and in the southern
U.S. Gulf Coast states. This enabled U.S. oil companies – or the U.S. Government –
to leave Venezuela without a means of "going it alone" and pursuing an independent policy with
its oil, as it needed to have this oil refined. It doesn't help to have oil reserves if you are
unable to get this oil refined so as to be usable.
Second, Venezuela's central bankers were persuaded to pledge their oil reserves and all
assets of the state oil sector (including Citgo) as collateral for its foreign debt. This meant
that if Venezuela defaulted (or was forced into default by U.S. banks refusing to make timely
payment on its foreign debt), bondholders and U.S. oil majors would be in a legal position to
take possession of Venezuelan oil assets.
These pro-U.S. policies made Venezuela a typically polarized Latin American oligarchy.
Despite being nominally rich in oil revenue, its wealth was concentrated in the hands of a
pro-U.S. oligarchy that let its domestic development be steered by the World Bank and IMF. The
indigenous population, especially its rural racial minority as well as the urban underclass,
was excluded from sharing in the country's oil wealth. The oligarchy's arrogant refusal to
share the wealth, or even to make Venezuela self-sufficient in essentials, made the election of
Hugo Chavez a natural outcome.
2. Could you outline the various reforms and changes introduced by Hugo Chavez? What did he
do right, and what did he do wrong?
Chavez sought to restore a mixed economy to Venezuela, using its government revenue –
mainly from oil, of course – to develop infrastructure and domestic spending on health
care, education, employment to raise living standards and productivity for his electoral
constituency.
What he was unable to do was to clean up the embezzlement and built-in rake-off of income
from the oil sector. And he was unable to stem the capital flight of the oligarchy, taking its
wealth and moving it abroad – while running away themselves.
This was not "wrong". It merely takes a long time to change an economy's disruption –
while the U.S. is using sanctions and "dirty tricks" to stop that process.
3. What are, in your opinion, the causes of the current economic crisis in Venezuela –
is it primarily due to mistakes by Chavez and Maduro or is the main cause US sabotage,
subversion and sanctions?
There is no way that's Chavez and Maduro could have pursued a pro-Venezuelan policy aimed at
achieving economic independence without inciting fury, subversion and sanctions from the United
States. American foreign policy remains as focused on oil as it was when it invaded Iraq under
Dick Cheney's regime. U.S. policy is to treat Venezuela as an extension of the U.S. economy,
running a trade surplus in oil to spend in the United States or transfer its savings to U.S.
banks.
By imposing sanctions that prevent Venezuela from gaining access to its U.S. bank deposits
and the assets of its state-owned Citco, the United States is making it impossible for
Venezuela to pay its foreign debt. This is forcing it into default, which U.S. diplomats hope
to use as an excuse to foreclose on Venezuela's oil resources and seize its foreign assets much
as Paul Singer's hedge fund sought to do with Argentina's foreign assets.
Just as U.S. policy under Kissinger was to make Chile's "economy scream," so the U.S. is
following the same path against Venezuela. It is using that country as a "demonstration effect"
to warn other countries not to act in their self-interest in any way that prevents their
economic surplus from being siphoned off by U.S. investors.
4. What in your opinion should Maduro do next (assuming he stays in power and the USA does
not overthrow him) to rescue the Venezuelan economy?
I cannot think of anything that President Maduro can do that he is not doing. At best, he
can seek foreign support – and demonstrate to the world the need for an alternative
international financial and economic system.
He already has begun to do this by trying to withdraw Venezuela's gold from the Bank of
England and Federal Reserve. This is turning into "asymmetrical warfare," threatening what to
de-sanctify the dollar standard in international finance. The refusal of England and the United
States to grant an elected government control of its foreign assets demonstrates to the entire
world that U.S. diplomats and courts alone can and will control foreign countries as an
extension of U.S. nationalism.
The price of the U.S. economic attack on Venezuela is thus to fracture the global monetary
system. Maduro's defensive move is showing other countries the need to protect themselves
from becoming "another Venezuela" by finding a new safe haven and paying agent for their gold,
foreign exchange reserves and foreign debt financing, away from the dollar, sterling and euro
areas.
The only way that Maduro can fight successfully is on the institutional level, upping the
ante to move "outside the box." His plan – and of course it is a longer-term plan –
is to help catalyze a new international economic order independent of the U.S. dollar standard.
It will work in the short run only if the United States believes that it can emerge from this
fight as an honest financial broker, honest banking system and supporter of democratically
elected regimes. The Trump administration is destroying illusion more thoroughly than any
anti-imperialist critic or economic rival could do!
Over the longer run, Maduro also must develop Venezuelan agriculture, along much the same
lines that the United States protected and developed its agriculture under the New Deal
legislation of the 1930s – rural extension services, rural credit, seed advice, state
marketing organizations for crop purchase and supply of mechanization, and the same kind of
price supports that the United States has long used to subsidize domestic farm investment to
increase productivity.
Along with the USA there is a group La countries (and Canada) with the specific goal of "regime change" in Venezuela. Much
like multinational forces in Iraq. From Wikipedia: ... established following the Lima Declaration on 8 August 2017 in the Peruvian
capital of Lima, where representatives of 12 countries met in order to establish a peaceful exit to the crisis in Venezuela.[1]
Among other issues, the now 14-country group demands the release of political prisoners, calls for free elections, offers
humanitarian aid and criticizes the breakdown of democratic order in Venezuela under the Bolivarian Government of Venezuela.
Notable quotes:
"... Not everyone agreed that Guaido and his Popular Will party should be the one to be pushed forward as "Interim President" but the moment it happened, this forced the opposition to immediately unify behind him, based on the no turning back momentum created : ..."
"... The results of that fateful decision are still being played out in the streets, and on the international stage as countries line up for and against Maduro (China, Russia and Turkey among Maduro supporters, with the US and European countries backing Guaido as legitimate leader). ..."
"... However, the WSJ report closes with crucial bombshell information regarding what it took for the opposition to cross that line, and for Guaido to step out in confidence. What was the key factor in the final push? First, Canada and US allies in Latin America initiated something dramatic... ..."
"... But most importantly, Washington came calling at a key moment the opposition was fractured and still indecisive and divided , in what is a central revelation concerning the anti-Maduro movement's calculations : ..."
"... And there it is -- a stunning mainstream media admission that the political drama and crisis now unfolding in Venezuela, now quickly turning into a global geopolitical pressure spot and conflagration -- was pushed forward and given assistance directly from the White House from the very beginning . ..."
A new WSJ report asks what the Hell is going on? in Venezuela and provides new information
behind
How a Small Group Seized Control of Venezuela's Opposition to make the extremely risky move
of pushing forward 35-year old opposition leader and National Assembly head Juan Guaido to
declare himself "Interim President" -- precipitating the crisis that's seen the noose tighten
around President Nicolas Maduro's rule as over a dozen countries led by the US have declared
him "illegitimate".
For starters, the report paints current events as having started with a "big gamble" that
was largely unplanned and unexpected within even the political opposition itself, and which
further had the hidden hand of the White House and State Department behind it from the very
beginning, pushing the opposition forward at the most critical juncture . Outlining the past
difficulties of Venezuela's "notoriously fractious opposition" and the deep divide over the
question of whether to enter direct negotiations or take more aggressive action to undermine
Maduro,
the WSJ describes :
When Juan Guaidó declared himself Venezuela's interim president on Jan. 23 in front
of a crowd of 100,000 people under a broiling sun, some leading opposition figures had no
idea he would do so, say people who work with Mr. Guaidó and other top leaders . That
included a few standing alongside him. A stern look of shock crossed their faces. Some
quietly left the stage.
"What the hell is going on?" one member of a group of politicians wrote to the others in a
WhatsApp group chat. "How come we didn't know about this."
The plan was so risky -- especially to Guaido personally as he had been arrested and
briefly detained after his vehicle was rushed by secret police only less than two weeks
prior -- that the final decision of public confrontation with the Maduro regime was left
entirely up to him in the hours leading up to the Jan.23 rally.
Not everyone agreed that Guaido and his Popular Will party should be the one to be pushed
forward as "Interim President" but the moment it happened, this forced the opposition to
immediately unify behind him, based on the no turning back
momentum created :
Mr. Guaidó himself only agreed to act the day before he declared himself interim
president, his aides said. Some politicians -- including those in the traditional Democratic
Action Party, the largest opposition party -- weren't told of the plan .
"We didn't want them to mess it up," said one opposition leader who knew of the
strategy.
The results of that fateful decision are still being played out in the streets, and on the
international stage as countries line up for and against Maduro (China, Russia and Turkey among
Maduro supporters, with the US and European countries backing Guaido as legitimate leader).
The high stakes maneuver "was largely devised by a group of four opposition leaders -- two
in exile, one under house arrest and one barred from leaving the country" and was predictably
immediately denounced by Maduro "as part of a U.S.-backed coup to overthrow his government."
But as the WSJ concludes, "The act of political skulduggery paid off. The crowd reacted
ecstatically to Mr. Guaidó, and one nation after another recognized him within hours."
Among the "plotters" included Guaido's political mentor Leopoldo López, now under house
arrest in Caracas, and Edgar Zambrano, vice president of the National Assembly of power allied
opposition party Democratic Action.
Zambrano related to the WSJ that the risk was so high that
in the end the "final decision" to pull the trigger laid with Guaido:
Mr. Zambrano, one of the opposition leaders who appeared surprised on stage on Jan. 23,
said the possibility of Mr. Guaidó assuming the presidency had been discussed in the
weeks before, but that the final decision was in the hands of the young leader because of the
risks it entailed .
However, the WSJ report closes with crucial bombshell information regarding what it took for
the opposition to cross that line, and for Guaido to step out in confidence. What was the key factor in the final push? First, Canada and US allies in Latin America
initiated something dramatic...
A breakthrough came on Jan. 4, when the Lima Group of 14 Latin American countries and
Canada issued a letter calling on Mr. Maduro to hand over power to the National Assembly. The
near-bellicose nature of the letter surprised opposition leaders, reinforcing the idea they
should take action .
But most importantly, Washington came calling at a key moment the opposition was fractured
and still indecisive and divided , in what is a central revelation concerning
the anti-Maduro movement's calculations :
When Mr. Guaidó should try to assume the interim presidency was up for debate. Some
argued that it should happen before Mr. Maduro took the oath. Others proposed creating a
commission to challenge Mr. Maduro's claim to office.
As late as Jan. 22, the day before it happened, Mr. Guaidó wasn't fully convinced .
He came around after Vice President Mike Pence called to assure that, if he were to invoke
the Venezuelan constitution in being sworn in as the country's rightful leader, the U.S.
would back the opposition.
And there it is -- a stunning mainstream media admission that the political drama and crisis
now unfolding in Venezuela, now quickly turning into a global geopolitical pressure spot and
conflagration -- was pushed forward and given assistance directly from the White House from the
very beginning .
Guaido: "Gee I can't wait for all that Western oil money to fill up meh pockets.
EhhhrrMMMmm I can't wait to sell out the Venezuelan people to the FED, BoE and ECB. D'oh-
where'd my CIA handler go?"
Also, lol at the Journal for this gem " The act of political skulduggery paid off. The
crowd reacted ecstatically to Mr. Guaidó, and one nation after another recognized him
within hours. " Translation: "Wow- we're SO surprised that the Western vassal states all
followed their master's lead by kowtowing in quick succession! Gee whiz- mind BLOWN!"
The WSJ has provided the "House" plausible deniability, will the "House" take it, or will
the minions sabotage? Stay tuned folks, as we discover who's honorable, who's courageous, and
who's pragmatic...
Further proof this guy is a treasonous little bitch that needs to be arrested and
prosecuted by the Supreme Tribunal Court of Venezuela. He's a traitor to ALL Venezuelans by
colluding with foreign powers to overthrow his elected president.
Lets be honest, sending in the US military was the first choice and all the rest of this
has been setting the stage. It's been 2 years, time for Trump to start a war, by the
prevailing MIC schedule.
Oh please. Maduro the elected president? He won his election after blocking the opposition
parties to take part. Please read the Venezuelan Constitution before commenting. Not any
election is valid or democratic. Maduro should be in jail. Guaido is asking for new and fair
elections. ... OOOOH how undemocratic!!! I am against foreign intervention, but in this case
the 3 million Venezuelan real refugees (10% of the Venezuelan population and not organised
political caravans trying to reach the USA) in neighbour countries tips my view. Therefore I
support the constitutional president Guaido and any help the international community can give
him.
Idiot . The opposition boycotted the election as they couldn't win. International
observers (usa wouldn't come) say it was fairer than usa elections lol. Sure maduro isn't a
saint. He also gave out prizes to collect after voting . But that's not bribing people could
vote for anyone and still collect a few foods in a bag
That a boy Trumpy! You got the right FukWits on the job. Bibi and Sheldon are jumping for
joy with the addition of Abrams. Now you got your Zio dream team. BoltON, PompAss, and
Abram's. Just think what a murderous war mongering team for IsraHell you could have if ya
rolled **** Chenney in the mix. Now there's someone who won't **** around getting a Zio war
going.
Cheney , the virtue less, honor less, 2 time OUI conviction,electricians apprentice , went
as far as helping to murder 3,000 Americans . All so he could impress his societal status
ambitious wife . A Rumsfeld ass kissing loser . Spineless goy are 50% of the problem .
Guaido is obviously an agent of the CIA. This fact does not absolve Maduro of his crimes.
But it does show that the US is balls deep in the Venezuela problem.
@50 bobzibub... your link doesn't bring me to the article, but i suspect it is more then just
crystallix - the canuck gold mining company - that are pushing for a change in power in
venezuala.. as i understand it, there are a number of canuck mining and oil related interests
where they would like to exploit venezuala and can't seem to get around the democractically
elected gov't of maduros..
looks like
this might be related, or the article you were trying to post? an american judge says
crystallex can have citgo, lol....
" Second, Venezuela's central bankers were persuaded to pledge their oil reserves and all
assets of the state oil sector (including Citgo) as collateral for its foreign debt. This
meant that if Venezuela defaulted (or was forced into default by U.S. banks refusing to make
timely payment on its foreign debt), bondholders and U.S. oil majors would be in a legal
position to take possession of Venezuelan oil assets."
Solid proof that it was the empire who invented the practice of "debt trap" and is still
flourishing with it.
hunor, February 7, 2019 at 6:24 am GMT
Thank you ! Made it very clear. Perfect reflection of the " Values of Western Civilization ".
Reaching to grab the whole universe, with no holds barred . And never show of any interest for the " truth". They are not
even pretending anymore , awakening will be very painful for some.
Reuben Kaspate, February 7, 2019 at 2:38 pm GMT 100 Words
Why would the U. S. based White-Protestant aristocracy care a hoot about the Brown-Catholic elites in the far off land?
They don't! The comprador aristocracy in question isn't what it seems It's the same group that plagues the Americans.
The rootless louts, whose only raison d'κ·tre is to milk everything in sight and then retire to coastal cities, i.e. San
Francisco, if you are a homosexual or New York City and State, if you are somewhat religious.
Poor Venezuelans don't stand a chance against the shysters!
"... Qatar's ambassador in Mauritania allegedly offered his Syrian counterpart an advance payment of US$1 million and a monthly salary of $20,000 over 20 years, trying to convince the diplomat to defect and voice support for the opposition. ..."
"... All they need is a couple of snipers to kill protesters and the Mighty Wurlitzer of propaganda will supply the war, to paraphrase William Randolph Hearst. ..."
"... Elliot Abrams seems to be having trouble getting this coup off the ground. He must wonder what happened to the good old days of death squads and contras.... ..."
A day after the U.S. coup attempt in Venezuela the
U.S. game plan was already quite obvious:
The opposition in Venezuela will probably use access to that 'frozen' money to buy weapons
and to create an army of mercenaries to fight a 'civil' war against the government and its
followers. Like in Syria U.S. special forces or some CIA 'contractors' will be eager to
help. The supply line for such a war would most likely run through Colombia. If, like 2011
in Syria, a war on the ground is planned it will likely begin in the cities near that
border.
The U.S. is using the pretext of 'delivering humanitarian aid' from Columbia to Venezuela
to undermine the government and to establish a supply line for further operations. It is
another attempt to pull
the military onto the coup plotter's side:
[I]f the trucks do get across, the opposition can present itself as an answer to
Venezuela's chronic suffering, while Mr. Maduro will appear to have lost control of the
country's borders. That could accelerate defections from the ruling party and the military.
Dimitris Pantoulas, a political scientist in Caracas, called the opposition's aid
delivery plan a high-stakes gamble.
...
"This is 99 percent about the military and one percent about the humanitarian aspects," he
said. "The opposition is testing the military's loyalty, raising their cost of supporting
Maduro. Are they with Maduro, or no? Will they reject the aid? If the answer is no, then
Maduro's hours are numbered."
A New York Times op-ed by a right-wing former foreign minister of Mexico, Jorge
G. Castañeda, details the
escalation potential :
According to Mr. Guaidó and other sources, $20 million in American medicines and
food will be unloaded this week just outside Venezuelan territory in Cúcuta,
Colombia; Brazil, and on a Caribbean island -- either Aruba or Curaçao -- near the
Venezuelan coast.
Venezuelan military officials and troops in exile will then move these supplies into
Venezuela, where if all goes well, army troops still loyal to Mr. Maduro will not stop
their passage nor fire upon them. If they do, the Brazilian and Colombian governments may
be willing to back the anti-Maduro soldiers.
The threat of a firefight with their neighbors
might just be the incentive the Venezuelan military need to jettison Mr. Maduro, making the
reality of combat unnecessary.
This escalation strategy is unlikely to work unless some additional provocation is
involved. The Venezuelan government blocked the border bridge between Cúcuta in
Colombia and San Cristobal in Venezuela. Its military stands ready to stop any violation of
the country's border.
The U.S. responded to the blocking of the road with a sanctimonious tweet:
The Venezuelan people desperately need humanitarian aid. The U.S. & other countries
are trying to help, but #Venezuela's military under Maduro's orders is blocking aid with
trucks and shipping tankers. The Maduro regime must LET THE AID REACH THE STARVING PEOPLE.
#EstamosUnidosVE
The U.S. government, which actively helps to starve the people of Yemen into submission,
is concerned about Venezuela where so far no one has died of starvation? The lady ain't gonna
believe that.
The Venezuelan military has shown no sign of interest to change its loyalty. The fake aid
will be rejected.
The government of Venezuela does not reject aid that comes without political interference.
Last year it accepted modest UN
aid which consisted mostly of medical supplies from which Venezuela had been cut off due
to U.S. sanctions. The UN claimed that around 12 percent of Venezuelans are undernourished.
But such claims have been made for years while reports from Venezuela (vid) confirmed only some
scarcity of specific products. There is no famine in Venezuela that would require immediate
intervention.
The International Red Cross, the Catholic church's aid organization Caritas and
the United Nations rejected U.S. requests to help deliver the currently planned 'aid'
because it is so obviously politicized:
"Humanitarian action needs to be independent of political, military or other objectives,"
UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric told reporters in New York on Wednesday.
...
"What is important is that humanitarian aid be depoliticised and that the needs of the
people should lead in terms of when and how humanitarian aid is used," Dujarric added.
Rejecting aid out of political reasons is not unusual. When the hurricane Katrina in 2005
caused huge damage along the U.S. gulf coast, a number of countries offered humanitarian and
technical aid. U.S. President Bush accepted help from some countries, but rejected aid from
other ones
:
An offer of aid from the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chávez, which included two
mobile hospital units, 120 rescue and first aid experts and 50 tonnes of food, has been
rejected, according to the civil rights leader, Jesse Jackson.
Mr Jackson said the offer from the Venezuelan leader, whom he recently met, included 10
water purification plants, 18 power generation plants and 20 tonnes of bottled water.
The U.S. intent to establish a 'humanitarian aid' supply line into Venezuela has a
secondary purpose. Such aid is the ideal cover for weapon supplies. In the 1980s designated
'humanitarian aid' flights for Nicaragua were filled with weapons . The
orders for those flights were given by Elliot Abrams who is now Trump's special envoy for
Venezuela.
While the trucks from Colombia are blocked at the border other 'humanitarian aid' from the
United States
reached the country .
Officials in Venezuela have accused the US of sending a cache of high-powered rifles and
ammunition on a commercial cargo flight from Miami so they would get into the hands of
President Nicolás Maduro's opponents.
Members with the Venezuelan National Guard [GNB] and the National Integrated Service of
Customs and Tax Administration [SENIAT] made the shocking discovery just two days after the
plane arrived at Arturo Michelena International Airport in Valencia.
Inspectors found 19 rifles, 118 magazines and 90 wireless radios while investigating the
flight which they said arrived Sunday afternoon. Monday's bust also netted four rifle
stands, three rifle scopes and six iPhones.
The pictures show
sufficient equipment for an infantry squad. Fifteen AR-15 assault rifles (5.56), one
squad automatic weapon (7.62) with a drum magazine, and a Colt 7.62 sniper gun as well as
accessory equipment. What is missing is the ammunition.
Where one such weapon transport is caught multiple are likely to go through. But to run a
war against the government pure weapon supplies are not enough. The U.S. will have to
establish a continuous supply line for heavy and bulky ammunition. That is where
'humanitarian aid' convoys come in.
Unless a large part of the Venezuelan military changes sides, any attempt to overthrow the
Venezuelan government by force is likely doomed to fail. The U.S. could use its full military
might to destroy the Venezuelan army. But the U.S. Senate is already quarreling about the potential use of U.S.
forces in Venezuela. The Democrats strongly reject that.
A Senate resolution to back Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido, once expected to get
unanimous support, has been torpedoed by a disagreement over the use of military force,
according to aides and senators working on the issue.
...
"I think it's important for the Senate to express itself on democracy in Venezuela,
supporting interim President Guaido and supporting humanitarian assistance. But I also
think it should be very clear in fact that support stops short of any type of military
intervention," [Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J.] told NBC News.
It is unlikely that Trump would order a military intervention without bipartisan
support.
The a clandestine insertion of a mercenary 'guerrilla' force into Venezuela is surely
possible. Minor supply lines can be established by secret means. But, as the war on Syria
demonstrates, such plans can not be successful unless the people welcome the anti-government
force.
Under the current government most people in Venezuela are still better off than under the
pre-Chavez governments. This lecture and this thread explain the
economic history of Venezuela and the enormous progress that was made under Chavez and
Maduro. The people will not forget that even when the economic
situation will become more difficult. They know who is
pulling the strings behind the Random Guy Guaido who now claims the presidency. They know
well that these rich people are unlikely to better their plight.
U.S. politicians are making the same mistakes with regards to Venezuela as they made with
the regime change wars on Iraq and Syria. They believes that all people are as corrupt and
nihilistic as they are. They believe that others will not fight for their own believes and
their own style of life. They will again be proven wrong.
Never Mind the
Bollocks , Feb 7, 2019 2:20:56 PM |
link
US now has enough bootlickers signed up to the project that there will be no move against
the US at the UNGA. 'Protecting' its diplomats will be a big enough fig leaf for the Trump
admin.
thanks b, for this and all the links to read... i liked your line here "The U.S. government,
which actively helps to starve the people of Yemen into submission, is concerned about
Venezuela where so far no one has died of starvation?" indeed and as you note in the last
paragraph - "U.S. politicians are making the same mistakes with regards to Venezuela as they
made with the regime change wars on Iraq and Syria. They believes that all people are as
corrupt and nihilistic as they are. They believe that others will not fight for their own
believes and their own style of life. They will again be proven wrong."
all these people preaching this kind of crap, must be getting good returns from who is
paying them... the other person in the usa, europe and etc - don't believe this b.s.
anymore..
Bulletin Bulletin Bulletin. This just posted on RT. According to geography challenged (!!!!!)
Pompous Pompeo = Hezbollah is now in Zenezuela. Yes. You read that right. And further more
it's an Iranian Hezbollah. Look out.
Here's the money quote: "People don't recognize that Hezbollah has active cells -- the
Iranians are impacting the people of Venezuela and throughout South America," adding that "We
have an obligation to take down that risk for America."
He also is now referring to Guido-chump as "the duly elected president of Zenezuela."
Transmutation Does exist. Amazing.
"throughout South America" Wow. A population explosion!
Is this guy Pompous Pompeo very very very confused?
Thanks for the ongoing reporting of this spinning plate of late empire.
It is encouraging to read that others are standing up to empire in their own little ways
that all add up.
From reading comments here and on other sites I am also happy to be reading less BS about
Trump being some sort of hidden savior as compared to Clinton II. He is a front for the elite
just like Clinton II is/would have been.
"Indeed ,the more America began to lose its hold on its noncommunist allies, the closer
America
and the Soviet Union drew together, precisely to threaten Europe and Asia with what
Henry Kissinger called a new condominium, that is, joint imperialism of America and
Russia against their respective satellites."
This is what Kissinger and Trump are now trying to do.
Trumps friendliness toward Russia has nothing to do with peace and goodness and
everything to do with US domination of Asia and Europe.
@mauisurfer #9: The reason your link breaks the page is that it does not have enough hyphens
in it. So it stretches the page until there's a hyphen (between "michael" and "hudson"),
whereupon the link finally wraps to the next line. This is not the first time you are ruining
the page. In fact, we've talked about this quite recently. I will repeat what I wrote then:
press "Preview" button before posting, check that everything looks right, only then press
"Post". Please respect other posters.
Bloody Canada: Cheerleading the Lima Group's Plot to Overthrow the Government of
Venezuela
by Maria Paez Victor
(María Páez Victor, Ph.D. is a Venezuelan born sociologist living in Canada).
Guaidó, a son of Spanish immigrants, is a useful idiot, a thug who will be thrown
into the trashcan of history for his treason. He does not command any type of institution,
not one policeman, not one ministry, no official agency of any sort. He is a president in
his own mind and that of the USA Embassy where he is holed out.
Are there any bounds to indecency and intellectual bankruptcy of these people? Is there a
line, however desperate, they will not cross in order to achieve their goal? the answer is
NO. This is a lost country morally, socially and economically. US is a country that needs a
direct military intervention.......by all.
At Hudson's website, he gave the interview with Saker this
title : "Venezuela as the pivot for New Internationalism?" Spread out in answer to
Saker's questions are Hudson's suggestions for the institutions and mechanisms for such a new
internationalism:
"The only way that Maduro can fight successfully is on the institutional level, upping the
ante to move "outside the box." His plan – and of course it is a longer-term plan
– is to help catalyze a new international economic order independent of the U.S.
dollar standard. It will work in the short run only if the United States believes that it
can emerge from this fight as an honest financial broker, honest banking system and supporter
of democratically elected regimes. The Trump administration is destroying illusion more
thoroughly than any anti-imperialist critic or economic rival could do!...
"Looking ahead, therefore, China, Russia, Iran and other countries need to set up a new
international court to adjudicate the coming diplomatic crisis and its financial and military
consequences. Such a court – and its associated international bank as an
alternative to the U.S.-controlled IMF and World Bank – needs a clear ideology to
frame a set of principles of nationhood and international rights with power to implement and
enforce its judgments.
"This hostage-taking [of gold and other assets] now makes it urgent for other countries
to develop a viable alternative , especially as the world de-dedollarizes and a
gold-exchange standard remains the only way of constraining the military-induced balance of
payments deficit of the United States or any other country mounting a military
attack."...
"Given the fact that the EU is acting as a branch of NATO and the U.S. banking system,
that alternative would have to be associated with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
and the gold would have to be kept in Russia and/or China ."...
"The best thing neighboring Latin American countries can do is to join in creating a
vehicle to promote de-dollarization and, with it, an international institution to oversee the
writedown of debts that are beyond the ability of countries to pay without imposing austerity
and thereby destroying their economies .
" An alternative also is needed to the World Bank that would make loans in domestic
currency, above all to subsidize investment in domestic food production so as to protect
the economy against foreign food-sanctions – the equivalent of a military siege to
force surrender by imposing famine conditions. This World Bank for Economic Acceleration
would put the development of self-reliance for its members first , instead of promoting
export competition while loading borrowers down with foreign debt that would make them prone
to the kind of financial blackmail that Venezuela is experiencing."...
" Two international principles are needed. First, no country should be obliged to pay
foreign debt in a currency (such as the dollar or its satellites) whose banking system acts
to prevent payment .
" Second, no country should be obliged to pay foreign debt at the price of losing its
domestic autonomy as a state: the right to determine its own foreign policy, to tax and to
create its own money, and to be free of having to privatize its public assets to pay foreign
creditors . Any such debt is a "bad loan" reflecting the creditor's own irresponsibility
or, even worse, pernicious asset grab in a foreclosure that was the whole point of the loan."
[Emphasis mine to highlight Hudson's suggestions.]
It ought to be clear that Hudson's proposing a new international financial and
political/judicial system to ultimately replace the UN and Bretton Woods created
institutions. This is certainly the minimum requirement since the Outlaw US Empire has
completely trashed the post WW2 system itself designed. Unfortunately, there's still the
issue of containing and disciplining the Outlaw US Empire and subduing it so it cannot
threaten the newly established institutions.
According to the German newspaper Junge Welt the border bridge between Cúcuta in
Colombia and San Cristobal in Venezuela, which you mentioned, has not been closed, since it
has never been open. The article says, the alleged closure of the bridge is fake news to
support the coup.
https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/348717.kampf-um-venezuela-no-pasar%C3%A1n.html
Nevertheless, thank you for your thoughts and information and please keep up the good work!
Couldn't agree more - we are such a US flunky. Also, the cbc has become increasingly
pathetic and irrelevant - they're getting a good rogering on other sites such as Babble for
their extraordinarily biased coverage of everything imperial.
In case no one has linked to it, here's a letter sent to the EU re May 20 elections in
Venezuela:
"They know well that these rich people are unlikely to better their plight."
This is certainly correct but a terrible understatement. It should read: 'They know only to
well out of experience, that the Venezuelan Sucker class will take bloody revenge if they
succeed to gain power again.'
hope you are right, b. We will see how resilient the government is when the first public
massacre of demonstrators happen which appears to be imminent as we all have seen this so
many times.
to Zanon. # 7 Yes of course they are allies. However, you must, I hope, admit that the idea
of Hezbollah "cells" all over south america is a wee bit comical. The fact that the two
countries are allies does not necessarily translate to "we must take them down." The way His
Pomposity puts it, those cells are just sprouting up every where. It's a bit ridiculous.
B, don't forget the regime change playbook also involves bribing public officials to come
over to their side. Here's any example of how it was done Syria:
Qatar's ambassador in Mauritania allegedly offered his Syrian counterpart an advance
payment of US$1 million and a monthly salary of $20,000 over 20 years, trying to convince the
diplomat to defect and voice support for the opposition.
All they need is a couple of snipers to kill protesters and the Mighty Wurlitzer of
propaganda will supply the war, to paraphrase William Randolph Hearst. You would think that the propaganda receivers would learn by now, with the same propaganda
used time after time, year after year, war after war.
You would be wrong. I am losing sympathy for the people of the imperial countries, and their
inability to learn from experience.
@40 wagelaborer. Therein lies the challenge. Will Humanity keep listening to Ole Wurly's tune
til the end or will it learn from its mistake and abandon the old schemes? In other words,
will Man (and Woman, or course) become sovereign or will he/she stay a slave? Recent
developments in Ukraine and especially Syria give hope that Homo Sapiens Ethicus is
emerging..
According to military expert Yuri Liamin Venezuela has S-300VM Antey-2500 and Buk-M2E
long range air defenses, and Pechora-2M middle range air defenses. T-72B1V, BMP-3,
BTR-80A,
SAU Msta-S tanks. Noah-SVK, MLRS Grad and Smerch automatic propulsion arms. Su-30MK2
fighters.
Well trained ground troops with Igla-S MANPADS and ZU-23 / 30m1-4.
And thousands of armed and well trained militias, expected to grow
to over a million strong ( as per Fidel Castro instructions, haha)
Elliot Abrams seems to be having trouble getting this coup off the ground. He must wonder
what happened to the good old days of death squads and contras....
>Elliott Abrams, who leads the Trump administration's special envoy to Venezuela, said
on Thursday that several countries have offered to take in Venezuelan dictator Nicolás
Maduro.
"I think it is better for the transition to democracy in Venezuela that he be outside the
country," Abrams said. "And there are a number of countries who are willing to accept
him." "Which ones?" Bloomberg reporter Nick Wadhams asked. "He's got friends in places like Cuba and Russia," Abrams said. "And there are some other
countries actually, that have come to us privately and said they would be willing to take
members of the current illegitimate regime, if it would help the transition." "Can you name any?" Wadhams asked. "No," Abrams responded.<
Nice
graphic to support fact that "Unlike UK and most of EU - and contrary to BBC repetition -
'the international community' has not fallen into line behind Trump on Venezuela."
Victor J @44--
Pepe
Escobar posits there're "arguably 15,000 Cubans who are in charge of security for the
Maduro government; Cubans have demonstrated historically they are not in the business of
handing over power." They're likely well versed in the use of those Russian armaments. It's
also likely that there's a Russian or Chinese satellite in geosync orbit above the region
using its sophisticated sensors to detect infiltration attempts, something Central Americans
lacked during the Contra-Terror.
The embarassment of being associated with Trump must now be getting through even
to the most fanatical fascists such as Freeland. And the Europeans.
From a PR point of view statements such as Abrams' "The time to negotiate
with Maduro is long past." Or the original ultimatum demanding elections within 8 days!
Are completely over the top. And likely to be seen as such. Sanctioning members of the
Constituent Assembly- the elections to which were uncontroversial-also indicates that
what the opposition and the United States want is war, they will continue to turn down
peremptorily all offers to mediate or compromise.
If they don't end things soon they will be completely discredited everywhere outside
the political caste. Even the MSM are going to find it hard to keep up looking the other
way and pretending not to know the most elementary facts.
Yes, the corrupt Trump and his administration will be proven wrong as were Obama's and Bush's
administrations, but unfortunately Venezuelans, and perhaps Iranians soon, will be used as
pawns, and people will suffer, their lives will be destroyed as hell is being unleashed on
their lives. Meanwhile the media, damn them as well, are useful tools for the Administration,
spouting regime-change humanitarian propaganda, just like they did with the Syrian
Observatory's reports and White Helmet footage.
Debunking this avalanche of bull is what you do best as demonstrated with this article.
Let's not forget that alongside the proxy regime change civil war, a propaganda and mass
deception war is waged on the minds of Venezuelans deprived by sanctions and on all of us
sick and tired, weary, of the AZ Empire's successive wars. So pull down on to your
anti-bullshet visor cause it's just starting again, the worst is yet to come, and so far
Russia's hardly around to help with the pushback.
(I see someone unwittingly mucked up this thread misusing tags with an excessively long
link making it impossible to read comments. It's even difficult to comment. 😕)
@ bevin - i agree with @49 psychohistorian.. the msm is a huge part of the problem.. here in
canada, our national outlet - cbc - are a disgrace.. here) is
today's fluff piece on guaido and hit piece on maduro... the cbc have become so predictable
for carrying water for the empire, that many are getting ready turned off by them.. for a
national news outlet paid for by canuck taxpayers, it is truly pathetic.. they need to do hit
pieces on this fascist freeland, but instead want to turn reality upside down..
on a positive note, i am quite sure when the federal election happens in oct of this year,
as memory serves - the liberals will not remain in power and Freeland can get back to writing
George Soros memoirs..
"... There are also three or four books written by Anna Lilia Perez with regard to the sacking of PEMEX by the previous 4 presidents. She names Blackrock, the Carlyle Group and numerous Banks in the conspiracy. 60% of Mexican oil was being loaded on Tankers and sold in the Black Market. Google her name and you can get a list of her books. ..."
"... New York Times Article: Mexico could press bribery charges, it just hasn't https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/11/world/americas/mexico-odebrecht-investigation.html ..."
The US has been working to get to the point of invading Venezuela for a while now. They just
needed to wait for 2 things to fall into place. The election of Duque in Colombia and
Bolsanado in Brazil. Now that they have these two ultraright wing leaders to provide the
brunt of the invasion force, they can begin to execute their plan. There's a youtuber in
Florida that has been on top of this plan for a while now, informing his followers.
Here's a
link to his Florida Maquis site:
10 steps to understand what really happened in Venezuela
... ... ...
I'll attach a couple more links about Chavez talking about the Jews and the Assasination
of Chavez.
Shocking! Netanyahu
... ... ...
The Assasination of Hugo Chavez
... ... ...
Blackstone Intelligence has an interesting video that focuses on articles from The
Economists. I will also attach:
How NeoCons are helping the Bankers take over Venezuela
... ... ...
There are also three or four books written by Anna Lilia Perez with regard to the sacking
of PEMEX by the previous 4 presidents. She names Blackrock, the Carlyle Group and numerous
Banks in the conspiracy. 60% of Mexican oil was being loaded on Tankers and sold in the Black
Market. Google her name and you can get a list of her books. There is so much information in
her books, information she had to fight in court to get copies. She had to move to Germany
because of threats she received.
Today the new president shut down 26 of the 56 shell companies created under another shell
company of PEMEX, PEMEX International. The government is having a hard time investigating
these company's books because they claim to be private companies. They found a refinery in
Texas that they didn't even know existed, that is half owned by Royal Dutch Shell. 200
million dollars a year in business and none of it is shown on PEMEX's books.
Anyone with a brain always knew that Maduro is more legitimate than Trump, May, Sanchez, or
Macron. Now we have the numbers confirming that. Anyone with a brain knew that the Guaido
personage is no more than the puppet of the Empire, a nonentity with zero legitimacy.
But key point is, the US actions against Venezuela are not about legitimacy, they are
about oil and money. A robber takes your valuables not because you are not legitimate enough,
but because he is a robber. That's the whole point, the rest is hot air.
Guaido's party Voluntad Popular (VP), is the most violent and right wing opposition party
in Venezuela. One of its leaders, Maria Corina Machado was interviewed on the public Canadian
Broadcasting Company (CBC) on Feb. 1. She has openly, repeatedly, shamelessly and in front of
numerous TV and radio cameras, urged mobs to violence and she has most recently publicly
threatened the life of President Maduro. She has also been invited to speak with Ottawa
politicians.
Guaidó and his party carried out the terrible street violence of 2014, which they
named "La Salida" (The Exit). It resulted in 114 innocent people being killed. Several young
men were burned alive suspected of being "Chavistas". This was the worst street violence ever
seen on the streets of Venezuela. The leader of the party, Leopoldo López was jailed,
after a long and fair trial with the best lawyers money can buy, sentenced for his
responsibility for unleashing this terror and the ensuing 114 deaths.
Guaidó, a son of Spanish immigrants, is a useful idiot, a thug who will be thrown
into the trashcan of history for his treason. He does not command any type of institution,
not one policeman, not one ministry, no official agency of any sort. He is a president in his
own mind and that of the USA Embassy where he is holed out.
Exxon Mobil wants the oil. The international banks want the gold. Colombia wants to
control or possess the eastern oil rich area next to its border. Brazil wants carte blanche
for its big energy corporation. Guyana wants the Esequivo region on the eastern border handed
to them – that is, to Exxon Mobil, and Paraguay wants the huge debt it owes to
Venezuela to quietly disappear. And it is not a wild guess to think that Canada obtained its
recent Free Trade deal with Trump as a quid-pro-quo: lead the charge against Venezuela and
you get your deal. And the oil producers in Canada (mostly USA owned) will shed no tears over
the destruction of Venezuelan crude production. Make no mistake about it, these are the
modern carpetbaggers.
Just the kind of thing I come to Unz to read, and get a glimmer at the man behind the
curtain.
I'll share an anecdote, for what it's worth. Some years back I went into the local bank.
The (young and attractive) gal who helped me out, was -- it turned out, from Venezuela.
This was when Chavez was still alive, and after he had mocked the chimp at the UN, talking
about the smell of sulfur. I remember being impressed by his antics, and thinking 'wow,
there's a guy who not only hates Dubya almost as much as I do, but has the cajones to call
the bitch out in front of the whole world.
So I was curious what this pretty (many of them are) Venezuelan girl thought of Chavez,
and I asked her.
She did not like him. No effn' way. It turns out her father was a hard working schlep who
came from nothing, but had worked his arse off his entire life, to build a second home, and
to rent the first one out, as a retirement income of sorts.
Well, according to this gal, the Chavez regime had confiscated the rental home because it
was exploitation in their view. So I had to re-think my opinion of this guy, if her story is
true. Why don't these commies ever go after the One Percent's wealth? Why do they always go
after the working and middle class?
Just an anecdote for what it's worth.
Also glad someone posted the Economic Hit Man video.
The last sentence of this article, (in particular) made me think of that video.
But folks thinking we have designs on Venezuela are just nuts
the first thing that's necessary is to define who "we" are.
Because there are two Americas, and we should make the distinction.
First there is the America of the American people. Poor, working class, middle class, and
somewhat well-off upper-middle class. These are the "we" that had nothing whatsoever to do
with the wars, except to vote relentlessly for politicians to end them, and are always
betrayed.
Which brings us to the other "we". The Deepstate scumfucks who bomb and loot nations, when
they aren't looting the American working and middle class to fund their Eternal Wars, or
selecting cannon fodder from the working class or poor, to act as their Janissaries for
globo-domination and rapine.
Joe the Plumber is the poster boy for the first "we", and yes, there are lots and lots of
butt-hurt arseholes who would like to pin it all on Joe. He's white, CIS, American and the
perfect scapegoat for butt-hurt loser's (of all stripes) hate.
John McBloodstain in the perfect (if rotting) poster boy for the other "we". The Deepstate
scumfucks who are just as much the enemy of the American people as they are the enemy of all
who don't bow down to the Fiend.
So there are two very separate and very distinct "we"s.
The reason we can be sure the problems being caused in Venezuela are being done so by the
Deepstate 'Americans', is because Trump appointed one of the worst Deepstate scumfucks to
look after "our" interests down there; Eliot Abrams – a scumfuck of the highest order,
and an existential enemy of Joe the Plumber and all Americans of good will.
It would be good if this distinction between the two "we"s, could be made more routinely.
IMHO
"... Nixon and Kissinger, according to the notes kept by CIA Director Richard Helms, wanted to 'make the economy scream' in Chile; they were 'not concerned [about the] risks involved'. War was acceptable to them as long as Allende's government was removed from power. The CIA started Project FUBELT, with $10 million as a first installment to begin the covert destabilisation of the country. ..."
"... Emboldened by Western domination, monopoly firms act with disregard for the law. ..."
"... Unable to raise money from commodity sales, hemmed in by a broken world agricultural system and victim of a culture of plunder, countries of the Global South have been forced to go hat in hand to commercial lenders for finance. ..."
"... Impossible to raise funds, trapped by the fickleness of international finance, governments are forced to make deep cuts in social spending. Education and health, food sovereignty and economic diversification – all this goes by the wayside. International agencies such as the IMF force countries to conduct 'reforms', a word that means extermination of independence. Those countries that hold out face immense international pressure to submit under pain of extinction, as the Communist Manifesto (1848) put it. ..."
"... The migration out of Venezuela is not unique to that country but is now merely the normal reaction to the global crisis. Migrants from Honduras who go northward to the United States or migrants from West Africa who go towards Europe through Libya are part of this global exodus. ..."
"... Venezuela has faced harsh US sanctions since 2014, when the US Congress started down this road. The next year, US President Barack Obama declared Venezuela a 'threat to national security'. The economy started to scream. ..."
"... This is what the US did to Iran and this is what they did to Cuba. The UN says that the US sanctions on Cuba have cost the small island $130 billion. Venezuela lost $6 billion for the first year of Trump's sanctions, since they began in August 2017 ..."
On 15 September 1970, US President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor Henry
Kissinger authorised the US government to do everything possible to undermine the incoming
government of the socialist president of Chile, Salvador Allende. Nixon and Kissinger,
according to the notes kept by CIA Director Richard Helms, wanted to 'make the economy scream'
in Chile; they were 'not concerned [about the] risks involved'. War was acceptable to them as
long as Allende's government was removed from power. The CIA started Project FUBELT, with $10
million as a first installment to begin the covert destabilisation of the country.
CIA memorandum on Project FUBELT, 16 September 1970.
... ... ...
US business firms, such as the telecommunication giant ITT, the soft drink maker Pepsi Cola
and copper monopolies such as Anaconda and Kennecott, put pressure on the US government once
Allende nationalised the copper sector on 11 July 1971. Chileans celebrated this day as the Day
of National Dignity (Dia de la Dignidad Nacional). The CIA began to make contact with sections
of the military seen to be against Allende. Three years later, on 11 September 1973, these
military men moved against Allende, who died in the regime change operation. The US 'created
the conditions' as US National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger put it, to which US President
Richard Nixon answered, 'that is the way it is going to be played'. Such is the mood of
international gangsterism.
Phone Call between Richard Nixon (P) and Henry Kissinger (K) on 16 September 1973.
... ... ...
Chile entered the dark night of a military dictatorship that turned over the country to US
monopoly firms. US advisors rushed in to strengthen the nerve of General Augusto Pinochet's
cabinet.
What happened to Chile in 1973 is precisely what the United States has attempted to do in
many other countries of the Global South. The most recent target for the US government –
and Western big business – is Venezuela. But what is happening to Venezuela is nothing
unique. It faces an onslaught from the United States and its allies that is familiar to
countries as far afield as Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The formula is
clichéd. It is commonplace, a twelve-step plan to produce a coup climate, to create a
world under the heel of the West and of Western big business.
Step One: Colonialism's
Traps.
Most of the Global South remains trapped by the structures put in place by colonialism.
Colonial boundaries encircled states that had the misfortune of being single commodity
producers – either sugar for Cuba or oil for Venezuela. The inability to diversify their
economies meant that these countries earned the bulk of their export revenues from their
singular commodities (98% of Venezuela's export revenues come from oil). As long as the prices
of the commodities remained high, the export revenues were secure. When the prices fell,
revenue suffered. This was a legacy of colonialism. Oil prices dropped from $160.72 per barrel
(June 2008) to $51.99 per barrel (January 2019). Venezuela's export revenues collapsed in this
decade.
Step Two: The Defeat of the New International Economic Order.
In 1974, the countries of the Global South attempted to redo the architecture of the world
economy. They called for the creation of a New International Economic Order (NIEO) that would
allow them to pivot away from the colonial reliance upon one commodity and diversify their
economies. Cartels of raw materials – such as oil and bauxite – were to be built so
that the one-commodity country could have some control over prices of the products that they
relied upon. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), founded in 1960, was a
pioneer of these commodity cartels. Others were not permitted to be formed. With the defeat of
OPEC over the past three decades, its members – such as Venezuela (which has the world's
largest proven oil reserves) – have not been able to control oil prices. They are at the
mercy of the powerful countries of the world.
Step Three: The Death of Southern
Agriculture.
In November 2001, there were about three billion small farmers and landless peasants in the
world. That month, the World Trade Organisation met in Doha (Qatar) to unleash the productivity
of Northern agri-business against the billions of small farmers and landless peasants of the
Global South. Mechanisation and large, industrial-scale farms in North America and Europe had
raised productivity to about 1 to 2 million kilogrammes of cereals per farmer. The small
farmers and landless peasants in the rest of the world struggled to grow 1,000 kilogrammes of
cereals per farmer. They were nowhere near as productive. The Doha decision, as
Samir Amin wrote , presages the annihilation of the small farmer and landless peasant. What
are these men and women to do? The production per hectare is higher in the West, but the
corporate take-over of agriculture (as Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research Senior
Fellow P. Sainath shows) leads to increased hunger as it pushes peasants off their land and
leaves them to starve.
Step Four: Culture of Plunder.
Emboldened by Western domination, monopoly firms act with disregard for the law. As
Kambale Musavuli and I write of the Democratic Republic of Congo, its annual budget of $6
billion is routinely robbed of at least $500 by monopoly mining firms, mostly from Canada
– the country now leading the charge against Venezuela. Mispricing and tax avoidance
schemes allow these large firms (Canada's Agrium, Barrick and Suncor) to routinely steal
billions of dollars from impoverished states.
Step Five: Debt as a Way of Life.
Unable to raise money from commodity sales, hemmed in by a broken world agricultural system
and victim of a culture of plunder, countries of the Global South have been forced to go hat in
hand to commercial lenders for finance. Over the past decade, debt held by the Global South
states has increased, while debt payments have ballooned by 60%. When commodity prices rose
between 2000 and 2010, debt in the Global South decreased. As commodity prices began to fall
from 2010, debts have risen.
The IMF points out that of the 67 impoverished countries that they
follow, 30 are in debt distress, a number that has doubled since 2013. More than 55.4% of
Angola's export revenue is paid to service its debt. And Angola, like Venezuela, is an oil
exporter. Other oil exporters such as Ghana, Chad, Gabon and Venezuela suffer high debt to GDP
ratios. Two out of five low-income countries are in deep financial distress.
Step Six:
Public Finances Go to Hell.
With little incoming revenue and low tax collection rates, public finances in the Global
South has gone into crisis. As the UN Conference on Trade and Development points out, 'public
finances have continued to be suffocated'. States simply cannot put together the funds needed
to maintain basic state functions. Balanced budget rules make borrowing difficult, which is
compounded by the fact that banks charge high rates for money, citing the risks of lending to
indebted countries.
Step Seven: Deep Cuts in Social Spending .
Impossible to raise funds, trapped by the fickleness of international finance, governments
are forced to make deep cuts in social spending. Education and health, food sovereignty and
economic diversification – all this goes by the wayside. International agencies such as
the IMF force countries to conduct 'reforms', a word that means extermination of independence.
Those countries that hold out face immense international pressure to submit under pain of
extinction, as the Communist Manifesto (1848) put it.
Step Eight: Social Distress Leads
to Migration.
The total number of migrants in the world is now at least 68.5 million. That makes the
country called Migration the 21st largest country in the world after Thailand and ahead of the
United Kingdom. Migration has become a global reaction to the collapse of countries from one
end of the planet to the other. The migration out of Venezuela is not unique to that country
but is now merely the normal reaction to the global crisis. Migrants from Honduras who go
northward to the United States or migrants from West Africa who go towards Europe through Libya
are part of this global exodus.
Step Nine: Who Controls the Narrative?
The monopoly corporate media takes its orders from the elite. There is no sympathy for the
structural crisis faced by governments from Afghanistan to Venezuela. Those leaders who cave to
Western pressure are given a free pass by the media. As long as they conduct 'reforms', they
are safe. Those countries that argue against the 'reforms' are vulnerable to being attacked.
Their leaders become 'dictators', their people hostages. A contested election in Bangladesh or
in the Democratic Republic of Congo or in the United States is not cause for regime change.
That special treatment is left for Venezuela.
Step Ten: Who's the Real President?
Regime change operations begin when the imperialists question the legitimacy of the
government in power: by putting the weight of the United States behind an unelected person,
calling him the new president and creating a situation where the elected leader's authority is
undermined. The coup takes place when a powerful country decides – without an election
– to anoint its own proxy. That person – in Venezuela's case Juan Guaidó
– rapidly has to make it clear that he will bend to the authority of the United States.
His kitchen cabinet – made up of former government officials with intimate ties to the US
(such as Harvard University's Ricardo Hausmann and Carnegie's Moisés Naím)
– will make it clear that they want to privatise everything and sell out the Venezuelan
people in the name of the Venezuelan people.
Step Eleven: Make the Economy Scream.
Venezuela has faced harsh US sanctions since 2014, when the US Congress started down this
road. The next year, US President Barack Obama declared Venezuela a 'threat to national
security'. The economy started to scream. In recent days, the United States and the United
Kingdom brazenly stole billions of dollars of Venezuelan money, placed the shackles of
sanctions on its only revenue generating sector (oil) and watched the pain flood through the
country.
This is what the US did to Iran and this is what they did to Cuba. The UN says that
the US sanctions on Cuba have cost the small island $130 billion. Venezuela lost $6 billion for
the first year of Trump's sanctions, since they began in August 2017. More is to be lost as the
days unfold. No wonder that the United Nations Special Rapporteur Idriss Jazairy says that
'sanctions which can lead to starvation and medical shortages are not the answer to the crisis
in Venezuela'. He said that sanctions are 'not a foundation for the peaceful settlement of
disputes'. Further, Jazairy said, 'I am especially concerned to hear reports that these
sanctions are aimed at changing the government of Venezuela'. He called for 'compassion' for
the people of Venezuela.
Step Twelve: Go to War.
US National Security Advisor John Bolton held a yellow pad with the words 5,000 troops in
Colombia written on it. These are US troops, already deployed in Venezuela's neighbour. The US
Southern Command is ready. They are egging on Colombia and Brazil to do their bit. As the coup
climate is created, a nudge will be necessary. They will go to war.
None of this is inevitable. It was not inevitable to Titina Silá, a commander of the
Partido Africano para a Independència da Guiné e Cabo Verde (PAIGC) who was
murdered on 30 January 1973. She fought to free her country. It is not inevitable to the people
of Venezuela, who continue to fight to defend their revolution. It is not inevitable to our
friends at CodePink: Women for Peace, whose Medea Benjamin walked into a meeting of the
Organisation of American States and said – No!
The country is in deep economic crisis with rampant inflation and high unemployment rate. As such it is an easy target for color
revolutions...
Venezuela has around 32 Million population. unemployment is around total: 14.6% (2015 est.) Growth rate is negative -14% (2017 est.)
-16.5% (2016 est.). -6.2% (2015 est.) . Inflation rate is 254.4% (2016 est.) Exchange rate is 3,345 bolivars per dollar (2017 est.).
University professor salary is around US$ 27,449. The cost of living is three times lower then in the USA.
Venezuela was one of three countries that emerged from the collapse of Gran Colombia in 1830 (the others being Ecuador and New
Granada, which became Colombia). For most of the first half of the 20th century, Venezuela was ruled by generally benevolent military
strongmen who promoted the oil industry and allowed for some social reforms. Democratically elected governments have held sway since
1959. Under Hugo CHAVEZ, president from 1999 to 2013, and his hand-picked successor, President Nicolas MADURO, the executive branch
has exercised increasingly authoritarian control over other branches of government. In 2016, President MADURO issued a decree to
hold an election to form a "Constituent Assembly." A 30 July 2017 poll approved the formation of a 545-member Constituent Assembly
and elected its delegates, empowering them to change the constitution and dismiss government institutions and officials. The US Government
does not recognize the Assembly, which has generally used its powers to rule by decree rather than to reform the constitution. Simultaneously,
democratic institutions continue to deteriorate, freedoms of expression and the press are curtailed, and political polarization has
grown. The ruling party's economic policies have expanded the state's role in the economy through expropriations of major enterprises,
strict currency exchange and price controls that discourage private sector investment and production, and overdependence on the petroleum
industry for revenues, among others. Current concerns include human rights abuses, rampant violent crime, high inflation, and widespread
shortages of basic consumer goods, medicine, and medical supplies.
Location
: Northern South America, bordering the Caribbean Sea and the North Atlantic Ocean, between Colombia and Guyana
Geographic coordinates
more
territorial sea: 12 nm exclusive economic zone: 200 nm contiguous zone: 15 nm continental shelf: 200-m depth or to the depth
of exploitation Climate
: tropical; hot, humid; more moderate in highlands
Terrain.
Andes Mountains and Maracaibo Lowlands in northwest; central plains (llanos); Guiana Highlands in southeast
Elevation: 450 m elevation extremes: 0 m lowest point: Caribbean Sea 4978 highest point: Pico Bolivar
Natural resources
: This entry lists a country's mineral, petroleum, hydropower, and other resources of commercial importance, such as rare earth
elements (REEs). In general, products appear only if they make a significant contribution to the economy, or are likely to do so
in the future. petroleum, natural gas, iron ore, gold, bauxite, other minerals, hydropower, diamonds
Land use
: This
entry contains the percentage shares of total land area for three different types of land use: agricultural land, forest, and other;
agricultural land is further divided into arable land - land cultivated for crops like wheat, maize, and rice that are replanted
after each harvest, permanent crops - land cultivated for crops like citrus, coffee, and rubber that are not replanted after each
harvest, and includes land under flowering shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees, and vines, and permane . . .
more
Population distribution
: most of the population is concentrated in the northern and western highlands along an eastern spur at the northern end of the
Andes, an area that includes the capital of Caracas
Natural hazards
: This entry lists potential natural disasters. For countries where volcanic activity is common, a volcanism subfield highlights
historically active volcanoes.
subject to floods, rockslides, mudslides; periodic droughts
Environment - current
issues Acidification - the lowering of soil and water pH due to acid precipitation and deposition usually through
precipitation; this process disrupts ecosystem nutrient flows and may kill freshwater fish and plants dependent on more neutral or
alkaline conditions (see acid rain). Acid rain - characterized as containing harmful levels of sulfur dioxi . . .
more
sewage pollution of Lago de Valencia; oil and urban pollution of Lago de Maracaibo; deforestation; soil degradation; urban and
industrial pollution, especially along the Caribbean coast; threat to the rainforest ecosystem from irresponsible mining operations
Environment - international
agreements : This entry separates country participation in international environmental agreements into two levels - party to
and signed, but not ratified. Agreements are listed in alphabetical order by the abbreviated form of the full name.
party to: Antarctic Treaty, Biodiversity, Climate Change, Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol, Desertification, Endangered Species,
Hazardous Wastes, Marine Life Conservation, Ozone Layer Protection, Ship Pollution, Tropical Timber 83, Tropical Timber 94, Wetlands
signed, but not ratified: none of the selected agreements
Geography - note
: This entry includes miscellaneous geographic information of significance not included elsewhere.
note 1: the country lies on major sea and air routes linking North and South America
note 2: Venezuela has some of the most unique geology in the world; tepuis are massive table-top mountains of the western Guiana
Highlands that tend to be isolated and thus support unique endemic plant and animal species; their sheer cliffsides account for some
of the most spectacular waterfalls in the world including Angel Falls, the world's highest (979 m) that drops off Auyan Tepui
Birth rate
18.5 births/1,000 population (2018 est.) country comparison to the world:
Death rate
5.3 deaths/1,000 population (2018 est.) country comparison to the world:
187
Social investment in Venezuela during the CHAVEZ administration reduced poverty from nearly 50% in 1999 to about 27% in 2011,
increased school enrollment, substantially decreased infant and child mortality, and improved access to potable water and sanitation
through social investment. "Missions" dedicated to education, nutrition, healthcare, and sanitation were funded through petroleum
revenues. The sustainability of this progress remains questionable, however, as the continuation of these social programs depends
on the prosperity of Venezuela's oil industry. In the long-term, education and health care spending may increase economic growth
and reduce income inequality, but rising costs and the staffing of new health care jobs with foreigners are slowing development.
While CHAVEZ was in power, more than one million predominantly middle- and upper-class Venezuelans are estimated to have emigrated.
The brain drain is attributed to a repressive political system, lack of economic opportunities, steep inflation, a high crime rate,
and corruption. Thousands of oil engineers emigrated to Canada, Colombia, and the United States following CHAVEZ's firing of over
20,000 employees of the state-owned petroleum company during a 2002-03 oil strike. Additionally, thousands of Venezuelans of European
descent have taken up residence in their ancestral homelands. Nevertheless, Venezuela has attracted hundreds of thousands of immigrants
from South America and southern Europe because of its lenient migration policy and the availability of education and health care.
Venezuela also has been a fairly accommodating host to Colombian refugees, numbering about 170,000 as of year-end 2016. However,
since 2014, falling oil prices have driven a major economic crisis that has pushed Venezuelans from all walks of life to migrate
or to seek asylum abroad to escape severe shortages of food, water, and medicine; soaring inflation; unemployment; and violence.
As of October 2018,an estimate 3 million Venezuelans were refugees or migrants worldwide, with 2.4 million in Latin America and the
Caribbean (notably Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, Panama, Chile, Guyana, the Dominican Republic, Aruba, and Curacao).
Asylum applications
increased significantly in the US and Brazil in 2016 and 2017. Several receiving countries are making efforts to increase immigration
restrictions and to deport illegal Venezuelan migrants - Ecuador and Peru in August 2018 began requiring valid passports for entry,
which are difficult to obtain for Venezuelans. Nevertheless, Venezuelans continue to migrate to avoid economic collapse at home.
Age structure
: This entry provides the distribution of the population according to age. Information is included by sex and age group as follows:
0-14 years (children), 15-24 years (early working age), 25-54 years (prime working age), 55-64 years (mature working age), 65 years
and over (elderly). The age structure of a population affects a nation's key socioeconomic issues. Countries with young populations
(high percentage under age 15) need to invest more in schools, while countries with older population . . .
more
urban population: 88.2% of total population (2018) rate of urbanization: 1.28% annual rate of change (2015-20 est.)
Major urban areas
- population : 2.935 million CARACAS (capital), 2.179 million Maracaibo, 1.734 million Valencia, 1.178 million Maracay, 1.189 million Barquisimeto
(2018) Sex ratio
: This entry includes the number of males for each female in five age groups - at birth, under 15 years, 15-64 years, 65 years
and over, and for the total population. Sex ratio at birth has recently emerged as an indicator of certain kinds of sex discrimination
in some countries. For instance, high sex ratios at birth in some Asian countries are now attributed to sex-selective abortion and
infanticide due to a strong preference for sons. This will affect future marriage patterns and fertilit . . .
more
Life expectancy
at birth Total population: 76.2 years (2018 est.) male: 73.2 years (2018 est.) female: 79.3 years (2018 est.) country comparison to the
world: 93
Total fertility
rate : 2.3 children born/woman (2018 est.) country comparison to the world:
87
Unemployment, youth
ages 15-24 : total: 14.6% (2015 est.) male: NA (2015 est.) female: NA (2015 est.) country comparison to the world:
92
Economy - overview
: Venezuela remains highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for almost all export earnings and nearly half of the government's
revenue, despite a continued decline in oil production in 2017. In the absence of official statistics, foreign experts estimate that
GDP contracted 12% in 2017, inflation exceeded 2000%, people faced widespread shortages of consumer goods and medicine, and the central
bank's international reserves dwindled. In late 2017, Venezuela also entered selective default on some of its sovereign and state
oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., (PDVSA) bonds. Domestic production and industry continues to severely underperform and
the Venezuelan Government continues to rely on imports to meet its basic food and consumer goods needs.
Falling oil prices since 2014 have aggravated Venezuela's economic crisis. Insufficient access to dollars, price controls, and
rigid labor regulations have led some US and multinational firms to reduce or shut down their Venezuelan operations. Market uncertainty
and PDVSA's poor cash flow have slowed investment in the petroleum sector, resulting in a decline in oil production.
Under President Nicolas MADURO, the Venezuelan Government's response to the economic crisis has been to increase state control
over the economy and blame the private sector for shortages. MADURO has given authority for the production and distribution of basic
goods to the military and to local socialist party member committees. The Venezuelan Government has maintained strict currency controls
since 2003. The government has been unable to sustain its mechanisms for distributing dollars to the private sector, in part because
it needed to withhold some foreign exchange reserves to make its foreign bond payments. As a result of price and currency controls,
local industries have struggled to purchase production inputs necessary to maintain their operations or sell goods at a profit on
the local market. Expansionary monetary policies and currency controls have created opportunities for arbitrage and corruption and
fueled a rapid increase in black market activity.
GDP (purchasing
power parity) : $381.6 billion (2017 est.) $443.7 billion (2016 est.) $531.1 billion (2015 est.) note: data are in 2017 dollars country comparison
to the world: 47
GDP - real growth
rate : -14% (2017 est.) -16.5% (2016 est.) -6.2% (2015 est.) country comparison to the world:
222
GDP - per capita
(PPP) : This entry shows GDP on a purchasing power parity basis divided by population as of 1 July for the same year.
$12,500 (2017 est.) $14,400 (2016 est.) $17,300 (2015 est.) note: data are in 2017 dollars country comparison to the world:
126
Gross national saving
: 12.1% of GDP (2017 est.) 8.6% of GDP (2016 est.) 31.8% of GDP (2015 est.) country comparison to the world:
150
GDP - composition,
by end use : household consumption: 68.5% (2017 est.) government consumption: 19.6% (2017 est.) investment in fixed capital: 13.9% (2017 est.)
investment in inventories: 1.7% (2017 est.) exports of goods and services: 7% (2017 est.) imports of goods and services: -10.7% (2017
est.)
GDP - composition,
by sector of origin : agriculture: 4.7% (2017 est.) industry: 40.4% (2017 est.) services: 54.9% (2017 est.)
Agriculture - products
: This entry is an ordered listing of major crops and products starting with the most important.
corn, sorghum, sugarcane, rice, bananas, vegetables, coffee; beef, pork, milk, eggs; fish
Labor force
: 14.21 million (2017 est.) country comparison to the world:
40
Unemployment rate
: This entry contains the percent of the labor force that is without jobs. Substantial underemployment might be noted.
27.1% (2017 est.) 20.6% (2016 est.) country comparison to the world:
199
Central bank discount
rate : This entry provides the annualized interest rate a country's central bank charges commercial, depository banks for loans
to meet temporary shortages of funds.
29.5% (2015) country comparison to the world:
1 Commercial bank
prime lending rate : This entry provides a simple average of annualized interest rates commercial banks charge on new loans,
denominated in the national currency, to their most credit-worthy customers.
21.1% (31 December 2017 est.) 20.78% (31 December 2016 est.) country comparison to the world:
12 Stock of narrow
money : This entry, also known as "M1," comprises the total quantity of currency in circulation (notes and coins) plus demand
deposits denominated in the national currency held by nonbank financial institutions, state and local governments, nonfinancial public
enterprises, and the private sector of the economy, measured at a specific point in time. National currency units have been converted
to US dollars at the closing exchange rate for the date of the information. Because of exchange rate moveme . . .
more
$149.8 billion (31 December 2017 est.) $163.3 billion (31 December 2016 est.) country comparison to the world:
29 Stock of broad money
: This entry covers all of "Narrow money," plus the total quantity of time and savings deposits, credit union deposits, institutional
money market funds, short-term repurchase agreements between the central bank and commercial deposit banks, and other large liquid
assets held by nonbank financial institutions, state and local governments, nonfinancial public enterprises, and the private sector
of the economy. National currency units have been converted to US dollars at the closing exchange r . . .
more
Exports - partners
: US 34.8%, India 17.2%, China 16%, Netherlands Antilles 8.2%, Singapore 6.3%, Cuba 4.2% (2017)
Exports - commodities
: This entry provides a listing of the highest-valued exported products; it sometimes includes the percent of total dollar value.
petroleum and petroleum products, bauxite and aluminum, minerals, chemicals, agricultural products
Imports : This
entry provides the total US dollar amount of merchandise imports on a c.i.f. (cost, insurance, and freight) or f.o.b. (free on board)
basis. These figures are calculated on an exchange rate basis, i.e., not in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms.
$11 billion (2017 est.) $16.34 billion (2016 est.) country comparison to the world:
100 Imports - commodities
: This entry provides a listing of the highest-valued imported products; it sometimes includes the percent of total dollar value.
agricultural products, livestock, raw materials, machinery and equipment, transport equipment, construction materials, medical
equipment, petroleum products, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, iron and steel products
Imports - partners
: This entry provides a rank ordering of trading partners starting with the most important; it sometimes includes the percent
of total dollar value. US 24.8%, China 14.2%, Mexico 9.5% (2017)
"... There is a great deal of controversy about the true shape of the Venezuelan economy and whether Hugo Chavez' and Nicholas Maduro's reform and policies were crucial for the people of Venezuela or whether they were completely misguided and precipitated the current crises. Anybody and everybody seems to have very strong held views about this. But I don't simply because I lack the expertise to have any such opinions. So I decided to ask one of the most respected independent economists out there, Michael Hudson, for whom I have immense respect and whose analyses (including those he co-authored with Paul Craig Roberts ) seem to be the most credible and honest ones you can find. In fact, Paul Craig Roberts considers Hudson the " best economist in the world "! ..."
"... I am deeply grateful to Michael for his replies which, I hope, will contribute to a honest and objective understanding of what really is taking place in Venezuela. ..."
"... : Could you summarize the state of Venezuela's economy when Chavez came to power? ..."
"... : Could you outline the various reforms and changes introduced by Hugo Chavez? What did he do right, and what did he do wrong? ..."
"... : What are, in your opinion, the causes of the current economic crisis in Venezuela is it primarily due to mistakes by Chavez and Maduro or is the main cause US sabotage, subversion and sanctions? ..."
"... : What in your opinion should Maduro do next (assuming he stays in power and the USA does not overthrow him) to rescue the Venezuelan economy? ..."
"... What about the plan to introduce a oil-based crypto currency? Will that be an effective alternative to the dying Venezuelan Bolivar? ..."
"... Trade, Develpoment and Foreign Debt ..."
"... : How much assistance do China, Russia and Iran provide and how much can they do to help? Do you think that these three countries together can help counter-act US sabotage, subversion and sanctions? ..."
"... : Venezuela kept a lot of its gold in the UK and money in the USA. How could Chavez and Maduro trust these countries or did they not have another choice? Are there viable alternatives to New York and London or are they still the "only game in town" for the world's central banks? ..."
"... Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire ..."
"... : What can other Latin American countries such as Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba and, maybe, Uruguay and Mexico do to help Venezuela? ..."
"... : Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my questions! ..."
Introduction: There is a great deal of controversy about the true shape of the Venezuelan economy and whether Hugo Chavez'
and Nicholas Maduro's reform and policies were crucial for the people of Venezuela or whether they were completely misguided and
precipitated the current crises. Anybody and everybody seems to have very strong held views about this. But I don't simply because
I lack the expertise to have any such opinions. So I decided to ask one of the most respected independent economists out there,
Michael Hudson, for whom I have immense respect and whose analyses (including those he
co-authored with Paul Craig Roberts
) seem to be the most credible and honest ones you can find. In fact, Paul Craig Roberts considers Hudson the "
best economist in
the world "!
I am deeply grateful to Michael for his replies which, I hope, will contribute to a honest and objective understanding
of what really is taking place in Venezuela.
The Saker
The Saker : Could you summarize the state of Venezuela's economy when Chavez came to power?
Michael Hudson : Venezuela was an oil monoculture. Its export revenue was spent largely on importing food and other necessities
that it could have produced at home. Its trade was largely with the United States. So despite its oil wealth, it ran up foreign debt.
From the outset, U.S. oil companies have feared that Venezuela might someday use its oil revenues to benefit its overall population
instead of letting the U.S. oil industry and its local comprador aristocracy siphon off its wealth. So the oil industry backed
by U.S. diplomacy held Venezuela hostage in two ways.
First of all, oil refineries were not built in Venezuela, but in Trinidad and in the southern U.S. Gulf Coast states. This enabled
U.S. oil companies or the U.S. Government to leave Venezuela without a means of "going it alone" and pursuing an independent
policy with its oil, as it needed to have this oil refined. It doesn't help to have oil reserves if you are unable to get this oil
refined so as to be usable.
Second, Venezuela's central bankers were persuaded to pledge their oil reserves and all assets of the state oil sector (including
Citgo) as collateral for its foreign debt. This meant that if Venezuela defaulted (or was forced into default by U.S. banks refusing
to make timely payment on its foreign debt), bondholders and U.S. oil majors would be in a legal position to take possession of Venezuelan
oil assets.
These pro-U.S. policies made Venezuela a typically polarized Latin American oligarchy. Despite being nominally rich in oil revenue,
its wealth was concentrated in the hands of a pro-U.S. oligarchy that let its domestic development be steered by the World Bank and
IMF. The indigenous population, especially its rural racial minority as well as the urban underclass, was excluded from sharing in
the country's oil wealth. The oligarchy's arrogant refusal to share the wealth, or even to make Venezuela self-sufficient in essentials,
made the election of Hugo Chavez a natural outcome.
The Saker : Could you outline the various reforms and changes introduced by Hugo Chavez? What did he do right, and what did
he do wrong?
Michael Hudson : Chavez sought to restore a mixed economy to Venezuela, using its government revenue mainly from oil, of course
to develop infrastructure and domestic spending on health care, education, employment to raise living standards and productivity
for his electoral constituency.
What he was unable to do was to clean up the embezzlement and built-in rake-off of income from the oil sector. And he was unable
to stem the capital flight of the oligarchy, taking its wealth and moving it abroad while running away themselves.
This was not "wrong". It merely takes a long time to change an economy's disruption while the U.S. is using sanctions and "dirty
tricks" to stop that process.
The Saker : What are, in your opinion, the causes of the current economic crisis in Venezuela is it primarily due to mistakes
by Chavez and Maduro or is the main cause US sabotage, subversion and sanctions?
Michael Hudson : There is no way that Chavez and Maduro could have pursued a pro-Venezuelan policy aimed at achieving economic
independence without inciting fury, subversion and sanctions from the United States. American foreign policy remains as focused on
oil as it was when it invaded Iraq under Dick Cheney's regime. U.S. policy is to treat Venezuela as an extension of the U.S. economy,
running a trade surplus in oil to spend in the United States or transfer its savings to U.S. banks.
By imposing sanctions that prevent Venezuela from gaining access to its U.S. bank deposits and the assets of its state-owned Citco,
the United States is making it impossible for Venezuela to pay its foreign debt. This is forcing it into default, which U.S. diplomats
hope to use as an excuse to foreclose on Venezuela's oil resources and seize its foreign assets much as Paul Singer hedge fund sought
to do with Argentina's foreign assets.
Just as U.S. policy under Kissinger was to make Chile's "economy scream," so the U.S. is following the same path against Venezuela.
It is using that country as a "demonstration effect" to warn other countries not to act in their self-interest in any way that prevents
their economic surplus from being siphoned off by U.S. investors.
The Saker : What in your opinion should Maduro do next (assuming he stays in power and the USA does not overthrow him) to
rescue the Venezuelan economy?
Michael Hudson : I cannot think of anything that President Maduro can do that he is not doing. At best, he can seek foreign support
and demonstrate to the world the need for an alternative international financial and economic system.
ORDER IT NOW
He already has begun to do this by trying to withdraw Venezuela's gold from the Bank of England and Federal Reserve. This is turning
into "asymmetrical warfare," threatening to de-sanctify the dollar standard in international finance. The refusal of England and
the United States to grant an elected government control of its foreign assets demonstrates to the entire world that U.S. diplomats
and courts alone can and will control foreign countries as an extension of U.S. nationalism.
The price of the U.S. economic attack on Venezuela is thus to fracture the global monetary system. Maduro's defensive move is
showing other countries the need to protect themselves from becoming "another Venezuela" by finding a new safe haven and paying agent
for their gold, foreign exchange reserves and foreign debt financing, away from the dollar, sterling and euro areas.
The only way that Maduro can fight successfully is on the institutional level, upping the ante to move "outside the box." His
plan and of course it is a longer-term plan is to help catalyze a new international economic order independent of the U.S. dollar
standard. It will work in the short run only if the United States believes that it can emerge from this fight as an honest financial
broker, honest banking system and supporter of democratically elected regimes. The Trump administration is destroying illusion more
thoroughly than any anti-imperialist critic or economic rival could do!
Over the longer run, Maduro also must develop Venezuelan agriculture, along much the same lines that the United States protected
and developed its agriculture under the New Deal legislation of the 1930s rural extension services, rural credit, seed advice,
state marketing organizations for crop purchase and supply of mechanization, and the same kind of price supports that the United
States has long used to subsidize domestic farm investment to increase productivity.
The Saker: What about the plan to introduce a oil-based crypto currency? Will that be an effective alternative to the dying
Venezuelan Bolivar?
Michael Hudson : Only a national government can issue a currency. A "crypto" currency tied to the price of oil would become a
hedging vehicle, prone to manipulation and price swings by forward sellers and buyers. A national currency must be based on the ability
to tax, and Venezuela's main tax source is oil revenue, which is being blocked from the United States. So Venezuela's position is
like that of the German mark coming out of its hyperinflation of the early 1920s. The only solution involves balance-of-payments
support. It looks like the only such support will come from outside the dollar sphere.
The solution to any hyperinflation must be negotiated diplomatically and be supported by other governments. My history of international
trade and financial theory, Trade, Develpoment and Foreign Debt , describes the German reparations problem and how its hyperinflation
was solved by the Rentenmark.
Venezuela's economic-rent tax would fall on oil, and luxury real estate sites, as well as monopoly prices, and on high incomes
(mainly financial and monopoly income). This requires a logic to frame such tax and monetary policy. I have tried to explain how
to achieve monetary and hence political independence for the past half-century. China is applying such policy most effectively. It
is able to do so because it is a large and self-sufficient economy in essentials, running a large enough export surplus to pay for
its food imports. Venezuela is in no such position. That is why it is looking to China for support at this time.
The Saker : How much assistance do China, Russia and Iran provide and how much can they do to help? Do you think that these
three countries together can help counter-act US sabotage, subversion and sanctions?
Michael Hudson : None of these countries have a current capacity to refine Venezuelan oil. This makes it difficult for them to
take payment in Venezuelan oil. Only a long-term supply contract (paid for in advance) would be workable. And even in that case,
what would China and Russia do if the United States simply grabbed their property in Venezuela, or refused to let Russia's oil company
take possession of Citco? In that case, the only response would be to seize U.S. investments in their own country as compensation.
At least China and Russia can provide an alternative bank clearing mechanism to SWIFT, so that Venezuela can by pass the U.S.
financial system and keep its assets from being grabbed at will by U.S. authorities or bondholders. And of course, they can provide
safe-keeping for however much of Venezuela's gold it can get back from New York and London.
Looking ahead, therefore, China, Russia, Iran and other countries need to set up a new international court to adjudicate the coming
diplomatic crisis and its financial and military consequences. Such a court and its associated international bank as an alternative
to the U.S.-controlled IMF and World Bank needs a clear ideology to frame a set of principles of nationhood and international rights
with power to implement and enforce its judgments.
This would confront U.S. financial strategists with a choice: if they continue to treat the IMF, World Bank, ITO and NATO as extensions
of increasingly aggressive U.S. foreign policy, they will risk isolating the United States. Europe will have to choose whether to
remain a U.S. economic and military satellite, or to throw in its lot with Eurasia.
However, Daniel Yergin reports in the Wall Street Journal (Feb. 7) that China is trying to hedge its bets by opening a back-door
negotiation with Guaido's group, apparently to get the same deal that it has negotiated with Maduro's government. But any such deal
seems unlikely to be honored in practice, given U.S. animosity toward China and Guaido's total reliance on U.S. covert support.
The Saker : Venezuela kept a lot of its gold in the UK and money in the USA. How could Chavez and Maduro trust these countries
or did they not have another choice? Are there viable alternatives to New York and London or are they still the "only game in town"
for the world's central banks?
Michael Hudson : There was never real trust in the Bank of England or Federal Reserve, but it seemed unthinkable that they would
refuse to permit an official depositor from withdrawing its own gold. The usual motto is "Trust but verify." But the unwillingness
(or inability) of the Bank of England to verify means that the formerly unthinkable has now arrived: Have these central banks sold
this gold forward in the post-London Gold Pool and its successor commodity markets in their attempt to keep down the price so as
to maintain the appearance of a solvent U.S. dollar standard.
Paul Craig Roberts has described how this system works. There are forward markets for currencies, stocks and bonds. The Federal
Reserve can offer to buy a stock in three months at, say, 10% over the current price. Speculators will by the stock, bidding up the
price, so as to take advantage of "the market's" promise to buy the stock. So by the time three months have passed, the price will
have risen. That is largely how the U.S. "Plunge Protection Team" has supported the U.S. stock market.
The system works in reverse to hold down gold prices. The central banks holding gold can get together and offer to sell gold at
a low price in three months. "The market" will realize that with low-priced gold being sold, there's no point in buying
more gold and bidding its price up. So the forward-settlement market shapes today's market.
The question is, have gold buyers (such as the Russian and Chinese government) bought so much gold that the U.S. Fed and the Bank
of England have actually had to "make good" on their forward sales, and steadily depleted their gold? In this case, they would have
been "living for the moment," keeping down gold prices for as long as they could, knowing that once the world returns to the pre-1971
gold-exchange standard for intergovernmental balance-of-payments deficits, the U.S. will run out of gold and be unable to maintain
its overseas military spending (not to mention its trade deficit and foreign disinvestment in the U.S. stock and bond markets). My
book on Super-Imperialism explains why running out of gold forced the Vietnam War to an end. The same logic would apply today to
America's vast network of military bases throughout the world.
Refusal of England and the U.S. to pay Venezuela means that other countries realize that foreign official gold reserves can be
held hostage to U.S. foreign policy, and even to judgments by U.S. courts to award this gold to foreign creditors or to whoever might
bring a lawsuit under U.S. law against these countries.
This hostage-taking now makes it urgent for other countries to develop a viable alternative, especially as the world de-dedollarizes
and a gold-exchange standard remains the only way of constraining the military-induced balance of payments deficit of the United
States or any other country mounting a military attack. A military empire is very expensive and gold is a "peaceful" constraint
on military-induced payments deficits. (I spell out the details in my Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire
(1972), updated in German as Finanzimperium (2017).
The U.S. has overplayed its hand in destroying the foundation of the dollar-centered global financial order. That order has enabled
the United States to be "the exceptional nation" able to run balance-of-payments deficits and foreign debt that it has no intention
(or ability) to pay, claiming that the dollars thrown off by its foreign military spending "supply" other countries with their central
bank reserves (held in the form of loans to the U.S. Treasury Treasury bonds and bills to finance the U.S. budget deficit and
its military spending, as well as the largely military U.S. balance-of-payments deficit.
Given the fact that the EU is acting as a branch of NATO and the U.S. banking system, that alternative would have to be associated
with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the gold would have to be kept in Russia and/or China.
The Saker : What can other Latin American countries such as Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba and, maybe, Uruguay and Mexico do to
help Venezuela?
Michael Hudson : The best thing neighboring Latin American countries can do is to join in creating a vehicle to promote de-dollarization
and, with it, an international institution to oversee the writedown of debts that are beyond the ability of countries to pay without
imposing austerity and thereby destroying their economies.
An alternative also is needed to the World Bank that would make loans in domestic currency, above all to subsidize investment
in domestic food production so as to protect the economy against foreign food-sanctions the equivalent of a military siege to force
surrender by imposing famine conditions. This World Bank for Economic Acceleration would put the development of self-reliance for
its members first, instead of promoting export competition while loading borrowers down with foreign debt that would make them prone
to the kind of financial blackmail that Venezuela is experiencing.
Being a Roman Catholic country, Venezuela might ask for papal support for a debt write-down and an international institution to
oversee the ability to pay by debtor countries without imposing austerity, emigration, depopulation and forced privatization of the
public domain.
Two international principles are needed. First, no country should be obliged to pay foreign debt in a currency (such as the dollar
or its satellites) whose banking system acts to prevents payment.
Second, no country should be obliged to pay foreign debt at the price of losing its domestic autonomy as a state: the right to
determine its own foreign policy, to tax and to create its own money, and to be free of having to privatize its public assets to
pay foreign creditors. Any such debt is a "bad loan" reflecting the creditor's own irresponsibility or, even worse, pernicious asset
grab in a foreclosure that was the whole point of the loan.
The Saker : Thank you very much for taking the time to reply to my questions!
As the US strives to overthrow the democratic and independent Venezuelan government, the
historical record regarding the short, middle and long-term consequences are mixed.
We will proceed to examine the consequences and impact of US intervention in Venezuela over
the past half century.
We will then turn to examine the success and failure of US 'regime changes' throughout Latin
America and the Caribbean.
Venezuela: Results and Perspectives 1950-2019
During the post WWII decade, the US, working through the CIA and the Pentagon, brought to
power authoritarian client regimes in Venezuela, Cuba, Peru, Chile, Guatemala, Brazil and
several other countries.
In the case of Venezuela, the US backed a near decade long military dictatorship (Perez
Jimenez ) roughly between 1951-58. The dictatorship was overthrown in 1958 and replaced by a
left-center coalition during a brief interim period. Subsequently, the US reshuffled its
policy, and embraced and promoted center-right regimes led by social and christian democrats
which alternated rule for nearly forty years.
In the 1990's US client regimes riddled with corruption and facing a deepening
socio-economic crises were voted out of power and replaced by the independent, anti-imperialist
government led by President Chavez.
The free and democratic election of President Chavez withstood and defeated several US led
'regime changes' over the following two decades.
Following the election of President Maduro, under US direction,Washington mounted the
political machinery for a new regime change. Washington launched, in full throttle, a coup by
the winter of 2019.
The record of US intervention in Venezuela is mixed: a middle term military coup lasted less
than a decade; US directed electoral regimes were in power for forty years; its replacement by
an elected anti-imperialist populist government has been in power for nearly 20 years. A
virulent US directed coup is underfoot today.
The Venezuela experience with 'regime change' speaks to US capacity to consummate long-term
control if it can reshuffle its power base from a military dictatorship into an electoral
regime, financed through the pillage of oil, backed by a reliable military and 'legitimated' by
alternating client political parties which accept submission to Washington.
US client regimes are ruled by oligarchic elites, with little entrepreneurial capacity,
living off of state rents (oil revenues).
Tied closely to the US, the ruling elites are unable to secure popular loyalty. Client
regimes depend on the military strength of the Pentagon -- but that is also their weakness.
Regime Change in Regional-Historical Perspective
Puppet-building is an essential strategic goal of the US imperial state.
The results vary over time depending on the capacity of independent governments to succeed
in nation-building.
US long-term puppet-building has been most successful in small nations with vulnerable
economies.
The US directed coup in Guatemala has lasted over sixty-years – from 1954 -2019. Major
popular indigenous insurgencies have been repressed via US military advisers and aid.
Similar successful US puppet-building has occurred in Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic
and Haiti. Being small and poor and having weak military forces, the US is willing to directly
invade and occupy the countries quickly and at small cost in military lives and economic
costs.
In the above countries Washington succeeded in imposing and maintaining puppet regimes for
prolonged periods of time.
The US has directed military coups over the past half century with contradictory
results.
In the case of Honduras, the Pentagon was able to overturn a progressive liberal democratic
government of very short duration. The Honduran army was under US direction, and elected
President Manual Zelaya depended on an unarmed electoral popular majority. Following the
successful coup the Honduran puppet-regime remained under US rule for the next decade and
likely beyond.
Chile has been under US tutelage for the better part of the 20th century with a brief
respite during a Popular Front government between 1937-41 and a democratic socialist government
between 1970-73. The US military directed coup in 1973 imposed the Pinochet dictatorship which
lasted for seventeen years. It was followed by an electoral regime which continued the
Pinochet-US neo-liberal agenda, including the reversal of all the popular national and social
reforms. In a word, Chile remained within the US political orbit for the better part of a
half-century.
Chile's democratic-socialist regime (1970-73) never armed its people nor established
overseas economic linkage to sustain an independent foreign policy.
It is not surprising that in recent times Chile followed US commands calling for the
overthrow of Venezuela's President Maduro.
Contradictory Puppet-Building
Several US coups were reversed, for the longer or shorter duration.
The classical case of a successful defeat of a client regime is Cuba which overthrew a
ten-year old US client, the Batista dictatorship, and proceeded to successfully resist a CIA
directed invasion and economic blockade for the better part of a half century (up to the
present day).
Cuba's defeat of puppet restorationist policy was a result of the Castro leadership's
decision to arm the people, expropriate and take control of hostile US and multinational
corporations and establish strategic overseas allies – USSR , China and more recently
Venezuela.
In contrast, a US military backed military coup in Brazil (1964) endured for over two
decades, before electoral politics were partially restored under elite leadership.
Twenty years of failed neo-liberal economic policies led to the election of the social
reformist Workers Party (WP) which proceeded to implement extensive anti-poverty programs
within the context of neo-liberal policies.
After a decade and a half of social reforms and a relatively independent foreign policy, the
WP succumbed to a downturn of the commodity dependent economy and a hostile state (namely
judiciary and military) and was replaced by a pair of far-right US client regimes which
functioned under Wall Street and Pentagon direction.
The US frequently intervened in Bolivia, backing military coups and client regimes against
short-term national populist regimes (1954, 1970 and 2001).
In 2005 a popular uprising led to free elections and the election of Evo Morales, the leader
of the coca farmers movements. Between 2005 – 2019 (the present period) President Morales
led a moderate left-of-center anti imperialist government.
ORDER IT NOW
Unsuccessful efforts by the US to overthrow the Morales government were a result of several
factors: Morales organized and mobilized a coalition of peasants and workers (especially miners
and coca farmers). He secured the loyalty of the military, expelled US Trojan Horse "aid
agencies' and extended control over oil and gas and promoted ties with agro business.
The combination of an independent foreign policy, a mixed economy , high growth and moderate
reforms neutralized US puppet-building.
Not so the case in Argentina. Following a bloody coup (1976) in which the US backed military
murdered 30,000 citizens, the military was defeated by the British army in the Malvinas war and
withdrew after seven years in power.
The post military puppet regime ruled and plundered for a decade before collapsing in 2001.
They were overthrown by a popular insurrection. However, the radical left lacking cohesion was
replaced by center-left (Kirchner-Fernandez) regimes which ruled for the better part of a
decade (2003 – 15).
The progressive social welfare – neo-liberal regimes entered in crises and were ousted
by a US backed puppet regime (Macri) in 2015 which proceeded to reverse reforms, privatize the
economy and subordinate the state to US bankers and speculators.
After two years in power, the puppet regime faltered, the economy spiraled downward and
another cycle of repression and mass protest emerged. The US puppet regime's rule is tenuous,
the populace fills the streets, while the Pentagon sharpens its knives and prepares puppets to
replace their current client regime.
Conclusion
The US has not succeeded in consolidating regime changes among the large countries with mass
organizations and military supporters.
Washington has succeeded in overthrowing popular – national regimes in Brazil, and
Argentina . However, over time puppet regimes have been reversed.
While the US resorts to largely a single 'track' (military coups and invasions)in
overwhelming smaller and more vulnerable popular governments, it relies on 'multiple tracks'
strategy with regard to large and more formidable countries.
In the former cases, usually a call to the military or the dispatch of the marines is enough
to snuff an electoral democracy.
In the latter case, the US relies on a multi-proxy strategy which includes a mass media
blitz, labeling democrats as dictatorships, extremists, corrupt, security threats, etc.
As the tension mounts, regional client and European states are organized to back the local
puppets.
Phony "Presidents" are crowned by the US President whose index finger counters the vote of
millions of voters. Street demonstrations and violence paid and organized by the CIA
destabilize the economy; business elites boycott and paralyze production and distribution
Millions are spent in bribing judges and military officials.
If the regime change can be accomplished by local military satraps, the US refrains from
direct military intervention.
Regime changes among larger and wealthier countries have between one or two decades
duration. However, the switch to an electoral puppet regime may consolidate imperial power over
a longer period – as was the case of Chile.
Where there is powerful popular support for a democratic regime, the US will provide the
ideological and military support for a large-scale massacre, as was the case in Argentina.
The coming showdown in Venezuela will be a case of a bloody regime change as the US will
have to murder hundreds of thousands to destroy the millions who have life-long and deep
commitments to their social gains , their loyalty to the nation and their dignity.
In contrast the bourgeoisie, and their followers among political traitors, will seek revenge
and resort to the vilest forms of violence in order to strip the poor of their social advances
and their memories of freedom and dignity.
It is no wonder that the Venezuela masses are girding for a prolonged and decisive struggle:
everything can be won or lost in this final confrontation with the Empire and its puppets.
Did you know this information? January 18, 2019 The US Has Military Forces in Over 160
Countries, but the Pentagon Is Hiding the Exact Numbers
The US has 95% of the world's foreign military bases, with personnel in more than 160
countries. But the Pentagon is leaving hundreds of outposts out of its official reports.
The U.S. and its allies have decided to throw their weight behind yet another coup attempt
in Venezuela. As usual, they claim that their objectives are democracy and freedom. Nothing
could be farther from the truth...
On January 23rd, 2019 Venezuela's opposition leader Juan Guaidó declared himself
acting president, and called on the armed forces to disobey the government. Very few had ever
heard of this man -- he had never actually run for president. Guaidó is the head of
Venezuela's national assembly; a position very similar to speaker of the house.
Within minutes of this declaration U.S. president Donald Trump took to twitter and
recognized Guaidó as interim president of Venezuela; writing off the administration of
Nicolas Maduro as "illegitimate". U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo followed by urging
Venezuela's military to "restore democracy", affirming that the US would back Mr Guaidó
in his attempts to establish a government. They also promised
20 million dollars in "humanitarian" aid . To put this into context, Trump is on record
saying he was " Not
Going to Rule Out a Military Option " in Venezuela.
This is roughly the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi or Mitch Mcconnell declaring themselves
president, calling on the military to overthrow Trump, and having China pledge to fund and
assist the effort.
Now if you happen to be in the camp that wouldn't actually mind seeing Donald Trump forcibly
removed from office, I would encourage you to imagine replacing Trump's name with Obama, Bush,
Merkel or Macron.
You know there have been a lot of protests in France, and the Yellow Vests have demanded
that Macron step down Why don't we restore democracy in Paris?
Let's get this straight. Trump is an illegitimate president and should be removed from
office (because of Russian interference), but you're perfectly comfortable with that same
illegitimate president toppling foreign governments via twitter?
Though support for Guaidó was quickly parroted by Washington's most dependable
allies, and lauded by virtually every western media outlet, the Venezuelan military responded
by condemning the coup, and reconfirmed
their loyalty to Maduro .
That same day Pompeo announced that Elliott Abrams -- the man who oversaw regime change wars
in Nicaragua and El Salvador , was
deeply involved in the Iran Contra scandal, and who was an architect of both the Iraq war and
the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela (which culminated in the kidnapping of Maduro's predecessor
Hugo Chavez) -- would be in charge of the effort to "restore democracy and prosperity to their
country".
So why do you suppose Washington really wants regime change in Venezuela? You'd have to be
pretty naive to buy the "democracy and prosperity" drivel.
They talk about how the Venezuelan economy is in shambles, but by their own admission (
and according to the U.N. ) U.S. sanctions have played a significant role in creating that
situation.
"With respect to Libya I'm interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the
oil no interest. We have to have Look, if we have wars, we have to win the war. What we do is
take over the country and hand the keys to people who don't like us. I'll tell you what Iraq,
100% Iran takes over Iraq after we leave, and what really happens with Iraq is they want the
oil fields. And I have it on very good authority that Iran probably won't even be shooting a
bullet because they are getting along better with the Iraqi leaders better than we are. After
all of those lives, and after all of the money we spent. And if that's going to happen we
take the oil."
Maduro's predecessor Hugo Chavez nationalized the oil industry and used the proceeds to fund
his socialist vision for the country. Now you could make the case that this vision was flawed,
and horribly mismanaged, however he had strong public support for this mandate; so much support
in fact, that when U.S. backed coup plotters kidnapped Hugo Chavez in 2002 crowds took to the
streets en mass and he was quickly reinstated.
Which brings us back to Juan Guaidó. There's not much information available on Mr.
Guaidó, but if you look up the man who tapped him to lead the opposition party Voluntad
Popular you'll find Washington's fingerprints all over the place. Leopoldo Lopez, the founder
of Voluntad Popular,
orchestrated the protests in 2002 that led up to the kidnapping of Hugo Chavez .
Compared to who? Which paragon of good governance will we refer to as the model? Trump?
Theresa May? Angel Merkel? Macron? Take your time.
This isn't democracy, it's a neo-colonial power grab. Juan Guaidó never ran for the
office he claimed, and the fact that he directly colluded with a foreign nation to overthrow
the man who was elected president marks him as a traitor.
Juan Guaidó is a puppet. If installed, he will serve the interests who bought his
ticket. Venezuela's oil industry will be privatized, and the profits will be sucked out of the
country by western corporations.
What's happening in Venezuela right now is a replay of the 1973 U.S. backed coup in Chile,
where the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, was overthrown, and
replaced with the military dictatorship of Pinochet. Pinochet murdered over 3000 political
opponents during his rule, and tortured over 30,000, but he was friendly to American business
interests so Washington looked the other way.
One could make the case that Maduro is incompetent. One could make the case that his
economic theories are trash. (The same can be said for the haircuts in suits calling for his
removal.) But the reality of the matter is that unless you happen to be a Venezuelan citizen,
how Venezuela is governed is actually none of your business.
Given how things turned out in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine you'd think
people would get the hint. When it comes to spreading democracy, you suck. U.S. regime change
operations have left nothing but chaos, death and destruction in their wake. If you want to
make the world a better place, maybe, just maybe, you should start at home.
Venezuelan officials have announced the seizure of a large shipment of American weapons
which they say were bound for anti-Maduro "terrorist groups" . This comes following US national
security advisor John Bolton's pledge to deliver "humanitarian aid" into the country, covertly
if need be, despite embattled President Nicolas Maduro's vow to prevent such unauthorized
shipments from entering.
Sanctions without an approval by UN are criminal and represent a war crime.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia shows no signs of abandoning its increasingly beleaguered and isolated ally. Mr. Putin has called Mr. Maduro to relay his support for the regime, and Russian officials reacted angrily to President Trump's suggestion Sunday that U.S. military action was an option to resolve the crisis. ..."
"... "The international community's goal should be to help [ Venezuela ], without destructive meddling from beyond its borders," Alexander Shchetinin, head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Latin American department, told the Interfax news agency Monday. ..."
"... Russia has repeatedly opposed U.S. suggestions of foreign intervention to install opposition leader Juan Guaido as Venezuela 's interim president, and supported Mr. Maduro 's calls for mediation on the crisis. ..."
"... But with Mr. Maduro defying calls to step down, the Russian mission may be more extensive than reported, said John Marulanda, a U.S.-trained intelligence officer and adviser to conservative Colombian President Ivan Duque, an opponent of Mr. Maduro . Mr. Marulanda said the recent Russian arrivals are special forces -- Spetsnaz -- who are being embedded among Venezuela 's elite military units to better resist any U.S. intervention or internal coup against Mr. Maduro . ..."
Under anti-U.S. populist leader Hugo Chavez, Mr. Maduro 's late predecessor and
political mentor, Russia became one of Venezuela 's strongest allies with
economic ties including crude oil, loans and arms sales. That helps explain why Moscow has emerged as one of Mr. Maduro 's most
vocal defenders and one of the biggest critics of the pressure campaign waged by Washington and a number of
countries in Latin America.
The pressure grew Monday as France, Germany, Britain and 13 other European countries
announced that they were withdrawing their recognition of Mr. Maduro and called for new
national elections as soon as possible. The EU powers held off in joining the U.S. pressure
campaign to see whether Venezuela would agree to new
elections. "We are working for the return of full democracy in Venezuela : human rights, elections and
no more political prisoners," Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez told reporters in Madrid on
Monday.
But Russia shows
no signs of abandoning its increasingly beleaguered and isolated ally. Mr. Putin has called Mr. Maduro to relay his support for
the regime, and Russian officials reacted angrily to President Trump's suggestion Sunday that
U.S. military action was an option to resolve the crisis.
"The international community's goal should be to help [ Venezuela ], without destructive meddling
from beyond its borders," Alexander Shchetinin, head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's Latin
American department, told the Interfax news agency Monday.
Russia has
repeatedly opposed U.S. suggestions of foreign intervention to install opposition leader Juan
Guaido as Venezuela 's interim president, and
supported Mr.
Maduro 's calls for mediation on the crisis.
The arrival of 400 Russian military contractors after Mr. Trump's Jan. 23 recognition of Mr.
Guaido, the head of the National Assembly, triggered speculation that Moscow was reinforcing Mr. Maduro 's personal security
or even preparing his evacuation.
But with Mr.
Maduro defying calls to step down, the Russian mission may be more extensive than reported,
said John Marulanda, a U.S.-trained intelligence officer and adviser to conservative Colombian
President Ivan Duque, an opponent of Mr. Maduro . Mr. Marulanda said the
recent Russian arrivals are special forces -- Spetsnaz -- who are being embedded among
Venezuela 's
elite military units to better resist any U.S. intervention or internal coup against Mr. Maduro .
The strong support for Venezuela has another motive for
Moscow , analysts
say: to increase the diplomatic, economic and military cost of any campaign by Washington to oust
Mr. Maduro
.
Joseph Humire, a lecturer for the U.S. Army's 7th Special Forces Group, said in an interview
that Russia wants to
"draw the U.S. into a quagmire," which Mr. Maduro has warned that would be
"worse than Vietnam."
Venezuelan Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino recently announced that he was inviting Russian
combat pilots who fought in Syria's civil war to "share their experience" with Venezuela's air
force. Playing the long game
Mr. Marulanda said Moscow is playing a long-term game aimed at
pressuring the U.S. along its southern borders to counter NATO moves along Russia 's border with the Baltic states
and Ukraine. Recent visits to Venezuela by nuclear-capable Tupolev 106
strategic bombers represented a clear show of force and support.
" Russia wants to
at least have a 'symbolic involvement' in Latin America as payback for U.S. intervention in the
[Russian] 'Near Abroad,'" Vladimir Rouvinski, a foreign policy analyst at Icesi University in
Colombia, recently told the Al Jazeera news website.
Then there's the money aspect.
Venezuela ,
with the world's largest proven oil reserves helping fill government coffers, is Russia 's second-biggest arms
client after India, the Pentagon said. U.S. analysts calculate that Caracas has purchased more
than $11 billion in Russian hardware over the past decade.
Acquisitions include high-performance Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jets equipped with cruise-type
BrahMos missiles; Mi-35m attack helicopters; surface-to-air SS-200 and Pechorev missile
batteries; T-72 tanks; and production plants for AK-103 rifles.
Russia is also
building a cyberwarfare base on the island of Orchila off Venezuela 's northern coast operated by
Cuban technicians. Through military leverage, Russia has gained major oil concessions in
mainly offshore drilling blocs between Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago.
Russia is interested
in keeping Venezuelan oil production at reduced levels to maintain high world prices for its
own oil, energy analysts say.
Russian companies also have been using Venezuela to penetrate the U.S. and other
energy markets closed off to them by sanctions. Russia 's main state oil company, Rosneft,
has lent $6 billion to Venezuela in recent years through
negotiations in which Venezuela 's state-owned oil firm, PDVSA,
offered its U.S. subsidiary, Citgo, as collateral, according to U.S. intelligence sources.
The Trump administration has tried
to head off such maneuvers by placing PDVSA's U.S.-based assets under control of the
alternative government that Mr. Guaido is trying to form.
Some say the Kremlin isn't looking for a "win" in Venezuela so much as it is trying to
entangle the Trump administration in
another long, grinding foreign policy crisis with no resolution in sight.
"It would demonstrate the failure of the American strategy of unlawful regime change and the
success of the Russian line of supporting legitimate power," Vladimir Frolov, a Russian foreign
policy analyst, wrote in a recent commentary on the Republic.ru news website.
Mr. Marulanda said Russia is building an anti-U.S. "tripod" in
the Caribbean region linking leftist governments in Venezuela , Cuba and Nicaragua. The strategy is unlikely
to please military planners in Washington .
" Russia has
taken a big gamble," said Evan Ellis, a Latin America specialist with the U.S. Army War
College.
"If Maduro falls, Moscow 's position in the Western
Hemisphere would collapse, as its other allies would soon be equally pressured by democratic
revolts."
This reminds me EuroMaydan. Poland, Sweden and Germany were very active promoters of opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... Imposing some decisions or trying to legitimize an attempt to usurp power, in our view, is both direct and indirect interference in the internal affairs of Venezuela," ..."
The UK, France, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Netherlands,
Germany, Portugal,among a number of countries, have announced their recognition of Juan Guaido
as Venezuela's interim president Domino effect ensues as EU leaders line up to recognise
Venezuela's Guaido
Europe has begun turning its back on Venezuela's incumbent president, Nicolas Maduro, after
he missed his Sunday deadline to call for presidential elections to take place. One by one, European leaders publicly announced their recognition of National Assembly chief,
Juan Guaido, as the country's interim president. But according to Reuters , diplomatic sources said Italy blocked a joint EU position to
recognise Guido as the interim leader, as the government in Rome is deeply divided over the
issue.
Italy
vetoed EU recognition of Venezuelan opposition leader Guaido
4 Feb, 2019
Rome has effectively derailed an EU statement meant to recognize
Juan Guaido as Venezuela's interim leader if President Nicolas Maduro fails to set up snap
elections, a Five Star Movement source confirmed to RT. Italy announced the veto at an informal
meeting of EU foreign ministers that started on January 31 in Romania, the source said. The
statement, which was supposed to be delivered by EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini
recognized Guaido as interim president if snap elections were not held.
EU states' recognition of Guaido is 'direct interference' in Venezuela's affairs –
Kremlin
Moscow slammed EU states for trying to legitimize "an attempt to usurp power" in
Venezuela after a number of key European countries recognized opposition figure Juan Guaido as
interim president. " Imposing some decisions or trying to legitimize an attempt to usurp
power, in our view, is both direct and indirect interference in the internal affairs of
Venezuela," Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, told the media
on Monday, while commenting on the recognition of Guaido.
The freezing of Venezuelan gold by the Bank of England is a signal to all countries out of
step with US interests to withdraw their money, according to economist and co-founder of
Democracy at Work, Professor Richard Wolff. He told RT America that Britain and its central
bank have shown themselves to be "under the thumb of the United States."
"That is a signal to every country that has or may have difficulties with the US, [that
they had] better get their money out of England and out of London because it's not the safe
place as it once was," he said.
This was true in 2015 for Syria. Now this is true for Venezuela... So one can expect iether chemical attack opposition from Madura
government or "Snipergate" in EuroMaydan style. Or may some some more sophisticated, more nasty "false flag" operation in British style
like Skripal poisoning.
It will be interesting if Madura manage to survive despite the pressute...
Notable quotes:
"... Sorry but you're wrong. The funding a training of rebel forces by the west has done exactly what is was intended to do, mainly destabilise an entire region, sell billions in extra arms, introduce extra anti-terrorism laws in the west, create more fear and panic, then destabilise Europe through the mass-migration. This was the plan and it worked! ..."
"... To the great disappointment of those of us who voted for Obama, the first time out of hope for change, and the second time out of fear for someone even worse, he is a weak and chameleonic leader whose policies are determined by the strongest willed person in the room. Recall that he was also "talked into" bombing Libya! ..."
"... This isn't Bay of Pigs; its a bloated military trying to figure out what to do with its extra cash. Financially, it doesn't matter if the program is a failure. The cost is minuscule for the budget they have. ..."
"... Bush reached the Oval Office not because he was bright, for indeed he was not, he reached the Oval Office because he was dumb enough not to realise he was clearly easily manipulated, believed in neoliberalism and was rich and rich backers and a rich Dad. ..."
"... In Iran, we have a saying which says; take off a Mullah's turban and you will find the words "Made in England" stamped on his head. ..."
"... ISIS/ISIL is a creation of the US in an attempt to remove Assad. The long-term goal being to isolate Iran before going in there for the natural resources. ..."
"... The White House statement specifically refers to the "Syrian opposition". That's the term we use to describe anti-government forces. This recruitment and training programme has gone awry because the people originally recruited would have been anti-Assad. Now the Obama administration has tried to change the same people to fighting to ISIS instead. No wonder there's only "four to five" left. This is one big fustercluck! ..."
"... The CIA has probably been the greatest destabalising force in the world since the second world war and seem like more a subsidiary of the weapons trade than a government department. ..."
Why does the US continually send deadly weapons to the Middle East, make things even more chaotic than they were before and expect
better results the next time?
As pretty much everyone who was paying attention predicted, the $500m program to train and arm "moderate"
Syrian rebels is an unmitigated, Bay of Pigs-style disaster, with the head of US central command
admitting to Congress this week that the year-old
program now only has "four or five" rebels fighting inside Syria, with dozens
more killed or captured.
Even more bizarre, the White House is
claiming little to do with it. White House spokesman Josh Earnest attempted to distance Obama from the program, claiming that
it was actually the president's "critics" who "were wrong." The
New York Times reported, "In effect, Mr Obama is arguing that he reluctantly went along with those who said it was the way to
combat the Islamic State, but that he never wanted to do it and has now has been vindicated in his original judgment."
This bizarre "I was peer pressured into sending more weapons into the Middle East" argument by the president is possibly the most
blatant example of blame shifting in recent memory, since he had every opportunity to speak out against it, or veto the bill. Instead,
this is what
Obama said at the time: "I am pleased that Congress...have now voted to support a key element of our strategy: our plan to train
and equip the opposition in Syria."
But besides the fact that he clearly did support the policy at the time, it's ridiculous for another reason: years before Congress
approved the $500m program to arm the Syrian rebels, the CIA had been running its own separate Syrian rebel-arming program since
at least 2012. It was
reported prominently by the New York Times
at the time and approved by the president.
In fact, just before Congress voted, Senator Tom Udall
told Secretary of State
John Kerry, who was testifying in front of the foreign relations committee, "Everybody's well aware there's been a covert operation,
operating in the region to train forces, moderate forces, to go into Syria and to be out there, that we've been doing this the last
two years." In true Orwellian fashion, Kerry responded
at the time: "I
hate to do this. But I can't confirm or deny whatever that's been written about and I can't really go into any kind of possible program."
Also conveniently ignored by Congress and those advocating for arming the rebels was a
classified
study the CIA did at the time showing that arming rebel factions against sitting governments almost always ends in disaster or
tragedy.
You'd think whether or not the current weapons-running program was effective or whether any similar program ever was would
have been a key factor in the debate. But alas, the CIA program is never mentioned, not by politicians, and not by journalists. It's
just been conveniently forgotten.
It is true that perhaps the best advocate for why we never should've armed the Syrian rebels to begin with came from President
Obama himself. He told the
New Yorker in early 2014 that "you have an opposition that is disorganized, ill-equipped, ill-trained and is self-divided. All
of that is on top of some of the sectarian divisions." Critically,
he cited that same above-mentioned
classified study:
Very early in this process, I actually asked the CIA to analyze examples of America financing and supplying arms to an insurgency
in a country that actually worked out well. And they couldn't come up with much.
He didn't mention the CIA's already-active weapons-running program. Why he didn't stick to his guns since he supposedly was weary
of getting the US military involved in yet another quagmire
it could not get out of is beyond anyone's comprehension. Instead, he supported Congress's measure to create yet another program
that sent even more weapons to the war-torn region.
Per usual, Republicans are taking the entirely wrong lessons from this disaster, arguing that if only there was more force then
everything would've worked out. Marco Rubio exclaimed
during the GOP presidential debate on Wednesday that if we armed the rebels earlier like he allegedly wanted, before
voting against arming them when he had the chance then the program would've worked out. Like seemingly everyone else in this
debate, Rubio has decided to ignore the actual facts.
Sadly, instead of a debate about whether we should continue sending weapons to the Middle East at all, we'll probably hear arguments
that we should double down in Syria in the coming days and get US troops more cemented into a war we can call our own (that still
to this day has not been authorized by Congress). There are already reports that there are
US special operations forces on the ground in Syria
now, assisting Kurdish forces who are also fighting Isis.
When the vicious and tragic cycle will end is anyone's guess. But all signs point to: not anytime soon.
Oliver2014 19 Sep 2015 21:27
" Why does the US continually send deadly weapons to the Middle East, make things even more chaotic than they were before and
expect better results the next time? "
Because the US doesn't understand the culture of the people it meddles with.
The US goes in with a messianic belief in the righteousness of its objective. This objective is framed in naive terms to convince
itself and the people that it's motives are benevolent - such as "we must fight communism" or "we will bring democracy to Iraq"
or "Saddam Hussein is an evil man who uses chemical weapons on his own people and hence must be ousted" or "Assad is an evil man
who is fighting a civil war with his own people".
As a superpower it feels compelled to interfere in conflicts lest it be seen as impotent. When it does not interfere, as in
WW2, things do indeed get out of control. So it's damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.
The CIA did not understand Afghan history of fighting off invaders when it was arming the Mujaheddin and that after the Soviets
were defeated it would perceive the Americans as invaders and not as liberators who were there to bring them democracy and teach
them that growing poppy was bad. (Like alcohol in the 1930s, a national addiction problem cannot be solved on the supply side
- as the CIA and DEA learnt in South America.)
Bush Sr. was right when he left Saddam alone after bloodying his nose for invading Kuwait because he understood that Saddam
was playing a vital Tito-esque role in keeping his country and the neighborhood in check. He had no WMDs but wanted his adversaries
in the region to believe otherwise. If Saddam were alive today we wouldn't have an Iraq problem, an ISIS problem, an Iran problem
and a Syria problem.
Smedley Butler 19 Sep 2015 21:12
"Why he didn't stick to his guns since he supposedly was weary of getting the US military involved in yet another quagmire
it could not get out of is beyond anyone's comprehension."
Maybe it's because he hasn't stuck to his guns on anything during the entire time he's been President. He always takes the
path of least resistance, the easy way out, and a "conservative-lite" position that tries to satisfy everyone and actually satisfies
no one.
What an utter disappointment.
DavidEG 19 Sep 2015 20:01
The Machiavellian machinations of the empire become less relevant with every passing day. It's Europeans now who are eating
sweet fruits of "mission accomplished". And they may rebel, and kick out last remnants of their "unity", and sacred NATO alliance
alongside.
PamelaKatz AndyMcCarthy 19 Sep 2015 18:33
Obama said the US would take 10,000 Syrian refugees. When I heard this, I thought surely a zero must be missing from this figure.
And what no one has publicly mentioned is the immigration process for these few will require at least a year of investigative
background checks.
PamelaKatz jvillain 19 Sep 2015 18:15
The largest manufacturers and global distributors of weaponry are the US, the UK, France, Russia and China, in that order.......
also known as the 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council. One should read the UN Charter, which states the purpose and
parameters for forming this international organization. The word 'irony' comes to mind.
ID108738 19 Sep 2015 17:36
Saddam Hussein was a friend while he gassed the Iranians, then he invaded Kuwait; as long as Bin Laden fought the Russians,
he was tolerated and funded; now there's Syria. The only thing needed to take the strategy to new levels of idiocy was a compliant
nincompoop as prime minister in Britain. Will they ever learn?
Toi Jon 19 Sep 2015 17:27
The US understands how to create a market for their military hardware industry but has never understood how their interference
in the Middle East creates mass human misery.
Samantha Stevens 19 Sep 2015 17:09
Quite simply the US is breaking international law by doing this. Every time they do it the world ends up with another shit
storm. If they cannot behave responsibly they should be removed from the security council of the UN. Same goes for the Russians
and any other power abusing their position.
Syria may not have been the epitome of humanity before being destabilised but it is certainly worse now. The same is true of Iraq.
In fact have the US successfully overturned any government they deem un-American (LOL) without it leading to a civil war?
Andy Freeman 19 Sep 2015 17:06
Sorry but you're wrong. The funding a training of rebel forces by the west has done exactly what is was intended to do,
mainly destabilise an entire region, sell billions in extra arms, introduce extra anti-terrorism laws in the west, create more
fear and panic, then destabilise Europe through the mass-migration. This was the plan and it worked!
People will call for a solution, the solution will be tighter integration in Europe, the abolition of national governments,
the removal of cash to stop payments to "terrorists", more draconian spying laws, less from and eventually compulsory registration
and ID for all Europeans.
Meanwhile, we'll have a few more false flag attacks supposedly caused by the refugees and more fear in the news. Open your
eyes
Laurie Calhoun 19 Sep 2015 16:49
"Why he didn't stick to his guns..." Not the most felicitous metaphor in this case, but here is the answer to your question:
To the great disappointment of those of us who voted for Obama, the first time out of hope for change, and the second time
out of fear for someone even worse, he is a weak and chameleonic leader whose policies are determined by the strongest willed
person in the room. Recall that he was also "talked into" bombing Libya!
Sad but true. For more details on how this works, read Daniel Klaidman's book Kill or Capture: The war on terror and the soul
of the Obama presidency.
after the libya disaster the US should have abandoned plans for regim change in syria.
and the US missed a golden opportunity to recitfy what had already become a syria disaster by allowing turkey and the ludicrous
SNC to so thoroughly undermine the Geneva talks.
The U.S and U.K's commitment should be to those in Iraq. Secure, rebuild and invest in helping that Nation come with the
best solution to a, rid itself of ISIS, b, be able to stay that way, c have a government that is inclusive to the needs of
the Sunni's, Shia's and Kurds
Just as I thought that you can not surpass yourself in writing stupid comments, and you are immediately reassured me.
Thus, the US and the UK spent nearly ten years in Iraq and failed to make any of this what you write, but but the whole mess practically
they themselves have created. And now you're saying that if the US and UK troops returned again to Iraq they will be able to fix
everything that they had previously screwed and to create an "inclusive society" of Iraq. So, if the US and UK troops set foot
again on the soil of Iraq, it will be the strongest reason for Iraqi Sunnis to reject the inclusion in the Iraqi society. Iraqi
officials themselves are aware of this very well, and for that reason they are the first to oppose such an intervention.
BAGHDAD - Iraq's prime minister strongly rejected the idea of the U.S. or other nations sending ground forces to his country
to help fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, saying Wednesday that foreign troops are "out of the question."...
Al-Abadi, a Shiite lawmaker who faces the enormous task of trying to hold Iraq together as a vast array of forces threaten
to rip it apart, welcomed the emerging international effort, but stressed that he sees no need for other nations to send troops
to help fight ISIS.
"Not only is it not necessary," he said, "We don't want them. We won't allow them. Full stop."
"The only contribution the American forces or the international coalition is going to help us with is from the sky," al-Abadi
said. "We are not giving any blank check to the international coalition to hit any target in Iraq."
He said that the Iraqi military will choose and approve targets, and that the U.S. will not take action without consulting
with Baghdad first. Failure to do so, he warned, risks causing civilian casualties like in Pakistan and Yemen, where the U.S.
has conducted drone strikes for years.
Well, Well, whether i notice here distrust even of Iraqi Shiites toward the US Air Force. On the other hand, they want to strengthen
friendship with neighboring governments in Syria and Iran: ;
Al-Abadi,
however, said that Iraq doesn't have the luxury of testy relations with Damascus, and instead pushed for some sort of coordination.
"We cannot afford to fight our neighbor, even if we disagree on many things," al-Abadi said. "We don't want to enter into
problems with them. For us sovereignty of Syria is very important." The two countries, both of which are allies of Iran, appear
to already be coordinating on some level, and Iraq's national security adviser met Tuesday with Assad in the Syrian capital,
where the two agreed to strengthen cooperation in fighting "terrorism," according to Syria's state news agency.
The U.S. hopes to pull together a broad coalition to help defeat the extremist group, but has ruled out cooperating with
neighboring Iran or Syria, both of which also view ISIS as a threat. Both countries were excluded from a conference this week
in Paris that brought the U.S., France and other allies together to discuss how to address the militant threat.
Al-Abadi said that excluding Damascus and Tehran was counterproductive.
So, it is obvious that the Iraqi government is not against inclusion, but they're for such inclusion, which will exclude the US
and UK of interfering in their internal affairs. I think it is a good step towards reconciliation with their Sunni brothers because
they also seem to support such a thing. And if they managed to do it, maybe Ukrainians will also draw some lesson from it and
be able to reconcile with their brothers Russians.
Ieuan ytrewq 19 Sep 2015 14:04
ytrewq said: "USSR and China supplied a lot of support and material to N. Vietnam."
Very true.
However the Viet Minh were formed and initially supplied by OSS (later called the CIA) forces from the US. In fact Ho Chi Min
had a naive hope that the US would support him in his struggle against foreign occupation of the country after the war (French
colonialism) and made several appeals to President Truman for help (all of which were ignored).
Instead of which, the US supported the French, so Ho asked around and got help from the Russians and Chinese. The rest we know.
marginline AndyMcCarthy 19 Sep 2015 13:54
The UK and France [...], they destroyed Libya.
The causality of which led to an Islamic terror attack on June 26th, 2015 ten kilometers north of the city of Sousse, Tunisia,
where thirty-eight people; thirty of whom were British - were murdered.
sashasmirnoff JoJo McJoJo 19 Sep 2015 13:40
The US is always wrong, and always responsible for every bad thing that happens on Earth.
They are always wrong, and are indeed responsible for almost every geopolitical disaster, usually a result of overthrowing
governments and installing their own tyrant, or else leaving a vacuum that Islamists fill.
Zaarth 19 Sep 2015 13:34
This $500m program cost less than 0.1% of the US annual defense budget. When you're dealing with sums of money as obscenely
large as the US spends on its military, its inevitable that huge quantities will be wasted because you've passed the point where
there's worthwhile things to spend it on. This isn't Bay of Pigs; its a bloated military trying to figure out what to do with
its extra cash. Financially, it doesn't matter if the program is a failure. The cost is minuscule for the budget they have.
In recent years the right has been very concerned with balancing the national budget and shrinking debt. They're willing to
cut spending for social programs and research, but god forbid you take money away from the military. It just wouldn't be patriotic.
marginline -> GeneralMittens 19 Sep 2015 13:14
Great summary GeneralMittens. You have expressed in layman's terms the facts eluded to by journalist Mehdi Hasan when he quantified
the depth of the strategic disaster the Iraq war actually was or, as the Conservative minister Kenneth Clarke put it back in
a 2013 BBC radio discussion...
the most disastrous foreign policy decision of my lifetime [ ] worse than Suez
The invasion and occupation of Iraq undermined the moral standing of the western powers; empowered Iran and its proxies; heightened
the threat from al-Qaeda at home and abroad; and sent a clear signal to 'rogue' regimes that the best (the only?) means of deterring
a preemptive, US-led attack was to acquire weapons of mass destruction. [ ] Iraq has been destroyed and hundreds of thousands
of innocent people have lost their lives, as the direct result of an unnecessary, unprovoked war that, according to the former
chief justice Lord Bingham, was a...
serious violation of international law
This leads me to the conclusion and I apologies for flogging this dead horse yet again BUT...why are Bush and Bliar not being
detained at The Hague?
Ieuan 19 Sep 2015 12:45
" I actually asked the CIA to analyze examples of America financing and supplying arms to an insurgency in a country that actually
worked out well."
Well, they (the OSS at the time) supplied arms and training to the Viet Minh. When they were fighting the Japanese. Which worked
out well, when they were only fighting the Japanese.
But when they used their expertise (and the arms they had left over) to carry on fighting the French, and later the Americans
themselves, it worked out very well for the Viet Minh, not so well for the French and Americans.
GangZhouEsq 19 Sep 2015 12:27
The first President Bush, who decided not to topple President Saddam Hussein after routing his military forces out of Kuwait,
and instead to leave him in power for the sake of the Middle East stability is, in retrospect, probably the wisest foreign policy
decision ever made by the 41st President, thanks not only to his own personal judgment but also to his foreign policy aides' wisdom.
Though it is now too late for the son to learn from his father, it is still not too late for the present administration to learn
a thing or two from the former senior President Bush.
twoheadednightingale 19 Sep 2015 12:25
Nice to read an article coming at the war from this angle, seems like people are finally starting to question the effectiveness
US foreign policy - ie bombing for peace. However the article is fairly nieve in places - like who actually believes the president
of the US has control over all its intelligence agencies? JFK told the world in april '61, not long after the CIA had set him
up over the bay of pigs and months before being assassinated exactly that. So enough of the 'blame the president' bullshit, it
doesn't get to the root of the problem
GangZhouEsq 19 Sep 2015 12:17
The last major armament, including heavy guns, tanks and armored personnel carriers, as sent by the United States to the now
notoriously incompetent Iraqi military forces is now reportedly in the hands of ISIS after these US-trained Iraqi military personnel
simply abandoned their posts of defense and deserted for their own dear lives, thus leaving the centuries-old, formerly safe haven
of Mosul for Iraqi Christians to the mercy of ISIS. See "60 Minutes", Sunday, September 13, 2015, "Iraq's Christians", at
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/iraqs-christians-the-shooting-at-chardon-high-king-of-crossfit.
pfox33 19 Sep 2015 12:04
The fact that Putin is coming to Assad's aid is a game-changer that the US was unprepared for. For one thing, it's highlighted
how inconsequential US efforts to bolster "moderate" rebels and degrade ISIS capabilities have been.
From the time it was reported that the Russians were upgrading an airbase at Latakia to the time that it was reported that
they had dispatched helicopters and jets and that the Syrians had started to take the fight to ISIS in Raqqah and Palmyra was
only a matter of weeks. The CIA's program, after a year, had produced five soldiers at a cost of 500 million.
Previously the US had free reign over Syrian skies as did Israel who would bomb what they deemed to be convoys of military
supplies for Hezbollah. Things aren't so free and easy now with the Russians in town. And both the Americans and Israelis now
realize they have to check in with them before them they make sorties over northern Syria.
It's fairly obvious, to me anyway, that the US and Israel's only endgame was the fall of Assad and that ISIS had their tacit
approval. Assad's good relations with Iran and Hezbollah meant he was a marked man. Putin, as is his wont, has complicated their
plans and the results are yet to be seen.
BradfordChild TastySalmon 19 Sep 2015 11:58
"Iraq, Libya, Syria. What do/did these countries have in common? Unfriendly leaders who want nothing to do with the US."
Actually, Gaddafi had shown an interest in engaging with the West-- happened under Bush, but was never really followed up on.
Still, it was headed in a more positive direction until Obama rather arbitrarily decided that Gaddafi had to go.
The real net effect of US intervention in the Middle East has been to destabilize Europe.
Tony Page bravo7490 19 Sep 2015 11:32
I would agree but, as a former intelligence professional, I'd remind you that there's always a story behind the story. Not
that it's a "good" story! But more must be going on there...
ByThePeople 19 Sep 2015 11:12
"Why does the US continually send deadly weapons to the Middle East, make things even more chaotic than they were before and
expect better results the next time?"
It depends on how you define better. To think that these ops take place with the intent to solve an issue is naive, they don't.
You state yourself that the CIA freely admits it's never worked.
The reason the United States funds and arms groups in the Middle East is that 9 times out of 10, these same groups are then
later labeled 'terrorists' and a new US war campaign is justified.
It's not about solving problems - unless the problem being solved is: How do we create more opportunities to half-ass justify
engaging in another war effort so the US coffers can be continuously raped.
Iraq is the perfect example of succeeding in achieving this goal. Years before the Iraq war ever began, US war planners knew
that a power vacuum, attracting the likes of Al-Qaeda and or ISIS would subsequently result. Thus, providing a for a second war,
derived from the first seemingly pointless invasion. The Iraq plan worked fabulously as not only did the newly created enemy materialize,
they also became a much more formidable enemy once they conveniently came into possession of all the military equipment we let
behind.
Point is, they wouldn't continue implementing all these operations if the goal wasn't being achieved.
I will add too - McCain and Co. clamored so hard to arm the al-Assad opposition McCain might as well have claimed that if we
did not, then America would be blown up in its entirety in 48 hours the same as all the other fear mongering done in a effort
to continue the war efforts. Who knows, maybe he did, I try not to listen to him anymore - he needs to be put out to pasture.
TastySalmon 19 Sep 2015 11:10
Iraq, Libya, Syria. What do/did these countries have in common? Unfriendly leaders who want nothing to do with the US.
To suggest that funding radicals to overthrow these governments is a "whoops" or something that will never work is completely
wrong. The plan has worked exactly as planned: destabilize the region by promoting dissent, covertly arm and fund "rebels" through
back-channels (Saudi, UAE, Turkey, etc.), create a new boogeyman (ISIS), and reforge alliances with enemies (AQ) who will then
turn on us again in the future.
The goal is to flatten Syria, and it seems to be working out very well. When you consider what the ultimate outcome will be,
it starts becoming fairly clear: push Russia into a corner militarily and economically, open new LNG pipelines, appease allied
caliphates, and put billions of dollars into the pockets of the wealthiest people.
Their policy is chaotic and consists of repeating the same thing over and over again hoping to get different results, which
is, as we all know, the definition of madness.
I think the problem may well be the bloated MIC in the US. Too many strategic game plans for to many, often contradictory ends.
There are no doubt there are intelligence analysts in the US MIC who have a genuine interest in collecting actual information
and present it honestly. The numerous leaks show us this.
The problem is, this often good information, once it's been spun through political/economic vested interests, think tanks,
cold war jar head imperialists and so forth, it (foreign policy) ends up complete fubar.
To the point where, as you rightly say imo, their foreign policy looks like nothing more than "malicious wily manipulators,
deliberately buggering up the world to make money out of the consequences."
david wright 19 Sep 2015 10:49
For a full century now, from the Balfour Declaration and the secret Sykes-Picot arrangement, the currently-top 'Western' dog
(UK; then US) has been meddling and futzing around in the Middle East, notionally in someone's 'National Interest.'
Oil, access to Empire (route to India etc) and 'national prestige' have been the usual excuses. The result has been unmitigated
disaster.
Ignoring everything up to Gulf 1 (1991) we've a quarter century century of determined scoring of own-goals. This shows no sign
of changing. This is a helter-skelter race to destruction, greatly presently aided and abetted by Asad. So far, it's lasted two-and-a-half
times longer than the combined lengths of both World Wars.
One conclusion is that by any rational assessment, we don't deserve to 'win', whatever that would constitute, any more than
did one side or the other in the 16th -17th century's European religious wars. An equally rational assessment is that we neither
have, nor can. The final rational conclusion, that we find a way to disengage - remarkably simply, by stopping doing all the things
we have been - is a fence refused by the relevant horses - again, mainly US and (as very eager, jr partner indeed) UK.All apart
from the monstrous outcomes for the people in the region, we destabilize our own security then make things worse by tightening
our own internal 'security' at the expense of civil liberties. This gives away, at no gain, the slow and scrabbling accretion
of these, over centuries. And Cameron and co remain sufficiently delusional to want to keep on bombing, but whatever toys they
have, whatever seems a good idea on the day. How can we win? the war isn't on 'terror', but ion logic. Ours. |Neither the US nor
UK governments have ever shown much interest in the fates of the millions of people their casual actions have ended, or made hell.
Of the multiple ironies (shall I count the ways?) attending all this is that Saddam, while a murderous thug, and no friend to
his own people, was doing for us, for free, what we've been unable to do for ourselves - keep Iraq al-Quaida free. AS to his murderous
propensities, clearly far fewer of his people (alone) would have been killed had we not intervened, than we have directly or indirectly
killed. Much of this stems from the fact that during the same recent period (1991 on) there has been no effective counter to Western
power and inclination, which has simply projectile-vomited its baneful influence. Ironic too that the reason we armed and greatly
helped create al-Quaida was to destabilize Russia by getting it bogged down in Afghanistan. Thus the only real fear which limited
US action, was removed when that policy was successful. We removed the brakes as the train was beginning to accelerate down the
incline. Wheeee!
teaandchocolate smifee 19 Sep 2015 10:47
Bush reached the Oval Office not because he was bright, for indeed he was not, he reached the Oval Office because he was
dumb enough not to realise he was clearly easily manipulated, believed in neoliberalism and was rich and rich backers and a rich
Dad.
As to "not having a serious mark against his name", forgive me if I laugh hysterically while crying with pain.
The least said about the moron Reagan and his jolly pal Thatcher the better. Oh how well their unregulated market shenanigans
have turned out.
Crackpots the lot of them.
LethShibbo AndyMcCarthy 19 Sep 2015 10:35
Doing nothing and minding your own business is kinda the same thing.
And the civil war in Syria isn't purely a result of what happened in neighbouring Iraq.
What you're essentially saying is 'America, you've started this fire. Now let it burn.'
pansapians DrDrug 19 Sep 2015 10:28
Well of course ISIS were miffed that the U.S. was paying lip service to not arming ISIS. If you think there was ever any serious
difference between the FSA and ISIS then I hear that the Queen having to sell Buckingham palace due to losses gambling on corgi
races and I can get you a good deal for a cash sale
IrateHarry Havingalavrov 19 Sep 2015 10:17
Make Iraq work first..
ROFLMFAO...
Iraq has been so thoroughly screwed over by the UKUSA clusterfuck, there is no chance of it working ever again.
AndyMcCarthy LethShibbo 19 Sep 2015 10:12
Sorry, the US doesn't HAVE to make a choice, do nothing or bomb. All the US needs to do is mind it's own business.
We wouldn't be having this refugee crises if the US hadn't invaded Iraq.
Tomasgolfer 19 Sep 2015 10:10
For a little insight, see "The Red Line and the Rat Line", by Seymour M. Hersh. Published in the
London Review of Books
The US (and the UK and France for that matter) has been openly arming and training the "rebels". The US had a vote in congress
to openly do just that last year. Covertly, they've been doing it since 2012, again this has been well reported and admitted to.
The problem for the US is their so called "moderates" don't exist. They either switch allegiance once back in Syria or end
up captured or killed just as quickly.
Your user name seems somewhat of a parody.
ArtofLies richardoxford 19 Sep 2015 10:00
How does that compute ?
it computes once one answers this slightly naive question from the article
Why does the US continually send deadly weapons to the Middle East, make things even more chaotic than they were before
and expect better results the next time?
surely at some point people have to realise that chaos is the result the US is looking for.
IrateHarry 19 Sep 2015 09:56
Why does the US continually send deadly weapons to the Middle East
Because that is the backbone business of America - making and selling deadly weapons. Deadlier the better, and no matter whom
they are supplied to. If foreign governments don't buy, does not matter, just supply it to "rebels", and they will be paid for
by the tax payers across the west (not just the American ones, NATO has been set up as the mechanism to tap into European tax
payers as well).
The rest of the bullshit like democracy, freedom, etc are marketeers' crap.
No wonder there's only "four to five" left. This is one big fustercluck!
There was a report in the NY Times last year by a reporter who was kidnapped by the FSA (his mission was to find them and find
out who they were) and handed straight over to Al-Nusra. Twice. He was imprisoned and tortured by them.
In his revealing report, talking of the couple of days he spent back with the "FSA", his release having been negotiated by
the west, he asked the "FSA" fighters about the training they received from the US in Jordan. The reporter put it to the fighters
that the training was to fight AN/IS. Their response? "We lied to the Americans about that".
The WSJ also recently reported that the CIA mission to arm/train "moderates/FSA" had gone totally tits up. Most of them reported
as defecting to one of the number of more extreme groups, some having been captured or killed.
It's been clear for about 2 years now that these so called "moderates" only exist in the deluded minds of western policy makers.
JacobHowarth MushyP8 19 Sep 2015 09:51
ISIS do not control that large a number of people. Many Kurds are fleeing because of IS, that's true, but for the most part
the civil war is a horror show from both sides and Syrians are - rightly - getting the hell out of there.
Or are all of those 'taking advantage of the opportunity to move to Europeans [sic] countries' proposing to do so by going
to Lebanon and Jordan?
The suspiciously unasked questions as to motives of all parties at Benghazi, by all twelve (12) members of the Select Committee,
suggests collaboration to question Hillary Clinton to make her appear responsible only for bungling security and rescue, for the
sole purpose of diverting attention from Hillary Clinton's role in the CIA and the CIA operative Ambassador Stevens' arming of
terrorists. The obvious question to ask would have gone to motives: "What activities were Stevens and the CIA engaged in, when
they were attacked at Benghazi?"
GreenRevolution 19 Sep 2015 09:10
The use of religion(Islam specifically) in politics was first employed by the British in the Middle East in the early parts
of the 20th century. In Iran, we have a saying which says; take off a Mullah's turban and you will find the words "Made in
England" stamped on his head.
nnedjo 19 Sep 2015 09:09
Even more bizarre, the White House is claiming little to do with it. White House spokesman Josh Earnest attempted to distance
Obama from the program, claiming that it was actually the president's "critics" who "were wrong."
Yes, it seems that it has become a tradition of US presidents to boast with the fact that "they do not interfere much in their
own job".
For example, in the last campaign for the GOP candidate for the US president, Jeb Bush defended his brother George for a false
pretext for war in Iraq in the form of non-existent WMD, claiming that everyone else would bring the same decision on the start
of the war, if the same false intelligence would be presented to him.
Thus, the president of the United States can not be held accountable for its decisions if the CIA deliver him false intelligence,
or deliberately conceal the true intelligence. On the other hand, since no one has heard of any person from the CIA which is held
responsible for the wrong war in Iraq, it turns out that nobody is responsible for this war.
And, to us, mere mortals, it remains only to conclude that the most powerful war machine in the world moves "without a driver",
or maybe it is "driven by some automatic pilot".
So, how tragic it is, and yet we can not help laughing. :-)
mikiencolor 19 Sep 2015 09:06
It was obvious to anyone with a modicum of sense from the beginning that the "moderate" rebel training programme would be an
utter disaster. But if the lessons you are taking is that nothing should be done at all, I'd submit you are taking the wrong lessons
from the debacle. Doing nothing at all would have condemned tens of thousands more to genocide. Doing something saved thousands
of Yezidi and saved Rojava.
Wherever the Kurds have been supported they have proved capable, trustworthy and have created functional civil societies. To
broadly and undiscerningly dismiss "sending weapons to the Middle East" is disingenuous. Something must be done, and things can
be done to help rather than harm if there is a sensible policy maker, and doing nothing certainly can be more immoral and evil
than doing something - as I thought we'd learned from Nazi Germany.
The reality is one that neither right wing nor left wing hardliners are willing to face: the Sunni Arab jihadis are the source
of most of the problems and the reason is entirely to do with their noxious genocidal and imperialistic ideology and culture.
They are a source of instability, enmity and fear, and not just in the Middle East either. And they are being supported and bankrolled
by Western allies in the Gulf. The world is a big place with many peoples and ways of thought, and many disagreements - but we
nearly all of us seem able to find a way to coexist in this new globalised technological human civilisation. The jihadis are a
barbarian throwback, a movement of violent primitivists. There is no place for jihadism in the future and they are a threat to
everyone in the world.
ID0020237 -> teaandchocolate 19 Sep 2015 09:01
Insanity I believe, not madness, but what's the difference. The CIA may get it right, but after political interference and
manipulation, they change their conclusions. We've seen this with the Iraq debacle and elsewhere. Just as political interference
in military operations, Viet Nam for example, causes imminent failure, so it is with intelligence ignored.
GeneralMittens 19 Sep 2015 09:01
So basically America invades and bombs the shit out of everywhere and the europeans have to clean up the mess and deal with
the resulting refugee crisis?
At some point America should be held accountable for their actions in the middle east. Whether thats taking their fair share
of refugees from syria or footing the bill for this clusterfuck.
At the very least, other countries should stop enabling their warmongering.
LittleGhost 19 Sep 2015 08:58
US foreign policy in the ME proves Einstein's maxim
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
GreenRevolution 19 Sep 2015 08:57
It has been 14 years since 911 and Bush's so called "war on terror". Not only barbaric wahabi terror has not been defeated
it has grown its barbarism to magnitudes unimaginable previously. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have been allowed to arm them
to the teeth by the very states who claim to be waging "war on terror". Since Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are close allies
of the west and one is a member of NATO, it follows that the west is in fact arming the wahabi terrorists who have turned the
Middle East into a wasteland murdering and looting at will. Millions are now refugees, countries laid to waste and yet Mr Kerry
and Hammond talk as if they have done such magnificent jobs and Russian involvement would only "complicate" things.
teaandchocolate 19 Sep 2015 08:56
I don't think they have the brightest people working in the CIA and the military in the USA. They are probably bullies, relics
from the Cold War, jar-heads, devout 6000-year-old-world Christians, neocons and fruitcakes. Their policy is chaotic and consists
of repeating the same thing over and over again hoping to get different results, which is, as we all know, the definition of madness.
smifee 19 Sep 2015 08:52
To be honest, I don't see any confusion.
Obama comes across as a (comparatively) humane person, and I am sure that his personal preference would be for there to be
no violence in the middle east. As President of the USA, however, he has to set aside his personal preferences and act in the
wider interests of his country.
The US set out to realign the political make up of the middle east. No doubt, they want to make sure Islam will never again
be able attack US interests.
Successive Administrations have controlled the funding and arming of various factions within the Middle East to ensure that
Muslims kill each other and weaken social structures. The US will fill the ensuing political vacuum and economic waste-land with
local leaders loyal to 'freedom, democracy and the American Way'. The next Administration will continue to stoke up the violence,
and the one after, and the one after that until the US is satisfied it has achieved its objective.
It seems almost all of us have to contain our personal views if we want to succeed in our place of work. Even the P of the
USA.
GoldMoney -> celloswiss 19 Sep 2015 08:51
True, in a democracy, moderates don't need bombs and assault weapons.
Consider this - how would you feel if foreign governments were arming and funding the IRA in Northern Ireland?
What if foreign governments recognised the IRA as a legitimate opposition to the Belfast government and gave them bombs to
take over the country?
MichaelGuess 19 Sep 2015 08:46
Who are the real terrorists, the group that bombs indiscriminately, the group that sells arms to both sides, the group that's
lies to its "coalition" partners, the group that spies on all its friends, the group that is happy to be starting wars everywhere
and then blame other parties for their lack of support.
These are the real terrorists.
MushyP8 19 Sep 2015 08:46
ISIS/ISIL is a creation of the US in an attempt to remove Assad. The long-term goal being to isolate Iran before going
in there for the natural resources.
Assad won 89% of the vote in a 74% turnout, how many world leaders have 65% of the population supporting them, hence why Assad
hasn't fallen. Naturally the US refuted this alongside its lapdogs, the EU and the UK, as it disproves all the propaganda they've
been feeding the west. RT news did an interview with Assad which was very insightful.
Putin seems to be the only one who's got his head screwed on in this situation, which is of course leading to hissy fits by
the US because he's proving a stumbling block. More nations need to get behind Putin and Assad, although of course the US wont.
GoldMoney DrDrug 19 Sep 2015 07:52
Moderates do, when the simple act of protesting against the mutilation of children detained by the states secret police
are met with a volley of snipers.
No such evidence has been bought to the UN security council. Even the chemical attack that the media claimed from day one was
Assad's forces doing turned out to be IS rebels actions. The two human rights groups operating in Syria are western funded NGO's
- hardly a neutral point of view given the US's long stated aim of removing Assad (even before 2011).
geedeesee 19 Sep 2015 07:25
This $500 million from June 2014 was for recruiting Syrian rebels seeking to oust President Bashar al-Assad - not to fight
iSIS.
The White House said at the time:
"This funding request would build on the administration's longstanding efforts to empower the moderate Syrian opposition,
both civilian and armed, and will enable the Department of Defense to increase our support to vetted elements of the armed
opposition."
The White House statement specifically refers to the "Syrian opposition". That's the term we use to describe anti-government
forces. This recruitment and training programme has gone awry because the people originally recruited would have been anti-Assad.
Now the Obama administration has tried to change the same people to fighting to ISIS instead. No wonder there's only "four to
five" left. This is one big fustercluck!
kingcreosote 19 Sep 2015 07:12
The CIA has probably been the greatest destabalising force in the world since the second world war and seem like more a
subsidiary of the weapons trade than a government department.
@Bill Instead of looking at this issue using a microscope, reading history about how
Empires fall lends wisdom and insight. Arrighi's book, (I believe) is called "The Long
Twentieth Century." He details how empires and huge trading giants rise and fall.
He details the rise of Italy's banking system during the Middle Ages as well as Spain's
Empire, the Dutch trading hegemonies and most enlightening how the British Empire rose and
fell.
We are seeing tell-tale symptoms of a US that's in trouble with a slow erosion of the US
$$ hegemony. The financial growth of China has begun degrading the US market with hi-tech and
other products. Thusly, you see Tim Cook of Apple apoplectic over China's Huwaii (sp?)
flooding the European market with less expensive computers, cellulars, notebooks, etc.
We see the practical nature of Exxon Mobile that views the short geographic distance
between the US (its military) to Venezuela's oil and mineral-rich soil. An easy pick, rather
than becoming further embroiled in the Middle East.
Targeting Venezuela suggests a geopolitical shift away from the Middle East (and Israel)
to countries that are less expensive to plunder yet with vast resources to be stolen. A
telling sign in the slow deteriorating US Hegemony.
Anglo Zionists have been working this scheme to take Venezuela for many years --
The Chávez Plan to Steal Venezuela's Presidential Election: What Obama Should
Do
September 19, 2012
Ray Walser
Former Senior Policy Analyst
Ray is the former Senior Policy Analyst
Abstract: On October 7, 2012, Venezuela's Hugo Chávez will stand for re-election
against opposition candidate Henrique Capriles. The Venezuelan presidential election
matters to the U.S.: Venezuela is a major oil supplier to the U.S.; Chávez's
anti-American worldview has led to alliances with Iran, Syria, and Cuba; and Chávez
offers safe havens to FARC and Hezbollah. Chávez also works to weaken democratic
governance throughout the Americas. Under the Obama Administration, the U.S. has offered no
comprehensive strategy or policy for dealing with the man who continuously demonstrates his
ruthlessness in implementing an anti-American, socialist, Bolivarian Revolution across the
Americas, but there is still time for the U.S. to support democratic freedoms before the
election. [becuz zio-bolshies luvs them their "democratic freedoms," and if that doesn't
work, bump off Chavez. Cancer. Poor guy. Prolly caught it from Arafat.].
https://www.heritage.org/americas/report/the-chavez-plan-steal-venezuelas-presidential-election-what-obama-should-do
Small counties in LA are essentially defenseless against 300 pound gorilla -- the USA. And neoliberalism still can take
revenge, as it recently did in Argentina and Brazil.
Notable quotes:
"... Agence France-Press ..."
"... As monarchs were forced to realize, they served a function to society, in order to be served by it. It was a two way street. Now finance is having a, "Let them eat cake." moment, as they become more predator than organ of society. It is the heart telling the hands and feet they don't need so much blood and should work harder for what they do get. As well as telling the head it better go along, or else. ..."
"... As this regime change process unfolds, it is difficult not to feel deep sadness for Venezuelans. Chavez failed to lift the poor into a permanent middle class, Maduro failed to protect the accomplishments that had been achieved, and now, the state seems unprepared to cope with what was inevitable. ..."
"... It's a tragic moment in Latin American history. Though Maduro has some backing from the four most Resistant of all Resistors, Russian, China, Cuba and Iran, the nation's geography is too distant for them to flex their full restraint. The lesson of Nicaragua in the 80's should have been learned. ..."
"... "The wealthy few have declared war on the many poor. They should not be allowed to lose their bet and maintain their stakes. The world doesn't work that way. " Unfortunately Bevin I think that is exactly how the world works. The real never ending war is between the haves and have nots. ..."
"... I'm a bit more pessimistic. Washington seems united on getting rid of Maduro and installing a friendly regime. While Maduro can hang in there for awhile, the economic sanctions and covert operations (including sabotage, killings, bribery etc.) will cause severe problems for the government. Maduro is not Assad and lacks friendly neighbors--in fact, Latin America has pretty much returned to direct Washington rule. ..."
"... Like with the attacks on Syria, Trump becomes presidential when he attacks the likes of Iran and Venezuela. ..."
"... I wonder how many of the pro-USA protesters, willing to take the US coin to protest on the street, are also willing to take the US coin to die on the street. ..."
"... A U.S. military incursion could have significant unintended consequences, "including a deterioration of our relationship with currently supportive countries in the region." -- Gustavo Arnavat, a former Obama administration official and a senior advisor to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. ..."
"... I don't justify intervention anywhere (except in D.C. where the Tyranny and Hegemon resides). I point to missed opportunities, failures, corruption and not taking advice from your closest friends (China, Russia, Cuba). If they had brought in the Chinese petroleum experts and Russian economic experts, much of the disaster would have been avoided. When you have a huge enemy and you are weak and relatively small, you need help. Maduro waited until too late. ..."
"... Self-evidently all the governments which have followed the US are not only agreeing but are acting in compliance with a pre-set US timetable. They all waited for the US to give the signal, then like synchronized swimmers performed according to choreography pre-determined by the US. ..."
"... Maduro to his navy --- "Today the future of Venezuela is decided: if it becomes one more star of the United States flag or if it will continue to fly its eight tricolor stars," said the president. ..."
"... As usual, the AZ regime change machine is mightily backed up by billions of puff dollars (printed out of thin air), but among the puppets, the tie-eating Saakashvili is Optimus Prime compared with the Murky Guy's leadership. ..."
"... Ha, how 40 tons of the "barbaric relic" which disappeared from Ukraine after a similar "revolution" got to be mentioned also in relation to Venezuela. ..."
"... Well, the headline of this post is kinda problematic now ("U.S. Coup Attempt In Venezuela Lacks International Support"). I think it was problematic from the start, b, because 1) several countries had already joined with USA; 2) Europe's falling in line was never really in doubt. Note: The EU poodles have toed the line on Russia, Iran*, and now Venezuela. ..."
"... Instead, Guaido called for further "pressure", which is at this point limited to a further tightening of the economic isolation of the country. Canada seems to have anticipated this position by announcing a $53 million aid package which will be focussed on assisting current and future "refugees" headed to Columbia and Brazil. ..."
"... Hugo Chavez has repatriated most of Venezeulan gold whilst still alive. This is how the CIA and the Venezuelan Central Bank could invent the story that a part of this gold is being sent to Russia by Maduro. The 41 ton of Venezuelan gold still remain in Bank of England was a necessary collateral for buying naphtha (for pre-processing oil for export) and subsidised food for the Venezurlan population. ..."
U.S. Coup Attempt In Venezuela Lacks International SupportZanon , Feb 3, 2019
12:44:33 PM |
link
There is little doubt where 'western' media stand with regards to the U.S. led
coup-attempt (vid) in Venezuela. But their view does not reflect the overwhelming
international recognition the Venezuelan government under President Nicolás Maduro
continues to have.
The Rothschild family's house organ, the Economist , changed the background of
its Twitter account to a picture of the Random Dude™, Juan Guaidó, who the U.S.
regime changers
created to run the country.
The supposedly neutral news agencies are no better than the arch-neoliberal
Economist . The Reuters ' Latin America office also changed its header
picture to Random Dude. It reverted that after being called out.
Agence France-Press stated at 11:10 utc yesterday that "tens of thousands" would
join a rally.
Cont. reading: U.S. Coup Attempt In Venezuela Lacks International Support "Lacks
international support" unfortunately doesnt matter much. Regardless, even if a majority of
nations backed the coup doesnt mean its right. Also remember Ukraine coup, majority didnt
support that - but it didnt matter.
Empire is testing the waters of support by its DazzleSpeak about the spinning plate of
Venezuela. I hope it is learning that much of the world no longer wants to live in a world
motivated by fear.
Threat of US global default on Reserve Currency is coming soon because empire is out of
ammunition to maintain and extend supremacy. It will be interesting to see what the fall back
status will be and how maintained....the last thralls of Might-Makes-Right.....one would
hope.
The Bank of England should be holding closer to 30 tonnes of Venezuela's gold, not the 14
tonnes they're holding from Marudo under U.S. orders. The Venezuelan Central Bank (BCV) just
closed a huge gold swap with someone and now should have a total of maybe 2500 gold bars in
the BoE dungeons with their original serial numbers and weights. Custodians of gold like this
can't melt it down and make new bars - that's why state depositors stamp all of them with
serial numbers and precise weights. They want to be sure THEIR gold is there and THEIR gold
is returned.
The news isn't the U.S. demand that it won't be returned. The real news is that neither
the BCV nor the BoE will show anyone the original or current gold bar inventory list.
Usually, nobody cares. But with the U.S. and BoE chosing a new, rightful owner (Random Guy),
they should at the very least provide the inventory list.
It shouldn't be a secret - there is absolutely no security risk. The gold belongs to the
(starving) people of Venezuela. Or at least it did. What are the BoE and Rothschild BCV
hiding? Did they melt it down or sell it to someone else?
I think the deeper conceptual issues need to be considered, that would place the political
and social situations going on around the world, from France, to Venezuela, in perspective.
That money is the social contract enabling mass societies to function, not a commodity to
be mined from society and stored as government debt, to finance militaries, as well as making
the entire economy subservient to the gambling addictions of Wall St.
Humanity went through s similar evolutionary process, when monarchies, as private,
hereditary governments, reached the limits of their effectiveness. As the executive and
regulatory function, government is the central nervous system of society, while finance is
its circulation mechanism, basically the head and heart.
As monarchs were forced to realize, they served a function to society, in order to be
served by it. It was a two way street. Now finance is having a, "Let them eat cake." moment,
as they become more predator than organ of society. It is the heart telling the hands and
feet they don't need so much blood and should work harder for what they do get. As well as
telling the head it better go along, or else.
As it is now, all this government debt is setting the world up for predatory
lending/disaster capitalism, when the governments cannot run up more debt and those holding
the old debt start trading it for more public properties, from mineral rights to roads.
After watching the whole central meeting in Bolívar Avenue, Caracas,live
broadcasted by RTSpanish, which extended for several hours, in which were projected images of
other regions´meetings as well, and after watching live too, broadcasted by the same
channel, the pro-Random Dude meeting only in that rich neighborhood, which extended for about
half an hour and dispersed itslef very fast, I would calculate the numbers at both meetings
just in reverse as you have done.
I would say 200-300 thousands for Maduro´s supporters ( and i would say I get it
short..) and 20-30 thousands ( in the best case )for the Random Dude....
I notice that that photo you are basing your estimations on corresponds only to the front
of the square where the tribune for speechers of the pro-Maduro rallie was placed, but other
people has showed the whole Bolívar Avenue ( the longest and largest in Caracas ) full
of pro-Maduro people as long as the sight can catch ....See for example, Abby Martin´s
capture:
Blooming Barricade , Feb 3, 2019 1:31:10 PM |
link
The European Parliament voted on the Venezuela issue a few days ago, and naturally, the
centre-right wing European People's Party (Merkel, Tusk), the Liberals (Macron), and most of
the so-called Socialists voted to recognise the US coup minion as president. The European
United Left and most of the Greens along with the far-right wing voted against this, which
just shows you that the so-called liberal democrats are bought and paid for employees of
US/NATO multinational imperialism.
With the "Electoral College" method determining winners not in current favor, perhaps the US
MSM may wish to state that by world population, Maduro beats Guaidó by a factor of at
least 4 to 1 in public opinion.
thanks b... it is interesting @5 sashas comments if they can be verified..
@3paveway - it is much as @4 john merryman says, with the additional note that the boe are
essentially stealing venezualas gold in a might makes right type of undemocratic and
undignified way.. i always thought the federal reserve was an extension of the boe... both of
them are privately run, with some minor face saving image that they belong to the respective
gov'ts.. they don't... they are controlled and run by the 1% that are quite okay starving off
venezuala, or going to the next step - military intervention.. they are one sick group of
predators only focused on the god of mammon.. we have to figure out a way to get rid of them
before they completely destroy the planet..
Other than Russia../China/Iran....practically the entire world is under uncle sham's
thumb now.
The outlook is very depressing indeed.
Don't worry, China has an enormous amount of leverage:
"
Boeing predicts China will need more than 7,200 new aircraft worth over $1 trillion in
the 20 years through 2036."
Trump slaps some tariffs, here and there, on a few billion dollars of China's products.
But this is trivial compared to what China can do to Boeing, if Trump really annoys Xi. And
Boeing is just of many US companies that the Chinese can retaliate against.
Juan Guaido enjoys legislative immunity to arrest but Venezuela's Supreme Court barred him
from leaving the country, and the court also approved a request that all of Guaido's
financial assets be frozen.
As we have seen he's rather harmless, without any real power in the country, and so the
longer he's free and obviously ineffective the better. Plus it enables Maduro to appear
reasonable and unafraid of the young man.
The 800 lb elephant in the room here is the reality of class struggle in Caracas. Those
backing the imperialists seem to constitute the majority of Venezuela's small elite of rich
people. Despite their complaints, continual sabotage of the economy and outright treason in
their collaboration with its enemies they have been allowed to hold onto their ill gotten,
and inherited, wealth.
How long is that likely to last?
On the other side of the divide are millions of poor people, their livelihoods and their
democracy at risk. Many of them are having difficulty finding food to feed their families-
the deliberate result of sanctions supported by the wealthy, and the light skinned. Many are
finding it impossible to find the medicines their sick people desperately need.
If Venezuela is to maintain its independence it will do so because the poor refuse to give
it up. Their rewards and the means of rebuilding the economy lie in the wealth of the
rich.
The wealthy few have declared war on the many poor. They should not be allowed to lose
their bet and maintain their stakes. The world doesn't work that way.
As this regime change process unfolds, it is difficult not to feel deep sadness for
Venezuelans.
Chavez failed to lift the poor into a permanent middle class, Maduro failed to protect the
accomplishments that had been achieved, and now, the state seems unprepared to cope with what
was inevitable.
To assume that the Hegemon would keep its hands off the nation, return the gold, leave the
assets in the US untouched, not use the neighboring countries to mount an insurgency, seems
naive at best. The lessons learned from Cuba's 60 year fight for dignity taught the regime nothing.
Watching the tear down of Brazil's socialist leadership (two of them) taught the regime
nothing. Stupidity atop corruption atop a blind belief in an ideology that destroyed the wealth of
the nation (or at least crippled it) has led to the moment of truth. Will enough poor people
and some middle class defend the sovereignty of the nation? And will the military leadership and rank and file remain patriots?
It's a tragic moment in Latin American history. Though Maduro has some backing from the four most Resistant of all Resistors, Russian,
China, Cuba and Iran, the nation's geography is too distant for them to flex their full
restraint. The lesson of Nicaragua in the 80's should have been learned.
Now he faces invasion of convoys of aid on three borders. He must control his borders. The
odds are very long he can.
I am not sure if anyone has posted about this, my apologies if it is redundant. I was
wondering where our Random Dude was now located and what he was up to:
"For the role of President they chose a "poster boy" who doesn't represent anything and
who shouted out something at a meeting with 30,000-40,000 protesters, and after this he
immediately ran to the Embassy of Colombia, where he still sits to this day.
This boy refuses
any contact with the authorities. But since you are being informed by "different media
agencies" and certain authors on "Aftershock" – he communicated with army Generals on
twitter however the Generals are unaware of this but he communicated "in secret". Or he
appointed a certain official from among the immigrants in the US also on twitter "
Your analysis of the economic problems is too harsh directed at Chavez/Marduro and their
"ideology". Nafeez Ahmed's piece in Medium, which has been shared on this forum, does a much
better job describing the perfect storm of coinciding events which have combined to sink
Venezuela's economy. Short of two or three of these events, and the situation could be bad
but not as terrible as it is.
The programs instituted by the government over the past twenty
years remain extremely popular, as was acknowledged yesterday when Guaido made a vague
promise of government "subsidies" to those in need.
The aid caravans will be entirely symbolic, and offer little to nothing to a population of
over 30 million people. The sponsors of the aid caravans are also the same people who have
placed harsh economic sanctions on the country, a fact which will not be lost.
"The wealthy few have declared war on the many poor. They should not be allowed to lose their
bet and maintain their stakes. The world doesn't work that way. " Unfortunately Bevin I think that is exactly how the world works. The real never ending war
is between the haves and have nots.
Why don't the coup mongers name Hillary president of Venezuela. The biggest sore loser of all
time is currently "resting", as they say of out-of-work actors, and desperately wants to be
president of SOMETHING. Not being a native Venezuelan should be no drawback in her case. She
would simply trade her old Cubs/Yankees hat for a big V and probably discover some Venezuelan
great-great-grandmother hanging on her family tree. The coup mongers' current choice, the
sock puppet "Guido" Guadio, is about as legit as a Confederate nickel. And coups are by
definition NOT legit. So haul out those unused "I'm With Her" signs and ship them down there.
In the meantime, she can head for the Venezuelan Embassy and hole up there (a la Julian
Assange?) while awaiting the moment to parachute into Caracas. Mission Accomplished!
Let's remember that the US position is that Guaido is only the interim president of a
transitional government, which suggests that (1) the US has its real choice under cover in
Miami somewhere, possibly a Rubio house guest, or (more likely) (2) the US really doesn't
have a clue about what to do next. Hey, humanitarian aid, that's a good regime change
strategy (??).
Meanwhile they can demonstrate all they want, it never accomplishes anything (MLK
attendance the exception).
I'm a bit more pessimistic. Washington seems united on getting rid of Maduro and installing a
friendly regime. While Maduro can hang in there for awhile, the economic sanctions and covert
operations (including sabotage, killings, bribery etc.) will cause severe problems for the
government. Maduro is not Assad and lacks friendly neighbors--in fact, Latin America has
pretty much returned to direct Washington rule.
I suspect the Trump admin does have a plan for Venezuela and will push it through no
matter what anybody thinks. Trump's opinion of the bobbling heads or trained seal lot that
call themselves heads of state is about the same as he showed the Iraqi's when visiting the
US base in Iraq.
Trumps plans will only be stopped by the likes of Russia, China, Iran ect. No matter how
outlandish the claims of the lies of Bolton or himself are, MSM seems to take it up with all
seriousness.
Like with the attacks on Syria, Trump becomes presidential when he attacks the likes of Iran
and Venezuela.
USAMO . Same Old. First, engineer sanctions through compliant UN, then squeeeeze the
population until they understand the changing electoral requirements and their howl reaches
pitch
-in the meantime picking a favourite pony to front the 'peoples will' regime change op;
training him/her up in latest provocateur methodology and introducing them to their master
racketeers back in DC
then,
with malevolent mercenary gangs helping stirring street protest
offer emergency security assistance and food AID thru sanctified UN allowing your chosen
one to ride the front of the food wagon, saving the day.
Democracy, Yankee Doodle Dandy style.
Scotch Bingeington , Feb 3, 2019 7:16:18 PM |
link
jayc | 33
"The aid caravans will be entirely symbolic, and offer little to nothing to a population
of over 30 million people." Yes, and also those of the 30 million who support the Anti-Maduro movement are probably
not in need of basic foodstuffs, but will want their iPhone and their Netflix account.
I think this is the guy they would like to install--Leopoldo Lopez
Yes, good chance of that, if they could work it somehow (unlikely) and it would tie into
Guaido's reference to Feb 12.
wiki--During the crisis in Bolivarian Venezuela, Leopoldo Lopez called for protests in
February 2014. López, a leading figure in the opposition to the government, began to
lead protests. . .He was arrested on 18 February 2014 and charged with arson and conspiracy;
murder and terrorism charges were dropped. Human rights groups expressed concern that the
charges were politically motivated. . .Leopoldo López, a leading figure in the
opposition to the government, began to lead protests.. .
In September 2015, he was found
guilty of public incitement to violence through supposed subliminal messages, being involved
with criminal association, and was sentenced to 13 years and 9 months in prison. He was later
transferred to house arrest on 8 July 2017 after being imprisoned for over three years.
re: Trump's state of the union speech Tuesday night.
on VZ-- from WaPo Trump will
"... actively intervene in the political upheaval in Venezuela, aides said in previewing the
speech Friday."
here
I wonder how many of the pro-USA protesters, willing to take the US coin to protest on the
street, are also willing to take the US coin to die on the street.
I suspect these protests
are paper thin at best, the poor are unlikely to support the rich without financial
inducement, but the one thing the coup organisers have is plenty of money. If these are
indeed poor people protesting (who knows) then it would be interesting to know what quantity
of cash was offered to the participants. Maybe 30 USD for half a day of protesting? Decent
money for the protesters, easily affordable to the USA.
A countries domestic issues need to be kept separate from US attacks on a country. US is
not attacking Venezuela for humanitarian reasons. This is aside from the fact as Jen pointed
out, that Venezuela's economy has been under attack from the US for some time.
The expectations that a country that is under US attack should have a leader that is far
above average in terms of ability to withstand the economic attack of a superpower with
perfect, far seeing decisions is unreasonable. People lie that are rare and only occurred
occasionally in history.
What does matter is that the Maduro government is doing the best it can for its people,
rather than working in the interests of a foreign power to the detriment of its people.
As for a better leader - one that will resist the US and provide a better economy for
Venezuela while under US sustained attack....
Bart Hansen@20 - Oil production costs are complex, secret and mostly lies. With that caveat,
Venezuela was thought to have about $10 - $15 production costs on average. That includes
their light and medium crude, and zero investment in repair of their distribution networks.
Well over half of Venezuela's reserves are Orinco extra-heavy, sour crude. Essentially tar
sands, but buried 500m - 1500m deep that require solvent or steam extraction. So (guess)
maybe $30-range/bbl for production. Those tar sand oils produced are so heavy that they need
pre-processing and dilution before they can be refined or exported. Naphtha or other refined
products are used as dilutent and cost maybe $55/bbl today, but were around $75/bbl last
October.
U.S. refineries were pretty much the only ones paying cash for their 500,000 b/d of
Venezuelan crude. Trump's sanctions not only ban those imports, but also ban the 120,000 b/d
of naphtha and other dilutents we sold them.
Interesting to note that part of Trump's beat-down of the Venezuela little people is a ban
on the 120,000 b/d of dilutent last week. That will completely shut down their exports. They
could find another source of naphtha, but that source will be looking for $6.6 million a day
hard cash for it.
Maduro needs to sell Venezuela's gold to buy naphtha to export oil for ANY revenue. The
$2.5 billion the Bank of England can't find and won't deliver is meant to hasten the food
riots and CIA-orchestrated coup. But Mercy Corps is setting up concentration camps on the
Colombian border and we're delivering food aid, so the U.S. is really the hero, here. God
bless America! Obey, or die.
expectations that a country that is under US attack should have a leader that is far above
average
I appreciate your discussion of leaders, but let's not forget the people. It has been the
goal of the US to demonize leaders and go after them. Ho Chi Minh, Saddam Hussein, Bashar
Assad, Osama Binh Laden etc. etc.
But it's the people not the leaders that have formed the most resistance. It took the US Army
little time to track down big bad Saddam Hussein, but Baghdad wasn't pacified (controlled)
for four years, and people elsewhere in Iraq fought the "liberators" like the very devil.
Apply that to Venezuela. Heck, you and me, we'd all respond the same way given a foreign
invasion, right?
There are some warnings about avoiding dialogue and pushing a Venezuelan military option. The
opposition's courting of military officers carries potential dangers. If it leads to a schism
in the armed forces, that could be disastrous for the country, said Michael Shifter,
president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington policy anti-VZ forum.
A U.S. military incursion could have significant unintended consequences, "including a
deterioration of our relationship with currently supportive countries in the region." --
Gustavo Arnavat, a former Obama administration official and a senior advisor to the Center
for Strategic and International Studies.
Juan Guaido hopes that the United States will not use force in Venezuela, instead limiting
pressure on Maduro's government to diplomatic and economic measures, the Colombian newspaper
Tiempo reported Monday. . . here
If corruption or mismanaging a country's economy were justification for foreign
intervention to remove a leader, Israelis should be lobbying Washington DC to remove Binyamin
Netanyahu as their prime minister since he and his wife Sara have been charged by police for
fraud and bribery.
Indeed, depending on how it defines corruption, whether vaguely or narrowly, and on what
criteria, the US would have its work cut out for decades hunting down "corrupt"
politicians.
If I'm not mistaken the front page of the Washington Post, today showed a picture of a large pro-government protest, and
claimed that it was an opposition protest.
This will be something to watch and may be part of the answer to why now, why did the US go
after Venezula at this point. I think it is because Venezuela was historically captive to US
refineries, but no longer. India is capable of refining Venezuela oil and has a significant demand for it. If India
decides to do ignore the sanctions, I wonder if the US will impound tankers going to
India?
And tankers to China as China is building a refinery just for Venezula oil, it isn't
scheduled to come online until 2020, but perhaps China will push to make it happen asap?
to Paveway lV and Bart Hansen. It doesn't really matter the breakeven point for Venezuelan
oil if they can't access the money. I just read (15 minutes ago) on Seeking Alpha, that Trump
et al is blocking payments for Venezuelan oil. He is trying to force the payments into a
blocked account such that Maduro's gov cannot access it but Guido can. There are still
refineries in the US which need Venezuelan heavy crude to blend w/ the frack=crap. Volero is
stated to have two tankers which it cannot unload due to the payments issue. This is an
unusual way to provide "humanitarian aid."
Sorry I cannot give a link - the Seeking Alpha site seems to be done.
Re the Indian refineries, I believe they are currently buying Iranian oil so they may
resist sanctions against Venezuela. However, according to Paeway lV, without naphtha
Venezuela cannot pump oil. Maybe a swap with someone?
The aid caravans will be entirely symbolic, and offer little to nothing to a population
of over 30 million people.
I agree, Guaido's aid caravans will probably be something like 5% humanitarian and 95% for
smuggling arms into Venezuela.
However, China has the largest container ships in the world. Just one visit from a vessel
like the COSCO Shipping Universe could deliver more than 20,000 truckloads of stuff, which
would probably dwarf anything Guano is envisaging (even if his "humanitarian" caravans were
totally legitimate).
Would the Empire let it happen? I have little doubt that Bolton's sick enough to want to
stop a true humanitarian effort, but as I'm not as sick as Bolton is (at least I hope so), I
have a hard time imagining what excuse he could use to stop it -- especially after Guano's
caravans.
I don't justify intervention anywhere (except in D.C. where the Tyranny and Hegemon
resides). I point to missed opportunities, failures, corruption and not taking advice from your
closest friends (China, Russia, Cuba).
If they had brought in the Chinese petroleum experts and Russian economic experts, much of
the disaster would have been avoided. When you have a huge enemy and you are weak and relatively small, you need help. Maduro waited until too late.
There were many object lessons for better practices and better preparation for the
inevitable. Now, we can hope and pray that the Venezuelan people demonstrate their own will to resist
against intervention and regime change. Because if it comes, their wealth will be stolen
completely.
A sane government which really wanted the best for the people would've launched a crash
program to break free of the oil dependency which not only guarantees one remains at best a
US-colonized power, but which requires the physical destruction of one's own land and the
basis of one's future life.
I'm not just saying this about Venezuela, although destroying the Orinoco rain forest
necessary for our very lives in order to extract heavy oil is perhaps the most extreme
example on Earth of the self-destroying paradigm.
But any country afflicted with the oil curse ought to treat the deposits like very hot
radioactive waste and enforce at all costs a Chernobyl-type non-go zone. This also would
conserve critical ecological zones like the Amazon. If enough places did that simultaneously
it would prevent the US from "opening them up" by force and accelerate the collapse of the
empire and its globalization system. But any place which doesn't do this automatically
becomes a de facto colony and a target for aggression intended to turn them into a de jure
colony, as we see in this case.
From the evidence it seems that in the end a thing like Bolivarianism isn't offering any
real alternative to the US paradigm. Both equally want to burn every last fossil BTU's worth,
pump every last CO2 molecule, hack down and burn every last acre of forest. Both are on the
same mass murder-suicide ride.
Do the Venezulean people really want a better life than this? The American people sure
seem to want the worst.
It's my understanding that when Chavez was President, he did bring Chinese and Vietnamese
agriculture experts to Venezuela to study the country's potential for growing food staples.
The Vietnamese experts identified areas which originally had been considered by their former
wealthy owners as unproductive but which turned out to be ideal for growing rice.
Although Venezuela imports huge quantities of wheat from Russia, it's doubtful that
Russians can give much agricultural advice as Venezuela lies in the tropics and Russia does
not.
On the other hand, the way the Venezuelan government appears to be dealing with Juan Guaido, allowing him to shout in the wilderness and making himself look a fool, seems similar
to the way Russia treats Alexei Navalny, letting him make an idiot of himself, and might
suggest that Venezuela is taking advice from or copying Russia in this respect. Russia also
sold two S300 anti-missile defence systems to Venezuela though I do not know how often the
Venezuelans maintain them.
Thanks for the correction. I tend to skim history. I think the point still stands, that
politicians can't be left in control of the money supply. The impulse to abuse it is strong
The Maduro demo seems to have taken place on the Avenue Bolivar which is about 20 meters wide
and about 1.25 km long. The demo crowd appears to be packed so there could be 50 to 80
thousand people there. I haven't been able to locate the Guiado demo but it is possibly in
the upscale Las Mercedas district not far from the US Embassy. The photos of the Guiado are
generally close in and from a low angle which tends to exagerate the numbers. Even so, it
does not appear to be as densely packed / extensive as the Maduro event.
More disgraceful news:
Major EU nations recognize Guaido as Venezuela's acting president
Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands and Germany's
coordinated move came after the expiry of an eight-day deadline set last weekend for Maduro
to call a new election. Austria and Lithuania also lined up behind the self-declared
interim president Guaido.
Self-evidently all the governments which have followed the US are not only agreeing but
are acting in compliance with a pre-set US timetable. They all waited for the US to give the
signal, then like synchronized swimmers performed according to choreography pre-determined by
the US.
These European governments already were illegitimate in that they had surrendered
sovereignty to the EU. Now they're doubly illegitimate in that they've openly exposed
themselves as nothing but extensions of US policy. These are puppet governments.
So I'm not just joking when I say that any truly radical parties in Europe, "right" or
"left", should declare these fake national governments illegitimate and set up their own
shadow presidencies/premierships and governments.
Maduro to his navy --- "Today the future of Venezuela is decided: if it becomes one more star of the United
States flag or if it will continue to fly its eight tricolor stars," said the president.
"You saw the failed coup plotters yesterday ... with the gringo flag behind them. They no
longer hide, they no longer hide their identity. They no longer hide what they have inside,
they want to deliver our country, in pieces, to the gringo empire and the local
oligarchies."
Haiti is one of the countries that recognize Guano as president of Venezuela---
"Haiti's economy is reeling as unemployment & hunger is on the rise due to corruption
& mismanagement under #PHTK ruling party. On Jan. 31 many businesses shuttered in many
parts of the country as exchange rate of HT Gourd to US Dollar reached highest inflation
yet.
Exactly. They are US puppets.
Most obviously what we see is the most obvious top puppets in the EU; nordic, western europe
and the baltics. The meddling is apparent, still the corrupt EU/US governments keep on with their
aggression:
Russ: "So I'm not just joking when I say that any truly radical parties in Europe, "right" or
"left", should declare these fake national governments illegitimate and set up their own
shadow presidencies/premierships and governments."
This, so totally this, so absolutely and definitively this.
All these governments should be discarded and sued for breaching international norms.
Spain is specially ridiculous. Isn't Sanchez supposed to be "left", and not liberal scum?
I would not call the puppet character a Random Guy because he was clearly groomed for the
role over a number of years. Yet, he is obviously not a very capable guy because his claim to
fame is, for example, stringing a metal wire across the road to kill random motorbike riders
in a poor part of Caracas. Selection of such an untalented Murky Guy is another sign of the
desperation of the AngloZionist empire to grab resources after the Syrian debacle.
As usual,
the AZ regime change machine is mightily backed up by billions of puff dollars (printed out
of thin air), but among the puppets, the tie-eating Saakashvili is Optimus Prime compared
with the Murky Guy's leadership.
Ha, how 40 tons of the "barbaric relic" which disappeared from Ukraine after a similar
"revolution" got to be mentioned also in relation to Venezuela. And nobody even remembers
what happened to all the Ghadaffi's gold. You do not really think that hippo's Wooden Puppet
Guido (lol) will ever get to even touch this banksters' secret favorite? It will just
disappear into the Atlantic Ocean on the way to Guido. Just as carpenter Mastro Geppetto
carved his Pinocchio out of block of wood, so did the hippo carve his Guido out of another
block of rotting wood. This is why only the Italians, of all Europeans, could see through the
mischievous acts of the long-nosed Guido and his puppet master.
Yesterday I linked to an AP article
here on Charge d' Affaires James "Jimmy" Story who manages the US embassy in Caracas. In
the article was: "Chief among his interlocutors is Rafael Lacava, governor of the central
state of Carobobo, who presented him with a painting of two joined fists in the colours of
the U.S. and Venezuelan flags that now hangs in the entrance to Story's official residence in
Caracas."
So I looked up Rafael Lacava's twitter here which includes some glimpses of local
life in the small state of Carabobo just west of Caracas. Carabobo State was the site of the
Battle of Carabobo on 24 June 1821, a decisive win in the war of independence from Spain, and
was led by Simón Bolívar. The capital city of this state is Valencia, which is
also the country's main industrial center.
The tweets include some from Nicolas Maduro, including warnings that Trump wants another
Vietnam in Venezuela.
Russia has no choice than to boost the military to stand with Maduro. That may bring violence
including possibly the physical elimination of Guaido. That may trigger the West to intervene
militarily like in Libya without a UNSC approval.
That would rally the Venezualians around Maduro and the army.
As the american ( except the neocons) are against a war at their borders, Trump will have to
find a compromise.
Ultimately the Russians may push for a military takeover once they identified a military
leader.
Trump will have to accept that if he does not want to invade Venezuela
Well, the headline of this post is kinda problematic now ("U.S. Coup Attempt In Venezuela
Lacks International Support"). I think it was problematic from the start, b, because 1) several countries had already
joined with USA; 2) Europe's falling in line was never really in doubt. Note: The EU poodles have toed the line on Russia, Iran*, and now Venezuela.
=
* EU countries pretend to support JCPOA but have dragged their feet. Most commercial
interests will not cross USA and the EU states have done little to discourage that. It has
been announced that EuroSWIFT will be for humanitarian aid only.
It is important to remain as properly informed and nuanced as possible given the difficulties
of access to reliable information in the world of today. I, therefore, contribute this link
in which a Venezuelan sociologist presents a different view of the support Maduro has in the
country : https://therealnews.com/stories/defusing-the-crisis-a-way-forward-for-venezuela.
I have no way of knowing the de facto situation, as most of us. I do, however, have
experience of such turmoil, divisions, rallies and counter-rallies, lies, threats, etc. from
a country, my country, that, sadly, no longer exists. I would say - we should listen to the
people on the ground, always with a critical mind.
The implications of this barbaric assault for our world as whole, for South America and,
of course, for Venezuela, are far reaching. The role of the EU and its largest states in this
barbarism has been consistent and in the service of the US and European ruling class. The EU
has been supporting, promoting and awarding the Venezuelan opposition for a long time. Now it
is recognising the self-proclaimed person who wants to make Venezuela great again. Yet, my
fellow Europeans are more or less silent, more or less indifferent and very badly informed.
Being European is becoming a source of deep shame and we Europeans are starting to make
excuses when we introduce ourselves, just like the better informed Americans have been doing.
But there is a good side to this - all the masks have fallen off now. Everyone can see what
the US and the EU really are.
If not today, tomorrow their barbarism will be recognised as their defining feature. One
would think that change is then inevitable, even if long overdue.
One piece in the article you linked to does not seem to match events. Maduro was elected
president in what international observers said were a fair election. A number of opposition
figures chose, of there own accord not to run in the election.
Your article says the majority of Venezuelans do not want Maduro as president, yet on a few
weeks ago he was elected as president in a fair election.
@3 PavewayIV The Bank of England gold issue is pretty crazy to think about. If the Bank of
England can just give the Gold of a nation to a guy who just declares himself President
without running for office than their is no rule of law regarding the gold stored by BoE from
other countries. Surely any country that has assets held by other major UK, US banks should
be moving towards retrieving their gold after this fiasco. Its very scary to see the highest
parts of the banking sector; use of the Swift system; access to the US dollar and seizure of
assets by the US courts being increasingly used in the aggressions of the empire. If Maduro
is able to weather this storm and Venezuela is returned to some degree of stasis than Maduro
will ask to repatriate all of the gold held in Europe in order to prevent its future seizure
in case a Chavista is elected again next election. The BoE can't possibly just steal it based
on politics can it?
One sure sign of Maduro's popularity in Venezuela is the calls for a new election in which
Maduro is not allowed to participate. This was the same for Assad in Syria. The US know that
in any free and fair election, both Assad and Maduro would at anytime gain the most
votes.
Although Maduro was only recently inaugurated, the elections were May 2018. Maduro received
67.8 percent of the vote with a 46 percent voter turnout the next runners received 20.9 and
10.8 percent of the vote.
The wikipedia page has the vote numbers, but the article mostly goes on about Maduro blocking
opposition. If this were correct, then the US would not be vehemently opposed to Maduro even
running in another election.
What an embarrassment - Canada refused press credentials to Sputnik, RIA Novosti, and Telesur
for its multi-national celebration of "smart power".
"Richard Walker, a spokesman for Canada's foreign ministry, explained to Sputnik's
correspondent that the agency was denied accreditation because it "hasn't been cordial" with
Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland in the past."
That is, the Russian media published factually correct information which demonstrated
Freeland as less than candid regarding her family history. Her feelings were hurt, and her
feelings apparently take precedent in her position as Foreign Minister.
The rational and sensible way forward in Venezuela - international mediation - continues
to be rejected by the "interim president", the USA, and Canada's pet Lima Group project.
Instead, Guaido called for further "pressure", which is at this point limited to a further
tightening of the economic isolation of the country. Canada seems to have anticipated this
position by announcing a $53 million aid package which will be focussed on assisting current
and future "refugees" headed to Columbia and Brazil.
Hugo Chavez has repatriated most of Venezeulan gold whilst still alive. This is how the
CIA and the Venezuelan Central Bank could invent the story that a part of this gold is being
sent to Russia by Maduro. The 41 ton of Venezuelan gold still remain in Bank of England was a
necessary collateral for buying naphtha (for pre-processing oil for export) and subsidised
food for the Venezurlan population.
Once Western sanctions are imposed on a country, the only
way anyone would trade with such credit-worthless country, is if hard assets are used as
collateral. Maduro will probably be forced to send a part of the repatriated gold to Shanghai
gold market, forcing the Venezuelan Centeral Bank by military force to dispatch, or the
Venezuelans will go hungry. Having national gold under the Central Bank control is only
second worst to having it under control of the Central Bank's foreign masters in BoE.
I cannot think of one Central Bank in all the countries of the World which is not under
the control of the international (Jewish) banking cartel. If the "revolution" succeeds, the
gold inside Venezuela will disappear just as the gold in BoE. Since 2017 Bolshevik
Revolution, the revolutions are fueled by gold.
@Peter AU 1 | Feb 4, 2019 1:28:47 PM | 85 Maduro was elected president in what international observers said were a fair
election.
The May 20, 2018 election it self was declared "free and fair" here by four independent committees who had
camped outside the polling places but (as in the US and other "democratic" countries) the
shenanigans leading up to the election called the fairness into question.
The elections were boycotted by the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) coalition of opposition
parties and dismissed as illegitimate by the United States, the European Union (EU), and14
Western Hemisphere nations (the Lima Group). So we can say for sure that the boycott was a
tool to later call the elections illegitimate .
[How ironic since the US doesn't even (de facto) allow "opposition parties" (plural) but
restricts the quadrennial show to two look-alike parties, which Ralph Nader referred to as
tweedledum and tweedledee. Obviously neither of the two parties would ever boycott an
election.]
UN rapporteur to Venezuela and expert on international law Alfred de Zayas:
"I believe in democracy. I believe in the ballot box. If you believe in democracy, you can
not boycott an election. The name of the game is that you actually have to put your candidate
out and expect that the people will vote for you or against you," he said, referring to the
Venezuelan opposition's decision to boycott the recent presidential election, which saw
Maduro re-elected. . . here
Secretary of state John Kerry. "During my most recent visit to Kyiv, I was deeply impressed
by all you have accomplished in the more than two years since the Revolution of Dignity."
Secretary of state Pompeo. "The United States stands with the brave people of Venezuela as
they strive for a return to dignity and democracy."
This lot haven't much of an imagination. Just reading thev lines that were printed for the
Ukraine show.
The whole US and vassal States plan was for a swift removal of Maduro, that did not happen
thus time now runs in Maduro's favor. There won't a military invasion of Venezuela, there is
no apetite for that in Latin America at all, nor the vast majority of the Latin Americans
would support any sort of military intervention, even if head of States would promote it,
thus leaving two options for the US:
1) A cruise missile attack to destroy Venezuela Military and Government building, following a
false flag prepared and conducted by CIA's and Guaidó's supporter, such an attempt
would be received worldwide as an aggression, though the false flag would be used as
justification, that would not be tolerated by many many countries and could escalate in a
ugly way, and or
2) An attempt to assassinate Maduro to be blamed on the Venezuelan Military thus leaving
Guaidó out of it to legitimize him for power.
The second is a very likely scenario and may be in progress as of now.
Seriously, Ron Paul or Tulsi Gabbard speaking of democracy is one thing, but having
gangsters and psychopathic thugs like Pompeo, Bolton or Abrams in charge really sends a message
and that message is that we are dealing with a banal case of highway robbery triggered by two
very crude considerations:
First, to re-take control of Venezuela's immense natural
resources. Second, to prove to the world that Uncle Shmuel can still, quote , " pick up some small crappy
little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business ",
unquote.
The obvious problem is that 1) nobody takes the US seriously because 2) the US has not been
capable of defeating any country capable of resistance since many decades already. The various
US special forces, which would typically spearhead any invasion, have an especially appalling
record of abject failures every time they stop posing for cameras and have to engage in real
combat. I assure you that nobody in the Venezuelan military cares about movies like "Rambo" or
"Delta Force" while they carefully studied US FUBARs in Somalia, Grenada, Iran and elsewhere.
You can also bet that the Cubans, who have had many years of experience dealing with the (very
competent) South African special forces in Angola and elsewhere will share their experience
with their Venezuelan colleagues.
"... Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS. ..."
"... I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't create Israel until they discovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control over the world it would give them to control it. ..."
"... It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about. Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about, follow the money. ..."
I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did
Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student
of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose
Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked
the economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the
constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela,
perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those
tyrants.
Hard to take this guy seriously when he spouts Fox News level propaganda.
Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by
all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish
friends with all the victimization BS.
Its clear that voting no longer works folks, this is an undemocratic and illegitimate
"government" we have here. We let them get away with killing JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, we let
them get away with 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. They've made a mess in Africa. All
the refugees into Europe, all the refugees from Latin America that have already come from CIA
crimes, more will come.
We wouldn't need a wall if Wall St would stop with their BS down there!
You can't just blame Jews, yes there are lots of Jews in Corporate America, bu t not all
of them are, and there are lots of Jews who speak out against this. We were doing this long
before Israel came into existence. You can't just blame everything one one group, I think
Israel/Zionist are responsible for a lot of BS, but you can't exclude CIA, Wall St,
Corporations, Banks, The MIC either. Its not just one group, its all of them. They're all
evil, they're imperialists and they're all capitalists.
I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold
in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't
create Israel until they discovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control
over the world it would give them to control it.
Those people moving to Israel are being played, just like the "Christian Zionists" here
are, its a cult. Most "Jews" are atheists anyhow, and it seems any ol greedy white guy can
claim to be a Jew. So how do you solve a "Jewish Problem" if anybody can claim to be a Jew? I
think solving the capitalist problem would be a little easier to enforce.
All of the shills can scream about communists, socialists and marxists all they want.
Capitalism is the problem always has been always will be. Its a murderous, immoral,
unsustainable system that encourages greed, it is a system who's driving force is maximizing
profits, and as such the State controlled or aligned with Corporations is the most advanced
form of capitalism because it is the most profitable. They're raping the shit out of us,
taking our money to fund their wars, so they can make more money while paying little to no
taxes at all. Everything, everyone here complains about is caused by CAPITALISM, but nobody
dares say it, they've been programmed since birth to think that way.
We should nationalize our oil and gas, instead of letting foreigners come in and steal it,
again paying little or no taxes on it, then selling the oil they took from our country back
to us. Russia and Venezuela do it, Libya did it, Iraq did it, and they used the money for the
people of the country, they didn't let the capitalists plunder their wealth like the traitors
running our country. We're AT LEAST $21 trillion in the hole now from this wonderful system
of ours, don't you think we should try something else? Duh!
It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about.
Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about,
follow the money. Just muh opinion
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said "we're getting ready to defend our country" as the
U.S. presses him to cede power.
While President Donald Trump signaled he's confident a transition of power to opposition
leader Juan Guaido is under way and said the use of U.S. military force in Venezuela remains
"an option," Maduro went on Spanish television to denounce foreign meddling.
... ... ...
"Nobody in the world can come and disavow our constitution and our institutions and try and
impose ultimatums," Maduro told broadcaster La Sexta in comments aired Sunday, referring to
attempts by Spain and other European Union countries to set a deadline for an early
presidential election. Venezuela's armed forces and civilian militias are preparing for an
invasion, he said...
... ... ...
The allegiances of the military, Venezuela's most powerful institution, may determine the
outcome of the power struggle between Maduro and Guaido...
Three miles away, Maduro ... told thousands of red-clad supporters and soldiers: "Venezuela
doesn't surrender. Venezuela charges forward."
"... Historically those kinds of gangs are among the prime recruiting grounds for coup-supporting thugs. So the US propaganda lies about them also indicates coup planner interest in recruiting them to help Guano's usurpation attempt. ..."
Historically those kinds of gangs are among the prime recruiting grounds for
coup-supporting thugs. So the US propaganda lies about them also indicates coup planner
interest in recruiting them to help Guano's usurpation attempt.
"... This coup has entered bizarro land even for a coup. The lack of current military action suggests to me that Trump is bluffing. And by the way he will lose in 2020 if he opens up a flagrant military intervention in another country. Just Air strikes are possible but without a real ground support, I"m not sure they'll do much and I think these will also cost him 2020. ..."
"... This is almost 'destabilisation by numbers and it is so obvious and in-you-face that it is deeply offensive to any person of conscience. But therein lies the point....psychopaths have no conscience, and the team running this gig probably all got to the top leaving a trail of sh1t and corpses behind them. ..."
"... Anyone remember the notorious Operation Fast and Furious scandal about ten years ago in which the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) ran a sting operation allowing licensed gun dealers to sell firearms to buyers working for Mexican drug cartels, in the belief that tracking the guns would lead to making arrests of their ultimate owners? ..."
"... How much of the gang violence in Venezuela is associated with drugs, the US War on Drugs in other parts of Central and South America, and the United States' own involvement in selling drugs through the CIA and other agencies in those areas, and the gang networks that have benefited and allowed to grow from there into other countries in the Western Hemisphere: that would be interesting to know. ..."
"... An article published at Stalkerzone , gives a glimpse of what could be described as an informational coup, where fake news with fake images are spreaded, mainly through Twitter, and this way they the US and its puppets in Venezuela try to create and "alternative reality" in which crowds who belong to events where supporters of President Maduro take part, are presented as the crowd supporting that unknown personage till some days ago, Guaido, and assertions about alleged meetings of the US appointed new president of Venezuela with members of the FANB are also presented as facts without any graphic evidence and the very FANB denying any contact with the coupist. ..."
"... The crisis in Venezuela is not simply a matter of left wing versus right wing political and economic systems. It is also rooted in competing ideas about racial and cultural worth. The ugly truth is that for some, it is still a matter of civilisation versus barbarism ..."
"... Claiming a commitment to ending foreign wars while threatening Venezuela with a coup is the epitome of Orwellian doublespeak. Is it really necessary to get in to the semantics of "war"? ..."
"... anyone who was really committed to peace wouldn't have psycho war hawks like Bolton and Pompeo around. Even dusting off a Reagan-era war criminal speaks volumes. ..."
"... Also have to give a tip of the hat to SST/W. Patrick Lang for linking his 12 page paper "Bureaucrats Versus Artists " While it's always easy to hate the CIA and U.S. IC, he reminds me that they do or at least did have an crucial politically-neutral information gathering mission for leaders in a democratic republic, and that mission has mostly been usurped by internal forces over the years. ..."
"... The idea that government policies are a well oiled machine, well, not so much. More like psychotic many multiples of the three stooges. Galbraith comments elsewhere about the military hardliners, wanting total victory. He points out that what they are actually advocating is total annihilation. Suicide. ..."
"... "Nothing has changed." You got that wrong. Now if Hillary, the Libya destruction architect, had been elected that would be true. But Trump has been a fresh air to anarchists especially. ..."
"... Half a million children under 5 were killed in Iraq just from the sanctions. The dead, the injured, and the displaced are still dead, injured, and displaced regardless of what weapon was used. ..."
"... Since the West cannot complete its World Order project they must revitalize the war strategy into a long term cold war type. What we see is a circling of wagons and threats against any who are not "with us". I think the speed with which steps are being taken are because of the threat of questions about finance that need to be silenced with more war and fear of any sort. ..."
"... I hope what folks are seeing by the actions of the West is that Rule-Of-Law is really just Rule-Of-Power/Control begat by owning the global tools of finance with a myth cover of Rule-Of-Law just like economics is a myth cover for the elite making all the big investment decisions and those results trickling down so to speak.... ..."
"... The [Trump's] agenda is not to destroy the Empire but to transform it to meet the challenge from Russia and China. Anyone that sees those changes and reads 'disintegration' is only seeing what they want to see. ..."
"... The transformation is to a much darker place and far from anything like democracy. For those of us that don't truck in misguided fantasies, the psyops, economic warfare, and militarism tells us all we need to know. Is it any wonder that the one chosen to lead us down the garden path to dystopia is an egotistical maniac? Trump was SELECTED, not elected, by the likes of: Hillary, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, Clapper, Kissinger, and Schumer. ..."
"... Sorry but does Mr. Maduro have a fetish of repeating every step from the Maidan playbook. You just let foreigners run around Caracas inciting the coup? Remember, the very last step from that playbook, of Russian spetznatz coming to rescue your sorry ass, is not available to you because you live a bit out of the way. These regime-change "journalists" are foreign agents who must be rounded up pronto (for their own protection of course). ..."
"... I remember how Reagan started to wobble a bit towards the end of his term. Part of me suspects that Trump is himself in a bit of a decline and is thus the best vehicle for his cadre of Iagos to subvert his power into their projects. Clinton would have been even better in that respect. ..."
"... More on topic, however, is the general characteristic of South and Central American rebellion. Savage, well-armed, even if only with Machetes, and shades of evil rather than a clear moral choice. If your hobby is pouring billions of dollars into the fire to sow mayhem there is no better place. ..."
"... I would predict that given the well-orchestrated push to recognize Guaido that the plan to overthrow Maduro's government is both inevitable and long-expected. The question is how the aftermath will roll out depending on whether or not the Columbian rebel groups link up with the Venezuelan resistance and the whole region explodes. Just a question. But I would bet that such a scenario is not unforseen by the American puppeteers. ..."
"... 'Old habits die hard', or as Pindar via Herodotus opined, 'Custom rules'. Key elements of the customary process for Empires' regime change efforts are to demonize the targeted leader, economic warfare on the targeted country, make up lurid stories, infiltrate with foreign saboteurs and NED-type internal subversion. John Perkin's 'Economic Hit Man' described the process of gaining leverage via financial means, debt the key. As Perkins noted, then there are the assassination squads, and then finally the US military, which has of late been heavily supplemented with mercenaries and private armies. ..."
"... Grayzone ..."
"... Venezuelan economist Luis Enrique Berrizbeitia, one of the top Latin American neoliberal economists, is a former executive director of the International Monetary Fund... ..."
"... Elliott Abrams is notorious for overseeing the U.S. covert policy of arming right-wing death squads during the 1980s in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala. ..."
"... Historically those kinds of gangs are among the prime recruiting grounds for coup-supporting thugs. So the US propaganda lies about them also indicates coup planner interest in recruiting them to help Guano's usurpation attempt. ..."
"... They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're our bastards." ..."
"... The proof that what the US and its appointed fake president Guaido are looking for is a civil war in Venezuela, which would dismantle the sate and transform it into a failed state, is to e found in Guaido΄s beligerent speech in front of the crowd concetrated to hear him in an Eastern rich neighborhood, people who dispersed themselves quite fast, after showing so excited by what Guaido was saying, once his disapassionate and clearly anti-Venezuelan speech finished.. ..."
"... The oil part may be the selling point for Trump but the real deep state motive is to crush socialism. ..."
"... Is Bolton in charge, or is Pence? Pence certainly has been the face of much of the Venezuela policy. Is it because 1) He's modeling the office of the VP after GHW Bush's and Cheney's lead? 2)Trump has been so consumed with the congressional showdown and govt. shutdown, that he's let Pence, Pompeo and Bolton take the lead on Venezuela? 3) Trump is planning to go out in a blaze of glory -- declare Mission Accomplished on his agenda (even if he has to declare a State of Emergency to get his Wall) and resign, leaving Pence in charge (with the power to pardon him if need be). ..."
"... On thing I left out of my original coverage was that during the Q&A the Coup representatives were asked about how they would treat international agreements signed by the Maduro government and they basically said 1) that would not acknowledge any agreement signed by Maduro's government since 2015 and 2) they specifically called out Russia & China saying that if they wanted any of their agreements with Venezuelan honoured they would need to remove their support for Maduro - needless to say I don't think talking smack to the Russians or Chinese will accomplish much for the coup plotters. Nor do I think the Cuban government is threatened in the least by the latest threats to Cuba ..."
"... Finally, in regard to the coup in Venezuela, I just finished watching a documentary about the torture and murder of Victor Jara after the Chilean coup. A man who had been an 18 year Chilean Military conscript and participated in the human rights abuses after the coup said he still suffered from the guilt of his actions. He appeared very sad and old beyond his years. Meanwhile a retired CIA officer expressed no regret for his actions and looked great. It helps to be a psychopath or sociopath. I'm sure that Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, etc. will not suffer if their actions regarding Venezuela result in death and suffering. ..."
"... That's some convoluted reasoning and you are clearly very invested in it and are able to adapt it to anything Trump does. Failure isn't a strategy for success and appointments of rabid neocons isn't a strategy for peace. ..."
To demonize the President of Venzuela, Nicolαs Maduro, and Venezuelan government forces, a concerted effort is made to falsely
depict gang violence, and the police reaction to it, as a confrontation between coup supporting protesters and the Maduro government.
Gang violence in the various slums in Caracas and elsewhere has been a problem for decades. The phenomenon is by far not exclusive
to Venezuela. The gangs mostly fight each other over territory, but sometimes collide with the police that tries to keep the violence
level down. This violence has nothing to do with the recently attempted coup or the anti-government protest by the mostly well-off
people who support it.
On January 29 the Washington Post , the CIA's
favored outlet ,
launched the campaign . As
detailed yesterday an incident of gang violence and the police's reaction to it was manipulated into a story of anti-government
protest.
The first three paragraph of the story told of an alleged anti-government protests in a slum in Caracas which included the arson
of a culture center. The next day the police arrested some culprits which led to more violence. Some twenty propaganda filled paragraphs
about the coup attempt follow. Only at the end of the Washington Post piece was revealed what really happened. The arson
incident took place a January 22, a day before the coup attempt. It was a gang attack:
Around midnight, neighbors say, a group of hooded boys threw molotov cocktails at the culture center.
The following day the police arrested some of the arsonists. More rioting followed:
A group set fire to barricades, threw stones and attacked an outpost of the National Guard. ... Neighbors said that criminal gangs
were among the crowd and created havoc by violently confronting the police .
The whole tit for tat incident was typical gang vs. police violence. It likely had nothing to do with the coup attempt.
BigLie Media tries again with the same old lies inside a somewhat new package. BigLie Media can't seem to make up its mind--first
it attacks Trump and his policies, then it supports Trump and his policies. How many others notice do ya think?
Lather, rinse, repeat. In France police are targeting nonviolent gilets jaunes protesters which has resulted in many serious injuries,
amputations, and loss of eyesight from rubber bullets. The plan here is to link black bloc violence with the protests as a way
of discrediting the movement and justifying a violent crackdown. One wonders to what level black bloc is acting as agents provocateurs,
as evidence shows is the case from past events. Check out Vanessa Beeley's reporting from France:
Demonization and propaganda are the normal operating mode of the US regime. If the the Washington Post is the CIA's favored outlet
then the NYT is a close second.
Many Thanks B. The garbage I am reading on MSM and sites that purport to be alternative news like zerohedge indicate war is imminent
and maybe necessary to prevent bloodshed. It's the WMD and babies killed in incubaters thing all over again. Your piece explains
the violence and gives great in depth and insight rather than drum beating.
This coup has entered bizarro land even for a coup. The lack of current military action suggests to me that Trump is bluffing.
And by the way he will lose in 2020 if he opens up a flagrant military intervention in another country. Just Air strikes are possible
but without a real ground support, I"m not sure they'll do much and I think these will also cost him 2020.
The longer this goes on, the worse Guiado looks. If it drags on he loses his legitimacy among the rather illegitimate coup
supporters. The question is what happens next?
Emmanuel Goldstein , Feb 1, 2019 4:49:13 PM |
link
This is almost 'destabilisation by numbers and it is so obvious and in-you-face that it is deeply offensive to any person
of conscience. But therein lies the point....psychopaths have no conscience, and the team running this gig probably all got to
the top leaving a trail of sh1t and corpses behind them.
I wonder what stunts they will pull in the U.K if Corbyn&Co come
to power. They really, really don't like socialism of any sort. Will they refuse to recognise Corbyn an PM and only deal through
the Maybot? That's the logical outcome of this new MO...
"...Gang violence is a huge problem in Venezuela. Like in other countries it is a side-effect of rapid urbanization and the
uncontrolled growth of new city quarters or slums. Other factors are drugs and the availability of weapons. Some six million guns
are believed to be in civilian hands and drug dealing is rampant. Youth unemployment exacerbates the problem ..."
One might want to ask where the weapons originally were made and sold, and where the drugs originally came from and who supplied
them.
Anyone remember the notorious Operation Fast and Furious scandal about ten years ago in which the US Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) ran a sting operation allowing licensed gun dealers to sell firearms to buyers working for Mexican
drug cartels, in the belief that tracking the guns would lead to making arrests of their ultimate owners? Eventually so many
guns ended up south of the US border in Mexico that the ATF couldn't track any of them. Quite a few of those guns ended up killing
US border patrol police. We would be naive to think that some version of Operation Fast and Furious hasn't been repeated elsewhere.
How much of the gang violence in Venezuela is associated with drugs, the US War on Drugs in other parts of Central and
South America, and the United States' own involvement in selling drugs through the CIA and other agencies in those areas, and
the gang networks that have benefited and allowed to grow from there into other countries in the Western Hemisphere: that would
be interesting to know.
Blooming Barricade , Feb 1, 2019 5:13:21 PM |
link
These people are completely embarrassing and just sad. Another weapons-company funded talking point, pushed out via the Foundation
for Defence of Democracies, says that Maduro is a representative of "Russian Imperialism," or even "Cuban(!) Imperialism." Such
nonsense is meant to deflect the obvious imperialism of the USA and has sadly been repeated by so-called anarchists at Libcom.
Even the Wall Street Journal is more honest about the fact that this is obviously a US-led regional coup plan. Parroting Lockheed-Martin
to own the "tankies."
Note that most real world anarchists not backed by disinfo agencies are not insane and don't believe FDD sludge
Blooming Barricade , Feb 1, 2019 5:21:35 PM |
link
The New York Slimes had a front page story on the alleged "extermination units" of Maduro, needless to say all of their information
came from "human rights and civil society groups" OBVIOUSLY funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and therefore worthy
and democratic organizations such as Exxon-Mobil, McDonald's, Goldman Sachs, Boeing, CitiGroup, the US Chamber of Commerce, Visa,
Hilton Hotels, and more. See here:
https://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2019/01/us-regime-change-in-venezuela.html
Blooming Barricade , Feb 1, 2019 5:25:16 PM |
link
Abby Martin on the beat:
"War danger is very real. Bolton threatens to send Maduro to US torture house Guantanamo if he doesn't resign in insane,
unhinged interview where he claims Russian & Cuban agents are in Venezuela assassinating peaceful protesters on behalf
of the government" https://twitter.com/AbbyMartin/status/1091443808636522496
The business of conflation of gang violence with protest is not new. See the kidnapping of Aristide in 2004 by US special forces,
and the associated coup.
The Canadian government was working with former police chief of Gonaives, turned international cocaine trader, Guy Philippe
(see the confession of 9 November 2004 in the Canadian parliament, as made by then Canadian ambassador the Haiti, Hon. Dr. Claude
Bucher re cooperation with Philippe, and Internet archive backups of DEA fugitive lists for Miami Florida circa 2013 e.g. for
Philippe's involvement in the cocaine trade; there were much earlier indications, but they have been scrubbed off the internet,
e.g. a 2007 Reuters article regarding a DEA raid on Philippe's compound).
In cooperation with the Canadian government, Philippe illegally returned to Haiti. When the leader of the "Cannibal Army" street
gang was killed in a intergang shootout, Philippe took over leadership of the Cannibal Army gang, and accused Aristide of killing
said leader, which the financial press parroted (the Cannibal Army became peaceful opposition protesters in the official propaganda),
and after the coup, former Haitian prime minister Yvon Neptune was held for two years on genocide charges (sic), regarding the
gang shootout.
When Phillipe took over leadership of the Cannibal Army gang, be renamed it several times, settling on "the national revolutionary
front for the liberation of Haiti."
The reason the press felt that they could get away with such a lie was that certain gangs had agreed not to attack the police,
including both the Cannibal Army, and the gang which killed the then leader of the Cannibal Army. The financial press (including
notoriously The Economist) had been referring for some time prior to the coup to such gangs as "Aristide supporters" and to gangs
that refused, as "political opposition."
The reason for such arrangements (police negotiating with gangs) was a Clinton law, nominally passed against the Cedras junta,
but only enforced upon Aristide's return, preventing the Haitian the government from importing automatic arms, thus putting the
police at a disadvantage relative to the gangs.
When the coup started, and the Cannibal Army started attacking the Gonaives police, said police started fighting back. When
it became obvious that the police would win, the US special forces conducted their kidnapping of Aristide. For an overview, see
Kevin Pina's Haiti We Must Kill the Bandits.
Since the coup, Canada and USA have run several fraudulent elections in Haiti, in violation of the Haitian constitution. Tactics
have included burning dumpsters full of ballots, preventing Aristide's party from running, and outright ballot stuffing, with
an attendant drop in voter participation.
One correction to my above comment: Not ballot stuffing, but giving fraudulent counts for ballot boxes. After five boxes were
checked in the last fraudulent US run Haitian election, in which the actual ballots were anti-US puppet while the official count
was in favour of the US puppet, the US corrected the totals for the examined boxes, while refusing to allow recounts of any other
boxes, thereby giving the US puppet a win.
I'm amazed that you can read through the drivel and lies published by the likes of the New York Times and Washington Post regards
Venezuela. Once the NYT, on day one of the coup, pretended there some some question regards the legitimacy Maduro's election,
I lost all patience. I watch Jimmy Dore talking to Abby Martin, someone who has been there recently.
But thank you for posting on this further spewing of idiocy and lies from the NYT and WashPost. Those publications don't even
seem to care to base their critiques of Venezuela and Maduro on some kind of verifiable reality.
Fixing Bloomberg's text to apply to events closer to home:
The capitalist regime has regularly sent the police forces racing into slums in personnel carriers. Its masked and helmeted
members, equipped with full military gear, helmets, batons, and shields, attack demonstrators with weapons including tear gas,
guns and even grenades.
By the way, Guy Philippe now
is appealing
his own plea bargain (money laundering in cocaine trade related activities). In one of the articles that was scrubbed off
the internet, an interview with "before it is news" with Philippe, Philippe protested that US puppet dictator of Haiti (and former
pole dancer / rapper, Michel Martelly aka Sweet Mickey) was far more involved in the international cocaine trade than Philippe
ever had opportunity to be. Also, Philippe has been involved in the cocaine trade since at least
1999 .
Duterte has a solution to drug and gang violence. The west protests vigorously, now why is that? Duterte learned from the events
in Haiti that the west will use the gangs to destroy him. Eh Maduro!! learn from Duterte.
Since nothing about any of this makes sense, let me run another theory past you.
Trump accused of 'stopping working' as schedule reveals he averaged one event per day in January. As the link says,
if Trump has stopped doing anything except "hate-tweeting" and watching Fox News, this would be an opening for Pence and his friends
to do whatever they please. Venezuela might be as simple as killing some time and gaining some practice while waiting for events
in the mideast to come to a boil.
I've seen claims Trump was desperately looking to get out of the Shutdown while still saving face. If being President isn't
fun anymore, he may be looking for a "heroic" way out of that position as well.
"Anyone remember the notorious Operation Fast and Furious scandal about ten years ago in which the US Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) ran a sting operation allowing licensed gun dealers to sell firearms to buyers working
for Mexican drug cartels, in the belief that tracking the guns would lead to making arrests of their ultimate owners?"
I recall reading there was a further goal of the Fast and Furious project; when the guns eventually showed up in the US it
would be used as justification for draconian gun control as clearly regulating dealers didn't "work." I don't recall where I read
that, it was sometime ago.
It is estimated that 5 million Colombians entered Venezuela in the last two decades, some of whom brought a culture of violence
with them (a sort of Jihad)...
Thanks b, as always, you just cut right through the BS.
Jen@14 -My thoughts exactly. Drugs, money, guns, and violence. The gangs should be considered proxy forces of the Empire. Their
role is to destabilize and terrorize.
In the US, heavily militarized police forces have impunity to kill unarmed, non-threatening people of color, even children,
with barely a peep from the presstitutes. That thought leads to the white-suprematist nature of the Empire and how the genocide
and ethic cleansing of the US has been so complete that indigenous people today are less than 1% of the population and are still
viewed by the ptb as an impediment to "progress". Remember how the Standing Rock protests ended?
The hubris and hypocracy of the Empire knows no bounds.
By the way, that pinnacle of journalism the Daily Mail is blocking pro Maduro posts on its Vz stories, people are noticing it
and posting comments complaining on other stories.
Sorry, reference from 2015: 5 millones de colombianos han huido hacia Venezuela (5 million Colombians have escaped to Venezuela).
Sabemos que Semana, El Tiempo, El Espectador, Caracol, RCN (por nombrar algunos) mantienen una incesante campaρa mediαtica
desde Colombia contra Venezuela y la Revoluciσn Bolivariana. La matriz derrocha tinta y baba cotidianamente contra el paνs
mientras hace caso omiso de los problemas internos colombianos (que, por fuerza, se han impuesto por actores forαneos).
EL CIUDADANOMARCH 2, 2015
(We know that Semana, El Tiempo, El Espectador Caracol, RCN to mention only some have created an incessant media campaign
against Venezuela and the Bolivarian Revolution.)
Colombia is less violent overall than Venezuela, on a per capita basis, by about a factor of two. Colombia banned
leaded petrol in the early 1990s, although smuggling of subsidized and leaded Venezuelan petrol (until 2005) has resulted in Colombian
border towns having higher murder rates than the nearby Venezuelan towns from where the petrol was smuggled. If excessive violence
in Venezuela is being perpetrated by Colombians, they will largely be from border areas.
Oh, Come on, do you not know how the fucking empire works? Colombia is what Cuba was pre 1959, a playground for elites with prostitution
the major dollar earner.
In his latest
, Pepe Escobar gives Bolton a new moniker--"psycho killer"--which I find quite apt. An excellent addition to Hudson's essay, Pepe's
piece provides new information for us:
"Psycho killer Bolton's by now infamous notepad stunt about '5,000 troops to Colombia', is a joke; these would have no
chance against the arguably 15,000 Cubans who are in charge of security for the Maduro government; Cubans have demonstrated
historically they are not in the business of handing over power."
Brazil has said they'll be no invasion from its land. I seem to recall similar noise coming from Colombia despite the Outlaw
US Empire's having leased 8 bases. The upshot is Economic War is the worst aggression the Outlaw US Empire is capable of visiting
on Venezuela. But has Hudson details, a method of resisting/counter-attacking now exists and continues to gain strength. The old
"Core" nations are slowly being relegated to the periphery while committing treason to the principles they once sought to impose
globally. No, the Hybrid Third World War isn't yet over, but we can now discern how it will end.
"President Donald Trump will reaffirm his intention to end US involvement in foreign military conflicts when he delivers his
State of the Union (SOTU) address next week, a senior administration told reporters.
"'In terms of protecting America's national security, the president will update Congress on his diplomatic and military
efforts around the world and reaffirm his determination to protect American interest and bring to an end our endless foreign
wars,' the official said on Friday."
I learned a lot from Hudson's piece, but I fact-checked one statement of his and it seems wrong - he claims the President of the
World Bank is traditionally a post for US Secretary of Defense (presumably after being SecDef), but looking at the list of past
World Bank Presidents, I only see one secdef, and 2ish assistant/deputy secdefs. The others seem unrelated to the US Dept of Defense.
Does anyone know more about this? Is Hudson mistaken? Or is there more to it than what I found out?
@ karlof1 | Feb 1, 2019 8:04:07 PM | 41
I don't doubt that Trump wants to end foreign wars, which the US is consistently losing, a no-brainer decision, it's his lack
of sensibility that's a worry when he also supports --
>a large increase in the size of the army, which is only required for foreign wars (Mexico and Canada are quite benign).
> an Army general for Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, out of rotational order (which would have favored Air Force).
> big bucks going for Army modernization
The fact is that the US doesn't need a standing army* at all, and having one only contributes to the chance of (plans for) foreign
wars.
My guess is Trump's trying to buy loyalty, what with all the impeachment talk, which is serious, but who knows. He offers no explanation.
* Constitutional scholars out there know about Article I, Section 8 which favors a standing navy, but not a standing army:
1: The Congress shall have Power. . .
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
An article published at Stalkerzone , gives a glimpse of what could be described as an informational coup, where fake
news with fake images are spreaded, mainly through Twitter, and this way they the US and its puppets in Venezuela try to create
and "alternative reality" in which crowds who belong to events where supporters of President Maduro take part, are presented as
the crowd supporting that unknown personage till some days ago, Guaido, and assertions about alleged meetings of the US appointed
new president of Venezuela with members of the FANB are also presented as facts without any graphic evidence and the very FANB
denying any contact with the coupist.
Also, gets debunked the general message on Maduro΄s incompetency to manage Venezuelan economy and state, spreaded, not only
by the US and its puppet media/governments, but also by those who are supposed to be in the "resistance" side, those whose anti-socialist
views makes them contribute to the informational coup.
On the same vein, debunking all the lies who make Maduro and the Bolivarian system and government responsible for the straits
produced by an organized harassment which started not this month but several years ago,
a Spanish professor has written a letter to Spanish president,
Sαnchez , so as to, not only ashame him, but also warn him about the posible outcome of allowing this outrage to happen and
the breaking point reached with what at all ights seem the full abolishment of International Law...he is offering economic data
to defintiely debunk all the authors, "analysts", and commenters out there spreading plain lies, without offering any fact to
support their claims against Maduro
"Mr. President You, as your party has done so many times, have had the cowardice to put aside a new aggression against a
country that defends its sovereignty at all costs, aligning itself with the US guidelines in this respect.
But, Mr. President, you know very well that Venezuela is the most advanced democracy in all of Latin America, which has
held some 29 elections since 1999 (the year in which Chαvez arrived at the head of state), the majority under international
supervision, and with the system of "The most advanced electoral count in the world" according to the Jimmy Carter Foundation.
In fact, the last legislative elections were won by the opposition.
You know, because in your office it is impossible not to know, that Venezuela has some of the most important achievements
of the continent. It appears as the country of the area with the greatest reduction in the percentage of poverty, which went
from 28.9% in 1998 to 19.6% in 2013; and the percentage of households in extreme poverty decreased from 10.8% to 5.5% in the
same period.
You also know, how could you not know? That Venezuela is the country in the region that has fought the most against inequality.
The Gini coefficient (according to which 0 is the maximum equality and 1 the superlative inequality) in 1998 was 0.486 and
in 2013 it reached 0.398, the lowest in Latin America.
Also, if you do not know for sure that some of the diplomats of your government did, Unesco declared Venezuela under
the Chαvez government "Free of Illiteracy Territory", and this country has a net primary schooling rate of 95.90. %.
I would also have to know that the evolution of child malnutrition in children under 5 years of age went from 7.70% in
1990 to 2.53% in 2013. This country deserves recognition from the United Nations Food and Nutrition Organization. Agriculture-FAO.
While the vacancy rate went from 15.2% in 1999 to 7.1% in April 2014 (the one that the Kingdom of Spain already wanted far
away). Venezuela reached 0,771 in the HDI, which includes it in the group of countries considered with a "High Level of Human
Development", to be above the average of Latin America and the Caribbean. You also know, I am sure, that the government of
Venezuela provides housing for its population and that there are no evictions.
You must also know, how you will not know if even your party mate Rodrνguez Zapatero let you see when he was a mediator
in Venezuela, that the serious crisis in this country is caused by the ruthless economic war that is perpetrated against him,
launched first of all by USA and seconded by subaltern countries as unfortunately is the Kingdom of Spain.
I remind you of some of the characteristics of that war. The unilateral closure of bank accounts of the Venezuelan State
to make it difficult for suppliers to pay essential goods and to meet other commitments. The cancellation, for exclusively
political reasons, of vital imports, as was the case of treatments for malaria. Withholding crucial currencies to purchase
basic goods (for example, in November 2017, financial services provider Euroclear retained 1.65 billion dollars of Venezuela
that were destined to the purchase of foods and medicines). The Venezuelan Executive has retained close to 2.5 billion dollars
of international operations, in different banks, either for debt or import payments, or for oil bills. Wells Fargo Bank withheld
and canceled payments of 7.5 million dollars for the sale of energy to Brazil. It also has retained foreign currency to pay
back payments to pensioners abroad. And they have been retaining food shipments for the population that were already paid (for
example, in December 2017, 2,200 tons of pork were kept for two weeks at the Colombian border, rotting during retention).
Now they also want to take away their gold reserves from foreign banks and steal the profits from their oil. To which
is added the internal economic warfare that the Venezuelan business class carries out, hoarding all kinds of products to cause
a widespread shortage, or playing with currency exchange rates to destabilize the country.
And afterwards, governments like yours that collaborate with all of this proclaim that it is necessary to send "humanitarian
aid" to Venezuela.
Size cynicism is also part of that brutal economic war to which I referred, whose steps and specific objectives I already
explained in this same medium and that seeks to cause deaths and suffering without limits in the Venezuelan population, in
order to surrender and lift up against your government. That war is accompanied by a terrible media bombardment that is almost
unprecedented. The means of mass dissemination have always been used to "soften" the consciences of societies before initiating
a war against any population. They did it recently in Iraq, in Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, in Libya, in Syria ... but what Venezuela
is suffering is already truly long and exhausting. In fact, this monotonous bombardment is so insistent that it already convinces
almost all European people that something bad has to have that government so that they persecute him so much. When in reality
they should ask themselves what a good government does so that all the powerful and the extreme-right, starting with the "crazy"
Trump, want to sink him.
And it is that the main weapon of massive destruction of the USA, that has no rival in the world, is the monopolistic
control of mass media, the dictation of world news (with the consequent systematic and planned disinformation), or which is
the same, the reality construction machine.(...)
But I suppose that if the great world powers that give instructions to your government resort to such a crude option,
it is because things go very badly for them and they must be quite desperate, enough to put the world in a new phase without
rules, where war and aggression between countries prevails over any convention. Because you, with your position, are also complicit
in a probable military intervention of unpredictable consequences in the heart of the Great American Homeland. It will make
all of Spain complicit in it.
Mr President, you know perfectly, to finish, that any European government would have reacted by totally closing the democratic
space before a threat of external interference, coup d'ιtat or armed insurgency sponsored by third parties. Look, if not, how
the Spanish governments have reacted just because someone asks for urns in Catalonia. Or how Britain closed the "freedom of
the press" for the Falklands war that was thousands of kilometers away. All this has been faced by Venezuela, however, without
leaving a permanent path of dialogue, as again our former head of government, Zapatero, can testify.
I believe that you do not feel any remorse for your crude ultimatum to the legitimate president of Venezuela, but do
you really feel no concern before the free way that is giving to others in the Kingdom of Spain? A country, which as its name
indicates, can not choose its head of state, nor (at least not yet) has it chosen you either.
I am with you. Results given to DJT will have to be in terms measured in a tangible wind-down to these occupations. He is not
a politician who excels in Orwellian-speak as those above mention. His apolitical nature is the only true bright spot in his presidency.
His contributions have given terminology like "globalism" back its weight for the public to peruse, when of course they are not
frothing at the mouth with TDS. He deserves a lot of credit and speaking on a soapbox about this important terminology and turning-point
can truly affect the impressionable in the coming generations.
There is a racial and cultural angle to the Venezuela discord (which the US and its puppets are taking advantage of). Chavez was
and Maduro is at least partly indigenous, and that rankles some who favor the white Spanish..
. . .from a 2017 article on the web...
. . .While the Chαvez government attracted international attention for its economic and political programmes, it also addressed
cultural injustices. Through new cultural policies and social programmes, such as Misiσn Cultura, Chavismo raised the symbolic
status of the historically excluded poor and mixed-race masses.
The opposition protests that have flared up since Chαvez first came to power need to be understood within this cultural
and racial context. Radical sectors of the right wing opposition have repeatedly refused to accept the legitimacy of Chavismo
and what it represents. In 2002, they helped organise both a short-lived US-backed coup and oil strikes meant to create chaos
and bring the government down. The street demonstrations raging today are aimed at achieving regime change, but the opposition
has not indicated what policies they would introduce and how they would deal with the country's problems if they were in power.
The crisis in Venezuela is not simply a matter of left wing versus right wing political and economic systems. It is
also rooted in competing ideas about racial and cultural worth. The ugly truth is that for some, it is still a matter of civilisation
versus barbarism. . .
here
Yes, I particularly like the way he kicks in the teeth the old alliances of the
US and its world-wide puppet networks favored by the establishment which Trump has threatened and acted against. Yet they still
persist. From the news
As part of the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress required the Secretary of Defense, in concert with the
Secretary of State, to "assess the foreign military and non-military activities of the People's Republic of China that could
affect the regional and global national security and defense interests of the United States. // Wow, "regional and global
national security and defense interests of the United States" leaves nothing out.
thanks b... if we could send bolton to gitmo, that'd be the beginning of something truly relevant and worthwhile - let him go
with all the other neo cons down the line since before bush2's time too.. nyt /wapo and etc...water carriers for the same evil
empire.. no surprise.. lies are all they have and they have endless reams of them...
@don bacon and nemesiscalling.. you two are still in love with trump, lol... i suppose you figure it's all an accident and
he really does want to stop the wars of aggression on various countries and etc... give it up.. the guy is off the charts unstable
and doesn't know his ass from the hole in his head.. nothing has stopped under his watch.. it has only gotten worse and now he
threatens venezuala... he will sell what the corporatocracy wants him to sell, plain, simple and just as vacuous as it sounds..
Claiming a commitment to ending foreign wars while threatening
Venezuela with a coup is the epitome of Orwellian doublespeak. Is it really necessary to get in to the semantics of "war"?
Read that second sentence very carefully, it is a case study in obfuscation.
Very interesting, thank you. I wonder how widely noticed, read or discussed this letter will be in Spain, or outside of Spain
for that matter? I've sent a heads-up to GlobalResearch.ca re Andrιs Piqueras's letter.
Interdasting! No tweets, but who THEY follow is rather telling.
Related: I hate 'list of' or 'rules for' articles, but I'll make an exception for this Jefferson Morley article published yesterday
on Salon's site. Nothing earth-shattering for the whiskey bar crowd, but certainly worth a read for the history lessons.
We have not devoted a cent to toppling Venezuela as of yet, other than the career diplomats and their salaries whose job is
to fuck with their brains down in Socialist-land.
Huge difference btw the perilous chasms in the ME and Afghanistan and those in LA. How is that for obfuscation?
No one is allowed by the USA and its poodle nations to nationalize oil or any other resources. No one is allowed to do anything
tangible for poor people. However, every country is entitled to "self-determination" as long as its resources are handed over
to multinational corporations approved of by the USA.
It is the stuff of Lewis Carroll's "Through The Looking Glass".
Like it or not, James, what I said about Trump reintroducing concepts like globalism back into the public lexicon can be laid
only at the feet of one DJT.
You don't do any service to the movement by constantly decrying his poor points and not recognizing the positive or that which
we can build off.
Fuck me! Who's this AOC? The lady who has yet to mention the term "globalism" or relate to any of those that have suffered
under its ghastly load. Yeah...heap on the green jobs or we'll be dead in 12 years!
yeah, sure... someone thinks the usa neo cons haven't
Tpent a cent on trying to topple venezuala leadership, in spite of the fact they have been trying since the era of chavez!!
lets forgot about however many 100's of millions that have been spent on this ongoing exercise, not to mention probably a whole
lot more and hey - it's only money... if a few innocent people die, whatever... trump is clean, lol...
nemesiscalling.. i am not picking a side... the whole 2 party system in the usa is fucked... and while i thought trump was a breathe
of fresh air at the time he was running for the presidency, i think we have had enough time to see him for who he is - another
person who happily rubber stamps the same bs that has been an ongoing byproduct of usa foreign policy - wars, murder and mayhem
around the world 24/7... and, as a canuck, i am just as disgusted by the shills running canada at present - tru dope and unfreeland
- 2 losers from the get go... so, i am not taking sides in any of this.. i don't see any good from trump at this point.. sorry..
Apparently james and some others would be quite pleased if only the outsider Trump coming to Washington, against a continuing
establishment resistance, would start a war (like Bush did) or send 70,000 fresh troops to an existing war (as Obama did in his
first year), killing injuring and displacing millions. Well I'll go with Trump and his ending of the Afghan and Syria commitments,
and finally ending the Korea war. Perfection in life? Doesn't exist. You gotta settle for good enough.
no don... trump hasn't stopped any wars.. that is the reality, in spite of any pretensions otherwise...and there is constant talk
of more wars... sorry, but trump has been a disaster for anyone who thought something was going to change.. nothing has changed..
NemesisCalling@56
Obfuscation? Yep, you nailed it with that sentence. Lol
Since James already responded to your claim about the money I won't, but I will point out that anyone who was really committed
to peace wouldn't have psycho war hawks like Bolton and Pompeo around. Even dusting off a Reagan-era war criminal speaks volumes.
Also have to give a tip of the hat to SST/W. Patrick Lang for linking his 12 page paper
"Bureaucrats Versus Artists
" While it's always easy to hate the CIA and U.S. IC, he reminds me that they do or at least did have an crucial
politically-neutral information gathering mission for leaders in a democratic republic, and that mission has mostly been
usurped by internal forces over the years.
You are wrong because you fail to see that his actions are paving the way. Every minor concession now will not be able to be
won back by the neocon estab. Not unless they want to start WW3. With a Trump presidency, for the neocon/neolib estab, it is death
by a thousand cuts. Lickily DJT has the patience and wisdom to realize this. Like I have said many times before, he clearly idolizes
Putin and his long-game strat.
The reason there has always been a fever pitch about toppling Trump is because the estab is aware of this slow, impending death
under DJT. Hell, I have even conceded that he may not even be mindful of his own role in this slow-mo disintegration. But an ignorant
harbinger of death I would take anyway.
Sometimes, imo, we lose sight of how many different cliques and cults and agendas and interests and inertia and customs and
stupidities etc go to make up a government.
Here is a quote from J.K. Galbraith, from 1961, when he was serving under JFK as ambassador to India.
"It is hard in this job not to develop a morbid dislike for the State Department. It is remote, mindless, petty, and above
all pompous, overbearing, and late."
The idea that government policies are a well oiled machine, well, not so much. More like psychotic many multiples of the
three stooges. Galbraith comments elsewhere about the military hardliners, wanting total victory. He points out that what they
are actually advocating is total annihilation. Suicide.
Often brainy people seem especially geared to inflict massive destruction and mass murder. It has been pointed out that the
carnage the US inflicted on Indochina in the nineteen sixties and seventies was presided over by a bunch of Rhodes Scholars and
other brainy folk.
Sometimes very pleasant and good people can combine conventional success with extreme deficits in knowledge. A person of some
accomplishment once asked me if there was gravity on the moon. I checked for a moment to see if he was serious, and he was. I
answered, yes, but less than we have on Earth. On the moon, I explained, people can leap like kangaroos and kangaroos are in danger
of achieving escape velocity. But I think my humor went over his head.
So Donald Trump may not be the worst thing to happen to us. We'll have to see how this develops.
"Nothing has changed." You got that wrong. Now if Hillary, the Libya destruction
architect, had been elected that would be true. But Trump has been a fresh air to anarchists especially. Talk about a bull
in a china shop, or a tweet in a twitter shop, nothing is the same any more. Wake up and smell the coffee, james!
It's Friday night, so I bet most barflies are out at their local watering holes given the paucity of responses to Trump's planned
announcement. Smacks of Owrellianism to be sure. Ending "neverending" wars to begin anew? IMO, the Economic Wars being waged against
Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and others count as neverending endeavors.
Most of us realize the degree of Evil deeply bound-up within the Outlaw US Empire and its network providing domestic support.
It's been several generations since the entire edifice faced a concerted push-back effort; but within the public at large, several
factions not yet coalesced are trying differing approaches--although we hear/read little thanks to BigLie Media's blackout. Much,
as we read, is happening internationally since not all sources of information are censored or blacked-out. And the push-back on
that level is very serious indeed. The point is that little victories are far better than none--history shows Paradigm Changes
do not occur rapidly--so patience is required as is a Long Game strategy. IMO, much about the Outlaw US Empire is exposed to light
now than ever before thanks to the efforts of many and advances in technology. We must keep working on our push-back-- everywhere
, in Europe most especially to get it turned from West to East, and from EU back to the European Family of Sovereign Nations.
Duterte has a solution to drug and gang violence. The west protests vigorously, now why is that? Duterte learned from the events
in Haiti that the west will use the gangs to destroy him.
Not sure where you are sourcing your information from, perhaps the MSM? Duterte is just another filipino gangster/politician.
I used to think that Philippine politics was just like American politics, but a cruder version. America has now caught up with
the Philippines. Oh, and there has been no solution to the drug and gang violence. Just a lot of dead poor sods who had done nothing
wrong other than buy from the wrong dealer. In the dead of night, the back alleys are still swarming in a fog of Shabu, and gang
violence in the Philippines is almost exclusively an activity of police and military gangs fighting over turf.
Ending "neverending" wars to begin anew? IMO, the Economic Wars being waged against Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and others
count as neverending endeavors.
Nothing economic compares with dropping one ton exploding bombs on buildings full of people, leaving them dead injured and
displaced. Nothing. And it has gone uninterrupted for too many years.
I expect the reason that the aforementioned incident of gang violence is getting so much coverage is because it was organized
by team Guaidσ, as it seems a little too convenient that the corporate media and people like Bolton can now reference it as an
example of what they claim to be the repressive nature of the Maduro government towards the poor. It wouldn't take much to pay
off one of the gangs to create an incident like this in order to provoke a police crackdown, and none the gangs would have any
loyalty to the Maduro government, given that gangs consider the police to be the enemy and the police work for the government.
Yes, Prof Hudson made a few errors in his hastily written essay, but some of his observations have simmered for awhile:
"This break has been building for quite some time, and was bound to occur. But who would have thought that Donald Trump would
become the catalytic agent? No left-wing party, no socialist, anarchist or foreign nationalist leader anywhere in the world could
have achieved what he is doing to break up the American Empire. The Deep State is reacting with shock at how this right-wing real
estate grifter has been able to drive other countries to defend themselves by dismantling the U.S.-centered world order. To rub
it in, he is using Bush and Reagan-era Neocon arsonists, John Bolton and now Elliott Abrams, to fan the flames in Venezuela. It
is almost like a black political comedy. The world of international diplomacy is being turned inside-out. A world where there
is no longer even a pretense that we might adhere to international norms, let alone laws or treaties.
"The Neocons who Trump has appointed are accomplishing what seemed unthinkable not long ago: Driving China and Russia together
the great nightmare of Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They also are driving Germany and other European countries into
the Eurasian orbit, the 'Heartland' nightmare of Halford Mackinder a century ago....
"Trump's agenda may really be to break up the American Empire, using the old Uncle Sucker isolationist rhetoric of half a century
ago. He certainly is going for the Empire's most vital organs. But is he a witting anti-American agent? He might as well be
but it would be a false mental leap to use 'cui bono' to assume that he is a witting agent. [My Emphasis]
"After all, if no U.S. contractor, supplier, labor union or bank will deal with him, would Vladimir Putin, China or Iran be
any more naοve? Perhaps the problem had to erupt as a result of the inner dynamics of U.S.-sponsored globalism becoming impossible
to impose when the result is financial austerity, waves of population flight from U.S.-sponsored wars, and most of all, U.S. refusal
to adhere to the rules and international laws that it itself sponsored seventy years ago in the wake of World War II."
IMO, what prompted Hudson to write was the publication of Bolton's threats to the ICC justice that forced him to resign that
I provided an article about several threads back. Note that he devoted an entire section of his essay to that topic and more generally
on Law. Plus, the essay's not nearly as well edited as his usually are. So, I forgive his tiny errors as they don't detract from
his essay's main thrust.
One thing about Trump I believe we'd all agree upon: He certainly isn't a rabid Neoliberalcon like the person he defeated for
POTUS. That and he's roiled domestic and international politics more than anyone would have imagined on 8 November 2016.
We both want the carnage to cease ASAP, along with all the other damage being inflicted. You've read enough of my views to
know how I feel, and vice-versa. Have you heard of Dr. Francis Boyle?
Here's a link to a review
of one of his many works and one that's as germane today as it was in 2008. I mention him because IMO the only surefire way to
defeat the War Party is through the courts as what they've been doing since 1945 is unconstitutional and illegal, and IMO can
be easily proven as such.
Don Bacon@72 Half a million children under 5 were killed in Iraq just from the sanctions. The dead, the injured, and the displaced are
still dead, injured, and displaced regardless of what weapon was used.
I have some big picture thoughts I want to share. China is a growing threat to the existence of the Western way because it seems
to be successfully mostly socialist and is projecting that win-win around the world. Empire has used the ME and SE Asia for war
focus until now but are stymied there and need to have an "enemy" (real of made up) to continue fueling the war economies.
Since the West cannot complete its World Order project they must revitalize the war strategy into a long term cold war type.
What we see is a circling of wagons and threats against any who are not "with us". I think the speed with which steps are being
taken are because of the threat of questions about finance that need to be silenced with more war and fear of any sort.
I hope what folks are seeing by the actions of the West is that Rule-Of-Law is really just Rule-Of-Power/Control begat
by owning the global tools of finance with a myth cover of Rule-Of-Law just like economics is a myth cover for the elite making
all the big investment decisions and those results trickling down so to speak....
I hope folks also grok that the elite have known about the power of "intelligence" long before countries created groups to
gather such information. To think that those who run our world do not have access to the intelligence of all Western country's
governments is in error. Look at for how many centuries the elite have maintained control and ask yourself how.....they own the
leadership.....money buys access.
I'm not sure which is worse, the Trump apologists or the Empire detractors that spin every apparent set-back or assumed over-reach
into a hopeful "this too shall pass" fantasy. Now we have the twisted conspiracy theory of Trump as "unwitting agent" of the Empire's
demise.
The [Trump's] agenda is not to destroy the Empire but to transform it to meet the challenge from Russia and China. Anyone
that sees those changes and reads 'disintegration' is only seeing what they want to see.
The transformation is to a much darker place and far from anything like democracy. For those of us that don't truck in
misguided fantasies, the psyops, economic warfare, and militarism tells us all we need to know. Is it any wonder that the one
chosen to lead us down the garden path to dystopia is an egotistical maniac? Trump was SELECTED, not elected, by the likes of:
Hillary, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, Clapper, Kissinger, and Schumer.
A very unanticipated announcement: (Trump's intention to end US involvement in foreign military conflicts) ... Reactions
from the bar?
Posted by: karlof1 | Feb 1, 2019 8:04:07 PM | 41
The world dodged a bullet when Trump won the 2-horse race from that lazy, demented old nag, Crooked Hillary. I couldn't believe
she'd be dopey enough to pretend that she didn't know about the Electoral College factor.
Trump must thoroughly enjoy uphill battles. How else to explain his Drain the Swamp declaration as the hallmark of his first
term? I took it to mean that he's putting them on notice and there's not much, short of JFK-ing him, that they can do to stop
him. And that's the way it's panning out.
I hope he's as smart as he thinks he is because his Drain the Swamp promise, and self-preservation, guaranteed that the course
of his Presidency would be hard to follow and impossible to predict. I'm in the Open Slather demographic i.e. ANYTHING he decides
to do is OK EXCEPT start a new war.
I'm expecting his SOTU to be as ambiguous as everything else he says because he's the only one with a Drain the Swamp plan
and he hasn't explained which ducks have to be lined up, in which sequence, before he'll be ready to deliver the coup de grβce.
I don't understand why there's so much anti-Trump bitching. The Swamp was winning and the Little People were F**ked financially
and peace-wise long before Trump came along. He's already done some unusually and comparatively sane things and I expect him to
do more of the same.
Sorry but does Mr. Maduro have a fetish of repeating every step from the Maidan playbook. You just let foreigners run around
Caracas inciting the coup? Remember, the very last step from that playbook, of Russian spetznatz coming to rescue your sorry ass,
is not available to you because you live a bit out of the way. These regime-change "journalists" are foreign agents who
must be rounded up pronto (for their own protection of course).
Then once this is over, Washington can have them back in exchange for the stolen billions. Remember, impunity is the Dark Throne's
greatest weapon; give them some skin in the game, and suddenly it's their side that has to think twice.
Posted by: Ma Laoshi | Feb 2, 2019 1:50:06 AM |
link
I remember how Reagan started to wobble a bit towards the end of his term. Part of me suspects that Trump is himself in
a bit of a decline and is thus the best vehicle for his cadre of Iagos to subvert his power into their projects. Clinton would
have been even better in that respect.
If you consider the size of potholes and mass suicide by opiate to be indicators, the decline of the USA is well underway.
More on topic, however, is the general characteristic of South and Central American rebellion. Savage, well-armed, even
if only with Machetes, and shades of evil rather than a clear moral choice. If your hobby is pouring billions of dollars into
the fire to sow mayhem there is no better place. The miraculous banana that is stocked in every grocery store even up in
Calgary or Alaska may well get there by the grace of tribute paid to local warlords. The cocaine that is sniffed in Hollywood
and New York by the ton comes from Colombia or Peru. Worldwide, restaurants thrive on beef from Argentina... as well as horse
meat from Mexico.
I would predict that given the well-orchestrated push to recognize Guaido that the plan to overthrow Maduro's government
is both inevitable and long-expected. The question is how the aftermath will roll out depending on whether or not the Columbian
rebel groups link up with the Venezuelan resistance and the whole region explodes. Just a question. But I would bet that such
a scenario is not unforseen by the American puppeteers.
Invoking Auschwitz liberation, and the anti-semitism of Maduro, Venezuela 'president' Juan Guaido WELCOMES Israel recognition!!
Referring to Soviet troops' victory, Juan Guaido thanks Netanyahu for supporting him 'just as our country is also fighting for
its freedom' Trump's special envoy for international negotiations, (((Jason Greenblatt))), applauded Jerusalem for its "courageous
stand in solidarity with the Venezuelan people." Israel takes a courageous stand in solidarity with the Venezuelan people!
https://t.co/9i8z9NOHA1
-- Jason D. Greenblatt (@jdgreenblatt45) January
27, 2019
While Venezuela once had one of the largest Jewish communities in the region, numbering some 25,000 in 1999, only about 6,000
Jews are believed to remain in the country, with many of the rest having fled to Israel, Canada, the US and elsewhere.
Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez, who broke off ties with Israel in 2009, have both been strident critics of Israel,
and some Jewish community leaders have expressed fears of the government stoking anti-Semitism.
At the United Nations on Saturday, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged all nations to end Venezuela's Auschwitz "nightmare"
and support Guaido.
"Now is the time for every other national to pick a side," Pompeo told the Security Council.
"No more delays, no more games. Either you stand with the (((forces of freedom))), or you're in league with Maduro and his
anti-semitic mayhem."
'Old habits die hard', or as Pindar via Herodotus opined, 'Custom rules'. Key elements of the customary process for
Empires' regime change efforts are to demonize the targeted leader, economic warfare on the targeted country, make up lurid stories,
infiltrate with foreign saboteurs and NED-type internal subversion. John Perkin's 'Economic Hit Man' described the process of
gaining leverage via financial means, debt the key. As Perkins noted, then there are the assassination squads, and then finally
the US military, which has of late been heavily supplemented with mercenaries and private armies.
What has changed in recent
years has been the context in which this customary process takes place. Some of that: Russia and China are now stronger militarily,
and their presence and technology is spreading, the ability of the Empire to bomb with impunity is being reduced. Countries are
setting up alternative financial arrangements. The lurid story routine has lost some of its punch and audience.
The false nature of the self-congratulatory advertisements of the Empire are widely recognized. Its 'might is right' doctrine
and repudiation of common law and and common decency and common sense and common honesty is palpable.
Then along comes Donald Trump, and here it is very important to distinguish between the real character, real motives, real
plans of someone, and what actually occurs or is actually strengthened or weakened.
So, for example, one can accurately designate someone as a dishonest criminal, and still applaud that criminal's act of catching
a child as he is tossed from three stories up out of a burning building to the criminal below.
As Hudson points out, it is Trump's actual impact that is the important matter. As I've pointed out previously, Trump, Putin
and Hitler are arguably the three most frequently and harshly denigrated public figures over the last century. I don't think Stalin
and Mao are in the same league, when it comes to sheer quantity of denigration. And why has Trump been so harshly targeted: Trump
was viewed as ideologically anti-Empire, a nationalist, and Trump's effect has been to accelerate the weakening of the Empire's
full spectrum domination ways and means and ambition.
And among the many loud howls of outrage vs Trump, his stated preference/intention of removing American troops from Syria,
and his musing over vaccines and autism, are two examples.
Now note again that this is not a discussion about his 'real' motives. I'm not a mind reader. But in the case of the vaccine
and autism issue, Trump handed something of a baton to Robert Kennedy Junior, who was recently given the opportunity to speak
on the subject for five minutes on I think it might have been FOX. Kennedy said it was only the second time in ten years that
he had been given the opportunity in MSM to do do so. Trump deserves some credit here. Note that in Italy recently a common vaccine
was found to be a phony gimmick, though any reference to this in mass media was along the lines of the Italian government being
anti-science, etc.
In so far as Trump's getting out of Syria statement is concerned, the point is that by saying that Trump created a new dynamic
of sorts. It for example opened a slight door/opportunity for Tulsi Gabbard to advance her anti-war theme. Trump's statement also
made it necessary for the outraged responders to attempt to assemble some kind of rationale for leaving American troops in Syria.
They didn't come off looking all that wonderful. "So why are we in Syria again?' became part of the discussion. The best they
could do was if we leave (our ISIS) creation might metastasize, and Russia and Syria and Iran will have 'won'. In other words,
Trump's sudden 'we're getting out of Syria' declaration had to some extent a 'lancing of a boil' effect, irregardless of whether
or not it actually happens or to what extent.
First: to personne #83. In fact, the zionists have a long history of involvement in coups in central america. Read up on Sam Zemurray
and United Fruit, and also his practice run in Honduras. Second, to Sasha #47. Thank you very much for posting that letter. It
is amazing (!!!!) that the gov of Spain can be so hypocritical regarding "democracy" in Venezuela, having ruthlessly crushed the
Catalan Independence movement and Jailed (!!) it's leaders.
Finally, regarding the press and the Lima group: the mainstream press seems to be touting the same line as the US press. Trump
et al are the heroes, "Guido" is the new savior, and Maduro is a "dictator." I am not going to provide links, but I will give
examples and websites for those who wish to check. Example: the Mercurio in chile, which mostly reprints NY Times. AP and Wall
Street Journal stories portraits the coup as a done deal, with photos of "Giuido" kissing babies. Please to remember that "it's
just business." The family of chile president, Pinera, has large holdings in Latam and MasterCard. Other major chilean interest
are mining and lumber. There is already much salivating over the prospect of clear cutting the Amazon rainforest in Brazil. Venezuela
has great riches in natural resources. Qui bono? I think is the expression. website: www.emol.com. There is push back. the Tercera
has printed a two full page interview with Jorge Arreaza, Canceller de Venezuela, denouncing Pinera. "El Presiente Pinera vendio
su soberania y su autonomia a Estados Unidos." President Pinera sold his sovereignty and autonomy to the united states.
www.latercera.com edition of friday, 1 february.
It's difficult to know where this patently illegal - well - crime against humanity, in the sense that starving people to "free"
them is criminal - will end. If you strip off the expensive suits, it just looks like a gang rape to me.
On subject of Venezuela and propaganda - Excellent article about pattern of propaganda from NYT.
Article at TruthDig
But the above article is limited in background -
WIKI article on Yellow Journalism
Pulitzer himself was know for/sort of invented "Yellow Journalism".
Individuals (as in author of the 1st article) may speak contrary to the status quo, but no organization can for long and no
idividual within an organization. I've tried speaking against my boss on occassion - did not pan out well career-wise.
In short, it's not a bug, it's a feature. It's not to express dismay about but to know and understand and proceed accordingly.
The alt media does well to educate the public on this issue but also needs to present a positive alternative.
Great post, sir. You eloquently examine the effect of a DJT presidency, which many can not realize has shifted the full spectrum
dominance doctrine of the empire and rendered it gasping for air in a ditch.
We don't like DJT because he is president that models himself after Kant's Categorical Imperative. We like Trump because he
is not a true believer and that because of his inaction, unlike the last 30 years of Prezs who have taken it upon themselves to
blow up at least one country, his presidency has been marked with frequent threats of withdrawing from the ME entirely and rendering
our presence there ineffectual while also sparring with the IC community which has consistently gone on record spouting the BS
that Trump is a dangerous hand at the wheel of our FP, which has been part and parcel of the smearing attempt by the MSM to make
DJT look like an imbecile who is leading us to ruin.
But for those of us in the know, this is a good thing that we should be applauding DJT for. I will watch his SOTU with keen
interest.
After a single phone call from from U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, Guaidσ proclaimed himself as president of Venezuela...
CANVAS is funded largely through the National Endowment for Democracy...
CANVAS "turned its attention to Venezuela" in 2005 after training opposition movements that led pro-NATO regime change operations
across Eastern Europe...
Venezuelan economist Luis Enrique Berrizbeitia, one of the top Latin American neoliberal economists, is a former executive
director of the International Monetary Fund...
Milton Friedman was the godfather of the notorious neoliberal Chicago Boys who were imported into Chile by dictatorial
junta leader Augusto Pinochet to implement policies of radical "shock doctrine"-style fiscal austerity...
Leopoldo Lσpez is a Princeton-educated right-wing firebrand heavily involved in National Endowment for Democracy programs
and elected as the mayor of a district in Caracas that was one of the wealthiest in the country...
Elliott Abrams is notorious for overseeing the U.S. covert policy of arming right-wing death squads during the 1980s
in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.
@Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Feb 1, 2019 10:07:51 PM | 54
@Posted by: mourning dove | Feb 1, 2019 10:59:07 PM | 65
@Posted by: Grieved | Feb 1, 2019 11:12:04 PM | 69
Thanks to you all for reading and, obviously, indulging on my poor translation ( in which I have detected several grammar and
spelling mistakes...), but, you must know that I did it at wee hours here in Europe, with my eyes falling from sleep over the
keyboard...I was almost incapable of proofread the last paragraph of the letter which I added to the previous part i had selected
to translate.
Related to this I must say that I did not translate the whole letter, but almost all, leaving without translation some few
less relevant parts in the fear the comment would be banned here because of its longitude.
The letter was originally published at Spanish newspaper Pϊblico.es , which I found republished at Spanish site Rebeliσn.org
, both sites I fear with wide readership at least amongst Spanish, European left and of the world too .
I would only wish to be able to express myself better in English than I do, anyway, only I would wish you get to understand
me. You can contribute by spreading amongst your network of friends and relatives, and may be, even perfectioning my clumsy translation
to get it better shaped to be psublished at other media.
I do as much as I can, many times sacrifying too much hours of sleep to be healthy to just post comments, the reason why i can
not engage in long discussions here, or responding every one who adresses me here, since many times i have not time availale at
all to read all the comments and so your adressing may get without response. So sorry, but I prioritize forwarding the message
or the interesting article/information over discussion, for which I regrettably have not time, and which, in any way, should not
get us without the time to direct the fight to where is most needed, directly adressing our representatives on responding for
their clear transgressions of International and National Laws and the basic principles and values we deem mandatory to assure
a dign human existence on planet Earth.
Finally, I would wish saying that I do this only for solidarity and compassion towards my Venezuelan comrades, but the reality
is that I do it out of selfish interest since what is being built in front of our very eyes is the "New Totalitarian Order", where
any human right known to this date will be abolished in the benefit of transnational capital and corporations.
Historically those kinds of gangs are among the prime recruiting grounds for coup-supporting thugs. So the US propaganda lies
about them also indicates coup planner interest in recruiting them to help Guano's usurpation attempt.
In an interview with Russia's RIA Novosti news agency that aired Wednesday, Maduro said he has sent letters to the governments
of Bolivia, Mexico, Russia and Uruguay to involve them in a new process of dialogue with the opposition. Russia, which has been
Maduro's most vocal international supporter and is a major investor in Venezuela, applauded his willingness to negotiate. "The
fact that President Maduro is open to dialogue with the opposition deserves high praise," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told
reporters in a phone call. . .
here
Mexico calls for "peace and dialogue" in Venezuela -- The Mexican government recognizes Nicolas Maduro as Venezuela's president
and sees dialogue as the answer to political strife blamed for 13 deaths, Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said Thursday, citing
his country's tradition of not interfering in the affairs of other nations.
"Mexico will maintain its stance. In synthesis: no intervention and a readiness to contribute however we can to any process that
leads to peace and dialogue," he said during President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador's daily morning press conference. .
here
UN chief urges dialogue in Venezuela to avert 'disaster' --
DAVOS, Switzerland: UN chief Antonio Guterres on Thursday (Jan 24) appealed for dialogue to stop Venezuela's political crisis
spiralling out of control, after opposition leader Juan Guaido declared himself interim president. "What we hope is that dialogue
can be possible, and that we avoid an escalation that would lead to the kind of conflict that would be a disaster for the people
of Venezuela and for the region," he said at the World Economic Forum in Davos. . .
here
Canada joins efforts by the Venezuelan right-wing opposition, the United States, and right-wing governments in Latin America
to oust democratically elected President Nicolas Maduro, Canada's Labour Congress, representing over three million Canadian workers,
issued a statement Wednesday calling on the Justin Trudeau government to promote dialogue instead of intervention and a military
coup. "Venezuelans need to resolve their differences through constructive dialogue and democratic processes without resorting
to violence," said CLC President Hassan Yussuff. .. .
here
"Let's be clear," [Pence] said. "This is no time for dialogue. This is time for action. And the time has come to end the
Maduro dictatorship once and for all." . .
here
I have just returned from Germany and seen a remarkable split between that nation's industrialists and their political leadership.
For years, major companies have seen Russia as a natural market, a complementary economy needing to modernize its manufacturing
and able to supply Europe with natural gas and other raw materials. America's New Cold War stance is trying to block this commercial
complementarity. Warning Europe against "dependence" on low-price Russian gas, it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from
the United States (via port facilities that do not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required). President Trump also is
insisting that NATO members spend a full 2 percent of their GDP on arms preferably bought from the United States, not from
German or French merchants of death.
The U.S. overplaying its position is leading to the Mackinder-Kissinger-Brzezinski Eurasian nightmare that I mentioned above.
In addition to driving Russia and China together, U.S. diplomacy is adding Europe to the heartland, independent of U.S. ability
to bully into the state of dependency toward which American diplomacy has aimed to achieve since 1945.
The World Bank, for instance, traditionally has been headed by a U.S. Secretary of Defense. Its steady policy since its
inception is to provide loans for countries to devote their land to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves.
That is why its loans are only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency needed to provide price supports and agricultural
extension services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive. By following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves
open to food blackmail sanctions against providing them with grain and other food, in case they step out of line with U.S.
diplomatic demands.
They would make Venezuela the new Pinochet-era Chile. Trump is not alone in supporting Saudi Arabia and its Wahabi terrorists
acting, as Lyndon Johnson put it, "Bastards, but they're our bastards."
Venezuelan general recognises opposition leader Guaido as president: Twitter video. A high-ranking Venezuelan air force general
said he had disavowed President Nicolas Maduro and now recognised opposition leader Juan Guaido as interim head-of-state, according
to a video circulating on Twitter on Saturday. In the video, General Francisco Yanez, a member of the air force's high command,
called on other members of the military to defect. He also reportedly claimed that 90 percent of the armed forces no longer support
Maduro.
The high command's web page lists Yanez, along with a photo, as the air force's head of strategic planning.
On its Twitter account, the high command of the military accused the general of treason.
Yanez is the first active Venezuelan general to recognise Guaido since he proclaimed himself president on Jan. 23.
Al Jazeera's Latin America editor Lucia Newman, reporting from Caracas, said the defection of the first active general is "another
blow" to the Maduro administration.
"Juan Guaido has been publicly appealing to the armed forces to defect, to abandon Nicolas Maduro, whose main support comes
from the military. Without it, he would have a difficult time to stay in power."
But the question now is whether Yanez commands a number of troops, and orders members of the armed forces to follow him, our
correspondent said.
F
Twitter report of a supposed Air Force general defecting to Guaido. Abrams was surely bound to be able to corrupt a few officers
but I doubt it will be enough to tip the scales..
https://twitter.com/oulosp/status/1091697589307797504?s=21
There is theory being bantered about that goes like this:
Trump is leaving Syria and Afghanistan. The move on Venezeula signals a turn toward neighborhood concerns. And Trump is so
foolish that he is helping to bring down the Empire (which he hates because he's an "America First" nationalist).
This "paper tiger" hopium has the feel of other false assertions such as: "Erdogan is turning east!" and "Putin is a Zionist!"
The reality is:
Expect lies/fibs/misleading statements/distracts The establishment has a long history of deceit that MSM works hard
to smooth over, cover-up, and memory-hole. They litterally think you're stoopid.
Trump 'good intentions' haven't produced anything concrete We have, in fact, only seen 'back-tracking' on the 'good
intentions' announcements. US is still assisting the genocide in Yemen. Trump's "immediate" Syrian troop withdrawal was delayed.
And the rumored reduction in US forces in Afghanistan was nothing more than a rumor.
Furthermore: It's clear that IF THERE IS any US 'pull-out' from Syria, the territory will not be returned to Syria. That
means US would likely provide support for whatever proxy forces take their place and that could lead to increasing US involvement
in Syria over time.
There is no evidence that Venezuela represents a 'turn' by the AZEmpire Venezuela has long been on their radar.
Trump is a faux populist front man for the Deep State He is the Republican Obama. We are seeing the same sort
of duplicity from Trump as we saw from Obama. What I call the 'Obama psyop' embodied peace via inclusiveness but that was a
smokescreen for covert war. The 'Trump psyop' embodies peace via anti-interventionalism but that is also a smokescreen. It
masks economic war; propaganda war; increased belligerence (INF treaty) and militarism (space force); etc.
Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Blooming Barricade , Feb 2, 2019 11:46:29 AM |
link
@104
@105
Isn't it lovely how they are now making their coup appeals right out in the open? Not hidden, and yet no condemnation, only
cheers from the corporate/government media NYTimes, BBC, CNN, Guardian, which I say should be renamed the counterinsurgency media
as they (attempt to) act to sway hearts and minds of neocolonial subjects (Read: everyone not in the elite class) backed by the
multinational imperialists Exxon, Jair Bolsonaro, Israel, etc and their mouthpieces. We really need to work on reestablishing
basic norms that this sort of thing should not be backed. In the Vietnam/Chile era this would be shameful...here we are listening
to the songs of the mockingbirds...
Blooming Barricade , Feb 2, 2019 11:48:44 AM |
link
Again, they are calling for a MILITARY COUP. How is the opposition frontman even allowed to walk free and solicit attacks on the
people of his country, backed to the hilt by the forces of ecocide and greed.
>Gen. Francisco Yaρez (controls nothing) - A high-ranking Air Force general announced his support for Mr Guaidσ in a video
message posted online.. . here . In response,
the Air Force's high command called him accused him of treason.
"No se podνa esperar menos del TRAIDOR GD Francisco Esteban Yanez Rodriguez, sobrino del corrupto Gral Yanez Mendez que por cierto
tiene un expediente en la Contralorνa General de la #FANB por corrupto!" . .
here
google translation: "You could not expect less from the GD TRAITOR Francisco Esteban Yanez Rodriguez, nephew of the corrupt Gral
Yanez Mendez who incidentally has a file in the General Comptroller's Office of the #FANB for corrupt!"
>MIAMI -- Hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans are preparing massive protests in cities worldwide today to pressure the country's
president, Nicolαs Maduro out of office. Venezuelans are planning to fill the streets in more than 70 cities around the world,
including Caracas, Miami, Madrid, Milan, Frankfurt, Melbourne, Athens, and Beirut.
>Canada to convene Lima Group and other countries about Venezuela crisis Monday -- The Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister
of Foreign Affairs, today announced that Canada will host the 10th ministerial meeting of the Lima Group in Ottawa, Ontario on
February 4, 2019. The Lima Group was established in August 2017, in Lima, Peru, to co-ordinate participating countries' efforts
and apply international pressure on Venezuela until democracy is restored. The group's meetings have included representatives
from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru
and Saint Lucia. -- Canada rules the world on anti-Venezuela as a US stooge to avoid the "Yankee go home" and 'stupid gringo"
tags.
Trumps statements about the endless or the expensive wars must be balanced against his military build up and his statements
on taking the oil in countries the US has attacked. According to a current piece in Sputnik, Raytheon began building facilities
for short and medium range missiles shortly after Trump came to power.
https://sputniknews.com/us/201902021072066039-satellite-images-inf/
Production of low yield nuclear warheads or tactical nukes has begun, with the intention of having sufficient numbers for military
use (operational capability) by September of this year.
It is useful to look at this situation through the perspective that Hudson offers in his article. The petrodollar which has buttressed
US power since 1971 is crumbling. The ability of the US Treasury to print inflation proof dollars and buy anything it wants is
coming to an end. So is US domination over the world financial system, SWIFT etc.
The card game is ending with the US ruling class as the loser. But, instead of throwing in its hand, smiling and returning to
the serious business of real life (climate change, pollution, ecocide, famine etc) it decides on one last gamble. A desperation
move. (You don't let Bolton retrieve Elliot Abrams from his tomb for anything less.)
And that is where the sudden decision to
change course in Venezuela, from the slow steady squeezing of sanctions and full spectrum pressure to a coup, literally a devastating
blow, aimed at leveling the regime in Caracas because America's last chance requires a dictatorship over Latin America.
Already it looks, according to Pepe Escobar, as if Bolsonaro is being pushed aside to serve as a figurehead and nothing more,
for a military dictatorship. He will welcome that. Honduras is already under such a dictatorship. Ecuador is doing what it is
told again. My guess is that Argentina, falling apart under neo-liberal fanatics is going to return to military rule too. Chile
is not far from it.
In short the US response to losing its reserve currency monopoly is going to be to strengthen its own bloc-in which its currency
will rule- and, soft power having failed, turn to brutal military measures.
That's not to suggest that such a lunatic plan will succeed. I don't think it can. But that is no reason to believe that narcissistic
Washington, drunk on its own propaganda, its ruling class completely invested in exceptionalist, militaristic projects, won't
give it a try.
And kill a few tens of millions, maybe billions if things go nuclear, in the attempt. Fascism generally ends in the way that
it did in Hitler's bunker. La lutte finale may be coming.
Concentration pro-coupist
Guaido aleardy dispersing , once concluded theri well payed duty, after a speech composed of one line slogan after another,
hailed in a crazy shouting way by the crowd concetrated in an obviously very rich neighborhood...( one wonders why is that they
have complaints agaisnt Maduro when they are doing so well already ) all seasoned with high-sounding hymns like "Odd to Joy"
( all very Venezuelan..) and the so worn-out of so much use, "Sν se puede" ( "Yes, we can" if more was needed to show that
this stooge is pretended to remind Obama...)
Maduro asks the astonishing crowd concentrated in Bolivar Avenue now for ours already if they want new elections to reinforce
the power of the people and the people answers "Yes"...!
This disarticulates clearly the EU position....and the Pence΄s position on non negotiation under any circunstances.... The
plotters, looters and undemocratic forces at work, left bottom up unveiled before the whole world to see.... Now he is claiming
to all workers and employers to continue the path of development and recovering.....
The strategy of calling in new parliamentary elections once Guaido has been unmasked as foreign agent is the best to clean the
National Assembly from traitors sold to foreign actors and capital.
Venezuelans take to streets in push to force Maduro from power Demonstrators say they are close to achieving objective
of forcing president to step down Tens of thousands of Venezuelan protesters streamed on to the streets of the nation's
capital on Saturday for what they described as the final push to force Nicolαs Maduro from power.
There are not enough of them on the street. If the report mentioned hundreds of thousands or millions, then I'd say that Maduro
might be deposed but as it is no.
If they want more bottom-feeders to turn out for their fake rallies, why are they being so stingy with the freebees? They ought
to offer free booze. The US coupsters got the money for it. It worked for George Washington, and various Roman politicians.
Can someone tell me (despite tag I am not North American based) what the average Trump voter thinks of all this? Is this a vote
winner amongst his support base?
"We have decided to steal Venezuela's oil and gold" - maybe a lot of Americans support him? Please someone enlighten me.
Hudson overstates his case, mostly by making Trump central to his thesis.
1) Russia and China were driven together long before Trump.
2) Virtually all countries looking to de-dollarize were already at odds with USA (before Trump)
3) The number of countries that have supported USA's Venezuelan coop attempt actually demonstrates the strength of the AZEmpire.
4) European SWIFT is a nothing burger. The European poodles complain but go along with USA on anything that USA cares about.
Example: Europe now says that they will EuroSWIFT only to trade in humanitarian goods for Iran.
5) USA 'meddling', duplicity and hegemonic intentions have been long known by other countries. What has changed is NOT that
countries have 'woken up' to this, but that China and Russia offer an alternative.
6) IMO the move to the right in the West has been long anticipated. And Trump has co-opted the right in the US as effectively
as Obama co-opted the left. Expect the right in other countries to be co-opted also.
A backlash against the left's support and encouragement for large immigrant populations has been building for two decades.
Cui bono? Western society is increasingly resembling Israel and Saudi Arabia which have large population of poor service workers
with few rights (Palestinians, "guest workers").
7) Hudson ignores the fact that AZEmpire has woken to the threat posed by Russia and China to their hegemonic NWO plans -AND-
ignores the real failure of neocon asshats: that they 'lost the peace' after the Cold War by their abusive treatment of Russia
as they hoped for Russia's total capitulation. This failure was magnified by the fact that they NEEDED Russia to join with the
West so that China could be isolated. Assisting China's "peaceful rise" without isolating her was a recipe for disaster: a disaster
that is now playing out.
@ Sasha | Feb 2, 2019 12:44:02 PM | 114 "Yes, we can" if more was needed to show that this stooge is pretended to remind Obama...)
I saw the boy wonder Guaidσ walking with some people in a video today, and his mannerisms reminded me of Obama. . . Could it be?
Hugo Chavez was sworn in as Venezuela president twenty years ago today, Feb 2 1999. The anti-US presstitutes, especially NBC's
Carmen Sesin, are predicting large demonstrations today: "Venezuelans are planning to fill the streets in more than 70 cities
around the world, including Caracas, Miami, Madrid, Milan, Frankfurt, Melbourne, Athens, and Beirut." . . .and of course the "news"
can be predictive also, so the headline reads "Venezuelans take to the streets worldwide calling for an end to Maduro's presidency."
.
here . . . . We'll see.
1. Why tell me? All I did was describe the lay of the land under your capitalism and your general authoritarian political system.
People are right to distrust it in general. If that leads some to make objectively incorrect decisions (and I'm not saying non-vaccination
in any particular case is right or wrong), blame your leaders and cadres who systematically destroyed all bonds of social trust.
If some epidemics become more likely because more and more people find it impossible to trust doctors, scientists, and government
officials who all are clearly corporate shills, that's the fault of your system, not of the people who don't trust. Don't blame
the people. You sound like a specimen of the exact boot-licking conformist authoritarian yahoos I was talking about.
2. In spite of the best rigged efforts of your corporate researchers, non-vaccinators have never been found to have caused
an epidemic. Meanwhile your globalization, your climate change, and your forcing tens of millions of people off their land and
into immiseration camps (shantytowns) all are driving new epidemics and reviving old ones. A handful of non-vaccinators could
never injure the public health remotely as much even if they deliberately tried for a thousand years.
3. If you really care about public health (in my experience members of the lynch mob are invariably frauds), what have you
done to help put a stop to the systematic campaign of corporations and governments to destroy antibiotics as a medically effective
treatment? Through systematic abuse of antibiotics in factory farms, genetic engineering, and the slathering of the environment
with herbicides (the most used herbicides like glyphosate are also broad-scale antibiotics), industrial agriculture is deliberately
and massively generating a pandemic of antibiotic resistant pathogens. This is guaranteed to generate lethal pandemics among humans.
By orders of magnitude this is a vastly worse campaign against the public than a handful of ad hoc non-vaccinators could ever
be. So if you have such venom left over for this fugitive handful, your actions against the corporate/government campaign to destroy
the efficacy of antibiotics must be extraordinary. Please direct me to your record here. I want links. Otherwise you're a total
fraud, like every other mobber I've encountered.
4. I have no doubt if you were handed a gun and ordered to be part of a firing squad you'd wet your pants and start crying.
Most people in US could not find Venezuela on a map even with the current news cycle. Most Trump supporters are interested
in jobs. Most are not war hawks. Anti war Trump supporters hope he is draining the swamp. Exposing, disgracing and getting rid
of neocons. (From the political scene)
Scotch Bingeington , Feb 2, 2019 3:14:26 PM |
link
I have yet to read about a halt in Venezuelan crude-oil shipping to the US. And whatever became of the request for US-embassy
personnel to leave the country? Is anything actually being followed through?
More and more I get the feeling that the Maduro administration is just not up to it. War has been declared on them, but what do
they do? If you challenge the US and that's exactly what they did, by circumventing the dollar, by trying to increase business
with the US's minions in the Caribbean, by inviting Russia to get a foothold in the USA's mainland oil business, by doling out
free heating oil to charitable institutions and families in need across the US, by publicly aligning with Syria and China and
so on surely you would have contingency planning in place? Trying to foresee the USA's reaction and how to respond to it, in
turn?
So I recon CITGO is still being supplied by PDVSA. Imagine that. Possibly employees are still getting their pay checks by cash-deprived
Venezuela, too. It's insane. Guiado still free and able to diligently follow his script.
Crude shipments to CITGO should have been stopped completely two weeks ago. Non-domestic staff at CITGO should have been laid
off asap. Venezuelans among staffers should have been offered to return home or be expatriated. Given the current volatility in
Western economies and especially the impending doom coming for the US shale business, such measures might have put considerable
further strain on the West, might even have sent us on a downward spiral towards a full-blown economic crisis.
In the meantime, the embassy in Washington plus the various (!) consulates across the US should have seen to it that business
is wound down. Then leave. After that, expel diplomats at the US embassy in Caracas by all means. Also sever ties with any other
country that has supported Guiado's blatant act of high treason. I wonder how the Netherlands would have reacted, given its vulnerability
in Curacao.
Guiado should simply have been deported, GDR-style. Why bother with him in a trial? Just get rid of him. Let him move to Miami,
to follow in Marco Rubio's footsteps.
As a reciprocal step in light of what the Bank of England did with Venezuela's gold, one or two of Royal Caribbean's flagship
cruisers should be captured, or "forfeited". Disrupt the happy-go-lucky cruising business in the Caribbean a little. Now, any
further gold transport, to the UAE or wherever, should only be conducted by the Navies of the two countries involved.
Finally, spread the word that any country volunteering to become the staging ground for a US invasion will be considered an enemy
at war. That should make at least some people in Colombia, Brazil, Aruba and Curacao gulp.
The Washington regime won't let go. So for Maduro to try and just sit it out is a patently insane idea. Because for now, time
is on the US side.
And what about firing squads for those who have murdered untold millions by giving them cancer by poisoning the food, water, air,
and general environment? I missed the part where you already joined those firing squads, or called for them to exist.
I can say w/o fear of contradiction that Trump feels like me, that this Venna-zwala thing will fail, providing another opportunity
to fire some more old guard neocons and Make America Great Again. Maybe all three: Pence, Pompeo and Bolton. Package deal. Like
it was fun doing Mad Dog.
"I have yet to read about a halt in Venezuelan crude-oil shipping to the US. And whatever became of the request for US-embassy
personnel to leave the country? Is anything actually being followed through?
More and more I get the feeling that the Maduro administration is just not up to it. War has been declared on them, but what
do they do?"
If a nation has committed itself to (1) a de facto colonized extraction-based economy (which also involves physically destroying
your own country, just as much as if it were from an external military attack), (2) which is at the mercy of a global commodity
system, (3) which is controlled by vastly more powerful forces which are aggressive, militarist bullies under the best of circumstances
and are irrationally hostile toward that nation in particular; then I don't see any way to exist other than at the mercy of such
hostile forces.
I don't know what possible way out Venezuela has within the framework of the globalized extreme energy civilization.
@ Scotch Bingeington | Feb 2, 2019 3:14:26 PM | 133 . . .Because for now, time is on the US side.
Why? This exercise is actually about more than Maduro, as the Wall Street Journal published
here , shortened by paywall:
U.S. Push to Oust Venezuela's Maduro Marks First Shot in Plan to Reshape Latin America
The Trump administration's
broader aim is to gain leverage over Cuba and curb recent inroads in the region by Russia, Iran and China
WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration's attempt to force out the president of Venezuela marked the opening of a new strategy
to exert greater U.S. influence over Latin America, according to administration officials.
In sight isn't just Venezuela's Nicolαs Maduro, but also Cuba, an antagonist that has dominated American attention in the
region for more than 50 years, as well as recent inroads made by Russia, China and Iran.
Russia and China especially have lots of money invested so we can bet that Maduro is listening very closely to what they are telling
him, and acting accordingly. So far, it's working. There is no indication that the US efforts will be successful, is there? Meanwhile,
it seems to me that time is on Maduro's side.
Following your recommended script would be serving US wish for war/military invasion in a silver plate. What Maduro is doing,
as got clear during his speech at Bolivar Avenue in front of the crowd concentrated there to celebrate the 20 anniversay of Bolivarian
Revolution, is following a similar path Russian is doing, by keeping in the side of law abiding countries, while unveiling the
real thuggish character of the US, most naked than ever....
He stated that the fight to recover Venezuelan assests seized y the US and UK will e claimed at the corresponding tribunals,
he claimed for time for things to develop and fall by their own weight.
He most probably finds no point in harming other countries populations, including those of the countries who are openly participating
in this outrage and assault on the Venezuelan people. By doing so, he will be behaving like the warmonger scoundrels currently
ruling in the US/UK/Canada/EU/Colombia/Brazil/Peru/Argentina, and so on....Most of them are most probably going off in the next
elections at heir respective countries....due their approvation ratings... Why rush at all?
He called the Venezuelan people to continue working hard without falling into provocations, and took the opoortunity to dismantle
part of the plot y calling for new parliamentary elections...That he did not follow the path and script wished by the US and his
minion Guaido does not mean he is succumbing to threats.
"The Washington regime won't let go. So for Maduro to try and just sit it out is a patently insane idea."
Madero isn't sitting it out: he has called for new elections, is getting vote in Parliament and is asking a people's referendum
on it as well The wannabe President didn't run in the election because polls indicated that they would lose badly. This is a sensible
tactical move on Madero's part IMO, both the call for elections and the people's referendum
Its not sensible to call for elections for Maduro. The oppostion will reject the elections again along with the US/EU. Does anyone
really believe west will somehow accept Mauduro if is there was an election (how many is necessary? They just had one!) one is
naive as Maduro seems to be himself.
The proof that what the US and its appointed fake president Guaido are looking for is a civil war in Venezuela, which would
dismantle the sate and transform it into a failed state, is to e found in Guaido΄s beligerent speech in front of the crowd concetrated
to hear him in an Eastern rich neighborhood, people who dispersed themselves quite fast, after showing so excited by what Guaido
was saying, once his disapassionate and clearly anti-Venezuelan speech finished..
The regular parliamentary elections were expected to be held in Venezuela in 2020. However, Maduro said that the body needs
to be "re-legitimized" as he addressed a large crowd of his supporters during a rally in Caracas.
The president said that he would consult the Venezuelan Constituent Assembly a body elected in 2017 to draft the new constitution
on the issue. If the assembly backs the proposal the vote will be scheduled for some time this year. Earlier, Venezuela's
Supreme Court declared all acts of the National Assembly, headed by Guaido, as null and void.
Meanwhile, Venezuela continues to witness both pro and anti-government rallies. Tens of thousands of people took to the
streets of the Venezuelan capital on Saturday to join a pro-government demonstration to celebrate 20 years since the late Venezuelan
president, Hugo Chavez, launched the Bolivarian revolution.
A sea of people can be seen flooding a kilometers-long stretch of Bolivar Avenue in downtown Caracas to listen to Maduro's
speech. Crowds were waving Venezuela's national flags and holding placards with portraits of Chavez.
Tens of thousands of people also gathered in the eastern part of the capital for a rally organized by the opposition. The
national flag-waving crowds also occupied a long stretch in the city as they came to listen to Guaido.
In his speech, Maduro hailed the determination and "deep loyalty" of the people as demonstrated over the last 20 years,
and called on Guaido-led opposition to engage in a dialog.
The president appealed to the reason of the opposition politicians and said he is ready to meet them "the day they want."
He also said economics and "national peace" would be the focus of the conversation .
The opposition leader's statements were more belligerent, however. He declared that the upcoming month would become a
"breaking point" in the opposition's struggle for power and called for new massive protests on February 12. He also claimed
that 90 percent of Venezuelans "want change" and "no one here fears a civil war ."
I saw the boy wonder Guaidσ walking with some people in a video today, and his mannerisms reminded me of Obama. . . Could it
be? Posted by: Don Bacon | Feb 2, 2019 2:19:46 PM | 126
Hmm. The suggestion being that both politicans are barbaric products of a God-forsaken and eternally-damned CIA laboratory factory-farm?
That is a far-fetched thesis, I think. Still, this Guaidσ character is a certifiable doppleleganger for the richie Crassus
who led the Roman Legions into one of their most humiliating defeats against the Parthians.
IS it within the realm of possiblity
that the ghost of Crassius, stuck in the desert out there in what is now West Iran, can't locate the golden ray, so he is animating
Obama and Guidσ? Inquiring minds want to know. As the big-shots always say: nothing is off the table, so...
See minutes 0:22 and 1:00 and tell me that Crassus is not Guidσ. And at 1:22: Do eyes deceive? does the young Bolton appear
in the Guidσ's royal entourage?
Repy to: Zanon 143
"It's not sensible to call for elections for Maduro. The opposition will reject the elections again along with the US/EU. Does
anyone really believe west will somehow accept Mauduro if is there was an election (how many is necessary? They just had one!)
one is naive as Maduro seems to be himself."
I respectfully disagree. This fellow wants to be president, fine go for it, apply for the job; run for office. Does he feel
the election will be stolen, fine have election observers from all over the world. If he still says no, then he shows himself
to be a fraud to the world.
The UN will back Maderos on this; Maderos is using the Russian playbook, stay calm, stay sane, call for the rule of law.
A far-left faction within Germany's socialist Left Party goes briefly where no one is allowed to go, concerning Venezuela...
then gets reminded of all those revisionists who are imprisoned in Germany
so they instantly reverse themselves, grovel on their knees, apologize profusely...
When will they ever learn who you are not allowed to criticize or even make fun of?
German Left Party group slammed over "anti-Semitic" Venezuela cartoon
The Cuba Si Hessen group posted the image on Facebook on Wednesday. It shows a grim reaper cloaked in a United States flag
and holding a bloody scythe painted to resemble the flag of Israel.
The figure knocks at a door titled "Venezuela." Blood spills out of other opened doors marked "Iraq," "Libya," "Syria" and
"Ukraine."
The group captioned the image with: "We stand on the side of the legitimate Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, and oppose
any form of intervention. Yankee go home!"
Why have elections if you arent sure you will win?
Maduro would likely win, yes - but its not sensible since Guiado and other will not participate since they will risk losing,
besides election observers from EU/US will say the election result is a fraud.
For US/EU Guaido, the issue isnt with "elections", the issue is Maduro/socialist party.
UN and have no power when the bullets, chaos is ignited by US/EU.
Call for the rule of law, why? Neocons dont give a damn about it.
This is the reality. Maduro should play hard too, not appease anyone with "elections" or "dialogue", not because that is wrong,
but because it doesnt work with the parties (US/EU Guiado) involved.
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis of the vaccination crisis. It's bitterly amusing that pro-vaccination orthodoxy purports
to have sole, exclusive ownership and occupancy of both the scientific and ethical high ground, and superciliously denounces and
condemns any rational skepticism of the current state of the Big Pharma (as opposed to "medical science") driven Total
Vaccination imperative as mad or bad heresy.
I don't have children, but my experience in recent years 1) avoiding dubious "flu shots", and 2) dutifully, and so far unsuccessfully,
submitting to the vexing, Kafkaesque ordeal of getting the newest shingles vaccine is more than enough to make me a proud
heretic.
If vaccinations were developed and marketed with the same exemplary scientific and ethical standards manifested by Jonas Salk,
the horror-story "side-effects" and abuses (e.g., the CIA using vaccination programs as a cover for black ops) wouldn't exist--
at least on a scale that causes some of the public to rightly doubt their virtue and efficacy.
The Stern Adult "their blood is on your hands" j'accuse is pathetic. Moderate progressives who loyally supported the
abominable "Obamacare" health-corporation bailout used the same shrill invective: "Obamacare saved my granny's life! If you dare
to criticize it, why, you're either expressing self-absorbed 'privilege' or sociopathy!"
Age of Autism, a very useful compendium of vaccine issues.
Just viewed a segment on Sharyl Attkisson's show how Paraguay has all but eradicated malaria since 2011. To bring back towards
topic, you can bet that Big Pharma is itching to get back into Venezuela to roll out its vaccine programmes. Ask India how that
has been going.
Zanon
where do you get this crap about an presidential election for Venezuela. Maduro has called for a parliamentary election, not a
presidential election.
Parliament members like this Guiado have now shown their colors. most will be booted out of the parliament if an election is held
now.
@Peter that would be a great maneuver, sure to be torpedoed by the Opp/US as it wont bring the desired results. If & when sniper
fire starts we'll get a clear understanding of Venezuela's ennemies resolve. Until then, I dont think this putch attempt is working
very well..
History proves that you can't appease this kind of aggressor. For those who think Maduro needs to make every kind of concession,
I don't know who the target audience for that is supposed to be.
Meanwhile, judging from how you froth at the mouth and spew death threats upon hearing mention of a small group engaged in
civil disobedience, you're definitely in need of the Big Pharma Medication Regime you so ardently worship. Just pray you never
need those antibiotics you're content to see destroyed!
I've had bad experiences with doctors myself, and heard horror stories from many other people. Not involving vaccines in my
case, but the same principle and enough to make me regard all doctors as not just corporate agents but effectively extensions
of the police state.
As for my corporate troll here, as I demonstrated his type doesn't really care about public health at all. That's why I call
them "proxxers", because their hysteria over the non-vaccinators is clearly a proxy for something else. Part of it is that they
regard this type of civil disobedience as an intolerable affront to their cult of scientism and statism.
Maduro/his party will likely win such an election, but no point since the other side - EU/US Guaido will reject that, they
have already shown their real colors in not reconizing Maduro/his party, they have nothing to lose now unfortunately.
>>>>: NemesisCalling | Feb 2, 2019 3:39:12 PM | 140
Besides the measles being relatively innocuous
Tell that to the one hundred and fifty thousand people who die from it each year
In 2011, the WHO estimated that 158,000 deaths were caused by measles. This is down from 630,000 deaths in 1990. As of 2013,
measles remains the leading cause of vaccine-preventable deaths in the world . In developed countries, death occurs
in one to two cases out of every 1,000 (0.10.2%). In populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate healthcare,
mortality can be as high as 10%. In cases with complications, the rate may rise to 2030%. In 2012, the number of deaths due
to measles was 78% lower than in 2000 due to increased rates of immunization among UN member states.
For comparison:
The death rate from diarrhoeal diseases decreased by almost 1 million between 2000 and 2016, but still caused 1.4 million deaths
in 2016. Similarly, the number of tuberculosis deaths decreased during the same period, but is still among the top 10 causes
with a death toll of 1.3 million. HIV/AIDS is no longer among the world's top 10 causes of death, having killed 1.0 million
people in 2016 compared with 1.5 million in 2000.
So, measles has 10% of the lethality of tuberculosis. Please go and peddle your anti-vaccine conspiracy theories elsewhere.
Parliamentary elections will not appease the US, but for Venezuela they will clean out the crap that has shown its colors.
This will put Venezuela in a stronger, more united position to resist the US.
I agree with you, that would work in a normal world yes, but they arent interested in elections. They already have the backing
of their neighbous, EU, US. All this saying about they will look like fools is long overdue by now. Its not about "looks" but
who gains the power by any means. Simply, they play dirty and so shall also Maduro play IMO.
What conspiracy theory pray tell am I peddling?
That people should have a choice as to how they want to approach a relatively innocuous disease. Yes I highly doubt your WHO stats.
Sanitation has been the prime mover with regards to disease eradication the world over. I am speaking as an American for Americans.
Go peddle your compulsory vaccine agenda for 3rd worlds elsewhere.
The US have been very public about trying to buy the Venezuelan military, hoping, as in the early days of Syria, many will swap
sides. An election that kicks out of parliament all those flying the US flag will make it much more difficult for the US to cause
defections in the military.
Russia has done a good job (although still a work in progress) of reuniting Syria and I can see Russia's hand in Maduro's call
for parliamentary elections.
I think the people who are discussing here about vaccines should wait for the possible imminent Open Thread of every weekend here
to discuss there that topic, so as to not derail the important discussion about Venezuela here at this thread.
Just thinking about the folks who credit Trump for not starting any wars. Seems to me the the empire starting wars kinda hit a
brick wall when Russia stuck its nose in Syria and that precedes Donald by a couple of years.
I hope it (your first link) was picked at random, because this author is not doing his cause any favors:
As it turns out, all it takes to find out what is really in the vaccines is to break rank, seize a sample of what is being
injected into the children, put it in a real lab that is not compromised by kikes , and VOILA!!! suddenly it is known that
the vaccines are not at all what they are claimed to be.
I think a Vz parliament vote on having parliament elections early and a citizens referendum on such a vote helps Maduros rally
his base and shores up Russian calls for the rule of law to be upheld.
Sure the US and co will disparage the effort but it would not be done for them but for the Vz people.
If he holds the people, he wins the war.
And my apologies, I thought the proposed election would include the office of President, I was wrong.
The call by Maduro for elections is brilliant IMO.
This was one of the Empire's demands--
'Spain, France, Germany and Britain have given embattled Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro an ultimatum, saying the nations
would recognise opposition leader Juan Guaido as president unless he calls elections within eight days."
At this point, the pro-vaxxers are a Mengele death cult. The vaccine schedule amounting to dozens of vaccinations, before infants
even have a developed immune system, is creating generations of cretins and invalids. Just the hpv vaccine alone has caused horrific
injuries, including total debilitation and paralysis,just like the polio vaccines in India caused 100s of thousands of cases of
paralysis. It is probable that the mortality from vaccinations exceeds the mortality from the contagious diseases themselves,
but the pro-vaxxer cult think they have the right to play god.
The pro-vaxxer cult has the blood and suffering of countless individuals on their hands, and the people who cover up the deaths
of infants from vaccinations with fancy sounding syndromes like shaken baby syndrome and SIDS should be hanged form lampposts.
My South American friends say that most with money and critical skills have left and are living in other South American countries
until the mess clears itself up. I have worked with a few of key types of workers kicked out in the early days by Chavez for not
being sufficiently Marxist. According to them it was a be one of us or die proposition. That type of expertise is critical, not
easy to replace, and not prone to lean Marxist. It takes 15 to 20 years to earn your bones in those types of businesses.
As the Marxists grabbed all the means of production the economy collapsed. Their enemies have deep pockets and are experts
at regime change. A propaganda war to soften the hearts and minds of the taxpayers is usually the first step. The people suffer,
the empire howls, the people suffer. If the Empire wins; the people suffer, the Marxists howl, the people suffer. Not many options
there but to leave.
Don Bacon@135
Re: Pence, Pompeo, and Bolton
Trump picked all 3 of them, nobody forced them on him. He can replace Pompeo and Bolton today if he wants to, he doesn't need
an excuse or an opportunity to do that. His appointments are a much clearer expression of his intentions and policy that anything
he says or tweets.
The Pretender has a cunning plan; free money, free food and if you like your oil co, you can keep your oil company:
from a zerohedge commenter:
"President Guaidσ Unveils Giant Government Program to Fix Venezuela
The plan consists of three key elements: social renewal, economic renewal, and control of petroleum supplies. First, the government
would create 11 social programs, all part of a larger social security plan, that would help Venezuelans back on their feet. The
economic plan would consist of government subsidies to "every family that needs them," as well as heavy investment in government
education and health care.
The petroleum plan saw Guaidσ's government vow to return Petrσleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), the state-run oil company, to pre-socialist
production levels. The opposition team promised not to privatize the industry, but to return it to the hands of capable oil experts
who can adequately find and process the crude oil.
key takeaway "..return it(the oil co) to the hands of capable oil experts." That would be Exxon et al. At the old rates of
70% US and 30% Vz is my guess, and didn't Vz have to repay the US for all upfront costs before they ever saw the 30%??
Is Bolton in charge, or is Pence? Pence certainly has been the face of much of the Venezuela policy. Is it because 1) He's
modeling the office of the VP after GHW Bush's and Cheney's lead? 2)Trump has been so consumed with the congressional showdown
and govt. shutdown, that he's let Pence, Pompeo and Bolton take the lead on Venezuela? 3) Trump is planning to go out in a blaze
of glory -- declare Mission Accomplished on his agenda (even if he has to declare a State of Emergency to get his Wall) and resign,
leaving Pence in charge (with the power to pardon him if need be).
The Venezuelans taking to the streets worldwide today as promised by NBC
here didn't happen. Even CNN "breaking news" couldn't find a few Venezuelans loitering on the street somewhere in any city
besides Caracas.
Guaido has his marching orders from Washington, refusing mediation from Mexico and Uruguay.
tweet
Ratificamos a los gobiernos de Mιxico y Uruguay nuestra posiciσn de restituir el orden constitucional en Venezuela. Tenemos una
ruta clara:
1. Cese de la usurpaciσn
2. Gobierno de transiciσn
3. Elecciones libres
‘Ϊnanse a nuestro llamado democrαtico! . . here
google translate
We ratify to the governments of Mexico and Uruguay our position of restoring the constitutional order in Venezuela. We have a
clear route:
1. Cessation of usurpation
2. Transitional government
3. Free elections
Join our democratic call!
Maduro called his bluff with his snap election suggestion.
Guaido is obeying Pence: "Let's be clear," [Pence] said. "This is no time for dialogue. This is time for action. And the time
has come to end the Maduro dictatorship once and for all." . .
here
I posted a comment in the prior thread's comments (venezuela-coup-attempt-part-of-a-larger-project-military-intervention-likely-to-fail
#173), that is relevant to this discussion, I won't repost in full but the gist is last Thursday I watched the Atlantic council's
livestream of their "Supporting the New Venezuelan Interim Government" forum, featuring two representatives of the Guaido Coup
(Carlos Vecchio & Julio Borges) as well as The Ambassadors of the EU, Paraguay & Chile. All of whom were extremely hostile to
the true Venezuelan government and stressed the new for a rapid response to drive Maduro and that this coup was just the first
step in a larger mission and that the entire region must go through a "fall of the Berlin Wall" process [their terminology) ending
the influence of Cuba throughout Latin America. This the process must be irreversible and redefine the ideological prism of the
economic and human rights, a historic change in the direction of Latin America. This was openly and bluntly stated at the forum.
On thing I left out of my original coverage was that during the Q&A the Coup representatives were asked about how they
would treat international agreements signed by the Maduro government and they basically said 1) that would not acknowledge any
agreement signed by Maduro's government since 2015 and 2) they specifically called out Russia & China saying that if they wanted
any of their agreements with Venezuelan honoured they would need to remove their support for Maduro - needless to say I don't
think talking smack to the Russians or Chinese will accomplish much for the coup plotters. Nor do I think the Cuban government
is threatened in the least by the latest threats to Cuba
Juan Guaido, Venezuela's self-proclaimed president, has been recognized by president Trump and the European Parliament as interim
president of Venezuela, but on his twitter account here Guaido still
calls himself the president of the national assembly of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Such humility by the boy wonder!
@ mourning dove, Rusty Pipes
President Trump's MO is that for him to succeed others have to fail. So he set up Mattis to fail in Afghanistan and Syria, which
he did, and was fired. Now we're onto a new generation of failures, including Pence Pompeo and Bolton. Clever, what?
El Cartero Atσmico , Feb 2, 2019 8:32:07 PM |
link
I have no position in the pros and cons of the vaccine discussion but laws such as the one below make me wonder. If vaccines are
safe why is this law in place and did the pharmaceutical companies lobby for this.
U.S. Code Title 42. THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE (1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising
from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or
death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper
directions and warnings.
After doing research about other drugs such as statins I think the secrecy and misleading actions of Big Pharma can lead people
to lose faith in them.
Finally, in regard to the coup in Venezuela, I just finished watching a documentary about the torture and murder of Victor
Jara after the Chilean coup. A man who had been an 18 year Chilean Military conscript and participated in the human rights abuses
after the coup said he still suffered from the guilt of his actions. He appeared very sad and old beyond his years. Meanwhile
a retired CIA officer expressed no regret for his actions and looked great. It helps to be a psychopath or sociopath. I'm sure
that Trump, Bolton, Pompeo, etc. will not suffer if their actions regarding Venezuela result in death and suffering.
I think it had to do with the protests in so far that the thugs saw a chance to commit their violence under the cover of wider
protests. Much like the fringe violent elements of the Gilets Jaunes.
I am going to assume that the coup in Venezuela is going to fail given the early movements by both parties. So that plate of empire
becomes maybe like the Ukraine spinning plate. What comes next? We can't be out of plates and spinners for money.
On the road
to a multi-polar world will there be a time of total breakdown in trade and border porosity? Will there be 2 global internet backbones
and traffic between each will be restricted and monitored? Maybe we even get 2 UN organizations which would be a hoot if there
was any sort of transparency.
Guaido is an Apprentice that is about to be fired by the Venezuelan people in the election he called for....after lots of money
spent on the spinning plate.
That's some convoluted reasoning and you are clearly very invested in it and
are able to adapt it to anything Trump does. Failure isn't a strategy for success and appointments of rabid neocons isn't a strategy
for peace.
These things are self evident, but ultimately irrelevant if you are committed to maintaining an untenable position.
"EU lawmakers voted 439 in favor to 104 against, with 88 abstentions, at a special session
in Brussels to recognize Venezuelan congress head Guaido as interim leader. In a statement
with the non-binding vote, the parliament urged the bloc's 28 governments to follow suit and
consider Guaido "the only legitimate interim president""
"lawmaker" aka the EU pseudo-parliament.
In Venezuela the people can trigger a recall referendum on the government/president (is
there any country in EU where the people can do this?)
The process to instigate a recall referendum in Venezuela:
The image we are getting from MSM are that almost all Venezuelans hate Maduro
"dictatorship", how hard could it be to get 20% of the voters for a referendum?
INSTEX seems to be set up to fail. US-poodle UK as its supervisory board. It was UK that
refused to ship gold to Venezuela just this week.
No way the EU misleadership will do something to make life better for its citizens.
"to promote an unconditional transition in Cuba to democracy, the rule of law and the free market." is code words for the
neoliberal coup and stealing resources of the country. just look at Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... So how does the "Merkelization" concern relate to the US plans to start nation-breaking in Latin America? ..."
"... Now to the main points of the Journal article . It stresses that Cuba and Venezuela have been aiding each other, with Venezuela donating oil to Cuba and Cuba providing support to Venezuela's military and security forces. ..."
"... The U.S. strategy carries major risks. If the administration's support for opposition leader Juan Guaidó in Venezuela fails to unseat Mr. Maduro, or if it fails to weaken ties between Caracas and Havana, the desperate conditions in Venezuela could worsen and tether the U.S. more closely with the crisis. An estimated three million Venezuelans have fled their country. ..."
"... Mr. Cutz laid out options to escalate pressure on the Maduro regime, including a financial strike at Venezuela's oil exports. At first, the administration held back, fearing such an action would allow Mr. Maduro to blame the country's woes on Washington. ..."
"... Mr. Bolton, named national security adviser last year, has long taken a tough line on Cuba and Venezuela. He was later joined by Mr. Claver-Carone, who took over western hemispheric affairs at the National Security Council and shared Mr. Bolton's view. ..."
"... An archived edition of Capitol Hill Cubans described Mr. Claver-Carone as the co-founder and director of U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, a donation vehicle for House and Senate members. It was founded in 2003 "to promote an unconditional transition in Cuba to democracy, the rule of law and the free market." ..."
"... The story describes in detail how the US perceived that, "The decision by two of Venezuela's major opposition parties and past rivals -- First Justice and Popular Will -- to join forces a year ago provided for the first time a potential alternative to the Maduro regime." ..."
"... The US decided to leverage street protests at the time of the inauguration for Maduro's second term, on January 10. Other plans: ..."
"... The imposition of sanctions on Venezuela's oil company, PdVSA, announced by the U.S. on Jan. 28, could be worth as much $11 billion in U.S. crude oil sales. ..."
"... Among the next steps, U.S. officials said, are proposed new measures against Havana, such as restoring Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. That could hit financing and investments from countries outside the U.S. that now do business there, as well as the funds the country gets from international tourists. ..."
"... I am similarly depressed. I don't think we'll see any real improvement in the situation until the last of the neo-cons die off (hopefully slow, painful deaths.) ..."
"... There is an appalling scene in Fahrenheit 119 where Obama rips his mask off to the people of Flint. Far too many of today's leaders are sociopaths. ..."
"... Link to Bolton's statement about US wanting Venezuela's oil: ..."
"... "Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, also announced the settlement of their country's oil exports would be in euros. Was this not a stab in American backs?" ..."
"... "It's been depressing to be an American for a very long time." That really is an understatement. I came across this yesterday and it just blew me away. https://grayzoneproject.com/2019/01/29/the-making-of-juan-guaido-how-the-us-regime-change-laboratory-created-venezuelas-coup-leader/ This is not the type of thing that I want to read about my country's doings .but you feel like you need to know. ..."
"... why are so many people fleeing their home countries? ..."
The Wall Street Journal has
just published an important, disheartening story,
U.S. Push to Oust Venezuela's Maduro Marks First Shot in Plan to Reshape Latin America .
The Trump Administration has apparently decided to embark on a large-scale interventionist
campaign to reverse supposed undue influence of Russia, China, and Iran in Latin America.
Venezuela and Cuba are the first targets, and Nicaragua is next on the list. John Bolton, in
too obvious a nod to Bush's "axis of evil" has called them the "troika of tyranny".
One would think the fact that our "remake the world in our image" plans worked out so well
in the Middle East might curb US adventurism. And it isn't just that we made a mess of Iraq,
failed to break Iran, and failed to install new regimes in Afghanistan and Syria. The New
American Century types are deep in denial that this geopolitical tussle not only cost the US
greatly in terms of treasure, but it also wound up considerably enhancing Russia's
standing.
Consider another bad outcome from US war-making in the Middle East: the rise of the radical
right in Europe. American nation-breaking had produced a flood of refugees trying to enter
Europe. In a misguided show of humanitarianism, European countries welcomed the over one
million migrants that arrived in 2015, with the upsurge due mainly to the civil war in Syria.
Angela Merkel in particular backed the idea of taking in the refugees, in part because German
has a lower-than-replacement birth rate, and Syrian has a high level of public education.
However, the EU members had patchy and generally poor programs for helping the migrants
assimilate and find jobs. The result was what one hard core left wing political scientist who
has spent a considerable amount of time in Germany calls "Merkelization": a rise of nativist
right wing parties like AfD in response to large-scale, poorly-managed migrant inflows.
Consider how this tendency might play into US nation-breaking near our borer. Many readers
have pointed out that the "caravans" from Central America are heavily populated with people
from countries like Honduras that our tender ministrations have made much worse. My colleague
was warning of Merkelization of the US even before the US launched its coup attempt, that it is
one thing to have an immigration process that is generous towards asylum-seekers, and quite
another to have open borders when political and economic conditions in countries to the South
are unlikely to get better.
Bernie Sanders was browbeaten into holding his tongue after pointing out early in his
Presidential campaign that "open borders" is a Koch Brothers position, and that the top 10%
professional class that has become the base of the Democratic party are now heavy employers of
servants, in the form of nannies and yard men. When I was a kid, even the few times we lived in
middle/upper middle class suburbs full of senior corporate managers and professionals, no one
had servants. Men worked full time and wives did the housework; the most you'd see would be a
housekeeper in once a week to give the wife some relief.
In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, "Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically,
socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on
basic fairness grounds alone." In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that "immigration reduces
the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants" and that "the fiscal burden of
low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear." His conclusion: "We'll need to reduce the inflow
of low-skill immigrants."
That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, "When I see Mexican
flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic
resentment. When I'm forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I
feel a certain frustration."
The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack
Obama.
Prominent liberals didn't oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits
to America's economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented.
Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled
American workers and strained America's welfare state. And they were far more likely than
liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, "immigration is an intensely
painful topic because it places basic principles in conflict."
A larger explanation [for the change] is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats
became more and more confident that the country's growing Latino population gave the party an
electoral edge .
Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America,
especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import
workers .
According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine, "Groups comparable to immigrants in terms of their skill may
experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply."
But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists
and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.
Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received
funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations.
I suggest you read the Beinart piece in full; it makes clear that immigration is a thorny,
complex problem, which is not something you'd infer from either party now.
So how does the "Merkelization" concern relate to the US plans to start nation-breaking in
Latin America? Republicans may feel they can tolerate the risk of increased levels of refugees
seeking to enter the US because it could work out in their favor. Right now. Trump looks
screechy to anyone but true believers when he tries to whip up fears about border security. But
what happens if the levels of arrivals were to increase three or four fold, as they did from
2014 to 2015 in Europe? You have realistic odds of a backlash with high migration levels
overwhelming systems that already were doing only a so-so job of handling them.
Now to the main points of
the Journal article . It stresses that Cuba and Venezuela have been aiding each other, with
Venezuela donating oil to Cuba and Cuba providing support to Venezuela's military and security
forces.
Interestingly, it isn't all gung ho for the Trump plans. It points out, for instance, that
while the US has some international support for mixing it up in Venezuela, the US won't find
backers for getting aggressive with Cuba. Similarly:
The U.S. strategy carries major risks. If the administration's support for opposition
leader Juan Guaidó in Venezuela fails to unseat Mr. Maduro, or if it fails to weaken
ties between Caracas and Havana, the desperate conditions in Venezuela could worsen and
tether the U.S. more closely with the crisis. An estimated three million Venezuelans have
fled their country.
Failure also would hand both countries a David-and-Goliath diplomatic victory and
potentially strengthen the hand of China, Moscow and Iran in the region. The chief reason
President Obama pursued an entente with Cuba was his administration's conclusion that decades
of tough measures had failed to topple the Castro regime to make way for a democratic
alternative.
The article presents US allegations against a key Maduro official, including ties to
Iran:
One of the Trump administration's first actions after the election was to dust off an
unused plan from the Obama administration to sanction Tareck El Aissami, Mr. Maduro's vice
president until last year:
U.S. law-enforcement officials say they have evidence Mr. Maduro directed state resources
to create what they allege has become one of the most powerful international
narco-trafficking operations in the world, and with links to Hezbollah, the Lebanese group
designated by the U.S. as a terror organization.
Part of why U.S. officials express concern about Iran's influence in the region is that
Iran is a major backer of Hezbollah, and its South American operations are a significant
source of cash
Among the first officials to lay out options for the Trump administration was Fernando
Cutz, a career USAID foreign-service officer, who had previously worked on the rapprochement
with Cuba for the Obama administration
Mr. Cutz laid out options to escalate pressure on the Maduro regime, including a financial
strike at Venezuela's oil exports. At first, the administration held back, fearing such an
action would allow Mr. Maduro to blame the country's woes on Washington.
Mr. Bolton, named national security adviser last year, has long taken a tough line on Cuba
and Venezuela. He was later joined by Mr. Claver-Carone, who took over western hemispheric
affairs at the National Security Council and shared Mr. Bolton's view.
Mr. Claver-Carone, an adviser to the Trump campaign, rose to prominence in foreign-policy
circles for running a blog called the Capitol Hill Cubans.
An archived edition of Capitol Hill Cubans described Mr. Claver-Carone as the co-founder
and director of U.S.-Cuba Democracy PAC, a donation vehicle for House and Senate members. It
was founded in 2003 "to promote an unconditional transition in Cuba to democracy, the rule of
law and the free market."
The PAC has raised and spent about $4.7 million since its inception. It contributed
$20,000 to Mr. Rubio's Senate campaign since June 2016 and gave Diaz-Balart's campaign $5,000
in February 2018, records show.
Mr. Claver-Carone also led the nonprofit group Cuba Democracy Advocates from 2004 to 2017.
And he ran a small lobbying firm called the Cuba Democracy Public Advocacy Corp for about 10
years, ending in 2016.
True believers in the driver's seat is not a good sign.
The story describes in detail how the US perceived that, "The decision by two of Venezuela's
major opposition parties and past rivals -- First Justice and Popular Will -- to join forces a
year ago provided for the first time a potential alternative to the Maduro regime." The US
opened up communications with Juan Guaidó. Over the New Year break, Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo met with senior officials in Brazil and Colombia to develop plans. The US decided
to leverage street protests at the time of the inauguration for Maduro's second term, on
January 10. Other plans:
The imposition of sanctions on Venezuela's oil company, PdVSA, announced by the U.S. on
Jan. 28, could be worth as much $11 billion in U.S. crude oil sales.
Among the next steps, U.S. officials said, are proposed new measures against Havana, such
as restoring Cuba's designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. That could hit financing and
investments from countries outside the U.S. that now do business there, as well as the funds
the country gets from international tourists.
Also on the list: new sanctions on Cuban officials and their networks and ending a waiver,
known as Title III of the Helms-Burton Act, signed by every U.S. administration since its
inception in 1996.
Ending the waiver would allow U.S. citizens to sue individuals and companies in U.S.
courts for property seized by the Cuban government. Its impact would likely be to freeze
billions of dollars worth of foreign investment in Cuba including hotels, golf courses and
other projects.
The Trump administration is expected to announce new measures against Cuba in coming
weeks, with the goal of crippling Havana's ability to bolster the Maduro regime.
I had really hoped that Trump would tire of Bolton's aggressiveness and need for the
limelight, but that clearly isn't happening fast enough, if at all. In the meantime, kicking
small and poor countries who pose no threat is not the behavior of a confident superpower. And
grabbing Venezuela's oil because we can is theft. It's been depressing to be an American for a
very long time, and there's no prospect for improvement.
I'd like to prefrece my comment by saying that I am very angry about this coup and the US
messing about in its "back yard".
What is one of the most depressing aspects of this saga is that we are literally replaying
what we have been doing for the past 20 years. And it's never worked. Never. We won't get the
oil. People will needlessly die in awful deaths. People will be torn from their home and do
desperate things. And we will continue to punish them, hurt them for their attempts to live.
Perhaps this is what always happens to US Presidents since Truman – "Now I am become
Death, the destroyer of worlds." (Oppenheimer quoting the Bhagavad Gita) And they must
transform totally into Death.
I will end with Dr. Thompson again (in this instance discussing our invasion of Iraq by
Dubya)
"We have become a Nazi monster in the eyes of the whole world – bullies and bastards
who would rather kill than live peacefully. We are whores for power and oil with hate and
fear in our hearts."
Dr Hunter S. Thompson, Kingdom of Fear: Loathsome Secrets of a Star-Crossed Child in the
Final Days of the American Century
I am similarly depressed. I don't think we'll see any real improvement in the situation
until the last of the neo-cons die off (hopefully slow, painful deaths.)
Thanks for these comments (and thanks Yves for highlighting this latest adventure in
imperialism). I'd only add one point. We've been doing this for much longer than 20 years,
and it predates the existence of the neocons (at least as an official entity). As a long time
observer, if there is one tiny positive I take from this, it is that the internet allows
critics of the Empire to follow its offenses in nearly real time today. The Mighty Wurlitzer
is more powerful than ever, but it no longer takes months, years, or even decades for the
truth to trickle out for those who know where to look.
Many Americans have had, and will continue to have, their eyes wide shut, as Ives alluded
to in her post and that includes both the credentialed 10-20%ers (WHERES MY CHEAP FOREIGN
INDENTURE !!) and many lowly shlubs as well ( AMERICA – F#UKIN A .. Let's Kick some
Romulan Ass !!!)
So, the only eventual outcome I see .. is where the Romulans kick ours back, good-n-hard
!
Maybe after such an event, we'll come to our senses. I believe more likely that that's when
secession, in its various forms, makes a strong appearance.
This saga has been going on since the end of WW2. For 70 years. In 1948 we were headed for
recession and Truman sent us off to fight the Korean War. Before WW2 it was a similar story
but less brutal, as I read it. Maybe not. But the last 20 years has been astonishing brutal,
I'll give you that.
And add to the obvious failures (or depending how you look at it, successes) Libya where
slaves are today for sale at knockdown prices: the conduit for African migrants to Europe,
courtesy of the UK, France and, 'very discretely', the USAians Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton (Wasn't that something about 'leading from behind'?, maybe one of the all-time acmes
of doublespeak. I'd nearly forgotten how Obama was such a master at uttering deceptive
inanities with a straight face, yet tinged with a shadow of a smile.)
Saw that the night before last. Didn't Moore go on to say that black voter turnout dropped
off a cliff in 2016 in numbers that would have made all the difference for Clinton in that
State? I saw how he kept his lips closed and the water level stayed the same. Probably even
had Vaseline on his lips too for protection. I hope that people will never forget that
performance.
Just so you know, reported reserves are not a good metric. Matt Simmons wrote about this a
ton when he was alive. OPEC member would regularly increase them by not-credible amounts.
Why? OPEC quotas based on a country's reported oil reserves. I don't doubt that Venezuela has a lot of oil. But consider this view:
The U.S. holds more oil reserves than anyone else in the world, including Saudi Arabia,
Russia, and Venezuela.
That conclusion comes from a new independent estimate from Rystad Energy, a Norwegian
consultancy. Rystad estimates that the U.S. holds 264 billion barrels of oil, more than
half of which is located in shale. That total exceeds the 256 billion barrels found in
Russia, and the 212 billion barrels located in Saudi Arabia.
The findings are surprising, and go against conventional wisdom that Saudi Arabia and
Venezuela hold the world's largest oil reserves. The U.S. Energy Information
Administration, for example, pegs Venezuela's oil reserves at 298 billion barrels, the
largest in the world. Rystad Energy says that these are inflated estimates because much of
those reserves are not discovered. Instead, Rystad estimates that Venezuela only has about
95 billion barrels, which includes its estimate for undiscovered oil fields.
Moreover, Rystad argues that there are not uniform ways of measuring oil reserves from
country to country. Some countries report proven reserves, using conservative estimates
from existing oil fields. Other countries, like Venezuela, report undiscovered reserves.
But Rystad applied similar metrics to all countries in its report to make comparisons
easier. "
Completely agree. Canada is a case in point since a large part of those reserves are in
tar sands if I am not mistaken. I am not particularly fond of the argument that the US wants
Venezuela's oil but the US oil companies might like the idea of going back in after if the
1976 nationalization policy is canned a very likely price for US support to oust Maduro
Bolton said so on TV this week. Quite a few tweets with the clip.
Due to the hour I'm not going to track it down now but hopefully an obliging reader also
saw it and won't find it hard to provide a link. Otherwise I will come back and give the
link, but I desperately need to turn in and have non-blog stuff I must attend to when I get
up, so it will be a while for me to deliver the evidence.
Indeed, Venezuela oil is sweet, probably the best quality in OPEC, and better than most
USA oil. Many refineries on the Gulf can't run Sands (or Alaskan) Oil, which is why much is
exported to China, who can run Saudi Oil (among the worst quality).
Venezuela has both "sweet" and "heavy" oil, which the latter is predominately shipped to
only a few refineries (many in the US) which are set up for "heavy" oil.
Expanding on my earlier comment, last week I posted a link to John Pilger's excellent
documentary film The War On Democracy – https://vimeo.com/16724719
While John's focus in the film is primarily on Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, and the Bolivarian /
Chaveznista Revolution the film also presents deep background on US interventions in Chile,
Nicaragua, El Salvador, ect.
Pilger's style of interview reminds of Det. Columbo. The complete film is worth watching,
but if you're in a hurry / too busy at least watch the interview segment (57:00 > 1:07:00)
with
Duane Clarridge, Head of CIA Latin America Division from 1981 to 1987. Mr. Clarridge puts the
UGLY in Ugly American. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Clarridge
It would not be a stretch to think that Duane Clarridge and Elliot Abrams were close
associates back then.
My father worked in Riyadh for 21 years, after the RAF, and never believed any of the
stats coming out from there. He worked for the ruling family and military and in public
health and academia. He often tells the story about the kingdom's AIDS stats to the WHO. The
kingdom denied it had any problem, a problem often incurred by wealthy men visiting
"Natashas" in the Gulf playgrounds and Thais on their home ground. There was one hospital
ward in Riyadh dedicated to AIDS patients alone. The other stats not kept, or kept under lock
and key, were about the tiny Jewish and Christian communities along the Red Sea coast. Dad
imagined that the oil stats were similarly mythical.
The recent DeGolyer and McNaughton report on Saudi Arabia is probably accurate. There is
more oil there than they thought. D and M are not going to sell themselves out, I don't
believe. So that means SA remains the giant we thought it was.
Hmm. Venezuela is one of only 16 countries to recognize Taiwan. Taiwan is about the same
distance from mainland China as Cuba is from mainland US. Qiao Liang specifically mentioned
Venezuela in ' One Belt One Road ':
"Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Venezuelan
President Hugo Chavez, also announced the settlement of their country's oil exports would be
in euros. Was this not a stab in American backs?"
Not a prediction, but Venezuela and Cuba look like excellent spots to park wei qui stones.
Just sayin'.
The interventions in favour of the coup by "plucky, little" Belgium, la France perfide and
Spain were timely reminders that after Brexit neo con and neo liberal "racaille" remain in
the EU27. It's too convenient to blame the UK for the neo con and neo liberal plague in
Europe and imagine that things will be better after Brexit.
With regard to servants, it's not just the US. Last year, some figures were published that
there are as many people "in service" in the UK as there were in 1860. Another study
suggested that there were more people in service than in the UK armed forces.
With regard to Germany, my employer and some of its clients have recruited some of the
refugees. Some of the stories have been published on the intranet. Our team PA mentors one
recent recruit, a Syrian of Palestinian origin. It has suited much of the German business
elite and its political puppets (CDU, CSU, FDP and, let us never forget, the SPD and Greens)
to import workers and keep German workers from getting uppity. The chief economist of the IMF
recently commented on how little many Germans earn, how much pay has stagnated this century
("Danke vielmal, Herren Hartz, Schroeder und Eichel!") and how she was not surprised by the
rise of the AfD.
A couple of days ago, when discussing Brexit with a Frankfurt based colleague, a German,
he said that a German exit from the EU was not inconceivable. There's a lot of discontent and
any EU related vote risked being influenced by other matters, just like Brexit. I have heard
a lot of this from German banksters, officials and academics in London since last summer.
French and Italians, too.
I forgot to mention that one commentator on the BBC said that Hizbollah and Iranian
Revolutionary Guards were in Venezuela, supporting the government crackdown and also in
business. It was all part of the UK MSM messaging before a military intervention. It's not just American oligarchs salivating. The Vestey family, "Victorian millionaires,
not one of our old families" (Agatha Christie about someone else), are itching to get their
own back and more.
According to the rousing song I once sang along to with such shared gusto and near-tears
credulity, "This land is your land, this land is my land, from California to the New York
Island," and all that -- well, he had the "bicoastal" part right, but as we mopes are maybe
starting to recognize, "this land," that was "settled" by genocide, theft and corruption,
does not and never has "belonged to you and me." You and I are "American" by accident of
birth, that's all. And are just along for the ride, chivvied and herded by the few who
actually, "legally," own it all, and control and mandate all the "policy," that undefined
term that is the reality of "rule of law."
Bushie used the term "rule of law" and fooled a lot of people. Most people don't realize
that the more money you have more you can exercise the "rule of law".
Very well researched article by the always insightful Max Blumenthal. The page also
publishes polling data showing huge numbers of Venezuelans opposed to military intervention
and sanctions, something both sides making their case about what to do in Venezuela routinely
ignore.
I have been making it a habit to (quite literally) troll my congress-critter on a daily
basis for the past couple of years, and those along with the Elliott Abrams profile were
today's contributions to the cause. These people really do disgust me, and never let it be
said that I have not made it my project to say so.
An excellent, if somewhat sickening, long-form article on the lead-up to what we are now
witnessing. It seems there is no limit to the lengths the U.S. government will go to in order
to destroy any government that refuses to acquiesce to U.S. hegemony and implement a
neoliberal economic system. Thanks for the link.
Canada has supported Guaido so I sent the grayzone article to the PM and the Minister of
Foreign Affairs. It is very depressing to read about how countries are destabilized by
others. If only we respected each other's aspirations instead of imposing ideology on each
other.
You have to see:
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Chavez – Inside the Coup.
It's free on YouTube. From 2002.
I saw it back in 2002ish when it came out.
A British (or Aussie?) film crew was covering the election of Chavez.
Then they ended up being on the ground capturing the coup from the streets to inside the
palace.
Watch as millions of Venezuelans, largely poor, give a lesson in Big D Democracy.
They hit the streets in such large numbers and the miltary turned on the coup leaders.
You have to see it.
And I fear for them. The USA will probably send troops this time.
Is it naive to think that Bolton and Pompeo are playing on Trump's crude insecurities and
he is enabling them to act out theirs? That this is a crucial aspect in addition to greed? I
always thought that a key motivation for the Iraq war was Cheney playing on Bush's fragile
male ego. I think leadership factors for good or ill are important if not exclusively so.
It's the same in the industry where many NC commentators and I work. "Bid 'em Bruce" got
his name from that ability to play on fragile male egos. Mr Botin at Santander and his
adviser Andrea Orcel played the same trick on Fred Goodwin at RBS.
You are getting insider-y even for Americans, or at least non-investment bankers, and even
then of a certain age.
"Bid 'em up Bruce" = Bruce Wasserstein, one of the top M&A bankers of the 1980s (in
the 1990s, he was still a big player, but corporate preferences move to greyer technocrats).
He was famed for amping up CEOs to keep fighting to win competitive bids for companies with
his "Dare to Be Great" speeches.
The term "Merkelization" should be used with caution. While an uncontrolled flood of
illegal aliens inciting racist rhetoric may indeed be a threat to the USA, also because it
has in fact happened over many years, it did not happen in Germany 2015. In 2015 masses of
refugees, many of them originally displaced by the catastrophic failure of the American
invasion of Iraq, trekked across southeastern Europe seeking safety and opportunity in
Western Europe. The vast majority of those who entered Germany entered legally, were
identified and registered by German immigration authorities and were given support by German
federal and state offices. The vast majority of those who remain in Germany remain legally in
Germany. There are surely some unregistered refugees living underground in Germany but the
number is effectively zero. The refugees are used by neo-Nazi groupings to win support among
the not insignificant racist demographic in Germany, and they are in Germany legally. I
understand that relatively few of them have real prospects of remaining permanently in
Germany. The majority live tenuous and legal existences in Germany, and accordingly enjoy a
degree of security and comfort that was not available to many of them in countries of origin
after the cascade of disasters that began with the American invasion of Iraq.
Often forgotten in American discussions of immigration is that the American way of doing
immigration is not the only way of doing immigration. In fact it is deeply flawed. Many
leading first-world democracies use citizen registration. Accordingly travellers can enter,
in some cases with a visa, and if they want to stay they must register with the local
authorities. Access to essential residential services and privileges is dependent on this
registration. Every change of address requires a new registration. Accordingly what happens
at points of entry is relatively unimportant because local authorities are responsible for
who is in fact using services and enjoying privileges.
This system is in contrast to the American model in which effectively the only control on
entry is at legal points of entry. If travellers can avoid the legal points of entry or can
enter as tourists then there is effectively no further tracking of their presence.
With all due respect, you are missing the point my colleague made, who reads the German
press daily, spent years studying in Germany, has many professional and personal contacts
(including individuals at a high level in government, the party structures and academia), and
he also wind up going to Europe for typically 2-3 months a year, a lot of that in Germany. In
other words, he's extremely well plugged for a non-German.
His point was that Merkel was naive and idealistic about Germany's ability to integrate so
many foreigners, with no language skills. This has nothing to do with legality of the
process. It has to do with the capacity of a society to help large numbers of people
assimilate (language, culture, work place norms), give them additional training if needed,
and help match them with employers.
Even if a program of this scale were developed and implemented successfully, which it
wasn't, you then run into second order problems: resentment. "Why are we spending so much on
foreigners when we have all these domestic needs [list]?"
Or put it another way: differences of degree become differences of kind. I don't know
where the tipping point is, but there are operational and political issues when annual
immigration levels exceed a certain point. Blaming it on neo-Nazis is simplistic. The US had
precisely the same issue with the big immigrant wave around the turn of the 20th century and
a very contentious political debate. Tell me how that had anything to do with neo-Nazis or
fascists.
I didn't mean to seem harsh, and I may not have given a long form enough explanation of
the idea. Merkel was operating from both noble motives as well as pragmatic ones, but badly
misjudged what she was taking on, and even if the #s had been more manageable, neglected to
address the huge challenge of integration and making sure the refugees wound up getting jobs.
It was a deadly mistake for her and the EU.
Agree that Merkel's rationale was complex. Did she make a deadly mistake? Interestingly
the UK does not have citizen registration.
To clarify: under citizen registration regimes, for example in many continental European
countries, all residents, non-natives as well as natives, are required to register with the
local authorities whenever they change address.
The UK does not have citizen registration and it experienced, as a result of agreeing to
EU treaties that guarantee freedom of movement, a larger influx of foreigners than Germany
did in 2015. In other words decades of neoliberal deregulation and the arrival of 3 million
EU citizens did enough damage to the living standards of registered voters in the UK to
produce a simple majority in favor of Brexit. While the lack of citizen registration in the
UK was not the cause of Brexit, this abscence of practical controls may have contributed to
the present crisis.
In contrast Germany did not surrender completely to deregulation of the labor market
– though there has been liberalization particularly in unskilled sectors, wages in
major industries continue to be governed by collective bargaining agreements that extend
across employers. And the influx of foreign labor is tracked and controlled through the
citizen registration regime.
I think that it's more likely that Blair et al. made a deadly mistake in not establishing
greater controls in the wake of both EU as well as native liberalization fantasies. I think
Germany and the EU will survive and Merkel, though a lame duck chancellor today, will go down
in history as a great European.
That all depends on who writes the history books. An honest assessment of Merkel would
admit, though, that she was one of the last truly savvy European politicians and demagogues.
This a woman, who even in a weakened position, staved off three consecutive coup attempts
from the hard-right of her party in as many years, and still managed to get her pick of
replacement on the way out of the party leadership. So to characterize her as in anyway naive
is to my mind is not really fair. That she misjudged the situation may be closer to the mark.
It was definitely the key factor in her downfall. Regardless of her motives or the perceived
results of her policy, allowing asylum, even to so many, was absolutely the right thing to
do! And one has to remember that when she had taken enough heat from the long racist right of
her party she shut that policy down. As someone who stood out in the cold at large
pro-refugee rallies here in Munich, I'm loath to believe it was a waste of my time.
A remark about Merkels rationale: It was to a great extent a marketing- (or propaganda)
driven decision from Merkel and her entourage: After making Greece more or less
single-handedly into a debt colony, Merkel was looking for an improvement of her damaged
image; a journalist from the german newspaper DIE WELT, Robin Alexander, showed in his book
about the migration crisis that all the necessary administrative arrangements were in place
to close the german border in September 2015 but home secretary de Maizière was
overruled by Merkel and her advisors – they did not want to have ugly pictures because
of Merkels still damaged image from the mishandling of Greece.
Thanks for the insightful article about the US & Latin America and the great
discussion!
thanks but bitte – it wasn't vanity that opened the doors to a million refugees.
Like Greece, Brexit is a lesson in the incoherencies of the EU. The truly disturbing
evidence tends to turn up after the shit has hit the fan. Greece had (still has?) a deeply
dysfunctional public purse. They had (still have?) no objective and reliable public record of
private property ownership, which for example could serve as the basis for property taxation.
They should never have been allowed to enter the monetary union. Similarly England
liberalized its labor market and then took little or no action to defend it when the EU
expanded to eastern Europe allowing millions of talented and energetic if not highly
qualified, low-wage (from the perspective of the British labor market) workers to enter and
compete. The Germans were a little better at defending their labor market. The point is that
every EU member should have been prepared appropriately for the consequences of EU expansion
to the east and the availability of effectively underpriced human resources.
We have occasional interest pieces in the local media following some refugee immigrants
and the paths they have followed since arriving. They are quite eye-opening in terms of
describing the challenges involved, which can include cultural dislocation, finding
employment and social connections, and trauma and ongoing issues around the situation they
were escaping. Kids and teens especially seem to have a hard time, as they have frequently
lost siblings or family members or been separated from them, have had traumatic or disturbing
experiences that they struggle to process, and find little that's familiar about their new
environment and living situation.
You also get to see the support structure and community resources at their disposal to
help them manage, which can be substantial. New Zealand only takes a relatively small number
(1000 or so) of refugees per year and it's easy to see why.
FWIW Moon of Alabama blogger Bernhard, who lives in Germany, has said that Merkel's policy
was at least in part about depressing wages.
And Dimitri Orlov gives his take on the US coup attempt.
Here's the real problem: the fracking bonanza is ending. Most of the sweet spots have
already been tapped; newer wells are depleting faster and producing less while costing
more; the next waves of fracking, were they to happen, would squander $500 billion, then $1
trillion, then $2 trillion The drilling rate is already slowing, and started slowing even
while oil prices were still high. Meanwhile, peak conventional (non-fracked) oil happened
back in 2005-6, only a few countries haven't peaked yet, Russia has announced that it will
start reducing production in just a couple years and Saudi Arabia doesn't have any spare
capacity left.
A rather large oil shortage is coming, and it will rather specifically affect the US,
which burns 20% of the world's oil (with just 5% of the world's population). Once fracking
crashes, the US will go from having to import 2.5 million barrels per day to importing at
least 10 -- and that oil won't exist. Previously, the US was able to solve this problem by
blowing up countries and stealing their oil: the destruction of Iraq and Libya made
American oil companies whole for a while and kept the financial house of cards from
collapsing. But the effort to blow up Syria has failed, and the attempt to blow up
Venezuela is likely to fail too because, keep in mind, Venezuela has between 7 and 9
million Chavistas imbued with the Bolivarian revolutionary spirit, a large and well-armed
military and is generally a very tough neighborhood.
"FWIW Moon of Alabama blogger Bernhard, who lives in Germany, has said that Merkel's
policy was at least in part about depressing wages. "
Don't know tons about Germany's economy. But I will point out that Costas Lapavitsas, in
his book "Profiting Without Producing", makes the argument that a big factor in Germany
realizing such large surpluses relative to other countries in the EU is Germany being able to
minimize nominal unit labor costs. According to the data in the book, the nominal unit labor
costs have flatlined in Germany, while they increased in a number of peripheral countries. He
talked about how German capitalists have been able to also successfully exploit non-unionized
labor forces. It wouldn't surprise me if that was at least one of the motivations.
But if we were rational (we being the US collectively), if our government weren't a
bi-partisan train wreck, we would be figuring out ways to compensate countries like Venezuela
for keeping the oil in the ground. It has a market value, but the environmental damage isn't
obviously included in the market price. If it was, if we could truly price such a thing, I
think it would clearly show a net aggregate cost for humanity on the whole. Instead of
stealing and consuming Venezuela's oil, we would be paying them and countries like them to
keep it in the ground, and then radically change the structure of the domestic and
international economic system to deal with the environmental crisis. I think in some ways
that liberals are just as deluded about the changes needed as many on the right. Trump,
though, is doing things horribly wrong on every level in Venezuela, and previous presidents
were great either. Ecuador at one point asked the world to pay it to leave the oil in the
ground. We didn't, of course. We could pay Brazil to not cut its forests down too, but kind
of problematic, given who now runs the country, and I don't know whether we would devote
enough resources to monitor the forests thereafter anyway.
FWIW Moon of Alabama blogger Bernhard, who lives in Germany, has said that Merkel's
policy was at least in part about depressing wages.
I believe that this is generally recognized as a deliberate part of an effort to maintain
export competitiveness. Iirc they were able to pull the feckless SPD into collaboration after
the Soviet bloc collapse led to an influx of labor, some of it quite skilled, that was
already lowering wages.
On another note, we're talking about an increase an immigration in a way that slides over
what a coup would set off. My impression is that Chavista support among working class
Venezuelans and both strong and armed. At worst, the army will be divided, though writers
like Moon of Alabama think they are pretty much behind Maduro. (It's not for nothing that the
Times ran a piece a couple of days ago playing up divisions in the army.) I don't think this
will be a "put tanks in the streets, kill some demonstrators, send in the death squads to mop
up" kind of deal.
> differences of degree become differences of kind
uh, the source on that, in a paragraph about nazis, umm
"so also has the European boy inherited an aptitude for a certain moral life, which to the
Papuan would be impossible." ["Hereditary Influence, Animal and Human", 1856]
Maybe a joint China-Russia deployment of their most advanced first strike missiles
stationed in Cuba and aimed directly at America would do the trick of slamming the U.S back
to reality. Let America feel what China and Russia feel, when they see the U.S. massing arms
along their border.
Well, the US is not alone. The European Parliament, in its plenary session today, voted
the recognition of 'Guido' as the legitimate president of Venezuela. One reason they invoke
is article 233 of the constitution. But that article says that when the presidency is vacant
(not true!), the vice-president takes over, not some US-selected dimwit. (the full text as
adopted is here ).
And in other news, Israel is "aligning" with autocratic regimes in Africa and other
regions, indicating, as an aside for the mopes, its "distaste" for having to do so "to
preserve the nation and its democracy," and prove that the Likud rule really has yuuuge
international support.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/netanyahu-is-welcoming-authoritarians-to-israel-sparking-debate-1.6242028
Another kind of Bernaysian log-rolling, akin to the works of the trio of troubles, Bolton,
Pompeo and Abrams, and their adherents.
"Democracy," like "war," has become an undefined, maybe undefinable, shibboleth. What does
anything mean, any more? All there appears to be is power and wealth and domination, serving
up sacrifices to Moloch to extend and expand the rule of the destroyers of course the
neo-neos would just note that it has always been thus, for humankind, those who eat, and
those whose destiny it is to serve, die, and be eaten
I worked in and with "Brussels" from 2007 – 16 and know how venal many of that lot
are.
From the behaviour that I observed on Thursday evenings in Brussels (as the European
Parliament does not sit on Fridays and MEPs are encouraged to visit their constituencies) and
their away weeks in Strasbourg, I suspect that spooks are active and keeping an eye out for
material to enable "chantage".
The European Parliament did but they still have to urge their members to go along with
them. I have seen this Parliament in action before and remain seriously unimpressed-
One would think the fact that our "remake the world in our image" plans worked out so
well in the Middle East might curb US adventurism. And it isn't just that we made a mess of
Iraq, failed to break Iran, and failed to install new regimes in Afghanistan and Syria. The
New American Century types are deep in denial that this geopolitical tussle not only cost
the US greatly in terms of treasure, but it also wound up considerably enhancing Russia's
standing.
Should any of these things really be perceived as failures for the New American Century
types? They've been conducting an incredibly successful looting project, as Kelley Vlahos has
documented in The American Conservative.
They may be in denial about the moral virtues of what they do, or any ostensible benefits
to regular Americans, but it's tough to deny the material success that it has brought to war
profiteers and their enablers, measured in terms of things like real-estate values in DC
suburbs.
The 'grow or die' mantra needs oil to keep on keeping on, and the Venezuela gambit came as
news that fracking wasn't all that was made public. Interesting intersection.
The only actions a bully responds to is force. Russia and China especially will need to
become more aggressive even if that means the end of the human race via nuclear war. The
current situation perpetuated by the nihilists that run things is so painful to watch given
the loss of life of millions of innocents that ending the whole thing quickly sometimes seems
merciful.
I think that there are some people in Washington that have really not thought this all the
way through. Look, it is one thing to blow up countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria but apart
from all the blood and treasure lost, America has two things in its favour shielding it from
the worse effects – the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans. America has never had to deal
with the waves of refugees released that Europe has had to deal with. A side effect of this
is the rise of right wing movements in response to tone deaf governments as well as local
terrorist attacks.
But, if America now starts to blow up countries in South America, the effects will not be
limited to just those countries alone but will ricochet around the whole continent and up the
isthmus. Then you will see not caravans of refugees but human waves. Is this why Trump is so
gung-ho on building a wall? To keep all those fleeing refugees out of America to warp the
politics there like it has in Europe? Is America ready for a bunch of Vietnams in South
America? Look, Vietnam in size is about the same size as California but the Vietnamese were
never defeated there. How about something similar throughout a whole continent? Do they
really want to find out?
The U.S. blew up a string of South and Central American countries in the 1960-70s –
Brazil, Argentina, Chile and others. Much as I would like to believe there will be negative
effects on the U.S. this time around I can't say I remember hearing of any then. In the
1990-2000s there was a backlash against U.S. control and this is what is being rolled back
now.
Americans have been wreaking Central and South America since William Walker temporarily
took over Central America using private American armies in the 1840s. The aim was to
establish slave plantations. Southern style Manifest Destiny.
All of the present day coups and embargoes is normal for the United States even
when we didn't have an army we had the navy, the marine, and banks.
Vietnam might be a different case. Seems to me there was more of a sense of peoplehood
there than in a lot of the central and South American places, with their colonial histories
and geographic and demographic divides. Not so sure if there would be resistance to invasion
and subversion on the scale of Vietnam's in a lot of those places, where the "legitimate
authorities" are in the bag already, have a long schooling in oppression and looting, and the
Empire has done so much groundwork and homework prepping the military and police forces (and
various militias and of course the narco sub-governments) to pile on to any popular unrest
and solidarity notions. What are the Guatemalan and Venezuelan and Colombian and Brazilian
etc. equivalents of the Gilet Jaune? What is the life expectancy of a peasant or labor
organizer in a lot of those places, or of a determined investigative reporter?
And let us remember that the Empire has been kicking a$$ and taking names in "our
backyard" since the commercial classes declared (many of them at least) that the Divine Right
of the English King, at least, did not float across the Atlantic in their little wooden
ships.
Recall the observations of that old guy, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, regarding the nature of
what he reduced to a simplification, "war," and explained from his long experience as a thug
for the Empire that all the stuff the Marines and Navy and the rest were doing through the
latter half of the 19th and his part of the 20th Centuries was "nothing but a racket." (Note
that the Marines still nominally "revere" Butler as a successful general officer, the
quintessential multiple-Medal-of-Honor-holding Marine, but completely obfuscate his
"sedition" in exposing the real nature of all that Valorous Glorious Victorious "carrying of
guns to every clime and place "
Human waves which will strengthen right-wing politicians and their police state, while
depressing wages. I'm sure Trump and the PNAC crowd would never want anything like that. How
silly of them.
An interesting article on the aftermath of oil rich Ecuador adopting the US$ as their
currency. It brought stability to a country wracked by hyperinflation, but the knock-on
economic effects make for a nasty hangover.
Every day since 2015, thousands of Ecuadorians have crossed the bridge from Tulcán,
Ecuador to the border town of Ipiales, Colombia to go shopping. Goods they purchase in
Colombia include food, cars, television, and even bulldogs. On a holiday weekend between
May 27 and 29, more than 50,000 Ecuadorians crossed the border to Ipiales. Some shoppers
come from as far as Quito, a five-hour drive south of the border. Ecuadorians purchase
goods in Colombia en masse due to a simple fact: prices in Colombia have become
significantly cheaper. For example, a 50-inch TV costs $1,300 USD in Ecuador, but less than
$800 USD in Colombia.[2] The situation has become of such concern to the Ecuadorian
government that last year, President Rafael Correa issued a "call of conscience" to
Ecuadorians, asking his compatriots to "offer support to the national production" by buying
Ecuadorian products.
In addition to Panama and El Salvador, Ecuador is one of the Latin American countries
that uses the U.S. dollar as the only official currency. Ecuador does not print its own
bank notes. In recent years, the U.S. dollar has continuously appreciated against other
currencies in Latin America, making the price of goods in Ecuador higher than that in
neighboring Colombia and Peru. Ecuador abandoned its old currency, the sucre, during a
severe economic crisis in 2000 and has been using U.S. dollars ever since. With the
appreciation of the U.S. dollar, doubts have emerged regarding the fate of dollarization. A
recent Wall Street Journal article stated that Ecuador "has the misfortune to be an oil
producer with a 'dollarized' economy that uses the U.S. currency as legal tender."The
appreciation of the U.S. dollar against other currencies has decreased the net exports of
non-oil commodities from Ecuador, which, coupled with the fall in oil prices, has
constrained the country's potential for economic growth.
I don't think Guaidó has any plan to sell PDVSA to foreign countries. So far
his plans are to replace Chavistas in the company and put his own guys in charge. The
same has occured during any government change in Venezuela after oil nationalization. (sorry
link in spanish )
As Karl Rove famously said "we're an Empire now ."–I think people continually miss
this simple statement of fact. The USA is an Empire and like the period of Augustus still has
the old republican institutions including "elections" that we all would have to admit are not
particularly democratic. The ideals those of us from the baby-boom generation grew up with
were only partially bullshit then and are completely bullshit now. Washington sees its
opportunity to open Venezuela up for "bidness" and is taking steps to get rid of a weak
President of a democratic country and, by now, we should understand that the official
Washington does not like democracy abroad or domestically. Immigration from Venezuela and
other countries is always good, as many people above have pointed out, because it depresses
wages, eliminates workers ability to bargain with bosses, makes working conditions worse and
so on. All good things for the rulers. Just face the fact that we are ruled by oligarchs and
we have, really, no say in what they do and haven't had any say for some decades. They do
what they want to do whether we think it is moral or not.
The people at the top are gangsters–some of them just like hurting people for fun,
most just do it for profit which comes in many forms usually outside public scrutiny.
Americans have a tendency to hide in illusions–particularly on the left we believe that
the System is reformable–it isn't. As for Europe following along, they are vassal
states and, when it's important, and it's no skin of their asses they'll step into line.
Though European leadership has some concern for the average citizen (unlike American
leadership of both parties) Europeans (ruling elites and citizens) love the comfort and
security of the Empire as did people in other great empires of Rome and the Ottomans. At any
rate, European firms can descent on Venezuela and loot to their heart's content when the US
takes it.
On the other hand, if the US fails at taking Venezuela then the Empire is on its way
out.
Poverty has a cost. And this cost is always paid by the workers. Massive (and possible
artificially organized) immigration is the price rich countries' workers pay for poverty
everywhere else. It seems they are targeting the wrong responsible.
What depresses me about all this is the propaganda push isn't even trying to make sense
anymore. We are supposed to believe that they had a invalid election and want genuine
democracy but then just pick a guy who never even ran for president and pretend that he's
legit.
And that we are so concerned for the suffering of its people, but the first thing we do is
cut off all their oil money.
It reminds me of violent cops who continue beating a suspect when he's down and then wonder
why he's not cooperating.
Just sick beyond words.
I see the US move against Venezuela as having a domestic political agenda as well.
Look at how democratic socialism is being demonized by the MSM and leaders of both
parties.
How long before AOC and Bernie are labeled as Bolivarian sympathizers?
I agree. How soon until we see adjacent images of AOC and Maduro in some media context or
other? Odds are you can already find this somewhere on ZeroHedge, perhaps sourced from The
Mises Institute.
It's already happening. A writer for the conservative Lake County Journal yesterday
referred to Illinois as "the Venezuela of the Midwest," apparently referring to the new
governor and his (fairly) progressive agenda.
I want to give this title again – free doc on YouTube.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Chavez Inside the Coup.
From 2002 shows the first coup attempt against Hugo Chavez. How it failed. You don't see
any "authoritarianism" but you will get a big dose of Democracy in action as the storm the
streets and get their President back.
Okay, I took a look. Massive street demonstrations effectively turned the tide. No
doubt.
Now imagine that happening in the US. Oh, wait. It did happen. In the Sixty's and then
again in 2000's, in an attempt to stop the genocide in Vietnam and more recently the
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Livable wages for the American Working Class and open borders are incompatible.
What would be less expensive and quicker to implement? Building the wall?, or making
E-Verify mandatory if a business wants to write off an employee's wages against income?
If the government can administer Medicare and Social Security, they can make E-Verfiy
work.
Of course Medicare fraud of all descriptions is a constant challenge to "government
administration." We got a new FL senator who managed to walk away "Scott-free" after
presiding over the looting of Medicare and MEdicaid of some what, $4 or was it $5 billion?
https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2010/11/rick-scott-alex-sink-florida/
Social Security might be a better exemplar, though a lot of people are harmed by the way
benefits are ruled on by the administrative processes and institutionalized tight-fistedness
there. https://thinkprogress.org/paul-ryan-legacy-toward-the-poor/
"We could do better." Will the Empire ever "do better," at anything other than chaos and
exploitation and corruption of the sort that lets the California ag cartel keep on using
virtual slave labor from south of the border? And the 10% having their house slaves and yard
workers?
If there is such a plan to remake america (I doubt it) it is clear that Venezuela was the
weakest piece in the move. The least we can say about Maduro is that he has grossly
mismanaged the best resource of the country and nobody outside Venezuela likes him.
It is not Maduro's fault that the oil price stumbled between 2014-2015, and it is not his
fault that more
than 80% of Venezuelan exports are Oil and oil-derived products . It is not probably
Maduro's fault that 2,5 million venezuelans migrated after the fall in oil prices.
Nevertheless, they blame Maduro. But it is Maduro's fault that oil production in Venezuela
has been reduced making a big problem bigger (and now US sanctions make it even worse). But
this is not all.
Most Venezuelan oil exports go to China to repay the enormous debt that Venezuela
accumulated (I believe during Chaves tenure mostly) So, the real income that Venzuela obtains
from oil has decreased dramatically due to 1) oil price crash 2) repay chinese debt with oil
and 3) lower pproduction, and now we add 4) US sanctions. Maduro was already in a very weak
position before the sanctions. Anyway I wonder if Guaidó can do anything except pray for
oil price rise.
Venezuela exports to China account to about 5% of China Oil imports and I was thinking if
Trumps move was just an indirect move to put China in jeopardy, and by the way, get rid of a
leftist government that doesn't get along with the US. The fact is that China has motives to
be angry with Maduro but migth take bigger losses with Guaidó. Anyway 5% is not a big
share of imports.
I'm hesitant to comment on this with any criticism of Maduro or challenging the narrative
that he is a 21st century Allende for fear of being called the Blob (as commenters have been
doing), but it is undeniable that Maduro has far less support than Chavez did, and I would
add that there are real doubts as to the legitimacy of the 2018 constitutional convention
elections. Of course, Guaidó has even less legitimacy and popular support.
Here is an
interview (in English!) with a chavista development expert I actually got to meet in
person years ago whose opinions I still trust. His take: the Venezuelan right wing+US-led
international neoimperialist forces are a big part of the crisis. However, the biggest issue
is the collapse in the price of oil and Venezuela's dependence on oil (partly the fault of
chavismo) and official corruption. In the face of this, Maduro cracked down on dissent both
legally and illegally, buying temporary power at the cost of sacrificing support.
With the ebbing of progressive forces of the region, we see the right staging violent
protests in 2014 and 2017, rejecting election results in 2013, and sabotaging the economy.
Then comes a covert blockade and then later an open one together with interference by the
United States and other right-wing governments. All this has made [Maduro's] government
very weak since its coming into being in 2013. The government manages to stay in power, but
it fails to overcome the crisis, to say nothing about maintaining the program of a
democratic transition to socialism.
A part of the Chavez leadership took control of the state apparatus and the PSUV
[Maduro's party]. It closed ranks and carried out purges, opting for a strategy that
implies the progressive elimination of democratic spaces. That group legitimizes its
actions by pointing to the economic war and the conspiracy of the right – which are
very real – and then its proceeds to limit various forms of expression of the popular
will.
This takes place in relation to questions of state. Examples include cancelling the
recall referendum promoted by the opposition, delaying by one-year the elections for
governors, deciding not to do a popular referendum to convene the constituent assembly. But
it also takes place in popular organizational spaces. In 2016, they suspended the elections
of the Communal Councils throughout the country, and, in 2017, the new line was that only
PSUV members could head up these institutions.
In one way there is, if not a silver lining, at least something new in this current bout
of dollar diplomacy in Venezuela: Trump and Bolton getting on the TV in all their piggish and
crass glory showing the nation exactly what drives US foreign policy. Perhaps it will be an
education for some of our less informed citizens helping to recast previous gory
interventions "for democracy" in their proper light. Truthfully its not like the US
government is doing anything different than any other state does: wielding the violent,
brutal power it has on behalf of its ruling class. Perhaps now we can do away with the
pretense of spreading freedom and democracy once and for all. The incessant duplicity and
false righteousness is almost as sickening as the death dealing. At least from afar.
1. We should be also talking about how we do support in the region. Say Venezuela's
neighbor, Colombia. Deadliest place in the world for union organizers, among the deadliest
places for journalists and human rights workers. Thousands of politicians and activists on
the left have been killed in recent decades, over 80 priests killed since the 1980's. The US
government event admits that violent death squads (which the CIA helped to create and which
are responsible for most of the human rights abuses in the country) have been eliminating
dozens of indigenous groups through violent land grabs. The country has among the largest
number of internally displaced people in the world, and many politicians in the government
have strong ties to death squads and cartels. As of a few years ago, millions of Colombians
were living in Venezuela, and the CIA data on net migration flows shows massive amounts of
people fleeing Colombia. Does the media talk about this? Have we attacked the country like we
have Venezuela? No, Colombia has gotten more US aid than any country in the world, not named
Egypt and Israel. And Colombia is helping to overthrow the government in Venezuela right now,
the media just calls the country an "ally" of ours. Bush gave Uribe, the former right wing
president, a Presidential Medal of Freedom, and Uribe was identified in the early 1990's by
the DEA as being among the worst offenders in Colombia's government regarding connections to
cartels, there is evidence that hits were planned on his ranch with death squads, his family
has ties to these groups too. Obama, as many know, also signed a "free trade" deal with the
country. So, take that activists in the US trying to organize unions and places like car
factories in the South.
2. Chomsky and Herman had two books on the political economy of human rights, and they
showed the strong correlation between US financial and military support, and human rights
abuses. We support the overwhelming majority of the world's dictatorships right now, and
William Blum has a great book (Killing Hope) showing the CIA's role in supporting coups,
dictatorships and destabilization in the last half of the 20th century. The NED and USAID are
right there too, as are private organizations like the Atlas Network (which gets money from
the NED), the AFL-CIO and the International Republican Institute. This is to say nothing of
our murderous wars, going back decades. We are in no position to lecture anyone on democracy
and human rights, and it is absurd to accept those things as the reasons we are doing this to
Venezuela.
3. Venezuela's economic situation is complex. Maduro is corrupt, the Venezuelan government
has failed to diversify the economy, and there has been mismanagement. However, the economy
shrank by 26% in the decades leading into Chavez taking over, a majority of the country was
in extreme poverty as of the mid-1990's, and as the country became increasingly under the
control of the IMF, riots and coups ensued. Inflation was high under Chavez, but it was much
higher in the years before he took over than it was most of his time in office, and the
hyperinflation started years after he died, when the economic war intensified. Venezuela also
suffers from many problems other major oil producers struggle with and other developing
countries struggle with.
4. The economic war has been devastating, and is in violation to international law,
domestic law and the OAS charter. Cut off needed exports, cut off access to foreign capital,
barred it from re-negotiating its debt with creditors, stolen gold, among other things. The
opposition controls key markets and produces many of the basic products working people depend
on, and they have intentionally cut back production to cause harm, which has also contributed
to the hyperinflation. The opposition has set up many companies that steal state subsidized
goods and sell them at a mark-up in places like Colombia.
5. The US developed behind what was among the largest industrial tariffs among what are
now OECD countries in the 19th and early 20th century. We were highly protectionist
thereafter, and still have a highly protectionist agricultural system. Ha Joon Chang has
written a lot about how countries like the US rose up with certain policies, like that, but
when they got to the top, they kicked away the ladder, so other countries couldn't implement
those very policies. China has also developed by radically violating the types of policies
that the WTO and the IMF force on countries, it is responsible for the overwhelming majority
of the decline in worldwide poverty in recent decades (directly and indirectly), but it is an
exception, not the rule, on policy. Raul Prebisch wrote about infant industry protection in
places like Venezuela, and he talked a lot about the overdependence of developing and
underdeveloped countries on raw material exports, which generally have poor terms of trade.
The IMF has said that about two thirds of developing countries rely on a small handful of raw
material exports for at least 60% of their export revenue, and other developing countries
with comparable oil reserves (like Saudi Arabia and Iran) also heavily rely on oil export
revenue. So, to the extent that Venezuela hasn't diversified, all previous governments failed
to do this, and it is hard for countries like Venezuela to actually diversify their
economies, especially in the modern economy with the way it has been set up.
7. If I were to go on TV and threaten John Bolton, I could get thrown in jail. He, on the
other hand, can threaten entire countries, and pushed for a war in Iraq that has killed
millions, and destabilized an entire region. Over 80% oppose the US militarily intervening,
and over 80% oppose the sanctions. However, in 2004, polling Iraq showed that a similar
number of people there opposed the privatization of the country's oil, and our leaders and
fascists like Bolton didn't care. Both Kerry and Bush at the time essentially supported the
privatization, and so did horrible people like Abrams and Bolton. There really is no justice
in the world if immoral people like him and Abrams can not only remain free, but continue to
be re-hired by this government of ours. Bolton is even given space by our media to call for
violence against countries like Iran that pose no threat to us.
Wow Great article about a complex subject with long term historical roots and more recent
causes that have been only superficially plumbed. Wouldn't know how to even begin a
conversation about this emotionally laden and complicated topic. Thank you.
Perceptive take on the neocons' current view of the involvement of other foreign nations
in the region and Venezuela's oil. Have had questions about the extent to which US engagement
in the MENA presented China et al with a strategic opportunity given a perceived US policy
focus vacuum in Latin America (other than looting by the usual suspects); as well as the
historical and current involvement and roles of US military and contractor elements and
training in various countries; that of transnational banks and corporations (palm oil and
other agricultural products, money laundering) that may have indirectly contributed to the
emigration issues; as well as the rise of criminal cartels and gangs and the emergence of
near narco-states against a backdrop of the Whys of U.S. demand. How is the imposition of
sanctions against Venezuela a constructive policy measure? Setting aside the damaging effects
on the nations' people and other considerations, It has not been notably successful as a tool
to impose regime change.
Hard not to agree with the concluding paragraph of this post and many of the comments.
FWIW Moon of Alabama blogger Bernhard, who lives in Germany, has said that Merkel's
policy was at least in part about depressing wages.
I believe that this is generally recognized as a deliberate part of an effort to maintain
export competitiveness. Iirc they were able to pull the feckless SPD into collaboration after
the Soviet bloc collapse led to an influx of labor, some of it quite skilled, that was
already lowering wages.
On another note, we're talking about an increase an immigration in a way that slides over
what a coup would set off. My impression is that Chavista support among working class
Venezuelans and both strong and armed. At worst, the army will be divided, though writers
like Moon of Alabama think they are pretty much behind Maduro. (It's not for nothing that the
Times ran a piece a couple of days ago playing up divisions in the army.) I don't think this
will be a "put tanks in the streets, kill some demonstrators, send in the death squads to mop
up" kind of deal.
The fact that the entire establishment is behind this coup is not altogether surprising
but the level of hypocrisy on display is absolutely family bloggin insane.
The Russiagaters and their media partners, who have been screaming for the last two years
about the Russkies "meddling" in our election and Trump "colluding" with Putin, do not even
blink as they brazenly advocate the overthrow of a sovereign government and the
destabilization of a country (a move that could well lead to civil war).
The blatant doubles-standard at play here and the public's wholesale acceptance of it is
just one more sign that as a society we are moving away from "reality based" thinking and
letting emotions and tribal affiliation (which are,of course, manipulated by TPTB) guide our
actions and reactions.
At some point people will have to learn how to think critically again and how to socialize
and communicate without an intermediary layer of tech, and the people who control it,
observing their every thought, word and action and using this god's eye view to run psyops on
them.
And we will all have to make the shift from compulsivey consuming information, and hoping
that we can elect our way to a more just and sane society, to taking decisive action in the
real world. If/when a revolution happens or we reach a critical mass of discontented and
angry citizens desiring real change we will realize just how deeply the establishment has
hooked into our brains and our lives via the tools and toys they so generously provide us
with.
When the family blog hits the fan, the sinister, and totalitarian, nature of the Facebook,
Amazon, Palintir etc. partnership with the CIA/NSA and state and local LEAs will suddenly be
very real indeed. Here's hoping that day comes soon so we can start working on the next
level.
Do the people who advocate for open borders and unlimited immigration ever stop and think
about how many people actually want to leave their homes, friends and families
behind and risk their lives and well-being escaping to the United States or Europe to work
thankless low-paying Jobs in societies that are doing away with upward social mobility?
How many Syrians, Afghans, Guatemalans, Malians, Mexicans would rather be able to make a
respectable living in their home countries? With the IMF/World Bank/gobalized capitalism,
NATO, a belligerent dying empire and a few of its shame inhibited lackeys, rigging their
nations economies to make corrupt leaders and western businesspeople rich and richer (while
consigning their governments to never ending debt peonage) or raining bombs and shells on
their heads and/or fomenting social chaos and civil war it is no wonder many thousands of
people are heading north to try their luck in the lands of freedom, liberty and
"Enlightenment values." But these are desperate people fleeing death, chaos and
grinding poverty not "emigrants" from stable societies deciding to live somewhere else for a
while.
Many western leftists have a wholly warped and unrealistic view of crisis immigration.
They don't ask the most obvious questions such as why are so many people fleeing their
home countries? and who benefits from that situation? And many are so afraid of
being labeled racist (a fate worse than death) they don't dare move past the virtue signaling
stage.
Ideally the internationalist left would be forging partnerships with parties and
organizations in the global south to build a bulwark against western imperialism – both
economic and military – and putting pressure on their own governments to stop these
practices. But that requires more than slinging around self-righteous rhetoric and would
involve actual work and stuff. So
Likewise, the demagoguery from the anti-immigrant right is willfully disingenuous in that
the root causes of mass migration are ignored and the most desperate and powerless people are
scapegoated and made into lightning rods for all the bigotry and projected existential angst
of people living in failing societies of their own.
Meanwhile those responsible for the current upheaval – i.e. the captains of
industry, "wealth creators", generals, heads of state who champion overt and covert
imperialism – are left largely unscathed.
The amount of BS, "fake news" and wildly contradictory and irrational nonsense that gets
pumped out by TPTB and the media with nary an incredulous peep from the weary or braindead
citizenry indicates that there will likely have to be some sort of crisis before more people
begin to take notice of their surroundings and let the scales fall from their eyes.
I think preventing the current order from dragging us into a dark abyss will be an
incredibly difficult slog. But so was every fight against unjust power in the history of the
world. Now all we have to do is organize as a group/class/whatever and come up with a battle
plan to put into action when the crisis hits ;-)
Jason Raimondo's hopes that the tide slowly was turning against the War
Party with Trump's appointment of Tillerson are dashed for good with the appointments of
Abrams, Bolton and Pompeo. The thugs for Wall Street have taken DC. Trump might as well go
home. Raimondo wrote of Abrams in 2017 in "The End of Globalism":
Excerpt:
Oh yes, the times they are a changin', as Bob Dylan once put it, and
here's the evidence :
"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has ordered his department to redefine its mission and
issue a new statement of purpose to the world. The draft statements under review right now are
similar to the old mission statement, except for one thing – any mention of promoting
democracy is being eliminated."
All the usual suspects are in a tizzy .
Elliott Abrams , he of
Contra-gate fame , and one of the purest of
the neoconservative ideologues , is cited in the
Washington Post piece as being quite unhappy: "The only significant difference is the
deletion of justice and democracy. We used to want a just and democratic word, and now
apparently we don't."
Abrams' contribution to a just and democratic world is
well-known : supporting a
military dictatorship in El Salvador during the 1980s that slaughtered thousand s, and then
testifying before Congress that massive human rights violations by the US-supported regime were
Communist "propaganda." US policy, of which he was one of the principal architects, led to the
lawlessness that now plagues that country, which has a higher murder rate than Iraq: in Abrams'
view, the Reagan policy of supporting a military dictatorship was "a fabulous achievement." The
same murderous policy was pursued in
Nicaragua while Abrams was Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian
Affairs, as the US tried to overthrow a democratically elected government and provoked a civil
war that led to the death of many thousands . In
Honduras
and Guatemala
, Abrams was instrumental in covering up heinous atrocities committed by US-supported
regimes.
And, now, Venezuela. The economic hit man has arrived.
" 'I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I
spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a
decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of
half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light
to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras
right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." --
Smedley Butler
Brazen Heist II, 4 hours ago (Edited)
...The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in some
cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that.
napper, 4 hours ago (Edited)
He will, if he gets a second term!!!
Abrams' appointment is no accident or mistake. By now even the most casual (but intelligent) observer should have seen
through Donald Trump's contemptuous disregard for legal institutions and a criminal propensity for lawlessness.
Brazen Heist II, 4 hours ago(Edited)
And most American sheeple are dumb as a pile of rocks. The few good people left are largely powerless and have to deal
with so much BS in all directions. I hope they will get through the coming implosion with their sanity intact.
Glad I left that shithole. I saw it coming. What's coming won't be pretty.
CananTheConrearian1, 3 hours ago
OK, Great Mind, name a populace that is as smart as Americans. Europeans? Chinese? We're glad you left, ********.
Looks like Trump is counting that "slam dunk" color revolution will lift his reelection
chances. Will it?
Notable quotes:
"... First parallel to today comes from Oberholtzer's brief description of Cleveland in Volume 5 of his History of the United States Since the Civil War. "His horizons were narrow. His mind had not been enlarged by travel." "It was only necessary to implant in his mind" a notion to "stir him to a moral fury". Ring any bells? ..."
"... Cleveland drifted along on the international front until he installed Richard Olney as Secretary of State. Olney did his damnedest to provoke a conflict with Britain about a boundary issue in Venezuela by sending that nation the dumbest and most most arrogant declaration of American Exceptionalism ever seen till then. Likely Olney was an arrogant bonehead, but 2019 Secretary of State Michael "Pompous" Pompeo is all of that and a Rapture Fan as well. Maybe this time Jesus will finally get off the can . ..."
Mini Rant: I propose to attempt a comparison of the situation in 2019 Venezuela with the
Crisis of 1895 – also involving Venezuela. From what I can tell both are/were as fake
as a stack of $3 bills. (This is a slightly modified version of a post which disappeared
elsewhere in "moderation".)
The Republican elites of the earlier era seem to have been a bunch of wealthy
industrialists who had been coasting along as the Morally Superior "Party of Lincoln". They
had spread a wide and tightening net of tariffs to protect their enterprises, and the
Voters were getting tired of the situation. But the election of Democrat Grover Cleveland
turned out badly for those Voters (don't ask me why!) and having nowhere else to go
they returned to the Republicans in 1888. Benjamin Harrison was a wishy-washy nobody and
the Republicans raised the tariffs to astronomical levels during his "administration". By
the midterms of 1890, the rage of the Voters was such that the Republicans were crushed in
the House and Senate.
Here is where it gets interesting. Harrison's slimy but brilliant Secretary of State
James Blaine understood something must be done. His solution was to distract the Voters
with Foreign Adventures so they'd have something to talk about besides the tariffs. So he
began raising a ruckus in the nations of Hawaii and Chile. But before the new program could
get very far along, those same furious Voters returned Cleveland to the White House.
First parallel to today comes from Oberholtzer's brief description of Cleveland in
Volume 5 of his History of the United States Since the Civil War. "His horizons were
narrow. His mind had not been enlarged by travel." "It was only necessary to implant in his
mind" a notion to "stir him to a moral fury". Ring any bells?
Cleveland drifted along on the international front until he installed Richard Olney
as Secretary of State. Olney did his damnedest to provoke a conflict with Britain about a
boundary issue in Venezuela by sending that nation the dumbest and most most arrogant
declaration of American Exceptionalism ever seen till then. Likely Olney was an arrogant
bonehead, but 2019 Secretary of State Michael "Pompous" Pompeo is all of that and a Rapture
Fan as well. Maybe this time Jesus will finally get off the can .
Cleveland was immediately on board with the intervention. Congress was overjoyed in a
bipartisan way. Mostly the US people loved it too – We're Number One! The News Media
of the day - even the Republican papers - were delighted with Cleveland's truculence, just
as the likes of the Bezos' Blog Washington Post is thrilled with Trump's new 2019 nuttery.
Naturally when Cleveland left office and the warmongering Republicans returned to office,
the Kingdom of Hawaii was taken over, the USS Maine "somehow" got itself sent to Cuba and
sunk there by mysterious villains, a whole lot of Spanish islands were grabbed, and a few
hundred thousand Philippine folks ended up dead. Will bullying 2019 Russia/China work out
as well as kicking around 1895 Britain? And what are they trying to distract us from this
time?
BTW, this is cut/paste stuff from some of my history books, and I may be quite off base.
Feel free to tear these remarks to itty bitty pieces if that's what they deserve.
:)
"... it seems that crystia freeland is working directly for soros, or something like that... perhaps soros is still young enough to profit from another try at disaster capitalism on venezuala? ..."
"... Canada to host Lima group in effort to find solution to Venezuela crisis .. what a friggin witch she is! and this will be on the lima groups meeting agenda too.. ah yeah.. give it a human rights, humanitarian type twist.. ..."
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's opposition-run congress on Tuesday issued a resolution
calling deals between state-run oil company PDVSA [PDVSA.UL] and U.S. and French companies
announced this week illegal, since they had not been sent to lawmakers for approval.
The body said the oilfield deals with France's Maurel & Prom (MAUP.PA) and little-known
U.S. company Erepla violated article 150 of Venezuela's constitution, which requires that
contracts signed between the state and foreign companies be approved by the National
Assembly, as Venezuela's congress is known.
"They are giving concessions that violate the law," said lawmaker Jorge Millan, mentioning
the two contracts.
Congress, largely stripped of its power since the opposition took it over in 2016, is
unlikely to be able block the deals from going forward. But the rejection could create legal
complications under a future government. " more at link... i don't fully understand it, or
necessarily believe the way it is being presented in the reuters article, but it is worth
reading and might reflect some of the reality on the ground..
@46 bevin and @58 mandrau...
it seems that crystia freeland is working directly for soros, or something like
that... perhaps soros is still young enough to profit from another try at disaster capitalism
on venezuala?
"... Here's an article written by a self-professed Progressive and published on a self-professed Progressive website espousing "A Progressive Alternative to Trump's Dangerous Venezuela Policy." Yet the writer fails to even mention two salient facts of the utmost importance: First, that Trump's actions are Illegal, and second that they're Unconstitutional, both of which provide grounds for Impeachment of Trump, Pence, Bolton, and Pompeo at minimum. ..."
Here's an article written by a self-professed Progressive and published on a
self-professed Progressive website espousing "A Progressive Alternative to Trump's Dangerous
Venezuela Policy." Yet the writer fails to even mention two salient facts of the utmost importance: First,
that Trump's actions are Illegal, and second that they're Unconstitutional, both of which
provide grounds for Impeachment of Trump, Pence, Bolton, and Pompeo at minimum.
Thus the writer unwittingly provides an excellent example of what I described on the
previous thread as Civic Illiteracy. So far, I know of no public figure who has stood up and
said: Trump, you can't do what you're doing as it's illegal and unconstitutional!
Now I know why Dean Acheson called his book Present at the Creation as it was
during his tenure at the State Department when Illegal and Unconstitutional acts by the
executive become the norm.
The US, we have been repeatedly told, is the chief repository of democracy in the world, and
seeks to promote democracy everywhere.
from the US State Department:
Democracy and respect for human rights have long been central components of U.S. foreign
policy. Supporting democracy not only promotes such fundamental American values as
religious freedom and worker rights, but also helps create a more secure, stable, and
prosperous global arena in which the United States can advance its national interests. . .
here
And what is the US definition of democracy? Reading further to see its ultimate
meaning:
Identify and denounce regimes that deny their citizens the right to choose their leaders in
elections that are free, fair, and transparent.
So democracy mainly consists of choosing leaders, and has nothing to do with affecting
governmental policy, war and peace, aid to the poor and disadvantaged, etc. In the US that
means an occasional choice between two people, bad and worse, then sit down and shut up.
For foreign countries this mainly works in the negative for the US government, with a
determination that selected foreign leaders have not measured up to US standards.
Personalizing the enemy in order to gain control of the country is the way it's done. Saddam!
Assad! Maduro! These leaders according to Washington were not properly selected (not true in
most cases) and that justifies US military and/or economic warfare against that country,
mostly including its citizens of course. Kill them! Destroy their "human rights!" The
citizens were deprived of a free vote so let's deprive the citizens with sanctions and death!
. . . It makes no sense, but that's how it is done.
Jason Raimondo's hopes that the tide slowly was turning against the War
Party with Trump's appointment of Tillerson are dashed for good with the appointments of
Abrams, Bolton and Pompeo. The thugs for Wall Street have taken DC.Trump might as well go
home. Raimondo wrote of Abrams in 2017 in "The End of Globalism":
Excerpt:
Oh yes, the times they are a changin', as Bob Dylan once put it, and
here's the evidence :
"Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has ordered his department to redefine its mission and
issue a new statement of purpose to the world. The draft statements under review right now are
similar to the old mission statement, except for one thing – any mention of promoting
democracy is being eliminated."
All the usual suspects are in a tizzy .
Elliott Abrams , he of Contra-gate fame , and one of the purest of
the neoconservative ideologues , is cited in the
Washington Post piece as being quite unhappy: "The only significant difference is the
deletion of justice and democracy. We used to want a just and democratic word, and now
apparently we don't."
Abrams' contribution to a just and democratic world is well-known : supporting a
military dictatorship in El Salvador during the 1980s that slaughtered thousand s, and then
testifying before Congress that massive human rights violations by the US-supported regime were
Communist "propaganda." US policy, of which he was one of the principal architects, led to the
lawlessness that now plagues that country, which has a higher murder rate than Iraq: in Abrams'
view, the Reagan policy of supporting a military dictatorship was "a fabulous achievement." The
same murderous policy was pursued in
Nicaragua while Abrams was Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian
Affairs, as the US tried to overthrow a democratically elected government and provoked a civil
war that led to the death of many thousands . In Honduras
and Guatemala
, Abrams was instrumental in covering up heinous atrocities committed by US-supported
regimes.
And, now, Venezuela. The economic hit man has arrived.
" 'I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I
spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the
bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and
especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a
decent place for the National city Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of
half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify
Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light
to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras
right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that
Standard Oil went on its way unmolested." --
Smedley Butler
The plan might be is to unleash Venezuelan civil war and install pro-US regime by force, using uprising as a ram to depose the
current governmnet. Which looks somewhat neoliberal to me with some deals with foreign companies what probably harm long
term Venezuelan interests, so it might be credible to attach it for corruption like they did with Yanukovich. With full
understanding that the next. more neoliberal Venezuelan government will be even more corrupt and top 1% oriented.
In other work Venezuela looks like Ukraine in 2014 but with oil as a huge price. Discontent with the current government
is real and can be exploited.
Notable quotes:
"... A Venezuelan civil war would result in mass death and even more economic misery!" CashMcCall, 2 hours ago Ron Paul used to be the darling of ZH. But with Trumptards, now RP is discredited because he doesn't support Trump's Tariffs, bullying, economic sanctions, weaponizing the dollar reserve, bombing Syria, or any of the rest of the Trump bullying **** head garbage. ..."
"It's ironic that a president who has spent the first two years in office fighting charges
that a foreign country meddled in the US elections would turn around and not only meddle in
foreign elections but actually demand the right to name a foreign country's president!
" According to press reports, Vice President Mike Pence was so involved in internal
Venezuelan affairs that he actually urged Guaido to name himself president and promised US
support. This is not only foolish, it is very dangerous.
A Venezuelan civil war would result in
mass death and even more economic misery!" CashMcCall, 2 hours ago Ron Paul used to be the
darling of ZH. But with Trumptards, now RP is discredited because he doesn't support Trump's
Tariffs, bullying, economic sanctions, weaponizing the dollar reserve, bombing Syria, or any of
the rest of the Trump bullying **** head garbage.
The Thrust of Trumptards is the ruder the US Acts the better. Bullying everyone is the way
to doe it. Trump is a punk, a draft dodging punk and he is wrecking the country.
But his self dealing is the underlying root. His phony work vacations. He fills rooms at
Trump resorts with secret service. Last year alone Trump Organization was paid half a billion
dollars for these phony work vacations.
Trump claims he works for free. But he donates his salary and deducts the full amount off
his taxes. He is being paid Trumptards. He is a self dealer. He is a slime and a con artist.
That is all Trump is.
Who is next? Paul
Wolfowitz now would be the most logical choice. Id the invasion of Venezuela decided already,
like Iraq war under Bush II.
That means that Rump can say goodbye to independents who votes for him because of his
anti-foreign wars noises during previous election campaign
Notable quotes:
"... Abrams, who had served in the Reagan State Department, faced multiple felony charges for lying to Congress and defying U.S. law in his role as a mastermind of the Iran-Contra debacle. Abrams' dishonesty almost destroyed Ronald Reagan's presidency and put Reagan in jeopardy of impeachment. Abrams was allowed to plead guilty to two reduced charges and later was pardoned by George H.W. Bush, who feared impeachment because of his own role in Iran-Contra. ..."
"... Abrams was even more consequential as nation-wrecker. He was one of the principal architects of the invasion of Iraq. He is an inveterate advocate of "regime change" against countries whose policies he doesn't like. He has a track record in attempting to overthrow foreign governments both by covert action and outright military invasion. ..."
"... At the beginning of the Trump administration, foreign policy establishment types lobbied clueless Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to accept the convicted criminal Abrams as deputy head of the department - the person running all day-to-day affairs at State. ..."
"... Abrams suddenly appeared deus ex machina at the side of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who said in a news conference that Abrams was appointed, "effective immediately" as special envoy to deal with resolution of the situation in Venezuela in a way that supposedly would advance U.S. interests. ..."
"... Abrams' special envoy post will be far more powerful than that of an ordinary ambassador or assistant secretary of state -- offices that require Senate confirmation. Should the Senate acquiesce in letting Abrams work without Senate confirmation? ..."
"... Abrams is a close friend and constant collaborator of Bill Kristol and Max Boot, both of whom are waging campaigns to impeach Trump or deny him re-election. There are no -- repeat, no -- policy differences between Abrams, Kristol, and Boot. ..."
"... If the appointment is supposed to be a sharp move to "hug your friends close and your enemies closer," then the test of its efficacy would be that Kristol, Boot, Jonah Goldberg, David French et. al., would halt their anti-Trump campaigns. One would think that if the Abrams appointment is one side of a shrewdly calculated transaction, then silencing Team Kristol would be a necessary condition. ..."
"... The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in some cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that. ..."
On Friday, following the dramatic arrest of a prominent Trump supporter on charges of lying
to Congress, President Trump gave one of the nation's most sensitive national security and
diplomatic posts to another controversial figure who already had been convicted of lying to
Congress.
Has the NeverTrump Republican echo chamber gone berserk over this irresponsible
appointment?
Have Mitt Romney and Marco Rubio taken to the Senate floor to speak out against the
president's defiance of honesty in government? Have they demanded hearings and a confirmation
vote?
Has House Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned that Trump's action is so egregious it might call for
an article of impeachment?
Not at all. Turns out, the appointee is one of the president's worst enemies, a man
forcefully opposed to almost all of Trump's policies and campaign promises, a man who
repeatedly has said Trump is morally unfit for his office. He is Elliott Abrams, the
71-year-old éminence grise of the NeverTrump movement.
Abrams is the pre-eminent prophet and practitioner of hyper-interventionist approaches to
destabilize or overthrow governments - of foes and friends alike - that do not pass his
democracy-is-the-end-all-and-be-all litmus test. His closest friends and associates, from whom
his political positions are indistinguishable, include some of President Trump's most rabid
enemies, false-flag "conservatives" Bill Kristol and Max Boot.
Abrams, who had served in the Reagan State Department, faced multiple felony charges for
lying to Congress and defying U.S. law in his role as a mastermind of the Iran-Contra debacle.
Abrams' dishonesty almost destroyed Ronald Reagan's presidency and put Reagan in jeopardy of
impeachment. Abrams was allowed to plead guilty to two reduced charges and later was pardoned
by George H.W. Bush, who feared impeachment because of his own role in Iran-Contra.
After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly
elected President George W. Bush appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where
Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief. Abrams was even more consequential as nation-wrecker. He was one of the principal architects
of the invasion of Iraq. He is an inveterate advocate of "regime change" against countries
whose policies he doesn't like. He has a track record in attempting to overthrow foreign
governments both by covert action and outright military invasion.
At the beginning of the Trump administration, foreign policy establishment types lobbied
clueless Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to accept the convicted criminal Abrams as deputy
head of the department - the person running all day-to-day affairs at State. Trump, who would
have had to sign off on the nomination, rejected Abrams when he learned of Abrams' background.
The truth about Abrams, while not by any means a secret,
came to Trump's attention from Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.). Paul, who held a deciding vote in
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he would block Abrams if he were nominated.
Abrams already knew then what Trump took nearly a year to discover, that Tillerson was
hopelessly unprepared to serve as the nation's chief diplomat and indeed was, as Trump
colorfully put it, "dumb as a rock." Nothing about Abrams, the NeverTrumper who believes Trump cannot govern effectively without
him, has changed since then.
Following his rejection by Trump, Abrams wrote a sour-grapes article for
Politico , disparaging the president, along with Vice President Pence and Abrams' erstwhile
patron Tillerson, for not having international human rights policies identical to Abrams' own
views.
Abrams has been outspoken against sensitive Trump international policies right up to the
moment of his surprise appointment. He is unapologetic about his role in masterminding the Iraq
war. He has opposed Trump concerning American troops in Syria and America's relationship with
Saudi Arabia. As recently as January 14, 2019, he published a withering
attack on Trump's Middle East policies and diplomacy.
As events in Venezuela last week reached a crisis with rival claimants to the nation's
presidency, Abrams suddenly appeared deus ex machina at the side of Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, who said in a news conference that Abrams was appointed, "effective immediately" as
special envoy to deal with resolution of the situation in Venezuela in a way that supposedly
would advance U.S. interests.
Immediately? An appointee to a sensitive post needs a background investigation and security
clearance. These investigations can take months. If he indeed has a valid clearance, that means
his appointment was decided long ago.
Abrams' special envoy post will be far more powerful than that of an ordinary ambassador or
assistant secretary of state -- offices that require Senate confirmation. Should the Senate
acquiesce in letting Abrams work without Senate confirmation?
What is Pompeo thinking? Has Pompeo read Abrams' anti-Trump articles? In particular, has he
read Abrams' January 14 anti-Trump article that mocks Pompeo with a hugely unflattering photo
of the secretary of state?
What is going on?
Abrams is a close friend and constant collaborator of Bill Kristol and Max Boot, both of
whom are waging campaigns to impeach Trump or deny him re-election. There are no -- repeat, no
-- policy differences between Abrams, Kristol, and Boot.
If the appointment is supposed to be a sharp move to "hug your friends close and your
enemies closer," then the test of its efficacy would be that Kristol, Boot, Jonah Goldberg,
David French et. al., would halt their anti-Trump campaigns. One would think that if the Abrams
appointment is one side of a shrewdly calculated transaction, then silencing Team Kristol would
be a necessary condition.
So far there are no signs of this.
What did Trump know about the new Abrams appointment, and when did he know it?
It's amazing seeing the holdout Trump supporters continually writhe in mental contortions
to support his every move..as I've said all along..TDS affects the sheep on both right and
left equally.
Brazen Heist II 4 minutes ago (Edited)
... The Orange Buffoon might as well open the door to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Perle. Hell even get Scooter Libby in
some cameo. You know, keep them enemies closer and all that.
uhland62, 5 minutes ago
This guy is just picking up a couple more paychecks. He may think he can whip up Trump for more wars, Trump may think he
can control this guy because 'I am President and you are not'. The main thing is that the military can make more wars and
destroy more countries.
The-Post, 15 minutes ago
Trump loves those Bush criminals.
readerandthinker
Venezuelan army defectors appeal to Trump for weapons
Caracas, Venezuela (CNN)Venezuelan army defectors are calling on the Trump administration to arm them, in what they call
their quest for "freedom."
Former soldiers Carlos Guillen Martinez and Josue Hidalgo Azuaje, who live outside the country, told CNN they want US
military assistance to equip others inside the beleaguered nation. They claim to be in contact with hundreds of willing
defectors and have called on enlisted Venezuelan soldiers to revolt against the Maduro regime, through television broadcasts.
"As Venezuelan soldiers, we are making a request to the US to support us, in logistical terms, with communication,
with weapons, so we can realize Venezuelan freedom," Guillen Martinez told CNN.
"... War with Russia will be the agenda just as the left wanted to begin with. The " pick sides" is the warring cry of the old Bush regime of " either you're with us or against us" theme. ..."
"... Radical capitalism on the left and conservative traditional capitalism on right.... Both fighting for the same select few who run the show generation after generation. ..."
"... He's not really attacked by anyone. Its a bipartisan play to distract the gullible from the sick and subhuman policy they enact while you are distracted with the wall or fantasizing bout his tiny mushroom. ..."
"... So Trump jerks a couple of gators from the swamp, but only to make room for the T-Rex. Amazing. And why the hell is Bolton still involved in our government? He penned an article during the bush admin explaining why the posse comitatus doesn't really mean what it really says. Scary sob ..."
"... Trump is Zahpod Beeblebrox. Anyone remember the Hitchhiker's Guide? The role of the galactic president was not to wield power, but to distract attention away from it. Zaphod Beeblebrox was remarkably good at his job. ..."
"... When he bombed Syria in the first weeks of his presidency, giving the MIC, a $100 million of bomb sales ( to a company he had shares in, raytheon) was enough for me that tRump is what he always has been, a bankrupt, loud mouth yankee puppet who the plutocrats chose to continue the usual US empire evil ****. ..."
"... I had my suspicions prior with his choice of vp, mad eyes pence, a protege and smoker of **** cheney. Then pompous pompeo, 150% arsehole bolton and now this official pos. Only a trumptard or patriotard would accept this ****. ..."
"... it's just too much to keep track of it all. My scorecard booklet was all used up about the 1st week in after all the neocons and bankster slime who galloped into the WH on Trump's coattails. ..."
"... After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly elected President George W. Bush appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief. ..."
Abrams is obviously a Bush plant from left over CIA Bushys.
Abrams lied to Congress twice about his role with the Contras. He pleaded guilty to both counts in 1991 but was pardoned
by George H.W. Bush just before the latter left office.
A decade later, while working as special Middle East adviser to President George Ws Bush, Abrams was an enthusiastic advocate
of the disastrous Iraq invasion.
Abrams was also in the Bush White House at the time of the abortive coup in 2002 against the late Venezuelan President
Hugo Chαvez.
Abrams helped lead the U.S. effort to stage a coup to overturn the results of the 2006 Palestinian elections, complete
with murder and torture.
War with Russia will be the agenda just as the left wanted to begin with. The " pick sides" is the warring cry of the old
Bush regime of " either you're with us or against us" theme.
This is the precise crap people were hoping to avoid with Trump, but the left has put Trump administration in a vice by having
constant fires to put out and disyractions with FALE RUSSIAN COLLUSION
... It's a psychological ploy to wear down the President and search for legitimate excuse to gain public opinion to go against
Russia and they found it. Venezuela is a **** hole from socialism which AOL and dems are embracing now. Of course having sorry
liberal advisors like Kushner doesn't help... That is a huge mistake to have the opposition ( democrate Kushner and wife) in the
hen house with great pursasive power over an overwhelm Trump... Strategy working.
But politics as it is run mostly out of " The City of London" and old lynn Rothschild wanted puppet Hillary in ( Rothschild's
play dirty to get what they want and hold a full house of cards with the financial tools to " persuade people to their way of
thinking"... A battle us penny picker uppers must live with.... It's the only change we get.
Radical capitalism on the left and conservative traditional capitalism on right.... Both fighting for the same select few
who run the show generation after generation.
He's not really attacked by anyone. Its a bipartisan play to distract the gullible from the sick and subhuman policy they
enact while you are distracted with the wall or fantasizing bout his tiny mushroom.
So Trump jerks a couple of gators from the swamp, but only to make room for the T-Rex. Amazing. And why the hell is Bolton
still involved in our government? He penned an article during the bush admin explaining why the posse comitatus doesn't really
mean what it really says. Scary sob
Abrams was convicted of lying to congress meanwhile congress lies to us all day everyday and what happens to those bastards?
They vote themselves raises and sit on their *** all day taking bribes from their paymasters and writing laws and regulations
to control their chattel. Yes I hate politicians because they're ******* criminals and all of them and the useless bureaucrats
that infest that cesspool in D.C should be out of work permanently.
Trump is Zahpod Beeblebrox. Anyone remember the Hitchhiker's Guide? The role of the galactic president was not to wield
power, but to distract attention away from it. Zaphod Beeblebrox was remarkably good at his job.
When he bombed Syria in the first weeks of his presidency, giving the MIC, a $100 million of bomb sales ( to a company
he had shares in, raytheon) was enough for me that tRump is what he always has been, a bankrupt, loud mouth yankee puppet who
the plutocrats chose to continue the usual US empire evil ****.
I had my suspicions prior with his choice of vp, mad eyes pence, a protege and smoker of **** cheney. Then pompous pompeo,
150% arsehole bolton and now this official pos. Only a trumptard or patriotard would accept this ****.
You're excused...it's just too much to keep track of it all. My scorecard booklet was all used up about the 1st week in
after all the neocons and bankster slime who galloped into the WH on Trump's coattails.
Seriously though, it's interesting that ZH has said nothing about the big corruption scandal going on now in Brasil. The guy
who won on platform of anti-corruption has been exposed within a month of taking office, surprise...surprise, as part of one of
the worst. Talk is vp taking over with the backing of the military. "soft-hard" coup you could say.
I too, got very angry about the exact things you mention. However, I perspective is something that keeps me grounded. Remember
what was happening in 2016, and what the options were. Remember BLM, march's in like every city, and Cops getting ambushed every
few weeks?
Remember, "We came, We saw, he died", from Queen Hillary? Or how about Queen Hillary calling Putin a Thug, and saying we had
to stand up to him in Ukraine, and Syria?
dude, we all know she is part of the same ****. The ******** election is over, the plutocracy chose their puppet. Think of
it, sure Killary would have done the same, but she wouldn't have been able to get away with it and the schizoid msm would have
had a breakdown trying to sell the same ol, same ol us empire games. People don't like surprises. Repubelicans as aggressive warmongers
doesnt surprise. Sadly they think they cant do anything about it. But they can, and not by talking **** on ZH.
See Ralph Nader's, How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress for tips.
It's 10 dimensional to the fifth power chess right? Just kidding. It's a big club and you ain't in it. Trump is not going to
save you. Did you really think one guy defied the odds and overcame the voter fraud and beat Hillary? Puhleez. All by design.
You're watching a movie...
After having expressed antagonism towards nation-building during the 2000 campaign, newly elected President George W. Bush
appointed Abrams as deputy national security adviser, where Abrams' role was essentially nation builder-in-chief.
Didn't W run on a 'bring the troops home and world leave us alone' platform in 2000?
when i think about what Trump did so far I think about that mandatory Obama care tax that I had to pay if I* didn't get Obama
care Well it's gone and that was a big deal for me cause I've got four kids that would have to pay it and that would be six thousand
out of pocket every year that's for starters with out Trump running interference in the FL house and senate elections we'd have
Obama lite new and antique Bill still that makes a huge difference in things like taxes and EPA enforcement in this state I really
think he has made the general public more aware of the Mexican invasion cause I see less and less Latinos on the jobs sites around
here He has really caused the Dems to lose it Trump did that not any other politician he has exposed election fraud he has exposed
the deep state like never before
Yes I'm a Trump supporter a thoughtful one I consider the options and will go with this till it impacts me negatively on an
economic personal level not an emotional one brought on by pundits and MSM never Trump ilk
why don't you ask me if I think he is perfect I think his wife is pretty much ok however I hate that he is from NYC and acts
like it his friends are not much to be proud of and his social skills are lacking but I think he showers regularly and has good
hygiene and moral habits except for golf but that's just me He's a bossy kind of guy and I might not get along with him He doesn't
do things country folks do and wouldn't fit in around here his hair sucks and is a narcissistic affectation for sure but i like
his foreign policy so far how am i doing think I'm being killed slowly I liked Ike but he was weak and I liked Buchanan bur preferred
Goldwater and on and on they are politicians and deserve the loyalty they give and " that's all I have to say about that"
Trump is a psychopath and he loves to hire even bigger psychopaths. Your whole admin is a swamp of sociopaths, psychopaths
and other sick deranged people.
Tell me who is your friend and I will tell who you are. With friends like Pompeo and
Bolton...
Notable quotes:
"... Trump-bashing Iraq war architect Elliott Abrams to lead US regime change in Venezuela ..."
"... Abrams is already not well-liked in El Salvador and Nicaragua, so I can't imagine the Venezuelans welcoming him with open arms. ..."
"... Elliot Abrams, George W. Bush lackey and arch-Neocon: (1) senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at Council on Foreign Relations (2) core member of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) along with such greats as Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and John Bolton. ..."
Ever since the Trump administration announced that it was
no longer recognizing the legitimacy of the elected government of Venezuela I've been
arguing with people on social media about this president's brazen coup attempt in that
country.
The people arguing with me in favor of Trump's interventionism are almost exclusively Trump
supporters, with leftists and antiwar libertarians more or less on my side with this issue and
rank-and-file centrists mostly preferring to sit this one out except to periodically mumble
something about it being a distraction from the Mueller investigation.
... ... ...
this one is easily the most common and most stupid of all the arguments i've been receiving.
i'm not familiar enough with pro-trump punditry to be able to describe how the maga crowd got
it into their heads that attacking venezuela has something to do with fighting socialism, but
it's clear from my interactions over the last couple of days that that is the dominant
narrative they've got swirling around in their collective consciousness. most of my arguments
on this issue have either begun as or very quickly spun into an attempt to turn the debate
about us interventionism in yet another south american nation into a debate about socialism vs
capitalism.
Which is of course absurd. The campaign to topple Venezuela's government has nothing to do
with socialism, it's about oil and regional hegemony. The US has long treated South America as
its personal supply cabinet and destroyed anyone who tried to challenge that, and the fact that
Venezuela has
the most confirmed oil reserves of any nation on the planet makes it all the more central
in this agenda. Yes, the fact that large sectors of its economy are centrally planned means
there are fewer hooks for the corporatocracy to find purchase to manipulate it with, but that
just helps explain why the US is targeting it with more aggressive measures, it doesn't excuse
the aggressive targeting. Venezuela does not belong to the United States, and attempting to
control what happens with its resources, its economy and its government is an obscene violation
of its national sovereignty.
Trying to turn a clean-cut debate about US interventionism into a debate about socialism is
like if your family found out that your sister had just been raped, and you all started
bickering about the pros and cons of feminism instead of focusing on the crime that had just
happened to your loved one. It wouldn't matter what kind of economic system Venezuela had;
trying to overthrow its government is not okay. The narrative that this has something to do
with championing capitalism is just a hook used to get Trump's base on board with another
unconscionable foreign entanglement.
... ... ...
Oh yes it is interventionism.
Crushing economic sanctions ,
CIA covert ops , illegally occupying embassies ,
and a
campaign to delegitimize a nation's entire government are absolutely interventionism, and
that is happening currently . It's stupid to make "boots on the ground" your line in the sand
when, for example, vast amounts of US resources can easily be poured into fomenting a "civil"
war that could kill hundreds of thousands and displace millions as we saw with Syria. And from
today's news about the Trump administration's appointment of bloodthirsty psychopath Elliot
Abrams as the special envoy to Venezuela, it's very reasonable to expect things to get a whole
lot bloodier. Modern warmongering isn't limited to the form of "boots on the ground", and
making that your litmus test is leaving yourself open to all the same disasters ushered in by
the Obama administration.
... ... ...
Again, that's not the argument. The argument is whether it's okay for the US government and
its allies to violate Venezuela's sovereignty with starvation sanctions, CIA covert ops, an
active campaign to delegitimize its government, and possibly much worse in the future in order
to advance the agenda of overthrowing its political system.
Of course there are people in Venezuela who don't like their government; that's true in your
own country too. That doesn't make it okay for a sprawling imperialist power to intervene in
their political affairs. You'd think this would be obvious to everyone, but over and over again
I run into people conflating Venezuelans sorting out Venezuelan domestic affairs with the
US-centralized empire actively meddling in those affairs.
The US government doesn't give a shit about the Venezuelan people; if it did it wouldn't be
crushing them with starvation sanctions. It isn't about freedom, and it isn't about democracy.
The US backs 73 percent of the world's dictatorships because those dictators facilitate the
interests of the US power establishment , and a leaked State Department memo in 2017 spelled
out the way the US government coddles US allies who violate human rights while attacking
nonconforming governments for those same violations as a matter of policy. Acting like Trump's
aggressions against Venezuela have anything to do with human rights while he himself remains
cuddly with the murderous theocracy of Saudi Arabia in the face of intense political pressure
is willful ignorance at this point, and it's inexcusable.
5. "You don't understand what's going on there! I talk to Venezuelans online!"
Do you now?
First of all, this common argument is irrelevant for the reasons already discussed here;
sure there are Venezuelans who don't like their government, but their existence doesn't justify
US interventionism. Secondly, it's a known fact that online trolls will be employed to help
manufacture support for all sorts of geopolitical agendas, from Israel's shill army to the MEK
terror cult's anti-Iran troll farm to the Bana Alabed psyop for Syria. And here's this example,
just for your information, of a Twitter account talking about how much fun she's having in
Paris and then a few days later claiming she's in Venezuela waiting in "5+ hour queues to buy a
loaf of bread."
Be skeptical of what strangers on social media tell you about what's happening inside a
nation that's been targeted by the empire, please.
And that's about it for this article. Let's all try and talk about this thing with a little
more intelligence and sanity, please.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter,
throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise,
buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my
previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. The best way to get around the internet
censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my
website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Bitcoin
donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2
I'm surprised ZH hasn't posted anything about this yet! Abrams is already not well-liked
in El Salvador and Nicaragua, so I can't imagine the Venezuelans welcoming him with open
arms.
Elliot Abrams, George W. Bush lackey and arch-Neocon: (1) senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at Council on Foreign Relations
(2) core member of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) along with such
greats as Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and John Bolton.
Elliott Abrams was born into a Jewish family [6] in New York in 1948.
His father was an immigration lawyer. Abrams attended the
Little Red School House in New
York City, a private high school whose students at the time included the children of many of
the city's notable left-wing activists and artists. [7] Abrams'
parents were Democrats .
[7]
British Playwright Harold Pinter says 1980s chaos in Nicaragua was for to protect "Casino"
interests - - https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2005/12/pint-d09.html
- Jews control the casinos in Central America (think Meyer Lansky in Cuba) - throughout the
80's, our media warned us of a communist threat in Central America -- there was no goddam
threat -0 our media was protecting Jewish interests in Central America -- Eliott Abrams was one of the ringmasters back then
in the Central American conflict ...
that oil belongs to the usa fair and square. the dictator maduro stole it from exxon. the
usa is jusr returning the oil to its rightful owner. you christian people out to understand
that concept.
"... "We believe that Russia was responsible for this attack, and we call on the Russian government to answer all questions related to this incident, and to provide full information to the OPCW [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. No nation -- Russia, China, or anybody else, any other nation -- should be using chemical weapons and nerve agents," McMaster said, following what critics have called a belated Wednesday statement casting blame on Moscow for the attack on Skripal. ..."
If H.R. McMaster is on his way out of the White House, he's going out with two middle fingers raised and pointed in the direction
of the Kremlin.
"Russia is also complicit in [Syrian dictator Bashar] Assad's atrocities," McMaster, President Trump's national security adviser,
said Thursday during an appearance at a discussion of the Syrian civil war held at the U.S. Holocaust memorial museum.
His voice raised, McMaster used harsher and more moralistic language than his boss does in characterizing Russia's geopolitical
influence, and unequivocally blamed the Kremlin for "the abhorrent nerve agent attack" on a former double agent,
Sergei Skripal , and proposed "serious political and economic consequences" for Russian aggression.
"We believe that Russia was responsible for this attack, and we call on the Russian government to answer all questions related
to this incident, and to provide full information to the OPCW [Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons]. No nation --
Russia, China, or anybody else, any other nation -- should be using chemical weapons and nerve agents," McMaster said, following
what critics have called
a belated Wednesday statement casting blame on Moscow for the attack on Skripal.
McMaster's brief remarks, lasting under 20 minutes, came as the Army three-star general is the subject of furious speculation
that Trump will soon fire him and install hardliner ex-ambassador John Bolton atop the National Security Council. His capstone achievement
thus far has been a Russia-and-China-centric
security strategy
that has been conspicuously out of step with Trump's rhetoric and actions toward both countries.
"Russia has done nothing to encourage Assad to ensure delivery of humanitarian aid, to respect ceasefires and de-escalation agreements
or to comply with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2254's call for a U.N.-monitored political process," McMaster said.
Those remarks suggested that Trump got suckered during his 2017 rounds of personal diplomacy with Vladimir Putin. In November,
Trump and Putin issued a joint statement firmly
pledging support for what is known as the 2254 Process -- though critics considered it a cover for Moscow to continue ensuring support
for its client, Assad -- that "took note" of Assad's "recent commitment to the Geneva process and constitutional reform and elections
as called for under UNSCR 2254."
So one year ago McMaster was under attack and survived. Note that this was the time of
appointment of the Special Prosecutor which changed the dynamics, probably preserving his scalp.
This time might be different.
The Afghanistan strategy McMaster is pushing, with the support of Defense Secretary James
Mattis, would send roughly 3,000-5,000 U.S. and NATO troops to Afghanistan, according to a
separate source familiar with the internal deliberations. These troops would be sent to help
bulk up the Afghan National Security Forces, which, after years of U.S. assistance, are still
struggling against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a small Islamic State presence in the
country.
According to the Washington Post , the new strategy "would authorize the Pentagon, not the White
House, to set troop numbers in Afghanistan and give the military far broader authority to use
airstrikes to target Taliban militants." The hope is that by increasing pressure on the
Taliban, it will force them to the negotiating table with more favorable terms for Kabul and
Washington. Sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan follows a decision made last year by
then-President Barack Obama, who
announced in July that 8,400 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan through January 2017
because of the "precarious" security situation there, undoing his previous plan to draw down to
5,500 by the time he left office.
The Post reported that "those opposed to the plan have begun to refer derisively to
the strategy as 'McMaster's War,'" and this particular criticism is repeated in a handful of
negative stories about McMaster that have already cropped up this week. For those plugged into
the dicey world of Trump administration power plays, this slur has the hallmarks of a hit job
by Bannon's team. (It's worth noting that the same people who oppose McMaster are no fans of
Mattis's moderating influence on the president, but he's seen as politically untouchable for
now.)
In January, McMaster quashed rumors of his departure, telling reporters "I have a job and it is my
intention to go as long and hard as I can in service of the President of the nation," adding that it
was "a tremendous honor to do this job every day."
Trump's first National Security Advisor, Michael
Flynn, resigned shortly after taking office amid a controversy over whether he lied to Vice President
Mike Pence about his contacts with Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak.
On Thursday, the Pentagon directed all inquiries about McMaster to the White House. "General
McMaster works for President Trump. Any decision with regards to staff, the White House will make
those determinations," said chief spokesperson Dana White. Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary
Sarah Sanders told reporters on Tuesday that Trump "still has confidence in General McMaster."
A Source within the White House, leaking to CNN, reports that Trump can't stand McMaster's demeanor
during briefings - and that the President considers his National Security Advisor to be "gruff and
condescending."
He prefers the briefing style of someone like CIA Director Mike Pompeo or Defense Secretary
James Mattis, who patiently answer his questions, regardless of the premise. McMaster, meanwhile,
is the person who delivers the news that Trump doesn't want to hear on a daily basis, according to
the senior Republican source.
The issue is not political but mostly stylistic, as McMaster and Mattis tend to discuss
information before it is presented to the President, the same source added. -
CNN
Kelly and McMaster both declined to comment,
however Reuters' sources were quick to add that
"tensions could blow over, at least for now, as have previous episodes of discord between the
president and other top officials who have fallen out of favor."
McSinister is the essence of Goldfinger in the old James Bond fiction. One
couldn't envision a more stereotypical "worm-tonguesque" villain in charge
of our armed forces and acting presidential "advisor".
McMaster Finally Out? Pentagon Paving Way For Return To Military:
Report
My response: Looks like the POTUS is prepping for the Return
of General Flynn.
McMaster has some very suspicious associations and has been
referenced in Q-ANON posts. He was an "OBOZO" plant.
Also, it appears that "OBOZO's" LEGAL problems are growing by the
day.
"OBOZO" maybe the first POTUS in US history to be charged
with TREASON. Also, KERRY is in a DEEP PILE OF SHIT as well. He
directed the US State Department to provide 9 million dollars to her
charity. This is ladies and gentlemen of ZH is BULLSHIT!!!!!!
CORRUPTION and CRIME as far as the EYE can see for the last four
POTUS office holders. It make me ashamed of my nation at times.
May GOD bless, guide and protect President TRUMP and the TRUMP
administration as they "DRAIN THE SWAMP".
Flynn blew the whistle on Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous
Seditious Psychopath Obama, the CIA & State Dept. arming,
funding & training terror organizations.
The Criminal Deep State has had it for him ever since.
Boy you sure get a different news feed than I do.... Mine says we
have heavy ground presence in Syria (didnt under Obowel), are on
the verge of war with the NORKs after the Olympics, and our CIA
has been stirring the shit pot in Iran....
Does your news
coverage come before of after the episodes of My little pony?
The only difference between Trump and Hillary is Hillary has
better hair. Follow what Trump actually does and not what he
Tweets, HUGE difference. WE ARENT WINNING.
SecDef knows him (from in the sandbox) and might want/need him to fill a CinC
slot. The pussified O crowd cut off the balls of many of the flag ranks and
they need to be purged (Regan did that and brought in/up Starry and Papa Bear
and Vuono and Art C-ski and the other knuckle draggers).
POTUS might be
getting his foreign policy situation sorted out. McMaster hasn't ever been a
smooth team player within the Army structure--that would also endear him to
Jim, but not suit him to a staff/advisor role.
We can always blame it on Global Climate Change and the Rooskies--cover all
the bases.
Monster McMaster opening greeting to the Munich security conference, "I know OUR
good friend John McCain can't be here, as unfortunately he can't, but he brings you
good wishes"....Then he proceeded to outline Russian Election bullshit. Cyber bot
farm meddling invading Georgia BLA BLA BLA. This is why war is plausible, McMaster
is Military SWAMP.
Oh boy, some oversized ego tripping....the sheer hubris of it all....fuckers cannot
see or admit to the gross amount of meddling they have done to the world, and yet
react like little bitches when allegations are merely cooked up.
I cannot believe
that this is the
lowly
state of American political discourse in 2018 AD.
Just another Rome, only with a much bigger budget for bullshit and weaponry.
Fire him. Forget the fourth star. He is undeserving. Another scumbag trying to
upend President Trump's agenda/objectives. The scumbag conveniently doesn't
mention that the Russian Hacking didn't have an impact on the election. This
untrustworthy piece of shit never should have been brought into the fold. And
don't even think about allowing him back into the military. Fuck off you
turncoat.
This guy was the commanding officer of 3rd ACR while I was in. Only time I saw
him in Iraq was when he flew down to tell us how sorry he was, or something like
that, after we lost 1/3 of our platoon. The rest of the time he was in northern
Iraq where it was safe. While those of us unlucky enough to be in 3rd Squadron
were stuck down on the south side of Baghdad. If you read his bio they make it
out like he personally did all kinds of Rambo shit. I guess that's they way it is
for officers. Those guys will slit your throat for the next shiny thing to stick
on their uniform.
Even back then my buddy SSG Judy, just talked to him an hour
ago, told me McMaster was being groomed for bigger roles. He definitely nailed
that one.
These two and Mad Dog keep whispering "Evil Russia" at Trump and demanding US
troops keep poking a stick at the bear - meanwhile Trump knows there is no
collusion. How does that square up?
"... General Flynn had warned Trump during the campaign before election and afterward that CIA briefers were lying to him. Flynn took over briefing Trump himself and that ended when they got Flynn out. ..."
In the WH it will be NSC adviser and chief lunatic McMaster. He will levitate with
enthusiasm for more war.
The briefings Trump gets are packed with lies and he has grown to trust them.
The entire foreign policy is so different from his stated goals and intentions that it is
clear he is fed fairy tales of success and bogus estimates of what the US can accomplish.
Last weeks Voltairnet.org piece by Thierry Meyssan indicated that Trump did not know what
his planners were doing.
"The president Trump had not been informed of the plan Votel-McGurk. The secretary of
Defense, James Mattis, confirmed to his men the instructions of the White House against the
jihadists. However Votel and McGurk are still in place." -- Thierry Meyssan
General Flynn had warned Trump during the campaign before election and afterward that
CIA briefers were lying to him. Flynn took over briefing Trump himself and that ended when
they got Flynn out.
We have a President misled who is told bogus results based on biased input data and
reports.
Meyssan has been crazy in love with Trump for a year, so for him to report this shows he
knows things are being setup for Trump to be trapped in Syria.
Donald Trump's second national security advisor, want him out. This week,
they've made their campaign against him public, leaking to reporters details
about the rocky relationship he has with his boss and trying to paint him as
someone hellbent on overseas nation-building projects that are doomed to fail.
The timing isn't accidental. The effort to damage McMaster comes as the Trump
administration decides what its policy should be in Afghanistan, a debate that's
pitting McMaster against Steve Bannon, Trump's chief strategist.
"McMaster is pushing this Afghanistan policy through. I think some people
are giving him the rope to get it through, hoping he hangs himself with it,"
one senior intelligence official said. The Afghanistan strategy McMaster is
pushing, with the support of Defense Secretary James Mattis, would send roughly
3,000-5,000 U.S. and NATO troops to Afghanistan, according to a separate source
familiar with the internal deliberations. These troops would be sent to help
bulk up the Afghan National Security Forces, which, after years of U.S. assistance,
are still struggling against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and a small Islamic State
presence in the country.
According to the
Washington Post , the new strategy "would authorize the Pentagon,
not the White House, to set troop numbers in Afghanistan and give the military
far broader authority to use airstrikes to target Taliban militants." The hope
is that by increasing pressure on the Taliban, it will force them to the negotiating
table with more favorable terms for Kabul and Washington. Sending more U.S.
troops to Afghanistan follows a decision made last year by then-President Barack
Obama, who
announced in July that 8,400 U.S. troops would remain in Afghanistan through
January 2017 because of the "precarious" security situation there, undoing his
previous plan to draw down to 5,500 by the time he left office.
Trump is fond of boasting about "his" generals. But over the short course of his presidency's
first months, the possession and control have reversed themselves. Mattis, McMaster, and Kelly
have banished all opposition and now pour the neo-con agenda straight into Trump's ear.
By Whitney Webb
August 27, 2017 "
Information Clearing House
" - WASHINGTON
– The U.S., long known for its meddling in the affairs of other nations, also has a long
and sordid history of supporting military juntas abroad, many of which it forced into power
through bloody coups or behind-the-scenes power grabs. From
Greece
in the 1960s to
Argentina
in the
1980s to the current al-Sisi-led junta in
Egypt
, Washington has actively
and repeatedly supported such undemocratic regimes despite casting itself as the world's
greatest promoter of "democracy."
Finally in 2017, karma appears to have come back to roost, as the current presidential
administration has now effectively morphed into what is,
by definition
, a military junta. Though
the military-industrial complex has long directed U.S. foreign policy, in the administration of
President Donald Trump a group of military officers has gathered unprecedented power and, for
all intents and purposes, rules the country.
Three generals at the center of power
In a recent article in
The Washington Post
, titled "Military Leaders Consolidate Power In Trump
Administration,"
Post
reporters Robert Costa and Philip Rucker noted that "At the core
of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as battlefield commanders:
White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security
adviser H.R. McMaster. The three men have carefully cultivated personal relationships with the
president and gained his trust."
"This is the only time in modern presidential history when we've had a small number of
people from the uniformed world hold this much influence over the chief executive," John E.
McLaughlin, a former acting director of the CIA who served in seven administrations,
told the
Post
. "They are right now playing an extraordinary role."
This role, however, appears to reach beyond "extraordinary". Although Trump is fond of
calling them "my generals," they now, Costa and Rucker report, "manage Trump's hour-by-hour
interactions and whisper in his ear – and those whispers, as with the decision this week
to expand U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, often become policy." Another
Washington
Post
article, published last Tuesday,
led with the headline
"The Generals Have Trump Surrounded."
Also notable is the fact that this trio of generals has overseen the firing of more
independent, "outsider" voices, notably
Derek Harvey
and Steve Bannon. Bannon, in particular, was
a thorn in the side
of the generals, in light primarily of his staunch opposition to the
American "empire project" and new wars abroad.
Bannon had
opposed
Trump's strike against Syria, troop surges in Iraq, and the dropped hint of a
"military option" to deal with the crisis in Venezuela.
The New
York Times
referred to McMaster as Bannon's "nemesis in the West Wing," precisely due
to McMaster's commitment to American empire building.
With Bannon's relatively recent departure, the tone of the Trump administration – now
unequivocally ruled by "the generals" – has changed significantly -- as illustrated by
Trump's decision to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan, a measure both
Bannon
and Trump himself once opposed.
In addition, last Thursday,
Politico
published
a report detailing the control exercised by Kelly over the president, as he
personally vets "everything" that comes across Trump's desk.
Politico
referenced two
memos that laid out a system "designed to ensure that the president won't see any external
policy documents, internal policy memos, agency reports and even news articles that haven't
been vetted."
The Hill
further noted
that Kelly is also "keeping a tight leash" on who gets to meet directly with
the President in the Oval Office, which is now strictly appointment-only and also dependent
upon Kelly's approval.
"... Powerful Republican "megadonor" Sheldon Adelson has privately told an ally that he supports a campaign against National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster that depicts him as anti-Israel and seeks to remove him from the White House, according to a new report. ..."
Powerful Republican "megadonor" Sheldon Adelson has privately
told an ally that he supports a campaign against National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster that
depicts him as anti-Israel and seeks to remove him from the White House, according to a new
report.
Adelson wrote in an email to Mort Klein, the president of the Zionist Organization of
America who is running the campaign: "Now that I have talked to somebody with personal
experience with McMaster, I support your efforts,"
according
to Axios.
The support from Adelson -- arguably the most influential donor in Republican politics -- comes after his spokesman said he had nothing to do with ZOA's campaign against McMaster and
was "perfectly comfortable" with the job he was doing.
... ... ...
A White House source tried to downplay the email, telling Axios that the Israel team -- which
included "noted right winger Ambassador Friedman" – feels that McMaster is "remarkably
pro-Israel and he just had a meeting with senior Israeli officials where he won plaudits from
them for understanding their unique security needs."
Adelson's email is a blow to McMaster, who is under heavy criticism for ousting political
opponents inside the National Security Council who wanted to implement the president's "America
First" foreign policy agenda.
"I think Trump may have so deeply surrounded (embedded may be the better word) himself
primarily to protect himself from the intelligence community. JFK was not a one off in my opinion
and probably not in Trump's mind."
"...At the core of Trump's circle is a seasoned trio of generals with experience as
battlefield commanders: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster...."
These three basically complete the militarization of the executive branch and the
Political Elites. They've all pushed for or have been intimately involved in wars in which
the US has lost or never been able to 'win'. This is Trump's best and the brightest
Kelly: In 2002, Kelly again served with the 1st Marine Division, this time as the assistant
division commander. Much of Kelly's two-year assignment was spent deployed in Iraq. In March
2003, while in Iraq, Kelly was promoted to brigadier general..... later, he served as the
commanding general of the Multi-National Force West in Iraq from February 2008 to February
2009....
Mattis: During the initial planning for the War in Afghanistan, Mattis led Task Force 58
in operations in the southern part of the country; In May 2004, Mattis ordered the 3:00 a.m.
bombing of a suspected enemy safe house near the Syrian border, which later came to be known
as the Mukaradeeb wedding party massacre, and which resulted in the deaths of 42 civilians;
Mattis played key roles in combat operations in Fallujah, including negotiation with the
insurgent command inside the city during Operation Vigilant Resolve in April 2004, as well as
participation in planning of the subsequent Operation Phantom Fury in November; responsible
for American military operations in the Middle East, Northeast Africa, and Central Asia, from
August 11, 2010, to March 22, 2013; etc etc
In other words, Mattis is responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity during
the destruction of Fallujah.....
H.R. McMaster: Director of the Combined Joint Interagency Task Force-Shafafiyat at the
International Security Assistance Force Headquarters in Kabul, Afghanistan... He is known for
his roles in the Gulf War, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. From
August 2007 to August 2008 McMaster was part of an "elite team of officers advising US
commander" General David Petraeus on counterinsurgency operations (perhaps known as how to
kill Iraqis who resisted the US invasion and occupation)
Carol Davidek-Waller | Aug 24, 2017 3:13:23 PM | 30
What you are saying is that General Jack D Ripper is now president and Dr. Strangelove is
Trump's top security advisor?
The Mini-Skirt Deception: How McMaster Got His Afghan 'Surge'
A photo of Soviet era Afghanistan won Trump over
by
Justin Raimondo
Posted on
August 23, 2017 August 22, 2017
According to
reports
, Gen. H. R. McMaster convinced President Trump to give up his longstanding
opposition to the Afghan war by showing him this photograph, below, of Afghan women in what
the media are describing as "miniskirts." As the
Washington Post
put it:
"One of the ways McMaster tried to persuade Trump to recommit to the effort was by
convincing him that Afghanistan was not a hopeless place. He presented Trump with a
black-and-white snapshot from 1972 of Afghan women in miniskirts walking through Kabul, to
show him that Western norms had existed there before and could return."
The irony is that, in 1972, when this photo was taken on the grounds of Kabul University,
Afghanistan was firmly in the orbit of the Soviet Union, as it had been since 1953, when
Prime Minister
Mohammed Daoud Khan
rose to
power and instituted a series of progressive reforms, including equal rights for women. The
next year, Khan deposed King Mohammed Zahir Shah, and Soviet aid poured in, alongside the Red
Army.
More irony: it was the United States, alongside Washington's then-ally Osama bin Laden,
that overthrew the communist regime, and conducted a guerrilla war against the Afghan
government and their Soviet sponsors. The last Soviet troops left in 1989 -- and there were no
more miniskirts to be seen anywhere in Afghanistan.
Gen. McMaster knows all this: our President does not. Does McMaster think he can bring
communism back to Afghanistan? I jest, but with serious intent. Because the commies attempted
what our President has vowed not to do in Afghanistan: they sought to create a nation out of
a collection of mountain-guarded valleys, isolated bastions untouched by time or the vaunted
ambitions of their many would-be conquerors.
Here is Trump
, trying to justify the prolongation of the longest war in our history:
"I am here to talk about tonight, that nearly 16 years after September 11 attacks,
after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure, the American people are weary of war
without victory.
"Nowhere is this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest war in
American history – 17 years. I share the American people's frustration. I also share
their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money, and most
importantly, lives trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our
security interests above all other considerations."
How to reconcile this abjuration of hubris with that photo of mini-skirted Afghan women?
It can't be done, but then again Trump is all about contradictions:
"Shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis and my national
security team to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and
South Asia.
"My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts.
But all my life, I have heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk
in the oval office. In other words, when you are president of the United States."
Has such a confession of betrayal ever been uttered by a public figure? For years he told
us Afghanistan was a waste of lives and treasure, and that we had to get out. And now he's
flip-flopped because McMaster showed him a photo of Afghan women in mini-skirts! Oh, how easy
it was – too easy!
"So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle," he claims.
Really? Did he study it enough to realize that no one has ever conquered Afghanistan? Did he
contemplate the storied history of that unforgiving land, which caused even Alexander the
Great to turn back? Did he study the provenance and
context
of that photograph, in
which Afghan women dared to show their knees?
Of course not!
"After many meetings over many months," Trump continued,
"[W]e held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David with my cabinet and generals to
complete our strategy. I arrived at three fundamental conclusions about America's core
interests in Afghanistan.
"First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous
sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who
serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need and
the trust they have earned to fight and to win."
What is the moral meaning of this? That lives wasted in a futile crusade must be matched
by yet more sacrifices on the altar of the war god? We are told that Trump met with five
enlisted soldiers before making his decision to go along with the generals' war plan: I'd
like to know what they said. The White House won't tell us.
From this moral inversion Trump descends into an inversion of the facts:
"Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable. 9/11,
the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because
that country by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists. A hasty withdrawal
would create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al Qaeda, would instantly fill,
just as happened before September 11."
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were planned and directed
from Hamburg, Germany
, and right here in the United States – indeed,
not too
far from Mar-a-Lago
-- not Afghanistan. This "safe haven" argument is so tattered and
overused that it comes apart under the most cursory inspection. And what are we to make of
someone who describes ending a 16-year war as "a hasty withdrawal"?
We are then treated to the myth of "victory denied in Iraq," which attributes the rise of
ISIS to US withdrawal from Iraq – when it reality ISIS was created by our "ally" Saudi
Arabia and the Arab sheikhs of the Gulf states who have funded and encouraged their
co-co-religionists in the Sunni-versus-Shi'ite civil war that has sundered the Muslim world.
And of course there would be no ISIS if not for the invasion of Iraq – but even Trump
knows this quite well.
Drifting off into vague threats against Pakistan, Trump reiterates his determination to
solve "big and intricate problems." But how? How will it be different, this time?
"As a result of our comprehensive review, American strategy in Afghanistan and South
Asia will change dramatically in the following ways: A core pillar of our new strategy is a
shift from a time-based approach to one based on conditions. I've said it many times, how
counterproductive it is for the United States to announce in advance the dates we intend to
begin or end military operations.
"We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities.
Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on.
America's enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out."
A child could see through this rodomontade. Because unless we intend to stay in
Afghanistan forever, what is to prevent the Taliban from simply waiting us out? We have to
leave sometime. So what is the purpose of this vow of silence? It is simply to keep the truth
from the American people. We won't know how many troops are in Afghanistan, nor will we know
when more are sent in: it's all to be conducted under the radar, so that Trump's voters
– who took seriously his tirades against foreign wars – won't know the extent to
which he has betrayed his mandate, and them.
The absurdities accumulate like refuse during a garbage strike:
"We are not nation building again. We are killing terrorists." Yet Gen. McMaster, a
disciple of
Gen. David
Petraeus
and his "
COINdistas
," are the original nation-builders – aside from the Soviets, that is, from whom they
cadged their "strategy."
"We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are
housing the same terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will
change immediately." No it won't.
Remember
when Sen. Rand Paul tried to end US aid to Pakistan? It didn't happen then and it won't
happen now.
"As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in
economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us." So Afghanistan is going to
pay for this war, just like Mexico is going to pay for the Great Wall of Texas! In your
dreams, Mr. President.
"Our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check." The history of
the past 16 years refutes this, as does the content of the President's peroration. Of
course
we're giving them a blank check: that's because the Afghan government only has
such resources as we give to it. And since Trump is refusing to say when or even if we're
leaving, then our commitment is indeed potentially unlimited. Does he imagine our Afghan
puppets, who are happily stealing us blind, don't know this?
I can't bear to go on cataloging the lies, the contradictions, the flip-flops – it
pains me to even think about it, much less write about it. The "America First" foreign policy
Trump promised during the campaign is just a memory, and his baffled supporters are left to
contemplate the most brazen betrayal in modern American political history.
Yet there are some benefits, here, for anti-interventionists to reap, which may not be
readily apparent. Because Trump's supporters, who took seriously his anti-interventionist
rhetoric, are now wondering what hit them. They had to go through this experience: betrayal
can be enlightening. And we here at Antiwar.com are ready, willing, and able to enlighten
them. That is, after all, what we're about.
On step forward, two steps back – this is how progress, however agonizingly slow, is
made.
AN IMPORTANT NOTE TO MY READERS
Take heart: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Trump's brazen
reversal on Afghanistan and the triumph of the generals is provoking a movement in the
opposite direction – the anti-interventionist movement is growing and getting more
visible. Many of Trump's supporters are
in open rebellion
, and we here at Antiwar.com are getting more visibility:
check out this
Washington Post
piece
which reads like it was taken from our front
page.
We're making progress – but we can't do it without your help. We need your
tax-deductible donations to keep Antiwar.com going.
Donate today!
Last night President Trump issued a statement
affirming his support for National Security adviser H.R. McMaster
in the face of a storm of
criticism from rightwing outlets. The statement is a sign that Trump and his new chief of staff
are taking the realist side of the debate inside his administration over foreign policy.
So while Trump claims to be doing everything he can to trash the Iran deal, the good news is
that his foreign policy team is for it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson clearly advocated
for the
deal at a press briefing
earlier this week, while suggesting that he could differ with the
president on how effective it's been.
I think there are a lot of alternative means with which we use the agreement to advance
our policies and the relationship with Iran.
Tillerson is one of the "adults" who are thought to be able to rein in Trump's worst
tendencies on Iran, as
Paul
Pillar wrote
:
Reportedly the adults, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense
Jim Mattis, and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, last month
urged
a resistant Trump
to recognize reality and certify that Iran was complying with the JCPOA
[Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action].
Further comfort comes from the fact that three days ago, General McMaster
fired Ezra Cohen-Watnick
, an enigmatic thirtyish intelligence aide who was vehemently
opposed to the Iran deal, leading to calls to get rid of McMaster. Like Tillerson, McMaster is
plainly a realist. And he is thought to have job security because his predecessor, General Mike
Flynn, lasted barely three weeks and went out with a splash. The Atlantic says McMaster is
cleaning house at the NSC; two weeks ago he got rid of an
ideologue who spread anti-Muslim
conspiracies.
Supporters of Israel are upset by the personnel changes. The Israeli-American hothead
Caroline Glick writes
at her Facebook page that
McMaster is "deeply hostile" to Israel as an occupying power.
The Israel angle on McMaster's purge of Trump loyalists from the National Security Council
is that all of these people are pro-Israel and oppose the Iran nuclear deal, positions that
Trump holds.
McMaster in contrast is deeply hostile to Israel and to Trump. According to senior
officials aware of his behavior, he constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and
insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located
until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews.
McMaster not only shuns Israel, he is also historically challenged on Arab-Israeli
affairs, according to the sources.
"McMaster constantly refers to the existence of a Palestinian state before 1947," a senior
West Wing official tells CR (there was never an independent Palestinian state), adding that
McMaster describes Israel as an "illegitimate," "occupying power."
The NSC chief expressed great reluctance to work with Israel on counterterror efforts, as
he shut down a joint U.S.-Israel project to counter the terrorist group Hezbollah's efforts
to expand Iran's worldwide influence.
One of the main indictments of McMaster by neoconservatives (right-wing Israel supporters
who favor regime change) is that he restrained the president on his tour of occupied
territories in May (
as Allison Deger reported
at the time
). In this White House briefing, McMaster refused to say that the western wall
in occupied East Jerusalem is part of Israel.
"... The war veteran has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon. ..."
Mr. Bannon's disdain for General McMaster also accelerated his demise.
The war veteran
has never quite clicked with the president, but other West Wing staff members recoiled at a
series of smears against General McMaster by internet allies of Mr. Bannon.
The strategist denied involvement, but he also did not speak out against them.
By the time Charlottesville erupted, Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump had a powerful ally in Mr.
Kelly, who shared their belief that Mr. Trump's first statement blaming "many sides" for the
deadly violence needed to be amended.
Mr. Bannon vigorously objected. He told Mr. Kelly that if Mr. Trump delivered a second, more
contrite statement it would do him no good, with either the public or the Washington press
corps, which he denigrated as a "Pretorian guard" protecting the Democrats' consensus that Mr.
Trump is a race-baiting demagogue. Mr. Trump could grovel, beg for forgiveness, even get down
on his knees; it would never work, Mr. Bannon maintained.
"They're going to say two things: It's too late and it's not enough," Mr. Bannon told Mr.
Kelly.
Later in the day, the lead story on the site was "
McMaster Of Disguise: Nat'l Security Adviser Endorsed Book That Advocates Quran-Kissing Apology Ceremonies
." This piece from frequent McMaster critic Aaron Klein said that McMaster endorsed a book that "calls
on the U.S. military to respond to any 'desecrations' of the Quran by service members with an apology
ceremony, and advocates kissing a new copy of the Quran before presenting the Islamic text to the
local Muslim public."
The article went on to say that McMaster has "troubling views" on Islamic terrorism.
The site also published two articles Sunday critical of Ivanka. One of them is an
aggregate of a Daily Mail report that claimed Ivanka helped push Bannon out of the White House.
Shortly after the story was published, the article received an update that said a White House senior
aide stated the Daily Mail report is "totally false."
Breitbart also wrote a
piece that highlighted six times Ivanka and her husband Jared Kushner's displeasure with President
Trump had been leaked to the media.
Bannon said in interviews after his departure from the White House that he will use Breitbart
to fight for the president's agenda.
"In many ways, I think I can be more effective fighting from the outside for the agenda President
Trump ran on," Bannon told
The New York Times . "And anyone who stands in our way, we will go to war with."
Breitbart News, the media outlet helmed by President Trump's former chief strategist Stephen Bannon,
published an article on Sunday casting national security adviser H.R. McMaster as soft on Islamist
extremism and terrorism.
The former chief strategist's exit from the White House on Friday immediately raised questions
about the future of Bannon's relationship with Trump, as well as how Breitbart would cover the administration
with Bannon at the helm again.
In an interview last week on NBC's "Meet the Press," McMaster repeatedly dodged questions about
whether he could work with Bannon, saying simply that he is "ready to work with anybody who will
help advance the president's agenda and advance the security, prosperity of the American people."
"I get to work together with a broad range of talented people, and it is a privilege every day
to enable the national security team," McMaster told the show's host Chuck Todd.
Hedge fund insiders say that quant funds, whose trading profits typically depend on
volatility, have been hurt by what has been a surprisingly steady market environment in the
second quarter, most notably in June, when the CBOE Volatility Index, or VIX � which
reflects investors� views of expected stock market volatility � gained between
10 percent and 12 percent, half of its 52-week highs. The Republicans� failure to pass
a health care bill, a steady drumbeat of news about the Russia-Trump investigation, and
nuclear missile tests of North Korea did little to jar investor confidence in the stock
market. The S&P 500 gained 0.6 percent during the month, putting it up 9.3 percent this
year
Thanks for the Escobar link. The story makes great sense. It's good to know about Mercer
and to see that Trump and Bannon are tight. Oddly, it did seem that with all the jackals
circling around Trump's neck, in this one case, Bannon is more use outside the tent pissing
in than inside pissing out. And Breitbart has now received a massive profile lift, it'll
become a national player in the narrative, one would expect.
By the way, I was pondering lately this whole aspect of a grass roots movement. Funny you
should bring it up. The only question here about the US is, will the people actually get a
voice in this society? If the electoral system keeps bringing liars and betraying promises,
then it's time to Occupy the Ballot and have new movements. This is happening I think, with
Trump actually being one of the precursor litmus tests.
~~
As for the generals, what does a ruler need except the people and the army? Trump has them
both. It makes him harder to take down with all those generals around. Of course, Caesar will
have to accord with his praetorian guard or the guard will get a new Caesar. But the US is a
banana republic now, this is how it's done - and I'm serious about this, these are real
dynamics I think.
Surely the generals will end up being more conservative in action than in rhetoric? And if
they get a little giddy and actually send their soldiers out into the real world, they'll
quickly receive more of those globally public humiliations that are lowering the empire to
the ground so effectively. What can go wrong, that couldn't always go wrong anyway,
regardless of who's in charge, or thinks they're in charge?
We express things differently, but think very much alike.
The water and sewage system is a good example, but you could take any basic utility/ basic
human need: Everyone needs it, but there's no need for 'growth' and little if any room for
efficiency gains. So the only ways to profit as a private investor are to overcharge users or
to pay miserable wages and let the infrastructure rot.
Private enterprise and competition can work miracles when an economic sector is rapidly
developing, expanding and advancing technologically. Governments should encourage this, so I
don't think they're (purely) socialistic. But once the sector is 'grown-up' and enters a more
or less 'steady state', there's neither room nor justification for profits. It becomes more
important to provide high-quality services to everyone(!) while using as little natural
resources as possible - and for this, a democratic form of organization is much more fitting
than a private profit-driven one (which strives to maximize throughput).
I'm cautiously optimistic. My impression is that more and more people realize that in our
time, 'democracy', 'equal rights' and 'sustainability' more important than 'profits' and
'growth'...don't you think?
nb...'posit' - I just learned a new word, thanks!
@somebody 98
Thanks for pointing out the uncertainty and 'volatility'/ VIX bit. I agree it's what
speculative investors like hedge funds need and thrive on - so it's what they try to promote
by all means (cf. certain websites).
Especially now that we are saying goodbye to the 'growth' phase of the economy and entering a
'steady state' (s.ab.), financial market volatility is increasingly the only thing to reap
(relevant) profits from. It's a fight between the pro-stability and the 'profit at all cost'
factions - luckily, the former is winning.
For months, U.S. President Donald Trump's national security adviser and his chief strategist
have battled for influence behind the scenes, and their feud may force another shake-up at the
White House.
The dispute between Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster and political strategist Stephen Bannon
has reached a level of animosity that is destabilizing Trump's team of top advisers just as the
administration tries to regain lost momentum, three senior officials said.
Under pressure from moderate Republicans to fire Bannon, Trump declined to publicly back him
on Tuesday, although he left his options open. "We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon," he
told reporters at Trump Tower in New York.
"... He was then moved quickly to contain the influence of chief strategist Steve Bannon, who McMaster removed from the National Security Council. If you recall, he was appointed to contain other Trump loyalists such as Michael Flynn, as well. ..."
"... Recently, a campaign accusing him of being anti-Israel has been waged with the support of billionaire Sheldon Adelson by a coalition of alt-right nationalists that includes Steve Bannon ..."
Remember Lieutenant-General Herbert Raymond McMaster? He was appointed as President Trump's national
security adviser back in February. He was then moved quickly to contain the influence of chief
strategist Steve Bannon, who McMaster removed from the National Security Council. If you recall,
he was appointed to contain other Trump loyalists such as Michael Flynn, as well.
Recently, a campaign accusing him of being anti-Israel has been waged with the support of
billionaire Sheldon Adelson by a coalition of alt-right nationalists that includes Steve Bannon
and extreme right-wing Zionists such as the president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton
Klein, as well as by Israeli journalist Caroline Glick from the Jerusalem Post. President Trump,
in response to all of this, called McMaster "a good man, very pro-Israel," and Israeli officials
have also come forward calling McMaster a friend of Israel.
On to talk about these connections and tensions is Shir Hever. Shir is a Real News correspondent
in Heidelberg, Germany. Of course, he covers Israel and Palestine for us extensively. I thank you
so much for joining us, Shir.
SHIR HEVER: Thanks for having me, Sharmini.
SHARMINI PERIES: Shir, President Trump is now six months into his office as president. He initially
has appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to take up the Israel file, but there are these allegations
flying against General McMaster. Explain to us what's going on. Why are these individuals like Sheldon
Adelson even concerned about how Trump is responding in terms of Israel and Israel policy?
SHIR HEVER: I think there's very little that General McMaster can actually do about Israel or
against Israel. It really doesn't matter much. The only issue that has come up was the Iran nuclear
deal, and I think this is going to be a decision taken directly by President Trump and not by McMaster.
Also, what exactly is the Israel interest regarding the Iran nuclear deal? It is not so clear. Obviously,
Prime Minister Netanyahu has a certain opinion, but other Israeli politicians have other opinions.
I think this is really a symbolic issue. There are people in the alt-right and also the extreme Zionism
who are using this old worn-out accusation that somebody is anti-Israel in order to get their own
people into the National Security Council, in order to exert influence on the Trump administration.
This coalition between extreme right nationalists, white nationalists in the United States, and Jewish
Zionists, which traditionally were on opposing sides, are now working together because of this very
strange rise of this alt-right.
SHARMINI PERIES: All right. Now, give us a greater sense of the connection or the tensions between
these alt-right organizations and McMaster and Bannon. Map this for us.
SHIR HEVER: Yeah. I've been looking through these accusations that Caroline Glick, deputy editor
of the Jerusalem Post, and Steve Bannon himself, and also Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization
of America. What problem do they have with McMaster? They make very vague things about some statements
that he made, but they couldn't put them in context. He said that Israel is an occupying power. Of
course, Israel is an occupying power, but they couldn't place that statement. The only thing that
their criticism boils down to is they say McMaster is a remnant of the Obama administration. He continues
the Obama policies, and therefore he's not loyal to Trump.
I think this is the crux of the matter, because actually, for people like Caroline Glick and I
think also for Sheldon Adelson, their relation to Trump borders on religious. They consider Trump
to be some kind of messiah or savior that will allow Israel once and for all to annex the occupied
territory, expand its borders, and then the land will be redeemed. They talk about this in religious
terminology.
Here's the problem. Trump has been president for six months now, and Israel did not annex the territory.
It did not expand its borders. In fact, it has gone from one crisis to the next, and the Israeli
government is not able to cement its power over the Palestinians. Palestinian resistance is not tied
down. They're looking for an explanation. The explanation is that something is not pure in the Trump
administration, and they're pointing the finger at McMaster saying, "Because of people like him who
are sabotaging Trump's own policies from the inside, then this is preventing the Trump administration
from reaching its full potential."
SHARMINI PERIES: Right. Obviously, Netanyahu and the Israeli government doesn't agree with this
assessment. In fact, they have come out supporting McMaster as being a good supporter of Israel.
How does this play out here?
SHIR HEVER: Absolutely. Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing real politics. He knows that there's nothing
that President Trump can do that will actually make Israel suddenly conquer more territory. That's
not the point. Netanyahu is trying to balance a very complicated system with pressure from different
points, and he is a populist, and he's only in power because of his populism. Now, his administration
is under threat because of corruption allegations, so this is a problem for him. When people expect
that the Trump administration will free his hands to do whatever he wants, Netanyahu suddenly has
a problem because he needs to come up with a new excuse. Why doesn't he annex all the occupied territory?
Of course, for him, it's not a good time to get into a fight with the Trump administration. He
wants to create the impression that things are happening under the surface, that he is in the know,
that his friends are involved in this, but I think the fact that Sheldon Adelson, the big financial
supporter of Netanyahu, is now switching to support extreme right groups that have nothing to do
with the interests of the Israeli current administration, but are actually trying to push the Israeli
administration to move further to the extreme right and to annex territory, that puts Netanyahu in
trouble. I think it also spells some clouds over the warm relationship between Netanyahu and Adelson.
SHARMINI PERIES: Coming back to this side of things here in the United States, in light of the events
of Charlottesville, Shir, showing a direct link between the alt-right and hardcore racists and neo-Nazis,
why would extreme right-wing Zionist Jewish organizations and individuals like Glick and Klein agree
to cooperate with the alt-right in this way?
SHIR HEVER: I think people on the left tend to forget that, just like the left considers itself
to be a kind of universalist movement, and that leftists around the world should have solidarity
with each other, the right also has a kind of solidarity, especially the extreme right. Extreme right
movements in different countries consider the extreme right in other countries to be their allies.
One of the things we saw in Charlottesville is that some of these neo-Nazi groups and white nationalist
groups are big supporters of Bashar Al-Assad in Syria, because they see him as the kind of strong
leader they would like to see in the United States as well.
For people who see Donald Trump talking about America first, then they're saying, "Okay, that's exactly
the kind of administration we want to see in Israel, somebody taking about Israel first." For Caroline
Gluck or for a Morton Klein, they are willing to accept a very heavy load of racism and even anti-semitism
against Jews from the Trump administration and from its supporters in exchange for being allowed
to copy that same kind of racism and that same kind of right-wing policy towards their minorities.
Just like the American administration has its minorities, Muslims, Mexicans which are being targeted,
Israel also has its minorities, Palestinians and asylum-seekers, and they want those people to be
targeted in the same harsh language and the same harsh policies, so that we can [inaudible] a great
compromise.
I have to say, the events in Charlottesville had a profound impact on Israeli public opinion.
In fact, there are a lot of Israelis who are very concerned about this kind of coalition. They are
saying, "No, there's not that much that we're willing to take in order to keep the relations with
the Trump administration on good footing." Because of that, the president of Israel, President Rivlin,
and also the education minister Naftali Bennett issued statements condemning white nationalists and
neo-Nazis in Charlottesville. I think Naftali Bennett, who is the head of the Jewish Nationalist
Party in Israel, and he's actually of the same political camp as Caroline Glick, as Morton Klein,
when he makes that statement, that shows that even he thinks that they have gone too far.
SHARMINI PERIES: Interesting analysis, Shir. I thank you so much for joining us today. I guess the
situation in Charlottesville is evolving, and it would be interesting to continue to keep an eye
on what's developing here against what's happening in Israel as well. Thank you so much.
SHIR HEVER: Thank you, Sharmini.
SHARMINI PERIES: Thank you for joining us here on the Real News Network.
Confusing, at least to me, in any case I believe that the Zionists learned a lot from the Nazis
and there is very little difference between the two groups. I would say that the main difference
lies in the fact that the Zionists are sneakier and know how to play with popular opinion. That's
why it doesn't surprise me that they are making a common cause with the white supremacists groups.
The only surprise here is that they are doing it openly now. They have become brave and have
decided to take the backlash. Perhaps they are doing so because they know they have the support
of Trump.
Divide and conquer. Soon we will be fighting on our own streets against each other. It will
be the death of the US...
"For Caroline Gluck or for a Morton Klein, they are willing to accept a very heavy load of
racism and even anti-semitism against Jews from the Trump administration and from its supporters
in exchange for being allowed to copy that same kind of racism and that same kind of right-wing
policy towards their minorities."
I have great respect for Shir Hever, he has great insight into Israel society and politics.
However, his statement that Klein and Glick (and maybe Adelson) want to be "allowed" to copy Trump's
supporter's racism and right-wing policies towards minorities in Israel is beyond hilarious. Minorities
in Israel have been and continue to be subjected to racist and supremacist policies (much worse
than anything Trump supporters can even imagine) by the Zionists since the theft of Palestinian's
land in 1948. The Israelis are not just pursuing racist policies but as Israeli historian Ilan
Pappe said, they are committing slow motion genocide against the Palestinians.
"... McMaster's was spewing nonsense. The same was said about the Soviet Union and China when they became nuclear weapons states. North Korea just became one . Conventional deterrence of both sides has worked with North Korea for decades. Nuclear deterrence with North Korea will work just as well as it did with the Soviet and Chinese communists. If North Korea were really not deterrable the U.S. should have nuked it yesterday to minimize the overall risk and damage. It is the McMaster position that is ideological and not rational or "grown up" at all. ..."
"... Compare that to Steve Bannon's take on the issue: ..."
"... "There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about, there's no military solution here, they got us." ..."
"... But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US. Third generation at war with the US and his seen his father was fucked over when trying to make a deal with the US. NK's nuke and missile tech have come a long way in the few short years Kim Jong Un has been in power. ..."
"... "Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires." ..."
"... Classic deterrence strategy IS working for NK perfectly. ..."
"... All one has to do to know what Bannon's position on Iran is to read Breitbart on any given day. Unless we are supposed to believe that Bannon's opinions are not reflected by the website he ran for four years. Bannon is for war against Islam in general, there is nothing "realist" about his foreign policy. ..."
"... @12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no trust in the corporate sector as they [the corporate sector] are to a large degree Globalists - they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist. ..."
"... Bannon makes sense. That must be why many want him gone especially the neocons. As to North Korea, the US should have admitted "facts on the ground" long ago and worked to sign the official end of the war and work to get the two Koreas talking and working together. ..."
The Democrats and the media
love
the Pentagon generals in the White House. They are the "grown ups":
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., had words of praise for Donald Trump's new pick for national
security adviser, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster -- calling the respected military officer a
"certified, card-carrying grown-up,"
Who is really the sane person on, say, North Korea?
The "grown-up" General McMaster, Trump's National Security Advisor, is not one of them. He
claims North Korea is not deterrable from doing something insane.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But your predecessor Susan Rice wrote this week that the U.S. could tolerate
nuclear weapons in North Korea the same way we tolerated nuclear weapons in the Soviet Union
far more during the Cold War. Is she right?
MCMASTER: No, she's not right. And I think the reason she's not right is that the
classical deterrence theory, how does that apply to a regime like the regime in North Korea?
A regime that engages in unspeakable brutality against its own people? A regime that poses a
continuous threat to the its neighbors in the region and now may pose a threat, direct
threat, to the United States with weapons of mass destruction?
McMaster's was spewing nonsense. The same was said about the Soviet Union and China when
they became nuclear weapons states. North Korea just
became one
. Conventional deterrence of both sides has worked with North Korea for decades.
Nuclear deterrence with North Korea will work just as well as it did with the Soviet and
Chinese communists. If North Korea were really not deterrable the U.S. should have nuked it
yesterday to minimize the overall risk and damage. It is the McMaster position that is
ideological and not rational or "grown up" at all.
"There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody
solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in
the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about,
there's no military solution here, they got us."
It was indeed the Democratic People's Republic of Korea which "got" the United States and
stopped the U.S. escalation game. It is
wrong
to think
that North Korea
"backed off"
in the recent upheaval about a missile test targeted next to Guam. It was the U.S. that pulled
back from threatening behavior.
Since the
end
of May
the U.S. military trained extensively for decapitation and "preemptive" strikes on
North Korea:
Two senior military officials -- and two senior retired officers -- told NBC News that key to
the plan would be a B-1B heavy bomber attack originating from Andersen Air Force Base in
Guam.
...
Of the 11 B-1 practice runs since the end of May, four have also involved practice bombing at
military ranges in South Korea and Australia.
In response to the B-1B flights North Korea published plans to launch a missile salvo next
to the U.S. island of Guam from where those planes started. The announcement
included a hidden
offer
to stop the test if the U.S. would refrain from further B-1B flights. A deal was made
during
secret negotiations
. Since then no more B-1B flights took place and North Korea
suspended
its Guam test plans. McMaster lost and the sane people, including Steve Bannon,
won.
But what about Bannon's "ethno-nationalist" ideology?
Isn't he responsible
for the
right-wing nutters of Charlottesville conflict? Isn't he one of them?
He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it:
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too
much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
Bannon sees China as an economic enemy and wants to escalate an economic conflict with it.
He is said to be against the nuclear deal with Iran. The generals in Trump's cabinet are all
anti-Iran hawks. As Bannon now turns out to be a realist on North Korea, I am not sure what
real position on Iran is.
Domestically Bannon is pulling the Democrats into the very trap I had several times warned
against:
"The Democrats," he said, "the longer they talk about identity politics, I got 'em. I want
them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go
with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats."
This worked well during the presidential election and might continue to work for Trump. As
long as the Democrats do not come up with, and fight for, sane economic polices they will
continue to lose elections. The people are not interested in LGBT access to this or that
bathroom. They are interested in universal healthcare, in personal and economic security. They
are unlikely to get such under Bannon and Trump. But, unlike the Democrats, the current White
House crew at least claim to have plans to achieve it.
Posted by b on August 16, 2017 at 11:51 PM |
Permalink
A couple of very interesting links from the last thread were the one to the Bannon article,
and also the link to the Carter/NK article.
Kim Jong Un, 3rd generation like his father and grandfather leader of NK. From what I have
read this is a cultural thing t hat predates communism and the Japanese occupation prior. Many pictures of Kim show an overweight youngster amongst gaunt hungry looking
generals.
Gave the impression of a spoilt kid simply handed power. Not going to the May 9 parade in
Russia when invited also gave the impression he was paranoid.
But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained from
an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China), perhaps a
leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US. Third generation at
war with the US and his seen his father was fucked over when trying to make a deal with the US. NK's nuke and missile tech have come a long way in the few short years Kim Jong Un has been
in power.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Jong Un and Trump have a meet one day.
b said: "The people are not interested in LGBT access to this or that bathroom. They are
interested in universal healthcare, in personal and economic security. They are unlikely to
get such under Bannon and Trump. But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at
least claim to have plans to achieve it."
"There's no military solution [to North Korea's nuclear threats], forget it. Until somebody
solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don't die in
the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don't know what you're talking about,
there's no military solution here, they got us."
Doesn't that at least show Bannon as the adult in the room?
I would say so.
So lets start parsing this economic nationalism that Bannon is making happen with Trump.
Economic nationalism is a term used to describe policies which are guided by the idea of
protecting domestic consumption, labor and capital formation, even if this requires the
imposition of tariffs and other restrictions on the movement of labour, goods and capital. It
is in opposition to Globalisation in many cases, or at least on questions the unrestricted
good of Free trade. It would include such doctrines as Protectionism, Import substitution,
Mercantilism and planned economies.
Examples of economic nationalism include Japan's use of MITI to "pick winners and losers",
Malaysia's imposition of currency controls in the wake of the 1997 currency crisis, China's
controlled exchange of the Yuan, Argentina's economic policy of tariffs and devaluation in
the wake of the 2001 financial crisis and the United States' use of tariffs to protect
domestic steel production.
Think about what a trade war with China would do. It would crash the world economy as
China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US likely defaulting......just one
possible scenario.
At least now, IMO, the battle for a multi-polar (finance) world is out in the open.....let
the side taking by nations begin. I hope Bannon is wrong about the timing of potential global
power shifting and the US loses its empire status.
Bannon thinks the bombast on display between the Kim and Trump has been "a sideshow". The
real show, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the dramatic sparring between the two
leaders. The Mother Of All Policies, according to Bannon, is an all-bets-on trade war with
China, whose endgame admits to only one outcome,--that is to say-- that only one hegemon will
remain standing at the end of this struggle.
There can be only one King-of-the-Hill. But where is the Greek Chorus?--the prophetic
warning that goes by the name of necessity?-- that tries to ward off hubris? "One must never
subscribe to absurdities" (it was Camus who aptly said that).
I had read this before; interesting to say the least.
Truth be told, I'd never heard of Bannon prior to Trumps election and still know little about
him.
Politics aside Bannon seems a straight shooter; I certainly can't argue his statement re:
what would happen if we attacked NK. His statement is echo'd by many long before today.
I do plan to start paying attention from this point forward.
Oh, and I did read that Trump is afraid of Bannon, but don't remember the reason stated.
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too
much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."
"These guys are a collection of clowns," he added.
No, whoever planned that "United Right" rally walked Trump into the trap.
As Trump was incapable to disassociate himself clearly from people who protest against the
take down of a statue of General Lee. Trump now owns the race issue.
Steve Bannon is
a
fascist
. That does not mean he is stupid.
The generals are clearly dangerous. They have the power to walk everybody to world war
III. Trump has pledged to spend even more on the US military, the military already has the
highest spending world wide. The generals don't want to admit that they cannot solve
anythings by military power.
Trump going off script in that press conference into a stream of consciousness was bad. He
reminded everybody of their rambling demented great-grandfather. He tried to get the
discussion to economic issues, he did not succeed.
In stepped more lies and garbage, this time more fake than the other, with chaos theory and
psychological warfare organizations drowning in capabilities from the overfunded phony war
on terror and too much time on their hands now lending their useless talents toward
disinforming the general public.
The result has been a divided US where "alternative facts" fabricated for a vulnerable
demographic now competes with the "mainstream" now termed, and I believe rightly so, "fake
news" to support different versions of a fictional narrative that resembles reality only in
the most rarified and oblique manner.
...
America has left itself open to dictatorship. It long since gave up its ability to
govern itself, perhaps it was the central bank, the Federal Reserve in 1913 or more recent
erosions of individual power such as the Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2005.
Whatever milestone one chooses, the remains of democratic institutions in the US are now
difficult to find.
What we are left with is what increasingly seems to be factions, mistakenly defined as
"right" or "far right" jockeying for control over America's military, and with that,
control over the planet itself.
You see, whoever controls the American military controls the world, unless a power bloc
appears that can challenge, well, challenge what? If the Pentagon controls America's
military and the Pentagon is controlled by a cabal of religious extremists as many claim or
corporate lackeys as most believe, then where does the world stand?
Then again, if Trump and his own Republican congress are at war over impeachment, and I
assure you, little else is discussed in Washington, two sides of the same coin, servants of
different masters, has all oversite of the newfound military power over American policy
disappeared?
Bannon can be perfectly mature, adult and realist on some points and be totally blinded by
biases on others - him wanting total economic war against China is proof enough. So I don't
rule out that he has a blind spot over Iran and wants to get rid of the regime. I mean, even
Trump is realist and adult in a few issues, yet is an oblivious fool on others.
Kind of hard to find someone who's always adult and realist, actually. You can only hope to
pick someone who's more realist than most people. Or build a positronic robot and vote for
him.
More puzzling is the fact that Bannon would phone a writer and editor of a progressive
publication (the cover lines on whose first two issues after Trump's election were
"Resisting Trump" and "Containing Trump") and assume that a possible convergence of views
on China trade might somehow paper over the political and moral chasm on white nationalism.
The question of whether the phone call was on or off the record never came up. This is
also puzzling, since Steve Bannon is not exactly Bambi when it comes to dealing with the
press. He's probably the most media-savvy person in America.
I asked Bannon about the connection between his program of economic nationalism and the
ugly white nationalism epitomized by the racist violence in Charlottesville and Trump's
reluctance to condemn it. Bannon, after all, was the architect of the strategy of using
Breitbart to heat up white nationalism and then rely on the radical right as Trump's
base.
He dismissed the far right as irrelevant and sidestepped his own role in cultivating it:
"Ethno-nationalism!it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too
much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more."
Explanation a) He wants to explain the climbdown of his boss on North Korea.
Not really helpful to Trump.
b) He wants to save his reputation as the association with the KKK and White Suprematists
has become toxic.
I think Bannon is an authentic economic nationalist, and one that Trump feels is good counsel
on those matters. If this is so, then Bannon cannot be trying to provoke a trade war with
China, since that would be an economic catastrophe for the US (and China and the rest of the
world). I'm hoping he's playing bad cop and eventually Trump will play good cop in
negotiations for more investment by China in the US and other goodies in exchange for 'well,
not much' from the US. Similar to what the US dragged out of Japan in the 80s nd 90s.
psychohistorian at 4: 'as China tried to cash in on it US Treasury holdings with the US
likely defaulting...'
as a sovereign currency issuer of that size the usa can not run out of dollars
to default on their obligations would be a voluntary mistake the federal reserve will
avoid
meanwhile the chinese are investing in africa and other countries securing their position in
the world
c | Aug 17, 2017 6:59:32 AM | 17
as a sovereign currency issuer of that size the usa can not run out of dollars
to default on their obligations would be a voluntary mistake the federal reserve will
avoid
meanwhile the chinese are investing in africa and other countries securing their position in
the world
Very good; and I agree with your POV; the usa can not run out of dollars.
And therein lies its power; a very dangerous situation that I do not think the world is
equipped to deal with in toto...
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of the
Electoral College, including Steve Bannon. It is the Republican Party, not Trump and his
Trumpery who holds majorities in the House, the Senate and the nation's statehouses. Anybody
who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten that
Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.
It appears that as a purely nominal Republican, an owner in a hostile takeover, Trump has
no qualms about trashing the system. Practically speaking, this is the very opposite of
draining the swamp, which requires effective leadership.
Kim Jong Un, 3rd generation like his father and grandfather leader of NK. From what I have
read this is a cultural thing that predates communism and the Japanese occupation prior.
But looking at things now, rather than a spoilt paranoid kid, perhaps someone trained
from an early age for leadership, and perhaps rather than being paranoid (Russia/China),
perhaps a leader that finds it more important to create a deterrence against the US.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Aug 17, 2017 1:05:52 AM | 1
OR, looked at another way:
Perhaps the gurning wunderkind Kim's ascent to the North Korean Throne was completely
predictable and was predicted a long time ago, and plans were set in motion to ensure that he
was co-opted as a kid, and now works with the US to help counter the rising Chinese
power.
Perhaps the alleged face-off Trump, Kim and the western MSM treated the world to over the
past while, was merely nothing but a pre-scripted choreographic display, a piece of theater
agreed upon beforehand by all participants except China
I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Jong Un and Trump have a meet one day.
I wouldn't be surprised if Kim Jong Un and Trump actually play for the same side.
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead of
the Electoral College, i
Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19
Actually as far as I can tell the real political swindlers are the ones who refuse to
acknowledge that a US Presidential election is, (and has been for nearly whole time the US
has been in existence, which is more than 200 years for those who have problems keeping track
of such simple matters) decided NOT by the popular vote but by the results of the Electoral
College voting.
Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has
forgotten that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.
Again, just to repeat the actual reality regarding US Presidential elections: They are
decided on the basis of Electoral Collage voting and NOT on the basis of the popular vote, as
political swindlers would now like everyone to believe.
He is doubling down now defending General Lee statues as beautiful. He is doing the same
strategy as he did in his duel with Hillary Clinton when everybody thought he was insane,
playing to his core Republican base to make sure Republicans have to stay in line or face a
primary challenge.
Breitbart is doing the same threatening "Republican traitors".
The problem with this strategy is that Trump won because Hillary Clinton was so unpopular,
because their pollsters outsmarted Nate Silver and Co. and possibly because she was a
woman.
But Republicans who have to pretend they are religious right wing nuts in the primaries,
then have to appeal to independents to win the actual election.
So they cannot go against Trump but cannot defend him. They are paralysed.
That what it comes down to. That the main aim of the president of the United States is to
paralyze the party he hijacked.
They are decided on the basis of Electoral Collage voting and NOT on the basis of the
popular vote, as political swindlers would now like everyone to believe
indeed, though, speaking of political swindlers,
there's
mucho
evidence
that Trump may have won the popular vote as well.
Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2017 8:18:55 AM | 19
Every political swindler today starts off by pretending Trump won the election instead
of the Electoral College, including Steve Bannon. It is the Republican Party, not Trump and
his Trumpery who holds majorities in the House, the Senate and the nation's statehouses.
Anybody who wants to think that "economic nationalism" will crush the Democrats has forgotten
that Trump lost the popular vote on this ticket.
Have you read the Constitution of the USA? The Electoral College elects the President by
the rank and file voters electing the Electors to the College on November election day.
That's how the system works.
Ask Al Gore; he won the popular vote.
Oh and btw, the Hillary won the popular 2016 vote meme. Take a look at Detroit, MI heavy
Democrats' precints - more votes than voters - and the millions of illegal aliens' vote in
California who voted after the invite of Obama.
Trump won the election. Period. End of story. Done. Finished. Get over it and get on with
your life. He didn't compete to win the popular vote. He competed and campaigned to win the
election. Advice to Democrats - nominate a candidate beside a senile old neocon woman who is
corrupt to her ugly core, and then maybe you can beat a former reality show star.
The problem with this strategy is that Trump won because Hillary Clinton was so unpopular,
because their pollsters outsmarted Nate Silver and Co. and possibly because she was a
woman.
Posted by: somebody | Aug 17, 2017 9:45:00 AM | 23
Nope - first part of the sentence is correct but the rest of is just you, as usual, repeating
crap you found on the Internet and then repeating it here pretending it is profound and that
you actually understand what you are talking about, which you clearly don't as evidenced by
the fact that you then go on to reference Nate Silver whose fame was never anything but media
created hype with little or nothing to back it up.
Silver's feet of clay were evident long before the latest Prez election. It became obvious
that his alleged electoral statistical prowess rested as much on luck as anything else. Lucky
in prediction when it came to the 2008 election but by 2010 things started to go wrong but
the media ignored his feet of clay and kept hyping him as a stats genius.
By the time 2016 rolled round Silver was exposed for the lucky fraud he is.
The real truth of Hillarys inability to win lies not in her being female as you and many
others disingenuously (at best) try to claim, but simply lies in the fact that she is a
thoroughly unpleasant person with a complete lack of charisma and a massive sense of
entitlement.
Blacks and others, minorities generally and independents, who came out in droves for the
Obama elections simply refused to go and vote for her.
The Republican vote however changed very little - pretty much the exact same demographic
voted republican as voted for Romney.
Trump won partly because of Clintons massive hubris in refusing to campaign in several key
states. Cambridge analytical were not required to give him the win, no matter what you read,
without analysing it, elsewhere on the web and are now repeating here in an effort to pretend
you know what you are talking about.
CA probably helped somewhat but it unlikely that they were central to the win. Clintons
hubris and her complete lack of charisma, ensured low black/minority/independent for her in
key states, especially those where she had refused to even bother to campaign, which was
enough to seal the win for Trump
You simply repeating crap you heard on the net and pretending that if you say it in an
authoritative fashion it will magically become true, just ends up making you look completely
clueless, as usual. (or dishonest)
@ Everybody who bought into the MSM Steve Bannon promoted white supremacy and through
Breitbart. Suggested you read his world view expressed in remarks at Human Dignity Institute,
Vatican Conference 2014
Posted by: likklemore | Aug 17, 2017 10:51:54 AM | 28
Anyone with any intelligence would be wise to treat with great caution anything Bannon
claims in public interviews about himself or his alleged political beliefs,
US politics is a great big clusterfeck - worse than ever, which is hard to believe. Bannon's big liar. He did heaps to create this very situation with the White
Supremacists. Of course the Democrats are worse than useless. All they're doing is presenting themselves
as "We're not Trump" and whining about Putin. All of them are clowns. Every last one. Including the so-called "Generals." Worthless.
"Since then no more B-1B flights took place and North Korea suspended its Guam test
plans."
but: "Yesterday (...) two US B-1 strategic bombers, operating with Japanese fighter jets,
conducted exercises to the southwest of the Korean Peninsula." says WSWS. ?
everything about the usa today is divisive... i can't imagine the usa being happy if this
didn't continue until it's demise..the 2 party system hasn't worked out very well as i see
it.. failed experiment basically.. oh well..
If I remember correctly, wasn't it both the President Elect and the Republican Congressmen
who won clear majorities in nearly 80 percent of congressional districts? Presuming an issue
like the gerrymandering of districts wasn't significant, that's a far more legitimate victory
than an extra million Democrats voting in California (determining the future of national
policy). I'm not a fan of the Republicans, but denying the short term efficiency of 'populist
rhetoric' isn't helping the left win any substantial electoral victories in the future.
Good Lord. Can't people read anymore? The election is all about the EC. Keep talking and
running for the popular vote, and Trump will keep winning the Electoral College. You either
want to win or you don't. I hope you keep preaching the popular vote personally.
Keep the proles spilt in their little "identity groups", their micro-tribes, and continue
building the Kleoptocracy/Prison/Military State while the dumbed down demos are busy hunting
micro-aggressions/fighting gender & race wars etc etc
During the last 5 Prez Election cycles the population spilt on utterly retarded lines such
as Gay-marriage, Gender-free toilets etc. All this while the US fought or financed numerous
very expensive wars in the Middle East ukraine etc, resulting hundreds of thousands of lives
lost.
The 2008 elections had one of the highest ever voter turnout rates for the Democrats and
the 2016 elections had one of the lowest ever. The turnout rates (abysmal if ever compared to
voter turnout rates in Germany and Japan) easily explain the initial victory and the eventual
defeat, not 'Detroit fraud' or 'the millions of illegals' voting in your head. Racial
gerrymandering against black voters in the Southern States is a far more real issue.
somwbody @ 12: Good link thanks..Interesting read about "The Forth Turning"
psycho @ 5: good link also..
WJ @ 27 said:" Advice to Democrats - nominate a candidate beside a senile old neocon woman
who is corrupt to her ugly core, and then maybe you can beat a former reality show star."
Yep, so-called "Russian hacking" wasn't the problem, HRC was the problem...
Just Sayin' @ 41 said:"It should by now be clear to anyone paying attention that while both
Bannon & Trump certainly TALK a lot, they seem to actually do very little."
Kinda' waitin' myself to see all those "accomplishments"....
I understand and respect your point, but I was responding to the initial comment's
implicit argument on public opinion: "a common argument is the
lower-middle-to-upper-middle-class social base of the Republicans is less receptive to the
short term effects of Protectionist policy and this would reduce political morale, as well as
grassroots and voting organization. However, the Democrats 'won the popular vote.' So, it's
'obvious' in saying the classless definition of 'the American people' oppose this Republican
policy, and naturally, the social base of the Republican Party isn't especially relevant to
consider when organizing voters and grassroots movements for a renewed Democratic Party."
To be fair, I think like the early Unionist and Communist circles, and presume public
opinion translates to expressions of grassroots politics between conflicting classes (more so
than it actually happens in American class society).
If one proceeds on the assumption that politics in the United States closely follows themes,
scripts and production values pioneered by WWF, then all becomes clear. It's simply
pro-wrestling on a global scale with nuclear weapons and trillions of dollars in prize money.
@42 just sayin'.. yes to all you say - it is quite sad actually.. not sure of the way out at
this point, short of complete rebellion in the streets which looks like a longs ways off at
this point..
not sure of the way out at this point, short of complete rebellion in the streets which
looks like a longs ways off at this point..
Posted by: james | Aug 17, 2017 2:58:51 PM | 49
Most of the younger generation seem to be much to busy, obsessing over non-existent things
like "Micro-agressions" or "hetero-normative cis-gender oppression", to pay attention to, let
alone acknowledge, the enormous global macro-aggressions their own country is engaged in on a
world-wide scale.
But, unlike the Democrats, the current White House crew at least claim to have plans to
achieve it.
Is there a "don't" missing from that sentence?
I must disagree that DPRK nuclear missiles are a qualitatively similar threat to those
possessed by the Soviet Union and China. DPRK's guiding
Suche
ideology is a literal
cult that goes far beyond the cult-of-personality that held sway over the Soviet Union and
China when Stalin and Mao ruled. And by the time the Soviets developed delivery capabilities
Stalin was dead and his cult was done. By the time the Chinese developed delivery
capabilities Mao was declining into figurehead status and Zhou Enlai, who as commander of the
PLA realized how weak China really was militarily, had no illusions about what would happen
in a military confrontation with the US. But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the
Kims are ordained with supernatural powers that allowed them to drive the Japanese off the
peninsula then fight off an American "invasion." They truly don't mention the role of the
Soviets and the Chinese in saving their bacon. In terms of face-saving, the Kims have set the
bar pretty high for themselves by fostering their cult. Their legitimacy would be threatened
if their statecraft as rational actors undermined their Suche cult.
DPRK have been rogue actors against ROK and Japan out of sheer spitefulness, fully
exploiting the umbrella provided by the Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Assistance
with China. They have done extraterritorial kidnappings and murders not for perceived
strategic reasons but merely to intimidate. DPRK has pointedly refused to enter talks for a
formal peace between them and the ROK. Those kinds of motives do not bespeak of someone who
can be trusted with nukes.
Bannon is someone whom I hold quite responsible for contributing to the rise of White
Supremacy in the USA, which I consider a clear and present danger. Bannon's dismissive hand
waving yesterday is meant to dissemble. Guess some are willing to buy what he was selling
yesterday. Not me.
What are your reasons for believing this about Bannon? What counts as contributing, and
how did you come to your decision?
It's not that I don't believe you. It's rather important to establish in what way his
words (whether the ones you found or the recent ones in
American Prospect
) are lies
or misdirection, so that I, and anyone interested, can evaluate this for ourselves and come
to similar or different conclusions.
I don't think Bannon wants a "trade" war with China but he is right that there is an economic
war going on. The "silk roads" and the various new organisations that the Chinese-Russians
have set up, (Major Banks, "Swift" equivalent, Glossnass satellites, card payment systems,
industrial independence, and food self-sufficiency etc), plus the use of currencies other
than the dollar - are all examples of a break-away from a US-EU domination.
However, they have not suddenly introduced everything at once to "bring the US house
down". Why? One possible reason could be that they are expecting the US to collapse anyway.
Another is that viable alternatives also take time to set up.
b has mentioned the "grown ups" v the Idealogues". The impact of the military on the
economic war seems to be underestimated. How much longer can the US afford the more than
trillion dollars per year of the "visible" arms? This does not include hidden costs
("Intelligence agencies and pork). Nor does it include costs borne by other countries. ie.
Italy has about 80 US bases (the most in the EU) and about 77 nuclear warheads on its soil.
Italy PAYS for those bases, and even that does not include infrastucture (roads, increased
airport capacity, sewage, water mains, etc) which are paid for by the Italians themselves.
Other countries will have similar systems. Some like Kuwait are "paying" back the amounts
spent on arms for example.
The total cost is astronomical.
A brief reminder the USSR collapsed because of massive overspending on arms and military
projects - leaving the rest of the economy in the lurch. Presumably the Chinese and Russians
are expecting the same thing to happen again.
(Aside - yes, you can print dollars as a sovereign state, but printing roubles didn't help
the soviets either)
So McMasters and the others are in fact just spoilt brats who think that the good times are
forever.
----
One example of the new "bluff-calling" cheaper method of economic warfare (*NK is the
another) were the recent NATO/US manoeuvres in Georgia (country) on the anniversary of the
Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. The number of troops and means involved would have been
enough to carry out a "surprise" attack this time too. The Russians - sent in Putin, who
declared that the Russians supported S.Ossetia and were ready to deal with any threat -
exactly as they did "last" time. Cost? One plane trip.
(*The NK threat by the US would have seen about 40'000 men from S. Korea and Japan sent
against about 700'000 motivated local troops and massive artillery arrays. It was a
non-starter, even with nukes)
You are forgetting to mention the main sticking point to talks is our refusal to halt our
annual̶d̶e̶f̶e̶n̶s̶i̶v̶e̶
̶d̶r̶i̶l̶l̶s̶ invasion practice before they will come to
the table. At least from what I read.
Even with China's international financial position growing more robust with SWIFT
independence, AIDB, the New Silk Road and such, they still have an interest in the
Dollar-based western financial system as long as they can make money off of it. They are not
going to shoot themselves in the foot by deliberately causing it to collapse. They might even
prop it up in a crisis, but I suspect they would drive a hard bargain.
Thirdeye says, "But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained with
supernatural powers." What is American Exceptionalism?
MCMASTER: Says classic deterrence strategy won't work with NK.
"Deterrence is a strategy intended to dissuade an adversary from taking an action not yet
started, or to prevent them from doing something that another state desires."
Classic deterrence strategy IS working for NK perfectly.
What I base my analysis of Bannon is his leadership at Bretibart which may or may not be
continuing right now. Just read Breitbart if you think Bannon isn't fully behind the White
Supremacists rising up right now.
The idea that people (a people) have to suffer a big war in order to cleanse themselves
from moral depravity is fascism pure and simple as who should force people to do this but a
dictator.
All one has to do to know what Bannon's position on Iran is to read Breitbart on any given
day. Unless we are supposed to believe that Bannon's opinions are not reflected by the
website he ran for four years. Bannon is for war against Islam in general, there is nothing
"realist" about his foreign policy.
That's a different issue from entering talks for a formal peace with with ROK. DPRK has
been refusing that for years. Did you ever consider that DPRK's constant saber rattling
against ROK was what lent impetus to US exercises in the region in the first place? The US
knows that China would not tolerate a US invasion of DPRK. Why take the risk of invading
across great defensive terrain when you can simply destroy?
57 Madhatter67
Thirdeye says, "But DPRK is still ruled by a cult that believes the Kims are ordained
with supernatural powers." What is American Exceptionalism?
That's a dumb analogy and a pathetic attempt at deflection. Criticize American
Exceptionalism all you want, but don't compare it to a supernaturalist cult. That's just
stupid.
DPRK has a history of doing whatever they think they can get away with, exploiting their
treaty with China. If their delusional
Suche
ideology leads them to miscalculate or
paints them into a corner trying to prop it up, it could lead to war.
If there's any bright spot in the whole picture it's China's chilly stance towards DPRK
after recent events. The excesses of DPRK's ruling cult have occurred largely because they
figured China had their back. But China's regional interests have changed dramatically over
the past 30 years. ROK is no longer a competitive threat to China and is economically more
important to China than DPRK ever was. DPRK's military power is of much less benefit to China
than it was in the past. It might even be considered a liability.
61 Stonebird
It wouldn't be cash, it would be be assets and/or the means of controlling them. Big
Chinese money is already coming into the west coast of the US and Canada. Oh well, we fucked
things up here; maybe the Chinese will do a better job.
Bannon is against the nuclear deal, and is one of the top people in the administration
arguing for Trump to move the Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Bannon has been
cited as promoting Sheldon Adelson's Israel policy in meetings with Trump.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/pro-abbas-lauder-hawkish-adelson-battling-to-influence-trump-on-mideast/
If anything Bannon/Breitbart push an even harder line on Israel than most politicians and
media do.
First of all, I will now declare that I am 99% confused! So please let me review the 1% that
comes through my little keyhole. What has been said?
/~~~~~~~~~~
<< = Just Sayin' | Aug 17, 2017 11:01:18 AM | 30
Anyone with any intelligence would be wise to treat with great caution anything Bannon
claims in public interviews about himself or his alleged political beliefs,
\~~~~~~~~~~
Well sure! The guy's a political operative -- One does not get to be a political operative
by being some kind of a Dudly Do-Right. Damn.
@12... "Bannon is a fascist" I'm not so sure. Mussolini defined fascism as being an
alliance of corporate and state powers... but Bannon (and most of his followers) have no
trust in the corporate sector as they [the corporate sector] are to a large degree Globalists
- they used the US and then threw it aside in pursuit of profit elsewhere. For that, he would
even call them traitors. So you could call him a Nationalist.
\~~~~~~~~~~
Well since we can't believe anything from Bannon... And aside from that I am sick of
hearing Mussolini's definition of fascism -- After all, he was a psycho-villain -- so why
believe it?!
UNTIL WE HAVE STRATEGIC HEDGE SIMPLE SCORE VOTING WE WILL BE SADDLED WITH THE TWO-PARTY
"SYSTEM" (really only one party). Who cares if we really have no choice whatsoever. We are
held hostage to the false alternatives of the vast legion of the election methods
cognoscenti.
@35, please refer to post 69. If Bannon was not a Zionist, he would not have ran a site which
brags of being conceived in Israel and which pushes a harder line on Israel than almost any
other, and he would not be promoting Adelson's Israel policy within the administration.
Bannon makes sense. That must be why many want him gone especially the neocons. As to North
Korea, the US should have admitted "facts on the ground" long ago and worked to sign the
official end of the war and work to get the two Koreas talking and working together.
"That's a different issue from entering talks for a formal peace with with ROK. DPRK has been
refusing that for years."
I doubt any substantial transcripts from early talks will ever be released, so whoever had
diplomats offering the 'fairest' compromises for terms of an early framework (resulting in a
later settlement) cannot be known (regarding specifics).
If I remember correctly, there has been at least three Chinese-sponsored peace conferences
(on Korea) since 2007, where the general position of the U.S. was: North Korea had to freeze
total nuclear production, accept existing and additional (U.N.) verification missions, and
dismantle all warheads PRIOR to the signing of any peace treaty. How is demanding
unconditional surrender not intransigence? Are we going to just pretend the United States
hadn't sponsored military coups in Venezuela and Honduras and hadn't invaded Iraq and Libya
(in a similar time frame)?
During peace talks, any terms are argued, refused, and eventually compromised (usually
over years and sometimes over decades). Why presume the United States and South Korea had the
fairest offers and general settlements in a handful of conferences (especially when we have
no transcripts)?
"Did you ever consider that DPRK's constant saber rattling against ROK was what lent
impetus to US exercises in the region in the first place?"
You're presuming your case and not giving specific information on what you might know.
Personally, I don't know who 'started it' (I would guess Japan 'started it' by forcing
through the Protectorate Treaty of 1905, or the United States 'started it' by forcing through
the Amity and Commerce Treaty of 1858), but if North Korea isn't testing missiles near Guam
and the United States isn't flying specific planes over South Korea, a compromise WAS made
this last week, and more can be made to ensure peace.
But the fired adviser, Rich Higgans, is only the latest chip to fall in an ongoing "purge"
of "America-first" stalwarts from the National Security Council.
The idea that an alliance of Obama holdovers consisting of globalists and Islamists are
working inside the government as part of a "deep state" effort to destroy the Trump presidency
has been a common theme put forth by outside analysts trying to explain the intrigue behind
Trump's first six months in the White House.
But the idea apparently was not confined to outsiders. Higgins, a high-level official inside
the president's National Security Council, sent a memo up the chain of command in May, warning
of just such a plot. Higgins' memo caught the eye of McMaster and cost him his job.
According to a report Wednesday by the Atlantic
, McMaster removed Higgins from his post as
director of strategic planning on July 21 after reading the memo, which was considered too
"conspiratorial."
The memo alleged that leftists, globalists, Islamists and "deep state" actors are engaged in
"political warfare" against Trump. It states:
"Through the campaign, candidate Trump tapped into a deep vein of concern among many
citizens that America is at risk and slipping away. Globalists and Islamists recognize that
for their visions to succeed, America, both as an ideal and as a national and political
identity, must be destroyed."
The memo described the insurrection against Trump as "Maoist" in nature.
"In Maoist insurgencies, the formation of a counter-state is essential to seizing state
power," the memo reads. "Functioning as a hostile complete state acting within an existing
state, it has an alternate infrastructure. Political warfare operates as one of the
activities of the 'counter-state.'
"Because the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national, and
international levels, recognition should be given to the fact that they seamlessly
interoperate through coordinated synchronized interactive narratives. These attack narratives
are pervasive, full spectrum, and institutionalized at all levels. They operate in social
media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media and are entrenched at the upper levels
of the bureaucracies."
Several sources told the Atlantic they believed the memo made its way to Trump's desk, but
that has not been confirmed.
Higgins spent a little more than two months on the job before he was ousted. Prior to
joining the government, Higgins hit on similar issues in his writings, asserting Islam is in an
alliance with secular, Marxist-oriented global elites in an effort to destroy America.
"National Security officials are prohibited from developing a factual understanding of
Islamic threat doctrines, preferring instead to depend upon 5th column Muslim Brotherhood
cultural advisors," he wrote in a September 2016
op-ed for the Washington Times
.
The exit of Higgins and another official within the NSC apparatus, Senior Director for the
Middle East Derek Harvey, could be an indication that the "deep state," if it exists, is
gunning for its ultimate enemy within the White House – former Breitbart executive
chairman Steve Bannon.
Bannon, the president's chief strategist, has already been removed,
at McMaster's behest, from the daily briefings of the NSC.
McMaster recoils at 'list' of Obama holdovers
Like Higgins, Harvey is a Bannon ally. Harvey reportedly kept a list of Obama holdovers who
were seeking to undermine the Trump agenda.
McMaster declined to fire any of the persons on the list and, in fact, made statements at a
NSC town-hall meeting that "there is no such thing as a holdover." He said career federal
staffers were among the most loyal public servants.
Yet, that would seem to conflict with comments made by Obama's own top domestic-policy
adviser, Cecilia Muñoz, in April 2015.
As reported by WND
,
Muñoz, speaking at a symposium of the White House Task Force on New Americans
live-streamed over the Internet, said it was her top priority to "institutionalize" Obama's
policies throughout all federal agencies so they would live on long after she and her boss left
the White House.
In addition to the terminations of Harvey and Higgins, McMaster also purged from the NSC
staff Tera Dahl, a former Breitbart writer and congressional aide to Michele Bachmann.
A fourth Trump conservative, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, has been fired from his position as senior
director for intelligence on the National Security Council, according to a report by
Conservative Review on Wednesday
.
As for the future, continued volatility could be in the cards, depending on McMaster's
ability to retain the president's confidence, said Philip Haney, a former DHS immigration
officer who co-authored the whistleblower book "
See Something, Say Nothing
."
"If you are Trump, you need to realize your people are being purged out of the agencies, one
by one, and if there are no holdovers why is McMaster firing people?" Haney told WND.
"The people he's letting go are not Obama holdovers. He's keeping those designated as
holdovers and purging the people who helped President Trump get elected. So if he's seeking
unity, he seems to be replacing people who are loyal to Trump or prominently supportive of
Trump.
"If you are (presidential deputy assistant) Sebastian Gorka and Steve Bannon, you've got to
be pretty nervous right now."
More important than the faces of the people leaving or entering the administration is the
future of American foreign policy as it relates to Islamic terrorism and its more subtle
counterpart – civilizational jihad.
Higgins may have tipped his hand to what he believes a responsible national security policy
would look like in his op-ed last fall in the Washington Times.
A strategic reassessment of the entire combating terrorism effort that is free from
politically correct nonsense is long overdue. The "Islam has nothing to do with terrorism"
narratives have effectively shut down the intelligence process for the war in any meaningful
sense. Sure, we CT officers could look at organizations and people and places, some of which
had Islamic names, but we could never dig into the political and ideological reasons the
enemy was attacking us – which is supposed to be the first order of business in any
strategic threat assessment.
He tried to provide a vivid picture to his higher ups of what he believed they were up
against, and he was rewarded with a pink slip.
"... This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power. Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the needless carnage. ..."
"... Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: ..."
"... Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency. ..."
"... The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing. We didn't vote for this. ..."
"... Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed. ..."
"... Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working. We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal. ..."
"... In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite and it's very powerful. Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate in the foreign policy establishment. ..."
"... And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it to its ideology, to its beliefs system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say, "Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite? ..."
"... Where is a Trumpian counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the NSC staffers. ..."
"... I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that will change. ..."
"... The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. ..."
Rex Tillerson, formidably accomplished in global business, was nevertheless as much a neophyte
as his boss when it came to navigating the policy terrain of the D.C. swamp. As is well known, in
building his team he relied on those two neocon avatars, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, who had
originally promoted his own candidacy for secretary of state. But Rice had been a vocal part of the
neocon Never Trump coalition. Her anti-Trump pronouncements included: "Donald Trump should not be
president .He doesn't have the dignity and stature to be president." The Washington Post greeted
her 2017 book, Democracy: Stories from the Long Road to Freedom , as "a repudiation of Trump's
America First worldview."
Thus it wasn't surprising that Rice would introduce Elliott Abrams to Tillerson as an ideal candidate
for State's No. 2 position. This would have placed a dyed-in-the-wool neocon hardliner at the very
top of the State Department's hierarchy and given him the power to hire and fire all undersecretaries
across the vast foreign policy empire. Rice, one of the architects of George W. Bush's failed policies
of regime change and nation building, would have consolidated a direct line of influence into the
highest reaches of the Trump foreign policy apparatus.
Not only was Abrams' entire career a refutation of Trump's America First foreign policy, but he
had spent the previous eighteen months publicly bashing Trump in harsh terms. Cleverly, however,
he had not signed either of the two Never Trump letters co-signed by most of the other neocon foreign
policy elite. Abrams almost got the nod, except for a last-minute intervention by Trump adviser Steve
Bannon, who was armed with every disparaging anti-Trump statement Abrams had made. Examples: "This
is a question of character. He is not fit to sit in the chair of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln
.his absolute unwillingness to learn anything about foreign policy .Hillary would be better on foreign
policy. I'm not going to vote for Trump ."
But Abrams' rejection was the exception. As a high profile globalist-interventionist he could
not easily hide his antipathy toward the Trump doctrine. Others, whose track records and private
comments were more easily obscured, were waived in by gatekeepers whose mission it was (and remains)
to populate State, DoD, and national security agencies with establishment and neocon cadres, not
with proven Trump supporters and adherents to his foreign policy.
But how did the gatekeepers get in? Romney may have disappeared from the headlines, but he never
left the sidelines. His chess pieces were already on the board, occupying key squares and prepared
to move.
Once the president opened the door to RNC chairman Reince Priebus as his chief of staff, to Rex
Tillerson at State, to James Mattis as defense secretary, and to H. R. McMaster at NSC, the neocons
just walked in. While each of these political and military luminaries may publicly support the president's
policies and in some instances may sincerely want to see them implemented, their entire careers have
been spent within the establishment and neocon elite. They don't know any other world view or any
other people.
Donald Trump ran on an America First foreign policy, repeatedly deriding George W. Bush for invading
Iraq in 2003. He criticized Clinton and Obama for their military interventions in Libya and their
support for regime change in Syria. He questioned the point of the endless Afghan war. He criticized
the Beltway's hostile obsession with Russia while it ignored China's military buildup and economic
threat to America.
Throughout the campaign Trump made abundantly clear his foreign policy ethos. If elected he would
stop the policy of perpetual war, strengthen America's military, take care of U.S. veterans, focus
particularly on annihilating the ISIS caliphate, protect the homeland from Islamist radicalism, and
promote a carefully calibrated America First policy.
But, despite this clear record, according to Politico and other Beltway journals, the president
has been entreated in numerous White House and Pentagon meetings to sign off on globalist foreign
policy goals, including escalating commitments to the war in Afghanistan. These presentations, conducted
by H.R. McMaster and others, were basically arguments to continue the global status quo; in other
words, a foreign policy that Clinton would have embraced. Brian Hook and Nadia Schadlow were two
of the lesser known policy wonks who participated in these meetings, determining vital issues of
war and peace.
Brian Hook, head of State Department policy planning, is an astute operative and member in good
standing of the neocon elite. He's also a onetime foreign policy adviser to Romney and remains in
close touch with him. Hook was one of the founders, along with Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman, of the
anti-Trump John Hay Initiative. Hook organized one of the Never Trump letters during the campaign,
and his views are well-known, in part through a May 2016 piece by Julia Hoffe in Politico Magazine.
A passage: "My wife said, 'never,'" said Brian Hook, looking pained and slicing the air with a long,
pale hand. .Even if you say you support him as the nominee," Hook says, "you go down the list of
his positions and you see you disagree on every one."
One might wonder how a man such as Hook could become the director of policy planning and a senior
adviser to Rex Tillerson, advising on all key foreign policy issues? The answer is: the Romney network.
Consider also the case of Margaret Peterlin, assigned as a Sherpa during the transition to guide
Tillerson through the confirmation process. Another experienced Beltway insider, Peterlin promptly
made herself indispensable to Tillerson and blocked anyone who wanted access to him, no matter how
senior. Peterlin then brought Brian Hook onboard, a buddy from their Romney days, to serve as the
brains for foreign policy while she was serving as the Gorgon-eyed chief of staff.
According to rumor, the two are now blocking White House personnel picks, particularly Trump loyalists,
from appointments at State. At the same time, they are bringing aboard neocons such as Kurt Volker,
executive director of the McCain Institute and notorious Russia hawk, and Wess Mitchell, president
of the neocon Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA). As special representative for Ukraine negotiations,
Volker is making proclamations to inflame the conflict and further entangle the United States.
Meanwhile, Mitchell, another Romney alumnus and a Brian Hook buddy from the John Hay Initiative,
has been nominated as assistant secretary of state for European and Erurasian affairs. Brace yourself
for an unnecessary Cold War with Russia, if not a hot one. While Americans may not really care whether
ethnic Russians or ethnic Ukrainians dominate the Donbass, these guys do.
Then there's Nadia Schadlow, another prominent operative with impeccable neocon credentials. She
was the senior program officer at the Smith Richardson Foundation, where her main job was to underwrite
the neocon project by offering grants to the many think tanks in their network. For the better part
of a decade she pursued a PhD under the tutelage of Eliot Cohen, who has pronounced himself a "Never
Trumper" and has questioned the president's mental health. Cohen, along with H.R. McMaster, provided
editorial guidance to Schadlow for her book extolling nation-building and how we can do more of it.
Relationships beget jobs, which is how Schadlow became deputy assistant to the president, with
the task, given by her boss H.R. McMaster, of writing the administration's National Security Strategy.
Thus do we have a neocon stalwart who wrote the book on nation building now writing President Trump's
national security strategy.
How, we might ask, did these Never Trump activists get into such high positions in the Trump administration?
And what was their agenda at such important meetings with the President if not to thwart his America
First agenda? Put another way, how did Trump get saddled with nearly Mitt Romney's entire foreign
policy staff? After all, the American people did not elect Mitt Romney when they had the chance.
Trump is a smart guy. So is Barack Obama. But even Obama, Nobel Peace Prize in hand, could not
prevent the inexorable slide to violent regime change in Libya, which resulted in a semi-failed state,
tens of thousands killed, and a foothold for Al Queda and other radical Islamists in the Maghreb.
He also could not prevent the arming of Islamist rebels in Syria after he had the CIA provide lethal
arms strictly to "moderate rebels." Unable or unwilling to disengage from Afghanistan, Obama acquiesced
in a series of Pentagon strategies with fluctuating troop levels before bequeathing to his successor
an open ended, unresolved war.
Rumors floating through official Washington suggest the neocons now want to replace Tillerson
at State with Trump critic and Neocon darling Nikki Haley, currently pursuing a one-person bellicose
foreign policy from her exalted post at the United Nations. Not surprisingly, Haley and Romney go
way back. As a firm neocon partisan, she
endorsed his presidential bid in 2011 .
As UN ambassador, Haley has articulated a nearly incoherent jumble of statements that seem more
in line with her own neocon worldview than with Trump's America First policies. Some samples:
"I think that, you know, Russia is full of themselves. They've always been full of themselves.
But that's its more of a faηade that they try and show as opposed to anything else."
"What we are is serious. And you see us in action, so its not in personas. Its in actions and
its what we do."
"The United States calls for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a
part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over
the peninsula to Ukraine."
One must ask: Is Ambassador Haley speaking on behalf of the Trump administration when she says
it is official U.S. policy that Russia, having annexed Crimea, must return it to Ukraine? Is the
Russo-American geopolitical relationship to be held hostage indefinitely because in 2014 the people
of Crimea voted for their political reintegration into Russia, which they had been part of since
1776?
Since there is as much chance of Russia ceding Crimea back to Ukraine as there is of the United
States ceding Texas back to Mexico, does this mean there is no possibility of any meaningful cooperation
with Russia on anything else? Not even in fighting the common ominous threat from Islamist radicalism?
Has Haley committed the American people to this dead-end policy on her own or in consultation with
the President?
On July 14, the Washington Examiner wrote that "Haley's remarks set the tone for Trump's
reversal from the less interventionist, 'America First' foreign policy he campaigned on." Little
wonder, then, that in a little-noticed victory lap of her own, coinciding with the release of her
book, Condoleezza Rice acknowledged the near complete takeover of Trump's foreign policy team. "The
current national security team is terrific," she said. She even gave Trump her anointed blessing
following their recent White House meeting, during which the septuagenarian schoolboy received the
schoolmarm's pat on the head: " He was engaging," she said. "I found him on top of his brief .asking
really good questions." That's a far cry from her campaign-season comment about Trump that he "doesn't
have the dignity and stature to be president."
American foreign policy seems to be on auto-pilot, immune to elections and impervious to the will
of the people. It is perpetuated by an entrenched contingent of neocon and establishment zealots
and bureaucratic drones in both the public and private sector, whose careers, livelihoods, and very
raison d'etre depend on an unchallenged policy of military confrontation with the prestige,
power, and cash flow it generates. Those who play the game by establishment rules are waived in.
Those who would challenge the status quo are kept out. This is the so-called Deep State, thwarting
the will of President Trump and the people who voted for him.
This isn't merely a story of palace intrigue and revolving chairs in the corridors of power.
Brave Americans in the uniform of their country will continue to be sent into far-off lands to intercede
in internecine conflicts that have little if anything to do with U.S. national security. Many will
return physically shattered or mentally maimed. Others will be returned to Andrews Air Force Base
in flag-draped coffins, to be saluted by serial presidents of both parties, helpless to stop the
needless carnage.
Ron Maxwell wrote and directed the Civil War trilogy of movies: Gettysburg, Gods and
Generals, Copperhead.
This is all very convincing, but the point remains: Trump won and is the one responsible for allowing
all these neocons through the door. Had Pat Buchanan won the nomination and the Presidency back
in the nineties, does anyone believe he would make the same blunders, and not be equipped to find
the right traditional conservatives instead of the establishment DC neocons that try and swamp
every GOP Administration now since Reagan? Trump is simply too naive and doesn't have any feel
for the political ideologies of all of these people, being not much of a political animal himself.
And replacing Priebus with General Kelly isn't likely to change all that. He should be talking
to Ann Coulter and Buchanan as unofficial advisers or something.
Interesting argument, though you ignore other factors besides the conspiratorial-sounding "Romney
network" that account for American interventionist neo-conservatives finding their way back into
power: 1) that they are by far the largest group of people available to staff the government because
of a) the dominance of aggressive liberal internationalism over more restrained realism in graduate
schools which educate these foreign policy specialists; b) an inherent bias of these specialists
not to admit that America cannot influence world events (that would be like a social worker who
didn't believe s/he could usually mediate conflicts). Also, 2) Trump's alleged non-interventionist
beliefs are less well-formed than you imply, you just project on him what you wish to see; a)
you ignore his comments about taking the oil of other countries, an idea the neo-conservatives
had as a way to pay for operations in Iraq; and b) Beliefs closer to Trump's core: that others
not paying their fair share and that America is being taken advantage of, are not incompatible
with the American interventions you oppose.
You can't hijack an executive's policy unless the executive is either hopelessly weak or a faker.
Doesn't matter which.
The only good part is that the fake image of a somewhat less warlike "Trump", stirred up by
the media to destroy Trump, is actually DOING what a real non-interventionist Trump would have
done. EU is breaking away from US control, just as a real antiwar Trump would have ordered it
to do.
Great piece. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Reading this, I burn with anger -- then a sense of utter
futility washes over me. I think history will show that the Trump era was the moment the American
people realized that the Deep State is more powerful than the presidency.
It's good to see Ron Maxwell published in these pages. I watch Gettysburg at least once a year.
And don't think Virginians aren't grateful for Maxwell's role in helping put paid to Eric Cantor's
political career.
The rogues' gallery of neocons and apprentice neocons described above is really disturbing.
We didn't vote for this. And we don't want it.
Re Nikki Haley, she's already an embarrassment, an ignorant neocon-dependent. She's dragging
us down the same old road of anti-Russia hysterics and Middle East meddling. The best that can
be said of her presence at the UN is that by putting her there Trump promoted one of his allies
into the SC governor's mansion. I don't think he was under any illusions as to her foreign policy
knowledge, competence, or commitment to an America First policy. But she's become a vector for
neocons to reinfect government, and she needs to be removed.
Neoconism and neoliberalism is like a super-bug infection. None of the anti-biotics are working.
We have only one hope left. Rand Paul, the super anti-neocon/neoliberal.
"Trump is a smart guy" ..
??
If so; why does he not see this happening all around him? Except for his pompous, ignorant, hands-off
method of governing, that is . The Emperor has no clothes but doesn't seem to know, nor care that
he doesn't
Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security, Texas A&M at the American Conservative
Conference "Foreign Policy in America's Interest" (Nov 15 2016) said:
"In this country we can talk about resenting elites all we want, but when it comes to making
American foreign policy there still is an American foreign policy elite and it's very powerful.
Why has there been no debate? Actually, Michael Mandelbaum, an author with whom I seldom agree
on anything, but in his book "The Frugal Superpower" he actually tells you why there's no debate
in the foreign policy establishment.
You see, debate is basically goes from here to there [Dr. Layne puts his two index fingers
close together in front of his face], like from the 45-yard-line to the 45-yard-line. And why
does it stop there? Because people who try to go down towards the goal line have their union cards
taken away. They're kicked out of the establishment. They're not listened to. They're disrespected.
And to be part of the establishment you have to buy into it to its ideology, to its beliefs
system, and that is a very hard thing to break. And so before we all jump up and down and say,
"Wow! Donald Trump won! NATO is going to be changed. Our commitments in East Asia are going to
change. The Middle East may change!" We'd better take a deep breath and ask ourselves, and I think
Will Ruger raised this point on the first panel, where is the counter-elite?
Where is a Trumpian
counter-elite that not only can take the senior positions in the cabinet like Defense Secretary
and Secretary of State, but be the assistant secretaries, the deputy assistant secretaries, the
NSC staffers.
I think that elite doesn't exist right now, and that's a big problem, because the people who
are going to be probably still in power are the people who do not agree with the kinds of foreign
policy ideas that I think most of us in this room are sympathetic to. So, over time maybe that
will change.
Over time maybe a counter-elite will emerge. But in the short term I see very little prospect
for all the big changes that most of us are hoping to see, and so for me the challenge that we
face is really to find ways to develop this counter-elite than can staff an administration in
the future, that has at least what we think are the views that Donald Trump holds."
We're in a new period a period of learning for President Trump and for those in the administration
who back his anti-establishment foreign policy view. And while it is true that (as Chris Layne
said) "in the short term I see very little prospect for all the big changes that most of us are
hoping to see," as we move into the medium and long term, many of us are hopeful that these big
Trumpian foreign policy changes can begin to be made.
A senior administration official familiar with the work of Nadia Schadlow, a national security
expert brought on to help draft the National Security Strategy, tells CR that she will attempt
to produce an NSS as "iconoclastic as our new commander in chief," adding, "the era of milquetoast
boilerplate is over."
The problem with the neocons is that their ambition vastly exceeds their ability. Neocons developed
their minds in the Cold war dealing with a western power, the USSR. The problem is that once one
enters the Middle East and Asia one is dealing with languages and cultures of which they [knew]
next to nothing. How many speak Arabic, Farsi, Turkish and Urdu such that they understand every
nuance of what is said and unsaid?
When dealing with the arabs and many in Afghanistan everything is personnel and this can go
back 5 generations and includes hundreds if not thousands of people.
Trump has the common sense not to become involved in that he does not understand.
They come back in boxes while those who sent them to their deaths remain in the bags of the "America
Second" group which highjacked our Congress. It's no longer "God Bless America"; it's "God Help
America."
Ok, dunno the official Naked Capitalism stance on Mike Cernovich. So if all links to him are verboten,
no probs . (from April 8)
Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation
on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the
Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists).
McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence
Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his
name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment
allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to
the position ."
oho, I used to look at a lot of right wing stuff and be very skeptical of it. Than my skepticism
of "mainstream" has gone up to be equivalent to my skepticism of the right wing stuff.
You just have to read the stuff and decide for yourself if it is credible AND relevant. I have
found very few "reporters" really are even trying to be objective. I carry no water for Trump
or for Obama its a very lonely place other than at NC .
EXAMPLE: Napolitano of Fox is suspended because of the article about Obama admin using foreign
intelligence sources.
Now the mediamatters article I link below is critical of Napolitano. I link to it specifically
to distinguish between facts in an article and spin. In my view the article is trying to "spin"
(or emphasize I'm really not trying to "spin" my comment) the story as to it being about discredited
"wiretapping" and that foreign surveillance was specifically ORDERED by the Obama admin now,
I AGREE that is a very, very important point that Obama did not order specifically foreign searches
(at least that we know of now) and that as far as that is concerned, the mediamatters point appears
CORRECT.
But in my view, it is NOT THE ONLY POINT. The real point to me is that surveillance on US citizens
can occur without a warrant when it happens overseas, that this is happening constantly, and apparently
this information can come back to the US, again, apparently without any safegrards***. I leave
it to people's own sense of skepticism if this arrangement is ever used to circumvent getting
a warrant on a US citizen (HECK, I leave it to people's skepticism if the FISA court is nothing
but a circumlocution of the US constitution)
The FACT is that there are FACTS out there, and certain people have FACTS they want to emphasize,
and other FACTS they want to de-emphasize ..
***does anyone know when the British have surveillance of US citizens and they send it to the
US, what procedures or constraints on those conversations are???
I believe the controlling law is section 702 of the Patriot Act and Executive Order 16333.
To be sure you should check out Emptywheel's website because she has done a thorough analysis
of all of this and it is all archived in her website.
Unfortunately you are probably right. And a certain portion of the so-called liberal intelligentsia
aka Clinton wing I am exposed to, loves them some General Petraeus. Scary, I know.
Chernovich is considered by NC to be a very reliable source, I think. And his analysis of McMaster's
push for more troops is accurate. I didn't like the article because I felt it failed to account
for the difference in Mattis and McMaster in any coherent way. And Trump just gave the Pentagon
the ability to make its best decisions and follow through on them. (this was reported after Chernovich's
article). Amazing really. But that puts Mattis in charge and he would rather work with the other
interests fighting in Syria than unilaterally. McMaster, it was implied by Chernovich, was all
for sending 150,000 troops in to finish the job. So there is a huge leeway of possibilities according
to Chernovich. Maybe the military is softening up the public to accept what seems to be an attitude
of having had enough and wanting to just go in and take care of business. They all seem to agree
on that.
Also today's link from Reuters re McMaster getting down to business with Russia. McMaster wants
to have the tough talks to sort it all out. Because "Syria's government has got to go." OK, and
McMaster thought Tillerson's trip to Moscow and his meeting with Lavrov was a good start because
relations are so bad right now that there's "nowhere to go but up." I think my compass is pointing
to an agreement with the Russians to remove Assad. But they will never say it. If I were Assad,
I'd want to get out Syria is rubble, there's not much left to govern; even if his enemies would
leave him alone. They're all just positioning themselves for the best deal they can get. And the
threat of 150K troops on the ground is saying loud and clear that we will be the ones to decide
the new direction for Syria. To my thinking.
You may be right. But that will be the end of Syria. The country is still filled with foreign
backed jihadis who really want to establish an islamic state. The US may think it can take someone
currently residing in France or the US and install them. But there is no one available with any
popular support that I know of. Things almost definitely will get worse for Syria the carnage
will continue.
And Putin must realize that those insisting that Assad must go also want Putin out as well.
Surely, he sees that he has to draw a line somewhere.
maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian
nationalists to know it it's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way
to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few.
IMHO, you could not be more wrong. Russians went into Syria in Sept. 2015 after notifying
the whole world via a UN speech. The decision must have taken months to complete. What makes you
think that after all the work and effort this took, Russians would suddenly reverse course? If
they were to give up on Assad so quickly, why go in in the first place? Remember they have a
VERY LONG-TERM VIEW (just like the Chinese). The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for
that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand
(and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin the story is not just about one man. There
is a large power structure connected to each man. Neither one makes decisions in a vacuum. Russians
and Iranians understand that if they give up on a unified Syria- which is what Assad represents
they would be next (Chechnya war, anyone?). One must assess these things from the perspective
of the other not from what the US would like.
The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150 k means
450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to
the Shinseki ratio.
"... Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon camp (aka pragmatic-realists). ..."
"... "Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong. McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without bringing his considerable baggage to the position . ..."
"... maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian nationalists to know it. It's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few. ..."
"... In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy. People will miss him when he's gone. ..."
"... The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just like with Putin the story is not just about one man. ..."
"... The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150k means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according to the Shinseki ratio. ..."
Ok, dunno the official Naked Capitalism stance on Mike Cernovich. So if all links to him are verboten,
no probs . (from April 8)
Given that above link citing a McMaster aide, throwing out this Cernovich article on his observation
on how the NSC has been filled w/McMaster loyalists (aka Neocon/preemptive-strikers) versus the Flynn/Bannon
camp (aka pragmatic-realists).
"Petraeus' influence in the NSC remains strong. McMaster was called Petraeus' golden child
by some commenters, noting the strong influence Petraeus had over McMaster. Petraeus was considered
for the position of NSA, but withdrew his name from consideration once McMaster's name was included
on the short-list. McMaster's appointment allowed Petraeus to maintain control over the NSC without
bringing his considerable baggage to the position ."
oho, I used to look at a lot of right wing stuff and be very skeptical of it. Than my skepticism
of "mainstream" has gone up to be equivalent to my skepticism of the right wing stuff.
You just have to read the stuff and decide for yourself if it is credible AND relevant. I have
found very few "reporters" really are even trying to be objective. I carry no water for Trump
or for Obama its a very lonely place other than at NC .
EXAMPLE: Napolitano of Fox is suspended because of the article about Obama admin using foreign
intelligence sources.
Now the mediamatters article I link below is critical of Napolitano. I link to it specifically
to distinguish between facts in an article and spin. In my view the article is trying to "spin"
(or emphasize I'm really not trying to "spin" my comment) the story as to it being about discredited
"wiretapping" and that foreign surveillance was specifically ORDERED by the Obama admin now,
I AGREE that is a very, very important point that Obama did not order specifically foreign searches
(at least that we know of now) and that as far as that is concerned, the mediamatters point appears
CORRECT.
But in my view, it is NOT THE ONLY POINT. The real point to me is that surveillance on US citizens
can occur without a warrant when it happens overseas, that this is happening constantly, and apparently
this information can come back to the US, again, apparently without any safegrards***. I leave
it to people's own sense of skepticism if this arrangement is ever used to circumvent getting
a warrant on a US citizen (HECK, I leave it to people's skepticism if the FISA court is nothing
but a circumlocution of the US constitution)
The FACT is that there are FACTS out there, and certain people have FACTS they want to emphasize,
and other FACTS they want to de-emphasize ..
***does anyone know when the British have surveillance of US citizens and they send it to the
US, what procedures or constraints on those conversations are???
I believe the controlling law is section 702 of the Patriot Act and Executive Order 16333.
To be sure you should check out Emptywheel's website because she has done a thorough analysis
of all of this and it is all archived in her website.
Unfortunately you are probably right. And a certain portion of the so-called liberal intelligentsia
aka Clinton wing I am exposed to, loves them some General Petraeus. Scary, I know.
Chernovich is considered by NC to be a very reliable source, I think. And his analysis of McMaster's
push for more troops is accurate. I didn't like the article because I felt it failed to account
for the difference in Mattis and McMaster in any coherent way. And Trump just gave the Pentagon
the ability to make its best decisions and follow through on them. (this was reported after Chernovich's
article). Amazing really. But that puts Mattis in charge and he would rather work with the other
interests fighting in Syria than unilaterally. McMaster, it was implied by Chernovich, was all
for sending 150,000 troops in to finish the job. So there is a huge leeway of possibilities according
to Chernovich. Maybe the military is softening up the public to accept what seems to be an attitude
of having had enough and wanting to just go in and take care of business. They all seem to agree
on that.
Also today's link from Reuters re McMaster getting down to business with Russia. McMaster wants
to have the tough talks to sort it all out. Because "Syria's government has got to go." OK, and
McMaster thought Tillerson's trip to Moscow and his meeting with Lavrov was a good start because
relations are so bad right now that there's "nowhere to go but up." I think my compass is pointing
to an agreement with the Russians to remove Assad. But they will never say it. If I were Assad,
I'd want to get out Syria is rubble, there's not much left to govern; even if his enemies would
leave him alone. They're all just positioning themselves for the best deal they can get. And the
threat of 150K troops on the ground is saying loud and clear that we will be the ones to decide
the new direction for Syria. To my thinking.
You may be right. But that will be the end of Syria. The country is still filled with foreign
backed jihadis who really want to establish an islamic state. The US may think it can take someone
currently residing in France or the US and install them. But there is no one available with any
popular support that I know of. Things almost definitely will get worse for Syria the carnage
will continue.
And Putin must realize that those insisting that Assad must go also want Putin out as well.
Surely, he sees that he has to draw a line somewhere.
maybe, but I've come to suspect that we like and want Putin there, but we don't want Russian
nationalists to know it. It's so convoluted you can almost read anything into it so the best way
to grok it is to imagine the most useful and beneficial solutions. Which are few.
In 2017 Putin has become the reliable constant in international affairs, especially next
to the idiots who've been doing U.S. foreign policy. People will miss him when he's gone.
IMHO, you could not be more wrong. Russians went into Syria in Sept. 2015 after notifying
the whole world via a UN speech. The decision must have taken months to complete.
What makes you think that after all the work and effort this took, Russians would suddenly
reverse course? If they were to give up on Assad so quickly, why go in in the first place? Remember
they have a VERY LONG-TERM VIEW (just like the Chinese).
The problem with demonising Assad (and anyone, for that matter) is that the US public ends
up with a totally unrealistic view of the subject at hand (and not just a negative one). Just
like with Putin the story is not just about one man. There is a large power structure connected
to each man. Neither one makes decisions in a vacuum. Russians and Iranians understand that if
they give up on a unified Syria- which is what Assad represents they would be next (Chechnya
war, anyone?). One must assess these things from the perspective of the other not from what
the US would like.
The army is scattered to the four winds. Can McMaster render up 150,000 soldiers? 150k
means 450,000. one third in the field, one third recovering, and one third on stand by according
to the Shinseki ratio.
Arnaldo Claudio, a retired senior US Military Police officer, discusses his 2005 investigation
of human rights abuses of detainees in Tal Afar, in a camp commanded by then-Colonel H.R. McMaster,
whom Claudio threatened to arrest. According to Claudio, detainees were kept in overcrowded conditions,
handcuffed, deprived of food and water, and soiled by their own urine and feces. A so-called "good
behavior program" was implemented by McMaster, that held detainees indefinitely (beyond a rule
requiring release after 2 weeks) unless they provided "actionable intelligence."
"... Donald Trump and/or the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies, with no detailed investigation are convinced that the Russian Ministry of Defense is simply lying. ..."
"... Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov, stressing "fully objective and verified" information, identified a Syrian Air Force strike launched against a "moderate rebel" warehouse east of the town of Khan Sheikhoun used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas. ..."
"... Konashenkov added the same chemicals had been used by "rebels" in Aleppo late last year, according to samples collected by Russian military experts. ..."
"... And Western public opinion conveniently forgot that before Barack Obama's theoretically trespassed red line on chemical weapons, a secret US intelligence report had made it clear that Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, had mastered the sarin gas-making cycle and was capable of producing it in quantity. ..."
"... So those toxic weapons that "disappeared" en masse - from Gaddafi's arsenals in 2011 ended up upgrading al-Qaeda in Syria (not the Islamic Stare/Daesh), re-baptized Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and widely described across the Beltway as "moderate rebels". ..."
"... Trump's ambassador to the UN, Heritage Foundation asset Nikki Haley, predictably went ballistic, monopolizing the whole Western news cycle. Lost in oblivion, also predictably, was Russia's deputy UN ambassador Vladimir Safronkov shattering to bits the West's "obsession with regime change" in Syria, which is "what hinders this Security Council." ..."
"... Idlib Chemical Attack: West Blames Assad Even Before Probe Launched Safronkov stressed the chemical attack in Idlib was based on "falsified reports from the White Helmets", an organization that has been "discredited long ago". Indeed; but now the Helmets are Oscar winners , and this pop culture badge of honor renders them unassailable not to mention immune to the effects of sarin gas. ..."
"... The dead "children of Syria" are now pawns in a much larger, perverse game. The US government may have killed a million men, women and children in Iraq and there was no serious outcry among the "elites" across the NATO spectrum. A war criminal still at large admitted , on the record, that the snuffing out, directly and indirectly, of 500,000 Iraqi children was "justified." ..."
"... For his part, Nobel Peace Prize Barack Obama instrumentalized the House of Saud to fund and weaponize - some 40 outfits "vetted" by the CIA in Syria. Several of these outfits had in fact already merged with, or were absorbed by, Jabhat al-Nusra, now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. And they all engaged in their own massacres of civilians. ..."
"... The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik. ..."
"These heinous acts by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated." Thus spoke the President of
the United States.
Instant translation;
Donald Trump and/or the alphabet soup of US intelligence agencies, with no
detailed investigation are convinced that the Russian Ministry of Defense is simply lying.
Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov, stressing
"fully objective and verified" information,
identified a Syrian Air Force strike launched against a "moderate rebel" warehouse east of the
town of Khan Sheikhoun used to both produce and store shells containing toxic gas.
Konashenkov added the same chemicals had been used by "rebels" in Aleppo late last year, according
to samples collected by Russian military experts.
Still, Trump felt compelled to telegraph what is now his own red line in Syria; "Militarily, I
don't like to say when I'm going and what I'm doing. I'm not saying I won't do anything one way or
another, but I certainly won't be telling you [the media]."
By his side at the White House lawn, the pathetic King Playstation of Jordan praised Trump's "realistic
approach to the challenges in the region." This might pass as a Monty Python sketch. Unfortunately, it's reality.
And Western public opinion conveniently forgot that before Barack Obama's theoretically trespassed
red line on chemical weapons, a secret US
intelligence
report had made it clear that Jabhat al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, had mastered the sarin
gas-making cycle and was capable of producing it in quantity.
Not to mention that the Obama administration and its allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar had
made a secret pact in 2012 to set up a sarin gas attack and blame Damascus, setting the scene for
a Shock and Awe replay. Funding for the project came from the NATO-GCC connection coupled with a
CIA-MI6 connection, a.k.a.
rat line , of transferring all manner of weapons from Libya to Salafi-jihadis in Syria.
So those toxic weapons that "disappeared" en masse - from Gaddafi's arsenals in 2011 ended up
upgrading al-Qaeda in Syria (not the Islamic Stare/Daesh), re-baptized Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and widely
described across the Beltway as "moderate rebels".
'Red Line' Revisited? What's Behind Trump Accusing Damascus of Reported Chemical Attack in Syria
Cornered in Idlib province, these "rebels" are now the top target of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA)
and the Russian Air Force. Damascus and Moscow, unlike Washington, are bent on smashing the whole
Salafi-jihadi galaxy, not only Daesh. If the SAA continues to advance, and if these "rebels" lose
Idlib, it's game over.
So the offensive by Damascus had to be smeared, no holds barred, in full view of global public
opinion.
Yet it does not make any sense whatsoever that only two days before another international conference
on Syria, and immediately after the White House was forced to admit that "the Syrian people should
choose their destiny" and "Assad must go" is over and done with, Damascus should launch a counterproductive
gas attack antagonizing the whole NATO universe.
This walks and talks - more like the tsunami of lies that predated Shock and Awe on Iraq in
2003, and certainly walks and talks like the renewed turbo-charging of an "al-CIAda" campaign. Jabhat
al-Nusra never ceased to be the CIA's babies in the preferred Syrian regime change scenario.
Your kids are not toxic enough
Trump's ambassador to the UN, Heritage Foundation asset Nikki Haley, predictably went ballistic,
monopolizing the whole Western news cycle. Lost in oblivion, also predictably, was Russia's deputy
UN ambassador Vladimir Safronkov shattering to bits the West's "obsession with regime change" in
Syria, which is "what hinders this Security Council."
Whatever Trump and the Pentagon may eventually come up with an independent US intel analyst, averse
to groupthink, is adamant; "Any air attack on Syria would require coordination with Russia, and Russia
will not allow any air attack against Assad to take place. Russia has the defensive missiles there
that can block the attack. This will be negotiated out. There will be no attack as an attack can
precipitate a nuclear war."
The dead "children of Syria" are now pawns in a much larger, perverse game. The US government
may have killed a million men, women and children in Iraq and there was no serious outcry among
the "elites" across the NATO spectrum. A war criminal still at
large admitted , on the
record, that the snuffing out, directly and indirectly, of 500,000 Iraqi children was "justified."
For his part, Nobel Peace Prize Barack Obama instrumentalized the House of Saud to fund
and weaponize - some 40 outfits "vetted" by the CIA in Syria. Several of these outfits had in fact
already merged with, or were absorbed by, Jabhat al-Nusra, now Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. And they all
engaged in their own massacres of civilians.
Meanwhile, the
UK keeps merrily weaponizing the House of Saud in its quest to reduce Yemen to a vast famine
wasteland pinpointed by "collateral damage" graveyards. The NATO spectrum is certainly not crying
for those dead Yemeni children. They are not toxic enough.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the official position of Sputnik.
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.
© AP Photo / Ariana Cubillos Montevideo Calls Venezuela's Guaido 'More Non-Legitimate' Than Maduro's Gov't
